Computer Hope
Other => Other => Topic started by: Accessless on June 15, 2010, 12:12:24 PM
-
I've just been working with Windows XP, Vista & 7 all at once and one of these has been irritating the h3ll out of me, so much so that I wanted other people's opinion as to which OS was the biggest botch? Now, I've not had the 'pleasure' of experiencing all these versions of Windows so a vote must be started to ascertain the most annoying and infuriating OS.
Please channel your rage into nonconstructive nonsense comments.
-
Windows Vista!!! It is so horrible that I would rather use the Mac OS X instead. When it was released Maximum PC Magazine gave it a 6 out of ten rating. Compare that to XP's 10 out of ten rating.
Second worst is by far ME. It crashed so much that is is commonly referred to "mistake edition".
All the others were also pretty bad except: Windows 3.1, Windows 98SE & Windows XP. Those 3 were actually good operating systems. And I'd have to say that although there is a huge hype over 7 right now, that 7 is not as good as it is made out to be. Although it is a huge improvement over Vista it is not as good as XP.
-
An easy pick for me Vista :||
Stability: Appalling
Now I once had a pirate version of this OS and I had it downloading updates automatically ASAP. Amazingly the OS failed before microsoft realised that I was a faker.
Networking: ...I still can't get my laptop [running Vista] to talk to the other computers properly. Networking XP to ME was child's play in comparison.
General speed: I think I had a Pentium 100MHz 8Mb RAM laptop (originally designed for Windows 3.1) running Win95a (the slow one) that started up faster than my modern PC running Vista. No wait... I'm sure that it was faster.
(I had the benefit of IE 5 Win ME so that's why I've voted Vista instead. IE6 Win ME was far worse than Vista though.)
-
I've used Windows 95, 98SE, 2000, XP (Home/Pro/X64), Server 2003, Vista and 7 enough to have opinions on each.
I have to say, my vote is split between Vista and 7, both for an extremely poor UI.
-
But 7 has a good user interface. I admit I still miss the Win98 task bar. You just reminded me though about how bad Vista's interface is.
You just don't like 7 cos its new :P j/k
-
I've used almost all of those Operating Systems, mostly XP Pro, Vista, Win7...
Win XP Pro is the fastest and most stable.
Vista is by far the worst. Win7 is it's replacement - what Vista should of been in the first place.
I haven't used Server 2003, but heard that's very stable and great for modding into a hardcore gaming OS.
All Microsoft OS need to be tweaked to get quality performance.
"Only Microsoft OS has that super quality User Friendly Interfaces with click Start to Shutdown..."
-
But 7 has a good user interface.
To each their own. I can't use Vista or 7, or at least it is very very difficult for me to do so, and that's not just me saying this after a quick glance, I use Windows 7 every single day at work. I find every OS I've used prior to Vista easy to use, and the UI has changed fairly significantly between them.
I forgot to add NT4 to the list of OSes I have used, too - I like that.
I haven't used Server 2003, but heard that's very stable and great for modding into a hardcore gaming OS.
Not sure about "modding" it for a gaming OS, could you elaborate? Server 2003 is based off of a newer kernel than XP Home/Pro, the same kernel that XP X64 is based on. I've found that Server 2003 tends to run faster on the same hardware than XP Home/Pro, and it seems to feel snappier too. There are advantages and disadvantages of it versus XP though.
All Microsoft OS need to be tweaked to get quality performance.
Again, not disputing this, I'm just interested to know exactly what you mean by this.
-
"Only Microsoft OS has that super quality User Friendly Interfaces with click Start to Shutdown..."
Why do people constantly quote this like it means something? Nobody seems to have a problem with the phrase "I think I'll start to shut down the machine now", or "I think I'll start to close all my programs" and yet having a menu heirarchy ordered after it is somehow a user interface faux paus? It's an operation, and like any operation, you have to start it.
Windows 3.1
used DOS 6 and windows 3.1 for the better part of 2 years. Aside from not being able to find video drivers for my Trident 8900c (well, actually, I never actually looked, but the point is, the included drivers on the win 3.1 disks were for a very limited set of hardware, such as video 7, orchid, and a few others that no longer exist today), so I was using the standard VGA driver. (well, before that, the hercules monochrome driver on my 286, but after upgrading to a Server oriented 386 machine, I was able to run with VGA.
Windows 95 (a or b)
So no love for OSR2?
Whatever the case, on the whole I probably had the "worst" experience with windows 95. Not necessarily because of the OS but more because I was used to configuring things via DOS and the various windows INI files, as well as having the "safety net" of being able to do useful things in DOS most of the time. With windows 95, the configuration details shifted from system.ini to the system registry, which makes sense since there is no way you could fit all the information in the registry's driver data into a INI file that was less then 64K. This paired with the fact that the installation of windows 95 was actually on a hard drive from a 486 and therefore everything was configured for the 486 rather then the Pentium machine that I put the drive into made things even more difficult. I never did actually get that machine working well, the heatsink for the integrated graphics card fell off and it stopped working a while after (I thought the heatsink was decorative, since I hadn't seen a heatsink before then- with a 286 and 386 the CPU just sat in the slot, no heatsink at all). I had windows 95 running for a short time back on the 486, but eventually I got in a reboot loop where windwos 95 would state that my registry was corrupt and that it had to restore from a backup and I would have to reboot to fix it, but regardless it would say that every time I started. Being far less familiar with computers (and windows 95 in general) I ended up simply reformatting and going back (yet again) to windows 3.1.
I was given (by the same person who was giving me these PCs, actually) a copy of windows 98, and proceeded to install it on ther 486. It went as smoothly as could be expected on a 133Mhz DX2 with 24MB of RAM; I can't remember what video card I used but there was no video driver available and/or I was unable to find one, so I spent the next 6 or so months literally working in 640x480 with 16-color (the vgasafe driver).
I eventually acquired a more capable Pentium-2 class machine, which at that time featured a 350Mhz AMD k6-2 CPU, 32MB of RAM, and an 8MB graphics card (ATI Rage Pro). (as a sidebar that same machine is actually right behind me as I type this, serving as a sturdy but vastly underutilized table, it now has a 500Mhz K6-2, 512MB of RAM, and a 64MB graphics card).
First, I simply moved the hard drive from the 486 to the K6-2 machine. Things went alright, but for whatever reason I decided to do a complete reformat/install.
the 98SE setup process went so smoothly I was astounded. it even recognized and installed drivers for my ATI Rage Pro 8MB card, where previously getting a video card to work properly with windows 3.1 was often like trying to wrestle with a greasy snake. for the first time I was able to run windows in 1024x768x24-bit, which for me at the time was a super mega high resolution (considering I was used to 640x480 with 16 colours, at least until I discovered the 800x600 generic windows 3.1 SVGA driver worked with most of the video cards I used).
Over time I upgraded this machine and eventually I upgraded it to windows XP. it ran it alright, and there weren't any notable issues once I disabled Luna themes (the 8MB graphics card was a little taxed otherwise with the vast number of bitmaps that Luna brought to the table).
I eventually bought an overpriced used 1.6Ghz P4 and installed XP on that. smooth as butter, for the most part. it did get infected with virut once, but I needed a fresh start by that point anyway. While I had this machine I purchased my Toshiba Laptop, which served as my first hands on experience with Vista.
the only problem I had initially was not with Vista, but rather with the HUGE AMOUNT OF CRAP that Toshiba thought I wanted. Seriously? Norton 360? And even more helpfully the "registration" dialogs during setup were almost all modal, so I could either register Norton 360 or close down the machine. nice.
After finally dealing with and succumbing to this awful and terrible bastardization of software by Toshiba, as well as the over 50 extra processes Toshiba decided I needed in the background for tasks that are perfectly well done by built in drivers, I decided that the only way to <properly> see Vista and rate it based on itself rather then the cruft that manufacturers throw at you as they always have is to do a clean install of it, which is what I did.
It ran smoothly. perfectly. Aero Glass, which barely ran in the original installation, ran with absolutely zero hitches whatsoever after a nice clean install. the stuttery ness and constant drive access I was experiencing with the OEM install no longer occured. everything suddenly started working even before I installed most of my drivers. (I think this might have been a SP1 integrated Install disc). I had also installed XP 32-bit and XP 64-bit, both of which (not surprisingly) needed a number of extra tasks to be performed to get them to work with my SATA hard drive, and even then neither one was able to hibernate the machine- well, they were, but when it woke up only one CPU groggily raised it's eyebrow and allowed me to use the machine at the equivalent of about 16 mhz. The Start->Shutdown routine took about 15 minutes to <start> shutting down (note the wording, whereby I use the word "start" to signify that I was starting the operation of shutting down, much as is the very point of the arrangement of Shut down on the start menu).
Next on the list was my new build. which I installed Vista on with no problems either. SP2 was released, upgraded with no issues. upgraded the laptop to windows 7 with no problems either, and then later the desktop, so they are both running windows 7.
unparalleled, of course, is the various attempts to use a Linux OS more prevalently. my first attempt was with the P4, where I wanted to dual boot between the currently installed XP and Ubuntu. the install worked fine, until it came GRUBs turn to start the boot loader, where it gave me a very descriptive out-of-range error relating to the partition that Ubuntu was on and hung the machine. This was of course after going through about a bajillion different screens just to get Linux installed "where do you want to swap file"? how big do you want the swap partition? Should we use the Reiser-FS or the ext3 file system? What kind of questions are these for a OS that is supposed to be for "beginners"? I can understand the fact that say, Slackware or Debian has them, but Ubuntu is touted as the "easy to use" Linux distro so I find it weird that it would ask questions that it's main target user would have no clue how to answer. I did manage to get Linux Mint working from a Flash drive just fine though, including the DWM equivalent, which disabled itself for nearly every program I ran. Which brings me to another sidebar- I find it interesting how so many Linux users/programmers/zealots, when originally told about the Desktop Composition feature, were rather quick to do a search through the various available Linux packages and come to the conclusion "nya nya, we had it in 2003"
the funny part is, in 2003, nobody cared. in 2004, nobody cared. The Compiz project was pretty much just a curious little applet, cool, but not useful.
Then when Vista was released, BAM! Linux devs flocked to it and started to complete it, only making it "usable" to any real extend long after Vista's DWM was released. Sure, it's a remarkable acheivement, but it wasn't done until <after> Vista's DWM, it doesn't matter that the project was started in 2003- it wasn't public-ready until after they invested a significant portion of time on it. And brings me to one thing that I find I dislike about Linux distro's in particular- it seems that they have "everything", but it's all only half-finished until Microsoft implements something similar into one of their operating systems, and then <poof> OH! we had this first!
If Linux is as great as all the linux lovers claim, and completely free of charge, then why hasn't it displaced any Windows sales in over a decade of seriously trying? That includes on the desktop, but also on the server where Linux had such a huge head-start out of the gate that (all else being equal) Windows Server sales should be in the single digits of market share right now. This is made especially ironic because OS X has had absolutely no problem displacing Windows desktop sales in the same amount of time... proving that Microsoft is not some unstoppable juggernaut, but that the Linux community is doing something wrong.
The only open source project that's made a lot of headway in recent years is Firefox. If somehow Ubuntu could make the same headway then it would probably have about 30% of the total market share.
Well, perhaps because Ubuntu gets released with moronic bugs that cause my laptop to blast out a 120 dB square-wave ear-rape at random intervals. Perhaps it's because after a decade of trying, power management still does not work right. Perhaps it's because Linux has never been "out in front" of any technological innovation from a rival in all the time I've been aware of it. *
Linux's greatest success is blame-shifting. Where PHP gets the blame for DB insertion errors on Linux, but Windows (not ASP) gets the blame in Windows. Or how Linux can shovel out the old: "well hardware support would be better of OEMs gave us their spec sheets!" Or: "we can't ship working code because of patents in the US!" Undoubtedly true, but where does the buck stop? You have a problem, solve it. Microsoft manages to solve it. Apple manages to solve it. Linux just whines and whines and whines.
*) This is the point where some will likely claim that Linux "had GPU-accelerated windows first", forgetting that 1. It didn't OS-X did by any reasonable metric; and 2. The only half-decent implementation, Compiz, was a buggy piece of crap that everybody ignored until Microsoft announced they were putting the same feature in Vista-- suddenly it becomes priority number 1. (Despite that, it still never shipped on any mainstream distros before Vista did, so see number 1.)
What makes the entire thing so futile is that Linux users/devs/zealots can always claim to be ahead of the pack, because there are so many thousands of skunkworks projects in Linux implementing various ideas. None of these projects develop past pre-Alpha stage, or end up in any distros, until a competitor announces that they're adding the same feature-- then all of a sudden, that useless buggy skunkworks project was started in 2005, so linux had it first! It doesn't matter that it was unusable, or that no distributions included it!
