LiewCF Tech Blog

i just bought a laptop , no choice but to have vista on it.
vista does NOT start up or shutdaown faster than xp.
my still xp desktop runs 24/7 , its restarted 2 times in 2 weeks compared to uncountable times vista has in same time.
install something on xp & walk away get something else done while it installs.
not on vista though.
forces you to sit there while it asks you permission to install something.
instead of vista, call it CIA , it wants to know everything from you before it does something simple.
no choices with vista.
take 2 machines & install xp on 1 , vista on the other.
xp will be done first because it asks you what u want/dont want installed – unlike vista that installs everything then wastes time making you remove things not needed.

if microsoft wants a good O/S , give me an updated win 95/ NT that supports the new equipment.
95 had a lot of hidden programs that were useful.
like being able to send a simple message directly to another computer on a network without installing a 100 different messengers.
i still say , 95 ran on 256 meg quite nicely.
imagine how fast it would be on 4 gig systems.
nock off the BS , give me an updated 95

how about something very simple !!!?
a dual layer dvd containing both O/S s ?
it would come with full Vista, but also updated XP on other side of dvd. full price would apply to the version selected.

vista would run without activation for a month without needing the activation key , so that user could see if it were worth a s***t …

if you dont like it , then you would get option of clearing vista & installing a new instance XP on the machine, which would come with full support & updates until the next version of windows came along.

how fast do you think microsoft & other vista supporters would drop vista if given the actual choice between the 2 O/S s ???

only when this is done will we ever see another O/S that is useful out of the box without updating first.

until M/S is faced with a product not selling , will they build a better product.
95 was about 30 mb.
98 was about 1/2 a cd
xp was a full cd
vista is on a DVD

with blu ray set to be the standard, imagine the dislike & problems when windows is a 20 gig install !!!

i thought a 20 gig drive was big for 95.
vista wont even run bare bones on a drive that small.
95 ran on less hard drive Than i have ram now…
plus started faster, plus i had the same cable internet then as i have now.
if all the apps require more resources these days , why are we buying newer faster computers just for the O/S ???

dont tell me linux either.its only good for typing a letter or playing card games

I agree I HATE the Vista Interface (GUI). Why not have XP classic mode then I might of given it a chance. Like I still use the classic start menu in XP. Some of us don’t like to change interface just because they think its better. Owell I will stick with XP. Hopefully in the next windows release they will bring back the XP interface and I might give it a shot.

Personally. I don’t like Vista itself, sure its pretty and it can be a “stable” system with certain programs, I’ll give the security a good 10, but everything else. no.

I think what would have made Vista better is a better performance tweak on operations and allowing programs to run smoother and faster on a smaller system size.

I also think had they been smart enough to put the Windows XP theme (blue) into there personalization work, more companies and people at home would find it much easier to use and if they didn’t want to cover to the look at least, they wouldn’t have to, yet they can still have some of the better security and speedier system processes of Vista.

but that’s just my opinion.

Chuck has some great ideas here:

http://computertrainingfree.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-make-windows-xp-look-like.html

PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING “WHY BOTHER UPGRADING IF YOU CHANGE THE LOOK LATER” ARE IDOITS. I mean, what if you got Vista in a new computer that came with vista and they are out of the older ones? Dont be fool’s with this!

Most people will find they have to upgrade to support newer hardware. So wanting “Vista to look like XP” is perfectly normal and quite ok.

Personally I have always made my Windows installations look like Windows 95. Should I have stayed with Windows 95? I look forward to a thoughtless response or two.

It is easy to make Vista look like Windows 95/2K/XP. All the options are built-in to the desktop management. The issue with Vista for XP users is hardware. Either you upgrade to a decent shader-model 4 video card and a dual core processor (or better) or you remain on XP. Obviously the question remains, why are you not using a MAC or some other game-less environment if you are not gaming? Seriously though, if you only use Windows for business applications like word processing and email then stay with XP.

For users who do not need, or want, the Aero interface (and I am one of the few) you should get the Vista Home Edition Basic. This is the only edition that uses the old XP GDI interface for the desktop and is very fast compared to the other versions. Home Basic is fast because it can do nothing but run DX10 games and Windows applications like Office. It has none of the extra bells and whistles of the other versions.

I’m really starting to like the idea of purchasing a Vista Home Basic after what I’ve read here
I’d have to really look at what features are cut out compared to Premium that you find on most of my friend’s computers. For now I like the idea of saving both the money and the hassle

Are there programs, that require specific versions of vista?

where fu**ing cut copy paster properties button! on f**ing explorer!!!! windows2008ent!
do not use this pieces of sh**s
ill back w2003x64
idiots!! engineers!!

Yeah thats very nice and all but doesn’t really make vista look like xp it makes look more like good ‘oll 98. It would be great if someone could make a transformation pack tha will change vista looks back to xp.

My $0.02 on Vista. I don’t enjoy it because:

1) I didn’t want my OS to look like a Mac. If I wanted a Mac-look, I would of bought one; why is MS worried about targeting Mac users? People that can’t deal with issues or challenges in life and want to feel good about themselves and be apart of a feely-good subculture tend to get Macs (in my opinion). If you have a mental breakdown with the BSoD, then get a Mac, but don’t force a Mac-like OS such as Vista on your loyal PC customers… what horrible marketing that is!

2) I have no need for all the extra bells and whistles that come with Vista, and despise how Vista has rearranged all the locations of applications and everything else from drop-down menus to all the MS applications (Word & Excel 2007 etc); why should I be forced to relearn where everything is again? Talk about frustrating… Again, bad marketing. You shouldn’t force that on customers and shut of producing/installing XP in new computers without fully vesting your market research in a new product such as Vista.

3) Having a 64-bit system is enticing though, but I think I’ll skip the Vista broken-band wagon and wait to see if Win 7 is an actual improvement from my point of view.