1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why Vista wont suck - According to.....

Discussion in 'Windows & Other Software' started by ben_j_davis, 28 Feb 2006.

  1. ben_j_davis

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 26 Sep 2005

    Posts: 1,862

    Location: Tonbridge, Kent

  2. Cuchulain

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 28 Dec 2004

    Posts: 7,627

    Location: Derry

    Looks photoshopped, I mean, what's an "Athlon(tm) FX-25" when it's at home?
     
  3. ben_j_davis

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 26 Sep 2005

    Posts: 1,862

    Location: Tonbridge, Kent


    Lol well spotted.
     
  4. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Jan 2004

    Posts: 16,319

    Location: Plymouth

    LOL at using a USB memory disk "for speed".

    I call BS, but good for a laugh :D

    Edit: Actually, it's almost certainly real since ET and ZD are reputable, but still, some parts are kinda silly.
     
  5. NathanE

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

    I can't believe people actually believe this is fake?

    This stuff is real people.

    USB sticks are faster than hard drives and Vista supports a special caching facility called SuperFetch.

    God knows what happened with the "FX-25", but the OS is still Beta.
     
  6. Caged

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,227

    Let's see who the first tard with their hyper-overclocked CPU which cost 2 grand to cool and decides to make a USB stick array is.
     
  7. PinkPig

    Mobster

    Joined: 7 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,543

    The vast majority of it doesn't look remotely fake. Anyone actually know for sure rather than just some odd hunch about the speed of USB drivers and so on? The "FX-25" thing is equally likely to be a Micrsoft typo as a bad photoshop. Probably more likely.
     
  8. NathanE

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

  9. ajgoodfellow

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,343

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    Do you know how the performance ratings are balanced?

    It seems a bit odd IMHO for an Athlon FX (top end) to get 4 whereas 1GB of ram (pretty common) gets 5.9
     
  10. NathanE

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

    More weight is given to graphics card type, its size of memory and the system memory. Because the more memory and graphics memory you have, the more textures (i.e. open programs) can be stored without paging them to disk.

    The processor has relatively little weight because it will make little difference to the overall performance of Windows.
     
  11. PinkPig

    Mobster

    Joined: 7 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,543

    So it sounds like we have a bit of excess Vista-bashing here!

    Being written as an "FX-25" could actually mean anything, really, though, it might just be a low end Athlon 64 being detected oddly.
     
  12. NathanE

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

  13. ajgoodfellow

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,343

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    Yeah - that's a good point

    I remember when I started work and their PCs had 2.8GHz P4s but only 128MB of ram - they ran like an absolute dog!

    Upgraded them to 384MB each and it made a huge difference!
     
  14. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Jan 2004

    Posts: 16,319

    Location: Plymouth

    :p

    Methinks it's real now after looking through it. But some parts are silly.."performance rating"? Since when does Average Joe actually care? :/
     
  15. saffyre

    Hitman

    Joined: 17 Feb 2003

    Posts: 785

    Would be nice if the auto defrag was smart enough only to defrag when needed. Not like u cant do that with sheduling in xp anyway. Do like the idea of a fancy 3d desktop tho.
     
  16. NathanE

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 18,022

    Location: London & Singapore

    It's not just about hardware. It takes into account things like how many auto-startup programs you've got. If you look at the top of the screenshot you'll see it can display a list of programs and drivers that are causing Windows to startup slowly.

    I think the hardware side of it is kind of pointless... but other than that, an average joe may see that their performance rating has gradually reduced over time which will prompt them to uninstall old junk, tidy up their auto-start programs and generally teach them to be more concious about how their system is performing and ways to keep it performing well.
     
    Last edited: 28 Feb 2006
  17. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Jan 2004

    Posts: 16,319

    Location: Plymouth

    That part could be nifty...hopefully it'll work well.

    I'm gonna take a break from being sceptical and say one thing I do like is the appearance of WMP in those shots. Now excuse me while I go and lie down :D
     
  18. bledd

    Don

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 46,789

    Location: Parts Unknown

    old news people


    lets face it, 90% of us will be using it, remember when everyone said how much xp sucked?
     
  19. Lt. Manlove

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 2 Oct 2003

    Posts: 2,121

    Location: Chester

    I'm getting bored of these comments now.
     
  20. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Jan 2004

    Posts: 16,319

    Location: Plymouth

    Overall, Vista does look pretty neat and has lots of new features, though nothing Earth-shattering for advanced home users who have no need for "media management", "let's make it really easy to change stuff", and so on. At least, that's what I've seen so far.

    Business side of things I couldn't comment on.

    The appearance...looks nice. It's growing on me :)

    Methinks Vista-bashing is common because:

    > It's late
    > It's MS
    > None of the bashers have used it