Just what do you think of Microsoft Vista?
- Thread starter elmo16
- Start date
Should that question be allowed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n4mdcXa8B0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n4mdcXa8B0
Yes indeed, at the end of the day I we will all end up the helpless little prison bitches of Bill Gates. If not for Vista, it will be for the next OS, but eventually all us PC users will have to bend over and take Microsofts newest OS up the ass.
Seriously though, I dont see enough significant improvement in average daily use to want to upgrade to Vista right now, especially if you have an older machine because every new version of Windows just keeps getting more bloated with non essential extras that bogart more resources. XP AND 2000 already run pretty solid and do most of what anybody could need.
Vista hasnt been cracked yet either (like XP already has) so for now you'll have to jump through the same hoops XP initially tried to impose on its legit users to either register in 30 days or get shut down (which also means you can forget about installing it on another PC when the one you registered it on finally breaks down).
The best thing about the new Vista OS for me is that it finally motivated me to want to try Linux!
Seriously though, I dont see enough significant improvement in average daily use to want to upgrade to Vista right now, especially if you have an older machine because every new version of Windows just keeps getting more bloated with non essential extras that bogart more resources. XP AND 2000 already run pretty solid and do most of what anybody could need.
Vista hasnt been cracked yet either (like XP already has) so for now you'll have to jump through the same hoops XP initially tried to impose on its legit users to either register in 30 days or get shut down (which also means you can forget about installing it on another PC when the one you registered it on finally breaks down).
The best thing about the new Vista OS for me is that it finally motivated me to want to try Linux!
Last edited:
Over the years there have been several OSs better than Windows for the desktop. If any of them had gotten the attention and developer interest that Windows bullied everyone into, we'd be doing much better. I'm leaving the Mac OS and Linux out of this because they're still around, but what about
OS/2 -- now acknowledged better than Windows. Gates sent out an assassination team to run it down.
Amiga OS -- multitasking, dependable, and small. What would have happened had this gotten the development Windows got?
Look at it this way - Microsoft doesn't win markets in which it actually has to compete. That especially includes office suites. What they did is *the* definition of predatory pricing. Now Office costs more than anything else out there.
OS/2 -- now acknowledged better than Windows. Gates sent out an assassination team to run it down.
Amiga OS -- multitasking, dependable, and small. What would have happened had this gotten the development Windows got?
Look at it this way - Microsoft doesn't win markets in which it actually has to compete. That especially includes office suites. What they did is *the* definition of predatory pricing. Now Office costs more than anything else out there.
Actually Vista isn’t all that bad. It just isn’t really any better then XP. I can understand Microsoft trying to offer something new, but consider this:
Microsoft thinks we’re all idiots, hence all those nagging UAC’s, but then they go and make major changes to Windows. If we’re such feebs, how can we be expected to learn new Windows?
Microsoft thinks we’re all idiots, hence all those nagging UAC’s, but then they go and make major changes to Windows. If we’re such feebs, how can we be expected to learn new Windows?
UG members seem to be a very computer savvy group, so I was just wondering what you think of Windows Vista. What have been your experiences so far?
Should we make the leap? Should we wait until Microsoft smoothes-off the rough edges, and fixes the more annoying things about Vista?
Should we make the leap? Should we wait until Microsoft smoothes-off the rough edges, and fixes the more annoying things about Vista?
I'll probably wait 2 or 3 years for it. Picked up a laptop 4 days ago and was relieved it had XP on it.
I just bought a new Dell computer designed to run Windows Vista Home Basic. I purposely selected a computer designed to run Home Basic, not Home Premium, as all the components still are compatible with Windows XP.
I deleted Vista and installed XP with Service Packs 1 and 2. I have a brand new computer that runs a perfectly good OS with now compatibly problems.
I deleted Vista and installed XP with Service Packs 1 and 2. I have a brand new computer that runs a perfectly good OS with now compatibly problems.
I know someone who's still running windows 95 with the '98 upgrade. So switching to Vista is not something that's inevitable.
And what makes a Microsoft OS any different than one made by Apple. You're forced to use one or the other if you buy a PC today.
And what makes a Microsoft OS any different than one made by Apple. You're forced to use one or the other if you buy a PC today.
If you want to surf the Internet, you might have a problem find security software (anti virus, fire wall, etc.) That is still compatible with 95 and 98, and still offer current up dates.
95 and 98 were never intended to be compatible with all the new multi media things you might want to do with your computer. 95 cannot use USB ports (there may are patched that claim to make 95 compatible with USB. 98 were barely compatible with USB (98 SE was more compatible, but only with USB 1.1, which is like 40 times slower then USB 2). Try plugging you Ipod, digital camera into a 95 or 98 computer and see what happens.
Buying an Apple computer is like buying a car that you can only drive on 20% of the existing roads and highways, and most of them are not going in your direction.
95 is absolutely compatible with USB... they were sold with them. Look up the old Vaio 200 & 220 series that came out in 1997 with USB support and packaged with Win 95. I owned one and it had USB connections. MS didn't release the 98 upgrade patch for at least a year after those PC's hit the market. And USB 2 is not 40 times faster than 1.1... not even remotely close to that kind of speed. And when I say remotely.... It's probably about twice or three times the speed. Thats still a lot but it's not 40X.
Avast is compatible with 95 w/the 98 upgrade, it works as good if not better than Norton or Mcaffee, it doesn't come bundled with tons of unwanted shit and it's 100% FREE!.
Avast is compatible with 95 w/the 98 upgrade, it works as good if not better than Norton or Mcaffee, it doesn't come bundled with tons of unwanted shit and it's 100% FREE!.
My point is you don't HAVE to upgrade to anything on your home PC if you don't want to. A networked computer is a bit different if the periphials on the network are being changed and not compatible to the older OS's.
Of course this limits someone who's running the old OS's to not being able to get a new printer which might not be compatible with the older OS's. But you can surf and do most all the other tasks on an old OS as you can a new one.... it might just take longer cause if you're running 95/98, you probably on an old PC powered by a Pent II or III processor with limited memory.
Of course this limits someone who's running the old OS's to not being able to get a new printer which might not be compatible with the older OS's. But you can surf and do most all the other tasks on an old OS as you can a new one.... it might just take longer cause if you're running 95/98, you probably on an old PC powered by a Pent II or III processor with limited memory.
About ten years ago I brought a Windows 98 SE computer. It came with two USB ports, 32 Megs of ram (expandable to 64 megs) and a two gig hard drive. I filled that hard drive with about 1.5 gigs of data, programs and other assorted crap. I had an external hard drive that I used to back up my computer’s hard drive. The USB ports were 1.1. It took about 15 minutes to back up my computer’s hard drive. Years later I got a Toshiba lap top with a 40 gig hard drive. I filled that hard drive with about 20 gigs of stuff and 4 USB 2 ports. I also did the back up thing with this computer. It took about seven minutes to back up about that computer’s hard drive.
Lets do the math:
1.5 gigs /15 min = 0.1 gigs/min
20 gigs/7 min = 2.857 gigs/min
I am making the assumption that the slowest part of these systems was the USB ports (of course I might be wrong, I have been wrong many times in the past). But by might rough estimation I would have to conclude that the USB 2 ports came out to be about 28.57 times faster then USB 1.1
There maybe other factors involved. Perhaps the back up software on the Toshiba was faster and more efficient, I know the Toshiba’s CPU was about 1.5 times faster then the old desktop computer. Perhaps the hard drives both internal and external were faster on the newer computer, but I tend to think that the major difference was the speed of the USB ports.
And did I mention that Win 95 and 98 used to crash a least four or five times during each session (the dreaded blue screen of death), where as Windows XP seldom crashes (applications still do, but you don’t have to reboot your entire system).
Finally; upgrading and expanding any computer that was originally designed to run Win 95 or 98 to use the software that we all like to use and to do the things we like to do with out computers would be simply impossible and certainly not worth the effort unless you are a super computer geek who loves to do these kind of things.
Lets do the math:
1.5 gigs /15 min = 0.1 gigs/min
20 gigs/7 min = 2.857 gigs/min
I am making the assumption that the slowest part of these systems was the USB ports (of course I might be wrong, I have been wrong many times in the past). But by might rough estimation I would have to conclude that the USB 2 ports came out to be about 28.57 times faster then USB 1.1
There maybe other factors involved. Perhaps the back up software on the Toshiba was faster and more efficient, I know the Toshiba’s CPU was about 1.5 times faster then the old desktop computer. Perhaps the hard drives both internal and external were faster on the newer computer, but I tend to think that the major difference was the speed of the USB ports.
And did I mention that Win 95 and 98 used to crash a least four or five times during each session (the dreaded blue screen of death), where as Windows XP seldom crashes (applications still do, but you don’t have to reboot your entire system).
Finally; upgrading and expanding any computer that was originally designed to run Win 95 or 98 to use the software that we all like to use and to do the things we like to do with out computers would be simply impossible and certainly not worth the effort unless you are a super computer geek who loves to do these kind of things.
Buying an Apple computer is like buying a car that you can only drive on 20% of the existing roads and highways, and most of them are not going in your direction.
And what makes a Microsoft OS any different than one made by Apple. You're forced to use one or the other if you buy a PC today.
About ten years ago I brought a Windows 98 SE computer. It came with two USB ports, 32 Megs of ram (expandable to 64 megs) and a two gig hard drive. I filled that hard drive with about 1.5 gigs of data, programs and other assorted crap. I had an external hard drive that I used to back up my computer’s hard drive. The USB ports were 1.1. It took about 15 minutes to back up my computer’s hard drive. Years later I got a Toshiba lap top with a 40 gig hard drive. I filled that hard drive with about 20 gigs of stuff and 4 USB 2 ports. I also did the back up thing with this computer. It took about seven minutes to back up about that computer’s hard drive.
Do you think the fact you probably had 10-50 times the memory in your "years newer" laptop that had perhaps a gig of ram, than that old win 98 pc running a paltry 32 megs of ram, or the much faster and advanced HD (especially if it's an ultra ATA?) had anything to do with transferring that data considerably faster?
I forget the exact specs, but a 1.1 USB has something like a 12mb a sec transfer rate. USB 2 has somewhere over a hundred (maybe 200) mb per second transfer rate. But while that sounds like a lot its not accurate because that old 1.1 was a more reliable 12mb (in other words it was more constant), while the 2.0 version while having a much higher max transfer rate, is not as constant. It's actually more like 40-50 mb a sec and it's peak depends on the performance of your PC... memory, processor, disc read or write speed of the other source, how many USB ports are being used at once..... etc.... There's just too many variables to compare a transfer rate on a PC and laptop that are technologically years apart as you did.
Last edited:
Ozzy, you’re right, the fact that my old computer only had 32 Megs of ram while my newer laptop had 512 Megs of ram means that my old computer had to access it’s hard drive far more frequently. This in it’s self is a very slow procedure. This would affect the transfer rate to a very great extent.
On the other hand, the reason that the USB 1.1 rated at 12mb per second, is more constant, is because the USB 2 simply doesn’t have the opportunity to run at it’s max speed of 200 mb/sec for more then a second or two because even the fastest hard drive can’t keep up with it. The USB 1.1 is slow enough so that the hard drive can keep the ram cache full while slowpoke USB 1.1 crawls along at a constant 12 mb/sec.
The only scientifically valid way to determine this is to have the exact same computer running the exact same software once thru a USB 1.1 port and then through a USB 2 port with a hard drive fast enough to keep the ram cache full for both ports.
On the other hand, the reason that the USB 1.1 rated at 12mb per second, is more constant, is because the USB 2 simply doesn’t have the opportunity to run at it’s max speed of 200 mb/sec for more then a second or two because even the fastest hard drive can’t keep up with it. The USB 1.1 is slow enough so that the hard drive can keep the ram cache full while slowpoke USB 1.1 crawls along at a constant 12 mb/sec.
The only scientifically valid way to determine this is to have the exact same computer running the exact same software once thru a USB 1.1 port and then through a USB 2 port with a hard drive fast enough to keep the ram cache full for both ports.