How do I get rid of Windows Vista?

[lenti_75]

well, happens all the time to go off subject...

just get a bootable cd with whatever os you want, make sure in bios you select as first bootable device the cd and you go from there.

you can't just "delete" it, you have to install another os. BACK-UP EVERYTHING.

[JohnnyMalaria]

umm... the subject is
How do I get rid of Windows Vista?
or was it
"how much do i love Vista?"
man it is sometimes confusing with all the threadcrappers

With respect, your first response in this thread was the one that sparked the usual emotional battle.

The OP's question wasn't Why? but How? You initiated the Why? The OP knows that they want to...

BTW, your PII, W98SE comparision - what were both the W98SE and Vista systems running? Notepad?

Don't think I could run Vegas on W98SE. On the same hardware, Vegas is as fast and as stable on Vista 32 as on XP Pro SP2. Right now, I'm using Vista via Remote Desktop on a WLAN because I find it more productive than the XP system hosting it.

The whole Vista-bashing thing has become s-o-o tedious. As bad as Linux fanbois. Hell, over on doom9, people are downloading torrent versions of SP1 (i.e., not legit), slipstreaming into bootable Vista install ISOs and seemly deriving great pleasure from running it head-to-head with RTM and demonstrating some decreases in performance. The same people who vehemently hate Vista. What kind of f**ked up sado-masochism is that? They talk about how inefficient Vista is while wasting time trying to demonstrating the fact and not using their beloved <insert orgasm-inducing prefered OS here>. I don't hear them pronouncing the ferocious speed of Win3.1 on a modern platform. Weird.

videohelp prohibits politics and religion. It's time to add operating systems to the list.

[DereX888]

umm... the subject is
How do I get rid of Windows Vista?
or was it
"how much do i love Vista?"
man it is sometimes confusing with all the threadcrappers

With respect, your first response in this thread was the one that sparked the usual emotional battle.

The OP's question wasn't Why? but How? You initiated the Why? The OP knows that they want to....

Perhaps Im guilty of sparking the "why" emotions, but don't just conveniently omit the fact that my post also include general info for the OP on "how" with the warning.

All your latter blabbing about running Vegas on Win98 is as stupid as your assumption that I suggested it in any way (perhaps you should re-read my post again, but try to do it without your usual bias).
Besides, if Win98 was tedious for you, imagine how tedious is to discuss anything with people like you, when they only see (or read) what they wanna see at the moment, and omit everything else thats inconvenient...
Are you an Apple user by any chance?

[JohnnyMalaria]

umm... the subject is
How do I get rid of Windows Vista?
or was it
"how much do i love Vista?"
man it is sometimes confusing with all the threadcrappers

With respect, your first response in this thread was the one that sparked the usual emotional battle.

The OP's question wasn't Why? but How? You initiated the Why? The OP knows that they want to....

Perhaps Im guilty of sparking the "why" emotions, but don't just conveniently omit the fact that my post also include general info for the OP on "how" with the warning.

All your latter blabbing about running Vegas on Win98 is as stupid as your assumption that I suggested it in any way (perhaps you should re-read my post again, but try to do it without your usual bias).
Besides, if Win98 was tedious for you, imagine how tedious is to discuss anything with people like you, when they only see (or read) what they wanna see at the moment, and omit everything else thats inconvenient...
Are you an Apple user by any chance?

Skimming over everything to the last bit :P - Hell, no. Surely my bias should hint at that

[lordsmurf]

Vista slows down systems for no reason. My "old" computer (3Ghz) runs faster on XP than a Core 2 does on Vista. That's sad. Pay for a "fast system" only to have the OS suck it all up. Why even bother to make an upgrade?

How does it run faster?

10k in 32:45.8 rather than 10k in 35:37.9?

About 3 minutes to perform a task (XP)
-- vs 10-15 min while eye candy and BS "are you sure" crap, combined with auto-launching software and drives, annoys and wastes your time. Then the system drags ass loading the software, again loading the file, and then the mouse locks up some too so you can't even multi-task.

I was trying to help somebody do something on their system -- never again, not for that person!

I agree with somebody up top about dummies that load Vista just to crap on it. How stupid. I have work to do (in XP, of course).

[SatStorm]

Off topic:

They say, that us Greeks have a word for everything.

In the Greek language, when you wish to say to someone "erase this", you say -in a single word- "svista". It pronounce exactly like Vista with an "S" in front of it.
If you ask me, it seems that from the ancient times, the Olympus Gods knew the future and prepare us through the centuries for this time....

[DereX888]

Off topic:

They say, that us Greeks have a word for everything.

