I emplore ALL of you to go and check out the episode "Free Hat" from Matt and Trey at Southpark studios, probably one of my most favourite episodes of the series and sums up George Lucas perfectly, I think some of you Americans are lucky enough to be able to stream from their homepage for free now too, foreigners - try mininova, cable tv or your local DVD store.
Googles applications and services (thus far) are still completely within my 'non evil' threshold, they are useful, convienient, fast, cross platform etc etc. Google docs has an incredibly important spreadsheet in there, which I can manually backup but interestingly I would also like to add a password to it (beyond the pass required for my google account) I wish they'd add that feature too, because if anyone ever reads that spreadsheet with malicious intent, I'm @$%#ed!
Anyone got any ideas on how to back this stuff up?
I really think that DVD is still more than good enough with upscaling and well encoded DVD's - it looks just great still (in my mind) Also, I now own a 50" plasma television, yet I still don't find regular DVD too pixelated. (as a CRT lover, god why didn't I get a bigass plasma sooner?) I now own a PS3 and I've used blu-ray discs, I'm very very happy with the image quality of them and the durability (special coating) applied to the discs, the cost is a concern though, I don't purchase many discs though. I'm happy that a single standard has prevailed, sorry for the HD-DVD owners but either way a single standard is going to save us trouble in the long run. Sure the manufacturers now need to include 2 lenses in future devices but sooner or later due to mass production the cost will be reduced.
My thoughts ultimately on the situation have changed, I feel that blu ray will actually prevail but it's going to be a substantially slower adoption compared to DVD, much much slower due to the reasons outlined in the post I linked. With DVD's being as cheap as 3-10$ US now, they are going to be around for 10 years or more, while blu ray slowly takes over, maybe even 15 years. Eventually, due to marketing and higher quality displays in peoples homes, the perception will be that DVD is crap (despite it not being crap) What these media companies do need to worry about is the next standard, because that's a whole different story, that's most definitely not going to take off for a long long time, if they try within 3 years they WILL fail. I feel digital downloads will eventually replace blu-ray (however unlike some, I don't think in 2 or 3 years, more like 6 to 10 years)
My thoughts are that blu-ray will be the last optical disc format for the home consumer, it *WILL* be as big as DVD is now but it'll be a long long time coming.
Don't whine about perfectly good night vision and then game on an LCD, it makes your post completely and utterly pointless. I have finally switched to an LCD after years of holding out and I can see the night and day difference from LCD to CRT - it's unmistakable, Doom 3 is quite playable on a CRT in a dark environment, on an LCD it's not - there's only so much id can do about this.
Intel Q6600, 4gb DDR2, 8800GT 512mb video card, 750gb WD's (multiple, swap file on second drive) Performance isn't TERRIBLE but disk thrashing is noticable on the machine.
I'm sure you can specify the files and folders to be degragged and index'd the question is should I have to and should it be doing it during non idle times? What is their definition of 'idle' because mine is the keyboard and mouse are not being used and the display isn't updating anything - plus it's been in that state for at least 20 seconds. However it doesn't come across that way as an end user - hence switching back to XP (amongst many other reasons)
Vista absoloutely randomly thrashes your hard disk almost constantly for the first few weeks of installation, all you can hear is tickety tick, clickety click from the damn machine. What is it doing? I'm not sure, auto defrag? file index? superfetch? I can't be sure, what I can be sure of is that it's *apparently* meant to run at idle priority, in reality I can clearly visibly see the performance decrease of say loading firefox or nero or any application under Vista compared to XP, while the drive thrashes about like a 'special person' thrown in the deep end of a swimming pool.
I am sadly 'oldschool' I remember running DOS 5 and 6 and I recall watching my drive light, I used to be able to spot a machine with a virus purely from the damned disk activity on the machine, because it simply isn't supposed to do anything when you're not, how that has changed over the years, it's sad, even smartdrv would stop fiddling with the drive after about 5 or 10 seconds under 6.22 Win 95, 98, virus scanners, spyware detectors, 2k, XP - it's all slowly gotten worse over the years but Vista really takes the cake, I'd love to see a laptop power consumption test of XP vs Vista on an identically spec'd machine. (tickety tick, thrashity thrash)
The short story is, I agree with the article entirely, SSD's would be worn out substantially faster under Vista than previous versions of Windows.
How interesting, actually Nintendo's Wii games do NOT sell well, if you look in to the attach rates for the Wii they are significantly lower than both the 360 and the PS3, there's a large large quantity of Wii owners out there with either one game (Wii sports) or perhaps one more)
The rumours and speculation across the web from the gaming press, analysis and so on, continues to go along the lines of the system could be a fad, no one will really know for another year I would think but the 360 and PS3 continue to slowly build up sales of systems AND games, meanwhile that Wii is selling like hotcakes but no games with it.
I for one barely use mine and remain convinced it's simply the hot toy to have. Yes I mean toy and no I don't mean it insultingly, but my opinion is there's a large quantity being sold purely as a 'Wii sports box' rather than a video gaming ocnsole - ultimately that's all fine and dandy as long as Nintendo are making money, but some of us more serious 'hardcore' storyline or online MP gamers do have some concerns that developers will throw their efforts towards the Wii focusing on an entire different kind of game that many don't care for.
How old is this? Launch game if I recall or a month later, certainly is one of the good games I was mentioning however, no doubt about that.
Super Mario Galaxy
You're joking right? Brilliant, fun platformer but in no way is this a 'proper' single player linear experience with a half decent storyline - I will eventually finish it but you're clutching at straws here.
No More Heroes
Haven't tried it I'll be honest. I've been too busy with life / movies / TV / PS3.
need I go on? You're just not trying.
Yes, please go on, there's only 2 or 3 games left for the Wii which fit my criteria, you're stretching, I don't even need to try.
And unlike Metal Gear Cutscene 4, those are actually fun to play and don't involve mindless cutscene watching.
BZZZT sorry buddy, we're not all MGS fanboys just because we own a Sony machine.
Let's see what I've been playing now. Uncharted GTA4 Heavenly Sword Resistance Fall of man Ratchet and Clank (ok I admit, this too is a platformer) Call of Duty 4 (short but good) Burnout Paradise (I admit, not the linear SP type I mentioned earlier but also nothing close to this on Wii now is there?) Lego Star Wars Assassins Creed
and if I didn't have it on my PC, I could be playing the entire contents of the Orange box, which is 3 good SP games (HL2, Ep1, Ep2) same with Oblivion
Pixel Junk Monsters (incredibly addictive and fun) - again, I admit it's not a linear SP game with a good story as previously mentioned
Also I've been lent a copy of MGS4 (I disliked the earlier ones) but this isn't so bad, it does indeed have a lot of cutscenes but it is also true as the reviews have said, that it blends cinema with gameplay very seamlessly, cinematics in games won't be the same after this.
Ultimately, you're trying to argue the Wii is a good SP gamers machine when it's common knowledge by pretty much any gamer worth his crust that it's not it's specialty, why waste my time and other slashdot readers times? Seriously? Ragging on the PS3 is no longer hip and trendy, Sony have made some damned fool mistakes but the console is not in any way a useless piece of consumer electronics only good as a BD player as some fans would have you think.
As I said, I'm an owner of all 3 systems and my PS3 by far gets the most playtime (I can't hack the noise of the 360, thank god for the new load to drive feature)
Definitely without any doubt in my mind NOT a system an SP gamer would want to focus on, it's a good spare console but in no way a good primary machine. Oh and yes I do play back BD's and DVD's on my PS3 - it's quite good at it too, thanks.
Based purely on second hand information from me, which you'll have to assume I'm not lying (I'm not..) I agree with you, the majority of people I know who own a Wii do not play it often, if at all, they go back to their PS3/PC/360 within a few months and the Wii gathers dust, only to come out at christmas or easter each year because grandma likes bowling
The majority of games are most definitely gimmicks, there are a few 'proper' games on the system but I have to wonder how many Wii's have been sold without any more games purchased for them at all? Just a Wii sports box.