Is this bad? Not entirely. the fact that they base <what> buggy skunkworks projects they will work on and make into something viable based entirely on what their competition is doing sort of is. Why do they care what Microsoft does? this sort of logic is especially inescapable when you follow the common theme that "Whatever Microsoft does is wrong". If it's wrong, why follow them? IMO, the only company that has actually made anything even remotely Linux related viable in the desktop market is Apple. Some may say "what about Ubuntu". No. not really. that's all marketing mumbo-jumbo. Compare Ubuntu to Fedora or Mepis or any number of other distros. they are nearly exactly the same- Ubuntu isn't any more "user-friendly" then any of them, only their marketing is.
And my all time favourite thing about Linux users is their attitude. Look, Linux is fine. I have no problem with it, it's great for all sorts of purposes, and it <CAN> do a lot of what most people need, but whenever you approach a topic with the attitude that everyone you're addressing is a moron whose current opinion does not matter, you lose. It doesn't matter if everyone you're addressing *is* a moron. Very few people can keep an open mind about a topic after you've insulted them.
my vote is split between Vista and 7, both for an extremely poor UI.
ahh, I take it your referring to the over-application of the stuff they did with XP, like the *shudder* control panel. Good, now we can click a bajillion times to get to the display applet. In all fairness, as far as the default options go, I agree. I hate the default configuration of the control panel in XP, Vista, as well as 7. I also hated their start menus but I've since found the start->Search feature so valuable I feel almost like I'm missing a limb in XP. (but not in mint! cuz mint has a similar search feature, which I found immensely cool, wonder if there is a way to get the windows key to activate the menu though, then I wouldn't have to shift paradigms at all), personally, I actually like the display control panel (and other related control panels) better as sizable panels rather then unresizable panels with a bajillion (hyperbole) tabs at the top. It takes a bit of learning to get around, but it's no more difficult to navigate after a some effort then XP or earlier was.(ok, that's a lie, sometimes I can only remember "I know that option was in a lefthand panel somewhere" but can't for the life of me remember where it was, so I end up looking through all sorts of various dialogs trying to find this mystical option, wasting all sorts of time, but I discount this as part of learning it, since once I have "remembered" it, I no longer need to go hunting, much as how a person might learn in windows 98 that they use the display control panel option to change the resolution, not "Themes" or "appearance".) I think the main reason it's so reviled by so many is simply because the "tabbed dialog" interfaces used for almost all control panel applets had been in use since windows 95. That much muscle memory isn't easy to shake. Heck, the tabbed interface that we'd grown so accustomed to was itself reviled as a "disgusting change" from the simpler times of windows 3.1. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess, heh.
and the UI has changed fairly significantly between them.
Again, not quite true. For example, almost all control panel options, as well as the control panel itself, have remained nearly unchanged through out windows NT 3.1 through to XP. The biggest change between NT 3.1 and XP was simply the switch to using the windows 95 Shell with NT4> think about it- the tabs on the Display control panel in Windows NT4 through to Windows XP All had a set of common tabs- the settings tab would always change your resolution- appearance for icons, themes (well, this wasn't always there, but it was consistent amongst those versions that had it (95 with Plus! and higher IIRC).
Even the "System properties" dialog is still accessed by nearly the exact same method it has always been since windows 95, and the vast majority of options are still the same as they always were. the biggest shift between NT 3.1 and XP was that XP SP2 rearranged the "hardware" tab as well as a few other minor adjustments). That is of course excepting things like Luna which for all intents and purposely changed the look but didn't change the feel regardless of what the propaganda said.
-
0xC0000005 ERROR OUT OF MEMORY
Yes I realise before anyone points it out that Windows 3.1 is basically DOS and that my "Other" option is a contradiction to the 3.1 option.
BC_Programmer please try to keep posts short, I loose too many threads due to lack of reader attention span. Not that I'm trying to insult everyone. Just a lot of threads can die that way... I mean look what happend to my creationism vs. evolution thread. (Though I think heated arguments may have helped kill that one)
-
0xC0000005 ERROR OUT OF MEMORY
First, never said that, second, 0xC0000005 is an Access Violation, not out of memory.
Yes I realise before anyone points it out that Windows 3.1 is basically DOS and that my "Other" option is a contradiction to the 3.1 option.
Windows 3.1 is not "basically DOS". It's windows 3.1. It runs on top of DOS, but so does windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME.
BC_Programmer please try to keep posts short
I'll post as much or as little as I please.
I loose too many threads due to lack of reader attention span.
No, you "lose" threads because they are simply a reiteration of threads you or somebody else has already posted before.
I mean look what happend to my creationism vs. evolution thread. (Though I think heated arguments may have helped kill that one)
That thread was "lost" because that topic was throughly explored and pretty clearly made off-limits on the forum due to the pluto thread. There really wasn't much else to add aside from the 7-8 pages of debate that had already occured.
-
Anyway back on topic
Please channel your rage into nonconstructive nonsense comments.
Debutante buys an expensive gift for the coward. When the alchemist inside a stalactite trembles, some comely ruffian hibernates. Sometimes a curmudgeonly impresario ceases to exist, but the toothache inside some ribbon always barely graduates from a carelessly rapacious clodhopper! The labyrinth approaches another impresario behind an alchemist.
Sometimes a starlet sweeps the floor, but an onlooker always finds subtle faults with the shadow around a ballerina! Now and then, the darling pocket laughs and drinks all night with another ballerina. Another unruffled onlooker strokes, or the sprightly mastadon conquers a maestro behind the hand. When the rhetorical guardian angel goes to sleep, a starlet around a curse takes a coffee break.
Possum
Is that better? Instead of posting something coherent and somewhat sensible, I have instead followed your instructions and channeled my rage into nonconstructive nonsense comments. the end.
-
Epic is all I can say bc.
But I feel the need to add my own extensive knowledge and balance to this thread.
*cough*
I like Vista. So there!
-
Why do people constantly quote this like it means something? Nobody seems to have a problem with the phrase "I think I'll start to shut down the machine now", or "I think I'll start to close all my programs" and yet having a menu heirarchy ordered after it is somehow a user interface faux paus? It's an operation, and like any operation, you have to start it....
You make the assumption that the majority of people understand anything technical, or for that matter, have any language comprehension or skill.
The K.I.S.S. method is applicable here.
How about a GO button, i.e. Go Away, Go here, Go there.
-
First, never said that, second, 0xC0000005 is an Access Violation, not out of memory.
My point was to save space and a little jest. Also I couldn't find the correct code, I apologise and promise to be more accurate in future.
Windows 3.1 is not "basically DOS". It's windows 3.1. It runs on top of DOS, but so does windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME.
True, but I have always regarded myself as a hardware guy so cut me some slack. Maybe one day I will learn.
I'll post as much or as little as I please.
Again with the jokes, stop taking me so seriously.
No, you "lose" threads because they are simply a reiteration of threads you or somebody else has already posted before.
That thread was "lost" because that topic was throughly explored and pretty clearly made off-limits on the forum due to the pluto thread. There really wasn't much else to add aside from the 7-8 pages of debate that had already occured.
You know what I'm just going to change my signature.
-
If anyone wanted a pure example of someone getting 'owned' (although I find the term distasteful)
see here!
-
"Only Microsoft OS has that super quality User Friendly Interfaces with click Start to Shutdown..."
Why do people constantly quote this like it means something? Nobody seems to have a problem with the phrase "I think I'll start to shut down the machine now", or "I think I'll start to close all my programs" and yet having a menu heirarchy ordered after it is somehow a user interface faux paus? It's an operation, and like any operation, you have to start it.
Because it annoys the *censored* out of Microsoft Geeks! ;D
Plus my grandma always makes me shutdown the laptop because she doesn't understand everything I say click 'Start' then 'Shutdown' even if I show her, confuses her! She just closes the lid and it goes into standby...
Windows 7 got rid of the word, 'Start', after finally listening to the users.
I haven't used Server 2003, but heard that's very stable and great for modding into a hardcore gaming OS.
Not sure about "modding" it for a gaming OS, could you elaborate? Server 2003 is based off of a newer kernel than XP Home/Pro, the same kernel that XP X64 is based on. I've found that Server 2003 tends to run faster on the same hardware than XP Home/Pro, and it seems to feel snappier too. There are advantages and disadvantages of it versus XP though.
Server 2003 was actually design to be stable (so it could be up and running 24/7) without the additional crap Microsoft loves to add in to 'pretty' and 'slowdown' your machine. It however only has DX9 and not much graphic support so needs a bit of work. Of course there are people out that went one step more and ripped the Microsoft OS down to just 246kb memory for hardcore gaming and performance.
All Microsoft OS need to be tweaked to get quality performance.
Again, not disputing this, I'm just interested to know exactly what you mean by this.
Microsoft is bulked down in services, which are basically slow-downs and security holes, specially if you never use them. Disabling services you don't need, tweaking drivers, registry, and ripping half the junk away. It still looks the same, runs 10x faster, and has increased security and stablility. Depends how far you are willing to go, blackviper website is a good place to at least start from. My gaming computer takes around 10 secs to startup, 5 secs to shutdown, instant click start, 60FPS+ max resolution gaming. If I had a fresh install 'untweaked' OS would run a lot slower, don't put up with it!
-
My gaming computer takes around 10 secs to startup, 5 secs to shutdown, instant click start, 60FPS+ max resolution gaming. If I had a fresh install 'untweaked' OS would run a lot slower, don't put up with it!
My desktop takes only 17 seconds to turn on, about 10 seconds to turn off and has all the other things you mentioned. Oh, and it's completely untweaked and also has gone through about 7 months usage. If you are so anti-MS, why are you using an MS OS?
-
Being far less familiar with computers (and windows 95 in general) I ended up simply reformatting and going back (yet again) to windows 3.1.
I'd use 3.1 over 95 any day.
This was of course after going through about a bajillion different screens just to get Linux installed "where do you want to swap file"? how big do you want the swap partition? Should we use the Reiser-FS or the ext3 file system? What kind of questions are these for a OS that is supposed to be for "beginners"? I can understand the fact that say, Slackware or Debian has them, but Ubuntu is touted as the "easy to use" Linux distro so I find it weird that it would ask questions that it's main target user would have no clue how to answer.
That must have either been a really old version or the advanced alternate CD. Ubuntu has never asked me those kind of questions.
The only open source project that's made a lot of headway in recent years is Firefox. If somehow Ubuntu could make the same headway then it would probably have about 30% of the total market share.
Firefox had slow growth though. Linux is also growing slowly and is up near 4% market share.
Linux's greatest success is blame-shifting.
As much as I like Linux I do have to admit that a lot of blame shifting occurs.
Windows 3.1 is not "basically DOS". It's windows 3.1. It runs on top of DOS, but so does windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME.
There is a huge difference between 3.1 and DOS. 3.1 is not DOS in any form it just utilizes DOS.
Server 2003 was actually design to be stable (so it could be up and running 24/7) without the additional crap Microsoft loves to add in to 'pretty' and 'slowdown' your machine. It however only has DX9 and not much graphic support so needs a bit of work.
So? XP only has DX9 graphics, and I've never found a game I can't use (although there are a few).
-
If you are so anti-MS, why are you using an MS OS?
Good point, if you hate MS you should be using Linux not Windows.
-
Server 2003 was actually design to be stable (so it could be up and running 24/7) without the additional crap Microsoft loves to add in to 'pretty' and 'slowdown' your machine. It however only has DX9 and not much graphic support so needs a bit of work. Of course there are people out that went one step more and ripped the Microsoft OS down to just 246kb memory for hardcore gaming and performance.
Firstly, it only supports DX9 because it was released before DX10 or later versions ... still unsure what you mean by not much graphic support though, I never had issues with gaming on Server 03.
It has no less "crap" than XP, in fact it has more as server functions are obviously also present. Some services are disabled by default, such as Windows Audio, but that's not going to make a real world difference.
Microsoft is bulked down in services, which are basically slow-downs and security holes, specially if you never use them. Disabling services you don't need, tweaking drivers, registry, and ripping half the junk away. It still looks the same, runs 10x faster, and has increased security and stablility. Depends how far you are willing to go, blackviper website is a good place to at least start from. My gaming computer takes around 10 secs to startup, 5 secs to shutdown, instant click start, 60FPS+ max resolution gaming. If I had a fresh install 'untweaked' OS would run a lot slower, don't put up with it!
Again with the services ... I used to be a major subscriber to that school of thinking, that every single service caused slowdowns - the reality is, it's not noticeable. Most of the registry "tweaks" which actually do something have a major downside to them. Blackviper can be a good place to get information from, I've used it extensively.
