Well I'm not surprisedseodevhead wrote:Yep... can you believe that crap?d11wtq wrote:What, like Mac OS' new version? They're calling their's Leopard.
How people react to the Vista launch..
Moderator: General Moderators
- Ollie Saunders
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3179
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: UK
I don't think Vista is getting the respect it deserves, especially from you Mac/Linux junkies. (that's expected, of course) heh
Personally, I'm going to wait until I upgrade to a bigger/better machine to get Vista. I like multitasking... big time and if the OS itself is going to take up more resources, well, I just don't need that until I have more resources to spare.
Plus XP is supported until 2011 so that's plenty of time for the people who've been to attached to XP and don't want to upgrade yet for whatever reason.
Personally, I'm going to wait until I upgrade to a bigger/better machine to get Vista. I like multitasking... big time and if the OS itself is going to take up more resources, well, I just don't need that until I have more resources to spare.
Plus XP is supported until 2011 so that's plenty of time for the people who've been to attached to XP and don't want to upgrade yet for whatever reason.
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
If you REALLY like multitasking you wouldn't be using Windows at all. It is one of the worst multi-tasking operating systems currently in active use.m3mn0n wrote:I like multitasking... big time and if the OS itself is going to take up more resources, well, I just don't need that until I have more resources to spare.
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
Well...m3mn0n wrote:I disagree.
It serves its purpose well, especially given the heavy load I throw at it sometimes.
I know that may defy all conventional anti-Windows logic, but it's true from my experiences.
This push lawn mower

can take whatever size lawn is thrown at it (small to large acerage).
That doesn't mean it can do it fast or efficiently.
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
Heh heh...m3mn0n wrote:Sure it does, given the right man/woman is wielding the tool.
Not hardly...
Throw 10 acres at it and you will need to start over again because it will have grown up before you are finished.
And that is what Windows has always relied upon. Faster processors thrown at it to help it get the job done. Relying on hardware to make up for the deficiencies in programming is always the last resort of a bad programming philosophy. Once of the reasons I created better alternatives to two other widly used PHP packages.
I prefer faster, smaller programs so I get get more out of my hardware.
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
- daedalus__
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:52 pm
- AKA Panama Jack
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm
Well, I have more than one computer. My primary computer is a 3.2ghz Intel system. I have a 400mhz low end desktop with 256 meg of ram. The recommended low end for XP is 300mhz with 128 meg of ram.m3mn0n wrote:Principles aside, what have your actual experiences been like?
Running XP on on the 400mhz system is like wading through a vat of wet concrete. It is slower than snot and it is ALWAYS accessing the swap drive for the littlest thing. It is a 100% pain in the butt to try and do anything on the computer. There is absolutely no way anyone could ever be reasonably productive.
Before I installed XP on the computer I had installed Linux with the KDE desktop and it was blazingly fast in comparison to XP. Plus I could have a number of applications running in the background without the infernally slow disk swapping. BTW, Windows virtual memory system is one of the slowest I have ever seen.
By running XP on my 3.2 gig system it HIDES all of the FLAWS in XP with the extra speed and memory. I would love to switch to another windowed operating system that wasn't such a CPU and RAM hog. But unfortunately for entertainment software I am basically stuck with using Windows. Some of the games I have do include Linux versions but very, very few. If the game manufacturers would start releasing MULTI-SYSTEM DVDs for their games with executables for Windows, Linux and Mac then Microsoft would NOT have the stranglehold on entertainment software it currently enjoys.
I would switch in an instant because I would rather have a BLAZING 3.2gig system than mearly a Fast 3.2gig system. Windows XP just holds back the potential of the CPU.
Last edited by AKA Panama Jack on Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.