4 reasons why you should not buy Windows Vista OS

Microsoft won't drop vista - to do so would damage thier rep further than it already has (And admitting to failing is not something modern companies do).
Instead they might rush release a new version of windows that adds little but is more of a glorified update to vista.
The other thing is that (especially for people who upgraded to vista) vista is not made for xp computers - it (through design or accident) is made for more high end machines than the older xp - partly as since those machines were made the market has moved on. 2GB RAM and duel core are now almost standard fittings in computers whilst when xp came out those sorts of things were for the high end power market (I think duel core might not even have been around for most comsumers).
If you upgrade to vista you also need to consider upgrading your hardware to match the software. Though I will agree it is partly microsofts fault for releasing vista with suboptimal minimum requirements marked on the box - I belive that they have since revised thier advice on the power of a computer to run vista well
 
I am careless? Yes I do think my PC is above average of not getting a virus. Unless www.thephotoforum.com or my racing sim forum is full of viruses that they automatically send to you without you knowing, then I feel pretty secure. This forum is not virus central, is it? So, am I the one that is careless because I don't subject myself and my computer to places where you will get viruses? Or is the person who downloads music at P2P sites and surfs porn all evening and clicks on anything and everything in email without knowing who it came from and must run an anti-virus the one who is careless?

Having your computer connected to the Internet without even opening Internet Explorer leaves your computer somewhat vulnerable. Firewalls are not perfect. Have you ever looked at a firewall log? So yes, I do feel that not running an antivirus program is being careless. Clicking on a link from this forum could take you to a site that contains a virus. Sure, if you only visit those two sites that are safe, don't read email, don't ever surf the Internet, your chances are definitely slim. Running an antivirus program after being infected may not even see a virus. Hopefully you run your antivirus program from within safe mode. Going to P2P sites or surfing porn definitely increases your chances. And yes, stating that an antivirus program is a requirement (rather than Norton) is a better statement. I have no doubt that there are better antivirus solutions out there, that is just what I choose to use.
 
By the way, just read this on Photobucket's website:

User posted this:

"I was just looking in my album and a trojan virus attacked. My AVG alerted me to it. This isn't the first time this has happened. Does photobucket not keep track of what ads come up and possibly contain the hidden trojans?
I'm getting really nervous about looking through my pb now."

Support team posted this:

"Sometimes a bad third-party ad can slip through. We take it very seriously. If you could please send an email with information including what the exact messaging was from AVG, your album name and your location, what the ad was and screenshots if possible, it would be very much appreciated."

The link if you are interested:

http://forums.photobucket.com/showthread.php?t=19090
 
considering that all photobucket has been showing me recently is that I can work in the US for a year (sometimes in a strange language) I think their ads might be getting the better of them - but he service is still good
 
I've been using Vista for a while now and my only complaints (that I can remember) are:

File sharing is an incredible pain.
You have to manage your wireless through the OS.
Its impossible to configure remote desktop to it.

Basically my only problems come when you have to access the computer remotely and the annoying "security" features get in the way. Even with DX10 there is no significant speed increase over XP I don't believe.
 
I went to OSX rather than Vista. My XP laptop was designed for Vista but I bought it with XP on it. I'd much rather have had Windows 2000 though.

I doubt I shall ever again use a Microsoft product.
 
>Vista is bloated
XP is bloated compared to 2000. 2000 is bloated compared to 98. 98 is bloated compared to 95. 95 is bloated compared to 3.1. USE 3.1 EVERYONE!!! With more features comes more size, and more of a footprint on computer processes. As hard drives, RAM, and processing power increases, why not use more of it?

>It runs slower than XP
I can go through my last thing, ending with USE 3.1!!! No windows has EVER been faster than the version it replaces on the same hardware. Never been a problem before, why is it now?

>Windows is coming out with Service Pack 3 for XP
And?

>Hold onto your hat: Bill Gates is going to release another OS in just two short years :lol:
you mean like 95 came 3 years after 3.1, or 98 came 3 years after 95, or 2000 came 2 years after 98, or xp came 1 year after 2000? They're just going back to how they used to do things...the only OS they've held onto was XP.

Please, get some facts straight before you come and post multiple threads here for no reason but to bash the new OS, which I am happily using on all 3 of my computers. I see a lot less of the BSOD under Vista, and despite it running slower, the Start Menu search increases my productivity anyways. Have a nice day.

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech/microsoft-os-windows7.asp
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/07/windows-7-still-slated-for-2010-says-microsoft-bill-gates-just/[/QUOTE]
 
NT4 was a great little OS. If they'd sorted out the driver issues, the need to reinstall the patches every time you installed software and the fact you needed a patch to access more than a 2GB drive then I see no reason on earth why anybody should ever want to upgrade from NT4. It was pretty well perfect. It didn't crash and it did what it did well.

I'm sticking with OSX now.
 
Microsoft

V-viruses
I-intruders
S-spyware
T-trojans
A-adware
 

Most reactions

Back
Top