|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ublove wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
| Well, so much for that, eh? Seems an OS is only a bad as its' user. |
IMO, any OS that has a downgrade feature to a 7-year-old previous version makes the shortlist of bad OSes. |
Uh-oh, lock and load, Dem...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sojourner1
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| sojourner1 wrote: |
Wow, I woke up today and have no more computer problems. It's working right again. I updated my drivers, disabled Aero and did a long complete defrag of the hard disk over night. When I woke up and tried it, it was still broke, but 5 minutes later, it worked like new again. Videos now play and the speed is normal with no program crashes.
I've seen it before where I had a bad computer problem on a weekend and then it fixes itself on Monday. I'm guessing a trojan or glitch comes on Friday or Saturday and then the developers in Seattle fix it Sunday night or Monday morning. This pattern has repeated itself many times in the past 5 years regardless of OS version. |
Well, so much for that, eh? Seems an OS is only a bad as its' user. |
Demophobe, act right, that is not a nice thing to say. Sounds quite derogatory if you ask me. The OS functionality should not have anything to do with the quality of it's user. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sojourner1 wrote: |
Demophobe, act right, that is not a nice thing to say. Sounds quite derogatory if you ask me. The OS functionality should not have anything to do with the quality of it's user. |
Act right. Interesting idea.
I didn't mean anything personal in my comment. There is no software that has a zero learning curve, epecially when problems arise and one wants to fix it themselves.
There is a direct correlation between the nature and source of problems and the user; a more knowledgable user will have proportionally less problems and issues. When they do arise, they won't make blanket statements condemning the program altogether, unless it is true, which in your case, it was not.
The problems you are experiencing are most assuredly not directly Vista-related. I could list a host of things that you could do that are simple, basic procedures for anyone using a computer. These are outlined in a thousand places on the net and many, many times on this forum.
As for my barbed post, again, I didn't mean anything personal. I am tired of people whining about Vista and your post title was at once damning and quite misguided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sojourner1
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You go to admit Vista is slow and clunky until you turn off the Aero since Aero requires a lot of memory and graphics processing like needed for games. Of course, I don't have a high powered gaming rig, just an average ATI chipset as I don't do much gaming anymore. These days 2.2 gigahertz duo CPU with 2 gigs of RAM with an average graphics chip set is not quite enough for all the bells and whistles to run in real time. Maybe Vista was designed with the intention that computers will soon be a lot more powerful than the introductory machines it's sold with.
I was having a virus that AVG wasn't catching, but it finally did on Monday morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I've read, Windows is responsible for a VERY SMALL percentage of crashes, failures, etc....
The vast majority of your OS problems are plagued by the 3rd parties. I seem to remember, NVidia was the worst culprit, with their drivers responsible for the most crashes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sojourner1 wrote: |
You go to admit Vista is slow and clunky until you turn off the Aero since Aero requires a lot of memory and graphics processing like needed for games. Of course, I don't have a high powered gaming rig, just an average ATI chipset as I don't do much gaming anymore. These days 2.2 gigahertz duo CPU with 2 gigs of RAM with an average graphics chip set is not quite enough for all the bells and whistles to run in real time. Maybe Vista was designed with the intention that computers will soon be a lot more powerful than the introductory machines it's sold with.
I was having a virus that AVG wasn't catching, but it finally did on Monday morning. |
I won't admit that Vista is clunky or slow; I have 4GB of RAM (Vista's sweet spot and at $20 per GB, not outrageous by any means) and Vista flies along. Boot times, load times...everything is pretty darn fast.
As for the eye candy, a 2.2 Core2duo, 2GB of RAM and a decent graphics card (under $150) will run it full blast and well. As I hinted at before, any system that cannot is plagued by a thirdparty software problem, a virus or other malware or an ignorant user.
Anyhow, enough. All complaints against Vista were leveled at XP back in the day as well, and I suspect Windows 7 will be the same.
If you want a decent Windows Vista experience, get with the times and use x64. That 32 bit still is the majority is testament to the general stupidity of the computing public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At last, the uptake of 64-bit Windows systems is taking off. I read somewhere that sales of Vista x64 have tripled in the first half of 2008 from the 1st half of 2007.
People, and the big OEM distributers, are realizing that 4GB of RAM has become the 'sweet spot' and that only x64 can get you there.
It's commonsense really. Did anyone think that computers were going to stop requiring more RAM? Jeez, my first machine in the mid-90's used 8MB!! My next machine around 2001 used 256MB. Then I went to 512MB. Then 2GB, then 4GB......and I fully expect to be using 8GB by this time next year. It's progress. Newer applications often require more RAM than what went before it. Plus, cheaper RAM=more RAM!!!
I almost cried when, out of curiosity, I checked how much 1GB of Samsung DDR2 667mhz is now. Reason being that I paid 106,000 for a stick 2 years ago when I was upgrading..........it's 16,000 now!!! aaaarrrgh!!! A tenth of the price!!
Really, if you have a decent computer, don't waste it's potential. Get Vista x64 and put 4-8GB in there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sojourner1 wrote: |
These days 2.2 gigahertz duo CPU with 2 gigs of RAM with an average graphics chip set is not quite enough for all the bells and whistles to run in real time.
|
They are more than enough, you just can't run FPS games as fast compared to XP.
| Quote: |
Maybe Vista was designed with the intention that computers will soon be a lot more powerful than the introductory machines it's sold with.
|
That is exactly what Windows (and most other software) has always been about, pushing hardware to meet the requirements of the software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rabies.kills
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Location: Anyang, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to disagree that Windows pushes hardware to meet software intentionally. The new Mac machines run software that looks and feels much better than Vista, and Macs are running the exact same machines.
