Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Numberzz

Vista is....100% Stable? No

59 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ok seriously the bottom line is that OS X has to be more stable! Buy a Sun Workstation with Solaris, it is really stable too! Why? Because when you have one company making the Hardware, Operating System and Software things are going to work out.

 

When was this? Beta 1? It definently wasn't like that in RC1 or RTM.

Well no it wasn't RC1 or RTM, but why would they use XP stuff in even a beta if it was ground up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Because the GUI hadn't been finalised...

Even so, you cant just throw a old GUI on a new rebuilt engine, doesn't work like that, unless it was built the exact same. Everyone know that the Longhorn GUI was just a skin on the old XP GUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually referring to the reference to the XP start menu in the settings dialogue, not the Vista GUI itself.

 

My guess would be that the image was just a placeholder in early Longhorn builds until the GUI/Aero could be finalised, rather than an indication of what the final GUI would be.

 

Also, it depends on whether you're referring to the first-development phase (2002-2005, when Longhorn was based on Windows XP) before the reset, when the GUI was really just a reskinned Luna theme, or post 2005, after the reset, when they started the entire operating system again from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. Have you tried to play Warcraft 1 on a new computer? Its hilarious what happens, the game is over right away because the speed of the game is based on system clock speed. Once you start a new game, it is over in about 3 seconds, you lose. (off topic I know).

Vista makes terrible use of memory, and their ability to use a flash drive as memory is a total laughing matter (it makes no difference). When I would test Longhorn, the "Change Start Menu Appearence" window still referenced the XP Menu (aka it said Windows XP on the 'start' menu image). It doesn't seem ground-up to me.

That's why there are programs to limit clock speeds. You can't do anything about a poorly written program ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how many of these things actually mean anything to the end user or really impact their experience of using the computer?

 

Haha, I can't believe you just said that. If changing backend technologies doesn't mean anything, why did Apple waste time making the move to a BSD backend, why isn't Windows still using DOS underpinnings, and why did we ever move past 8-bit processors? This statement alone just disqualified your entire post, but I'll continue...

 

The f**ed up Wireless zeroconf so it's even more confusing and less reliable than it was in XP. Profile management is now a PITA, and my Vista machines are now utterly hopeless at automatically connecting to wireless networks and before you blame a specific equipment provider, with several different wireless cards, and on several different wireless networks.

That's what happens when you try to force it your way old-school style instead of letting the wireless stack do it for you. ;)

 

Moving the audio subsystem into user space has turned even the most powerful soundcards into the equivalents of 'dumb' HDA codecs with all audio processing done in software.

Moving the audio subsystem into user space and standardizing OpenAL has singlehandedly crushed Creative's monopoly on APIs. Open standards are good, closed standards with proprietary hardware are very very bad.

 

Superfetch makes a negligable difference to application launch times, yet slows down any memory intensive app for the first few minutes because it's really bad at giving up RAM when apps need it.

 

Superfetch makes a world of difference launching apps. Firefox, Thunderbird, and Microsoft Office apps all open in the blink of an eye on my laptop. This feature takes at the very least three months to learn your patterns, and should not be judged quickly.

 

x64 Vista will no longer allow unsigned driver installation without the user manually selecting 'Disable Driver Signing Enforcement' at every boot, which doesn't stop malware developer buying a signature and signing drivers, but it does stop independent developers like Daemon tools having an x64 version that works with the newest Vista KBs installed.

 

Yes, and your point? This is a very, very, very, very, VERY good feature, and is the primary reason Apple's operating system is so stable. No hardware except the hardware that is certified OK goes in the OS.

 

And best of all, after less than a week since install, since I changed my mobo, I've lost the ability to manipulate folders properly in Explorer, again. I can't move them. I can't name new folders. I can copy a folder from A-B and that's it. Anything else has to be done from the command line. I'm not re-installing again, and if I do, it will be XP or 2003 x64.

 

Haha, you changed motherboards (and most likely chipsets too, I'm guessing) under an OS and are wondering why you have problems? You're a funny man indeed. :P:P

 

To hell with DX10.

 

This comment was a little random and out of place, but I have to address it. You seen a real DX10 game? Go check out Crysis in DX10 on an SLI 8800GTX system, your tune will change very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to hell with all people who defend vista (just go to a vista forum!)

i was forced to use vista for about a week, and it made me so sick that i never shall install it on my pc!

i was with friends and we had 6 computers with two of them running vista. i never had so much troubles with computers in my life! a certain amount of games aren't supported in vista and when a game was supported, we couldn't play multiplayer with the xp machines. The only good thing in vista is the nice looking GUI and directx 10. I think that if DX10 was supported in win xp, a lot of gamers wouldnt install vista cauze it makes your pc slower and is very unstable.

 

Maybe all this {censored} is solved in service pack 1 or service pack 2. But i don't think so. It's totally build from zero, but it is still windows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No operating system is 100% stable...

 

I have personally had Windows, Linux, and OS X and OS 9 crash on me. Most of the time the crashes were because of my own fault...

 

Most crashes that people encounter on any operating system are the user's own fault...

 

yes yes yes

 

thank you for stating the truith!! ive had osx, xp, suse and a couple other bsd/linux s crash.... mostly due to me playing around too much....

 

it typically is the own uesrs fault =D

 

you stated it perfectly sdracer48!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to hell with all people who defend vista (just go to a vista forum!)

 

No one here is defending Vista. I'm an avid Leopard user; I simply can't help but correct people when I see so much misinformation being spread by individuals who have no :censored2: ing clue what they are talking about. Hell, you even admitted it here:

 

i was forced to use vista for about a week, and it made me so sick that i never shall install it on my pc!

 

You used it for one week and are trying to judge it? HAHA!! I've been using OS X for two months now, and I'm still slightly frustrated when I encounter something I haven't learned how to do in it yet. Frustration with something new is expected, especially something that one uses every day. Intelligent people cope with the change because they know it's better. Screaming "it sucks!!!" after one week of not even trying hard to learn it only shows how foolish you really are (gee, that sounds kind of like most of the people in this thread).

 

a certain amount of games aren't supported in vista and when a game was supported, we couldn't play multiplayer with the xp machines.

 

What were you trying to play, the original Doom? Duke Nuken 3D? Old stuff isn't supported, so what? I don't see you complaining and moaning that OS 9 apps won't work in OS X. If you want to play really old stuff, that's what emulators and virtual machines are for. Your claims of multiplayer problems are either due to user error (highly likely judging by the nature of most Vista bashers), or are just flat-out false claims. I enjoy newer-old multiplayer games such as Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, and Warcraft 3 all the times in mixed Vista-XP networks.

 

Maybe all this {censored} is solved in service pack 1 or service pack 2. But i don't think so. It's totally build from zero, but it is still windows...

 

Let me guess - you said the exact same thing about Windows XP back in 2001, right? Now you're swearing by that operating system. My, how selective people's memories can be. -_-

 

it typically is the own uesrs fault =D

 

you stated it perfectly sdracer48!

 

Typically? More like ALWAYS! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×