DirectX 9.L and SP 3

It might be because Vista is in its introduction stage of the product life cycle (where prices are set high initially and gradually lowered; its called a penetration strategy) and XP in the maturity/decline stage.

 

Calling Vista ME II is so utterly overblown. The only reason it got the name to start with is from a few really stupid and not thought out articles posted on the internet that made a quick relation to that of ME's issues.

I don't know about any of you, but while ME worked great on some, the majority of the time, after or durring install of ME, countless errors would occur.

Vista is nothing like that, at all. And Claiming it as such is moronic.

Most if not all of the people making these stupid claims are people that have
A: Never used it and has only read what has happened to other idiots.
B: Used it for all of a day, ran into a few little kinks due to thier own mistakes, or trying to load it on completely unsupported hardware, improperly setting it up and making changes to the system in the same manner as they would for XP.
C: Ran into a problem emediately, (would even install) due thier own system configuration causing an error (preexcisting problems with the system, that may not crash XP, but will cause vista to be more unstable)

I've SEEN some of these machines, i've watched some of the people try to install vista and watched them make the mistakes thinking they were doin it right.

 

im assuming you are kidding, but in case you are not, that 64bit disk uses the same code as your 32 bit disk. so you might as well include the 32 bit disk to.
in wich case i will buy it:rofl:

and judas, i agree with you 100% on that last post.

 

Vista 64bit is as solid as 32bit, support wise. IMO

 

Judas,

I've used Vista before since I build machines. I personally havn't bothered to use it yet, since I have a laptop that's about 18 months old, and there just arn't any drivers for a few of my items, like the IR remote, Card Reader, and HP Bluetooth Modual. Not to mention what's the point with out a DX10 card.

In my opinion Vista wasn't rushed out the door, it had alot of beta time. What happened is, MS either didn't supply software/driver makers with enough shit to allow them to code drivers or software for the OS correctly, etc.

I've had nothing but problems with several things, including Office 2003, a handful of games, and propriatary drivers, such as HP, Dell, Sony, etc.

Unless you buy a machine now that has vista included, or you make your own machine using vista approved shit, and good luck, we'll use nvidia as proof, it just won't run well.

I've also noticed a pretty big performance drop on brand new machines that can use vista OR xp. Vista always seems to bench less then xp.

I personally will upgrade assuming it's not like ME and killed off within a year or two when I build a new machine which won't be for another 6 months or so. That or get a new laptop. By that time I'm hopping for either a SP1, or some major patches. Not to mention 3rd party support (which as I stated lacking very badly).

 

Judas-
Heck dude talk about getting your panties in a notch :lol:
Wow dude, guess you like it, and like it a lot.I've given a a flog.
Didn't like it at all Pretty, but...Moving on...
But yea, my machine is about 5 years old, not like the engine in your sig :taste:

However it's hard to dispute that Vista's got problems since People are encountering problems with it all the time.People who have vast knowledge above my head and probably yours too.Ever Picked yourself up a magazine called Computer Power User???

It gets bashed on a regular basis by their writers/Editors in every single issue.It's not because of the lack of drivers and supported hardware.

Done.

 

Bah, its a mute point. Some people just hate something to hate something (or because a magazine said so).

Honestly I don't use the OS exclusively because gaming on my system takes a plung, and that is unacceptable. I'm sure its a driver issue, as performance gets better every release. Its isn't, however, on par with XP as of yet. Other than that, I like the organizational system of it, I love the look, its more secure, and it has the features of XP that I use and a few more. Its never crashed on me, i've never lost data, and nearly all the programs I've grown fond of over the years function without flaw. I honestly haven't heard of a single viable reason (other than gaming) that it is the next ME. which brings me to my point again....

some people just hate it to hate it. Its MS, its new, and its more of a pain in the ass to pirate.

 

pretty much everything you said can be accounted for in judas or vikings post. office 03 works fine on my wifes(& she uses it for work related stuff) installation & most driver probelms ARE related to the writers of those drivers.
a lot of people really need to remeber back to xp release(& win 98, etc), wxact same crap happened back then... only diff is(imo) that everybody else seems to have fkd up even more this time. i think vista is a great os, & like every os that has preceded it, vista will just get better over time.... xp wasnt worth sgit until sp1.. keep that in mind.
personally outside of hardware manafacturers falling down on the job as far as compatability goes, i think vista is ahead of xp initial release.

 

you've got PM .

 

Microsoft was throwing money at companies to "help them" make sure there programs and components worked fine... IMO i think vista's Beta and RC release was the longest running one yet. I'm 100% confident that any company with some brains developing anything at all, would throw at least a few bucks at a MSDN account to get thier hands on the OS o try thier own software out on it. Apparently they blatently ignored it.

Eletronics arts, of all the companies should have NEVER had a hitch with thier last game in vista, wtf, most wanted works pretty much right outa the box, what the hell did they do to carbon to screw it up to not work well at all under vista? And that's only one example.


MS has even bent thier orignal plans with vista, to better assist other companies in supporting it. I was serprised that MS dumbed down the requirements of DX10 just so that nvidia's 8800 card would meet the requirements.

But in all seriousness

I've installed Vista, just by itself on a default install, i've NEVER seen a single hitch on any machine at all that "supports" and meets the requirements. Vista Home Basic for machines that have video cards under the 9500/geforce 6xxx. And home premium for machines over it. Typically i never build anything under the home premium requirements.

I have built 512mb ram machine with vista... .they work quite well, not as slugish as some people say it would have ran.

 

now that i am stuck back to XP i must say, Vista is FAR more stable than anything else, XP freaken sucks! the only downside is program and driver incompatibilities.....

it is so much more responsive, compatible programs are far more responsive on vista than on XP and i dont have to worry about lagged up crap or nonresponsive programs and so on....... i wish i had vista again......



i need a machine.....

 

Well by the time I upgrade probably 5 to 8 months hopefully all the drivers and kinks will be ironed out

 

that's honestly what i'm waiting for with vista myself. i probably won't actually upgrade to vista until sp1 is out for it.

but, i'm also tempted to stick w/xp if sp3 has some really nice new features included with it .