Vista?

[rich584]

I've used every Windows OS since Windows first came out and I truly don't understand what is the matter with Vista. I have it on three computers and I have not had one problem with it. So, my question is this: What's wrong with it? I've only been using it for a couple years, and I'm deeply impressed with it. I've used Macs back in the '80s and I think this is the closest that Microsoft has come to a Mac OS (that I used).

Am I wrong (again)? Did I miss something? All I use my computers for is portals to the Net. Are there programs that don't run well on Vista?

Rich

[MIAMI1683]

I've used every Windows OS since Windows first came out and I truly don't understand what is the matter with Vista. I have it on three computers and I have not had one problem with it. So, my question is this: What's wrong with it? I've only been using it for a couple years, and I'm deeply impressed with it. I've used Macs back in the '80s and I think this is the closest that Microsoft has come to a Mac OS (that I used).

Am I wrong (again)? Did I miss something? All I use my computers for is portals to the Net. Are there programs that don't run well on Vista?

Rich

Nothing is wrong with it. Vista ia great. It's just perception. When you see W7 come out. It is built on the Vista kernal

[dave29]

I like Vista a lot.

It got a bad rap when it first came out because there were a lot of driver issues. It is also a memory hog. Other than that, it has been rock solid for me on 6 computers.

[rich584]

Nothing is wrong with it. Vista ia great. It's just perception. When you see W7 come out. It is built on the Vista kernal

One of my relatives is beta testing W7 and my wife has gone thru the whole testing thing where she works. Neither said too much about it, except to say that it is more transparent. I guess that's a good thing.

Rich

[kfcrosby]

Performance, Privacy and DRM were the main things that killed Vista at the consumer level. Hardware costs and compatibility really killed it for most commercial organizations.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

[rich584]

I like Vista a lot.

It got a bad rap when it first came out because there were a lot of driver issues. It is also a memory hog. Other than that, it has been rock solid for me on 6 computers.

I don't get it, Dave. Every time I mention Vista I get strange looks or posts that question my state of mind. I've taught computer classes on how to run Windows from 3.1 (I think that's right, I really had to reach for that one) to whatever was the new OS in '98 when I got sick of teaching and quit.

I was originally a DOS user and went to a Mac from there and everything Windows came out with seemed a big step down from the Mac OS. Even XP. Haven't used a Mac in many years and I have no idea what their OS is like now, but back in the '80s it was great.

Rich

[rich584]

Performance, Privacy and DRM were the main things that killed Vista at the consumer level. Hardware costs and compatibility really killed it for most commercial organizations.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

I should have mentioned I'm not a Geek, unfortunately, and don't understand all that much about what you say in your post. Privacy? Don't understand that at all. DRM? An acronym that I have no idea what it means or has to do with a computer. Performance? Seems great to me. That I can understand. The rest of your post leaves me puzzled. My fault, I let the technology get ahead of me.

Now I'll check out your link in the hope that I can understand it.

Rich

[billsharpe]

I don't get it, Dave. Every time I mention Vista I get strange looks or posts that question my state of mind. I've taught computer classes on how to run Windows from 3.1 (I think that's right, I really had to reach for that one) to whatever was the new OS in '98 when I got sick of teaching and quit.

I was originally a DOS user and went to a Mac from there and everything Windows came out with seemed a big step down from the Mac OS. Even XP. Haven't used a Mac in many years and I have no idea what their OS is like now, but back in the '80s it was great.

Rich

The only thing wrong with Macintosh computers is that they are grossly overpriced and have been since Day One(1984). Nice looking and easier to learn to use, but that's about it.

The only Windows version that was a real disaster after 1 and 2 was ME. My laptop last year came with Vista SP1 on it. No problems, especially after turning off the nagging user account controls.

[Steve Mehs]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista. It is a great OS. I've never had any problem with any NT based operating system, and Vista is no exception. Very reliable, application load times are faster with Vista vs XP and some good tweaks made to XP. My two main issues are with UAC, which I have disabled fully and the lack of the classic user interface. I hate the cartoonish look to XP and changed everything to make it look at close to Windows 2000 as possible, while I think the Vista UI is better, I'd still rather have the classic UI back.

Most people who hate Vista do so for three reasons 1) They have a crappy older machine that can't handle it (My 6 year old Compaq runs Vista beautifully) 2) They have a printer or scanner from 1942 that lacks Vista driver support (How is that Microsoft's fault exactly?) 3) It's the cool thing to do. Hating Vista makes you cool.

Vista is a wonderful OS. Period.

[hdtvfan0001]

Contrary to some of the sugar-coating here....Vista is an obese operating system, sucking the very life out of hardware left and right. In addition, when it was released....the driver support for many common devices was very poor and/or missing altogether.

MS has made some strides to address these issues, but again, its still fat code.

Fact is if they had gotten Vista right in the first place, WIN7 would not be on the near-term radar.

WIN7 is supposed to be (and all evidence points to it being) a much leaner code base. At the CES, I had a lead MS engineer tell me they expected a 40% code size reduction, which will "significantly" improve performance. It will also be released with a much broader inventory of drivers than was done with Vista.

For those reasons, as well as very good beta results....WIN7 looks like the future OS that you'll see everywhere on PCs starting 4Q 2009.

If you want to read a good bit on the details and history...

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Is-Windows-Getting-Morbidly-Obese-62556.html?welcome=1208008150&wlc=1248722104

[SayWhat?]

I was under the impression that Win3.1 was an MS attempt to emulate MACs. Weren't there even some lawsuits about that?

If 7 fixes the perception issues of Vista, fine. I need to replace a laptop and a desktop, but I'll be waiting for 7 and some sales.

[Mark Holtz]

What soured people on Vista? Let me count the ways: UAC, while intended to protect the regular user, frustrated the power user who know what the hell they were doing Higher hardware requirements for Vista with little benefit. (Yes, it was the same with XP) Broken device drivers causing Vista to crash. Yes, nVidia, I'm looking at you and your early drivers. My 8800 GTS graphics card, which was the latest at the time, had issues under Vista x64. Perfectly good peripherals that were only 2 years old not working under Vista because the manufacturers did not release new drivers Software that ran fine under XP required a version update under Vista. Many paid software manufacturers insisted on paying for the upgrade, and there is still software that have issues under Vista. Several different versions of Windows, including the souper-premium "Ultimate" edition that turned into a bust. Many businesses felt it was cheaper to pay the $99 downgrade fee rather than upgrade to Vista and the resulting upgrade costs including training for the different environment. There were no compelling reasons to upgrade. Some people thought that the interface is "too cute".When I rebuilt my system, I put in removable hard drives so that I can switch between XP-32 and Vista-64. The Vista drive tends to collect dust.

Oh yeah, did I mention that I've been working with computers since 1980 with a TRS-80 model III, and saved programs to a *gasp* cassette tape?

[rich584]

The only thing wrong with Macintosh computers is that they are grossly overpriced and have been since Day One(1984). Nice looking and easier to learn to use, but that's about it.

The only Windows version that was a real disaster after 1 and 2 was ME. My laptop last year came with Vista SP1 on it. No problems, especially after turning off the nagging user account controls.

Agree with the price thing on the Macs. They also kept proprietary information secret and that permitted Windows to run industrial processes. Big mistake. Had they gone the way the DOS based computers went, we'd all be using Macs today.

Rich

[rich584]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista. It is a great OS. I've never had any problem with any NT based operating system, and Vista is no exception. Very reliable, application load times are faster with Vista vs XP and some good tweaks made to XP. My two main issues are with UAC, which I have disabled fully and the lack of the classic user interface. I hate the cartoonish look to XP and changed everything to make it look at close to Windows 2000 as possible, while I think the Vista UI is better, I'd still rather have the classic UI back.

Most people who hate Vista do so for three reasons 1) They have a crappy older machine that can't handle it (My 6 year old Compaq runs Vista beautifully) 2) They have a printer or scanner from 1942 that lacks Vista driver support (How is that Microsoft's fault exactly?) 3) It's the cool thing to do. Hating Vista makes you cool.

Vista is a wonderful OS. Period.

"Hating Vista makes you cool." So I guess that's the same as everyone hating my favorite Star Wars character, Jar Jar Binks (hope I spelled that right). My sister-in-law told me how stupid JJB was and that she couldn't understand why he was even in the movie. Later on that night, I found out she hadn't seen the movie. :lol:

Rich

[hdtvfan0001]

"Hating Vista makes you cool."
I guess there's a couple million cool people out there....:D

[jerry downing]

There is nothing wrong with Vista except that when it was introduced, Microsoft said that it would run on machines that were clearly underpowered. When people tried to run it on these machines, they were disappointed and did a lot of griping because it was too slow. When people heard the griping, they were turned off by the whole thing. When Vista is run on a machine that can handle it, it is great.

[hdtvfan0001]

There is nothing wrong with Vista except that when it was introduced, Microsoft said that it would run on machines that were clearly underpowered.
Do a Google under "Vista problems" and still see if just a few of the most popular in the 34,000,000 hits changes anyone's mind...

There are thousands of message boards with countless threads devoted just to fixing problems with Vista.


I'm sorry....I need to correct myself....if you Google using "Vista Major Problems", the number of hits goes way down to only 3,490,000....so I guess 90% are not major ones...:D

[wingrider01]

Do a Google under "Vista problems" and still see if just a few of the most popular in the 34,000,000 hits changes anyone's mind...

There are thousands of message boards with countless threads devoted just to fixing problems with Vista.


I'm sorry....I need to correct myself....if you Google using "Vista Major Problems", the number of hits goes way down to only 3,490,000....so I guess 90% are not major ones...:D

most of them are pre-sp2 or on machines that do not have sp2 installed. As mentioned hating vista is cool, does not matter if the version people hate and whine the most about is over a year out of date with out serivce packs.

had 0 issues locating drivers for current hardware, the same exact problem is going to occur with W7 - you got out dated hardware you are going ot have issues.

We have over 1300 machines running Vista Business, all current, all validated, all stable.


same thing was said about xp when it came out
same thing was said about W2000 when it came out
same thing was said abour WinNt when it came out
same thing was said about window 98SE when it came out
same thing was said about windows 98 when it came out
same thing was said about Windows 95 when it came out

[BattleZone]

As others have mentioned, there were several issues, but IMO the biggest one was driver support, which was NOT Microsoft's fault, but the hardware vendors'.

In the past, new OSs were released about every 2 years. This was frequent enough that manufacturers kept programmers around to keep drivers updated. But with XP not being replaced for FIVE YEARS, most manufacturers had downsized their programming staff. Then, Vista was released, and manufacturers figured out that it would cost a lot of money to hire programmers to write drivers for all of their old hardware, and to do so would only inhibit the sale of new, replacement gear. So, many decided only to write Vista drivers for devices that were less than 2-3 years old, or had large installed bases. That left a ton of perfectly good hardware abandoned as far as driver support went, and naturally, everyone blamed Microsoft and Vista.

Enough pressure was eventually put on manufacturers that many of them relented and released drivers for much of their older gear, but the PR damage of Vista was already done.

UAC was a little too obtrusive at first (it's been tweaked with patches), and the original Vista code was very bloated and unoptimized because Microsoft had completely thrown out the first 4 years of Vista development and started over from scratch, putting them way behind. Service Pack 1 actually replaced the original Vista kernal with the Server 2008 kernal, with its better performance and increased stability.

Windows 7 has further refined and optimized that kernal code, allowing Win7 to run well on older computers that don't run all that great with Vista SP1, and ran very poorly on the original Vista release. Of course, with a newer PC, Vista is plenty fast today as it is.

Those of us "in the know" know that Win7 is what Vista was really supposed to be, but Microsoft simply didn't have enough time (due to the "reboot" of the project) to tweak and optimize things enough, though most of the *features* were present. We also have the benefit of 2 more years of hardware progress. Even the cheapest entry-level PCs available today are much faster and have far more memory than most "good" PCs from 5 years ago, and those were the ones that people were complaining about Vista being slow on.

And, yes, there were plenty of complaints about XP when it was released, and many people vowed to stay with Win2000 "forever". But they didn't, because by XP SP2, XP was well-optimized, had great driver support, and was a "known commodity". Vista was a big step forward, as Win3.1>Win95 was, and as Win98>Win2000 was, so naturally driver issues were to be expected. But people simply forgot about that, because XP had been the standard for such an unprecidented amount of time that folks didn't remember having driver issues with older versions of Windows.

Bottom line: if you're using Vista now, you'll want to upgrade to Win7. If you're using XP, especially on an older machine, you might be best off keeping it until you replace your PC, but if you want to upgrade, upgrade to Win7 and skip Vista.

[hdtvfan0001]

most of them are pre-sp2 or on machines that do not have sp2 installed. As mentioned hating vista is cool, does not matter if the version people hate and whine the most about is over a year out of date with out serivce packs.

Very true....many of the major problems (all but one) came up until the recent SP2 release.

The fat code is still there, however, and there is no cure.

Even Microsoft has acknowledged they "missed the mark" with Vista. While there were good intentions perhaps, getting to SP2 was a very painful and costly experience for many hundreds of thousands of people. Even PC manufacturer websites were littered with forums full of complaints and problems for over a year.

Now that Vista is at least stable...its only ironic that WIN7 will soon be a big success, mostly because it is the operating system Vista was supposed to be...and significantly leaner and faster. The advance sales of WIN7 has nearly set records already, illustrating the craving people have for passing by Vista and moving on.

[wingrider01]

Very true....many of the major problems (all but one) came up until the recent SP2 release.

The fat code is still there, however, and there is no cure.

Even Microsoft has acknowledged they "missed the mark" with Vista. While there were good intentions perhaps, getting to SP2 was a very painful and costly experience for many hundreds of thousands of people. Even PC manufacturer websites were littered with forums full of complaints and problems for over a year.

Now that Vista is at least stable...its only ironic that WIN7 will soon be a big success, mostly because it is the operating system Vista was supposed to be...and significantly leaner and faster. The advance sales of WIN7 has nearly set records already, illustrating the craving people have for passing by Vista and moving on.

Given the fact that we will have to go through a huge validation on each application and each hardware configuation that we run at the desktop and VM level upgrading to Windows 7 will be at least a year and half down the line for us. To many steps involved to supply documentation that the pc will supply the exact same results with the new OS as it does with the old OS and the same application.

Surprisingly enough - the majority of my users have reported an increase in application speed rather then the decrease that is being reported with Vista, none of the boxes where configured any differently then they where with XP. Suspect the reason for this is the image of the OS was tuned on the initial build and the GPO's for the user are so tight they need permission to use the enter key. Everything not related to their job is either removed or GPO locked down. Have especially seen increases in the Virtual desktop builds as compared to XP

[hdtvfan0001]

Suspect the reason for this is the image of the OS was tuned on the initial build and the GPO's for the user are so tight they need permission to use the enter key. Everything not related to their job is either removed or GPO locked down. Have especially seen increases in the Virtual desktop builds as compared to XP
That may very well be.

Our little Fortune 500 company won't even allow Vista to be installed on a single desktop...based on a 6 month IT review on just how bad it is.

[DodgerKing]

The only thing wrong with Macintosh computers is that they are grossly overpriced and have been since Day One(1984). Nice looking and easier to learn to use, but that's about it.

The only Windows version that was a real disaster after 1 and 2 was ME. My laptop last year came with Vista SP1 on it. No problems, especially after turning off the nagging user account controls.

The other thing wrong with them is their interface.

First, you can never maximize any opened window and tools bars cannot be locked on most programs (nothing annoys me more than floating tools bars that are always in the way)

Second, it is very difficult to customize the OS how you want. I always change my registry files in Windows, ex. It is difficult to make Mac's OS more personal.

Third, there are many software (especially new software) that does not work with Mac OS.

I had a Mac about 5 years ago and after a few months of use, the first thing I did was put Virtual Windows XP on the thing.

[Steve Mehs]

Contrary to some of the sugar-coating here....Vista is an obese operating system, sucking the very life out of hardware left and right. In addition, when it was released....the driver support for many common devices was very poor and/or missing altogether.


Like I've said many times my 6 year old Compaq can run Vista without a hitch, no driver issues at all. If some ancient 6 year old box can run it, and have it perform better then XP, what more proof is needed to say Vista is an outstanding operating system. I had a hell of a time getting my wireless printer working on XP, takes less then 30 seconds with Vista.

Windows 7 is is just a new verision of Vista, which was a new version of 2000, which was a new version of NT4. All built on the NT platform. The NT line has always been rock solid and stable, too many nitpickers ganged up against Vista and had little hissy fits. I fail to see whats so special about all the Windows 7 and all the hype.

[wingrider01]

That may very well be.

Our little Fortune 500 company won't even allow Vista to be installed on a single desktop...based on a 6 month IT review on just how bad it is.

Their loss, we do and we have had a 30 percent drop of computer related issues since we converted. Guess it is just a fluke on 1300 machines over 4 locations for us to have less issues and better performance.

[hdtvfan0001]

Windows 7 is is just a new verision of Vista, which was a new version of 2000, which was a new version of NT4.
Kinda like saying a Maserrati is a new version of a Ford Taurus, which is a new version of a Packard, which was a new version of a Model T. :D

The differences outway the resemblences.

[rich584]

Their loss, we do and we have had a 30 percent drop of computer related issues since we converted. Guess it is just a fluke on 1300 machines over 4 locations for us to have less issues and better performance.

Do you run processes with some of them? Or are they all on desks?

Rich

[Steve Mehs]

Do a Google under "Vista problems" and still see if just a few of the most popular in the 34,000,000 hits changes anyone's mind...

I can't believe I missed that asinine point. While I refuse to use anything related to Google, I just typed 'Windows XP Problems' into Yahoo and it yielded 72,100,000 results. 'Windows 7 Problems' yields 165,000,000 results and the thing isn't even out yet. Just sayin...

[hdtvfan0001]

I can't believe I missed that asinine point. While I refuse to use anything related to Google, I just typed 'Windows XP Problems' into Yahoo and it yielded 72,100,000 results.
I can't believe you would make such an inflamatory statement.

It was a general point of reference...which I suspect you knew, but chose to use it to argue about. :rolleyes:

[Steve Mehs]

I can't believe you would make such an inflamatory statement.


Well believe it.

And no don't play dumb and innocent with me. The only reason you brought up search results was to try to show there was a large number of problems with Vista and blow it out of proportion. As with anything related to technology or in life period, everything has problems. But in comparison, using the same theory you did, XP and WIN7 yield many more hits, and that automatically make it inflammatory because you used some ridiculous logic and I turned it against you.

[DodgerKing]

I can't believe I missed that asinine point. While I refuse to use anything related to Google, I just typed 'Windows XP Problems' into Yahoo and it yielded 72,100,000 results. 'Windows 7 Problems' yields 165,000,000 results and the thing isn't even out yet. Just sayin...

Just for fun, I did the same with OS 10 and got 76,300,000 hits. That is more than Vista.

[hdtvfan0001]

Well believe it.
No surprise here.

As for the facts....they are facts.

If you perhaps read 1% of those links, you might just find what I did....reams of evidence that Vista is a resource pig, and continues to have significant driver issues. It's not a "secret".

But folks can always chose to remain in denial as long as they wish. Free country.

[Steve Mehs]

I have two machines running Vista, a 6 year old machine and a 1 year old machine. And have been using it since day 1. No driver problems at all, no sys resource problems. I'll believe my own experience over a bunch of cry babies whining on their blogs and various message boards any day. And that is a fact.

The only one in denial here is you, that Vista is an outstanding operating system that is miles better then XP.

[hdtvfan0001]

Vista is an outstanding operating system that is miles better then XP.
OK.

!rolling

[DodgerKing]

No surprise here.

As for the facts....they are facts.

If you perhaps read 1% of those links, you might just find what I did....reams of evidence that Vista is a resource pig, and continues to have significant driver issues. It's not a "secret".

But folks can always chose to remain in denial as long as they wish. Free country.

I actually agree with you. I had Windows 7 (the RTM build 7600) installed last week on my laptop. The fewer of processes running, the quicker response, the few issues, and the fact that I did not waste a couple Gigs of disk space with updates tells me that Windows 7 is much more efficient.

I since had to revert back to Vista (temporarily) because my particular graphics chip did not have a support driver for 7 yet. I could only display the window on a secondary monitor or in safe mode.

BTW, before you ask how I got a copy before release, let me say that it was not pirated and I do know someone who works for a MS Gold Certified Partner who sales, trains, and distributes MS products to manufacturing.

When I reinstalled Vista it literally took me 2 whole days to do all of the updates. Some updates had errors in which the only way to complete the update was to first manually install an update that was released 2 years ago. The amount of disc space, the amount of resources used, the slowness, and the amount of running processes is many times greater than that with 7.

With that being said, I don't hate Vista. I still prefer it over XP.

[Steve Mehs]

OK.

!rolling

Figures that's the best you can come up with.

When it doubt, post emoticons.

[Mark Holtz]

Remember what I said previously....When I rebuilt my system, I put in removable hard drives so that I can switch between XP-32 and Vista-64. The Vista drive tends to collect dust.What was missing was that I rebuilt my system in May, 2007. That was after Vista was released, but I wanted XP for legacy reasons. Heh heh heh.

First off, I am ROFLing at the comparison of issues per Operating System based upon the number of "Google hits". That is NOT a valid statistical comparison.Most people who hate Vista do so for three reasons 1) They have a crappy older machine that can't handle it (My 6 year old Compaq runs Vista beautifully) 2) They have a printer or scanner from 1942 that lacks Vista driver support (How is that Microsoft's fault exactly?) 3) It's the cool thing to do. Hating Vista makes you cool.Hmmm.... I guess that I'm one of the people who strongly dislike Vista. I cannot recommend a product that I do not believe in myself. As for your points:

1. A 2-year old system that has a Intel 6600 Dual-Core processor, 2 GB of RAM (in 2007)/8 GB of RAM (now), Nvidia 8800 GTS 320 MB video card, and a 500 GB hard drive. In 2007, that system would have been considered state of the art.
2. The funny part is that my HP Laserjet 4 printer, purchased in 1993, still ran PERFECTLY with Windows Vista. Those things were built like tanks, and were widely emulated. (The only reason I gave mine away was because I needed a color laser printer and it was a energy hog.) I strongly believe that computer components should last at least five years. (I still cannot believe your "1942" comment, considering that no one owned a PC in 1942, laser printers were invented in 1969, dot matrix in 1970, and inkjet in 1976)
3. OK. Whatever. I just look at the following: Major companies are not rolling out Vista installs, preferring to pay the premium for XP downgrades. Some, upon hearing about Windows 7, have decided to skip Vista alltogether. (The corporate IT policy at the company I work for does not ALLOW Vista on the corporate network, despite the fact that we support Vista in our software.) Some software manufacturers are not upgrading their software to support Vista OR Win7. One amusing one:You have clients that all use software that only integrates with the management software you currently use. Everything is currently working and running fine but it requires systems with IE6 and Windows XP. The company that created the management software has decided not to support Vista/Win7 or any of the newer browsers till at least 2011.(Original message) (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2162348#post2162348) Of all the "regular" folks that I meet (not technically sophisticated unlike the users of DBSTalk) including those that I answer as technical support that have used Vista, NONE has said "They liked Vista". Most have said, "I would rather be using XP." OUCH!Have I played around with Windows 7? Yes. I am FULLY aware that Win7 is basically the same code base as Windows Vista. Based upon my testing of the Beta from January and the limited testing of the RC, it feels that Win 7 is snappier and the user interface has been improved over Vista. Still, I can't shake the feeling that Windows 7 should be called "Vista Apology".

It may soon be irrelevant. With high-speed Internet, we may have more-and-more "software as a service" implementations to where you access the software from a web browser. While it won't service power users, it will be fine for regular users. At that point, Windows, Mac, or Linux become irrelevant as the browser becomes key. Gee, Linux looks pretty cheap compared to Windows and Mac. This means we would have come full circle as computers were originally "dumb terminals" hooked up to central servers.

[Zellio]

1. A 2-year old system that has a Intel 6600 Dual-Core processor, 2 GB of RAM (in 1997)/8 GB of RAM (now), Nvidia 8800 GTS 320 MB video card, and a 500 GB hard drive. In 1997, that system would have been considered state of the art.

Um, in 1997 a machine like that would be a supercomputer, not state of the art.

Two year old system eh? Most people I know, even my system with core i7, doesn't have 8 gigs.

3. OK. Whatever. I just look at the following: Major companies are not rolling out Vista installs, preferring to pay the premium for XP downgrades. Some, upon hearing about Windows 7, have decided to skip Vista alltogether. (The corporate IT policy at the company I work for does not ALLOW Vista on the corporate network, despite the fact that we support Vista in our software.) Some software manufacturers are not upgrading their software to support Vista OR Win7. One amusing one:(Original message) (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2162348#post2162348) Of all the "regular" folks that I meet (not technically sophisticated unlike the users of DBSTalk) including those that I answer as technical support that have used Vista, NONE has said "They liked Vista". Most have said, "I would rather be using XP." OUCH!Have I played around with Windows 7? Yes. I am FULLY aware that Win7 is basically the same code base as Windows Vista. Based upon my testing of the Beta from January and the limited testing of the RC, it feels that Win 7 is snappier and the user interface has been improved over Vista. Still, I can't shake the feeling that Windows 7 should be called "Vista Apology".

Or maybe corporate fools in the topic may just want to stop stretching the facts. Vista is not being rolled into businesses the same way Xp wasn't for years, while Windows 2000 was in businesses.

Now Xp is FINALLY seeing massive rollout in businesses. Is that a failure guys? Maybe you should be complaining about how much of a failure it is for 7 year old software to be finally making rounds in businesses?

For such a failure it's funny that Vista has sold 100 million copies:

http://www.betanews.com/article/100-million-copies-sold-but-Vista-mostly-absent-at-CES/1199824775

Get off the fanboy horse. Vista isn't the crap you try to make it out to be.

[Zellio]

OK.

!rolling

This seems to be the best argument you've given the entire topic. If you google 'LOL', you will find 316,000,000 more children that you can talk with and leave the conversation with the grownups, because you can't figure out how to have a conversation in a logical, mature manner.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=LOL&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Zellio]

Performance, Privacy and DRM were the main things that killed Vista at the consumer level. Hardware costs and compatibility really killed it for most commercial organizations.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Oh good, lets link everyone to the number one FUD source for Windows Vista.

Drm? Bull**** used in any anti-Vista argument, except the only problem is, it has the same drm in ANY OS. The drm is needed if you watch bluray or hddvd disks on your pc.

[Mark Holtz]

Um, in 1997 a machine like that would be a supercomputer, not state of the art.I completely mistyped there, and the original statement has been corrected to 2007.Two year old system eh? Most people I know, even my system with core i7, doesn't have 8 gigs.You need a 64-bit operating system in order to support 8 GB. With rebates, this was a $70 upgrade. Yes, it's a little overkill. However, more memory means less swapping to the hard drive.Or maybe corporate fools in the topic may just want to stop stretching the facts. Vista is not being rolled into businesses the same way Xp wasn't for years, while Windows 2000 was in businesses.As stated in [thread=161535]YouTube and Digg Warning Users: IE6 Support Going Away[/quote], business consider IT an expense that must be minimized, and they cannot have systems that break business-critical systems. No need to rehash that topic.For such a failure it's funny that Vista has sold 100 million copies: http://www.betanews.com/article/100-million-copies-sold-but-Vista-mostly-absent-at-CES/1199824775The title of the article is "100 million copies sold, but Vista mostly absent at CES", and is published January 8, 2008, 3:39 PM. One quote from the article:In a meeting with BetaNews Monday, Aaron Coldiron, senior marketing manager for Windows Vista, acknowledged that Microsoft has done little to offer a compelling story for its flagship operating system, but promised changes were afoot.

While Vista has been available to the public for nearly a year, many consumers haven't been eager to make the upgrade. Initial driver and application compatibility problems plagued early adopters, and Windows XP is still seen as "good enough" for a large percentage of users.[/qute]Also, under Microsoft policies, for a Windows XP "downgrade", you still had to purchase a copy of Vista for later upgrading. In my book, that qualifies as a "sale", not a installation. And, Microsoft is only allowing the downgrade rights to "business" users, not "home" users.[QUOTE=Zellio;2169963]Vista isn't the crap you try to make it out to be.I never used the word "crap". I used the word "soured".

The fact is that if a piece of hardware or software worked PERFECTLY FINE under XP, but does not work under Vista, then it is "useless". If the only compelling reason to upgrade the software is so that it works with Vista, with no other improvements (to me) and charge me $100 per license, then it's a big negative. If it breaks equipment that is less than five years old, then it is useless.

What I liked about Microsoft's Win 7 Beta/RC was that it allowed everyone to try out the software and make sure that it was compatible with their software.

[Mark Holtz]

Here is the amusing part...

Microsoft released Vista on January 30th, 2007. It is now 30 months since the release to the general public. Yet, it still spawns a strong debate.

[Zellio]

I completely mistyped there, and the original statement has been corrected to 2007.

Heh. Kind of a large mistyping eh? :p

You need a 64-bit operating system in order to support 8 GB. With rebates, this was a $70 upgrade. Yes, it's a little overkill. However, more memory means less swapping to the hard drive.

I wouldn't say it's overkill either, I was making a point in 8 gigs not being widely available today, much less in 1997 ;)

As stated in [thread=161535]YouTube and Digg Warning Users: IE6 Support Going Away, business consider IT an expense that must be minimized, and they cannot have systems that break business-critical systems. No need to rehash that topic.

I agree, but if people in the topic are going to mention Vista as a corporate failure, they need to know the truth.

The title of the article is "100 million copies sold, but Vista mostly absent at CES", and is published January 8, 2008, 3:39 PM. One quote from the article:[quote]In a meeting with BetaNews Monday, Aaron Coldiron, senior marketing manager for Windows Vista, acknowledged that Microsoft has done little to offer a compelling story for its flagship operating system, but promised changes were afoot.

While Vista has been available to the public for nearly a year, many consumers haven't been eager to make the upgrade. Initial driver and application compatibility problems plagued early adopters, and Windows XP is still seen as "good enough" for a large percentage of users. [/qute] Also, under Microsoft policies, for a Windows XP "downgrade", you still had to purchase a copy of Vista for later upgrading. In my book, that qualifies as a "sale", not a installation. And, Microsoft is only allowing the downgrade rights to "business" users, not "home" users.

Eh. You DO know Xp wasn't a success until SP2? In fact, it was far less of a success then Vista is now.

I never used the word "crap". I used the word "soured".

The fact is that if a piece of hardware or software worked PERFECTLY FINE under XP, but does not work under Vista, then it is "useless". If the only compelling reason to upgrade the software is so that it works with Vista, with no other improvements (to me) and charge me $100 per license, then it's a big negative. If it breaks equipment that is less than five years old, then it is useless.

What I liked about Microsoft's Win 7 Beta/RC was that it allowed everyone to try out the software and make sure that it was compatible with their software.

An upgrade to an aging core and better security is not enough for you? UAC helps everyone, if they go beyond the nag. And you don't have to be a noob, you can be a expert, and it helps to. The nagging only bothers 'experts' who are full of themselves and believe that they know it all. The real reality of UAC is, it blocks any random attack the way limited user account modes do, and it gives limited account access in a full acess environment.

Sure, you can run in a limited account mode, but if your doing anything that involves large numbers of programs during the day, or even a few, that limited access user account will became far more annoying then UAC ever is.

[wingrider01]

Do you run processes with some of them? Or are they all on desks?

Rich

Mixture

desktops - 3 standard configurations from the same vendor
laptops - 2 standard configurations from the same vendor
VMView desktop for remote access to internal applications
VMware virtual boxs running services and processes that handles things like downloading files from remote locations, pushing completed reports to remote locations, these run 7x24x365
MediaCenter configurations to stream movies and video to locations within the building

[wingrider01]

Here is the amusing part...

Microsoft released Vista on January 30th, 2007. It is now 30 months since the release to the general public. Yet, it still spawns a strong debate.

point of this comment being what? Can name numerous things that have occurred in the last 100 years that still can spawn strong debate.

[wingrider01]

No surprise here.

As for the facts....they are facts.

If you perhaps read 1% of those links, you might just find what I did....reams of evidence that Vista is a resource pig, and continues to have significant driver issues. It's not a "secret".

But folks can always chose to remain in denial as long as they wish. Free country.

You are 100 percent correct, folks can choose to remain in denial as long as they wish, it is, as you say, a free country.

Prefer to go from long term expierence on something like this rather then reports that are years out of date, but are always brought up by people trying to make a point, not to mention sites that have a reputation for spreading FUD for anything that MS does.