Say Good Bye To XP

[[CTD]LaBan]

And on 29th M$ is releasing SP3...

1. April 14, 2008: Support is available for the release version of Service Pack 3 for Windows XP

2. April 21, 2008: Released to Original Equipment Manufacturers and Enterprise customers.

3. April 29, 2008: Manual Update (Microsoft Update, Windows Update, Download Center)

4. June 10, 2008: Automatic Update (Windows Update)

Edited April 21, 2008 by [CTD]LaBan

[Democrab]

LaBan' date='Apr 21 2008, 18:58'] And on 29th M$ is releasing SP3...

1. April 14, 2008: Support is available for the release version of Service Pack 3 for Windows XP

2. April 21, 2008: Released to Original Equipment Manufacturers and Enterprise customers.

3. April 29, 2008: Manual Update (Microsoft Update, Windows Update, Download Center)

4. June 10, 2008: Automatic Update (Windows Update)

Oh great, so Computer users with XP have something to look forward to on the 29th now!

[Abel.]

Gotta love it.

 

"Nevermind that XP is much more stable, much more compatible, and is the only worthwhile Windows version we've ever released. All of that doesn't matter because we're money-hungry corporate twats that can't code our way out of a wet paper bag to save our lives, and you must switch to our new pile of utter sh*t called Vista because we said so. *folds arms*" - Microsoft

 

Sigh.

 

I swear, if Linux didn't fail so much at gaming I would have switched to it 100% years ago and never looked back. Come on game devs, make more f*cking Linux ports!

Although Linux is better than Windows IMO, and I'd be on it if it wasn't for games, but Vista isn't that bad, XP crashes/locks up/freezes more than Vista did for me, and of course its more compatible, but are you going to be using a 15 year old Graphics Card that no-one here knows what it is..?

My point is with that, is they have cut compatibility with old products, but those things are so old, that if they haven't been replaced yet, Someone needs to get a new PC/Printer/whatever.

 

Although my 10 year old Canon Printer worked fine with it...

The thing is . . . hardly anything made to work with xp works with vista. Programs lock up, framerates drop in games, and theres a useless "3d interface". I had vista for about 5 months and I never want to see it again. Luckly I got XP now.

That depends, EG, got a sh*t PC with Vista? GTA3 and VC, (possibly SA ) will run

worse than a fat person in the London Marathon, however, a high end PC with Vista should run them well, in theory,

but after i installed SA mods and downgraded it, i got more crashes than a drunk Nicole Richie joy riding.

[zaroba]

oh boy....another thread with people hating vista....i see these types of threads so much that i have a 'catch all' response already typed out and saved

 

sorry though, its long, and might not be 'too' accurate based on every bodies comments, but it covers the most common vista complaints. please, nobody take it as a personal attack, its just me getting carried away about people whining about stuff that they can easily avoid.

 

 

As for its slowness or crashing:

nearly all the people that i have seen have problems with vista (slowness, crashing, etc) have 2gb or less of ram. this includes everybody: gamers, non-gamers, companies that make computers, even people who write reviews and do benchmarks. they all will put vista on a pc thats designed for xp, and expect it to work faster. then the people using it whine, cry, and bash vista when its slower then xp due to having much less free ram. these people completely over look the fact that vista uses a minimum of 512mb of ram compared to XPs 64mb and expect a game to run just as fine on a pc with with vista and 1 or 2 gb of ram despite the fact they just lost a good portion of it. somehow even the 'experienced' review writers and banchmark performers completely forget about the little box saying 'system requirements'. of course a new os will run slower then an older os on a pc that was made for that older os. common sense should tell you that a more demanding os will make a pc run slower then the previously installed lower demanding os if you don't upgrade your ram to compensate for the difference.