The attach rates for the system certainly seems to confirm this theory.
I have all 3 new consoles and my PS3 is used quite genuinely 5x more than my Wii. I for one enjoy single player games with a linear but good storyline, the Wii provides very very little of that for us kind of gamers.
But I think what most folk mean is the snappiness and robustness of the desktop.
Unlike XP, where every little network blip would hang the shell, which would block and hange the entire desktop, Vista's desktop is smooth, NEVER hangs, never tears, and never slows down.
I completely and utterly disagree. Infact I've made specific posts about this on shacknews.com and here - I do not believe for an instant that Microsoft has updated the 'under the hood' explorer engine in years upon years, the skin and look yes but the under the hood stuff is just as stuffed as it always was. I deal with it in XP but Vista seems slower due to 'UI fluffyness' The same ridiculous things which hung XP still hang Vista, be it inserting a CDROM or opening Explorer with permenantly mapped network drives (which happen to be missing) the behaviour is so similar, down to the millisecond that I'm convinced the 'core engine' is identical, the only difference is XP's renders faster because the UI isn't so shitty and bloated.
Infact, Vista is slower, I can right click on my computer and chose manage on XP it opens in under 1 second, Vista can take up to 3 seconds - that's a huge difference on a 3.2ghz quad core machine with 4gb of ram
High disk activity on XP would bring the shell of a dual-core system to a halt on XP. Not so on Vista, even under very high load its barely noticeable.
Again, disagree vehemently - if anything Vista is known for it's poor disk performance. The last OS which had excellent disk performance was 98, as it didn't support NTFS As a 'hard disk guru / wanker' I can assure you there's an overhead of about 15% when working with NTFS - 98 was bloody quick with FAT32, disk to disk transfers were astounding, the same machine with XP or 2k was the same speed (roughly) under FAT32 but NTFS, not so much - it was definitely noticable.
Vista is the first NTFS OS I've seen which reduced disk performance even more than 2k / XP - it's simply 'diddling' with my stuff all the time and reducing it more - hell they had to patch it to increase disk performance!
Crazy claim, then again it's your opinion.
(Mind you, my laptop is a C2D2.4, 4GB of memory, with a fast drive subsystem, and an Nvidia Quadro mobility with 512MB of real onboard memory, so its pretty leading edge power for a laptop, and of course Vista will be fast on this box.)
Asus board with P35 chipset, 4gb of DDR2 800 ram, 3.2ghz quad core intel, 7200rpm SATA II drives with 166gb per platter - even the swap file is set to a different physical disk, trust me I'm a disk nazi.
Ultimately we can debate forever, Vista's performance is the lowest worry I have, it's that ridiculously awkward explorer interface which shits me off, this thread infact is damn near convincing me to make a "why I hate Vista" youtube video - I might do it this weekend.
So what? That's what you'd expect of an indexing service, right? Spotlight on Mac OS X does this as well, and I don't mind because I actually use Spotlight from time to time.
No, you wouldn't expect this from an indexing service. The indexing service in Vista thrashes the disk at all times, even though it's supposed to do it only during idle times, my drive is constantly thrashing about and distinctively impacting performance of opening applications.
Windows Vista has been much faster than XP for me. You just need more memory so the library cache won't send you into virtual territory.
Fucking lies, stop wasting our time with lies. This is basically physically impossible, it simply can not work this way and I tire of comments like this by biased people. The OS has a bigger overhead, it can NOT be faster than XP unless your XP was configured incorrectly, PERIOD.
Of the people I've spoken to who dislike Vista (and there's many) I would break it down as the following issues
Performance complaints 20% of people Compatibility complaints 15% of people Disdain at the user interface 65% of people
Vista Aero is terrible and Vista classic is nothing short of an insult to previous users of XP classic UI. I can comfortably afford a quad core machine, with 4gb of ram, I could afford RAID 0 raptors if I like but performance isn't my concern with the vile operating system, it's the absoloutely nasty Windows explorer interface - it's _terrible_ (see my post history for more information)
THAT is why people say Vista sucks and I'm not talking about elitist geeks, I'm talking about some of my dads friends (in their 50's) purchased a new computer with Vista, they stuck with it for 3 months and just couldn't hack it, they paid good money to switch back to XP.
Face it people, XP does 99% of what people want, simply, easily and at a high speed to boot. You could re-package Vista with all it's flaws 'under the hood' it apparently has and I wouldn't care as long as it had a usable interface. In it's current form, Vista is an abortion.
Until Windows explorer is FIXED in Vista to be as functional, fast and useful as the one in XP then I will avoid it like the plague it is. If you'd like examples of problems, bugs and design flaws with it, just check my post history - Vista explorer is nothing short of a disgrace for people who use their filesystems extensively.
(note: I realise one of those points I was wrong on, the initial audio one)
Otherwise, I stand by my comments - each and every time I attempt to use Vista I simply can not as the explorer interface to navigate *my* filesystem on *my* computer is now distinctively more difficult to use, clumsier, more cluttered and actually buggier!
They can do ANYTHING else they want but give me the XP explorer interface please.
Slashdot Mirror
I emplore ALL of you to go and check out the episode "Free Hat" from Matt and Trey at Southpark studios, probably one of my most favourite episodes of the series and sums up George Lucas perfectly, I think some of you Americans are lucky enough to be able to stream from their homepage for free now too, foreigners - try mininova, cable tv or your local DVD store.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Hat
What do we do?
Googles applications and services (thus far) are still completely within my 'non evil' threshold, they are useful, convienient, fast, cross platform etc etc.
Google docs has an incredibly important spreadsheet in there, which I can manually backup but interestingly I would also like to add a password to it (beyond the pass required for my google account) I wish they'd add that feature too, because if anyone ever reads that spreadsheet with malicious intent, I'm @$%#ed!
Anyone got any ideas on how to back this stuff up?
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159889&cid=13385253
I really think that DVD is still more than good enough with upscaling and well encoded DVD's - it looks just great still (in my mind)
Also, I now own a 50" plasma television, yet I still don't find regular DVD too pixelated. (as a CRT lover, god why didn't I get a bigass plasma sooner?)
I now own a PS3 and I've used blu-ray discs, I'm very very happy with the image quality of them and the durability (special coating) applied to the discs, the cost is a concern though, I don't purchase many discs though.
I'm happy that a single standard has prevailed, sorry for the HD-DVD owners but either way a single standard is going to save us trouble in the long run.
Sure the manufacturers now need to include 2 lenses in future devices but sooner or later due to mass production the cost will be reduced.
My thoughts ultimately on the situation have changed, I feel that blu ray will actually prevail but it's going to be a substantially slower adoption compared to DVD, much much slower due to the reasons outlined in the post I linked.
With DVD's being as cheap as 3-10$ US now, they are going to be around for 10 years or more, while blu ray slowly takes over, maybe even 15 years.
Eventually, due to marketing and higher quality displays in peoples homes, the perception will be that DVD is crap (despite it not being crap)
What these media companies do need to worry about is the next standard, because that's a whole different story, that's most definitely not going to take off for a long long time, if they try within 3 years they WILL fail.
I feel digital downloads will eventually replace blu-ray (however unlike some, I don't think in 2 or 3 years, more like 6 to 10 years)
My thoughts are that blu-ray will be the last optical disc format for the home consumer, it *WILL* be as big as DVD is now but it'll be a long long time coming.
Blizzards shots looks quite fine but you have to admit the photoshops do look really cool
Don't whine about perfectly good night vision and then game on an LCD, it makes your post completely and utterly pointless.
I have finally switched to an LCD after years of holding out and I can see the night and day difference from LCD to CRT - it's unmistakable, Doom 3 is quite playable on a CRT in a dark environment, on an LCD it's not - there's only so much id can do about this.
I seriously doubt there will be a phone.
A new nano mp3 player which is basically a small touch, yes, no problems believing that however.
I'd put this rumour in the very unlikely basket
Absoloutely agreed! This is the first I've damn well heard of anything like this on the PS3.
Where to next?
Intel Q6600, 4gb DDR2, 8800GT 512mb video card, 750gb WD's (multiple, swap file on second drive)
Performance isn't TERRIBLE but disk thrashing is noticable on the machine.
I wasn't aware 4gb isn't enough for Vista, thanks for the update!...........
I did disable those - still thrashes more than XP.
Thanks for clarifying that!
Whelp, you've confirmed for me that Vista was certainly 'thrashing' the drive, cheers.
I'm sure you can specify the files and folders to be degragged and index'd the question is should I have to and should it be doing it during non idle times?
What is their definition of 'idle' because mine is the keyboard and mouse are not being used and the display isn't updating anything - plus it's been in that state for at least 20 seconds.
However it doesn't come across that way as an end user - hence switching back to XP (amongst many other reasons)
Vista forced my Dell 8600 to go from running the fan at speed 1 of 3 to speed 2 of 3 at all times, no matter what I shut down or disabled.
Vista also touched my taint, ghastly chap.
Vista absoloutely randomly thrashes your hard disk almost constantly for the first few weeks of installation, all you can hear is tickety tick, clickety click from the damn machine.
What is it doing? I'm not sure, auto defrag? file index? superfetch? I can't be sure, what I can be sure of is that it's *apparently* meant to run at idle priority, in reality I can clearly visibly see the performance decrease of say loading firefox or nero or any application under Vista compared to XP, while the drive thrashes about like a 'special person' thrown in the deep end of a swimming pool.
I am sadly 'oldschool' I remember running DOS 5 and 6 and I recall watching my drive light, I used to be able to spot a machine with a virus purely from the damned disk activity on the machine, because it simply isn't supposed to do anything when you're not, how that has changed over the years, it's sad, even smartdrv would stop fiddling with the drive after about 5 or 10 seconds under 6.22
Win 95, 98, virus scanners, spyware detectors, 2k, XP - it's all slowly gotten worse over the years but Vista really takes the cake, I'd love to see a laptop power consumption test of XP vs Vista on an identically spec'd machine. (tickety tick, thrashity thrash)
The short story is, I agree with the article entirely, SSD's would be worn out substantially faster under Vista than previous versions of Windows.
How interesting, actually Nintendo's Wii games do NOT sell well, if you look in to the attach rates for the Wii they are significantly lower than both the 360 and the PS3, there's a large large quantity of Wii owners out there with either one game (Wii sports) or perhaps one more)
The rumours and speculation across the web from the gaming press, analysis and so on, continues to go along the lines of the system could be a fad, no one will really know for another year I would think but the 360 and PS3 continue to slowly build up sales of systems AND games, meanwhile that Wii is selling like hotcakes but no games with it.
I for one barely use mine and remain convinced it's simply the hot toy to have.
Yes I mean toy and no I don't mean it insultingly, but my opinion is there's a large quantity being sold purely as a 'Wii sports box' rather than a video gaming ocnsole - ultimately that's all fine and dandy as long as Nintendo are making money, but some of us more serious 'hardcore' storyline or online MP gamers do have some concerns that developers will throw their efforts towards the Wii focusing on an entire different kind of game that many don't care for.
We shall see in a year or so.
Okami
I do own a PS2 as well... long long played out
Twilight Princess
How old is this? Launch game if I recall or a month later, certainly is one of the good games I was mentioning however, no doubt about that.
Super Mario Galaxy
You're joking right? Brilliant, fun platformer but in no way is this a 'proper' single player linear experience with a half decent storyline - I will eventually finish it but you're clutching at straws here.
No More Heroes
Haven't tried it I'll be honest. I've been too busy with life / movies / TV / PS3.
need I go on? You're just not trying.
Yes, please go on, there's only 2 or 3 games left for the Wii which fit my criteria, you're stretching, I don't even need to try.
And unlike Metal Gear Cutscene 4, those are actually fun to play and don't involve mindless cutscene watching.
BZZZT sorry buddy, we're not all MGS fanboys just because we own a Sony machine.
Let's see what I've been playing now.
Uncharted
GTA4
Heavenly Sword
Resistance Fall of man
Ratchet and Clank (ok I admit, this too is a platformer)
Call of Duty 4 (short but good)
Burnout Paradise (I admit, not the linear SP type I mentioned earlier but also nothing close to this on Wii now is there?)
Lego Star Wars
Assassins Creed
and if I didn't have it on my PC, I could be playing the entire contents of the Orange box, which is 3 good SP games (HL2, Ep1, Ep2)
same with Oblivion
Pixel Junk Monsters (incredibly addictive and fun) - again, I admit it's not a linear SP game with a good story as previously mentioned
Also I've been lent a copy of MGS4 (I disliked the earlier ones) but this isn't so bad, it does indeed have a lot of cutscenes but it is also true as the reviews have said, that it blends cinema with gameplay very seamlessly, cinematics in games won't be the same after this.
Ultimately, you're trying to argue the Wii is a good SP gamers machine when it's common knowledge by pretty much any gamer worth his crust that it's not it's specialty, why waste my time and other slashdot readers times? Seriously?
Ragging on the PS3 is no longer hip and trendy, Sony have made some damned fool mistakes but the console is not in any way a useless piece of consumer electronics only good as a BD player as some fans would have you think.
As I said, I'm an owner of all 3 systems and my PS3 by far gets the most playtime (I can't hack the noise of the 360, thank god for the new load to drive feature)
The Wii is known for it's shovelware, if you like it or not, let's see here
http://www.metacritic.com/games/ps3/scores/
81 games rated above 75 for the PS3 - out of a total of 184 - not bad
http://www.metacritic.com/games/xbox360/scores/
167 games rated above 75 for the 360 - out of a total of 424, also not bad
http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/scores/
43 games rated above 75 for the Wii - out of a total of 233 - shovelware much?
Definitely without any doubt in my mind NOT a system an SP gamer would want to focus on, it's a good spare console but in no way a good primary machine.
Oh and yes I do play back BD's and DVD's on my PS3 - it's quite good at it too, thanks.
Based purely on second hand information from me, which you'll have to assume I'm not lying (I'm not..)
I agree with you, the majority of people I know who own a Wii do not play it often, if at all, they go back to their PS3/PC/360 within a few months and the Wii gathers dust, only to come out at christmas or easter each year because grandma likes bowling
The majority of games are most definitely gimmicks, there are a few 'proper' games on the system but I have to wonder how many Wii's have been sold without any more games purchased for them at all? Just a Wii sports box.
The attach rates for the system certainly seems to confirm this theory.
Opinion is all subjective now isn't it?
I have all 3 new consoles and my PS3 is used quite genuinely 5x more than my Wii.
I for one enjoy single player games with a linear but good storyline, the Wii provides very very little of that for us kind of gamers.
You might want to look at sales numbers as well as profit / loss reports rather than how it seems from an end user perspective.
AMD / ATI is in serious, serious pain and need some major money soon
But I think what most folk mean is the snappiness and robustness of the desktop.
Unlike XP, where every little network blip would hang the shell, which would block and hange the entire desktop, Vista's desktop is smooth, NEVER hangs, never tears, and never slows down.
I completely and utterly disagree.
Infact I've made specific posts about this on shacknews.com and here - I do not believe for an instant that Microsoft has updated the 'under the hood' explorer engine in years upon years, the skin and look yes but the under the hood stuff is just as stuffed as it always was.
I deal with it in XP but Vista seems slower due to 'UI fluffyness'
The same ridiculous things which hung XP still hang Vista, be it inserting a CDROM or opening Explorer with permenantly mapped network drives (which happen to be missing) the behaviour is so similar, down to the millisecond that I'm convinced the 'core engine' is identical, the only difference is XP's renders faster because the UI isn't so shitty and bloated.
Infact, Vista is slower, I can right click on my computer and chose manage on XP it opens in under 1 second, Vista can take up to 3 seconds - that's a huge difference on a 3.2ghz quad core machine with 4gb of ram
High disk activity on XP would bring the shell of a dual-core system to a halt on XP. Not so on Vista, even under very high load its barely noticeable.
Again, disagree vehemently - if anything Vista is known for it's poor disk performance.
The last OS which had excellent disk performance was 98, as it didn't support NTFS
As a 'hard disk guru / wanker' I can assure you there's an overhead of about 15% when working with NTFS - 98 was bloody quick with FAT32, disk to disk transfers were astounding, the same machine with XP or 2k was the same speed (roughly) under FAT32 but NTFS, not so much - it was definitely noticable.
Vista is the first NTFS OS I've seen which reduced disk performance even more than 2k / XP - it's simply 'diddling' with my stuff all the time and reducing it more - hell they had to patch it to increase disk performance!
Crazy claim, then again it's your opinion.
(Mind you, my laptop is a C2D2.4, 4GB of memory, with a fast drive subsystem, and an Nvidia Quadro mobility with 512MB of real onboard memory, so its pretty leading edge power for a laptop, and of course Vista will be fast on this box.)
Asus board with P35 chipset, 4gb of DDR2 800 ram, 3.2ghz quad core intel, 7200rpm SATA II drives with 166gb per platter - even the swap file is set to a different physical disk, trust me I'm a disk nazi.
Ultimately we can debate forever, Vista's performance is the lowest worry I have, it's that ridiculously awkward explorer interface which shits me off, this thread infact is damn near convincing me to make a "why I hate Vista" youtube video - I might do it this weekend.
Windows Vista Explorer is absoloute rubbish.
So what? That's what you'd expect of an indexing service, right? Spotlight on Mac OS X does this as well, and I don't mind because I actually use Spotlight from time to time.
No, you wouldn't expect this from an indexing service.
The indexing service in Vista thrashes the disk at all times, even though it's supposed to do it only during idle times, my drive is constantly thrashing about and distinctively impacting performance of opening applications.
Windows Vista has been much faster than XP for me. You just need more memory so the library cache won't send you into virtual territory.
Fucking lies, stop wasting our time with lies.
This is basically physically impossible, it simply can not work this way and I tire of comments like this by biased people.
The OS has a bigger overhead, it can NOT be faster than XP unless your XP was configured incorrectly, PERIOD.
Rubbish absoloute rubbish.
Of the people I've spoken to who dislike Vista (and there's many) I would break it down as the following issues
Performance complaints 20% of people
Compatibility complaints 15% of people
Disdain at the user interface 65% of people
Vista Aero is terrible and Vista classic is nothing short of an insult to previous users of XP classic UI.
I can comfortably afford a quad core machine, with 4gb of ram, I could afford RAID 0 raptors if I like but performance isn't my concern with the vile operating system, it's the absoloutely nasty Windows explorer interface - it's _terrible_ (see my post history for more information)
THAT is why people say Vista sucks and I'm not talking about elitist geeks, I'm talking about some of my dads friends (in their 50's) purchased a new computer with Vista, they stuck with it for 3 months and just couldn't hack it, they paid good money to switch back to XP.
Face it people, XP does 99% of what people want, simply, easily and at a high speed to boot.
You could re-package Vista with all it's flaws 'under the hood' it apparently has and I wouldn't care as long as it had a usable interface.
In it's current form, Vista is an abortion.
Glad you like it, I loathe it with all my being.
Until Windows explorer is FIXED in Vista to be as functional, fast and useful as the one in XP then I will avoid it like the plague it is.
If you'd like examples of problems, bugs and design flaws with it, just check my post history - Vista explorer is nothing short of a disgrace for people who use their filesystems extensively.
That's it, that's all I want.
You all know it of course because you've had to put up with my rants for over year on this now.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=364823&cid=21406737
(note: I realise one of those points I was wrong on, the initial audio one)
Otherwise, I stand by my comments - each and every time I attempt to use Vista I simply can not as the explorer interface to navigate *my* filesystem on *my* computer is now distinctively more difficult to use, clumsier, more cluttered and actually buggier!
They can do ANYTHING else they want but give me the XP explorer interface please.
I think your joke is gay.