Cheat Engine

[UberNewbie]

my personal opinion and according to most factually data out there happens to support my side but I really want to know how many actually know the truth about it. Here is the summary-

The way I see it, if there was ever a update to skip, it would be vista altogether. Its essentially XP with a new more expensive better looking dress only the body wearing that dress is a less experienced young naive little girl. The truth is with windows real upgrade for its operating system Windows 7 which its expected date is 2009 (right around the corner) but 2010 the latest, why anyone would make the switch to vista is strictly and only pure personal choice and 90% of benchmarks, reviews from experts, and personal opinions from the users confirm other than the illusion of getting something better (like ddr3 memory below 1333 or quad cores to basic home users) there is no true advantage to the system but many disadvantages. Lets face it, yes yes yes vista will get it together and maybe but unlikely blow out xp which is not likely it might simply just be a stable and fair stable system like xp but looks better but by the time it gets here the real upgrade will be released. Your guy's choice really if you want to hype up the updates for vista, once Windows 7 is released vista's going to be a joke.

For common found flammers and vista lovers who are sure to flame me just note that this is more than a personal opinion and my all god honest suggestion is to not take my ranted opinion on it and do your own research because facts are facts so you will find the same information I have. Your personal choice with the system, I am not saying its a horrible ending world experience, I am saying its a very unneeded, unnecessary, and in some cases poor judged leap to make with windows and the cost to run it (twice the equipment power to make it perform like xp which usually means more expensive for the average user) is unneeded though it might properly prepare you hardware wise for Windows 7 so there is not a complete waste for the quick jump to the newest thing. Your personal choice? Vista a waste of money and time seeing how it was planned to be shot down by a new system couple years after its release which was filled with terrific problems?

[kls85]

About 90% of the people who never touch Vista heard these horror stories from some bloke who probably used Vista for no more than 10 minutes until he begs for mercy and uninstalls it. And gets brained washed by avoiding Vista like the plaque. When Microsoft setup their Mojiva experiment 90% of the people love the new look of the "next OS". Turned out that Mojiva experient is nothing more than windows Vista itself and there isn't a "new OS" called "Mojiva".


People who never used a product a period of time (at least 6 months) should not judge on it.

Now it looks like you need to go and do some research as windows 7 is nothing more than vista with a few minor changes here or there.

BTW: Been using Vista since the beta days and so far not a single BSOD.

You might as well go back to DOS.

[UberNewbie]

eh bottom line is this:
1.(main informative) http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/17/12TC-vista-versus-xp_1.html

2. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html

3. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-9770230-33.html

4. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-9784657-33.html

5. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-9788861-33.html

(As I said vista is a revamped xp with a new silky coat, its similar to xp but you agree its not. How different was xp from 2000, yea there are the huge differences but over all its a similar system. Why wouldnt windows 7 not be similar to vista.....is windows going to magically jump into a a linux setup....probably not. And its not released yet and if you have used the beta of vista which if you have you cannot argue cause I have it was a horrible nightmare....the real vista is not a horrible nightmare. So you could not possibly know the set up of it and whether it is really vista with a couple updates. Besides this is about how vista is a unnecessary upgrade not how its horrible and should be terminated and everyone should get xp. If you have vista thats great I have it on my laptop and it runs fine but if it didnt come with it I would not have made the upgrade as there is no need)

Was using vista since its beta days also and I am not talking about the fake delusions of peoples who get brainwashed. I never said nor will say Vista cannot be run smoothly or even better than xp, I said it takes a hell of a lot more to do so and thats a fact. Mojiva is a joke, can you find me what exactly they were running the system on? The hardware? Because like I said Vista can be run great and even better than xp if the right equipment is used. But the average person using vista upgraded from xp is not upgrading their computer as well, and the computers they are selling vista on are not all built to run vista well. Best buy sells computers with less than 1gb of ram a shitty 5200rpm hard drive and 1.6GHz dual core set ups with vista home edition. And yea it runs it bareable maybe even ok but we know its not what it should be run on. And these are the reasons people are complaining and they have the right to. Besides visually which yea in some feilds and activities its a huge step from xp wheres the giant leap if any from xp? Because what I am looking at and the companies should have looked at are the numbers. This is where their money is coming from, the majority. The mojority are not the wealthy, high end gamers, its the average user.

Name me a security leap from xp to vista please. Both firewalls suck, yes vista's has proven to be a little better than xp but it functions the same and is virtually useless everyone should have a third party firewall xp or vista. The anti-malware steps are ok but just use a nice....oh wait thats right most programs included those nice and favored anti-malware software doesnt work and if they do not properly with vista. They will fix that yes but is that a leap? I have provided link to info and as I said you can research your own, it will show the same things. Dont take the word of companies like dell or microsoft whose job and dependency is on selling the product to you.

Its like getting advice from the military from a recruiter....yea you'll get legit info but trusting wise, talk to experts(people in the military that are family or friends who you can trust) in this case experts that dont work for either side or company who show and prove facts. What you have told me is Vista is better because you have enjoyed a nice experience with it....thats not what I was talking about and that does not prove anything. Its part of the problem for both side both vista lovers and vista upgrade refusers. Read the topic please I am on neither side I like facts and dont have a problem giving my opinion but our opinions cost people money and make lives difficult so I like to avoid them in the bigger picture.

[superweapons]

I didn't manage to dig up the time to read source 1, so don't flame me for any misunderstandings. My post is really messy too, it's past midnight here.

Windows 7 is going to be more of an additional service pack to Vista more than anything else, at least at this stage.

Most all compatibility problems have been ratted out. Compatibility problems are normal whenever a new operating system is released.

I seriously can't see the performance slow-downs. Vista idling happens to use the same amount or less RAM compared to XP on my machine. Boot times are similar, even after optimizing XP with BootVis, which IIRC, is a standard feature in Vista. The overall system performance difference is negligible, but with the other features that Vista offers, it definitely doesn't do too bad in performance.

With Vista SP1, gaming performance equals or surpasses XP. DX10 is better optimized than DX9, so you should be able to see more noticeable performance and graphical improvements later on, as game developers transition into the new API.

About the date to transition to Vista, right now seems pretty good. Microsoft made a lot of improvements in SP1, so your computing experience should be much better.

Best Buy can sell whatever overpriced computers they want. I don't care, since it's unlikely I'll ever buy a computer already fully assembled. Anyways, Vista Basic can run just fine with 1GB, and I think Vista Premium should run good with 1.5GB. As for processor speed, just about any dual core will do. To get the most of Vista's visual effects, a low-end dedicated graphics card is all that's needed, and with the simpler GUI in Vista Basic, I guess you can cut a bit on the graphics card.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, it's up to the user whether or not they want to upgrade. If they've got the money and a modern computer (the Mojave project was run on ~2GHz dual core laptops with 2GB of RAM), then you should definitely give Vista a try. I'm just saying that Vista isn't anywhere nearly as bad as rumors report.

Most of the experienced members posting in this subforum are "techies", as they put t. So we don't look through the same lenses as "average people". Most of us (an assumption) can agree that Vista is good, at least decent, but flawed, like XP was in the beginning. The bottom line for me is, give Vista a shot if you have the money, and the computer.

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

Something tells me Microsoft wants to do Windows 7 right the first time and avoid another "VISTA SUCKS CHOADS" epidemic.

If their developer blog things are any indication, performance will be a very major thing. It brings some substantial things to the table as well, such as DirectX 11, which will be the first multi-threaded version of the API... and guess what? It's backwards compatible to an extent with DX10 cards.

There's a lot of good coming up in the future. Once DX9 is phased out in favor of 10 and 11, actual effort will get to be put in instead of developers just throwing out a half broken codepath for the sake of having it. Just look at DX9 when it launched, same shit as DX10 is going through now.

Plus, games for windows filters out shitty ports, etc.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173456.aspx

[Cheetah]

Vista wasn't that much of an upgrade over XP. Okay, and XP wasn't that much of an upgrade over 2000. ME wasn't much of an upgrade over 98, and 98 wasn't that much of an upgrade over 95 OSR2. See where this is going? Most Windows OSes have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Vista's "problems" are more psychological than anything, the Mojave experiment was a perfect example of this. XP was regarded as a shit OS for quite a while after it first came out, and now everyone loves it.

Now everyone likes to talk about it's compatibility problems. I run Server 2008 x64 which should in theory have the worst compatibility of all, and there hasn't been any program I haven't been able to run. The only piece of hardware I haven't been able to run was a PCI tv tuner I bought, but that was a rare case and had I done my research I would have known Vista didn't like it.

Really, it's not that bad.

[Sup3R C3r34L]

I like vista and use it on my home pc, with tinyXP in a virtual machine for opening shady shit that you normally wouldn't want to in your pc (keygens etc.)

apart from the looks which are nice vista has subtle changes that make it nicer to use like the drop down folder menus in explorer and the startsearch etc.

for people with old/mediocre computers already running xp there's really no reason to jump onto vista unless you like the extra security it gives and DX10

xp is no longer supported by microsoft and any security exploits found with it will no longer be fixed, I think atm theres 20+ unpatched known security flaws.

overall if you're building a new pc you might aswel use it, since you're probably not going to pay for an operating system anyways...

also the people complaining about its resource usage should ask why it uses those resources, it doesn't just use them and nothing else can access them it's put to good use just to make everything run better. If anything needs them it gets them and whatever was cached gets dropped.

Every new version of an OS uses more resources than the last, use windows 2000 if you have little free resources, and it will work for you better than xp

[kls85]

All of those articles are posted a year ago when Vista just came out and without SP1.

And yes its the Mojave Experiment.

[vmanisme]

Im not really a "Vista Fan" but my new quad-core machine came with Windows Vista x64 Ultimate. I've had it for over 5 month's now and its actually good. Yes i tried the x32(x84) bit version of Vista that one sucks bad but this x64 version kills XP!

[UberNewbie]

XP has just received a successful service pack 3 update so yea your right they have completely thrown xp in the trash and it holds huge security leaks and should only be used of you want your things stolen..... -_- Not only has XP service pack 2 basically have less security flaws and bugs than Vista's new service pack 2 but now xp has the new service pack 3. Don't get mad, how long has XP been around?, to say Vista is better than XP is one thing and I can respect your opinion. But shooting shit from your mouth like XP has been forgotten and has all these security flaws Vista does not have your seriously just showing your lack of knowledge which again I will not disrepect I dont know everything by no means do I pretend to but even so at least I have the decency to do even a minimal amount of research to find out information on what the hell I am talking about so I don't sound like a arrogant opinionated A-hole with nothing to support my beliefs. I'll repeat your opinions are fine but making untested and non backed with sources remarks is no way to go about it whether you are right or wrong(sorry for any disrespect but its annoying). And I don't know if it is a bug or what but I seem to run direct x10 on my xp pro 64-bit system I use at home and is detected by all programs used to confirm it though I have no real use for it as I dont play games. Is this a glitch or something? Can anyone confirm that its a mistake and xp cannot run it.....

The first article was written a few months ago before service pack 2 but most of the issues it address's are the "strengths" Vista has that obviously are not going to be effected by the update because they are suppose to be its superiority over xp, the articles point is not that vista's flaws makes it obsolete compared to xp because vista is new and obviously through age it will mature and its problems fixed, it show that its supposed strengths over xp are completely uneeded and have already been implemented by xp or more reliable programs you can use on xp that the features used on vista and are completely a waste of time to use as a excuse to make the leap, which is what this thread addresses. Sorry if you misinterpret what I am trying to address myself.

From link 1 -
Round 1: Security
Security is one of the first areas to come to mind when considering a Vista migration. Features such as UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer Protected Mode have been making headlines for more than a year – but not always in the context Microsoft would have wanted. UAC, in particular, has been savaged by critics who balk at its many annoying confirmation dialogs. Just try enabling or disabling multiple network connections quickly or moving a file into a protected folder.

However, even with UAC – which is really just a more visible, "in your face" implementation of the user account controls that have been built into Windows NT since day one – Vista still isn't fully secure. There are documented ways around UAC involving Internet Explorer, security token privilege escalation, and the exploitation of the "deprecated administrator" status of the default Vista account model.

More importantly, however, is the fact that most IT shops have already implemented a form of UAC under Windows XP by not allowing domain users to run as local administrators and, in some cases, writing their own "elevation" utilities to make it all work seamlessly. In practice, these "locked down" XP systems are in some ways more secure than a UAC-protected Vista system, because they're immune to the aforementioned privilege elevation exploit. To bring Vista systems on par with XP, you need to force users to work with a true non-admin account, as opposed to Vista's "deprecated admin" account, which puts you right back at square one (that is, where XP is today).

Other security features, such as the updated firewall and more esoteric, internal fixes like Address Space Layout Randomization, are interesting but by no means compelling. Most IT shops have implemented a proper hardware firewall solution or third-party software for mobile/remote users, and address-based code exploits usually require some degree of social engineering to get them to work – a phenomenon even Vista can't thwart.

Decision: From a security standpoint, there's just not a lot to compel XP shops to upgrade. Many of the issues addressed by Vista have already been resolved under Windows XP using in-house applications or third-party tools.


My bottom line is this....Gamers, people who enjoy change and a nice looking OS system by all means will no doubt benefit from vista. But IT's, average computer user, and new computer users who don't know yet really don't benefit from the new OS do they. Even if Windows 7 is just like vista only probably without the problems from rushing it like they did with Vista shouldn't they stick to a reliable through age and experience as well as proven secure system then make the upgrade to Windows 7 thats coming very soon instead? I am not saying I am completely right either I am just saying for the best interest of the majority...Vista is a very not needed to be missed (especially if as you are telling me Windows 7 is going to be just like it) experience.

[ThesecondcomingofSADCAB]