CRe Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 http://mojaveexperiment.com/ The results amazed me.
PK2 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 "Show 100 people anything you call "new and revolutionary" and 90% of them will say they love it. Show 100 random people a pe!@#$%^&*ion and at least half will sign it, even if its a request to remove womens suffrage or something equally silly."
»Lynx Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 Wait, let me get this right. Microsoft themselves are trying to defend how much Vista sucks, by proving further that it sucks? Interesting... -Lynx
rootbear75 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 i thought it was some other place that did it, not microsoft. Vista does suck if you know anything about computers.
tcsoccerman Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 My computer can't handle the web page, could you just give a brief on what it is?
JDS Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 (edited) those people they showed vista dont really know anything about computers though, rootbear. so the whole experiment is pretty stupid for tcsoccerman, they asked people what they thought about vista, and told them to rate it outa 10, they showed some black lady giving it a big '0', (a few other people were in the show but mostly this black !@#$%^&*) then they pulled out a copy of Windows Mojave.. and asked what they thought about it, black !@#$%^&* gave it a 10, and everyone else loved it and thought it was so cool, then at the end of the video, they said 'oh btw.. this is really just windows vista' Edited August 5, 2008 by JDS
Hakaku Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 No, it depends on what you need it for. Vista has strong points and weak points, just like every other operating system. If you're reluctant to adapt, then you'll evidently say that Vista sucks, just like Windows 98 users/sceptics were reluctant to adapt to other operating systems. For my uses, Vista > XP.
Cancer+ Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 Hakaku is right. As long as you have a good enough computer, then Vista is fine. Security is better on Vista than XP. With anything about computers, it depends on what you are going to use it for. I am curious as to how much those people were paid.
JDS Posted August 5, 2008 Report Posted August 5, 2008 what do i need vista for to browse the internet and play subspace. seems stupid
tcsoccerman Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 jds, your post reminded me of this i think it's a great idea myself
PoLiX Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 The pros and cons of vista, all the !@#$%^&*ing, all the complaints, is nothing different then the move to XP. People wouldn't let go of 98 or 2000 for XP for a long time. Now they're whining XP is better than Vista... was funny when a few admins at an old forum I visit pulled out a lot of people's whining how 2000 was greater then XP and how much XP sucked, and now how they praise XP and say Vista sucks. Kind of funny to see a lot of the same complaints they had about Vista they had about XP, etc. I'll admit I hated XP for a long time too, but meh, grew on me. Vista will probably do the same.
JDS Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 jds, your post reminded me of this i think it's a great idea myself thats pretty !@#$%^&* good idea they have there, but if it could play subspace too... oh man
rootbear75 Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Hakaku is right. As long as you have a good enough computer, then Vista is fine. Security is better on Vista than XP. With anything about computers, it depends on what you are going to use it for.Thats the problem though. A lot of the hardware that was out when Vista came out was not decent enough to run it, which is why everyone complained "Slow, horrible, buggy, etc." If you have a jacked up machine, of course it runs fine. But like the hardware i'm running, (my laptop) the stupid !@#$%^&* college forced everyone to get Vista Biz when XP Pro would have worked fine. At the moment, it takes at least 5 minutes (YES 5 MINUTES) to load from power on to fully loaded (everythings done, i can click, and boom)My laptop would be 100% better with XP, but the only thing that prevents me from doing that:1) Preinstalled software suite is pretty decent. And I do not have any CDs for that.2) I don't want to a) pirate XP, pay for XP. Both of my cousins have desktops purchased within the last 6 months. They run Vista as fast as my laptop would run XP. Also: All of these features im hearing about through the other videos, i have yet to see. I bet they are running Ultimate Version. Not Home or w/e Edited August 6, 2008 by rootbear75
»doc flabby Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) I'm not a vista hater i just think it was massivly over hypered. For 5years of work they've achieved impressivly little. It makes we wonder what where they doing for 5 years....When you compare the difference between windows 98 and windows XP (A 3/4 year gap) and the massive improvements that made with 5 years for vista which is like XP with extra bells and wistles and nanny clippy running the show you can see why people are disappointed. All the really exciting things about vista were dropped like the sql based filesystem and cli .net based kernel (.net programs would run nativly) were dropped) once vista hits sp2 it will be usable and the hardware has caught up to run bloatware and i will buy Bacially anyone who buys before sp2 is paying to be a beta tester.was same for XP,windows 2000,windows 98... Once the hardware caught up they became usable. XP was a bloated and slow turd for a while, and the sensible ppl stuck with windows 2000 but no one remembers that Both of my cousins have desktops purchased within the last 6 months. They run Vista as fast as my laptop would run XP.Just imagain how fast they would run XP I know the new computers (core2duo) we have at work with XP Pro boot up (from switch on to desktop) in under 10 secounds. Edited August 6, 2008 by doc flabby
rootbear75 Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 Both of my cousins have desktops purchased within the last 6 months. They run Vista as fast as my laptop would run XP.Just imagain how fast they would run XP I know the new computers (core2duo) we have at work with XP Pro boot up (from switch on to desktop) in under 10 secounds.yes, but they were built to run vista effectively, thus reducing the problem that a lot of people have
»Lynx Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 If they were built to run Vista effectively, they will still run XP effectively - it's basically the same kernel/core. Personally, I think Vista has it's good and bad points, but on the whole the lack of ease for customisability - not just for Vista, but Windows in general is a real pain in the arse, so I'm going to avoid it until SP2 is out at least. Also, it seems that Vista has gone a little OTT with it's security features. I'd like a big off switch on that - provided you're not a re!@#$%^&*, it's not hard to stop people from accessing your !@#$%^&*. Well, saying that - I'm buying a Mac soon, so meh. -Lynx
rootbear75 Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 there is a huge off switchits called UAC on/off
»doc flabby Posted August 6, 2008 Report Posted August 6, 2008 yes, but they were built to run vista effectively, thus reducing the problem that a lot of people haveYa the main problem is there computer is too slow to run the bloatware that is vista I still think my oringial point stands as the result of ver 5 years of developement vista hasnt lived up to the hype, or the time it took to come out. Its not really that much different from XP...
Recommended Posts