Vista Sucks, Windows 7 Rocks

[Mulreay]

I'm so glad your here to tell me that... 

[Sinistalker]

Wow.....this topic isn't at all about win Vista vs. 7, it's about a bunch of ***holes that need to feel superior so they just bash each other, more accurately, they team bash the ones who feel differently. Ok you all like Vista, and to be more fair, if I understand correctly, your "concern" is not that Vista is better, but that people who disagree are not providing evidence. Guess what. You didn't start this thread. Someone who feels 7 is better did. That means this thread is about thinking 7 is good and Vista sucks. The poster of this thread is not required to appease you or present arguments that will be up to the standards that you require to end your assault on this thread.
We get it. You are U83R 1337 and you LOOOOVVVVEEEEE Vista and anyone who doesn't is a caveman. Vista is the wave of the future!!! If you don't like it, you're afraid of change!!! .......tell me.........why would someone afraid of something new prefer Windows 7 (a NEWer windows) to Vista ( a less new Windows) further more, if Vista is so great, Why did Microsoft act so quickly after Vista to release 7. We all know Windows 7 is SIMILAR to Vista. As a previous poster mentioned, (paraphrasing) Vista to 7 is like 98 to 98SE........you know another time Microsoft quickly released a new Windows that was similar to the previous version? ME and XP.....what's that?.....noone has been talking about ME? that's right cause ME SUCKED and that's why they put out XP......to right the wrong.......like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists.

For the sake of appeasement. I will state the following. I am an XP fan. My 1 GB RAM system runs faster and smoother (runs = loading windows, applications, Firefox, streaming video, all media players) than my Vista system with 4GB RAM......now I have not mentioned the CPU's so, surely you'll jump to that fact and spend a lengthy post implying my lack of intelligence due to it, Surely every problem I have encountered (Video plugins crashing, choppy video, choppy audio, mouse halting, applications crashing at startup) will be chalked up to either my CPU or my mistreatment of my system.  So for that, feel free. As far as mistreatment, I regularly disk cleanup, defrag, clear caches, and this Vista system was just within the past 3 weeks reformatted, Vista reinstalled, Drivers, codecs, etc updated, everything put to it's most current configuration, optimized vitals (such as Virtual Memory, Hardware acceleration, etc.) and it is still the gimp horse in comparison to my XP system.

My point, the thread was started by someone who feels one way for the reasons stated. If you disagree, fine. Don't feel he presented his case well? That's fine too. You want to bash him and anyone who agrees with him and try to pound your opinion in as the correct logical choice? Get bent. Noone cares. Moderator or not. As far as the Moderators who participate in the assault on the founder of this thread, you are a joke. The only thing you can apparently moderate is how hard to squeeze when loving yourself, because you OBVIOUSLY love yourself.
There, now I have resorted to personal, unfounded, off-topic stabs. On that note I am done. Good day. XP, YAY!

[patio]

Wow.....this topic isn't at all about win Vista vs. 7, it's about a bunch of ***holes that need to feel superior so they just bash each other, more accurately, they team bash the ones who feel differently.

Then:

My point, the thread was started by someone who feels one way for the reasons stated. If you disagree, fine. Don't feel he presented his case well? That's fine too. You want to bash him and anyone who agrees with him and try to pound your opinion in as the correct logical choice? Get bent. Noone cares. Moderator or not. As far as the Moderators who participate in the assault on the founder of this thread, you are a joke. The only thing you can apparently moderate is how hard to squeeze when loving yourself, because you OBVIOUSLY love yourself.
There, now I have resorted to personal, unfounded, off-topic stabs. On that note I am done. Good day. XP, YAY!

Looks like you have illustrated your callous definition of others...

[mroilfield]

Then:

Looks like you have illustrated your callous definition of others...

Lets not forget that he did in a thread that was over a year old and started by someone that isn't a member any more. 

[BC_Programmer]

Actually I sometimes wonder how people even find these ancient threads. I know when I was starting out I would often go astray into the depths of the forum pages and end up replying to an ancient post and then Homer would yell at me... but I don't think I went back to threads that were an entire year old. I'm thinking maybe a google search somehow turned this up as a result?

Whatever happened to "Homer" anyway?

tell me.........why would someone afraid of something new prefer Windows 7 (a NEWer windows) to Vista ( a less new Windows) further more, if Vista is so great, Why did Microsoft act so quickly after Vista to release 7. We all know Windows 7 is SIMILAR to Vista. As a previous poster mentioned, (paraphrasing) Vista to 7 is like 98 to 98SE........you know another time Microsoft quickly released a new Windows that was similar to the previous version? ME and XP.....what's that?.....noone has been talking about ME? that's right cause ME SUCKED and that's why they put out XP......to right the wrong.......like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists.

Better marketing? or, in this case, because everybody and their dog heard "stories" about Vista, so many avoided it; but Win7 isn't Vista, so they blithely ignore the warnings as unapplicable, even though  they are the same Major Version. And then of course Win7 works out fine for them, and they say "it works a lot better then Vista"... despite... "having NEVER used Vista before"...

ME was released in September 2000, XP RTM was released a little over a year later; but really they had no intention of following the consumer line (9x/ME) after ME; it was all about Whistler, in fact that's partly why ME wasn't so great (although to be honest I never had any trouble with it... aside from it stripping out the useful diagnostic stuff like boot to command prompt/MS-DOS mode); they were focusing on NT and not the 9x codebase so basically ME was a stopgap measure to try to squeeze a bit of blood from the ailing stone that was the 9x codebase before it was retired; this is also why the XP features that ME had were more polished in XP; system restore, for example. Additionally, Microsoft didn't scramble and work on windows 7 in the interceding year; they had been developed concurrently, with Longhorn being the Vista release and blackcomb becoming win7 In fact Win7 was in development as a separate fork as far back as 2003 or so if Osterman is to be believed.; I think, that in some sense, because of the relatively long period of time between consumer Operating systems between XP and Vista (what was it, 8 years? whereas before they usually release in 1-3 year increments), consumers had a bloated expectations that were popped by a rusty nail when it was revealed that Windows Vista was...

simply another version of windows and not the cure for Cancer . After 8 years though nothing short of a miracle is likely to cause user satisfaction.

I predict something very similar may be experienced by some when GearBox releases their version of DNF. At least it will be done though. Although I think the jokes will remain.

My point, the thread was started by someone who feels one way for the reasons stated. If you disagree, fine. Don't feel he presented his case well? That's fine too. You want to bash him and anyone who agrees with him and try to pound your opinion in as the correct logical choice? Get bent.

If somebody feels like presenting a case-by case rebuttal of their reasoning, I don't see how that directly translates as an assault. From my perspective it was a discussion. Points are rebutted with counter-points and those counter-points are further refuted. And so on and so forth; ideally a discussion of this nature should get all sides thinking about their stance as well as perhaps understanding the other side at least to some degree; In any case, though, anybody who get's their *censored* in a twist over a Windows Operating System needs to give their head a shake. Everybody knows Linux is the best anyway, and there is no use debating who comes in second. 

[reddevilggg]

Seem to me that a collection of idiots newbies are joining this site just to do absolutely NOTHING except argue. Me thinks most of these idiots newbies are the same people, re-joining.

If somebody feels like presenting a case-by case rebuttal of their reasoning, I don't see how that directly translates as an assault. From my perspective it was a discussion. Points are rebutted with counter-points and those counter-points are further refuted. And so on and so forth; ideally a discussion of this nature should get all sides thinking about their stance as well as perhaps understanding the other side at least to some degree; In any case, though, anybody who get's their *censored* in a twist over a Windows Operating System needs to give their head a shake. Everybody knows Linux is the best anyway, and there is no use debating who comes in second. 

The voice of reason, nuff said 

[Mulreay]

Everybody knows Linux is the best anyway, and there is no use debating who comes in second. 

You take that back!! 

[Sinistalker]

(I have removed this post)

[Sinistalker]

Are you a parrot?

It's not harder, it's probably just more inconvenient. OF course when you have the hand-eye coordination of a dead weasel it's no surprise things get frustrating.

These are not case by case rebuttles of a discussion, these, in fact, have very little to do with the argument presented by the OP.

I just don't think you appreciate how many times we have argued this out in numerous threads. The argument is getting very very old.

This is where my point about don't like it, don't touch it comes in. If the convo is getting so old, why did you bother to post?

I will admit I had not realized how old this thread was. If I had I wouldn't have bothered. 

[reddevilggg]

I will admit I had not realized how old this thread was. If I had I wouldn't have bothered. 

...........and yet, here you are again. With nothing to say except a represntation of your own negativity. [yawn].


 What name are you going to re-join with next week?

[spock]

When Win 7 came out I was skeptical of everyone here that it was as good as they said it was (much to the ire of the moderator). Now that I'm using it, I love it! Windows finally got it right! I don't see how it can much be improved upon.

[BC_Programmer]

These are not case by case rebuttles of a discussion, these, in fact, have very little to do with the argument presented by the OP.

ACtually, it was. a reply to "It is harder to align Windows in half in Vista than on Windows 7". It's not harder- it's just more inconvenient. That's a fact. Additionally, their note was more highlighting the new features of the OS; it would be like saying that it's easier to perform a system restore using XP then it was in windows98, which is sort of self-evident being that Win98 didn't have system restore.

