vista rocks..

  • Thread starter Thread starter zaxon
  • Start date Start date
"SO nothing works and you are happy? Lol"

man you are really something...
like they say in other topic..
you are a troll...

why don't you get a life..

zax

PS: and you are happy also.. with all that LOLs
 
I don't know where you read that "nothing" works. There's a few things that
don't, but the vast majority of what I use my computer for is just fine,
thanks. Otherwise I wouldn't be continuing to use Vista when I have a
perfectly good XP installation as well.

Thanks for the update on UltraMon. I'll check that out ASAP. That's one
thing I REALLY miss. But to be fair, that's an UltraMon issue (i.e. they
have to provide the upgrade), not an MS/Vista issue.

Clint

--

Clint Neufeld
Diamond Municipal Solutions
(e-mail address removed)
----------------------------------------------------------
 
There are several contrarians here, as in all ng's and forums, and indeed
life itself. Contrarians cannot initiate anything. They can only adopt a
contrary view. They marginalize and play "But what if...?" games. Without
the rest of us, contrarians are nothing, so take heart.

I just figure that contrarians are people too and forget it.

">
 
:-)

I think when I get my new 4 core computer in 2007
with as much ram as I can get.. vista might seem to start to look a bit
better to me....

I did not get a dual core... because i am waiting for the quads.. so vista
on my 2.6 Ghz and 1.8 Ghz computers is too slow for my taste...
even though I have 1 + Gb ram on both machines, vista calls for power...

at least for it to function the way I like an OS to function.

Yes... lets us all get new computers just to run vista! Opps there I go
again....
 
There is no Linux software out there to help him find a life.. Mac users
have a similar problem.. :-)
 
I am running the latest ultramon on vista and it works perfectly.. I mean
ultramon. not vista..

:-)
 
I tried a Mac forum for some help with my MacBook Pro but all the users
there were using Rantintoshes.
 
I don't recall mentioning you by name. :P

microfox said:
You are a contrary squared according to your logic. (risen in the power of
2)

Don't give me the facts, give the the truth, the facts keep changing. Your
facts are that vista is new and shiny and you are thrilled by it because
its new. The truth is that it sucks.

I am speaking the truth, you can call it what you like, but that does not
change it.

Of course you are free to make mistakes.. but perhaps you will learn with
time.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure that you are aware of the differences between the first and second
rounds of Intel's quads. I'm waiting for the pure quad (purist that I am).
I am surprised that you find Vista sluggish with your specs, though. Vista
scales quite well, unlike previous editions of Windows.
 
I second that. Multiple monitor support in Vista appears to be no better
than XP. At least in XP I could install the real drivers from ATI that
included a better display control panel. Unfortunately there will not be a
Vista driver for my video card so I think I'll try this UltraMon and see if
that bridges the gap.

"Oh yeah, and I'm missing UltraMon; I wish they would have included better
multiple monitor support right in Vista. "
 
My layman's take: The first round is a pair of dual cores on one die. The
second is a straight quad. I guess the functional difference is that the
four cores arranged as pair of duals cannot communicate with each other
directly on the die as efficiently as can the cores in the pure quad
arrangement and so some latency will be involved that the pure quad would
not have. No matter how you look at it four cores are going to be faster
even with some extra latency than any dual core cpu, but the pure quad
should be the fastest of all.
 
thanks, I want a pure 4 core too so Ill wait

.... intel wants 50 + cores in 5 years...

interesting...
 
Clint said:
I've been using it for a couple of weeks now, and am quite happy with it.
Had to go back to XP the other day because I couldn't get the Cisco VPN
software to work properly (new version available from Cisco, but our IT
department hasn't got it yet), and even my Outlook Web Access doesn't work
properly for some reason (just shows a red X where the message is, so I'm
assuming it's an ActiveX control issue). And I can't install my TV Tuner
card, or it locks up on boot-up. Oh yeah, and I'm missing UltraMon; I wish
they would have included better multiple monitor support right in Vista.
Even though VS2005 and SQL Server 2005 aren't "supported" in their current
versions, they're working fine on my machine, so my development work hasn't
been impacted.

All in all, I'm content with the upgrade. It hasn't exactly changed my
life, or really improved the way I use my computer, but it hasn't made it
any worse, either. I'm expecting that most of the issues I'm experiencing
will be resolved before the general release.

Clint
Click to expand...
I'm running a very old Hauppauge USB mono TV adapter and it works
perfectly on Vista RTM x86 Prescott 2.8 oc'ed to 3.4 w/1 gig of DDR and
with an ATI Radeon 9600 video card (256ram) and yes I have full Aero
working.

On my other desktop I'm running Vista RTM x64 using dual monitors off a
Matrox Millennium P750 (64/ram) on an AMD Athlon x64 2800 w/1gig of DDR.
Basic Aero.
Oh yeah, I'm also am using a KTM switch and I'm dual/triple booting
these machines.
Frank
 
I think Microfox is like a walking Advert for Linux distros. Gee, are you
getting money by the post?
But you know? I think I got you figured out.
You say repeatedly that nothing works in Vista, however, many, like myself
have had minimal issues, if any. Barring small issues like driver
availability, and such, Vista, from RC1 to RC2 has given me little to no
problems. And I am sure there are quite a few others that will agree.
Maybe Vista doesn't work for you, but maybe the problem isn't the program,
but the user. It is easy to blame Microsoft, saying "You don't support older
stuff!" Because maybe you don't have the correct equipment. Maybe your video
card isn't up to par, maybe your processor is a little slow, maybe you
haven't sprung for enough memory. Maybe if you used the update advisor and
made the changes needed to run Vista, you would be surprised.
Hey, if you are happy running Linux, be my guest. I run linux on one of my
boxes, Kubuntu Edgy, and it is great, as long as I am not trying to play
games. Great office computer. I even have Aiglx and Beryl on it, but all
that eye candy does no good for me, if I can't play Need For Speed on it.
So, I use it as a downloading and internet horse while I use my Vista Box
for everything else.
Micro, I am not trying to be mean to you, but you are here, nearly every
day, trying to convince people that they are wrong for using or buying
Vista. Why? we aren't telling you that you need to get rid of your linux.
You have the choice. If you don't like Vista, don't buy it. We aren't
telling you that you have to. We aren't telling you that yo have to like
Vista.
But why not try to be respectful while posing in the group.


Just a thought.
 
Thanks for rightly pointing that out.

And I always wonder if those know how little (if any other) languages can
they speak or use.
 
[...]even though I have 1 + Gb ram on both machines, [...]

I don't even satisfied with my XP systems each has at least 1G RAM
installed, so my "assumption" for achieving similar "pleasure" of using
multi applications at the same time, it'd be at least 2G+ and might be as
well 3G for a satisfactory experience.

That is one of reasons, among others, for I think the initial investment for
adopting Vista is high.
 
My 2 cents,
I guess the functional difference is that the four cores arranged as pair
of duals cannot communicate with each other directly on the die as
efficiently as can the cores in the pure quad arrangement[...]
Click to expand...

Exactly, and as always, the shorter distance, the faster communication (for
sending and receiving data) which leads to faster jobs done (e.g.
calculations), and less power used, which leads to less heat generated.

And AMS is criticizing putting two due core into a die is not exactly a quad
core. PS: No personal opinion just providing as what the company thinks.

But hardware and software probably have achieved to a so-called "marginal
return" point, where it's harder and harder for me (as well for some others)
to see the tangible use of those extra power for regular and commonly used
tasks. But that's just doubts from some of us which can be changed whenever
there are new breakthrough applications (software and usage) coming out.
 
I want pure 4 core when I can "afford" it ;)
... intel wants 50 + cores in 5 years...
Click to expand...

Yes, that means software industry also needs to move more quickly or wintel
in general will be having major problems.
 
"where it's harder and harder for me (as well for some others)
to see the tangible use of those extra power for regular and commonly used
tasks."

Yeah, how fast do I type anyway?
 
Back
Top