View Full Version : Vista Recall
BucNastyHater
12-05-2007, 06:27 PM
Someone yesterday was telling me that in April or so Vista is going to be recalled and SP3 for XP is going to be released. Its understandable to believe that Vista isnt flying off the shelves, and more people are reverting back to XP. I have no idea on how reliable the info is and I havent heard anything about yet so I just wanted to know what everyone here thinks (please no vista flaming).
BenchZowner
12-05-2007, 06:44 PM
Vista being recalled is a possibility........around 0.001% :D
Not a single chance actually...
zanzabar
12-05-2007, 07:42 PM
vista wont be recalled it works fine and if u have good hardware isnt much slower than xp for crunching and its faster on the desktop, and now that drivers arnt a problem for most hardware computability is great
BucNastyHater
12-06-2007, 12:24 PM
I downloaded a cracked version just to try it out since the retail version would be better than the RC2 version that I had, and I didnt have any problems in general for the two weeks that I used it. Since then I upgraded my computer a bit more tho.(x2 3800 > x2 5200; 7800gtx > 8800 ultra). I cant wait to play crysis in DX10.
Omastar
12-06-2007, 02:48 PM
I downloaded a cracked version just to try it [...]
That's generally not something I'd cop to in a public venue. XS is strict about discussing illegally downloaded software, cracks, all that stuff.
Envydia007
12-06-2007, 03:02 PM
yeah some people are proud of their cracks.
Der_KHAN
12-06-2007, 03:25 PM
I have no idea on how reliable the info is and I havent heard anything about yet so I just wanted to know what everyone here thinkstotal :bs:
dicecca112
12-06-2007, 03:33 PM
It was a joke online
b1lk1
12-06-2007, 05:11 PM
It was a joke online
But if it is a joke then it should atleast be funny.....
canuck88
12-12-2007, 01:56 PM
Vista is fine.
naokaji
12-12-2007, 03:10 PM
a vista recall? nah.. dont see a reason for it.
Circaflex
12-12-2007, 03:45 PM
do people forget we went through the EXACT same problem with XP? Nothing worked correctly, it was slower because no drivers were out, blah blah blah. By now its either your machine is old and crippled, or 3rd party vendors are lacking on the driver side of things. MS shouldnt have to bundle drivers with their operating system for high end parts, videocard and soundcards, thats up to those manufacturers to put something out that gives performance. Quit your trolling and vista bashing already.
Vista works great for me, i love it.
ShoNuff
12-12-2007, 05:23 PM
yeah some people are proud of their cracks.
:rofl: :ROTF: :clap:
Just installed SP1...file x-fer is even bettter. Vista is A O.K. in my book.
BucNastyHater
12-12-2007, 06:19 PM
Quit your trolling and vista bashing already.
Im not trolling and I definitely wasnt bashing, I was just wondering.
Rock&Roll
12-12-2007, 08:39 PM
Lol. The idea of a Vista recall is hilarious....Not gonna happen. Ohh....the sh1t you'll see on the interwebs
Truckchase!
12-12-2007, 08:43 PM
They're recalling the moon landing too. About time eh? I NEVER GOT A ROCK!
ingeborgdot
12-13-2007, 07:23 AM
People watch tv and see those stupd mac commercials and start believing that crap. Mac:rofl:
People forget that xp had many if not more issues when it started and you could not use the same equipment that was used in 98 at all or if you did you had a slower machine than any used with vista. People:rolleyes:
cky2k6
12-22-2007, 03:48 PM
aye give me a break... vista is a MUCH better os that xp was in its infancy. xp had horrible security, was slow, ate too much ram, etc etc... now, its considered the best windows os released to date, I think we forget that the reason xp is so good, is that microsoft has had it out for so long, its really the first windows yet to actually have enough time to mature.
ihjones
12-25-2007, 04:26 PM
:rofl: :ROTF: Show us a vista benchmark or game that even competes with those of XP x84 or 64 .. then we might believe in Vista! Until then XP rocks! and Vista is two :down: :down:, and will remain a backup install to XP on all my systems.. Think of it this way, if Vista was that good why would MS tie Dx10 to it hoping to force people over to Vista? I have two Vista flavors, and so far (even stripped) they are both only good for mundane office duties.. Absolutely not ever for gaming :ROTF:
Emerica
12-25-2007, 04:37 PM
yeah some people are proud of their cracks.
I don't think he is proud of it, he was just saying he got a cracked version because he didn't want to waste his money if he didn't like the Operating System. I am sure he is going to go out and buy a legal license for it...:p:
BucNastyHater
12-25-2007, 05:46 PM
I don't think he is proud of it, he was just saying he got a cracked version because he didn't want to waste his money if he didn't like the Operating System. I am sure he is going to go out and buy a legal license for it...:p:
Exactly. It wasnt my crack, and how many of you folks went out and bought a $300 copy of Vista Ultimate the day it came out??? I bet very few, the rest are waiting for the SP1 or just until they get it working well enough to use as a main os, instead of using XP too for games and other non-vista compatible programs.
ingeborgdot
12-26-2007, 08:36 AM
I am using vista 64bit now and like it much better than xp. You are blaming vista for games not working. It is the game makers that need to make the games to work with vista. Everything that I use vista for is a lot faster than it was with xp. You can't expect vista to work better than xp if you use the same specs as you did with xp. It takes more.
VoGonPT
12-26-2007, 10:01 AM
I had doubts about Vista until I installed it... LOL
Vista FTW. Love the new functions and as everyone already said the same problems happened (if not worse... remember sp2 for XP? :D ) to XP in the beginning.
It just does not make sense to use a 6 year old OS with brand new hardware and brag that it is faster than the other, of course it is, if I was able to use windows 3.11 on my hardware I'm sure it would fly... but what about the new functions?
It is really just a question of time before Vista outperforms xp. And we'll all be able to say... "told ya!" :D
Behave!
s1nykuL
01-01-2008, 11:14 AM
It is really just a question of time before Vista outperforms xp. And we'll all be able to say... "told ya!" :D
Behave!
yup, certainly so, especially with quad core CPU's. PCI-e 2 and multicore GPU's are also the horizon. And that is where the performance increases will come from. I don't believe vista will ever outperform XP on the same hardware.
Vista was more stable and secure on release than XP.
Vista works with contemporary software better than XP did with its contemporaries on release.
Why? Because vista is NOT a complete re-write like Redmond would have you believe. Switch of all the eye candy, use windows classic themes and you will see that vista is in fact XP in a party frock. Remove that frock and all of the useless(this is a relative point) bells and whistles that come with the OS and it doesn't perform much slower than XP. Advice:Switch of all those pointless services.
I don't use vista because it is a resource hog, and offers nothing over XP that I actually want or need. After all the time XP has been around I have an efficient customised system, that rarely ever crashes and does everything I require along with the third party apps I have.
I do have a dual boot system and use vista for some games, I set this up mainly to see what directX 10 is all about... doesn't Crysis look cool :cool: But for work and anything serious I use XP and a couple of Linux distros.
I would like to say vista sucks, but for a new user who is IT illiterate it's great. It has managed to dumb down every aspect of using a computer such that any retard can use one, connect to the internet and P--- me off, some of you too I'm sure.
For the average and sub-average user, vista is probably the best OS. But for those who want to control their own PC's and have the smarts to use it, Linux is the way to go. Yes, if you have the latest or exotic hardware you may have to modify some code somewhere, or wait a little while for drivers to be written if the hardware manufacturer does not support linux. But I did say those with the smarts to use it. Having some experience of coding will certainly help with the running of a Linux box.
Which OS is best? well it's the one that best suits your needs. Each to is own and it is certainly something which we SHOULDN'T feel passionate about to the point of insult.;)
BucNastyHater
01-01-2008, 11:19 AM
Well said.
Zytek_Fan
01-01-2008, 12:11 PM
Despite what some people might say, Vista is probably the best OS I have ever used :)
ingeborgdot
01-01-2008, 02:23 PM
And would 98 outperform xp with the same hardware.
You just don't make sense.
s1nykuL
01-03-2008, 05:36 AM
And would 98 outperform xp with the same hardware.
You just don't make sense.
I should have mentioned hardware available at the time of the earlier OS. An OS with MMX/SSE3, multi CPU support and all the latest technological advancements, will outperform an older OS that doesn't have that support on the latest hardware.
I remember that XP felt very slow compared to '98 when I upgraded. So much so that I went back to '98. Eventually when I upgraded my hardware and switched off the mickey mouse GUI. It then began to perform better than '98, but again I put that down to hardware, rather than an improvement in windows code base.
Each release of windows has put more demands on the hardware. Each release of windows has more services running in the background, more bells and whistles and more cartoons to allow retards to use the OS. Each release of windows has done more than the previous release. As a result each release of windows has demanded higher spec hardware to perform at the same level as a previous version. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, we all want improvements to ease and convenience of work, computing tasks etc.
I am just stating a fact that really should be obvious. Previous versions of windows are all faster on the same hardware than later versions. Providing the hardware is contemporary to the earlier OS.
chew*
01-22-2008, 02:33 PM
win 98 to xp is a bad example..........win 2k will spank win xp on the same hardware.......after all win xp is just win2k with a preety dress on......
I use all 3 win2kpro, winxppro, win vista premium..........Vista is a hell of a lot better than XP was on release.........win2k is the most stable platform however lacks quad cpu support.........which microsoft could easily patch......can't make money if you can't force the upgrade......They all have they're nitch......i still use win2k on a quad system......it only uses 2 cores and still works great.......
Vista actually is very usable and stops the Hard drive thrashing when you disable 4 things..........
1 - system restore
2 - wndows search
3 - superfetch
4 - hard drive indexing
:up: :up: after disabling these 4 things it runs as smooth as XP!!! and 3d gains some performance boost!!!
Anemone
01-26-2008, 01:18 PM
I like some of the Vista features. Use both XP and Vista, where XP is for the older machines and hardware. Anything new built I'd put Vista on for now, unless you had some compatibility worries. Most of those are gone by now.
It's not like you'd go horridly wrong using either one. I happen to like some things about each one as well. But if I were picking on a new machine, I'd go Vista.