4 ms·

I know it's fashionable to shit on Vista these days, but come on. we had to find our own source of comparison data. Fortunately, one of the parameters we colle

by trezor 18y ago

I know it's fashionable to shit on Vista these days, but come on. we had to find our own source of comparison data. Fortunately, one of the parameters we collect from the several thousand members of the exo.performance.network community using the Windows Sentinel monitoring tool is the name of the system manufacturer. So basically they have taken a completely irrelevant part of the market, definitely thrown that whole "representative selection" thing which is crucial to proper statistic out the window, and extrapolated their way to a conclusion. Has anyone here even heard about the Windows Sentinel monitoring tool until now? I know for sure I haven't, and I am pretty invested in the Windows platform. [ Join the exo.performance.network community, and monitor your PC's performance with the InfoWorld Windows Sentinel tool. ] So a quick read reveals its something you have to install. Something you have to be an active participant in. If not even techies have heard about it, you can be damned sure that your average Joe haven't, and that these data are worthless for making conclusions on any wider audience.

trevelyan 18y ago
I'm having miserable performance. Vista takes ages to load, and even then the system will not infrequently "freeze" (turn a zonked-out white and spin internal wheels) while I'm doing nothing more complex than surf the Internet. It takes about a minute after systems load until the cable modem is usable. In terms of basic usability, Vista is hands-down the worst-performing OS I've ever had. I am genuinely curious how a company like Microsoft could let a stinker like this out the door. I would downgrade if I could, but have a dual-boot machine and - frankly - don't want to risk letting anything coming out of Redmond screw around with my harddrive and systems while at least 50% (the Ubuntu portion I use most of the time) is the most powerful and stable system I've ever used. The only reason I'm ever in Vista is for audio editing work, so it is tolerable in that sense too.
- trezor 18y ago
  That might be, but it's still 100% irrelevant. I'm not debating the merits of Vista as a OS, but the validity of these statistics outside the scope in which they were gathered. If you, a techie, which admits despite hating Vista still having it installed, what are the chances the average Joe's have gone trough with a downgrade? Until we get actual, real numbers, I see no point in discussing the failure or success of Vista from a sales point of view.
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    I got Vista with a laptop and I couldn't use it either, but what I've noticed is that most normal users get Vista with new PC's and they are so used to spyware/malware/adware making their computer work like crap that they never even notice how much slower vista is. They just expect their computer to take 4 minutes to start IE and thrash the HDD the entire time its on. They don't switch back to XP. It never even occurs to them. Most of them have a fairly dim idea about even the difference between Vista and XP. Its just another computer that doesn't work very well. Like all of the other computers they've had.

by trezor 18y ago

trevelyan 18y ago

I'm having miserable performance. Vista takes ages to load, and even then the system will not infrequently "freeze" (turn a zonked-out white and spin internal wheels) while I'm doing nothing more complex than surf the Internet. It takes about a minute after systems load until the cable modem is usable. In terms of basic usability, Vista is hands-down the worst-performing OS I've ever had. I am genuinely curious how a company like Microsoft could let a stinker like this out the door. I would downgrade if I could, but have a dual-boot machine and - frankly - don't want to risk letting anything coming out of Redmond screw around with my harddrive and systems while at least 50% (the Ubuntu portion I use most of the time) is the most powerful and stable system I've ever used. The only reason I'm ever in Vista is for audio editing work, so it is tolerable in that sense too.

trezor 18y ago
That might be, but it's still 100% irrelevant. I'm not debating the merits of Vista as a OS, but the validity of these statistics outside the scope in which they were gathered. If you, a techie, which admits despite hating Vista still having it installed, what are the chances the average Joe's have gone trough with a downgrade? Until we get actual, real numbers, I see no point in discussing the failure or success of Vista from a sales point of view.
- noonespecial 18y ago
  I got Vista with a laptop and I couldn't use it either, but what I've noticed is that most normal users get Vista with new PC's and they are so used to spyware/malware/adware making their computer work like crap that they never even notice how much slower vista is. They just expect their computer to take 4 minutes to start IE and thrash the HDD the entire time its on. They don't switch back to XP. It never even occurs to them. Most of them have a fairly dim idea about even the difference between Vista and XP. Its just another computer that doesn't work very well. Like all of the other computers they've had.