digg

Join DiggAbout

The Funniest Microsoft Video Yet watch!

youtube.com — Well, I guess I just like Linux better even though I use Microsoft products everyday.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • INDOAZZ, on 02/19/2008, -40/+26CE-ME-NT!!! 2:13 I spent wisely.
    • ToadLeg, on 02/19/2008, -5/+60THIS VIDEO IS A BLATANT COPY.

      I'm not sure if it's the original (I think it might be after 30 seconds of googling), but an earlier, much better version is here: http://www.blimptv.net/mostpopularV1.html

      Looks like fridaypage.com just removed the blimptv intro, then copied the rest and put their own watermark on it.

      bury
      • MikeEnIke, on 02/19/2008, -14/+5So umm, why does that make it a BETTER copy? Hey it's shorter, and more to the point. Plus, the damned video player doesn't pop up ads.
        • Teej, on 02/19/2008, -0/+12The original has much cleaner and stereo sound.
          • blimptv, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3The original is alive and well at BlimpTV.net
            Thanks for checking it out...
            -Deanopp (author)
      • ers35, on 02/19/2008, -0/+9The video's credits clearly state the author as blimptv.
    • ophello, on 02/19/2008, -1/+15I'd like to see this done for OSX -- And I'm a Fanboy.
      • strangewill, on 02/19/2008, -2/+14Sadly OSX hasn't really been around nearly as long as the Microsoft families, so there isn't nearly as much stuff to go on about. You can go on about older Apple OSes, but most current day Apple consumers would have no clue about whats going on with the jokes... Unlike say the blue screen of death, which you practically never see since the days of XP, but is still a very well known "issue" due to the daily nightmares of say ME or 98... I haven't had one outside of bad RAM when I originally built my first XP box.
        • aywwts4, on 02/19/2008, -8/+8I almost never saw a bluescreen on XP (7 total in nearly as many years) 2000 was even more stable (and over half of these bluescreens I admit were my fault) but vista... in 3 months I have seen over 10 blue screens, its terrible, one offending application (not driver) can crash the whole system, its like windows 98 all over again. The ironic thing is many of the blue screens have come from trying to play windows DRM content (netflix videos and the like)

          Bluescreens are back baby.
          • strangewill, on 02/19/2008, -6/+3Totally possible, I haven't installed Vista myself, and most people I talk to that own Vista run pretty clean ships so they don't have really major problems, however due to many other reasons I'll probably be skipping out on this OS anyway, I always jump a generation of OSes.

            However I don't know how applications cause BSoDs, I'd figure the NT Kernel would keep that to a minimum regardless.
          • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5Yeah, as far as I know, applications aren't the direct cause of a bluescreen. It's when the application accesses the hardware and there's an error that bluescreens happen.

            It coule be something wrong with your video card if these are simple apps. Since Vista renders everything on the card now, maybe you have a bad driver install and when it tries to render certain things on the desktop the card flips out.

            Just a random guess on limited knowledge of the situation...
          • mancat, on 02/19/2008, -5/+6That sucks for you, since I have experienced zero bluescreens in Vista since some of the late betas.
          • Amablue, on 02/19/2008, -0/+7On the subject of Blue Screens, I saw my first Vista Blue Screen today. Twice in a row in fact. My brother was trying to upload some music to his Zen Mp3 player and we got a bluescreen. We tried again after restarting and again we got a bluescreen. First time I'd seen one in person on Vista.
          • Spuy767, on 02/19/2008, -1/+52000 Was NOT more stable than XP. If you want stable, download Server 2003, disable the server security features, and you've got the fastest, least bloated, most stable and secure version of windows that money can buy.
      • ozid, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4the closest i can think of... sorry for the link to myspace, it was readily available.

        http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids. ...
    • Nicko9y, on 02/19/2008, -6/+1First page
    • pharmakon, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3congratulations, you managed to get -10 diggs on the first comment to this article. and if you consider the fact that almost anything relatively funny as the first comment gets about 300 diggs, this is a real accomplishment.
    • dagnome1984, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Too bad that the CEMENT joke is like 7 years old but no one is the wiser.
      • vawksel, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Well, if no one is the wiser then it's a new joke. See how that works?
  • Member148, on 02/19/2008, -56/+36Bill Gates got one more practical joke in on the public, before he retired. I had windows ME and it drove me crazy. I am definitely not upgrading to windows Vista. I have heard horror stories galore about this software.
    • strangewill, on 02/19/2008, -5/+14I've heard stories, but from people I know that it runs decently. The biggest issue is that I cannot justify spending $200 for practically a slower version of XP, there are no features that they promised us back when it was called Longhorn that they kept that made it worth it.
      • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -5/+9Well, I got Vista when I built my computer because I figured, "why the hell not"? And since XP's licensing is stopping soon, you won't really have a legal choice...
        • humpy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+12XP's licensing is stopping? What the ***** does that even mean? Why would it be illegal for you to run an operating system that you bought? Microsoft is dropping updates and support for XP.
          • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -4/+10Pretty sure they're going to stop creating new licenses, so no new copies. That's what I meant.
          • cannarymburns, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4microsoft is not dropping updates or support for a long long time for xp... last figure i heard is 2012, they're not going to leave out tons of their customers out in the cold... they are stopping licenses though, you will not be able to get an xp license after i think june 30th this year, they will still sell business licenses until jan 30th 2009 as far as i know though. and lastly, starter editions of xp will still be sold to developing countries until jan 30th 2010. please be informed before you post....
        • strangewill, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3I have the choice of holding out till the next (hopefully much better) OS. People still use Windows 98 today, I can use XP for another couple years.
        • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6There's hundreds of thousands of disused XP licenses in the wild. Snap em up for peanuts.
          Consumer Law governs what you can do with products. Not adhesion contracts (EULA). Not unless they take you to court and get a judge to issue an order of remedy under Contract Law. IF the EULA is found enforceable, you may have to cease and desist or repurchase or something, as there is no explicit remedy specified. Big F'n deal.
          Stop letting Corporations act as they are law makers, or risk giving them mandate.
      • Servebot, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4$200 lol
      • 000dom000, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4exactly, im not paying that much for an OS that runs "decently"
    • finaldrumgod, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Does not compute... you lost me at upgrading.
    • DarkN00b, on 02/19/2008, -4/+8The lesson is: never buy a Microsoft product before the first service pack comes out. I no longer run Windows but I must say that after all the updates were applied to WinMe, it was a stable as any version of Windows has ever been.
      • danjwray, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Never fear! Microsoft have now taken to releasing the SP1 bundled right with the initial launch! That's the same.... right?
  • icechen1, on 02/19/2008, -41/+6Too bad that video didn't talk about solutions.
  • shrewduser, on 02/19/2008, -70/+43it actually is one of the funniest videos i've seen in a while, working with vista is quite painful.
    • estvir, on 02/19/2008, -25/+13How?
      • Microdot, on 02/19/2008, -9/+29you look like you are trying to be witty.... cancel or allow?
        • SirBotchness, on 02/19/2008, -7/+2wow, cause that doesn't happen on every other OS?
    • ejdmoo, on 02/19/2008, -10/+6Really? Funny?

      ....naw
    • legoalert33, on 02/19/2008, -19/+3Then don't nothings forcing you to use vista, or windows.
      • alilhappything, on 02/19/2008, -0/+13Maybe the computers at shrewdusers job run Vista. Just a thought.
      • Teej, on 02/19/2008, -2/+18Apparently nothing is forcing you to use grammar either.
        • legoalert33, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1doubt my engliish bug u .
          • Teej, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I think you were trying to say that you doubted it was just my English that bugged me, implying I was a mac user. I have a Macbook Pro, but I use XP on it far more than OS X. I love their hardware, however I really dislike their operating system.
      • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3But there are some hurdles like freely downloadable Windows only codec packs. They might have no retail value but they are valuable as an anticompetitive measure.
        Thankfully that trick can be overcome by installing compatible codecs from the multi-verse or suitable 'bad' repositories.
    • chibimmy, on 02/19/2008, -11/+56It's like hugging a koala. Seriously, am i the only ***** person who doesn't have trouble using vista?
      • chrispeters, on 02/19/2008, -7/+21Have you ever hugged a koala? They stink, they have sharp claws, and they like to relieve themselves while people are holding them.
        • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -4/+9I think that's what he said about Vista :)
      • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -8/+16Nope. I know 4 other people that installed it and love it, too.

