Vista or XP? 158 replies

Please wait...

Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#131 12 years ago

I stuffed up the quoting lol Its like all confusing!




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#132 12 years ago

I'm afraid I'm not getting the analogy to cats, catnip, and dog-icide. And I have no idea what Sivita or Sivta is.

Even if IE BSODd on you, that would be IEs fault, not Vistas.

I can't help but think that if a company decides to bundle a piece of software as default in their operating system, especially if the code is exclusively their own (see, this would have been so much simpler if IE had been at least partly open-source...), that they are wholly responsible for its performance within their operating system, and that since they bundled it inside, they have complete confidence it works as well as, if not better than, the operating system as a whole and therefore they accept as their fault whatever goes wrong with it to a greater degree than the rest of the operating system.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#133 12 years ago

Not true. If if Norton package their product in Vista, like they do (Sadly :( ) is it Vistas fault that Norton crashes? No, its Symantecs fault, they poorly made their program.

If IE crashes under Vista, its not Vistas fault, its Microsofts as they made IE poorly. Granted IE was a bad example to use since both are MS, but none the less. They are two seperate products, its not Vistas fault, that IE crashes, its IEs fault.

Besides, IE7 was out before Vista, so of course MS can't guarentee how it will run under vista, just like NO other company can.

Vista and Microsft can't take any responsibility if other programs crash under it, Microsoft guarentee Vistas stability and how Vista will perform as a standalone product, its the responsibility of the third party software authors to guarentee and to make their programs stable on an OS. Microsoft can't take blame, and don't take blame because McAfee crashes (example) Nor do they take blame because IE crashes under Vista, yes its their program, but its also still a third party application that is seperate from Vista. Yes Vista comes with it, but Vista also typically comes with other shit like Norton




The-Bleh-Bleh

Hasselhoff is my hero

50 XP

11th December 2006

0 Uploads

6,189 Posts

0 Threads

#134 12 years ago

Mr. Pedantic;4562154I'm afraid I'm not getting the analogy to cats, catnip, and dog-icide. And I have no idea what Sivita or Sivta is.[/quote] Sorry, it was late. Sivta is a made up product representing Vista. The cat represents your computer. There comes a problem when the Sivta product is deadly to certain cats. Though it only effects those certain cats, isn't there still a right to be annoyed?

Sgt. D. Pilla;4561989So you understand how superfetch works, you understand how the memory blocking schemes work, in that case, you can't say that Vista uses alot of ram, because you will know it uses only 50~MB more then XP. If you say it doesn't then you obviously don't understand how the memory optimizations and memory blocking schemes work.

I understand superfetch. While it works great on faster computers, it should be able to adjust itself to function on a wider range of computers.

If you feed cat food to a dog, and the dog dies, its your fault, not the companies or the products, they can't help it you ignored the blantantly obvious label.

Yes, it's your fault. Still, I think it's ok to be angry at Sivta. Couldn't they have just as easily taken out a few unecessary features to make it work for every cat? I think that's their job especially when Sivta is one of the only products available to give to your cat. Also, now you notice some cat food brands only are safe for your cat to eat if your cat also takes Sivta. That's just so people are forced to buy Sivta.

[quote=Sgt. D. Pilla;4562330]Not true. If if Norton package their product in Vista, like they do (Sadly :( ) is it Vistas fault that Norton crashes? No, its Symantecs fault, they poorly made their program.

If IE crashes under Vista, its not Vistas fault, its Microsofts as they made IE poorly. Granted IE was a bad example to use since both are MS, but none the less. They are two seperate products, its not Vistas fault, that IE crashes, its IEs fault.

Besides, IE7 was out before Vista, so of course MS can't guarentee how it will run under vista, just like NO other company can.

Vista and Microsft can't take any responsibility if other programs crash under it, Microsoft guarentee Vistas stability and how Vista will perform as a standalone product, its the responsibility of the third party software authors to guarentee and to make their programs stable on an OS. Microsoft can't take blame, and don't take blame because McAfee crashes (example) Nor do they take blame because IE crashes under Vista, yes its their program, but its also still a third party application that is seperate from Vista.

First off, Norton and McAfee are not packaged in Vista, they are placed by manufacturers. Internet explorer is not created by a third party, it is created by Microsoft (even if a different team). The same way different teams work to collaborate in to any software as far as I see it. I don't understand how you can space Internet Explorer from Vista when they are so closely knit. They were developed together. I mean that's getting a bit ridiculous.

Again kids, what is the job of an operating system? Software designed to control the hardware of a specific data-processing system in order to allow users and application programs to make use of it. Half of the job is to make applications actually work on it. When the company that made the operating system can't even properly develop for it, there's obviously some sort of problem. This is using the internet. That's a basic expectation. When you need to download some freeware program because the largest company in the world can't handle the job, well what the hell.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#135 12 years ago
Not true. If if Norton package their product in Vista, like they do (Sadly sad%20%28frown%29.gif ) is it Vistas fault that Norton crashes? No, its Symantecs fault, they poorly made their program.

If Microsoft allows that (which, last time I checked, it hadn't) partly, yes it is, because Microsoft allows the software to be bundled. But you also forget that IE is Microsoft software. Therefore they are wholly responsible for it anyway.

Vista and Microsft can't take any responsibility if other programs crash under it, Microsoft guarentee Vistas stability and how Vista will perform as a standalone product, its the responsibility of the third party software authors to guarentee and to make their programs stable on an OS.

There's no point creating a stable OS if even Microsoft's own products which are stable on other OS' crash in it.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#136 12 years ago

To be honest I don't think a program like IE can genuinely claim to be stable on any OS...




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#137 12 years ago

lol, we're talking about IE7, right? Cause my dad uses IE7 (won't change to FF for some reason...), and I used IE7 for a stint before going to FF. It's reasonable on XP. Slow as hell, but its no more than I expected for a Microsoft product.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#138 12 years ago

Stability is hard to objectively judge anyways. By which I mean, everyone is going to have different experiences based upon what programs that run, what updates they have, what hardware they have, their computer knowledge, environment, and dumb luck.

Me, I've had FAR fewer crashes, freezes, and hold ups in Vista than I did in XP. In fact I've never had the OS itself freeze or crash, never had a BSoD or anything of the sort.




Pethegreat Advanced Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#139 12 years ago

I have used XP, vista, OSX, and Linux. Out of all of them I found Linux to be the best. My Ubuntu install did all the things vista could and more while using only 300mb of ram. The only thing that keeps linux from mainstream acceptance is PC gaming. If linux could run PC games out of the box, we would see a mass migration of gamers to linux.

Right now I am running XP on a fairly old PC(P4 2.4ghz 2gb ram, 6800gt). I am only running it becuase my school is not friendly to allowing students with linux to connect to their network. I got free virus/spyware software from my school(has something imbeded to spy on what you DL), so the monetry costs of operating XP are 0. I don't trust windows with anything of value, so all my music, pictures, and other important files are on an external HD.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#140 12 years ago
Me, I've had FAR fewer crashes, freezes, and hold ups in Vista than I did in XP. In fact I've never had the OS itself freeze or crash, never had a BSoD or anything of the sort.

To be fair, I've never actually had a BSOD, on Vista, nor on XP. So I have no issue in that regard.