Windows Vista

Board under construction.

Pages:
1
2

Windows Vista
Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2010, 02:23 AM (972 Views)
TMoT	Dec 5 2010, 02:23 AM Post #1
Your Bestest Nightmare Posts: 5,021 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	What do you think about it. Personally it's my 2^nd favorite OS. I love it. I asked Martho to name one disadvantage he said Martho It has a much, MUCH larger file size and it runs slower. Which is completely retarded. Of course it has a bigger file size, because there's so much more to it just look at the .net framework's size history: .NET Framework 1.0: 19.7MB .NET Framework 1.1: 23.1MB .NET Framework 2.0: 22.4MB .NET Framework 3.0: 90.1MB .NET Framework 3.5: 197.0MB I couldn't find the size for 4.0 And I love the second half of what he said "and it runs slower" lol. Lets take a little look at some facts. Windows XP has been obsolete for around five years, and was made for computers from ten years ago (when it came out.) Windows Vista has been obsolete for one year and made for computers from about four years ago (when it came out.) In case you can't tell what I'm getting at, this means that XP will run faster on older computers than vista would. Now to pick on what he said next Martho and I am not clueless, I used vista for over a year before my laptop crashed and I switched to XP Does anyone here realize how not a diss that is. Actually it's more of a diss to the person who says that than the OS. That's actually pretty good for most people. An entire year without one crash on any operating system is quite a feat. Unfortunately it doesn't beat my having vista from a little while after it came out 'till a little while after windows 7 came out with the only crash being when I accidentally turned off the power strip... oh wait, that's not a crash. For the record XP is my 3^rd favorite operating system.
	C++ Tutorial - C# Tutorial - Vala Tutorial - Best Free Web Hosting Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads You just lost The Game


Deleted User	Dec 5 2010, 04:57 AM Post #2
Deleted User	-shrug- i still use XP. i've nevre had an issue of obseletience. im thinking it's best to upgrade to 7 soon tho.
Deleted User


Robert	Dec 5 2010, 02:47 PM Post #3
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	The ONLY problems that I have come across on Windows Vista that are worth noting about are Internet Explorer (which is a global problem), 3d Flip lagging, and Firefox freezing. Everything else works the way it should. Those who complain about Vista get the lowest MIN requirements and expect it to run perfectly. Even if they think they got a great computer, they really don't.
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Nijg	Dec 5 2010, 04:59 PM Post #4
rude crude piece of food Posts: 7,332 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	I'm not going to say anything about this because I know someone will go on an unintelligent rant about my post.
	^{nijg.newgrounds.com - Written over 700 songs - The Algorithms} Like Me on Facebook! \| Please Donate


Thinvader747	Dec 5 2010, 05:01 PM Post #5
I can seeeeeee youuuuuuu Posts: 1,699 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active What version of GM do you use? 7 Pro	The main problem with Vista is that most of the computers that came out with it as standard did not have sufficient RAM to run it properly. Obviously, that isn't a problem now; plus, it isn't exactly difficult to get a RAM upgrade. But ideally, you shouldn't have to pay more money simply to make a computer run properly, fresh out of the box. The other problem is that several programs (mainly games in my experience) do not run with Vista, despite the fact that XP was fully backwards compatible. Yes, you had to trick the computer in order to run some programs from previous versions. But at least it was possible.
	"The best thing about the British is our ability to laugh at ourselves. By ourselves I mean other people. And by laugh I mean invade." - Jimmy Carr


Robert	Dec 5 2010, 05:14 PM Post #6
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	Thinvader747 Dec 5 2010, 05:01 PM The main problem with Vista is that most of the computers that came out with it as standard did not have sufficient RAM to run it properly. Obviously, that isn't a problem now; plus, it isn't exactly difficult to get a RAM upgrade. But ideally, you shouldn't have to pay more money simply to make a computer run properly, fresh out of the box. The other problem is that several programs (mainly games in my experience) do not run with Vista, despite the fact that XP was fully backwards compatible. Yes, you had to trick the computer in order to run some programs from previous versions. But at least it was possible. @ Nijg: Really? Surprisingly I managed to install a few windows 98 games on Vista with no problems at all. o.O
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Thinvader747	Dec 5 2010, 05:39 PM Post #7
I can seeeeeee youuuuuuu Posts: 1,699 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active What version of GM do you use? 7 Pro	Seriously? How? You must tell me!
	"The best thing about the British is our ability to laugh at ourselves. By ourselves I mean other people. And by laugh I mean invade." - Jimmy Carr


