Msoft. Windows 7.

Meh, title says it all really....

All my stuff was hijacked. Firefox, vlc player, real player, I tunes, all 'BANDED'.

If I browse the net on any program other then Internet Exploader, I get severe lag, while it works perfectly on I.E until I start getting enormous amounts of adverts for MS products. I had to delete half of the Windows 7 systems in order to allow my non Msoft programs to work properly.


freaking bastards.

khoroshen wrote:

Meh, title says it all really....

All my stuff was hijacked. Firefox, vlc player, real player, I tunes, all 'BANDED'.

If I browse the net on any program other then Internet Exploader, I get severe lag, while it works perfectly on I.E until I start getting enormous amounts of adverts for MS products. I had to delete half of the Windows 7 systems in order to allow my non Msoft programs to work properly.


freaking bastards.

Wow sounds like Windows7 is WORSE than vista... how can that be? I thought it was going to be an improvement
hopefully its not going to come installed on all the newer computers.. or is it? DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN

happypenguins wrote:

khoroshen wrote:

Meh, title says it all really....

All my stuff was hijacked. Firefox, vlc player, real player, I tunes, all 'BANDED'.

If I browse the net on any program other then Internet Exploader, I get severe lag, while it works perfectly on I.E until I start getting enormous amounts of adverts for MS products. I had to delete half of the Windows 7 systems in order to allow my non Msoft programs to work properly.


freaking bastards.

Wow sounds like Windows7 is WORSE than vista... how can that be? I thought it was going to be an improvement
hopefully its not going to come installed on all the newer computers.. or is it? DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNN

I know mage is going to hate this, but it looks like that new Mac vs. PC commercial that keeps flashing back to each new windows release is right after all. Look Microsoft is a joke, stop ripping Apple, they are definitely smaller I know, but face fact EVERYTHING Microsoft makes is junk. That's all I'm saying, I keep saying this, I'm not trying to start a flame war, just going with facts, I wish people would wise up and get away from Microsoft, that's what I'm trying to do... (Please don't beat me up too much.)

Mecha, there isn't gonna be anyone on here that beats you up for having an opinion. As a matter of fact, with an opinion as well informed as yours, peopple will probably cheer you on.

I've heard other horror stories about Win7, and all that goes with it, so I'm really tempted to stick with the OS I have on my machine, right now, which is Vista. I have had no problems with it, and it's never crashed, even though my model of machine (Gateway FX Gaming Laptop) is supposed to be prone to crashing.

Iceblue, keep to XP! I work in the computer field, so I have some knowledge here. The reason why XP continues to beat vista and 7 is that every thing is straight forward with it! If you want to get to your network card, control panel, networking, your there! Under Vista, you have a few more steps before you can get to it. Under 7, it's even harder to get to your adapter!

Here is the problem! Microsoft, wanted to make their OS more like Mac. What they did was make the surface of the OS, the part we interface with very simple, in theory, to use. The reality is that they created wizards for every thing. These wizards interface between you and the OS, thus complicating a process as simple as wanting to go to your network card and change it from an automatic IP address, to a manually assigned address. You want to change your desktop wall paper? Count how many layers you need to go through, before it's done! On XP, right click on desktop, go to properties, and select desktop, then select the wall paper!

In stead of making things simpler, it seems all Microsoft can do, is make things more complicated! Personally I find Apple's philosophy to be on the right track! Apples looks at ways to actually make it easier to use their computers! With out complicating the OS, and on top of that, they look for ways of shrinking the over head of the OS, so that their computers run faster!

The sad thing about every thing I just wrote? I'm on a PC running windows 7! God, I wish I had a Mac!

this is what i think of vista, cant really say much about 7 because i never used it



FUCK VISTA AND 7, I WANT XP BACK SO I CAN PLAY HALF MY PC GAMES AGAIN

Brian3D wrote:

Iceblue, keep to XP! I work in the computer field, so I have some knowledge here. The reason why XP continues to beat vista and 7 is that every thing is straight forward with it!

"In the computer field"? Riiiiiiiiiiiight... Honestly, I can't see any IT professional who actually has experience with software development saying that with a straight face. In terms of user-friendliness, stability, and security, both Windows Vista and Windows 7 make Windows XP look like a bad joke.

For security and driver support, Windows XP was a spastic kernel-patching nightmare known for its shoddy, bloated third-party software, crappy memory management, and amusing tendency to lock up and crash key services if more than a handful of shell extensions are installed.

Windows Vista was an improvement in virtually every way, though it was a bit more resource-intensive and Windows 7 seems to be a marginal improvement on Windows Vista with more efficient resource management. All the bitching about the latest version of Windows is an example of Rattan's Law in action... power users always make a big stink about how the old version of an OS is better than the new version because they don't want to have to learn to do certain tasks over again in a different way.

Brian3D wrote:

These wizards interface between you and the OS, thus complicating a process as simple as wanting to go to your network card and change it from an automatic IP address, to a manually assigned address. You want to change your desktop wall paper? Count how many layers you need to go through, before it's done! On XP, right click on desktop, go to properties, and select desktop, then select the wall paper!

If you switched the control panel back to classic mode, you wouldn't be having these problems now would you? If you're a power user, don't waste time with the simplified version. The wizards exist for a reason... to keep clueless users from unintentionally messing up the system. There are ways around them for users who know what they're doing.

*sigh* It's always the amateurs who bitch up a storm and start whining about how much better the Macfags have it... you wanna switch to Mac? Go ahead. I can buy the same hardware in a PC that you can in a Mac, for 2/3 the price with better warranty terms, and a superior assortment of third-party software available at cheaper prices. While the Macfags make noise about how their computers "just work", I can sit and make smug preening noises while I plan a decent vacation with all the money and time I saved by not buying Mac products.

You forgot another thing -

Too many clueless Mac users think they are immune to viruses, to the point of not having, or not updating, AV software.

The only thing that makes Apple less susceptible to virus is the fact that so few people write them for a Mac... IF a really nasty Mac-based virus ever comes around, most of their userbase would be caught with their pants around their ankles, with a jar of vasoline in their hand (but won't get a chance to lube up).

To an extent, the same holds true for half the Linux users (the other half are tech savvy enough to know better). But, at least for them, the umpteen thousand variations on Linux make it difficult to craft something to affect the majority of them - but probably leaving many different vulnerabilities that are specific to each.

As I pointed out concerning the movie "Independence Day" - with the aliens so smup in their superiority, and apparently not having any sort of security software (I mean, with a telepathic race, you aren't gonna have the kind of rogue hacker type that normals have), you don't need to have a firm grasp of their programming language to effect something catastrophic. All you need is to know how to do the equivalent of "FDISK C:" with no confirm, to totally ruin their day...

Down Seto, down! You need to reread my post. I said I work in the computer field, never said I was a developer, now did I? If you really would like to know my back ground, I'm a computer technician by trade with over 20 years of experience fixing, configuring and installing PC's and Macs. Throw a Linux box or two in there as well. When I talk about a windows operating system, yes an OS, I talk about it from a USERS, perspective, not a developer, I'm assuming your a developer? So before you start trying to climb up on your soap box called microsoft, try rereading my post and you will see it's a response to a USER, not a developer. A USER that I assume is using a PC in a HOME environment, not a company environment. So before you get all uber geek, and think your bitch slapping some one who does not know what they are talking about think again.

As for a comparison of XP, Vista, and Win 7? Win 7 is still based upon the vista kernel, it's just that a lot of the functions of vista were over haled, tweaked, and in some cased, replaced with a rebuild. Generally, win 7 is faster then vista with better power management, but it is not as fast as XP. Windows 7 was designed with more of a balance struck between performance and power usage. If your a gamer, who is not concerned with the latest version of direct X, and want a simpler interface, with less over head, XP is still the preferred choice. If your a general user who wants a more modern OS, with good visuals, improved security, and modern file structure, then win 7 is the preferred choice. Vista, I'm sorry to say is not really a choice when compared to XP or win 7, for the above mentioned reasons. Oh by the way, I run all three, as a preference, switching between them as needed, based on the tech support I need to provide for an end user. I also have an iMac, last years model, but it's fine for my needs. Thought about running boot camp on it, especially considering the performance gains the windows OS has on the Mac hardware, but I haven't yet.