        Well, actually, I did have a problem, but it wasn't MS's fault. Creative blows at making Vista drivers. Seriously, don't buy a Creative product if you want or plan on wanting Vista at any point ever. Pretty sure the drivers are still in beta, even.
        • glory, on 02/19/2008, -8/+11Vista has been great. Not a single problem, I'm using tons of software, Vista has proven to be stable and secure.
        • Spuy767, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5That's pretty amazing, cause my experience was an abomination. 2 Dual-Core 3 GHz XEON processors, 4 gigs of RAM, 1333 MHz Dual FSB, all up to date drivers, and vista manages to run slowly. Once you turn off all the ***** that makes Vista obnoxious, you're essentially back to using Windows XP, so I really found Vista uncompelling as an upgrade. I ended up upgrading my machine, but not to Vista. Windows Server 2003 is an incredibly stable and capabe workstation operating system if you spend a little time configuring everything so that it's not operating specifically as a server. Plus, you don't get any of the annoying software that comes imbedded like deer ticks into the other versions of windows. Oh, and a further down post reminded me that Vista is a bitch to connect to wireless networks sometimes. What takes three clicks in XP is a ten minute Ordeal in vista.
          • GawtMilk, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6What? You just double click a network! Big deal.
          • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2If you think the interface is all there is to Vista and once that's disabled you might as well use XP, you're very ignorant of the OS, and should learn a bit before making statements like that.
          • Spuy767, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2@ GawtMilk In theory. I've seen vista numerous times refuse to pull IP addresses from wireless networks alltogether.
      • lovecss, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4I love Vista. Some people just don't know how to maintain an operating system.
  • Darkhacker, on 02/19/2008, -38/+292In one small step for man, one giant leap for digg-kind, I'll be the first to say that I've never used Vista, so I can't comment on it. Sometimes listening to Digg users on Vista is like listening to a virgin's advice on sex.
    • VonBargenJL, on 02/19/2008, -11/+53ya, i got a free ultimate copy (legally) and ive never had problems with it. i run a good gaming rig and have 4 HDDs and the best part is when i had ***** drivers when the 8800s first came out, vista would catch the drivers from crashing and revert to an older 'working' driver until you got a newer upgrade automatically
      • antdude, on 02/19/2008, -9/+4Where did you get it legally for free? ;)
        • Tyr86, on 02/19/2008, -2/+14Probably an MSDNAA license. That's how I ended up with 4 keys, plus 1 more through school.
          • antdude, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3And how does one get one? ;)
          • nandasunu, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10You get it through your university.
          • cawpin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2MSDN isn't free so that isn't it. You still have to pay a price, although very small, through the MS campus agreements, so that isn't it.
        • VonBargenJL, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1i got it from my friend who runs a computer business, he told me to download what i wanted from his MSDN subscribership, just 'dont go crazy'
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 02/19/2008, -6/+40You mean a digg user's advice on sex?
      • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10I give the same advice about Vista to my kids...
    • allengeer, on 02/19/2008, -24/+29Allow me to relate a typical Vista experience.
      I purchased a 2nd gen Zune for my father for Christmas. Hes pro PC, so I thought id get him the Zune. So we go plug his Zune into his new Vista PC.... and lo! the Vista machine does not recognize the USB device and cannot install the drivers. Reinstall the Zune software over and over, to no avail. After perusing forums for 8 hours at least we come upon a solution to the Zune not being recognized in Vista. A Strictly software problem that is fixed by a terrible security flaw: add the local sys account to the administrators group! wtf!

      and another vista "experience":
      after updating vista with a clunky interface, the wireless would no longer connect. After significant research, we had to, oh man get this, REMOVE A DEVELOPERS USERNAME and PASSWORD from a services "run as" dialog so that it would run under the local system account and not as the developers login (which didnt work anyway). It really made me want to choke someone.
      that is a sample of the common "Vista Experience"
      • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -12/+25I didn't have any problem at all with my Zune. I installed the software, plugged it in, and was good to go.

        Your second problem seems like a problem not many people would have, so probably not applicable to anyone but you.
        • danjwray, on 02/19/2008, -8/+8yeah, clearly. That's how he got solutions from google right?
        • GawtMilk, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9His "problem" was that he wasn't running it in Administrator mode.

          How would that take eight hours to figure out?
        • allengeer, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Admitedly, the second problem happened for reasons i dont know why... I just fixed it. there is a possibility that my dad did do something to cause that.
      • EntropyFan, on 02/19/2008, -2/+11I would hardly call that common. I would call that 'out of 10 million copies', some problems are going to happen to a few.
        Having run Vista from Beta to SP1 on lots of machines, I have yet to run into anything like what you describe.
        You plug the Zune in, it sees it, done. That is the common "Vista Experience"
        Now, having to use the Zune software instead of the software of my choice? Don't get me started...
      • Harabeck, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2My roomate had problems with his Zune on a pc with xp, maybe its not vista that is the problem there.
      • Balloondoggies, on 02/19/2008, -8/+0Can you provide links to the solutions for the "problems" you experienced? I smell BS.
      • Rikm, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2So you installed some crap software written by a ***** developer whose too lazy read all the guides, information and best coding practices available on MSDN and other resource sites and instead devises his own hack to get his program working under Vista where he can no longer write ***** wherever it's convenient for him in the registry and system folders...

        ...and then you blame Microsoft and Vista?

        Too be honest I don't even believe you. Name the program and version so I can replicate this experience. Until then your comment is just FUD.
        • allengeer, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I didn't cause the second problem so I am not sure what caused it. Could have been some sort of superfluous software that manipulates a native windows service. I do know however, that the wireless worked and then Windows Update ran, then the wireless no longer worked.

          The first one is a microsoft/vista/zune problem. http://forums.zune.net/12/11016/ShowPost.aspx#1101 ...
        • Randinn, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Bah, are you trying to say that MS isn't full of lazy coders? MS is the reason for the term 'bloatware'.
    • superxero044, on 02/19/2008, -27/+11vista = teh suck
    • dedkittens, on 02/19/2008, -6/+24Well... i have used vista for awhile, and it really isnt all that bad, once you get the system reqs it is semi fast (once you get past booting up) and it is SUPER easy to get rid of the vista pop ups, just spend like 2 minutes in preferences... so yeah...
      • Harabeck, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Is there any way to remove some of the new crappy diagnose tools? For instance, on XP youc an simple have the computer reset your network connection, it restarts the adapter, clears some caches, and then gets new ip info.

        But if you try it on Vista, it makes you go through a "dianose" phase that takes like 3 minutes, at which point it asks if you want to reset the adapter. -.-
        • Balloondoggies, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Start > Run > CMD
          ipconfig /release
          ipconfig /flushdns
          ipconfig /renew

          All fixed in less then 30 secs.
          • fr34k5h0w, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1One added step there. Instead of going to Run, go to Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> right click on Command Prompt and choose run as administrator. Deal with UAC (unless you put it in silent mode [highly recommended] or completely off), then enter his commands and it should work. Not exactly less than 30 seconds, but welcome to the Wow experience.
            EDIT: I'd recommend also right clicking on Command Prompt, going to Properties-> Shortcut -> Advanced... and checking Run as Administrator. Now command prompt will elevate every time.
          • cawpin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1How about just WindowsKey+R.
    • JettaMan, on 02/19/2008, -14/+38I'm betting there is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista and these supposed Vista comments are Apple fanboy spam.
      • xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -19/+9Ever use the stupid OS? I did for a couple minutes and wanted to piss on Gates foot for making and spending so much time on that piece of crap they call an OS. Lousy money sucking numb nuts.
        • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -4/+9Did you use it for about an hour? I didn't like it in my first few minutes because they moved stuff around from where it was in XP. But once I got over that I had no problem.
        • DSizzle, on 02/19/2008, -3/+16A couple of minutes is enough time to make a dumb comment on Digg, but not enough to review a new operating system.
          • xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -13/+2Sure it is if you look at the setup and hate it so much and you can just tell how slowly it is running and its incompatible factors currently. More stupid comments do you have?
          • sleepwalkers, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7@xptoast: No, seriously, "a couple minutes" is not adequate time to review an operating system. That's not an opinion.
          • xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Sure it is. Its my opinion.
      • paganize, on 02/19/2008, -7/+17Hi! I'm a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, or "MCSE"; I have over 15 years experience working with Microsoft products, mostly in Banking or government environments. With the exception of WindowsME, Vista is the worst thing to happen to computers and their users that I have ever seen.
        • sabach, on 02/19/2008, -4/+9About the same here, I support about 300 gov't users. I bought a Vista license just to get some time in on it, I guess it does what it's supposed to do. But I didn't really like the experience and I don't imagine my users will either. Besides none of our software vendors will certify their packages for it.
          • barnett25, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4And considering we just finished switching from 2000 to XP 1 1/2 years ago, it will probably be a while before the government sees Vista anyway.
        • rootfiend, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5I don't like it either but please don't flash your "MCSE" as some sort of credential. It makes me laugh so hard I can't type.
          • paganize, on 03/03/2008, -0/+0When I first got it it sort of actually meant something; it got me more jobs than my CS degree.
        • cawpin, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2So you're not laughing at all?
    • quomen, on 02/19/2008, -12/+24The video is as bad as the ***** Apple commercial that blatanly LIES about Windows and PCs in general. It's baseless and pretentious *****. Dugg down. Why can't we love Linux, PC, and Mac systems. I've used Ubuntu, Leopard, and Vista and I love them all. I have to say that I prefer Windows for the versatility and support for most applications.
    • Haohmaru, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6I'm tired of all these "comic book shop guys" who will never be happy no matter what MS does, but will continue to use MS products because they aren't savvy enough to use anything else. Their complaints are vague or sometimes completely wrong. They have no business critiquing most OS's because they are ill-informed, barely used the product or are just fan-boys for the OS of the day.
    • Calcularius, on 02/19/2008, -8/+3Vista is the HD-DVD of operating systems.
    • Chunken, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2The person who made the video hasn't used it either. Probably a mac user.
      • mattatron, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3It would have looked a whole bunch better if it had been made on a Mac.
        • jabberwolf, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Woulda looked great on an "etch a sketch" but would still be useless and lack fucntionality.
    • Schmich, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Mirror: http://blimptv.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sucks.ht ...
  • maddla, on 02/19/2008, -36/+16Vista... "Where are we now"?
  • kenij, on 02/19/2008, -42/+30Why do you keep saying Vista sucks? Microsoft said it was good, isn't that enough to make you instantly buy it?

