Jump to content

Windows Vista

Swad

By Swad,
in The Great Debates

 Share
653 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

htdefiant
htdefiant
Posted
Posted

I've been running Windows since...forever. I've only been running OS X since July of 2005. Here's how I see it. Vista is an upgrade for Windows users. It brings some "new" (if your a Windows user) features, a better GUI, and perhaps better security. But, it's also a hog on resources. At this point, it's unstable and incompatible. Also, let's keep in mind that Microsoft has not made any really serious changes to its OS since Windows 2000 Pro, in my opinion, the best OS. It ran well on the computers at the time, and it was stable. I am staying with XP, which it light, and runs insanely fast on my Mac Pro. If you want to take it to MS v Apple...well lets not go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AppleMacintosh
AppleMacintosh
Posted
Posted
I've been running Windows since...forever. I've only been running OS X since July of 2005. Here's how I see it. Vista is an upgrade for Windows users. It brings some "new" (if your a Windows user) features, a better GUI, and perhaps better security. But, it's also a hog on resources. At this point, it's unstable and incompatible. Also, let's keep in mind that Microsoft has not made any really serious changes to its OS since Windows 2000 Pro, in my opinion, the best OS. It ran well on the computers at the time, and it was stable. I am staying with XP, which it light, and runs insanely fast on my Mac Pro. If you want to take it to MS v Apple...well lets not go there.

 

Vista is like 10.3 to 10.4 (or 10.4 to 10.5), where Me to 2K was like OS 9 to OS X Server 1.0, and then 2K to Xp was OS X Server to OS X 10.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrates
pyrates
Posted
Posted
Can you [or someone] give me a serious answer or not ?

 

Vista is stable if you have good hardware and stable drivers. Now the bad thing about competition is that some companies will put out a cheap product, but it still means that the higher quality products do have to lower their prices. So just like with any other products on the market place, you're gonna have well built quality products and cheaply made products. But I still prefer the oem pc's because I can shop around for the best quality at the best price. After all, it's worked for every other product out their to have a competitive market like this. And that is why Apple canceled the clone makers contracts. Because they cannot compete when they have actual competition. Hence why they are so proprietary, or they try to be at least. Apple loves it when they have no competition, hence why they try to lock in as many different things together as they can.

 

And one more thing. If Apple's OS X is perfect and stable, why are their fixes for it? Just thought I'd put that monkey wrench in their.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jendre
Jendre
Posted
Posted

The relative problem with Vista is that it requires powerful hardware (latest graphics and loads of RAM to begin with). Many manufactures sell "Vista capable" PCs - that are capable to run Vista OS but nothing else really.

This advertising is getting Microsoft sued already:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microso...ives/113491.asp

If the hardware meets the higher and not minimal requirements Vista works well, I use it on home PC and have no issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jglavin
jglavin
Posted
Posted

This week, I picked up a decent-sized hard drive and put vista on it with the intention of actually making it my primary OS. It's been two days, and now I'm back to osx86, since somehow my XP install won't boot now. I blame Vista, if only because that's the only thing that's changed about my computer.

 

Bug issues aside, some specific things that really irked me:

 

-They got rid of the "up" button in explorer (to go "up" rather than "back" in the directory structure). Maybe it's there somewhere, I dunno. Couldn't find it despite looking.

 

-The UI is less intuitive than XP, in that things are often difficult to find. For example, menus are hidden by default. The learning curve seems steeper than XP.

 

-The search indexing just sits there constantly chewing on the CPU... maybe after more time it would go away, but damn, that's annoying. It did eventually back off a bit.. but then I copied a folder of roughly 900 items (pictures, zip files) to the boot drive and that set it off for a good half hour or more.

 

-"advanced" settings (such as changing titlebar color if aero is off) are sometimes accessed by going thru a control panel inside of which is an option to go to the "classic" version of the control panel. Why couldn't they just put those into the same level to eliminate the extra clicks?

 

-Startup/shutdown times are not improved in the least, and you still have to reboot after doing pretty much anything.

 

Some things I noticed which seemed to be improvements:

 

-Many programs which previously took a while to start up (Photoshop CS2, for example) seem to do a bit better in Vista, I'm guessing due to the better memory management, but that's just a guess.

 

-The start menu. I like the fact that the program list is less menu-like. In XP I often suffer from the mis-click disease, and I'll lose the program menu before I get to what I want. Not so here.

 

-The movies-as-desktop-backgrounds i.e. Dreamscene. Not too useful in the least, but very sexy if you don't care about resources.

 

These are pretty superficial things, I know. But when Azureus stopped working, Vista was instantly dead to me.

 

I owned a Mac clone. Actually, two of them. They were cheap, and it showed. The one I got was a PPC 604 something or other, and I was upgrading from a real mac with an '040. It died within 24 hours of plugging it in. We sent it in and they sent us a whole new computer, which also died within a week. I was glad to be using the 68k machine after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
apowerr
apowerr
Posted
Posted
Vista is stable if you have good hardware and stable drivers. Now the bad thing about competition is that some companies will put out a cheap product, but it still means that the higher quality products do have to lower their prices. So just like with any other products on the market place, you're gonna have well built quality products and cheaply made products. But I still prefer the oem pc's because I can shop around for the best quality at the best price. After all, it's worked for every other product out their to have a competitive market like this. And that is why Apple canceled the clone makers contracts. Because they cannot compete when they have actual competition. Hence why they are so proprietary, or they try to be at least. Apple loves it when they have no competition, hence why they try to lock in as many different things together as they can.

 

And one more thing. If Apple's OS X is perfect and stable, why are their fixes for it? Just thought I'd put that monkey wrench in their.

I completely agree, I love my Mac but, IMO Vista is better. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
track09
track09
Posted
Posted
I completely agree, I love my Mac but, IMO Vista is better. End of story.

 

 

And you know what, that's your opninon, and I respect it, as I feel Vista is better, IMO too. What you like is what you like, why can't these Apple shills let it rest and stop crying about the superiority of their OS with a tiny market share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
track09
track09
Posted
Posted
I completely agree, I love my Mac but, IMO Vista is better. End of story.

 

 

And you know what, that's your opninon, and I respect it, as I feel Vista is better, IMO too. What you like is what you like, why can't these Apple shills let it rest and stop crying about the superiority of their OS with a tiny market share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EFI
EFI
Posted
Posted
why can't these Apple shills let it rest and stop crying about the superiority of their OS with a tiny market share?

 

Oh boy...*sighs*.., here comes that idiotic market share statement. I guess Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus must be {censored} compared to normal Hondas' and Toyotas', and Nissans'. Boo-freakin-hoo.

 

Well...as Jim Allchin said (Former executive of Microsoft):

 

I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft. ... Apple did not lose their way. ...

 

I think that says something. :thumbsup_anim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
apowerr
apowerr
Posted
Posted
And you know what, that's your opninon, and I respect it, as I feel Vista is better, IMO too.

Kinda funny, your about to do the right thing and respect peoples opinions and then..

What you like is what you like, why can't these Apple shills let it rest and stop crying about the superiority of their OS with a tiny market share?

Bam, you start yourself up for a potential flame. Im not trying to be a jerk, just pointing that out. As far as market share 2001 ( XP vs 10.0/.1 ) is a lot different than 2007 ( Vista vs. 10.4/5 ). That market share argument may be a little outdated since we have yet to see how Vista will fare.

OS market share As you can see, Vista is doing pretty good with 2.04% while OSX has 6.08 ( these are late March statistics ) I strongly believe that by January 2008 there will be more Vista PCs than Macs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
apowerr
apowerr
Posted
Posted
In my opinion, Vista was a mistake.

 

Its slow, buggy, and its just annoying. (Asks you to confirm whatever it was that you just did almost every time)

OSX is clean, simple, userfriendly, and is faster...

Slow: depends on your hardware

Buggy: Depends on drivers and software, I dont get that many bugs.

Annoying: Yeah, UAC sucks, I turned it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
track09
track09
Posted
Posted
Oh boy...*sighs*.., here comes that idiotic market share statement. I guess Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus must be {censored} compared to normal Hondas' and Toyotas', and Nissans'. Boo-freakin-hoo.

 

Well...as Jim Allchin said (Former executive of Microsoft):

 

 

 

I think that says something. :)

 

Yes, but what I'm saying is, I just don't like when Mac users always constantly need to push themselves, it makes the platform look pathetic. Like what you like, and let the corporate marketing push the sales.

 

 

In my opinion, Vista was a mistake.

 

Its slow, buggy, and its just annoying. (Asks you to confirm whatever it was that you just did almost every time)

OSX is clean, simple, userfriendly, and is faster...

The true image of a idiotic troll who's never used Vista, and just goes on what Apple says about it.

 

Slow? NT kernel performs faster than mach_kernel, hands down, undebateable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EFI
EFI
Posted
Posted

Yes, the NT kernel (uKernel) is faster than the Mach kernel (Hybrid Kernel). There are advantages and disadvantages to both the kernel types though. For example the reason why the NT kernel is faster is because it adresses the hardware directly through a HAL (hardware abstraction layer) layer, therfore all the basic structures like processes, threads, device drivers and etc and also communication stacks...are simultaneously handled by a single object oriented kernel. What is the downside to this? well, It means that its stability is not that tight. Any tampering of the processes at the kernel level, will be enough to bring down the entire operating system during run-time in a flash (BSOD) or otherwise. Another good thing about the NT kernel though its that its portability features are excellent as a result, so it can be translated to other archietechures pretty easily.

 

The Mach Kernel on the other hand, has its own advantages and disadvantages as well. Ill start with the disadvantage. Because it was originally developed for usage with neXT before OS X, it has the same history timeline as what the NT kernel has. The Mach Kernel function set are kept to a minimum. The way in which the Mach kernel works is such that there is one server to take care of the process management, one for managing memory issues, one for managing drivers, and so on and so forth. The cool thing about the Mach kernel is that it does not run in the main kernel space anymore. Therfore they would need authentification each time a software has to access the root kernel structure. This is where the advantage comes, in that the Mach kernel is more stable and secure than the NT kernel, while sacrificing some speed.

 

 

So as you can see, both the kernels have their advantage and disadvantages. I tried to explain it without getting too techy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
track09
track09
Posted
Posted

^^Hit the nail on the head. The catch-22 is the server market. OS X is more secure, and more stable, but it's performance really hurts on a server that sees substantial bandwidth usage. Windows, on the other hand, works very well, but just look at netcraft statistics, servers running Windows server are often getting rebooted, and the charts are all over the place as to how often.

 

As for Linux, Linux works ok for servers i guess. The real goods that I see for servers right now lies in Solaris 9/10. Solaris requires very few updates, a great OS structure, and can update without a reboot. Solaris has many of the goodies needed for a server, and is an all around great server.

 

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to list where I thing each OS specifically shines (Just an objective opinion):

Windows - All around home desktop use/gaming/CPU intensive processes

OS X - All around home desktop use/creative applications and design/professional media creation

Linux - Free alternative/basic home use/great community driven software base

FreeBSD - Home dedicated firewall box

Solaris - Servers, servers, and more servers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EFI
EFI
Posted
Posted
Just for the hell of it, I'm going to list where I thing each OS specifically shines (Just an objective opinion):

Windows - All around home desktop use/gaming/CPU intensive processes

OS X - All around home desktop use/creative applications and design/professional media creation

Linux - Free alternative/basic home use/great community driven software base

FreeBSD - Home dedicated firewall box

Solaris - Servers, servers, and more servers

 

Well put. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...