Comments on: Vista prices fall even further
In a weekend promotion, Vista Home Premium was selling for as little as $99 at OfficeMax. That's the same as the suggested price for Vista Home Basic.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Beyond Binary
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
Of all the people I know who have Vista (most computer illiterates), they've had FAR fewer problems with Vista (actually- NO problems) versus Windows XP. Their systems run faster and they don't ever call me with stupid questions or problems anymore.
Maybe it's the computer techies who like to spread the vista-sucks rumour because they're losing business to the more robust OS.
I'm using XP for gaming, DX10 is nothing more than a marketing scheme.
Most of the people I know in IS/IT have looked at it, tried it for extended periods of time, and thrown it aside for XP; - just as capable, and without the ludicrous hardware needs. I've yet to see something it does better than XP.
Ok, fine it's pretty. Yay, I'm excited now (sarc).
With some 3rd party apps, I can make my XP system look as good or better than my Vista system does, without needing new hardware, and without spending even $100+ to get 'the latest Windows' to do so, or spending $2K on a Mac with sufficient capabilities and software to duplicate my windows capabilities.
I make a good living working in this business, and believe me, my appointments calendar has filled right up with home service calls since this past holiday season, when most uninformed consumers couldn't buy anything *BUT* Vista.
Most of it is existing software incompatibilities, driver issues with hardware less than a year old, and in some cases, consumers getting sold "Vista Capable" PC's that are so underpowered and unexpandable as to be worthless.
Of course, from my personal business viewpoint, Vista isn't so bad - I make more money, supporting a product that has no meaningful purpose except to support the monopoly machine. Keep it up M$!
Explain to me how "I" am to blame for this crap when I've been using Windows since v3.1 and DOS 5?
You're probably one of the several hundred people who actually bought a retail box copy of Vista and get pissed when people crab your OS of choice. I understand that; I also understand that peoples' opinions are often times biased in their own self-interest.
Perhaps if you took into account that 90-plus-percent of the people who are griping about Vista (or problems w/ it) are having honest problems w/ it and at least half of them "know what they're doing".
Windows Vista
R.I.P.
2007 - 2009
Perhaps if MS refrained from using this word in such contexts as,
"users will PROBABLY adopt Vista", "your computer can PROBABLY
run Vista", and my personal favorite "people PROBABLY won't mind
paying different prices for multiple versions" they wouldn't be in
this mess to begin with. What kind of egotistical nerd gets off
calling the regular user "you people". Oh yea I forgot, the same
corporation that created Vista :)
People don't see any benefit to Vista except that is is a new OS and may have a longer support from M$ then XP. This is also faulty logic, Today's computer can barely run Vista today, over time the system requirements will grow due to service packs and updates (OS bloat), and programs will also grow in system requirements, So yeah Vista may have a longer support window (and thats still to be seen), but your computer today with Vista will be too slow to last till XP support is discontinued, so a computer bought today with XP will IMHO be useful for a longer time the a Vista box. So when you really look into it there is no advantage to Vista except the initial convenience of not having to search for a XP computer (or go to a alternative to M$ OS)
There's always going to be driver issues (the hardware vendors' fault, not MS's), there's always going to be hardware that's left by the wayside, the system requirements are always going to be higher, and you'll always have software compatibility issues. If you don't want these issues, go use a *NIX operating system...but with MS it's been a fact of life for a couple decades now and everyone acts like it's never happened before.
Give vista till SP2 like everyone did with winXP (I used win2k til winXPSP2 came out) and it will be a rock solid OS that will run fine on the hardware of the day. Until then, stop complaining, live with the growing pains, or go back to winXP. Those that say Vista is terrible, haven't used it, and those with problems like not having Vista drivers need to stop blaming MS. Hell, I was able to find Vista PCL5E drivers for a Canon ImageRunner 2200i a few months after release..so driver issues aren't on MS at all.
In the past people have upgraded hardware, but I think Vista requires so much this time they can't simply upgrade to make it all better.
Vista launched when most new computers couldn't run it right. Usually most new computers can run their installed OS in a usable way. With Vista, sometimes it ships on a computer slow enough that Vista is just plain unusable.
Part of that is because the market has changed from when XP was launched. People know if they stay away from software bloat their $500 budget PC can run just fine for them. Now people just want a Internet Kiosk.
There isn't as much incentive to upgrade this time either. Windows 95 offered people the Internet, and Windows NT/XP offered them an Internet that didn't crash every half hour. Vista doesn't offer them anything like that.
Except maybe security if you believe the myth. However, UAC just annoys a lot of people.
People don't care about security. They just care about having their 45 IE tool bars installed. If people really cared about security then *NIX OSs would already be the most popular don't you think? So, what does Vista offer people that just want an Internet Kiosk?
Windows 3.11 was a horror - something that allowed you to type a few words between BSODs. Windows 95 was no more stable but more colorful. WindowsMe was practically a set-up line and a punch line all in one. MSFT was desperate to actually produce working code, although no one expected it from them.
