pucho812
Well-known member
I just read microsoft's way of fixing vista, Make a whole new and improved clusterf**K called windows 7. I never touched vista myself but was it really that bad?
Microsoft Vista is being dumped
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
my company wouldn`t sell notebooks if we do not do a downgrade to XP before. and sometimes it`s quite complicated to get the drivers for xp, sometimes impossible. :-\
I have Vista in my notebook and I haven`t had big problems. besides that it consumes a lot of resources.
I heard a rumor that Windows 7 is based on unix..
I have Vista in my notebook and I haven`t had big problems. besides that it consumes a lot of resources.
I heard a rumor that Windows 7 is based on unix..
sahib
Well-known member
pucho812 said:
We bought a new laptop for my sister last year and it came with Vista. A total piece of sh*t.
I have been keeping all of my old machines and the original CDs right from 95. The machine on my desk is XP and I ain't changing anything. However, I am thinking of getting a portable Mac.
What happened to NT? It was a great system. I bought a Dell machine in 1997 with NT for the CAD-CAM system that we were using. Machine is still working and I do not remember a one single incident that NT crashed, never ever.
Svart
Well-known member
Windows NT was based on UNIX.
Windows 2000 was based on NT.
Windows XP was based on 2000.
Windows Vista was based on XP.
etc.
Windows Vista is loosely based on UNIX, so is OSX, so it Linux..
see a trend?
Both osx and windows suck ass now because they try waaaaay too hard to make things easy, cute and bubbly for the housewife and kids. However, the problem isn't with the OS itself, it's with the captive audience marketing plan.
Companies throw money at both Apple and Microshaft as well as all of the computer companies in order to have their software bundled with the OS on new computers. All of this shit is running in the background to make things look pretty and make the computer "productive" by adding software designed to make it productive. Little do they care that all of this stuff is anti-productive.
First thing I do when people ask me to help them with their new computers because they are so slow is to delete all of that extra crap and stop all services that they aren't using such as anti-virus( yes get rid of it, it doesn't help anyway..).
That fixes 99% of all of the problems of vista and XP.
Windows 2000 was based on NT.
Windows XP was based on 2000.
Windows Vista was based on XP.
etc.
Windows Vista is loosely based on UNIX, so is OSX, so it Linux..
see a trend?
Both osx and windows suck ass now because they try waaaaay too hard to make things easy, cute and bubbly for the housewife and kids. However, the problem isn't with the OS itself, it's with the captive audience marketing plan.
Companies throw money at both Apple and Microshaft as well as all of the computer companies in order to have their software bundled with the OS on new computers. All of this shit is running in the background to make things look pretty and make the computer "productive" by adding software designed to make it productive. Little do they care that all of this stuff is anti-productive.
First thing I do when people ask me to help them with their new computers because they are so slow is to delete all of that extra crap and stop all services that they aren't using such as anti-virus( yes get rid of it, it doesn't help anyway..).
That fixes 99% of all of the problems of vista and XP.
barclaycon
Well-known member
I agree. Vista is shit.
I know that it's supposed to be a big leap forward to go from 32 to 64 bit, but the truth is that it wasn't really ready when they released it.
Microsoft HAS to bring out a new OS every 5 years to satisfy the market.
Half the things that were promised in Vista never made it to the released version and anyway most of the computers that were sold with it were using it in 32 bit mode anyway.
They did the usual Microsoft thing of trying to make it look flashy - scrolling folders, toolbars all over the place etc. etc. but despite the fact that it needed double the RAM and lots of CPU power, it turned out to be slower than XP and didn't have half the drivers for most of the popular peripherals.
It will probably be quite good when its fully developed, but my guess is that they will probably dump it like they did Windows ME.
They seem to be promoting all this touch screen stuff for the next Windows (!) Can you imagine ?
I'm sticking with XP myself - it seems to work just fine. I bought an Acer laptop before Christmas that came with Vista, but it was slow and tedious.
I wiped it and installed XP. Now it works great!
I know that it's supposed to be a big leap forward to go from 32 to 64 bit, but the truth is that it wasn't really ready when they released it.
Microsoft HAS to bring out a new OS every 5 years to satisfy the market.
Half the things that were promised in Vista never made it to the released version and anyway most of the computers that were sold with it were using it in 32 bit mode anyway.
They did the usual Microsoft thing of trying to make it look flashy - scrolling folders, toolbars all over the place etc. etc. but despite the fact that it needed double the RAM and lots of CPU power, it turned out to be slower than XP and didn't have half the drivers for most of the popular peripherals.
It will probably be quite good when its fully developed, but my guess is that they will probably dump it like they did Windows ME.
They seem to be promoting all this touch screen stuff for the next Windows (!) Can you imagine ?
I'm sticking with XP myself - it seems to work just fine. I bought an Acer laptop before Christmas that came with Vista, but it was slow and tedious.
I wiped it and installed XP. Now it works great!
jdbakker
Well-known member
Svart said:
Don't let Dave Cutler hear you say that. If anything, NT is an offspring of Digital Equipment Corporation's VAX/VMS, which has very little in common with UNIX other than that both OSes have been used on mini- and microcomputers over the past 30 years.
JDB.
MartyMart
Well-known member
I don't often watch them, but recently watched the "Steve Jobs" Mac seminar when the new macbooks
were launched in october.
They announced one of the biggest profit "quarters" in Apple history and where listing the reasons why..
..... I think that second or third on the list of reasons was "Vista" !!
It had caused soooo many problems that thousands of people were going over to apple products.
That kinda says it all in a nutshell.
Like 'em or loath 'em I've been using Apple computers since 1995 for "pro audio" use and have never
regretted it, nor have I ever had any major screw ups.
MM.
were launched in october.
They announced one of the biggest profit "quarters" in Apple history and where listing the reasons why..
..... I think that second or third on the list of reasons was "Vista" !!
It had caused soooo many problems that thousands of people were going over to apple products.
That kinda says it all in a nutshell.
Like 'em or loath 'em I've been using Apple computers since 1995 for "pro audio" use and have never
regretted it, nor have I ever had any major screw ups.
MM.
SSLtech
Well-known member
Well, I'm writing this on my new computer with Vista, and it beats the ever-loving crap out of my older XP system.
It might need lots of processor and lots of RAM, and I heard that before I made the leap, so I have a fast quad-core and a bazillobyte of RAM.
So far it's the closest thing to a Mac experience that I've ever had with a PC.
-Marty, You're tempting fate posting words like that mate...
Switches will be bought this week... been a bit mental lately, and I've lost the other ones which I had... :
Keef
It might need lots of processor and lots of RAM, and I heard that before I made the leap, so I have a fast quad-core and a bazillobyte of RAM.
So far it's the closest thing to a Mac experience that I've ever had with a PC.
-Marty, You're tempting fate posting words like that mate...
Switches will be bought this week... been a bit mental lately, and I've lost the other ones which I had... :
Keef
> Windows NT was based on UNIX
Bits of MS-DOS 2.0 were based on a casual understanding of unix.
Win NT 3.5 is, frankly, the IBM/MS OS/2 project after IBM and MS stopped working together on OS/2. Protected (really large-memory) Mode, Presentation Manager (early GUI windowing, based on MS-Win 2.1). Mostly clean code. No more "unix" than any other serious O/S of that time. As JDB says, there's as much VMS as unix/Xenix in there.
NT 4.0 (the one most people know) is fairly good, if austere even compared to Win95.
Win Server mostly descends from NT core.
Windows 2000 is redecorated NT4. The TCP/IP stack for Win2000 is apparently a direct take from one of the open-source unix projects, which gives W2K a much more robust networking.
XP cleaned up some loose ends in W2K and added many frills. W2K would still be viable, except support is ending so any newly discovered XP/Vista bugs that hackers can exploit will not be patched on W2K.
Win Server 2003 is a striped-down Win2000 plus a few add-ins. VERY solid machine.
Vista is, I think, a major redecoration of XP. I used it for a week and lost interest. Everything is more pastel, everything is in a different place. "easy, cute and bubbly". Sometimes, the changes make perfect sense.... AFTER you stop looking in the places they used to be. Some changes are potential improvements: the Mail program is a complete winner, the only mailer I ever used that might take me away from NetScape/ThunderBird. The network wizard figures out many common network situations without user action. (But un-common networks can be a real hassle to set-up.)
People who don't know any better use Vista without complaint.
People who know XP well get very frustrated in Vista, and whine about it to all their friends. So it got a bad rap.
Vista has been out for 2 whole years, but seems to be on only 20% of PCs. Since most folks out-grow or corrupt their PCs every 2 to 4 years, we'd expect a lot higher than 20%. There does seem to be reluctance to move to Vista. And since you get Vista on new PCs, that means new PCs are not selling well.
All this 32-bit versus 64-bit is meaningless to most users. It won't be important until we all have >3GB of RAM. That day is coming quick: I have 1.5GB in my flaptop and MS Live Maps 3-D was trying to use all of it, just to display one fuzzy map.
