Vista is shit. v.rant :mad:

That's fucking weak.

How can you tell if a monitor is HD-DVD compatible or not?

Also, if you're using a non-compatible monitor can you still watch the movie and it just won't be in HD-DVD, or will it not work at all?
 
You just gave me an article from September 2005?

Most of it is probably bullshit too. Vista isn't as power hungry as people made it out to be.

I run vista on 1GB and it runs perfectly. It would run better on 2GB, but I can't afford an extra gig just now
 
You could always pirate it. Nothing like being screwed over for being an honest consumer, eh?

Basically, you'll need to have an HDCP-compliant monitor, graphics card, and OS. I dunno if it will play HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray disks at a lower res without HDCP, but it DOES do this for "premium web content."
 
First of all not "Vista" compliant, it's HDCP compliant hardware. People seem to forget that this was not Microsoft's invention. The only reason it is there is because MS wanted to allow the users the option of using protected content.

Apple is going to have the same thing when they start supporting Blu-Ray. For that matter, the same thing applies to stand alone home-theater hardware. If you HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player detects a non-HDCP compliant component AND full protection is turned on by the movie studio on the disc, then the same senario applies, it will either refuse to play or downgrade the resolution.
 
Indeed I can.

1. Absolutely none of the improvements are original. They all just integrate a function that a third party program was doing (better).

2. It is on average slow/unstable. Subjective I know, but consider this. Bought new laptop with Vista. Double clicked on the sample video to check out new media player. MP takes 30 sec to load, then goes through "Not responding" routine for another 30 sec. On the whole it's fast, but every now and then it just grinds to a halt.

3. The new search is poorly designed. If I want to find a file using a third party prog, it takes
 
I got Vista sometime in the end of February. Sure it has problems, but I'm sure most of them are my own fault and I just broke it trying to fix it.

I can't say I was impressed when I initially booted into it, or would recommend it to anyone, but it is most certainly not shit. It is to date one of the finest versions of Windows MS has released and it hasn't even been out 3 months!

It makes computers convenient and largely usable by a lot of people, and this is probably where a lot of techy people find it frustrating. Sure the indexing service might be a bit dodgy, but only 2% of people will find that as a reason to flame it while the other 98% will find it nice to have a search box in their start menu now, whether or not they ever actually use it. The same can be applied to most options, like ReadyBoost, UAC, etc.
 
I am seeing a lot of similarities between the XP launch and the Vista launch.

In the end XP turned out alright. But it took a year before you could really recommend XP to people.
Vista is really in the same place.

I really think that Apple could makes some serious cash - and make a serious dent in the OS market - if they opened up OSX to everyone.
 
Vista runs very smooth even with minimal hardware requirements. It will be deployed at work by the end of the year for sure. The only issue is software support. I really love Office 2007 though. MS did an excellent job with it, especially Outlook.
 
Many of my friends hate Office2K7 but love Outlook2K7. Me, it still takes me about 15 minutes to print a document in Office2007. Why couldn't that have a print icon on the menu bar? How about a print command in the menu? But no... I have to go through 15 steps to print an open document.
 
i had a two year old desktop that couldn't run vista. in the end i just gave up and bought a MacBook. I'm more impressed with OSX than I ever was with any microsoft product: never going back to windows.

so many people on the net flame OSX without even trying it



Explain this 'opening it up' please? I'm not that well informed
 
He means that since it is Unix based, that it be "ported" to the Intel i386, i586, i686, the duo cores, the dual cores, the AMD processors, that it shouldn't "just" run on Apple motherboards. I'd be satisfied if it would just work on 100% Intel motherboards. But many people have Asus, MSI, et. al., motherboards, and they usually have different Raid controllers, PATA and SATA controllers, audio, NIC, etc. And Apple really doesn't want to support that - they want to sell their own hardware. And there's the rub.

Me, I run OSX 10.2 on a g4-500, Ubuntu & XP on a 3GHZ P4 Northwood. I'll be buying Leopard when it comes out. A full featured OSX is cheaper than the full featured Vista. Would I want to make OSX into a Media Centre? No. But I wouldn't want to make the XBox, 360 or PS3 into a Linux box either. If it is a matter of secure surfing the Internet, I'll use OSX and Linux over XP any day. But I still need XP for gaming. And gaming is the OSX's, and Linux's, weakness. I guess Vista really needs to run a Linux virtual window running the browser under VMware, but that just exposes Internet gaming to hacking and cracking since its connections wouldn't use the VM layer. But it would be interesting to see if IM could be stopped from being a conduit for crackers if it can go through a Linux VM window.

Me, I feel that there are things which OSX can do better. And these weaknesses would become apparent the second a Windows based user tries to install an .exe to get some functionality from their favourite picture, video, audio shareware app. Since most people are not used to using multiple desktops, this isn't a "biggie," but its been driving me nuts forever under OSX 10.2, as has the picture preview where a small picture of the picture is not shown in the desktop window.

OSX is not perfect, but a lot of people may want OSX just because you can buy it for $129.99 instead of $299.99. The problem is one of support though, as most Windows users are used to getting over 5 years worth of security updates from MS. You'd have to pay with OSX. Are they ready for that?
 
Back
Top