MS Vista

[ShotaSan]

Anyone upgrade to "MS Vista"? What's Your opinion? Do all Your players, cards, and apps work? Can't decide if it's worth it since I'm satisfied with XP! Just wondering

[prh99]

Please only post shota images in the gallery, the hentai section, or the Loli + Shota section of the forums.

Vista sucks!
You need the minimum of 512MB of RAM just to get it working,2GB of RAM to get it working well and 4GB of RAM to get it working well and also for your games to work well.Not to mention that you only see a significant boost when you have a Dual-Core CPU and a minimum of 256MB video card.
In other words,f**k Vista! Not to mention that "the people" over at Microstuffed haven't wrote a new OS since Windows 95!Vista naked=Server 2003 kernel.
My advice?
If you still like XP and want to make your PC run faster,switch to Windows Server 2003.It's a little tricky on the driver installations,but eventually you'll get it.Looks&behaves just like XP but sooooooooooooooooooooo much faster!
Hope this helps ya! It sure helped me vent! :P
Love&Peace!

[MarzKnight]

^every OS sucks when if first comes out (1st rule of upgrading.)

Vista is most troublesome and slightly irritating to network,(in my opinion) and most of the options got changed.... and the GUI blows(in my opinion)

[Dynasty Warrior]

My brother had some problems installing Vista because of something about the drivers. But now he has it up and running. I would rather have "Windows Batista" since it'd be a beast of an OS.

[vincent_10_27]

I don't really think Vista sucks. I never own it yet but I have an MSDNAA License for one copy of the Business Edition. I don't want to use the software yet either. I saw my classmates' laptop with Vista and it looks good. I am not saying that I like it but from a consumer's point of view in the future, it'll sell good. It's true that you need a top mid-end computer peripherals to work with Vista but it's just always the same. Sooner or later, people will consider the high-end machines of now to be a low end machines of tomorrow(hey, we're doing quad-core now and waiting a few months for AMD to see the octal-core(quad x 2) set up). it's nothing different from the past.

I am not actually a fan of Vista. But I can say that it'll do well in the future for consumers. Especially for gamers since DirectX10 & Direct3D10 is available for Vista(but D3D10 support is currently available for nVidia's GeForce 8000 series only). We can expect an enhancement in the PC gaming scene.

Originally Posted by UzY3L

If you still like XP and want to make your PC run faster,switch to Windows Server 2003.It's a little tricky on the driver installations,but eventually you'll get it.Looks&behaves just like XP but sooooooooooooooooooooo much faster!

I don't think Windows XP Professional SP2 is that slower than Windows Server 2003. Well, from my 1 year of experience as a Windows XP Professional owner, I compared it side by side with my teacher's system that has Windows Server 2003. Nothing much noticeable except that hosting sites with Windows Server 2003 is much better than Windows XP because of the newer version of IIS. Aside from that, both are pretty equal in my point of view.

If you really want a fast and fancy(like Vista) + useful system, I recommend Ubuntu Edgy Eft and install it with Beryl. Take this, with almost more than 10 heavy applications running plus background services, Ubuntu uses about 30-45% of the total system resource! That's including Beryl, a VMWare Workstation(actually running a Mac OSX on top of Ubuntu) and, the greatest part, the system is using the official Java Virtual Machine by Sun, not g++'s gcj. We did almost the same thing with Windows(with lesser applications open, of course) and it used up about 90-93% of the system resources(virtual + physical memory). And the funny part, my friend fired up the Windows Media Player and it displayed out of memory error and suddenly went BSOD. We did side by side comparisons with our teachers using their work computers.

Sadly, I cannot install Beryl on my system cause I am only using Ubuntu Dapper Drake. Edgy Eft wouldn't let me work with my wireless card so I have to stick with Dapper Drake for now and wait for Feisty Fawn. Hopefully, there'll be a better support for graphics and wi-fi soon.

[dirtyboy2006]

wait until mid summer other wise you are in for a world of pain with vista, even only considering upgrading when xp get pushed out of the market (the things you use no longer work on it)

[vincent_10_27]

It was mentioned that XP will still be supported till end of 2008. And Microsoft is developing the Service Pack 3 already so by this mid-summer XP will still be around with support.

[nxcmp]

Windows Vista = An interface "Face Lift" Its just like yahoo widgets (which is free by the way) But thats just my opinion Im not saying I dont like Vista (I have nothing against it) Im still playing with it :P

[aceman67]

I was a Vista Beta tester (I was using it since RC1, before the public beta test.), I recomend that if you're going to be buying a new (Pre-built) computer, get it with vista, because the specs on it will be up to snuff.

If you're going to be upgrading, wait until at least next year before you take the plunge. That way, there will be more DirectX 10 video cards on the market, there will actually DX10 games, and the kinks should have been mostly worked out of the OS with hotfixes.

But if you ARE going to upgrade now, Make sure you have At least a Gig of Ram (You should always have more ram then what the OS says is minimum), a video card that is at least 256mb, and a processor faster then 1.5ghz

As for Windows XP vs Server 2003, let me get my stupid stick out and beat you with it. Server 2003 was designed to run... well, Servers. It wasn't designed for day to day computer use like Windows XP is. Its missing services that are in XP that make stuff like Gaming faster, but it does have services that you won't even use that take up system resources because you won't be running a website of your computer.

Me and my brother practicly have the same computer (we both custom built ours at the same time) and for a while, he ran Server 2003. He had nothing but trouble, his gaming performance was noticibly less then on my PC.

Also, Server 2003 is unforgiving. You screw something up. You're screwed. At least in XP, there's a pretty good chance that you can fix it. Server 2003 is designed for people who know what they are doing (meaning they've taking post secondary education courses on how to admin servers).