I recently bought a laptop with 1gig or ram. It came with Vista and I installed Ubuntu 8.04. Linux is so much faster with only 1gig. Vista crawls.
With so many version of Windows developed under the same company I have to believe the slowness is because MS doesn't go back and improve old legacy code.
http://afewtips.com

...or that Vista just runs like crap on a system with 1Gig and any manufacturer that would sell such a PoS should be hanged...

*laughing*

I love it when people's expectations simply don't mesh with reality. When was the last time any MSFT OS performed well anywhere *near* their baseline RAM requirements? Hmmmm?

I don't like waiting 7 or 8 seconds on this Vista machine when I hit my CTRL-ALT-C shortcut just to open the calculator.

AMD Athlon 64 Processor 4000+ 2.41 GHz
4 GB RAM
Windows Vista Bisiness (32-bit) Service Pack 1

1.) Why do you have 4GB on that system?

2.) Video card integrated or discrete?

My system is only a touch more powerful than yours and Vista screams on it. The differences being only 2GB of RAM, a 4600+ CPU, and a discretee 512MB ATi 2900.

one can simply imagine how fast win95 would function on a dual core computer.

so i don't believe that making windows faster is the key.

instead the hardware must be faster and better as well as the internet.

what i would like microsoft to do is to make windows more reliable and self sufficient in every aspect like having a failing windows to sync with microsoft and have it repair itself.

Why would you want to run the BSOD filled OS? Yes it would run faster but was far from a stable OS. It was better than 3.11 but then 98 was better than 95.

Windows 9x has major problems with the amount of RAM and how fast the CPU is.

Typically you can't install more then 512mb of RAM without changing the vcache setting and even then you're limited to about 768mb ram with the setting changed and the patch.

Then you're going to be limted by the type of CPU you can run in Windows 9x. With older cpu's ,anything more then 1.4ghz and you'll have problems with BSOD.

So windows 95 wouldn't function very well on a dual core computer.. and lets not forget that Windows 95 would only see 1 core or CPU in the first place.

For a modern day machine, you're really going to be limited to Windows 2000 (at a push, due to updates and new software not working on there) but I'd expect anyone to be using at least Windows XP to get the best performance from their system.

you want a fast version of windows then it depends on your PC. windows 2000 or windows 98

I thought I placed BetaNews in my search and it takes me to a forum for the criminally insane. That will teach me not to use Live Search.

Yay! More whining!

...at least you're constant. Thanks for the wonderfully informative and relevant insight there, sparky.

Yeah, and I don't even have to take a laxative. How's life treating you and yours? Not suffering from chronic Vista?

I'm running Vista X64, greatest disaster since the Pele eruption. I guess it's what I get for being a MSDN member. I.m also on the quality improvement team. Too bad there's no quality to improve.

My caretaker just arrived so I gotta cut this short. Don't think this hasn't been a little slice of heaven, cause it hasn't.

I'm running Vista X64, greatest disaster since the Pele eruption.

Nice to see the rhetoric in full swing. Get some perspec.. Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to...

I'm heartened to see so many MS bashers circle the wagons around WinXP when the topic of Vista rears it's head. =)

Well, if you choose not to go with Linux or to lock yourself into the cult of Apple, all you're left with is a a bad bunch of bloaters from a monopolistic corp, and the sad knowledge that nothing would be different even if it wasn't MS.

From a bad bunch, XP (post service pack) is currently the best on the basis of responsiveness.

"Windows Vista executes typical applications more slowly than Windows XP, even with the same hardware configuration, even with Vista Service Pack 1."

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ticism_of_Windows_Vista

I'm not saying Wikipedia is the source of all truth, but this makes sense. It's not saying that Vista runs SLOW on good hardware, just that it runs SLOWER than XP on that same hardware.

This for me is the main issue, along with the DRM stuff.

#1 Problem, trusting Wiki
#2 Search for benchmarks from 2008
#3 Make sure the people doing the benchmarks follow the guidelines, like NOT turning off AERO, which speeds up graphics applications like Photoshop or Illustrator.

Here is a quick link to get you started on the Vista is slower Myth...

http://www.extremetech.c...2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp

With late 2007 drivers for Video and other updates in SP1, Vista screams around XP in several areas.

#1 The WDDM in Vista actually 'speed up' applications even though it add the pretty glass, and a lot of idiots turn it off thinking it slows stuff down. The AERO composer shoves some GDI/GDI+ through the 3D gpu, as well as Font rendering, and even bitmap decompression.

Even games often run faster in Vista, and can use higher quality textures as it uses the WDDM (XBox 360 design) to share GPU RAM with the system, so you can load higher quality textures, even on a 128mb Video card that would normally demand a 512mb Video card.

#2 Application load times (game dynamic loading lag) - Vista's superfetch shines here, and even on 1GB systems, Vista will load applications 10x faster than XP on average, and this is pretty major.

#3 New Memory prioritization and I/O locking changes eliminate the waiting or chugging you find in XP.

#4 Try Vista x64, faster by 15% on average over XP or 10% faster than Vista x32. Also it is more stable than Vista x32 and XP. (Secret here is it a 'real' 64bit OS, so the lower levels run in native 64bit mode and even speed up 32bit applications by dual writing RAM in 64bit chunks, so a 32bit application writing or reading RAM, Vista x64 gets the data in one read. Also the lower level memory management tables are not restricted with 32bit tables, and of course other things like the 64bit registers. 64bits IS faster, in contrast: (OS X is 32bit with 64bit application RAM addressing, this is why 64bit applications on OS X don't benefit except for the larger memory range)

-----------
Truly, do some research, Vista and the XP is faster Myth needs to be put to rest once and for all.

The most sensible thing I've read here today.

This highlights what has been 1 of the major blunders that MS continues to make with Vista: they never bother to tout many real benefits behind the scenes.

It's not a myth. I'm a computer builders. I did the test myself.

When I build a new pc I always run Performance Test from Passmark. It test all the piece of the PC and I check the result against a reference result to make sure the machine is good.

2 identical PCs: Asus M2N-MX SE + (Nvidia chipset), Athlon X2 3600+, Seagate 160 Gigs SATA2, on-board GeForce 6150. 1 Gig. in the XP pc, 2 Gig. in the Vista PC (DDR2-800). XP SP3 Home vs Vista SP1 Home. Freshly builded, freshly installed.

XP score: 513
Vista score: 478

XP beat Vista in every category even with the advantage in memory for Vista.

on-board GeForce 6150

Therein lies your problem. :)

Get a discrete Video card. Vista will at the very least match XP bench for bench.

Heh...

It's been here. One of the very first comments I posted in this topic had that exact link. :)

"on-board GeForce 6150"

The machine is not good, that's the problem. I have an old comp with the 6150 in it and that card is absolutely pathetic.

What problem ? the pc work perfertly to do internet surfing and word processing.

All the test are slower in Vista, not just the video one.

Every app in Vista requires windows, eh?

Borders, buttons, etc.?

All of those require Aero (GPU) or GDI (CPU).

When using Aero, the 6150 will slow the entire computer down as application *wait* for the windows to be drawn.

Try disabling Aero. The banchmarks should change (though only slightly since you've moved the UI from GPU to CPU...)

Putting in a decent video card will not only boost your GUI responsiveness, but most of your other benchmarks as well.

Vista will not perform adequately on a 6150. Period. It will work, but you'd best stick with XP on it.

Had you a discrete vid, the benchmarks would be completely different, as witnessed by the multiple ExtremeTech links floating around this topic.

Point: Your system, as configured, should remain on XP. ...but it's not Vista's fault because the system simply wasn't built for it. (That'd be like complaining that gas works just fine to run your car, but rocket fuel keeps blowing it up..)

...not *really* a "card". :p

Oddly enough, the Intel 965 integrated seems to handle Aero just splendidly.

My D630 boots and runs a *hell* of a lot faster in Vista than any of our desktops (running the gamut of the Optiplex line) running XP here.

Still haven't quite figured that one out....

Point: all the excuses are good.

First no Aero, because it was Home Basic.

