Vista rip-off

I have a Vista rip-off for you!

I've been shopping for a new laptop. Most come with two 512mb RAM modules. For example HP/Compaq "strongly recommends" 2gb of RAM for Vista, but many of their laptops come with two 512mb RAM modules. That means we need to buy two 1gb modules!!! The two 512mb are wasted or should I say the money is wasted! On these laptops I'm talking about have a 2gb max RAM capability!

A class action lawsuit should be brought against the computer manufacturers, the retailers & Microsoft!

I think this is done to make extra money for the retailers. Microsoft should establish clear & realistic RAM requirements. This should include requirements on how much RAM is to be installed at the factory!

 

Unless you decide to buy a ready built laptop from a store, you can usually customize a laptop on the manufacturers website. So just choose the amount of memory you want.

Max of 2gb of memory on a laptop seems normal to me. Theyre rather compact so putting 4 slots would cost space/money.

Microsoft recommends 512MB for Vista Basic and 1GB for the other versions. They also have the Vista certified program thing, so laptops with that certification should have at least their recommended amount of ram. Dell may recommend two gigs simply to get more money off customers. Theyre a business, its expected.

 

Hello,
A class action suit sounds jolly good.
Second, MS people are incompetent. Plus with so much useless bloat in Vista, it's only expected that you need a nuclear reactor to run it.
Mrk

 

It's really good press to read about so many disgruntled Vista experiences. Most users who jumped at the bait of Vista are quickly discovering that it's not all that or ever will be. Besides, who wants to retrofited PC just to run the silly O/S. What about graphic cards and surround sound cards that really make a difference on any PC? Seems to me burn-out is mutually assured in a matter on months of mileage.

Anyway, most everything in Vista can easily be ported from Vista to XP save the useless internal core structure and DRM or whatever $M privacy invader it comes along with it.

 

do like the eyecandy though lol, and some features and in 2yrs everyone have it like xp did MD

 

Xp offers better eye candy @ less resource cost. Ever heard of skinning engines like style xp? how about thousands and thousands of skins and themes instead of aerocrapvista?
Name something that vista has which xp can't have.

 

Vista has a higher price, less resources available and lets not forget the monopoly for new system installs.

 

ANY Vista on 512mb of RAM is a complete joke.
Vista has proved to be the Microsoft Bob of the 21st Century.
The resistance to it is unbelievable (and growing) according to computer manufacturer insiders who must put it on their retail boxes. Only DELL and some other smaller manufacturers not selling at retail are able to sell a new PC with XP. People are selecting XP over Vista from these manufacturers - for so many reasons - it's hard to keep up with!!

The revolt from the PC manufacturers stuck with Vista on their retail boxes (and all the returns) is just beginning.

Vista will prove to be the biggest corporate blunder since the beginning of consumer computing. Mark my word.

 

. Rofl.
Yes
Also pita with so many apps needing full time service.

"Windows Vista is a kludge but don't let that stop you having fun administering it rather than doing anything constructive like personal computing."

All copies of XP are being withdrawn in Oz now. One big independent retailer I know has just TWO- read it TWO- copies of XPPro OEM left. Most of the 'big' retailers have withdrawn all CDs from stores.


Forced migration phase 2 begins.

At least Dell is standing up for consumers with reintroducing XP OEMs: only problem is I dont want a dell. lol

Some other manufacturers of varios systems are offering a -lol- downgrade to XP as an option at extra cost.

Prolly no hope for many independent system builders.

Unfortunately there is a certain inevitability about this but the worldwide costs in time, hardware wasteage, etc etc etc is staggering for what real benefit other than DRM and so on and so on and so on .....

 

Just my .02 with my limited exposure to it. I personally know 3 people who bought Vista preloaded PCs. My experience with Vista.....At their request, all 3 PCs were whipped clean and XP was installed. Just stating the (limited) facts as I have experienced them.

 

@ Longboard, I'm glad you got my joke

I'm steering clear of Vista because my OS should be a tool and not a liability to my system. My current XP home is the most stable OS I have used. I wish I only had an XP pro license. I've only had '95 which was unstable and '98 which would never and still doesn't shutdown on my Gateway. To me Vista just appears as a pretty patch job for problems that need to be addressed at a 'deeper' level. I keep looking at new systems and then I stop and think for a moment about how it comes pre-installed with Vista .

 

windows Xp has been the most stable OS ive ever used.
there is no way im gonna ruin my next pc by sticking vista on it.
OT
you can still get some laptops with xp home preinstalled.
well at least in the UK you can.
so do a search on the net.
lodore

 

I think I'll quit my job and open up a retail channel buying all the copies of XP still available in the world and monopolize it.
Well if you think about it, with the acceleration of hardware powers these days plus the eventuality of Vista hacks, it might not be so bad in the future. Ah who am I kidding, any one wanna go into business with me?

 

I'm with you.
Mrk

 

But zillions of Borgs are happy with Vista and they don´t complain...

/Cerxes.

 

DirectX 10
the reworked audio and network stacks

Im gonna guess those arent great answers though.

 

Perhaps in the future. As of now I do not know of anything that requires or even works with it.

Again, for the most part the network stacks are un-needed for the average user and is unsupported in most cases. My understanding of it from talking with people is that they are more geared to possible future use then current technology.

 

well I am not a Borg and I am running Vista Home Premium and it runs just as well as the XP Pro I had on here previously. Granted it does take up a bit more space but space is cheap. And once I found where everything is it is just as easy to navigate if not easier than XP. I run a lot of programs and the only one that had to have a driver update was my audio and that only took three minutes. and the only program that wouldn't run on Vista was Diskeeper light. Which wasn't much of a loss.

bigc

 

Vista is running great on my 3 1/2 year old Dell. I did have to double my memory, 768MB to 1.5GB, but I remember having to do the same when XP came out (128MB to 256MB) . I also remember all the "XP sucks, I sticking with Win98!" posts. Same laments, different time.

I couldn't go back to XP, it would be like going from XP to Win98. Security wise, Vista is way ahead of XP. Some Vista users don't even run AV's though I wouldn't go that far yet.

Only minuses I have found are video and sound drivers which isn't Vista's fault but lazy hardware companies. But they are getting better with each new driver.

There has been a lot of FUD going around about Vista that has since been proven false, i.e. DRM.

 

Hello,

Saying that XP > Vista is like W98 > XP is wrong. Because Vista is very much like XP in most regards, except it is 10 times bigger and 2 times slower. Nothing new. So why replace?

Finally, the user experience is enhanced by unremovable Windows Offender and Windows Genuine Customer Colonoscopication. And yes DRM, only they made is so weak a 3-year old cracked it while watching Teletubbies.

The fact that many important institutions and companies in USA won't move onto Redmond's new darling - and even banned it - speaks a lot. The fact they sold 26 copies in China speaks a lot. And the fact that both French and German governments decided to move to Linux completely within the next 5 years speaks even more.

Vista is first and foremost an expensive joke.

For free you can have a Linux distro + Beryl which kick total ass out of anything MS, while MS offers you 'transparent' windows. Oh no. To say nothing of other programs like Office and such...

In total, you save about 1,000-2,000 dollars on Vista, which allows you to buy another 2 comps and run more Linux on them.

Mrk

 

Just as there were a lot of changes "under the hood" between XP and Win98 there is equal amount of changes between Vista and XP.

Prices are pretty much the same as when XP came out with the exception of Ultimate which does not have a XP analog (Home Premium= XP Home, Business=XP Pro).

As far as DRM goes:

Chris Lanier's Blog

Does DRM really limit Vista?

Basically broken down, Vista gives you the ability to play DRM content, nothing more.

I suggest people to broaden their news sources other than SlashDot.

Ok, Beryl. I did not use this when I was running Linux. I do not even use Flip3d in Vista for the same reason: it is impractical and not something that is useful for me. To me they are just geek eye-candy and shouldn't even be bought up when comparing OS's.

BTW, I paid $189.00 for my OEM Utimate

 

At the cost of bulky drivers, more hardware requirements, etc.
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
So, for the RIAA/MPAA happiness I have to use a more resource-hungry OS with potential instabilities and an unknown number of backdoors? No, thanks.
Vista may have a good amount of improvements and new features, but the cons are really hard to swallow.

 

Funny, my copy of Linux doesn't phone home or have anything to do with DRM, needing to double memory requirements, needing an AV or even having to update once a month. Plus, (gasp!) it's free.
I guess I should be thanking Microsoft for enticing hardware vendors to create the end-user hardware gluttony required to run Vista at ever-lower memory and hard disk prices because now it's becoming possible to run multiple Open Source OSes virtualized without too much performance drain.
And I agree with Mrkvonic - Linux + Beryl blows away the Vista eye-candy experience at far less of a resource hit. France and Germany's governments are only the first to embrace Open Source OSes. I realistically see M$ and Linux headed in opposite directions.

 

I am familiar with Gutmann's prop...er...publication. And so are others.

Before Vista came out I read so many horror stories--backdoors for the FBI, Vista converting the user's multimedia files to DRM and (my fav) Vista deleting non-DRM files off your computer. Plus this "phoning home" business where I see people posting of it but with no proof. What service/process does this?

This is one of the the things that turned me away from Linux and back to Windows--the blatant fanaticism of some of the people involved with examples like the one above. In other words there seems to be more "Chicken Little's" than professional journalists in that camp.

Resource hungry? Wasn't Win95 more hungry than 3.1? Win98 more than Win95? XP more than Win98? Has anyone figured this out yet that with each progression of the OS that it will require more? Vienna will probably need more than Vista. If this didn't happen we would still be sitting in front of 8088's with 128KB memory.

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=177370

Particularly the lockergnome input

There is so far nothing to make me keen to change: tell me just what Vista does better?, and I really hate the forced migration aspect.

I for one couldnt wait to get off 98 even with the flaws that were identified in XP at that time: everything worked better.