Windows Vista SP1

With the recent release of a program the that is mainly a bunch of hotfixes called service pack 1. Will the release of windows vista service pack one be enough for u to upgrade to vista? or are u still scared of using it because u like the way eveything works on xp? lets be honest. the only people that need vista are gamers and the poeple that know who cad works. in case u didn't know directx 10 is only compatible with vista. directx 10 makes for games looking a lot better. so will u upgrade to vista service pack one ( which should work better than just vista) so u can play ur games for windows that only work on vista *cough(Halo 2)*. or will u crack the games to work on xp at the expence of better graphics.

PH34R TH3 R4ND0MN3SS! XD

Not sure, I'm usin' a Vista right now, and I have t' say, I hate it. There haven't been many probles that I've experience, but there are a couple of major ones. I can't exactly explain what these are do to lack of brain sleep, but they're there.

Edit: Also too, exactly how well will the service pack work? if it's still not as good as the xp then why upgrade?

This post has been edited by Soul_Gatherer3000 on Feb 24 2008, 07:55 AM

well sp1 is supposed to be a bunch of hotfixes for all the bugs. it might even fix the "major problems" u are facing

MUAHAHAHAHAHA the power of a Windows XP install disk a limitless

I'd still rather get an XP and just wait till Vista is ready-made without all of the frickin' problems.

well thats the thing windows will never be "ready made" without the "fricken' problems" thats why they release service packs. microsoft has deadlines to meet. if there is problems in the software by the time the deadline hits bill gates has to say "thats too bad. its too late to fix the problems now we'll release hotfixes later"

Bill Gates hav enough frinkin' moneys why doesn't he buy some farkin' patience!! But alas, I digress.

I won't willingly update to Vista... I see no reason why Vista needs such huge system requirements when all it is, is an upgraded XP... Yet it uses well over double the ram and is generally as slow as molasses.
Is it too much to ask to have a OS that looks nice and doesn't need a top of the line computer to run it without slowdowns and massive waiting times as it has to stop and shuffle things to the hard drive from the ram?
Oh wait... one like that exists... It's called Linux. And if Vista/windows doesn't fix the problem of massive system resources required it looks like I'll be making the complete jump to linux.

I don't need a hotfix for problems they should have fixed during the testing phases, thats why testing phases exist... They could have waited an additional year found the bugs and then released it, but that would have been to simple. And here we are typical microsoft rushing their products.

And vista absolutely sucks for games unless you have a massive powehouse of a computer... (like: intel quad core cpu, 2gig vram, 8gigs ram, 1tb hdd etc...)
otherwise directX 10 just slows the games down whilest it renders the lines on the leaves that are blown down the street so to speak.
Vista itself requires too much of the system resources to make it an effective gaming machine, hence why people prefer XP, heck, it'd make more sense to install XP to a computer and sacrifice some graphics to be able to play the game full speed and completely stable.

i agree. I have halo 2 but i cracked it to run on xp. it runs pretty well but i just wish all the textures would work right. directx 10 is supposed to make all the games work better. maby when directx 10.1 comes out those problems will be fixed.

Look i know some people like linux better but i'm asking nicely, please don't talk about it here. u wanna talk about kubuntu then talk about it in vz's kubuntu topic. this is just thoughts on vista. ok?

I would never upgrade to Vista, it'll be a cold day in hell before I willingly use Windows Vista, unless it's at school, then I have no choice there.

The security is ridiculous, it needs too much RAM and is slow as hell, I don't know about you but I'm staying with XP for a LONG LONG time.

You misunderstand my point of saying it... I'm saying that if a free operating system managed by 1 to 2 people can look good without killing the os for resources then why can't a highly trained well paid team of microsoft programmers do better?

well thats the bussiness environment for ya

i think one reason the windows os crashes is because it has all the program "hand holding" Linux has none of that and runs faster and is more stable. But, as a result it's rather diffucult to use. I tinker with it in my spare time and its like ya have to be a real "code monkey" just to install something. Thats kinda a dramatization btw.

Linux is free made by 2 people(actually made well i might add) but its hard to use.

Windows isn't free (unless ur a hacker) extremeley organized ad easy to use. but kinda buggy. the "hand holding" with the programs takes hotfixes. but remember this. Since microsoft is a real bussiness, they have deadlines to meet. and if they don't fix any problems by the deadline, they need to release hotfixes later. Linux is absolutley free and as a result the programers have NO deadlines and can fix problems with the code before they release it to the public (with no profit)

I've used Linux... and to be honest it's actually fairly easy to install to. It only becomes more difficult when you have to recompile the programs and install that way... but any debian based program is quite easy to install on any other debian based build.

I've found that removing on windows is oft FAR trickier. (Ever tried removing a virus manually? by removing the exact lines from the registry? Yeah... Now that's fun.)
Oh and then we get the famous problem of bits of the program not uninstalling and leaving messes of parts laying all over the registry and the system. (Norton Antivirus is notorious for this.)

The initial linux was built by one person (Linus Torvald) and it was off a unix base. Others then joined the scene after linux was established and created more versions for specific purposes, hence all the distros we have now...
Most distros were created by 1-2 people.


But my point is, even still you have let's say 30-40 dedicate programmers working (40 hours a week) on windows. That's still 28-38 more than what linux has. Linux might have 1-2 dedicated programmers but anyone else simply helps out in their free time. And contrary to your belief some versions of Linux do have deadlines to meet. Ubuntu releases new versions every 6 months.

So it's my belief that these 30-40 programmers should be able to find ways to link their programs without bogging down the machine. I mean basically all Vista is, is a graphically enhanced XP that stole alot of functionality from mac and linux designs. XP looks good and doesn't bog the machine down that much so why can't Vista just improve on that? Surely having code written and refined proves other benefits as well as making it smaller and faster... such as being more stable, improving security (making it harder to find the loopholes. )

i'm just wondering this. did u ever consider that it might be a HELL of a lot harder writing the code for windows, thus making it easier to use. The linux code must be easier to write. They just write the GUI code and write code for the programs built into it. But ur pretty much on ur own installing programs. U got to download these freakin tarball things and manually make ur own install. AND THEN figure out how to use ur own install.

And another thing. Why is it that some programs (which have no reason to need a correct driver) need a correct video card driver to run.

I was tinkering with linux before and always had to use this adept manager. And everybody on the forums was talking about using synaptic. It wasn't until i correctly installed a video card driver that i was able to access synaptic. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A VIDEO CARD DRIVER. I mean come on. talk about a wth factor!

I've considered windows might be tougher to write in... But seeing as how Windows XP/Vista is based upon windows NT (which in turn was developed like unix. So it has a unix type base.) So Windows built the code for their os... so then they should be masters of it wouldn't you think? If you build the code, then you would have a pretty good idea what it can and can't do...

And linux code might not be easier... as it's also written in a unix based code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection

So I would dismiss writing difficulties as neither of them would be particularly easy to write. (I mean I've done programming, and I know it isn't easy just for java, and c++ is even harder, so I can imagine what it'd be like trying to develop an entire operating system for people to use...)

I don't know what synaptic is but if it needed a correct video driver then I would take it there was some conflict between the one you had and the rendering of the gui for the program. (The one you might have had could have been flawed and or outdated.)

If you want to talk about WTH factor... Look at windows it has loads of them. Did you ever hear about microsoft performing forced updates? (Yes it's true Microsoft has actually forced upgrades on people without even offering you a chance for consent/denial. If you let the automatic updater even download the updates it will automatically install them even if you explicity tell it not to automatically install them.) And that's just one issue, there are loads more.