===START TRANS===
I wanted to get Windows 95/98(SE)/2k/XP users opinions on Windows Vista <place your version here>... I myself hate it because of the memory usage...and simply because I use a PC that was manufactured in 1998...


Please post your thoughts of WinVista as well as comments about the poll...Thank you
DBlake1


-----------------------------------Live on, Windows 98SE...---------------------------------------
Click to view attachment
===END TRANS===

This poll is broken and unfair.

First, it's broken because we are forced to pick a choice in the "If you do use Vista" question.

Secondly, it's unfair because Windows 95 isn't mentioned where the rest of the Windows OSs are.

By the way, you forgot one option: "it's slow as molasses".

I love you.

The first question gives various options, the last two being "No, I don't use WinVista" and "I use Win95/98(SE)/2000/XP". I was a bit confused since I could only choose ONE option, yet both the last TWO options were true for me! So, I just chose the 'true-er' option?

I have corrected this issue

Vista makes a machine a true modern PC. So much is so different, yet it is still Windows. I think it's the best OS yet, myself, though I wouldn't upgrade from XP to Vista simply because Vista does have pretty heavy system requirements. But buy a computer made for Vista, and you're all set in my opinion. I still use Windows 98 because I like developing for it, but for regular computer usage, Vista's the top.

I don't want it. I don't trust it, and will not use it. 98 is the newest Windows I will use.
Rick

This poll sucks. You cant even fill it out without unless you have a negative opinion of vista.
I have Vista Business at home and Enterprise at work (neither of which are on your poll)
on my home machine that is 100% modern (quad core@2.4, 4gb ram, 8800GT) it works flawlessly
on my work machine that was a top of the line XP machine about a year ago (P4ht@2, 2gb ram, 7300gt) it works ok. multi monitor support is lacking and I get occasional pausing under heavy loads.
on my laptop (CentrinoDuo@2, 2gb ram, 7300LE) it works ok but has a few power saving issues


The lowest spec machine I have installed it on was a P4ht@1.8, 1GB ram, Intel onboard video(without Aero which wasnt supported) and it still performed just as well as XP SP2.
theres nothing wrong with Vista if you have a decent spec machine to put it on. if you put it on something below minimum spec, you can expect less then minimum performance.

Whats next? people bashing those newfangled steel belted tires because they don't make them in sizes to fit your Model T?

My brother's laptop came with Windows Vista Basic. It had better specs than the minimum required specs, most notably 1 GB of RAM. Yet it was slow as molasses. Not to mention it took more than a half hour just to boot for the first time. Inexcusable.

What kind of crap is that?

You haven't clarified exactly what makes Vista the top OS. What great functionality warrants the increased system requirements?

Aha!

No, we bash it because it's yet another edition of Windows that has increased system requirements for no apparent reason other than eye candy. This is Microsoft's way of keeping up the perpetual upgrade cycle.

1. Release new edition of Windows with a couple more features that doesn't run well hardware unless meeting high system requirements.
2. Get all new systems sold with new version of Windows.
3. Cut off support for old version.
4. Watch as people buy new PCs because the newer version won't run on their older ones.
5. PROFIT!
6. GOTO 1.

Aha! what? the system still performed fine. I researched the issue and the way that card shares memory with the system doesnt meet the spec MS set for Aero. but Aero is not the only thing thats changed in Vista. Its just the only thing that your average user can see when they look at Vista. Vista isn't worth upgrading to for the home user in most cases (and some businesses). The only reason I don't have 200 of those same spec machines running Vista with Aero disabled instead of XP SP2 is because I'm still waiting for my VLS server to be setup.


Yawn. same argument as 1995, 1998, 2000, and 2002. be sure to copy that somewhere safe for when Windows 7 launches.

Aha you disabled part of the OS to get it to run fine.

Nope, not 1995. Windows 95 was dramatically different compared to Windows 3.1, introducing 32-bits, a revamped interface, etc.

Anyway, yes it's the same argument for the other years. If it wasn't, the argument wouldn't have much point, now would it? Great going, Sherlock. You don't even try to refute the argument.

Windows Vista is WinXP with some new bells and whistles. WinXP itself is Windows 2000 + eye candy + ClearType (only useful on LCDs) + better hyper-threading support.

I do own Vista (and it is installed on one of the partitions on my computer) but I don't use it very often.
It works flawlessly (2GB RAM) but I prefer Windows XP.
The user account control popups are really annoying but after all it can be deactivated.
What I really miss is the explorer's toolbar.

nope. I didn't disable it was auto disabled for me. prolly o that people like you would try to run it on a 333mhz celeron with an ati rage card and then complain about its shotty performance.


anyways, Im done here. the point of my post was not to begin an argument but to prove that the poll is biased and broken. I had no intention of fighting over whose choice of OS was better enjoy your obsolete OS on your obsolete CRT monitor. My Quadcore with with is kicking out the Cleartype quite nicely to my 24" LCD

Which just proves that it's not the greatest OS ever that everyone should have. Especially when it doesn't offer anything we want to offset the system requirements.

The fact is that GNU/Linux, a recent OS that still gets updated, will work fine on the proposed system. Windows Vista is just bloated.

Too bad your LCD monitor will look like s*** on resolutions other than its native one. CRTs aren't obsolete at all.

Yeah, until the next upgrade, that is. Perpetual upgrade cycle.

I agree with you. I have been using CRT monitors my whole life...my school has LCD ones, though...kids always push on the screen and end up breaking them...CRT's have glass screens, so there is no possible way to break them (except if you put your foot through it)...they are so much cheaper too and you can get them almost anyplace(Staples, Walmart, etc...)

go here -
which os - funnyfarm
(woohoo! finally figgered out how "insert topic link" works - DUH!)
FWIW, IBM does the same krap for their "mainframe" OS's, so nothing new here...
Yeah, started at DOS, stopped at W2K3, since my hardware is older. Any MS opsys higher than that would be just plain ignert for me to install...

I had Windows Vista, but I got rid of it because it drove me made, because it was a memory eater which really bothered me. I hated it how it takes forever just to open certain programs, files and folders, and copying files was a pain in the a** as well. Well, hopefully SP1 will increase and improve performance.

Seriously, if I had to choose to use Windows ME or Vista, I think I'll go for ME. It was less annoying.

I dislike that Vista has such high requirements and yet it gives no "Wow".

Maybe Ill give it another try when I get a new computer and maybe with some later version of vLite.

I don't have it at home because my computer isn't good enough for it, well it probably is but I don't need it right now.

I chose that I use it at work, but I don't use it on my work computer. My work computer is Server 2003 Standard and it does have Vista Business on VPC 07 but I don't use it like that. I install it alot on computers that we sell to businesses but that's about it.

dont like vista much, id definiatly put it to a 9gb install and that it needs a services tab in task manager and processes tab showing how much of a ram hog it, particularly since i ran it on 320mb ram