Why Vista?

First of all, I am not some anti-Microsoft, Linux or Mac flag waving
fan. I have tried Linux a few times and keep an eye on it's progress,
MacOS has strong lure at this stage, since Apple is really proving to
be the innovation leader and since Parallels allows it to run Windows
XP as well as any PC

So I have a fresh 32-Bit Vista machine (out of the box on Friday) and
have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50
processes running in the background on startup, using 634-MB of RAM
with only a web browser running, that's just ridiculous compared to
what XP Pro was using and I guess based on what the Linux folks tell
me in our IT shop, XP Pro was a bit bloated even.

So, why Microsoft, why? You've bloated the OS and claim all this
"magic" under the hood of Vista, but all the end user gets is a lot of
frustration dealing with XP devices and software that are incompatible
with Vista and we get a even more bloated OS. It essentially
frustrates more and eats up more resources. Vista is like a really fat
man at the buffet who fills his plate when the good stuff arrives.
Let's not get started on DirectX10 and think at this point it's
failure speaks for itself and just fuirther confirms the performance
issues and the "bloatedness" of the OS.

So I'm assuming Vista has some supporters out there, I'd like to hear
a good case for why I should stick with Vista and not format my drive
and install XP Pro on this new system. Can anyone defend Vista and
perhaps provide another side of this argument?

Windows Vista is a high-performance operating system. It requires
more memory to run properly, just like a Ferrari requires premium
fuel to run properly. Windows Vista was designed to accommodate
present and future advances in the fast-evolving hardware availability.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------

"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b6aed196-2566-4f59-9dc5-952a46fa9f42@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
First of all, I am not some anti-Microsoft, Linux or Mac flag waving
fan. I have tried Linux a few times and keep an eye on it's progress,
MacOS has strong lure at this stage, since Apple is really proving to
be the innovation leader and since Parallels allows it to run Windows
XP as well as any PC

So I have a fresh 32-Bit Vista machine (out of the box on Friday) and
have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50
processes running in the background on startup, using 634-MB of RAM
with only a web browser running, that's just ridiculous compared to
what XP Pro was using and I guess based on what the Linux folks tell
me in our IT shop, XP Pro was a bit bloated even.

So, why Microsoft, why? You've bloated the OS and claim all this
"magic" under the hood of Vista, but all the end user gets is a lot of
frustration dealing with XP devices and software that are incompatible
with Vista and we get a even more bloated OS. It essentially
frustrates more and eats up more resources. Vista is like a really fat
man at the buffet who fills his plate when the good stuff arrives.
Let's not get started on DirectX10 and think at this point it's
failure speaks for itself and just fuirther confirms the performance
issues and the "bloatedness" of the OS.

So I'm assuming Vista has some supporters out there, I'd like to hear
a good case for why I should stick with Vista and not format my drive
and install XP Pro on this new system. Can anyone defend Vista and
perhaps provide another side of this argument?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:00:12 -0800, RMZ wrote:

> he box on Friday) and
> have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
> processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50 processes
> running in the background on startup, u

Tell that to Frank who is an overgrown baboon vista zelot!!

They *the vistaboys* have the nerve to call ME, someone is not advanced...
Vista is a huge step backwards in performance and usability.

PERIOD! Im not a linux or mac zelot either.. I love MS products.. with
one BIG FAT exception: VISTA! I dont *HATE* vista.. its just total CRAP!

I am not currently on UBUNTU, Vista made me hate slow performance so much
that I am now on linux ( I have a triple boot with ubuntu, xp and vista)
and im loving every minute of it.. performance is lightning fast and they
seemed to have improved Ubuntu now @ version 7,10 enough to be usable!

"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6aed196-2566-4f59-9dc5-952a46fa9f42@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> First of all, I am not some anti-Microsoft, Linux or Mac flag waving
> fan. I have tried Linux a few times and keep an eye on it's progress,
> MacOS has strong lure at this stage, since Apple is really proving to
> be the innovation leader and since Parallels allows it to run Windows
> XP as well as any PC
>
> So I have a fresh 32-Bit Vista machine (out of the box on Friday) and
> have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
> processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50
> processes running in the background on startup, using 634-MB of RAM
> with only a web browser running, that's just ridiculous compared to
> what XP Pro was using and I guess based on what the Linux folks tell
> me in our IT shop, XP Pro was a bit bloated even.
>
> So, why Microsoft, why? You've bloated the OS and claim all this
> "magic" under the hood of Vista, but all the end user gets is a lot of
> frustration dealing with XP devices and software that are incompatible
> with Vista and we get a even more bloated OS. It essentially
> frustrates more and eats up more resources. Vista is like a really fat
> man at the buffet who fills his plate when the good stuff arrives.
> Let's not get started on DirectX10 and think at this point it's
> failure speaks for itself and just fuirther confirms the performance
> issues and the "bloatedness" of the OS.
>
> So I'm assuming Vista has some supporters out there, I'd like to hear
> a good case for why I should stick with Vista and not format my drive
> and install XP Pro on this new system. Can anyone defend Vista and
> perhaps provide another side of this argument?

There is no reason to defend Vista or any other OS. If something else suits
you, just install it. There is no reason to get into a ****ing contest
about what is good or bad about any OS. You do have choices. Just use your
choice.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:20:42 -0600, Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

> Windows Vista is a high-performance operating system. It requires more
> memory to run properly, just like a Ferrari requires premium fuel to run
> properly. Windows Vista was designed to accommodate present and future
> advances in the fast-evolving hardware availability.


What a load of CRAP!

Thats not high performance!

High performance OS means the OS is out of the way and only assists the
user to be more productive or enjoy the applications he-she uses, not be
in-your-face, slow, thrashing the hard disk ... Vista is a plain
disaster!! You need half the power of a current PC just for the OS!
That is terrible! Terrible performance is what comes into mind.
Ferrari's are not energy efficient you numskull, an electric car is
efficient powered by Tesla technology! You dont even know what Im talking
about do you? But you prefer a SUV dont you?
Monster cars just to boast ego, of very low technology and certainly NOT
efficient!

> There is no reason to defend Vista or any other OS. If something else
> suits you, just install it. There is no reason to get into a ****ing
> contest about what is good or bad about any OS. You do have choices.
> Just use your choice.


Well I would love to see the stupid Vista Fan Boys in here agree with you!

But they dont! To them Vista is the best OS out there, and everything
else stinks. They refuse to accept the plain reality.

All this "vista vs the world" argument started when they insisted that
Vista is fine and its every ones elses fault that vista does not work
well!(examples are the user not knowing what to do or faulty hardware)

Since they showed resistance in accepting vista flaws our efforts to
clarify all its problems have intensified.

On Dec 31, 10:32 am, "Mellowed" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> "RMZ" <Jeremy.De...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b6aed196-2566-4f59-9dc5-952a46fa9f42@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > First of all, I am not some anti-Microsoft, Linux or Mac flag waving
> > fan. I have tried Linux a few times and keep an eye on it's progress,
> > MacOS has strong lure at this stage, since Apple is really proving to
> > be the innovation leader and since Parallels allows it to run Windows
> > XP as well as any PC
>
> > So I have a fresh 32-Bit Vista machine (out of the box on Friday) and
> > have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
> > processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50
> > processes running in the background on startup, using 634-MB of RAM
> > with only a web browser running, that's just ridiculous compared to
> > what XP Pro was using and I guess based on what the Linux folks tell
> > me in our IT shop, XP Pro was a bit bloated even.
>
> > So, why Microsoft, why? You've bloated the OS and claim all this
> > "magic" under the hood of Vista, but all the end user gets is a lot of
> > frustration dealing with XP devices and software that are incompatible
> > with Vista and we get a even more bloated OS. It essentially
> > frustrates more and eats up more resources. Vista is like a really fat
> > man at the buffet who fills his plate when the good stuff arrives.
> > Let's not get started on DirectX10 and think at this point it's
> > failure speaks for itself and just fuirther confirms the performance
> > issues and the "bloatedness" of the OS.
>
> > So I'm assuming Vista has some supporters out there, I'd like to hear
> > a good case for why I should stick with Vista and not format my drive
> > and install XP Pro on this new system. Can anyone defend Vista and
> > perhaps provide another side of this argument?
>
> There is no reason to defend Vista or any other OS. If something else suits
> you, just install it. There is no reason to get into a ****ing contest
> about what is good or bad about any OS. You do have choices. Just use your
> choice.

Ok, maybe the phrase "defend Vista" wasn't the best choice...
Essentially what I am looking for is for someone who is quite happy
with Vista to explain what it's worth the upgrade. It's bit appalling
that I find myself wanted to downgrade to XP so quickly because of
what I would say are general problems that would effect anyone.

Windows Vista is much more aggressive about caching things in the
background. It will use around half of the available RAM to do so, so if you
through another gigabyte of RAM in there, you'd see around a gig of that
used during idle periods. From what i've heard, Linux and Unix have done
this for years.

When another program requests memory, Vista will happily give it what it
needs at the expense of caching, so that idle memory usage won't affect your
programs and games. So don't fret. If anything, be glad that the memory you
paid for is constantly being used instead of just sitting there."

As for Vista compatibility, its pretty good based on my experience, you have
read reports running Office 97, 2000, XP on it, although these version have
not been certified. I have used Photoshop version 7 and later on Vista x86
and I haven't had any problems. My old HP Deskjet 840c works just fine with
Vista including my HP Scanjet 2400. My Motorola c350 phone now works just
fine with Vista x86 since they released the 4.5.0a update.

A lot of the compatibility issues with applications are attributed to the
new user priviledges in the OS, prior to Windows Vista, applications were
written with the mind set they will always have full Administrator
privileges, but since Vista works differently, applications need to conform
to the new methodologies and it will only take time.

As for bloat, you have understand there is a convergence going on, we are
living in a world of multimedia, not 1995 where the operating system was
just known to be a traffic cop for your applications and devices. Consumers
and businesses expect certain features and functionality to come with OS,
basic out of the box management of photos, videos, DVD burning and so on.
Vista compared to open source solutions is even more conservative, it does
not include two independent user interface environments like Linux
(KDE/GNOME) which stress systems since it has to load two different sets of
libraries to support both environments, which means two different media
players, two different office productivity suites and so on.

So, the argument that Vista is bloated and memory hungry is pretty much mute
when you take into account the needs and aim of the OS. When look at Vista's
security record its so much better, better setup for attacks because built
in functionality like Device Driver signing, Patch Guard, Address Space
Layout Randomizer, Hardware DEP. Vista really is a powerful worthy operating
thats easy to use and much easy to move to compared to 'migrating' to
another platform such as OS X or Linux.

I am not much of a gamer, so maybe somebody can talk about the benefits
there.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry

"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6aed196-2566-4f59-9dc5-952a46fa9f42@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> First of all, I am not some anti-Microsoft, Linux or Mac flag waving
> fan. I have tried Linux a few times and keep an eye on it's progress,
> MacOS has strong lure at this stage, since Apple is really proving to
> be the innovation leader and since Parallels allows it to run Windows
> XP as well as any PC
>
> So I have a fresh 32-Bit Vista machine (out of the box on Friday) and
> have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
> processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50
> processes running in the background on startup, using 634-MB of RAM
> with only a web browser running, that's just ridiculous compared to
> what XP Pro was using and I guess based on what the Linux folks tell
> me in our IT shop, XP Pro was a bit bloated even.
>
> So, why Microsoft, why? You've bloated the OS and claim all this
> "magic" under the hood of Vista, but all the end user gets is a lot of
> frustration dealing with XP devices and software that are incompatible
> with Vista and we get a even more bloated OS. It essentially
> frustrates more and eats up more resources. Vista is like a really fat
> man at the buffet who fills his plate when the good stuff arrives.
> Let's not get started on DirectX10 and think at this point it's
> failure speaks for itself and just fuirther confirms the performance
> issues and the "bloatedness" of the OS.
>
> So I'm assuming Vista has some supporters out there, I'd like to hear
> a good case for why I should stick with Vista and not format my drive
> and install XP Pro on this new system. Can anyone defend Vista and
> perhaps provide another side of this argument?
>

In article <030AA9CB-49A8-46F3-88D1-879CDA640227@microsoft.com>,
Carey Frisch [MVP] <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>Windows Vista is a high-performance operating system. It requires
>more memory to run properly, just like a Ferrari requires premium
>fuel to run properly.

That's a false analogy. It'd be more accurate to say that
Vista needs more memory just like a Corvette needs fatter tires.

That being said, what makes you say that Vista is "high performance"?
A high performance OS, unlike a high-performance car, uses FEWER resources
than a, well, low-performance OS. Vista is a high FUNCTIONALITY OS. That's
why it needs more resources. That's also why it's slower, more prone to bugs,
and more expensive.

It's the CISC vs RISC argument transmigrated to the operating
system. Personally, give me Unix or give me front console switches :-)
IT hasn't been the same since they stopped selling PDP-9's...

(Lol :-)

Right now my Vista Home Premium is using 980 MB of memory (out of 2GB) and
is running smooth as silk - as it always does. Why don't you USE the OS for
a few weeks and then post back what you think.

Vista has new features that I happen to like. But then others may call it
bloated.

And, it runs better on my hardware than did XP.

Nobody needs to make your case for you. YOU decide.

If it is a new computer that came pre-installed with Vista, you may not be
able to find XP drivers. Check with your computer's manufacturer first.

"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6aed196-2566-4f59-9dc5-952a46fa9f42@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> First of all, I am not some anti-Microsoft, Linux or Mac flag waving
> fan. I have tried Linux a few times and keep an eye on it's progress,
> MacOS has strong lure at this stage, since Apple is really proving to
> be the innovation leader and since Parallels allows it to run Windows
> XP as well as any PC
>
> So I have a fresh 32-Bit Vista machine (out of the box on Friday) and
> have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
> processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50
> processes running in the background on startup, using 634-MB of RAM
> with only a web browser running, that's just ridiculous compared to
> what XP Pro was using and I guess based on what the Linux folks tell
> me in our IT shop, XP Pro was a bit bloated even.
>
> So, why Microsoft, why? You've bloated the OS and claim all this
> "magic" under the hood of Vista, but all the end user gets is a lot of
> frustration dealing with XP devices and software that are incompatible
> with Vista and we get a even more bloated OS. It essentially
> frustrates more and eats up more resources. Vista is like a really fat
> man at the buffet who fills his plate when the good stuff arrives.
> Let's not get started on DirectX10 and think at this point it's
> failure speaks for itself and just fuirther confirms the performance
> issues and the "bloatedness" of the OS.
>
> So I'm assuming Vista has some supporters out there, I'd like to hear
> a good case for why I should stick with Vista and not format my drive
> and install XP Pro on this new system. Can anyone defend Vista and
> perhaps provide another side of this argument?
>