As for a Mac PC face off, about this hardware or that software, again, reread the post from iceblue, as that was were my post was aimed at. My comments about wanting a Mac, still stand and again, come from over 20 years of PC and Mac experience.

Oh and Seto, there is no "Classic mode" in Win 7, only in XP and Vista. ;-)

Basara549, you are 100% correct about most Mac users thinking that the Mac has no virus's. I believe the current count is less then 50. The security holes in the OS are currently more of a threat.

You are also correct about the number of virus developers on the Mac side, not many, and that is due to the 10% or so of market share Apple has, compared to the 88% market share of Microsoft. Mind you, those market share percentages can very, based on what web site you go to. So yea, one good virus release into the OS X infrastructure, and a lot of users will have a sour ass!

As for Linux, I just don't have enough hands on there to say. Most of my time has been with PC's running various flavors of Windows, to Mac's running various flavors of OS 9/X. From what I do know of linux, your either running gnome, KDE, or command line based, regardless of the distro you have. So if I was to hazard a guess here, a virus released for gnome, or KDE would likely be the way to go for a virus developer.

In the end, PC, Mac, or Linux, the more you know about your OS of choice, the better off your be, in regards to safe computing.

Basara549 wrote:

Too many clueless Mac users think they are immune to viruses, to the point of not having, or not updating, AV software.

The only thing that makes Apple less susceptible to virus is the fact that so few people write them for a Mac... IF a really nasty Mac-based virus ever comes around, most of their userbase would be caught with their pants around their ankles, with a jar of vasoline in their hand (but won't get a chance to lube up).

The misguided belief among MacOS users that Macs are somehow immune to viruses isn't unique to its userbase, the few third-party developers writing software for MacOS usually do a much sloppier job than they would with Windows software, leaving all kinds of security holes that wouldn't exist otherwise. Apple itself is pretty lazy about rolling out patches for those vulnerabilities too... which helps matters not at all.

Brian3D wrote:

Down Seto, down! You need to reread my post. I said I work in the computer field, never said I was a developer, now did I? If you really would like to know my back ground, I'm a computer technician by trade with over 20 years of experience fixing, configuring and installing PC's and Macs. Throw a Linux box or two in there as well.

And in the course of your education for that particular field you weren't required to take at least a few software development or network security classes? Half the certifications in that field require you to have at least a partial understanding of how those operating systems work, their networking functions, and their various vulnerabilities. Unless you're still an amateur after 20+ years of working in the field, you really ought to be familiar with how the systems you work on everyday function.

Brian3D wrote:

When I talk about a windows operating system, yes an OS, I talk about it from a USERS, perspective, not a developer, I'm assuming your a developer? So before you start trying to climb up on your soap box called microsoft, try rereading my post and you will see it's a response to a USER, not a developer. A USER that I assume is using a PC in a HOME environment, not a company environment. So before you get all uber geek, and think your bitch slapping some one who does not know what they are talking about think again.

Just a piece of friendly advice... it would be wise to know what you're talking about before you run off at the mouth about it. Were you talking about it from the user's perspective and had any experience offering support for XP, you wouldn't be holding XP up as superior to Vista or 7 in any way, shape, or form. For the casual user, many options in Windows XP bordered on the arcane and necessitated consulting an expert. Windows Vista and Windows 7 were both designed with an eye towards making the system easier for the casual user to understand. The alterations in the kernel structure, particularly with respect to driver integration, make it much harder for the user to mess up their computer with poorly-written third-party software and drivers. User Account Control offers a half-decent way to put an end to the most common security problem... running all programs and processes with administrator permissions, which makes it that much harder for the end user to mess the system up by doing something they don't understand.

The common complaint that some software developed for Windows XP won't run on Windows Vista and/or Windows 7 has little or nothing to do with changes between operating system versions in most cases. Such compatibility issues generally spring from shoddy work on the part of the third-party software developer.

Brian3D wrote:

If your a gamer, who is not concerned with the latest version of direct X, and want a simpler interface, with less over head, XP is still the preferred choice.

Thank you for making a fuss and then completely failing to refute my point... any gamer so concerned with their system's performance that they'll take a less secure, less capable operating system just because it uses slightly less in the way of system resources is a power user, and as I said, it's invariably the power users who are first to open their mouths and gripe about how the new version of the OS isn't as good because they don't want to bother updating their know-how.

Brian3D wrote:

Oh and Seto, there is no "Classic mode" in Win 7, only in XP and Vista. ;-)

Wrong! Though given the substance of the rest of your post, I can't say it surprises me. It might not be called classic mode anymore, but changing the control panel's display mode to anything other than category view produces a control panel layout essentially identical to classic mode.

mage wrote:

Seto Kaiba wrote:

While the Macfags make noise about how their computers "just work", I can sit and make smug preening noises while I plan a decent vacation with all the money and time I saved by not buying Mac products.

lol, amen to that.

it goes to show that Steve Jobs's turtleneck is out for your cash and soul.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Brian3D wrote:

If your a gamer, who is not concerned with the latest version of direct X, and want a simpler interface, with less over head, XP is still the preferred choice.

Thank you for making a fuss and then completely failing to refute my point... any gamer so concerned with their system's performance that they'll take a less secure, less capable operating system just because it uses slightly less in the way of system resources is a power user, and as I said, it's invariably the power users who are first to open their mouths and gripe about how the new version of the OS isn't as good because they don't want to bother updating their know-how.

why not dual boot if you have both, or add a hard drive specifically for gaming and install XP on that?

Seto, you obveriously still do not read carefully enough, as you like to put in points not related to what I was discusing. Example is you claiming I said XP was supior to windows 7. Yet if you had really read my post you would have noticed were I even say that windows 7 is a modern OS compared to XP. Since you appear to be on a soup box that blinds you to what is posted, and appears to anger your, that I don't agree with you, I'll pass on futher discuson of a typical user verses a power user, verses a developer. Oh and sorry, but computer repair, OS configuration, trouble shooting and techsupport to do not require any programing experience. Only some one who is a developer of programs requires that knowledge. I do agree, a power user can certainly tweak windows 7 to be classic like, but as for a selectable classic mode, as XP and Vista have, sorry, 7 does not have that.

Mage; I could set up boot camp on the iMac, but to be honest, I have not taken the time to. Another option would be for me to run Parallels, a virtual machine styel program that would let me run windows in as a program window. I also have yet to upgrade the memory in the machine, still only 1Gig. I got the imac originally for my wife, a true mac users, refuses to touch a PC. Currently I just remote desktop into her mac when she is not on it.

mage wrote:

why not dual boot if you have both, or add a hard drive specifically for gaming and install XP on that?

Because dual-boot configurations are a pain in the arse... it's twice as much updating to do, and a lot of gamers just don't want to be arsed to set it up and make sure that the system hardware has drivers compatible with both OS's. Of course, I say that as a man who has no less than three operating systems currently installed on his desktop, so take that for what you will. lol

Brian3D wrote:

Seto, you obveriously still do not read carefully enough, as you like to put in points not related to what I was discusing. Example is you claiming I said XP was supior to windows 7.

Horrible misspellings aside, I would like to remind you that you said exactly that... that, and I quote: "The reason why XP continues to beat vista and 7 is that every thing is straight forward with it!"... which is a spurious claim at best, and an outright falsehood at worst.

Brian3D wrote:

Since you appear to be on a soup box that blinds you to what is posted, and appears to anger your, that I don't agree with you, I'll pass on futher discuson of a typical user verses a power user, verses a developer.

Translation: "I've been caught making claims I can't back up, and am now backpedaling furiously to avoid being taken to task by someone who understands the subject better than I do and bothered to check his facts first".

Point is, you fit the power user stereotype all too well... bitching pointlessly about how the old version is so much better because you don't want to be arsed to actually learn how to use the new version. Your remarks about how much easier Windows XP is to use are at odds with what any tech support technician will tell you... usability in XP doesn't hold a candle to Vista and Windows 7 because the developers working on the latter two operating systems made a conscious effort to make things easier for the average user to understand. Your claim about XP being the easiest of the three to use isn't based on the casual user experience like you claim, your arguments have all been based around your alleged professional experience as a technician, which makes you a power user.

Brian3D wrote:

Oh and sorry, but computer repair, OS configuration, trouble shooting and techsupport to do not require any programing experience. Only some one who is a developer of programs requires that knowledge.

It's remarks like this one that make it all but impossible for me to believe that you've been a professional computer service technician for any duration, unless it was from someone working at one of those small-town strip mall repair places that doesn't ask for a collegiate degree or professional certifications, or the three-ring circus of failure that is BestBuy's GeekSquad. Any collegiate computer science or information technology management program worth the paper its diploma is printed on requires computation theory, discrete math, and at least a few courses in system design, software engineering, and database management. Those are crucial elements of knowledge no technician should ever be without. If you don't know how the system works, how can you possibly expect to repair it? I know the courses necessary for the A+ and MCSE certifications touch on at least a few of those topics each.

Brian3D wrote:

I do agree, a power user can certainly tweak windows 7 to be classic like, but as for a selectable classic mode, as XP and Vista have, sorry, 7 does not have that.

Changing the Windows 7 control panel to emulate Windows XP/Vista's "classic mode" doesn't require a power user, or much in the way of sentient thought. It requires altering a single setting on a visible dropdown menu in the upper right corner of the window itself. It doesn't really get any more basic than that. Other than that, the remainder of the interface changed very little between Windows Vista and Windows 7, and we all know Vista's interface didn't change much from XP either. The majority of the changes were aesthetic, and much of the remainder was usability tweaks to make the system more accessible for casual users.

Ok, Seto;
First, I am MCSE, A+, Network+, and a few others in there some were. No, never worked at a mom and pop shop or a bestbuy, I have and do work for a multi national company, CBC America Inc, providing support for their IP based devices. Prior experience includes similar companies, and yes IBM is one of them. As for my spelling, I'll be the first to admit, it sucks. Some have teased that due to my spelling and writing, I should have been a doctor. ;-)

Quote :

Any collegiate computer science or information technology management program worth the paper its diploma is printed on requires computation theory, discrete math, and at least a few courses in system design, software engineering, and database management.

Quote :

Translation: "I've been caught making claims I can't back up, and am now backpedaling furiously to avoid being taken to task by someone who understands the subject better than I do and bothered to check his facts first".

Here is more backpedaling for ya;

Again, you completely can not see that my original point is in regards to a general USER. Unlike your self, I will not get into the core tech of an OS when talking about general use of an OS to some one who only wants to use the thing, that's just geeky. The user usually does not care whats under the hood, just as long as they can do what they want to do. Most folks, stayed with XP instead of rushing out and getting vista. Not because XP was technically better then visita, it's not, but because XP lets them do what they want to do, and do it faster.

By your own statement above, I take it your a computer science major. That would explain why you can't see the difference between a user and a power user, but don't worry, there is hope for ya. Just gotta give ya a few years out in the real world.

Quote :

Horrible misspellings aside, I would like to remind you that you said exactly that... that, and I quote: "The reason why XP continues to beat vista and 7 is that every thing is straight forward with it!"... which is a spurious claim at best, and an outright falsehood at worst.[u]

I will agree, my statement is spurious. I'll rephrase it here " XP continues to be the OS of choice for most users due to it's lower over head and performance advantages" Better for ya? ;-)

Quote :

Other than that, the remainder of the interface changed very little between Windows Vista and Windows 7, and we all know Vista's interface didn't change much from XP either. The majority of the changes were aesthetic, and much of the remainder was usability tweaks to make the system more accessible for casual users.

I can't believe after every thing you have stated, you just made that comment! I deffinently think you need to get out and talk to some real world users now! You have certainly been reading the gospel! Oh my god, I have tears!

Here is an article for you to read;
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-compared-windows-7-vs-vista-vs-xp-615167

Here is another one for ya;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-notebook,2485.html

Brian3D wrote:

First, I am MCSE, A+, Network+, and a few others in there some were.

Yeah, that's about as believable as MEMO and Maverick's claims to having an inside track on Robotech's live action movie.

Brian3D wrote:

I have and do work for a multi national company, CBC America Inc, providing support for their IP based devices. Prior experience includes similar companies, and yes IBM is one of them. As for my spelling, I'll be the first to admit, it sucks. Some have teased that due to my spelling and writing, I should have been a doctor. ;-)

Yeah, that's pretty hard to believe too... considering your relative ignorance of the technologies you're supposedly maintaining on a daily basis and the spurious claims you've made about XP's superiority and Windows 7's usability, all of which strongly point to you having little in the way of experience with any of them.

Brian3D wrote:

Again, you completely can not see that my original point is in regards to a general USER. Unlike your self, I will not get into the core tech of an OS when talking about general use of an OS to some one who only wants to use the thing, that's just geeky. The user usually does not care whats under the hood, just as long as they can do what they want to do. Most folks, stayed with XP instead of rushing out and getting vista. Not because XP was technically better then visita, it's not, but because XP lets them do what they want to do, and do it faster.

At this point, I feel it pertinent to point out that your arguments in favor of XP have (and still generally are) made from the perspective of a power user, someone with enough experience to be able to distinguish the frankly minor differences in performance between the two operating systems and consciously choose to use one over the other because of that specific performance benefit for what they intend to do. That's not casual user behavior, a casual user largely doesn't care so long as their computer does what they want it to without breaking down, and with few exceptions, won't be using anything that won't run on Vista. Having allegedly worked corporate tech support, you likely wouldn't have encountered the chief complaint raised about Vista in terms of program compatibility and the minor disparity in performance... that various antiquated ("classic") games and some other software developed prior to Windows XP SP2 and older versions won't run (without compatibility mode).

Yes, there is a performance disparity between Windows XP and Windows Vista, but only someone running the most minimal, bare-bones system or someone trying to run antiquated software would actually be able to notice it in any significant degree. The only people likely to notice at all would be people who indulge in high-end gaming (such as myself), and people whose jobs necessitate high-power processing, such as digital animators, drafters, physicists, and some software developers.

Brian3D wrote:

By your own statement above, I take it your a computer science major. That would explain why you can't see the difference between a user and a power user, but don't worry, there is hope for ya. Just gotta give ya a few years out in the real world.

No, not a computer science major, a computer science professional. I hate to derail your weak attempt at condescension here, but I've been in the field for a few years too. Run my own business, as a matter of fact, we provide IT services and support for small businesses and do a bit of development work in the auto industry as well, though my main course of study when I was working on my master's was computer security. I would expect that, since you claim to be a corporate IT flunky, I probably see a rather more diverse selection of users in the course of my normal workday than you do.

Brian3D wrote:

I will agree, my statement is spurious. I'll rephrase it here " XP continues to be the OS of choice for most users due to it's lower over head and performance advantages" Better for ya? ;-)

Closer to accurate, but still reaching... the "performance advantages" in XP range from negligible to nonexistent for all but the most performance-intensive power users, and the marginally greater system requirements of Vista and 7 are essentially a non-issue due to the decreasing cost of storage, memory, and the increasing power and efficiency of available processors.

Assuming it can support high-end hardware, is an archaic, stripped-down operating system going to respond slightly faster on the same hardware as a modern OS? Yes. Does that make it better? No. It doesn't make it easier for the user to use, and it doesn't make it more secure.

Brian3D wrote:

I can't believe after every thing you have stated, you just made that comment! I deffinently think you need to get out and talk to some real world users now! You have certainly been reading the gospel! Oh my god, I have tears!

Let me translate this for the benefit of our readers: "I've been cornered again and can't construct a viable or accurate counterargument, so I'll post some news articles to make it appear as though I know what I'm talking about while I issue increasingly feeble denials". Honestly, did you learn to debate from Doug Bendo?

Seto wrote;

Quote :

No, not a computer science major, a computer science professional. I hate to derail your weak attempt at condescension here, but I've been in the field for a few years too. Run my own business, as a matter of fact, we provide IT services and support for small businesses and do a bit of development work in the auto industry as well, though my main course of study when I was working on my master's was computer security. I would expect that, since you claim to be a corporate IT flunky, I probably see a rather more diverse selection of users in the course of my normal workday than you do.

Lol, by your same statement, I find it hard to believe you. You have a masters in computer security? Run your own business? Provide support for small business (sounding like a mom and pop shop here), and do some development for the auto industry, (Earls auto parts don't count as the auto industry, sorry)? Hard to believe when according to your profile, your only 24, unless your lying about your age? Lets see, a Masters degree takes how many years, at least 6. So you would have to have started college at 19, so you might have just graduated. Yet you claim to have a few years in the field. Hard to believe.


Seto wrote;

Quote :

At this point, I feel it pertinent to point out that your arguments in favor of XP have (and still generally are) made from the perspective of a power user, someone with enough experience to be able to distinguish the frankly minor differences in performance between the two operating systems and consciously choose to use one over the other because of that specific performance benefit for what they intend to do. That's not casual user behavior, a casual user largely doesn't care so long as their computer does what they want it to without breaking down, and with few exceptions, won't be using anything that won't run on Vista. Having allegedly worked corporate tech support, you likely wouldn't have encountered the chief complaint raised about Vista in terms of program compatibility and the minor disparity in performance... that various antiquated ("classic") games and some other software developed prior to Windows XP SP2 and older versions won't run (without compatibility mode).

As already stated, yea I’m a power user, and you seem stuck on that point, but my original posting was for a general user who made a stink about his experience with win7. You know what a general user is, don’t you? Well reading the above post, you seem to have some idea what a general user is. And below you even agree with me points on XP, so we’re getting some were! As for your statement of about my support experience, let me break it down for ya. When at corporate, you have pros and non pros using systems that range from XP, Vista, win7, and even a win2k system in there. When at home running my side business, I encounter win ME all the way up to win 7. Guess what Seto? Most home users don’t go out and buy a new computer every two years. Some of them have PC’s that have dust bunnies big enough to bite your arm off!


Seto wrote;

Quote :

Yes, there is a performance disparity between Windows XP and Windows Vista, but only someone running the most minimal, bare-bones system or someone trying to run antiquated software would actually be able to notice it in any significant degree. The only people likely to notice at all would be people who indulge in high-end gaming (such as myself), and people whose jobs necessitate high-power processing, such as digital animators, drafters, physicists, and some software developers.

Closer to accurate, but still reaching... the "performance advantages" in XP range from negligible to nonexistent for all but the most performance-intensive power users, and the marginally greater system requirements of Vista and 7 are essentially a non-issue due to the decreasing cost of storage, memory, and the increasing power and efficiency of available processors.

Now I love your contradicting statements above! So you even admit to running XP! Oh and for what reasons again? Oh for gaming! And you even admit that folks who need high power processing are still using XP?! Wow, dude, thank you for finally agreeing with me on my original point of XP! Now, if I can just get you to open your eyes to the existence of general users!


Seto wrote;

Quote :

Let me translate this for the benefit of our readers: "I've been cornered again and can't construct a viable or accurate counterargument, so I'll post some news articles to make it appear as though I know what I'm talking about while I issue increasingly feeble denials". Honestly, did you learn to debate from Doug Bendo?

That’s it? That’s the best come back you got to me laughing at your one statement? I post two links to two articles that you likely did not even read, for fear of being proved wrong, and all you got is “I’m inferring that this person is cornered and those he evidence being provided must be a feeble attempt.” Talk about debate short comings! Oh that’s right, you already agreed with me on my one point!

Fair enough, Blue.

Iceblue106 wrote:

[color=blue]I am too fucking lazy to re-learn the basis of Vista and honestly am happy with my little XP world where shit works the way I want it to when I want it to.

That's pretty much exactly what I was saying... that a lot (virtually all) of the spite and bile directed at Windows Vista and/or Windows 7 comes from people (like him) who don't want to be arsed to actually learn a new operating system, however similar to the previous one it might be, and thus raise an unwarranted stink about how the previous one was "better".

Brian3D wrote:

lol, by your same statement, I find it hard to believe you. You have a masters in computer security? Run your own business? Provide support for small business (sounding like a mom and pop shop here), and do some development for the auto industry, (Earls auto parts don't count as the auto industry, sorry)? Hard to believe when according to your profile, your only 24, unless your lying about your age? Lets see, a Masters degree takes how many years, at least 6. So you would have to have started college at 19, so you might have just graduated. Yet you claim to have a few years in the field. Hard to believe.

SIX years to complete graduate school? Damn son, you must really have been a failure in your academic career. I whizzed through my undergrad in about two and a half years by doing summer sessions as well as the regular fall and spring semester (which, incidentally, I don't recommend doing... damn near killed me), after which I took my little home business and turned it into a full-time gig providing on-site technical support and services for local small businesses, which as it turns out is a real money-spinner. I did grad school classes at night, and completed my master's degree in 2 years of hard work. Despite its humble beginnings, my little tech-support business grew quite swiftly from a little storefront outfit into a proper small business. We got into corporate consulting through some mutual friends, and ended up involved in development and testing of a few prototype audio/video systems at Ford, including the media gateway module, an early generation prototype of the Sync system.

Brian3D wrote:

As already stated, yea I’m a power user, and you seem stuck on that point, but my original posting was for a general user who made a stink about his experience with win7.

See above... seriously. I've already addressed this like four times.

Brian3D wrote:

You know what a general user is, don’t you? Well reading the above post, you seem to have some idea what a general user is. And below you even agree with me points on XP, so we’re getting some were!

Agree with your points on XP? Hardly... I dismissed your assertions concerning Windows XP on the grounds that only a power user (gamer, drafter, digital animator) is going to notice the minuscule disparity in performance between XP and 7 on any given system, unless that system is only barely capable of running XP.

Brian3D wrote:

As for your statement of about my support experience, let me break it down for ya. When at corporate, you have pros and non pros using systems that range from XP, Vista, win7, and even a win2k system in there. When at home running my side business, I encounter win ME all the way up to win 7. Guess what Seto? Most home users don’t go out and buy a new computer every two years. Some of them have PC’s that have dust bunnies big enough to bite your arm off!

Suddenly a home business materializes in your list of credentials... are we seeing a pattern here yet?

Lemme tell you this boyo, most folks might not buy a new computer every two years (hell, even I don't) but they're not going to spend a lot of time (if any) arsing around about what operating system it's got on it. Cost and general familiarity are going to be the two overriding factors, not anything to do with the OS. If they're comfortable and familiar with XP and don't want to be arsed to learn a new, similar, operating system, they'll stick with XP. It has nothing to do with XP being superior, and everything to do with them just being too lazy or too insecure to learn a new operating system until forced to do so. These days, most new systems available in stores and through direct manufacturer sales carry Windows Vista, and surprise surprise, most folks quickly find that most if not all of the negative press about Vista is bullshit.

Believe me, I know all about frankensteining ancient computers back to life... it took me a dog's age to convince my family to part company with their Apple II+, which they were STILL using as late as 2001 (along with an antique dot matrix printer, the kind with the tear-off peghole edges on the paper). I've been bringing their old HP Pavilion tower machine back to life on a semi-regular basis for years, and they got that right after Windows XP SP1 came out (and they still use it). Got a fair few clients who still cling to old machines like that, though we do our best to make it easy for them to upgrade when the need or desire arises.

Brian3D wrote:

Now I love your contradicting statements above! So you even admit to running XP! Oh and for what reasons again? Oh for gaming! And you even admit that folks who need high power processing are still using XP?! Wow, dude, thank you for finally agreeing with me on my original point of XP! Now, if I can just get you to open your eyes to the existence of general users!

I think you've misinterpreted something... the parenthetical remark in my previous comment was meant to say that I'm a high-end gamer, not that I'm running Windows XP. In fact, none of my home systems contain Windows XP. I do have dual and triple-boot systems running Vista, 7, Solaris 10, and a few flavors of Linux though. For gaming, I use my main tower rig, which is running Vista Ultimate as its primary OS, and Ubuntu and Windows 7 as secondary OS's.

As I said, and you misinterpreted, the only people who would notice the minuscule disparity in requirements between Windows XP and later generations would be people who were desperate to squeeze every last drop of power from their systems, like gamers who can't/won't upgrade their hardware and still want to run ridiculously bloated games at relatively high settings (Bioshock for PC, Crysis, etc.), or people doing other, similarly computation-intensive pieces of software, like digital animation tools or complex physics simulators.

wow this is funny to me, 2 computer geeks arguing

I love it! Blue, at least you see what my original point was.

Seto, regardless of what you think, or want to infer, by me ending my posting here, thank you for thoroughly entertaining me! I have been laughing since my first post!

There is enough posts from us computer geeks, to now entertain every one else here as well.

Well that said, say what you will Seto old boy! This thread has certainly been fun!