[Advertisements]

Show me where the original poster was called a troll?? That has not been said in any way, shape or form.

No one here makes "agenda judgements" based on posts. Your warning was issued b/c you chose to make a rude, unnecessary comment, which had absolutely no viable impact on the discussion.

[Kat]

Show me where the original poster was called a troll?? That has not been said in any way, shape or form.

No one here makes "agenda judgements" based on posts. Your warning was issued b/c you chose to make a rude, unnecessary comment, which had absolutely no viable impact on the discussion.

[ScHwErV]

I made no judgments as to anyones "Agenda". I responded in kind to the information that was offered. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am far less concerned with the people behind the statement as I am the statement itself. If the statement is incorrect, then it needs to be corrected, no matter who says it.

In no way did I deem you, the Topic Starter, or anyone else a Troll. Merely an uninformed person in need of enlightenment.

Feel the love!

[Dominicc2003]

There is a difference between asking a question, and giving your uninformed opinion on a subject.

Do you think all the compatability issues will be overcome?

This is a loaded question. The topic says microsoft, but the compatibility issues are not MSs.

Do you think Microsoft will find a way of keeping the security without using up so much CPU/RAM?

This is not so much a loaded question as it is an opinion disguised as a question. Who says Vista is using up "so much" CPU/RAM?

A question should be non-biased. These statements are biased. So therefore he is not asking a question, he is giving his opinion. To which we are entitled to respond.

I already pointed out all the flaws with the second post in post #5.

1. I purposely said "be overcome" instead of "be fixed my MS" to ask if things that are inconvenient for the user will be fixed without blaming MS. Of course I mention MS... they made Vista! IMO it's like me saying "sony ericsson".

2. I meant to use "so much" in the same way as one might verbally ask this question where "so much" could mean "as much as" therefore making the question ask "Do you think Microsoft will find a way of keeping the security it has at the moment without using up as much CPU/RAM as it does?
I accept that this still implies the security features are demanding... Well I noticed a difference in the speed of a vista PC when the security features were turned off.

I won't comment on post 2 because that wasn't my post.

[Dominicc2003]

Feel the love!

The flame is running out of fuel...



Disclaimer: By "the flame" I'm referring to the disagreement between us.


Extra Disclaimer: When I say "running out of fuel" I mean getting less sour.

Edited by Dominicc2003, 24 April 2007 - 12:21 PM.

[ScHwErV]

I am far more confused than when you started. Its likely best that way.

[ScHwErV]

1. I purposely said "be overcome" instead of "be fixed my MS" to ask if things that are inconvenient for the user will be fixed without blaming MS. Of course I mention MS... they made Vista! IMO it's like me saying "sony ericsson".

Its almost never about what you say, but how you say it. Had you phrased the question something along the lines of "Will the hardware vendors ever get their crap together and write good drivers for Vista?", this may have started out significantly differently. I do not know you and cannot read your mind. I can only go by what you give me. In this instance, you put MS in the topic, and ask a standard question without any specifics. How was I to know you didn't know the problems were not from the MS camp?

2. I meant to use "so much" in the same way as one might verbally ask this question where "so much" could mean "as much as" therefore making the question ask "Do you think Microsoft will find a way of keeping the security it has at the moment without using up as much CPU/RAM as it does?
I accept that this still implies the security features are demanding... Well I noticed a difference in the speed of a vista PC when the security features were turned off.

See, clarification does wonders. Remember, in the text based world, the more information you give, the better.

[Dominicc2003]

hier hier.

[Fenor]

"Do you think Microsoft will find a way of keeping the security it has at the moment without using up as much CPU/RAM as it does?

Why would we want Microsoft to make Vista run completely perfect on the systems of today? What would be the point of upgrading in the future then? That statement is like saying they should of made XP run as perfect on a 500MHz machine with 128MB of ram as Windows 98 did on the same machine. Absolutely absurd in my opinion. I want something that will work okay now, but more importantly run better on future technology and be able to utilize the full capabilities of said technologies. I like having something last, and not just be a quick fling.

[Dominicc2003]

"Do you think Microsoft will find a way of keeping the security it has at the moment without using up as much CPU/RAM as it does?

Why would we want Microsoft to make Vista run completely perfect on the systems of today? What would be the point of upgrading in the future then? That statement is like saying they should of made XP run as perfect on a 500MHz machine with 128MB of ram as Windows 98 did on the same machine. Absolutely absurd in my opinion. I want something that will work okay now, but more importantly run better on future technology and be able to utilize the full capabilities of said technologies. I like having something last, and not just be a quick fling.

Good point. I completely agree actually!
So bearing that in mind... Do you think that most software will be compatible with vista (not MS's fault) and that Vista will be clearly better than XP for the "new" machines in the future?


P.S. I'm a bit picky about grammar so you might just want to ignore this but... "could of" or "should of" doesn't really make any sense. The reason many people say it is because they've confused it with "could've"/"should've" ("could have"/"should have" obviously).



Dom

[dsenette]

Good point. I completely agree actually!
So bearing that in mind... Do you think that most software will be compatible with vista (not MS's fault) and that Vista will be clearly better than XP for the "new" machines in the future?

absolutely...just like XP is better than 98 and 98 was better than 95 and 95 was better than 3.1 (that's actually debatable..i miss 3.1)

[Fenor]

I'll leave grammar for the professor's, and since I'm no longer in school I don't care.

Now to answer your question, yes the programs and devices that are used with Vista will most assuredly work better in the future. As it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, XP runs great now and has for years from my experience. Again as it has been said before in this thread, most problems that arise are the result of the person sitting in front of the monitor. Vista works perfectly for me right now with just a few minor glitches that really don't bother me. I like challenges though, and so I like to try and work with and figure out and solve problems that arise with new technologies. I know the bugs can bother the normal user, that is to be expected, but it is not unexpected for things not to work perfect right away (another thing that has been pointed out a lot in this thread) and therefore I would give Vista a year (not just three months) before starting to judge how good or bad it is. XP was horrible for over a year when it was first released, but it obviously got better since it is now deemed the best operating system ever from Microsoft. It has rightly earned this title, but it took a long time for it to get there, as will it take Vista a little while to get there as well...

Fenor

[sari]

P.S. I'm a bit picky about grammar so you might just want to ignore this but... "could of" or "should of" doesn't really make any sense. The reason many people say it is because they've confused it with "could've"/"should've" ("could have"/"should have" obviously).



Dom

*sari steps in and applauds Dom for even knowing that grammar exists

*sari exits again