The "Windows Vista" topic.

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:31 pm

I'm really getting tired of people saying Vista is bloatware. Last time I checked, each successive version of windows has been larger in size than its predocessor. Based on the idea that increased size equals less desireability, why not stick to ME, or 98, or 95? Heck, why not stick with Windows 3.1? All of those operating systems are capable of roughly the same thing, provided you know enough.

I'm sure there was a crowd of people just the same (though slightly older) than all of you who protested the creation of Windows 98, and than 2000. They probably used exactly the same arguements as all of you, but do all of you 98, 2000, and XP advocates agree with them?

It may be true that industrial computer does not require any type of pretty user interface, but Windows is focused on end users and people who would not be expected to be fluent with several programming languages. Businesses desire efficiency, but consumers desire a pleasurable experience. Remember, most PC users are not gamers. Logging in and typing will be almost the extent of their experience.

If you want to defend your favorite version of Windows, so be it, but these outrageous accusations against anything New have to stop.

vb_master · Post by **vb_master** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:59 pm

teraflop122 wrote:I'm really getting tired of people saying Vista is bloatware.

It's 7gb opposed to around 2-3 gb.

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:05 pm

Windows 98 typically needed 250MB, versus 650MB-1GB for Windows 2000.

So, 2000 needed three to four times the space as 98.

Vista needs two to three times the space as XP.

Sounds like logical progression to me.

Post by **bicostp** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:09 pm

Windows 98 and Windows 2000 were built around two completely different operating systems. (NT as opposed to DOS). NT has always taken up more space. A better comparison would be 98 and ME. If I remember right, the typical bone-stock ME install was a bit mroe than 300 megs. (But then again I haven't dealt with ME in a loooong time... Not that I'm complaining, mind you...

)

Vista needs 2-3 times pre space than XP for all the shiny fancy graphics and other user experience enhancements. I don't see why Joe Six Pack would need all that. I don't see why anyone world need Aero. It's just eye candy. Bloated, processor intensive eye candy.

I know I'm not switching to Vista anytime soon. Next time I upgrade I'm getting a Mac. (Don't give me the "OSX is shiny and colorful too!" speech, please. I've heard it before, and OSX isn't nearly as shiny as Aero.

)

Joes2Silly · Post by **Joes2Silly** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:03 pm

I dont think there is anything wrong with Vista, yet I do not feel inclined to run out and buy a new OS+4 GBs of RAM for my computer when xp is running fine

XPCportables · Post by **XPCportables** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:50 am

Im running vista on my desktop right now. It actually runs suprusingly fast on one gig of ram, every bit as fast as Xp on my machine, so I'm happy. As for Vista as an OS, I like it. Would I buy an upgrade to it? No. The only way that I would actually pay for Vista is if I built myself a new computer. I see no point in spending the extra money for the fancy facelift. There are noticeable security upgrades, and it has never crashed on me once. I like the fact that even though it is demanding it still does a good job of running my games. As for the visual upgrades, it looks nice, but OSX does a better job, so I enjoy OSX better as far as the visual experience. The point is, Vista is better than I thought it would be, but not worth the upgrade unless you get a new PC.

vb_master · Post by **vb_master** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:48 am

Overall, it was slow on my laptop. Using the RTM (build 6000), it used 400 mb of RAM using Aero. It only got a 2.0 on the scale. P4 2.8 GHz + HT, 512 MB RAM, nVidia FX Go5200.

Sir Games-A-Lot · Post by **Sir Games-A-Lot** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:21 pm

Every computer I have is relatively low end, (Heck, I'm posting from a 350Mhz P2) so no Vista for me

. (I still don't get the name either

)

Unidentified Assilant · Post by **Unidentified Assilant** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:33 pm

Vista seems nice, but i'm only just going to discover the depths of XP Media Center edition and finally Ubuntu Linux 6.06.