What the ****

[Tr44nc33]

My sister uses Vista, and the IE crashes suddenly a lot.

[Strider11o7]

Vista does get alot of bad rep, but I wouldn't be able to use it even if I wanted to, at least until I make my laptop when I graduate. I have 2 gigs of RAM, but the processor is too old (AMD Sempron 2400+), so everything runs slow and buggy. For now i'm stuck with XP and Ubuntu. Planning on getting Vista and KDE for the laptop in the summer.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Kekeb

C++ at 14? you must be hardcore as fuc

iknorite?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

My main gripe with Vista is performance. Furthermore, while this mainly applies to present-day, I dislike how Vista basically nomnoms a huge portion of the harddrive and resources.

Wait, wut? It basically what? Substantiate that! Jesus, show me one objective situation, like a synthetic benchmark or real world benchmark under similar conditions, so I can see exactly what this mythical slowdown is. Because I haven't personally encountered it. Nor have I seen an objective and concrete example of it.

[Kenzya]

Between XP and Vista, games on my machine tend to run slower on Vista. Also, small tasks such as extracting big files from rars are slower on Vista. That 3D spinning text that appears in Isketch whenever someone wins slows Vista down to a crawl. I don't have a ****ty system so don't go assuming either. Vista is a ****tier OS on my hardware.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Kenzya

Between XP and Vista, games on my machine tend to run slower on Vista. Also, small tasks such as extracting big files from rars are slower on Vista. That 3D spinning text that appears in Isketch whenever someone wins slows Vista down to a crawl. I don't have a ****ty system so don't go assuming either. Vista is a ****tier OS on my hardware.

Once again, post specs of your system and just grab a timer and time the time it takes to do those tasks. Aside from that, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other variables besides OS. Stop trying to pass approximation off as fact, particularly when the tests aren't necessarily objective.

Perception of hardware required is ridiculous. There's someone who runs Crysis on his rig, and it's equipped with a dual-core 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and an old 8800GTS (the G80 version), 2gb 800MHz DDR2 and he does it at a fairly high resolution. So the idea that to run Vista you need 10TB ram and an octo-core system is stupid.

[Izzy]

Games run about the same on my xp and my vista

xp is 3gb's and 8800 gtx graphics card 2.5 ghz dual core.
vista is 4gb's and 9800 gtx graphics card 2.5 ghz quad core.

Slightly higher specs on my vista, then again my other computer is a laptop.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Games run about the same on my xp and my vista

xp is 3gb's and 8800 gtx graphics card 2.5 ghz dual core.
vista is 4gb's and 9800 gtx graphics card 2.5 ghz quad core.

Slightly higher specs on my vista, then again my other computer is a laptop.

"run about the same".... uhh. That means what? Once again, nothing concrete.

A mobile chipset =! a desktop computer. Your setups aren't even remotely similar, and your configurations may all be different. Aside from that, different games perform differently on different operating systems and at different resolutions with different sets of different hardware. The fact that you have hundreds of variables in your reasoning means you can't possibly be taken seriously, nor can you actually call that statement a substantial fact.

If you tell me you ran XP and Vista with the same exact configurations with the same resolutions and same in-game configs with the same amount of the same brand of RAM, GPU, CPU, mobo, and HDD with same BIOS and hardware settings, and then that the same file you unzipped in the same manner took longer in Vista, then I'll accept that as a result - and it must be verifiable. If I try the exact same thing on the exact same hardware and the results aren't even similar, you've done something wrong. One easy way to measure things is testing in-game with framerates, or even in 3DMark. Easy to do, and provides some sort of realistic comparison.

IF THE OPERATING SYSTEM IS NOT THE ONLY VARIABLE (within realistic limits) THEN YOUR RESULTS ARE GARBAGE.

PS - your mobile chipset is different than your desktop (entirely) your video card might have been a different brand and is a different card, etc etc etc etc etc.

On second thought, don't go to the Tom's Hardware forums. You'd get laughed out of there, and they're mostly very kind and considerate people.

[fo3h4mm3r]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

"run about the same".... uhh. That means what? Once again, nothing concrete.

A mobile chipset =! a desktop computer. Your setups aren't even remotely similar, and your configurations may all be different. Aside from that, different games perform differently on different operating systems and at different resolutions with different sets of different hardware. The fact that you have hundreds of variables in your reasoning means you can't possibly be taken seriously, nor can you actually call that statement a substantial fact.

If you tell me you ran XP and Vista with the same exact configurations with the same resolutions and same in-game configs with the same amount of the same brand of RAM, GPU, CPU, mobo, and HDD with same BIOS and hardware settings, and then that the same file you unzipped in the same manner took longer in Vista, then I'll accept that as a result - and it must be verifiable. If I try the exact same thing on the exact same hardware and the results aren't even similar, you've done something wrong. One easy way to measure things is testing in-game with framerates, or even in 3DMark. Easy to do, and provides some sort of realistic comparison.

IF THE OPERATING SYSTEM IS NOT THE ONLY VARIABLE (within realistic limits) THEN YOUR RESULTS ARE GARBAGE.

PS - your mobile chipset is different than your desktop (entirely) your video card might have been a different brand and is a different card, etc etc etc etc etc.

On second thought, don't go to the Tom's Hardware forums. You'd get laughed out of there, and they're mostly very kind and considerate people.

Wow someones getting feisty...I don't even recall him saying anything bad towards vista for you to post that response he just was saying that on his computer/computer's vista and xp didn't really have much of a difference...Btw why don't you post some of that concrete evidence your wanting? I mean it would probably be easy for you to do I'm guessing and would stop this argument/thread takeover..

Cheers.

[Izzy]

Uh wtf...I thought this was ffr. Since when were we talking about concrete evidence of vista's problems in a thread where someone supposedly deleted their system 32 folder.

**** off ******.

[Djr Rap dancer]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Uh wtf...I thought this was ffr. Since when were we talking about concrete evidence of vista's problems in a thread where someone supposedly deleted their system 32 folder.

**** off ******.

He must be very stupid.
I never get problems with my vista.
If you play in programs when you don't even know wut is it,
you must be drunk or something....

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by fo3h4mm3r

Wow someones getting feisty...I don't even recall him saying anything bad towards vista for you to post that response he just was saying that on his computer/computer's vista and xp didn't really have much of a difference...Btw why don't you post some of that concrete evidence your wanting? I mean it would probably be easy for you to do I'm guessing and would stop this argument/thread takeover..

Cheers.

Irrelevant. I wasn't saying that he was bashing Vista. I'm saying that his statement was pointless and completely baseless regardless what he was supporting.

As for the evidence, go to Tom's Hardware and check a few benchmarks. It's not hard to find an example. I'm asking for people to defend their accusations that Vista makes a computer slower and requires vastly more resources for similar performance.

Originally Posted by Izzy

Uh wtf...I thought this was ffr. Since when were we talking about concrete evidence of vista's problems in a thread where someone supposedly deleted their system 32 folder.

**** off ******.

Yeah, this is FFR. But in my world of standards, when you post something, I expect you to substantiate it. I won't apologize. To me there is no "place where reason and fact do not matter, and FUD and garbage is good substitute for truth".

I was not the one who started with "Vista is crap". Note that quite a few other users argued the point with me; it was not a tirade of my own with nobody else involved. "We" have been talking about Vista's problems for a majority of the thread, and you entered that discussion, not the System32 discussion which the thread first brought up. So I had every right to respond when you went on the same tangent I was discussing.

Oh, and since this is obligatory by your standards,

Lick my taint, maggot.

[Izzy]

I wasn't trying to make a point on anything.

[Djr Rap dancer]

omg look like retarded fight.
Calm down guys.
It's just a stupid machine.
Take it izzy

[Chaosvermin]

OrganisM you're coming off as a Vista fanboy by this thread lol.

[sumzup]

I don't think OrganisM's a Vista fanboy by any means. He's just against misrepresentation of facts regarding something he takes very personally, which is completely understandable. Anyone would be angry if they had expertise in something and were surrounded by a bunch of people spouting irrelevant information and untruths.

[Chaosvermin]

I know he's not a fanboy but its just appears that way because his replies to the misinformation and untruths.

[sumzup]

That's true; he's coming across a bit strong. BUT NO QUARTER MUST BE GIVEN TO PERPETRATORS OF FUD!!!

[Chaosvermin]

How about a dime? Can we give them that?

[ninjaKIWI]

Originally Posted by Chaosvermin

How about a dime? Can we give them that?

If you know what no quarter means that's pretty funny. lol.
But if you're serious then I frown at your post ):

[NFD]

I didn't delete my System32, x.x. It was probably deleted by a virus or something. I don't know.