|
vista
May 11, 2007 17:23:39 GMT -5
Post by Linty McGinty on May 11, 2007 17:23:39 GMT -5
has anybody used vista much?
it's on my dad's new computer.
i won't complain about specific things because i'd be here all day. all that needs to be said is that it's the biggest, slowest, most ridiculous chunk of shit from microsoft to date.
the tabbed browser SUCKS BALLS. it takes so long to open an empty tab or to switch between them, or to switch between different browsing windows for that matter. it takes a long time even for your cursor to reappear, eg from the address bar to the search bar.
what is microsoft's problem?
i'm putting linux ubuntu onto his old computer. time to start taking linux seriously as an alternative i think, because microsoft obviously has no intention of ever slimming down their OS.
my computer (older, with tweaked XP) is so much faster than this new computer it isn't funny, and for what? vista doesn't offer anything more than slightly useful.
honestly stick with XP unless you're getting a computer like dlog's, and even then, vista probably isn't worth it. i'm looking for performance tweaks right now so i'll report back whether any of them help much with the performance.
|
|
|
vista
May 11, 2007 17:56:25 GMT -5
Post by Dlognar on May 11, 2007 17:56:25 GMT -5
Yeah. You need monster computers to play monster operating systems.
We just got 7 Vista computers at my work. I haven't been able to mess with mine, yet.
I'll be sure to voice my opinion when I get a chance.
|
|
|
vista
May 11, 2007 20:18:47 GMT -5
Post by Linty McGinty on May 11, 2007 20:18:47 GMT -5
cool man, i look forward to hearing it.
the only real addition is windows defender, which basically just annoys the shit out of you by asking if you want to let things run.
yeah and it's supposed to be really good for multimedia. it scans your shit so it always knows where your songs are etc etc.
everything else is marginally worthwhile. i mean, they're little things that don't really matter too much. the interface is improved, but any time you save with the interface is lost 10 times over with the slow speed of everything.
honestly, there is such a performance gap between this and xp. it's so typical of new versions of windows it makes me wonder - do they intentionally make windows this lumbering giant so that people are forced to keep upgrading? i can't understand why they don't make more of an effort to streamline things, or at least make it possible to streamline things without using third party tweaks.
fuck them, XP is the end of the line for me. i'm looking to install "windows 96" and linux onto ancient computers because it will still be able to do lots of things that people use computers for. then i'm going to think about making an image for myself - windows 96 with some useful junk installed on it. i will throw that onto my own XP pc at will, and boot 96 when i know i only want to perform simple functions like viewing media. in theory it will run so fast that it will open a wormhole through hyperspace. i'll see how i go with linux, it might even be worth using aswell, but i'm definitely putting it onto ancient pc's for other people.
|
|
|
vista
May 11, 2007 20:51:25 GMT -5
Post by Linty McGinty on May 11, 2007 20:51:25 GMT -5
ok this should convince any non-believers.
remember how your old P120 with 16mb of ram could play mp3's?
well... this thing is a dual processer with 2gb of ram. i have not been able to play a single mp3 without it hearing it stutter. that's without running any other programs at the same time.
W
T
F ??
i dont think it will be feasible to just use windows media player with vista. it will be essential to use winamp or something, but i don't know if that will help. this is just shocking.
|
|
|
vista
May 13, 2007 13:07:38 GMT -5
Post by princenething on May 13, 2007 13:07:38 GMT -5
seems like its just too damned heavy for most of the computers out there.
including mine.
other than that it looks fun.
P_N
|
|
|
vista
May 25, 2007 5:32:46 GMT -5
Post by Linty McGinty on May 25, 2007 5:32:46 GMT -5
let just think about what you said there.
it runs so damn slow that after 30 minutes you commit suicide with the nearest useable weapon, that being a filing cabinet or a biro or similar. there is no time to unplug the power cable and hang yourself with it.
fun.
it's a complete piece of shit, end of story.
by the way, i've used linux some. linux good, linux run like lightning. just find the one that's right for you, for instance i used ubuntu which has some stuff i don't want like an email client, and also i haven't gotten my sound to work with it. i'm keen to try arch linux. there are many pre-packaged versions out there to suit your needs, you download the .iso image, burn the image to a disc and boot it and off you go. i recommend making a partition first though, with a utility in windows, because the partition manager in ubuntu was a bit confusing.
they don't even need to be installed, i think most of them run off the disc (which is how you install them) but it's much slower that way.
i hope to reach a point where writing music, playing games and running weird applications is all i need windows for.
|
|
|
vista
May 25, 2007 5:34:57 GMT -5
Post by Linty McGinty on May 25, 2007 5:34:57 GMT -5
also: definitely run some tweak appz for XP. mine runs extremely fast except for those occasions when it decides to think about some unknown shit for thirty seconds.
|
|