Second the 6150 cannot slow down memory access or a floating-point cpu test. That's BS.

This PC has a dual-core CPU and 2 Gigs. of DDR2 RAM and you're going to tell me it's not big enough to run Vista. Think about that again.

XP is faster than Vista.

THERE IS NO DRM IN VISTA ITS SUPPORT ONLY GET A CLUE...

Uh, yeah it can since the video memory is SHARED and does not have its own. Which would mean its eating into the 2 gig of ram you have...

He said your video card was causing the problems not once did he say anything about big enough. VIDEO VIDEO VIDEO.

Whatever your excuses, XP is still faster than Vista and it is not a myth.

XP is faster than Vista on hardware that cripples Vista.

Fixed that for you, you seem to be missing the point. Go figure.

And even the services that offer that supprt are manual. They do not run unless called upon by said DRM protection.

I'm not surprised that the libertopians on here support Vista. Its so corporate, and they worship the corporate.

Hope their dialog is not a simple show:they are used to create a product and impose it afterwards by all means. Even when there is a lot of simple minded people who buy anything new because it is new, the most important opinion is that of the most important customers (governements, big corporations, airlines, etc). Their networks, in many cases composed of tens of thousands of computers, are in the hands of proffesional people perfectly prepared to use Linux in their servers, and almost all their computers are now using XP or Windows 2000 AFAIK. These clients are no pirates at all, they are forcedly conservative because their responsability is great and always at stake, and only renew a machine or introduce as little as possible changes in its OS when there is a sufficient reason for that.

I totally agree with shadow_concept, it would be beneficial to both Microsoft and its clients if W7 was streamlined in that sense...

And as eunichman pointed out, "Ahhh, lovely dream, won't happen", we are lacking trust in MS to deliver the goods. I hope we can be proven wrong...

hey, you didn't pay the (c) royalties to quote me lol

My thoughts...

Quit making everything interdependent on everything else and make it modular with the option to remove unneeded and unwanted features.

I’m not against bundled apps or the like being in the OS, just that generally everyone is forced to keep services and programs lingering around because the removal or disabling of something invariably screws up something else. Why should Outlook or IE need Outlook Express around to function properly? Give your users choice on what’s installed or not installed with the OS.

Some SSE2/SSE3 optimizations in the kernel and user land wouldn’t hurt either. But it seems that in today’s age that fast computers = code bloat. Just throw in the kitchen sink with it because the CPU is capable of dragging it along. There used to be a time when programmers cared about how optimal their code ran. It seems those days are gone.

"make it modular" - amen to that. They do this ppl will be drooling for their next OS.

Yes! Very good points.
Could you imagine how Windows would run if it were properly 'cleaned up'? Problem solved Microsoft, windows will be faster!

Hi to everybody! To make a long story short
XP good Vista much better
Mainbaord with DDR2 ok
Mainboard with DDR3 much better
the latest hardware technology make athe diference
Main problem with Vista is HARDWARE not software as everyone wants to believe
Using Vist 32 Ultimate since it came to the market, I do not use XP no more and for all of you who running problem its all about hardware
Free tip for all of you who running problem such as iexplorer.exe and services.exe this is not virus this is a hardware problem. I learned it the hard way and if anyone install Vista on a new or old machine and sees the machine freeze or behave strange on a clean installation the problem is hardware.For all who omplain about speed is it matter how long the machine takes to reboot after you load other software? Or is it matter how long the software start when you are on your desktop?How staeady and smooth it is . Nothing to compare beatween XP and Vista
XP good Vista MUCH MUCH BETTER!!!!!

Perhaps we could go back to two Windows versions: Basic & Ultimate.

The Basic package would give you a core Windows program, with minimal features and basic functionality - just an OS on which to run your programs. From there, extra services could be bought and added on (Movie Maker, WMP, IIS, etc, etc). These could all be simple links in the Add/Remove programs area and could be purchased for nominal pricing.

Then there would be the Ultimate/Full package - which gives you a disc with all the available add-ons already included - so those that want every Windows feature can install and use it if they want with no further charges. Of course, the option would remain to customise during installation for those with Windows Ultimate.

Seems like the best of both worlds. Most OEMs would opt for Ultimate to keep customers happy, while a few might build netbooks and basic PCs with the Basic version and a couple of add-ons.

My personal opinion is YES!!!

If we have to deal with windows for the majority of things then lets have a GOOD, Stable, and FAST Operating System to work with.

With the options to be there for the people that want the extra WINDOW dressing, ok fine. but then the classic Basics for those that want to just have an OS and nothing else.

Lets face it Vista Basic! I wouldnt put that in ANYTHING. FOR ANY reason. Min would be Vista Business with customized Classic interfacing. and manually removing Mediaplayer, and games, and MSN. Bingo a good OS.

Now performance... Well Bloatware is standard in MS Vista. so unless its top of the line Duo core 4gb ram MIN. You should prob go with XP pro sp3.

In the next version of windows I would LOVE to see the BASIC core OS Outperform XP or Vista on ANYTHING that it says its made for. Meaning They should SAY specifically What machines its for and STICK to it. MS main mistake with Vista was caving to OEM demands for unreasonable extended life to antiquated equipment the OEMs wanted to dump on the public. Alla Vista ready and Vista capable nonsense. All of which were NOT! Today New equipment being made is FINALLY at a level that Vista can be considered ACCEPTABLE performance. Thats over a year later. But the truth still stands that with existing equipment Windows XP Pro out performs
Vista for Gaming no matter what its on. And that is a key factor for the Power users many times.

Vista Is a great OS, but needed to be better in EVERY way to justify its exorbitant original price tag. Now with the demand so low for it and a bloated supply of Vista Home premium, the price has come in line for a OS of its stature. But amazingly XP Pro prices go up and up. why? High Demand and supply dwindling.

One has to ask WHY that is... Why is demand for what MS claims is a dead OS keep going up? Obviously its because people are UNWILLING to sacrifice performance for windowdressing on their machines. And that should be the indicatior that PERFORMANCE is key to success.

MS windows 7 MUST outperform XP pro and Vista. It simply MUST be Fast to boot, (REALLY, not just from a sleep state as they often show off and find that even though it looks like its ready to go its not fully booted yet)
Must be Easy and quick to install.
Must have total customization of what we want and especially What we DO NOT WANT to be installed.
And should just be a fantastically stable OS not requiring undue prompting or reboots every few mins.

Apple had it right in that most software for apples does not even need installed, It just runs. when you don't want it anymore you just get rid of it. No problem.

Windows has so many dependencies that often you can't just delete something you do NOT want anymore. like say IE. Or Say you try out IE 10 and want to go back to IE 7 instead cause you didn't like it. Thats no easy thing in MS windows. So simplicity is also a request.

1 last thing. there are different levels of computer users. some know a ton, more know a little and more still know just about nothing...
Their should be a setting for prompting to adjust for such users.

For instance if I am a power user and I want to install something I should not have to tell it 10 times to do so. I said to install it and I mean to install it. However if something is installing automatically without a user prompt it should be able to tell the difference.

If your a power user or a novice there should be enough in the OS to tell what is being installed by a user and what is scripted and malicious.

The OS should treat you as you expect to be treated. If you tell it to do it one time that should be enough for it to know you want it to do something at that moment. then when your done it should say installation complete and that tells the computer OS that this is done now and no more prompting about it should be needed.

and Visa versa. If I want something GONE and not running. it should stop it and not loose stability from doing so. Just remove what you do not want. ask 1 time if your sure you do not want it anymore, and GONE forever it be. God would that be nice.

Are we asking too much with that? probably. But if MS delivered on even 1/2 that it would be a HUGE step in the right direction for many of us users that just do not see a reason to change from something that works great as it is without upgrading. And thats the untapped dollars they so desperately want to have access too.

"MS windows 7 MUST outperform XP pro and Vista."

You are right, we have become too deluded by Vista that we have forgotten to improve on XP standards! Things should really step up.

Speed would be nice in the next Windows. I think Microsoft should get under the hood and clean out some junk. I think they should turn off AUC because it really doesn't do anything, or if they're gonna offer it, they should integrate a smart "suggestions" feature where Microsoft gives you a green light if they think the application being installed is safe.

Compatibility is not Microsoft's fault, they cannot control who decides to make drivers for their OS. Not to mention Vista was in beta for a long time, so there's no excuse.

They also should expand on Aero. Flip 3D is not useful so axe it for something I can use. The thumbnail images of your minimized Windows are a good idea however they 'freeze' when they are minimized...which defeats the purpose of the feature if you are quickly checking the progress of an installation while browsing the web. Sidebar, get rid of...takes up space, ram, really just a gimmick.

I have a dual boot system AMD x2 5000 4GB PC 6400 RAM 350GB SATA.

32 bit home premium vs 32 bit XP SP3.

Same software on both partitions. I use the XP partition because it is faster. Once in awhile I boot to Vista in order to keep it current at Windows update. I keep hoping MS will have an update someday to make Vista faster than XP

Perhaps the PMs are listening now. I would say that they are barely admitting that something failed. That's a start out of all the denial going on.

I'm not a Linux lover though. I mainly use my PC to play FPS games and work. Just the gaming part moves me away from any other platform.

But when I found that Vista's Aero didn't help me at all and UAC was simply a resource waste, that's when I decided to turn back to my old and reliable XP. Let's see how W7 develops.

Intersting

Same system, except it's a 4600+, 2 GB of RAM, and a (2x)250GB SATA.

XP won't even install (unless I break the RAID) and Vista, scoring a 5.9, runs very well. XP, without the RAID is quite a bit slower and after a few weeks is due for another reload just to get the speed back.

I notice you didn't mention a video card. Are you using the integrated video, or do you have a discrete video card?

Mine is an Ati2900HD and Aero absolutely flies on it.

I keep hoping MS will have an update someday to make Vista faster than XP

They did. It was called SP1. ;)

Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Winblows faster, STOP RIPPING APPLE, AND COME UP WITH ORIGINAL IDEAS!!!!!!'

I love MS and Vista, and also love my Xp, anything MS. Not really anything, but just said that to p-off the MS all-haters, lol. It's not perfect, but like those commercials try to insult...we need it to get work done. So what's real and what's not real? I'll take the work thing...oh and we have the most games too...so it's really over isn't it?

Oh wait...just copy more of MS/Windows/Vista...and swear it's yours and not MS...gotcha. heehee

love it! Mr Gates rules. Yes I really do like MS and MOST of it's products.

I get all my processor speed, memory, and lots more HD space and all I did was switch to Linux! No more waiting for vaporware and more empty promises. (Aren't you glad you bought the 'Ultimate' version, whose extras MS never delivered?)

Now I'm having more fun than I ever did on a Win machine and conversations like this one -- mainly trolled to death by toolie's asinine clinical stupidity makes me laugh my arse off.

Flame on, brothers!

*laughing*

No need to make jokes about it, that's for sure.

The joke is you.

I know from personal experience that Vista will run circles around Linux. It's GUI is pathetically slow - no matter the Distro or window manager.

Are you on crack???

I have an old Athlon 1.2ghz box that runs PCLinuxOS with 3d beryl enabled and even with that POS computer the 3d kicks vista's a$$. And I have a brand new Core 2 Quad with Vista U. to compare it to.

You've gotta be kidding... I'm not a big fan of Linux, but there's NO WAY you can convince me Vista is faster, especially with less than 2GB of RAM.

How on earth did you get that impression?!?!?

No, I'm quite serious. I'm running a Dual Opteron 180 with a 8500GT video card, two gigs of ram and SATA RAID 0....5.7 on the Vista Richter scale. I used Linux in many iterations over the last four months - nearly thirty distros in all. Hell...I even grew to like Linux - it's potential seems virtually unlimited. I have all of the key commands memorized, and found substitutes for Windows apps that I actually preferred-example: Hellanzb instead over NewsLeecher. The one thing I just couldn't get used to was the responsiveness (or lack thereof) of the GUI. I don't care for KDE, but tried both Gnome and XFCE desktops. My favorite is a bare bones Debian install with an XFCE desktop. It's quite a bit snappier than Gnome. I may yet return to Linux when its performance meets or exceeds that of Windows. For now, subjectively, it feels very similar to when I tried to run Vista on a single core Athlon 2500 - just not enough h.p.

Yeah? Try Linux with your Core 2, and see if there is a linear increase in performance over the Athlon.

...and it still takes a minute for Firefox to load...

Rather than keep updating Windows v3.1, M$ should just build a new OS from scratch, using the knowledge of the last 20 years. And also do what they do best by stealing stuff from Linux,OS X and others. Then I tell you Windows 7 will can be a great OS.

XP and Vista are both based on NT, which had nothing to do with Windows 3.1 whatsoever. There is no reason to build from scratch, NT is a good kernel. It's just the junk that they build on top of it that causes problems.

I am in semi agreement here.. I would really like to see MS build a "from the ground up" redo of windows, but that in itself will have inherent problems mainly hw driver compatibility and app availability.

Some thins windows really needs IMO:
* Journaled File system (or something simular)
* Real time file defrag happens in the background on idle system ticks)
* A modular approach as mentioned above
* Removal of ALL "legacy" code..

Just a few thoughts is all

(1) Make Windows 7 less of a memory hog
(2) Make 2 gigs of RAM truly enough
(3) Put Outlook on line and FREE to compete with Google

(3) Put Outlook on line and FREE to compete with Google

Ech...

Have you ever used OWA? It's crap. Trust me.

Truth!

(1) that is a common misconception. Vista actually uses that ram to speed up your pc. It is adaptive so, based on how much mem you have or what you are running, it will change its memory footprint.

*LAUGHING*

I've read the Windows 7 blog. It's in my feed. Of the three posts, none of them focus on any specific issue.

Of course, there are always plenty of trolls to quote, eh, Scott?

Try these on for size:

Vista gaming == XP gaming

...or...

Vista outperforms XP on Atom Laptop

The first one is dead-nuts. You can't argue this. The second one is admittedly Vista Basic Vs XP Pro, but it should (read: won't) shut up those morons saying Vista will never run on an ultra-portable.

Yeah, I know. Facts. I've been noticing more and more frequently how much both the writers and users of this site seem to completely ignore them...

How dare you post facts PC! You haft to rant on about how horrible your experience was even though you know you are full of crap.

It's almost insulting, really.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/default.aspx

That's the blog in question. Read it yourself. This article *totally* misrepresents it. Completely.

Between this and Jaq's recent rumor pieces, I'm beyond "beginning to get tired of it", and quickly becoming annoyed with it. Scott used to do really great, detailed tech pieces. Nate used to handle the Windows stuff pretty well (where'd he go?), Ed always seemed to pick up the fluff pieces and at least present them in an interesting way (and seems to be the only one still "kicking it old school"...minus the proofreading mis-steps)...

All in all, it's become quite a joke as far as the reporting goes. Just fodder for the kids who couldn't hack the Slashdot comment system...

BetaNews: One step up from /.

What a tool.

and still...
nobody cares...

even with all your lame posts
nobody cares...

Aw... Are you going to be my puppy today?

How cute...

Your utter lack of creativity disappoints...

well I don't play too much FPS games, but a lot of games I play (MMORGPs) works much better on VISTA than my XP that I uses as second machine.

Games like Lucent Heart Online or other stuff got like a clear performance difference between XP and VISTA.

So I'd say that comment is not too false.
Although if you go for the old games, XP >> VISTA definitely applies.

... and nobody cares. lol

You care enough to find every post he makes...Looks to me like you do care...

Yay! More puppies!

better watch where I step, I doubt their housebroken...

meanwhile....Apple is slowly gaining ground, by the time windows 7 is out, I hope they have at least 35% or more marketshare..

Keep Hoping!

http://marketshare.hitsl...mp;qpsp=101&qpnp=14

*laughing*

Yeah, the iPod/MobilMe issues should *really* help boost that...

I can't resist Tool...

I think its cute that you see the iPod as a comparable equivalent and alternative to Windows 7!

