Each to their own imo Microsoft's worse OS's: Win98 WinME Vista Microsoft's best OS's: Win 95 OSR2 (why is n-9-5 blocked in this forum?) Win98SE XP SP2 Win7 (excellent with no service pack! now thats saying something) I think most of us can agree with that.
I like blue and green, I just dont like Vista's choice of green shade - you know that dull army green color. Thats not the main reason though ROFL, its just a color. Nice background by the way, new wallpaper ftw lol
i can , i posted it in the wallpaper section a long time ago can be found here: http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/1253/silence.html
So was XP and I remember everyone saying the same. Mine actually ran the same or faster with the excpetion of the copy large files bug that existed prior to the hotfix. Just like XP when it came out. Most apps designed for 98 didn't work in XP. I had many that didn't work at the time as well as hardware that didn't have drivers. The same was true for games. If people are old to enough to remember or do away with their selective memory they will remember that XP at launch was very similar to VISTA at launch. Actually, I believe Windows 98 was similar over 95 and 95 was the same to Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.1 and earlier did the same to DOS.
I agree, but XP was new and exciting. It was a huge step up from WinME and worth the effort getting around the glitches. Here's Microsoft's routine: Win 95 - efficient and stable Win 98 - bloated and buggy Win 98SE - efficient and stable (they fixed up Win98) Win ME - - bloated and buggy Win XP - efficient and stable (they fixed up WinME+NT4) Win Vista - bloated and buggy Win 7 - efficient and stable (they fixed up Vista) Win 8 - bloated and buggy? (MS will probably take Win7 and add a whole lot of cr@p to it lol)
Vista has major problems with low end (Pre-Duo) hardware. Problem is, 80% of the general PC users still have Pentium 4's (or below). And for them, XP ran fine, and Vista ran much slower. Throw in game compabaility issues (no 16-bit support), the necessity of new drivers (still a problem for some devices), and everything generally being moved around, is it any shock the general user hates the thing? Fact is, there is nothing Vista can do any better then XP that the general PC user needs. Thats the crux of the problem.
While I agree with you that doesn't mean that the enthusiast or high end users should be held back to accommodate those with less needs. The reason XP got to where it ended was the need for those using 32-bit computing, advanced driver models, etc. Oh, and XP moved everything around compared to previous versions too. So based on that argument there was no need for XP over 98. I think it mostly has to do with the general reluctance to change. I do software training and I can tell you first hand that people are lazy and most do not want to learn anything new. Those that do, usually reap the rewards big time and the lazy ones get left behind. This isn't a flame post. Like I said, I agree with you. I just think there is more to it than that and we shouldn't hold back the ones that push technology forward. If we did, they innovation gets stifled.
Wish it was dude, its not, superfetch is disabled, i have 0 control over it, ive been tweak vista on 3 different platforms, the other 2 were completely fine but with i7 it goes into using all available memory as cache and wont free it, if i run a game it takes forever to load then i have loads of free mem again after i quit the game. It seems as if its superfetch or rather disabling superfetch doesnt actually disable it, tbh im done with it. Im gonna go back to XP when i get home from honeymoon and get Windows 7 ultimate the day its out( on the cheap of course )
I totally disagree. I see people everyday with laptops that are less than a couple of years old; and the same with desktops. There's a lot fewer than 80% with old hardware. As far as "nothing Vista can do better", being able to type into the 'start' menu and have just about any app open within 2 seconds was enough to make me switch.
I can't agree with that at all. I had nothing but problems with Wi*** and XP....had no problems what so ever with 98, ME or Vista. I have literally run Vista on computers ranging from an AthlonXP 2800+, to a Core 2 Quad Q9550.....have also run it on Sempron's and Celeron's. I've never had any performance issues at any point. I've even countered Paul Thourrot's claims that Vista lacked performance when his dumbass tried to run it on a 2.4ghz P4a with 32mb integrated graphics and 512mb ram. I guess he was too stupid to figure out the 400mhz FSB was killing his performance. I ran it perfectly on a P4b 2.66ghz with 512mb ram and 16mb integrated graphics and had no performance issues what so ever.....computer was rock solid through Vista alphas, betas, RC1, RC2 and RTM. My Celeron 550 based laptop runs Vista just fine as well. It's like running Win98 on a 1ghz Athlon. Can't really blame MS or Vista for the inabilities of the user or system builder...
