What is Digg?377 Comments
- MrBigsmurf, on 10/29/2008, -27/+241Weren't reports like this coming out about Vista? I'll wait till this gets closer and I can actually hook up to it and mess around and see how things actually work. I hope Windows actually does what they need to and take their time and do this right. If they have another "Vista" they may never recover and be able to get a chunk of the market back.
- Mihey, on 10/30/2008, -23/+192Um... I'm still on XP. Never mind Vista, how do Windows 7 compare to XP?
- Narrwald, on 10/29/2008, -21/+176I'm using Vista and have been for a year and a half, with no problems. I don't think it was worth an upgrade from XP, but it came on my laptop and I have not regretted having to use it. Windows 7 may actually inspire me to upgrade my OS without buying a new computer for the first time ever.
- supporter12, on 10/29/2008, -124/+267Windows is better than OS X
unnatural sentence, I know, but we all need to get used to it - FBMGriever, on 10/30/2008, -22/+136Vista isn't that bad.
- inactive, on 10/30/2008, -6/+86wtf digg?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/stabby1/Pic ... - BoneheadFarker, on 10/30/2008, -3/+80I know...blondes make way better wives...
- Destroytoy, on 10/30/2008, -4/+61I'm looking at it and seeing Vista with a few new pleasantries. With that said. I have Vista Ultimate 64 installed on a machine built in February of this year and I haven't had any problems. Doesn't crash, all programs operate with expected speed and responsiveness. I didn't tweak the UAC or any other settings. I simply installed and went about my business. It was a complete surprise, and there have been examples of unusual activity, but not consistently.
I also installed XP and Fedora on the other partitions, but rarely use them now. I also have hated M$ with a passion for over a decade now, so don't think me a shill. Just my .04 (adjusted for inflation). - flashpointbob, on 10/30/2008, -46/+99Reason #1: It isn't Vista
- y0y0howsdajell0, on 10/30/2008, -20/+66I honestly think it is. I manage a Mac school with a Leopard server, Leopard MacBooks and Tiger and Panther iMacs and eMacs. THey're nice, and I love OSX, but I can do so much more with XP (including my super-expensive ESRI GIS software which my job requires). I hope Windows 7 takes that crappy parts of Vista, ditches them, and incorporates the ease that XP has...
- jwolcott, on 10/30/2008, -5/+49Dugg for 'retardiculous'.
- bingostud722, on 10/30/2008, -2/+33Well, debate it then
- brstilson, on 10/30/2008, -7/+38Not really a surprise.
Windows 3.1 was what Windows 3.0 should have been
Windows 98 was what Windows 95 should have been
Windows XP was what Windows ME should have been
And now Windows 7 will be what Windows Vista should have been.
Vista, ME, 95, and 3.0 weren't much more than interim releases. They existed because Microsoft wanted to be the first to have something new on the market. Then, when they got a foot in the door, they kept it there with XP, 98, and 3.1; and will do the same with 7. Of course, this also makes Microsoft rich because they release two versions in order to get a functioning product, both of which you have to pay for. Call it an early-adopter tax. These interim versions also provide time for hardware companies to get their drivers in gear for the new technology. In essence, Vista exists so that when Windows 7 is released, the vast majority of hardware will already have compatible drivers. If Microsoft just waited and released 7 without doing the Vista step, hardware manufacturers would have no reason to update now for the next version of Windows to be released in 3 years. With the Vista stepping stone, they can debug and refine their drivers during that time. - Scott2, on 10/30/2008, -9/+37Still not buying it . . . especially the "7 will be more reliable than Vista SP1 from day one" part. Because we all know that Microsoft has released an OS that was reliable and generally not problematic from day one. Right?
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/30/2008, -7/+32Yes, Vista is OK. Not great, not awful, just OK.
- IphtashuFitz, on 10/30/2008, -4/+28Same here. I've yet to see any justification for me to upgrade from XP to Vista. Unless there's a compelling reason, and unless Windows 7 can run smoothly on my existing PC I won't be rushing out to buy new hardware nor Windows 7. I'll stick with XP where I'm happy.