Why should I have to upgrade* to Vista 64 just to get a copy of Vista that runs right on the machine it came with? For that price, I can buy an Imac and get a (typically) much better experience all around.
I have to say that Windows just put out a dud this go around. They did the same thing with Windows ME. (I can't wait to read Demophobe's justifications and praises for ME.  )
I'm not dogging Windows in general; Windows 7 looks hella promising. If they beat Apple at putting out a true multi-touch PC (which HP already has, using its custom UI instead of Vista), I'll be the first in line to buy one. But Vista Home and Home Premium and Basic and Starter--they're all garbage. Demophobe loves to use the phrase "bloatware" and I think that perfectly applies to Vista--a bunch of eye-candy that doesn't work half the time at the expense of your resources.
*download illegally |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rocklee
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rabies.kills wrote: |
I have to disagree that Windows pushes hardware to meet software intentionally. The new Mac machines run software that looks and feels much better than Vista, and Macs are running the exact same machines.
|
Gaming is a good example of software needing the highest requirements in hardware to run at their best, otherwise how else can we enjoy 16x multisampling, sun light and shadow effects, depth of field or greater resolutions?
Windows has to meet a far greater range of requirements than OSX which only supports "one" type of hardware. That might account for it being somewhat "bloated" but Windows can be cut-down and specialised like 2003 Datacenter or Vista Web Editions where they run just as smoothly as OSX and Ubuntu.
If you want to run fast and smooth, use yesterday's OS on today's hardware, or customise XP/Vista and cut out all the additional drivers and services you don't need running at startup.
Of course that doesn't mean that I am satisfied with the current Windows. It could be optimised a lot better for branded computers with specific specifications. That's why a lot of computer forums like Apple, Asus and Dell have users optimising XP and Vista to run on their systems better.
| Quote: |
Why should I have to upgrade* to Vista 64 just to get a copy of Vista that runs right on the machine it came with? For that price, I can buy an Imac and get a (typically) much better experience all around.
|
There is nothing wrong with Vista 32 just as there was nothing wrong with XP 32 when that came out. Our requirements are evolving exponentially with greater demands for an easier, faster and safer internet experience. People are upgrading to 64 because they can afford more than 4GB of RAM. That's it. I'm using 32bit but due to the work I do I will need to upgrade my RAM, so why not take advantage of the software optimised for this? It doesn't cost me anything to upgrade to Vista 64 anyway.
On the other hand OSX forces people to pay nearly every year for each upgrade on the same operating system. Why should I have to keep paying money to maintain the same software every year? Software is cheaper and extremely easy to duplicate, hardware isn't.
| Quote: |
| I have to say that Windows just put out a dud this go around. They did the same thing with Windows ME. (I can't wait to read Demophobe's justifications and praises for ME. ) |
ME was a different experiment altogether, and a failed one at that too because a lot changed in the way it handled DOS applications, but Windows 2000 afterwards was very solid. OSX wasn't too perfect either having covered (and costed customers) several flawed versions to compete with Windows.
| Quote: |
I'm not dogging Windows in general; Windows 7 looks hella promising. If they beat Apple at putting out a true multi-touch PC (which HP already has, using its custom UI instead of Vista), I'll be the first in line to buy one. But Vista Home and Home Premium and Basic and Starter--they're all garbage. Demophobe loves to use the phrase "bloatware" and I think that perfectly applies to Vista--a bunch of eye-candy that doesn't work half the time at the expense of your resources.
|
Vista Home Premium and Ultimate are good as they both have media center, though Starter and Home may be too basic for the intermediate and power users.
And fortunately Demophobe doesn't speak for all of us nor is he knowledgeable enough on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBatty
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In response to the OP's title of this post: That's right! And Korea is a part of Asia, too! Also, the sky is blue. Usually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rocklee wrote: |
And fortunately Demophobe doesn't speak for all of us nor is he knowledgeable enough on the subject. |
Coward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seon-bee
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right now I'm much happier with Vista than XP.
My two XP computers are filled with errors; they're slow as hell and take forever to boot up. With antivirus loading at start up, I can take a nap before getting down to business. Actually, my Windows ME set up finally gave in earlier this year. Had a choice at the shop to go with Vista or XP. Went with Vista just so I could try it out and compare with XP.
My one Vista machine is still healthy and running at a fast pace, so I think it depends on how much crap you download. Gimme another year though.
I wonder how many people dis Vista but don't have/use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whitey Otez
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: The suburbs of Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've had my Vista machine for a year now, and like clockwork, Vista pushes an update or three, sometimes ten to thirteen times a week. This is fine, except each update creates a restore point that takes up to ten gigs of hard drive. Many of these updates require a restart, which is a pain for someone who keeps his computer on and downloading/uploading 24/7. It's a high-maintenance OS, to say the least.
But here's why I truly loathe Vista: currently, I have 13 updates waiting to be reinstalled on my computer. They download, install, restart, put the finishing touches on the updates, and restart again, whereupon the computer informs me that my computer failed to start,so the system rolls back to the point before the update. It starts fine, then Vista informs me that there are 13 important updates available for my computer. The whole process takes about an hour. The only fix is to allow Vista Tech Support to tell me to rehash the whole system and start again, meaning I spend the better part of a day reinstalling software and recovering my various forgotten passwords.
F*ck Vista. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Temporary
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I got vista on my lapttop and I hate it.. Its gone get replaced with x64 right away |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
