Here we go again. We have had this thread 10 times now. 90% of the people who claim Vista sucks are pathetic dumb sheep who havent even tried it! Then 5% who have tried and have no clue how to configure an OS (yes, Vista sucks out of the box) and then the final 5% who truly have problems. Could be anything. Hardware, software etc. XP users also have this as any other OS.

I installed Vista on a new computer now 6 months ago or so and it is BY FAR the best OS i ever tried. Even if you paid me i wouldnt go back to XP. XP sure is good but Vista if way better IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE DOING which obviously most of you imbeciles don't know.

It's more stable, faster, everything runs smooth plus it also looks way nicer which is a nice extra.

You people are fucking sheep! I sure that most of you idiots havent fucking even tried it.

And yeah there is no point in installing it on an old computer obviously. And yeah it needs quite some tweaking the first days. But after that if you can honestly claim it sucks then either your computer suck or you suck because you can't configure it.

Anyway, typical gfy behaviour. Fucking no clue parrots.

Exactly. As always its the dumb, the clueless and the sheep who complain.

I bought Vista on the day it came out and I've been extremely happy with it since :)

Did someone tell you that or did you notice it yourself? Where do you get that information from?

Very slow??? It runs fast as hell. I never had an OS boot up this fast and in general work this fast. And what programs are you talking about exactly? In 6 months i maybe had 1 or 2 or maybe even 0 programs which didnt work because of Vista. I cant even recall one but it *might* be possible.

Wrong. Vista and XP have the same limits of memory utilization:
1) WinXP 32 bit and Vista 32 bit both are unable to use 4Gb
1) WinXP 64 bit and Vista 64 bit both are able to use over 4Gb

Read this article and you will see it.

Both.
1) I was testing Vista on the same PC where I have XP installed (Core 2 Duo/2Gb RAM).
2) Course I'm also getting the info from the other sources as well. The ZNet article mentioned above is one of those sources.

1) According to my personal feeling - yes, it's very slow.
2) According to ZNet's tests: it works more than 2 times slower than XP (80 seconds instead of 30 seconds on a same test)

Well i can't recreate any of the problems you've had. Once again i think it's all about tweaking it. The way it comes out of the box it just sucks.

no wonder. XP takes less resources.

Funny then... it was a race I performed... I rendered the exact same 3D image on both the XP unit and new vista dual core. The exact same same settings and tweaks. Hit enter and let em rip. Vista blows the doors off XP by maybe 20 seconds, put it this way, maybe a 5 car length finish advantage for vista over XP.

Yes I had headaches at first. look up 50 tweaks for vista - turn on your proccessor to 100% and its a whole new animal.

BUT ---BUT I DO need help unsticking my vista dreamweaver properties box from the bottom of the screen. Otherwise its light years faster than the old workhorse XP.

I felt the same way but once I was forced to make it work, it wasn't that bad.

what he said
it will take me a lot to switch

So you are saying you never tried it??
That would be kinda funny.

No it isn't. There's no such thing as a "Mac" anymore. It's all the same architecture now. So the base PC is the same.

Fucking Micro$oft can eat shit and die.

think twice b4 using vista.

First, anyone using the 32 bit version of any OS on a 64bit machine is just shooting themselves in the foot.
Vista 64 is able to handle 16gb of RAM.
XP64 runs SLOWER with 4gb of ram then with 2gb of ram. Trust me, I was mighty pissed when adding ram made the system slower.

Yes its true Vista uses more resources then XP, XP used more then 98, 98 used more then 95, 95 used more then windows 3.1.... Notice a trend?
Hardware is also getting cheaper and cheaper, there is no reason a computer that will render video or whatever all day wouldnt have 4gbor ram in it.
That silly test they ran on a computer with 1gb of ram... wtf, I cant even build that computer on the dell website with only 1gb or ram. So why did they do the test with only 1gb? couldnt possibly to skew the results could it....

I have an xp cd with service pack 3 but thanks for the link :)

Why? At the current moment more than 90% of all useful Win software is 32bit. So is there a serious reason to use 64bit OS? I don't think so, because 32bit code runs a bit slower on 64bit OS because of thunking.

Vista64 and XP64 are able to handle the same amount of RAM. Vista64 has no advantages over XP64 there.

Sorry but I can't trust you because I know how exactly Windows uses memory :) Actually If you run some applications that utilize all the available memory (e.g. if you're rendering some complicated 3D scene, or just editing some high-res big-sized PSD files etc), the operating system will use swap file instead of RAM, and course it will work MUCH slower. So there is a simple rule: more RAM = higher system performance.

Apple's machine run much more efficiently than most pieced together Dell or HP crap, and the operating system blows away Windows.

Mitch

It will never happen until you upgrade your hardware to Core Eight or something :-) I downloaded a tryout of Vista and was not able to find a driver for my ADSL modem. After that I wiped out Vista. Probably for good :-)

yes I have.
but either my computer is not fast enough for it or I didn't tweak it well.
the main thing is, right now, XP is doing everything I need it to and I just to dont' see a good enough reason to switch.
we all know it time we WILL switch to Vista but I think now is not a good time.