Windows Vista: Love it or shove it?

[Scotty]

I thought it would be interesting to do a poll on Windows Vista.

[avatar_58]

Using it and it's worked as it should. SP1 fixed up some of the filesystem slowdowns. However only a fool would upgrade without new hardware. Vista and new hardware get along just fine, however if your PC was made in the XP days then leave it there, theres no reason for you upgrade.

I think people spend too much time with these decisions. It's an O/S not the bloody second coming of christ. It's not going to make life any richer by installing it or not, so just make a decision and get on with using your PC.

[Scotty]

I only had to upgrade from 1 GB to 3 GB of RAM to fix my Vista issues.

I had maxed out most of the hardware options when I ordered my computer in 2003.

I've since had a GPU fan die for the second time, so I got a new display adapter.

[Phayzon]

I'd say its a decent upgrade. I personally love it though I dont believe everyone should go out of their way and install it.

[Yatta]

I don't like it because of incompatibility issues, memory/space hogging, and lack of XP's styles of GUI (blue and silver). Hence I voted avoid at all costs, even though I'm dual booting with it. Though it's worth noting I'm dual booting with it on a separate hard drive. I'd never let Vista share the same hard drive with my primary OS (XP) installation.

[Scotty]

If I ever boot my Vista-over-XP upgrade HDD again, I'll check to see if the XP themes came over in the upgrade.

I'm pretty sure the XP Plus! themes came over.

[Daveman]

I like it. It's not amazing or anything but it's really secure (even without UAC, which is really annoying) and it looks nice. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to get it but it came with my laptop. It's worth it if it costs the same as XP when you get a new computer.

[peoplessi]

For all new PC's, kickass, but for older PC's I wouldn't recommend it. It needs the horsepower to be fluent. Vista is a evolution in Windows OS's, but not revolution. It is the climax of NT based breed, but Windows 7 will, or should be, revolutionary. New driver architechture in Vista and memorymanagement are things that I like. Also there are those smaller things that you won't notice until you've used it, and then used XP again, things that you now take for granted. Vista is far better than it's reputation. Slightly slower in games than XP, but so was XP with 98SE. New driverarchitecture is something that developers have to adjust to. Overall, Vista is the most secure OS to date from Microsoft - if everyone were to use it, botnets would fall :)

Yatta, you should read about Vista's memorymanagement before making such foolish comments. It has changed a lot, so you can't compare it to XP's. This is just what I talked about in the other thread.

[Yatta]

Yatta, you should read about Vista's memorymanagement before making such foolish comments. It has changed a lot, so you can't compare it to XP's. This is just what I talked about in the other thread.

I'm well of aware of SuperFetch if that's what you're talking about. I think it's useless.

[Bludd]

I'm well of aware of SuperFetch if that's what you're talking about. I think it's useless.

Try turning it off.

[peoplessi]

I'm well of aware of SuperFetch if that's what you're talking about. I think it's useless.

Among other things, and why is it useless? The memory will be free if there is a need for it, but now it won't sit around useless for majority of the time. I can't see that as a turn for worse, *nix has had for years, but Vista takes it a bit further.

Memory management

* Windows Vista features a Dynamic System Address Space that allocates virtual memory and kernel page tables on-demand. It also supports very large registry sizes.
* Includes enhanced support for Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) and systems with large memory pages. Windows Vista also exposes APIs for accessing the NUMA features.
* Memory pages can be marked as read-only, to prevent data corruption.
* New address mapping scheme called Rotate Virtual Address Descriptors (VAD). It is used for the advanced Video subsystem.
* Swapping in of memory pages and system cache include prefetching and clustering, to improve performance.
* Performance of Address Translation Buffers has been enhanced.
* Heap layout has been modified to provide higher performance on 64-bit and Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) systems. The new heap structure is also more scalable and has low management overhead, especially for large heaps.
* Windows Vista automatically tunes up the heap layout for improved fragmentation management.
* Lazy initialization of heap initializes only when required, to improve performance.
* The Windows Vista memory manager does not have a 64 kb read-ahead cache limitation unlike previous versions of Windows and can thus improve file system performance dramatically.

[8IronBob]

Well, ever since dual-booting XP Pro x32 and Vista Ultimate x64, I'd have to say that since Vista x64 proved that its capable of doing everything that XP Pro x32 can do, then I'd say that this has really proven that it can run the same games through backwards compatibility, it has features that are spot on, and it seems to keep some stability around for the long haul. So, after a while, once XP is no longer supported, then Vista will become the exclusive OS on my desktop... I was even thinking of doing that sometime this week, reformat both HDDs, reinstall Vista Ultimate x64, and use my second HDD as a DVR for my HD Tuner Card, as well as a game or two. Might as well add a 10K RPM HDD for putting Vista itself on, and have one 500GB HDD for games, and the second 500GB HDD for my DVR and Media Center files.

[avatar_58]

Among other things, and why is it useless? The memory will be free if there is a need for it, but now it won't sit around useless for majority of the time. I can't see that as a turn for worse, *nix has had for years, but Vista takes it a bit further.

Memory management

* Windows Vista features a Dynamic System Address Space that allocates virtual memory and kernel page tables on-demand. It also supports very large registry sizes.
* Includes enhanced support for Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) and systems with large memory pages. Windows Vista also exposes APIs for accessing the NUMA features.
* Memory pages can be marked as read-only, to prevent data corruption.
* New address mapping scheme called Rotate Virtual Address Descriptors (VAD). It is used for the advanced Video subsystem.
* Swapping in of memory pages and system cache include prefetching and clustering, to improve performance.
* Performance of Address Translation Buffers has been enhanced.
* Heap layout has been modified to provide higher performance on 64-bit and Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) systems. The new heap structure is also more scalable and has low management overhead, especially for large heaps.
* Windows Vista automatically tunes up the heap layout for improved fragmentation management.
* Lazy initialization of heap initializes only when required, to improve performance.
* The Windows Vista memory manager does not have a 64 kb read-ahead cache limitation unlike previous versions of Windows and can thus improve file system performance dramatically.


It's funny how people forget this. They just keep going on and on about how Vista eats up too much memory. Wake the hell up, if Vista ate that memory and didn't give it back - then explain how I get by with only 2 gigs and still playing games like Crysis with minimal load times or hiccups? Obviously it's managed and managed a hell of a lot better than XP.

Having said that - the more memory you have, the better. If you only have 512-1 gig I wouldn't bother. However if you have that kind of memory chances are you don't have a high end PC anyway.

[Steve]

I voted "Is a decent upgrade" - haven't had any major problems. Vista also makes the best HTPC. The new media center is fuxing great.

[peoplessi]

I would like to see the arguments from people who voted "it sucks, avoid at all costs". The votes should be made visible so you can't just drop in and vote.

[Scotty]

I thought about that, but I was afraid that making votes visible would invite trolling.

Just having a "Sucks" option might have been asking for trouble, but I know there's lots of ppl that feel that way.

[Llama Gibbz]

Decent upgrade.
At first i was skeptical,but i now don't regret it.

Only thing i wish is adobe would get off their asses and start releasing 64bit flash plugins. :mad:

As for old 32 bit software not installing (games),i just install on another 32 bit machine and copy the files over.

A dual boot with XP would be easier though.

[WestSeven]

Urgh. My experience of it hasn't been so good. Beginning to wish I hadn't jumped in so soon. I'm a real Microsoft fan too but Vista has really soured my opinion. I'm having the very slow file copy problem, also shockingly slow at generating thumbnails and moving / browsing / copying / deleting video files. It's a decent PC and plays games (for example) no problem on high settings. It just seems buggy...

[peoplessi]

SP1 might improve on that a bit, it particularly has improved the filecopying operations.

[Wamplet]

I just said avoid, because I don't really need it until games require it.

[Kevin Wolff]

It's kinda slow, and they seemed to release it when they halfway through redesigning the Control Panel...a lot of stuff is in head-scratching locations. Either redesign it or don't! Avoid it unless you have something that warrants a new OS.

[ADM]

I like it, aside from a couple of issues I had (which have all been resolvable for me) there's nothing really wrong with the OS.

I most likely couldn't go back to XP now.

[Phayzon]

they seemed to release it when they halfway through redesigning the Control Panel...a lot of stuff is in head-scratching locations. Either redesign it or don't! Avoid it unless you have something that warrants a new OS.

Now that you mention that, I realize how true that really is. :p

[8IronBob]

Atm, I'd say that if you invested in the 64-bit editions of Vista, it's probably going to be on par, if not better than any 32-bit counterpart of either Vista or XP at this point. So, my suggestion is that if you're gonna go Vista, go with the 64-bit environment, if your hardware will allow for it, then you'll have something that'll last for the long haul.

[Dopefish7590]

It's funny how people forget this. They just keep going on and on about how Vista eats up too much memory. Wake the hell up, if Vista ate that memory and didn't give it back - then explain how I get by with only 2 gigs and still playing games like Crysis with minimal load times or hiccups? Obviously it's managed and managed a hell of a lot better than XP.

Having said that - the more memory you have, the better. If you only have 512-1 gig I wouldn't bother. However if you have that kind of memory chances are you don't have a high end PC anyway.

Its funny that I took a Vista system and downgraded to XP and all of a sudden I can play games without lag. :tinyted:

then explain how I get by with only 2 gigs and still playing games like Crysis with minimal load times or hiccups?


Right, and I was playing Crysis demo on 1 GB memory on XP... No lag. Vista just lagged it to death before the downgrade.

[mon2908]

Do you buy hardware for the operating system or for the high end applications you want to run on it? Vista is a performance killer so as XP was before. Compared with a nice *nix or *BSD System Windows, no matter if XP or Vista, appear to be pure bloatware.

Why don't you ever ask yourself how it is possible to run really great games on a console like the GameCube, Wii, Sony PS/2 or Xbox without the need to invest double the amount of money in great equipment to make it possible to run this kind of stuff fluently on a PC?

New games don't really look this good enough to justify the amount you have to pay for the performance necessary. Not if you see that you get nearly the same stuff on a descent game console that exist on market for more than two years.

I played a day with Vista on a HP Laptop (I have been forced to fix my nephews brand new system, because Symantecs preinstalled tools made it impossible to relaunch after an unwanted Microsoft Update.) I am convinced that it sucks more than the Windows Millenium Edition.

[peoplessi]

OS aren't designed for 1 year lifetime, as you might have noticed. Also, it is widely known that Vista needs a lot of RAM to be fluent, at least 2GB. It is more responsive than XP with the same hardware, keeping in mind that it has to be something rather new and not something from 5years back. Laptops are a problem, they usually don't have enough memory or lack in processor speed. Vista will need time to organize it's caches and such, but after that it is beyond anything that XP could imagine - more responsive. 1 day isn't enough to judge any OS, particularly if the hardware lacks. Linux is as heavy if you take compiz or beryl.

Claiming it is another ME is totally unfounded accusation, having used it too. It was ridded with driver problems from start, and it didn't offer anything and didn't do anything better than XP.

[avatar_58]

I played a day with Vista on a HP Laptop (I have been forced to fix my nephews brand new system, because Symantecs preinstalled tools made it impossible to relaunch after an unwanted Microsoft Update.) I am convinced that it sucks more than the Windows Millenium Edition.

Thank you, and no vista thread is complete without your expert opinion oh godly one. You played with Vista on a PC that has symantec and other software issues and feel compelled to comment about it? Why don't you just stop embarrasing yourself with such comments?

[mon2908]

Linux is as heavy if you take compiz or beryl


That I must say, is not true, Beryl runs perfectly on a moderate Geforce 4 (Wasn't able to test Compiz Fusion with my old PC because my motherboard died before Compiz Fusion reached the point of useability). I know a lot of ID Games (Doom 3, Quake 4, Quakewars) that work wonderful smooth on Hardware that does not meet the requirements for the same fluental gameplay on an equal good Windows machine.

I must say that I am quite happy that I wasn't forced to switch back to a Windows OS when I bought the components for my new machine. Really everything worked out of the box. I think the times where you have to wait more than six month till the latest hardware is supported by an *nix system are over.

Sure, Linux may not be the best gaming platform, because it lacks the support of vendors but it is an os that I can trust (no Microsoft spyware, no sneaky updates). For gaming I use a GameCube, PS2 and PSP now and I ask myself, why should I put a lot of more money in a DRM gaming PC?

@avatar_58

Maybe that Vista is an good os for you, but I am not any longer willing to accept to give up control of my equipment and rely on Microsofts good will not to stop my PC to work properly because of some license reasons or destructive updates. Bye the way, I was certified in the use and administration of Windows NT/2000 (MCSE/MCP). I disliked how the the customers control (WGA) worked in XP and Vista with DRM is not an os that I would ever want to run my machines. But that is my problem with the Microsoft license, one reason it sucks for me. The second reason has to do with this stupid new menue interface where Microsoft started a complete break in usability, most time I was looking where Microsoft hid all the settings an menues to solve the problems with the machine. (It must not be bad for a new Vista user but for me it sucked. If you ever work with a Gnome Desktop you'll get an understanding for what I mean.)

Okay, now do not feel pissed and have fun with your perfect os.

[Dopefish7590]

Thank you, and no vista thread is complete without your expert opinion oh godly one. You played with Vista on a PC that has symantec and other software issues and feel compelled to comment about it? Why don't you just stop embarrasing yourself with such comments?

Yea man... I atleast had Vista on my computer for 6 months. Vista is not as bad as ME, but I still rather XP due to what happened during theese 6 months.

Linux is as heavy if you take compiz or beryl.
No it isn't... Trust me.

Vista is a performance killer so as XP was before.
Sounds like you need to try Mac OSX... I am running OSX 10.3.9 on a 500MHz processor, and it still runs faster then Vista... What does Vista have that Mac doesn't? Sidebar? Yes. Transperancy? Got it. Really... Vista is miles less efficient then Mac OSX. On a new Mac... Things open at ludicrous speed... Just try one the next time you see one as a display at a store.

In a nutshell (IMO ofcourse)
Mac > Linux > Winblows

[Daveman]

Sounds like you need to try Mac OSX... I am running OSX 10.3.9 on a 500MHz processor, and it still runs faster then Vista... What does Vista have that Mac doesn't?
Games? More thriving third party support?


Why don't you ever ask yourself how it is possible to run really great games on a console like the GameCube, Wii, Sony PS/2 or Xbox without the need to invest double the amount of money in great equipment to make it possible to run this kind of stuff fluently on a PC?
It's actually not more expensive at all. The cost of a 360 or PS3 is at least 300 dollars. Now consider the fact that most people spend at least 700 dollars on getting a new computer anyway. If they would invest 300 dollars in upgrading that new computer they're already getting, they'll have a computer that can handle graphics every bit as well as the 360 or PS3. And upgrading that computer is cheaper, as are the games.

And if you're just talking about last-gen graphics, well, a computer that most people would already have for their homes can be very cheaply outfitted with a midrange or low-end video card to play those games. You pay the same, if not less, for PC gaming.

[avatar_58]

Sure, Linux may not be the best gaming platform, because it lacks the support of vendors but it is an os that I can trust (no Microsoft spyware, no sneaky updates). For gaming I use a GameCube, PS2 and PSP now and I ask myself, why should I put a lot of more money in a DRM gaming PC?


So you aren't a PC gamer then, which begs the question why you are posting about operating systems on a gaming forum.


The second reason has to do with this stupid new menue interface where Microsoft started a complete break in usability, most time I was looking where Microsoft hid all the settings an menues to solve the problems with the machine. (It must not be bad for a new Vista user but for me it sucked. If you ever work with a Gnome Desktop you'll get an understanding for what I mean.)


See this just shows your ignorance and lack of Vista experience. I've used it for months now and I've actually become fluent with the menus and locations of settings. It's second nature, just as XP became when it moved things from 98. Thanks to the search bar in the start menu (something which you clearly missed) you don't even have an excuse. Type in what you need, whether its in the control panel or just a program....it doesn't matter.

Also you have no IDEA how amusing it is to hear a linux zealot complain about complexity of GUI. Thats the ultimate comedy right there.

[Dopefish7590]

Games? More thriving third party support?

I meant OS wise, But Mac OSX has a TON of support... As for the games... Why would anyone use Linux for that reason? Mac OSX can and does run Linux and Carbon Aplication packages... Meanwhile you have to find an emulator to do this on Vista.

The second reason has to do with this stupid new menue interface where Microsoft started a complete break in usability, most time I was looking where Microsoft hid all the settings an menues to solve the problems with the machine. (It must not be bad for a new Vista user but for me it sucked. If you ever work with a Gnome Desktop you'll get an understanding for what I mean.)

I use Gnome... If this bothers you so much, there IS a setting in Vista to change this.

Okay, now do not feel pissed and have fun with your perfect os.

Ok!

*Runs and grabs Mac Laptop* :D

[mon2908]

So you aren't a PC gamer then, which begs the question why you are posting about operating systems on a gaming forum.

Not true, I run the Games on my machine that natively become supported. I can claim to own nearly every ID-Game, except 'Return to Castle Wolfenstein'

Did not buy this one because of censorship. :-(


See this just shows your ignorance and lack of Vista experience. I've used it for months now and I've actually become fluent with the menus and locations of settings. It's second nature, just as XP became when it moved things from 98. Thanks to the search bar in the start menu (something which you clearly missed) you don't even have an excuse. Type in what you need, whether its in the control panel or just a program....it doesn't matter.

Also you have no IDEA how amusing it is to hear a linux zealot complain about complexity of GUI. Thats the ultimate comedy right there.

I see no real reason why I should use Windows Vista. I mean I can do nearly everything with Linux. Why should I accept that Vista license or the DRM crap if I do not want to support DRM or if I think that it sucks to ask Microsoft with WGA if I am allowed to run my machine with the os I paid money for? Hey, I am old enough to recognize what's allowed and what's a crime. I have no need to justify myself for my paid property. If Microsoft thinks they have the right to control their customers they should look for customers that are willing to accept this restriction. For me it's something I can't agree to, therefore I, respect their license an take something that won't cut my rights as user the way Microsoft does. So what's the problem?

You call me ignorant? I see no need to spend time in relearning an os I do not want to run on my machines. Is it ignorant? There is enough to learn about *nix and the really good thing is, although there are a lot of different flavours they are mostly similar to control on the lowest level? The shell. The Gnome Desktop for me is the most intuitive desktop I worked with. Vista is like searching easter eggs, amusing for a child, but time consuming for everyone else. And as I asked before? Do you intent to spend your money/time for the os itself (hardware) or the applications you want to run on it?

[Chimera]

I voted "Is a decent upgrade" - haven't had any major problems. Vista also makes the best HTPC. The new media center is fuxing great.

