Windows Vista

[Jumbie]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

I just blew your mind, didn't I?

You blew mine because I couldn't imagine typing all of that out on my PDA because it has no hard keyboard and despite liking Windows Mobile (fancy that!!) and my 4" screen on the iPAQ 210 whoever designed this thing is a frikken idiot for not making the screen flush so that every time I have to hit the letter "a" or "p" for example, I have to contort my giant man hands in order to do so.

Can't wait to get my hands on the Touch Pro 2 or Pharos Traveller.

 

[whiteslashasian]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

It might shock and dismay you that our entire conversation, on my end, has taken place on my telephone! Egads! It also has a camera and a calculator, and a whole host of other useful things... This is fairly common. It has roughly 50 times more ram than your Win95 box, surfs the internet faster, and supports newer and faster forms of storage and data transfer, which many, dare I say "average" people use and require.

I just blew your mind, didn't I?

Who was PHONE?!?!

 

[whacked]

Originally Posted by whiteslashasian

I'll admit that the PC manufacturers messed up 2 or so years ago by selling underpowered laptops with slow (and hot) processors and the very BARE minimum amounts of ram.

You forgot the often obscene amount of "bloatware" pre-installed in most name brands computers. This got so bad that on notebookreview forums for example, everyone has adopted the policy of doing a fresh install everytime they purchase a new machine.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Jumbie

You blew mine because I couldn't imagine typing all of that out on my PDA because it has no hard keyboard and despite liking Windows Mobile (fancy that!!) and my 4" screen on the iPAQ 210 whoever designed this thing is a frikken idiot for not making the screen flush so that every time I have to hit the letter "a" or "p" for example, I have to contort my giant man hands in order to do so.

Can't wait to get my hands on the Touch Pro 2 or Pharos Traveller.

MotoQ Global for teh WIN!
I'm not sold on touchscreen typing. I bought the phone with the best QWERTY keyboard I could find.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by whiteslashasian

Who was PHONE?!?!

I accidentally THE WHOLE INTERNET!

 

[Jumbie]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

MotoQ Global for teh WIN!
I'm not sold on touchscreen typing. I bought the phone with the best QWERTY keyboard I could find.

I know. I currently have a regular phone but there are no two ways about it that when my contract is up I'm getting a smartphone with a full keyboard although I do admit that if it weren't for the stupid non-flush screen edges on my PDA using TouchPAL or the free FingerKeyboard 2.1 I found recently on XDA developers the touchscreen typing is not so bad.

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

See, you keep saying "average" computer. You seem sort of stuck on that. 1GB of ram is not "average".
One year and a half ago, that was normal middle-of-the-line.

It is unreasonable to compare a 10 year old computer's needs to a new computer's needs.

Once again: I know that. Though I lament the fact OSs have become obese for very little useful additional features, I can live with it. What I cannot live with is when they don't work out-of-the-box. For an OS aimed at the general public, that is not acceptable. If that's what Windows will do from now on, I won't keep Windows.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

I just blew your mind, didn't I?
You think I don't know what a smartphone is?

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Étienne

One year and a half ago, that was normal middle-of-the-line.
No... it really wasn't. 1GB was the standard in late 2005 during the peak of XP. By 2007 with the popularization of multi-core processors and the release of Vista, manufacturers that weren't trying to "dump" Vista into older computers were putting 1GB in their low end computers, 2GB in most of their systems, and 4GB in their performance systems. You can run Vista on 1GB. Thats why it is the minimum recommended. It just doesn't run WELL. Which everyone who did any reading on Vista in the six months prior to its release, during its release, or after it's release up until now would have known. Hell, XP didn't even get comfortable until you hit 1GB of RAM. And I knew THAT back in 2005 too. If you'd like, I can look up a few ads to prove it to you, but I'd rather you just take my word for it.

Once again: I know that. Though I lament the fact OSs have become obese for very little useful additional features,

For YOU. Don't go around saying that Vista offers nothing over XP, or especially Win95 because it makes you sound like an ignorant old person railing against any sort of newfangled doodad he doesn't understand. You know, like the automobile. Its just that you really don't use your OS for anything other than to turn your computer on. (supposedly) The OS is not to blame. It's that everyone else in the world likes using their computers to do things other than just type in wordpad and surf styleforum. So the program has evolved to incorporate more things, make older, less efficient things easier, and to use the more powerful hardware that people want to use today. Just because you'd be happy with a 386 with 12mb of ram doesn't mean that the rest of us don't enjoy doing things like... having multiple windows open, several programs running, watching movies, having high speed internet access, playing games, and etc. (actually using our computers) Your view of what an operating system is and should do is not compatible with the reality of what it is and does. Companies who tailor their computers to your specific needs, for relatively low prices, usually GO BANKRUPT because there aren't enough of you to change the computer industry. The computer industry doesn't go backwards. You want an OS that has the bare minimum of additional features, generally doesn't do anything you specifically don't tell it to, and runs on less RAM? Everyone in this thread has already told you where to look. I have told you where to look about five times already. You are looking for some sort of Linux/Ubuntu machine. You are wasting your money with OSX or Windows. They are both going to have the same types of problems in your mind. They are "bloated" because they don't do what you want them to do (nothing) and do a bunch of things you don't want (what most people use or at least don't mind having the option to use) Or you can just learn and grow as a computer user and accept that things are going to continue to get bigger, more complicated, more powerful, and etc. for the rest of your life... and learn to enjoy it. If you weren't such a luddite, you might actually use a computer.

Then maybe you'd appreciate what a computer can do if you give it half a chance. But I sort of feel like I'm talking to a brick about swimming here. You just don't seem to be able to clearly grasp what seems to be the problem.

I can live with it. What I cannot live with is when they don't work out-of-the-box. For an OS aimed at the general public, that is not acceptable. If that's what Windows will do from now on, I won't keep Windows.

Or maybe you are being purposefully obtuse. One last time A: The "out of the box" has nothing to do with the Windows Vista operating system. That has to do with whoever made your computer, or sold your computer dumping discount hardware into a computer case, with a shiny new and powerful OS that isn't really meant to run on said hardware. And then selling it to you. Vista is not to blame for you not doing any research on Vista. Vista is a product. You are a consumer. YOU BOUGHT IT without knowing what you were buying. B: You are not the general public. You are not an "average user". You don't have an "average computer". You are special and unique like a snowflake. You have an underpowered computer, for the software you are running on it, which you might - on a good day use 2% of its capability. Unfortunately for you, you cannot JUST use the 2% you want to use, because the rest of the inadequate 98% is getting in your way. You can either make your computer adequate, or change operating systems to a more basic OS and just ignore or lose the 98% of your computer's utility that you don't care about. But bitching about how slow Vista is, or how poorly it works out of the box, when its largely your fault, is sort of dumb.

You think I don't know what a smartphone is?

I don't know. I feel like I'm explaining computer basics to you and you are resisting even that minor knowledge. So... I just assumed you still used a rotary phone land line.

 

[Viktri]

Originally Posted by Étienne

One year and a half ago, that was normal middle-of-the-line.
Afraid not. I bought my laptop in 2005 and it came with 1 gig of ram (Aspire5672WLMi) and it was low end back then. (Cheap) For what it is worth, you might want to switch to Windows 95 if you've only got 1 gig of ram. It seems the added benefits of XP aren't necessary for you so why would you bother upgrading? Did you fall into marketing hype? I was satisfied with the way Windows XP runs so I still run XP. My brother uses Vista, he likes Vista more. Different OS for different people. That said, I will be switch to Windows 7 when it comes out. I avoided Vista because Xp was fine and I didn't feel like learning a new OS but it seems Windows is moving towards Vista's direction and not XP.

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

No... it really wasn't.
Just take my word for it, OK? When I bought my laptop, 512Mo was the minimum, 1Go, the standard (and you could not find a machine with XP running it - not that I would have bought an XP-machine since I trusted the requirements Microsoft put on his products), 2Go found on upscale machines.

Hell, XP didn't even get comfortable until you hit 1GB of RAM.

I had no problem with it on 256 Mo.

For YOU. Don't go around saying that Vista offers nothing over XP, or especially Win95 because it makes you sound like an ignorant old person

You could also just not distort what I say. I said they offer nothing useful for me. I repeatedly made that clear. Also, I suspect you greatly overestimate what most people really use or need from their computer, but that's not important in this discussion (although it seems to be all you care about).

Your view of what an operating system is and should do is not compatible with the reality of what it is and does.

Why do you keep ignoring the point when I say that this is NOT WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT?

You focus on a point that I don't care about (OSs are bloated). Let me repeat: that's not the point I care about. Yes, I know OSs are now capable of doing a bunch of things I have no use for. Cool. I don't complain about that. I only start complaining when they don't work out-of-the-box on your standard middle-of-the-line computer.

If you weren't such a luddite, you might actually use a computer.

You would greatly benefit from a less condescending tone.

