22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 22. |
Getting advertised at again |
Jun 9, 2008, 23:28 |
UnderLord |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Vista |
Jun 9, 2008, 13:01 |
Surf |
|
|
All i have to say is that anyone, ANYONE that jumped on the Vista band wagon at launch is a fool. Why?
MS' history of getting products our early is well known, and the products being buggy is expected. You can't totally blame them though as their product is so complex and covers so many areas, it's bound to have problems.
However, turning the general populace into Beta Testers and having the balls to charge $300-400 + for the product is ludicrous.
I had no problems with Vista as/in a virtual machine at all. On my physical dual boot system, plenty as stated before.
No one that knows IT ever goes blindly into any MS product without serious testing. Some of my "peers" already have deployed Exchange 2007 and Windows 2008 Server in production environments only to face incompatibilities with already purchased products such as AV's, Antispam etc.
I for one wait a year and at least one Service Pack. Anyone else that talks and fails to mention these facts is far too inexperienced and not worth your time or money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 9, 2008, 08:59 |
Asmodai |
|
|
As a person that uses Vista at home and work, but is running a domain with 900 clients currently built with XP, I've got one line for MS...
"We use 3rd party security solutions rather than rely on MS's half baked crap for our business"
Worry more about making your OS good and less about our security...
As for the "XP is teh win" crowd, grow the f#ck up and get the f#ck over yourselves. This was the same tripe I heard back when 2000 was the shiznits and XP was the devil. Now XP is the second coming, partly because systems come out with 1-2gig standard ram these days rather than 64-128 MEG when XP was first released, and partly because it's had the better part of 7 years to be polished.
The performance increase of Vista now compared to release is astronomical because drivers are being perfected, and software devs have had a chance to work with the final product rather than waiting for MS to change what was going to be bundled in the RC. My home system, tweaked with Vlite, outperforms a clean install of XP on the same system, go figure.
Too much propaganda on both sides of the fence, MS and fanboi alike, not enough actual information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 9, 2008, 04:01 |
DukeFNukem |
|
|
LOL, oh man. I love this post. Hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Vista |
Jun 8, 2008, 16:02 |
Burrito of Peace |
|
|
16 minutes on a 500mb file makes me think something is very wrong with your install first off
Except that there have been a ton of reviews pre and post SP1 from PC World, IT Week and the like that show that Vista has a horrible network transfer rate. Even Microsoft themselves has said that Service Pack 1 only addresses "some" of the network performance issues.
Vista is a bunch of half-assed ideas that were poorly conjoined and badly executed. I know there are always the people that say "But Vista is teh awsum! It gives me head while I play Crisis on max settings! Hurrrr!"
These are people that are misinformed, lying or are just straight up too stupid to read the actual data that XP is a faster OS than Vista. Vista offers you nothing that an appropriately configured XP installation does. Further, it demands far more resources for a lot less return on investment.
People who claim that XP is going to be raped like a sorority girl at a frat party after MS shuts off the support tap are, again, misinformed or lying. In the eight years I have been using XP, I can count on two fingers the amount of times I've been infected with a virus. One of which was deliberately induced so that its behavior could be observed. The other, remaining infection was my fault for being stupid.
No OS, not Linux, not OS X, not Solaris, none of them is going to prevent what is the cause of the majority of security breaches; user ignorance and ineptitude.
I am not an XP "fan", but I am a fan of something that is stable, fast and responsive. That is not Vista at this time and it may never be for Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Vista |
Jun 8, 2008, 15:32 |
MattyC |
|
|
S1 for Vista will not install
Asus SLI32 Deluxe
4 gigs ram (yes I am aware only 3 will be seen in x32/x86)
AMD 64FX
Geforece 8800 GTS 640
I take it my hardware is ancient....
16 minutes on a 500mb file makes me think something is very wrong with your install first off. Secondly SP1 for Vista should install on that setup unless you are not mentioning something.
Asus P5N-E SLI
2 gigs PC6400
Intel Core2Duo E6850 overclocked
eVGA GeForce 8800 GTS 640
Installed just fine on mine, different rigs, not not overly so. Though Asus has been very 1/2 assed on Vista drivers. The ones for my rig are still in 'beta'... same version I have been using since the November MSDN pre-release of Vista. That isn't Microsoft's fault though, nor does it matter much. I haven't really had trouble with the drivers.
Also, Vista had a rocky launch, but people saying it is ME 2 just flat out annoy me. If you think Vista is like ME, then you never had to support the dark dark evil that was ME. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Vista = ME 2.0 |
Jun 8, 2008, 12:39 |
LightAssassin |
|
|
It all sounds so very much like Windows ME. The first PC I paid for came with Win ME, ohh I got it home quick smart and installed Win 2k on it.
Ahh that day the Gods smiled upon me... well not ME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Vista |
Jun 8, 2008, 11:38 |
Surf |
|
|
"Vista is currently rock-solid and quite secure (albeit more hardware-intensive than most would like). "
A bit more hardware intensive? That is the understatement of 2008 so far.
wINXP - 500mb file, copied to my Win2003 server in 6 seconds.
VISTA - 500mb file (same one), copied to my Win2003 server, 16 minutes.
S1 for Vista will not install
Asus SLI32 Deluxe
4 gigs ram (yes I am aware only 3 will be seen in x32/x86)
AMD 64FX
Geforece 8800 GTS 640
I take it my hardware is ancient....
This comment was edited on Jun 8, 11:39. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Risky business... |
Jun 8, 2008, 09:41 |
MMORPGHoD |
|
|
Lol, risk. If you get hacked under XP chances are you'll get hacked under Vista as well.
