Paul Thurrott of winsupersite.com, noted Windows evangelist and MS zealot, explains why you should boycott Vista when it's finally released. From the article: He forgets to mention that Vista uses about ~500mb upon a fresh boot with no additional software running, of which I would imagine 80% powers the hyperbolous UI. Not that you necessarily care what I think, but to me, Vista is merely a ghastly, bloated rehash of XP which should never see the light of day. It will also undoubtedly be hugely popular because of it's shiny UI. And "bigger is better", right? I can only hope those of you out there who want to actually run software with your computer, not simply dedicate the whole PC to the beckon-call of your OS, may think twice about putting down ~$500 for this superfluous piece of software they call Vista. Maybe then MS will think more highly of their customer base, and reconsider releasing such nonsense (*cough*Millennium*Edition*cough*) again. ...Then again, probably not.
Linus Torvalds once said that you should never really see an OS, only the programs that run on top of it. It should be completely transparent to the user. In Windows, thats not the case. The OS is the programs, and the programs are the OS. If the programs fail (or a critical enough component of it) then the OS fails.
Well to be honnest, since XP's been out, I've used Win2K much more often. I don't need to be taken by the hand. Wait scratch that, I don't WANT to be taken by the hand. I installed Mandriva on a Compag Evo N600C a few days ago, and it took me 4 hours to setup my DWL-G630 wireless adapter. But now I know how it works, and the next time it'll take me 5 minutes. And this is good because I never knew internet could be that fast ! Windows can't give me that, sorry. I made the pledge to migrate to Linux completely, except for games, unless something great happens in the Linux world of course. So I guess if I get Vista one day, I'll get the Basic version, which has been stripped of its Aero GUI. That's if the Basic version supports everything it needs to support in order to make 3d games work as good as on the other "versions". I'm not spending thousands just to make my OS work, this is completely ridiculous.
The Dark Side of vista, lol, more than one side is dark, infact the only light part is the look, about 90% of the whole OS is on the dark side , it's truely an awfull OS, the only thing good about it is it's look, thats why you should never judge a book by it's cover. I am going to be using a Windows OS still for things i cant do in Linux, and what OS will i use, well not Vista, i will be using Windows 2000. I doubt the Basic edition of Vista will have better memory usage, it's not just the GUI thats slowing it down.
And that's why Microsoft make so much money, because of how Windows looks. It looks so friendly, it's so inviting to use Windows. You just boot and everything's there, you don't have to do anything (actually you can't do anything). When it came out, I actually had to have a heated argument with someone who claimed that Windows XP didn't need any drivers (!?). On a side note, those of you who saw "The World is Not Enough" might remember that one the scams of the vilain in this one is he releases a software with so many bugs in it that people will have to upgrade it for years from now to make it work the way it was supposed to in the first place.
Some of the Linux distros should be made as good looking as Windows Vista, would be the best OS in the world, and Genuine, preety and good, not preety and s****, when i found out that 480mb on first boot was normal, i was like : o, i really couldent belive it.
XGL can make Linux/BSD look very, very good. You can probably find some XGL videos on youtube, theres multiple desktops on a giant cube, which can be rotated, and windows bend and wobble when you move them. Window transparency can be adjusted easily as well. All this, and still at least 5 times less memory usage than Vista. Edit: I'll actually be trying Vista (not buying it of course, maybe just demo it for a while) and see what things MS has improved, and how it runs. Of course, I'm not going to switch .
The latest versions of most major distros already have XGL implemented on some level. This includes the latest Suse, Mandriva 2007, FC5, Debian Sid, and more.
To me, Vista looks more like very expensive GUI upgrade to XP. I got Window Blinds for $20, and I can get the same look without the excessive bloat. Had I not gotten such a good deal on WinXP, I'd probably still be running Win2k as my main OS.
Well, Vista does have an enhanced DRM feature set to limit what you can do, watch, and listen to in the OS. That's a good feature, right? Protect us from ourselves. Right?
Much like 2000 and XP. The only thing I like about XP is how you can rotate images without having to open them in an image editting program. Oh, and paint supports jpeg! Slideshow. errrr, oh and msconfig but that works in 2000 anyway if you steal it from somewhere. Even though hardware standards are increasing at a saggering rate still (some bloke wrote a theorectical law...moore was it?) the requirements of Vista stink, your programs and games must suffer!?
Windows 2000 was far from perfect, and I think XP had the right idea of marketing the NT platform at everybody, but at least 2k still runs pretty damn good these days. It's probably Microsofts best OS around.
Windows 2000 is better than XP from what i see!, i am on my old comp on Win 2000 at the moment, i got window blinds 4.6 on, and win2000 is a LOT faster than XP ALOTTTTTTT!!
I agree. When Win2k came out, I was impressed by how progressive MS had become. IE still sucked, mutlimedia codecs and software removal were still a bag of snakes, filesystem corruption still a major concern, and it was just as vulnerable to malware as ever. But it ran well, was moderately stable, and didn't come with too much useless garbage right out of the box. Then XP came out, and now Vista... it's clear that MS wants to put the Windows ME philosophy of design into the NT family. Unfortunately, MS will EOL'ing 2000 soon, so support will wither away and 2k users will be corralled into adopting either XP or Vista, or else migrating completely off the NT platform.
Yep, Moore was a founder of Intel, and postulated that the speed of processors (or I think more accurately, the number of transistors) would double every 18 months. Up until the end of the NetBurst architecture, this law pretty much held out until the thermal wall was hit and the focus went onto IPC, efficiency and multi-threaded performance.