Without full specifications and a real comparison, your last statement, while nothing to complain about, is meaningless ... if I set up a PC with, say, DOS, I'm sure it would start up, shut down etc much faster ... if I had a fully tweaked version of XP on a slow HDD, it would be very slow ... a full, fresh install of Vista with no tweaks on a blazing fast SSD would be pretty quick ... you see?
I just don't see the need for hardcore tweaking like that any more, but if it makes you feel better by all means carry on.
-
I couldn't agree more Calum...
-
I benched my computers before and after doing any tweaks.
Yes, most tweaks are un-noticable these days because people just buy faster hardware. If you have an i7 Core 3.22GHz with 8GB of DDR5 RAM and a 295GTX Nvidia graphic card of course you wouldn't tell a difference from a OS service being on or off, the difference is still one less security hole to deal with.
If your not a hardcore gamer, clean, or security concerned, no problems to ignore the issues which build up over time. Other people I know just format their computers when it becomes a slowdown, well that's the slower way but still works to a point, but even a fresh install I call slow. I'm not 100% anti-microsoft, just saying it can be so much better if tweaked.
Just like a sports car, you can maintance and continously tweak it's performance or just leave it out in the rain...
ps. I like Linux and have used it, but for gaming Microsoft has the monopoly.
-
If your not a hardcore gamer, clean, or security concerned,
If you're security concerned (or paranoid), download the right protection tools or learn how to counter-act it instead of blabbering away about how MS is a load of [insert word here].
-
I can't vote in the poll because it is absurd to me. For one thing, I can't easily recall all the details of using Win 3.1 or Win 95; that was a long time ago. Also, it doesn't make sense to me to compare products (in the computer world) from a span of ... what ... 20 years or so and ask which was the worst? Would you take a poll about cars owned over a span of decades and ask which was the worst? What sense would it make to compare cars from the 60's or earlier which had no air conditioning, no power windows, no power mirrors, no power door locks, not even power steering, not even power brakes, etc., to cars from the 90's and later and ask which was worst?
When I had Win 3.1, I thought it was better than just using DOS. When Win 95 came out, I liked it better than Win 3.1. When Win 98 (I had the SE version) came out, I liked it better than Win 95. And so forth, going up through the various versions of Windows, with the exception of Win Me (which I never owned but know enough about it to know I'm glad I did not own it). Currently, I have Win XP Pro SP3, Win Vista Home Premium SP2, and Win 7 Ultimate. While I like Win 7 more than Vista, I'm not inclined, at least not now, to buy a Win 7 upgrade for my Vista laptop system. And, I'll never upgrade my Win XP system; it's running older hardware and, since Microsoft is continuing extended support up through sometime in 2014, I expect I'll be keeping that computer for some years yet.
I believe I can say, as a general statement, that I experienced greater stability with the later versions of Windows, mainly from XP and later (never owned Win 2K so might include that one here, too) compared to the Win "9x" series. Regarding features of the various versions, making a transition to a newer version with a positive attitude usually requires some willingness to allow some time to get familiar with it. Many of us probably dislike some of the changes from older versions to newer versions. BC_Programmer mentioned the Control Panel in Vista and 7 as being less user-friendly than in XP; I agree with that; I like using the Classic view of Control Panel in XP.
-
I benched my computers before and after doing any tweaks.[/quite]
Any results? I'm genuinely interested to see the difference as I never actually did this.
-
If your not a hardcore gamer, clean, or security concerned,
If you're security concerned (or paranoid), download the right protection tools or learn how to counter-act it instead of blabbering away about how MS is a load of [insert word here].
I never said MS is a load of ... stop reading my mind! lol and yes I do counter-act and have protection tools in place.
I benched my computers before and after doing any tweaks.
Any results? I'm genuinely interested to see the difference as I never actually did this.
What bench marks are you after?
I'm sure I'll get bit for sharing my personal report (but I've never cared what the sharkies think).
I've done a collection of them over WinXP Pro 32bit, Win Vista Premium 64bit, and Win7 Ulimate 64bit mostly. All on the same machine, same hardware.
The overall results actually ended up with WinXP Pro winning gaming performance wise and it was the most tweakable too increasing performance 35% over the original install. Of course you can't really compare 32bit to a 64bit OS though so I got a 64bit version too (I had access to all as my dad won a year MSDN subscription). WinXP Pro 32bit SP3 is still my favourite for a gaming machine.
WinXP won by an average of 10-12fps. WinXP also won the least memory used.
Win7 Ulimate is my favourite graphic wise and for applications. Slower than the WinXP tweaked, it's not as customisable, but still 12% increase from original install.
Win Vista was the worst performer out of the three in my review. But also not tweaked as much as either of the other two.
Crysis (1680x1050, AAx4, High, DirectX10, modded)...
WinXP: Gives max 128.96fps, avg 109.06fps, min 44.84fps
Crysis running on WinXP DirectX10 (faked, DirectX9 pipe though) at max resolution is much faster on Very High (with mods) but on other settings, similar than the other OS or 10-12fps increase.
WinVista: Gives max 120.07fps, avg 92fps, min 45.02fps
DX10 is not what drops frame rate, but yet Vista doesn't play Crysis as well and is the most RAM hog.
Win7: Gives max 126.12fps, avg 99.25fps, min 46.84fps.
Note that Vista and Win7 min is a bit higher which is good.
World In Conflict (Maxed @ 1680x1050)
WinXP (64bit): max 143fps, avg 65fps, min 34fps
WinVista (64bit): max 82fps, avg 41fps, min 13fps
X3 Terran Conflict (Maxed Resolution)
XP64: Min FPS - 12, Max FPS - 197, Avg FPS - 65.4
VS64: Min FPS - 16, Max FPS - 196, Avg FPS - 77.030
In OpenGL and CPU Intensive testing Windows XP handles them much better than the other two operating systems.
