- Joined
- Jun 19, 2001
Link to front page topic: http://www.overclockers.com/articles1482
I wanted to share some counter points against the Vista plus side of things.
I work for a local PC retailer, as well as run my own little business from home, I've used and serviced Vista since it became available, and I would never give up my XP for Vista in it's current state.
Vista more stable than XP?
Hardly possible since XP never crashes. I've not rebooted my PC for 14 months since I built it, except for a ram upgrade and Windows auto updates. That said, I was still running Windows 98SE up until I got XP and I never had any crashes wih that either, except when 'I' did somethign stupid.
Vista prettier?
No, I loathe Aero, It's the single most unnecessary piece of software engineering waste of time ever. Windows had a classic clean well known and ultimately user friendly interface where every application has similar layout giving a shallow learning curve and made all software familiar and easy to get into and use. Software skinning started the path of destruction for the very thing that made Windows the top OS in the first place. Vista took it a step further and totally removed every thought of user friendlyness.
Vista better performance?
People keep telling me so, but I have yet to ever see a single reliable verified claim. Every single online review from Vista launch to today indicates the opposite. Drivers might have come a long way, but XP is still faster than Vista. On the otehr hand, of all the PC's I've come across through work I've seen gaming performance drops of anyhing from very little to more than half.
Superfetch/UAC
Features that were already available for years in 9x/2K/XP through third party software. And You virtually have to turn UAC off to use Vista so that point is completely moot.
No, Vista isn't Prescott, Prescott was still a usable CPU. You just needed a big cooler.
I wanted to share some counter points against the Vista plus side of things.
I work for a local PC retailer, as well as run my own little business from home, I've used and serviced Vista since it became available, and I would never give up my XP for Vista in it's current state.
Vista more stable than XP?
Hardly possible since XP never crashes. I've not rebooted my PC for 14 months since I built it, except for a ram upgrade and Windows auto updates. That said, I was still running Windows 98SE up until I got XP and I never had any crashes wih that either, except when 'I' did somethign stupid.
Vista prettier?
No, I loathe Aero, It's the single most unnecessary piece of software engineering waste of time ever. Windows had a classic clean well known and ultimately user friendly interface where every application has similar layout giving a shallow learning curve and made all software familiar and easy to get into and use. Software skinning started the path of destruction for the very thing that made Windows the top OS in the first place. Vista took it a step further and totally removed every thought of user friendlyness.
Vista better performance?
People keep telling me so, but I have yet to ever see a single reliable verified claim. Every single online review from Vista launch to today indicates the opposite. Drivers might have come a long way, but XP is still faster than Vista. On the otehr hand, of all the PC's I've come across through work I've seen gaming performance drops of anyhing from very little to more than half.
Superfetch/UAC
Features that were already available for years in 9x/2K/XP through third party software. And You virtually have to turn UAC off to use Vista so that point is completely moot.
No, Vista isn't Prescott, Prescott was still a usable CPU. You just needed a big cooler.
Last edited: