Vista Rocks

Windows Vista Rocks so much!!!

[note=rvalkass]
At Trap17 we request you post with quality. Please try to make longer posts with more content and of a higher quality. Read the readme for more information on the rules.
[/note]

anish2000......I would wanna understand wat your post is all about. Ok, Windows Vista rocks. But what really makes it rock? What are the features you find sooo rocking in Windows Vista? All these you would have to explain to us in here and not just telling us that Windows Vista rocks just like that.

And judging from your post count, I understand that you are still a newbie. You have to try to make very meaningful post man and not just short phrases. Your post should contain some meaning and sense of direction in it.

I'd agree with that: number of posts means nothing: try more content!


I've heard so many mixed reviews about Vista, and the majority of them tend to end up at the same end point: looks good, love the new interface, but you require newer hardware and some major upgrades to any systems that you want to upgrade with: also, as for being more secure and reliable than xp, it loses handsdown.

I really do want to know whether I should bother upgrading at all... at the moment I'm considering for when Vista sp1 come out, but the fact that much of my software, and possibly my scanner and printer might suddenly stop being compatible with my os, leaves me wondering if I should EVER bother upgrading to vista.

Alright, Vista my "rock", but in my opinion xp currently "rocks the hardest": give me a reason to believe otherwise...

In my opinion, I think Vista is a joke. Its just a shinier version of XP with rediculous sercurity. You have to confirm to do ANYTHING including features that come with Vista. For example, you have to confirm windows to turn on the firewall. Its not that big of a deal but i find it very annoying. Another thing that is rediculous is the price and all of the versions.

I'm gonna stick with XP until they come out with something bigger and better than just making it look better.

Personally i really like vista but i do not find it that much different than XP. I can run the aero interface but always turn my computer to max performance since the visual affects I dont really care about. I tend to use lots of Alt-tab and keyboard shortcuts so i dont care what they look like as long as i can get to where i need to go quickly. Vista is very user friendly since on the outside it is a lot like xp but it has lots of good tools for the advanced computer users like myself.

Well I agree with the post VISTA DO ROCK, but you have to get used to it and you really have to have a two-core processor and at least 2gb of ram! That really makes it faster & better, because it uses the ram to load recently used programs so that they do not need to be loaded from disk again and again as you reopen them (this procedure of loading from disc is the slowest operation in your computer).

Other then speed of opening programs and more reliability & security there are also other great new features. It has indexing so you can find any program or file on your computer directly from the start menu in 1 second! You can edit pictures (brightness, contrast, saturation), what makes it great for me as an amateur photographer so i can edit pictures on the fly without having to open photoshop or something similar!

Well there are so many other things and it also looks MUCH better than the old XP that YOU SHOULD GIVE IT A BIG SHOT IF YOU HAVE TWO CORES AND AT LEAST 2GB OF RAM...

Best whishes..

I have been an "unofficial" beta tester for over an year before Vista got released. It looked promising since I thought that in the next release they would really optimize it. But that release did not come. When I had my first contact with the final version of Vista I installed it on my desktop ( AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 1GB DDRAM, GeForce 6600) and I was extremely disappointed. I guess you can check that impression in the posts from that months... So even on my computer, which to be honest isn't that old, Vista worked terrible. It required some 550-600Mb of memory on startup (not as much as some predicted, but a lot more then the 30Mb Windows 98 required at startup). After later experience I came to the conclusion that memory isn't the biggest problem of Vista, but the CPU. My AMD desktop CPU, which is clocked at 1800Mhz seems to be overloaded most of the time, even when Vista is as clean as when I installed it (no programs whatsoever installed). If fitted with an antivirus Vista becomes a true nightmare. Microsoft was so proud of their Aero UI which I have to admit is great, but has, what looks to me, a major issue... it doesn't use the video card as much as should.
Video cards where in fact the only things that weren't used when using Windows until Vista came. It advertised a graphic accelerated desktop, but I don't think that is the case. My video card can still do miracles in games (even though it is far from the high-end part of the market), but for Vista, which, besides Flip3D, doesn't have any real 3D parts, it seems it is not enough. So basically it loads the CPU... How did I came with that theory?
In May I bought a laptop (a dream come true... I still am as excited as the day I bought it) which has an AMD Turion X2 TL-56 (dual core with each core clocked at the standard 1800mHz) , 2GB memory and an GeForce Go 7400. On the laptop Vista looks a lot different... and more importantly feels a lot faster. It works like a charm, it truly does... Since the laptop video card is somewhat slower then my desktop video card and memory isn't used to its full potential (around 30% on the laptop) the problem of Vista turns to be, as I have said, the CPU. Or the fact that is loads the CPU with what the video card should do.
So I advise you, if you do want to go to Vista better have a dual core CPU or you'll end up switching back to your old operating system very fast. Some beta testers reported that Vista SP1 will make Vista faster (it seems Microsoft will finally implement those optimizations I was hoping for when testing the last Release candidates)

But Vista isn't my primary operating system even on the laptop.... Windows XP is, and will be for a long long time, the best compromise between good looks (better the Windows 98), speed (a lot faster then Vista, slower then Windows 98) and stability (a lot more stable in my opinion then Windows 98 and Vista). Eyecandy (at which Vista rocks) doesn't mean much for most people, specially when speaking of efficiency. Its going to be extremely hard for Microsoft to kill its own Windows XP!


PS: anish2000, as odomike has said, you should really try to make your posts have some meaning.... like to explain why you think Vista "rocks"! Maybe you already know, but on Trap17 you don't get points for how many posts you have, but on their content. Basically you get points for every word you post.

Guess what? Your one liner inspired me to report that post!



Oh yes by the way, windows vista is the worst attempt at trying to copy Mac Os X EVER! Not only did they completely fail at making it usable, but it is 4 times slower than XP...

Not trying to burst you bubble but Windows Vista has been a suicide mission since the start. I hear and read about many problems with this Os. And I think that they should of fixed up Xp and perfected that before trying something like that it is very stupid. If you want a good reliable and cool looking Os I would Say Mac Osx. It is indeed the best!

I agree with you about this. My screen darkens and the annoying confirm screen pops up every time I try to install something, and I don't know how to turn it off, or if there is even a way to turn it off.

Also everything loads slower than XP because it is so graphic intensive. However, to be fair, it does look sleek and quite nice.


I only use Vista because it came with my new notebook, or I wouldn't dream of paying to upgrade.

This post has been edited by bishoujo: Sep 18 2007, 06:11 AM