[mphenterprises]

Unfortunately, The Jerry Springer Show* is a talk show that caters to....oh let's say....the remedial part of one's brain. LOL :D Basically, people come on that show to air their dirty little secrets on national television. The vast majority of time, the guests get into fights, argue, throw chairs, etc. It is basically all done for ratings.

I was about to post a youtube video but there are really no appropriate videos out there.

[crazy4laptops]

I don't like vista b/c it's a contradiction in alot of ways. UAC is one of them.



M$ says that vista starts in less than a minute-

"Nobody likes to wait. Most computers running Windows Vista boot up into
activity in under a minute."
Yea right, more like 5-7 mins. Xp boots alot faster than vista

Also that vista has better power management-
"How much battery life do you get? It's a question that is often heard. With
Windows Vista you're likely to get a lot more. Our engineers put a lot of
thought into power management. For your sake, and the planet's. The latest generation of Windows Vista drivers can slash laptop power
consumption as much as 10% when your computer is idle. In sleep mode, Windows
Vista draws about as much power as a common nightlight."

{font:Arial}{size:2}Vista
increases total power consumption by about 50-65% even when idle and sleeping
compared to xp.
{size}{font}

My vista test-

dell 1501 preloaded with vista home. Battery lasted barely 3 hours (9 cell), cpu fan running often, for minutes at a time.
Wiped clean, installed xp. Battery lasted 6+ hours. Cpu fan- off most of the time, when it did run, it was not but for about 10-15 seconds.

Applications used- word, internet, music, defrag, etc. Screen dimmed to 35% brightness.



Drop vista and release your microsoft usage footprint and go to an open source o/s. Begin a new ubuntu/linux revolution.

[Yert]

Ever heard of Hibernate?

[coastie65]

There those who like Vista and those who don't. I read the comments & reviews on Vista. I have read the positive reviews from many users and I have read the many horror stories from others. There are more than a few of the latter. Enough to justify that there are problems with Vista, primarily resources and Compatibility issues. For that reason I will not be coerced by Micro$oft into buying, in my opinion, a not ready for prime time OS. There are members who are running Vista with absolutely no problems and like the OS, and there are those who have tried it and rolled their OS back to XP. Everybody has their own personnal opinion on this issue, and although you may not agree with it, it should be respected. coastie

[rgreen4]

Can't address the battery issue since it would be a major hassle to install XP on my HP Vista laptop because it has the AHCI controller. But, on my desktop that runs both XP and Vista, Vista actually wins the boot race by a few seconds.

This is the same machine, with only the HD as the difference and then the HD's are comparable. From power on through sign-on to desktop is 60 seconds for XP. From power on through sign-on to desktop with sidebar 58 seconds for Vista.

On my HP laptop with Vista it's 65 seconds, and while I have never timed it, it is over 3 1/2 hours based on watching the TV while using the laptop. Fans do not run all the time and are off most of the time. Of course battery life is directly dependant on what you are doing. Wireless connection cuts down the time as does using the optical drive.

Others who have both XP and Vista on the same machine report similar results, the effect is that the boot times are a tie. Some have XP win by a few seconds, some have Vista win by a few seconds. Any PC that takes 5-7 minutes to boot has something seriously wrong, and some have posted these times with XP as well. Usually the first question I ask in a situation like that is are they running an Norton or McAfee applications which are noted for doing this to a machine, both XP and Vista. I fault the manufacturers for loading that stuff, and in fact my laptop came with NIS on it. It was the first thing ripped out. Then I ran PC de-crapifier, then cleaned out some more stuff. I tried to order it without Norton's, but couldn't. As I said it survived about 10 minutes after I turned on my machine and loaded the removal tool.

I respect those who prefer XP, after all it is very familiar to many and I still have an XP only desktop and an XP only laptop, but I found that shortly after upgrading a desktop to Vista is was spending more and more of my time with Vista. When I am on my XP machine I find myself looking for some of the utilities that are in Vista and not XP. I now spend about 90% or more of my time on Vista machines.

XP will have a place for at least another decade, but Vista if properly installed is not the ogre some have made it out to be. I think a properly installed Vista could change some minds, and has on some of the members of this forum. Included is one who bought a new machine and it even (gasp) had an Intel processor even though his avatar advertises the competitor.

[piyushsingh]

I can see what exactly you are feeling at the moment. I can relate "post 1 to initial post" and "post 24 to post 21".


But see the good thing in this, people specifically search and find out things that they feel are flaws in vista (actually not) . I have never seen reverse happen . What if some vista user starts pointing out flaws in XP . hehe . I can fill pages, and the XP enthusiasts wont be able to defend it as they will be actually flaws but that wont solve any purpose. As you are aware of my previous quote - "bashing is the easiest thing to do" . ;-)

[lilxkid24]

I have quite some issues with Vista thats why XP is still my primary os. XP is just more stable than Vista for my intent and purposes of using a PC. Vista just serves as a backup it doesnt really have much besides programs installed and i dont use it for gaming at all. Ive had more blue screens of death on Vista on XP thats why im going to be sticking with XP as main os. Even Bill Gates admits vista sucks in a way lol

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=p6qIETRCxbw

[piyushsingh]

lilxkid24 said:

I have quite some issues with Vista thats why XP is still my primary os. XP is just more stable than Vista for my intent and purposes of using a PC. Vista just serves as a backup it doesnt really have much besides programs installed and i dont use it for gaming at all. Ive had more blue screens of death on Vista on XP thats why im going to be sticking with XP as main os. Even Bill Gates admits vista sucks in a way lol

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6qIETRCxbw

Just the video title says "vista sucks". His statement was a very clever one and many meanings can be taken out of it. The Xp fans took out "vista sucks" . He himself uses vista . Why would he use an OS that he thinks sucks. If you dont believe , have a look at his office table. Its all vista.

[crazy4laptops]

vista's resume from hibernation is still alot slower than xp

[lilxkid24]

Then why would microsoft already be working on windows 7. It wasn't until like years and years later until vista announced vista. Why would they try to release windows 7 within 2 years from now then? LOL bill gates needs tri monitor setup

[coastie65]

He probably has his own personal IT guy oncall 24/7, to fix the mess when it crashes, :D

[coastie65]

Hey lilx, It wasn't a big gap between Win 98/98SE and win 2k as ME didn't survive long either.

[rgreen4]

Actually in the early years, it was almost one a year:
.................... DOS ....................Based NT
1990 ..Windows 3.0
1992 ..Windows 3.1
1993 ................................Windows NT 3.1
1995 ..Windows 95 ......Windows NT 3.51
1996 ................................Windows NT 4.0
1998 ..Windows 98
1999 ..Windows 98SE
2000 ..Windows ME .....Windows 2000 Pro (NT5.0)
2001 ..........end .............Windows XP (NT5.1)
2003 ...............................Windows XP SP2 (NT5.2)
2007 ...............................Windows Vista (NT6.0)
Part of the long gap was that Longhorn which on which MS started development work in May, 2001 (XP was released in Oct, 2001) and was based on XP code, was scrapped in 2004. It had absorbed so many changes, that they started a new and based the new OS that according to Wikipedia was based on the Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 code base.
Also found an interesting tidbit on Wikipedia, those of us who use XP know that the numbers that show up in the system panel are 5.1.2600.5512 (SP3), and the number for Vista original are 6.0.0.6000 and SP1 is 6.0.0.6001. One view of Windows 7 apparently has 6.1.6574.1. Maybe Windows "7" is really NT6.1 which would make it an upgrade of Vista in the same vein as XP was an upgrade of Win2000.

[lilxkid24]

Ive used windows 98 for half a year or so i think back when i was in 6th or 5th grade. Ive used ME at a friends house long time ago, my hs still uses windows 2000. Mostly ive beeing using XP for the longest and now with Vista. As for Mac ive used the Mac 128k in elementary then the school had some imacs the green ones and later it had the white ones. Also used the osx leopard but not too much since my cousin likes to hog his mac lol.