Yeah... Vista is the best example of a recent inefficient operating system. Linux has better eyecandy available and yet it runs perfectly on old hardware. The Vista eyecandy is lacking, and it doesn't run on old systems at all.
Also, I believe thinking that XP sucked when it was first introduced isn't a very good argument. What matters is, is that an operating system is efficient. The more overhead there is, the less efficient the system is. Operating systems should of course add new features, but they shouldn't become less efficient.
Take a look at Vista Ultimate's recommended specs.
1GB of RAM. What the hell do you need 1GB for when you're just running the operating system? That's ridiculous. Linux runs more stable and only uses about 300MB with lots of programs running (including Azureus) and with eyecandy enabled.
Then what about the needed disk space? At least 15GB? Wow man, what a waste of space.
And you need a video card with a proper pixel shader. Okay, so every video card supports pixel shader 2.0 these days, but that doesn't matter. That you need a video card like that is bad enough. You shouldn't need one for that lacking eyecandy! An old Matrox card should be enough.
The new Windows operating system has the specs of a high-end game, and that's just wrong. An operating system should be able to run on ANY system without worrying too much about the specs. Can't go around the specs of Vista; Vista is a f***ing video game
You can actually run Windows XP on relatively old machines. That you can't run Windows Vista on those machines is a direct indicator of an inefficient operating system.
I don't have a problem with the system requirements (with my Intel C2D, 2Gb RAM, GeForce 8600GTS) but it just lols me to think of all these people who only use their computers for work (and only need to run like Word and Internet Explorer) who now have to get pixelshader enabled video cards just because Vista has to look good.
It's quite clear how many people here can critique Vista without actually using it. I will agree that the fact that any OS needs more then Windows XP, is quite bullsh*t, but give Vista a break by considering that it's pretty little Aero theme can be shut down all the way back to Windows Classic. You do not NEED the fancy style, nor do you NEED a pixel shader card, you just need all these steep requirements if you want Vista to be everything it's bragged about being.
I agree that Vista is not very efficient, but don't make it sound like it's damn near impossible to use Vista at all, unless you have high system specs, because it's not true.
PS: I agree full heartedly about the fact that Windows XP, regardless of it's specs, can run very efficiently on older systems. I've installed Windows XP on systems as low as Pentium 2 and 128mb of ram, and never had crashes or lock ups.
Linux is way better than Vista.
It does much better eye candy and rarely take any CPU for it.
It can even run Windows programs.
http://clickteam.info/neatwares/stuff/LIJI/Linux/ - My out-dated Linux screenshots.
Mac OS X is also awesome, I got it running on VMWare.
Oh, and Greasy used to be in Sumgoo, can you believe him?
LIJI: "Vista is not a video game, I've never seen a video game that needs 15 GB!"
That's exactly what's revolutionary about Windows Vista It's bigger than regular video games
BrandonC: "I agree that Vista is not very efficient, but don't make it sound like it's damn near impossible to use Vista at all, unless you have high system specs, because it's not true. "
Yeah, you know, those system specs come from Microsoft, and I know that they are slightly overdone. You can run Vista on slower hardware.
I'm not making it sound like Vista is impossible to run unless you have high system specs. I'm saying that if you want to get everything out of Vista, you do need those system specs, which is just wrong. You should be able to get everything out of Vista no matter what kind of hardware you have, just like in Linux.
Greasy: "As far as I can tell, Aero isn't what uses up a lot of RAM.
And is it possible that Linux fan boys are becoming worse than mac fan boys?"
You're silly
How are Linux fanboys becoming worse than Mac fanboys? They're really not much different, you know.
I still run XP on Windows classic. It's a bit faster and not as cutesy looking. ATM, Vista is pointless. It doesn't have any serious advantages over XP, unlike XP over 98 SE. And most people I know say they need 2GB RAM to make the system run without trouble. But... in 4 years time, maybe 6, it'll be OK, just taking up half of the average computer's resources. And by then, there'll be some gadgets and games that only run on vista, though it's possible that those won't exist. After all, Vista doesn't really have any serious hardware/software advantages over XP, but people will still adapt to vista instead I guess. These days, it costs more to buy a comp with XP than vista..
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
At the rate we're firing hardware up the scale, in a couple of years it'll be hard to find computers with less then 4gb's of ram and lower then dual-core processors. Especially with the quad-cores and octa-core processors coming into the market.
We're complaining about an operating system that's ahead of it's time, and for good reason yes (because it shouldn't need that much to run an operating system), but consider that in a couple of years, all our performance issues with Vista will be gone. No, we might not get 100% of the power we should, but considering the hardware, we might only need like 70% of it, so we wont even cap it.
Vista needs a service pack, that's really the only thing wrong with it.
Vista is ahead of it's time? How is that so?
Just like DaVince said:
"Nowadays, MS is always a step behind with everything. They're not being proactive anymore, just reactive. I mean just compare the features between Windows and Linux - Linux had everything that was also planned for Vista, which MS finally didn't implement. "
Again, Linux.
Seriously, why think about the future? Maybe some day in the future we'll have the hardware to get everything out of Vista?
Isn't that funny? We're talking about an operating system here. The "in a couple of years" thing shouldn't even pop up in this conversation, if you understand what I mean.
Vista should be able to give us 100% of it's power with the hardware we have now, including older hardware. What we could get in the future is of little use at this moment.
Then again, I guess you can't copy everything. If Linux did it right, Microsoft must do it wrong. You don't want the Linux people bashing Windows all the time. You want them to laugh at Windows
Also, It's important for people to start using an open source operating system for a not so obvious reason.
Microsoft, like any other company, won't "live" forever. Some day Microsoft will die, and when this happens (It's can be tommorow, next year or in 10 years) no new versions of Windows will come out.
If we will stick to Windows we will finally be stuck with an OS which is 15 years old, because the company that updates it will die.
If a Linux project (like Ubuntu for example) dies, it will still be continued by other people because it's open source. Using a closed source operating system is dangerous for the future. Windows must be stopped!
VMWare is easy to install on Windows, yet somehow tricky on Linux. (Command-line installers, I ask WHY EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DONE IN TERMINAL?!)
I hate pidign because it's a stupid name, I like the name "GAim".
Also, that's the thing that comes with Ubuntu, and I'm not about upgrading it with TERMINAL!
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
"
