Flakes :
notherdude, ive used every version of windows from 3.1, i still have the floppy disk drives it came on.
so what it uses the same kernal, so do other versions of windows(2000 and XP use NT and they are different) and they vary quite a bit. Just because windows 7 uses the same kernal as vista doesnt mean that it hasnt been improved considerabely.
Vista,
1. slow file transfer speeds.
2. still does have some compatibility issues(like my raid array)
3. some games require to be run in admin mode otherwise they just crash.
4. i hate the control panel, cant find a thing.
5. search feature(on windows start menu) is useless because it only searches through the .exe files.
6. gadgets complete waste of time, and clutter.(personal preference i suppose, i dont have any desktop icons, and i have my taskbar set to hide.)
7. memory hog, and because of SP3 vista is still slower.
and anyone that says its because my system is slow is a fool, my system is fine, its not top of the range anymore but i should run vista just fine.
agreed on everything, except, NT isnt a kernel but whatever, i see the point you were trying to make. my pc is an athlon 6000x2, 3g ram, radeon hd 3850. i recently reformatted my old compaq celeron 600mhz 256mb ram with useless onboard video for my fiancee to use at school, it went from factory installed 98se(no reinstalls or even restores since i unsealed the box - over a decade) to xp because the school software she had to use wasnt compatible.
and wouldnt you know, the home box running vista runs at about the same speed as the celeron with xp. of course larger programs take longer to load but the windows interface on it's own only slows down on the laptop when loading up a really content-heavy page in firefox.
one thing i would like to add is that for some strange reason, every time i try to load up the folder that i store my video files, vista decides that it needs to "load" the folder contents for about 25 seconds.
you know, that green bar that runs across the address bar before showing you the icons in the folder.
i have 67 items in this folder, 42 gigabytes. all divx, all use the vlc pylon icon and not thumbnails. small icon setting.
now in my hi-def folder: 55 items, 307gb. no load time. my music folder has over 1000 items using detailed list setting. it is instant, like every other folder i access on either of my machines.
the best part is that this happens every single time, not just once in a while to get the info into the ram. i have to wait 25 seconds to see the icons and then if i go into a subfolder within the video folder and then push the back button it makes me wait all over again. google tells me it isnt that obscure of a problem either.
what the hell is it loading for so long? explain that to me please, experts. how can you techies with your A+ cert defend this garbage feature of a garbage bloatware of a product. yes there was backlash when xp came out but you have to be delusional to think that the hate went on for as long as it has for vista. as for 7 having the same kernel type argument, why did everyone who had any knowledge of computers whatsoever stop using norton stuff? was it because it didnt detect malware as well anymore or was it because of other reasons...
i dont have a source for this but im sure you can google if you really care, i remember watching an interview with gates before he left. it was pretty casual, they were joking around and he was pretty relaxed. when asked what he feels was the worst windows he had ever put out he responded something along the lines of being able to answer that question only after the next version of windows is released.
if HE thinks it is the worst, why do you guys love it so much? because its pretty and shiny and new? you like seeing through the top of the window frames? is that really enough?
we focus so much on how fast our hardware is and spend so much cash to keep it up to date but when its comes to software being efficient we need a serious slap in the face to shake us from our consumer stupor enough to make a stand like we did with norton. 40% is the number i see most from tech sites comparing xp to vista speeds using various benchmarks. how much slower does the next OS need to be? 80%? twice as slow? hell just look at min specs for games now, 1g ram for xp and 1.5 for vista. sounds backwards to me. shouldnt progress, as a rule, move us forward? i am an average personal pc user. i browse the web, download torrents, watch movies and shows, play games. why should i use vista when it just cancels out my hardware upgrades? do i really need all the services packed with vista or would it be just as easy to keep all the drivers and junk on the dvd where they dont take up resources and install them as i need them. or even at least give me the damn option to do a custom install and click off the boxes in front of things i dont need like ease of access center or task scheduler. you know, like it used to let me before it thought i would be too confused by the advanced options button.
they really are geniuses though for preventing "dx10 on xp"(the google string that brought me here) as it is the reason i put up with my loading folder and the other garbage listed in the quote up top.
i hate caps. focus on that.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram