Thread: Windows Vista

Haha.
I just installed openSuSE...
I like it, it's definitely a lot better looking than Ubuntu, and more customizable, but it's not as easy to set up. Still having troubles getting NTFS-3g installed (Which is now officially out of beta and into stable release, w00t), and video codecs are a pain.
BTW, Just for Kaniaz and MSG, I'm installing Vista Ultimate Monday. Provided I can find somebody with a DVD burner by Monday. Yay for 280 seeds and 1400 leechers.

And boo for fucking SuSE. What are you, a masochist?

Haha, no. Actually, I had a problem installing MEPIS, so I decided to try SuSE, since it's one of the top rated distros over at distrowatch.com.
Haven't decided whether I'll keep it yet. I'm looking towards PCLinuxOS, actually, since it's one of the slimmest KDE distros out there, and I need something that'll run fast and smooth on my older system.

Originally Posted by Tsen

BTW, Just for Kaniaz and MSG, I'm installing Vista Ultimate Monday.
[/b]

Yay

Also, make sure your computer is brand new and costed $9000, because if it didn't, it definately won't be compatible

I should be getting Windows Vista sent out soon as well. My laptop (with XP) which I bought 3 months ago, came with a deal where as soon as Vista came out you pay $5 US plus postage and handling for Vista! Yay, w00t for Sony VAIO's!

I still don't know how quickly I'll be installing it when it comes... my heart kind of lies with XP...

Wow, Kaniaz, MSG, and Tweak are dominating this thread.

Of course we are - We're the true wista fanboyz!!

Can I pipe in a bit and add my two cents (not that it really matters since those two cents will get stolen my uber expensive Microsoft apps, but anyways)?

I'm not much of a fan of apple or microsoft. There. I said it.

I run Win XP on my laptop, and the thing has suffered through five stop errors, I dunno how many other app issues, and several adware/spyware problems. I attract PC problems, really. Just recently, my Windows Defender stopped working properly, so I had to completely remove the whole thing to get rid of the annoying popup box. I hate my dad's windows-equipped PC because everytime I turn around, I have to click "allow" so the stupid firewall will let me do stuff.

I have every intention of disabling all the built-in forewall stuff if I ever get Vista, and just installing my own firewall stuff that I can have more control over. Microsoft is basically building in too much autonomy into its stuff for me. I like a program where you set certain options, and it doesn't do anything else. All the microsoft apps I've used to date since I first experienced XP seemed to have a mind of their own.

I just don't like apple because it's annoying, and a little bit cumbersome. I've had to use apple computers before. Not only that, but all the white just makes hte bright computer screens worse.

However, I do have an Ubuntu 6.06 live CD that I burned, and I absolutely love it. I have no Linux experience, and I was able to configure several things on my own. My next laptop will have Ubuntu and (although regretfully) Vista Premium. The Windows is purely because there are games that I have that I would feel more comfortable running in a pure-Windows environment. However, the Ubuntu will be for more mundane, less flashy tasks.

five stop errors[/b]

WOW THAT'S BAD

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

WOW THAT'S BAD [/b]

No kidding. And each time, I had to wait an hour for my laptop to reboot and recover itself. *thumbsdown*

Originally Posted by dragon

I run Win XP on my laptop, and the thing has suffered through five stop errors
[/b]

That's nothing, my computer had to suffer from a YEAR of Linux

WTF is up with trying to Telnet in Vista? Can it be done?

EDIT: Disregard I figured it out

Originally Posted by MSG

That's nothing, my computer had to suffer from a YEAR of Linux [/b]

How is Linux worse than Windows? It's more stable.

Vista, Vista, Vista. I have to say that I tried a version of it and I thought the only good thing about it was the style, which had improved vastly since XP, however it isn't a good operating system, the backwards compatibility isn't good (you could say it was facing the wrong way) and even some of professional IT people I know think it's bad. I mean, yes I'd use it for the styles, but why get it when you can download and install Ubuntu easily and freely and then update it online? Saves the trouble of paying £200 everytime your operating system is out of date.

How is Linux worse than Windows? It's more stable.[/b]

That's a very matter-of-fact claim, and also very wrong.

the backwards compatibility isn't good[/b]

Why not? Examples? Every single program I've worked with from XP to Vista has had no troubles. And I use a lot of programs.

but why get it when you can download and install Ubuntu easily and freely and then update it online?[/b]

Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. Sure the OS is free, but it took me 10x longer to set up because of wireless cards and driver support (which "isn't Linux's fault", I'm told, but from my point of view, why should I even give a sweet damn because it 'works on Windows'?) to receive the reward of a crappy UI and feeling like I've participated in some wonderful ritual that makes the world more 'free'. Unfortunately, my time is money too.

Saves the trouble of paying £200 everytime your operating system is out of date.[/b]

In the six years from XP to Vista? We're talking about you finding nine pence a day over six years to accumulate that monumental £200, and there's no reason to even update your OS if you can't afford that wallet burning figure. Heck, I can find more money than that every day just lying in the street.

Originally Posted by dragon

How is Linux worse than Windows? It's more stable.
[/b]

Well, before these guys flame you too much,
I'm an Ubuntu Linux user as well. Simultaneously, I'm running Windows XP Pro, and I'm installing Vista Ultimate today.
So, here's a somewhat less biased view of the differences:

-NO, Linux is not more stable. Provided you're not an utter moron, Windows is a pretty damn stable OS. However, if you ARE an utter moron, you shouldn't be anywhere near Linux.
-YES, it IS free, and NO, that is not a bad thing. Kaniaz had trouble with wireless drivers, and that is one of the weak points of Linux (which is being worked on extensively), but other than wireless and 56k modem drivers, Linux installs and runs perfectly and hassle-free on just about everything. I actually had more trouble installing my wireless card in Windows than I did in Linux--Windows kept insisting it was an ethernet card.
-YES, Linux is virus-free. However, provided you don't do anything stupid, Windows won't get viruses.

Now, why I use Linux:
-More powerful tools and better control over my PC. Linux disk partitioners kick the arse of Windows partitioners. Further, Linux distros are extremely configurable. I can make three distro's on one PC all get certain information from a single partition, making it so that I can share my application settings and configurations across multiple OS's (not including Windows).
-It's free, and none the worse for it. Ever tried Amarok? It's my idol among open source apps. It kicks the hell out of every single one of it's competitors. Firefox trumps IE. Open Office...well, alright. I'll give Windows a point there.
-It's shiny. With Beryl or Compiz running graphics, Linux can do things Vista's Aero can only dream of. Yeah, the whole cube thing is stupid, but it's got tons of other features that make it incredibly useful.
-No "Windows Genuine Advantage!" pop ups. No validation. It's free, so it's unencumbered by all that jazz. Although seriously, who came up with the name "Genuine Advantage"? Makes me want to slap them every time.
-No reboots. In Windows, you install just about anything and you've got to reboot. In Linux, the only thing that requires a reboot is a kernel change, and those don't happen that often.

Why I use Windows:
-It works. Windows is popular, so people write software for Windows. You can expect more (though not always better) support for a Windows product than you can the Linux alternative.
-The variety. Once again, due to Window's popularity, there's a lot of developers out there.
-uTorrent. It deserves it's own point.
-It's idiot-proofed. It's easy to bork your system up in Linux if you do something stupid. Linux, though it's trying to be more user-friendly, still assumes that you know what you're doing--for better or worse. Windows, it's a bit tougher to screw up THAT bad. Though, that safety net comes at the cost of making advanced tasks in Windows a bit tougher.
-It's prettier. Compiz and Beryl make your window borders look all shiny, and they have some pretty good effects, but that doesn't do squat for your taskbar--and simply put, Gnome, KDE and X are all UGLY.
-Photoshop. Sure, Linux has GIMP, but GIMP, is...well, a gimp. It bites, HARD.

Originally Posted by IceMan

Vista, Vista, Vista. I have to say that I tried a version of it and I thought the only good thing about it was the style, which had improved vastly since XP, however it isn't a good operating system[/b]

Why isn't it a good OS? I feel that it is for serveral reasons.

• Vista is pretty outstanding and much more secure. if it’s administered properly, then it has no problem with day-to-day operational stability.
  
• IE7 running on Vista takes things to the next level. Running in protected mode, forget about it, the browser is totally isolated from the rest of the operating system and actively protects against malicious code. This alone is worth the price of admission.
  
• Have you ever paid attention to computers on T.V.? They never run XP, nor do they run anything that looks close to openSuSe 10.2. or OSX Those computers on T.V. run slick looking state of the art user interfaces, kinda' like Vista. You see Vista’s user interface is actually pretty slick and might even look good on CSI. With all of the Aero elements enabled I'll even go as far as putting it on the freaking Enterprise and it would still look good. This is how an OS should look in the 21st century. All and all Vista looks good and it's quite usable and friendly.

Originally Posted by IceMan

the backwards compatibility isn't good (you could say it was facing the wrong way) and even some of progessional IT people I know think it's bad. [/b]

What's wrong with the backwards compatibility? Facing the wrong way have you gone loco? That's because your outside looking in my friend, you're engaged in mirror mode. I always run my application using MSI API's sometimes (e.g. MsiInstallProduct(), MsiInstallPatch() etc.) and yes it works, not only does it works but it works well my friend, it works well.

Now on another note I have installed opensuse 10.2 on my older athlon box, and it runs pretty damn good. However it didn’t find my netgear wifi card, as Suse 10 retail version does. All in all 10.2 is really nice and I think I will now move my x64 AMD to this code level, as it feels good, and even more polished than 10.0. Now granted Suse needs RAM to run, but not as much as Vista considering Vista is just playing out to be a resource<strike>hog</strike>(ful) OS But I Love it.

This one goes to Tsen:

I find Linux (Ubuntu to be more specific) to be more appealing because it&#39;s not 100% idiot-proofed. That&#39;s pretty much why I don&#39;t like Windows that much. Granted there&#39;s more variety, and it&#39;s easier to install software, but the computer practically has a mind of its own&#33; XP

I do know what I&#39;m doing ot a certain degree. Heck, I managed to get Ubuntu to identify and use my laptop&#39;s built-in wireless within five minutes of tinkering around with the settings in the live CD. And I even remember what I did to get it to work.

What I don&#39;t like about Windows is that so many stuff comes already preconfigured, and it&#39;s hard as hell to change the "factory settings." I should know. I spent two hours trying to get the crappy built-in MSN messenger to stop signing on on startup, and it still kept signing in until I switched to the less self-reliant WLM.

I&#39;d rather take time to preconfigure a lot of apps, and then let them sit and do their stuff. I like to know what my software is doing rather than trying to keep up with my own computer and going "What the f@ck is it doing this time&#33;&#33;??"

Of course, I seem to attract annoying problems with Windows. :B

I just like to have more control over what my computer is doing, and I&#39;m just very uncomfortable with Windows because it doesn&#39;t let me have that control. I can&#39;t fine-tune anything at all, I&#39;ve had to completely uninstall or disable several built-in Windows features, and I find it to be just a bit too... shall I say... "automatic?"

That&#39;s prolly why I absolutely loved AVG and still love Avast&#33; Home. They&#39;re more discreet and autonomous than Norton ever was. God I&#39;m never going back to corporate AV apps. x_x

Avast&#33; also doesn&#39;t bug me about every little thing I do like Norton did.

To stop it from loading on startup, you check a box. I think it&#39;s possible your computer gained sentience somewhere along the line.

But yes, Norton is crap. I would recommend it to no man, except maybe my enemy.

Originally Posted by dragon

I spent two hours trying to get the crappy built-in MSN messenger to stop signing on on startup, and it still kept signing in until I switched to the less self-reliant WLM.[/b]

Uh, two hours? Edit -> Settings -> [X] Start Messenger when Windows Starts -> UNCHECK

Done

That&#39;s the first place any idiot would look.

Originally Posted by TweaK

Uh, two hours? Edit -> Settings -> [X] Start Messenger when Windows Starts -> UNCHECK

Done

That&#39;s the first place any idiot would look.
[/b]

I had checked and unchecked that stupid little box I can&#39;t remember how many times during those two hours. The thing kept resetting itself.

And, yes, I also clicked the OK button to "save" the settings.

I actually had the same problem a week ago when I was installing XP Pro. For some reason, Windows kept changing the setting back when I rebooted. Soft restarts, and I saved the settings. I think it was because of system updates, but I&#39;m note entirely sure.

EDIT: BTW, now that I&#39;m on Vista, I must say I REALLY like how it uses RAM. Everything&#39;s sped up considerably, the system feels much more responsive. And to be honest, it&#39;s good to see 512 MB of RAM actually going to work at something.

Originally Posted by Tsen

EDIT: BTW, now that I&#39;m on Vista, I must say I REALLY like how it uses RAM. Everything&#39;s sped up considerably, the system feels much more responsive. And to be honest, it&#39;s good to see 512 MB of RAM actually going to work at something. [/b]

How does it allocate the RAM?

If I&#39;m ever to get Vista, I&#39;d at least have to double my laptop&#39;s current RAM. *faints*