To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'll just reply to these 2 things:
[p]Which helps all those people who purchased their new Vista machines with 32-bit processors how? Also I think it's pretty sad when an Operating System needs to use more than 4 gigabytes of RAM to provide the same experience XP does on less than half of that....[/p]
Doesn't help them at all, but at the same time, I don't think that the preformance hit is anywhere close to what you are claiming, and also, most processors manufactured in the last 3 years are AMD64 or EMT64 capable processors, so they do have options. You'd be hard pressed to find a new computer in the last year that came with Vista, and isn't running a 64bit capable processor. If somebody did buy one, they were hoodwinked.
[p]I agree. Which is why I was talking about Vista, which doesn't work as well as XP did. Please read my previous comment again to see where you misunderstood me.[/p]
I did not misunderstand you, I was responding to our statement about how MS didn't fix the major problems with XP, and then got on my soapbox. My bad.




Member since:
2005-08-07
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't happening. (HINT: it is happening)
I agree. Which is why I was talking about Vista, which doesn't work as well as XP did. Please read my previous comment again to see where you misunderstood me.
Again I agree. Which is why for those people with hardware incompatibilities I usually recommend Windows XP when it can be installed. Unfortunately even XP isn't a magic bullet--some hardware OEMs are working very hard to ensure XP fades away, but for those whose hardware is compatible with Windows XP it's usually a better solution than Vista. Of course, as I said after they see the performance differences and realize how much its going to cost them to buy a new license for XP.... Sticker shock isn't pretty. I'll leave it at that.
I don't remember EVERYBODY hating Windows XP when it came out. Everyone loved XP to my recollection of things, except for the hassle of activation and the silly default theme--which many of us changed immediately. Were there issues with viruses and spyware--sure! But I don't remember hearing too many people going back to Win98SE like you do with people rolling back to XP. Those who went to Windows 2000 usually did so because they hated having Internet Explorer integrated beyond their ability to remove it.
These days those with that complaint have largely either moved on to Linux, MacOS X, or begun using tools like nLite to install their system without it, like they used to do with 98Lite and or Fred Vorck's methods.
Which helps all those people who purchased their new Vista machines with 32-bit processors how? Also I think it's pretty sad when an Operating System needs to use more than 4 gigabytes of RAM to provide the same experience XP does on less than half of that....
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/kernel/wmm.mspx
So I keep hearing. Again, I don't see how in this case different is good. You're still asking that we give over three or four times the amount of system RAM to only get half or less than half the performance we got on XP... Pitiful really.
--bornagainpenguin