Jump to content

Mojave Experiment


Corrosion.
 Share

Recommended Posts

the video never talked about better speed and performance

vista is slower and doesn't offer anything new to offset the slowness

when XP first came out, people hated on it also because it was slower, but that soon changed when 2-4gb became common and people started using multicore

xp outgrew it's slowness by support for better hardware

vista has the same hardware support as xp, so it will never outgrow it's slowness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably run on a quad core, 8GB ram fully tuned custom built laptop >.>

'Ohh, it's great!'

Until they try and ship it on a Celeron M 2.4 with 512MB RAM.

That's what i was thinking, anyone with decent computer knowledge would be able to ask some simple questions and see through it, but then those people would not make it to the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"when XP first came out, people hated on it also because it was slower, but that soon changed when 2-4gb became common and people started using multicore"

Are you high? 2-4GB is the standard for XP machines, TODAY. The standard for most of XP's active life has been 512mb - 2GB, on a single core processor with hyper-threading if you were lucky.

Vista x64 is much faster for me than XP x86 was, and XP can't support my hardware because it is to old. Vista finally has multi-channel sound, a better interface and The trick is to throw as much RAM at the system as you can for vista/2008, it eats it but it loves it at the same time. I have 6GB in my machine but tbh I need to go for 8GB. I would get more if my motherboard could take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 6GB in my machine but tbh I need to go for 8GB. I would get more if my motherboard could take it.

Are you running 64bit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice, on the commercials, all the users seem to be basic users, people who would use it at home. Also notice they don't really try out anything but the interface. Yeah, it looks gorgeous! now take that home and plug in your 4 year old digicam and 6 year old printer. Scanner? Faggeeetabadit!

I do have to say the 64bit version does seem to be a world of improvement. On a machine with solid hardware, it really wakes up. Of course, it needs to be a very good system with SATA and lots of RAM, but I will admit to it running far better on a machine like that than I could get XP to run.

Man I hate admitting that....

Btw, my one laptop shipped with Vista, just after it was released. It actually was a celeron M with 512mb RAM. It lasted 15 minutes before I went to Best buy and got memory. Still sux, and got dual-booted with Ubuntu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I do feel that alot of the negative criticism surrounding Vista is communal.

Meaning people already have a predetermined view, and changing someone's mind is going to be that much more difficult.

I myself am using Vista x64 SP1 and must be honest, have no interest in going back to XP.

It's fast, has a great set of features if you can get your head out of XP land.

Like I said, I personally like Vista, and encourage anyone that has the ability to try it out, give it a second HONEST look with SP1

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok guys here are the specs of the laptops that were used:

HP Pavilion DV2500. It had 2GB of RAM and was running an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz. The OS was a 32 bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate.

i found this info posted at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10001331-56.html although I know one of the videos on the mojave site states the specs but i cant remember which one you have to click on for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny... a lot of businesses are doing this. I saw a Pizza Hut one about their pastas as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ads like that mean nothing when all actors are hired or people who are not power users who can be wowed by eye candy and due to the limited time of using it they wont have time to get tired of the laggy visuals

if they got more experienced power users who would run apps based on performance then vista would get bad reviews

almost every test, especially with gaming (even with sp1) at higher resolutions where the videocard is a bottle neck, vista is only slightly slower than xp (barely noticeable) but at low resolutions, 800x600-1024x768 there is a large difference between xp and vista. vista will be much slower

any company that tries advertising like this should be ashamed of them self as it proves nothing

also even if it was real, 90% of the videos were probably left out

and this is done a lot, even on the show bullshit, when they do interviews and experiments like that, they usually say that most of the videos were left out because they were not entertaining enough

another way to market vista to unskilled users is to have them try it, if all they do is use their pc for basic web use, then they most likely have a old PC in their house.

vista on a high end dual core system will run much better than windows xp or windows 98 on a 800-1GHz system so while xp will run faster on the pc microsoft tested, unskilled users will see it as really fast because there used to using their 7-8 year old computer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what your point is. Vista is a more modern operating system with better features than XP that performs faster on decent modern hardware. If you install vista on a machine with a slow single core processor it will be crap compared to XP, which was designed to run on that hardware. All microsoft are doing is showing that people who know nothing about computers have false presumptions about vista based on nothing more than hear-say, and that when presented with a modern machine running vista a lot of them actually liked it. People shouldn't be installing vista on old computers that will be used for web browsing alone, and the only people that actually do this seem to be people who think they know something about computers but haven't done any research. My "high end" system cost me less than £500 in total and I've used £300 machines than run vista fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been running windows vista home premium on my Toshiba satellite A135 1.73ghz dual core with 1gb ram for over a year and I've never had any problems with it and yes this is 32-bit machine, it run my games just fine and I do some programming and video editing the video editing is the only thing that slows it down but then unless you have a video toaster everything slows down. :) so get off the its Microsoft so it must be bad. I've use every MS OS since DOS 5.0 and windows 3.1. there are far worse OS out there remember windows ME. LOL

I also dual boot with Debian 4.0 rev 3 Linux kernel 2.6.18 and I've said it before live distro's are the training wheels of the OS world you have to take them off sometimg :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just bought a BRAND NEW Dell Inspiron 530. Quad core, 3GB of RAM, 7200 RPM SATA... etc. Not the fastest PC on the planet, but damn sure not slow. It came infected with Vista, which is because they don't offer an option of "no operating system". Which really pisses me off knowing I was paying uncle Bill for Windows, when I was never going to use it. I booted it up, just out of curiosity because I had not seen Vista before. It took the damn thing like 8 minutes to fully boot. OUT OF THE BOX. So I finished all the setup stuff, rebooted..... and it was like 2 minutes until it was booted. But even then it wasn't fully booted because the drive was thrashing for the next like 5 - 10 minutes.

Loaded linux, and it's WAY faster. Even with virtual box, running 4 guest OS's and using the host for my workstation it's faster than Vista was out of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All off-the-shelf machines take half a year to boot, they're full of crapware.

Stop with the Linux propaganda, it's getting old. I use Vista on a super-budget machine and it works just fine. Sure, it's not perfect, but nor was XP, nor is OSX, nor is Linux. Quit bashing shit just because you think Linux is better. I'm sick of all this.

In fact, let's talk about Linux, shall we? It's incompatible with oh-so-much hardware, it may or may not even boot on any given system, hell, people even have to reboot to use half the stuff they want to use in too many cases for me to give it any credibility. Everyone's pulling in different directions, manufacturers won't give it the time of day so drivers are home-grown and may or may not work with your kernel. Oh, you want me to compile my own? Sure, tell that to the old woman down the street. No viruses? Sure, because no-one who isn't a nerd who's happy to fuck about for a month to make things work (and even then it's not guaranteed) uses Linux, and if they did, there'd be more malware written for it. Oh, you know what else? Linux wouldn't seem quite so secure any more, because a good portion of the reason infections happen at such a rate are due to user error and ignorance. Think that'd change if they all moved to Linux? Not a chance, it'd just be even harder to educate them.

BSoDs? How about kernel panics. Yeah, we don't talk about those, do we? The appalling fonts? The clunky desktop managers? Windows has cryptic error messages? Tried getting a layman to understand what Linux is trying to tell you? No? Right. Something went wrong? Where'd X go? Isn't this like that DOS thing? Why's my sound not working? I'll just go download a driver... oh wait, I can't. I finally found a game that works in Linux! Yay! Except I can't use it, because this graphics driver doesn't work. Oh well, I can still connect to my wifi... actually, I can't, my distro doesn't support WPA... or my wireless card. I can use ndiswrapper? Great, so I'm using a driver from an OS that everyone says is crap. That can't be a good sign.

So I just got my graphics and sound working, 2 weeks later. Shame I can't play DRM'd media. Sure, it's DRM'd, but at least on Windows I can watch it, better that than nothing. But compiz is better than Aero, right? Sure, if you want to play with springy windows rather than actually doing anything. Which you couldn't do anyway, because Linux doesn't run the stuff people want to run. Sure, there are alternatives on Linux, but so many of them are clunky, crashy and incompatible with their alternatively-platformed cousins.

Yeah, and Windows Vista is shit. Fuck Linux, Fuck the fanboys, Fuck the zealots, Fuck all-software-must-be-free-and/or-open-source. Fuck you all, I'm going to continue using my OS that actually works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with moonlit. Fuck all the "windows is shit" talk.

If you are pissed off about computers not being able to be purchased with no OS, fuck it, build your own computer. There's all this "fuck windows" talk but you never see "fuck *nix", and you want to know why? Windows users who know shit don't try to impose their views on you. I see all these anti-windows comments, but as soon as I would make a "linux blows because of A and B", I'd have 10 people on me like flies on shit. How about you stop trying to impose your views on others and keep them to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...