No I'm not asking. It's just that one of these articles was linked in another forum and I thought some of you may be interested:

How to make Windows XP last for the next seven years

Hands On: A Hard Look at Windows Vista

:cheers:

A nice read.

Of course one prob: you can't buy a new PC / Laptop or Vista is on it. :tai:
Yes, I know, you can get Linux nowadays on new systems, but honnestly, howmany WANT -or dare go- Linux?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dosraider @ Sep 5 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]309047[/snapback]</div>There's nothing wrong with reformatting a new PC and putting a legal copy of XP on it, should the user so desire. Personally, I'll take the Linux.

The article didn't say Vista is bad... But I myself will stick to XP since I have no reason not to.

I won't install Vista for about year or two. They are makeing patches every day, so it doesn't make sense to install pretty raw OS. And many people I know dislike it. Design and stuff.

I'll rather install XP, Vista is just too much of resource hog..

I think there is something quite insane about having to upgrade my computer to support an operating system that will enable me to use my computer.

Kind of like the tower that was built to hold up the light that is there to stop planes hitting the tower.

I think I'll stay with XP for several years more, thank you.

I've had some experiences with Vista now and my impression is:
It's XP in more shiny and harder to operate! The menus are the same, just split up. It's practically not different, it just looks different.

Two things PRO Vista:
- Vista can fully use Dual Core
- Vista doesn't need to emulate IDE to use the SATA-interface.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Oct 5 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]314695[/snapback]</div>I heard others say the same © :)

It's a bit the same story as when W2K - XP were released.
Bloatware, fatware ... too heavy... whatever.
Give it time, a year or two I think, and the PCs will be able to fully handle Vista.
If you see that they even DARE to sell Vista PCs with some 512 MB .... says enough, 1 Gig is really the minimum it needs to run at reasonable speed.

Give Vista a fast dual core, some 2Gigs RAM and it runs pretty swell, really.
Not that I'm very happy with Vista, I even rarely boot it ... :/
And the first thing I've done is killing all that fancy stuff, what a crapload of useless stuff they've put in !!!
My settings in Vista are all set to 'windows classic' ... :whistling: , and still don't like it so much.

Bottom line: XP feels better, even if I wasn't very happy with XP in the begin.

But yeah, I'm also still have my W98SE and W2K PCs, tough that W98SE is getting dusty lately ......

XP all the way for me too, too many issues with Vista to deal with as many of the reasons have stated before. Once the first service pack comes out, it'll be interesting to see if Microsoft can put out a solid pack, if they don't it'll just continue to drive down Vista.

My new notebook has Vista inside, yeah it's cool and full of nice functions, but the battery is gone in about 2 hours (without playing games).
It's inadmissible for a notebook <_<

Somewhere in the settings you can kill the prefetch AND the
eternal_running_on_the_background_ressource_eating defrag. Helps keep your battery a bit longer charged.
Same with indexing the files, keep that to a minimum.
As Vista is continuesly doing all kinds of thingies on the background that burden the CPU I can't call it very laptop friendly.
Of course, what you can't shut down is the cooling fan(s). And they also consume a lot of energy.
But yeah, you wanted a fast CPU, those need cooling :).

Done a week ago :)
Maybe I earned 15 minutes... :ph34r:

Fi .... Fif ..... Fiftee .... Fifteen whole minutes ?
:hysterical:

Oh my.






Now, you're mobile, even if limited by a power cord.
LOL


*SORRY*

Unfortunatly you're right LOL
...there's always the Linux solution... :ph34r: ...6 - 7 hours are better than 2...

There is one good point for Vista... We're now a step closer to Star Trek. LOL

-"What did you do to get so much power in so little time, Scotty?"
-"I just disabled Vista, capta'n!"

