I'm seriously wondering who would want to downgrade from Vista to XP. I have had less problem on Windows Vista than on Windows XP, which were rare even on Windows XP.
The only problem I have faced on Windows Vista is a folder corruption issue about 3 months ago, that was traced to that damn faulty RealTek driver for the sound chip in my notebook that really should have been very apparent in the first place.
When you consider software compatibility, user training, support training, risk mitigation, security compliance, patch automation, and the cost for dealing with those topics during a client OS upgrade; vista doesn't make good snese for a business.
Imagine that as you hire new people and have to purchase a PC for them, that all you can get is Vista on the new machines. Your help desk now has to support two totally different sets of users. Your custom business apps may not install or run correctly on Vista with all of it's new security. Users can't even help other users with simple questions if they are on different OSes with different ways to do things, different menues, different start methods, etc.
It's really common in almost any business to migrate the entire company, or perhaps an entire department, from one OS to another. Haphazardly dropping VIsta into an XP office would be such a nightmare that a business would switch its purchase of new PCs to another company if say Dell didn't support XP on the machines.
Now, individual users may not have the same issues, but think about someone like my Mother who has learned to use XP to do email and simple web browsing. Retraining her to use Vista, with all of its new menues and security prompts and such would be a pain. I bought her a new laptop with XP installed just to avoid a marathon training session and months of phone calls asking about some Vista wierdness she just ran into.
Which OS is best sometimes has little to do with the technical aspects of the OS; for many, the compatibility with an installed base is way more important in OS selection.
The time wasted on just doing normal tasks on vista makes me not want to leave XP. Oh sure it has some pretty little featurettes, that I like, but nothing that I can't get somewhere else for XP (and cheaper).
I can't reply to the reliability, but vista does have a large number of fixes compared to XP, considering how long XP has been available.
I think microsoft is discovering that just because they put wings on it, doesn't mean that people will buy.
My Games don't work right. My PDA no longer syncs right. My Media Center doesn't media center. Stability in general is a lot worse. The system is just buggy.
The only reason I don't downgrade is that I wanted bitlocker and after much gnashing of teeth I got that to work.
Vista on a laptop has merits. Its power mgmt features alone make it worthwhile. However on a desktop it?s a hog. Its firewall causes more problems then it solves. Its driver support if abysmal at best. (I?m still having issues with my scanner, SLI setup, and sound card.) Game support is for complete crap. And then there is the afore mentioned fact that it takes up more resources natively. That?s why I backed down on my XPS system back to XP. All the features in the world don?t make up for the above.
Getting Vista stable took a lot of work and over a month due almost entirely to issues with drivers. There were some hardware issues. My CD ROM drive (a totally basic deal) wasn't compatible, but that was easily replaced. I also replaced the graphics card, which I had already intended to do, but if I hadn't that might have bothered me. My 3-year-old HP scanner isn't supported by HP for Vista, which really ticks me off, but that's not Microsoft's fault.
I was running Windows 2000 on the PC that went to Vista and 2000 was very stable. Even so, once the issues were ironed out, Vista has been terrific. I'm a harsh MS critic, so I'm not saying this lightly.
It's interesting that you mention a problem with RealTek. For some reason a RealTek driver was downloaded and installed during an update and it caused sound problems. I don't have any hardware that would use it, as far as I know, and disabling it was easy, but now I'll probably look further into it.
I've been offering XP as an Option for those who can't afford multiple software & peripheral replacements at once. Ie Quickbooks, Office, Multifuntion printers, and any other non supported applications which they need. Since February, I have done over 15 downgrades. 132 installs for those who couldn't afford even an OS install, have been offering ubuntu.
Most people doing real work, with real applications, on real networks with hundreds of workstations need to keep things stable and consistent, especially when Vista provides no inherent value in itself (as it would if it included Word instead of Notepad for instance). It appears that your little one notebook world, probably used only to surf pr0n, is is seriously out of touch with reality.
A one-man shop that just wants a PC to do their everyday task, and not have to learn to be a geek. Or spend all night figuring out how to get past the approve or deny thingy.
I want to downgrade from Vista to XP. If you are wondering this I ask myself what what type of computer u have that does not give u any problems with vista? In my case, as with many people I have talked to, I have had the worst experience with Vista, nothing is compatible, it is very monopolist and barely lets me do what I want with my computer.
Umm, yeah. Like when MSFT said they would revoke all Windows NT 4.0-based MCSE certs in October 2001, right? That died awful quick when they realized that only a damned small percentage of NT 4.0 cert-holders did one for Win2k.
Maybe like when MSFT laid down the various End-Of-Life schedules, only to be forced to relent and streatch 'em out...
Like it or lump it, Vista is a dog and a hog. No one in business apparently wants or even cares to bother with it (for instance, only 2% --yes, TWO percent-- of UK businesses use Vista right now). If business wants XP, it'll get XP. IF MSFT doesn't want to play ball, then business will go elsewhere.
I honestly hope that MSFT has the arrogance to carry through on their demands this time. Then, as businesses slowly start leaving MSFT for other OSes when faced with either XP or no Windows at all, they can drown in their own hubris.
(what you say? businesses can't get an OEM PC or server w/o Windows on it? I certainly beg to differ - they can get 'em with no OS if they like... Dell and HP both do this on a regular basis, as do most other large OEMs).
Shops told of MS reps coming into the stores and removing XP from the shelves and MS brags about how many Vista licences they sold.
MS will turn around and brag about how "Vista is so successful that all PC manufacturers have gone to Vista!" right after ordering the OEM's to stop loading XP. Just watch.
Microsoft is trying to force people to switch to Vista by not supporting XP after January 31. A way to force consumers to upgrade to their new OS and put more money in their pockets. XP is very stable now and offers everything Vista does and even more from 3rd parties for free. Unless there is really a good reason and a justified need to purchase a new pc with a new operating system then switching would make sense, but spending near $1000 or more just to stare at a fancy desktop is not an option for most consumers and business who are used to their current OS.
Forcing consumers to purchase a monopoly product that requires them to purchase new hardware and software and results in huge collateral expense, when what they have works fine, is bullying of the most spivish kind.
I hope Microsoft really does pull the plug on XP support in the EU. Result - goodbye Microsoft - hello real competition.
I don't recall being held at gunpoint and told that it was a matter of life or death to buy a new PC with Vista.
This year I have bought about 15 new desktop PCs all with XP Pro. I could have bought Vista, but I opted for XP because I know all of our software works flawlessly on it.
Even before this announcement, there were plenty of resellers still offering desktops loaded with XP Pro.
I agree with u. Microsoft = monopoly. I am so glad they lost their case and they gotta pay 700 million, but the bad part is that this is not enough money for those monopolists. I feel stupid for buying a vistaoperated computer, next time I am so buying an Apple computer
I know some ultra-ultra microsoft or vista fans will come to bash this but...
I have Vista and installed it, tested it for a month and wow, that was the most sluggish OS comparing to XP. The boot process was so slow and other things. The Vista Areo graphics thing is cool but, hey!! i want to work as fast as it can, not to stare to an amazing desktop background. And i think the demand of more and more memory is just pointless, why? because if you have an operating system like xp that works fast and very good, why to torture your system?
If you'd like some numbers to go with that: I booted my system in XP Home, ran 3DMark06, rebooted into Vista Home Premium, and ran 3DMark ... and lost a little over 1000 3DMarks from the score, a 6.4% reduction in performance.
WinXP only "sees" 2.3GB of my 4GB of RAM. Ok, it's 32bit and I expected something like this. Likewise, Vista x32 sees about the same. Vista x64 sees all 4GB. However...as I sit here typing this, XP is utilitizing 17% of available RAM (about 0.4GB); Either version of Vista would be using 25-26% (about 1GB) while doing the same...and this is with Aero turned off.
I have to take issue with everything being 'slow' in Vista. From my experiences, I've had everything come up just as fast or faster than in Windows XP, excepting when a driver was giving me fuss a month ago.
Secondly, Vista doesn't really boost the requirements that much. I have been thinking about running Vista on my parents 4 year old HP Media Center computer, and everything checks out as being Vista-compatible except the video card, which I was planning on tossing anyway because..... well, I'll be honest here, the ATI X300 video card BITES ASS NOW! And it was the best video card offered at the time!
Just for the heck of it (having a dozen salvaged hdd's) I loaded Win95B in my 550MHz P3.
That sucker booted fast! I then added QPro for DOS and some other business programs (more salvage from the office), and it was near instant. (I might try QPro for Windows some day, just for the heck of it.)
If that was a pure offline machine, for production only, and if I could get hardware and driver support (which is the killer), I'd be using 95 on it. The convenience of not needing to sit around and twiddle thumbs to wait for something that serves my purpose no better is great.
BTW, running the original Quake on a 550Mhz machine is a real blast. Got my butt kicked, but good.
How do we revolt? How can we just resist Microsoft? Do we need them to keep running XP? What happens when they remove support for it? Would we be able to form a self support group? Could they block us from reinstalling XP?
As an ex-Microsoft employee I was looking forward to Vista. My joy was short lived. I have two systems loaded with Vista Ultimate. My wife has placed an Apple sticker on her laptop that came with her iPod. She wrote ?I wish I was?? on it. That pretty much sums up her feelings and mine too. This OS is fat and cumbersome. It just takes too long to do what you need to do. Add Office 2007 to the mix and you have a ton of unproductive time relearning how to do your everyday tasks. Downgrade me too!
1. Support for XP is not going away anytime soon. 2. XP may leave the retail channel soon but nobody will be forced to go buy Vista and install it. There's still lots of 95, 98 ME and 3.1 users out there right? I have not yet heard that hte MS police track you down and force you to put anything on an existing box. 3. After XP goes away from retail you still don't have to buy Vista to get a shiny new chunck of hardware.
But the big question for me is: Can't relapce Vista and XP with 2000/98 and XP go back to 2001 and have the exact same conversation.
And one more thing: New MS operating systems are always bigger than the previous because they are designed to take advantage of the ever faster, better, cheaper hardware that will be released during the life of the OS. I am not statng this as praise just fact.
This is a very valid point. As you say, substitute Vista with XP & XP with 98 & you did have much the same debate; with one exception, back then, most appreciated that XP, even at launch was significantly more stable than even 98SE, & just forget ME, that was a true dog. Thing is, XP IS stable, relatively light on resources, definately not to be replaced on any system not equipped with a fast dual core processor. Vista may turn out to be more stable than XP, whether it is significantly so remains to be seen. Personally, I want my processor to be working running things like VST instruments, NOT the OS. So Vista is out for me, my new system is XP & VERY fast and capable.
This is now Dec. 2008 and I'm using Intel Q6600 Quad CPU with 6 gb Ram and Vista Premium is still a screwup. It would not do windows update and crash every other day. I kept an XP Pro machine just to run things Vista Premium refuses to run. Windows 7 is just a few months away. What is MS doing and why is Vista so screwed up? I won't recommend anybody to go Vista!
BTW. I keep putting XP Pro on any new machine I have to add at work and I can still get them at my local computer parts shop.
Although we are using a lot more Macs and Linux computers these days we still need some MS machines and we can't run Vista due to software incompatibilities.
So in our case, XP, rather than Vista, is the upgrade.
Next time instead of wasting your time creating 10 different versions of the same OS, JUST HAVE 2. A desktop and a Server version. That will give you more time to do it right + it will make your customers really happy. Bunch of morons.
I am not planning to buy Vista, not now, not ever.
After so many years of putting junk on top of junk there was only one possible outcome, VISTA.
I think is time to start again. Make the next version of Windows based on a Unix Kernel. Maybe BSD and create a layer like wine for all your old stuff. So basically do what Apple did.
On the Dell.com website you can find the offering of several of its products with Windows XP Home Edition already installed and ready for the consumer/user. Yippee! Because I was seriously considering an Apple. I'm told that the Apple OS is easier to master than Vista. What ever possessed Microsoft to offer such an esoteric, complicated system?!
The average Dell user is a novice PC user oblivious to the existance of Vista who buys it from Wal-Mart and don't have that option. Since those come with Premium installled, they don't even have an option, so this offering by the PC makers and Microsoft is about like trying to stop the Titanic from sinking with a Hello Kitty Band Aid.
Last July I wanted to purchase a laptop for my wife's birthday. She mainly does word processing, email, internet surfing and IM. So I wanted a low end laptop. I shopped around and found that the Vista computers being offered at $400-$600 only had Vista Basic installed with 512 mb RAM. I quickly discovered from my research that this configuration would yield a dog. Even worse, at that time Dell would only sell a laptop upgraded to 1gb ram if Vista premium was also purchased.
Consequently, I ended up buying a used IBM A31 running a P4 at 1.7 ghz, with 1 gb RAM, and XP pro. I spent under $300 (including a 2 year warranty) and the computer has been more than satifactory. However, if I could have bought a new laptop with XP loaded, I would have never looked for a used one.
But in the real world, my accounting software among many many other applications we use at work does not run on Linux.
That's the reality Linux and OSX needs to face. If they want to be taken serious in the business world, outside of the server room and on to the desktops, they need to get with developers and get some software released for it. Now before you go ballistic and start screaming open source, we use OpenOffice on 50% of the desktops at my work. But there are no open source alternatives to the other things that are required for our business to run. I like to play around with Gimp, but when it comes right down to it, PhotoShop is far superior... and that's what I would expect with $699 vs. FREE.
As for OSX, it's good for some things, but it seems they are geared more towards the creative side of things. We use FinalCut a lot at work and that's where the Mac really shines, but PhotoShop on the Mac works just the same as it does on a PC.
At home I have all 3 but tend to be on my PC more than anything just for the fact that I am an avid gamer and that's a market that is a market that Windows pretty much owns. Granted OSX is getting it's feet wet, but no one buys a Mac to play games.
The Vista upgrade unfortunately has no compelling reason.
95 brought a "mac'like" ease of use. 98 brought internet technologies and multimedia. ME failed because it brought nothing compelling and was less stable than 98. 2000 brought stability. XP adds further stability, its quicker than 2000, and has vast compatibility with devices.
Vista unfortunately does not add leaps in stability, is sluggish on all but top end PCs and it has compatibility issues. It tries to be friendly, but its endless pop ups come off as annoying. Its multimedia is bloated with DRM causing slow operations which may benefit large corps but does nothing for users. Vista Ultimate is the true Vista but at a cost of hundreds leaving users to agonize over which affordable hobbled version fits their economic class.
A colossal failure?? Microsoft seems to feel adoption is inevitable. The question is will people play along or resist. Personally I'm still on XP and even considering a MAC, but the cost of an Apple is another frustrating conversation.
The same people that run out and buy the latest fashions spouting gratuitous accolades and spinning around dizzily for all to admire in wonder give about as little thought, and work with the nuts and bolts as much as they sew, to the intelligent acquisition and application of a tool. Because it is new, because it is glitzy, and because it is the latest thing, the throngs lap their way to the purveyor eagerly, protesting that all who don't are obviously missing the point.
No intention of buying a half baked green potato despite the adled, faux and flitty wisdom of reassuring myself all will be right with patches and upgrades.
This is the boldest move yet in an occluded, colluded market whose only interests are to wrest the hard earned dollars away from those that are enticed into believing that they have a clue.
People are laughing, multitudes of people are laughing, and pointing, at the new clothes. The new winter coat is almost ready for the emperor.
amd/ati has lost my business for good since all the updates over the last few months are vista skewed and don't work that well on any operating system, actually worse on xp now.
Anyone that thinks vista is a remotely reasonable upgrade has one hand on their mouse and the other in their lap, not doing much of anything with the new fashion.
Now would be an excellent moment for Microsoft to take the offensive and counter this retro-movement with incentives for users to bolster Vista dominance. Offer every brave soul who stood by Microsoft in the face of this onslaught against Vista a bonus. Give us a free upgrade to Vista Ultimate. That's a move that would reward loyalty and hasten the day when XP supporters are smilingly classed with those who swore the automobile would never replace the good old horse n' buggy and tv would never take the place of radio.
I have to agree that Microsoft, if it wants to bolster Vista, should give everyone with Home Basic an upgrade to Home Premium and Home Premium to Ultimate.
Though, I don't understand why people are whining about Vista, I get about the same performance on my Toshiba Vista notebook in games as with another Toshiba XP Notebook that's the same stuff in it, just a different OS.
Our company has no intention of moving to vista. We have loaded it onto some test computers to compare it against XP. Here's the responses so far from the testers and department heads (some after hearing the test data)...
1. 15 GB just for the OS? You're kidding, right? 2. Why did they rearrange everything? I can't find the settings anymore. 3. We have to buy a new graphics card and more memory just to make it run on the test computer? We just got that computer not long ago. 4. Why is it so slow? I thought it was supposed to be better? 5. Did you read that article about high definition home movies not working because of the DRM? 6. Yea, the aero interface is neat, but it doesn't improve my productivity one bit. What was the point? 7. Why doesn't the activation work? All I did was reload it again. 8. We're going to have to do atleast 25 computers before we can use the KMS activation service? 9. What do you mean "they'll have to connect with the KMS service atleast once every 6 months"? All the guys out in the field aren't going to like that. 10. We let it run out without activating it to see what happens. The only thing you can do with it is activate it, you can't even log in. If this was a field computer, they'd have to mail the computer to corporate. 11. We loaded one with developer tools: office 2007, sql server desktop edition, visual studio 2005, visual safesource, antivirus software... it all works. Wow, an actual positive feedback. 12. Only one fourth of our computers will run vista business with the aero interface?
Enough said. Microsoft? We are not impressed with vista and plan to stick with XP.
Most users have been making the same complaints since Win95. In fact as I recall when Win98 came out Microsoft actually included a stick of RAM so the OS would run on the PCs of the day.
This reminds me of a wise statement an instructor of mine made back in the 80's. Never buy v1.0 of anything. Taken in this context to mean: Wait for 6 months to a year and the release of at least SP1 before evaluating the new OS.
Waiting will allow MS to do core bug fixes, release of patched (if not perfect) drivers and testing of installations.
There is absolutely no reason for us to move to Vista and every reason to stay with XP. Our computers have minimum requirements for XP as it is. We would have to buy: 1. More ram 2. New graphic cards 3. Larger hard drives 4. and lastly "Vista" To do what? The same thing we're already doing in XP..?!?! Does Microsoft really think companies have vast amounts of money to needlessly spend on unneeded upgrades which don't improve productivity in the least...???
I've been a diehard Microsoft customer for the past 15 years. Mostly because they offered the most user friendly solutions available at the time.
However, over the time, Microsoft lost that touch and other great companies such as Google and Adobe converted loyal cutomerbase with ever so innovative and easy to use offerings.
Despite huge marketing and research budgets, Microsoft only seems to follow suite of Linux, Sun, Google and Adobe among other companies. Innovation seems to an expnsive deal for them now and copycating i guess seems easier.
Microsft solutions are now heavyweight, that demand more and more horsepower to work well and mostly unstable. If Microsoft ever wants to coe out of this quicksand they need to fire all their marketng and research team and start from scratch. Google always appears to be honest in their intentions and devoid of cheap marketing self-preservance tactics. I'm not saying they're not trying to survive, i'm just saying that their offerings are more generous. Small things make big impressions, take for example a simple email forwarding feature in Gmail to anyother account incuding hotmail. I'm sure if Google ever offers an operating system Microsoft would lose most of its customerbase.
As for Vista, compared to some linux versions that offer 3D interface its is nothing more than a fancy face over XP.
And where do you suppose aero came from? Yup, Linux. Linux had the 3D cube "compiz" long before visduh came out. The day M$ "innovates" anything is the day I retire.
It's absolubtly amazing to me how people become mindless drones to M$ offerings (such as they are).Most act as if they have no choice but to settle for a resource hogging, buggy, overbloated OS . It took them 7 years to get XP so its usable and they put out another worthless OS with even more issues than XP had. Ah but resistance is futile. Well sorry M$, I'll stick with my favorite linux distro, Mepis. Everything works out of the box and I don't have to worry about expending valuable time aand resources with virus and spyware scans. And neither do many of my customers and family.
Here are some reasons. 1. Training. Most people have never used linux. Almost everyone has used windows. Familiarity breeds productivity. 2. Application compatability. If we can't run our apps, then we don't do business. Some of the apps were written when DOS and NT were king and linux was just an idea. They still work on XP. They don't run on linux. 3. Application Development and availability. Developers can easily be found for windows applications versus other operating systems. They are cheaper to develop under windows. We make our money from the apps, not the operating system. If you think windows is expensive, you should see how much some applications cost, but we make money using them.
Those are just some of the reasons business will stick with windows. You, on the other hand, are a person and not a business so those reasons may not apply to you. In that case, enjoy mepis. Be happy. I've always encouraged people to use the operating system they think is best for them.
Why Vista is right on. Vista is very much like Linux. It doesn't run games well, is buggy, has meager vendor hardware support, and is pretty much irrelevant.
I agree that for some people staying with XP makes sense, especially in business environments.
The Aero glass UI gets alot of critisism, and I think unfairly.
Microsoft have introduced a new desktop manager to takes advantage of the considerable processing power in many graphics cards, that is normally dormant, unless playing playing games. The result is an improved UI.
They have not required that Vista has such a graphics card, and if your hardware can't do Aero Glass, you'll get Aero Basic, that does not render your PC any less functional.
Thats seems to me like a fairly reasoned approach by Microsoft.
(The requirements for Aero Glass are not that high, in terms of GPUs sold today).
Well I was going to be fair toward MS but after I thought about it I changed my mind. My first thought was this: Considering the size of XP's installed base and how long MS tends to support it's OS'es an expiration date on OEM installs of XP is silly.If Win98 is any indication XP is going to be supported for at least another 5 to 8 years. Also, it's not like they'd be giving XP to OEM's, so they'd still be making money. Give the people what they want, if they want XP, fine; If they want one of the versions of Vista that's fine too. When you think about it why can't you have a choice of which operation system is installed when you have a graphics upgrade option, a second or third hard drive option etc.....Then I remembered this is Microsoft we're talking about. Even MS supporters have to admit that the company has a long history of strong arming oem's and questionable licensing agreements. Case in point, making oem's pay a fee for MS Dos even if it wasn't installed on a pc. But I digress.XP is still a viable operation system that is going to be supported for a long time. XP and all the versions of Vista should be just another option that customer can choose. That said, MS is making a mistake if they think they can afford to alienate OEM's and customers. There's always a chance one of them will raise issues regarding the anti-trust agreement. Also, Dell, HP, and Lenovo are already offering linux preloaded. I'm not even suggesting that there will be a sea change and Ms will be dumped altogether. But every version of linux that goes out the door means they lost a potential customer for any other windows based software. Plus a linux pc in a person's home is free advertising for the competition. I haven't tried Vista yet and I'm surprised at the drastic differences in people's experiences. I realize there are differences in the hardware people are using but it sounds like they are installing different operating systems. That, I guess, can be attributed to the 1.0 nature of Vista. Microsoft really is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They do listen to customer feedback and try to give users what they want. People are unhappy with XP's security so they try to fix it. Now people are irritated with popups. Improve the user interface now people are complaining about not being able to find anything. DRM, I'm not really sure where all that fits in but people aren't thrilled with that either. My point I guess is that YOU the user should have a choice. If you don't like what you're hearing about Vista, you should be able to get a new pc with XP installed. If you don't like Vista or XP then you should be able to get a new PC with Linux installed, or FreeDos. Don't like those options buy a SUN workstation or an Apple. It's your money and you work damn hard for it you should be able to get what YOU WANT.
Use the OS you want. It's your choice. I would also ask you be objective of other people's choices. They chose what they wanted for their own reasons, not yours.
