is vista THAT bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tom18222
  • Start date Start date
axeman_ukl said:
in the defence of vista dont burn me at the stake for this!:D

isn't all this irellevent if you are not maxing out your operating systems memory and cpu power with every project you do.and if you are only using 80% of the power and resorses then would'nt the pc be able to cope with the demands?

i would have thought that vista is aimed at the new dual core and quad core generation of chips ,i know it uses more memory than its predisessor but i dont think it was aimed at the home recording enthusiest.Hell bent on pushing the system to meltdown.its more for home use and an atempt to look pretty and safe for the internet and to rivell the look of mac.

And with the price of hard drives these days , dual boot operating systems dont cost an arm and a leg.And you can have the best of both worlds(if you want pretty and hungry on one drive and fast on the other)
in another year or two..... or three we will all be saying vista is good and bill gates new product is bad !! and i know i should have bought a mac!!!:D:D:D
Click to expand...

95 - Was a great step into a new generation of Windows
98 - Was an advancement. Had some problems, but 98SE fixed a lot of them. Was in use for a long time and still is in some places
NT - Blew up the server market and is still being used in some places today
2K - Same as NT, except also catered to home/corporate users and added a good amount of functionality and stability. I still use a 2K box for some things
XP - Came upon some criticism because of the visual resource hogging and some other issues, but it's extremely easy to get the memory usage lowered, and SP1 fixed a lot of the bugs. Added tons of functionality and compatibility options. Ignorant users still got tons of viruses, as they would with any other versions of Windows.
Vista - Resource hogging, untrusting of the user, tons of reported bugs, SP1 doesn't improve the performance problems, need I go on?
I don't think Vista will be accepted with open arms eventually like XP has been, because unlike XP: it's not a good OS at all. I see it going the way of ME.
 
timthetortoise said:
95 - Was a great step into a new generation of Windows
98 - Was an advancement. Had some problems, but 98SE fixed a lot of them. Was in use for a long time and still is in some places
NT - Blew up the server market and is still being used in some places today
2K - Same as NT, except also catered to home/corporate users and added a good amount of functionality and stability. I still use a 2K box for some things
XP - Came upon some criticism because of the visual resource hogging and some other issues, but it's extremely easy to get the memory usage lowered, and SP1 fixed a lot of the bugs. Added tons of functionality and compatibility options. Ignorant users still got tons of viruses, as they would with any other versions of Windows.
Vista - Resource hogging, untrusting of the user, tons of reported bugs, SP1 doesn't improve the performance problems, need I go on?
I don't think Vista will be accepted with open arms eventually like XP has been, because unlike XP: it's not a good OS at all. I see it going the way of ME.
Click to expand...


Yeah your right on the money on all the OS's.

I really really liked 2000 and XP.

I still use 2000 all over the place, lots of business. Very stable.

haha - the guy trying to get us to swtich to vista was like

"2000? You can't even get support for that anymore"

Support? What for? you don't need any! (Emotional support ?)
 
axeman_ukl said:
in the defence of vista dont burn me at the stake for this!:D

isn't all this irellevent if you are not maxing out your operating systems memory and cpu power with every project you do.and if you are only using 80% of the power and resorses then would'nt the pc be able to cope with the demands?

i would have thought that vista is aimed at the new dual core and quad core generation of chips ,i know it uses more memory than its predisessor but i dont think it was aimed at the home recording enthusiest.Hell bent on pushing the system to meltdown.its more for home use and an atempt to look pretty and safe for the internet and to rivell the look of mac.

And with the price of hard drives these days , dual boot operating systems dont cost an arm and a leg.And you can have the best of both worlds(if you want pretty and hungry on one drive and fast on the other)
in another year or two..... or three we will all be saying vista is good and bill gates new product is bad !! and i know i should have bought a mac!!!:D:D:D
Click to expand...

All of that is fine if all you do is check e-mail, surf the internet, and use Microsoft Office.

But I assumed since this is a home recording forum, most people are looking for computers that are good for recording. :D Vista is only a performance decrease if anything. It does nothing to benefit anything at all related to audio recording. So it just doesn't make sense to use it.

XP, on the other hand, is good for all the above, as well as CPU-intensive stuff like recording, graphic/video/software development, etc. And it doesn't assume you're a retard. And it works.
 
Yeah, it's currently a disaster.

A friend of mine, who is also in IT, was telling me quickly the other day that it's been discovered that Vista is not completely compatible with Internet Explorer 7 (can you believe that?), and that Microsoft has admitted there is a massive problem they need to fix.

I'll try to dig up some references on that.
 
i have heard a rumour that bill gates owns apple
dont know if its true ?
but if he did would it not be easier to combine the two operating systems taking what good from one and the other to make a hybred os that FUCKING ROCKS!!!
sorry keyboard teretts.:D

from everything i've read about vista its looking like it was ment to be a big advancement that cost an arm and a leg to produce and did not achieve what it was ment to.
well bill can afford it means he might have to sell 1/8 of the world back to us mortals but least he will still have 7/8 left ....seep easy bill
 
dude. go mac. it's the industry standard in almost every industry anyways. macs do a lot more with their resources and run a lot faster.
 
BlackHawk2029 said:
dude. go mac. it's the industry standard in almost every industry anyways. macs do a lot more with their resources and run a lot faster.
Click to expand...


Just be prepared to stay with that hardware set-up(graphics, cpu speed, memory) you buy for a long, long time - till your next Mac. Be prepared to having access to a much smaller pool of software products.
Be prepared to have to be 'special', compared to the other 90% of personal computer users.
 
michaelst said:
Just be prepared to stay with that hardware set-up(graphics, cpu speed, memory) you buy for a long, long time - till your next Mac. Be prepared to having access to a much smaller pool of software products.
Be prepared to have to be 'special', compared to the other 90% of personal computer users.
Click to expand...

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health...

Sorry couldn't resist making the link! :D
 
BlackHawk2029 said:
dude. go mac. it's the industry standard in almost every industry anyways. macs do a lot more with their resources and run a lot faster.
Click to expand...

And have fun paying 2-3 grand for a computer that will perform not much better than a well-built PC for about half the price.
 
My father in law has the big Mac.

The big $3000 Mac.


Honestly........ it's slow.
 
What I would like to know is why Microsoft doesn't make a completely stripped down version for audio and video production.


Nobody in their right mind should have their Recording PC connected to the net.... that is simply asking for trouble in my book.

I would love to stay on a PC for recording, but I really don't want to go to Vista.

Or, does anybody out there know of a OS software that is compatible with Microsoft compatible products? (i.e., it will work on both platforms?)

I am seriously considering the jump to a MAC that it isn't funny - I just don't want to have to kick out$3K+ for a new Mac (I don't want a laptop - I hate the things - and I don't want that kind that is all built together. If I'm gonna go with a MAC, I'm going to go with a fully loaded Tower.)



Tim
 
axeman_ukl said:
i have heard a rumour that bill gates owns apple
dont know if its true ?
but if he did would it not be easier to combine the two operating systems taking what good from one and the other to make a hybred os that FUCKING ROCKS!!!
sorry keyboard teretts.:D

from everything i've read about vista its looking like it was ment to be a big advancement that cost an arm and a leg to produce and did not achieve what it was ment to.
well bill can afford it means he might have to sell 1/8 of the world back to us mortals but least he will still have 7/8 left ....seep easy bill
Click to expand...


Bill Gates doesn't "own" apple, but he does indeed own a large amount of it's stock. That's how Apple was able to survive - Wozniack and some of the other guys evidently teamed up with Gates, and they forced Steve Jobs out of his position....he still has a job with Apple, but he doesn't have the power he once used to force people to work all sorts of crazy hours and stuff IIRC.


Tim
 
Vista is pretty bad, as it follows the same flawed approach as each Microsoft OS since NT:

- Huge lumbering resource hog just to sustain the OS (each OS is worse than the last)
- Compatibility problems
- Built-in security vulnerabilities that are addressed bit-by-bit instead of a sweeping reevaluation of MS design methodology.
- Invasive, overbearing (We know better than you) MS philosophy

I haven’t run an MS OS since 2k that I haven’t hacked to pieces and shutdown most of the background services. By the time you “fix” and tailor the thing to your needs you might as well have spent all the time and energy installing Linux. Ubuntu Studio is pretty cool, by the way.

http://ubuntustudio.org/

:)
 
Last edited:
Tim Brown said:
But the MAC will be much more stable than a PC.



Tim
Click to expand...

Maybe in some cases, or for some people. If your computer is built well and all the components were chosen wisely, and you have some idea what you're doing, XP is stable.

I use this computer for everything, audio, web design, graphic design, checking e-mail, using the internet etc. Never had any problems. Just being connected to the internet doesn't mean you will get viruses or adware. You just have to not be stupid with what you do online.

Use FireFox, not IE. IE is too quirky and no matter how many times they patch it, there's always security holes. Be careful what you download. "Free software" isn't always free. It should say if it comes with adware, etc.

Generally, just don't be stupid on the internet and you'll be ok. :D
 
Beck said:
Vista is pretty bad, as it follows the same flawed approach as each Microsoft OS since NT:

- Huge lumbering resource hog just to sustain the OS (each OS is worse than the last)
- Compatibility problems
- Built-in security vulnerabilities that are addressed bit-by-bit instead of a sweeping reevaluation of MS design methodology.
- Invasive, overbearing (We know better than you) MS philosophy

I haven’t run an MS OS since 2k that I haven’t hacked to pieces and shutdown most of the background services. By the time you “fix” and tailor the thing to your needs you might as well have spent all the time and energy installing Linux. Ubuntu Studio is pretty cool, by the way.

http://ubuntustudio.org/

:)
Click to expand...

As much of a Linux advocate as I am, I wouldn't recommend Ubuntu Studio just yet. There's not much difference from standard Ubuntu, and stock, that distro can be very resource hungry. I tried recording with a vanilla Ubuntu Studio install and it went fine, but I noticed a lot more CPU usage than I would have liked to see, and imagine that had I been recording more tracks, I would have run into problems quicker than with an optimized Windows (or other Linux distro) install. Just my two cents.
 
Tim Brown said:
But the MAC will be much more stable than a PC that isn't well built or maintained.



Tim
Click to expand...

If you know how to look after a PC and keep it well maintained, there really is no difference. The XP build I have for audio is as stable as the day I built it. Never had a single problem with it at all. The XP build I have for games, movies, internet etc is pretty much as stable. I have to do a little more to keep it in working order on account of it being connected to the internet, where my audio build isn't. But it's still stable and still fast. And I have never, ever had a virus, and I get very very little, if any, spyware on my PC.
 
Tim Brown said:
Nobody in their right mind should have their Recording PC connected to the net.... that is simply asking for trouble in my book.
Click to expand...

Did it for four years and through trial, error and tweaking, managed to have a stable PC for recording using Sonar w/ Windows XP Pro - and used it for work as well including Internet, etc.

I guess I'm not in my right mind, but I guarantee there are quite a few people here who have been in the same situation. This is a home recording Website, and not everyone may have multiple machines and will have to make their one PC work for everything they'd like it to do. Not possible in all cases of course, but people often come here for advice on the possibilities of making that work.
 
I use one PC for everything, it's got a 2002 vintage MB, and it's totally solid. I've only had crashes as a result of hardware failures.

When I record something critical, I just turn off the DSL box, and disable the firewall software. No worries, I have to remember to turn off the phone and fax too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top