Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Is it just me but..


  • Please log in to reply

#1
Ammalgam

Ammalgam

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
After a couple of weeks of living in Vista, I still dont see the overwhelming compelling value add...
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Administrator
  • 26,046 posts
  • MVP
the TRUE value will come from FULLY vista compliant hardwear that can take full advantage of the nifty stuff that goes on in the background..as well as the whole aero thing...remember...it's still in beta so it's not technically finished
  • 0

#3
Ammalgam

Ammalgam

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
True but do I really need Aero to be able to surf the web better, or write emails, or use Office? I understand the need to be pretty but at the end of the day, XP or 2003 are pretty nifty when you use comparable hardware.
  • 0

#4
yurimxpxman

yurimxpxman

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
After all the months and different builds that I've spent with Vista, I must say that I am extremely dissapointed in it and I will not buy Vista. I highly prefer XP. I'm holding out for Vienna :whistling:

Vienna is supposed to address many of the issues that Vista was originally supposed to solve! LMAO! I haven't seen any boot times with Vista that are "as fast as turning on a TV". LMAO! That's actually what they originally claimed it would be! What a frickin' joke! Vista takes about three times as long to boot as my copy of XP.

Posted Image
  • 0

#5
Ammalgam

Ammalgam

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
Yeah I agree.

It's still beta and all but man, it takes twice as long to boot as Win 2003.
  • 0

#6
yurimxpxman

yurimxpxman

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
Is there anything we don't agree on? lol
  • 0

#7
Ammalgam

Ammalgam

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
Scary huh?

Maybe you're my secret Windows Twin?
  • 0

#8
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Alot of that is because its still in beta, its not even a release candidate, the fast boot times are usually down to optimisations and they wont do that and add the stuff needed to do that until closer to release its still 6 months to release date. Also try using a flashpen should dpeed it up.
  • 0

#9
Pi rules

Pi rules

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 634 posts
There is a lot more going on behind the interface that makes it worth something. There are a lot of added security measures that will protect your system more than XP does. The slow boot times are probably from incompatible drivers and programs, which should be expected in a beta operating system.
  • 0

#10
yurimxpxman

yurimxpxman

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
I think the "security feautures" are just major annoyances. If I want security, I'll run Linux.

Posted Image
  • 0

#11
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Lol, you dont see most of the security features if you mean UAC thats one feature thats not finished yet, there are ALOT of others most of them you cant see.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP