Re: Proof Of Concept Please?
"All i ever hear is people bitching, constantly about windows Vista, it sucks this, and it sucks that..."
If that's all you ever hear, your entire post was already disproven.
So you feel you alone have an understanding, this based on ONE WHOLE SYSTEM(!) that can discount every single valid point made? Incredible.
"I've been using it since early beta, and yes i will admit, on old hardware it sucks, but so did 2000/XP trying to run it on win98 hardware."
That's ridiculously wrong. So called Win98 hardware was later Pentium 2 era or newer. That spec runs 2K or XP on millions of business systems and home systems. Such systems supported at least 768MB memory, plenty for caching the OS, Office, an email client and browser. The GUI was fast enough, the hardware limitations were in application performance.
"mostly what i see is people bitching to be part of the crowd, hang with the cools kids, fighting change and so on. show me some proof concept of why vista sucks?"
So you're counter-bitching and asking people to state the same things they've been saying all along, as if suddenly their valid complaints disappeared if they don't make a special effort to prove to you what everyone with any sense already saw for themselves. Head in the sand?
"I just bought a HP DV9500z laptop, 2.3ghz AMD Turion64 x2, 2gb ddr2-667, 7200rpm 120gb drive. once i formatted the drive to remove home premium and all of the HP super crapware, and installed a clean Vista Ultimate install, this thing is a screamin demon!"
You mean it's fast enough for your needs. Not everyone has your low expectations, would rather it ran even faster by using XP instead, and did without the annoyances of Vista. We could as easily demand you show proof of concept that you have any need for Vista. Millions upon millions of XP users don't, and pretending you have an advanced insight to their needs is subjective enough to be pointless.
"it installed Vista, boot to desktop in 24 minutes... its extremely fast, completely stable, and all of my software runs on it. and did i mention its really fast..."
Who really cares how long it took to install the OS? XP takes minimal hands-on time to install, and it's a one-time effort. You are pimping something that in actual use, is already equalled in practical terms with XP, and exceeded.
"So lets see some proof of concept, put your money where your mouth is or stay on the porch..."
All you have to do to see the proof is reread everything you were too obtuse to accept.
"Long live XP, my ass, windows XP old tired and ready for bed, its becoming so bloated that hardware the was once designed on the high end to run it falls on its face anymore, you damn near need as much ram in it as you do vista, 512mb of ram is hardly functional anymore..."
With all due respect, that's the most moronic comment so far. To suggest Vista because XP had become bloated is a sign of your horrible confusion. If you install a lot of crap on your Vista system it becomes even more bloated. 512MB memory can run a small number of common tasks very well on XP, while that brings Vista to a crawl. Put enough memory in to run Vista acceptibly, and you have enough reserve on XP to do enough filecaching to no longer have the hard drive be a substantial bottleneck. Add 2GB of memory and you have less performance degradation with Vista, but website after website prove the Vista penalty still exists running applications (which BTW, is the whole point of an OS).