I lived through every Mac O/S from 2 through 10. Mac has been MUCH more busy putting familiar things in new places in every new release. The MS network dialog hardly changed from NT4 to XP, which Mac was changing all the time. And I've also loaded dozens of Linuxes. While a bare unix box has a standard place for network settings, GUI versions all use different GUI helpers hidden in different places with different permissions.
I've avoided loading Vista, because I know XP and it is good enough. I sigh when I'm asked to help others with Vista, but it's just "different", not "crap".
It isn't too clear that Vista -needs- more resources than XP. I dabble in tiny machines. A fair number of them, users report that they run XP OK but run Vista as good or a bit better. Yes, a full-feature Vista can absorb all the hardware it finds, so skip the Aero dizzy-desktop and other options.
I'll be testing Win 7 soon. Early comments are positive. If I feel better about it than I did about Vista, that will guide my going-forward plans: buy new PCs with Vista (getting new PC with all XP drivers is becoming hard); or put a cork in upgrades until Win7 is published.
Bits of MS-DOS 2.0 were based on a casual understanding of unix.
Win NT 3.5 is, frankly, the IBM/MS OS/2 project after IBM and MS stopped working together on OS/2. Protected (really large-memory) Mode, Presentation Manager (early GUI windowing, based on MS-Win 2.1). Mostly clean code. No more "unix" than any other serious O/S of that time. As JDB says, there's as much VMS as unix/Xenix in there.
NT 4.0 (the one most people know) is fairly good, if austere even compared to Win95.
Win Server mostly descends from NT core.
Windows 2000 is redecorated NT4. The TCP/IP stack for Win2000 is apparently a direct take from one of the open-source unix projects, which gives W2K a much more robust networking.
XP cleaned up some loose ends in W2K and added many frills. W2K would still be viable, except support is ending so any newly discovered XP/Vista bugs that hackers can exploit will not be patched on W2K.
Win Server 2003 is a striped-down Win2000 plus a few add-ins. VERY solid machine.
Vista is, I think, a major redecoration of XP. I used it for a week and lost interest. Everything is more pastel, everything is in a different place. "easy, cute and bubbly". Sometimes, the changes make perfect sense.... AFTER you stop looking in the places they used to be. Some changes are potential improvements: the Mail program is a complete winner, the only mailer I ever used that might take me away from NetScape/ThunderBird. The network wizard figures out many common network situations without user action. (But un-common networks can be a real hassle to set-up.)
People who don't know any better use Vista without complaint.
People who know XP well get very frustrated in Vista, and whine about it to all their friends. So it got a bad rap.
Vista has been out for 2 whole years, but seems to be on only 20% of PCs. Since most folks out-grow or corrupt their PCs every 2 to 4 years, we'd expect a lot higher than 20%. There does seem to be reluctance to move to Vista. And since you get Vista on new PCs, that means new PCs are not selling well.
All this 32-bit versus 64-bit is meaningless to most users. It won't be important until we all have >3GB of RAM. That day is coming quick: I have 1.5GB in my flaptop and MS Live Maps 3-D was trying to use all of it, just to display one fuzzy map.
I lived through every Mac O/S from 2 through 10. Mac has been MUCH more busy putting familiar things in new places in every new release. The MS network dialog hardly changed from NT4 to XP, which Mac was changing all the time. And I've also loaded dozens of Linuxes. While a bare unix box has a standard place for network settings, GUI versions all use different GUI helpers hidden in different places with different permissions.
I've avoided loading Vista, because I know XP and it is good enough. I sigh when I'm asked to help others with Vista, but it's just "different", not "crap".
It isn't too clear that Vista -needs- more resources than XP. I dabble in tiny machines. A fair number of them, users report that they run XP OK but run Vista as good or a bit better. Yes, a full-feature Vista can absorb all the hardware it finds, so skip the Aero dizzy-desktop and other options.
I'll be testing Win 7 soon. Early comments are positive. If I feel better about it than I did about Vista, that will guide my going-forward plans: buy new PCs with Vista (getting new PC with all XP drivers is becoming hard); or put a cork in upgrades until Win7 is published.
Svart
Well-known member
I won't go into the whole 2000/unix thing but I've known some prominent *hacker* types I know have cracked the NT/2000 kernel and can/will show you how it's fairly close.. Like almost identical kernal code portions and such.. But I'll digress as the first rule of hackerclub is you don't talk about hackerclub... ;D
I'm still running the same harddrive I've been running since 2001. I recently upgraded 2000 to XP because certain programs and cards I use no longer have drivers for 2000. It's sad because if they continued to write drivers for 2000 I would have never upgraded. I've never corrupted or reinstalled windows on this machine. It just keeps running and running. Of course I am careful of what I install and download and clean out any malware/adware and scan for viruses every 2 weeks or so( I don't run antivirus all the time, I use Stinger.).
I'm still running the same harddrive I've been running since 2001. I recently upgraded 2000 to XP because certain programs and cards I use no longer have drivers for 2000. It's sad because if they continued to write drivers for 2000 I would have never upgraded. I've never corrupted or reinstalled windows on this machine. It just keeps running and running. Of course I am careful of what I install and download and clean out any malware/adware and scan for viruses every 2 weeks or so( I don't run antivirus all the time, I use Stinger.).
I'm here now with Windows 7 Beta, MSIE8. Works so far.
Now I remember why everybody hates Vista. It constantly popped-up and demanded permission to do anything. I like the concept. But golly: if something as smart/complicated as Vista does not know if an action is OK, how the hell is Aunt Meg gonna know? Most of the time, the pop-up does not give enough information for me to know WHAT it is asking about.
Win7 Beta does less of that. I hit no permit-popup until I downloaded and installed the notoriously evil UltraEdit (really just a fine fancy text-edit). That earned several pop-ups. It would have been more but IDM signed their installer.
Nevertheless, Win7 Beta is shit. It has the SLOOOOWest Solitaire I have ever seen. Slower even than Win 3.1 SOL running on a 33MHz Mac under wintel emulation. There's no damn excuse for an unplayable Solitaire. Why do they muck with games, when the net-panel still can't guess the gateway from the IP?
Now I remember why everybody hates Vista. It constantly popped-up and demanded permission to do anything. I like the concept. But golly: if something as smart/complicated as Vista does not know if an action is OK, how the hell is Aunt Meg gonna know? Most of the time, the pop-up does not give enough information for me to know WHAT it is asking about.
Win7 Beta does less of that. I hit no permit-popup until I downloaded and installed the notoriously evil UltraEdit (really just a fine fancy text-edit). That earned several pop-ups. It would have been more but IDM signed their installer.
Nevertheless, Win7 Beta is shit. It has the SLOOOOWest Solitaire I have ever seen. Slower even than Win 3.1 SOL running on a 33MHz Mac under wintel emulation. There's no damn excuse for an unplayable Solitaire. Why do they muck with games, when the net-panel still can't guess the gateway from the IP?
simonsez
Well-known member
I think Vista is good and fun as long as installed on decent machine... 8)
PRR said:
PRR, must you know everything about everything?
okgb
Well-known member
When i replaced my laptop out of warrenty , the new versions came with vista
i thought i'd try it first and keep it a lean machine for Audio
So far ProTools 7.2 runs fine , i've had no real problems
other than lagacy progs ,
I also run my IPS 's virus program secure
i thought i'd try it first and keep it a lean machine for Audio
So far ProTools 7.2 runs fine , i've had no real problems
other than lagacy progs ,
I also run my IPS 's virus program secure
I must say that hate windoze in all Mac was always my way to go, but vista is slightly better than buggy XP. At last, it sounds a bit better (V64) than crappy XPsp2 ;D
Mac was always my way to go, but vista is slightly better than buggy XP. At last, it sounds a bit better (V64) than crappy XPsp2 ;D
Viitalahde
Well-known member
Svart said:
Oh, I agree with so much. My DAW has an XP, mut I've stripped it down to the bones. It looks very primitive. I have customers asking me "what the hell is that and how old is it?". The lounge machine in our studio has an OSX. I don't get it. Shit flies around, zooms, waves and gets transparent.
My best OS so far has been Xubuntu on an old Compaq laptop that is now dead. I'm about to buy a new mini notebook and put a Xubuntu there too. Even that I strip down to the Zen level. I fucking hate complicated OS's, and after using Linux for the first time I felt like home using the command prompt. Never thought I had missed that.
barclaycon
Well-known member
Mr. Moby.
Vista 'sounds' better than XP ?
Would you care to explain that!
Vista 'sounds' better than XP ?
Would you care to explain that!
sonicmook56
Well-known member
I don't get windows OS, but I've always been a Mac guy.
Why do little bubbles pop up every single time I boot a windows machine? Drives me mad!
Do I want to clear unused icons? NO!
Do I want to check for updates? NO!
Agaggagagaaaahhhh!!!!!!
From last years trip to the library in Slab City, CA
Why do little bubbles pop up every single time I boot a windows machine? Drives me mad!
Do I want to clear unused icons? NO!
Do I want to check for updates? NO!
Agaggagagaaaahhhh!!!!!!
From last years trip to the library in Slab City, CA
