Running Vista RC2 24/7

[snoopy369]

The best thing about Vista:

... It opens up new holes for hackers to write viruses for, which means WindowsXP/2000 will be relatively safer

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Solver
I love trying new software, and looking at pre-release versions, but have to admit I haven't worked with any Vista/Longhorn build, not even for a minute. Nonetheless, I have a strong aversion to Vista thus far, I'm sure that I won't be updating my XP to it. The real question is, will I like Vista more than W2000 or less - Windows 2000 is, thus far, the OS I liked the least, of all that I've used.

Same for me.
Maybe Vista is a little bit more stable and perhaps has some security holes less than XP, but you pay for the changes by probably being only able to to port your Windows to one more System (or one more major system upgrade).
Bad for people who regularly upgrade their hardware.

Good reason for me to nevr upgrade to Vista unless I absolutely need it (which, as I hope, will never be the case )

[Solver]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I take it you never used Windows ME?

I've used every Windows since 3.0. ME sucked, but it simply sucked. It didn't have ambition. It failed to improve on anything, pretty much, but it wasn't supposed to be that great. Now, 2000 was supposed to work for both home users and companies, combine compatibility and security, combine the 9x/NT series, blah blah (essentially, what XP did later). And boy did 2000 suck... yes I know it has some redeeming qualities and I know it can be great for certain environments, but that doesn't mean that I won't hate it .

[Asher]

That's such a bizarre opinion.

99% of the geeks I know still prefer Win2K over XP.

Windows 2000 was a huge improvement over Windows NT 4.0...

WindowsMe was a huge downgrade over Windows 98...

No idea how your logic works.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

If you want nothing to change, why are you upgrading?

If you want things to change, do you not have to admit that things will need to change?

FOR SCIENCE!

[Solver]

Admittedly, it's largely based on a very botched first impression of Win2K. The rational part of me knows it's a great improvement over NT4 for administration, etc. What I didn't like was that I, personally, experienced quite a bunch of system crashes with 2K. While I prefer, say, Ubuntu over XP as an OS, I have to give XP credit for stability - on my home system, I have only seen bluescreens when using defective RAM, and with certain pre-alpha software, neither of which could reasonably be blamed on XP itself.

So I'm biased .

[Grandpa Troll]

So what exactly is so special, if anything, about Vista?

Thanks

Old Grumpee Gramps

[Solver]

Well, it's the first OS the name of which means a slow stupid animal .

[Kuciwalker]

Not in English

[Solver]

No, but doesn't make it any less funny to me .

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by Asher
That's such a bizarre opinion.

99% of the geeks I know still prefer Win2K over XP.

Windows 2000 was a huge improvement over Windows NT 4.0...

WindowsMe was a huge downgrade over Windows 98...

No idea how your logic works.

I have a cousin who knows his C and has been using computers ever since he could read... and he vastly prefers, or at least used to prefer, ME over XP. Mostly, AFAICT, because given a little fiddling on the OS side, he can at least get his DOS-based stuff on ME, but not on XP...

[Solver]

Well, you can run all the DOS stuff you want on XP through, say, DosBox. Though I find it a bit scary that some people in 2001 or later still need/want to run DOS apps. I remember the DOS vs. Win 3.1 debates, and the worries about DOS app compatibility with Win95, but now .

[Jon Miller]

Master of Magic was a good game.

JM

[LordShiva]

DOS

Civ 1 for DOS on PC Speaker

[MarkG]

i except to do my first install of vista in 2009 when the dust will start to settle