Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Add Reply RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 The top five reasons why Windows Vista failed.

views
     
jem1004
post Jan 15 2009, 11:10 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
QUOTE(FarCry3r @ Jan 13 2009, 03:20 PM)
By just replying simple one-liner saying XP is best without any supporting statement(s) is rude too. Windows 98 IS stable, at least if you're using 98SE and applied the unofficial service pack(s). Who said if it's 2009, Windows 98 cannot be stable? You failed doh.gif

True. Why Windows 98se can be consider stable. Because its using monolithic kernel (MSDOS).
Ever since M$ used hybrid kernel (NT) they fail.
Its not because they can't make it stable. They just focus marketing. That's why there always been service pack comes out to stabilize it.

QUOTE(simplyelly @ Jan 15 2009, 05:31 PM)
Times will come when xp will be left juz like win 98...
Same goes to vista n win7...

When the new tech introduced most of people critic the new one but sooner or later after few improvements made, they'll use it without hustle...

Juz like when xp released, first release: not stable at all... second release: wallla... final release: a$$h0Le...

M$ always focus on market strategy. And I'm sure when W7 comes out, a few month later there will be service pack for W7.
That's how M$ makes profit.

I've been using Vista since SP0 and never had any problem with it. No BSOD or anything.
And I'm just using P4 with 1GB of ram only.
People who bash about Vista is because they didn't try it yet or because they faced a problem using it.
Blames yourself for not taking your time learning how to use it.

Btw although I like OpenGL more than DirectX, seem like DX11 wins over OpenGL 3.
CODE
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html

Another M$ market strategy to make user want to ditch Vista and jump on the bandwagon to W7.
jem1004
post Jan 15 2009, 11:42 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
QUOTE(simplyelly @ Jan 15 2009, 11:32 PM)
sorry to ask...
is DX11 released?
*
It'll be add on W7.
jem1004
post Jan 26 2009, 05:01 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
QUOTE(dr2k3 @ Jan 25 2009, 08:44 PM)
i also have no problem running windows xp

i have no idea how u guys justified as "faster" than "something"

because i have tried both and it doesnt look much diff for me...only vista look preetier than xp thats all....

other than that......it took too much ram to load vista...u guys might say just upgrade to bigger ram.......

just imagine u got 1gb ram....50-70% is used just to loadd vista...n only few little left to load application while i can open more application with xp compare to vista
It's only take less than 300mb of ram to load vista unless there is spyware in your computer that made it take much more than 300mb.
jem1004
post Jan 30 2009, 05:32 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
Anyway, it is up to the person either he/she want to use vista or not.
It is their choice.

QUOTE(FarCry3r @ Jan 26 2009, 05:23 PM)
Corrected your statement. DirectX11 will be available to both Windows Vista and Windows7, but not XP. So again, XP is ditched...
Thanks for correcting my statement.
jem1004
post Feb 18 2009, 08:28 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
QUOTE(solstice818 @ Feb 18 2009, 08:14 PM)
Slow? It's running smoothly like normal window.(at least mine is running fast and smooth)The only reason why Vista is too slow in your computers is probably because you have a low ram because if I m not mistaken, Vista require more ram than XP.Don't blame the window.Blame your pc. rolleyes.gif
*
Actually it has nothing to do with ram.
512mb of ram can be consider enough (1gb is recomended).
The reason about it is the proceossor.
Pentium 4 or below will have a bit problem to run few process on vista.
You will get a bit slow especially running firefox, media player and torrent together.
That is just my point of view.

QUOTE(FarCry3r @ Feb 18 2009, 08:24 PM)
He should blame himself for foolishly trying to run Windows Vista on low specification PC. Wrong place at the wrong time, he is.
*
Opss. I post to late.

This post has been edited by jem1004: Feb 18 2009, 08:29 PM
jem1004
post Feb 18 2009, 10:11 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
Oh my god.
I never blame vista is the cause of computer slowliness.
I blame the processor.
And yes stock vista only need around 300mb of ram to load.
That is why I said 512mb of ram is already enough.
That why I blame the processor.
Everytimes you run a program, the process and thread run on the processor.
That is why vista is suit for multicore processor.
Is my post can enlighten you solstice818.

This post has been edited by jem1004: Feb 18 2009, 10:11 PM
jem1004
post Feb 20 2009, 10:29 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
As I stated before it is all M$ market strategy.
More service pack comes out equal to more money.
jem1004
post Feb 22 2009, 12:24 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
43 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
QUOTE(FarCry3r @ Feb 21 2009, 12:55 PM)
More service packs equal to more money? I don't know Microsoft charges for service packs hmm.gif
QUOTE(solstice818 @ Feb 21 2009, 03:30 PM)
Please don't post misleading information.Those service packs are available to download for free.You don't have to pay for it.  sweat.gif  doh.gif
I were saying when new service pack comes out.
People or organization who use window xp might have an interest to change to vista.
They will think new service pack equal to more improvement in stability and security.
Just like what happen when window xp sp2 comes out.
« Next Oldest · Software · Next Newest »
 

Add ReplyOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
 0.0149sec    1.46    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 24th December 2025 - 12:00 PM
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Removal Request
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025  IPS, Inc.