Quote:
Originally Posted by dpastern
Vista is no worse (nor much better I admit) performance wise than XP or Debian.
|
I don't use Debian on the desktop, but I have used XP and Vista extensively as desktop OS. On similar spec hardware, XP will always best Vista, even once you've spent several hours culling the cruft and parasitic processes of both. In order to make an optimised install of Vista run at anything like the same way as XP, you need much higher hardware specs. So why bother with Vista or Windows 7, unless you're looking for a justification to buy newer toys?
Quote:
|
I don't really use the eye candy, aero's on by default, but I don't notice it being really obtrusive to be honest. What other eye candy are you talking about? The only thing I've seen doing useless eye candy is compiz. Just because you can, doesn't mean you *should*. Someone should teach that to some of the Linux developers out there, gees.
|
ICAM about Compiz. Someone somewhere must have thought it was a good idea at the time. They were wrong. But it's no worse than pretty much everything about the Vista and Vista SP3 (aka Windows 7) OS UI. Win XP's excesses are at least quick and easy to kill. (The Fisher-Price default theme, the "everything on by default" Visual effects, etc)
Quote:
|
Anyways, this was about Windows 7...
|
You asked, I answered...
Quote:
|
...I get that you don't like Windows or Microsoft, that's cool. Been there, done that. It seems to be fashionable to bash Microsoft just for the fun of it these days.
|
And yet I've just said that I still use Windows XP Pro on my desktop, even with servers full of Debian, and that crappy interfaces aside I like XP very much. It's easily the best desktop OS Microsoft have ever released. I even administer serveral Windows Server 200x domain controllers and the like, and even those are surprisingly unsucky for Microsoft. (I can make that remark justifiably because MS have a history of releasing sucky OS.)
But each iteration of OS has demanded major hardware upgrades simply to run the OS alone, and it has very seldom been justified. At least XP can be excused for being relatively reliable and robust (for an MS OS), but that's about the only time it can be said the upgrade is worthwhile. And Windows is a costly proprietary OS, unlike, say, most Linux distros.
So long as my present hardware lasts, and my current OS and software fulfils my needs, I cannot see even a single reason for spending more money for the new OS, and the hardware required to make it run as designed. That's my answer.