I only wish I could effectively debate the point!

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

*laughing*

Are you trying to tell me you don't think the success of the iPod/iPhone has had any impact on Mac sales?

Really?

Being the shrewd business tech analyst I know you are, I am surprised and appalled you didn't figure that one out. ;)

Of course it is.

The funny thing is the iPhone has the potential to become a very powerful remote terminal client.

And most folks here who see it only as a phone are failing to understand that!

My personal gripe is that I don't need an iPhone client! I need a more powerful, higher capacity luggable laptop that will support multiple robust VMS over multiple high resource environments! ;-) ;-)

Phew...just a bit more than Windows 2000 machines! Yep...hot on their heels alright.

People thought XP was too bloated at one time as well. http://www.digitalvideoe...rials/chazzletter18.htm

Now they worship the ground it walks on. *shrug*

It still is!

Worship? How about simply prefer it to the even more bloated eye candy called Vista?

"It still is!"

Then go back to Windows 3.1! No bloat there!

Nope! There was and still is the MacOS

I'm not a fan of XP, why would I want to go back to an even more archaic version of MS?

LOL! MacOS is more bloated and slow now then ever! You bash MS on something that Apple is doing themselves!

Agreed. Every single Windows version at least going back to 3.x has had higher system requirements than it's predecessor. MS has always required fairly recent hardware to run the most recent version of Windows. I remember many of the same comments made about Windows 95. I am sure many of the whiners made the same sort of comments about previous versions.

But Windows barely does Windows well.

MacOS does Windows and UNIX natively. And OSX Server does all x86 VM environments as well as OSX VMs.

Some of us as well as just a few enterprises do more than just play games on their PCs!

A lot of people were really upset that Windows 95 was so slow on their 386DX computer with 4MB RAM. Kinda like the idiots that are so upset that a modern operating system like Vista won't run faster than a snail's pace on their Pentium III 1GHz computer with 512MB RAM.

Very few enterprises use Mac OS X on their servers. Most prefer Windows Server over Mac OS X because Microsoft provides much better support for large businesses than Apple does.

Yup brainiac!

Most enterprises need MS' support to admin their 64bit UNIX backends huh?

Get a clue. There is more to enterprise computing than PC games and old outdated fat client desktops.

I wonder how many of these folks who claim to have these monster machines and still think "Vista sucksOr" actually HAVE the beef, or have even tried Vista? I think one can get a pretty good idea reading here.

Grasping at straws now are we? I don't give a rats a** what the business are doing because that is not what we are discussing. Honestly I have no idea what they are using and don't really care to.

Despite the fact that Mac OS X is based on Unix it's still not widely used on servers in large businesses. When it comes to Unix, companies such as Sun have much more market share than Apple does when it comes to server operating systems. Most large companies either use Unix from a company other than Apple or Windows Server.

Windows Server does nothing for 64 bit UNIX, so no they aren't!
And Sun is getting their @ss handed to them!

IBM and HP dominate large scale UNIX.

And OSX allows for bo0th the native handling and communication of BOTH the 64 bit UNIX backend AS WELL as for the desktop management and admin functions for distributed OSX AND Windows AND Linux clients.

Oh, and should we mention there is no licensing costs?

Yup, despite Apple's head up their posterior enterprise agnosticism, try reading InfoWorld to see how "no one uses OSX in the enterprise space".

You obviously don't deal with UNIX much.

Yes how dare you not make Vista work on that old hardware! While you are at it I want XP to be fast on my Windows 98 rig with 128mb of RAM!

XP --> Vista is no different than 98 --> XP. You are all expecting your old XP rig to just magically be fast while running Vista. That isn't the way technology progresses. Sorry...Get over it.

It is not MS's fault you can't afford a decent computer.

Its their fault when they cease to sell such a 'superb and mature product'(sorry, its hard to keep a straight face while typing that!) and discontinue its sale, not because of lack of market demand, but because their flagship product's sales suck!

DEAL WITH IT Vistaboy.

But its nice to know that everyone is expected to go out and buy a new computer. Spoken like a true idiot.

"but because their flagship product's sales suck!"

Their flagship product was/is selling just fine. Also just in case you didn't know they were making money off of the XP sales just like the Vista ones.

"But its nice to know that everyone is expected to go out and buy a new computer. Spoken like a true idiot. "

Did I say that? Nope. If you want to run the latest software you need to get the latest hardware. Otherwise use your outdated software/hardware and shut the hell up.

Who cares if they're selling XP or not?

If you have older hardware...you already have it!

If you are buying new hardware, you'd be an idiot to want XP. Vista now performs as well if not better than XP on newer hardware, so the point of downgrading is gone unless it's a compatibility issue...in which case, you may have to stick with the older hardware OS for a little longer.

Big deal? Nope. Same old, same old...

No Vistaboy, you said:
"It is not MS's fault you can't afford a decent computer."

The point is, for whatever reason someone wants to buy a legacy product, it costs MS little to make it available and they still can still sell it for the same price as a copy of Vista - albeit with a larger profit margin!

Oh.

F O Vistaboy.

So basically you are pitching a hissy because an old product got discontinued am I right? I got bad news...That is going to happen for the rest of your life. Learn to live with it.

"F O Vistaboy."

Is this how you show everyone your a big mature boy now. :)

For starters MS hasn't stopped selling Windows XP. The system builder will still be carried by Microsoft through at least January of 2009, which would be 2 years after Vista was released. Only the retail box and the NFR keys the large OEMs use were discontinued on June 30th. Discontinuing the sale of prior versions of software shortly after the release of a new version is a fairly standard practice for software developers. I am doubtful that you are going to be able find very many examples of commercial software that is still available from the developer more than 2 years after the release of a replacement version.

I would also question your statement that Vista sales 'suck'. Vista market share already exceeds 17% of all boxes on the Internet according to one metric I found http://marketshare.hitsl...om/report.aspx?qprid=10 Most retail stores sell few if any models with Windows XP anymore. Business customers have been slower to adopt Vista but this is hardly unique to Vista. I found one article from Betanews from three years ago that states that large number were still using Windows 2000! See http://www.betanews.com/...n_Rates_Slow/1118943913 Most

Nobody expects you to buy a new computer. If you are happy with XP there is no reason you have to upgrade to Vista. MS will continue providing security updates for 5 years. I think that is plenty of time for you to either buy new hardware to run a newer version of Windows or find a more cost effective alternative.

You don't have to be a Vista fanboy to disagree with your point. Anyone who is not naive about the Windows OS can see flaws in some of your statements.

The marginal cost of an additional license of Vista and XP are virtually identical so I fail to see how selling an XP license is more profitable than the Vista.

neat...a dual post! I haven't done that in a long time!

"Gee Rocky...watch me pull a rabbit out of the hat...

Hockey smokes! I didn't know my own strength!"

LOL! You need to talk to someone inside MS who is well versed in their market fragmentation problem.

If only your rosy scenario were a sufficient response for them in their planning meetings!

Selling consumer boxes with Vista loaded is not their problem. Of course they are selling in that niche!

Who cares about that market?

The PROBLEM is that enterprises are NOT moving to it as they had hoped! And MS' move to restructure their licensing in response to the move to virtualization simply underscores this!

MS faces real issues in a market increasingly moving towards a centrally virtualized thin client model! And the fact is that MS is not only marginalized, the truth is that it hardly matters in this model! Hence much of the action towards developing the announced scaled down version of XP suitable for small to mid client devices!

The enterprise world is over buying 'big' PCs with standalone pain in the butt admin issues. TCO and security issues are quickly spelling an end to the market model MS has depended on for so long.

The paradigm is changing! The new model is a disruptive technology in the evolutionary cycle of simply a new OS.

Unfortunately your reasoning is stuck in the old paradigm.

Easy!

With Vista they are still recouping the recurring engineering costs!

With XP, these have long since been recovered, so the revenue is essentially pure profit!

There is a little more involved in market economics than simply the cost of the CD!

No Vistaboy.

You miss the point completely!

And in the immortal words of the Bandit: "do the letters F.O. mean anything to you?"

