Originally posted by: Darth ChaltabI don't use it except at school, where all the computers were upgraded from 2000 to Vista over the summer.
Was the hardware upgraded as well or did they just upgrade the OS? I would assume they upgraded the hardware. What are the specs? We just got three new machines at work. Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. I installed Vista on one of them and it's the snappiest computer we have now. I also found out about a month ago that all of our software is fully compatible. So we're ready to upgrade to Vista, I just don't know if we will anytime soon or not.
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005vista is absolute rubbish 90% of software and programs will not run on it.
Care to backup that claim with a list of examples? I can backup my example of 100% compatibility with a full list.
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005mircrosoft should not have released it until all the bugs were worked out.
Uh, yeah, because no OS has ever had bugs in it. Oh wait, OS X, Linux, Solaris, etc, etc have all been released and found to have bugs. It simply isn't possible to release a completely bug free piece of software. Even some things that they consider features, others considers bugs.
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
they expect companies to redo all their software to be vista compliant rather than the other way around.
No, they expect companies to start writing their programs to not need full admin rights for anything except maybe during installation. For years MS has been telling developers that applications should only need admin when installing. For years, developers haven't really been listening and haven't been forced to make a change. With Vista, they're finally forcing them to do it right. This can be seen plainly on Vista by all the programs that have to be run "As administrator".
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005windows 2000 was the last so called stable os in terms of testing the damn thing before they shipped it. had way less errors than XP or vista.
Ah yes, the OS that "It'll ship before 2000!" And then it shipped late December 1999, just before 2000. Even though it wasn't available until January. XP is far more stable than 2000. I haven't been able to do any extensive testing on Vista yet, but it's probably even more stable than XP was. The largest problem people have had with Win2k and XP was bad hardware and/or bad drivers. I've seen it myself. A bad network or video driver could take down Win2k pretty easily if it was pushed just a little. XP was less so, but still had problems. Bad hardware was the next greatest problem. Bad memory will take out your whole system. So the problem isn't usually the OS, it's usually some kind of faulty hardware somewhere.
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005security on the XP os can be so easily compromised i swear microsoft has patches and updates all the time.
Again, everyone releases patches for their OS all the time. OS X, Linux, Solaris, Windows, etc, etc. In fact, I think you'll find that Linux releases the most updates of the big three. OS X, to my knowledge, doesn't release very many, then again, I don't have many OS X machines to admin (just one).
The reason XP and 2k are so easily compromised is because people run as administrator. With Vista, MS is attempting to put a stop to that. Personally, once I've got a system setup, I don't see the "Cancel or Allow" dialog. The only people I know that see that message a lot are the ones that are constantly tweaking system settings. If you're seeing the cancel or allow dialog in normal day to day use, then you're either tweaking your system to much or you've already got some kind of virus on your system.
Originally posted by: miker71any OS that displays a progress indicator for showing the contents of a folder has serious underlying issues IMO.