Jump to content

Help Save Xp!!!


DLS2008

Recommended Posts

The only problem I really have with vista is its massive amount of resources it runs. It's just really annoying to have 500mb of memory sitting there full with all these dumb processes open that aren't necessary. If they could do something about the resources it'd be like night and day for me. Thats really my only complaint about Vista. Otherwise DX10 FTW!

I swear it seems I have to bring this up every time Vista is discussed :rolleyes:.

 

Vista handles resources differently than XP!

 

Vista may seemingly "use more resources" during idle to casual use than XP does, but it undoubtedly does a better job managing those resources once you try and run a program that needs those resources. XP doesn't like to release its grip on your resources once a program/service grabs it, but Vista will actually loosen its reigns and prioritize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Vista isn't that bad like everyone is making it out to be, everything just got a bit rearranged which is really the only complaint I have against it.

 

I've got business, and the only thing that it doesn't have over both Home editions are games... which is very annoying lol

 

EDIT: Games meaning built in games. Business doesn't have any. (solitaire etc.)

 

the games can be installed ... you have to go into the windows components and choose to install them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I guess it's time to weigh in on this on going debate over Vista here on the OCC, I have been meaning to post about this for some time so please excuse my long winded post but I have a lot to say on this matter. First and foremost I used XP for many years and thought it was a great OS so I am by no means saying people need to upgrade but I do feel that Vista gets a bad rap mostly because it isn't "technically cool" to like Vista just yet by most of the PC community. I have been testing Vista since beta 1 and have successfully completed a migration from Xp to Vista for about 1200 workstations at my job so I have seen a lot of what it has to offer from an IT standpoint (more on that later). Just want to make some points here and I hope I don't anger anyone as this is merely my opinion mixed with some facts.

 

 

1. Vista is slammed for incompatibility with hardware. In reality this was mostly due to AMD and Nvidia dropping the ball with driver support and it is now mostly fixed. The rest is just echoes of FUD on the internet, and most users not liking change. You have to remember that the vast majority of computer users just want it to work without thinking, which for most people means having it the same. If a user is used to having to crawl through five menus to find the bold button, they'll be angry when you move it to a toolbar and give them a shortcut key because it's different and until they get used to it, they'll call it worse no matter what.

 

2. Vista is rewritten and most legacy drivers aren't there, enhanced security is here. New user interfaces mean that information is more readily available and more support is built into the operating system for new technologies such as touchpads, USB devices, and wireless internet. And yet this is all drowned out by the FUD of the anti-Microsoft groups combined with people's innate sense to reject something new.

 

Average Vista user wrote:

 

You get a new computer. You've heard that the OS is bad; Jimmy the barber said Vista had lots of UAC prompts. He must know because his son is a computer nerd and has Linux. If anyone knows, Jimmy will. I hope this new computer doesn't get in the way of my daily tasks. Let's just start Office.

 

OMG! The menus! They've all gone! Where did they go? Oh, my beautiful menus, and this ribbon thing. It's so confusing. Where there used to be drop down menus there's now a nice looking blue thing with descriptive text and images! It's all different, and I liked it the same.

 

Let's browse the internet.

 

Aaaah! It's changed! I can't find the back button. The back button is gone! Why did they take my back button away from me? Oh, my poor sweet back button... I just wish I had my old Internet Explorer back. I knew how it worked, it was dear to me. It had a back button.

 

Let's browse a file.

 

Browsity-browse browse. They have big shiny pictures, and the icons are representative of what the file contains. PDFs and DOCs contain a preview as do images and videos. Terribly useful. Now, I just need to go up a folder... And... Oh sweet Jesus! There's no up button. Microsoft stole my up button! How can they expect me to browse with no up button? I can only go one way! The oppression. I remember in Windows 95 when if I clicked a folder it gave me a new window, and Windows has got stingier ever since, and now it won't even let me go up a folder, those thieving .... Oh. Here it is.

 

People are stupid.

 

 

3.Vista giveth and Vista taketh away.

 

It takes away some application compatibility, it takes away some performance and it gives a large infrastructure for applications to build on as well as clean software stacks for audio, networking, etc.

Ask any audio professional/audiophile about Vista compared to XP when it comes to audio and I will almost guarantee he'll have nothing but good stuff to say about it.

