What the ****

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Zageron

Funny enough about factual sources, I've used Vista for three months on and off on a very good computer.

I definitely didn't like it, and I found that my much worse computer was faster.

And NFD, don't switch to VISTA. Because if the computer is only Vista compatible than it's not going to run it very well at all.

Your logic: your personal experience, with very limited expertise, should be taken as fact and is the only thing you're basing your opinion off of. Hmm.

You didn't like it why? "I didn't like it" isn't a valid reason why the operating system isn't a good one. Let's have something concrete. Give me one valid issue you had that isn't user error or something arbitrary that has nothing to do with performance and efficiency.

also, Zageron, post specs of both PCs. I know it's probably too much to ask, but run some benchmarks as well. Maybe time some encoding or run a basic benchmarking program. I'd like to see any good example of how your XP computer runs faster, along with a general idea of how you've configured it.

Originally Posted by Squeek

3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7

What's weird about that?

ME, as well.

@chidori! Oh and the name is totally a reason to trash an OS. LOL amirite? Owait, little kiddie was 7 when XP came out and doesn't know anything about previous OSs. My first version of windows was 3.1.

I'm so ****ing hXc I shit binary.

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

I don't quite know what my mom's computer has but i played aim on it and actually beat my old score. Vista's not the worst ever but it's among it. My brother modified XP to look like vista... It looks nice but he has issues.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Xx{Midnight}xX

Vista's not the worst ever but it's among it.

Substantiate that for me. With FACT.

Then list what other OSs you have used.

[virus003]

Originally Posted by NFD

Nobody was in my room though, I sleep with my door locked, and then when I wake up, I go to take a shower.

EDIT: I've found backups of my music, pictures, and other things but like, what do I do. Do I have to reinstall my Internet Explorer and games and stuff?

How do you reinstall internet explorer without the internet

[Djr Rap dancer]

Why not use firefox?

[Kagami_Hiiragi]

Originally Posted by Sprite-

I didn't switch to vista mainly because of this. I'm just going to wait for the next OS.

vista isnt that bad.

[Kagome]

Originally Posted by virus003

How do you reinstall internet explorer without the internet

Internet explorer comes preloaded with the operating system.

[Chaosvermin]

Vista isn't bad now, looks pretty alright never used it through as it isn't needed XP runs everything I need.

Originally Posted by OrganisM

programming... Visual Basic at age 12

Ahh the idiocies of youth.

Does Windows 7 look weird to you? Or is it just me?

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Chaosvermin

Ahh the idiocies of youth.

..you're right though. But it does give me street cred. :P

...to anybody who has no idea WTF visual basic is.

[ninjaKIWI]

Oh thanks Organism I came into this thread ready to say the same thing :>
<3

EDIT: Let's see
NFD
Virus
Zageron
Nyokou

All of the people I hate most on this forum have been posting here.

[OrganisM]

Zageron's also the guy who suggested a complete system drive format and reinstall of everything when a guy had a driver problem while using Vista. These are the types of people who criticize Vista.

I think there either needs to be a hardware/software computer sub-forum, or an "official" computer help thread. Or there could just be a complete ban on computer help threads. This is not the place to ask, and the only one to blame is you after you listen when a 13 year-old tells you to pour syrup into your video card's cooling system.

PS -

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/

ASK THERE.

[chidori!]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

@chidori! Oh and the name is totally a reason to trash an OS. LOL amirite? Owait, little kiddie was 7 when XP came out and doesn't know anything about previous OSs. My first version of windows was 3.1.

I'm not saying I'm going to hate it, the numbers/names just seem to come out of nowhere.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by chidori!

I'm not saying I'm going to hate it, the numbers/names just seem to come out of nowhere.

Windows 7 is supposedly named the way it is since it's the 7th version of windows.

