• iturk

    Vista is Microsoft's biggest blunder since Windows Me. This is stupid.

  • SalCan

    Stupid or not, at some point MS has to move entirely to Vista. If they keep going the way they are going consumers and businesses are going to skip Vista altogether and go right to Windows 7.

    I'm not sure where that leaves us users. I don't see any need to upgrade just yet…

  • JoelGeek

    I’m still using XP but I’m going to try to get a machine up and running with the latest round of Vista. I’m hearing really good things from a number of people about the improvements that have been made since launch.

    I think the biggest problem is that the computer manufacturers loaded up the machines with so much trial software when they shipped with Vista that consumers had a terrible first experience. At least that was my experience with a bunch of people that I helped purchase new machines.

  • asdfasdfasd

    I still think industry will skip over vista, they have no incentive to change to vista since xp does such a good job.

    The only time I think that most of industry will make a move is after Vista SP2 or really near the launch of windows 7. Face it industry is always waiting for ultimate reliability and most industry folks I know (including myself) are using a vista bought machine that is downgraded to XP thanks to the volume license agreeement. 

  • awesomeo

    I doubt that even half of the Vista bashers have even tried it out. Yes it uses more memory, as does every new OS. Yes, there are things you don't like. That's life. You have to use your brain a little bit and customize your machine to your liking, no matter what OS it has.

    Much of the supposed memory hoggage that people always point out is really not new. What Vista does is maintain a list of frequently used programs and loads them into memory at startup so that they launch faster. If that memory space is needed, it is made available to other programs. Windows 98 ran best with 64 megs, 2000 ran best with 128, XP liked 512, Vista likes 2048. See a pattern here?

    I have had far fewer crashes than with XP. I believe this is mostly due to my using Vista x64, where drivers are required to be signed and approved by MS. In any case, it runs more reliably. Working with 8 gigs of ram and having the drivers for your hardware is a big plus. With a little work, you can get almost any program to work well with it, as long as they don't require installing drivers. Many features are there that you won't even notice for some time, but you'll appreciate them when you need them. 

    Vista is nothing like Me. Me was crap, it was horrible and nasty on every level. Vista is built on stable NT code and the only reason it gets a bad rap is because everyone is afraid to move away from their cozy XP mindset.

    Now I don't advocate moving to Vista for no reason. If you have XP, then keep it if it works for you. If you're building a new machine, give it a try, dig into it and make it how you want it. If you don't give up after 5 minutes because you miss your dear, sweet XP, you'll find some things you really enjoy.

  • joeinazusa

    Sorry, but Vista is not just bad in memory.  And yes, I am am using it on a regular basis to troubleshoot software issue for businesses. 

    Alot of it is just getting updated software, but I remember XP being pretty compatible with 2000 programs except for system type software (Antivirus etc) but vista is a new level of incompatibility.Not to mention I hate when a customer's jaw drops when I tell them they have to update to the never version, at a cost of 4K, because there is no work around.  Usually they are happier returning the Vista box and purchasing an XP box.  Now what to do…argg  (horde copies lol)

  • asdfasdfasd

    awesomo – how many crashes did you have with XP? I don't have any total up time for XP Pro is 99.999% and stable as hell. I think joeinazusa brings up a great point that because vista builds of most softare are different then XP builds industry will not want to invest into new versions of indsutrial software packages at high high costs.

    Drivers required to be signed are not a big thing and you can still force them not to be if you know how as was available in XP. Vista is like ME in the sense that it reqired major software changes, and it was NOT accepted by industry.

    Vista adoption is not about the common user picking it up it is about industry using it and they are still not doing so. I think you miss this point.

  • awesomeo

    XP has some very random crashes for no reason when I work with video, play games, etc. I've swapped sound cards, video cards, motherboards, memory, all to no avail. It just plain hates heavy workloads unless you have the right combination of hardware and drivers. This goes back to driver signing, sometimes you can get a good unsigned driver, but most are unstable.

    I can't say this is true in all cases, but much of the blame for software incompatibilities lies with the vendors. Poorly written installers and software have always plagued the PC. Much of their problems stem from trying to install drivers onto the system. The only people to blame for charging so much for software "upgrades" are the vendors of that software.

  • hajila1

    At least we all know how to upgrade XP to Vista for free at least :)


  • noBrainer

    I don't get it. People keep on whinning but refuse to open their mind give Linux or  any other unix based OS a test drive. Worst, they rather paid hundreds of dollars for a cappy windows but  refuse to pay less than 50 lousy bucks with OS loaded full of functional complete applications.

    How pethetic isn't it? 

  • davethejackal

    I'd say this is someone's big chance. Just like when IBM decided the world needed to move on to OS2 and the world said "excuse me, but no!". Perhaps apple could drop the apple only restrictions on OSX, improve the windows compatibility of it's OS and make a killing?

    If you're going to have to adopt a radically different OS why not go with 'the original' OSX rather than Vista?