me too was thinking about this
- Status
Indyan
Here Since 2003
Vista looks cool. It seriously does. Its only when you install it and use it for sometime do you realise that it not worth the upgrade due to performance issues.
Even XP used more resource than Win 2k when it was released. But, its benefits were complelling enough to warrant an upgrade. I just dont feel that its the case with Vista.
Also what hurt Vista was the ridiculous amount of bugs when it was initially released (they have been largely fixed with sp1 though). That garnered a lot of negative publicity.
Even XP used more resource than Win 2k when it was released. But, its benefits were complelling enough to warrant an upgrade. I just dont feel that its the case with Vista.
Also what hurt Vista was the ridiculous amount of bugs when it was initially released (they have been largely fixed with sp1 though). That garnered a lot of negative publicity.
amitava82
MMO Addict
Why not keep your craps in your pocket and play with your Arch?
As I told in other thread, the whole thing is like teleshops (or any other advertisements). Stuffs shown in teleshops looks cool until you get one for yourself.
MetalheadGautham
AFK
sure... lets see... I delete the post, let it stay in jokes section, just like the thing I am bashing...
btw, I am on XP atm, since I forgot how to edit fstab
+10000000000^^teleshopping is a joke
hahaha...especially dubbed version
Last edited:
Indyan
Here Since 2003
Compared to Win 2k?
I found Windows XP was the most stable OS at that time (esp compared to ME and 98).
Windows XP actually performed better on a higher end config. Run a Vista on a Core 2 Due 2.6 ghz and 3gb ram and Xp at the same config. Xp would give better config.
Also what helped XP was the fact that Win 2k didnt actually catch on all that well. A lot of people were still using Win 98 Se.
axxo
99.9% Idle
Xp and 2000 pro were built on same kernel arch..there is hardly any difference in their performance or stability. 2000/2001 digit magz review on xp suggests the same like the comment "go for xp if you have money to spend else stick to 2000 pro since no real adv that xp has got to offer"
This is the only reason made XP a success.
MetalheadGautham
AFK
bang on target 8)
ppl could just switch to a two generations ahead cool looking new technology much more high features enabled OS from the stale old win 98 they had...
Kl@w-24
Slideshow Bob
Apart from the performance, stability & security aspects, XP also looked WAY cooler than any other OS in the market at that time!
MetalheadGautham
AFK
anyone wants screenshots of linux in 2001 ?Apart from the performance, stability & security aspects, XP also looked WAY cooler than any other OS in the market at that time!
it looked anything but attractive
OK, so I borrowed a live Ubuntu distro, 8.04.
It will not recognise my 9600GT, so no 3D.
It will not recognise any USB devices, so no flash drives.
It will not recognise my modem, so all my hopes for the great helpline on the net are shot to hell.
And any change I need to make, it directs me to some man page that is so long I can take it instead of a sleeping pill.
By contrast Vista pre SP1:
9600GT recognised and widescreen resolution automatically applied.
Modem and internet connection detected and all it asked for was the username and password. It connected by itself, and activated by itself.
OH yeah, it recognises all my optical devices off the bat, and is now asking me which one I want as my default writer. With Ubuntu, it was the OS saying that my writer did not exist, because the writer had 8MB cache, but Ubuntu could only see 2. If I said 2, the writer would not work. If I said 8, Ubuntu would not see the writer.
Now the wner of the system also wanted Ubuntu, along with Vista. Guess what he now has, by his own choice. He tells me he wants no part of Ubuntu, and is now productively running Vista.
Point is, I can install Vista and be productive in about 1 hour, whereas with Linux, 1 hour later, I am most likely juking around trying to get my internet to work.
It will not recognise my 9600GT, so no 3D.
It will not recognise any USB devices, so no flash drives.
It will not recognise my modem, so all my hopes for the great helpline on the net are shot to hell.
And any change I need to make, it directs me to some man page that is so long I can take it instead of a sleeping pill.
By contrast Vista pre SP1:
9600GT recognised and widescreen resolution automatically applied.
Modem and internet connection detected and all it asked for was the username and password. It connected by itself, and activated by itself.
OH yeah, it recognises all my optical devices off the bat, and is now asking me which one I want as my default writer. With Ubuntu, it was the OS saying that my writer did not exist, because the writer had 8MB cache, but Ubuntu could only see 2. If I said 2, the writer would not work. If I said 8, Ubuntu would not see the writer.
Now the wner of the system also wanted Ubuntu, along with Vista. Guess what he now has, by his own choice. He tells me he wants no part of Ubuntu, and is now productively running Vista.
Point is, I can install Vista and be productive in about 1 hour, whereas with Linux, 1 hour later, I am most likely juking around trying to get my internet to work.
CadCrazy
in search of myself
Ha Ha All you Pro MS Morons(who says only Linux guys Spread FUD) See This Anti Linux FUDder
F
FilledVoid
Guest
You crack me up. Heres a link especially for you
I could go on proving each one is probably wrong or maybe helped fixing it but technically I don't see why you are worth the effort.
F
FilledVoid
Guest
Use a Live CD . Use a Distro with the tonnes of packages which comes with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
amitava82
MMO Addict
come on Live CD is not a productive solution..
Anyway, why are we discussing Linux here? Its not even relevant.
F
FilledVoid
Guest
Edited the post above. I was just replying to the other post. But definitely it is off-topic so I'm not going into there.
Vishal Gupta
Microsoft MVP
*www.mojaveexperiment.com/
- Status