1. Buy a hardware router/firewall. Everyone should have one by now.
2. Use firefox, forget IE.
3. If you're not PC savvy, then don't download/run programs you do not understand or read emails that are spam.
4. If you're paranoid, get adaware and/or spybot and run it once a week.
That'll keep you safe, XP or not. Those inventive programmers will read the Vista vulnerability reports from MS and try to take advantage them. Don't think there won't continue to be issues with Vista as well.
It is absolutely pathetic that people are using scare tactics to get more upgrades. As a developer, it just makes you laugh. They must be desparate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Risky business... |
Jun 8, 2008, 09:25 |
Ataneruo |
|
|
I love the "if they don't upgrade to Vista, they're left open to attacks" comment.
I mean...did Micro$oft just admit that XP has bugs it is ignoring or leaving in? And given that Microsoft created XP, are these not faults from or by Micro$oft?
In other words, "we're f*ck*ng you on our product unless you pay us more money." I guess Micro$oft is going straight for ransom these days...
Feeling the love,
Ray
Pardon me Ray, but are you an idiot? You don't have to be very intelligent to understand that Microsoft has moved on to new software and doesn't want to continue investing time and effort into patching XP against the thousands of attacks it has been getting and will continue to get. Even if XP was completely secure at the moment, in about a month that would change as inventive programmers continue to find new vulnerabilities. And you're blaming MS for this? Give me a break. In the future if you get hacked on XP it's your own fault for continuing to use an unsupported OS. It's not like MS didn't give you plenty of time to get ready for the switch, and Vista is currently rock-solid and quite secure (albeit more hardware-intensive than most would like).
Although if you love XP that much, then that's a risk you may be prepared to take. In that case more power to you, there's nothing wrong with that. Just be aware that as time goes on your OS will become more and more vulnerable, and don't go blaming it on MS.
This comment was edited on Jun 8, 09:31. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 8, 2008, 07:10 |
Trashy |
|
|
At work where still running Windows 2000, before that we had OS/2 for over a decade...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 8, 2008, 05:38 |
Tehol |
|
|
so vista is a sinking ship?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
No subject |
Jun 8, 2008, 02:05 |
Pigeon |
|
|
Hah, who is in charge of marketing over at MS now? Some guy named Vinny?
"Maybe if you don't upgrade to Vista somethin bad happens, maybe not, who knows, strange things happen ya know. But maybe you upgrade, these things don't happen, knowhatimsayin? Just think about it, you're a good kid, hate to see anything happen to ya"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Risky business... |
Jun 7, 2008, 23:13 |
Ray Marden |
|
|
I love the "if they don't upgrade to Vista, they're left open to attacks" comment.
I mean...did Micro$oft just admit that XP has bugs it is ignoring or leaving in? And given that Microsoft created XP, are these not faults from or by Micro$oft?
In other words, "we're f*ck*ng you on our product unless you pay us more money." I guess Micro$oft is going straight for ransom these days...
Which is why the market is saying "f*ck you" in return. Duh.
Feeling the love,
Ray
-----
I'm looking for some alien toilet to park my bricks; who's first?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/raymarden/
I love you, mom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Risky business... |
Jun 7, 2008, 23:07 |
nin |
|
|
Do you mean digging yourself a nice hole?
I don't think they can fuck up an OS they want to sell to business worse than they did Pista.
------------------------------------------------
http://theslip.nin.com/
"The Bellic boys! Talking over your town, assholes!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Risky business... |
Jun 7, 2008, 22:47 |
Buckermann |
|
|
Besides, when you're at the bottom, there's only one way to go. Do you mean digging yourself a nice hole?
Don't forget, this is Microsoft we are talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Risky business... |
Jun 7, 2008, 22:43 |
nin |
|
|
I doubt whatever they do in version 7 will be either.
I would hope that they've heard the many criticisms aimed at Pista. Pretty much everyone has gone on record saying that it could have been better.
Besides, when you're at the bottom, there's only one way to go. 
------------------------------------------------
http://theslip.nin.com/
"The Bellic boys! Talking over your town, assholes!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RollinThundr Apr 17, 2013, 12:25: Eh really tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. If you really want to call that trolling sure.
Mr. Tact Apr 17, 2013, 12:33: Pretty sure that's the definition of trolling... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Risky business... |
Jun 7, 2008, 22:21 |
Nere |
|
|
I don't know about that. I'm on an XP install right now that's over 4 years old and still performing rock solid. I could count on one hand the blue screens I've gotten. Vista to me is just not worth it. I doubt whatever they do in version 7 will be either. The only thing that concerns me is DX10 .. maybe I should finally buy a console?
In any event .. I love XP.
edit: this quote from the article sums it up for me:
"those same incompatibilities will exist in Windows 7"
I also don't get the concept of Windows 7 now. Is it like an expansion pack to Vista or is it an OS in it's own right. If the latter then why would systems that deploy Win7 from XP be subject to security risks?
This comment was edited on Jun 7, 22:28. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Risky business... |
Jun 7, 2008, 22:13 |
Animals for Crackers |
|
|
Yeah, because using any Windows platform in the first place isn't a risky endeavor. Considering what you've subjected us all to, I think we can handle it.
We started down that "risky" path quite some time ago...X|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
What I want to know... |
Jun 7, 2008, 20:48 |
Umbragen |
|
|
since I have a copy of Shitsta (somewhere, not currently installed), is how much of a discount do I get on the version of Windows that is actually an UPGRADE? I'm assuming that will be Windows 7, but I'm not betting on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