In the Greek language, when you wish to say to someone "erase this", you say -in a single word- "svista". It pronounce exactly like Vista with an "S" in front of it.
If you ask me, it seems that from the ancient times, the Olympus Gods knew the future and prepare us through the centuries for this time....

Haha, I call it sVista since I read your post, and just to let you know: it became contageous in the office
Just few minutes ago my co-worker said "F***ing svista!"

How to get rid of Vista?

Have you tried garlic, wolfbane, a crucifix and a stake through it's heart?

Sorta let you know what I think of Vista? 8)

Reports say it is garlic-proof, stake thru the heart / crucifix won't work since it has no heart and is agnostic, but I dunno bout wolfbane Has anyone try it?

[SatStorm]

It getting better you know: The full phrase is: V(r)ista and (s)Vista (in "Greeklish": Vñista êáé Óvista!). It Translates as: "Yell them and delete them"!

If you google "Óvista", sVISTA, (s)Vista, V(r)ISTA and V(ñ)ista, you gonna find many related posts! (use ISO 8859-7 to see the type characters in Firefox)

Ancient Mysteries from Gods. Don't ask me how...

[Midzuki]

For the curious:

[DereX888]

I don't know Greek, but after SatStorm's post I just 'memorized' it as short for "shitty vista" - hence svista

[Mariot]

I can guarantee you on a fast recent machine Vista will run pretty fine. The problem is when you put Vista on a bit older machine where XP worked ok, Vista will start choking especially if you turn all the GUI candy ON.
But some people here assume that Vista is many times better OS than XP. I use both daily and really, there isn't anything special to the Vista from XP. So if XP works faster on certain comp, there is no shame to get XP. If Vista works fine on it, same there. Don't get on the MS hype that Vista has zillion improvements. In fact these are pretty much the same OS.
It is not like OSX 9 and OSX X which was a 100 mile jump.

[DereX888]

I can guarantee you on a fast recent machine Vista will run pretty fine. The problem is when you put Vista on a bit older machine where XP worked ok, Vista will start choking especially if you turn all the GUI candy ON.
But some people here assume that Vista is many times better OS than XP. I use both daily and really, there isn't anything special to the Vista from XP. So if XP works faster on certain comp, there is no shame to get XP. If Vista works fine on it, same there. Don't get on the MS hype that Vista has zillion improvements. In fact these are pretty much the same OS.
It is not like OSX 9 and OSX X which was a 100 mile jump.

NO.
You don't get it.
The point is that sVista works slower than XP on ANY machine.
If you have a machine where sVista runs fine, just imagine how XP would have purr on that same machine, how hard is it to understand

Also don't forget that the *progress* on Microsoft OSes is something comletely different than it is for any other companies.
New GUI is sometimes all the progress there is to it...
Best case example: Windows 95 to 98.
Instead of releasing a bug-fixing service pack they just add all patches plus a new browser and call it new OS.
Another good one: Windows 2000 to XP
Just a cumulative update of all bug-fixes and hotfixes plus a new GUI and voila - a "new" OS (oh, and a Windows Movie Maker, sorry).
You can't compare Apple's to oranges, oops, I mean apples to Microsofties
Microsoft is unable to create new operating system on their own, despite the thousands of programmers working there.
NONE of the Windows have ever been created by Microsoft himself, ALL of them were operating system they bought (DOS -> Win95/98/ME) or acquired in other ways (OS/2 -> NT3/NT4/NT5-aka-2000/NT5.1-aka-XP/NT5.2-aka-2003/NT6-aka-Vista).
When Microsoft tried to create their very first own operating system, Longhorn (actually partially their own, since it was still heavily based on the IBM's 1992 OS/2 aka Microsoft NT core) they dragged for 5 years and in the end they scraped it all and started 'anew' as usual - by "updating" existing code of a previous version with all bugfixes plus fancier GUI, and throwing some frigging bone for bonus just as they did always before.
Actually Vista was a "rush" job, it probably won't work until Service Pack 3 (if it lasts that long), it was made quickly after the death of Longhorn project because it's been so many years since their previous "desktop" OS was released. Shareholders pressure is awful thing when you have nothing on hand to show'em what you were working on in past years

Yes, Apple also stole the idea of GUI-based OS from XeroX, but at least they still write their own code and aren't afraid to start from scratch every decade or so. I am no Apple fan, but I bow my head to Apple coders just for this (Woz, you're da man! and yeah, **** iJobs).
Microsoft on the other hand... well, what can I say, don't we all know it

I just realized something: without Apple Microsoft would have nobody to steal new GUI ideas from, and since Microsoft is just a GUI coding company, what would they do? Office XV only? Because Microsoft Mouse has been copied and made even better by other competitors already, and there is nothing else really profitable in Msoft's offer. Scary thought... specially for a shareholder

[edDV]

NO.
You don't get it.

So with all these flaws explain what they did right to get >90% market share.

While you're at it, explain where Linux screwed up ... near universal rejection by Joe Q Average after the "free demo" that continues to be free after you install it.

[Forum Troll]

I just upgraded my laptop to vista (1.8 Ghz turion 64, 1.5 Gb DDR ram) over the weekend. When the install was done, I thought I had installed Mac OS X! I turned off the Aero interface, disabled the stupid sidebars with its gadgets, disabled the hard drive indexing and its 1,001 fingers, turned off windows firewall and windows defender, disabled automatic updates, turned off the 9 billion unnecessary and obsolete services that Micro$oft thinks I need to have running all the time, disabled the inisidious "Windows needs your permission" UAC garbage, installed Service Pack 1, and 3 hours later, I am running Windows Vista. This upgrade was the most traumatic, problem-laden, and frustrating thing I have ever done. My laptop runs perfectly fine, seems to be a bit more smooth than with XP. Only software that died was my older version of Nero, but grabbing the latest version fixed that. Not an experience I would want to repeat. My other computer that has XP will remain that way. It's just not worth it.

[Stingray]

Well, XP was no better when it was released all those years ago... it was basically a fancier version of 2k and naysayers said they would never replace 2k with XP... well look at it now.

For the record I dont like Vista any mor ethan the next guy, but it WILL run fine on machines within a couple of years, just like XP does now.

[Midzuki]

[ potentially-offensive content --- DELETED ]

[Mariot]

NO.
You don't get it.
The point is that sVista works slower than XP on ANY machine.
If you have a machine where sVista runs fine, just imagine how XP would have purr on that same machine, how hard is it to understand

Ok I don't get it, but if you have machine on which vista runs very fast, installing XP will not be faster - what will be faster? Applications? Opening menus? Or mouse will run twice fast? Or you will type twice fast?
It is no question that Vista is bloated, but I say it is bloated XP, not a bloated whole new OS as MS is trying to sell us.

Yes, Apple also stole the idea of GUI-based OS from XeroX,

Now you don't get it. Apple disn't stole anything. If you come to me and we agree that I will sell you an idea I have, did you stole it?
Apple management agreed with Xerox management so Apple Lisa developers can officially visit and see how Alto works for which Xerox received Apple stock options. They didn't sneak in during night. Apple also later employed many Xerox people for their OSX.
Nobody stole anything. Stop spreading rummors, rather read some history.
MS on onther hand didn't go for the idea to Xerox, because they were the key external software developers for Apple, they get access to Lisa as it has been developed and pretty much got the idea of GUI OS from there.

I am no Apple fan, but I bow my head to Apple coders just for this (Woz, you're da man! and yeah, **** iJobs).

Here we agree.

and there is nothing else really profitable in Msoft's offer. Scary thought... specially for a shareholder

Actually there is. MS has huge chunk of market and that is not going to change soon. That itself is worth the zillions. They could force the market to buy whatever software they have. They don't bother with PC hardware which is downslide market. It doesnt' cost them much more to sell million copies of software or to sell thousands.

Linux should have been ONE single OS, not hundreds of clones because for newomer it is confusing.
There are more and more people trying OSX especially after Vista, but it is still chump change. Even after Vista MS seems to be doing fine.[/quote]

[JohnnyMalaria]

Yes, Apple also stole the idea of GUI-based OS from XeroX, but at least they still write their own code and aren't afraid to start from scratch every decade or so.

I needed a laugh to start to the day and that line of FUD will keep me laughing beyond Windows 7.

[SatStorm]

The majority of people waits for a linux version of windows: Something free, more stable, faster and windows-like. It waits for a linux clone of windows. On every aspect. And of course, we all know that Linux is not windows.

So: Each time the average Window user installs Linux, hopes for a Windows Clone. He doesn't find it, he goes back to Windows.

There are solutions to make Linux to act like windows today. But, not out of the box, neither free. It needs more than "one click". People hate to do that.

[DereX888]

I just upgraded my laptop to vista (1.8 Ghz turion 64, 1.5 Gb DDR ram) over the weekend. When the install was done, I thought I had installed Mac OS X! I turned off the Aero interface, disabled the stupid sidebars with its gadgets, disabled the hard drive indexing and its 1,001 fingers, turned off windows firewall and windows defender, disabled automatic updates, turned off the 9 billion unnecessary and obsolete services that Micro$oft thinks I need to have running all the time, disabled the inisidious "Windows needs your permission" UAC garbage, installed Service Pack 1, and 3 hours later, I am running Windows Vista. This upgrade was the most traumatic, problem-laden, and frustrating thing I have ever done. My laptop runs perfectly fine, seems to be a bit more smooth than with XP. Only software that died was my older version of Nero, but grabbing the latest version fixed that. Not an experience I would want to repeat. My other computer that has XP will remain that way. It's just not worth it.

Perfect description of "downgrading" Microsoft OS - you have installed sVista, but you have stripped it down from all the 'enhancement' Msoft added to XP and rename it Vista So, essentially you have XP SP2 with sVista's GUI now
You might have as well installed XP and Vista-alike icons or GUI instead, the end result would have been the same, but less frustrating...

[John]

I must be the lucky one...

the same video encoding software, on Vista 64 is almost triple the speed than on xp...PERIOD and the software is still 32bit.

SO, I don't know what "software" you're using, to test the "speed", but my vista kicks the hell XP.

and this is fact.

umm... the subject is
How do I get rid of Windows Vista?
or was it
"how much do i love Vista?"
man it is sometimes confusing with all the threadcrappers

Im with you, vista 64 is resource hungry, but it blows xp away, the only reason i went from me to xp was because of speed issues, ripping ect, sure if you only surf and mail then a 286 running win 3.1 will be fine.

I was dual booting for 10 months with xp, but only for a couple of programs that now work fine on vista.
im lucky enough to now be running the amd phenom quad 9600.
you should see this baby encode movies. two movies at the same time to mp4 17 minutes
now im only booting with vista. I found the constant crashing of xp a nightmare

[Dv8ted2]

Perfect description of "downgrading" Microsoft OS - you have installed sVista, but you have stripped it down from all the 'enhancement' Msoft added to XP and rename it Vista So, essentially you have XP SP2 with sVista's GUI now
You might have as well installed XP and Vista-alike icons or GUI instead, the end result would have been the same, but less frustrating...

Once again, I must remind you that Vista was based on Windows Server 2003, not XP. Please try to remember that instead of making false statements.

[JohnnyMalaria]

[quote="DereX888Perfect description of "downgrading" Microsoft OS - you have installed sVista, but you have stripped it down from all the 'enhancement' Msoft added to XP and rename it Vista So, essentially you have XP SP2 with sVista's GUI now
You might have as well installed XP and Vista-alike icons or GUI instead, the end result would have been the same, but less frustrating...[/quote]

Why stop there? Extend your argument: XP is just a dressed-up 2000. Indeed, it is just a minor version change (5.0 to 5.1). 2000 is more nimble than XP.

[Dv8ted2]

Why stop there? Extend your argument: XP is just a dressed-up 2000. Indeed, it is just a minor version change (5.0 to 5.1). 2000 is more nimble than XP.

Yes, but you two are dismissing the fact that there was a version of windows in between. Parts of SP2 for XP was incorporated into Server 2003. Vista's code base was built from 2003. To say that it is a clone of XP is false.

[DereX888]

Just to cut this useless discussion:
On a "normal" OS, say any linux, the change of GUI is just... a change of GUI, nothing more or less.
Its only Microsoft's Windows OSes where change of GUI equals new version of Windows

[Forum Troll]

Perfect description of "downgrading" Microsoft OS - you have installed sVista, but you have stripped it down from all the 'enhancement' Msoft added to XP and rename it Vista So, essentially you have XP SP2 with sVista's GUI now
You might have as well installed XP and Vista-alike icons or GUI instead, the end result would have been the same, but less frustrating...

I suppose that is true .. but my laptop was due for a reformat anyway, so i just figured i would start over with the new operating system. My only question is, why does M$ feel it necessary to overburden new installs with such useless crap?

[Dv8ted2]

Just to cut this useless discussion:
On a "normal" OS, say any linux, the change of GUI is just... a change of GUI, nothing more or less.
Its only Microsoft's Windows OSes where change of GUI equals new version of Windows

It was more than a graphics change. There were many things that were not ever included in any other version of windows.

[SatStorm]

Yeah! DRM for example. On (s)VISTA DRM is a part of the O.S. On XP it was an add on.

[Midzuki]

Forum Troll asked:

My only question is, why does M$ feel it necessary to overburden new installs with such useless crap?

Answer: Because Mr. Gates does have scientifically demonstrated that
bloatware is far more important and interesting than .VOBs, .EVOs and .M2TSs.

[Dv8ted2]

Yeah! DRM for example. On (s)VISTA DRM is a part of the O.S. On XP it was an add on.

I was actually referring to the new security model that windows adopted. Everyone is a restricted (standard) user by default. You have a virtual store where programs can make changes without really touching protected parts of the operating system such as the registry. Driver signing was also beefed up as well as the two way firewall. People are always quick to harp on DRM without really understanding that other changes were introduced. I wish people would drop the DRM talk. It is past beating a dead horse stage and is made irrelevant by companies such as Slysoft.