XP era ends--Can we put a sock in it already?
So Vista versus XP (maybe versus Mac?) has replaced Twitter as the collective angst moment du jour. At the end of the month, big computer makers won't any longer install Windows XP on their machines.
The impending transition has ignited the predictable existential gabfest, but I'm with Larry Dignan when he says that the complainers should either move away from Windows or just "shut up."
Amen to that.
(Credit:
CNET Networks)
Has the hand-wringing over Vista's shortcomings been overwrought? You bet. Vista is hardly the disaster portrayed by its most severe critics. As Windows XP takes a final bow, let's not forget the initial reaction when it debuted in late October 2001. The country was already in a fretful mood because of the September 11 attacks less than two months earlier. Despite a big marketing push, the product had its automatic legions of detractors. Frankly, Microsoft never receives uniformly glowing reviews for its various operating systems upgrades. That's been the case with every incarnation of Windows I can recall.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, the project formerly known as Longhorn, promised more than it delivered. Without revisiting all the gory details, the product that finally showed up was a disappointment, considering the advance hype. Even today, based on anecdotal evidence, networking on laptops is finicky and it's easier to upset Vista than XP. Meanwhile, lukewarm developer response continues to be a problem. If you want to entertain yourself reading more about what else is screwed up about the product, check out CNET's Windows Vista Forum.
But if past is prologue, many of these issues will fade away. Microsoft rarely produces "wow" products straight out the gate. But it listens to customers and finally fixes most of the really annoying problems. The more immediate problem facing Microsoft is the dearth of Vista-specific software. A recent study claims that 92 percent of developers are sitting this one out.
My guess is that this is just a moment in time. Microsoft may be surprised by the study's lopsided findings but over three decades, but it's learned how to cultivate developer support. This too, will pass.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
Windows 95 and 98 had lines of people outside stores waiting for them.
I'm sure you can find someone who complains about anything, but those OS updates were very popular. It was akin to how Apple OS updates are now received.
Would what the Vista SUXXX crowd do if they had to end these discussions.
That's not just my experience, either. My company has it deployed on hundreds of workstations, and we've never had any problems with it.
Perhaps it isn't everyone's experience, but my experience has been nothing but positive. It's time to move out of 2001, and get with the program.
The computers that give me the most issues are the Vista Machines. Why? Vista itself. True the interface on XP is know klunky and win 95...Ugh. But they "just work" for ther jobs and Vista hasn't quite hit the "it just works" stage that every version of windows I've ever had prior has done.
No insane hardware needed.
All of these programs need the Windows OS. No Windows, no shovelware, no kickbacks to dell/hp/acer/etc.
I'll stick with Windows 2000, safe behind a router, hardware firewall, and security applications that *don't* come from the same company as the operating system. After all, if you cannot trust them to get the OS right, why trust them to get the rest right?
Windows 2000 is Good Enough. It keeps me off the new-computer-every-few-years merry go round, and does everything I need it to do. I don't need XP *or* Vista!
Every Windows release is met with scorn. To the poster above, even windows 95 and 98 were not received with fanfare by all. And when I was working for an electronics retailer, we had lines of people waiting to buy Vista on launch day. I distinctly remember one of my computer science professors shortly after Windows XP was released scorning the O/S stating: Who the hell has 128 megs of ram to run this crap?
Most of Vista's scorning does come from original overhype but I also believe it comes from people's irationality of backwards campatibility. Yeah you can run the latest Linux flavor on a 300 mhz box with 64 megs of ram. But so many people complained when they tried to upgrade an XP box to run on Vista. Sure it may have met the minimum specs, but since when has any piece of software run well under minimum specs? Try running XP on a 300 mhz processor and 64 megs of RAM (its minimum reqs). See how much its loved.
I personally believe any person who aproprietly researched Vista and understood you need 2 gigs of ram and a dual core processor (a standard configuration to just about any machine built today) to run it well have few or no issues. I did that from day 1 and continue to enjoy a stable and fast OS. It isn't perfect, but I do feel it is a step up from XP and anyone looking for a new box should look into getting Vista.
Makes me wonder what constitutes a disaster. Maybe if Vista was causing PCs to explode?
Is Vista better than XP? Yes. Has MSFT made these improvements into a compelling story to the user? No.
I got an HP AMD64 bit desktop in 2006 with the idea of upgrading to Vista 64 bit ultimate when it came out. I called HP support in 2007 to confirm that I had a 64bit machine since the signature seemed to be different from what some websites said. I was told by HP support not to install Vista and certainly not the 64bit. I went ahead and installed it anyways in March 2007. No crashes till date. I had a driver or two missing - got it from planet64.
I'm getting pissed Vista users taking a really good look at Ubuntu, more every month. We may be close to fixing Bug Number One. ...which will be awesome ^_^
- by T38 June 17, 2008 11:04 AM PDT
- Quote: I'm with Larry Dignan when he says that the complainers should either move away from Windows or just "shut up."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (57 Comments)Easier said than done. I'm a big Linux guy, but my wife, who runs two businesses, isn't. She has two products that make up her core business software, and no, they aren't something that you can pick up at your local Best Buy. Guess what? Both require Windows and both specifically state "will not work with Windows Vista."
This makes it a real PITA when it comes time to buy new computers for her business, since all you can get anymore is Vista. What do you suggest people like her do? Move to Vista? Not if the developer won't support it. Hmmm....maybe run the software under Wine? Unfortunately, Wine or Cedega aren't 100% compatible. Some software works, some doesn't. IME, most doesn't.
So while your post *sounds* like a reasonable position to take, it ignores a lot of practical realities. Sometimes you *can't* migrate to another O/S -- Vista or otherwise -- even if you want to.