 

win3.1 ran slower then dos on a pc made for dos

win95 ran slower then win3.1 on a pc made for win3.1

win98 ran slower then win95 on a pc made for win95

winme ran slower then win98 on a pc made for win98

winxp ran slower then winme on a pc made for winme

vista rans slower then winxp on a pc made for winxp

 

its called upgrading. people do it when new tech comes out, people do it for gaming, people do it to speed up there pc. why have so many suddenly forgotten how to upgrade now that vista has come out? scratch that, i'm actually seeing people strongly REFUSING to upgrade, people are actually acting like it will kill them to upgrade. for the love of god, a single 2gb stick of ddr2 costs less then $40! so does a pair of 1gb sticks! if your pc uses regular ddr instead of ddr2? just replace the whole pc because your a perfect example of somebody who is trying to use vista on a pc made for xp and you will most likely have trouble with it. its not vista fault, its your own fault for using an old computer. For less then $400, its possible to build a NEW core 2 duo pc with 4gb of ddr2 that will play MOST games on the market with medium to high settings, all you really need is the cpu, ram, motherboard, video card, and possibly a power supply. everything else can come from your current pc. Can't afford to build that or buy a prebuilt new computer? THEN DON'T TRY NEW SOFTWARE ON YOUR CURRENT ONE. the 'system requirements' box is there for a reason.

 

 

 

 

as for vistas ram requirement and size:

people like crying about it using a lot of ram instead of just upgrading there computer to keep it working nicely. always going along the lines of 'oh, it uses 700mb of ram? thats so horrible, i can't believe that'.

 

guess what:

win3.1 only needed 2mb of ram

win95 needed 4mb minimum

win98 needed 16mb of ram

winME needed 32mb of ram

win2k needed 64mb of ram

winxp needed 64mb of ram

win2k3 needed 128mb of ram

Vista Basic needs 512mb of ram

 

and if you take into consideration the standard ram that a pc came out with when each OS was released, you will see that each one used 25-50% of the standard amount of ram. its not just a sudden jump, or did some people forget that xp was released back in 2002 when 256mb of ram was standard for a pc? 2gb is pretty standard now, vista uses 25% of it. just like xp used 25% of the standard amount of the ram when it came out

 

each os needed more then the previous. theres games that need GB of ram to run smoothly, yet nobody whines. its called technological advancement, get with the times and learn how to upgrade instead of whining that new software wont run on old hardware. unless you buy some ripoff prebuilt pc, your motherboard will probably hold up to 4 or 8gb of ram. can get 4gb of ddr2 ram (2x 2gb) for less then $80. there really is no reason to whine about ram usage when its so cheap.

 

people act like the next os is going to be smaller. wont they be surprised, it wont be. computers will be much faster when it comes out, hard drives will be bigger, and ram will be faster and larger. the next windows os is going to be more demanding then vista is. just like vista is more demanding then xp, just like xp is more demanding then me, just like me is more demanding then 98. its called technological advancement. nobody had problems with upgrading for all those operating systems.

 

 

 

as for stuff not working:

Hardware: this falls back on the fear of upgrading in the first post. computers use these things called drivers, they must be upgraded when you install a new operating system. it truly isn't that hard to just goto the site of the manufacturer of your hardware and download vista drivers. most companies make them for vista because microsoft tells them to (or something), so most stuff will have vista drivers.

 

Software: most software problems (crashing etc) in vista are probably the cause of drivers not being updated. sound drivers are notorious for causing programs to lag and/or crash if they aren't the right ones. as for the backwards compatibility issue, let me point out that in the year i was using vista, the ONLY program i had problems with was Sim City Societies, and it wasn't even worth playing. EVERY OTHER GAME I TRIED worked flawlessly. Crysis, Sim City 4, Half Life 2, Doom 3, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfare, Oblivion, GTA San Andreas, DiRT, and several dozen other popular games released over the past 5 years (i get bored after a few days of playing a game then ignore it for a few months, so always have a ton installed). i even used DOSBox to install dos 6.0 and windows 3.1 into a folder on my hard drive and was playing a few DOS/Win3.1 games in DOSBox in Vista, without a single vista crash or DOSBox crash (although a few times the games in 3.1 would crash, 3.1 itself stayed running).

[Saget]

The man speaks the truth. I myself didn't have any major problems with Vista, mainly because I made sure every piece of hardware I was buying for this new computer was compatible with it, so I knew that at least the hardware was going to work, and that I'd have a few default drivers just to begin with.

 

I have some problems that aren't even Vista's fault, just the whole 32/64bits business. I also bought my hardware thinking of that, I wanted to jump into the new 64bits technology if I could afford it. My Vista version supports that, but some programs still don't, so yeah, it's a whole different issue.