The best operating system in the world is the one that does what you want, when you want, and you are satisfied with it... atleast for you it's the best, but not necessarily for others. There is no such thing as a single perfect operating system.
I have a new computer with Vista Ultimate, Intel Quad 6600 processor, 4 gig of ram, and lots of hard drive. Most of the time it performs very good, but at times it acts up like a small kitten or puppy would. I have a late model Windows XP Pro computer that was replaced with this Vista model. So far I haven't had any great desire to bring it back into action. The bugs will get shaken out of Vista within the next year, and since I am not trying to use Vista to produce a great deal of work, it works satisfactorily for me. If I was operating in a business atmosphere, I am sure I would still be using the XP Professional. Vista has a lot of annoying features, but the purpose of them is to keep your computer safe. I don't suppose many people will be crying for XP a year from now. I think that long term, Vista is going to be a lot more user friendly than XP. After all, the O/S is just a means to let you run your 3rd party software programs. Office 2007 is kind of overwhelming at first, but after using it for a while, I actually prefer it over other versions of Office that I have had in the past. IF YOU CAN WAIT FOR A NEW COMPUTER, WAIT 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR, AND THEN PLAN ON VISTA, SINCE IT WILL BE THE O/S OF THE FUTURE. I am not a Microsoft apologist, and will let them know when there are things that I am not happy with.
Dell, Lenovo, and HP all are selling linux boxes preloaded now and ATI, NVIDIA and other hardware vendors are also seeing the growing change. With more and more people getting fed up with M$, I can see linux and Mac rival M$ in the near future. DRM and calling your customers thieves is not the best business model and people are starting to get it. Many of my customers are asking me for alternatives and depending on what they do with their machines I can usually work out something other than Windoze.
Until this is fixed, no one in their right mind would move to Vista. Please note my link is a to a Microsoft Technet forum not some Anti-MS site.
I have seen this problem on every Vista box I have touched. I do a lot of consulting with small companies that use SBS2003 and they all ask me about getting new PC's and what about Vista. I tell them about this specific bug and that until it is fixed they would be CRAZY to go to Vista.
There are other minor issues with Vista but this one by far is a total show stopper for any company thinking about using Vista right now.
Since Vista and 2008 server share much of the same code is it any wonder MS has not pushed 2008 out. Or is it not funny that Vista will get its first SP1 the day 2008 comes out?
Vista users = Beta testers for Windows 2008 Server.
I think that Microsoft has worked hard to "fix" it's image problem with 2K and XP. When vista came, we could see that Microsoft went back to it's old ways.
I think that people are starting realize that Microsoft will always be the same, and are going back to the XP days because it works for the most part (XP can only utilize one core, which means that a systems with duo core processors can only run at have it's power). I don't have this problem as Linux utilizes all cores.
Also it's interesting to see how many people went out a brought a new PC with Vista. And how Microsoft's marketing convinced people to upgrade to a crap operating system.
I'm a software developer and use Linux as a my development machine (I develop professional windows and Linux based software) and never have a problem. Also I as Linux consumes little hardware resources, I can run multiple programs with out slowing down the whole system.
Incorrect. Windows has been able to utilize more than one core since NT. Windows 2000 professional can utilize 2 processors. Windows 2000 server can utilize 4 processors. Windows XP will utilize 2 processors. There are versions of windows server that will utilize even more. Windows recognizes dual processors as two individual processors. In windows 2000 you had to change the driver manually to take advantage of it, but it will use them. I've seen it, I've done it, it works.
1. XP can utilize 2 processors. 2. Vista hasn't had many problems 3. Businesses weren't jumping on the XP train in 2001 (or 2002 for that matter) either.
4. I often have a dozen programs open in XP and never EVER have a problem with my machine.
5. There's NOTHING wrong with vista. However, there's also no compelling reason to upgrade at this time. Businesses want to downgrade, because until they're ready to move to vista in 2008 or 2009, they don't want to support it. In 2002 I worked at a major telecom equipment manufacturer, and we were just moving to 2000. It's just STUPID to think that fortune 500 companies are going to switch OS's less than a year after release.
If I was buying a new PC, I'd get vista. But as a consumer, I see no reason to upgrade to Vista until I'm ready to buy a DX10 card, and I see no reason to buy a DX10 card until there are more DX10 games that are significantly better looking than DX9.
Businesses WILL start to switch after SP1. The company I'm at is already looking into switching, but that process requires a lot of testing with a lot of custom and specialized 3rd party software. It will not happen this year.
It's pretty darn hilarious how all that's said about Vista is exactly what we heard about XP....it's slower. It's buggy. It's got DRM in it.
All of those were things we heard 6 years ago. In 6 years, the vast majority of people will use either Vista or it's successor (whatever that may be), MS will still control the desktop by a 9/1 factor. Who else is there? Linux? I don't know a single non-tech person who'd I'd consider a candidate for linux.
Manage updates with the Download App
The only problem I have faced on Windows Vista is a folder corruption issue about 3 months ago, that was traced to that damn faulty RealTek driver for the sound chip in my notebook that really should have been very apparent in the first place.
It's really common in almost any business to migrate the entire company, or perhaps an entire department, from one OS to another. Haphazardly dropping VIsta into an XP office would be such a nightmare that a business would switch its purchase of new PCs to another company if say Dell didn't support XP on the machines.
Now, individual users may not have the same issues, but think about someone like my Mother who has learned to use XP to do email and simple web browsing. Retraining her to use Vista, with all of its new menues and security prompts and such would be a pain. I bought her a new laptop with XP installed just to avoid a marathon training session and months of phone calls asking about some Vista wierdness she just ran into.
Which OS is best sometimes has little to do with the technical aspects of the OS; for many, the compatibility with an installed base is way more important in OS selection.
I can't reply to the reliability, but vista does have a large number of fixes compared to XP, considering how long XP has been available.
I think microsoft is discovering that just because they put wings on it, doesn't mean that people will buy.
My Games don't work right.
My PDA no longer syncs right.
My Media Center doesn't media center.
Stability in general is a lot worse.
The system is just buggy.
The only reason I don't downgrade is that I wanted bitlocker and after much gnashing of teeth I got that to work.
Getting Vista stable took a lot of work and over a month due almost entirely to issues with drivers. There were some hardware issues. My CD ROM drive (a totally basic deal) wasn't compatible, but that was easily replaced. I also replaced the graphics card, which I had already intended to do, but if I hadn't that might have bothered me. My 3-year-old HP scanner isn't supported by HP for Vista, which really ticks me off, but that's not Microsoft's fault.
I was running Windows 2000 on the PC that went to Vista and 2000 was very stable. Even so, once the issues were ironed out, Vista has been terrific. I'm a harsh MS critic, so I'm not saying this lightly.
It's interesting that you mention a problem with RealTek. For some reason a RealTek driver was downloaded and installed during an update and it caused sound problems. I don't have any hardware that would use it, as far as I know, and disabling it was easy, but now I'll probably look further into it.
Maybe like when MSFT laid down the various End-Of-Life schedules, only to be forced to relent and streatch 'em out...
Like it or lump it, Vista is a dog and a hog. No one in business apparently wants or even cares to bother with it (for instance, only 2% --yes, TWO percent-- of UK businesses use Vista right now). If business wants XP, it'll get XP. IF MSFT doesn't want to play ball, then business will go elsewhere.
I honestly hope that MSFT has the arrogance to carry through on their demands this time. Then, as businesses slowly start leaving MSFT for other OSes when faced with either XP or no Windows at all, they can drown in their own hubris.
(what you say? businesses can't get an OEM PC or server w/o Windows on it? I certainly beg to differ - they can get 'em with no OS if they like... Dell and HP both do this on a regular basis, as do most other large OEMs).
/P
MS will turn around and brag about how "Vista is so successful that all PC manufacturers have gone to Vista!" right after ordering the OEM's to stop loading XP. Just watch.
them to purchase new hardware and software and results in huge
collateral expense, when what they have works fine, is bullying of
the most spivish kind.
I hope Microsoft really does pull the plug on XP support in the EU.
Result - goodbye Microsoft - hello real competition.
This year I have bought about 15 new desktop PCs all with XP Pro. I could have bought Vista, but I opted for XP because I know all of our software works flawlessly on it.
Even before this announcement, there were plenty of resellers still offering desktops loaded with XP Pro.
I have Vista and installed it, tested it for a month and wow, that was the most sluggish OS comparing to XP. The boot process was so slow and other things. The Vista Areo graphics thing is cool but, hey!! i want to work as fast as it can, not to stare to an amazing desktop background. And i think the demand of more and more memory is just pointless, why? because if you have an operating system like xp that works fast and very good, why to torture your system?
WinXP only "sees" 2.3GB of my 4GB of RAM. Ok, it's 32bit and I expected something like this. Likewise, Vista x32 sees about the same. Vista x64 sees all 4GB. However...as I sit here typing this, XP is utilitizing 17% of available RAM (about 0.4GB); Either version of Vista would be using 25-26% (about 1GB) while doing the same...and this is with Aero turned off.
Secondly, Vista doesn't really boost the requirements that much. I have been thinking about running Vista on my parents 4 year old HP Media Center computer, and everything checks out as being Vista-compatible except the video card, which I was planning on tossing anyway because..... well, I'll be honest here, the ATI X300 video card BITES ASS NOW! And it was the best video card offered at the time!
That sucker booted fast! I then added QPro for DOS and some other business programs (more salvage from the office), and it was near instant. (I might try QPro for Windows some day, just for the heck of it.)
If that was a pure offline machine, for production only, and if I could get hardware and driver support (which is the killer), I'd be using 95 on it. The convenience of not needing to sit around and twiddle thumbs to wait for something that serves my purpose no better is great.
BTW, running the original Quake on a 550Mhz machine is a real blast. Got my butt kicked, but good.
Not a techie.
Ron Wagner
1. Support for XP is not going away anytime soon.
2. XP may leave the retail channel soon but nobody will be forced to go buy Vista and install it. There's still lots of 95, 98 ME and 3.1 users out there right? I have not yet heard that hte MS police track you down and force you to put anything on an existing box.
3. After XP goes away from retail you still don't have to buy Vista to get a shiny new chunck of hardware.
But the big question for me is: Can't relapce Vista and XP with 2000/98 and XP go back to 2001 and have the exact same conversation.
And one more thing: New MS operating systems are always bigger than the previous because they are designed to take advantage of the ever faster, better, cheaper hardware that will be released during the life of the OS. I am not statng this as praise just fact.
As you say, substitute Vista with XP & XP with 98 & you did have much the same debate; with one exception, back then, most appreciated that XP, even at launch was significantly more stable than even 98SE, & just forget ME, that was a true dog.
Thing is, XP IS stable, relatively light on resources, definately not to be replaced on any system not equipped with a fast dual core processor.
Vista may turn out to be more stable than XP, whether it is significantly so remains to be seen.
Personally, I want my processor to be working running things like VST instruments, NOT the OS.
So Vista is out for me, my new system is XP & VERY fast and capable.
Dave.
BTW. I keep putting XP Pro on any new machine I have to add at work and I can still get them at my local computer parts shop.
So in our case, XP, rather than Vista, is the upgrade.
After so many years of putting junk on top of junk there was only one possible outcome, VISTA.
I think is time to start again. Make the next version of Windows based on a Unix Kernel. Maybe BSD and create a layer like wine for all your old stuff. So basically do what Apple did.
Then I will buy your new OS.
of Vista who buys it from Wal-Mart and don't have that option.
Since those come with Premium installled, they don't even have an
option, so this offering by the PC makers and Microsoft is about
like trying to stop the Titanic from sinking with a Hello Kitty Band
Aid.
Consequently, I ended up buying a used IBM A31 running a P4 at 1.7 ghz, with 1 gb RAM, and XP pro. I spent under $300 (including a 2 year warranty) and the computer has been more than satifactory. However, if I could have bought a new laptop with XP loaded, I would have never looked for a used one.