This is where my point about don't like it, don't touch it comes in.

translation: "if you don't agree with everybody in the thread about everything they say, you shouldn't post". Nonsense. Besides this point is irrelevant. When an opinion is presented as a fact, that's what I have a problem with. It's the difference between, say, Allan's post of "I happen to think that Vista is an excellent OS" as opposed to saying "Vista is an excellent OS" the second is a statement of universal fact, whereas the first is their own opinion; the latter is something open to argue, the former is not. The original post simply lists a bunch of opinions, very few of which are based on any sort of fact and most of which stem from affect bias and appeals to tradition. If somebody doesn't like Vista, I of course have no problem personally with them using XP, or Windows 7; I really don't care. It's when they list these personal opinions as fact with no substantiation that I have issue with. Much like Linux users declaring that "Windoze sucks" as if they have some sort of inside track to knowledge and are delivering their messages to use lowly vermin, then they wonder why we don't worship Stallman.

that's right cause ME SUCKED and that's why they put out XP......to right the wrong.......like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists.

First you say "ME SUCKED". Alright- then you go on... but, you never actually explain how ME sucked. You just state it as fact; it's not, it's an opinion, and yours is that ME sucked. Myself, I think the entire 9x line was pretty bad... then again, I feel that way about any monolithic kernel. So in a sense, I do agree. I haven't had any more problems with ME then I had with Windows 98 or 95 though, so I cannot say that ME sucked any more then them, personally (aside from the fact that they removed the DOS prompt stuff, which was why I avoided it as much as I could) but then you say "like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists." As if it is fact. It's not. Windows 7 would exist regardless of their "reasoning" to put out XP(which was more akin to "release a new version and advance the codebase" then any of the common misperception of "well, they must have done it because of X" nonsense, which is pure speculation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's follow this through; let's start off and assume what you say is true; that XP was released to "right the wrong" that was ME.

First problem: why did they change the entire architecture? if ME was the wrong, then clearly going back to a architecture akin to windows 98SE would be how they would "right" the wrong. But they didn't; how does merging the consumer and workstation editions of the same product (Windows) equate to "righting the wrong" that was the previous version? if they had done that without releasing ME, would they have been "righting the wrong" that was 98 or 2000?

Additionally you assert that Windows 7 exists because XP was released? but I think I'm misinterpreting it and you are saying windows 7 was released to right the wrong of Vista.

Now, what makes that particularly interesting is that most people claim that windows 7 being released so "close after" windows Vista is "proof" that it was released to right the "mistake" of Vista.... but it wasn't released close after Vista; Vista went RTM in 2006, windows 7 was released in 2009; that's three years. By that same logic we could say that almost every other version of windows was released to right the "wrongs" of the version before it, and of course such a line of logic would be easy to construct if you can simply assert that such "wrongs" exist without actually explaining what those "wrongs" are. Windows 7 is the same as Vista, aside from some tweaks to Aero and a few other tweaks to a few other things. They also tossed in a few tools and a couple other bones that are easier to advertise on the cover art. Aside from that, the core of the OS is the same. Which is fine; if people like the look and feel of Windows 7 as compared to Windows Vista, that's alright. But the thing is, about 90% of the people declaring the greatness of Win7 and how it "fixed the wrong" that was Windows Vista don't realize that Windows 7 doesn't reduce the amount of eye candy that those same people complained about being superfluous before, but also that it's basically the same; almost all of the complaints first launched against Vista in defense of XP (why an operating system by a billion dollar successful corporation needs defending is beyond me) are still perfectly valid for Windows 7; the only thing that was different between 2009 and 2006 is the fact- (and it is an indisputable fact) that PCs in 2009 were a lot more powerful, a lot cheaper, and on the whole a lot more capable of running Windows 7 when it was released; so, when people bought Windows 7 preinstalled on a computer, things were better. This can also be attributed to the fact that MS changed exactly what OEMs were allowed to do with a preinstalled version of Windows; the main cause of slowness with new Vista PCs was the OEM preloaded software; compare a Laptop that came preloaded with Windows Vista in 2006 with a newer laptop that came preloaded with Windows 7 and there is a marked decrease in crap that is installed.

[reddevilggg]

The Voice of Reason strikes again. I love your replies BC, but i am now strangely looking forward to see the trash that Sinistalker (or whatever he calls himself this week) replies with.

[Allan]

The Voice of Reason strikes again. I love your replies BC, but i am now strangely looking forward to see the trash that Sinistalker (or whatever he calls himself this week) replies with.

No need to instigate.

[BC_Programmer]

The Voice of Reason strikes again. I love your replies BC, but i am now strangely looking forward to see the trash that Sinistalker (or whatever he calls himself this week) replies with.

I am finding this topic amusing more then anything now, particularly because they essentially said they can't believe we get so worked up about it, meanwhile I don't recall anybody else swearing or using unnecessarily strong language in their approval or disapproval of anything in this topic, so the person that is indeed most worked up would be themselves.

Their lack of any factual information and basing conclusions and arguments on entirely false information, such as saying that XP was similar to ME, despite them being about as similar as as a kangaroo is to a jumping spider. Sure, they both jump, but that's where the similarities end. It makes their explanations/reasoning seem more like ad hoc hypotheses.