4 ms·

Why is it that the entire internet is covered with opinions mirroring this, dismissing everyone who doesn't like Vista as "having not tried it", but whenever I

Why is it that the entire internet is covered with opinions mirroring this, dismissing everyone who doesn't like Vista as "having not tried it", but whenever I actually ask people in real life, the universal conclusion of everyone who has tried it is that it was terrible? These people who think Vista was a great step forward seem to only exist on the internet and nowhere else.

wyday 17y ago
> seem to only exist on the internet and nowhere else. Is this a metaphysics question? I exist outside of the internet. > dismissing everyone who doesn't like Vista I wasn't dismissing every argument against Vista. Just this guy's. There are several valid arguments against Vista. Namely, it has heftier memory requirements (at least 2 gigs) and needs a decent video card ($150+). These are real concerns, and problems XP didn't have. However, this guy made the blanket statement "Vista bad, 7 good". There's no subtlety or analysis.
- stratomorph 17y ago
  "Existing on the internet and nowhere else" is a typical way to categorize people, given the existence of global communication. Having never met either of you (as far as I know), you only exist on the internet to me, and to each other. The rest is opaque. As for Vista, we're not dealing with it as it is, but as it is reputed to be. And it has a terrible reputation. The technical merits versus XP can be argued, but its poor image is hard to contest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista. We take that as a premise, because the technical bits don't matter any more, in the presence of Windows 7. The meat is the use of price as a tool to drive better initial reception of 7 than Vista. There's no need to analyze "Vista bad", because it is already widely believed to be bad.
- ensignavenger 17y ago
  I don't think Vista needs a $150 video card, but your right on the memory. (When Vista came out, it might have needed a $150 video card- but prices have since come down.)
nopassrecover 17y ago
Vista was terrible, Windows 7 is awesome.
- azbob 17y ago
  They're the same effing O/S. :rolleyes:
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    Not even close. This is what programmers (and Microsoft) don't get. Vista didn't work because the experience and interface were terrible. It didn't matter how good the underlying OS was. Windows 7 fixes the user experience of the OS, even if it is the same technically.
amalcon 17y ago
You're requesting information from people you talk to in real life. People are volunteering it on the internet. You're naturally going to get different biases. I know my experience in real life was colored by a few people trying Vista Business early on (on new hardware) and deciding that the new features were not worth the performance penalty. Everyone I know who's done this, including myself, has "downgraded" to XP (as Microsoft allows). People I know in real life who are considering Vista now are somewhat disinclined to do so, in favor of just waiting for Windows 7.

wyday 17y ago

> seem to only exist on the internet and nowhere else. Is this a metaphysics question? I exist outside of the internet. > dismissing everyone who doesn't like Vista I wasn't dismissing every argument against Vista. Just this guy's. There are several valid arguments against Vista. Namely, it has heftier memory requirements (at least 2 gigs) and needs a decent video card ($150+). These are real concerns, and problems XP didn't have. However, this guy made the blanket statement "Vista bad, 7 good". There's no subtlety or analysis.

stratomorph 17y ago
"Existing on the internet and nowhere else" is a typical way to categorize people, given the existence of global communication. Having never met either of you (as far as I know), you only exist on the internet to me, and to each other. The rest is opaque. As for Vista, we're not dealing with it as it is, but as it is reputed to be. And it has a terrible reputation. The technical merits versus XP can be argued, but its poor image is hard to contest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista. We take that as a premise, because the technical bits don't matter any more, in the presence of Windows 7. The meat is the use of price as a tool to drive better initial reception of 7 than Vista. There's no need to analyze "Vista bad", because it is already widely believed to be bad.
ensignavenger 17y ago
I don't think Vista needs a $150 video card, but your right on the memory. (When Vista came out, it might have needed a $150 video card- but prices have since come down.)

nopassrecover 17y ago

Vista was terrible, Windows 7 is awesome.

azbob 17y ago
They're the same effing O/S. :rolleyes:
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Not even close. This is what programmers (and Microsoft) don't get. Vista didn't work because the experience and interface were terrible. It didn't matter how good the underlying OS was. Windows 7 fixes the user experience of the OS, even if it is the same technically.

amalcon 17y ago

You're requesting information from people you talk to in real life. People are volunteering it on the internet. You're naturally going to get different biases. I know my experience in real life was colored by a few people trying Vista Business early on (on new hardware) and deciding that the new features were not worth the performance penalty. Everyone I know who's done this, including myself, has "downgraded" to XP (as Microsoft allows). People I know in real life who are considering Vista now are somewhat disinclined to do so, in favor of just waiting for Windows 7.