The cost to make the OS has already been spent. So a copy of Vista makes them the same amount of money as a copy of XP.

Wow what an intellectual rebuttal you came up with there!

roflmao!

Rocky and Bullwinkle reference. Classic.

No they are not you fool.

Because a company has expenses, it does not mean that all income is profit!

A company must recoup non-recurring engineering costs - often referred to as development costs before the product truly makes a profit.

In other words, they need to recover their expenses first, and THEN the begin to make a profit!

Your mommy should help you manage your allowance a bit more judiciously. Obviously we have another Democrat in training!

Hey, you talk at the level of the audience.

I can see that I am still talking over your pea sized head.

Ok let me dumb it down for you. The money to develop both XP and Vista has already been spent. An XP disc cost the same amount to make as a Vista disc. Ok you still with me. So they are not making any more money selling XP because whether it is XP revenue or Vista revenue they are both going to pay for the development costs of Vista just the same.

"Obviously we have another Democrat in training!"

Umm Hell no...Especially with them picking candidates like Obama.

Yet again foxfyre shows what a big boy he is now with his big boy insults. :) I will tell you again. Whenever you want to stop acting like a child and have a real conversation you let me know.

Okay hold on now im confused

I have a decent computer, that has been running vista for a year now, Not a single crash. Yes it is a resource hog but what operating system is not when it has aero glass on. Turn it off then, Problem solved.

I remmember the same exact issues with xp before SP1, and how much 98/2000 rocks, well now xp is all of a sudden golden.

I have linux mandriva on my laptop, you want to talk about compatability issues go with linux that will give you hell.

Or you can go with mac os x, But wait there the average price of a computer is around 1.500$.

So my idea is before you b**** about vista, get a decent computer, or turn aero glass off. Oh and btw if you think The UAC is bad in vista try linux mandriva

Depends...if you have a fast video card, rendering may be quicker with Aero Glass on.
In my application, Explorer comes up much faster with full glass, versus Windows Classic theme.

With Aero on, the GUI is run off teh GPU. With Aero off (GDI), it's on the CPU.

This is why on integrated or underpowerd graphics, Aero may seem slow and GDI faster, and likewise, with a decent video card, Aero will be faster than GDI.

All depends on the system configuration, which is one of the problems with Vista.

Besides making it faster and leaner, make it use the hardware that is out there. 95% of most hardware that ran the older versions of Windows (upto XP) needs to be junked when moving to Vista. What a waste!

Just like all that Windows 98/2000 hardware had to be junked moving to XP. That is the way it goes. Your hardware is outdated. Deal with it.

Its outdated when it no longer performs the function for which it is employed, not simply because some company needs to stimulate sales of its current boat anchor.

Deal with it, Vistaboy.

With that logic the old DOS hardware and monochrome monitors are not outdated because they still perform the function for which they were employed. If you are going to make a comeback for all of us at least put just a little bit of though into it. That's not asking too much is it? I'm beginning to think that it may be...

...or when a newer product provides more functionality, better security, and a more modern platform upon which to build.

Sure. If one is still using OS/2 as your mail server and your apps are all run from shortcuts linked to batch-files, launched from a 16-bit DOS process....stick with what you have.

There are enough security, reliability, and feature enhancements in Vista to make it more than worth looking at post SP1. If your shop has core2 and 2GB in every system, and your apps are compatible, paying the "downgrade" fee on future PCs would be the epitome of stupid.

XP for Some, Vista for others. You'd be amazed how many businesses still use Win2k. Hell, we still have a few of them. It all depends on the needs of the system/user.

Thought?

Are you kidding, and leave @ssholes like you lost, wandering about even more bewildered?

Face it Vistaboy, the majority of enterprise environments are still not running Vista.
And yes, MANY secure shops are STILL running OS/2 (believe it or not), which despite claims to the contrary, is still being supported in limited fashion!

You obviously have never see the MS quagmire which shows how truely fragmented their OS market distribution is!

"Face it Vistaboy, the majority of enterprise environments are still not running Vista.
And yes, MANY secure shops are STILL running OS/2 (believe it or not), which despite claims to the contrary, is still being supported in limited fashion!"

Yah because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade it lol. Whenever they replace it they wont be getting monochrome monitors and a DOS computer I can assure you.

"Thought?

Are you kidding, and leave @ssholes like you lost, wandering about even more bewildered?"

So you admit that you haven't been putting thought into your posts?

So far all I have seen is a frustrated little child throwing around insults instead of actually debating my points. Whenever you want to have a big boy conversation you let me know.

95%? I sincerely doubt that. I have a 8 year old HP deskjet 932C, which wasn't a very high end printer even at the time, which works right out of the box. Most of the stuff for which drivers weren't available was either 5+ year old, so low end that it doesn't bother me much, or the manufacturer went out of business. Provided your hardware was manufactured in last 3-4 years drivers will be available in most cases.

Maybe you just need to stop buying your hardware from manufacturers that have a poor reputation of supporting their products. I have found 15 year old printers that still work with Vista. Most reputable vendors don't need to resort to such strategies to sell products.

No genius, they are moving to centrally managed virtualized environments running thin clients.

And a new bloated Windows doesn't matter in such an environment!

But only someone as swooft as you would come up with an alternative as lame as DOS and monochrome monitors.

What in hell does this have to do with anything mentioned?

Did I say anything about them moving to anything? All I said was they will not be replacing those DOS computers and monochrome monitors with more of the same. If I am talking above your level of understanding just let me know...

Oh, so what you are saying is that your insightful observation was completely meaningless and without merit.

Funny...that is what we were saying. Sit down and we will try to go slower for just you and roj.

Lol...Never argue with an idiot...He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. Again whenever you want to actually debate the topic at hand instead of trying to turn this into a playground name calling fest you let me know.

My comment to them:

"...and make it more stable and de-loused, while you're at it. The current version has more vermin in it than a cheap caribbean hotel."

They're response:

Bwaahahaaa! You trolls are so amusing!

We noticed you didn't actually specify any real problems or specific issues, just the usual trollish rhetoric. Imagine that!

The funny thing is roj KNOWS "vermin from a cheap Caribbean hotel", as HE LITERALLY IS ONE!

He's a non-native invasive species who ran from his own hellhole to Canada, which then has made him an authority on western politics. After all, he ran to where he thought he could get the most!

Take a bow, roj.

I think we should rename him PalmettoBug.

Only one lower than said vermin on the food chain would tender an opinion with such jealousy.

May you one day rise to acquire the stature of the creatures you so obviously idolize.

Specific issues:

Application of SP1 breaks the views in the Event Viewer that requires a script be run to remove the offending object from the database so that the administrative overview can actually work as advertised. Again. MicroShaft Technet says that the error is safe to ignore - which it is - but naturally fails to explain the carelessness that allowed this obvious bug to creep in.

Application of SP1 causes Vista Enterprise to look for a Kerberos server, whether or not it is in a domain or not. MicroShaft Technet says that the error is safe to ignore - which it is - but naturally fails to explain the carelessness that allowed this obvious bug to creep in.

Network speed is down in Vista compared to XP64 but a noticeable factor. The cause (again according to MicroShaft engineers) is the apoarent "glueing on" of IPV4 on top of IPV6, which is Vista's native stack, never mind the fact that the vast majority of the planet still uses IPV4. Kind of an obvious design oversight - but somehow only occurred to MicrosShaft in retrospect.

Video performance when Windows Magnifier (an accessibility tool native to Windows) is used degrades by a factor of at least 100% and is quite capable of crashing the system, especially if the system is undergoing heavy I/O at the time. MicroShaft acknowledges the problem but gives no explanation.

It is still emintently possible for errant rivers to crash the entire OS, despite the obvious lie in the hyperbole stating that the move to Ring 3 of drivers prevent this. in fact, internal microShaft data quietly confirms that 37% of ALL Vista crashes are due to nVidia video drivers. that would indicate that the particular design objective of the OS regarding stability has not been met.