Crystalmark (higher score is better)
XP: 197395 / Tweaked: 198154
Vista: 185769 / Tweaked: 185772
Win7: 181032 / Tweaked: 181091
Super Pi (lower score of time is better)
XP: 18.01 / Tweaked: 16.92
Vista: 18.04 / Tweaked: 17.09
Win7: 17.43 / Tweaked: 17.10
Video Conversion (lower time is better)
XP: 11.1 / Tweaked: 9.7
Vista: 11.31 / Tweaked: 10.21
Win7: 11.16 / Tweaked: 10.13
3D Mark (higher score is better)
XP: 16313 / Tweaked: 16601
Vista: 15171 / Tweaked: 15342
Win7: 15381 / Tweaked: 15428
Cinebench (higher score is better)
XP: 3304 / 4790 / 11723
Vista: 3272 / 3767 / 11281
Win7: 3312 / 4071 / 11729
Cache and Memory (lower the better)
XP: 32.6 / 152.6
Vista 31.7 / 161.2
Win7: 33 / 156.7
CPU Arithmetic (higher the better)
XP: 44.12 / 47.68 / 51.24
Vista: 39 / 47 / 55
Win7: 39.79 / 47.47 / 55.15
Multi-Core Processing (higher the better)
XP: 16.14 / 44
Vista: 15.14 / 38
Win7: 16.48 / 44
-
Would you take a poll about cars owned over a span of decades and ask which was the worst?
Good analogy.
I've used a number of different operating systems, other than windows, and going from one windows OS to another is one of the easiest transitions you can make.
-
I can't vote in the poll because it is absurd to me. For one thing, I can't easily recall all the details of using Win 3.1 or Win 95; that was a long time ago. Also, it doesn't make sense to me to compare products (in the computer world) from a span of ... what ... 20 years or so and ask which was the worst? Would you take a poll about cars owned over a span of decades and ask which was the worst? What sense would it make to compare cars from the 60's or earlier which had no air conditioning, no power windows, no power mirrors, no power door locks, not even power steering, not even power brakes, etc., to cars from the 90's and later and ask which was worst?
No obviously you can't directly compare WinXP to 3.1 but which did you find the least usefull at the time you had the software. I will always say that my Windows ME machine was the best (pre-IE 5 or 6 version, I forget which). Nowadays such a machine would be near useless but I found that OS to be the most satisfactory at the time. On the other hand I hated XP when it was released because of it's general lack of support for everything (times have changed now), nowadays I get on well with it, but Vista gave me much more trouble hence why it gets my vote.
And yes. Yes I would make a poll about cars spanning the decades. For example if you had the choice of a 1961 Jaguar E-Type & a 2006 Jaguar X150 you would go for the E-Type because it was the better car.
-
I have zero issues on my Vista machine ...and it runs 24/7...
Never understood all the Vista angst myself...
Actually most people who state Vista suxx used it for less than 3 days and moved on.
-
You'll be glad to know then that I used Vista for 2-3 months on PC and nearly 2 years on laptop (trialing on Win7 now) and I still think it sucks.
-
Windows Vista, blech. Windows ME second. "Miserable Edition"
Did you hear that it blue screen'd right behind Bill Gates as he was saying it was the most stable OS yet? :rofl:
-
Did you hear that it blue screen'd right behind Bill Gates as he was saying it was the most stable OS yet? :rofl:
I think that was windows 98 First Edition, and a prerelease version at that.
-
Microsoft's most successful program is the Blue Screen of Death! Can't diss them on that one.
Can you guess what Bill Gates favourite colour is? BLUE! Gotta show it off.
Bill Gates, Windows 98, Blue Screen of Death:
During a showing of a Windows 98 beta by Bill Gates at COMDEX in April 20, 1998 an incident occurred in which a BSoD displayed in front of the public. The demo computer crashed with a BSoD when his assistant (Chris Capossela, who is still working for Microsoft as Corporate VP in the Information Working business unit) connected a scanner to the PC, trying to demonstrate Windows 98's support for Plug and Play devices. This event brought applause from the crowd and Gates replied after a pause: "That must be why we're not shipping Windows 98 yet."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW7Rqwwth84 ;D
Can anyone say 'Plug n Pray' ?
-
That was still pretty good, Considering Windows was the only PC Operating System to support USB at all until 2002 (that means, that windows had full USB support for nearly 4 releases ( 98, 98SE, ME,2000,XP)- (and, that's not counting 95 OSR2) before anybody else had even basic functionality, when Linux devs finally decided it might be "fun" to write the driver (since that seems to be the main thing they consider when adding new feature, how fun it will be to write... not that I blame them, they don't usually get paid for their volunteer efforts). At which point it became possible to maybe get USB working if you were very lucky and were well versed in managing core kernel modules.
Just hope you didn't have a conflict with another driver, or else you get the fun "kernel panic"
Of course, you don't hear as much about the Linux Kernel Panic as you do the BSOD, even though they are both caused by the exact same conditions- That's because people using Linux are well aware that it's caused by a driver or hardware device.
That being said, the USB and other plug and play features of both Windows and Linux are nearly the same these days.
-
That was still pretty good, Considering Windows was the only PC Operating System to support USB at all until 2002 (that means, that windows had full USB support for nearly 4 releases ( 98, 98SE, ME,2000,XP)- (and, that's not counting 95 OSR2) before anybody else had even basic functionality...
Windows 98 (first edition) did not have full USB support. It had the same support as 95 OSR2. Windows 98SE added full USB (Plug & Play) support.
But yah they did have upper hand back then with the USB support.
when Linux devs finally decided it might be "fun" to write the driver (since that seems to be the main thing they consider when adding new feature, how fun it will be to write... not that I blame them, they don't usually get paid for their volunteer efforts). At which point it became possible to maybe get USB working if you were very lucky and were well versed in managing core kernel modules.
Hmmm, and why would they be so far behind in adding USB support. The answer is simple: Linux was not a mainstream OS in the 90's. It was an OS for geeks and computer hobbyists. It was only near 2000-2002 that the average users actually began seeing Linux as an alternative to Windows.
-
Windows 98 (first edition) did not have full USB support. It had the same support as 95 OSR2. Windows 98SE added full USB (Plug & Play) support.
Yes, Actually, it did. you just needed a driver for most devices, and it didn't support all the class-based devices at first. The only reason most devices don't work on 98 FE and 95 OSR2 is simply because it added another scenario for manufacturers to test. Aside from that, both the original release of win98 as well as 95 OSR2 had a fully functional USB stack and drivers for OHCI bus devices.
Hmmm, and why would they be so far behind in adding USB support. The answer is simple: Linux was not a mainstream OS in the 90's. It was an OS for geeks and computer hobbyists. It was only near 2000-2002 that the average users actually began seeing Linux as an alternative to Windows.
umm...
Excuses. First, I'm pretty sure computer geeks and hobbyists would be the <first> type of user who would want to see and use a new connection technology.
-
Looking at related videos, I DID know about that 'secret' clock video (C:\WINDOWS\clock.avi). What were they going to use it for? ???