Run, Tux, run!
Kernel doesn't tick
tick, tock, windows
time is up
Run Steve, Run!
Sorry. Your dose of randomness for the day.
That's the reality Linux and OSX needs to face. If they want to be taken serious in the business world, outside of the server room and on to the desktops, they need to get with developers and get some software released for it. Now before you go ballistic and start screaming open source, we use OpenOffice on 50% of the desktops at my work. But there are no open source alternatives to the other things that are required for our business to run. I like to play around with Gimp, but when it comes right down to it, PhotoShop is far superior... and that's what I would expect with $699 vs. FREE.
As for OSX, it's good for some things, but it seems they are geared more towards the creative side of things. We use FinalCut a lot at work and that's where the Mac really shines, but PhotoShop on the Mac works just the same as it does on a PC.
At home I have all 3 but tend to be on my PC more than anything just for the fact that I am an avid gamer and that's a market that is a market that Windows pretty much owns. Granted OSX is getting it's feet wet, but no one buys a Mac to play games.
95 brought a "mac'like" ease of use. 98 brought internet technologies and multimedia. ME failed because it brought nothing compelling and was less stable than 98. 2000 brought stability. XP adds further stability, its quicker than 2000, and has vast compatibility with devices.
Vista unfortunately does not add leaps in stability, is sluggish on all but top end PCs and it has compatibility issues. It tries to be friendly, but its endless pop ups come off as annoying. Its multimedia is bloated with DRM causing slow operations which may benefit large corps but does nothing for users. Vista Ultimate is the true Vista but at a cost of hundreds leaving users to agonize over which affordable hobbled version fits their economic class.
A colossal failure?? Microsoft seems to feel adoption is inevitable. The question is will people play along or resist. Personally I'm still on XP and even considering a MAC, but the cost of an Apple is another frustrating conversation.
I have been using a Mac since October 2005 (nearly two years) and Nothing is making me go back.
No intention of buying a half baked green potato despite the adled, faux and flitty wisdom of reassuring myself all will be right with patches and upgrades.
This is the boldest move yet in an occluded, colluded market whose only interests are to wrest the hard earned dollars away from those that are enticed into believing that they have a clue.
People are laughing, multitudes of people are laughing, and pointing, at the new clothes. The new winter coat is almost ready for the emperor.
amd/ati has lost my business for good since all the updates over the last few months are vista skewed and don't work that well on any operating system, actually worse on xp now.
Anyone that thinks vista is a remotely reasonable upgrade has one hand on their mouse and the other in their lap, not doing much of anything with the new fashion.
Though, I don't understand why people are whining about Vista, I get about the same performance on my Toshiba Vista notebook in games as with another Toshiba XP Notebook that's the same stuff in it, just a different OS.
1. 15 GB just for the OS? You're kidding, right?
2. Why did they rearrange everything? I can't find the settings anymore.
3. We have to buy a new graphics card and more memory just to make it run on the test computer? We just got that computer not long ago.
4. Why is it so slow? I thought it was supposed to be better?
5. Did you read that article about high definition home movies not working because of the DRM?
6. Yea, the aero interface is neat, but it doesn't improve my productivity one bit. What was the point?
7. Why doesn't the activation work? All I did was reload it again.
8. We're going to have to do atleast 25 computers before we can use the KMS activation service?
9. What do you mean "they'll have to connect with the KMS service atleast once every 6 months"? All the guys out in the field aren't going to like that.
10. We let it run out without activating it to see what happens. The only thing you can do with it is activate it, you can't even log in. If this was a field computer, they'd have to mail the computer to corporate.
11. We loaded one with developer tools: office 2007, sql server desktop edition, visual studio 2005, visual safesource, antivirus software... it all works. Wow, an actual positive feedback.
12. Only one fourth of our computers will run vista business with the aero interface?
Enough said. Microsoft? We are not impressed with vista and plan to stick with XP.
This reminds me of a wise statement an instructor of mine made back in the 80's. Never buy v1.0 of anything. Taken in this context to mean: Wait for 6 months to a year and the release of at least SP1 before evaluating the new OS.
Waiting will allow MS to do core bug fixes, release of patched (if not perfect) drivers and testing of installations.
reason to stay with XP. Our computers have minimum
requirements for XP as it is. We would have to buy:
1. More ram
2. New graphic cards
3. Larger hard drives
4. and lastly "Vista"
To do what? The same thing we're already doing in XP..?!?!
Does Microsoft really think companies have vast amounts of
money to needlessly spend on unneeded upgrades which don't
improve productivity in the least...???
However, over the time, Microsoft lost that touch and other great companies such as Google and Adobe converted loyal cutomerbase with ever so innovative and easy to use offerings.
Despite huge marketing and research budgets, Microsoft only seems to follow suite of Linux, Sun, Google and Adobe among other companies. Innovation seems to an expnsive deal for them now and copycating i guess seems easier.
Microsft solutions are now heavyweight, that demand more and more horsepower to work well and mostly unstable. If Microsoft ever wants to coe out of this quicksand they need to fire all their marketng and research team and start from scratch. Google always appears to be honest in their intentions and devoid of cheap marketing self-preservance tactics. I'm not saying they're not trying to survive, i'm just saying that their offerings are more generous. Small things make big impressions, take for example a simple email forwarding feature in Gmail to anyother account incuding hotmail. I'm sure if Google ever offers an operating system Microsoft would lose most of its customerbase.
As for Vista, compared to some linux versions that offer 3D interface its is nothing more than a fancy face over XP.
1. Training. Most people have never used linux. Almost everyone has used windows. Familiarity breeds productivity.
2. Application compatability. If we can't run our apps, then we don't do business. Some of the apps were written when DOS and NT were king and linux was just an idea. They still work on XP. They don't run on linux.
3. Application Development and availability. Developers can easily be found for windows applications versus other operating systems. They are cheaper to develop under windows. We make our money from the apps, not the operating system. If you think windows is expensive, you should see how much some applications cost, but we make money using them.
Those are just some of the reasons business will stick with windows. You, on the other hand, are a person and not a business so those reasons may not apply to you. In that case, enjoy mepis. Be happy. I've always encouraged people to use the operating system they think is best for them.
What we need is a self support group to keep XP running and reinstalling.
Ron Wagner
The Aero glass UI gets alot of critisism, and I think unfairly.
Microsoft have introduced a new desktop manager to takes advantage of the considerable processing power in many graphics cards, that is normally dormant, unless playing playing games. The result is an improved UI.
They have not required that Vista has such a graphics card, and if your hardware can't do Aero Glass, you'll get Aero Basic, that does not render your PC any less functional.
Thats seems to me like a fairly reasoned approach by Microsoft.
(The requirements for Aero Glass are not that high, in terms of GPUs sold today).
The systems that MS copied can do it, why not MS?
My first thought was this: Considering the size of XP's installed base and how long MS tends to support it's OS'es an expiration date on OEM installs of XP is silly.If Win98 is any indication XP is going to be supported for at least another 5 to 8 years. Also, it's not like they'd be giving XP to OEM's, so they'd still be making money. Give the people what they want, if they want XP, fine; If they want one of the versions of Vista that's fine too. When you think about it why can't you have a choice of which operation system is installed when you have a graphics upgrade option, a second or third hard drive option etc.....Then I remembered this is Microsoft we're talking about. Even MS supporters have to admit that the company has a long history of strong arming oem's and questionable licensing agreements. Case in point, making oem's pay a fee for MS Dos even if it wasn't installed on a pc. But I digress.XP is still a viable operation system that is going to be supported for a long time. XP and all the versions of Vista should be just another option that customer can choose.
That said, MS is making a mistake if they think they can afford to alienate OEM's and customers. There's always a chance one of them will raise issues regarding the anti-trust agreement. Also, Dell, HP, and Lenovo are already offering linux preloaded. I'm not even suggesting that there will be a sea change and Ms will be dumped altogether. But every version of linux that goes out the door means they lost a potential customer for any other windows based software. Plus a linux pc in a person's home is free advertising for the competition.
I haven't tried Vista yet and I'm surprised at the drastic differences in people's experiences. I realize there are differences in the hardware people are using but it sounds like they are installing different operating systems. That, I guess, can be attributed to the 1.0 nature of Vista. Microsoft really is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They do listen to customer feedback and try to give users what they want. People are unhappy with XP's security so they try to fix it. Now people are irritated with popups. Improve the user interface now people are complaining about not being able to find anything. DRM, I'm not really sure where all that fits in but people aren't thrilled with that either.
My point I guess is that YOU the user should have a choice. If you don't like what you're hearing about Vista, you should be able to get a new pc with XP installed. If you don't like Vista or XP then you should be able to get a new PC with Linux installed, or FreeDos. Don't like those options buy a SUN workstation or an Apple. It's your money and you work damn hard for it you should be able to get what YOU WANT.
The best operating system in the world is the one that does what you want, when you want, and you are satisfied with it... atleast for you it's the best, but not necessarily for others. There is no such thing as a single perfect operating system.
Until this is fixed, no one in their right mind would move to Vista. Please note my link is a to a Microsoft Technet forum not some Anti-MS site.
I have seen this problem on every Vista box I have touched. I do a lot of consulting with small companies that use SBS2003 and they all ask me about getting new PC's and what about Vista. I tell them about this specific bug and that until it is fixed they would be CRAZY to go to Vista.
There are other minor issues with Vista but this one by far is a total show stopper for any company thinking about using Vista right now.
Since Vista and 2008 server share much of the same code is it any wonder MS has not pushed 2008 out. Or is it not funny that Vista will get its first SP1 the day 2008 comes out?
Vista users = Beta testers for Windows 2008 Server.
I think that people are starting realize that Microsoft will always be the same, and are going back to the XP days because it works for the most part (XP can only utilize one core, which means that a systems with duo core processors can only run at have it's power). I don't have this problem as Linux utilizes all cores.
Also it's interesting to see how many people went out a brought a new PC with Vista. And how Microsoft's marketing convinced people to upgrade to a crap operating system.
I'm a software developer and use Linux as a my development machine (I develop professional windows and Linux based software) and never have a problem. Also I as Linux consumes little hardware resources, I can run multiple programs with out slowing down the whole system.
Incorrect. Windows has been able to utilize more than one core since NT. Windows 2000 professional can utilize 2 processors. Windows 2000 server can utilize 4 processors. Windows XP will utilize 2 processors. There are versions of windows server that will utilize even more. Windows recognizes dual processors as two individual processors. In windows 2000 you had to change the driver manually to take advantage of it, but it will use them. I've seen it, I've done it, it works.
2. Vista hasn't had many problems
3. Businesses weren't jumping on the XP train in 2001 (or 2002 for that matter) either.
4. I often have a dozen programs open in XP and never EVER have a problem with my machine.
5. There's NOTHING wrong with vista. However, there's also no compelling reason to upgrade at this time. Businesses want to downgrade, because until they're ready to move to vista in 2008 or 2009, they don't want to support it. In 2002 I worked at a major telecom equipment manufacturer, and we were just moving to 2000. It's just STUPID to think that fortune 500 companies are going to switch OS's less than a year after release.
If I was buying a new PC, I'd get vista. But as a consumer, I see no reason to upgrade to Vista until I'm ready to buy a DX10 card, and I see no reason to buy a DX10 card until there are more DX10 games that are significantly better looking than DX9.
Businesses WILL start to switch after SP1. The company I'm at is already looking into switching, but that process requires a lot of testing with a lot of custom and specialized 3rd party software.
It will not happen this year.
It's pretty darn hilarious how all that's said about Vista is exactly what we heard about XP....it's slower. It's buggy. It's got DRM in it.
All of those were things we heard 6 years ago. In 6 years, the vast majority of people will use either Vista or it's successor (whatever that may be), MS will still control the desktop by a 9/1 factor. Who else is there? Linux? I don't know a single non-tech person who'd I'd consider a candidate for linux.