GeForce 5500

[Travis King]

Don't say Windows ME! That's a cursed name!

 

[Travis King]

The part that didn't make sense was how he said that he is *resistant to
change* but will not buy a new OS unless there are major changes.

Heck, Windows ME should have always been classified as a beta and never a
final OS. To me, Vista feels like it has less bugs in it than Windows ME
did when it was out on shelves. It was horrible. It was a driver nightmare
and when a program would crash, it would never work again. (In example,
when Paint crashed, it never opened again without the same error reappearing
immediately when you would go to open it.) Also, the degradation of
performance was very severe. You could have backported Spider Solitaire
(Which by the way I know for a fact works on Win98), Pinball, the few new
sounds, the new wallpapers and icons, changed the color scheme slightly,
changed the boot screen, and installed WMP7 on Windows 98 and have a much
more stable version of Windows ME. Now I do think the 'Vista being the
biggest change since Win95' is a little out there. If that really were the
case, you'd think the way that you would do a huge chunk of the tasks would
be drastically changed, but when you think about it, most tasks you do in
Vista are generally the same. The start menu is still there and still very
much so represents the one in XP with a few changes. The taskbar is still
there. The system tray is still there. The menus are still there. The
close, maximize, and minimize buttons are still there and the same symbols
and location. Scrolling works the same way it always has. I think Vista's
going to be more of a Windows 98 to XP type deal more than a Windows 3.1 to
Windows 95 deal. In other words, it's something worth upgrading for those
of you who are going to use the new features or live for the eye candy but
for those that aren't, it's not really all that necessary.

 

[Jimmy Brush]

I think the transition from XP to Vista is just as big as it was between 3.1
to 95.

However, the difference is that 9x came out AFTER the hardware had evolved
and was in consumer's hands, and win9x was a necessity. The advanced
hardware was already out there, and it was just BEGGING for a new OS. Video
cards that could support more than 16 colors were the norm, all processors
were 32-bit, etc, etc.

Right now, the hardware is still transitioning into the next generation, and
the need for Vista isn't as obvious.

Believe me, in a few years when hi-color and hi-def monitors and printers
are out, video cards that support aero are cheap, 10 gigabits is the speed
of home networks, and everything is 64-bit, the difference between Vista and
XP will be night and day.

All of those scenarios involve something that Windows XP can't do or doesn't
do well.

 

[Mark D. VandenBerg]

It seems to me there are more changes "under the hood" between XP and Vista
than there are in the GUI. Sure, glass is pretty, and it's slick the way
things come and go from the task bar, but the visuals could (mostly) be
emulated by enough of Stardock's little apps, so not that big of a deal
(except for Flip 3D). I think that the new security measures and additions
like BitLocker and UAC are more significant. That, and I am beginning to
warm-up to the indexing.

Of course we'll see when Vista goes gold, but if the code is strong and the
vendors get "it" in gear, Vista 64-bit will offer significant advantages
from a security standpoint and (hopefully) make systems a little more
"stupid-proof."

Just my opinions, of course.

 

[MICHAEL]

I agree. I have also come to appreciate and use the search/indexing
feature. Once you let it do its thing, there isn't too much disk activity
associated with indexing. It is extremely convenient and fast when trying
to locate something. I have always had indexing turned off in XP, but I
am surprised at how well it seems to work in Vista- while still in beta. Hopefully,
it will be even faster in RC1 and really tuned by RTM.

-Michael