Which is worse: ME or Vista?

Post by **DarkAuron** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 12:00 am

I havn't tried Vista yet, but my experience with ME was pretty bad, and ME is infamous for its problems. Everything I've heard and read about Vista makes me think it's significantly worse than ME if MS doesn't plan on patching and optimizing it. What do you think?

hop · Post by **hop** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 12:22 am

What on earth have you heard?

Vista is fine, it's a slight step back from XP for now, but when it's actually out of the testing fase (yes you're paying bleeding-edge prices for testing, enjoy) that should change. Untill then it's still a huge step forward over any other Windows OS for desktops except maybe 2000 or 2003 if you know what you're doing. Me is really the worst you could possibly use.

In short, wait for Vista SP1 or use XP SP1/2 if you need a Windows OS.

Homestar · Post by **Homestar** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 12:49 am

Just get a Mac.

hop · Post by **hop** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 1:21 am

Because "just" should be a valid reason for choosing a computer platform. Sure would make it easyer for Apple's marketing and sales departments.

Hmm, or might there be reason for not limiting your recreation and productivity to a vendor with a smaller market share?

DigiTan · Post by **DigiTan** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 1:53 am

I voted "ME - Vista is shinier!" because my experience with Vista has only been visual. I had win ME from 2001 to 2006 and considered tying a pull string to the wall plug for when it wouldn't even shut down.

necro · Post by **necro** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 4:43 am

I like vista because it brought prices down...now all I need is to save to replace the gpu and I will be good for the purposes I have (of course, most of my 'free' software won't work on vista so I guess i will have to keep using my laptop to). Never worked with ME aside from a computer lab once before they switched to xp (took them a long time to get around to it).

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 8:47 am

Ive worked with ME for a long time, and I've tested Vista.
Vista is more stable, but I hate all those warnings, just let me delete a file if I want to! Even if you disable them you get too many warnings, the 1 warning of XP is 1 too many already. The glass look looks nice but it is absolutely useless, it just sits there and uses resources. Apart from DirectX 10 I didn't notice many improvements compared to XP, compared to ME is has the same improvements as XP has. Except for the window-preview thing when you hover over the tasks in the taskbar.
If there are other improvements they are well hidden and normal users will never even notice them.

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 9:23 am

ME was fine if you could get a hold of proper drivers for your hardware. Vista is resource hungry (deliberately), but i would wait until a service pack is out before migrating.

anykey · Post by **anykey** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 12:38 pm

vista is shiny, but osx is shinier, therefore making osx the clear winner! (not of this poll, though!)

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 2:24 pm

Is that what we want from an OS? shininess?
I thought it was all about stability, usability, backwards compatibility with its older versions, short boot time, low use of resources, number of optimized fast functions in the API, etc

Or you could be typically Dutch and go for the "gulden middenweg" (die richtige Mitte, kultainen keskitie, střednÃƒÂ cesta, złoty środek)
I don't know the English proverb though..

Like XP, a bit of the shininess without using too much resources.

hop · Post by **hop** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 2:31 pm

And compiz/beryl has even better looks and graphical functionality, being the actual winner in that area.

Though OS X and some open source solutions have better interaction design (especially better than Vista), they are (sometimes severely) lacking in other areas where Windows simply is not.

King Harold · Post by **King Harold** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 4:26 pm

beryl:

that does remind me of something..

so who was the first to come up with the glass look?

hop · Post by **hop** » Sat 24 Mar, 2007 5:04 pm

Sun came with a demo of a 3d desktop environment with glass theme in 2003. http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/index.xml

I'm pretty sure this is where a lot of the new UI stuff Microsoft and Apple use comes from.

Except Microsoft and Apple are too concerned about eachother to make proper use of the technology they steal, which the open source community does ever since they started it all. Too bad the hardware/driver support sucks.

threefingeredguy · Post by **threefingeredguy** » Sun 25 Mar, 2007 6:46 am

Heh, Apple had those shiny graphics before Compiz/Beryl. It's also based a Unix OS called NEXTSTEP.

hop · Post by **hop** » Sun 25 Mar, 2007 11:48 am

Nextstep had "3d" gui elements (you know, a light grey line and a dark grey line around a button element for example) but not 3d desktop and though it was the first to support transparency I don't believe it ever had a glass theme or any of the window management functions seen in Sun's demo.

Do you have a source of Apple having such a glass theme? And when, as xgl/compiz released an early demo a long time before actually going live in 2006. Widgets for example where released after Sun's demo but before any complete next gen desktops went live.

MaxCoderz

Which is worse: ME or Vista?

Which is worse: ME or Vista, and why?

Which is worse: ME or Vista?