Vista is known for people initially liking it, then after a while discovering it’s not working for them, and “downgrading” to XP. This study has told us exactly what we already knew: that, initially, people like Vista.
I should really stop letting these threads get to me.
So it was a poor choice of words to call it an "experiment," but I don't think anybody is honestly in belief that this is science....
Your Amish Daddy wrote:
There is science in Marketing.
The people that don't like Vista tell their friends there's NO WAY they'd like Vista either.
If you do try out Vista, don't finish without trying a game that does both DX9 and DX10. The difference is remarkable.
Crysis was my test game- HD3870. I noticed a distinct improvement in the look and feel of the game.
No, I wouldn't give gaming any time as that is not in my realm of interest. My concerns would be software and hardware compatibility and productivity features. And sure, the aesthetics also hold some value for me.
Mr TRiot wrote:
*throws in his 2 cents*
Being an experienced Vista user there are actually only a few major flaws that are REALLY need to be addressed...
1) There's a major difference in how virutal memory is used. Basically, your physical RAM is always going to get drained before the "virutal memory". Slowing down your computer after long activity [Any full screen "game" for a couple hours demands a 30 sec power off....]
2) Despite always having disabled "Windows Defender" it always runs in the background. Has since day one. Just wasting resources.....
It could be alot worse to be honest......
I'm not sure why using RAM instead of VM would be a bad thing so long as you have enough RAM. The memory management including SuperFetch is probably my favorite part of Vista.