The team that designed the retroactive abortion that is Vista's current interface has been canned - for rather obvious reasons (the interface is a HUGE dud). Unfortunately, they have been replaced by the idiots who designed the "ribbon" nonsense in Office 2007. This indicates that one of the most important criteria of the the OS' design, ease of use, has not been met.

According to MicroShaft's own data, corporate customers - the real meat and potatoes of their OS business despite the cnsumer hype - are pointedly avoiding Vista as it offer No Tangible Value to the enterprise over XP. This WILL force updates, despite the burgeoning Windows 7, as MicroShaft needs to at least present the illusion to OEMs and corporate clients that they are the 900Lb gorilla of the industry. OEMs and corporate clients alike are concerned about the quality and stability of the OS and while they do acknowledge that SP1 improved the situation, the situation, in their own words, remains "far form optimal".

I'm sure Mr. Tool (pun obviously intended) that you'll find some interesting but fatuous way to downplay or dismiss the above. However, that will not change the fact that despite the enforced profits that Vista has garnered from OEM sales, there is GREAT concern inside MicroShaft regarding the viability of the OS in the only market that really matters to them as it pays the company's bottom line:

The Corporate One.

+1 to everything

Your post would have meaning if you didn't talk like a 12 year old.

MicroShaft? really?

Is this how you conduct a presentation in front of a entire room of executives by using childish terms?

The problem with software and having millions of different configurations there is no possible way to check everything, if there was you would see a new OS maybe once a century...

Network speed was fixed in sp1 and the issues with the slow speed (from what I remember) was allowing the windows media player service to have top priority so there was no more stuttering when watching video and it was completely smooth.

Honestly, most people do not use the built in accessibility features in ANY OS they use specialized software such as JAWS. So, that oversight is entirely possible especially when using the OS under high stress. People who are using accessibility software typically are not trying to use every bit of memory available.

So if NIVIDIA video drivers are crashing the OS how is this MS fault...last time I checked MS doesn't create Nvidia drivers...

Yeah, about the corporate: some companies are moving others aren't. That's how its ALWAYS been. There's still companies using nt4 and windows 2000. Basically, all this means is nothing; the OS has been out for a year and half. XP didn't start getting wildly adopted until sp2 came out...

You quote a lot of things yet you cite nothing, why?

In other words:

The truth hurts.

Good gravy...

I am amazed you actually browsed technet to find a somewhat informed response...

All in all, 6 things, 2 of which are highly subjective, and two of which are non-issues for 99% of users.

Good job.

Here's a though for you though: Every OS has bugs. Yes, even Linux! Funny that. Every OS has design flaws. Yes, even Linux!

...just because they might be deal breakers for *you* still doesn't make the entire OS "crap" for anyone else.

You!=Everyone else.

Thanks for playing.

Linux has flaws?? That cannot be true its perfect and made of dreams and rainbows.

OSX is a candy coated dream too, you are just jealous of a superior OS!

Awesome!

Great internetworld7 impression. ;)

If they deliver Windows 7 under the hardware requirements of Vista I will eat my hat.

Vista killed and ate my children to satisfy its lust for more resources. I just know it's a plot by George Bush and d*** Cheney to suck the marrow from our children's bones. Damn you Bush! Damn you Vista! Why? Why? Why?

Oh for the days of Windows for Workgroups.

What crap.

Precisely.

Well, No child left behind..... Burp.....

Well this one was easy math. Windows has been "bloatware" for well over a decade now. This never should have been allowed to happen. Microsoft should have seen to it that the OS remain lean and mean from the start. This idea that you should have to have a 2Ghz machine and 2Gb of RAM just to run the OS, let alone any applications properly, is absolute insanity, and everyone knows it. People have long speculated since Microsoft essentially gained a monopoly position in the desktop OS market that they have intentionally been making their OS a resource hog so as to require people to keep going out and buying new machines with more and more horsepower and memory. (In collusion with all the hardware manufacturers out there of course. Can you say "Kick backs"?) Now, had MS had some real competition left in the desktop OS space, which they no longer do today, (Sorry Linux fans but you just aren't their yet, come see us in another five years maybe) they wouldn't have been able to get away with this.

Does it come to anyone as a surprise that that #1 requested improvement in Windows is to make it faster? It shouldn't.

Actually, they worded it wrong. What they really meant was "Make Windows far less of a resource hog so that my system will run faster as a result of doing so"

It's the same principle here as telling the government to lower taxes. What people are really saying is to cut out so many needless, foolish, wasteful government spending programs that aren't necessary and then you won't NEED such high taxes in the first place because you won't be spending so much!

Identical concepts really. Big government just begets more big government, the same way big Microsoft just begets more big Microsoft.

Anyone picking up a theme here?

Careful or else you'll get accused of being a communist. I've been saying this all along about Windows, and especially about Vista. Its a consumer product, period. No real innovations.

You really have to feel sorry for the consumerists out there who religiously believe that newer is always better and will attack all who question their religion.

The Windows development team needs to take a cue from the auto industry I think. They are now developing gas electric hybrids where the car runs efficiently, entirely on electric power until the more wasteful, but more powerful, gas engine actually is needed, then it kicks in, but not a second before. Also, the concept of modularity and "displacement on demand" would apply here as well I think. You don't use all eight cylinders on a V8 until you NEED them.

Wasn't the whole idea of object oriented programming to be modular? Why can't windows be more modular? Or at least a lot more so than it is today. That means that NOTHING loads up into memory, hogging system resources and slowing the system down, until it is absolutely NEEDED. Why is that so hard or a concept to grasp? You want to build every possible bell and whistle into the OS, fine, do it. But do it in a way that NONE of that stuff ever gets load into memory on my system until it is REQUIRED by what I am doing at that exact moment. Then, as soon as I no longer need it, shut it down instantly and free up those resources immediately.

I mean, come on, this isn't rocket surgery people, it just very efficient programing and software design...anyone still remember that?

Here is what I learned in

Democrats = More Government

Republicans = Less Government

You must be stumping for McCain!!!

Republicans == Fascists

Democrats == Protectionists

I profoundly pity you people.

Wait a minute: I don't.

You brought this on yourselves.

Republicans = Dine and dash...... So far their policies have put America into $8 trillion more debt in less than 30 years.

"After long and painful efforts and sacrifices and a deep research we are about to discover the obvious."
(Groucho Marx)

I *love* how you can post about how anyone defending vista is obviously some "religous" freak, when you yourself are totally blind to reason when it comes to Vista.

Pot? Kettle?

Yeah... a little perspective might not hurt. Try looking at some post SP1 benchmarks and then try telling us Vista doesn't have anything to offer...equal performance with XP, stability, reliability, security...all without having to run 4 different malware/firewall programs.

roj=the guy who takes every possible opportunity he can to take pot shots at the US from America's Hat.

Don't pity us, roj...get a life.

Here's some practical thought for you both:

Democrat = politician.

Republican - politician.

Obama: We'll leave Iraq as soon as possible. Of course, we will not simply run, but we'll listen to the generals and commanders in the field and exit in a way that is safe for all.

Mccain: We'll stay until the region is safe.

Both are saying the exact same thing. Both are from opposite political parties.

Go figure...

8 trillion more! Spoken like an idiot Democrat.

Sure there is an $8T unfunded mandate generated by Social Security and the Prescription/Medicaid bill.

What is fascinating is that when Social Security was begun, they acknowledged the shortfall but asserted that it would be dealt with (yeah, right!)

And with Bush, the anything but fiscal conservative, who whines about Social Security and simply co-opted the Democratic initiative for the Prescription Drug Bill that had been heretofore opposed by the fiscal conservatives, thus stealing the thunder and taking credit for it. Whoopee! And the ONLY whining came from the Democrats who complained that they did not provide MORE coverage!!!! (read: MORE debt!) Yup, spending is solely due to Bush!

The fact is, the failure of Bush is that he never was a fiscal conservative! He is a religious right wing liberal who believes in social engineering to the right instead of the left! And to that degree the Republican Party were idiots for not resting control from the religious right!

So what you have are the liberals and Bush the liberal light who would have accomplished more by simply sitting on his head instead of using his @ss to think while addressing domestic issues! Good riddance.

