I'm going try and reply without turning this into any more of a pissing match than it already has, so here goes.
I appreciate the sentiment, but it was YOU who started it!! I will refrain from personal comments or insults, because it doesn't do anybody any favours nor does it further any rational debate.
I was in a rush to get the door this morning and my post was probably unnecessarily personal in it's nature, and for that I apologise.
I would have had little issue with your post if you had made it clear that it was your opionions, rather than stating them as fact. Quoting a third party source without any kind of link to the source is little more than stating one own opinion in my eyes..
Your apology is accepted.... However I will respond to some of your points....
It's more than a bit difficult to link to printed paper sources.... but there are numerous reports in the respected press, that end up with exactly the same experiences as mine. The general consensus of opinion remains that Vista is a stop gap OS that will die the same way that Windows ME did.
You have a right to your a opinions, but when you jump on someone that asked a simple question it's out of order in my book. You basically attacked the first two posters for using Vista, by asking "Why!! ....", like they were stupid or something
I most certainly did not.... If you missinterpreted my first post, then that is hardly my fault. However if anyone believed that I was attacking them, then I apologise for that, it was certainly not the intention.
Re: Aaron
You never replied to his post, so it's possible you never saw it.
You're absolutely right that I never saw it..... I would have taken issue with a couple of points in it if I had. The LCD Topgun drivers certainly do not work well with Vista. Unusual for Aaron to be wrong about something. But then I guess we're all human.
The WallMart PC comment was more of badly worded generalisation, than an assumption (I don't live in the USA either). I did presume since you said it came with Vista and you sent it back that it was a pre-built brand name box, and that since was unable to run vista stably that it was a cheap and rubbish one at that.
I appreciate your generalisation but don't apply generalisations to me! You used it to make assumptions that were less than accurate. I'm sure the PC manufacturer in question would be more than happy to discuss your claims that their product is rubbish. I personally don't think it was a bad spec.
I do however appreciate your clarified definition of "rubbish".... Very interesting, given that that is how the majority of machines on the planet are sold. You are therefore suggesting that the majority of hardware sold in the world is defective before it even leaves the manufacturer. I'm sorry, but that is clearly not true. It would be more accurate to say that we've been dumped on by Microsoft, yet again, foisting an OS on us that doesn't work properly with the majority of hardware on the planet and has to be patched to hell just to get it to function.
Now that comment this is just plan childish, I never said Vista was perfect,
You started the childish comments.... If you don't like it when I turn round and bite you after you attack me personally, instead of debating the actual points, then don't do it in the first place.
That's your opinion and you have your right to it,
Glad we agree on that.
I've had no issue with lockups or crashes relating to using Vista, in fact the only time I've had Vista crash in four months is when my DVD-Writer was on it's way out, and XP crashed just as often until I replaced the Drive.
Sorry Mark but that's simply not my experience of the OS. It's also not the experience of many respected technology journalists or their lab technicians or the readers of numerous publications who write to complain either. While it's impossible to link to paper articles I don't have the time to scan and post them all either.
It caused me nightmares. To be honest I think that you shoot your own argument in the foot, when you advise people to use an illegal cut down version of Vista, if they are going to install it in an arcade cabinet. Why should anyone have to use a hacked up cut down version of an OS in order just to get it to run properly. That says a great deal for both Microsoft and Vista.
The vast majority of users in the world, will NOT be using hacked up cut down versions. Why should they be suffering to the deference of Microsoft's wallet. In fact even the majority of people on here will NOT be using hacked up cut down versions, because the majority of users (even on here) buy a machine that
IS an OEM Branded manufacturer unit with a pre install on it. Many people therefore quite rightly expect the goods they have paid for, to work when they get it out of the box, not have to be hacked down or patched to hell, just to get it to function properly.
The largest numbers of sales for Vista, even to people on here ARE branded box shifter manufacturers. While you and I are perfectly capable of building a machine from scratch and not having inferior components as a result of our own picking and choosing, the majority of users, again, even on here, do not fall into that category and I also don't have the time to build a machine from scratch every time I need one, just to get the OS to work.
The majority of people in the world buy Dell, Packard Bell, Acer, Gateway etc etc etc even the majority on here.
So my original answer stands. While I don't in any way dispute your benchmarking results, which I found very interesting and informative. In fact I do thank you for taking the time to do all of that, your efforts are appreciated. I do however dispute the stability of this OS on the majority of hardware based on my own experience of it.
Maybee when they release Service Pack 2 or 3 for it I'll be better and more stable. But right now IMHO it's not good, it's not right and it's not as stable as you claim, when run on the majority of the hardware it's supposed to run on.
Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: Vista64 and driver compatibility (Read 4923 times)