You could also try not to start from the assumption that I am ignorant and irrational. Has it not occured to you that I know what I am doing? Like everybody else, I have limited time. For some things I take the time to learn detailed information (clothes, job-related skills, various hobbies). For most things, if possible, I choose not to devote as much time. I have not taken the time to, say, learn the in-and-outs of good stereos. I have an average stereo and it works fine for me. I am fully aware that by devoting more time to audiophilia (and a little money, but the real constraint here is time) I could get a much better experience. I don't condemn people that do that, but I have chosen, for the time being, to do something else with my (limited) time.

Same with computers. I have learned programming, I have been using Windows systems for 15 years and Unix systems for 12. If I have chosen to stop devoting a lot of time to keep up with all the skills and tweaks it's because I judged that I got enough service from what I could get from a general-purpose OS without this effort. I am not saying it is a bad choice to become a computer expert. I have just chosen, for the time being, that it was not worth the effort for me. That does not make me a luddite or an idiot, thank you very much.

Vista is a product. You are a consumer. YOU BOUGHT IT without knowing what you were buying.

Let me repeat my point again. The only reason I am using Windows is that I can trust it to run on an average computer without requiring more effort. It's done so for 10 years on my various computers. It does not work like this anymore.

Apparently, that's "normal".

Apparently, from now on, I cannot make that assumption any more. I am going to have to devote more time and effort to computers, I won't be able to trust the "minimum requirements" they put on their products and the like. It sucks, but I'll do it since I have no other choice. But if I have to devote more of my limited time anyway, that probably won't be for Windows.

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Viktri

why would you bother upgrading? Did you fall into marketing hype?
I never upgrade an OS that works fine and I am pretty much immune to hype. Heck, I do all my serious work on a remote Unix server! I changed computers because my old one died. I got Vista because everything was sold with Vista. Simple, really.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Étienne

Just take my word for it, OK? When I bought my laptop, 512Mo was the minimum, 1Go, the standard (and you could not find a machine with XP running it - not that I would have bought an XP-machine since I trusted the requirements Microsoft put on his products), 2Go found on upscale machines.
Well whatever. I'm not sure why I'd trust your recollection of something you repeatedly just told me later on in this post that you don't spend a lot of time thinking about, and choose not to concern yourself with - over hard evidence available to the contrary, my own recollection, that of everyone else here who's chimed in so far, and the fact that i have extensive personal experience in both building, and price comparison of computers that goes back well before the time period in question.

I had no problem with it on 256 Mo.

That has nothing to do with anything. Congrats.

Just because you never had a problem, or didn't notice a difference is completely meaningless. There is one. You've made it pretty clear that you don't really use Windows, and never really have. You told me that you'd never searched for a file. You might as well buy an abacus or a Speak N Spell or something.

You could also just not distort what I say. I said they offer nothing useful for me. I repeatedly made that clear. Also, I suspect you greatly overestimate what most people really use or need from their computer, but that's not important in this discussion (although it seems to be all you care about).

And many people including myself have repeatedly told you that Windows and/or OSX is not for you. What you describe that you want out of an operating system is not what Windows/OSX is for. It just so happens that for a while it was capable of being adequate and operating at a minimum level that just so happened to be fit your mental image of what you think things should be. Unfortunately I believe we've determined that the ceiling of what you want is 1gb of ram installed in a typewriter. For some ridiculous and unfathomable reason. So now you are stuck since basically that means you are flirting with the threshold where your rate of return is not beneficial with today's hardware, internet, and software requirements.

Why do you keep ignoring the point when I say that this is NOT WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT? You focus on a point that I don't care about (OSs are bloated). Let me repeat: that's not the point I care about. Yes, I know OSs are now capable of doing a bunch of things I have no use for. Cool. I don't complain about that. I only start complaining when they don't work out-of-the-box on your standard middle-of-the-line computer.

I will stop ignoring the point that you are complaining about what you are complaining about, when you REALIZE what it is that you are actually complaining about. You are complaining about a new operating system not operating on a computer that really isn't tailored to run it. Not a "standard middle-of-the-line computer" Which will, by the way, run Vista like a champ.

MONTHS BEFORE Vista was released, it was clear, tested, and reported in damn near every media outlet, review site, internet forum, and etc. that 1GB was the bare minimum amount of RAM that it took to even boot up Home Premium. If you were going to be doing anything else, 2GB was strongly recommended. MONTHS BEFORE IT EVEN RELEASED. I don't know how hard that is to grasp. 1GB = Bare minimum functionality Bare minimum functionality does not equal "middle of the road" or "average" And again, Vista is REALLY not to blame for computer manufacturers selling you crap, nor to blame for you buying it.

You would greatly benefit from a less condescending tone.

I would also benefit from not having to repeat myself a dozen times to someone who just wants to complain about problems instead of doing anything about them. Maybe someday I'll realize those benefits.

Today is apparently not that day. You just keep blaming the wrong things for your problem, and refuse to correct your mistake with an incredibly easy and cheap solution. I think you just enjoy bitching - so I'm indulging you and giving you all the attention you want. I assume thats the point. You know how to solve your problem. I know how to solve your problem. Everyone here knows how to solve your problem. And yet you don't seemed inclined to do anything about it. You insist you have a problem with Vista, and then go on to ***** about something that Vista has no effect or control over, the computer you bought. How would you know whether or not you have a problem with Vista? You keep telling us that essentially, you've never used it.

You could also try not to start from the assumption that I am ignorant and irrational. Has it not occured to you that I know what I am doing? Like everybody else, I have limited time. For some things I take the time to learn detailed information (clothes, job-related skills, various hobbies). For most things, if possible, I choose not to devote as much time. I have not taken the time to, say, learn the in-and-outs of good stereos. I have an average stereo and it works fine for me. I am fully aware that by devoting more time to audiophilia (and a little money, but the real constraint here is time) I could get a much better experience. I don't condemn people that do that, but I have chosen, for the time being, to do something else with my (limited) time.

So you just go out and randomly purchase things on a regular basis without knowing what it takes to operate, or how its going to function, or anything? I'm pretty sure we already covered that. I mean, some things aren't such a big deal. But obviously, if you are still upset at your purchase two years after the fact, you are pissed off. You are pissed off at the wrong people - but you are pissed off. I basically take the position that you have no right to complain about the pitfalls of your own ignorance, when five minutes or so of reading a review would have clued you into the fact that you were about to buy an inadequate computer.

Let me repeat my point again. The only reason I am using Windows is that I can trust it to run on an average computer without requiring more effort. It's done so for 10 years on my various computers. It does not work like this anymore.

No, its just, again, that an average computer is not what you believe it to be. It hasn't been in a while. What you mean is "any computer" which is true. Windows Vista will not run smoothly on any computer. Neither would XP.

Apparently, from now on, I cannot make that assumption any more. I am going to have to devote more time and effort to computers, I won't be able to trust the "minimum requirements" they put on their products and the like. It sucks, but I'll do it since I have no other choice. But if I have to devote more of my limited time anyway, that probably won't be for Windows.

I'm not sure why anyone would just assume that something they've never used before, that they obviously know NOTHING ABOUT is just going to do what they expect. You are the kind of guy who will stick his hand into a box of razor blades on accident, because most boxes don't have razor blades in them. And then you will be pissed off at the people who make boxes for your injury. Have a nice weekend.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Microsoft

Recommended minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista The following list describes the recommended minimum hardware requirements for basic functionality of the different editions of Windows Vista. Actual hardware requirements will vary, depending on system configuration and on the programs and the features that you install. If you install Windows Vista over a network, additional hard disk space may be required. Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, and Windows Vista Ultimate o 1-gigahertz (GHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 1-GHz 64-bit (x64) processor o 1 GB of system memory o Windows Aero-capable graphics card Note This includes a DirectX 9-class graphics card that supports the following: + A WDDM driver + Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware + 32 bits per pixel o 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) o 40-GB hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space (the 15GB of free space provides room for temporary file storage during the install or upgrade.) o Internal or external DVD drive o Internet access capability o Audio output capability Note A Windows Aero-capable graphics card is a graphics card that meets the following requirements: * Supports a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver * Has a DirectX 9-class graphics processor unit (GPU) that supports Pixel Shader 2.0 * Supports 32 bits per pixel * Passes the Windows Aero acceptance test in the Windows Driver Kit (WDK)
Read: Minimum/Basic etc. as "not average"

 

[Threak]

Note to OP: Next time, please include Yes/No poll.

 

[Steve B.]

Originally Posted by whiteslashasian

Make sure you have recent hardware, made in the last 2 years or so would be ideal. I haven't run into any compatibility issues.

I have a Dell Vostro- purchased about a year ago and for me Vista S-U-C-K-S. After working with Dell for
a month they swapped out my computer last year. I still have problems with it, just not as severe. I don't have time to **** with it, so I just endure it.

I can't run Explorer- it crashes at least 10x a day.

I feel like I got hosed and made to pay an extra $400 when M$Soft introduces Mark 7 or whatever in October.