But I must say that the 32bits version (I also have it) works like a charm, as smooth as WinXP did.

 

The Vista x XP battle reminds me of the Linux x Windows one.

In one side there's a group of people with knowledge saying "come to our side plz", then in the other side there's a noob crowd saying they can't make the OS work when in fact it's just because they're just doing everything wrong, and they are too stubborn to listen to the wise.

 

Same goes with Vista. In my opinion everything is much clearer than XP, and it feels much quicker to use it, the OS feels more integrated. If something doesn't work, it's your fault, I bet you didn't even try hard to make it work in the first place because if you did, it would, just like it worked for everyone else.

[The Miker]

If something doesn't work, it's your fault

I see, so you're saying the OS is entirely perfect? No flaws at all? No bugs that may cause something to work incorrectly?

 

That's impossible.

 

Besides that, let's look at an example. This didn't happen to me, because quite frankly, I wouldn't touch Vista with a ten foot pole. Anyway, someone I know who has Linux installed with Vista in a dual boot setup recently booted into Vista to do some gaming, when the OS insisted on installing updates. No big deal, right? Those automatic updates are supposed to keep the operating system nice and patched and bug-free, yes? Well then, explain to me why those updates, the ones made and approved by Microsoft themselves, completely erased his Linux partition(s) along with all of the data on it/them? Maybe it's just another one of those "features" that people talk about. You know, the ones that are actually bugs introduced by Microsoft that do more harm than good. I swear, the people that call them "features" must really be on Microsoft's nuts to be that goddamn ignorant about bugs in the software.

 

Also, speaking of buying hardware that's compatible, it should not be the user's job to make sure that their hardware is compatible with an operating system. It should be the hardware vendor's and Microsoft's job. Now, believe me, I'm not one to advocate user laziness, but if Microsoft is going to make an operating system tailored to inexperienced users, then maybe they should start actually doing their job, along with the hardware vendors.

 

The bottom line is, just because you and a few others have had success with Vista doesn't mean that there are other people out there who haven't, and it's entirely possible that it's not their fault. It's like I said before, you are implying that the operating system is perfect when that is literally impossible. Every piece of software has at least one or two bugs. This IS Microsoft we're talking about here...so bump that bug count up to about 58375075 or so. Ok so that was an exaggeration, but it's close enough.

[Svip]

Saget probably hasn't heard of all the hardware labelled as "Vista compatible" which wasn't. Such as Creative's soundcards were labelled as such, but had no drivers for Vista. Then a guy wrote a driver for free for its users, and so Creative sued him. Ahh... Capitalism...

[[CTD]LaBan]

...so Creative sued him.

it makes me soo angry, why would they do that

[zaroba]

 

If something doesn't work, it's your fault

I see, so you're saying the OS is entirely perfect? No flaws at all? No bugs that may cause something to work incorrectly?

 

That's impossible.

 

Besides that, let's look at an example. This didn't happen to me, because quite frankly, I wouldn't touch Vista with a ten foot pole. Anyway, someone I know who has Linux installed with Vista in a dual boot setup recently booted into Vista to do some gaming, when the OS insisted on installing updates. No big deal, right? Those automatic updates are supposed to keep the operating system nice and patched and bug-free, yes? Well then, explain to me why those updates, the ones made and approved by Microsoft themselves, completely erased his Linux partition(s) along with all of the data on it/them? Maybe it's just another one of those "features" that people talk about. You know, the ones that are actually bugs introduced by Microsoft that do more harm than good. I swear, the people that call them "features" must really be on Microsoft's nuts to be that goddamn ignorant about bugs in the software.

 

i too know someone that had that happen to them.

-HOWEVER-

i also know someone else who has vista and linux on the same pc that had nothing bad happen when he updated his vista.

 

obviously it has to do with how its set up.

so yes, it would be his fault since he's obviously doing something wrong in getting it set up to make both OSs work together.

 

MOST problems people have with computers are there own fault, not the softwares fault or the hardwares fault.

they just find it easier to think they know everything and choose to blame a big company.

just because a person *thinks* they are doing something correctly doesn't mean they actually are.

Edited April 25, 2008 by zaroba

[Svip]

If something doesn't work, it's your fault

I see, so you're saying the OS is entirely perfect? No flaws at all? No bugs that may cause something to work incorrectly?

 

That's impossible.

 

Besides that, let's look at an example. This didn't happen to me, because quite frankly, I wouldn't touch Vista with a ten foot pole. Anyway, someone I know who has Linux installed with Vista in a dual boot setup recently booted into Vista to do some gaming, when the OS insisted on installing updates. No big deal, right? Those automatic updates are supposed to keep the operating system nice and patched and bug-free, yes? Well then, explain to me why those updates, the ones made and approved by Microsoft themselves, completely erased his Linux partition(s) along with all of the data on it/them? Maybe it's just another one of those "features" that people talk about. You know, the ones that are actually bugs introduced by Microsoft that do more harm than good. I swear, the people that call them "features" must really be on Microsoft's nuts to be that goddamn ignorant about bugs in the software.

 

i too know someone that had that happen to them.

-HOWEVER-

i also know someone else who has vista and linux on the same pc that had nothing bad happen when he updated his vista.

 

obviously it has to do with how its set up.

so yes, it would be his fault since he's obviously doing something wrong in getting it set up to make both OSs work together.

 

MOST problems people have with computers are there own fault, not the softwares fault or the hardwares fault.

they just find it easier to think they know everything and choose to blame a big company.

just because a person *thinks* they are doing something correctly doesn't mean they actually are.

Then there are the select few (like me) who *knows* what we are doing. And can realise easily if it is a flaw in software and hardware and not our own user experience that is at fault.

 

Seriously, you won't believe the amount of errors found in software and hardware drivers. The Creative story just proves the problem with the whole Vista Compatible ordeal.

 

Vista was in other words; too little, too late. Or my preferred one; "2001 called, they want their operating system back."

[Saget]

If something doesn't work, it's your fault

I see, so you're saying the OS is entirely perfect? No flaws at all? No bugs that may cause something to work incorrectly?

 

That's impossible.

 

Besides that, let's look at an example. This didn't happen to me, because quite frankly, I wouldn't touch Vista with a ten foot pole. Anyway, someone I know who has Linux installed with Vista in a dual boot setup recently booted into Vista to do some gaming, when the OS insisted on installing updates. No big deal, right? Those automatic updates are supposed to keep the operating system nice and patched and bug-free, yes? Well then, explain to me why those updates, the ones made and approved by Microsoft themselves, completely erased his Linux partition(s) along with all of the data on it/them? Maybe it's just another one of those "features" that people talk about. You know, the ones that are actually bugs introduced by Microsoft that do more harm than good. I swear, the people that call them "features" must really be on Microsoft's nuts to be that goddamn ignorant about bugs in the software.

 

Also, speaking of buying hardware that's compatible, it should not be the user's job to make sure that their hardware is compatible with an operating system. It should be the hardware vendor's and Microsoft's job. Now, believe me, I'm not one to advocate user laziness, but if Microsoft is going to make an operating system tailored to inexperienced users, then maybe they should start actually doing their job, along with the hardware vendors.

 

The bottom line is, just because you and a few others have had success with Vista doesn't mean that there are other people out there who haven't, and it's entirely possible that it's not their fault. It's like I said before, you are implying that the operating system is perfect when that is literally impossible. Every piece of software has at least one or two bugs. This IS Microsoft we're talking about here...so bump that bug count up to about 58375075 or so. Ok so that was an exaggeration, but it's close enough.

You see... I didn't say it was perfect. I just said it's not as bad as you people are telling. You say like Vista is the worst OS ever, when it's not THAT bad. I know of errors and bugs, I am using Vista for several months now and living with them. But it's not like they are keeping me from doing this or that.

 

And it isn't the user that goes to the manufacturer and tells them "hey, could you make this video card compatible with Vista?". Nah, they were doing the hardware like that since the beginning. It's only a matter of going to the store and selecting the product that's compatible with what you have, same way you'd go into a store and ask for a 220v device if you have 220v in your home.

[rdank]

Eh. It's no big deal to me. I actually kinda want to upgrade.

[Bendy]

The Asus Ee only comes with linux, but you can install XP on it (as well as ad more RAM and storage space).

Yeah, the article said something about WinXP on eeePCs, and I was like "huh?" =)

i think the new 8, 12 and 20gb eee pcs come with xp