EVE Search - Do NOT buy/install Windows Vista!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Do NOT buy/install Windows Vista!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jon Hawkes ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.01 11:33:00 - [61] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro You might consider putting this link into the 1st post of the thread: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html An extensive and rather depressing analysis of things that could (and probably will) go wrong with Vista. The author is an experienced academic researcher, working on the design and analysis of cryptographic security architectures. I am quoting this again because if you can read and understand this and still want to use Vista, something is wrong with you. I can't quite work out if that part about Denial-of-Service via Driver/Device Revocation is either suicidally insane, or evil genius. From what I see, it's going down the road of tying users into certain manufacturers' products based on Microsoft's driver certification. I was looking forward to DirectX 10, but with all the "features" I have seen on Vista, I will not be touching it until at least Service Pack 1 and until Microsoft give the user more control over drivers, processes and DRM.
Siobhan Ni Gallente Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.01 12:11:00 - [62] Originally by: Dark Shikari Read the rest of the link posted above. Microsoft has designed Vista from the ground up to steal your computer from you. yawn I prefer to give something a go and form my own opinions rather than be led by the nose. Vista fine for me. Runs very fast. My computer hasn't been stolen and the devil isn't looking for my soul either. If you don't like then don't buy it, simple as that, it's not as if they are forcing it upon you; there's plenty of other choices.
Invader Skooge Minmatar Dopehead Industries	Posted - 2007.02.01 12:22:00 - [63] ok i have vista ultimate...and so far i havent had any problems, ive done all the things i used to do on XP without problem...and most of them i have done alot quicker and how come everyone can manage to say vista is rubbish from what they have read up on? has only one person actually tested it and every1 else read up on the reading up on the reading up? Try it for yourself dont go by other people all the time _______________________________________________ -Behind This Mask There Is More Than Flesh, Behind This Mask Is An Idea Mr. Creedy...And Ideas Are Bulletproof-
Callistus Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.01 13:09:00 - [64] Originally by: Reiisha That's the point. Is it worth it having a game look good, but having an OS that requires you to buy stuff that limits what you can play? It will randomly restart your PC if it finds stuff that it doesn't like, and by the way it's programmed, that will happen a lot. Imagine playing Crysis with 15 crashes per hour because the voltage in the graphics card went up by 0.001 for 20ms. Well, i guess Vista is worth it, right? There's a serious amount of BS in this thread. What exactly are you basing these claims on? I've been gaming on Vista for some time now and not had a single unexplained crash. In my experience so far Vista is more stable than XP, and I'm still running RC2, not even the final release. Originally by: Reiisha Add to this that Vista only allows you to change your hardware a few times before you have to buy a new license. If your motherboard fries, you have to buy Vista again aswell... How stupid is that? Wrong again. The retail licence allows you to upgrade your hardware and reinstall Vista as many times as you like. Only the OEM version is tied to a specific computer. Originally by: Reiisha 1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use. Got a link for this? Originally by: Reiisha 2. Vista will run a lot of processes that, by the looks of it, can't be turned off. Which results on drastically decreased performance in all areas. Vista actually requires a lot of resources to insure that nothing happens - Yes, you read that right! Vista's performance is not "drastically decreased in all areas", I suggest you actually try it before making such sweeping statements. Originally by: Reiisha 3. Microsoft has gone nuts and has turned a reasonably stable and adjustable OS into a monstrosity that can only be used to play media that don't even exist yet, and even then it runs catastrophically bad. Again, what? I'm no fanboy and Vista is far from perfect, but it seems very clear that the majority of people in this thread have never tried Vista and are just rehashing the same old horror stories. -------------- [Coreli Corporation Mainfrane]
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.02.01 13:22:00 - [65] Originally by: Callistus I'm no fanboy and Vista is far from perfect, but it seems very clear that the majority of people in this thread have never tried Vista and are just rehashing the same old horror stories. The entire point of Vista is so that Microsoft can push monopolistic DRM and control on you (to the point where you can only use specific drivers that they allow you to use, and so on) under the guise of a seemingly fine operating system. If the operating system was on the surface really bad, nobody would buy it, so their plans wouldn't work. -[23] Member- EVE-Trance Radio! (DSTrance channel ingame)
SavageThrash Kemono.	Posted - 2007.02.01 14:54:00 - [66] The day will come when everyone buys vista. Thats the truth of it all. You may not buy it for 6 months, a year of even 2 years but once your new programs lose support for xp and vista is the only way to go then it will be the new baseline os and microsoft knows that and all the software company's know that. A few of you may switch to linux but wouldn't it be more hassle to get some windows specfic program to work on it? They may also port dx10 to xp for those die hard people that refuse to update to vista but personally i have had enough of the half assed somewhat working modifications and buggy systems. I would rather just suck it up now and buy it even if i don't install it straight away. my sig lies
Logi3 Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:06:00 - [67] I love the MS haters. Pure blinded hate for MS I read two threads from this topic. The OP and Callistus post. Anyway, i got a copy of Prem 64bit Vista. Should be here by now but seems City Link dragging there feet with my delivery. Got a legit copy free. Although its OEM. I've read many storys on Vista before i accepted my copy. Its either love it or hate it. And the people hating it dont EVEN OWN A COPY. The people who love it HAVE ACTULY A COPY OF IT. Unless you have used it, have it or own it you have no right to post IMO. I'm reserving my judgement untill i try it. Going to dual boot as i have a spare HD in my system doing nothing. If its ****, dont work, games are slow etc etc. I will keep on with XP. I understand driver support for the 64bit is not great, but i have read that the drivers supplied do the job. Anyone have comments regarding the drivers for 64bit platform Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil p.s. I love you([email protected])
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:13:00 - [68] Originally by: Siobhan Ni I prefer to give something a go and form my own opinions rather than be led by the nose. The reasonings of the paper are based on sound facts. Hardware design will get more complex as a result of Vista DRM measures, and that cost will be transfered to the consumer. It is also a fact that unbreakable DRM would need to break the laws of Physics--the best you can hope for is to make it complex enough to slow down those trying to break it. Which Microsoft has apparently been unable to do, as it appears that Vista's DRM is already broken. In other words, you have a highly complex system inflicted on the consumer that will greatly increase hardware complexity and has already failed to meet its orginal design goals. Quote: Vista fine for me. Runs very fast. My computer hasn't been stolen and the devil isn't looking for my soul either. Break it down into a cost/benefit ratio: Costs: --Whatever the direct monetary retail cost of the OS is. --DRM, which directly inflicts real costs (e.g. hardware complexity) on consumers, even if they're not "pirates". --Slower. Even if it's fast enough for you, all that encryption will slow you down, and the additional system services in Vista compared to XP will also slow it down. XP already had too many services. Benefits: --DX10. Looks very pretty and should be faster than previous DX versions. --Hardware accelerated 3d desktop. While many see this as a cost, there are real UI advantages to using an accelerated desktop, which OSX has shown for a while. For me, those benefits are not worth the costs. If the WINE thing works out, we'll have DX10 on XP anyway. Quote: If you don't like then don't buy it, simple as that, it's not as if they are forcing it upon you; there's plenty of other choices. I won't be buying it. I also have a right to advocate that other's not buy it, too. I don't have a right to swat the Vista box out of their hand when they try to buy it at the store.
Logi3 Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:16:00 - [69] Why cant more people reply like the likes of Frezik Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil p.s. I love you([email protected])
Psymon R	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:17:00 - [70] I'm going to wait a bit and see with vista, and may well buy an oem version if I get round to upgrading my PC (which I've been planning on doing for ages)... When I do get round to installing it I'll be setting up a dual boot system with either XP or linux however... This story on the BBC News website's amused me though, if a Vista computer is set up in a specific way a malicious audio file could be used to delete files etc via the voice recognition... Story Though tbh, if you're using voice recognition and listening to audio files at the same time, the computer is hardly likely (I would have thought) to be set up so the microphone can listen to the speakers...
Vladimir Ilych Gradient	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:19:00 - [71] Should just link my old posts on this. I am running Vista x64 Enterprise. I do have a high spec dual core machine. Vista runs fine. Eve runs fine. Everything works fine. UAC is annoying but can be turned off. It found all my drivers. No Lunix distro has managed that on any PC i tried them on. VISTA updated my NVIDIA driver automatically with the latest version. Only one program I have loaded thus far has failed to work. That is my experience. If you haven't used it please be quiet.
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:20:00 - [72] Originally by: SavageThrash The day will come when everyone buys vista. Thats the truth of it all. You may not buy it for 6 months, a year of even 2 years but once your new programs lose support for xp and vista is the only way to go then it will be the new baseline os and microsoft knows that and all the software company's know that. A few of you may switch to linux but wouldn't it be more hassle to get some windows specfic program to work on it? Wrong, I will never need to buy Vista, if new releases of the programs come out and I need vista to use them.. well essentially I wont. If I dont want the supposed "Hassle" of getting programs to work on linux.. I have one option left to which virtually can do everything except play eve. What is this option, you may ask? It's called a mac! Actually there's a way you can install Mac OSX onto an X86 platform.. google for it! -------------------------------- The Image hoster removed my siggy.. it'll be back on the weekend!! My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
Vladimir Ilych Gradient	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:22:00 - [73] oh and it boots faster than XP which runs on the same system
Xelios Minmatar Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:23:00 - [74] Well look, Vista is not Windows ME. It's a good, stable OS, exactly like XP is. In fact, it's just XP repackaged with some fancy new features you'll grow tired of pretty quickly. The problem is they packaged it with a ton of DRM, "security features" that many people don't want and an attitude that says "we know what's best for your computer, so just leave the important stuff to us, that's an order." A lot of people don't want an OS that governs what they can and can't do with their computer, they want something that will run applications, end of story. That's all an OS is supposed to do, run applications. Not tell you what you can and can't run, deliberatly disable features because you didn't spend $1000 on new hardware, automatically delete things it decides are 'unwanted' and phone home every now and then to make sure you haven't done something it doesn't agree with. A lot of people don't care about that stuff, and to them Vista will be just fine. Other people have a real problem with where this 'content management' stuff is heading, and they'll fight it every step of the way. If that means tinkering with a modded version of DX10 to get it working properly on XP then so be it.
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:29:00 - [75] Originally by: Callistus Originally by: Reiisha 1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use. Got a link for this? How about one from Microsoft's site (powerpoint link). The basic summary: --DRM involves encryption, which takes up CPU cycles. This will slow down the system. --Development costs of hardware is greatly increased. This cost must be passed on to the consumer. This additional cost is there to support a DRM system that is already broken. Quote: Vista's performance is not "drastically decreased in all areas", I suggest you actually try it before making such sweeping statements. How do you do all that encryption without taking up CPU cycles? Current off-the-shelf retail computers do not have any sort of hardware encryption. Adding one would further increase hardware costs.
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:39:00 - [76] Originally by: Vladimir Ilych That is my experience. If you haven't used it please be quiet. I don't need to use it to see how the DRM implementation makes the whole deal fundamentally flawed. I also don't need to use it to see that there are few benefits to using it over XP. Originally by: Vladimir Ilych oh and it boots faster than XP which runs on the same system All Windows versions tend to be fast on startup when you're dealing with a newly installed system. They slow down as more crud gets installed. Windows has always handled entropy buildup very poorly. You can't compare a new Vista installation and compare it to a two-year-old XP installation. Wait till Vista has had time for entropy to set in. Maybe it will still be faster, maybe it won't, but you can't say right now.
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.02.01 15:41:00 - [77] Originally by: Frezik Originally by: Vladimir Ilych That is my experience. If you haven't used it please be quiet. I don't need to use it to see how the DRM implementation makes the whole deal fundamentally flawed. I also don't need to use it to see that there are few benefits to using it over XP. Originally by: Vladimir Ilych oh and it boots faster than XP which runs on the same system All Windows versions tend to be fast on startup when you're dealing with a newly installed system. They slow down as more crud gets installed. Windows has always handled entropy buildup very poorly. You can't compare a new Vista installation and compare it to a two-year-old XP installation. Wait till Vista has had time for entropy to set in. Maybe it will still be faster, maybe it won't, but you can't say right now. Yup, dont forget the number of patches XP has had over the years, this means more and more stuff for XP to start up and gradually decreases performance. Eventually the same will happen with Vista. -------------------------------- The Image hoster removed my siggy.. it'll be back on the weekend!! My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
StarLite Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.02.01 18:21:00 - [78] I've been running Vista for a couple of weeks now and it is a nice skin for XP. MS have managed to move EVERY SINGLE feature in the O/S to another place, every link, button etc has been moved for "enhanced user friendlyness". Aero Glass looks smooth, runs smooth and seems to be quite ok [I can run EvE windowed without a framedrop even with aero glass on]. UAC is downright extremely irritating, so I disabled it right off the bat, with it enabled it will ask you to confirm EVERYTHING and ANYTHING :/ The idea behind UAC is good, running everything in limited user mode, but it has far overshot it's goal. After a week, no-one will ever read the messages anymore and always click yes to everything, because they are getting annoyed by the everlasting presence of the UAC popups. The search everywhere stuff seems to be handy from what I heard, you just type in "defrag" in the start menu and it will start disk defragmenter. it doesn't find everything but it's a nice feature tho. Drivers is still a mess, alt-tabbing from a fullscreen game or coming out of standby mode will crash the videocard driver forcing a reboot, theres no drivers for my soundcard, all drivers that exist so far are still beta. if you are looking for a stable O/S do not switch yet, but wait for drivers to become ready and stable. The main reason that made me run Vista is that drivers run in user-mode instead of kernel-mode, so a crashing driver won't crash the O/S. So far all driver crashes rebooted the PC, gave a BSOD or made vista totally go **** up so that feature doesn't work at all yet. Also, you will STILL have to reboot for all windows updates, no matter how tiny, stupid or insignificant the changes are. For me vista is just as stable as XP [not counting driver crashes], it will crash at the same problems, will not recover faster or prevent more crashes. All in all, it is a nice looking O/S and as soon as all drivers are ready in a couple of months it will be a decent O/S. It does NOT deserve, however, the NT6.0 version, it is just a nice skin for XP and really is NT5.2. Even with the new interface and all, it feels like XP with a nice looking skin. I have not regretted upgrading from XP, but DO NOT upgrade if you don't want any problems or want to upgrade drivers every week. _______________________________________________________________________ This sig is guarded by SigGuard(c)
Callistus Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.01 18:22:00 - [79] Originally by: Frezik Originally by: Callistus Originally by: Reiisha 1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use. Got a link for this? How about one from Microsoft's site (powerpoint link). The basic summary: --DRM involves encryption, which takes up CPU cycles. This will slow down the system. --Development costs of hardware is greatly increased. This cost must be passed on to the consumer. This additional cost is there to support a DRM system that is already broken. My request for a link was directed at the statement that older hardware (e.g. graphics cards) wouldn't pass Vista's protection standards, thus forcing people to upgrade. Not sure what relation that has to DRM taking up cpu cycles and increasing hardware costs. Originally by: Frezik Quote: Vista's performance is not "drastically decreased in all areas", I suggest you actually try it before making such sweeping statements. How do you do all that encryption without taking up CPU cycles? Current off-the-shelf retail computers do not have any sort of hardware encryption. Adding one would further increase hardware costs. I never refered to hardware costs, the original quote said performance in Vista was "drastically decreased in all areas". From my own experience Vista is no slower or less responsive than XP, or at least not noticibly so. Of course the encryption takes up cpu cycles but I haven't noticed any ill effects, certainly not to the extent the OP suggested. -------------- [Coreli Corporation Mainfrane]
Benco97 Gallente Multiverse Corporation	Posted - 2007.02.01 18:48:00 - [80] i'm tired of this.. all you people who want to use Vista, Use it, all you people who want to free the minds of those being controlled by the mega-corp/devil, give it up and go use linux, that way, when vista falls through you can all be quite happy and smug that you were right, until then however your Vista bashing is extremely annoying. Vista, it works, what more do I want? "MY GOD KEEP THIS AWAY FROM BENCO97!!!!!" - Constantine Arcanum
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 19:06:00 - [81] Originally by: Callistus My request for a link was directed at the statement that older hardware (e.g. graphics cards) wouldn't pass Vista's protection standards, thus forcing people to upgrade. Not sure what relation that has to DRM taking up cpu cycles and increasing hardware costs. DRM is implemented with cryptographic schemes. Between the media application and the monitor, Vista will probably encrypt and decrypt the data several times. That takes up CPU cycles. If you have a multi-core CPU and are running non-parallelized applications, it could well be that the encryption and other Vista overhead is running on one core while your application is running on another. If this is the case, then you'll start seeing a slowdown when trying parallelized applications (which there will be more of over time, since multi-core CPUs are becoming more standard). (There's another reason why you might not have seen a big performance drop yet--see below.) Hardware costs increase because DRM adds an extra design requirement on hardware companies. For instance, if you look at a the "value edition" of many video cards, you may see empty spots in the PCB where another chip could go, or another i/o connector, or more memory, and so on. The more expensive version fills those spots in. This means they design one card, have one assembly line process, and just don't put in the extras on some of the boards. This saves them money, which can be passed on the consumer. With the requirements Microsoft is forcing on hardware companies, that model no longer works. Those extra spots on the PCB are potential data paths, which could be used to get at the unencrypted data. This means they need to design two cards, and have seperate assembly line processes. This rises costs, which are passed on to the consumer. Also, any PCB traces that carry unencrypted data must be as short as possible, since shorter paths are harder to analyze. This makes the hardware that much more difficult to design, further increasing costs. Older hardware doesn't meet Microsoft's requirements. This doesn't necessarily mean it will stop working, but you won't be able to play your hi-def content at its full capabilities. Quote: I never refered to hardware costs, the original quote said performance in Vista was "drastically decreased in all areas". From my own experience Vista is no slower or less responsive than XP, or at least not noticibly so. Of course the encryption takes up cpu cycles but I haven't noticed any ill effects, certainly not to the extent the OP suggested. You may not have been affected yet. IIRC, Vista will only start requiring the encryption in the AV stream after you try to play protected content. Unless you have a next-gen DVD player on your computer, you probably haven't encountered any such content yet. What still hasn't been answered is what does Vista give me over XP? The initial retail cost alone would be enough for me to ignore Vista for now, and the DRM will be a continuing headache. DX10 and a hardware accelerated desktop are not sufficient to overcome those problems (IMHO; you can make up your own mind). Many of the potentially interesting features of Vista (like a database-oriented filesystem) were cut out during its long development period. Few benefits remain.
Nira Li Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.02.01 19:19:00 - [82] If you don't want all the mumbo jumbo get the home basic version or don't use it at all. Microsoft will never change so not much you can do about it, a few 1000 geeks can't change them. I'm trying out Vista Ultimate atm and it works pretty good except for gaming, if I play eve in windows mode and use IE at the same time I get a 50% fps drop thx to the Aero ****. If you are just going to use a HTPC then Vista is really nice. You Will Cry My Name
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 19:24:00 - [83] Originally by: Nira Li If you don't want all the mumbo jumbo get the home basic version or don't use it at all. Eh? Basic version still has DRM, which is Vista's single biggest problem. Even if it didn't, hardware manufacturers would still have to increase their design costs for the other Vista versions.
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 19:28:00 - [84] Originally by: Benco97 i'm tired of this.. all you people who want to use Vista, Use it, all you people who want to free the minds of those being controlled by the mega-corp/devil, give it up and go use linux, that way, when vista falls through you can all be quite happy and smug that you were right, until then however your Vista bashing is extremely annoying. Vista, it works, what more do I want? I can't just ignore Vista. The hardware cost increases will still affect me even if I only ever use XP, Linux, or maybe even OSX.
Kata Dakini	Posted - 2007.02.01 20:06:00 - [85] The simple concept of increased hardware development seems to me to be the most disturbing thing about Vista. How is this going to affect development cycles? Essentially, Microsoft is putting a chokehold on hardware developers, forcing them to choose either: A: Continue developing Windows hardware. Accept the increased development costs/time. Retain privilege of selling hardware to the largest group of users. B: Continue developing Windows hardware while simultaneously developing other "generic" hardware (which will be run on Linux or whatever else that comes along). This appeals to everyone, but obviously incurs the most significant development cost. Not realistic for many smaller hardware vendors. C: Choose not to cater to M$ and eventually get put out of business. There is also the possibility that M$ will go into acquisition mode with all that extra cash they've been sitting on. With many hardware vendors struggling, they will be prime targets for M$ and eventually get taken over. D: Start selling bicycles. For more enjoyment and greater efficiency, consumption is being standardized.
Constantine Arcanum Gallente IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.	Posted - 2007.02.01 20:31:00 - [86] Originally by: Reiisha Originally by: Alundiel Well ya.... but what about DX10 its darned useful and requires vista That's the point. Is it worth it having a game look good, but having an OS that requires you to buy stuff that limits what you can play? It will randomly restart your PC if it finds stuff that it doesn't like, and by the way it's programmed, that will happen a lot. Imagine playing Crysis with 15 crashes per hour because the voltage in the graphics card went up by 0.001 for 20ms. Well, i guess Vista is worth it, right? You can wait with DX10. There has been not a SINGLE screenshot or video of it yet. The FS10 screenshot was an artist impression, and EVERYTHING you've seen from Crysis is DX9. apparently DX10 will be backwards compatible with XP. I helped - Cortes What a shiny and lovely place here - Eshtir Well lets make it a party atleast :D -Xorus RAWWWR!11!!1!2 SIG HIJACK!!11!1 I found it first, get orrrfff moiiii laaannnd - Cortes
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 20:31:00 - [87] Originally by: Kata Dakini There is also the possibility that M$ will go into acquisition mode with all that extra cash they've been sitting on. Unlikely as long as Ballmer is CEO. Ballmer doesn't like Microsoft buying large companies. Rather, he prefers to buy smaller companies with good ideas and absorb them into current Microsoft projects. This is so common that "get bought by Microsoft" is a workable business plan for many Silicon Valley startups.
Letri Bimmet Gallente	Posted - 2007.02.01 20:41:00 - [88] Edited by: Letri Bimmet on 01/02/2007 20:40:54 Didn't everyone (and by everyone I mean the so called 'windows haters') say the same stuff about XP when that came out? Some peeps in this thread see a conspiracy in vista...next thing someone will announce that Bill Gates will be using vista to brainwash and *****your bunghole wile surfing the web. Oh...and don't forget the bunnies...they're in on it too
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.01 21:25:00 - [89] Originally by: Letri Bimmet Edited by: Letri Bimmet on 01/02/2007 20:40:54 Didn't everyone (and by everyone I mean the so called 'windows haters') say the same stuff about XP when that came out? XP didn't offer all that much over Win2k, either. The only reason I use it now is that it's generally easier to get support (for both hardware and software) for XP than Win2k, and I'm often asked by friends about how to do something on XP, and I'd like to be able to give them an answer. I fully expect that I'll eventually get sucked into Vista this way eventually, but if these factors didn't exist, I'd still be in a Win2k for all my gaming needs. (My specific situation allows me to ignore Windows for almost all work-related needs).
Gone'Postal Minmatar LuthorCorp Combat Division	Posted - 2007.02.01 21:38:00 - [90] Originally by: Dark Shikari Microsoft has designed Vista from the ground up to steal your computer from you. TBH I don't understand by what you mean by that, yeah they have stupid stuff in there to stop you accessing some files which you can turn off, but after 2-3 weeks of "playing with" the beta release's and the downloaded timer stoped RTM release, i'm now running 64x Vista ult legal version and have 100% access to everything, some things i use run faster under vista, the process's on mine anyways are less but do use more ram (no biggy there with 2gb) For less tecnicaly minded people i can see how vista can be a damn nightmare but a little research and you can turn off everything smeggy that microballs has put in there. -------------------------------------------- Welcome to the best slideshow on Earth!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

my sig lies