vista sucks. OMGORZLESSS

[Supreme_Being]

so i'm trying to fix this old laptop of mine. it's an HP dv2125nr. the control panel just won't open, the personalize button too. this is shitty as hell. Never would've got this on my mac. vista can go fuck itself and die. :toast

[marini martini]

So where did your Mac go???????:nerd

[Supreme_Being]

Well, I'm typing on it right now. My Vista shitbox is right beside it.

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/5962/dsc00279pu7.jpg

[marini martini]

So wtf did you buy a Vista, if you have the all powerful Mac? And are you sure your hall closet has enough juice to run the both of them????:lol

[Supreme_Being]

I bought to run some windows-only apps. :-) No, they're both running on batteries! hahaha

[Sense]

I got a dv9830
running vista..
but since it has 4 gig ram im not having trouble at all with it.. I guess time will tell

[phyzik]

Vista is a POS... I work in I/T so Im pretty educated with it.

First of all MS went in the right direction but they still screwed up. With Vista they tried to do what Linux has been doing for years.... Actively use RAM thats not being used. The problem is that Vista uses up ALL the RAM you have and distributes as it see's necessary. Linux does this way better... Wondows tries to "predict" wtf you are doing instead of just giving it to you.

I dont want to get too much into it but if you are in anyway familiar with computers... Vista= Windos ME....


Wait for the next Windows.

[Cry Havoc]

I have 4 gigs of RAM... Vista never slows down... handles everything like a beast.

[PixelPusher]

I bought to run some windows-only apps. :-)
Get Windows XP and install it instead (finding all the right drivers for that particluar laptop might be a pain in the ass though). I don't know how large your Macbook HD is, but you could just block out a partition for Windows on it as well (Boot Camp comes with all the drivers for running windows on you Macbook)

[Sense]

I have 4 gigs of RAM... Vista never slows down... handles everything like a beast.

like i said me too.. it runs smooth

[Man of Steel]

Best thing--

Load up XP

Buy software named "Fusion"

It allows you to run both windows and mac on your mac at the same time.

You can go back and forth on your mac--fantastic software--under $100.00 and you cn run windows programs on your mac without any difficulty at all.

No reason at all to own a PC after Fusion came out...

[blizz]

Vista=ME? No FUCKING WAY. You just discredited yourself with that one buddy. It's not even close.

[Brutalis]

My Vista is pimp. Never understood the hate.

[blizz]

I agree Brut. Is it a memory hog? Sure...but throw enough RAM at it and you'll be very happy with it. By enough, I'm talking at least 2 gigs. I had a core II cpu and 2gb ram in my laptop and it handled Vista beautifully.

[exstatic]

Trying to run Vista on an older machine is asking for problems. Roll back to XP if you still have a copy.

[blizz]

Trying to run Vista on an older machine is asking for problems. Roll back to XP if you still have a copy.

Exactly. People said the same thing about XP when it first came out and it's now believed to be one of the best OSes ever...BUT...XP on my old PIII 500 with 384mb RAM is a DOG. That doesn't mean XP is a POS, it's the hardware that sucks.

[CubanMustGo]

Exactly. People said the same thing about XP when it first came out and it's now believed to be one of the best OSes ever...

Maybe one of the best Micro$loth OS's ever, no more.

[phyzik]

Vista=ME? No FUCKING WAY. You just discredited yourself with that one buddy. It's not even close.

Hah, the funny thing is, I have hard numbers to prove Vista is not all that, you just have an opinion. As far as the Vista = ME thing I may have not made myself clear. Im not saying its just like ME, Im saying in terms of an OS it is the Windows ME of today. There is a number of reasons almost every large business is staying away from Vista but chief among them is compatability and performance.

Its not all bad, Vista IS faster in some area's but In overall performance, XP is 16.4% faster.

CPU string sorting
XP processed 2064.8 thousand strings per second, while Vista processed 2080.1 thousand strings per second.

2D graphics shapes test
XP processed 29.2 thousand shapes per second, and Vista processed 30.4 thousand shapes per second.

simple 3D graphics test
Vista processed 125.8 frames per second, and XP processed 134.0 frames per second.

medium 3D graphics test
XP processed 16.0 frames per second, while Vista processed 18.6 frames per second.

memory write test
XP processed 950.5 MBps and Vista processed 954.6 MBps.

random disk seek test
XP processed 2.91 MBps, while Vista processed 3.88 MBps.

(Except for the random disk seeking, the difference between the other five tests is negligible.)

2D graphics lines test
Vista processed 76.3 thousand lines per second, whereas XP processed 138.3 thousand lines per second.

2D graphics rectangles test
Vista processed 39.7 thousand images per second, and XP processed 94.3 thousand images per second. That's a difference of 58 percent.

2D graphics fonts and text test
Vista processed 115.2 operations per second, while XP processed 172.7 operations per second.

small block memory allocation test
Vista processed 1349.3 MBps and XP processed 1861.6 MBps.

large RAM memory test
Vista performed 127.2 operations per second, and XP performed 229.2 operations per second.

sequential disk read test
Vista processed 32.4 MBps, whereas XP processed 65.4 MBps.

sequential disk write test
Vista processed 39.4 MBps and XP processed 60.6 MBps


The results show that Vista's memory architecture is significantly slower than XP. Microsoft released a product that will make many .Net applications run slower. At this point, we do not recommend running client-based .Net applications on Vista that require large data processing. And unless it's imperative that users have an operating system with a more exciting look and feel, XP will offer better performance than Vista.


(source: http://www.crn.com/software/198702242?pgno=1 )

As far as gaming goes? Take a look here for some more numbers... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

[blizz]

Show me where I said that Vista was better than XP? You said that it was equal to ME...I just said it was not. I like BOTH OSes. I'm curious, in those tests, was the hardware in each system equal? You should know where I'm going with this.

[phyzik]

Show me where I said that Vista was better than XP? You said that it was equal to ME...I just said it was not. I like BOTH OSes. I'm curious, in those tests, was the hardware in each system equal? You should know where I'm going with this.

Yes, identical systems. Read the source for full information on the benchmark. I didnt come up with the numbers personally, I just pulled them from that sight.

[blizz]

No no that's cool, but being in IT, you have to know that you can't compare a robust operating system, which requires robust hardware, with an old operating system which doesn't require as much. All things being equal, that is with the recommended hardware requirements for each os, as they are stated by MS, I don't think Vista would fare that much worse. Bottom line: You can't expect a machine built for XP to run Vista as it is intended to run.

[thispego]

supreme_being = top 5 biggest losers on spurstalk

[Dex]

Like others have already said, if your Mac is running 10.5, or at least sporting 1ghz for the processor and at least 2G ram, I would say hook it up with Boot Camp, Parallels, or VMWare Fusion and craigslist the Winbox if you don't use it.

I have my iMac Boot Camped so I can boot into Windows (XP) completely, or I can run Parallels and bring up Windows WHILE I'm running OS X. And my 2G of RAM seems to handle it fine, even when I bring up some pretty heavy stuff in Windows (like FruityLoops or 3D modeling software)

[Supreme_Being]

supreme_being = top 5 biggest losers on spurstalk

Yay. Now someone appreciates my genius!

[Supreme_Being]

Like others have already said, if your Mac is running 10.5, or at least sporting 1ghz for the processor and at least 2G ram, I would say hook it up with Boot Camp, Parallels, or VMWare Fusion and craigslist the Winbox if you don't use it.

I have my iMac Boot Camped so I can boot into Windows (XP) completely, or I can run Parallels and bring up Windows WHILE I'm running OS X. And my 2G of RAM seems to handle it fine, even when I bring up some pretty heavy stuff in Windows (like FruityLoops or 3D modeling software)

Can't really do that. I only have 120GB HDD on my MB. So, I resorted to buying another laptop. :-)

[phyzik]

No no that's cool, but being in IT, you have to know that you can't compare a robust operating system, which requires robust hardware, with an old operating system which doesn't require as much. All things being equal, that is with the recommended hardware requirements for each os, as they are stated by MS, I don't think Vista would fare that much worse. Bottom line: You can't expect a machine built for XP to run Vista as it is intended to run.

We are talking Quad core with 4gb of ram. The max BOTH OS's can support 342bit.... what more do you want? do you want to compare 64bit? XP destroys it even MORE in that department.

Bottom line, Vista is a memory hog compared to XP. There is no arguing that fact.

Look. Im not trying to convince anyone to switch from Vista to XP. If you like it and it works for what you do, thats great! All im saying is, in an I/T world it just doesnt work for most needs.

It sucks with Autocad, ProE, AutoInventor, Ansys and any other design application, not to mention HIGH END, memory intensive gaming.

compared to XP, it sucks in real world application performance.... thats all Im trying to say.

[phyzik]

Lets put it this way...

I DARE someone to show me some real hard data, as I have already provided, that shows Vista... 32bit OR 64bit.... is better than XP overall on an equally spec'd out system....

You wont find it.

Or are you trying to say looking pretty is better then performance?

Hummers look nice.... Maybe you should get one of those and live with 8mpg.... I mean, all you are doing is keeping up with the more robust oil sales. These are just the sign of the times, right?!!!!

[blizz]

relax francis. chill. i'm not hating on XP....but i don't get the hate for vista. all the numbers you posted and apps that you're talking about...the common every day person doesn't run those....so for most people....with the right hardware....vista is just fine. i still run XP on my machines and where i work...we don't support vista and don't use vista. well we don't support xp either cuz we don't do workstations...but you get my drift.