Deleted User	Dec 5 2010, 07:13 PM Post #8
Deleted User	http://www.cracked.com/article_18808_7-reasons-computer-glitches-wont-go-away-ever.html this is a good article to read that explains a lot of issues.
Deleted User


Martho	Dec 5 2010, 09:50 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Quote: I asked Martho to name one disadvantage he said Martho It has a much, MUCH larger file size and it runs slower. Which is completely retarded. Of course it has a bigger file size, because there's so much more to it just look at the .net framework's size history: .NET Framework 1.0: 19.7MB .NET Framework 1.1: 23.1MB .NET Framework 2.0: 22.4MB .NET Framework 3.0: 90.1MB .NET Framework 3.5: 197.0MB I couldn't find the size for 4.0 Who cares if there is "more to it"? How does that make it any better? What advantages do you get to having "a lot more to it"? Name one significant thing that it has which XP doesn't. Quote: And I love the second half of what he said "and it runs slower" lol. Lets take a little look at some facts. Windows XP has been obsolete for around five years, and was made for computers from ten years ago (when it came out.) Windows Vista has been obsolete for one year and made for computers from about four years ago (when it came out.) In case you can't tell what I'm getting at, this means that XP will run faster on older computers than vista would. When I first got my laptop a couple years ago it came with vista on it. It did alright, I was able to do everything I needed to do. I could play games on it and it wouldn't lag very much. When my laptop crashed and I installed XP on it my computer could boot up a lot faster and never lagged at all in games. This kid is 4 years old(about as old as vista) This kid is 10 years old(about as old as XP) Which do you think can run faster?(Lol I know that has nothing to do with it but I really wanted to post that) If something is newer it doesn't mean its faster. Even though I will admit as time goes on stuff is usually built better and better but you cannot say something old sucks because its old, post some real evidence/facts that relate directly to their performance. Quote: Now to pick on what he said next Martho and I am not clueless, I used vista for over a year before my laptop crashed and I switched to XP Does anyone here realize how not a diss that is. Actually it's more of a diss to the person who says that than the OS. That's actually pretty good for most people. An entire year without one crash on any operating system is quite a feat. Unfortunately it doesn't beat my having vista from a little while after it came out 'till a little while after windows 7 came out with the only crash being when I accidentally turned off the power strip... oh wait, that's not a crash. That's not what I meant by crash. My computer froze and stopped working with vista at least once a month if not more. When I said crash I meant completely crashed. My computer would take longer to boot up and when it did my computer would always freeze whenever I tried do anything. My brother ended up started my computer up in linux by putting a CD with linux on it in my drive and starting the computer up from the disc drive. I was then able to put all my files that I wanted to keep on a flash drive before we installed XP(which has never frozen or had any problems, btw). Im not actually going to blame the crash on vista though because I think I got a virus from a game I got for 5 bucks at my school bookfair, as it made my brothers XP computer crash too. Also, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vista+is+awesome%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a 67,700 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vista+sucks%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a 328,000 results. I also think that the title should be changed to "Vista VS XP" and you should make a poll.



DT-170x	Dec 6 2010, 10:35 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,766 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	Quote: It has a much, MUCH larger file size and it runs slower. OK Let debunk it. Slower processor and/or Slow Harddrive and/or Old Ram (DDR and/or some DDR2) = more time to load up. My old computer was a vista it was slow. (because it got a 444Mhz 512MB DDR2 Ram) then we got a 1 GB 533mhz DDR2 Ram and it run faster. My 7 year old DDR(333) Windows ME computer CAN run Windows Vista with no problem. You just give in to bad hype and/or you got an low end computer. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/products/system-requirements PS: Don't buy entry level computers. (It will come to burn you later). A High end 2002 Processor > Low-End 2007 Processor (I switch processor and notice a 30% proformage improvement) EDIT: It the same people who ranted on the Windows ME(my favorite OS) Ranted on Vista. Why it call Windows 7. When the version says 6.1. Edited by DT-170x, Dec 6 2010, 10:37 PM.



