Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject:
Re: The Mojave Experiment
Von Kriplespac wrote:
http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/#
Now if we could do this with all the Vista haters...
Shame none of them seemed to have actually tried it and were just idiots with preconceptions about the product. There's a huge difference between someone who has tried actually tried vista and found it shitty and someone who has heard from someone that it's shitty. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject:
I don't think anyone who has actually used Vista for a period of time longer than ten minutes will actually think this. If these same people tried XP, they'd find it to be a lot better. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Until the bugs are out I will wait besides I have so many programs that only work with xp and below right now. The only reason for me to buy a vista computer would be so that I could support over 4 gigs of ram and right now that isn't a priority. Also given how few direct x 10 games are out it becomes even less compelling. QUICK_EDIT
Right now we have a few computers all have XP but two. And those two have 98 and Vista. I've always found XP easier to get around in and change settings with. Vista always seems to need to have older programs set up with certain options compared to XP where at the most I had to do was change the compatibility. _________________ Comcast: Yo dawg we herd yo were downloading, so we put fail in yo modem so yo cant download while yo failin! QUICK_EDIT
i feel a certain kind of anger coming up if i see this page.
Mojave Experiment wrote:
MS studies have shown that Windows Vista users are 60% less likely to be infected by malware than users running windows XP SP2.
1.there aren't that many people using vista as winXP yet
2.there aren't that many viruses made for vista yet
so this statistic is useless
Mojave Experiment wrote:
Windows Vista User Feedback
89% of existing Windows Vista users expressed satisfaction with it.
83% of existing Windows Vista users would recommend it to a friend or family member
-hmm ok, lets see: microsoft has 79.000 employees. they all get a copy of vista and take part at this study. And of course they all say the best about it. what a good way to make a poll
-This experiment showed people who never used/saw Vista. Everyone else would have instantly recognized Mojave as a Vista clone.
-winXp has already tons of useless programms integrated in the operating system. Vista now has more than twice as much useless stuff.
That's why Vista is no Operating System, but a colorful Media Centre for people who believe in everything they get told from MS.
-to deactivate all this useless stuff, that beside this makes the PC damn slow, costs more than a day. And in the end you can still not delete IE,MSN,Security Centre etc., you can only deactivate them.
But you can finally replace them with some good/working programs like Firefox/Opera, Thunderbird, Miranda/Trillian, Sygate Personal Firewall.
The advantage of all these is also, that most of them are open source so you can prove that they do what they should do. Those who use windows programs are doomed to "hope" that they actually get what they want.
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:03 am Post subject:
This Mojave crap is stupid. I do have windows vista in my laptop and I hate it. It is freaking slow and bureaucratic. My XP in my desktop is much better and faster. And gives me less headache.
To make this 'Mojave Experiment', they've used high end computers to show Vista running and they've probably barely showed any hardcore 3D game running on it. If they placed XP in the same computer, people would like it even more, because that computer would run a lot faster. Also, when people are close to developpers, they tend to give less negative feedback or they can be persuaded by the devs to reduce their negative feedback.
In short, this experiment means nothing. Microsoft's marketing department is just trying to fool you. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:26 am Post subject:
Well I went from ME to XP, anything is an upgrade from ME to be honest, especially when it crashed about one in three times on booting. XP wasn't perfect when it first came out but it was smooth, fast and perfectly usable. In hindsight I would much prefer some form of Linux distribution but it did the job for about five years without any major problems. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:29 am Post subject:
And here comes Dutchygamer with his view on this topic:
I dunno what you're all whining about. I have Vista a year now, and I can do everything with it I could do with XP. I can even do more.
Compability issues? Yes, a bit, but there's always a methode to let it work. Hell, I can even play games I couldn't on my other PC
Bugs? I haven't found any.
Memory whore? If you have less then 1 GB of RAM, then maybe yes. But if you use 2 GB of RAM you can run everything perfectly. Only TW and KW WB lag, but that's because they are memory whores themself
Problems getting used to Vista? Maybe, I had that for a few weeks, but in the end I got used to it. It ain't that much different from XP.
Conclusion: I'm a happy Vista user. Whine what you want, but you won't get XP back with it. And eventually you will use Vista, because programs require it, and XP ain't produced anymore... QUICK_EDIT
A sentence a prof told me about windows which i'll never forget:
"Windows is no good OS, because windows doesn't gets faster the same way as hardware gets faster. It stays slow and becomes even slower."
analogous translated from german _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
This Mojave crap is stupid. I do have windows vista in my laptop and I hate it. It is freaking slow and bureaucratic. My XP in my desktop is much better and faster. And gives me less headache.
To make this 'Mojave Experiment', they've used high end computers to show Vista running and they've probably barely showed any hardcore 3D game running on it. If they placed XP in the same computer, people would like it even more, because that computer would run a lot faster. Also, when people are close to developpers, they tend to give less negative feedback or they can be persuaded by the devs to reduce their negative feedback.
In short, this experiment means nothing. Microsoft's marketing department is just trying to fool you.
Banshee - The God has spoken.
I teh love you.
Vista is just look in general and a bit faster maybe,but still:XP is the best in this moment. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject:
once you have 2+GB ram and an Athlon X2 / Core 2 Duo or higher, Vista beats everything hands down in smoothness and overall experience. it actually IS more stable than XP, the number of BSODs for both in 1 year of use are 5 vs 1 for XP and Vista respecively, and note that my vista PC was overclocked and may not have been stable at high PSU temperatures (the PSU i had at the time sucked ass) _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject:
ChielScape wrote:
once you have 2+GB ram and an Athlon X2 / Core 2 Duo or higher, Vista beats everything hands down in smoothness and overall experience. it actually IS more stable than XP, the number of BSODs for both in 1 year of use are 5 vs 1 for XP and Vista respecively, and note that my vista PC was overclocked and may not have been stable at high PSU temperatures (the PSU i had at the time sucked ass)
My housemate has a Q6600 (I think), an ATI 4850, 4GB of RAM and it takes him two minutes to boot. He formatted two days ago and installed Linux alongside it, Linux loads in about 30 seconds and Vista still takes about 90 seconds. Granted he's a gamer so he doesn't really use Linux but he still hates Vista.
I also have another friend with Vista that took a good three minutes to load on his laptop, he ended up installing Ubuntu on that and only boots into Windows when using Photoshop/Lightroom now because he says Ubuntu is a lot faster and better.
As for stability, my XP hasn't bluescreened since I installed it on my computer 8 months ago, it's crashed from overheating a few times. My mum's Vista at home crashes every time it loses connection to the internet and when running some games. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
If I play crysis on max in XP it runs smoother then it does for me in Vista... And by playing it on max in XP I mean by editing the ini, beacuse it shouldn't really run on max in XP.
So, vista takes a few frames off my framerate! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject:
ChielScape wrote:
once you have 2+GB ram and an Athlon X2 / Core 2 Duo or higher, Vista beats everything hands down in smoothness and overall experience. it actually IS more stable than XP, the number of BSODs for both in 1 year of use are 5 vs 1 for XP and Vista respecively, and note that my vista PC was overclocked and may not have been stable at high PSU temperatures (the PSU i had at the time sucked ass)
and who are we that we buy a new PC for a new OS?
It should be the other way round. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
As for stability, my XP hasn't bluescreened since I installed it on my computer 8 months ago, it's crashed from overheating a few times. My mum's Vista at home crashes every time it loses connection to the internet and when running some games.
I haven't had a BSOD in at least 3 years on XP.
Though I don't think my dad's or either of my sister's Vista laptops have crashed in the entire time they've had them either (year and a half maybe).
Isn't there a new Windows coming soonish anyway? Which would make Vista like ME. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject:
I haven't got BSOD on my both Vista and XP for ages.
Quote:
once you have 2+GB ram and an Athlon X2 / Core 2 Duo or higher, Vista beats everything hands down in smoothness and overall experience. it actually IS more stable than XP, the number of BSODs for both in 1 year of use are 5 vs 1 for XP and Vista respecively, and note that my vista PC was overclocked and may not have been stable at high PSU temperatures (the PSU i had at the time sucked ass)
Both my desktop (XP) and laptop (Vista) are athlon X2 with 2gb of RAM and Kane's Wrath runs much faster on my desktop. In game, the reason is kinda obvious. My desktop has a much better video card, but to load the game (which doesn't require video), my desktop takes few seconds while my lovely vista takes more than a minute.
Also, Vista is extremely slow to copy files, compared to XP. And you always need to authorize every god damn thing. It really treats you like a retard. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Location: Mixing psilocybin in your drinks.
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:09 am Post subject:
Banshee wrote:
but to load the game (which doesn't require video), my desktop takes few seconds while my lovely vista takes more than a minute.
This is more than likely attributed to the desktop having a much faster hard drive than the laptop. How good your hard drive is matters MUCH more than you think. _________________
[quote="DCoder"]There is no sanity left in this thread.[/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:03 am Post subject:
But the hard drive is still slower on Vista, which doesn't optimize its reading speed on its default settings.
And both are SATA drives. I'm just not sure if my laptop drive is 5400 rpm or 7200 (like my desktop). But the difference is grotesque, even for a rotation speed. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:22 am Post subject:
Banshee, you do know you can disable that authorisation thingy I hope?
And about the loading the game thingy: I didn't know that was caused by Vista... Thanks for informing QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject:
Sir Modsalot wrote:
This is more than likely attributed to the desktop having a much faster hard drive than the laptop. How good your hard drive is matters MUCH more than you think.
Between a 5400rpm drive on a laptop and a 7200rpm drive on a desktop, the access times are only slightly different and you can pretty much only tell when installing a game which installs excessive levels of stuff. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Location: Star Kingdom of Manticore
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject:
Well, I'm a happy XP user. I love the fact that I can use WindowsBlinds on it. (Yes, I know WB is also vista, but not 64bit IIRC)
But, I do like vista as well. My simple-minded personality enjoys the UI, and for the most part, Vista hasn't caused any problems. (My g/f has it, and I practically live over there, so I'm used to it). Getting used to vista wasn't exactly difficult.
My current computer probably would lag on on it (as my rig is really a piece of rubbish), but hers is a beast (GeForce 8800GX, Athlon 6400+ Black Edition, 3GB RAM), and Vista plus the games all run like a dream on it.
When i finish my new rig, I'm for sure upgrading to Vista.
If I have problems, I can just as easily break out my XP Home disc. _________________ "Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there." -Adam Young QUICK_EDIT
But the hard drive is still slower on Vista, which doesn't optimize its reading speed on its default settings.
And both are SATA drives. I'm just not sure if my laptop drive is 5400 rpm or 7200 (like my desktop). But the difference is grotesque, even for a rotation speed.
Usually laptops in the low to mid range are at 5400 RPM, you really have to dish out sometimes for the high end laptops with the 7200 RPM drives. _________________ ... QUICK_EDIT
Personally, I've just swapped to Ubuntu after shoving it on my laptops. So far across all systems it's been a nicer experience than either XP or Vista ever offered.
Sure it's not optimal for gaming but I find myself gaming less and less and a minute or so to swap to XP when I feel the need to play something isn't too much hassle. QUICK_EDIT
i usually buy a new PC because the old PC is too old. It simply wouldn't be worthwhile to upgrade the old. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject:
even then, I just keep the case and upgrade all my hardware. I want to choose exactly what I buy.
Not to mention the contents of my hard disks... _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Location: Mixing psilocybin in your drinks.
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject:
^ Agreed. Completely new internals = completely new machine. Disguising it as an older PC doesn't necessarily mean it's an upgrade. Beh. _________________
[quote="DCoder"]There is no sanity left in this thread.[/quote] QUICK_EDIT
UNIX is like, half a century old It has had a long time to mature. _________________ NOD: "We hate GDI because they have taken all the green zones and only allow us to hide out in the crap yellow and red zones."
Me: "Well NOD shouldn't of freaken helped spread Tiberium everywhere, dumbasses!" QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
The Mojave Experiment