    What do you mean, "NO"?
    • finaldrumgod, on 02/19/2008, -7/+7It was enough for... lots of people.
    • jhaks, on 02/19/2008, -7/+3"Why do you keep saying Vista is actually good? People who have hardly used it, Linux fanboys and Mac fanboys say it sucks; isn't that enough to make you hate it?"

      I guess so. Look at the sheep calling other people sheep.
      • kenij, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I'm not a Microsoft hater, however, I do *not* like Vista. If the upcoming SP1 actually does correct the problems, (though I have my doubts from the reports) I probably will upgrade, but in its current state I can't stand using it. (Yes, I have used it many times) XP and Linux are fine for me.
  • tcardone05, on 02/19/2008, -62/+234Apparently hasn't actually used Vista.
    • atlex2, on 02/19/2008, -47/+8I wouldn't matter, silly, Vista is the epitome for all crappy operating system jokes!
      • strangewill, on 02/19/2008, -0/+24What the hell are you talking about? ME is as far as Microsoft OSes are concerned, the biggest disaster of Windows for Workgroups technologies, at least Vista is NT based.
        • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -3/+12So was XP.

          ME was really the last of the bad Windows products.
          • strangewill, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4And 2000, but I didn't feel inclined to mention more NT based OSes than needed being as the complaint was about Vista. :p
    • ThinkBox, on 02/19/2008, -23/+17Doesnt stop them from being funny.
    • carpespasm, on 02/19/2008, -18/+39I dunno, the endless warnings and total lack of meaningful firewall/anti-virus protection sounds about right.
      • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -5/+40I tried Ubuntu about the same time that I tried Vista. It asked me to elevate to 'root' (or whatever equivelant) at least as many times as Vista asked for the same. How come no one ever mentions that?
        • ictharus, on 02/19/2008, -1/+30Claiming that Linux is un-intuitive (true) is taken as a sign of weakness, and no one's willing to admit it.
        • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -1/+11It's because the average Linux user thinks like a programmer and they expect things to be hard. They would be disappointed if the masses found their OS extremely easy to use. Having said that - if you're just going to use Ubuntu with the built in apps for internet, OpenOffice etc... it probably is the easiest.
        • jhaks, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10Not to mention with sudo or su you have to type a password. Vista has a secure mechanism for a simple dialog box without a password.
          • ConceptJunkie, on 02/19/2008, -7/+6And you have to use it like 3 times just to change an icon on the desktop. THAT'S the difference between Windows and Linux. Windows has to lock down so much more because things as innocuous as changing an icon on the desktop are vectors for your system to be rooted.
          • Rikm, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6@ConceptJunkie (can't see a reply to link)

            To add/remove an icon from the Vista desktop you have accept a UAC warning exactly 0 times. THAT's the difference between you and and ignorant fanboy who doesn't even bother to at least try something for the educational value and instead is happy to just be a sheep and repeat whatever FUD they read on some forum or saw on an Apple commercial.
        • Varz, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4It can also be disabled in Vista if you want.
          Go to control panel and type UAC in the search bar up the top, then disable it.
      • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -1/+11the "endless warnings" are actually what makes Vista secure - at least when the user knows WTF they are doing. How many widespread vulnerabilities have you heard about with Vista so far? Not a lot - not compared to the first year of XPs release
        • Spuy767, on 02/19/2008, -6/+3I'd like to tell you a story about some dogs. . . owned by a guy named Pavlov.
          • Spuy767, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1Guess that one was over your heads.
          • blackkbot, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Who was just reacting there? Vista consumers for just buying it or Mac fans for just bashing it? I don't see what you were trying to get at.
        • slowmotiony, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6You can turn off the "endless warning" literally with 5 mouse clicks. But how would people know that if they didn't even see vista?
      • jhaks, on 02/19/2008, -1/+11People don't understand a simple fact. When you lead the competition by such a large margin you come under scrutiny from every direction about what you allowed to do. Why doesn't Vista have anti-virus? Anti-virus is a billion dollar industry and if Microsoft bundled their own into the system they would be shot down with anti-trust laws. Microsoft even got a bitching from these companies because they implemented a security mechanism for disallowing kernel patches on 64 bit systems. Another example is when the EU mandated that Microsoft create another SKU without WMP or Media Center.
    • ictharus, on 02/19/2008, -10/+7Obviously -- I was on XP for a couple of years, and it regularly crashed. Vista isn't perfect, but I think it's an improvement.
      It still has a lot of useless stuff (virus protection, etc.) but once you uninstall it and put in the good free stuff, it's just fine.
      • jhaks, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10Uh... Vista doesn't come with an anti-virus application. People need to stop confusing the OS and what OEMs bloat it down with.
    • dn11, on 02/19/2008, -2/+17Yeah, it would have been a lot funnier if they actually knew what was really wrong with Vista and made fun of that instead of making random ***** up. Crashing and blue screen jokes are so 1995.
    • uziko, on 02/19/2008, -6/+16Hey people the warnings can be turned off. I did it it took me 10 seconds quit whining and bitching idiots.
      • Ayrapetov, on 02/19/2008, -3/+9People are digging you down because they know this, but want to keep bitching and moaning.
      • Rikm, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6Why even turn them off? After the first hour once you've got all your drivers updated, software installed, and tweaked things just right, how many UAC warnings do you see in a month?

        I get about 6. 2-3 for Windows update and the rest installing games and new graphics drivers. This is about the same if not less than the times I have to su in ubuntu.

        If you are seeing UAC more than this you're either ***** about in stuff you probably don't need to or using ***** software that the developer needs to go and fix because it was written to rely on holes in XP - storing user settings in HKLM, kernel patches, unsigned drivers etc., or rather you should find an alternative written by people who actually know how to code.

        Maybe there are a couple of exceptions to this, developers, beta testers etc., but they are few.

        If you are seeing UAC every day, perhaps you should take a second to read what it says? Are you sure the program you just gave elevated permissions to isn't called a$$raeptr0jn.exe
    • buddamus, on 02/19/2008, -8/+9I used vista on my laptop, hated it, now I have xp again
      • wolfskill, on 02/19/2008, -6/+5Same here, my wifes laptop had vista on it when we got it, garbage, XP is back on
    • Henwood, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1Vista's just about OK, but this is still freakin' hilarious.
    • Banelos, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6Vista is alright after about 30 tweaks like turning off indexing of all your drives, turning off UAC, turning off automatic under-the-surface windows defender scans, making the shutdown button in start menu actually shut down the PC.. And then only if you have a beast of a PC that would still run faster/better in XP.
      • Rikm, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2By default Vista does not "index all your drives". Places in the index are (if I remember) Program files, Start Menu, your user directory, and a couple of others. I actually add index locations because, as Apple showed with Spotlight and Google with DT Search, having a system-wide full text search function is frickin useful.

        Maybe it can be annoying if indexing kicks in while you're in the middle of something (never happened to me) but the productivity boost when you break the habit of going to Documents>Freelance>Company name>... and just type in the search box is significant.

        As for Shutdown, why do you want to Shutdown your PC? On most modern desktops and all notebooks the power consumption when the PC is in Sleep mode is negligible. Sleep in Vista is not the same as Standby in XP as when entering Sleep Vista also writes out a Hibernate file to disk, so if power is lost during Sleep, the PC can just resume from the Hibernate file. Vista can also be set to power completely off after a set time in Sleep, and will boot from the Hibernate file.

        Why do you want to spend minutes shutting down and booting up every day, instead of seconds resuming from Sleep? Why are you happy to waste minutes of your life doing this, but get irked because the button you want is two clicks away instead of one?

        The only time you really need to shut down a Vista PC is before you open the case, or if you want to enter the BIOS.
    • thebrawl, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2yeah cause ....... vista is a good product .......... with ..... um quality
  • crackah, on 02/19/2008, -80/+224Actually Vista is quite good. Havent had as many issues with it as I had with XP...
    • jer2eydevil88, on 02/19/2008, -22/+8It's slow performance at copying files and the lack of good SLI support has kept me far away from it.
      • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -3/+16SLI is nVidia's ***** driver making, not Vista's fault. I hear Crossfire works great.
      • Stalks, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5In what way is it slow copying files? I can get >40MByte/sec from drive to drive.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3That's slow...
        • andycr512, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Google "Vista slow file copy" and you will get tons of results on it.
          • andycr512, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4For those burying me: I'm running Vista right now, and file operations are unbelievably slow. Even deleting a shortcut takes several seconds. Neither XP nor Linux have this problem.
          • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3As much as I like Vista, this is a glaring problem with the system. Selecting a file and hitting delete...then waiting...and waiting...waiting...then finally getting the option is getting annoying.
          • FUR10N, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1if you google anything you will get a ton of results.
      • Amiga500, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Ahh, yeah. For the FEW users that had this problem, it was already fixed via Windows Update some time ago. Thanks for trolling.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Trolling... yeah or not. I shared my experiences that put me back to using XP. I gave Vista a shot for 3 months and finally had to just give up because it wasn't working out. Like any bad relationship I had to end it before it got too serious.
    • TechCF, on 02/19/2008, -2/+10Not many issues here too (only using it at work). But compared to my linux/osx boxes it is SLOW as hell, even after re-scheduling derfrags, defender scans, updates, indexing to run at night.
      • uziko, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3All that software ***** isn't gonna do anything, what you want to do is download installtool and disable every single program from starting on bootup, i did it and all 50 of my programs were booting up and running even though i wasn't using any of them and all i wanted to do was check my email, then *magically* i got 20X the performance, i wonder why? that is basically the only software change you can do to increase your computer speed, all that registy cleaner/defrag is just *****, it aint gonna do anything. Hardware is how you increase performnace it costs $ though.

        it's not an advertisment though, i just got really pissed off at all the ***** running in the background, you can get rid of all that crap it will take you, retard - 5 minutes, normal person - 30 seconds
    • etcimon, on 02/19/2008, -5/+25If it works great? I think this is the first quality OS I've run in my life. I never had to reboot because of an application freezing, the Explorer process never crashed, and the blue screen was actually useful in making my HD last a few weeks longer when it made some crazy noise and would freak out on me.

      I like how people go for Mac if they want some basic user-friendly usage (photo, mp3, facebook, etc). Power users can go for Vista/Linux, although linux has some poor error-handling, I prefer Vista on that side. For gamers, vista is a definite must-have. I tried playing call-of-duty on a Mac+Vista bootcamp, I almost got a nerval breakdown on my hand, mac has worst keyboard+mouse set ever. It's kind of classy, I can give it that, but ergonomic?
      • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -9/+2If you're worried about gaming comfort then you should really be kicking back on the couch in front of the largest screen in the house, and not a keyboard, or mouse in sight. Possibly? with a few friends kicking back next to you...
        Buy a fricking console you whingy loner.
        • Harabeck, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5If a game has a PC version or a console version, Id take the pc version anyday.

          PC > Console
      • tehrich, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1"For gamers, vista is a definite must-have." I'd have to disagree with this and say XP is better still. Vista's system requirements are too high. I don't feel like I should have to double my RAM because my OS takes half of it just to run.
      • ConceptJunkie, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Astroturf much? In my experience with Vista... my last laptop came with it... was that Explorer was the buggiest version of any NT Windows, blue screens were as useless as ever, and the performance hit was hideous. I paid for the privilege to downgrade to XP. Thanks, Microsoft, you forced Vista down my throat and made more money because you're a monopoly.
        • Rikm, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2That's because the Vista that came with your laptop also came with all the ***** bloatware apps that vendors insist on installing.
          You are blaming Vista for a faulty driver or "value added" software application written by some guy working for Acer, Asus et al, or god forbid Sony!
    • simonwright, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Give it time.
    • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2you are the first person i've ever heard say that.
      i'm running xp pro x64 till microsoft stops supporting it.
    • dineth, on 02/19/2008, -2/+8well. let me join in. my vista works just as fast as XP. in a week, it opens my regular stuff even faster. it catches and solve the network probs im constantly having automatically. it auto switches screens wen i get home and everything is well handled. it has great comprehensive power options. it's really a step forward from XP.

      and please, file transfers are slow because of a compression thing. it's meant to be good on networks. just disable it and stop complaining. it's not rocket science.

      macs do crash too. so wtf eh. my ubuntu setup crashed or ran into probs now and then too. and compiz isn't that fast either. poor driver support and yes, errors are horrendous! n apple stuff aren't taht ergonomic. cool alrite.
      • andycr512, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1"and please, file transfers are slow because of a compression thing. it's meant to be good on networks. just disable it and stop complaining. it's not rocket science."

        I highly doubt it, considering file transfers to my USB disks are extremely slow as well.
      • andycr512, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2"compiz isn't that fast either"

        I don't know what kind of hardware you're running it on, but it works flawlessly on even GeForce 4's...
        • cawpin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2It works great on GForce FXs too. I've never had a problem with Compiz.
    • DorranKame, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Same here. Seems more stable than XP. I was just glad to get away from XP. And Vista *is* a little bit prettier than all those greens, olives, and silver-blues hues in XP.
    • ligyron, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I've tried Windows 95, 98, XP, ME, 2000, and Vista for a significant amount of time each
      I've used ME for several months, and was the most broken operating system I've ever used. Could not be left on for 24 hours without falling apart. Prior to Vista, I used Windows 2000 for several years and never had any issues. Sure, maybe a bluescreen once or twice a year, but that was nothing tragic and I usually knew what triggered it. I've been using Vista lately, and it is by far my favorite operating system. Appears very stable and secure. Won't be reverting to any older operating systems. The latest service pack brought it up to a standard beyond my expectations
      Might also be worth noting that I've tried Linux, but not being able to use 90% of the applications I'm used to using and require for work, never stuck with it
    • thebrawl, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2"Actually Vista is quite good."

      *universe explodes from irony*
    • carrtoonist, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Vista is a huge improvement over XP. Not enough to win me back from Ubuntu but I will still give credit where credit is due.
  • hassanchop13, on 02/19/2008, -43/+304to be honest, the biggest complaint i hear from friends on vista is that it doesnt run games as well as XP. and yet, that would make it the 2nd best OS for games behind just xp....
    the vista hating is getting old. i dont have it, dont plan on getting it anytime soon, but its not the antichrist either.
    • markwilcox, on 02/19/2008, -9/+47It runs them great unless you have 1gb ram. You need 2gb to run them well on vista. The new games anyway.
      • TridenTBoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+16You need 2GB of ram to run new games period.
      • Stalks, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6I have problems with 2GB on Battlefield 2, but I think its just a memory hungry game.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -7/+2Battlefield 2 is a couple years old.
          The sequel Battlefield 2142 came out over a year ago.
        • cawpin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Stalks, there's something wrong with your system. I ran Battlefield 2 with every thing turned up on a P4 3.0GHZ machine with 1 GB of RAM and a ATI 9800 Pro 256MB card. It ran without any problems at all.
          • Stalks, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I guess you're running XP then? If I disabled indexing and a few other things I could run it okay, but it was a task and a half to do that every time I wanted to play BF2 after a reboot.
      • Pritchard, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I have 512mb of RAM :-(
        • grumpyrain, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2^^ Dont install Vista.

          It works brilliantly given 2GB RAM and a dual core (or better) CPU. I can honestly claim that the last computer I had that booted this quick ran DOS 5 (but folk here are probably too young to remember those days).
          • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not too young. But then I was still using my two year old Amiga with it's vastly superior multi-tasking GUI OS at that stage, so I didn't really notice DOS 5 when it came out. I'd wager to bet the Amiga booted faster as well.
          • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2To be fair, one must ask why Linux or Mac is more responsive on 1Gb or less RAM with a single-core CPU, in contrast to similar performance from Vista on double the memory and more cores! I know I'll be dugg down but I think it's a fair question that one must ask, but only after USING the OS'es in question for more than a few days. A good month of use will give a fair comparison. That's what I did to try Vista, I gave it a month on a good computer to see if it was worth keeping. I run XP on that computer now, and Linux/Mac on the other 9 computers. Either it works out or it doesn't but at least I have the right to crack jokes about the things I hated about Vista.
      • Abram730, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0I have 2GB and games are slow and laggy. In XP they run fast and never a hickup or stutter. Much faster.

        Also In XP I never had windows update break windows.
    • R3Dirkulous, on 02/19/2008, -5/+32I had vista for about a week until all the bugs finally annoyed me enough to switch back to xp. But I did the same when XP first came out, and everyone else reacted about the same as theyre now. It's a new product and things take time. You're absolutely right though, people should quit going ***** over this. Give it a year.
      • affanjam, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6I still use Windows 2000 and don't plan on upgrading
        • RaiKitsune, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3Windows 2000 was the last version that was better than the previous, its all been going down hill from there.
      • philhatesyou, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Or how about this: maybe software that isn't ready shouldn't be ***** rushed to market. Oh, that's asking too much, I forgot.
        • MAJORstrasser, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1There's always going to be bugs and security flaws to be fixed when you're dealing with 50+ million lines of code; it's the same with every modern OS. You're never going to be able to work out all the bugs before you have millions of people using the code across millions of thousands of different hardware and software configurations. You're out of you're ***** mind if you think otherwise.

          If you have no tolerance for bugs then wait for the first patch to be released. And this isn't some MS fanboy talking here; I could give a ***** about MS. It's the same way with OS X and Linux as it is with Windows. Oh, the number of times Leopard shat out on me...
        • R3Dirkulous, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1its hard to simulate whats going to happen when millions of people get a hold of your software and incorporate billions of other software with that software...not to mention on top of all the people trying to hack and destroy what you have made to exploit it.
      • ih8ualot, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3We already have given it a year. Vista came out January 2007.
        • R3Dirkulous, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1im talking about now..give it a year...I didnt say give it a year from when it came out.
    • andrew522, on 02/19/2008, -4/+12i have vista, and (if you know what you're doing) its not bad... granted I have 4gb of corsair ram in there, and an Nvidia Geforce 8600...

      I have 2 gripes:
      1. Macromedia/Adobe Fireworks is slow as *****
      2. Pinnacle Studio 10 crashes. constantly.

      other than that I like it more than XP.
      • markwilcox, on 02/19/2008, -4/+16>>I have 2 gripes:
        >>1. Macromedia/Adobe Fireworks is slow as *****
        >>2. Pinnacle Studio 10 crashes. constantly.

        Not MS's fault though
        • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1But a reality none the less. Just as certain thing may have 3rd party issue on Linux.
          Difference being MS made the change that made the problem.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7@Myztry
          You could say that about PowerPC apps that don't work with Leopard anymore or, weren't compatible with OSX to begin with.

          Bottom line is MS can't be expected to stand still. They've done far better than anyone else hands down, you can still run MS-DOS programs in Vista. I can still play DOOM, and that came out in 1991 or 1992.

          Mac doesn't do that. And Linux? you need to recompile everything everytime the kernel gets an update.
          • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I'm by no means suggesting Microsoft should stand still. I think they should start moving, and preferably before they implode under their current ruling stupidity. Microsoft had/has a giant lead in the OS market and almost unlimited resources. They should have taken time to muck out the stable between races.
            Vista should have been a totally new legacy free Operating System. They should have put some effort in being the best rather than obsessing on maintaining first/only. I understand the importance of legacy software but that could have been all implemented virtually. Instead they chose to bog down their new much delayed OS by intertwining old flaws through the new heart.
            The whole legacy system could have been achieved by parsing the input/output through the new host. Much like in a terminal services scenario, or more directly via a virtual machine. Their really is no excuse for the bogg down approach Microsoft has chosen. It HAS stood still and merely hacked around the problems.
            A properly designed OS would require programming skill training as opposed to the normal mutated OS challenge, but everything would shift in time. The legacy layer would be optional, rather than the Achilles heel of Windows. Microsoft's lead is more than enough to absorb the transitional resistance. To lead by respect rather than fear is not a concept I imagine Microsoft has much gist off.
          • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1@MacSuxWindozSux: Apparently you know absolutely jack ***** about Linux, do you? BAAH BAHH, I hear a Microsoft sheep!
          • sleepwalkers, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Heh technically OS X can run MS-DOS programs, as well, using DOSbox.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Well, yes it is Microsoft's fault... They made such radical changes with their Windows platform without providing adequate time and resources to third-party software companies that it's no wonder why things didn't work out right away. They knew that if things went to ***** that they could just point the finger at third-party vendors, and hey- people are suckers, no matter how bad a company misbehaves, people are passive enough to give them money and stick with Microsoft's products. You can't just recode a major application overnight and M$ knew it!
          • Rikm, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Vista was in beta for months and months, closed beta to developers then community preview B1, B2, RC1 and RTM, plus the 3 months between release to business and public. Developers had plenty of time and 100,000's of willing beta testers to help them get their software ready. The fact is some took the initiative and got things ready while others were happy to sit back and do sweet FA - looking at you Creative.
      • firstpost, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Pinnacle Studio is crap. Try Adobe Premiere Elements if you're looking for a similar app that is not going to crash on you every 5 seconds.
      • DSizzle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Those programs have memory leaking issues.
    • TommyTikal, on 02/19/2008, -14/+7My grandmother got a laptop for Christmas. It game preloaded with Vista, and ran at a snails pace. It shouldn't be that way. I got her set up with Ubuntu, and it runs much faster now.

      I'm building a gaming rig...and I don't suspect I'll be getting Windows on it anytime soon. Nope, I'll be using Linux Mint - and playing Quake 4, Quake Wars, UT 3, Warsow, and all of the Valve Source games...

      "Vista: Too slow for my Grandma"

      Linux on the other hand...

      • markwilcox, on 02/19/2008, -6/+8How the hell is grandma going to know how to use Linux?
      • markdde, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Valve source doesn't run natively on linux. I do love linux but it doesn't make for a great gaming OS. I'd dual boot with Windows XP.
        • philhatesyou, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3It would if the developers would release for Linux. A couple months back, ATI released new drivers for Linux. Performance of Quake Wars was compared across a whole host of operating systems. Guess which one it ran best on(Hint: the free one). This was only one test, but it goes to show that your point about Linux sucking for games is nothing more than *****. It isn't the OS' fault that devs won't release for it.
          • Speed, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1But developers don't release for Linux. Great, one game runs great on it, but where does that leave you for the rest? Can you run Tiberium Wars, Crysis, Stalker or Supreme Commander natively? No, you can't. It may not be the OS's fault that devs won't release for it, but it still makes it a crappy OS for gaming.
      • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -4/+9Well, clearly you're superior to all us lowly Windows Peons. Is it ok if I stand in your presence?
        • xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4I can pee on your foot if you want. That way I can be as sarcastic as you.
      • Speed, on 02/19/2008, -1/+9"I'm building a gaming rig...and I don't suspect I'll be getting Windows on it anytime soon"
        I don't suspect you'll be running too many new games on it anytime soon. Nope, you'll be playing games that are so old they can run on my laptop.
      • mhedden, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4buried because you're a retard... I am all for linux and anything that is open-source, but seriously linux fanboys, ***** off; I don't want to read any more posts that involve grandmas, gaming rigs, and ubuntu!
    • FredSpeaking, on 02/19/2008, -6/+4I'll take w2k for games before vista anyday
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1The newest games look better on DirectX10. It should have been a free update for XP but sadly it isn't and/or wasn't feasible (if you believe them).

      I would certainly say you get a slower framerate (usually 1-2 frames avg.) using DirectX9 and Vista.
      (Meaningless if you're framerate is over 60 anyway)

      Using DirectX 10 you usually drop 50% of the framerate, but the detail is higher.
      (Usually due to better shaders)

      You wouldn't know this unless you're a gamer using a gaming PC.
    • umerok, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Games are the only reason I still use Windows. If I can run them better in XP than Vista (as several benchmarks have shown) and they don't require DX10, they there's no reason to use Vista.
    • Rage67, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1it just needs a little more cowbell...
  • Chainheart, on 02/19/2008, -21/+94The only time I crash in Vista is when I overclock my RAM timings too tight..
    • Grym11, on 02/19/2008, -22/+4I've had serious issues with Vista. It crashes on a daily basis.

      That being said, it looks very pretty, which I guess counts for something...
      • screwzluse, on 02/19/2008, -2/+28I would bet you're in the minority. I've never had Vista crash and have heard many people say the same thing. If it crashes so often, you've probably got a driver issue which you could fix in no time, I'd bet.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Doubtful! Driver support is getting better but its still no where near as good as support in XP is.
      • markwilcox, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5He probably built his own PC and had no idea what he was doing.
        • Rikm, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1No. As I've said above. He will have bought his PC from Walmart complete with bloatware at no extra charge. And one of those apps was crashing.
      • ikonis, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Yup, probably another idiot. I've never ONCE had vista crash, on 3 different computers.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1Then it's apparent that you didn't Vista for anything outside of what Microsoft wanted you to use it for.
      • markdde, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7The majority of people who suffer lots of crashes don't know how to use their PC properly. God forbid they ever be at fault, it must be the OS. I have Win XP with a decent anti-virus/spyware and it crashes very rarely.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1If you get a defective motherboard off ebay then you computer can crash often no matter what OS you got.
      • DeFex, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3PEBKAC
    • Varz, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8I honestly don't know what people are talking about when they say it's unstable.
      I've had a total of 0 crashes, some people must be installing ***** drivers or they just don't understand how to use a computer.
      • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -5/+1...or maybe they use their computer for more than web surfing and email?
    • wTheOnew, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Indeed, the only time I've had any problems with windows it's either my fault (overclocking) or the EU's fault (not letting Microsoft include anything in Windows). I have a computer with each of the three major OSs and Windows by far has the fewest crashes. (Well I guess nothing on my Mac crashes, the programs just disappear randomly. I must be high or something.) Linux is my favorite OS, but only because I find programming and the ability to customize things easier in it, not because it's more stable.
    • haelios, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Same here... and even then it blue screens gracefully -- it flushes all disk caches etc. so I don't lose any information that has been buffered for writing.
  • bradcrc, on 02/19/2008, -35/+25You'll take vista and like it. Resistance is futile.
    • markdde, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1With most new PCs coming with Vista it will be kinda hard to resist. If not at home, then at work, you're bound to encounter it somewhere.
  • McMaster88, on 02/19/2008, -20/+5This is new? I have seen this before...like a year ago.
  • antiorblkflag9, on 02/19/2008, -22/+16Windows FU
  • ouRONIN, on 02/19/2008, -25/+18Truth...
  • Retnuh730, on 02/19/2008, -29/+16LOL WINDOZE SUCKS LINUX RULES!!
    • maehem, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Reminds me of the time I installed Ubuntu and was so sick of the bloat, I downgraded to Fedora Core 4.
    • scy1192, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1AMEN WOOT U ROCK
  • Locrian, on 02/19/2008, -25/+6LOL
  • etherreal, on 02/19/2008, -49/+151I digg Vista personally....
    • markdde, on 02/19/2008, -4/+14It's not bad once you disable the UAC and the user prompts stop.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7UAC goes away once you settle into your new computer and have the settings the way you want them.
        For Power Users it's good to disable it and after a week or two, go back in and turn it on again.
        • jhaks, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8Finally an intelligent comment about UAC. On Linux you would never run as root and you shouldn't on Windows either.
      • grumpyrain, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3UAC is one of the better things Microsoft have done. It has finally forced developers to write applications to not expect admin privileges. It is a little annoying when you are initially installing everything, but once you are installed, it doesn't pop up any more than you would need sudo.
      • combatchuck, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5UAC is a GOOD thing. It's my main gripe with every single version of Windows prior to Vista. Before Vista, you have to run as a superuser for a lot of applications to work properly. With UAC, developers are forced to put things where they belong. It also makes users more responsible with what they install and open. In short, a Word macro can't delete your Windows folder, thanks to UAC. Also, every other modern OS has this feature. Disabling UAC and running as superuser is just asking for a ***** of trouble.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3The only gripe I see about UAC is that it assumes that the person in control is the actual user in front of the computer, leaving computers running Vista open to *anyone* willing to click OK. At least with Mac or Linux the default is that you will need to enter your password to start damaging your OS.
          • fr34k5h0w, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1That's why you run in a limited account as much as possible. Then when you install a program Vista asks for an administrative user name and password. Easy and secure at the same time.
          • grumpyrain, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Did you really use Vista for a month as you claimed above? If so, you would know that it behaves differently depending on the credentials of the user logged in. If the user sitting at the keyboard is a limited user, they see this screen:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:User_Account_Co ...

            which is, *gasp*, exactly the same as OS X or Linux.
        • vawksel, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1UAC may be a good thing, but it's not implemented correctly as an overall system. I see these password/prompt boxes WAY more than on my Ubuntu or my OS X system.

          UAC is doing its job, but too many basic functions and features of the operating system require these constant pop-ups, so I just turn UAC off on Vista now.
    • DSizzle, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3I digg Vista...personally
    • expatcatalyst, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3It's actually pretty decent. All the horror stories were scary until I tried it myself.
  • gooovil, on 02/19/2008, -24/+19Vista = EyeCandies
    It looked visually pleasing. But I had to reformat that damn thing back to xp for things to run properly and I dont really care about eye candies, give my performance back!
    • npsken, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5I enjoy the new start menu and other features such as individual application volume control.
    • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5I never understood the EyeCandy element. It's like Ubuntu Gutsy with Visual Effects set to normal. Except Vista doesn't have the 'extra' setting. Translucent titlebar and live thumbnails. LOL
      • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1The gripe I have about Compiz Fusion's defaults on Ubuntu is that they still have a focus on eye candy rather than productivity and usefulness. At least the guys at Apple do focus on the right things most of the times which is usefulness, ease of use, and stability. The Linux vendors such as Ubuntu need to focus their defaults on 1. usefulness, 2. stability/compatability and 3. eye candy but only when appropriate. I configured Compiz Fusion to provide me with mostly usefulness and it works and looks great!
  • Obsidian777, on 02/19/2008, -29/+18I BSOD'd vista in under 20 min my first time on.
    • masterofgrond, on 02/19/2008, -3/+29Congratulations on your computer skills.
      • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2I'm not a newcomer to Windows operating systems (3.11 ring a bell?) and Vista had troubles right from the start all the way to the point when I replaced it with Windows XP. My hardware is standard on that computer and it had no problems with Ubuntu Linux, FreeBSD, Fedora, or Windows XP. It has no hardware problems. Most of the problems I had with it I see often with other computers running Vista. I run some Linux machines, 2 OS X 10.5 Macs, a FreeBSD box, and 1 lonely Windows XP machine. It's not impossible to have a bad experience with Vista within the first 20 minutes, and it does not matter how knowledgeable you are with it.
      • Obsidian777, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1install alcohol 120% let me know how it turns out
  • davidwasman, on 02/19/2008, -30/+20Is today 'Digg everyone down' day?

    *waits to be dugg down into oblivion*
    • meez, on 02/19/2008, -11/+5Because all the comments here are fail.
      Including yours.
      • davidwasman, on 02/19/2008, -4/+7Oh, sorry /b/-tard

        was my comment not '4chan'-ny enough for you?

        should I have used nonsensical words like 'MOAR' and 'SAGE'?
  • Jaliyl, on 02/19/2008, -14/+8Saw this last year in november but still funny
  • blinktude, on 02/19/2008, -46/+115I can understand why people are criticizing Vista and other microsoft OSs but if they knew how difficult it is to code millions of lines OS, they wouldn't be hating it as much.
    Vista is quite of an achievement IMHO...
    • woofers07, on 02/19/2008, -23/+8How many more lines of code than Leopard? which is cheaper, faster, and more stable.
      • Warll, on 02/19/2008, -3/+18Define "cheaper"?
        • BossKey, on 02/19/2008, -9/+4OK. If you want Vista to have a comparable level of features as Leopard, you have to buy the "edition" of Vista that costs roughly twice as much as the one version of Leopard.
          • Warll, on 02/19/2008, -3/+13Ok first off I just go along with you heres the math:
            Windows Vista Ultimate = Just under $400.
            Mac OSX = Oops sorry you need to buy a Mac, don't worry its only going to cost you an extra $500-$800 more bucks for the same level of hardware with little hope of upgrading components.
            Ok first off those maths don't add up, but hey I'm using the "crappy" Windows calc for this, one second please.
            Nope still doesn't add up on my TI-83 Plus.
            PS: What "features" are we talking about anyway?
          • Smills, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6Vista Ultimate x64 OEM is $265 AUD where I am... And that is pretty much the average price that I have checked from about 3 stores (no, not online stores). I really don't think it is that expensive. Why not just get the OEM version along with like a $5 mouse?
          • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2@WarII: Don't expect to just cram Vista on that year or two old computer and have it run halfway decent, versus the more efficient Mac OS X 10.5 that can still run good on some pretty old hardware in the Windows world. Apple does not sell low-end hardware like that Dell you likely have sitting under your desk (low-end, cheap) and usually provide much better support. I say this while typing on neither Mac or Windows, although I'm very familiar with and use both. I'm not too biased, I use a full range of systems, including Windows. I'm a fan of nothing, I just use the best tool for a particular task.
          • Warll, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1@DaComputerFreak
            AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
            ASUSTek NODUSM3
            2048 MB DDR2 (I'll likely grab some more sometime soon)
            X-Fi XtremeGamer
            HDD-1.1Tb Total
            EVGA 8800 GTS 320MB
            All cramed in a Antec P182
            And of course running Windows Vista Home Prime.
          • jabberwolf, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1100 bucks over 5 years for every service pack of OSX = 500+
            The most expensiver version of Vista is 400. Most can purchase an uprade and install Vista fresh so long as they have the XP cd.
            So yeah, why can't mactards do simple Math ?
        • BlackCow, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Cheaper eh? Well lets see I bought Home Premium OEM for 80 bucks and installed it on my computer, everything is happy. Leopard.... hmm well first I need to buy an apple and oh wait, yeah... not cheaper.
      • blinktude, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7because leopard and other Mac OS does not need to worry about other third party devices and drivers.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1And I'm sure the boys at Microsoft didn't just drop off a 1,000+ page document describing all the changes they made in their OS to third-party vendors JUST before it's debut? They wouldn't do that, would they? Because I know how some people are a little slooooow, I'll let you all know that the above comment is sarcastic in nature.
      • daza, on 02/19/2008, -2/+16Don't forget it's locked in to a very small amount of machine configurations. Windows supports millions upon millions of hardware configurations.
        • tgc1, on 02/19/2008, -9/+3Easy there tiger. It supports STANDARD hardware configurations that are in place. And that's the only reason why I won't buy an Apple. Because I want to build my own stuff.
      • danjwray, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4How about Linux? More secure (don't bother arguing), more stable (don't bother arguing), cheaper (ditto). This software is predominantly written by enthusiasts for free, people!
        • dacomputerfreak, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You make sacrifices when you run Mac (don't bother arguing)
          You make sacrifices when you run Windows (don't bother arguing)
          You make sacrifices when you run Linux (ditto)
          get it? Use what works for you!
    • jer2eydevil88, on 02/19/2008, -9/+7It is incredible that in around three years they built a new OS from the ground up! The sad part is that they really didn't listen to the customer when building it. It takes longer to turn on and off, the file transfer speeds are horrendous and they made a big stink about DX10 only to have very lousy gaming hardware support.

      Vista is and always will be an achievement of sorts but Microsoft made it a disaster to the consumer by not working closer with partners.
      • etcimon, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3At least they don't make you pay a second time for the fixes. Unlike Mac shipping the service pack full-price. . BTW If you want to use old unsupported hardware, don't mind upgrading, no dinosaur is meant to run a new OS my friend.
        • aussieNickuss, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3"Unlike Mac shipping the service pack full-price" What? Since when has Apple charged for software updates?
        • combatchuck, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3You're mistaken. Apples 10.x updates are the equivalent of new releases of Windows. They're just reluctant to move away from the number 10 for obvious reasons. Treat Apple's point-point updates as service packs (released every couple months), and the point releases as new Operating systems (released every 18 months or so).
      • Ovalteen, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6It wasn't built from the ground up. The Longhorn project was originally going to be more of a "ground up" approach when they started in 2001, but they shelved that in 2004. Instead, the Windows Vista we have today was built from the codebase of Windows 2003 SP1. Just about all of the innovative "ground up" features, like WinFS, were stripped out before release.

        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1No they weren't.
          Most of the WinFS features were incorporated into the OS in different ways. The next generation search engine, the file system indexing...

          Then there is things like superfetch, and readyboost that give native support for taking advantage of advanced file caching with solid state drives. The new API, that allows 3D effects. The Sidebar, and Widget/Gadget system. Support for more than 4GB of ram. DirectX10. The new Bi-Directional firewall. UAC. The Internet Explorer sandbox. Video Driver crash recovery capability. DVD authoring software, DVD playback support out of box. Automatic background defragmentation. Tablet PC programs and features. Voice recognition.

          You say WinFS and act like the world is over, and you don't even know what it's all about.
          • Ovalteen, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0I argue otherwise. I didn't say ALL the innovative "ground up" features were removed, I said just about all. And after perusing your list, and the one on Wikipedia, I stand by my comment. I don't consider widgets, 4GB RAM support, UAC, bi-directional firewalls, DVD software, a sidebar, tablet PC software, or voice recognition to be either innovative or "ground up", considering most of those features already existed in various MS products (or someone else's products) OR simply expand on stuff that was already there. I'll grant you that some of the things you listed ARE innovative and were build from the ground up, but I never said Vista was entirely devoid of these features. IMHO most of what went into Vista was simply bringing XP up to par with the rest of the OS community.
          • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1That's a valid argument, but I think you're splitting hairs.
            Most of the "Features" they didn't include were incorporated elsewhere into the OS.

            I would still call their use of flash memory innovative, in the strictest sense.

            It's good that you take time to look into it. Most don't.
            And I didn't bury you.
      • dineth, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8microsoft listens to customers wayyyyyyyyyyyy more than apple. apple's quite arrogant in that respect, no SDKs, just take it or leave it. but our apple fans being the fans, take everything they throw at them and go wow. microsoft does listen.
        • combatchuck, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I've always though like that about Apple. Great products, terrible company. I can't stand their arrogance and lack of respect for their customers. Especially considering the amount of loyalty these people have.
        • fr34k5h0w, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Ok I'm sorry but I just need to point out Xcode and its SDK's that aren't installed by default but can be downloaded off of the internet. Not a fanboy, just pointing it out.
    • ArthurSucks, on 02/19/2008, -19/+18If coding an OS is so damn hard then why can everyone else do it better?
      • Hortnon, on 02/19/2008, -5/+7Arguably, no one else is doing it better.

        Still, "everyone else" isn't making an OS. A small amount of people spending a large amount of time work on various OS's. How long have each of the various forms of Linux been around? Mac OS? Solaris? AIX? etc etc etc
        • anonymousleaf, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Unix has been around since 1969. Windows has been around arguably (starting at Windows 95) since 1995. Linux has been around since around 1992 when Linus teamed up with GNU.
      • volacide, on 02/19/2008, -6/+18Please explain to me who everyone else is? OSX is so overrated, I don't know how many times I've used an Apple computer and had them crash on me while doing video editing and stuff. In fact, OSX has crashed on me far many more times than XP or Vista has ever crashed on me.
        • schoate09, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3I'm not the only one, then? I see OS X kernel panic on me way more than Vista or even Xp. It's actually sometimes bothersome, that if my Mac begins to run under a load (and yes, I do like OS X very much), I'll see that curtain roll down, and the multilingual KP screen appear.
      • BlackJackJester, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Well, really, only one group is doing it "better" which is Unix, and that is just because the core system is minimal, with a nice thing called package manager. Windows really should take the hint and only release a minimal version, which would be ridiculously stable, and blatantly copy the package manager mechanic to allow for businesses and such to upgrade.
      • Myztry, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Because Microsoft didn't design the basis for their OS. They purchased an OS hack from Seattle Computer Products and had it licensed to IBM before they even really knew what it was. Windows was just a GUI toolkit (with a few OS like features - such as program loaders) until about 1993 when they actually wrote their own OS in the form of the NT kernel.
        By that time, they already had a legacy of hacks based around poor (or lack of) design.
        • jabberwolf, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1unlike Apple that stole its gui from Xerox.
          And in 2000 burried their OS and used BeOS, stamped an Apple logo on it, and locked it down to their over priced hardware?
        • Myztry, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1You've taken a wrong assumption. Apple wasn't the only pioneer modern computing in the early 80's. You should do some research and try to figure it out. Microsoft supplied basic interpreters for some of them, but wasn't one of the pioneers.
    • Sethwm2, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2And how many millions errr Billions of dollars spent for people to code with brilliance
    • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4it IS quite an achievement - or at least it WILL BE once it's out of beta.
    • mahlerfan999, on 02/19/2008, -0/+7MS doesn't need a pat on the back for working so hard to write an OS. Newsflash: THEY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Give an OS like Debian a pat on the bat, not MS or Apple.

      You can apply your reasoning to just about anything--

      "Don't you realize how difficult it was to build the atomic bomb? Why the hating on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?"

      Not that Vista is that bad, it's actually not that bad of an OS, but please spare me the touchy, feely sympathy for the MS programmers, it still beats working at a fast food joint or collecting trash on Fridays.
      • mossblaser, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2"it still beats working at a fast food joint or collecting trash on Fridays."
        Yeh but at least they get to keep their dignity
    • aussieNickuss, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7You say to pat MS on the back for their achievement because they've coded "millions of lines OS". So has Apple and the Linux community, yet Mac OS X and Linux are both more reliable, secure and feature-rich without being bloated. There is no excuse for such a massive company like Microsoft to take 6 years to develop an OS that's not that much more advanced than its predecessor.
    • DeFex, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Especially one that works with so much different PC hardware, not just a a tiny subset (OSX)
      • counterplex, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1How about linux then? That works on so much different hardware, not just a tiny subset called "PC" (Windows)
    • Abram730, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0So hard for a multi billion dollar corp, yet easy for only one kid to do. His didn't crash... go figure.

      Does that hurt your pride? See people that don't like their job suck at doing it.

      Ouch.
  • Computer_Kid, on 02/19/2008, -22/+112Blue screens, red screens, black screens! All in 3D!
    I'm buying all six versions!
    • xTRUMANx, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2You'd better buy 2 backup copies of each too.
  • SeanRidley, on 02/19/2008, -21/+11Dear god that was hilarious...
  • TecK415, on 02/19/2008, -28/+17It's funny because it's true.
  • matthewdestroys, on 02/19/2008, -23/+11windows cement.

    it weighs down your computer.
  • KloroFormd, on 02/19/2008, -21/+8This is the only submission that contains the words "BEST" and "EVER" that I've ever agreed with.
  • Subriot, on 02/19/2008, -17/+8"And a brand new Aero interface that lets you scroll through blue screens, black screens, red screens, security warnings, and endless yes/no permission questions all in eye-popping 3-D!"
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 02/19/2008, -20/+12...or as I like to call it, Windows DFW (Doesn't ***** Work)
  • dsenman, on 02/19/2008, -16/+138Oh shut up. I have CentOS, Leopard and Vista boxes all in the same room here - and guess what, they all equally suck. They have all crashed, and they have all had compatibility problems. (although Linux is free...)
    • etcimon, on 02/19/2008, -12/+4Hardware failures ! Hardware failures ! Hardware failures ! Hardware failures !

      Dude, how long will it take for you to understand??
      • dsenman, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7Understand what? I was referring to random freezes, restarts, data corruption, etc. Obviously I don't fault my Linux box when the power supply goes.
      • mossblaser, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1PEBKAC!
    • 3leggedHorse, on 02/19/2008, -10/+9 Windows is free aswell.
      • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+9um, don't say that too loud.
      • lohwengk, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2In Singapore, the cost is bundled with the computer. How do I know? In some shops, the sell the same computer with Linux for SGD100 cheaper.
    • steveboutin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1lets just all take some time out to think about how much computers piss us off sometimes...

      there there, little buddy, we still love you.
    • zcreem, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6The voice of reason in a sea of hate and madness. ++
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6It's just too bad that the industry leading 3D Development platform (currently DirectX) isn't an open platform.
      I would use Linux, and nothing else. Free is good.
  • FutureGuy, on 02/19/2008, -25/+79yawn, this is kind of getting old and childish. Vids like this makes the linux crown look like a bunch of whiny kids with nothing much to do. I guarantee that the whoever made this hasn't yet used Vista, at least not on a PC with enough horse power (no it will not run on your 2 year old PC, get over it). The only real issue I have had with Vista is a couple of the apps I was used to don't work on it, other wise its pretty solid OS and has never crashed in the last one year I have been using it.
    • thedude42, on 02/19/2008, -6/+7The video never mentioned linux.
      • Grub, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8no, but the submitter did, and look at the section its posted to, rather than Video
      • expatcatalyst, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Did it have to?
    • mahlerfan999, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3I don't mind Vista and I currently it's the only OS that I'm running. I have no problems with it except for a bug with the updates. That being said all of the issues mentioned in that tongue-in-cheek video ARE TRUE. It has nothing to do with being a whiner with an old PC, there are many legitimate complaints that can be made about Vista.
    • modafokaxx, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1get over the fact that it wont run on average hardware?
      1/ not every one is made of money and can buy a new computer just for a new OS
      2/ the point IS to make you buy new hardware to some extent, so how is that related to being a good OS which should abstract hardware, not put it in your face?

      I doubt not it's a proper OS, with its flaws, but I don't agree with such commercial strategies, therefore I won't be spending money on it.
      • cannarymburns, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2umm... my 4 year old computer can run vista... its an athlon xp 2.2ghz with 1gb of ram, and a 9800se video card. it cost me about 1300 in 2004, and it will run fine for general os use (obviously gaming or multi tasking won't work too well). you can buy a computer now for about 400 bucks that will run vista like a champ. oh, and i just want to know, of the people that bought laptops with vista on it complaining its running slow, did you actually research why? could it be, oh i don't know the boatload of ***** oems preload on them?
    • anonymousleaf, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0How come GNU/Linux can run fine on 386s and the most modern PCs with no hiccups, yet Vista chugs along with it's bloated *****?
    • Abram730, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0hmmm like an e6600 2gb ram, 500gb hd, nvidia 7800.

      Vista has core issues. The removal of hardware sound was uncalled for. Vista is less stable then XP... It's a fact.

      A nice option to bring back would be the ability to have your HD's power down when the computer is idol. See the check box doesn't work. One of my drives cooked from that. So be careful to put your computer to sleep with Vista.

      It's bloated spyware.
  • boozedrinker, on 02/19/2008, -16/+10Well, the most accurate piece of propaganda I have ever seen.
  • Dan11023, on 02/19/2008, -21/+3XBOX 360 VERSION: http://youtube.com/watch?v=uZQA2zGihCs

    ps3 FTW
  • bradcrc, on 02/19/2008, -17/+5I don't have any problems with crashes, but when trying to do most anything out of the ordinary, UAC makes me want to throw my laptop across the room. There aren't many days where vista doesn't get in my way ...My experience with vista is similar to if it was a 400 pound retarded stepchild who insisted on standing directly in front of me 24 hours a day. Sure I can eventually get what I need completed, but every step is a trial.
    Do you disable the only thing resembling security in order to use the system, or do you suffer through it? It seems you shouldn't need to make that choice.
    • atbnet, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9If you know how to use a computer you shouldn't need UAC. Turn it off you cry baby.
    • Jawmht, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Well, you could use Linux and get to know 'su' a little better.
    • mancat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3UAC is a huge improvement for those of us who preferred to use 2000/XP as a limited user for added security benefits. For the OS to automatically detect when you need to elevate privileges to do something, then present a prompt - it's a huge advantage, and makes LUAs incredibly easy to use. The previous behavior of having to use "Run As" with everything sucked.

      If you always ran Windows as Administrator, then I suppose this would really bug you.
  • JMilton, on 02/19/2008, -20/+14Vista is such a piece of *****...
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 02/19/2008, -41/+63For all of those who are saying "Vista isn't that bad," you may be right.

    But considering it costs $400, it should almost flawless...and plated in ***** gold.
    • Warll, on 02/19/2008, -13/+6Dude, first off Home prime can be had for 100 bucks OEM only retail Ultimate goes for just under $400. Second most people get it with their new computers, which really if you don't have a new computer Vista is not for you.
      • Grub, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7yes, I paid 100 as well, and on top of that, OSes ar