(may as well say that if the operating system requires something better than a P2 processor it's too much of a hog... hehe)
Well, it is true that my old 8088 was faster with DOS than my AMD64 was with Vista. One would think that faster machines would actually run FASTER than the old stuff, but thanks to MS, they don't.
Bingo! I don't expect Ron Paul to get the nomination, but I still voted for him, and when we end up with Hilary vs McCain, I'm going to vote Libertarian. Maybe if enough people do that, the winner will at least pretend to be pro-freedom.
Usually, smart people avoid x.0 releases until the early adopters get the arrows out of their backs. However, it's harder to avoid Vista because of MS pushing it on every new box.
I had a similar experience with a bug in college. I had been working on it for days, and even showed it to other people and they couldn't figure it out either. The solution popped into my head while I was taking a crap.
I suspect some of it comes from people running it on below-average Dell computers. I talked my GF's sister out of getting a craptop with 512M RAM & Vista. She's happy with it on a decent box. I'm sure she wouldn't have been on the other box.
I read somewhere that Vista actually runs better on a Mac than it does on most other boxes. The reason being that most other vendors choke it with their own crap.
To a large extent, I agree with the above poster's concerns. Obviously, the medical profession needs to research repairing damaged brains because for SOME people, their condition IS intolerable. But such tinkering shouldn't be done lightly.
Slight exageration. Vista was fast enough for me with 2G. One thing that hurts is when vendors try to fit Vista on a machine with 1G or even 512M! THAT is probably the cause of many of the gripes about it.
So there's a number of factors at play here for the whining:
3) People with old hardware that want new stuff to run perfect. I don't know why, but there are plenty of people out there who assume that new versions should run just as well as old versions on old hardware. In the case of Vista, RAM is the thing I most often see people cheapskating out on. Never mind that it is $50-100 for 2GB of RAM depending on kinds (DDR2 is $50, DDR is $100), people aren't willing to spend the money to get more.
It's not just old hardware. I don't know if they're still doing it, but when Vista came out, some vendors were selling 512M boxes with Vista. If someone gets a brand new laptop that runs slower than their 5 year old box did with XP, they're going to be pissed! One could argue that it wasn't Microsoft's fault that WorstBuy put Vista on a machine that couldn't run it, but the customer is still going to be pissed.
I have 4 words about Vista. It doesn't totally suck (compared to XP). There are some things I liked better than XP, and some things that were worse. Overall, I like Vista slightly better than XP. Now, compare the latest version of OSX with what they were shipping in 2001. Compare modern Linux distros to the state of the art in 2001. Those haven't just improved slightly in the last half-decade. They've improved dramatically. After 5 years, I'd like to see better than "it doesn't totally suck".
My own TV is 27". That may sound small, but it's a good fit for my living room. I doubt that a 100" set would fit through my front door. Also, I paid less than $200 for it. Understandably, I'm not thrilled with the idea of paying $5,000 for a TV set, even if it IS called a "Media Center" these days.
I didn't replace my home library. I still have hundreds (thousands?) of tapes, and relatively few DVDs. The reason I have few DVDs is because I didn't trust the industry to not come up with an incompatible "replacement".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it is true that my old 8088 was faster with DOS than my AMD64 was with Vista. One would think that faster machines would actually run FASTER than the old stuff, but thanks to MS, they don't.
Bingo! I don't expect Ron Paul to get the nomination, but I still voted for him, and when we end up with Hilary vs McCain, I'm going to vote Libertarian. Maybe if enough people do that, the winner will at least pretend to be pro-freedom.
Usually, smart people avoid x.0 releases until the early adopters get the arrows out of their backs. However, it's harder to avoid Vista because of MS pushing it on every new box.
Realy? I thought it was a portable web browser with an iPod touch & cellphone attached.
I had a similar experience with a bug in college. I had been working on it for days, and even showed it to other people and they couldn't figure it out either. The solution popped into my head while I was taking a crap.
Visual clutter. Not that I can throw stones, as my Windows desktop is butt-ugly with clutter too.
I had UAC issues when Firefox wanted to update itself.
I suspect some of it comes from people running it on below-average Dell computers. I talked my GF's sister out of getting a craptop with 512M RAM & Vista. She's happy with it on a decent box. I'm sure she wouldn't have been on the other box.
I read somewhere that Vista actually runs better on a Mac than it does on most other boxes. The reason being that most other vendors choke it with their own crap.
I used Vista for awhile and had no huge problems with it. My hardware worked, and so did 99% of my software. My 3 complaints were:
1. It took MS 5 years to do THIS? Vista didn't suck, but neither was it great.
2. UAC - great idea, poor implementation. Typical Microsoft.
3. It worked fine - if you had a 2G box. Anyone who got a WorstBuy wonder with 512M "running" Vista would likely get homocidal.
Yup! XP ended the Dos/NT split by bringing the NT kernel to the masses.
To a large extent, I agree with the above poster's concerns. Obviously, the medical profession needs to research repairing damaged brains because for SOME people, their condition IS intolerable. But such tinkering shouldn't be done lightly.
Nope, I read it that way too.
Slight exageration. Vista was fast enough for me with 2G. One thing that hurts is when vendors try to fit Vista on a machine with 1G or even 512M! THAT is probably the cause of many of the gripes about it.
It's not just old hardware. I don't know if they're still doing it, but when Vista came out, some vendors were selling 512M boxes with Vista. If someone gets a brand new laptop that runs slower than their 5 year old box did with XP, they're going to be pissed! One could argue that it wasn't Microsoft's fault that WorstBuy put Vista on a machine that couldn't run it, but the customer is still going to be pissed.
Based on past history, this book has at least 5 years before it becomes obsolete.
I have 4 words about Vista. It doesn't totally suck (compared to XP). There are some things I liked better than XP, and some things that were worse. Overall, I like Vista slightly better than XP. Now, compare the latest version of OSX with what they were shipping in 2001. Compare modern Linux distros to the state of the art in 2001. Those haven't just improved slightly in the last half-decade. They've improved dramatically. After 5 years, I'd like to see better than "it doesn't totally suck".
I dunno. Based on the comments here, a lot must have been cut out to make it FIT in only 641 pages. :)
which eliminates Symantic's.
I don't even remember the password to my ISP email! I've used gmail for a long time, and used Yahoo before that.
My own TV is 27". That may sound small, but it's a good fit for my living room. I doubt that a 100" set would fit through my front door. Also, I paid less than $200 for it. Understandably, I'm not thrilled with the idea of paying $5,000 for a TV set, even if it IS called a "Media Center" these days.
I didn't replace my home library. I still have hundreds (thousands?) of tapes, and relatively few DVDs. The reason I have few DVDs is because I didn't trust the industry to not come up with an incompatible "replacement".
And 8088 to 386 to Pentium to Dual Core.
I guess when you're a cash cow, people overlook your bull. :)
your farts aren't radioactive. If they are, you have more problems than phone-tracking.