Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1

    Vista = Windows ME

    Do you think that Windows Vista was a Microsoft failure like Windows ME?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southampton, NY
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by rlshosting View Post
    Do you think that Windows Vista was a Microsoft failure like Windows ME?
    I think ME was more of a failure compared to vista, vista they sorta revamped a little and turned it into windows 7
    "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity." – Dennis Ritchie

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Citrus Heights, CA
    Posts
    1,716
    Vista is fine aslong as you're not updated an antique piece of ****
    Best Regards,

    Mark

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Muyskens View Post
    Vista is fine aslong as you're not updated an antique piece of ****
    Second that. Vista works great, and was vastly more stable at release than XP was at release, and still is. Vista gets faster over time, where XP gets slower. Vista has much better memory management. Vista usually keeps at least 2.5GiB of my 4GiB memory in use for cache. On a home/office workstation, and especially on a laptop, where HDs are usually slower (unless you've got a newer expensive model with a SSD), unused RAM is wasted RAM. Vista looks nicer than XP.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,077
    There is nothing wrong with Vista at all, been using it since Beta1 and have already pre-ordered my copy of Windows 7 as the Release Candidate has been excellent of that as well.

    Windows ME was a failure but Windows Vista was not. There were some issues initially with hardware vendors behind with driver support, but I havn't had any major issues with the OS.

    If you have a capable system and can accept change, and not think "ohhh no it's not Windows XP", then it's a good OS.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    No, I think the failure Windows ME is still better than the failure of Vista.
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,717
    I still stand by my assertion that most people who hate Vista either forgot how much of a train-wreck XP was on it's first release, or just plain weren't around for it's first release.

    It was the most hideous, idiotic operating system, it ran like garbage on 90% of the PCs people were trying to put it on, hardware support was awful, it had stupid "features" that got in the way, and the majority of people were clinging desperately to previous versions (whether Win98 or Win2k) until the average PC caught up with the system requirements.

    Sound familiar?
    I used to run the oldest commercial Mumble host.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,571
    Nothing beats Windows ME in failure

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    Quote Originally Posted by fwaggle View Post
    I still stand by my assertion that most people who hate Vista either forgot how much of a train-wreck XP was on it's first release, or just plain weren't around for it's first release.
    My Vista is still on a train-wreck after many releases and SP.

    I was on using webex for conferencing, and the conference stalls out because Vista takes 100% CPU. No problem on XP and MacOS, but only on computer using Vista.
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    FHDave, I'm sure that was completely Vista and not any other software you were running... </sarcasm>
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    sure thing ...

    </sarcasm>

    Can't wait for Windows 7 and put this Vista on its final destination, trash bin.
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,945
    Quote Originally Posted by rlshosting View Post
    Do you think that Windows Vista was a Microsoft failure like Windows ME?
    I think Vista was almost even a bit worse than Windows ME. :p But yes, both were pretty clearly failures, although Vista was better-hyped by Microsoft.

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    140
    Wish they gave beta testers a small discount, lol I dont want to switch off my RC .
    Anthony H. Webmaster of 3Dx Hosting
    Hosting: 3dxhosting.com & My Design Blog: Anthony Hays.com
    We provide low cost standard & custom shared hosting solutions.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    4,552
    Quote Originally Posted by petteyg359 View Post
    Second that. Vista works great, and was vastly more stable at release than XP was at release, and still is. Vista gets faster over time, where XP gets slower. Vista has much better memory management. Vista usually keeps at least 2.5GiB of my 4GiB memory in use for cache. On a home/office workstation, and especially on a laptop, where HDs are usually slower (unless you've got a newer expensive model with a SSD), unused RAM is wasted RAM. Vista looks nicer than XP.
    I agree with everything you've said.


    Has anyone ever noticed that games look much more "crisper" in Vista than XP?

  15. #15
    From the business applications, I have dealt with which were using Vista (Quicken, Autocad, etc) were relatively problem free. Once everything was set up I didn't have to go back to the client for any major problems.

    But personally I would rather run Linux.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    /home
    Posts
    248
    Quite a few people are under the impression that Vista is really bad.

    I guess you could say the first release was unstable, used too many resources to run, and had a few errors.

    However, keep this in mind; Microsoft sets a date for the Beta to be released, then during Beta testing they fix everything they can to make it nice and stable. After that they RTM (release to manufacturer) and they stick to the date. And finally, the final release to users, even if the software isn't perfect, or completed for that matter. Then they release service packs and/or updates to rectify problems.

