It was pretty bad right when it was released, and the average user became super frustrated with the UAC popping up for damn near anything, but weren't assed to look up how to turn it off, so instead they'd bitch.
Obviously, Tycho is relating an anecdote here and can't speak authoritatively on the OS as a whole, especially given the brief nature of his experience.
This is a pretty stupid edit. Sure the difference isn't as big as from XP to Vista, but it is still substantial enough on its own.
Also it is kind of sad that Tycho had such a horrible experience with Vista. I'm sure a lot of people did and yes, the service packs did help tremendously.
But the RC for Windows 7 was fantastic as hell. The final version is pretty great. I was going to say he is depriving himself by waiting until the first service pack, but that is a bit dramatic. He is just sticking with a crappier platform.
I've run into compatability modes and whatnot not doing what they say on the tin a lot of times before
This isn't "compatability mode". It is like if you were running Windows XP in boot camp from your Mac or something. (I'm not saying you as in "you" but the general sense"
you know how tech savvy I'm not
and even I figured out how to get around the UAC
You also understand what a web browser is. The average person doesn't.
yeah, but it's Tycho ranting about how terrible Vista is
When I upgraded laptops from my old p4 XP machine to a Vista machine sporting a Centrino Duo and 4x the RAM almost everything on it ran significantly slower and it still runs like shit if you ask me.
Everything is the same with the exception of a few standalone patches, the graphical interface, and the directory subdivision.
Windows 7 is technically Vista SP3 (with the root altered a bit), and there's a reason it's only NT6.1 instead of 6.0, which is what Vista is.
Hardly any change at all. The fact that the search indexes are faster and so on and so forth is just simply a patchfix from the root that Vista never got (though it has gotten its own patches and improvements in that area).
Hiring a guy to make new menus and interface animations in photoshop who works in conjunction with a scripter to tie them all together in a slightly different way, does not a new OS make. And they still use the same shell to boot.
It's just that the "Vista" name is tainted by the initial problems of hardware incompatibility and various other problems, that they decided once they locked down a "safe build" of Vista, to just rename it and sell it as a new product with cosmetic enhancements. It's a marketing and PR move more than anything.
Same thing, just looks a bit different, and has really the most minimal improvements, most of which you had already (or can have) with third party software on Vista.
Yeah but for those of us who were holding out and not buying Vista because of all the issues it had, Windows 7 has finally appeared as an acceptable upgrade for us.
Same thing, just looks a bit different, and has really the most minimal improvements, most of which you had already (or can have) with third party software on Vista.
Everything is the same with the exception of a few standalone patches, the graphical interface, and the directory subdivision.
Windows 7 is technically Vista SP3 (with the root altered a bit), and there's a reason it's only NT6.1 instead of 6.0, which is what Vista is.
Hardly any change at all. The fact that the search indexes are faster and so on and so forth is just simply a patchfix from the root that Vista never got (though it has gotten its own patches and improvements in that area).
Hiring a guy to make new menus and interface animations in photoshop who works in conjunction with a scripter to tie them all together in a slightly different way, does not a new OS make. And they still use the same shell to boot.
It's just that the "Vista" name is tainted by the initial problems of hardware incompatibility and various other problems, that they decided once they locked down a "safe build" of Vista, to just rename it and sell it as a new product with cosmetic enhancements. It's a marketing and PR move more than anything.
Same thing, just looks a bit different, and has really the most minimal improvements, most of which you had already (or can have) with third party software on Vista.
Okay yes that is what they are doing. You are still being dumb here.
Yes they had to come up with something quickly to make up for Vista, and since the last stable version was pretty decent, they used most of that. As far as I am aware, Apple doesn't change a ton between their various big cat names.
Basically, we are getting Windows 7. Saying "lolyou guys are only paying for Vista" is retarded and pointless. Okay, they patched Vista a lot. So they are calling the patched version 7 and I am only paying $20 for it. $20 for a Vista that works better than Vista. I am okay with that.
Posts
Or Blinx the Timesweeper
or Cursor 10.
I haven't played it so I don't know how well Ratchet and Clank pulls it off but it's not a new mechanic.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Maybe he's a left handed mouser.
They exist. My dad's one. Makes it annoying as hell when we're trying to come up with a nice control scheme for a game we both play.
Also the Dune reference in Gabe's post made me very happy.
yeah, well before the os even came out
also I still refuse to move on from XP because I have too many old games that will stop working if I do
he's pretty damn melodramatic in the news post about Vista
having used Vista the last couple of years, I don't get what he's talking about
you know how tech savvy I'm not
and even I figured out how to get around the UAC
Hell yes it is.
You also understand what a web browser is. The average person doesn't.
NO YOU ARE!
yeah, but it's Tycho ranting about how terrible Vista is
Obviously, Tycho is relating an anecdote here and can't speak authoritatively on the OS as a whole, especially given the brief nature of his experience.
It's the lensflare, isn't it
The word you are looking for is 'box'.
Box.
Windows XP mode in 7
I don't ever want to go back to XP.
More info
I dunno
I've run into compatability modes and whatnot not doing what they say on the tin a lot of times before
This is a pretty stupid edit. Sure the difference isn't as big as from XP to Vista, but it is still substantial enough on its own.
Also it is kind of sad that Tycho had such a horrible experience with Vista. I'm sure a lot of people did and yes, the service packs did help tremendously.
But the RC for Windows 7 was fantastic as hell. The final version is pretty great. I was going to say he is depriving himself by waiting until the first service pack, but that is a bit dramatic. He is just sticking with a crappier platform.
Not that it really matters though.
This isn't "compatability mode". It is like if you were running Windows XP in boot camp from your Mac or something. (I'm not saying you as in "you" but the general sense"
When I upgraded laptops from my old p4 XP machine to a Vista machine sporting a Centrino Duo and 4x the RAM almost everything on it ran significantly slower and it still runs like shit if you ask me.
Probably.
Was that bad? I never actually did any of this stuff, it just seemed all good and official or something.
Everything is the same with the exception of a few standalone patches, the graphical interface, and the directory subdivision.
Windows 7 is technically Vista SP3 (with the root altered a bit), and there's a reason it's only NT6.1 instead of 6.0, which is what Vista is.
Hardly any change at all. The fact that the search indexes are faster and so on and so forth is just simply a patchfix from the root that Vista never got (though it has gotten its own patches and improvements in that area).
Hiring a guy to make new menus and interface animations in photoshop who works in conjunction with a scripter to tie them all together in a slightly different way, does not a new OS make. And they still use the same shell to boot.
It's just that the "Vista" name is tainted by the initial problems of hardware incompatibility and various other problems, that they decided once they locked down a "safe build" of Vista, to just rename it and sell it as a new product with cosmetic enhancements. It's a marketing and PR move more than anything.
Same thing, just looks a bit different, and has really the most minimal improvements, most of which you had already (or can have) with third party software on Vista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
I never got vista though
so it is a good upgrade
But yeah, by all means, Windows 7 is the best so far, as it's the most up-to-date copy of Vista.
ah yes
so you're just saying it should be called windows vista ocelot jaguar panther
Windows Thundercougarfalconbird
XP went from versions NT5.1 to 5.2 and it was still called XP through its service packs and switch from x86 to x64 through its 5.5 year cycle.
Vista was version 6.0 but now suddenly two years after its release the upgrade to 6.1 is sold as an entirely new OS.
That was my point. You guys are saying you never got Vista. But you just did, when you got Windows 7.
Seriously, too many people fuck on Valentine's Day. There's like ten of you every comic day in October with a birthday comic.
Okay yes that is what they are doing. You are still being dumb here.
Yes they had to come up with something quickly to make up for Vista, and since the last stable version was pretty decent, they used most of that. As far as I am aware, Apple doesn't change a ton between their various big cat names.
Basically, we are getting Windows 7. Saying "lolyou guys are only paying for Vista" is retarded and pointless. Okay, they patched Vista a lot. So they are calling the patched version 7 and I am only paying $20 for it. $20 for a Vista that works better than Vista. I am okay with that.
He was saying nobody needs to spend a cent on it.
There are a shit-ton of people who get it for discounted prices. Or with a new computer or whatever.
There isn't no reason not to get it just because it is "VISTA again"