Martho	Dec 7 2010, 06:52 PM Post #11
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Again no direct comparisons from Vista to XP. I am not saying that vista is slow, I am saying that XP is faster.



Robert	Dec 7 2010, 09:50 PM Post #12
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	Martho Dec 7 2010, 06:52 PM Again no direct comparisons from Vista to XP. I am not saying that vista is slow, I am saying that XP is faster. But that implies that Vista is slower (than XP). My XP machine is almost dead and I'm using Vista to type this, haha.
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Martho	Dec 7 2010, 10:35 PM Post #13
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Robert Dec 7 2010, 09:50 PM Martho Dec 7 2010, 06:52 PM Again no direct comparisons from Vista to XP. I am not saying that vista is slow, I am saying that XP is faster. But that implies that Vista is slower (than XP). Quote: I am not saying that vista is slow, I am saying that XP is faster. Slow, not slower.



Robert	Dec 7 2010, 11:37 PM Post #14
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	Martho Dec 7 2010, 10:35 PM Robert Dec 7 2010, 09:50 PM Martho Dec 7 2010, 06:52 PM Again no direct comparisons from Vista to XP. I am not saying that vista is slow, I am saying that XP is faster. But that implies that Vista is slower (than XP). Quote: I am not saying that vista is slow, I am saying that XP is faster. Slow, not slower. But faster than what? It has to be faster than something or else "faster" which initially means quicker than something else, isn't faster than anything.
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Martho	Dec 8 2010, 12:50 AM Post #15
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	facepalm Ill re-phrase it just so you can understand. Vista is not slow, but XP is faster than Vista. Please read that very carefully so you don't confuse yourself like you always do.



Robert	Dec 8 2010, 11:30 AM Post #16
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	Martho Dec 8 2010, 12:50 AM facepalm Ill re-phrase it just so you can understand. Vista is not slow, but XP is faster than Vista. Please read that very carefully so you don't confuse yourself like you always do. Saying XP is faster than Vista is a very vague statement.
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Thinvader747	Dec 8 2010, 04:52 PM Post #17
I can seeeeeee youuuuuuu Posts: 1,699 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active What version of GM do you use? 7 Pro	I assume he's simply referring to his own experiences. He's not saying that Vista is strictly slow, but in his own experience, it is not as fast as XP. No offence, but I really can't see which part of that is confusing you.
	"The best thing about the British is our ability to laugh at ourselves. By ourselves I mean other people. And by laugh I mean invade." - Jimmy Carr


Martho	Dec 8 2010, 07:10 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Robert Dec 8 2010, 11:30 AM Martho Dec 8 2010, 12:50 AM facepalm Ill re-phrase it just so you can understand. Vista is not slow, but XP is faster than Vista. Please read that very carefully so you don't confuse yourself like you always do. Saying XP is faster than Vista is a very vague statement. Saying vista is better without giving any actual reasons is very vague too.



Robert	Dec 9 2010, 12:11 AM Post #19
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	Martho Dec 8 2010, 07:10 PM Robert Dec 8 2010, 11:30 AM Martho Dec 8 2010, 12:50 AM facepalm Ill re-phrase it just so you can understand. Vista is not slow, but XP is faster than Vista. Please read that very carefully so you don't confuse yourself like you always do. Saying XP is faster than Vista is a very vague statement. Saying vista is better without giving any actual reasons is very vague too. Well it's obvious since Vista is faster than XP because Vista has more updated technology.
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Martho	Dec 9 2010, 01:48 AM Post #20
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Robert Dec 9 2010, 12:11 AM Martho Dec 8 2010, 07:10 PM Robert Dec 8 2010, 11:30 AM Martho Dec 8 2010, 12:50 AM facepalm Ill re-phrase it just so you can understand. Vista is not slow, but XP is faster than Vista. Please read that very carefully so you don't confuse yourself like you always do. Saying XP is faster than Vista is a very vague statement. Saying vista is better without giving any actual reasons is very vague too. Well it's obvious since Vista is faster than XP because Vista has more updated technology. Have you ever even used XP? Post real evidence/proof. Newer isn't always better. Edited by Martho, Dec 9 2010, 02:09 AM.



Robert	Dec 9 2010, 11:31 AM Post #21
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	Martho Dec 9 2010, 01:48 AM Robert Dec 9 2010, 12:11 AM Martho Dec 8 2010, 07:10 PM Robert Dec 8 2010, 11:30 AM Martho Dec 8 2010, 12:50 AM facepalm Ill re-phrase it just so you can understand. Vista is not slow, but XP is faster than Vista. Please read that very carefully so you don't confuse yourself like you always do. Saying XP is faster than Vista is a very vague statement. Saying vista is better without giving any actual reasons is very vague too. Well it's obvious since Vista is faster than XP because Vista has more updated technology. Have you ever even used XP? Post real evidence/proof. Newer isn't always better. Would a video of my XP and Vista starting up at the same time be good proof?
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Martho	Dec 9 2010, 07:20 PM Post #22
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	No. Your XP is probably on an older computer that is slower. If your XP and vista were on the same computer then it would be.



Robert	Dec 9 2010, 09:53 PM Post #23
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	Martho Dec 9 2010, 07:20 PM No. Your XP is probably on an older computer that is slower. If your XP and vista were on the same computer then it would be. It doesn't matter anyways, Ubuntu ftw!
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Martho	Dec 10 2010, 02:53 AM Post #24
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Robert Dec 9 2010, 09:53 PM Martho Dec 9 2010, 07:20 PM No. Your XP is probably on an older computer that is slower. If your XP and vista were on the same computer then it would be. It doesn't matter anyways, And why doesn't it matter? This topic is basically about XP VS Vista. It seems to me that it would matter completely. Quote: Ubuntu ftw! Agreed.



TMoT	Jan 5 2011, 09:27 PM Post #25
Your Bestest Nightmare Posts: 5,021 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	Martho Who cares if there is "more to it"? How does that make it any better? What advantages do you get to having "a lot more to it"? Name one significant thing that it has which XP doesn't. The "more to it" thing is one of the biggest parts of software. Answer this honestly, which is better Microsoft DOS or Windows 1.0? Windows 1.0 or Windows 2.0? Windows 2.0 or Windows 3.0? Firefox 1.0 or Firefox 2? Firefox 2 or Firefox 3? Word 2003 or Word 2007? Word 2007 or Word 2010? Visual Studio 2008 or Visual Studio 2010? Seeing as technology doubles every 18 months, that gives enough time for it to double 3^1/3 times from when XP was created to when Vista was created. With all of that upgrading in the land of computers, don't you think it'd be pretty hard for them to make something worse than they did when technology was 5.2 times more primitive. I do. Everything in Windows Vista is better than XP, with the exceptions of most other software and drivers that aren't already built in to the operating system. Martho you cannot say something old sucks because its old Now I'm just pissed of, you were replying to me but I never said anything about XP sucking. Just look at the end of my first post: Me For the record XP is my 3rd favorite operating system. Martho Also, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vista+is+awesome%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a 67,700 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vista+sucks%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a 328,000 results. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22i+love+vista%22 has more results than both of your searches combined
	C++ Tutorial - C# Tutorial - Vala Tutorial - Best Free Web Hosting Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads You just lost The Game


DT-170x	Jan 6 2011, 12:18 AM Post #26
Posts: 1,766 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: Apr 3, 2010	Windows Vista got the same bad rep as Windows ME. Give one problem and it over. My old 2003 computer can run vista and it did.



Robert	Jan 6 2011, 12:27 AM Post #27
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	I've been running Vista since 2008 Christmas. Sure, it's a bit slow now, but that's because I have tons of crap on it. In fact, if you say it's Aero, then the new laptop and desktop we have with windows 7 is SUPER FAST with everything enabled.
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Martho	Jan 6 2011, 12:28 AM Post #28
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Quote: The "more to it" thing is one of the biggest parts of software. Answer this honestly, which is better Microsoft DOS or Windows 1.0? Windows 1.0 or Windows 2.0? Windows 2.0 or Windows 3.0? Firefox 1.0 or Firefox 2? Firefox 2 or Firefox 3? Word 2003 or Word 2007? Word 2007 or Word 2010? Visual Studio 2008 or Visual Studio 2010? Let me rephrase what I said. Yes there is a lot more to it, a whole lot more garbage to it. Say you have a pickup truck full of complete crap, you have a lot more weight but for no reason and it does more harm then good. I find it funny how you still refuse to post something specific(and real) instead of just saying things like "Its way better, everything about it is better!". As things get newer they have more potential to be better, and usually they are. But then sometimes people try adding way to many things or they ad things that are useless and take away stuff that was good. Quote: Seeing as technology doubles every 18 months, that gives enough time for it to double 31/3 times from when XP was created to when Vista was created. With all of that upgrading in the land of computers, don't you think it'd be pretty hard for them to make something worse than they did when technology was 5.2 times more primitive. I do. Vista had much more potential than XP because it is newer, but unfortunately they messed up. They got over confident with there skills(After XP turned out so good they figured they knew what they were doing and they didn't even have beta testing or anything for vista!) and tried adding way to much useless garbage which they thought was good. It was, very surprising to me that they managed to make vista as bad as it is(in my opinion). Quote: Everything in Windows Vista is better than XP Then for crying out loud name something! You never say anything specific, you always just say its better without any real proof or evidence other then it being newer. [/quote]Now I'm just pissed of, you were replying to me but I never said anything about XP sucking. Just look at the end of my first post: Quote: Me For the record XP is my 3rd favorite operating system. Ok ill rephrase that. You can't say that something isn't as good because it is older. Have you ever jumped on a really old trampoline and then a really new one? If you have then you will know that new ones completely suck and old ones are much better. Quote: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22i+love+vista%22 has more results than both of your searches combined Im sure if I tried hard enough I could find a phrase about XP that is more common than that but it was mainly meant as a joke in the first place. I used to have vista on the laptop that I am using right now! I know what it is like. I have even done speed tests and XP has been faster in all of them. Here is a portable poll I made, http://poll.pollcode.com/0WeA I will post it wherever I can(facebook, other forums, signatures, ect), it would be good if you did too so you can't just say that the type of person I know would also like XP. After a few weeks we can see what the votes are.



Robert	Jan 6 2011, 01:36 AM Post #29
Posts: 7,393 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 What version of GM do you use? 6 Pro	to be honest, there is no point arguing about Vista and XP. Just like saying Mac vs PC, they both have pros and cons.
	I'm going to be serving a two year Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Texas in both English and American Sign Language


Martho	Jan 24 2011, 01:25 AM Post #30
Posts: 1,404 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Apr 3, 2010 Activity Level Active	Yeah they both have pros and cons. Vista pros: it looks cool. Cons: its really slow, freezes up, goes non responsive a lot when starting up, takes forever to start up, has really paranoid security build in that is completely non-user friendly, has bad compatibilty with lots of programs(not just old ones, its a lot easier to install world of warcraft on xp than vista) and has a whole bunch of useless stuff that make it's file size way bigger and don't really do anything good. XP Pros: Great performance, great compatibility with all programs, starts up quickly(and your XP vs vista start up time doesn't count because your XP is on a much older computer, Robert.), hardly ever freezes up(has never actually frozen up on me) and has all the functions that it needs(there are a few luxury functions that would be nice, but at least it doesn't have a whole crap load of useless stuff like vista). Cons: It looks really old and horrible, is really old, and doesn't have a few of the nice luxury functions that vista has. The only reasons that people can be led to believe vista is faster than XP are that vista is newer and XP only comes on old computers that are slow so it makes people think that XP is slow and they don't even bother thinking about it on fair terms. Say you have an old driver(not computer driver, car driver) who is really good, and a new driver who isn't as good and they are in a race, the old driver is in an old car and the new driver is in a new car. Just because the new driver is doing a lot better, it doesn't mean he is better. The race is completely unfair because the better driver is in a sucky car. But that's how people who think vista is faster compare them! If you put vista and XP on the same computer XP is way faster at everything. I have had both XP and Vista on my laptop for a long time and XP just beats the frickin crap out of vista! The only thing I like better about vista is it looks cool and it has a cutting tool. Vista is for luxury, XP is for performance. If I had a whole crap load of process power and it didn't even matter how fast one OS was I might actually consider choosing vista. Now, before you just go on a flaming rampage about my post I think you should post your own pros and cons list and explain your reasons, instead of just saying "vista is newer so it must be better".



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics/Debate · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2