Vista SP1 RC is out.

[Frogacuda]

Cleaning? Dude, I'm talking on a clean format. 3 times. It's a broken piece of software.

[Thief Silver]

I'm sorry, but the average user shouldn't have to tweak their fucking operating system. If it runs like shit out of the box, it's a shit operating system.

[Opaque]

I have a system at work that we sell (well, it's for sale anyway) and in that system is a Pentium Dual core clocked at 1.46Ghz along with 512MB DDR PC3200. It's the system I use as an example of what poor hardware can mean to a Vista boot and general operations. Also, let's keep in mind that this system is LOADED with manufacturer and demo programs and has almost 100 processes going after start up is over.

It takes about three or four minutes to start up.

You need to understand that your experience is the exception not the standard. I'm not going to take the advice of what a good OS is from someone who has a system that runs Vista worse than a $300 Compaq.

[Frogacuda]

I have a system at work that we sell (well, it's for sale anyway) and in that system is a Pentium Dual core clocked at 1.46Ghz along with 512MB DDR PC3200. It's the system I use as an example of poor hardware can mean to a Vista boot. Also, let's keep in mind that this system is LOADED with manufacturer and demo programs and has almost 100 processes going after start up is over.

It takes about three or four minutes to start up.

You need to understand that your experience is the exception not the standard. I'm not going to take the advice of what a good OS is from someone who has a system that runs Vista worse than a $300 Compaq.

Are you just pretending to be this dense? It's a fucking bug with the shitty OS. I'm fairly certain it's not actually doing anything for 8 of those minutes (it's not reading from the disk at least). It basically hangs at the black "Vista logo" screen for long periods of time. It's not becuase my hardware sucks. I have 2 gigs of RAM, 350 megs of neatly defragged hard disk space and a Core 2 Duo.

It shouldn't have a problem, but it does. And that's one of many examples that shows that Vista was not tested as extensively as it should have been. THAT is my point.

[Thief Silver]

Your point was that it's better than XP, which it's not. XP is still the most solid Operating system option out there bar none for PCs. It does everything you need, and besides the bullshit that Microsoft implemented in Direct x 10, is a very sound operating system.

I'm not saying Vista is bad, but no way is it better than XP, even if the tie breaker is simplicity.

[Opaque]

Vista is better for what I want to do.

It takes better advantage of my hardware and it's been completely stable. What more am I supposed to be asking for?

[Tommy Tallarico]

Vista tries to do everything at once but if you want it to run like XP you have to tell it to. Once you do it fucking flies.

...

So, Vista "fucking flies" once you make it exactly like XP.

I keep reading your post again and again and I can't for the life of me figure out why you think you're arguing for Vista.

[Shin Johnpv]

I know the 9 minute boot is abnormal, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with my spec that should make it take that long. It's just Vista is a buggy piece of shit.

Or you just haven't tweaked it right.

It's one of the issues with OS's being written to support millions of hardware configurations. It's going to take some effort of the person using it to tweak it to work best on their hardware.

Seriously if you have a 9 minute boot something is majorly wrong, and you should be looking into what options you can set or change to fix that.

Now I'm not trying to defend Vista, I'm not a fan of it. I'll move up from XP when I have to, and probably not before that.

That said though I think your problem here is just needing to tweak the OS to your machine, or check your drivers for EVERYTHING. A 9 minute boot is insane, and by no means what the average user is getting.

[Opaque]

...

So, Vista "fucking flies" once you make it exactly like XP.

I keep reading your post again and again and I can't for the life of me figure out why you think you're arguing for Vista.

Have you ever bowled?

Most people throw the ball straight and that will get you a strike sometimes. XP is like throwing the ball straight.

Now any pro bowler will tell you that you want some spin on the ball, but when you first start using the technique you're probably going to suck worse than you did before. Does that mean it's not a good way to bowl? No, you just need to fine tune your movements. That's what Vista is.

Does that analogy makes sense? Really what I'm saying is with both XP and Vista you want your shit to run well, and while Vista will in the end give you better performance, it requires a little work on your part.

[Shin Johnpv]

I'm sorry, but the average user shouldn't have to tweak their fucking operating system. If it runs like shit out of the box, it's a shit operating system.

I would disagree with that solely because of how many different hardware configurations you can have.

The sheer volume of different hardware that can be found in a modern PC is staggering, and to get something as deep as an OS to run at it's best it's going to need to be tweaked and configured for that particular hardware configuration.


Again I'm not trying to defend Vista here cause I'm no fan of it, but I heard this same argument from people when XP first came out. XP is a great OS, by far my favorite next to Irix, but it still needs tweaking and configuring if you want it to run at it's absolute best. It's just the effect of how deep and complicated an OS is now a days and how many different hardware options there are.