..the only problem is, that's not quite true, and there are many ways of counting the windows versions, as you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ndows_versions

If you go with 3.1, 95, 98, ME/2000, XP, and Vista, then you can count this next version as version 7. The only problem is that the first one on the list was the third version of windows. Do you start at the NT kernel or the DOS-based versions? Do you count sub-releases? If so, which ones? I mean, 3.1 may not be called Windows 4, but it was a major release as much as 3.0 was.

But there is a logic behind it. All you had to do is google "Windows 7 name" and you'd find a wealth of information on the subject, directly or indirectly as a result of your search.

I personally think that naming an OS after years and versions is a bit dated. Almost all the chic programs have special codenames. XP was a terrible name and was in no way representative of the program. "XP for experience".. wow, Microsoft.

They should've just continued with the naming scheme Vista started. But at least there's a reason behind it... kinda.



I would tend to go with Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, NT 4.0, 98, ME/2000, XP, Vista, and then this latest one. That would make it Windows 11. My only issue with even this naming system is that the major releases for consumers cross over from DOS-based versions to the NT kernel. So which do we pick and choose, and which do we discard? It used to be that the higher-end business versions were based on the NT kernel. XP was the first version to be both pro and consumer based on the NT kernel.

[chidori!]

Was Windows Vienna formally Windows 7, because sites say so but google images they don't look alike at all.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by x After Dawn x

XP > Vista, don't even argue. Vista requires 1-1.5 GB more RAM than Xp does because it's such a hog on power. Also, 64-bit XP allows you to use plug-in flash RAM like Vista does so there's absolutely no use or need for Vista.

The people who defend Vista are the people who are stuck with it and can't go back to XP for whatever reason.

64 bit xp has pretty awful drivers. Makes using it for games quite impractical. For normal use its probably fine. Then again, so is 32 bit.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by KgZ

real men use windows 98 ******s

the last good windows OS

2000 was the best by far. Not even close. NT kernel with all the capabilities of '98 and more.

XP became the new generic consumer version of 2000 with "Hello, you're so stupid you couldn't possibly know how to manage the icons on your desktop. We're going to delete them for you, and do so every 60 days so that your dumb ass doesn't let things get cluttered up. Because putting a bunch of shortcuts in a folder on the desktop is the wise thing to do. Let our friendly GUI take care of you. None of that fancy stuff, wouldn't want you to get hurt."

Originally Posted by chidori!

Was Windows Vienna formally Windows 7, because sites say so but google images they don't look alike at all.

Check the Windows versions page from wikipedia I posted. Vienna and Blackcomb were the codenames, along with Windows 7.

Mmm, loving that 6.0 NT kernel. And the 6.1 will be even better.

[Chaosvermin]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

I think there either needs to be a hardware/software computer sub-forum, or an "official" computer help thread.

But then everyone, including me sometimes as well, is just going to reply to all threads with "Delete System32."

[MrRubix]

I still use XP because it does what I want it to do, at the speeds I want them to. My main gripe with Vista is performance. I always encounter weird lag/compatibility issues depending on what I am trying to do. Such issues simply don't occur for me in XP. Furthermore, while this mainly applies to present-day, I dislike how Vista basically nomnoms a huge portion of the harddrive and resources.

Just to grow some e-peen here, has anyone out-OS'd me?
I've used the old Apple II OS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME/2000/NT, Windows XP, Windows Vista, multiple versions of the Mac OS, as well as multiple Linux distributions and forms (far too many to list)

[justin_ator]

Lol Rubix.

[Kekeb]

There's nothing wrong with Vista as others have said in this thread. The reason I have personally not switched over is because XP does what I want. You could almost compare it to buying a new car. Why buy a new car when my current car works, and I'm content with what I have? Sure the car might have better performance, but it's not worth it to me.

I do have my HD partitioned Vista/XP, but I don't boot into Vista often.

Originally Posted by OrganisM

and started programming C++ at age 14

C++ at 14? you must be hardcore as fuc ... :l