-
They use c:\windows\clock.avi in the demonstration tutorial:
HOWTO: Play an .AVI Video File in Full Screen in Visual Basic
-
Looking at related videos, I DID know about that 'secret' clock video (C:\WINDOWS\clock.avi). What were they going to use it for? ???
it's a short demonstration of VFW (Video For Windows). It was included with the "Video for windows" package for windows 3.0 and 3.1, IIRC.
-
Is that clock.avi still on modern windows? The last time I saw it was Win98 I think.
-
Is that clock.avi still on modern windows? The last time I saw it was Win98 I think.
Doesn't seem to be in the default installs of most Windows Operating Systems:
Windows 95: Not Present.
Windows 98SE: Not Present.
Windows ME: Not Present.
Windows 2000 SP4: 12/07/1999 5:00 AM 82,944 bytes
Windows XP: Not Present.
Not sure why it's only on the w2k install. I think I installed and uninstalled Office 2000 on that VM, but I'm not sure. My 7 install on my desktop has several older AVI files in the C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\COMMON\GRAPHICS\VIDEOS folder, and some of them count down and up, but none of them look like clock.avi.
I'm fairly certain it's a sample that came with some set of multimedia drivers or a package- like the skiing video that came with windows 3.1's VFW package. (maybe that had clock.avi, I dunno)
-
I really do hate the new interface in Vista-7
I don't see why the hating on ME, I LOVED ME it was my favourite win OS of all time it really seemed stable on my system, and at the time had amazing eye candy. Took me til '05 to use XP.
Right now, I use XP with a uxtheme patch and luna element 5 black, which IMO is more stylish than Aero by miles. I always hateed Vista and refuse to upgrade because I have used windows since 3.1 at age 10 and in that time there never seems to have been a bigger jump in the GUI!
I know both DOS and the old 9x inside out and know XP to an expert level, why change the UI at all?
Vista IMO is awkward and 7 is plain ugly! How is it an OS released in '01 can still, to this day, be made to look better?!?!?
Look at the taskbar in 7, is it me or is that an awful, awful step back?
-
I really do hate the new interface in Vista-7
here have a gold star.
I don't see why the hating on ME, I LOVED ME it was my favourite win OS of all time it really seemed stable on my system, and at the time had amazing eye candy. Took me til '05 to use XP.
ME is windows 9x made to pretend it's not based on DOS. it takes the best thing about 9x (the fact that you can boot to DOS to fix major issues) and removes it for no good reason. Aside from that, it's pretty much Windows 98SE with a few accessories thrown in. 95/98/ME are hardly "stable" unless you restart them at least once a day.
Right now, I use XP with a uxtheme patch and luna element 5 black, which IMO is more stylish than Aero by miles.
Of course you are allowed your own opinion. Never seen Luna element 5 black *does image search*..
Now I am truly confused. Luna Element 5 is clearly emulating the Aero Basic style, and yet you say it's more stylish then it. It's certainly less customizable, either way.
I always hateed Vista and refuse to upgrade
That's like saying, "I hate the ukraine and refuse to live there" you have no barometer to hate an Operating System if you don't use it on a daily basis. using it for an afternoon or for ten minutes in a year is hardly a sound statistic.
because I have used windows since 3.1 at age 10 and in that time there never seems to have been a bigger jump in the GUI!
1. DOS->Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.1 to Windows 3.0
3. Windows 3.1 to Windows 4.0 (95). the same style is used in windows 95, 98, 98se, NT 4, NT5 (2000), and XP.
4. -> XP's "Luna" which is just uxtheme.dll. It doesn't actually revamp very much, just seems to like putting gradients everywhere and pissing people with 4-bit displays off.
I know both DOS and the old 9x inside out and know XP to an expert level
I've programmed for DOS, windows 3.1, 9x, and NT. The "shifts" in programming each environment hardly match with visble changes.
DOS-> Windows was of course at it's core a paradigm shift. from "program determinate state" (program tells you what you can do) to "user determinate" (push a button, and you receive a message).
Switching from 16-bit to 32-bit windows was rather simplistic, just a few name changes, and a few minor caveats.
The biggest shift ever was switching to NT. function names were changes, some were removed. Core process enumeration and other functions were completely changed at the base level. Security was enhanced so your program couldn't just stomp about in memory as it pleased.
The Switch from XP to Vista/7 was pretty simple. For me I just add a manifest to my programs and forget about it. poof, magical NT6 compatibility. That and a small class for dealing with UAC and requesting elevation for those actions that require it.
why change the UI at all?
Because people have been complaining about it for years.
Vista IMO is awkward and 7 is plain ugly! How is it an OS released in '01 can still, to this day, be made to look better?!?!?
That is all in your opinion.
Look at the taskbar in 7, is it me or is that an awful, awful step back?
It's just you. I don't see how anybody who understands windows history could claim it was a step back. it looks nothing like the windows 9x taskbar which is what you imply by saying that.
-
Vista... But it's not really that bad because after some tweaks vista can work flawlessly too. Downside is that most people don't know how to do this so yeah.
-
Yeah, after some major tweaks anything can work flawlessly - I couldn't agree with you more!
Just rip half of it out and entirely recreate the core and your got yourself one awesome gaming Vista OS! ;D
-
Look at the taskbar in 7, is it me or is that an awful, awful step back?
It is a step back, but not as bad as you make it out to be. It was a small mistake that M$ made while trying to play keep-up with Apple.
-
A link for those who want to start bashing Win 7: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Sins-Bad-Vista-6-1-120095.shtml
Personally, I think Windows 7 is okay. It'll never get me away from Ubuntu Linux, but it is a fine system (a lot better than Vista) for general use besides it's new inferior taskbar.
-
I think anyone who hates/dislikes any OS is going to do so regardless of taste. common sense and/or functionality......
-
Ubuntu is to Linux what a Plush bear is to a grizzly. An overtly optimistic rendition of something that should be dealt with carefully.
It is a step back, but not as bad as you make it out to be. It was a small mistake that M$ made while trying to play keep-up with Apple.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2008/11/20/happy-anniversary-windows-on-the-evolution-of-the-taskbar.aspx
First off, note a specific quote in that blog entry, it's the caption for an image of the new taskbar:
Fig 2. The Windows 7 taskbar: Default settings include large icons, no text and glass surface
Now, for those who don't like this new taskbar and think it's a step back, allow me to highlight some keywords:
Fig 2. The Windows 7 taskbar: Default settings include large icons, no text and glass surface
That's right. Default settings. It's not a forced change. Personally, I prefer both small icons and title bar captions, not to mention a little bit more vertical space. So I did the unthinkable.
