Originally Posted by Republic
Programmers are right up there with accountants and perhaps tax lawyers the strangest human beings walking the planet. I'd engage you in a discussion of OS bloat and its affects on gaming performance but I have a feeling you'd take a stance I couldn't possibly understand  Let's just say that I've imaged many systems with all kinds of operating systems and I have legitimate reasons for making the choices and preferences I make
I simply wouldn't install Vista on a "friend's" computer if I had other choices. Know what I mean? |
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Vista > XP or XP > Vista. Bloat is certainly a concern with Vista, the Areo desktop for example is uncessary, though it seems to be the way things are trending in all OSes (Compiz Fusion anyone? (Linux thing for the non-users)). What I'm trying to get across is there are valid reasons for choosing either. The quoted post essiantially says, that because I'm using Vista, I can't know what I'm doing.
The fact of the matter is, I like the way the Areo desktop looks. I also like how much prettier my games look. I don't deny that I may be losing some performance, but it's not enough that I've ever noticed the difference. I'm certainly willing to trade those (presumed) losses for the prettier graphics, and some the of nicer features. Its a cosmetic upgrade to be sure, but that isn't an ineheritenly bad thing.
Then agian, I haven't ran a computer with < 4Gb of ram in at least a year, so I'm also not your standard use case. For average users, the performace hit may be much greater than for me.