Computers

[Divair]

Brand: None. I build my own computer. For laptops, I don't care, as long as I know I'm not being ripped off.
OS: The newest Windows. I never understood the whining about Vista or Windows 8, I like both, and will be upgrading to Windows 8 as soon as it comes out.

But you don't like being ripped off, why use Vista?

Also, how on earth can you not see the problems with it?

It had a more modern UI, and used less RAM. It caused less problems and technical support was more recent and accurate.

The whole "ZOMFG VISTA IS PLAGUED WITH VIRUSES" thing is utter bullshit. Use a proper anti-virus and you're good.


As for Windows 8, I've used it for the past few months, and it is far better in every aspect. While it is designed for touch screen (which will be a standard feature on all computers coming out after Windows 8's release) it works perfectly with a mouse and keyboard.

[Saiwania]

As for Windows 8, I've used it for the past few months, and it is far better in every aspect. While it is designed for touch screen (which will be a standard feature on all computers coming out after Windows 8's release) it works perfectly with a mouse and keyboard.

I'm having doubts about Windows 8 catching on as well as Microsoft anticipates. Windows XP is still the OS of choice for corporate America and still the most common version of Windows in use. Why upgrade something that's not broken? There are also people who don't want touchscreens and don't care for tablets. I for one, can't stand the new "metro" interface and will be skipping it entirely. I'm keeping Windows 7 until it is not supported anymore, and if Windows 9 isn't like a desktop- I'm switching to Linux.

[Bluth Corporation]

I must be the only one still using ITS.

[Salandriagado]

But you don't like being ripped off, why use Vista?

Also, how on earth can you not see the problems with it?

It had a more modern UI, and used less RAM. It caused less problems and technical support was more recent and accurate.

The whole "ZOMFG VISTA IS PLAGUED WITH VIRUSES" thing is utter bullshit. Use a proper anti-virus and you're good.


As for Windows 8, I've used it for the past few months, and it is far better in every aspect. While it is designed for touch screen (which will be a standard feature on all computers coming out after Windows 8's release) it works perfectly with a mouse and keyboard.

What, exactly, did Vista use less RAM than? I can't think of anything.

[Divair]

It had a more modern UI, and used less RAM. It caused less problems and technical support was more recent and accurate.

The whole "ZOMFG VISTA IS PLAGUED WITH VIRUSES" thing is utter bullshit. Use a proper anti-virus and you're good.


As for Windows 8, I've used it for the past few months, and it is far better in every aspect. While it is designed for touch screen (which will be a standard feature on all computers coming out after Windows 8's release) it works perfectly with a mouse and keyboard.

What, exactly, did Vista use less RAM than? I can't think of anything.

It used less RAM than XP.

[Novograd IV]

What, exactly, did Vista use less RAM than? I can't think of anything.

It used less RAM than XP.

It's got less features, is wholly agreed on as a failure of an operating system, has poor logic in its designs and wastes RAM like crazy because it tries to look nice. That bar on the side? Yeah, any technologically inept person is going to think 'hey that's cool, let's put ALL the features on it, nothing bad could happen'

On top of that, XP had 'reset router' as an option immediately, Vista HAS to scan to find a problem you ALREADY know the answer to.

Fresh out of the box with a decent spec PC? 1 minute to load, that's about double what it is on XP, and 4x that of a good Linux partition.

To conclude: Vista is inferior and it's only upside was the introduction of DX10 support (which I think was made XP compatible)

I would even take GNOME 3 over that mess of a desktop.

[The Alma Mater]

What, exactly, did Vista use less RAM than? I can't think of anything.

It used less RAM than XP.

*snort*.

No. It really did not.

[Salandriagado]

What, exactly, did Vista use less RAM than? I can't think of anything.

It used less RAM than XP.

... Nope, when I replaced it with XP, RAM usage halved.

[Risottia]

No, Vista was a hideous, bloated piece of junk that simply wouldn't run to any practical level on the machines it was claimed to be designed for.

I won't group Vista in the "pure shit" can like, let's say, 98 or ME. It's more of a botched attempt at a good system - some features were good, like the update integration and the dynamic volume allocation. Windows 7 isn't at the same levels of NT4, 2k and XP, but it's decent overall.

Recently I installed kUbuntu 10.4.3 on my laptop and it's meh. It has hardware compatibility issues... with a 4-years-old hardware. I'm not stunned by it. Debian 5 was better - but I must say kUbuntu, at least, provides a very quick bootstrap.

[Risottia]

As for Windows 8, I've used it for the past few months, and it is far better in every aspect. While it is designed for touch screen (which will be a standard feature on all computers coming out after Windows 8's release) it works perfectly with a mouse and keyboard.

I'm having doubts about Windows 8 catching on as well as Microsoft anticipates. Windows XP is still the OS of choice for corporate America and still the most common version of Windows in use. Why upgrade something that's not broken?

Because MS will shut down the support for XP next January. Fuckers.

[Angleter]

I have a fairly-recently bought Windows 7 VAIO laptop. It's very good.

[Saiwania]

Because MS will shut down the support for XP next January. Fuckers.

That still shouldn't stop many companies that still use Windows XP from using it. I know that my local airport still runs Windows 2000 on some of their computers. The longer an enterprise can find productive uses for old equipment, the more power to them.