I changed the default options.
I know. Who does this? Apparently not people who like to complain about the defaults, that's for sure. Because despite them saying they want windows to be more customizable and the fact that they can easily change or revert options to suite their needs using that customizability they instead prefer to complain about it.
And then of course the Linux zealots will jump at any chance to use their "cool" words like "M$" and "Microshaft" all the while having absolutely no idea what they are talking about and running a toy Linux OS that is clearly trying to emulate windows, despite Linux Zealots constant proclamations of "LOL MICROSHAFT IS JUS COPYIN APPEL!!ELEVENTY".
First off, I'd like to state my "view" here. Nobody is copying anybody. That statement is the biggest load of crap I ever heard. Microsoft is not "lifting" actual code from Apple, nor did apple lift Actual code from the SPARC (or did they? damned if I remember, I don't think so)
The funny part is that the people debating who copied who and what they copied have no idea how bloody ridiculous they sound. It would be like people who use top loading and front loading washing machines arguing about who created the first front loader and saying that Company B copied Company A's "idea" to have a top loading machine, all the while sticking by their personal favourite (neither of which has any clear superiorities) and defending it tooth and nail, and even having arguments amongst themselves over the best detergent to pair with top and front loaders and also threatening violence against their mothers if they don't agree on which agitator works best on port stains.
And of course, we can see the obvious. It's a god damned washing machine, right? a Tool for washing clothes. It doesn't matter. But the analogy does. That's exactly what is happening when people argue incessantly about Operating Systems, Programming languages (http://bc-programming.com/blogs/wp-admin/post.php?post=120&action=edit), and even argue amongst their BLOODY SELVES over which specific implementation of a Graphical environment is the best (this is of course more constrained to Linux, where you get to choose between KDE or GNOME, both of which blow goats since XFCE is clearly superior*, people will even argue about memory allocation and bloody Language semantics (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2010/08/13/10049634.aspx). It's not because they truly believe that X is better then Y, but because they would benefit if X was better then Y.
As far as programming language debates are concerned, most people will argue that programming language A is better then B. what makes this interesting is that almost entirely the people arguing for Language A use it and the people arguing about Language B also use it. Therefore they aren't really arguing over which language is better, but they are locking horns to try to say who is smarter, since clearly if they can determine which language is "better" they will know which side was more intelligent in their choices. The same goes for Operating Systems. Windows users will defend windows because it's what they know, and Linux zealots saying "anybody who uses windows is a moron" don't exactly make them want to embrace Linux. That was in fact where I used this quote:
whenever you approach a topic with the attitude that everyone you're addressing is a moron whose current opinion doesn't matter, you lose. It doesn't matter if everyone you're addressing *is* a moron. Very few people can keep an open mind about a topic after you've insulted them.
And it was this very specific type of bullcrap that this was listed against. Just because a person uses Windows doesn't make them a moron, for one thing, and second, calling them a moron is hardly a good way of converting them. Saying "your a moron unless you use X" just demonstrates that you have no better argument. I've also seen more then one conversation go something like this:
A:I want to use OS A, but will I be able to do Y and Z like I can do with OS B?
B:Yes, you will. in fact OS A does Y a lot better then OS B.
A:But what about Z? Can I still do Z?
B:Well, it's won't be as easy, but it also let's you do Q, Y and T a lot easier too.
A: But I don't care about Q Y and T. I've never even heard of Q and Y. I just want to do Y and Z.
B: Then stick with your O$ B, moron. Nobody should need Z. Anybody who does is stupid.
Now tell me, what the *censored* is this? A asks a few questions about OS A and wants straight answers, B is acting like a god damned salesman here. He's not trying to SELL OS A, he should be giving factual information about the applicability of OS B in A's situation. If it can't do Z, then tell them. Calling them a moron because they need a feature of another OS and then saying that that feature is stupid and nobody needs it who isn't stupid either. Because, you know, calling people stupid is a sure way to get new recruits. "OH! thank you so much kind arrogant stranger for informing me of my deficiency in IQ, I shall now do your bidding" is hardly going to be the response. A and B hardly need to be operating Systems. I've seen people argue (AFK) about wether coke or Pepsi is better. I mean... even the worst expletive can not represent my contempt for these people. It's SUGAR+WATER. WHO THE *censored* CARES. They do, and you know why? Human nature. subconciously (or maybe even conciously) they think, "oh, I use/Drink/eat product A, It's competition is Product B, because I am smart, I must be using the best one of the two, therefore product A is clearly better. And then sometimes they will take attacks on product A as a personal attack on their intelligence. Adding explicit statements about how far they were dropped on their head as a baby is hardly a good way to change their mind. It would be like going up to somebody, saying, "I want to be your friend. I will help you" and then stabbing them and yelling "your MOTHER WAS A *censored*!" and running away. Hardly a good way to make friends, trust me, I know from experience. :-X.
To summarize:
I think anyone who hates/dislikes any OS is going to do so regardless of taste. common sense and/or functionality......
* Not really. That was my attempt at satirizing the whole "OMG I USE THE BEST IMPLEMENTATION" crap, which applies to nearly everything, everywhere.
-
Front loading washers are clearly superior...
No matter what detergent is used...
-
Creates a new OS, Microshaft Winblows with the all new web-browser Internet Exploder to sell for millions to the anti-microsoft people! ;D
... aww, what do you mean it's already been done and is copyrighted?
-
Front loading washers are clearly superior...
No matter what detergent is used...
NONSENSE! If you don't realize the obvious benefits of top-loaders, then you are clearly a moron! :P
-
I would say vista for the sole reason that it was ahead of its time and windows expected for computer users to have high end hardware to comply with Vista's (bottomless appetite for resources) But once you do get the right hardware for the os i think that its not that bad at all. acutaly it's prbably the third best window's operating system that (I've) used after Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows XP Professional.
-
Why are you resurrecting threads from 5 months ago?
-
Why are you resurrecting threads from 5 months ago?
Sorry bout that i just saw it in a search and though about posting in it. But as soon as i posted, I remembered about this thread and that I previously posted in it. Sorry, is there something or a rule that doesn't allow us to revive old threads? just asking out of curiosity. No sarcasm or anything related to that.
-
Not a rule as such, it's just considered bad forum etiquette. Not a big deal.
-
Not a rule as such, it's just considered bad forum etiquette. Not a big deal.
Alright, sorry bout that.