"joe pistrachio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:49a666a7$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
<snipped>
Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but this is for everyone of a
similar bent...
Vista is slower than XP? Wow! Tell us something we don't know, retard.
The speed/bulk/requirements criticisms levelled at Vista were also levelled
at your beloved XP when it hit the market and it took some years for
mainstream prebuilt boxes to catch up with it's requirements, which were
just as huge a step from 9x as they are from XP to Vista.
People are forever looking back through rose-tinted glasses; many still rate
98SE as the best Windows, conveniently forgetting all those BSODs and
restarts.
Yes, XP is a wonderful, stable version of Windows but this doesn't mean
Vista is invalid.
Yes, Vista has some peculiarities and M$ have bullshitted their way through
reasons for interface changes ("users were confused by menus" is the fault
of their developers not having a clue how to construct a simple one, not of
menus themselves) _but_ you can't blame the OS for making more use of
available resources (and doing a much better job in the case of memory
management) and you can't blame the OS for third party software & hardware
incompatibilities when it's been available to them for so long.
I'm happy with the way Vista performs since I'm not bothered about losing
half a second starting my applications or possibly only getting 30fps
instead of 40. It does for me and looks good, too.
If I fancied ****ing around for days getting my hardware to work properly
and going without some favourite software I'd grab a free OS but I like the
idea of plug & play.
Also, there's plenty of numpties out there getting infected with malware
often enough for me to make some nice pin-money.
Stick with XP by all means but go somewhere else, STFU and do something
constructive.
|
Similar Threads