 

The annoying thing is that when computers get faster, software gets slower - that is to say, more stuff gets done, and optimization is probably being neglected to some extent, because it doesn't have the same necessity.

 

Some logical focus areas, I'm betting on

 

- Optimization (humans (engineering), compilers, languages (C++0x, C#, F#, ?))

- Virtualization (application compatibility)

- Metadata harvesting and search

- UX improvements (shaders, more intuitive folders, other metaphors)

 

Vista is full of new plumbing that didn't exist in previous versions of Windows, it's full of 1.0 features like DWM, KTM, UAC, WPF, WDDM, and other 3-4 letter acronyms.

 

Seriously guys Vista does bring a lot of new stuff to the table. I don't know how many of you work in the IT field but desktop deployment and image management is a difficult task to keep up with especially if you different hardware platforms. There are some really cool FREE tools from Microsoft that bundle all these tasks together and allow you to have one image that is completely hardware independent not to mention you can inject drivers and service packs without resealing an image. So for any of you that have used Ghost, True Image, etc in the past you know this is something very useful. Also working with answer files for automated installation has improved significantly and gives you so many new options. Now I realize that the average home user doesn't care about any of this and is just looking for stability and gaming improvements. I just simply wanted to point out that all the people saying "it's just a prettier version of XP" or "it's just XP with the menus moved around" are very misinformed. Here are some very basic links that just touch on the basics of new stuff added with Vista.

 

Vista features

 

For IT folks some more new features

 

Not that bad for a system that is basically 90% copy of XP :-)

And by the way SP1 does improve performance for a number of things so don't give up just yet.

 

Remember..... people complain, use, forget, complain, use, forget...was it really that long ago that everyone was calling XP a bloated version of Win2k with fisher price buttons that nobody seems to remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do not see where complaints from years ago are even relevant to the performance of Vista.

some of us are trying to point out it is slower and wastes resources.

this things are not speculation, the numbers are there to prove it.

remember these are computers we are using, and the numbers do not lie.

this is a site dedicated to the overclocking of computers.

Vista does not perform at the same level as XP, nor does it overclock as well.

it basically comes down to personal preference.

run whatever you like the best, but do not try and deny the numbers.

people that are pushing the performance envelope know they are there, we see them in the results.

nobody is disputing that it does work, and may actually be acceptable to a majority of users.

but if you are looking for pure performance from a windows OS, Vista is behind XP.

 

BTW...

AMD and Nvidia did not drop the ball.

they could never get the final code because MS kept changing it.

they then dumped an unfinished piece of software onto the market without anyone have the time to optimize drivers for the final code.

you may remember the deadline for release was scrapped 3 different times, as was the final code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

run whatever you like the best, but do not try and deny the numbers.

people that are pushing the performance envelope know they are there, we see them in the results.

nobody is disputing that it does work, and may actually be acceptable to a majority of users.

but if you are looking for pure performance from a windows OS, Vista is behind XP.

:withstupid:

 

It's slower. Period. One person will say "I barely notice it" and the other will say "It's horrible!". It's perception. But it is slower, and that's not up for debate.

 

Other than that, I love seeing all these new "features" that I either didn't need or already have on the Pros lists for Vista. Neo said there's new support for "touchpads, USB devices, and wireless internet". Did anyone have trouble with those devices in XP? I sure didn't. Others say Vista is more secure. I laugh at that. Their "security by annoying the bejesus out of you" approach is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. No one reads those prompts after a week or so. They've either been turned off or the user has become accustomed to just hitting 'yes' immediately. And beyond that, you've still really only got two types of users: People that have at least half a brain when it comes to computers and had no security issues with XP, and people who are clueless and will fudge-up Vista the same way they did XP. Phew, good thing we upgraded!

 

Vista just doesn't offer very much on the grand scale. Why deal with readjusting to the new OS and performance loss for a lateral move? Why not wait a year or two until hardware moves forward and the difference between the two is much more negligible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:withstupid:

 

It's slower. Period. One person will say "I barely notice it" and the other will say "It's horrible!". It's perception. But it is slower, and that's not up for debate.

