Community > Computers & Technology

Topic: Add and Remove on Vista
wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Fri 08/01/08 09:28 AM Edited by wiley on Fri 08/01/08 09:31 AM
Vista sucks. Pure and simple. (I'm lucky I'm still using the old and outdated XP.) Nah. It's actually a lot better than XP if: 1) You can get it working. 2) You disable/delete a lot of the unneeded bloat that was added by M$ that just wastes resources/time/space... (UAC anyone? "If I didn't want to copy/delete/move a file I wouldn't have started to do it in the first place..." ) The main problem with compatibility is the kernel was rewritten so a lot of the old applications/software that worked with XP/98/95 and earlier versions need to be rewritten/tweaked/modified to work with Vista as well. Vista (at least the 64-bit version) also killed anything that uses 16-bit installers/launchers. Thankfully there are plenty of third party peeps rewriting those and making 64-bit versions as well. It would be nice if they would leave some backwards compatibility in when they come out with new versions, but it is what it is. (I miss DOS. )

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Fri 08/01/08 09:59 AM
Vista sucks. Pure and simple. (I'm lucky I'm still using the old and outdated XP.) Nah. It's actually a lot better than XP if: 1) You can get it working. 2) You disable/delete a lot of the unneeded bloat that was added by M$ that just wastes resources/time/space... (UAC anyone? "If I didn't want to copy/delete/move a file I wouldn't have started to do it in the first place..." ) The main problem with compatibility is the kernel was rewritten so a lot of the old applications/software that worked with XP/98/95 and earlier versions need to be rewritten/tweaked/modified to work with Vista as well. Vista (at least the 64-bit version) also killed anything that uses 16-bit installers/launchers. Thankfully there are plenty of third party peeps rewriting those and making 64-bit versions as well. It would be nice if they would leave some backwards compatibility in when they come out with new versions, but it is what it is. (I miss DOS. ) but then you would not need to rebuy programs (computer)if it works for what yaa do ya do not need a new one

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Fri 08/01/08 10:50 AM Edited by wiley on Fri 08/01/08 10:50 AM
but then you would not need to rebuy programs not necessarily. A lot of the rewritten launchers/installers are free downloads. You just have to know where to look. (computer)if it works for what yaa do ya do not need a new one Yep. Can't argue with that.

FearandLoathing Joined Fri 12/28/07 Posts: 30121	Fri 08/01/08 06:58 PM
I know that Microcrap changed the name of the Add and Remove program, I just can not for the likes of me remember what they changed it to. I am sure that somebody here does though. Right? Go back to XP.

markecephus Joined Sun 10/07/07 Posts: 13831	Fri 08/01/08 09:30 PM
what is vista???? Answer: A poor excuse for an operating system designed to replace Windows XP , sure when xp came out it had a few bugs, but not like vista. It's just my opinion, but a far as windows, XP, it is the most reliable OS since windows 98. After 98, then there was windows ME (millennium edition) Which was plagued with all kinds of problems, a cumbersome OS with a three disc recovery system. Everything in this OS was embedded. It was in my opinion the worst. I will stay with XP, it's reliable, user friendly, and runs like a champ.

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Sat 08/02/08 11:57 PM
Vista is the new ME, imo. Meh.

whispertoascream Joined Fri 11/17/06 Posts: 22844	Sun 08/03/08 08:38 AM
I don't know. I do not seem to have a problem with it for the most part. Sure it sucked when I first got it. It just took some getting use to. And since I downloaded and installed Service Pack 1. It seemed to fix the main thing I was getting annoyed iwth. Like start up. It would take forever. But now it is just as fast as XP.