When Cutler saw the drooling incompetence of the MSFT engineers, (called Wintards by the DEC guys) he asked that they be completely separated from the project, less they screw up everything just by being around.
Steve Ballmer complied and kept them busy with pick-up basketball games that ran all day, which mostly consisted of Ballmer putting players into head locks, shouting obscenities at them and dragging them around the court.
WinNT was released as a stable, usable operating system that can be seen actually running critical applications in hospitals - right down to the recovery room. Its kernel is the basis of Windows 2000 and XP, both considered stable OSes. The next time MSFT's Wintards tried to build an operating system without the assistance of real engineers, they ended up with another catastrophe on their hands.
The overwhelming concensus I have heard agrees with my personal experience - it is bloated, slow, difficult to work with, and Ubuntu outshines it a hundred to one.
Keep your junk, Micromind.
There are problems & there are major issues. Sure some people will find that Vista suits their needs, but many have found that it does not.
Because I've used Vista since October with really very little to straighten out. And I do A lot of things with my computer Play games, Burn DVDs, Type documents which go print onto my printer with no problems. All on a 4 year old come=puter tha I upgraded from XP To Home premium! So what is it exactly you're talkiing about? Hmmmm?
But please people, do your research before you take a side. Try Vista out. Just because it's MicroSUX doesn't mean their product sucks.
do you also call OSX users Macintards?
It's best when you have a dual/quad core, 2gb 800mhz ram, SATA, DX10 supported graphics card.
Laughable and pathetic.
For overpaying for a bloated OS that gives you nothing for the bloat?
An OS that gets in your way and stays there?
I think buying Vista is reward enough.
OK I will never buy Vista - there are enough hacked versions out there now that I don't really have to. But anyone who thinks that apple are the good guys are seriously kidding themselves - if you like to run with the latest hardware Apple is just not even an option. Granted Vista is/can initially be frustrating to use and most 'users' I will not even go there, but UAC can be disabled in about 2secs if you know how to use google - not to mention is alot of information out there to tweak it to your satisfaction.
Just for fun, maybe you should start an informal poll, c|net, to find out what people think Vista is really worth. No, no, no, NO! I didn't mean that. EVERYBODY knows what Vista is worth. What I meant to suggest is for your informal poll to ask people what they think they should PAY for Vista. I'll be your first data point:
I'll haul it away for $25.00 per copy, regardless of the version.
Because this probably will have to be explained to all the MicroSoft-In-the-Heads, this means I would be willing to pay -$25 per copy (ie, Microsoft would have to pay me $25 to take it), but provided only the volume was high enough.
If an OS uses more memory and eats more clock cycles, I will not use it no matter how cheep it is.
For people who think that Vista is a more secure OS, Please remember that the first rule of designing secure software is to strip out every service and feature you can. Each little clanging bell or flashing light that you add is just another potential vulnerability.
Start with a command prompt based shell and a text based script that lets the user decide what to turn on (Or permanently remove). :)
- This is too funny (to the trolls)
- by whizkid454 March 5, 2008 3:45 PM PST
- It is A M A Z I N G. It truly is that so many people actually jump on the bandwagon. Maybe if people would open the book before judging it, they might actually come to a different conclusion. Ignorance is bliss.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Please enlighten us.
- by Imalittleteapot March 7, 2008 6:23 PM PST
- What exactly is a computers intended purpose? What if I decide I want to do something that's not intended and XP does it fine but Vista does not? I guess that doesn't matter because all that's important is that Vista does what's intended just fine.
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (137 Comments)Vista works fine for people who use a computer for its intended purpose. I've used it for 1 year and couldn't have been more satisfied. Everything works as expected with few bugs. If people would actually take care of their computer, they wouldn't be having all of the said problems.
Is a computers intended purpose to enrage all these people that don't like Vista? If that's its intended purpose, then yes, I would say Vista works just dandy.
What if Vista runs just fine but XP runs better than just fine. Are we supposed to just shut up because Vista runs just fine?
Even if something works, that doesn't mandate that everyone must love it. I have lots of things around my house that work just fine but that bore the crap out of me, and eventually I'll get around to swapping it all for something else.
Just working isn't enough. If it were the IPod would have never sold because there are a lot cheaper mp3 players that work just fine. Obviously people want more than just fine. You should want more to.
Also, Vista doesn't work just fine fore everyone. The computer makers sold more than one model of computer. Some of those computers do not have what it takes to run Vista correctly, yet they were sold with Vista and Vista capable stickers and marketing that said they could just Vista just fine when they could not. People were lied to, but as long as whizkid454 doesn't mind wasting eight times as much ram to get the exact same work done I guess we should just shut up huh?
Guess what? I've used XP since the first week it launched and it always worked just fine for me. Why don't you use that instead? After all, it works just fine.