I
iacy
Vista has been out for almost a year.
I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
Among the many Vista problems:
Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just makes
Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in a
heartbeat but refuses to.
The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your wristwatch
slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations. Explanations
involving increased background software operations are just a euphemism for
code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot configurations where
Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one XP is installed on or a
hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and half to XP. Every computer
has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia 6800 or better video card. In
every instance simple things like program opening, program installation and
file copying are time by your stop watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on
Vista than on XP.
Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?
I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
Among the many Vista problems:
Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just makes
Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in a
heartbeat but refuses to.
The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your wristwatch
slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations. Explanations
involving increased background software operations are just a euphemism for
code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot configurations where
Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one XP is installed on or a
hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and half to XP. Every computer
has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia 6800 or better video card. In
every instance simple things like program opening, program installation and
file copying are time by your stop watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on
Vista than on XP.
Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?