And you want an even bigger joke and MORE spending? Get Obama and the Dems in Congress in charge! Enjoy!

About the only difference between Bush and the Dems is that he at least stands up to terrorists instead of extending the civil rights laws to them. Just think, since many states give out drivers licenses to illegals, and that is sufficient ID to vote, how many illegals are voting? Of course that is an invasion of privacy to ask for proof of residency! LOL!

Pc_Tool = a tool.....

Poor roj, the expat who ran from one hellhole to another and whines about all of the hands who provide for him.

To the degree that the US and Canada have let in fools like you, you are right, we have brought it upon ourselves. Unfortunately that sucking sound is the sound of the cumulative lowering of IQs thanks to geniuses(sic) like you.

The difference is that one has said it all along, while the other supported just the opposite as he pandered to the left in his party.

As far as a difference...which one do you think actually walks his talk?

What an idiot. Up until 1980 the national debt was $1 trillion. When was Social Security brought in? Plus there were two world wars as well and a Great Depression that contributed to that $1 trillion debt. Under the republicans, first with Reagan quadrupling it to $4 trillion in only 8 years, and now Bush doubling that. Your libertopian fantasies just don't work in the real world. They never did and never will.

"religious right wing liberal"? Have you ever heard the term oxymoron? Wait, maybe not since you are a moron altogether anyways.

Have you read the new book, "Why We Hate Us"? No one hates America more than Americans it seems.

BTW, the current republican party is as close as you're going to get to the true results of libertopian thinking. I feel sorry for you.

Tool....

You must have thought about that one for hours!

Pup.

Typical.

No argument. When threatened with logic and common sense you back into your safety net of name-calling.

How ... you.

30 years?

Hmmm.. How long since FDR's "Great Society"?

~40?

Yeah, that about fits. Social welfare FTL!

I'm quite content to live elsewhere than The Land Of The Enslaved And Home Of The, er, Intestinal Fortitude Challenged (evidence to follow later in this post). After all, we don't have Homeland Security nor do we invade other countries on trumped up lies. Furthermore, we aren't the laughing stock of the planet as a consequence of those actions, nor are we standing alone on the international scene, generally the target of ridicule and derision on topics ranging form foreign policy to the environment. Finally (here's the aforementioned evidence for the intelligence challenged - I thought it needed to be flagged prominently given some of the readership), we don't have delusions of empire and are more than happy to lend our backpacks and caps with the Canadian flag prominently displayed to Americans in foreign countries who are concerned (and rightfully so, given their arrogance and ignorance) that their own makes them an obvious target.

But then again, as you are likely one of the majority in your counry who aren't cognizant of what happens past the end of your street, let alone another city and definitely not another country or culture, it is all but a certainty that you are unaware of that.

But we digress.

...but you people make it so easy.

I mean, you DO so MANY ignorant things.

And you neither think twice about them nor learn form your mistakes.

The last outfit that achieved that level of idiocy was the Roman Empire.

Then it fell.

You want me to stop taking pot shots?

Then get your collective Act together and become a worthwhile example to the world again of what your original Constitution says.

You were once, but it's been a while and your Founding Fathers would spit on what you've become.

Just as ours would spit on how we've allowed a spoiled, self-indulgent, unprincipled and bigoted brat called Quebec to hold our entire country to ransom.

So yes, we have our problems too - but at least when we fart, the entire planet doesn't cop our stink.

Oh boy, and this idiot will probably vote!

Social engineering - using the government and the rule of law to coerce belief or action.

The left has always viewed it as a 'good thing' to impose its enlightened vision on 'others' (as they of course exempt themselves!) to lead 'the ignorant masses' to a 'more enlightened'(sic) manner of behavior!

And the religious right believes in the legitimacy of the same (mis)use of government! - albeit for their own religious POV.

The conservative position is that the Constitutionally defined role and scope of government is both limited and strictly defined. And social engineering is a violation of those conditions.

By those who profess to be left or right wing! And to the extent that the liberals view social engineering to be allowable and desirable, the religious right has more in common with the liberal than with the conservatives.

and as far as the financial balanced budget model succeeding - as well as a limited role of government allowing for more to make their own decisions and to be responsible for their own life - i have no fantasies. As this generation is neither prepared for retirement, or for that matter, simply dealing with their own day to day wants (as opposed to needs!), we will see more and more whining for the gubermint to do more to become everyone's mother as more reach retirement and are ill prepared to care for themselves.

And to the degree that the baby boomers are becoming a critical mass of both the needy and voters, they will dominate and we will get exactly what this generation wants. More deficits and more socialized programs designed to 'give me" "give me" "give me" - all magically financed by the government's equivalent of the tooth fairy.

Let's see.

I am half Canadian by birth with dual citizenship by birth.

You are what? oh yeah, a Caribbean wetback claiming other's accomplishments as you sponge off the gifts of others.

And what do you celebrate? LOL! Train service so screwed up by inter-Province squabbles that they can't get service coordinated between Provinces...

And let's not forget the LANGUAGE POLICE! Of course, McDonald's is still expected to replace their Anglo name with a Frog equivalent.

Of course, Montreal's Mayor was forced to resign after asserting that they could not guarantee the safety of the Anglos amidst the farcical Quebecor separatist vote - you know, by the Province who wants independence, but unfortunately is not financially self sufficient! Oops! Monty Python couldn't come up with a more ludicrous script!

But then, they didn't know YOU! Aye!?

So you claim Canada as your home, squatter.

And for you to digress would only mean reverting back to a single celled disorganism.

Tool...

...at least give him credit for being consistent.

LOL!

"After all, we don't have Homeland Security nor do we invade other countries on trumped up lies. Furthermore, we aren't the laughing stock of the planet as a consequence of those actions, nor are we standing alone on the international scene, generally the target of ridicule and derision on topics ranging form foreign policy to the environment."

"We"???? Who,...YOU????

You can't claim anything!

What makes you so much fun as well as frustrating is your abject ignorance.

Hmmm. Are you aware that all electronic communication in North America is monitored? ALL. And not only by the folks at a very interesting location in West Virginia that you may or may not be familiar with! And no, it predates Homeland Security and it is not Predator. And did you know that pertinent intel is shared with the Canadians in a joint agreement, negating Canada from maintaining their own system?

And you might be curious to know that the same system is employed STILL by the Russians from a location in Cuba for all transmissions east of the Mississippi.

If you only knew half of what you think yo9u do you would still be a comedic casualty. But you know far less than you think you do!

Yup, you are so superior. And ignorant!

So tell us genius about the foiled little escapade that almost occurred in Ottawa?
TEll US ABOUT IT GENIUS!!

And our trumped up lies? Really. The entire UN voted on the same worldwide intel that all agreed upon. Was it flawed? Sure! But it was a cumulative failure. Not simply an US fabrication! And CANADA supported it by multiple votes as well!

Its nice to be the little friend who is able to stand close to someone few pick on, isn't it? As you absolve yourself of all culpability while simultaneously depending upon the umbrella of the protection of the same party you whine about.

But that is all you are. A whiner. You offer nothing, while you claim credit for what others have provided to you by their efforts and sacrifices.

Moral superiority? LOL! The fact is that you are little more than a poser and a phoney.
And you have contributed NOTHING to that which Canada provides you.

All you did was manage to get there like a piece of flotsam who has contributed nothing to that which you claim credit.

ALL you do is whine.

NOTHING more.

Did that make you feel better?

*laughing*


So yes, we have our problems too - but at least when we fart, the entire planet doesn't cop our stink.

I wonder why that is....Oh yeah, Canada never led the way in...anything. But yeah, go ahead and blame the US for the rest of the world mimicking us...even at our worst.

I'll give him even more than that. Persistence, consistency...

Add a little creativity and some brains and he might actually be dangerous.

Neither.

If either of them have any integrity of character left, they will "walk" their ideaology, or as close to it as they realistically can.

Everything they are saying now is BS. Everything. It's a dog and pony show, nothing more.

No one hates America more than Americans it seems.

Spoken like the elitist Canadian we all know you to be.

