Windows 7: Epic Failure

TommyCarlier said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

I remember a time when “epic” was only used to denote positive things.

You guys are wrong. When something is a failure, it is written as Fail. When it is a catastophic failure, it is an Epic fail.

Just remember that if you are applying for a job for example, and you are asked when you had to deal with a critical problem, and you answer "at first I thought it was my bad, then I discovered an epic fail bug in the software", you will not get the job.

You have been warned Messrs Ramussen and Carlier, you will not get the job.

TommyCarlier said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

I remember a time when “epic” was only used to denote positive things.

I remember a time when “epic” was only used to denote positive things.

Epic Fail... Let's see...

People call Vista an "Epic Fail". Yet I wonder what logic is used to come to that conclusion. Since Vista has 5 times as much share as OS X, it can't be marketshare. And we all know that OS X is a "raging success", so it can't be that.

Maybe it is the "expectation", and how it actually performed after the expectation. So let's use that as a metric and see what pops out:

Even if someone predicted that Vista would get 100% marketshare, and it "only" got to 20% (like it did), that means it reached 1/5th of its predicted share.

Now let's look at another OS' predicted share: http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/30873

But Linux can't even muster  1% on the desktop. That means that they only reached 1/20th of its predicted share. Who is an Epic Fail now?

And the Apple fanboys have been relling us for years how OS X is going to "take off any time now", yet it is still stuck at 5% vs 93% for Windows.

So I'd like someone to explain to me exactly what metrics are used to get to the conclusion that Vista is an "Epic Fail".

Thanks in advance for clearing this up!

BitFlipper said:

Epic Fail... Let's see...

 

People call Vista an "Epic Fail". Yet I wonder what logic is used to come to that conclusion. Since Vista has 5 times as much share as OS X, it can't be marketshare. And we all know that OS X is a "raging success", so it can't be that.

 

Maybe it is the "expectation", and how it actually performed after the expectation. So let's use that as a metric and see what pops out:

 

Even if someone predicted that Vista would get 100% marketshare, and it "only" got to 20% (like it did), that means it reached 1/5th of its predicted share.

 

Now let's look at another OS' predicted share: http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/30873

 

But Linux can't even muster  1% on the desktop. That means that they only reached 1/20th of its predicted share. Who is an Epic Fail now?

 

And the Apple fanboys have been relling us for years how OS X is going to "take off any time now", yet it is still stuck at 5% vs 93% for Windows.

 

So I'd like someone to explain to me exactly what metrics are used to get to the conclusion that Vista is an "Epic Fail".

 

Thanks in advance for clearing this up!

SandyDick:

Sorry, my ~40 installs of Vista7 on everything from netbooks, $400 desktops/notebooks, quad-core monsters trumps your single anecdote. Not a single issue, I'm actually shocked when a rare piece of hardware doesn't have drivers built-it or through Windows Update.

It's not perfect (I still think MS could pay more attention to the design nitty-gritty, but I've always had that axe to grind with the company), but it is clearly the best OS they've ever made.  Something is definitely afoot with your system or some chintzy OEM drivers.

Windows 3.1 and DOS are faster than XP.

Nothing beats the performance of MSDOS. Even a 386 can run it. All other OS's are Epic Failure.

OP Troll said:

1) Vista is slow.
2) My post is realism, whereas your post about how Vista is fast is based on your emotions.
3) 7 is the same core as Vista, same performance for all intents and purposes.

Vista is slow, and 7 has the same core, therefore 7 is slow?  Funny, mine seems plenty fast.

vesuvius said:

TommyCarlier said:

*snip*

You guys are wrong. When something is a failure, it is written as Fail. When it is a catastophic failure, it is an Epic fail.

 

Just remember that if you are applying for a job for example, and you are asked when you had to deal with a critical problem, and you answer "at first I thought it was my bad, then I discovered an epic fail bug in the software", you will not get the job.

 

You have been warned Messrs Ramussen and Carlier, you will not get the job.

How fortunate it is then, that I've never had to be "appling" for a job ;~)

Tommy: Sign ´o the times, sign ´o the trolls; given community moderation powers this and other recent threads would be quickly burried, banishing the trolls and their excrements right back into the forest of oblivion

littleguru said:

SandyPecker said:

*snip*

*putting on my private person hat*

 

Custom hardware? What does that mean? Did you literally build the hardware? If that is correct then it is your duty to write proper drivers and make sure that the hardware works.

 

Or does "custom hardware" mean that you bought hardware and assembled the PC on your own? If that is correct and you get the described experience that might more likely mean that you bought some hardware that doesn't work well together. Or some of the parts that you bought are faulty.

 

I bought a set of hardware components recently too. And assembled them as my living room PC. Everything is brand new. Installed Windows 7. Had it go to Windows Update and install all the drivers. Everything works great. Solid and fast performance.

 

Windows should probably have something that says: Uppps... your hardware has issues. Please replace component X.

To add to that, there have been problems with certain combinations of hardware/software/OS/drivers/whatever forever. People see one Vista (or whatever) machine with the problem and someone jump to the conclusion that it's the OS when the same sort of problem could happen on any OS, including Winodws XP, Linux, OS X...

exoteric said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

How fortunate it is then, that I've never had to be "appling" for a job ;~)

 

Tommy: Sign ´o the times, sign ´o the trolls; given community moderation powers this and other recent threads would be quickly burried, banishing the trolls and their excrements right back into the forest of oblivion

 

That was a typo, I tend not to spell check my C9 posts, and recently I'm so busy, I post and leave. Hopefully this will change soon.

Excrement however is never pluralised - it is what it is - thus it's a bit like not having sheeps!

vesuvius said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

That was a typo, I tend not to spell check my C9 posts, and recently I'm so busy, I post and leave. Hopefully this will change soon.

 

Excrement however is never pluralised - it is what it is - thus it's a bit like not having sheeps!

Plus C9's custom stuff breaks Firefox's spellchecker.

Sven Groot said:

Fortunately, Vista is faster than XP. And from my (very) limited experience, Windows 7 is faster than Vista.

So I think we've got it covered.

Vista isn't even close to XP speed in any category, and stability... well that's a novel right there.  This is exactly why people should actually try using BOTH operating systems before making some uneducated comment such as that.

7, thankfully is better than Vista was, but still offers no reason to upgrade at the moment -- if DX11 isn't a joke like DX10 was, then that might change in a years time or so...

fpsdean said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Vista isn't even close to XP speed in any category, and stability... well that's a novel right there.  This is exactly why people should actually try using BOTH operating systems before making some uneducated comment such as that.

 

7, thankfully is better than Vista was, but still offers no reason to upgrade at the moment -- if DX11 isn't a joke like DX10 was, then that might change in a years time or so...

Don't know how this old thread from November 2008 came to the top of the thread list.

But I hope the Original Poster is happy with the Windows 7.

I know I'm very happy with Windows 7. Loving it

stun said:

fpsdean said:

*snip*

Don't know how this old thread from November 2008 came to the top of the thread list.

But I hope the Original Poster is happy with the Windows 7.

 

I know I'm very happy with Windows 7. Loving it

Spam happens.

Wow, I don't know what OS this guy is talking about or what FAKE benchmark he is using. 

Vista was and Is since SP1 faster the XP on anything but the "benchmarks".  It multitasks smoother for people using heavy amounts of computing, say a few copies of LINUX.  Benchmarks are nearly useless at this point in the PC evalution. 

Win7 handles 8 cpus like it was made for it, well I guess it was, and will never be unresponsive to the user, that is my experience with XP and WIN7 on very heavy loads to the tune of 64 threads and all 8 cores at 100%, still baby smooth, XP will not be smooth if you use more the 80% cpu, it just wasn't written to handle it!