grrr vista

Bryan · 12-13-2007, 10:12 PM

so apparantly vista isn't that great at supporting bluetooth headsets... grrr...

Napoleon17 · 12-13-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

so apparantly vista isn't that great at supporting bluetooth headsets... grrr...

Vista isn't great at anything.

**Wesley7777** · 12-13-2007, 10:55 PM

You know vista was working like a piece of crap for me, then i installed service pack one and it has been running great for me now.

Giga Hertz · 12-13-2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

Vista isn't great at anything.

Lol! Good call! Yeah, unless SP1 fixed, Vista's support for things like that isn't often great.

PatrickStar4491 · 12-14-2007, 05:40 AM

What kind of dongle are you using? And are you using Microsoft's Bluetooth stack to manage it?

Bryan · 12-15-2007, 01:01 PM

i was, then i installed the broadcom stack and it works fine now.

Bryan · 12-15-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

Vista isn't great at anything.

whatever

Andrew · 12-17-2007, 07:27 AM

I was going to recommend you switch to the broadcom/toshiba stack. Very good.

Also, Vista is awful, I agree with napoleon.

Bryan · 12-17-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Also, Vista is awful, I agree with napoleon.

whatever, I've been using vista since the day it came out and this is the 2nd problem I've had. the first was when my scanner that was probably 5+ years old wasn't supported. my printers have all worked fine. i haven't had any problems running any applications.

PatrickStar4491 · 12-17-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

whatever, I've been using vista since the day it came out and this is the 2nd problem I've had. the first was when my scanner that was probably 5+ years old wasn't supported. my printers have all worked fine. i haven't had any problems running any applications.

The only problems I had were with a real estate program that relied on the MS Java VM (Deprecated years ago) and getting high-performance print drivers an office machine at work. Ricoh made some basic driver first, and then a few months ago came out with a better one.

Andrew · 12-17-2007, 02:44 PM

Oh! I wasn't saying it was crappy at FUNCTIONING. It's very capable as far as functionality is concerned. The problem is that it functions less efficiently than XP. That should never be the case when making a newer piece of software. That is a factual problem with Vista, not a random slam. I don't think it is worthless, it just offers no reason worth looking at to upgrade from XP.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 12-20-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Oh! I wasn't saying it was crappy at FUNCTIONING. It's very capable as far as functionality is concerned. The problem is that it functions less efficiently than XP. That should never be the case when making a newer piece of software. That is a factual problem with Vista, not a random slam. I don't think it is worthless, it just offers no reason worth looking at to upgrade from XP.

and XP was less efficient in most thinks than win2k ad infinitum. Hardware specs are intended to progress along with OS's.

I have found vista to be far preferable to xp in a host of ways. The new search management in the OS's a phenomenal improvement when you have thousands of docs on your computer. And Google desktop under XP was hugely bloated and buggy on my systems. Updating to vista was tremendously helpful for ease of use in my academic endeavors, plus the ability to tag files in the OS and search for the tag is also helpful for me.

I lose documents all the time on my XP machine. I have literally thousands of documents currently on my machine that are academic related and in my instance, vista is awesome. Also, I might add, it was a free upgrade on my laptop, so cost was a non-issue.

The one major beef I have with it is that it appears all media runs through a drm Hardware emulation scheme as best I can tell which slows audio work.

Andrew · 12-20-2007, 12:51 PM

XP is not less efficient than Win2k. It runs better on the same resources. It's an improvement.

I have no argument on your search needs. I am glad that it suits your needs. I did not realize it was that useful.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 12-20-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

XP is not less efficient than Win2k. It runs better on the same resources. It's an improvement.

Not neccisarily true. Depends on the class of the machine A LOT. for example, Win2k runs fine and happily on 64 meg of ram. XP on such is quite an ugly site. Win2k with more than 128 tends to be a waste for most operations. I have tremendous experience with win2k, and on minimal systems, it runs far better than xp. However, since it was designed prior to the idea that computers would contain gigs of ram and such, it does not incorporate utilization of such into the OS. Thus, what you are saying is wrong, because it depends entirely on the class of machine. Win2k took a heck of a lot less to run efficiently in the way of hardware. 64 meg of ram and a 300mhz processor and it was happy. It even ran decently on a 266mhz. But that was the era it was designed for. A lot of architectural changes have occurred since then. If you took a medium level system of today, xp will outperform win2k. However, if you take the same systems from the era win2k was designed for, if you can run xp on them at all, they will be a dog.

What you may not realize, is this exact argument was used against XP years ago.

Bryan · 12-20-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Oh! I wasn't saying it was crappy at FUNCTIONING. It's very capable as far as functionality is concerned. The problem is that it functions less efficiently than XP. That should never be the case when making a newer piece of software. That is a factual problem with Vista, not a random slam. I don't think it is worthless, it just offers no reason worth looking at to upgrade from XP.

that's a lot different than

Quote:

Also, Vista is awful, I agree with napoleon.

Quote:

XP is not less efficient than Win2k. It runs better on the same resources. It's an improvement.

I doubt that if you run benchmark tests on XP on a PC and then run the same tests on Win2k that you would get better results from XP for run of the mill tests. I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if that was the case.