    That's why the first release is always a bit shabby, it was like this for XP, and for Vista. However, Windows 7 is just a revamped version of Vista. Which is a great idea because as most people know, it has been proven to be the best Windows OS ever created.

    I myself noticed that it actually uses less ram than XP! Pretty amazing.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by XENnode View Post
    I myself noticed that it actually uses less ram than XP! Pretty amazing.
    I hope you're comparing a freshly installed 7 to a non-freshly installed XP. Vista/7 has a much better caching mechanism, and should use quite a lot more of your memory for cache than XP ever did, if you've been running it for a while and it has had time to figure out what you're using most that should be cached.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    28
    Vista's pretty great, I don't think anyone who actually USES Vista (Not for MSN, Facebook or Minesweeping) would say it sucks.
    Like someone said in this thread, Vista gets faster with time where older Windows versions just get slower and with time, they just give up and end up giving you the blue screen of death.

    I can't say there aren't annoying things about Vista and I just don't think of it as too "user friendly"... There are things that are quite difficult to do if you come from XP. Networking wise, if you setup a network with XP workstations and one with Vista...It's just a pain in the ass if you ask me.

    So bottom line is... Microsoft made some really good improvements in Vista. I don't know if its just me but the only way I can use vista is after installing Service pack 1.
    And Windows 7 just got even better, I've been using the release candidate and so far, it's beyond fantastic...I wonder how great the official release would be.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by petteyg359 View Post
    I hope you're comparing a freshly installed 7 to a non-freshly installed XP. Vista/7 has a much better caching mechanism, and should use quite a lot more of your memory for cache than XP ever did, if you've been running it for a while and it has had time to figure out what you're using most that should be cached.
    Vista does use a lot of ram, even if you're not actually using any programs.
    That, I think, is the only bad thing about Vista/7...They're resource eaters.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by JoseWonders View Post
    Vista does use a lot of ram, even if you're not actually using any programs.
    That, I think, is the only bad thing about Vista/7...They're resource eaters.
    And that is one of the worst misunderstandings that really annoys those of us who know better.

    Unused RAM is wasted RAM.

    It is really that simple. If the RAM is not full of useful bytes, it is useless. Caching in RAM (USING, rather than WASTING, RAM) makes things load much faster. You average 7200RPM drive can transfer at about 60MB per second, regardless of whether it is on ATA100, ATA133, SATA, or SATA II. Your average DDR2-667 RAM can theoretically transfer at 5.3GB per second - nearly 89 times faster. Vista / 7 will load your most frequently used data into RAM soon after startup, so that they will start as quickly as possible when you run them, rather than taking the time to load from disk. If you load some other app, it will free RAM if it needs to. Claiming that it is "hogging" resources is sheer stupidity.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tech Belt
    Posts
    7,802
    Quote Originally Posted by cakvala View Post
    Wish they gave beta testers a small discount, lol I dont want to switch off my RC .
    They did a while ago... it was like $50 or something. Glad I skipped that though cause i got Ultimate free and a copy of Professional for $29 through the education deal.
    #---.#---###### | Host Mist LLC - Helping People Say Hello World™
    #---.#---#--#--# || Shared, Reseller, Master Reseller, VPS, Dedicated
    ####---#--#--# }| Featuring multiple locations across the US & Germany.
    #---#---#--#--# #| Connecting the world through web hosting.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    948
    Like i've said in other threads and people have said on here - Vista is good as long as you running it on decent hardware with a big CPU and lots of RAM. Vista is just resource hungry, thats all. But on decent hardware its absolutely fine.
    Follow me on Twitter: @conrjac

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Baile Átha Cliath
    Posts
    186
    WinME was from the outset a stop-gap product only aimed at the home market, so its not really comparable to Vista. Vista failed in the sense that many corporate users (ie those with 1000+ site licences) stuck with XP, even though "home" sales seemed to be OK.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by rlshosting View Post
    Do you think that Windows Vista was a Microsoft failure like Windows ME?
    Windows ME was not failure. I have used Windows ME on 2 different computers and it was the best OS at that time. Definetely better than Windows 98SE.
    Hosting24.com Web Hosting - First class web hosting services.
    Boxbilling - Complete billing, invoicing and client management system.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milton keynes
    Posts
    212
    I dont think that windows vista was a failure. I am using it on my pc and satisfied with that.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 10:55 AM
  2. Windows Vista
    By ArcticKid in forum Computers and Peripherals
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-30-2007, 12:20 PM
  3. when will windows vista be out?
    By CPUNut in forum Web Hosting Lounge
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-01-2007, 09:05 PM
  4. Replies: 104
    Last Post: 07-25-2005, 04:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •