Apr 21 2007, 9:49 am
In response to Axerob
|
|
Strawgate
 |
I've been using vista for a while now(In fact im using it right now) the only problem i have had since installing Vista, was the fact that some games are incompatible, and thats it. Vista has crashed on me once I believe, and that was because of a third party program freezing my computer. Not a problem here.
|
No it is simply annoying because you try to make Windows look like a festering pile of garbage that never works. The fact is I rarely have problems with Windows at all and it runs fairly smooth. I am very tired of you Elitist Linux users.
| |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
I am very tired of you Elitist Linux users. I used to use Elitist, but it always made lame jokes at me during bootup. I switched to Ubuntu and have had a much better time. | |
I'm meant to be a Windows fan by default, (Never tried anything else) but that puts the crap into the can.
No Vista for me. | |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
No it is simply annoying because you try to make Windows look like a festering pile of garbage that never works. no-one has to make it look like that. it does a pretty good job on its own. :) | |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
No it is simply annoying because you try to make Windows look like a festering pile of garbage that never works. The fact is I rarely have problems with Windows at all and it runs fairly smooth. I am very tired of you Elitist Linux users. What you're trying to say is that despite the insane amount of issues that center around Windows (only some of which have been touched on in this thread), you're still content using the OS. Which is fine. You can use Windows, and I can decide not to care. But when threads like this pop up, advocating a system that even many long-time, die-hard Windows users think sucks hardcore - Expect to have facts thrown in your face, even if you do try to pass them off as irrelevant. Sure, Windows runs. Vista does too. That doesn't change the fact that they're plagued by a myriad of issues, many of which are anything close to 'irrelevant'. The fact that many people ignore other OSes has far more to do with marketing, and is rapidly shifting (Many Vista users switching to OSX, f.ex). | |
RedlineM203 wrote:
I'm meant to be a Windows fan by default, (Never tried anything else) but that puts the crap into the can. How about you try Vista before listening to all these people. I have had some issues with Vista but that said it was third party driver issues with NVIDIA and most of them have been fixed. Just try it for a minute before assuming its the most terrible thing in the world. And shame on all you, all you keep doing is using "Windows is bad and crashes" argument which holds no merit. I've been running Vista for the last 13 days without restarting. If you have stable hardware it will run pretty well. Also to those who complain about the hardware requirements are too high, it will run on a P4 with 1GB of Ram. Now if you don't the required specs to run windows, don't use it but stop trying to push people to Linux simply because thats all you can use. | |
Critical wrote:
And shame on all you, all you keep doing is using "Windows is bad and crashes" argument which holds no merit. No merit? Then how do you explain [link]? It can't be a driver/hardware incompatibility problem; the laptop was deliberately made to be Vista-compatible, for crying out loud. I'm not biased against Windows. I've used XP for a long time and I like it, so I was honestly willing to give Vista a chance despite the negative commentary. I hoped that it wasn't all bad. The experiences mentioned in [link] showed me how forlorn a hope that was. | |
I don't blame Vista I blame the company that made the laptop. Vista doesn't crash if your system is stable and has the right drivers. Once again its a driver issue and not something that Microsoft did on purpose.
| |
Critical wrote:
Vista doesn't crash if your system is stable and has the right drivers. In other words: If your system is stable, then your system won't crash. Hmm. Vacuous truth much? Once again its a driver issue It was certified Vista-compatible. CERTIFIED. Microsoft must have at least rubber-stamped the certification, since they're certainly not partial to having their trademarks waved around without their permission. I'd also like to know how a driver issue could crash the system shell (explorer.exe) rather than a core subsystem. Okay, so perhaps the driver passed it invalid data; if that were to happen, that indeed wouldn't be Microsoft's fault in itself. But it would be their fault if explorer.exe crashes due to receiving invalid data from a driver. Either way, explorer.exe crashed. There were no unusual circumstances, it was just trying to read files from a stock-standard USB device, on a stock-standard fresh install, on a system certified by Microsoft, or certifiers approved by Microsoft. Please explain to me how Microsoft is completely innocent here, because I'm just not seeing it. and not something that Microsoft did on purpose. I'm not saying they did it on purpose. I'm saying they're incompetent. | |
My Laptop that was never certified for Vista runs it fine and pretty much at the same speed that it ran XP. It is a 1.5ghz Celeron. Once again, chances are the "Certified for Vista" means that its specs are able to run Vista but that doesn't mean the components themselves have been checked for compatibility.
| |
I'm 13, I don't think I'm even half way to the minimum requirements of Vista (516 RAM and stuff) and with all this crap going on, its best to stick to XP for now... for me.
| |
Regardless, Vista should NOT HAVE CRASHED. It represents just how horrible their system design and programming is if a misbehaving program - even a driver - can trash the entire system. That just shouldn't happen.
Plus, "Oh, windows has never crashed on me" is entirely irrelevant. You've just been lucky. Some smokers don't get cancer - do we thus conclude that smoking is entirely safe? | |
I normally find if a system is stable hardware wise it'll crash pretty much never. In Vista if a driver has a crash, which has happened to me, graphics and sound have done it, normally it restarts the driver and Vista stays alive. Crashing, blue screens of death and the like can be put solely on the manufacturer of the hardware for not testing there drivers.
| |
No it can't. Because if Vista BSODS or crashes because a driver does something stupid, Vista is the program that's been killed.
| |
Critical wrote:
...stop trying to push people to Linux simply because thats all you can use. it's not all i can use. it is just what works the best out of the last 30+ years of computing experience i have had, starting all the way back to the days of MSDOS, Windows 1.0, MacOS 6, and AmigaOS. well, ok, my dad's TRS-80 Model-I was nearly flawless, except when running MS Flight Sim for too long- but that's besides the point. point is that Linux appears to have a better track-record for being stable on a wide variety of hardware than a comparable Windows setup. to each their own. now then i think it's time to wind down this thread as it's starting to go in circles. everyone has made their points, both good and bad. i think it's probably time for you windows and linux fanboys to take a break. | |
digitalmouse wrote:
now then i think it's time to wind down this thread as it's starting to go in circles. everyone has made their points, both good and bad. i think it's probably time for you windows and linux fanboys to take a break. There have been a lot of good points brought up - I'm glad that so many people had their say. | |
"Also to those who complain about the hardware requirements are too high, it will run on a P4 with 1GB of Ram."
Sure, if you want the worst graphics capability and an overall slow computer. Windows 2000 will run on 300 MHz and 64 MB of RAM. If you don't think a P4 and 1 GB is a lot for minimal system requirements then you're screwed. | |