- Sraser, on 10/30/2008, -12/+34I am both a Mac and PC user, I use both for different things and I have not really found either one to be far superior than the other. (As a slightly-above-average-but-not-incredibly-in-depth-computer-user.) This being said I am not really a 'fanboi' of either one.
As far as the Digg community is concerned, some of you Windows users are becoming more annoying than the Mac users ever have been or ever will be. Comments like these not only make those of us who use Windows look like *****, but it does absolutely nothing to improve the Digg community in any way shape or form. - johneyoung, on 10/30/2008, -10/+32Not sure why people are digging you down, those are my sentiments exactly.
- tama00, on 10/31/2008, -1/+21Do you guys on digg seriously have to debate this every ***** time. I click on these links to find out the latest news for Windows 7 and i get this ***** every ***** time.
For the last time ever "IT IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE". - brstilson, on 10/30/2008, -3/+23It's kind of like when people were still on 98 and didn't upgrade to ME. But when XP came out, all bets were off. This follows Microsoft's development pattern perfectly.
Windows 3.0 = Windows 95 = Windows ME = Windows Vista, while
Windows 3.1 = Windows 98 = Windows XP = Windows 7 - phalanxcronos, on 10/30/2008, -8/+28I love how people forgot how bad Windows XP sp1 was. IMO Vista now is much more stable then XP and I would argue its better stability then Windows 2000. I run a computer repair business and I find that the vast majority of Vista issues are do to outdated drivers. I'm running vista on a AMD x2 4200 ($50 processor), photoshop launches in about 5 seconds, Word opens in 1 second, Excel opens instantly, Firefox takes about 2-3 seconds, no delays opening control panel or (My) Computer. Sure boot up time is a bit slower then it should be (about 2 minutes total until everything is loaded) but I use sleep so my computer comes on instantly when I hit the power button. Put some effort into upgrading your drivers, namely chipset, IDE, and graphic drivers and I bet Vista will run much much better for you. Also run a chkdsk with surface scan for some reason I've been seeing a lot of Vista installed hard drivers littered with bad clusters and once I helped my customers RMA the hard drive and get a good one Vista ran very fast.
- pardonmedoug, on 10/30/2008, -2/+22What about DRM?
- diggduggDOOM, on 10/30/2008, -1/+19"always" and "never"
Two words that are rarely true. - theyt, on 10/30/2008, -1/+19Go into the security center click "change the way security center alerts me" click do not notify
- inactive, on 10/30/2008, -4/+22They said that A LOT of things would be in Vista.
- badtz, on 10/30/2008, -13/+30Sorry, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Though I don't hate Windows (I use it on a daily basis, along with OS X)..... I would EASILY choose OS X over any version of Windows. The only exception is if I played games, but I don't.
- baldgye, on 10/30/2008, -6/+23Sorry, but *****. Vista was stable from beta 2... granted the printer you bought in 1998 wasn't supported but it rarely crashed.... the only times Vista has crashed on me (I've been using since beta 2) has been becasue of 3rd party app's, most of which where published by EA...
- khuongsta, on 10/30/2008, -6/+22dugg for bam bam...rip
- saikyan, on 10/30/2008, -10/+25"...but I can do so much more with XP"
Such as? I hear this a lot, but I never see or hear much evidence. I work in IT, around both OS's constantly, and in most (not all) regards, OS X usually trumps Windows. Mostly due to the UI, a more stable foundation (crashes less, requires less maintenance, easier to repair / reinstall) and the lack of malware. Mac OS helps people get more ***** done. I'm not trying to be biased, that's just what I observe.
I do recognize both have their notable strengths and weaknesses and Mac OS is NOT infallible. - Doomsan, on 10/30/2008, -4/+19Bam Bam Bigelow
- CrazedLeper, on 10/30/2008, -5/+18Smashing Vista shouldn't be difficult since it was perforated by design.
- TheUngod, on 10/30/2008, -9/+22Reason #2: It runs on non-overpriced hardware *cough*mac*cough*
- Graphite, on 10/30/2008, -1/+14different articles... same title
ones a gizmodo and one is a pcworld. - lexbaby, on 10/30/2008, -2/+15You missed one there. Windows XP is based on Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was great and XP brought it mainstream. Windows 7 will try to improve on Vista. However, Vista is not the quality core like MS had from 2000.
- CalcProgrammer1, on 10/30/2008, -0/+12You bring up the point that 99.9% of the people here miss. Windows XP has an overly-positive image due to the fact that it had a 5+ year life in the OS spotlight, something no other OS had ever done. Windows 95 was quickly phased out by 98, which took 2 years to transform to the (awful, short lived) ME, and almost instantly to 2000. With the NT kernel moved into the consumer market with 2000, Microsoft tweaked 2000 into XP, aimed at home users. Because home users had Windows 98 (DOS kernel) hardware and software, most of it ran terribly on XP. XP didn't work well with many computers from the time, and pre-SP1 XP wasn't a huge hit (people liked the interface, which drew them in, but quickly found out that program compatibility mode didn't work like we thought it would). When I got XP, it was on a new PC running SP1. I liked the new PC, but found myself returning to the old one because of the familiar interface, compatibility for all my older games and hardware. I finally did move over to XP but it took a while for XP drivers and software patches to come out, some things never did work in XP, but I moved on nonetheless.
Vista simply repeated this, but due to the general positive attitude toward XP (which has been a good OS with tons of support for 5+ years), people didn't want to go to Vista with its initial hardware compatibility issues, software issues, new interface, etc. Now that SP1 is out, hardware vendors have made good drivers for their newer hardware, software has been reworked to run on Vista, Vista's core has been improved by updates. Vista is now a good OS. I am actually running Vista Business 64 on my old, $100 throw-together build Sempron 64 2600+ (1.85GHz Socket 754) and it is running great. It's not a gaming machine, but it wasn't in XP either, so no difference. - d0brii, on 10/30/2008, -2/+14Because it better be.... or else.
- BradHAWK, on 10/30/2008, -6/+18That should be:
Vista isn't that bad™ - jasen, on 10/30/2008, -0/+12The best thing that Microsoft could possibly do for Windows 7 is only release two versions, a desktop/laptop version and a server version. Just like Apple does. Releasing 6+ different types of OS like business, ultimate, home, professional, etc. just confuses people. The simpler the better.
- Elranzer, on 10/30/2008, -0/+11You forgot Poland.
- twiztidsinz, on 10/30/2008, -1/+11You forgot 2000... which would fall between 98SE and XP
- javaroast, on 10/30/2008, -2/+12@saikyan Your logic doesn't work. Open source is making money, is being supported and is out of the basement and in the server rooms.
- saikyan, on 10/30/2008, -0/+10I agree. I'm all for discussing which OS has the upper hand, but the trash talk is really unbearable.
Personally, I'm all for choice. I want to see them both remain competitive, in order to drive each other. I also want to see someone put some real cash into Linux. - ender7074, on 10/30/2008, -3/+13Why? So I can run all 4 programs that are developed for mac? Sorry, I like having more than half a shelf of software to choose from thanks.
- briLo, on 10/30/2008, -3/+13Dugg for Bam Bam Biggalow!!!!!
- majortom1981, on 10/30/2008, -3/+13OBviously your a troll that has done no research what so ever.
Websites have actually done side to side startup tests with 2 comps and shown that even at its pre beta stage it starts up way faster then vista. - vagrantwade, on 10/30/2008, -4/+14So is it going to be better, or is it going to smash it? Digg has me confused;
http://digg.com/software/Why_Windows_7_Will_Be_Bet ... - Manther, on 10/30/2008, -4/+13My thought too... IMHO, people who left windows felt that proverbial 'straw that broke the camel's back', and now that they're done with MS, more than likely will never go back... There's just no need to once you've figured out how to get away from them in the first place. (Trolls, please note that I said there's no need for MS AFTER you've figured out how to live without them in the first place, so I am not insisting that everyone can just swap over and be fine...)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 378 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 