I am not saying spyware i am talking like just overall performance. I run spybot and such but its just maybe the reg gets confused or something. i use ccleaner and stuff but it never made xp run as well as a nice fresh install. Most of my windows errors have been software not supporting it well enough yet. I never have crashes, never have bugs like everyone speaks about. I have been running prior to SP1 and all my issues were just with software not being compatible which i have't had any issues since maybe 4 months ago. The problem is for me is that most people are fanboys for hating and they just keep rolling with the hate rather then look into solutions. I have had to do some reg edits or maybe a delete of a file or something to get something that wasn't "vista compatable" to work. If a lot of the people that bitch would just google search they would find a lot of fixes for things that aren't even vistas fault.

> > on a side note: I personally love Vista now that i have been using it for a
> > while. I normally would reinstall xp every other month or so and notice a huge
> > difference in performance. With vista i notice absolutely no drop in
> > performance/no noticeable difference after reinstall. So maybe rethink the
> vista
> > thing, but then again some people will just hate so they can be haters.
> Nothing
> > wrong with that.
>
> Vista is a really mixed bag.
>
> I have a completely different experience with XP than what you describe - it was
> very stable and with good performance. Stuff that broke was only one program if
> I fiddled with it, or something I freshly installed. Did you run stuff like
> Spybot Search & Destroy or Ad-Aware? That goes a long way to make sure crap
> doesn't get installed and slows down your system (I once had a job where users
> thought I was a magician because I would make their machine go much faster by a
> little Spybot job).
>
> Anyway, back to Vista. I've decided to take the plunge when I got a new laptop,
> so went for SP1. Was it the big horrible thing a lot of people make it out to
> be? No, and some things on it are very nice (I like the new interface).
>
> However... I honestly feel I've went back to Windows 98/ME. In the two months
> I've had it, shit would break for no apparent reason, and the system would crash
> for really stupid things. Take the sidebar for example. Because of something
> stupid I did, I got 50 gadgets on it. Then the system would freeze when I try to
> remove one. Luckily, because I've seen my share of shitty OS problems, I
> suspected it was due to the sidebar alone. I've googled around, found where the
> sidebar config was, and manually fixed it.
>
> But that's me - I'm only comfortable doing that because I've fiddled many times
> with config files in Linux, OS X, and Win9x. The thing is, this is exactly the
> kind of crap that you're not supposed to have to do with Windows. I realize it's
> just the sidebar, but this kind of bug shows shoddy programming and that the
> sidebar was added later on as an afterthought cool feature. No problem with
> that, but they could make sure it doesn't freeze the damn system! In a Mac, for
> example, they would have got a bunch of testers to make sure the most visible
> parts doesn't break (I've seen a lot of shit go wrong on a Mac - but they do get
> the visible things right). In Linux, well you expect to have to pop the hood
> open half of the time anyway so no big deal. (I like Linux [Ubuntu/Xandros] but
> I still won't fully switch. I do run it on a VM on Vista so I can fiddle with it
> though).
>
> There's also the user control thing which is not as annoying as they make it,
> and disk usage is not too bad (or at least I haven't noticed it). I guess SP1
> improved things.
>
>
>
> [download a life]
>


Just Another Miller
2E2X1.net
TeamDrunk.net