:P

It's kind of funny, isn't it? Instead of optimizing the new operating system for less system requirements in which case much more power of that brand-new, powerful PC would be available for programs or games, Microsoft instead overloads every new operating system with huge loads of unnecessary or (in their opinion) might-be-useful-and-looks-more-polished stuff which drops really heavily on even the best systems.
Wouldn't it be more logical to provide a much lighter operating system instead and make the customers want much, much more to use it? It can look great and still require only little memory and CPU power. Kind of makes no sense to me that Microsoft does whatever possible to turn people away from it's operating system instead of focusing on people's needs.

Except you forget one thing: it is Microsoft's sworn duty to neither make sense nor provide any attention to people's needs.

Shame on you, acting as though Microsoft could perform any better...:D

If you're not satisfied with MS of course you should switch. However. If you think that MS doesn't satisfactorily address people's needs, I disagree. They don't keep their near monopoly by force or fraud. They may have the advantage that inertia favours them, and so the competition must be somewhat better to get a chance (not just as good). But if they systematically screwed their customers, their monopoly would end up just like IBM's.

Actually I'm repeating myself...

http://www.abandonia.com/forum/index.php?s...st&p=309140

Microsoft is definitely getting better than say about 6 years ago with tech support and whatnot, there are still some areas where they can improve, but thats like it with a fair amount of companies now adays. Plus one great addition they have added in the last few years is their own spyware program, free to boot, (although it was bought off another company the engine I think it was Giant or something) that is in the top 5 of programs to use for spyware.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dosraider @ Oct 5 2007, 08:12 PM) [snapback]314735[/snapback]</div>W2K was a vast improvement over NT4 from an enterprise applications POV

Anything would have been a vast improvement over NT.x from an enterprise applications POV...........

^Windows 3.1? :D

Yeah about that microsoft tech support... i gave them very accurate display of my computer and how everything crashed and couldnt' re-boot and the answer they had was - "i dont' know, must be your hardware's fault. Win XP is fine." well how can it be hardware's fault if i can still run dos on the disk that won't run XP???

well the hardware was (as it hopefully seems to be) the cause for the crash, but what got me upset was the fact i couldn't fix the computer. the fixboot etc functions didn't work. chkdsk said that disk is excelent. windows repair function didnt' even show up in the menu where it should be as if the windows are just fine. only winXP wouldnt' start because he could not find one file. keep saying the file isn't there even if i copied it there. so is that hardware's fault? no motherf***** it's the system's fault!!! cause it can't repair itself (win98 never had this problem!)

anyway they have nice cheap Acer notebooks (for 400 EUR) with preinstalled Linpus Linux. i am saving money to get my wife one for internet browsing, chatting... I'm not paying for XP again!

Maybe they could mix Vista with Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs... Just my 2 cents.

I've read in a review in a magazine that Vista is supposedly way easier to manage in medium to big enterprises than XP was. The real use of Vista is probably there, as they seem to have completely missed the target point for the normal users like you and me...

Well... i have the "luck" to have both here.
I was forced to use it, since it came with the laptop, and i don't have any XP keys left (the gf got the last for her laptop bc she hated Vista more then me).

Basicly i can sum it up with;
+ Nice OS.
+ Feels like XP.
+ Actualy usefull features.
+ Uses Dual-core perfectly.
+ Quick startup.

- Where is my "One level down" in explorer?!?!?!! I HATE the "Back" button.
- Faar from 100% compability with XP software.
- Eating more resourses then XP.
- Made it harder to controle the security-aspects. I want to use thridparty firewall and anti-virus, but Vista cries that it's unprotected.

Overall: I'll survive, but i would have prefered XP to be honest.

the worst thing is that it sees everything you have in your pc and can controll it with "anti piracy" and such. then, people without activation need to run on "reduced mode" cause vista will make them. then, contacts microsoft servers each 15 minutes. it checks even your BIOS at startup and knows about motherboard and other hardware. well there is this bios emulator hack so it can be avoided. but i still dont like homecalling each 15 minutes and its pretty sad that without activation (or OEM bios preactivation) it can go with crack only if you dont want "black screen of dead". like i felt for spending bandwich for contacting their servers or something

And yet...


http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n.../bad_vista.jpg


:D

If history is any indication, Service pack 1 will double the system requirements for Vista.

People might download Vista all the way, but that doesn't stop them from hating it after they got it. Hearing all the big hype about Vista of course makes everyone who didn't taste it yet curious.

all i've heard about vista makes me not want it. XP or linux for me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(velik_m @ Oct 21 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]316838[/snapback]</div>Will... WHAT?! :omg2:
Who actually programmed this pile of muck?! :hysterical: I mean - who in person, somebody has to be there to point the finger at. What a jerk! LOL

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Titan @ Oct 21 2007, 03:02 AM) [snapback]316834[/snapback]</div>There are some unnecessary or bothersome services that many people including me disable in XP, I guess it's the same in Vista. That one would be the useless Windows Security Center, that creates more support calls than any virus.

i was just checking Acer notebooks a bit and they all have frekain Vista on. Even the ones with Linux are actually ment to be used by adding Vista over it because the thing doesnt' let the windows XP to install propperly.
I am so dissapointed because i though they had a working graphics linux preinstalled. as it turns out if you try puting Linux on them it makes problems because Linux doesn't have all drivers to run it propperly.

So back to Vista then. how the hell can you porpperly run vista on those low processors and with 512MB RAM or 1GB for that matter. Ok vista should work with 1GB, but only until the first service pack (as we all know from history....). not to mention that 256MB of these 1GB is shared with graphics card.

On an ACER with 1 GB of RAM I would strongly advise to lower the shared vidmem to 128MB.
Can be done in the bios.

If you aren't afraid to experiment with new and unknown before things, try this one out - eComStation. The name is little bit... professional, but it sounds very promising, especially "excellent compatibility with DOS" sounds good. And it seems to be pretty light on hardware requirements, compared with overloaded stuff from Microsock.

What about Vista Home basic (it appears on a lot of notebooks)? any good? any less of a resource hog?

Oh and apperantly Linux can't be installed normally on any notebook... so much for being better...

i don't know how they managed to make such a notebook where the only system that can be installed is vista. everyhting else needs a lot of fiddling with computer. for XP acer computers require a USB floppy drive (how lame is that?!) just so it owuld recognise the disk...

let's not even start about Linux with these... they would need so much tweaking only to get all components working.

desktop computer are much easier to handle...

Oh, I'm SO happy I bought my ACER Aspire 3681 WXMi BEFORE Vista got out of it's cage. :D
I'm So happy with the Windows XP Home SP2.

Yeah, OK "home", but you cannot have all. :whistling:

well there is possible to install xp on new acer notebooks, only i don't get it why it has to be so complicated? why they didn't make any backwards compatibility in Acer. especially since they managed to have things compatible with WinXP.

Btw i just read that they were considering putting Ubunto on them. But so far i found no models with Ubuntu on them. no wonder...

They sell XP fpr 50-100 $ more than vista... bastards.

Of course they do, no one wants the crappy Vista too LOL

Here WinXP Home is about 90 EUR, Vista Home basic is 93 or 94 and Vista Home Premium is arround 130 EUR.

Well I would have stuck with XP, but I had the opportunity to get Vista for free (legally), so I thought I'd give it a try.
I was really expecting to be dissappointed with it, so I was surprised when I found I actually like it. I thought it would be terribly slow, but it runs comfortably on my machine with only 768Mb of RAM. It even boots faster too. And once I'd disabled the pointless eye-candy, I found the new features to be really useful.:)
Having said all that, I'll still be going back to XP. My reason is simple, Vista's too new, and nothing I want to use seems to be compatible with it. My games won't work, programs won't install, and I keep being told I don't have permission to edit dosbox.conf.:mad:
Hard luck Microsoft, you almost had me bought, but then you went and found new ways to screw it up. Maybe I'll give it another try in, say, 2010?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

Move DOSBox from Programs or wherever it is to your documents or the shared documents.