What is Digg?570 Comments
- lpmiller, on 01/30/2008, -20/+324The problem with vista is that it looks great, but is a pain in the butt to do most things with. Security is not in creating extra steps for the user to jump through, security is taking those steps in the background without the user needing to worry about it. when you have to disable things like User control to make the OS less annoying, you've added a level of security that is in fact, useless.
Having said that, Vista is not near as bad as it's made out to be, and by that XP 2009 cut off, it will likely really shine. But Microsoft needs to take a serious look at why XP was so popular, and Vista so resisted. And they need to take notes from the Mac side of things and not wait years between massive updates. You spend 6+ years with one OS, of course you are going to be comfortable with it and resist change. - Juaquin, on 01/30/2008, -13/+212The Pirate Bay?
- XNihil0Zer0, on 01/30/2008, -11/+139Download a torrent. If Microsoft is only able to offer consumers a product that they dont wan't; And unwilling to sell consumers a product that they do want; Why should we give them any money? If Microsoft is going to treat XP like abandonware, they shouldn't be suprised when customers do the same.
- tuzziel, on 01/30/2008, -24/+147June 30th Windows cutoff = July 1st Ubuntu install
- merripen, on 01/30/2008, -5/+92The biggest problem with Vista is that it doesn't blow away XP.
There's no reason it shouldn't have. - igeoffi, on 01/30/2008, -12/+94I've got to second that. People make Vista sound really bad but in all actuality it isnt that bad. When Xp first came out, the switch from 2000 to Xp seemed pretty bad but it actually wasn't that bad. Same goes for Xp to Vista. FYI, I have actually switched from Xp to Vista and though there are some annoyances (that are supposed to be security features) like lpmiller said, the switch wasn't that bad. Sure, you need a more powerful machine to run Vista than Xp but you also needed a more powerful machine to run Xp over 2000.
- Coven, on 01/30/2008, -7/+55But the Mac commercials tell me just the opposite! Mac users are the average Joes and Windows users are the uber nerds! I'm so confused :(
- BlueSkyfish, on 01/30/2008, -8/+55http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3811122/Windows_XP_Pro ...
Burn it to a CD
Format your hard drive
Put the CD in your computer and restart
Follow a few steps and you're back to XP
This is also a good oppurtunity to try out Linux. Linux mint is a very windows-like OS based on Ubuntu, which is great for those who never used Linux before.
http://www.linuxmint.com/ - Dantetheinferno, on 01/30/2008, -3/+49Every operating system has "some bad" in it. It's a fact of operating systems. Windows, OSX, and linux all have bad in them. Accept it.
- mrloco, on 01/30/2008, -3/+47Grammar holocaust in 3... 2... 1....
- breakaway, on 01/30/2008, -12/+56Only way I'm giving up XP is if they pry it out of my cold dead hands.
- pyroben92, on 01/30/2008, -18/+60You only have a few more years to wait for Windows 7. Hopefully Microsoft will realize that "Eye Candy" is nothing without performance.
- dinsy, on 01/30/2008, -4/+37format C:
- chrystie69, on 01/30/2008, -48/+80I bought my laptop with Vista...what a HUGE Mistake that was! I would do anything to go back and get it with just XP! It's slow, it stalls out all the time, security sucks! Upgrading sucks!
- wontstoptalking, on 01/30/2008, -10/+42thepiratebay.org
- cyrix, on 01/30/2008, -2/+32ICH LIEBE GRAMMATIK!!!
- baddog121390, on 01/30/2008, -3/+33link directly to the ***** article. buried
- sockpuppets, on 01/30/2008, -3/+33http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default ...
Now shut up please. - Malevolant, on 01/30/2008, -6/+35I'm a torrent fan but not for my OS. I have legal OS's yet I am penalized when changing out hardware. I've had to replace to bad Mobo's lately and had to call India each time. It's a serious pain in the ass. Why do people who legally pay for software have more hoops to jump through than people who pirate?
- yotomote, on 01/30/2008, -3/+31piracy is the only sensible answer
- wolferz, on 01/30/2008, -6/+32Part of the reason previous windows versions were incurably insecure is because security was handled in the back ground. Vistas method of insisting on human interaction is pretty much the only sure fire way to keep anything from being able to install on a computer without permission. Currently there are only three ways I know of for a program to install without permission. Some one disables UAC. Some one clicks ok to every prompt UAC presents. and (hypothetical) exploits allowing one to bypass UAC.