 

Other than that, I love seeing all these new "features" that I either didn't need or already have on the Pros lists for Vista. Neo said there's new support for "touchpads, USB devices, and wireless internet". Did anyone have trouble with those devices in XP? I sure didn't. Others say Vista is more secure. I laugh at that. Their "security by annoying the bejesus out of you" approach is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. No one reads those prompts after a week or so. They've either been turned off or the user has become accustomed to just hitting 'yes' immediately. And beyond that, you've still really only got two types of users: People that have at least half a brain when it comes to computers and had no security issues with XP, and people who are clueless and will fudge-up Vista the same way they did XP. Phew, good thing we upgraded!

 

Vista just doesn't offer very much on the grand scale. Why deal with readjusting to the new OS and performance loss for a lateral move? Why not wait a year or two until hardware moves forward and the difference between the two is much more negligible?

Exactly.

 

As for the move to XP from 98? I had, and still have, complaints about that too. As I type this now, let me take a screenshot of my desktop, on Windows XP Pro SP2. I have no need for shiney icons, animated menus, and all the other mindless useless crap that OS's are crammed with. I guess you can say "bloating" annoys me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I guess it's time to weigh in on this on going debate over Vista here on the OCC, I have been meaning to post about this for some time so please excuse my long winded post but I have a lot to say on this matter. First and foremost I used XP for many years and thought it was a great OS so I am by no means saying people need to upgrade but I do feel that Vista gets a bad rap mostly because it isn't "technically cool" to like Vista just yet by most of the PC community. I have been testing Vista since beta 1 and have successfully completed a migration from Xp to Vista for about 1200 workstations at my job so I have seen a lot of what it has to offer from an IT standpoint (more on that later). Just want to make some points here and I hope I don't anger anyone as this is merely my opinion mixed with some facts.

 

 

1. Vista is slammed for incompatibility with hardware. In reality this was mostly due to AMD and Nvidia dropping the ball with driver support and it is now mostly fixed. The rest is just echoes of FUD on the internet, and most users not liking change. You have to remember that the vast majority of computer users just want it to work without thinking, which for most people means having it the same. If a user is used to having to crawl through five menus to find the bold button, they'll be angry when you move it to a toolbar and give them a shortcut key because it's different and until they get used to it, they'll call it worse no matter what.

 

2. Vista is rewritten and most legacy drivers aren't there, enhanced security is here. New user interfaces mean that information is more readily available and more support is built into the operating system for new technologies such as touchpads, USB devices, and wireless internet. And yet this is all drowned out by the FUD of the anti-Microsoft groups combined with people's innate sense to reject something new.

 

Average Vista user wrote:

 

You get a new computer. You've heard that the OS is bad; Jimmy the barber said Vista had lots of UAC prompts. He must know because his son is a computer nerd and has Linux. If anyone knows, Jimmy will. I hope this new computer doesn't get in the way of my daily tasks. Let's just start Office.

 

OMG! The menus! They've all gone! Where did they go? Oh, my beautiful menus, and this ribbon thing. It's so confusing. Where there used to be drop down menus there's now a nice looking blue thing with descriptive text and images! It's all different, and I liked it the same.

 

Let's browse the internet.

 

Aaaah! It's changed! I can't find the back button. The back button is gone! Why did they take my back button away from me? Oh, my poor sweet back button... I just wish I had my old Internet Explorer back. I knew how it worked, it was dear to me. It had a back button.

 

Let's browse a file.

 

Browsity-browse browse. They have big shiny pictures, and the icons are representative of what the file contains. PDFs and DOCs contain a preview as do images and videos. Terribly useful. Now, I just need to go up a folder... And... Oh sweet Jesus! There's no up button. Microsoft stole my up button! How can they expect me to browse with no up button? I can only go one way! The oppression. I remember in Windows 95 when if I clicked a folder it gave me a new window, and Windows has got stingier ever since, and now it won't even let me go up a folder, those thieving .... Oh. Here it is.

 

People are stupid.

 

 

3.Vista giveth and Vista taketh away.

 

It takes away some application compatibility, it takes away some performance and it gives a large infrastructure for applications to build on as well as clean software stacks for audio, networking, etc.

Ask any audio professional/audiophile about Vista compared to XP when it comes to audio and I will almost guarantee he'll have nothing but good stuff to say about it.

 

The annoying thing is that when computers get faster, software gets slower - that is to say, more stuff gets done, and optimization is probably being neglected to some extent, because it doesn't have the same necessity.

 

Some logical focus areas, I'm betting on

 

- Optimization (humans (engineering), compilers, languages (C++0x, C#, F#, ?))

- Virtualization (application compatibility)

- Metadata harvesting and search

- UX improvements (shaders, more intuitive folders, other metaphors)

 

Vista is full of new plumbing that didn't exist in previous versions of Windows, it's full of 1.0 features like DWM, KTM, UAC, WPF, WDDM, and other 3-4 letter acronyms.

 

Seriously guys Vista does bring a lot of new stuff to the table. I don't know how many of you work in the IT field but desktop deployment and image management is a difficult task to keep up with especially if you different hardware platforms. There are some really cool FREE tools from Microsoft that bundle all these tasks together and allow you to have one image that is completely hardware independent not to mention you can inject drivers and service packs without resealing an image. So for any of you that have used Ghost, True Image, etc in the past you know this is something very useful. Also working with answer files for automated installation has improved significantly and gives you so many new options. Now I realize that the average home user doesn't care about any of this and is just looking for stability and gaming improvements. I just simply wanted to point out that all the people saying "it's just a prettier version of XP" or "it's just XP with the menus moved around" are very misinformed. Here are some very basic links that just touch on the basics of new stuff added with Vista.

 

Vista features

 

For IT folks some more new features

 

Not that bad for a system that is basically 90% copy of XP :-)

And by the way SP1 does improve performance for a number of things so don't give up just yet.

 

Remember..... people complain, use, forget, complain, use, forget...was it really that long ago that everyone was calling XP a bloated version of Win2k with fisher price buttons that nobody seems to remember?

Sounds like a Microsoft employee to me. I have no complaints of them moving stuff, and bringing in a new O/S. I am not afraid of change, when I seen I had to have it for crossfirex I ordered installed it no problems. My complaint is its performance in benchmarks. I put Server 2008 trial edition with Ubuntu dual boot on one drive have XP on another and now Vista on another, XP still out performs Vista/Server 2008 in benchmarks. Now we are force to use Vista if we want to use crossfirex, I wonder how much that cost Bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do not see where complaints from years ago are even relevant to the performance of Vista.

some of us are trying to point out it is slower and wastes resources.

this things are not speculation, the numbers are there to prove it.

remember these are computers we are using, and the numbers do not lie.

this is a site dedicated to the overclocking of computers.

Vista does not perform at the same level as XP, nor does it overclock as well.

it basically comes down to personal preference.

run whatever you like the best, but do not try and deny the numbers.

people that are pushing the performance envelope know they are there, we see them in the results.

nobody is disputing that it does work, and may actually be acceptable to a majority of users.

but if you are looking for pure performance from a windows OS, Vista is behind XP.

 

BTW...

AMD and Nvidia did not drop the ball.

they could never get the final code because MS kept changing it.

they then dumped an unfinished piece of software onto the market without anyone have the time to optimize drivers for the final code.

you may remember the deadline for release was scrapped 3 different times, as was the final code.

 

Rehit I understand perfectly well that most of you are pointing out the performance hit and I touched on that several times in my original post and my thoughts on optimization and I certainly in no way denied any numbers. Yes I have seen the benchmarks and I am well aware that you will lose some fps in most games but in my experience most of these performance drops aren't causing me issues. I mean how fast is fast enough? I don't really mind if I get 60 fps vs 75 fps or shave off a few seconds here and there when performing various windows tasks (opening windows, copying files, burning, office tasks, etc) . I understand that OCC is a website mainly dedicated to overclocking PC's but we also have many other discussions on general computing here and I would hope that we can discuss all things relevant without a "speed and overclocking are everything and nothing else matters" mentality. In regards to the driver mess I guess it's fair to say that neither one of us really know the truth about the whole thing and perhaps Microsoft and Hardware vendors are both at fault to some extent. At this point we can just speculate and base our opinions on internet rumors. I will say this though it took way too long for Nvidia to get their act together with some decent drivers especially for SLI users once Vista was released.

 

 

:withstupid:

 

It's slower. Period. One person will say "I barely notice it" and the other will say "It's horrible!". It's perception. But it is slower, and that's not up for debate.

 

Other than that, I love seeing all these new "features" that I either didn't need or already have on the Pros lists for Vista. Neo said there's new support for "touchpads, USB devices, and wireless internet". Did anyone have trouble with those devices in XP? I sure didn't. Others say Vista is more secure. I laugh at that. Their "security by annoying the bejesus out of you" approach is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. No one reads those prompts after a week or so. They've either been turned off or the user has become accustomed to just hitting 'yes' immediately. And beyond that, you've still really only got two types of users: People that have at least half a brain when it comes to computers and had no security issues with XP, and people who are clueless and will fudge-up Vista the same way they did XP. Phew, good thing we upgraded!

 

Vista just doesn't offer very much on the grand scale. Why deal with readjusting to the new OS and performance loss for a lateral move? Why not wait a year or two until hardware moves forward and the difference between the two is much more negligible?

 

Okay looking back at my original post I realize maybe "Touchpads, USB devices, and Wireless" may not have been the best example given the audience here in the forums. I was simply trying to point out some simple things that home users would use and to my defense it was very late when I posted that :) Now given your reputation around here Verran I will not make the mistake of assuming you didn't read my original post but had you then you would know that one of the first things I said was people do not need to upgrade. And as I stated to Rehit I am well aware of the performance hits and I guess I would fall in to your category of people that say "I hardly notice" For me it's kind of like going from a Mclaren F1 to a Carrera GT, yes there is a difference but nothing that I would notice and if the Carrera GT brings a whole set of new features with it even more reason to forget about that 30 Horsepower that I lost. It's also worth mentioning here that XP set the bar pretty high and in the ever changing world of technology and our constant demands for innovation and enhancements people have gotten much pickier in the last few years. We are in general a much harder to please crowd these days with so many options to choose from. As far as security goes I realize that it may be a joke to you and most advanced users but look at the big picture. You mentioned UAC as being a joke but I can tell you for a fact it saves me a lot of work on a daily basis because anytime a user hits some random website that wants to install activeX controls or other malware for that matter they are prompted for Admin credentials (which they don't have) first before proceeding with the install. This is so much easier than crawling through hundreds of options in group policy to accomplish the same task. I do however agree that people shouldn't rely on Windows for their security. On the grand scale of things I would say Vista does have much to offer especially for developers and I think we will begin to see these benefits before too long. I think Vista is a lot further along in it's first year than XP was personally and like I stated before I remember people complaining about XP no matter what just because of the change.

 

Exactly.

 

As for the move to XP from 98? I had, and still have, complaints about that too.

 

:blink: Really? Not even going to go down that path with you.

 

 

Sounds like a Microsoft employee to me. I have no complaints of them moving stuff, and bringing in a new O/S. I am not afraid of change, when I seen I had to have it for crossfirex I ordered installed it no problems. My complaint is its performance in benchmarks. I put Server 2008 trial edition with Ubuntu dual boot on one drive have XP on another and now Vista on another, XP still out performs Vista/Server 2008 in benchmarks. Now we are force to use Vista if we want to use crossfirex, I wonder how much that cost Bill?

 

Ah yes you caught me red handed RoadRunner I am indeed a M$ employee trying to drum up a few sales here on OCC <_< Come on you can't be serious? I work for a nutrition company and we use a wide array of products here ranging from Microsoft, Mac OSX, Oracle, Linux, OS400, just to name a few. So I am not in Bill's pocket if that's what you are asking. Now let me get this straight you pulled down a trial edition of Server 08 and then proceeded to benchmark it vs XP? I do not understand the logic in that at all? What kind of benchmarks? A server OS is an entirely different beast and is designed to run on a server hardware platform, why would anybody have a crossfire setup in their server?

 

Seriously people I am just stating my opinions here and no you do not need to upgrade from XP but I just wanted to point out some things to those who may not know and have been wondering about the jump. But I remind everybody again...... when XP came out it was the same song and dance from everybody complaining how it was just a bloated win2k and after a while everybody loved it. Then when SP2 came out it was even worse, I can still recall huge threads on this very forum from BigRed I think talking about how ridiculous SP2 was and what was Microsoft thinking and of course everybody agreed and jumped on the SP2 bashing wagon. Now everybody loves it and it's not even an issue. My guess is the same will be the case with Vista and before you know it we will start seeing the "Windows 7 sucks" threads on here :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using Server 2008 trial because I needed a 64 bit windows O/S for WCG, it performs better and gets more PPD than Linux or XP 32. I was just trying it and since it it basically Vista and free. Of course now I have bought Vista only because I had to if I wanted to run crossfirex. I have read though that server O/S are generally faster becuase they do not have all the junk running that a regular O/S does. I just know in benchmarks Vista is slower. I do not play games so I could care less about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went with Vista for my recent build (August 2007) simply because i didn't want to have to worry about switching my OS midway through my computer's life just to take advantage of the new things (i.e. DX10).

 

I'm still working on tweaking the services and other things that autorun, but otherwise it works plenty fast. Turning off file indexing got rid of the annoying HD chatter that would last up to 10-15 minutes after booting up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using Server 2008 trial because I needed a 64 bit windows O/S for WCG, it performs better and gets more PPD than Linux or XP 32. I was just trying it and since it it basically Vista and free. Of course now I have bought Vista only because I had to if I wanted to run crossfirex. I have read though that server O/S are generally faster becuase they do not have all the junk running that a regular O/S does. I just know in benchmarks Vista is slower. I do not play games so I could care less about that.

 

Server 08 is very nice from what I have done with it and yes server OS's are very lean and run very optimized, in fact that is what Windows Server Core is all about if you can handle just straight command line. I am actually using 08 to run WDS (Windows Deployment Services) and it performs quite nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the driver mess I guess it's fair to say that neither one of us really know the truth about the whole thing and perhaps Microsoft and Hardware vendors are both at fault to some extent.

Really, it doesn't matter who screwed up. The fact is that when drivers don't work, the OS doesn't work. I don't care whose fault it is. It just isn't working. If Vista doesn't work, I'm not going to use it. You can blame anyone you want, but the end result is the same.

 

Now for the most part (from what I can tell), there are very few driver issues these days. I just wanted to clear up the "blame game" argument because to me it's quite moot.

 

For me it's kind of like going from a Mclaren F1 to a Carrera GT, yes there is a difference but nothing that I would notice and if the Carrera GT brings a whole set of new features with it even more reason to forget about that 30 Horsepower that I lost.

I'll ignore the car analogy because they always start off silly and just get sillier :P But you're right, most people can probably get over the losses. I'm not going to argue that. What I want to talk about is why on Earth you would want to pay $400 to "upgrade" to those losses. The only benefit (for myself) that I've seen so far is DX10, and pardon me if I don't think slightly prettier smoke and water are worth the cost and performance hit.

 

My point about the list that I quoted from you was to say that generally when people list the benefits that are supposed to outweigh the undeniable losses of Vista, they seem pretty silly or they're not really benefits in the first place. Prettier menus? Skin XP and save yourself a lot of hassle and money. Better networking? Where? I didn't see it, looks the same to me, and I had no problem with XP there. Security? Not for me. UAC was off ASAP. Besides (and again), I had no security issues with XP.

 

I'd be willing to swallow the performance loss pill if there was something beneficial in it, but right now the only thing I want from Vista is DX10, and I can live without that for now.

 

I do however agree that people shouldn't rely on Windows for their security.

I agree, which is why the security "upgrades" in Vista are really downgrades. I didn't look to Windows for this in the first place, so now all they've given me is a new self-defeating scheme (since I immediately switched it off).

 

You mentioned the benefits of UAC in the administration world. I'll certainly give you that. But on the flip side, the corporate world also has extra issues with Vista in a lot of cases. The cost of moving a whole company worth of workstations up to Vista-capable hardware is major, and not to be taken lightly. The hardware needed to support Vista's bloat is bad enough for enthusiasts who stay pretty current anyways. It's just going to be that much worse for small companies that run XP on 5-7 year old hardware to save costs.

 

But I remind everybody again...... when XP came out it was the same song and dance from everybody complaining how it was just a bloated win2k and after a while everybody loved it.

This is a valid point. People complained about XP when it came out. And they finally ended up adopting it and enjoying it... when the hardware caught up. But it's going to be a while for a lot of users to catch up to Vista hardware-wise, and in the meantime they're going to wait and use XP which offers pretty much the same feature set and doesn't require any change or purchases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...