Windows Vista is the best Windows ever!

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Mrkvonic, May 3, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,697
    Hello,

    Ye of little faith! You thought that blog post about how unsatisfied with Vista you were would go unheeded. Well, Microsoft sure have listened and made sure to change the name. Here's a mockery article about Windows Vista and Windows 7 super-striking similiarity, which has evaded most people, who ridicule the first and praise the latter.

    You think I'm mad? Read the article ...

    http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-vista-best.html


    Cheers,
    Mrk
     
  2. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    So because Vista and Win7 essentially look the same, and have similar hard disk space requirements, they're "99% identical"?

    Aside from those two points, the third and last argument you make in support of your claim is that both require 1GB RAM to run. Have you really compared the performance of Vista and Win7 both running with 1GB RAM, on a real (read: non-Virtualbox) computer?

    Come on, Mrk. I know this was intended to be mockery, but I'm sure the reputation of a "Linux systems expert" deserves much better than this feeble attempt.
     
  3. tgell

    tgell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Posts:
    1,075
    An excellent article. I agree 100%. Xp > 2001 to 2014 says it all.

    I wonder how much of that is DRM crap.
     
  4. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Are you sure you understand what DRM is?
     
  5. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    It is quite true about 7 being a SP for Vista.
    Version number says it all. Windows Version 6.1, =).

    I never had problems with Vista, it never felt slow (especially after the first bunch of updates) or unstable. Windows 7 didn't came with huge improvements. Vista was a new architecture, 7 not (Windows XP actually is to Windows 2000 what 7 is to Vista). All Microsoft did was address all the communities feedback: UAC is annoying (in 7 it ain't as good as Vista), hardware is not working, remove Autorun. And they did fresh up the GUI to make it look more clean and nicer. And overall improvents (Firewall, AppLocker as improvement over SRP), nothing new groundbreaking (maybe XP-Mode). And things which are new are just simple things which makes you think why wasn't it in earlier (Libraries, Windows + Left/Right to get it on half of screen, etc).
     
  6. tgell

    tgell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Posts:
    1,075
    Digital Rights Management = Crap
     
  7. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Well, it looks like you're probably the kind of target audience that the author intended his article for.

    Like religions preaching pseudoscience to the scientifically-illiterate, the contents of the article sacrifice accuracy in order to entertain and appeal to the uninformed.
     
  8. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    windows 7 wasnt meant to be big changes it was designed to refine the big changes they made with vista.
    just like how windows xp was a refinement of windows 2000.

    people complain about vista because it had major changes. the major changes were needed and of course there is gonna be problems.
    windows xp took until SP2 until it was good.
    vista SP1
    windows 7 is fine without a service pack.
    So I feel windows is getting better just like all operating systems are.
    one of the problems with vista was computers not meeting the specifications to run vista.
    Competition is good. if AMD didnt make the 64bit athlon processers we could well be stuck with those crap Pentium 4 processers.
    Windows vista/7 have some nice features. another problem is that most people dont understand what is different from windows xp > vista >7
    they think the only difference is new user interface where infact there was tons of under the hood changes from xp to vista which is why it had a few problems at the start.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2010
  9. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    @Mrkvonic

    Well that opened my eyes :eek: Same old MS marketing BS in the main, now there's a surprise :D

    Having used Vista and tried 7 i'm staying with XP, much more friendly and consumes far less resources :thumb:

    So how about this from now on :D

    mrk.gif
     
  10. 1boss1

    1boss1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
    And this folks, is what happens when you outsource content writers for your website at a 50 cents per article. :thumbd:
     
  11. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Made my day. Right, the bestest ever... Must be the reason why XP had still 4x higher market share back in December and why within 2 months from release W7 had 1/3 of Vista's market share.

    See, people are just like that - they don't want t3h best, they preferred 10 years old system because it so much sucked.

    :D :D :D
     
  12. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,697
    Folks, some of you are taking this way too seriously.
    This is not about Microsoft - it's about users.
    Mrk
     
  13. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    I would say its more about public perception.
    Vista got alot of bad press so alot of users didnt even bother to try vista and instead when they got new machines they stuck with windows xp.
     
  14. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    I agree with the article. I've got Vista sp1 on my laptop and I love it. I've never had a single problem with it. My desktop is XP pro and frankly I prefer Vista. Really, I seldom even turn on the desktop these days.

    When the wife and I got these laptops, we wanted XP but it was no longer available. I worried, and worried and worried some more, waiting for the thing to crash and burn. You see, I'd bought into the anti-Vista posts I saw wherever people talked computers. Vista never did crash. It still hasn't. Not once.

    This laptop has 2G RAM, which is more than enough to do anything I want. I wish my old desktop with 512 RAM would handle Vista. I'd have it installed today.
     
  15. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Now that I'm done groaning at how utterly absurd the article is...

    I'm not sure what Mrk is trying to prove. If he's saying that Vista and Win7 are 99% identical, he's dead wrong. If he's saying that Vista isn't as bad as everyone says it is, then I'm inclined to agree, though his reasoning for it is crap.

    I'm not sure who to blame for Vista's hardware problems. Theoretically, the hardware manufacturers are at fault for not updating their drivers, but like Linux users who find out that they need to recompile the kernel to get on wireless, or hand-edit .deb and/or .ppa files for their printers to work, or experience the awful ACPI support for AMD chipsets... they rarely end up being sympathetic to the OS. In theory it's not Microsoft's fault, in practice the OS ends up taking the crap from angry and frustrated users. Now that hardware OEMs have caught up, though, there's nothing wrong with Vista in this regard.

    I've only used Vista SP1 for 9 months before upgrading to Win7, but it worked reasonably well during that time period.. People complain about Vista being slow and bloated, except that the same criticisms of XP were commonplace back in 2001, where mainstream PCs only had 128-256MB RAM. People complained that Aero Glass was nothing but useless eyecandy and visual clutter, except that they said the same things about XP's Luna visual style compared to the classic Windows theme. People point to XP's longevity as proof of its superiority over Vista, except that new Windows versions are usually released every ~3 years since Win95, and the only reason XP lasted so long was because Vista's development got stalled thanks to over-ambitiousness on Microsoft's part.

    Mrk claims that Vista "asking for one whole GB of RAM was audacious, four times more than XP wanted". Sorry, but I call BS on that. I remember my XP days on my old Asus machine. Even after a clean install with zero bundled OEM crap, and nothing but an antivirus and firewall installed, XP ate so much RAM that I had only 30-40MB out of 256 left free, and performance was... still better than what I'd describe as "horrible", but I had to keep a very close eye on what and how many programs I ran.

    Speaking of bundled OEM crap, that's actually another one of Vista's woes. This isn't as noticeable on XP when modern hardware specs exceed XP's requirements by such a huge margin, but on Vista where machines usually have only slightly more than the recommended reqs, the impact is HUGE. A few weeks ago I helped a friend repair his Thinkpad where the bundled IBM wireless management software conflicted with Windows' own and stopped him from going online. His machine was freshly-bought in Dec 2009, and with all the IBM crap installed it took Vista over 3 minutes to boot. My inferior Turion X2 laptop, in contrast, booted Vista in 35 secs.
     
  16. linuxforall

    linuxforall Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,136
    Windows 7 is shades ahead of Vista, thats all I would say, wish it was more like XPx64 in terms of core but even then, making a statement equaling Vista with 7 is just preposterous.

    MS is there to make money, they took someone else's project and wrapped it on with new shell and made billions, they did put a nice concept to it making sure there was instant adaptation and they are also responsible for making PC household item. So till now they use the same file system, the same registry and yet every few years they mint billions in sales of so called new OS, no harm n that, as long as there is OEM PCs bundling it, people camping out to shell their money for it, they will continue to grow big.

    Where is 007? Ms Moneypenny I suppose ;)
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2010
  17. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Mrk, thank you very much for your refreshing article.

    In general you get it right, the software industry is marketing it's products in order to get the customers to buy something they already have.

    Regardless of noticeable and unnoticeable improvements/regression.
     
  18. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    Well IMHO they fixed superfetch in Win 7 which only takes a few seconds to load most used apps into memory whereas Vista could grind away for several minutes causing the lag after startup.

    With Vista you can leave the superfetch service running in order to retain prefetching but turn off superfetch via the registry which will get rid of that initial lag after startup.

    Only using Win 7 here to keep up with things with the Vista install on wifey's pc running just as good as 7 here.
     
  19. charincol

    charincol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Posts:
    113
    I have installed Windows 7 on at least 2 dozen machines, laptops and desktops, from something that has a single core 1.6 GHz and 512 MB of RAM all the way up to Quad Core 3.2 GHz and 6 GB of RAM. Hardly any driver issues; almost never have had to install additional drivers for deskops, and only things such as touchpad, hotkey, and biometric drivers for laptop. They may not be the most updated but they work, and in the beginning almost every Vista driver worked for it if you didn't have one.

    I was an avid HATER of Vista from day 1. Even as bloated as 7 is, it boots and runs faster and smoother on every PC I've installed it on. I don't even bother with turning off the crappy Windows Defender because it doesn't seem to give any performance increase. It's memory manager just works.

    And the crap about it being an update to Vista is FUD. A completely different development team worked on 7 than Vista - their main directive being 'Make it run fast', and every computer I've put it on runs faster that when it had XP, even with SP3.

    I used to be worried about MS DRM like a paranoid fool, along with computer security. Used to used VLC exclusively, and hardly use it now - WMP12 supports most major media files now and works nicely. I've got tons of music and movies, and none of them are WMV or WMA, and almost all them play under WMP12 without additional codecs.

    Windows 7 Betas were more stable that Vista's release. The RC was even used in production by a few and it just worked.

    I run Windows 7 pretty much default out of the box, but with just some minor menu and GUI tweaks and it just runs.

    I don't feel any less secure and things just work in. For, example, I was struck dumb when it was able to actually figure out what was wrong with the wireless connection and fix it, and I actually didn't care what was wrong, it just worked. I use my computer to accomplish STUFF now, instead of wasting time trying the next best software, or creating the most secure setup because my tinfoil hat started glowing. My Linksys with Tomato, and my brain are all I need.

    Windows 7 just works, and works well. It is not even close to being Vista with just new bells and whistles. The ThinApp program had to be totally revamped because of how different the Windows API's are in 7, compared to it being able to run on 2000, XP, and Vista from the same built program.

    I only use an XP snapshot on my laptop now because of one HyperTerminal connection that I'm too lazy to reconfigure in a Windows 7 terminal program.
     
  20. tgell

    tgell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Posts:
    1,075
    charincol:

    In all of your installations of Window 7 have you ever run across stereo mix being unavailable?
     
  21. charincol

    charincol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Posts:
    113
    What exactly do you mean by stereo mix?

    Are you referring to to the ability to change between mono and stereo, or change your speaker type?
     
  22. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Mrk,

    Nice article. When Vsta x64 was out two months, I set up a new gaming PC for my Son. The only hardware problem was a camera driver, I tried to use from his previous PC. In all those years I never had to re-install the OS.

    The positive aspects of Vista are the facts that Norton's UAC Tool and Sully's PGS work fine.

    Regards Kees
     
  23. tgell

    tgell Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Posts:
    1,075
    charincol:

    Stereo-mix is the ability to record sound directly off the internet digitally, bypassing any speakers or microphone. For instance, I can go into movie maker and choose stereo-mix as an input source and record whatever I want as a music file including youtube videos. A lot of people who use it in music were frustrated because they lost the function in Vista, but I am not sure about Windows 7.

    http://www.stereo-mix.com/about-stereo-mix
     
  24. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I would like to make a few points regarding Vista vs. 7:

    1) Vista, when released, was a new operating system with a completely new driver model and several fundamental changes to the kernel and the OS structure.

    2) Windows 7 has had the advantage of being released at a time when the problems with Vista were well-known and all driver issues had already been worked out by the hardware OEMs (remember, any Vista driver works well with 7).

    3) Windows Vista with SP2 is almost as fast (if not just as fast) as Windows 7. Search up some test results to verify it......

    4) The only major changes Windows 7 offers over Vista are better utilization of mobile processors (for lower power usage), slightly better utilization of RAM, and aesthetic changes (better UAC notifications, etc.). All major APIs like DirectX11, Direct2D, the ribbon interface, DirectWrite, and even WDDM 1.1 (I think), have all been backported to Vista (Windows Vista Platform Update). Therefore 7 does not offer anything new on a technical level.

    Performance benchmarks, time and again, on the web, have failed to show significant performance differences (boot times aside) between Windows 7 and Vista on all but network-related work. Therefore, it is completely correct to call Windows 7 (IMO) as a "tweak" of Vista ("Vista SE" is a more appropriate term). As such, it is not a milestone or essential release of Windows as an OS.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2010
  25. charincol

    charincol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Posts:
    113
    Click the Start Button, Select Run, type MMSYS.CPL in the Run box and press Enter.

    On Recording tab, right-click on the blank area.

    Check Show Disabled Devices and Show Disconnected Devices and the Stereo Mix should show up.

    If it is disabled, right click on it and choose Enable.

    As for everyone else, it's a waste of my time to discuss the tit for tat worthiness of Windows 7 vs Vista or XP. A dozen reports on how Vista SP2 is almost as good as 7 and that 7 really doesn't offer much more than previous operating systems will not change my opinion of 7 because my experience tells a different story alltogether.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.