Sorry, *you* seem to hate America more than any American here... There goes that theory.

Oh boy, and this idiot will probably vote!

Not here, he's from America's Hat, man.

The problem is that we again have a choice between a liberal and a liberal light...just like in 2000 and 2004.

Tool, that's not entirely true!

They did an amazing job on the harp seals.
And in utterly screwing over the native peoples in a manner the US can only aspire too!

Google the PM's apology and attempts to squirm out from under further court ordered retributions.

speed is not the problem with newer hardware. Fit and finish is what needs to be looked at in SP2 and not Win7.

Vista does not have driver compatibility, as Creative, Nvidia, HP Printer/Scanner drivers don't work very well, if at all. Vista is slow and bloated even on a machine that runs a 5.9 on the "Vista Scale". Gaming is horrible and requires to much to just give you even more graphic's lag. Everyday I have people that have new machines that came with Vista and having a rating of 5.0 and higher, begging me to format it and load Windows XP Pro. Vista is crappy even on new hardware made just for it. Vista does NOT offer anything that anyone really could use or needs.I have given Vista plenty of chances on several new machines and a few older ones (about two years old) and Vista is just junk all the way around.

That is the biggest load of crap. The computers actually built for Vista that aren't some crapper built for XP with a Vista sticker slapped on it works excellent with Vista. You say how horrible it is, but you have nothing to back up anything you are saying except "he said, she said." Yet another baseless post from the Vista basher crowd.

I must disagree. Vista works fine on good hardware. 2GB of RAM is minimum and I recommend 3. I see BestBuy ads with machines with 1 GB. No wonder these people think their machine is slow.

What a load of crap.

Extremetech's latest Vista benchmarks put it right on par, dead-nuts in most cases, with XP.

Creative has pissed off more customers than they will ever see again in the PC sound market. Try getting a sound card from a company that supports their users, eh?

Nvidia drivers are now very good. All of our HP printers work just fine in Vista. Perhaps yours is EOL?

Everyday I have people that have new machines that came with Vista and having a rating of 5.0 and higher, begging me to format it and load Windows XP Pro.

I call shenanigans. You're full of it.

What??????????? BS!!! Now, most of the time I will agree with you, but lets talk reality, EVERYDAY I see 10-25 people wanting to take Vista to XP. I mean EVERYDAY! Vista offers nothing, but lag and poor driver support. I just tested Nvidia's 177.X driver and it still sucks, no, there is no driver support! I don't give a **** what your so called benchmarks say, I am talking real ****ing life. I believe that 90% of the people that use Vista in a real life aspect, hate it. I would say that most everyone that that has any kind of concept of performance will go back to XP and say **** Vista and it's 60+ processes with a clean install.I believe that anyone that supports Vista is ****ing mental and has forgotten what FPS means or what using your computers is all about. Hell Vista won't even let you edit your OWN ****ing files, without changing the ownership. Come the **** on. Tell me what VistaBloatware, offers anyone.

lmao..

I don't give a **** what your so called benchmarks say, I am talking real ****ing life.

Didn't bother to look at 'em, did you? People game in real life. Gaming performance, for the most part, is a very good indicator of overall performance.

I'm sure you knew that...

I believe that anyone that supports Vista is ****ing mental and has forgotten what FPS means

Mmkay. Now I know you're full of it. Again, try actually looking at the benchmarks, ya know, where they bench things like gaming FPS...

Take a pill, relax. *laughing*

Maybe try expanding your vocabulary...

Ummmm, you are listing a or calling a nonamed company - ExtremeTech- as a bench test, and you want to try and bash me? Come the heck on Tool. I have agreed with most s*** you say, but no, Vista is crap!

The current lawsuit over Vista machines would dictate otherwise. MSFT and Intel screwed the consumer to meet quarterly profits.

It's not just the users complaining about the quality of the OS. There are company officials that complain about how bad the quality of Vista is. Try reading the court documents.

The lawsuit is from consumers who bought an underpowered computer that's incapable of Aero Glass because the graphics in the computer don't fully support DirectX 9. The plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit should have done their research before they bought their computer.

ExtremeTech == PC Magazine, moron.

Try and get a clue before posting your absurd BS.

Thanks.

And yet, it was still Intel and MSFT that made that decision to label those underpowered PCs as being "Vista Ready" so Intel could push off some IGPs. That's also in the court documents.

SMF, I'm not a reader of the Windows 7 blog do it was a good call to point out the senior leadership of MS are listening to what experienced/advanced user recommend what the next version of windows should focus on more. I hope they do understand that even though the effects are nice it would be appreciated if they focused on speed improvements.

here is the deal though guys...not everyone is going to have a high end rig to run Vista on....there is simply ZERO reason for Vista to require the hardware it does...its bloated and you know it...

my PC can run it fine, and maybe you guys that have posted here can run it fine...but we do not represent the majority...

There is plenty of reason for Vista to require the hardware it does. If your rig isn't ready for it, upgrade the rig or stick to what works. While it would be nice for Vista to be more "modular" and let users fine-tune the features a bit better, I don't want Microsoft dumbing-down their operating systems to accommodate outdated hardware. Outdated hardware should be plenty satisfied with outdated software.

Even on high scored system Vista is crap. My system got nearly a 6 on Vista's ranking.

Yep...and I don't buy that for 1 second. I have seen computers score much lower than a 6 and work just fine.

Keep on trolling, man. We all know you're full of s***. The benchmarks don't lie. Post SP1, Vista == XP.

You really like talking to yourself in that mirror, tool?

toolie, you're dumber than you stink if you think benchmarking isn't as finely tuned as any common political survey. Any sw/hw config can be rigged. Or have you forgotten Microsoft's behaviors over the past decade. Stop being a total idiot and google it for 5ms.

That's more than enough typing time spent on your dumb a.s.s.

*laughing*

Yeah, because ExtremeTech would be as popular and relied upon as they are now if they went about fudging benchmarks.

Nice try, though. Get out of the basement once in a while and you might actually get a clue.

Yeah. I'm telling myself benchmarks don't lie.

*shakes head*

Are you mentally retarded?

I believe you! I would say that about 95% of the computers I see that the owners want XP on are listed as 5.0 and higher. Vista is crap!

ExtremeTech is a small no NAME crap. Has anyone else heard of them in the past year or two? No? Nor have I.

Extremetech is designed by the same people that publish PC Magazine. In fact, some of the articles on Extremetech are actually in the hard copy issues of PC Magazine. You really must not get out much.

Obviously. He still thinks Vista is slow, and thoguht that ExtremeTech is a podunk, no name website.

Wow!

Your anecdotal, totally unproveable evidence has totally convinced me, even though it utterly contradicts my own experience and testing!

...not.

And PC mag isn't bought? Grow up and learn that you can't believe everything you read.

ExtremeTech is a small no NAME crap.

...is a far cry from:

And PC mag isn't bought?

Keep backpedaling.....it's fun to watch!

Windows Vista already is the most efficient and fastest version of Windows available. For one thing, Vista prefetches the applications you use most so they start up almost instantly. How effective this is depends on how much RAM your computer has (which is largely why Vista's RAM requirements are so high). Just because someone doesn't have the hardware to run a particular operating system optimally doesn't mean it's slow.

Gaming already requires a powerful CPU and GPU as well as lots of system and video memory. If your computer has this kind of hardware then there's no reason it can't run both Vista and high end games smoothly.

And out come the elitists, right on cue. I wonder if they realize just how pathetic they really sound?

tell me about it how could they make it faster i am able to do everything on my quad core CPU. so i guess its just the users trying to use windows with there celeron's

must be the lower end machines having speed issues i'm using amd fx62 with 2 gig ram running vista home prem 64 and i have no problems at all the other day i was encoding some videos and playing masseffect and it never skipped a beat

Everyone thinks XP is so wicked fast - here's food for thought:

http://psubmw.bay.livefi...M2x-sw/PerfRessmall.gif

Granted I can't verify the source or validate the results, but interesting nonetheless. Sure Xp64 is fast, but how many of you use it?

i was using xp64 on the same machine it booted faster than vista but that's it