As usual Vista sucks

[PC Medic]

The amount of ram above 1 gb has very little effect on performace unless
you are doing CAD, video editing or heavy high res photoshop work.
Trust me, I have tried both XP and Vista on the same machine...
XP is faster and better on the same hardware my a margine of at least
20%... and whatever you feed vista in ram it wont get better especially in
the case of this guy who is trying to play games....

Can you just accept that the only difference between Vista and a Bucket of
sh*t is the bucket?

From what I have observed over the last 1 year installing Vista for
clients on a multitude of machines, the only way for vista to be at least
functionable (for tasks more that email and browsing) is to have an
extreamly powerful cpu, so that even though Vista will be slowing
everything down, the amount of added slowness will not annoy you to the
point were you want to throw it out of the window.

A client of mine who has dual boot keeps telling me how slow vista is, an
a very fast 2 core machine with 2 gigs of ram...
each time I go to his place for various things, he keeps telling me this.
You see he can compare the 2 OS because I have set up a Dual Boot for him.
He ends up using XP 99% of the time.. LOL

Mind you that there is NOTHING wrong with the Vista install... everything
is ok.. its just Vista...

You know vista.. the failure OS from Microsoft?

By wondering like a fool to this poster if he has enough ram you are
trying to imply that its not Vista that is the problem, you are trying to
mislead him, and make him think that there is something wrong with the
computer itself.

That is revolting, and its not honest. Be a man and come out of the closet
and tell the truth (if you know it that is) because there are only 2
options

a) You are totally ignorant that vista is a slow and bloated POS OS. and
you should not be a MVP
b) You are misleading people on purpose which is worse than a)

in any of the above cases you are not displaying any kind of
intelligence... I suggest you either learn the basics or put a sock in it.

I generally do not feed trolls, but ...

I have moved most of the systems in the office to Vista as well as 2 here at
home.
All run just fine with no super CPU as you suggest. The one I am on now is a
4 year old Dell P4 3.0 CPU.
Installed and ran good on the original 1Gig RAM, but there was a bit of
hesitation from time to time with multiple apps open. Upgraded to 4 Gig RAM
and now just as fast as the two Core 2 systems with 1Gig at the office.

So while you may feel Vista is the issue, fact is that is not the case.
Sometimes upgrades do not go well leaving certain old drivers behind.
Sometimes it can be a single piece of hardware that is causing the issue
(NIC and Graphic cards are biggies here).

Does Vista have its quirks and issues .... what OS doesn't?
But it is hardly the failure you would like folks to believe.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

The amount of ram above 1 gb has very little effect on performace unless
you are doing CAD, video editing or heavy high res photoshop work.
Trust me, I have tried both XP and Vista on the same machine...
XP is faster and better on the same hardware my a margine of at least
20%... and whatever you feed vista in ram it wont get better especially in
the case of this guy who is trying to play games....

Can you just accept that the only difference between Vista and a Bucket of
sh*t is the bucket?

From what I have observed over the last 1 year installing Vista for
clients on a multitude of machines, the only way for vista to be at least
functionable (for tasks more that email and browsing) is to have an
extreamly powerful cpu, so that even though Vista will be slowing
everything down, the amount of added slowness will not annoy you to the
point were you want to throw it out of the window.

A client of mine who has dual boot keeps telling me how slow vista is, an
a very fast 2 core machine with 2 gigs of ram...
each time I go to his place for various things, he keeps telling me this.
You see he can compare the 2 OS because I have set up a Dual Boot for him.
He ends up using XP 99% of the time.. LOL

Mind you that there is NOTHING wrong with the Vista install... everything
is ok.. its just Vista...

You know vista.. the failure OS from Microsoft?

By wondering like a fool to this poster if he has enough ram you are
trying to imply that its not Vista that is the problem, you are trying to
mislead him, and make him think that there is something wrong with the
computer itself.

That is revolting, and its not honest. Be a man and come out of the closet
and tell the truth (if you know it that is) because there are only 2
options

a) You are totally ignorant that vista is a slow and bloated POS OS. and
you should not be a MVP
b) You are misleading people on purpose which is worse than a)

in any of the above cases you are not displaying any kind of
intelligence... I suggest you either learn the basics or put a sock in it.

Troll..

 

[cheen]

Im not a troll you idiot!

But I see you have nothing to say.. so you throw a troll remark and you are
done...

Yeah ignore me.. then go ahead to your next "victim" to tell him how great
vista is, and if its not working for him, its either 3rd party programs,
drivers, his hardware or himself. Never vista neverrrrrrrr

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Im not a troll you idiot!

But I see you have nothing to say.. so you throw a troll remark and you
are done...

Yeah ignore me.. then go ahead to your next "victim" to tell him how great
vista is, and if its not working for him, its either 3rd party programs,
drivers, his hardware or himself. Never vista neverrrrrrrr

I should ignore you. You choose to insult, troll.

Vista does NOT require the absolute cutting edge hardware. It requires
decent hardware, just as XP did when released, troll.

Vista was sluggish to start, of that there is no question. It was also
dogged with a lack of drivers from some manufacturers, troll.

Had you kept up your observations, you would have noticed that Vista has
improved greatly over the year, and will continue so to do as time goes on,
troll.

 

[Frank]

cheen wrote:


....how many months have we endured your Vista hate campaign? Guess what
capin' crunch...you lost this battle before you even started. Vista
is...all of your hate spewing won't change one damn thing. Now SP1 is
coming. You are a troll...just like all the rest of the Vista hate trolls.
Live with it.
Frank

oh and W7 is Vista more refined.

 

[NoStop]

cheen wrote:


...how many months have we endured your Vista hate campaign? Guess what
capin' crunch...you lost this battle before you even started. Vista
is...all of your hate spewing won't change one damn thing. Now SP1 is
coming. You are a troll...just like all the rest of the Vista hate trolls.
Live with it.
Frank

oh and W7 is Vista more refined.

Village Idiots and Windoze Fanboys have 2 things in common. They're always
waiting for this toy operating system to get "more refined". Doesn't seem
to be a problem, as while waiting you guys can at least play Minesweeper.

Cheers.

--
Frank's Brain Activity Plotted (watch the red line):
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i4/Astronomy2/PreformanceMonitor.jpg

AlexB: "If it is Business or Ultimate open Command Prompt as administrator
and type lusrmgr.msc."
^^^^^
I must say the developers at Microsoft do have a sense of humour.

 

[Bobby Knight]

Im not a troll you idiot!

But I see you have nothing to say.. so you throw a troll remark and you are
done...

Yeah ignore me.. then go ahead to your next "victim" to tell him how great
vista is, and if its not working for him, its either 3rd party programs,
drivers, his hardware or himself. Never vista neverrrrrrrr

Vista works for me. I've had it a year with very few
problems...certainly no more than I had when XP first came on the
scene. You seem to fall into that well-known category that just has
to slam MS. So be it, but when you realize that you're whistling in
the wind, you'll find a little peace.
bk

 

[Frank]

NoStop wrote:


....village idiots like you who are broke and can't afford Vista are
jealous. Keep playing with that POS toy os you RS arse kissing spamming
linux troll.
Loser!
Frank

 

[Mark R. Cusumano]

That's because computer users outside the USA are more discerning. For the
most part, Americans are stupid, driven by marketing, are brainwashed and
half of them voted for Bush, which should say it all.

Actually since 1/2 the people didn't even bother to vote only 1/4 actually
voted for Bush. And were
NOT brainwashed. Everything we need to know we can safely get from TV!
<grin>

 

[Stephan Rose]

I generally do not feed trolls, but ...

I have moved most of the systems in the office to Vista as well as 2
here at home.
All run just fine with no super CPU as you suggest. The one I am on now
is a 4 year old Dell P4 3.0 CPU.
Installed and ran good on the original 1Gig RAM, but there was a bit of
hesitation from time to time with multiple apps open. Upgraded to 4 Gig
RAM and now just as fast as the two Core 2 systems with 1Gig at the
office.

Well there is one problem with speed: perception.

We all perceive speed extremely differently. What is fast to one person
is slow to the other and vice versa. That is one thing many don't ever
take into account in these speed comparisons.

A machine that feels perfectly responsive and fast to you might feel like
complete crap to the next guy.

One example, co-worker of mine brought her old little 1.something Celeron
based PC with 512 ram in for me the other week to install Ubuntu on it
(and people, please don't hijack this into an linux vs windows thread,
just stating a fact).

Now compared to my 2.4GHz Quad-Core overclocked to 3Ghz, that thing is
absolutely beyond slow to me. It's just absolutely crawling...

She on the other hand is beyond happy with the system now. It saved her
the money from buying a new computer and she's absolutely enjoying using
it and keeps telling how fast her computer now feels compared to before.

Point being, to her the computer is fast...to me it crawls along at a
snails pace. So a users individual perception of speed has a lot to do
with things...

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Not Me]

I know the feeling, I use everything from a P3-450/64MB/WinME to a
Q6600/3GB/512MB PCI-e/XP Pro/Vista Ultimate.
Some machines seem to be snails and some jackrabbits. But I use enough
different machines to know when I am waiting too long.
Dual booting between Vista Ultimate and XP Pro on the Q6600 machine makes me
think Vista is a snail.
I've disabled the eye candy, indexing, use classic menus, etc. but it is
still slower on Ultimate.
When people tell me Vista is faster, it makes me wonder...compared to what?
LOL

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

I know the feeling, I use everything from a P3-450/64MB/WinME to a
Q6600/3GB/512MB PCI-e/XP Pro/Vista Ultimate.
Some machines seem to be snails and some jackrabbits. But I use enough
different machines to know when I am waiting too long.
Dual booting between Vista Ultimate and XP Pro on the Q6600 machine makes
me think Vista is a snail.
I've disabled the eye candy, indexing, use classic menus, etc. but it is
still slower on Ultimate.
When people tell me Vista is faster, it makes me wonder...compared to
what? LOL

What part is slow? Booting up, or just generally?

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:54:46 -0500, Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

What part is slow? Booting up, or just generally?

Just generally it's a snail to my standards. It's a little Celeron 1.x
GHz, what could one expect from it!

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Not Me]

What part is slow? Booting up, or just generally?

Generally Vista runs programs slower, boot times aren't a whole lot
different.

 

[ArseClown]

Troll..

****wit.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex1.html

[aus.groups]
Score:: =-9999
Message-ID: googlegroups