I have had quite a few problems with vista. One of the many being many program crashes and tons of blue screenign. Also vista makes connecting to a wireless network way to complicated.
Could you enlighten me as to what GM stands for? Anyway, that comparison isn't really relevant. If I wanted an update or patch for Windows, i'd go to Microsoft. If I want anti-virus software i'll go to an experienced 3rd party.
GM stands for General Motors and I was talking about their new line of Cadillac cars. Of course an experienced mechanic would know how to fix it but the day GM is that mechanic makes it ten times better....(not saying they will not try to rip you off).
There are some idiot-friendly settings that let you choose between performance and looks with just a few clicks. Overall there's a lot in Vista that seems easy to understand and configure without much hassle. I've only just got a copy, and with 2GB ram I can't say I notice any performance issues, but it's early days and I haven't installed that many programmes either. My main issue with this OS is the lack of backwards compatibility. If they could do this with XP, then why not Vista? That's a major failing.
Same here. I have detected the problem with most people who hate Vista. They claim its slow because they are trying to update a 3 or 4 year old computer. If you can't afford to get yourself a new system you should not worry upgrade anyway.
Yes, but if you wanted an MP3 player to play in your car would you also go to GM? If I wanted to get a Windows Patch, I'd go to Microsoft. That's not the same as getting anti-virus software. I didn't say it ran slowly, I said it uses more resources than XP. There's a difference but that doesn't mean it isn't annoying.
Because it sucks... at least in xp, we know all the bugs and vulnerabilities... In Vista, are yet to be discovered...
What a stupid comment lol, do you think they new the bugs when they released xp?? The only reason you get spyware and viruses is because your stupid enough to download it!
Thanks, I found it now. So it's not that it doesn't have it, it's just that it's harder to find this feature in Vista. Although by all accounts it's not going to make installing Apache on Vista much easier. I'm not looking forward to that one bit.
whilst i realise vista has its problems (just like ANY software does) i actually love vista. as for people saying about bugs etc, ive not had one but at all with all the software i use, with all my hardware. i can honestly say ive never had a problem with vista, and would recommend it to anybody.
How can you have not had a problem its a new OS its bound to have some problems...more rather than less for me
I bought Vista the week it came out. All I experienced were problems, and had to buy new software, and even some hardware (video/sound card). I was also a light gamer at the time, and could no longer play the game I was in to. About 4 months later (with vista crashing about 2x a day, and being extremely sluggish), I built a new computer; from 3.2 P4 w/2GB PC2-3200 RAM to a 3.2 Quad w/4GB PC2-8500. Now that I am running a $1400 machine, Vista runs perfectly smooth, and have yet to see a problem. Of course, it is 7 months later and I have already found replacements for all my problem hardware/software.
A friend of mine got a new computer 2 weeks after Vista came out. They prefer using Firefox as their main browser. When he downloaded FF again it kept crashing. Something about MS Vista wasn't compatible with FF. We checked the Mozailla forums and lots of others had similar complaints. So he took out his old copy of XP, formatted over Vista and he's been happy ever since.
I use firefox, opera and ie, no problems whatsoever. My pcs also on about 20 hours a day and had zero crashes since running vista ultimate. Maybe some people just can't use vista or can't read the required hardware recomendations on the box!..