If recommendations are followed?
Yeah, sure, but the underlying issue is that the recommendations are ridiculous and unreachable by 75% of computer owners.
Even then, it's not the most stable operating system, it isn't even close.
Just about any Linux distribution is more stable than any windows OS ever released. I'm not even a Linux fanboy either, it's just common knowledge.
Yes Linux is something Windows is not. It contains simplicity which allows less things to go wrong. Which is why Lix requirements are so low. You can take the latest version of lix and run it on a pre XP built machine and still maintain performance. Comparing an OS that's built on simple and efficient processing goals to an OS that's built with end user usability and interactivity in mind is frivolous.
A $400 computer is unreachable by 75% of computer owners? Where do you live, the third world?
-Noted.
"Stability" is relative. It has more to do with what programs you're using - in combination with your OS and your hardware/hardware drivers.
I don't think vista is stable by any means for the power user, but it's not too bad for the casual internet/email/pictures/wordprocessing user. Thing is, in those, you're nearly taking hardware out of the picture- the 400 dollar PC. Thing is, casuals would be just about as good in Vista as they were in XP... but they're running slower.
My biggest beef with Vista isn't the speed- I can deal with that, inconvenience as it is- it's lack of support for legacy software and hardware. Biggest complaint I heard from my old job is people upset because their old printer or software- oftentimes software for their work- had incompatibilities with their new Vista machine. That, and personally I have a lot of old games that crash out too.
You are correct on the relative statement which is what most people decide to ignore. Vista was designed with all uses in mind. Microsoft's primary target for the Vista operating system was for the multimedia, home theater and small business audience. Microsoft did design the new windows platform for gaming too. However ignorance hovers around a lot of people in this thread. About 20% of all game crashes reported were because of poorly designed video drivers by nVidia. When people play a game in Vista, using nVidia drivers, and the game crashes, they blame Vista (how much sense does that make?). Yes I know about the 3rd party nVidia site (I will not mention the name), which are a bit more "stabler" but how can you blame an OS for faulty drivers designed by the Video card manufacture? Keep in mind it's not only nVidia, I only stated 20% of all Vista crashes are due to nVidia devices. Which is a fact.
I apologize, let me rephrase my statement.
Running vista well enough to be a "very stable" OS is not the build that you would buy from retail. Just like when XP first came out, the retail PC's didn't run it very well either.
Yeah, you can buy a retail PC with Vista on it, it'll run ok, probably deal well, but it certainly won't suddenly be leaps and bounds better than a XP or other OS pc just because it came packaged with vista in the first place.
edit: adding a little more.
The 75% of computer owners I'm referring to are people with no knowledge of hardware, and only a loose understanding of software. People like our parents, and etc.
Yeah, it may not run as stable for them, but they aren't going to notice it. If by some chance they do notice it, and want to improve it to run as well as fast and stable as XP or Linux would on the same machine, they would have to upgrade a lot of stuff beyond what's really necessary to run anything they would be using anyway.
You are correct. A Vista computer at release showed an average of 20% deperformance compared to an identical PC with XP. But let's be open minded now... When XP was released, the general population still were using AMD Athlon XPs and first generation Pentium IIIs. When XP came out during the new 133mhz FSBs on PIII chipsets, performance was still mediocre. Fast forward 2007. I'm sure we can agree we have the same delima with Windows Vista. Does not mean Vista is unstable. And comon, we knew what you meant by 75%, you meant financially because of the way you reponded to my topic, not knowledge wise. But nice save =\.
Ah, I thought you meant the hardware they had, not their actual knowledge.
Noted 2.
I hate to break it to you but Vista is not as stable as you think. XP is a lot more stable in my experience. I had Vista off and on when if first came out (big mistake) and then when I got my current laptop in September 2007. I'm sorry to say it's not the best alot of my older programs even when telling Vista to run in compatibility with it will NOT work. I do alot of web and graphic design work and computer troubleshooting, even some of my IT co-workers can't stand Vista but put up with it cause that's all their company will use. I can't count how many times Vista would close Photoshop or any other program I would use on me for no reason. XP has yet to crash on me yet since a few nights ago. I admit Vista is a lot better than when it first came out but it still eats up too many system resources and is just visual eyecandy.
Alright let's step off the Vista is unstable, Vista sucks bandwagon for a second here. When was the last time Vista crashed, because of Vista and not due to incompatible hardware, drivers or appications? I don't think you can name many. Just because you stick hardware/firmware/software on a Vista PC that wasn't designed for Vista and expect it to run well, doesn't mean it will run well. Place XP on a pII machine with 96Megs of memory and "legacy" hardware compared to the XP generation. You will experience the same problems. Vista "eats" up too many system resources is also a 'relative' statement. You have a computer that runs -better- with XP. You have applications that run -better- with XP. You have a machine several years ahead of the XP launch era. You have hardware/firmware/software designed to run on the XP kernel. Not the Vienna kernel. Even if it was pseudo designed for the new Vienna kernel, the 3rd party company did not do enough testing. You can not bash Vista for this. Vista is just visual eye candy? Just because the Vista theme is used by default doesn't mean you can't turn it off and revert back to the "Windows 2000" look, just like you can in XP. I remember the Aqua theme in XP slowed down comps and people called that eye candy as well... The new Aero theme is nothing different. Too slow for you? Turn it off. Don't use it and complain.
I can understand where you're coming from about having to push Vista in a retail environment (Best Buy 4 yrs XD) but when people asked if I liked Vista I gave them an honest 'no' in terms of use of system services and resources but a yes if they like visual eyecandy. I did tell them what they needed to get to make Vista run effectively since it would cost them too much money to get XP on their PC unless they know how to do it themselves or know someone that will do it for a cheap price or free.
Retail sucks. Period. Best Buy employee ID 585513, I went from Blue Shirt PCHO bitch to BBFB Sup to District #193 Services Supervisor in 2 years lying to customers, training employees on Care+ and gluing eyes on numbers doing whatever it took to make numbers for that day. Your honest "no" is due to ignorance and narrow sight of what Vista really is. Yes Vista "hogs" system resources but you have to think it's because the system is "low" compared to what Vista is designed for. Yes, it's eye candy, but why not just revert it? Either you want the special Aero and Dreamscene effects and pay for it or don't use it yet and wait for hardware prices to drop so your machine performance will be up to par with the Vista standard. And yeah BB services prices were way too high.
I'm not going to pull specific examples but if they come up, I'll bring them up to defend Vista. Is XP the perfect OS today?... With everything else besides security in mind... Yes it is. Thanks for 7 years of evolution and granted you have HW/FW/SW that's designed and supported running on it. Is Vista the perfect OS today?... With everything including security? Yes it is. Will it get better -as- HW/FW/SW is updated and designed for it? Yes it will.
And just in case Vista bashers like to be naive and think I don't know what the hell I'm ranting about. I know XP and Vista very thoroughly. And that's just the client end of the 2 kernels in discussion.
https://mcp.microsoft.com/authenticate/validatemcp.aspx
ID: 769533
PW: puppy101