It was only a year ago some one on Slashdot said in a comment that windows should implement a user account system of access permissions similar to Linux. Most of the responses to that comment were along the lines of "but Microsoft would never do something that might work." Here we are, they have, and people are running around bitching about how annoying it is. Really there are only two differences that I can see between the concept of UAC and the SUDO style handling of the same issue under linux. First: under linux you can install some applications in your home directory and thus not need root (admin) privileges to install or use the application (this could be done on vista as well, but no applications are designed to work that way). Second: under linux when a program tries to do something that your user account doesnt automatically grant it privileges to do, instead of asking for privileges it just throws up an error about not having access and/or closes/crashes. Could UAC be improved? Definitely. But no one wants that. They want MS to go back to windows handling security for the user, and as a result not being secure.
Is it annoying though? Really? It doesn't annoy me. Having to click ok (or with my setup, entering my password) once a week to perform maintenance, plus an addition 2 or 3 times per month to install applications or change sensitive settings really just doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Every time I bring up how (not) often I have to deal with UAC people tell me It is just me cause they see it a lot more often. Why? Do they really install and uninstall new hardware, install and uninstall new programs, change your lan settings, or other such stuff that often? I've had people tell me they have to deal with it at least 5 times per day. WTF? Why? What the hell are they doing to their computers?
As for Vista being a resource hog, well all I have to say is that so is Windows 3.11, and Windows 95, and Windows 98, and Windows 98se, and Windows ME, and Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Every single one has been labeled a resource hog when it was released. That was the number one compliant about XP when it came out. It was the number 2 complaint when Windows 98 came out, second only to complaints about instability. People are whining about how they don't want to spend money to upgrade their computers to handle Vista. Well here is an Idea: DON'T. Do what any one with half a brain would do and upgrade when you actually need to, not just because a new Windows comes out. Why do people assume that they have to upgrade to the latest Window the day it hits the shelf? The only guess I can come up with is so they know for sure they have something to complain about with the new Windows.
I think the thing that pisses me off the most is knowing this is exactly the same kind of deranged BS I'll be seeing when the next Windows hits. Right now every one is bitching about how windows Vista is so bloated. Many of them brag (yes brag) about how they can just use Ubuntu and install only what they need. MS's response? The next windows is expected to be built around some kind of modular design so that you only have to install the components you need. Now let's think about that annoying little feature called UAC. You know the one people have been saying Windows should have cause linux has it... until windows actually had it and then suddenly they changed their tune. Yeh, that one. If the trend continues I full well expect to be right back here pointing out the sheer absurdity of people bitching about how they have to do extra work to get all the stuff they want installed in Windows 2010. Listening to people bitch and moan about how the proper way to keep an OS from being bloated is not to do exactly what every one had been saying WAS the proper way to keep an OS from being bloated only 3 years before.
It was some what amusing when I first noticed it in 2002. Now it's like a kid brother that's running around the house banging on pots and pans while you're trying to study for a test you know you're going to fail any way. You don't have to pay attention but when mom gets home and finds her cook ware every where you're gonna get in trouble for it. - inactive, on 01/30/2008, -4/+28Unfortunately, their track record tells another story...
- diggduggjoe, on 01/30/2008, -4/+27No reasons other than DRM, bloat and problematic memory management.
Vista is not evil, but it should not have been the dog it was. It should have been fantastic when given all the wait and hype. In the end, every OS must perform. I still recommend XP to business users who cannot afford to experience glitches with their software. - sonicularulus, on 01/30/2008, -11/+34microsoft shouldve spent the time taking the kinks out of xp and make it more secure rather than spending years on vista, which we all know, isnt that great. Their next operating system should just Be Windows XP2: Because Vista sucks.
(i have a good feeling, ill be dugg down for this comment lol) - BlueSkyfish, on 01/30/2008, -3/+24A pirated copy is much better than the bloated version that comes with your computer.
- pyroben92, on 01/30/2008, -8/+28Yeah that's the real solution to Vista
- Juaquin, on 01/30/2008, -2/+22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
All my OS's are legal because I get them free from my school. - diggduggjoe, on 01/30/2008, -2/+21The biggest gripe I have had with Vista is the memory issue when accessing many files. Hopefully, SP1 will have that fixed. When XP can digest a huge zip file while Vista bombs out, we have serious issues to contend with. Such a problem should not exist, period!
The UAC can be turned off, but too bad the DRM cannot. The DRM is just a waste of resources sacrificed to the media companies. The real pirates will find a way to steal, but everyone gets to "enjoy" the performance penalty. - Firehed, on 01/30/2008, -1/+20Unless you have 128MB of RAM, it's EXACTLY the same speed.
- igeoffi, on 01/30/2008, -1/+20Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Microsoft stuck with the Windows 2000 cut-off date.
- Zuggy, on 01/30/2008, -2/+21I think the main problem I have with vista is that it's a system hog. When I run Vista on the same machine I run XP on (laptop with AMD Turion x2, 2GB RAM ati xpress1100) it feels sluggish and bloated. Even turning off the extra features I can feel the difference in the two of them.
- frsrblch, on 01/30/2008, -3/+20If you do it beforehand, the change could be seamless.
- HouseCentipede, on 01/30/2008, -1/+18Because Windows thinks it's been moved to a different computer, and you have to re-validate it.
- Chicken, on 01/30/2008, -0/+17And how do you expect to die?
- InfiniteNothing, on 01/30/2008, -3/+19Hmm, I see an ebay opportunity here. I'll be the only guy with boxes of XP.
- Firehed, on 01/30/2008, -1/+17Why do people pay when they know full well that pirating will get them around those hoops?
- samurimaster, on 01/30/2008, -3/+18Using the command line isn't that bad so long as you are willing to learn a few things and with the many guides and cheat sheets out there many times its just a matter of copy and pasting
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -3/+18I do.
- Neorio, on 01/30/2008, -4/+19XP is still successful because it is a "complete" desktop operating system that runs adequately on old hardware, or small hardware with limited specs - which is important as mobile devices proliferate more than desktops do.
Vista is rooted too much in the desktop upgrade path that started with DOS and lead us to XP - forcing upgrades upon us.
The thing is, it's not that we don't want to upgrade - it's just that our mobile devices can't and won't run vista because it's too bloated... unless ultra-mobile grade hardware catches up.
Linux has made major inroads in the mobile space because it is lightweight and free. Vista is neither. XP is lightweight and the devil most people know, and are prepared to pay for.
Just my 2c - petard, on 01/30/2008, -2/+17Seriously. No wonder all these diggers hate Vista, they are such ***** hardware!
- t0ny, on 01/30/2008, -0/+15Yours shizzle should be ok if you leave it in your pants.
- jcaino, on 01/30/2008, -7/+22all this crap with windows reminds me how happy i am working with FreeBSD at work and Linux (mostly ubuntu these days) at home...
- ZaZ2137, on 01/30/2008, -1/+15above comment == not intelligent enough to realize that they're practically the same thing (ubuntu and debian)
- Hazardc, on 01/30/2008, -7/+21 FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8
duhhhhhhhhhhh - gothsquirrel, on 01/30/2008, -8/+22I don't want to put the extra 512mb of ram in my computer for it to run the same as with xp so unless vista is going to ship with a coupon for some free ram i'd rather go with ubuntu or just pirate xp if i'm going to play games.
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -2/+16"an awful unreliable unfinished piece of ***** that is windows xp." Are you kidding? Windows XP has been totally reliable for me. Havn't had a BSoD in over a year with my new computer (with my old dell that has messed up drivers, that is another story).
- fyngyrz, on 01/30/2008, -1/+14Until Leopard, I'd have bounced right in there and argued about OS X. Very little bad. Leopard, however, has me seriously annoyed - the networking with windows shares and printers doesn't work right (or sometimes at all), upgrades can lock up and you can't fix 'em without another Mac w/firewire, upgrades can lose the user account, saving modified images from preview instantly crashes preview and your work is lost, swap is so bad that on a 1 gig RAM machine, running a new copy of firefox, nothing else, and trying to open a finder window can result in many seconds delay before the OS pulls whatever it stuck on the HD back into memory where it can be used; I could go on for quite a while. I'm hoping the rumored upgrade due next month will address the networking, at least, hopefully more, but seeing as how these things were problems right out of the gate and we've had several updates that did NOT fix them since then, I'm not holding my breath. As far as I am concerned, Leopard is the worst OS X upgrade ever.
And people -- including me -- bitch about DRM under Vista, but let me tell you, Apple's riding the DRM train with everyone else. Especially for video. The last upgrade broke a lot of third party editing software. Nice. :-( - Takran, on 01/30/2008, -1/+14I agree. I have the same issue with many games such as TF2, CoD4, and WoW when running Vista. I didn't measure the framerates for the former two, but in WoW the FPS dropped from a clean 50-60 to a sketchy 25-30 at best. I'm sure I could improve that by disabling some of Vistas fancy stuff, but then why did I ever use Vista in the first place? It really needs polish before I can consider it equal to XP, especially since my XP has Google Desktop's sidebar and a Vista-style taskbar, bringing both its form and function even closer to Vista.
- MioTheGreat, on 01/30/2008, -6/+19Then you're doing it wrong, in a power saving mode for your wifi card, or using a very old driver for it.
Wifi support on Vista is leagues above XP. - dukeeeey, on 01/30/2008, -25/+38I use Vista, it's fine. Took a while to get used to, but that was to be expected.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 566 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is