I second Steve on the Media Centre. I use it mostly with a Freecom DVB-T receiver.... I've tried loads of digital TV software but MC knocks spots off them. It's the only one that sees all the channels and doesn't hiccough and complain over signal strength, the EPG is very decent too :)

[avatar_58]

You call me ignorant? I see no need to spend time in relearning an os I do not want to run on my machines. Is it ignorant? There is enough to learn about *nix and the really good thing is, although there are a lot of different flavours they are mostly similar to control on the lowest level?


You had better not be suggesting Linux is quicker to pick up and learn than Vista is. Not even the most devout zealots would claims such a thing.


Do you intent to spend your money/time for the os itself (hardware) or the applications you want to run on it?

What the hell are you on about? I spent my money on my GPU + CPU so that I could play Crysis, Bioshock and any other new PC game. You see I put money into my PC to use it, not to play with my O/S. As hard as that is for a Linux user to understand - some of us actually use our machines for work and play, rather than just fiddling with the GUI or spending months trying to get one bitchy piece of hardware to work with open sourced drivers.

[Steve]

I second Steve on the Media Centre. I use it mostly with a Freecom DVB-T receiver.... I've tried loads of digital TV software but MC knocks spots off them. It's the only one that sees all the channels and doesn't hiccough and complain over signal strength, the EPG is very decent too :)

It could go on about it but I wont. Check out what I did with a registry setting: :)
http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=508539&postcount=87

It's even better with the media centre remote :)

[peoplessi]

dopefish, no, I don't have to trust you, as I have tried it myself. It is a well known fact that Vista needs 2GB or more, memory to be fluent, but with modern PC's that ain't a problem. It is more fluent than anything I've used, or use now. There is always certain limits where you have to work, and Vista is designed 6+ years lifespan in mind, same outcrys were heard when XP was released, same deal all over again. Same arguments back then, most of the people haven't even used Vista beyond a day.

mon2908, your arguments are falling into the category of going too personal, if you can't argument with out throwing insults, then don't. Your experience is limited to 1 day of Vista use on a underpowered laptop, so I don't think you can judge OS based on that. Vista has improved XP in many ways, most are not visible to the user, but some are, there are these small changes all around. If you have used any modern Windows, let's say starting from Windows 95 - then you know your way around Vista too. I admit, there are few bad design choices, but the ones that affect general use are all good. So many small changes, that you only notice after you switch back to XP after longer use.

Also, your knowledge of the subject drops below zero after your DRM comments, as if it was Microsoft who designed those things and would be the be all end all of it :)

[Hudson]

Man, I'm too damn old to bitch about "My O/S can beat up your O/S!" anymore.

Use what you like, it's that simple.

[Steve]

Man, I'm too damn old to bitch about "My O/S can beat up your O/S!" anymore.

Use what you like, it's that simple.

What if you use Linux, Vista and XP? I am I freak?!? :D ;)

[Hudson]

I use Linux, Vista, XP and now OS X. I'm not a freak, I'm the goddamn toxic avenger.

[Steve]

I use Linux, Vista, XP and now OS X. I'm not a freak, I'm the goddamn toxic avenger.

Haha. :D I have my uses for all :)

[Mountain Man]

Why don't you ever ask yourself how it is possible to run really great games on a console like the GameCube, Wii, Sony PS/2 or Xbox without the need to invest double the amount of money in great equipment to make it possible to run this kind of stuff fluently on a PC?
I would love it if Microsoft released a gaming version of Windows, something lean, fast, and stable and designed to optimize gaming performance. I don't need a hog like Vista when all I want to do is play PC games.

[Steve]

I would love it if Microsoft released a gaming version of Windows, something lean, fast, and stable and designed to optimize gaming performance. I don't need a hog like Vista when all I want to do is play PC games.

Crysis is the only game in my collection that slows down when playing in Vista. I don't notice any difference what so ever playing at 1280x768 on MAX settings on all my games under Vista or XP. Feels the same, no slow downs.

Crysis, however, will kick me in the balls while playing in Vista. :o

[mon2908]

You had better not be suggesting Linux is quicker to pick up and learn than Vista is. Not even the most devout zealots would claims such a thing.What the hell are you on about? I spent my money on my GPU + CPU so that I could play Crysis, Bioshock and any other new PC game. You see I put money into my PC to use it, not to play with my O/S. As hard as that is for a Linux user to understand - some of us actually use our machines for work and play, rather than just fiddling with the GUI or spending months trying to get one bitchy piece of hardware to work with open sourced drivers.

If it is for gaming I would claim that the Xbox 360 is faster than your PC and has a better cost/profit value. By the way, it does not cut your experience with your hardware. Have heard about a lot of sound issues but it does not really interest me if they still exist. But to answer your question. Yes, the latest *nix flavours are easier to install more intuitive to use. But the best is you do not become hindered by the os vendor if you want to learn more about the interna of the os. It's not that kind of hide and seek you have to play to get a deeper understanding.

[Zero]

Mon, don't even try to explain, let the fools play with their toys, the people who know better will understand. It makes little sense to try to reason with someone who has been around Windows there entire life, it's too late for them, instead of telling them about alternatives, let them be, there only hurting themselves.

People like this are called "cattle" in my books, sooner or later they will get slaughtered, so don't worry about it, let the blind lead the blind, it's their problem not ours.

[avatar_58]

If it is for gaming I would claim that the Xbox 360 is faster than your PC and has a better cost/profit value.

You are a console gamer, or at the very least a zealot who will openly claim "I don't need those games" until they hit your O/S of choice.

Personally I cannot play Crysis, The Witcher, Sam & Max, DOSBox, Stalker, HL2 episodes (on release date without annoying load times), etc on the consoles. I also prefer my shooters on the pc thank you very much. Therefore I buy PC hardware and use an O/S that works. The end, thats all she wrote.

Why would I use an O/S that limits what I can do? What exactly does Linux do that windows cannot? Thats right, nothing. Yet I can play new games, watch the latest HD movies without fear of down-scaling due to protection and when I want to use the latest app I don't have to research it wonder whether it will behave with wine or whether there is a free alternative.

[Zero]

avatar, I was going to answer your questions, but I know it would be useless to do so, as an open source advocate, I really think we should restrict open source software to open source os's, not to be a dick, but to teach people like you a lesson.

The question is not what Linux can do that Windows can not, the question is What can YOU do that Windows can not. As I said in the above post, cattle see things threw different eyes, and innovators, inventors, scientists and engineers see the real deal.

You also forgetting that half of the technology in your OS is free, who you think your TCP/IP stack belongs to? I'll give you a hint.. BSD
Microsoft bought a license for it, but it's not their code, so before you get on that what can Linux do that windows can't list (I can make a much longer list then you can), i suggest you research where Microsoft bought or adapted most of it's tech from.

[avatar_58]

Doesn't answer my question - what linux does for the average user that windows does not.

[peoplessi]

Zero, I know a lot of engineers, and most of them use Windows daily, some don't even care, as long the apps they need run correctly. So Your vision of that is very limited to say the least. I use linux, but it hasn't really become something that I return joyfully to everyday, most my stuff works on Windows, that's how the world is currently.

Also, again with your circular argumention this won't go nowhere "The question is not what Linux can do that Windows can not" :D

[Zero]

Zero, I know a lot of engineers, and most of them use Windows daily, some don't even care, as long the apps they need run correctly. So Your vision of that is very limited to say the least. I use linux, but it hasn't really become something that I return joyfully to everyday, most my stuff works on Windows, that's how the world is currently.

Also, again with your circular argumention this won't go nowhere "The question is not what Linux can do that Windows can not" :D

It's not circular, knowledge is power, if you know what you are doing they can do anything with Linux, you have the source, you can patch it as you like, I don't think you understand why Linux exists, you just installed it and want it do everything for you, I know alot of engineers, and scientist that use "super computers" and cad apps on Linux to do what they need.

My vision is fine thank you, it is you that don't realize the power Linux or another open source project has over there closed source "equal" (if you can call it that).

No the world is the way it is, because most brainless cattle think there computer is the internet and lack the intelligence to actually understand what there actually doing, never mind what other alternatives there are.

@avatar_58
I answered your question as I intended to be answered, it is upto you to understand what it means, as for comparisons (thats what you want) their
are lots, FPS in games on native ports and sometime even with wine are faster then ther Windows counter parts, disk I/O is faster more reliable, (thats why linux is mostly used a server cause its faster at doing this things you take for granted in windows)

Sure it takes a while to setup the way you want, but then again its the way YOU want it, in windows you don't have a choice, it just is, and nothing can be done without some reverse engineering to change it. Linux handle crappy hardware or hardware thats is crapping out a lot more gracefully then windows, apps are more responsive, even with XP I still notice that certain things the kernel HAS to d first then you can have your turn at doing something, in Linux if I want to move the window or brows the contents I am doing when i want to, when when windows feels like letting me, when i hover over another window the window manager wont magically scroll the windows that is highlighted, it instead will scroll the window that my mouse cursor is on, so it doesn't have to be "brought to the front" just to move the scroll bar, when I open an application my sound settings aren't changed they stay they way they are.


Multiple desktops are a plus whent hey are built in from the start, the ability to bind any key to anything is another plus and bash scripts can be more effectent then any human interaction when combined with cron. lets see, i never need to defrag, i don't need to install spyware tools or virus scanners, I don't need to worry about malware or trojins, I don't need to worry about my programs self executing attachments, I have completely control of what hardware any user uses, lets see i have tools that are multipurpose, dd for example can be used to create an 1:1 exact image of something, to completely destroy a file system or just to create a dummy file filled with whatever I want. You dont get that flexiblity with windows apps, since dd HAS to be with every Linux distro is it part of the OS (gnutools).

Without installing 3rd part apps on windows, windows doesn't come close to the functionality of a Linux distro, so what if you can play new games, that in no way is linux's fault, its DX is the problem.

So your arugement is rather weak, even google, pixar and the like have donated to the WINE devs to get photoshop working so they dont have to use windows, why do you think softimage was used to create shrek, 2 and 3 for? for pixars health?

memory support is rather weak under windows 4gb max on 32bit CPUs? please! such childs play to fix and yet BSD and Linux and solrus are the only oses that fixed the problem.

Microsoft's puts NUMA support in 2 years too late, it's old now Linux has had features that Windows wont have in 10 years from now, and even gets rid of features that Linux still has, because Linux has no agenda, so why remove things that don't need to be removed?


What else, oh yea memory proformnce is better in Linux as well as how "virtual" memory is handled, Linux doesn't need to "cache" any memory to make itself efferent, leaving its buffers and disk I/O at minimal, it doesn't need to flush its cache every so often, it can, but why, if you have more then 2gb or ram unless you are running some intense shit you will never dip into the swap.

using cron and slocate is about x1223348936748926732 more effecnt then windows search, I said I wanted the results today, not 5 days from now.

It even boots faster! record time is 11secs from power on (not bios) to login prompt. (Easyist to do with LFS)

On and the GL desktop doesn't effect shit all, (unlike some OS's I know) GF4 can be used to run compz+fusion.


better yet run vista on a celeray533mhz as a server with 256mb ram, bet you cant do it, I can use a 486 with Slackware as a sever (mind you the results will not be too good) but none the less the hardware support is there, i have nothing saying sorry they doesnt work anymore.

[Oasiz]

Biggest problem with Vista are on laptops & lowend computers.
I mean 512mb of memory and all the effect turned on + aero. I mean Come on!
With onboard video taking as much as 64-128mb at default you really rock.

I personally have installed vista 64-bit as a trial on my second HD, installation took about 2 hours on a e6600 and 2gb ram ! Even the bootup takes around 3-4 minutes on a pretty fresh install.
Also that sucks is that the perfectly acceptable and expensive Matrox Parhelia is now as good as a onboard vga due to crappy opengl support.

I bought a decent laptop with turion x2, 1gb of ram, x1200 and that stuff. It came with vista home premium pre-installed, You really couldnt do anything wise with it especially gaming-wise. Boot took around 3 minutes and everything slugged a lot even with every effect turned off (also probably due to crapware that is pre-installed).
The little gaming that you can do with that onboard chipset on XP vs. Vista is significant. Vista performance is like when I run XP in 800mhz mode as opposed to 1.7ghz in processor).

Also I fix computers a lot for other people, almost everyone has been complaining about the UI, slowness, and the wonderful UAC (I always do them the favor of disabling it).
they also ask a lot that is there a way to install XP or buy a computer with XP pre-installed.

Ofcourse there are some good features, but I still have zero reason to upgrade at all, there are still too much problems with lowend machines and even highend (like mine and about ~5 other ones I have installed vista on).

What also sucks is that manufacturers totally cut downgrade to xp possibility these days, like with my Fujitsu Siemens laptop. There is totally zero driver/app support on it. I had to look at linux bootlog and figure out chipsets and google drivers & force installation completely with INF files.


But in the end it's the most important that the OS does what you need and like you want it. No matter how crappy code or good it doesn't matter as long as it works and does what you need and want.
Sorry for possible typos and since I wrote this message in a little hangover :D

[peoplessi]

Something is wrong with your setup, since my boot takes under 30seconds, shutdown even less. I haven't timed it, so those are rough estimates.

Zero, sure they do, but it is a minority, your argumentation is from 5 year old, calling people stupid, cattle, brainless. Also, you tend to think you are always right, and everyone who thinks otherwise is "cattle" or "brainless".

[Oasiz]

Something is wrong with your setup, since my boot takes under 30seconds, shutdown even less. I haven't timed it, so those are rough estimates.

I just don't get why, tried on two drives in raid0 its the same. The installation part is the wierdest since it kept freezing completely at the 'Thank you' screen and was very slow overall. 64-bit Vista and that e6600 with 2gb ram.

[mon2908]

Why would I use an O/S that limits what I can do? What exactly does Linux do that windows cannot? Thats right, nothing. Yet I can play new games, watch the latest HD movies without fear of down-scaling due to protection and when I want to use the latest app I don't have to research it wonder whether it will behave with wine or whether there is a free alternative.

Forgive but DOSbox works really great on Linux. Have played 'Crusader: No Remorse and No Regret' lately. (Gosh this games are outstanding and timeless.)

'Why would you use an O/S that limits what you can do?' Good question, tell me, I do not see any limits in Linux but by far more if you try to migrate your apps from XP to Vista, have you ever taken some investigation what works and what still does not? Problems to install a package on a linux system? Use alien, or better, get the source build a .deb or .rpm and install it (and by the way, release it for others that have not read the maintainers guide yet ;-)

for Debian and it's flavours.

http://sdn.vlsm.org/share/Debian-Doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-start.en.html

for Redhat based distributions

http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~ccorn/software/rpm/build-rpm.html

So where do you see any limits here? Closed source limits you in the way you use your software. If a program that was intended to work great with XP is installed on Vista it might work but what do you do if it does not? Run a VM with XP to make it work?

[peoplessi]

Vista has build-in compatibly modes for XP SP2, and DOSBox works fine.

Oasiz, I have E6400 @ 3,2GHz and it didn't took too long for Vista 64-bit to get installed. What are the specs for rest of your system? I have heard that some have had similar problems as you, I am running on a Intel chipset.

[Phayzon]

'Why would you use an O/S that limits what you can do?'

And what exactly is it limiting me from doing? Dont even pull that bullshit DRM card. It has yet to direcrly (or indirectly, for that matter) affect me at all, and I have heard no first-hand cases of Windows' DRM issues from any user on this forum. So far (since Win95) I have done anything I felt like and have yet to ONCE have Windows tell me "No".
So tell me, what exactly cant I do? Chances are if I cant do it I probably shouldnt be doing it anyway.

[Oasiz]

Oasiz, I have E6400 @ 3,2GHz and it didn't took too long for Vista 64-bit to get installed. What are the specs for rest of your system? I have heard that some have had similar problems as you, I am running on a Intel chipset.

asus P5B deluxe wifi-ap solo (intel chipset)
2x 1gb corsair XMS2
7900gt and these days 8800gts (g92) Both had same issue.
600gb raid array + 160gb pata + 160 sata (INSTALLED HERE)
Floppydrive
hp old lightscribe dvd-grill
e6600 @3ghz
and the obvious rest.

But it doesn't matter, I have vista installed only to train myself to use it. (Because all computers come with it preinstalled these days, and I have to be the tech-support dude).


Vista really isn't that bad, compared to the horror stories that float everywhere.
But also it really isn't a good upgrade compared to XP. I still think Vista as a second millenium, no matter how hard I try not to.

[Steve]

Vista really isn't that bad, compared to the horror stories that float everywhere.
But also it really isn't a good upgrade compared to XP. I still think Vista as a second millenium, no matter how hard I try not to.

It isn't as bad as people make it out to be, no. I personally wouldn't go as far as stating that it's the second millenium as I've had less problems under Vista than XP - But I'm talking about when they first launched. XP and Vista - don't have a single problem with them at all (except crysis :mad: :tinyted: :D ) :)

XP is still a fine OS and if you're happy with it I see no reason to upgrade.

[Zero]

Something is wrong with your setup, since my boot takes under 30seconds, shutdown even less. I haven't timed it, so those are rough estimates.

Zero, sure they do, but it is a minority, your argumentation is from 5 year old, calling people stupid, cattle, brainless. Also, you tend to think you are always right, and everyone who thinks otherwise is "cattle" or "brainless".


Since when? even I ask questions, TX has corrected my statements a bunch of times, when I am wrong I am wrong, it's as simple as that, when Jiminator informed me that multi-core cpus were different that what i thought they would be, I didn't argue, he was right.

And my argument is less the 5 years old because I have looked at compressions with vista vs wine, so unless vista is 5 years old, I think the data is accurate

[peoplessi]

Calling names doesn't give any added value to your arguments.

[tony]

Linux has always limited what I can do.

Its a combination of hardware and software support. Is that the fault of Linux? Not really, its the fault of the third parties, but that still doesnt change the fact that Linux has zero appeal to me because of the software and hardware support it lacks. I'd love to migrate the labs I manage at work to Linux, but virtually none of the software we use has a Linux equivalent. One large part of what we do is OCR and structual analysis of scanned books, the best thing in Linux is OCRopus/Tesseract. Their quality makes them _useless_ when compared to other proprietary and commercial solutions. Same goes for our image processing workflows, the Linux equivalents are just bad.

Hardware is another issue, too. I've run into a lot of problems getting the odd hardware to work in Linux. Sure, there may be "support" for it, as is the case of the slide/negative scanner that I use every day, but the software that allows me to use it is clunky and crashes often. It took a long time to get the batch scanning to work even half-assed, even then I'd get a lot of innacurate images with strange pixel errors.

Since I've made the jump to Vista, I've had zero problems with my hardware, and zero problems with performance. All my memory intesive applications run faster, too. It boots faster. Its more secure and runs better when using a non-admin user.

Sure, you could claim that the DRM in Vista might stop me from doing something I'd WANT to do, but Linux prevents me from doing things that I _NEED_ to do. (Even then, I've never had a case where DRM has prevented me from doing something I've wanted to do.) Until I have the (proper) hardware and software support in Linux, I'm not going to use it. It is that simple. Vista already supports everything I need, so all the new machines I order for work and for my personal use are going to be likely to have it.

Vista's hardware support was a bit rocky at first, but it has exceeded my expectations so far. I have zero reason to use XP over it now.

[Zero]

Linux has always limited what I can do.

No you limit what you can do, Linux will not do anything for you, because assuming you want things done is dumb.



Its a combination of hardware and software support. Is that the fault of Linux? Not really, its the fault of the third parties, but that still doesnt change the fact that Linux has zero appeal to me because of the software and hardware support it lacks.

Want to give examples, and don't say winmodems, or anything like that, if you buy cheap hardware you are going to get cheap support, you get what you pay for.



I'd love to migrate the labs I manage at work to Linux, but virtually none of the software we use has a Linux equivalent. One large part of what we do is OCR and structual analysis of scanned books, the best thing in Linux is OCRopus/Tesseract. Their quality makes them _useless_ when compared to other proprietary and commercial solutions. Same goes for our image processing workflows, the Linux equivalents are just bad.

This I can understand, this is a known problem right now and you are right there virtually no good support for that yet.


Hardware is another issue, too. I've run into a lot of problems getting the odd hardware to work in Linux. Sure, there may be "support" for it, as is the case of the slide/negative scanner that I use every day, but the software that allows me to use it is clunky and crashes often. It took a long time to get the batch scanning to work even half-assed, even then I'd get a lot of inacurate images with strange pixel errors.

That is not hardware support, that is software support, and try the svn version of sane's back end it might help.

As for the rest I am not even going to quote that, it is up to the user to figure out how things are done, either online or by one's self, some of it is not even true, how can something be more secure if you need tools to prevent things from happening? Obviously it is not more secure, if virus's don't work because of the way the OS was modeled that is automatically is more secure by default, so the statement that vista is more secure is not even remotely true.

You setup Vista to be as secure as you can get it and I'll do the same with a spare Linux box I have, we'll see who is more secure with more functionality and who has spent the most resources making it that way. This means no routers, switches just a single box connected to the internet.

And who cares about DRM, we cared about it at first, but now that we have found away to crack it, it doesn't matter. Companys can't stop us from watching what we legally payed for so what do we care?

Your OCR statement was valid and there does need to be work in that area, but the rest is just fluff, some even bogus.

[Dopefish7590]

I use Linux, Vista, XP and now OS X. I'm not a freak, I'm the goddamn toxic avenger.

Another Mac user! :woot:

Actually, I use all of those OSes aswell... Actually I use about 3 varaints of each... One variant of XP is a hacked version XP I use for running Vista stuff... (Dont ask... Long story.) I'm just the head of "Annihilation enterprises"

[Daveman]

Crysis is the only game in my collection that slows down when playing in Vista. I don't notice any difference what so ever playing at 1280x768 on MAX settings on all my games under Vista or XP. Feels the same, no slow downs.

Crysis, however, will kick me in the balls while playing in Vista. :o
I think it really depends on your card. If you have an 8800 designed for running games on Vista, you'll be fine for the most part. I have an 8600M and it's great, but it's definitely slower in Vista than it would be on XP. It's also an issue of different engines. Source (original, not updated) is particularly slow in Vista.

[Steve]

I think it really depends on your card. If you have an 8800 designed for running games on Vista, you'll be fine for the most part. I have an 8600M and it's great, but it's definitely slower in Vista than it would be on XP. It's also an issue of different engines. Source (original, not updated) is particularly slow in Vista.

I do have an 8800 series card. It does run in Vista but there's a huge difference when playing at 1280x768 on max setting when under XP :)

800x600, 1024x768 - not much difference :)

[peoplessi]

Zero, Vista+EFS+BitLocker+TrueCrypt, it's as safe as any homeuser ever needs. Firewire is a shared problem across all OS's.

[mon2908]

And what exactly is it limiting me from doing? Dont even pull that bullshit DRM card. It has yet to direcrly (or indirectly, for that matter) affect me at all, and I have heard no first-hand cases of Windows' DRM issues from any user on this forum. So far (since Win95) I have done anything I felt like and have yet to ONCE have Windows tell me "No".
So tell me, what exactly cant I do? Chances are if I cant do it I probably shouldnt be doing it anyway.

Sorry, can't really say in your case, do not know your expectations on an os. Maybe that you are pleased with everything you get from Microsoft. I want to keep control on my system. Windows is for me like renting a house on my own property, where everything I want to do within it must be agreed by Microsoft. I really think that is a stupid act of a software vendor to disable some functionality of your os because they claim that it can be used to prevent their copy protection to work properly. So you can ask now, is this Microsofts fault? I mean I do not have to say anything about TCPA or DRM as long the user does not lose the control about this DRM system, I would be pleased if I as user could use this system to encrypt my files but DRM is a system for third party vendors. With DRM a third party vendor might use this system to place a trojan horse on you system and your anti spyware tool cannot even recognize it because it is partly DRM encrypted individually, only for you. Ask yourself, would you like to live in a house where everyone you invite could place a secret camera to control what you are doing at home? I guess not.

Without to go an bash on Vista more than necessary, can you tell me why the playing of music files is causing network traffic? That is really a connection between NDIS and audio player I am unable to understand? What kind of network traffic is caused while playing audio files? What kind of information will be transmitted and, where to? Not even to know if this is a stupid bug or just a method to spy on you would make me stop to use such kind of system, because I couldn't put my trust on it. Try to place a trojan horse in open source software. In software that comes in it's source code to you and where you can alter the code if it does not work properly for you. I bet, that within a week there would be people that would question this code fragments and replace this package with an own version without that spying crap. A system or third party software you use on your system should never ever take control about your system or dictate the way you can use your machine. If it does, kick the software and/or the whole system.

That's my point of view.

> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39184120,00.htm

> http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/08/22/vista-audio-throttles-network-speed

[Zero]

Not as safe as LFS+ iptables+ apparmor,selinux hybrid
there is no such thing as as safe, there only as safer, you may love windows, but even you if you have any intelligence know that linux/bsd is superior in security, anything else would mean your a fan boy, because can you provide you proof? where iptables and bsd's firewall as shown that windows firewall doesnt hold a candle to it.

face it security on windows is nowhere near Linux or bsd's security. all fan boyisum aside I will even admit BSD has better security over Linux because i know it's true, so stop trying to advertise fud, you and I both know without a router or nothing just a single connection vista has not chance agent linux when it comes to functionality + secuirty


Mon , listen buddy both me and you know that Linux is better, but we are in a thread where windows is always going to win, i say we stop while we are ahead, and just wait until our victory is at hand, we don't even have to tell people we won, **** them, seriously let the cattle be cattle

[peoplessi]

You are so full bs :) I guess you don't even now what TrueCrypt does? EFS? All unheard of? You can close your Vista from outside public traffic, and make it intranet only. It is safe as it gets, Linux / BSD can do the same, but to claim Vista is unprotected is BS. Your argumentaion only shows that you too young to keep the insults away for discussion. If you are unable to prove my point to be "fud" - then don't reply! That only makes you look silly, as it just did. You didn't counterargument my post, nor did you prove it wrong. You need to learn to argument, discuss, in mature manner. "Vista+EFS+BitLocker+TrueCrypt, it's as safe as any homeuser ever needs."

The one thing that astonishes me everytime I read your posts, is the sheer ignorance, you seem to know linux okay, but beyond that you lack in the general knowledge how stuff works. Go and tell your local engineering office to change for Linux, and replace all of their proprietary software with Linux counterparts(if there are any) :) I use Windows and Linux happily, and have used BSD time to time, still I don't feel the urge to troll every Linux thread, or Windows thread, or BSD thread. I don't do that, but you bring your zealotnism everywhere, call people names when it's the issue at hand that we should be discussing, in this thread Vista. Not linux, not *nix, not *BSD. There are shit loads of OS's and I doubt you even tested them all, and even more skeptic I am towards your Vista experiences.

[Zero]

You are so full bs :) I guess you don't even now what TrueCrypt does? EFS? All unheard of? You can close your Vista from outside public traffic, and make it intranet only. It is safe as it gets, Linux / BSD can do the same, but to claim Vista is unprotected is BS. Your argumentaion only shows that you too young to keep the insults away for discussion. If you are unable to prove my point to be "fud" - then don't reply! That only makes you look silly, as it just did. You didn't counterargument my post, nor did you prove it wrong. You need to learn to argument, discuss, in mature manner. "Vista+EFS+BitLocker+TrueCrypt, it's as safe as any homeuser ever needs."

The one thing that astonishes me everytime I read your posts, is the sheer ignorance, you seem to know linux okay, but beyond that you lack in the general knowledge how stuff works. Go and tell your local engineering office to change for Linux, and replace all of their proprietary software with Linux counterparts(if there are any) :) I use Windows and Linux happily, and have used BSD time to time, still I don't feel the urge to troll every Linux thread, or Windows thread, or BSD thread. I don't do that, but you bring your zealotnism everywhere, call people names when it's the issue at hand that we should be discussing, in this thread Vista. Not linux, not *nix, not *BSD. There are shit loads of OS's and I doubt you even tested them all, and even more skeptic I am towards your Vista experiences.



zealotnism .. lol nowe that funny, that takes the cake right there.. go live in your totally secure world.. as you see it.. fool see ya around i have better thing to do to then post in a form with an ignorent member who thing for a second that something is ttoally secure.. your a ******* noob at best *******

[peoplessi]

Yeah, here we go again, why don't you just prove my point wrong then? Instead of acting like 5 year old.

[mon2908]

My systems do not even launch until you give them the pass to encrypt the file systems at boot up. The only partition that is not encrypted is the one with the bootloader. My systems run one really small /boot partition and one lvm with my eight different volumes that ask at bootup for the dmcrypt/LUKS pass (no it is not AES encrypted :-P), if you do not have the pass you cannot even get access on this eight volumes if you try to bypass the system with a rescue-disk/dvd. Sure, you could kill the logical volume but you won't get on my files. (Maybe you'll get my pass, if you offer me a vacation in Guantanamo with Lynndie England as my personal ... no, think she should get a job at Microsoft to go and brainwash people to use Vista and call it the best os of all time. And this guy she should start to convince first. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a2zqRc1jvs )

What a statement out of the mouth of Bill Gates. No wonder he left Microsoft and put his money in a mexican brewer

> http://gizmodo.com/336644/bill-gates-invests-392-million-in-mexican-beer]

@zero: You forget to mention bastille or do you take hand on all this possible settings without this nice little tool?

@peoplessi: Truecrypt first existed on Linux and later was ported to windows with this nice GUI to encrypt your folders. Nevertheless one really great toy to protect your files.

@all others: Anybody experience with this software? Feedback would be nice.
> http://www.wine-doors.org/wordpress/

[Yenji]

Ugh, why is it everytime a Windows thread comes up people feel the need to ruin it with stupid arguments of my OS is better then yours?

Whether you like Windows or not doesn't matter... the fact of the matter is most of the world uses Windows and will likely always use Windows. It doesn't matter if alternate OS's are available because your average person is not going to bother to learn them. They want to be able to turn on the computer, have it do everything for them and then go to work / friends / relatives and see the exact same configuration on that computer as well.

This doesn't make them "cattle" or any other stupid name calling. Everyone in this world will take the most functionaility they can get with the least amount effort FOR EVERYTHING. To go even further this is why people PAY in order to have even less effort. Why? Because there are more important things in life then some stupid argument like what OS you use... such as friends and family.

So in the end it doesn't really matter. If you want to use Windows, go ahead. If you want to use something else then knock yourself out. But if you really want to compare the two then just make your own thread about it instead of hijacking a thread meant for one purpose and one purpose alone.

[mon2908]

Ugh, why is it everytime a Windows thread comes up people feel the need to ruin it with stupid arguments of my OS is better then yours?

Whether you like Windows or not doesn't matter... the fact of the matter is most of the world uses Windows and will likely always use Windows.

Me thinks that you do not have the slightest idea of the world and only believe in what marketing is telling you. I can assure you that there exist more people in Asia than in the United States and believe me, Microsoft does only play a minor role in this countries. I always hear the tale about copied Windows Versions but fact is they use Linux more often and also port it to their game consoles than buy the equipment to bring Windows bloatware to life.

Sometimes I ask myself if in the eyes of Americans the world really looks like this if I hear such fud.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c56/alienyouthchick7/graphics-myspace100.jpg

I am not the maker of this map, so it seems I am not alone in my belief.

> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/04/18/244.copies.of.vista.china/

[ADM]

And thanks to mon this thread has now served it's purpose.

:lock: