Well I wish em luck. I still have an uninstalled version of Vista Ultimate in my desk drawer. I'm a gamer, I've tried it twice to numerous confilcts and hassels. When I build my NEXT rig I might try it again but I doubt it.
I like Office. In my opinion it is most innovative user interface I've seen. I was user of older version of Office and was able to adapt the new one very quick. I believe it is very easy for the first time users too.
The UAC is supposed to be annoying. It's supposed to be so annoying that you call up the maker of the offending software and tell them to write the software correctly. That's what Microsoft wants, to make you do their work for them.
I guess you still drive your first car? Vista in my opinion is a great OS. Yes it's been redesigned, but as with technology things change. Either change with them or die like 3.1, 95, 98, etc.
Too late to fool this skeptic...after years of blindly supporting MS, I finally tried a few Linux distros, and now dualboot PCLOS07 vs XP. Easily 95% of my computing time is spent in Linux, and 5% to get in and out of Itunes. This exercise has taught me that all OSs pretty much work, all OSs have useable software, all OSs are viable options, but not all OSs are well executed or supported. All future machines in my home, for the foreseeable future, will be OS X plus or minus Linux. Goodbye MS, go ahead and try to lure me back. It won't be easy this time.
A real honest-to-Pete question: is there a real Mac equivalent to MS Access (i.e. a real relational database with decent programming capabilities...I assure you Filemaker Pro does not cut it...). It is my inability to find an equivalent in the Mac environment that keeps me in the MS camp for now....
To think that MS can produce an effective ad campaign is pretty funny. I can not understand why people do not get it about MS. The culture of management at MS is one of rigid conformist type dictatorship, not one of ingenuity and creativity. Because of that, anyone within MS that actually knows how to connect with people will never be given a chance. This is besides the fact that Vista itself is not very user friendly to begin with. Anyone using Vista can see the complete lack of understanding of how people interact with computers. Half the time I am not even sure what you are supposed to click on. Sometime it is an icon, sometimes it is a button, sometimes it is an entire paragraph of text. Yes you can figure it out pretty quickly but there is that extra second or so that is needlessly wasted having to actually figure out what it is you are supposed to do.. Instead of a more unified presentation to the end-user where you can easily identify what you are to do by consistent visual cues.
I'd have to disagree with the ease of use of Vista. As a Mac user I found Vista pleasant to use (when it worked of course) which is part of the problem. For now Vista is unpleasant to use on sub $800 computers, be it desktops or laptops.
You Said: Instead of a more unified presentation to the end-user where you can easily identify what you are to do by consistent visual cues.
-- reply-- As a matter of fact, they did use visual cues. There's pleanty of them! When minimizing, it que's the eyes that the windows minimized are going down to the task bar, teh scroll bars will illuminate when the cursor runs over the scroll bars, this enables the user that these items are accessible. The Start Menu has been also enhanced visually. Instead of having to follow a menu to submenus, commonly if you move the mouse off the sub menu in the All Programs listing, you'll lose your place and may have to start over again. Vista keeps everything in a single column, which actually keeps it simple and easier, especially the Live Windows Search feature. There's plenty more...
---you said---
The culture of management at MS is one of rigid conformist type dictatorship, not one of ingenuity and creativity.
---reply --
Right, like other companies that are "supposedly" better then MS (Like APPLE) advertise these 'new features' when they are actually patch ups, that cost about 150 bucks and pull off other peoples ideas and say that it's theirs...
---you said--- This is besides the fact that Vista itself is not very user friendly to begin with. Anyone using Vista can see the complete lack of understanding of how people interact with computers.
--reply --- This is false, the user interface is very closely resembles XP, and shows the Explorer Tree on the left hand side (which can be turned off). User Interface was designed by people suggestions about how Vista should be from the basic consumer. Don't blame MS for what consumers wanted.
--you said--
Half the time I am not even sure what you are supposed to click on. Sometime it is an icon, sometimes it is a button, sometimes it is an entire paragraph of text. Yes you can figure it out pretty quickly but there is that extra second or so that is needlessly wasted having to actually figure out what it is you are supposed to do..
--my reply--
You must really suffer from memory loss if you are complaining about a 1 to 2 second learning curve for an operating system that has new features. New Features are not recognized at first until someone actually tries it and uses it. You buy a new phone and it takes you about 30 minutes to an hour to figure it out and after you've used it about a week, you will know the phone inside and out. People like yourself, who complains about a 1 to 2 second delay because you think your clicking the wrong thing, show major incompetence how to actually work a computer. Like I said earlier, that Vista has about the same UI as XP, and therefore getting from point a to b is no different. The looks are differnet, but the way to do things do not take an extra step.
I've used Vista since December 2007, and I had zero issues with it. You obviously don't know what you're talking about and probably never used Vista or Windows for that matter. If you're really going to point out flaws, do some actual research and come back about them. Otherwise you just made yourself look stupid, complaining about 1 to 2 second learning curves?
You know, I was going to reply, but after typing it out, it would have just been too insulting and since you wouldn't know which button to click on to reply, why waste the time?
Stemming off of everyone's frustrations of incompatibility with peripherals... **Uncle Bill Gates produces new operating system. --New operating system requires more RAM/processor speed --...which in turn requires replacement motherboard ***That means buy a new computer (it's easier for the "Windows for Dummies" people.) ***Not to mention, now we have to buy new peripherals to replace the ones that worked just fine, just not with the new operating system. Does Uncle Bill have stock in those peripheral companies like George Bush is part owner of 'Big Oil' in the Middle East?
**Unfortunately, Uncle Bill is alienating all of his older audience by constantly re-inventing, and and forcing long-time customers to re-learn how to do functions/features that have been moved,replaced, and/or removed.
I'm only 33 yrs. old, and I am a long time customer that is pissed off!!!
I have used Windows Vista Ultimate for the past 2 months and I really like it. Hibernation never worked for me using XP, but under Vista it works great.
Umm, read your documentation, HIBERNATION is turned off in favor of the new HYBRID SLEEP MODE on most laptops. If you do a google search in the first set of responses you'll learn how to turn it back on if you really need it over the new SLEEP mode which is MUCH FASTER..
Look, I've been using Vista since November 2006 and love it. The only complaint was copying data across a network. That was fixed. These Anti-Microsoft people are something else. They're funny actually. And any gamer who says they can't play games on Vista is an utter idiot.
"And any gamer who says they can't play games on Vista is an utter idiot."
Typical M$ fanboi-ism. Anyone who has problems with fista is an idiot, despite the FACT the OS is pure garbage and requires a supercomputer just to load the desktop. It's not fista's fault, it's yours. Just like "the man" would say. "It's not that our software sucks donkeys, it's just that you aren't working it right."
Fista makes XP look fast on the same hardware and XP makes Linux look screamingly fast on the same hardware. Plus Linux is *FAR* more stable, has *FAR* fewer exploits possible (never mind the number of exploits in the wild) and isn't tied down with DRM crapware that decides for you if your equipment will work.
it makes me wonder why did anyone actually complain about windows vista,because windows vista is 10 times better than windows xp.its very true,windows vista puts windows xp to shame.first,windows vista loads faster,it starts the main windows interface alot quicker.but it does tend to use to much system resources and memory for ram.but the whole vista os is one of the best top notch i have ever used so far.i would say windows vista is probably just as good as win95 and win98 2nd edition or even better.the windows xp was a piece of crap,it ran slow,it chewed into so much system resources and ram for memory that it was slowing me down all the time for petesakes,and i have huge ram for memory.then the worst part of all about windows xp.it was a piece of junk because it always allowed adware/spyware to break in all the time and take over your computer and you couldnt do anything.so you had to unplug the pc and plug it back in,then re-install the windows xp all over again.the adware/spyware/trojans and others would install itself into your windows xp and everytime you try and kill the program it would freeze your pc.then you had to do what i mentioned about re-stalling the windows xp.its just retarded,stupid and nuts to actually try to claim windows xp is better than windows vista ultimate edition,because windows vista ultimate edition is so much better
Anyone can demo Vista and make it look good. The problem is the persception of people who actually use it. I bought 6 computers 2 months ago with Vista on them. On average they crash 3 times a day with a Windows Explorer Has Stopped Responding message. 4 times a week they just crash and throw away all of the documents you were working on. It takes 780% longer to do the tasks we do than it did on XP. We timed them. This may be your idea of a good operating system but not mine.
you are 100% correct. xp totally sucks. one of the other things about vista is that it uses memory to remember what you've done. the more you use it, the faster it gets. xp is so outdated and useless it's pathetic to even argue with the xp hanger-onners, lmao
"windows vista loads faster,it starts the main windows interface alot quicker If you like waiting for 10 minutes for Vista to load, then yes it loads FAST!!!
I have had Vista for over 1 1/2 years and I HATE IT!!!
Too much OVERHEAD!!! TOO MUCH DRAG ON RESOURCES!!
I want an OS that LOads and runs without having to wait forever!! And don't get me started on restarts or shutdowns!!!
"then the worst part of all about windows xp.it was a piece of junk because it always allowed adware/spyware to break in all the time and take over your computer and you couldnt do anything.so you had to unplug the pc and plug it back in,then re-install the windows xp all over again.the adware/spyware/trojans and others would install itself into your windows xp and everytime you try and kill the program it would freeze your pc.then you had to do what i mentioned about re-stalling the windows xp.its "
Ummmm Have you ever heard of Anti-spyware software!?!!?!?
I have never had to wipeout and re-install Windwos XP due to SPYWARE, and I have been working on PC's as a Tech for over 30 years!!
Now once in while I have had to completely reformat due to a REALLY STUbborn VIRUS, but never due to SPYWARE!! If youae having to do that due to spyware then you need to take some computer classes or send the PC to a TRUE TECHNICIAN to fix it!!
I just cant agree with that, seeing as XP is a proper operating system, and runs as it was intended, whereas Vista is a shadow of what it is supposed to be.
If you have good anti-virus / spyware protection, then XP works like a dream, there is room for improvement, but it is probably the best windows i've ever used.
Apparently you are not a technician who deals with fixing computers everyday. XP can be fixed easy while Vista well let's just say I've made a lot of money downgrading from Vista to XP within the last couple of years. That's the only reason I love Vista it kept me busy and gave me a lot of business !!!
Fancy marketing still won't convince us alpha-geeks. My clients, colleagues, friends, family, and neighbors turn to me first for my advice about computers, and I am steadfast in my assessment of XP as the best and most economical OS to get things done. Until my voice is stilled, there are hundreds of people in my social network who will say the same thing. It's marketing 101 - a happy customer tells 1 person, an angry customer tells 10.
A fascinating story about the power of impressions
If this were a pre-social media world - I think they would have hit it out of the park with this tactic but they still need to deliver on user reviews and that is a much tougher nut to crack
In case Microsoft is listening maybe do some big seed marketing and allow "x" users to download Vista for free the full version - no strings attached and let the new group spread the word about vista 2.x
That's an interesting idea. Could Microsoft give away the OS for free and make their money from online services and other products? Perhaps give away the low level home version, charge an upgrade fee for the higher tiers. Since people are used to getting the OS bundled with their new system like you do with Apple, I'm not sure what the results would be. The PR would certainly be hard to beat.
One of the fundamental questions that Microsoft needs to address is this:
"Why should I upgrade to Windows Vista?"
That Microsoft released an OS that clearly wasn't ready did not help matters and it's tough to restore confidence in a product that has already been derided. The OS may be great now but shaking the image that it gained in the beginning will be difficult and Microsoft should not have allowed that to occur in the first place.
Personally, I look at Vista and I like the idea of having pervasive search facilities. Unfortunately, as much as I want that I can't justify paying the license fee just for that, and I'm damned if I can see anything else in the product that makes me want it over XP.
Frankly, Microsoft probably would do best to give up on this except for encouraging businesses to upgrade. Home users who wanted Vista have already got it, and those who aren't interested are unlikely to be swayed by a marketing campaign and will upgrade to Vista when they get a new PC.
..and promply strip that copy of vista off the new pc and install xp in its place.. note to mircosoft: get a clue, If Intell your PARTNER wont touch it in the enterprise, would anyone that hasnt made the switch even think twice?
Umm first off there is the fact that people who are incredibly ignorant say there is no difference between XP and Vista. Pick up a damn whitepaper and educate your freaking self before you shoot off your mouth and show just how stupid on the subject you are. The fact of the matter is that Vista IS superior to XP in every conceivable cat other then compatibility and the ability to run on older hardware. And I enjoy how people conveniently forget what a steaming pile XP was when it came out. I lost count of the number of people who screamed like ***** baboons that W2K forever! Flash forward 5-6 years and they are all running XP. What makes Vista superior to XP, and why the naive are so critically stupid, is what is under the hood. MS spent a crap load of time under the hood. Reengineering Windows. Vista is Microsoft?s OS X. you know. That other OS that sucked harder then a black hole when it first came out. That sucked so bad that they had to give 10.1 away for free as an apology. Then there is compatibility. God. I?m so sick of people. You either want a secure OS or you want an OS that is completely compatible. MS tried to give you both without making another Windows 9x, 2K, or XP. You know. Those OS?s that had a metric crap ton of security patches once a month. The underlying architecture of Vista is solid. It?s simply a matter of letting it mature. Both with newer hardware and more patches. However feel free to blast Vista like the all the other ignorant user?s out there.
PS- Typing this on a MacBook Pro Running 10.5.4 go ahead. Call me a fanboi. I dare you.
@Jonathan, I wouldn't call you a Fanboy because I think schoolyard names are a pretty childish way to shout down someone you disagree with.
That being said, I disagree with you on your comparison between Vista and OSX. Vista is an evolution of an existing platform, like every version of Windows before it. Whether or not it is enough of an evolution to upgrade for is a matter of personal opinion, and I don't care myself. OSX, on the other hand, is a completely different operating system than OS9. No legacy support, different code, different architecture, it was a desperate move in desperate times (and arguably the right move). They didn't tinker under the hood of OS9 to create OSX. OSX was previously NextStep. When OSX became the default OS, they put OS9 into virtualisation (classic mode), and put developers on notice that the entire OS9 architecture was being retired. Eventually Classic mode was stripped out and now the only way you can run an OS9 program is on a PowerPC with OS9 installed on a partition.
So, people can argue up and down about whether an OS should include legacy support or not. Vista does, OSX does not, although it did initially with Classic mode. But who cares. The point is that Vista is an evolution of 20+ year old Windows architecture, plus DOS before that, whilst OSX was a complete and total departure from its predecessors.
Frankly, if I was in charge of MS, I'd rebuild Windows from the ground up as well, and throw legacy apps into a virtualisation layer.
@ Kev: OSX had legacy support ( for legacy codebases that you recompiled, through what are known as "Carbon" libraries).
@ Jonathan: in regards to: "You either want a secure OS or you want an OS that is completely compatible..." Actually, one can have both secure and compatible, if the OS were designed intelligently. Problem is, it wasn't. Second problem is, it is apparent that Microsoft gave little warning to the dev community, then arrogantly provided no means by which vendors would at least have some sort of compatibility mode (e.g. OSX' "Classic") to ease transition.
It's going to be really interesting once MSFT is finally forced to cut the cord forever.
Here's one idea for Microsoft to consider against the rotten apple, the thousands of programs that are released every year for Windows versus the what ten or twelve for the mac. Hell, even Apple user's came begging Microsoft to release a mac compatible version of Office. You want to talk about compatibility! For the two months I owned a mac I couldn't stand it. To all you worms out there who do use them I have some insecticide that will help you break your codependency on a platform that was created out of hatred and jealousy.
I wonder if his head will implode if he ever discovered that Apple's OSes existed long before windows did (and that Microsoft was once just a contractor for Apple)?
And how many people liked new coke until they had to drink the whole can.
I run XP, Vista, Ubuntu and OSX. For a windows operating system vista is as incompatible with games and other windows software as linux and OSX. As a consumer there is no reason to buy vista. For business - even less.
With Vista Windows has jump the shark and is being out innovated by apple. By the time this 'fix' this mess with Windows 7, apple (and probably linux) will have the same WOW factors and dilivered them for years e.g. touch. Windows is bloated and the 'modularization' that they did in vista made its a slow incompatible mess.
This Mojave sip test - won't fool the person who 'drinks the whole can' vista in practice doesn't past muster.
They need to do what they've promised for years - a true micro kernel redo of windows. Make a new OS. MinWin is there only hope. Do it and be plain and clear on how this will be incompatible.
The problem is first impressions. I've installed Vista 3 times - first as the RC1 version, that didn't have driver support to speak of. I had driver issues like crazy when I tried it. Second was a year later, to see how it did with multimedia applications on an aging PC. Third was on my new gaming rig, built from the ground up for Vista64.
The second and third time around Vista impressed me. I could tell that my aging machine that I was considering for multimedia couldn't handle the task put in front of it, but it gave me some time to play with the OS. Now, I absolutely love Vista - it's not as fast in any one application as XP might be, but multitasking is WAY better, and the lack of interface chug is awesome.
The problem Microsoft will face is that most folks will only go by first impressions, and not give it another go 12-18 months later. Vista took too long to come out, and too long to garner real support in this round, much like Windows 2000. People forget how much 2000 was bashed to realize that XP was basically the same kernel just with a fresh look 2 years later. Every time there's a major change in the OS it takes the "refresh" for folks to think it's better. 95 OSR2, 98 SE, XP. They didn't change anything, just refreshed and repaired things that didn't go as planned.
2000 bashed? I don't recall that. I personally was glad to finally get the NT platform with plug and play, and so was just about everyone I knew. Even home users (I was supporting a lot of them back then) loved an O/S that didn't require daily reboots. And why should users need to check back in on a commercial product a year after its release?
Ok, regardless of if you like Vista or not you have to admit something's a bit odd about this. Maybe I missed something. Perhaps somebody else knows a little more about this? How is it possible that these people couldn't recognize Vista? Either a. these people aren't heavy computer users or b. Mojave had a different UI. If it had a different UI and all these people said that's awesome, then perhaps all of us could get a look see? I mean, I'm a sucker for eye candy. If that's not the case then are companies supposed to update to Vista because a few people that can't even identify the operating system said it was cool? That's not a very good reference if you ask me. Very few people deny that Vista's got some hot eye candy if all they were doing was looking at it. That wasn't really the complaint. The complaints were slow file copy, UAC, heavy hardware requirements, bad drivers, and hardware/software compatibility. None of those things affect you if Microsoft gives the demo on their own system that's tested beforehand. Now with SP1 out and the new hardware out I think Vista might round out to be a good OS for the home. The problem is Microsoft hasn't been complaining about home users. All the latest news says Microsoft is complaining because businesses aren't adopting the operating system. Now I don't know if Microsoft was having people do home related tasks or business related tasks, but if these people couldn't even identify the OS. I highly doubt they are skilled professionals. Going out and finding people that don't even know what they're looking at probably is not the best way to convince a professional to use your product.
It's trivial to reskin the GUI. The OS is designed to have different UI's customized by end users and third party companies. Once you remove the familiar menus and icons, would the average person recognize it as such? It seems like a valid test to non-tech minded people, and those are the people that MS has to convince. Tech geeks are too close minded to accept change, I'm afraid.
My guess is that they'll let the 'testers' try it on a dual quad-core with 16GB of RAM and two SLI-enabled NVIDIA cards - instead of on a typical consumer-level machine. The performance boost alone would make folks think "hey - this can't be Vista... it actually runs halfway smoothly!" :)
Agreed! What about the 10 percent that didn?t like what they saw? Or maybe they knew what they were looking at. The article say?s ?they rounded up Windows XP users? I would like to know the criteria of qualifying these users. I bet the questions went something like this. Do you use a computer? ? YES What OS does it have? ? WHAT?S THAT? ? Operating system, you know like XP or Vista! ? OH I USE XP. Have you used vista? ? YES. Did you like it? ? NO. What didn?t you like about it? ? I TRIED TO INSTALL A PRINTER AND IT WOULD NOT WORK. What if we showed you a new Operating System that would work with your Printer? ? COOL. Ok your in:) - WOW!
I am a professional. A software engineer to be exact. I know what I'm looking at and Vista is better than XP by a long shot. The only thing about Vista was the file copy to a network drive was slow. SP1 solved this problem and then some. You people are anti-ms so no matter what they do, you will not like it.
kmbchance: I'm using it on my home system right now. I'm not sure what you're point is. MS is complaining about businesses. Like when my boss refuses to upgrade all of our hardware to run Vista. There's nothing I can do about that. If the hardware requirements are too high then they're too high. That's a choice Microsoft made. They pushed the lower end computers, which most offices use, right out of the game. Then MS complained that nobody is putting Vista on those very same machines. What do you want me to do about it? If they don't have the hardware they don't have the hardware. To Vegaman. A simple Vista skin or theme on the OS wouldn't be enough. A normal Windows user could easily pick out Vista even if it was skinned. You should know this. Many people skin their OS all the time and it is still easily identifiable as Vista. Now, maybe they reworked the GUI even more than that. Maybe they moved things around like buttons and options and changed the layout. One of the complaints for Vista was that the GUI, while pretty, wasn't intuitive. Reworking the GUI may very well make all the difference for some people. That's why I would want to get a look at it. If they reworked the GUI and made it better, then it wasn't Vista that they were showing. It would have been Vista plus some improvements. Let us get those improvements then. They may very well have done this to more easily present a demo. A good GUI can make all the difference. Remember the Office 2007 complaints? Even if all they did was theme it different maybe you still have a point, but remember, setting the theme in Windows XP and Vista is locked down. Even a very simple custom theme can make Vista worth using, but without the well known hack you can't install 3rd party themes. If these people couldn't even tell they were using Vista then are they aware of the hack? Also, should you really have to install unknown DLLs from the internet just to change the color of the Aero start menu? If they're presenting different GUI reworkings and themes then what they're presenting isn't Vista because Vista doesn't look like that. Again it is Vista with some improvements which is exactly what Vista needs, some improvements. The bottom line is we would need to know about why these people couldn't identify the operating system. Seems Microsoft presented Vista with some improvements and then said see Vista isn't so bad. Well it might not be with the improvements. Duh. That also doesn't negate the fact that this took place on Microsoft's hardware. The complaints are high hardware requirements and bad compatibility. I know many people that were super excited about Vista until they got it home and realized it didn't work. If Microsoft gets to test everything and swap out machines until they find one that works, that isn't helping anyone. It's simply deceptive.
So Microsoft does a presentation, showing the things THEY want to show, but nobody in the group actually installed it on their own machines? What does that prove? That MS knows how to do a presentation that doesn't highlight the really annoying things about VISTA?
Give me a break. Someone should go back and interview these people after they've installed it and tried to use it for a few weeks. THAT would be a riot.
We have both Vista and XP in our office, and if you recall the "Cancel or Allow" Mac ad, well, you know Vista. It is more secure -- it has more sophisticated graphics, and it's the evolution of Windows: if by evolution, you mean bloatware. HD space is large enough to handle Vista, but couple its footprint along with the performance _drops_ in many applications that professionals use, and you can immediately see why the business community shunned Vista. Back to "Cancel or Allow": I simply turned User Account Control off, just like in the Mac ad!
If Microsoft made Vista run faster than XP, made it run longer on notebooks on battery power, allowed apps to run faster, and didn't relocate all the networking and other settings into different locations and dialogues, perhaps IT professionals might have viewed Vista differently.
Professionals need compelling reasons to upgrade; Microsoft, with Vista, gave them none of this and the above facts gave them incentive to avoid Vista. Now that XP is end-of-life we may be forced on new computers to deal with Vista, and over time everyone will adopt it, but most professionals will call Vista a misstep. But it seems unlikely that MS will ever look at making their OS a lighter beast, and as a result, Linux and Apple will gain market share at MS' expense.
If MS feels a little sore, they ought to be: Vista is not a compelling upgrade, and Apple poked them where it hurts. They had it coming. The "Mojave" initiative smells like a canned presentation -- perhaps they will put it online for the masses to decide.
ANY demo can be made to look good if it runs on top-of-the-line hardware and is pre-installed and checked out to make sure the limited part that's demoed works well. But the "proof of the pudding" is when the user has to install the software on their own hardware configuration and deal with the day-to-day frustrations that occur. From what I've seen, a large majority of Vista users didn't find THAT to be a happy experience.
I bought a top of the line Hp with 6700quad and 4gigs ram 750 hard drive. I fires that bad boy up only to find that it was slower than a snail. It was not compatible;e with my new HP IPac. It was not compatable with my new microtec scanner. It kept getting slower and slower so I tried a system restore thinking that maybe I screwed it up. The system restore which on XP took about 10 min. top on Vista took so long I thought that the system locked up. It took over 5hours to restore. I call HP and spoke or should I say tried to speak with some Indian that I could not understand. He told me to do a re install in a 2 day old computer. I had to make 6 DVDS to do so. The reinstall took 22 hours. It did not help. So I did an experiment I took my 6 year old Dell 1.7 1 gig 500hard drive and did a test to see which system was faster loading Itunes benchmark test. I was suprised to see that the old Dell blew the vista unit away. I got my money back from HP after fighting with them for three weeks. Now I am back with theXP Dell and a Happy camper. P>S do not buy into that better multitasking crap either,ZP with enough ram can blow Vista away. Sorry MS you have a dog and at that it is a dog with flies. jschear@fuse.net
jschear: You got an HP with an OS installed and customized by *HP*. Don't blame MS for what HP did to the system. HP is infamous for loading extra stuff on systems that ends up causing all sorts of performance issues.
Norseman: Vista installs in less time than XP and is more streamlined with fewer confusing questions and options for people to figure out. Installation on a current generation machine is exceedingly simple- put the disk in and install. If you can click a mouse, you can install Vista. Granted, some people have trouble with the concept of a mouse, but those people probably shouldn't be installing *any* OS.
Vegaman_Dan: I gotta give Vista props on this one. When reinstalling Vista it does install amazingly super fast on a clean install compared to other versions of Windows. Vista is all about getting onto your hard drive. When I saw that it was like +2 for Vista. I wish the people that wrote the install program could make the whole OS do that lol.
And I'm one of the people who gave it a bad rap... atleast on upgrading to it. We don't find a compelling reason to upgrade the OS on existing computers in our company. We may end up doing a "trickle" migration eventually where we will keep XP on our exisiting computers but use vista on the new replacements.
About time!! I'm tired of seeing Apple's bull s@#$ on TV. "VISTA RUINED MY BUSINESS!!" Ahahaha, I'm sorry if you had Vista conflicts... I had none. All of my tech friends had none. Admittedly I am MCSA, and an active Sys Admin, but still I thought Vista was amazing. I've worked with Linux, and found myself just unimpressed. Most Linux Distro have something to offer, but I just like sec pol, group policy, I like the MS tweaking more. That's just me. And OSX?? I support it at work... and I hate it. I read the books, I did the labs, I work with it in the corp environment, and think it's horrible. Great hardware, bad OS.
IOW - you're a point-and-click "Sys Admin" who fears the command line (mostly because if you actually did look at Linux and *nix, you'd find LDAP in there, which has done group policies since before AD existed. ;) ). Also, saying "I did the labs" is a dead giveaway that you're a Windows-only guy. Microsoft is the only one who uses that terminology in a learning environment.
As for OSX - it's drop-easy to support for any real sysadmin - pop open the terminal (or just SSH to the box), and you've got a BSD bash prompt right there, with all the tools and toys that make life easy.
That's nice jtmajorx, thanks for visiting. You may now go tell your dark masters that you have done their bidding. We promise not to tell them how obvious a shill you are, or how obvious it is that you have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about. Enjoy purging those viruses from your systems while the rest of us are actually doing things we want to do on our machines.
A self-professed "active Sys Admin" that can't handle a command line. Now THAT'S irony!
You do not upgrade! Vista comes into its own only when bying a new computer. In my part of the world you now get a first-class laptop with 4GB RAM, 256GB disk, Vista Home, and external 300GB hard disk and MS Office for 999.- USD. Why on earth have anything else since it works like charm?
Anyway, OS:s are only a necessary evil. Only applications matter.
I totally agree with the final line. Vista is not suddenly going to improve your computing experience unless it gives you access to applications that won't run on another OS.
Ultimate Holiday Tech Guide 
Wow. Sounds like Deja Vista all over again.
Instead of a more unified presentation to the end-user where you can easily identify what you are to do by consistent visual cues.
-- reply--
As a matter of fact, they did use visual cues. There's pleanty of them! When minimizing, it que's the eyes that the windows minimized are going down to the task bar, teh scroll bars will illuminate when the cursor runs over the scroll bars, this enables the user that these items are accessible. The Start Menu has been also enhanced visually. Instead of having to follow a menu to submenus, commonly if you move the mouse off the sub menu in the All Programs listing, you'll lose your place and may have to start over again. Vista keeps everything in a single column, which actually keeps it simple and easier, especially the Live Windows Search feature. There's plenty more...
---you said---
The culture of management at MS is one of rigid conformist type dictatorship, not one of ingenuity and creativity.
---reply --
Right, like other companies that are "supposedly" better then MS (Like APPLE) advertise these 'new features' when they are actually patch ups, that cost about 150 bucks and pull off other peoples ideas and say that it's theirs...
---you said---
This is besides the fact that Vista itself is not very user friendly to begin with. Anyone using Vista can see the complete lack of understanding of how people interact with computers.
--reply ---
This is false, the user interface is very closely resembles XP, and shows the Explorer Tree on the left hand side (which can be turned off). User Interface was designed by people suggestions about how Vista should be from the basic consumer. Don't blame MS for what consumers wanted.
--you said--
Half the time I am not even sure what you are supposed to click on. Sometime it is an icon, sometimes it is a button, sometimes it is an entire paragraph of text. Yes you can figure it out pretty quickly but there is that extra second or so that is needlessly wasted having to actually figure out what it is you are supposed to do..
--my reply--
You must really suffer from memory loss if you are complaining about a 1 to 2 second learning curve for an operating system that has new features. New Features are not recognized at first until someone actually tries it and uses it. You buy a new phone and it takes you about 30 minutes to an hour to figure it out and after you've used it about a week, you will know the phone inside and out. People like yourself, who complains about a 1 to 2 second delay because you think your clicking the wrong thing, show major incompetence how to actually work a computer. Like I said earlier, that Vista has about the same UI as XP, and therefore getting from point a to b is no different. The looks are differnet, but the way to do things do not take an extra step.
I've used Vista since December 2007, and I had zero issues with it. You obviously don't know what you're talking about and probably never used Vista or Windows for that matter. If you're really going to point out flaws, do some actual research and come back about them. Otherwise you just made yourself look stupid, complaining about 1 to 2 second learning curves?
**Uncle Bill Gates produces new operating system.
--New operating system requires more RAM/processor speed
--...which in turn requires replacement motherboard
***That means buy a new computer (it's easier for the "Windows for Dummies" people.)
***Not to mention, now we have to buy new peripherals to replace the ones that worked just fine, just not with the new operating system.
Does Uncle Bill have stock in those peripheral companies like George Bush is part owner of 'Big Oil' in the Middle East?
**Unfortunately, Uncle Bill is alienating all of his older audience by constantly re-inventing, and and forcing long-time customers to re-learn how to do functions/features that have been moved,replaced, and/or removed.
I'm only 33 yrs. old, and I am a long time customer that is pissed off!!!
derf
"And any gamer who says they can't play games on Vista is an utter idiot."
Typical M$ fanboi-ism. Anyone who has problems with fista is an idiot, despite the FACT the OS is pure garbage and requires a supercomputer just to load the desktop. It's not fista's fault, it's yours. Just like "the man" would say. "It's not that our software sucks donkeys, it's just that you aren't working it right."
Fista makes XP look fast on the same hardware and XP makes Linux look screamingly fast on the same hardware. Plus Linux is *FAR* more stable, has *FAR* fewer exploits possible (never mind the number of exploits in the wild) and isn't tied down with DRM crapware that decides for you if your equipment will work.
Anyone who defends fista is an utter idiot.
gg
derf
If you like waiting for 10 minutes for Vista to load, then yes it loads FAST!!!
I have had Vista for over 1 1/2 years and I HATE IT!!!
Too much OVERHEAD!!! TOO MUCH DRAG ON RESOURCES!!
I want an OS that LOads and runs without having to wait forever!!
And don't get me started on restarts or shutdowns!!!
GEESH
Ummmm Have you ever heard of Anti-spyware software!?!!?!?
I have never had to wipeout and re-install Windwos XP due to SPYWARE, and I have been working on PC's as a Tech for over 30 years!!
Now once in while I have had to completely reformat due to a REALLY STUbborn VIRUS, but never due to SPYWARE!! If youae having to do that due to spyware then you need to take some computer classes or send the PC to a TRUE TECHNICIAN to fix it!!
VISTA SUCKS end of story
If you have good anti-virus / spyware protection, then XP works like a dream, there is room for improvement, but it is probably the best windows i've ever used.
If this were a pre-social media world - I think they would have hit it out of the park with this tactic
but they still need to deliver on user reviews
and that is a much tougher nut to crack
In case Microsoft is listening
maybe do some big seed marketing and allow "x" users to download Vista for free
the full version - no strings attached
and let the new group spread the word about vista 2.x
cheers
Miro
http://miroslodki.wordpress.com
PS any volunteers?
I think I'ld give it a whirl
"Why should I upgrade to Windows Vista?"
That Microsoft released an OS that clearly wasn't ready did not help matters and it's tough to restore confidence in a product that has already been derided. The OS may be great now but shaking the image that it gained in the beginning will be difficult and Microsoft should not have allowed that to occur in the first place.
Personally, I look at Vista and I like the idea of having pervasive search facilities. Unfortunately, as much as I want that I can't justify paying the license fee just for that, and I'm damned if I can see anything else in the product that makes me want it over XP.
Frankly, Microsoft probably would do best to give up on this except for encouraging businesses to upgrade. Home users who wanted Vista have already got it, and those who aren't interested are unlikely to be swayed by a marketing campaign and will upgrade to Vista when they get a new PC.
What makes Vista superior to XP, and why the naive are so critically stupid, is what is under the hood. MS spent a crap load of time under the hood. Reengineering Windows. Vista is Microsoft?s OS X. you know. That other OS that sucked harder then a black hole when it first came out. That sucked so bad that they had to give 10.1 away for free as an apology.
Then there is compatibility. God. I?m so sick of people. You either want a secure OS or you want an OS that is completely compatible. MS tried to give you both without making another Windows 9x, 2K, or XP. You know. Those OS?s that had a metric crap ton of security patches once a month.
The underlying architecture of Vista is solid. It?s simply a matter of letting it mature. Both with newer hardware and more patches.
However feel free to blast Vista like the all the other ignorant user?s out there.
PS- Typing this on a MacBook Pro Running 10.5.4 go ahead. Call me a fanboi. I dare you.
That being said, I disagree with you on your comparison between Vista and OSX. Vista is an evolution of an existing platform, like every version of Windows before it. Whether or not it is enough of an evolution to upgrade for is a matter of personal opinion, and I don't care myself.
OSX, on the other hand, is a completely different operating system than OS9. No legacy support, different code, different architecture, it was a desperate move in desperate times (and arguably the right move). They didn't tinker under the hood of OS9 to create OSX. OSX was previously NextStep. When OSX became the default OS, they put OS9 into virtualisation (classic mode), and put developers on notice that the entire OS9 architecture was being retired. Eventually Classic mode was stripped out and now the only way you can run an OS9 program is on a PowerPC with OS9 installed on a partition.
So, people can argue up and down about whether an OS should include legacy support or not. Vista does, OSX does not, although it did initially with Classic mode. But who cares. The point is that Vista is an evolution of 20+ year old Windows architecture, plus DOS before that, whilst OSX was a complete and total departure from its predecessors.
Frankly, if I was in charge of MS, I'd rebuild Windows from the ground up as well, and throw legacy apps into a virtualisation layer.
@ Jonathan: in regards to: "You either want a secure OS or you want an OS that is completely compatible..." Actually, one can have both secure and compatible, if the OS were designed intelligently. Problem is, it wasn't. Second problem is, it is apparent that Microsoft gave little warning to the dev community, then arrogantly provided no means by which vendors would at least have some sort of compatibility mode (e.g. OSX' "Classic") to ease transition.
It's going to be really interesting once MSFT is finally forced to cut the cord forever.
I run XP, Vista, Ubuntu and OSX. For a windows operating system vista is as incompatible with games and other windows software as linux and OSX. As a consumer there is no reason to buy vista. For business - even less.
With Vista Windows has jump the shark and is being out innovated by apple. By the time this 'fix' this mess with Windows 7, apple (and probably linux) will have the same WOW factors and dilivered them for years e.g. touch. Windows is bloated and the 'modularization' that they did in vista made its a slow incompatible mess.
This Mojave sip test - won't fool the person who 'drinks the whole can' vista in practice doesn't past muster.
They need to do what they've promised for years - a true micro kernel redo of windows. Make a new OS. MinWin is there only hope. Do it and be plain and clear on how this will be incompatible.
The days of bloated desktop OSs is over.
The second and third time around Vista impressed me. I could tell that my aging machine that I was considering for multimedia couldn't handle the task put in front of it, but it gave me some time to play with the OS. Now, I absolutely love Vista - it's not as fast in any one application as XP might be, but multitasking is WAY better, and the lack of interface chug is awesome.
The problem Microsoft will face is that most folks will only go by first impressions, and not give it another go 12-18 months later. Vista took too long to come out, and too long to garner real support in this round, much like Windows 2000. People forget how much 2000 was bashed to realize that XP was basically the same kernel just with a fresh look 2 years later. Every time there's a major change in the OS it takes the "refresh" for folks to think it's better. 95 OSR2, 98 SE, XP. They didn't change anything, just refreshed and repaired things that didn't go as planned.
What about the 10 percent that didn?t like what they saw? Or maybe they knew what they were looking at. The article say?s ?they rounded up Windows XP users? I would like to know the criteria of qualifying these users. I bet the questions went something like this.
Do you use a computer? ? YES
What OS does it have? ? WHAT?S THAT? ? Operating system, you know like XP or Vista! ? OH I USE XP.
Have you used vista? ? YES.
Did you like it? ? NO.
What didn?t you like about it? ? I TRIED TO INSTALL A PRINTER AND IT WOULD NOT WORK.
What if we showed you a new Operating System that would work with your Printer? ? COOL.
Ok your in:) - WOW!
Give me a break. Someone should go back and interview these people after they've installed it and tried to use it for a few weeks. THAT would be a riot.
If Microsoft made Vista run faster than XP, made it run longer on notebooks on battery power, allowed apps to run faster, and didn't relocate all the networking and other settings into different locations and dialogues, perhaps IT professionals might have viewed Vista differently.
Professionals need compelling reasons to upgrade; Microsoft, with Vista, gave them none of this and the above facts gave them incentive to avoid Vista. Now that XP is end-of-life we may be forced on new computers to deal with Vista, and over time everyone will adopt it, but most professionals will call Vista a misstep. But it seems unlikely that MS will ever look at making their OS a lighter beast, and as a result, Linux and Apple will gain market share at MS' expense.
If MS feels a little sore, they ought to be: Vista is not a compelling upgrade, and Apple poked them where it hurts. They had it coming. The "Mojave" initiative smells like a canned presentation -- perhaps they will put it online for the masses to decide.
jschear@fuse.net
Norseman: Vista installs in less time than XP and is more streamlined with fewer confusing questions and options for people to figure out. Installation on a current generation machine is exceedingly simple- put the disk in and install. If you can click a mouse, you can install Vista. Granted, some people have trouble with the concept of a mouse, but those people probably shouldn't be installing *any* OS.
As for OSX - it's drop-easy to support for any real sysadmin - pop open the terminal (or just SSH to the box), and you've got a BSD bash prompt right there, with all the tools and toys that make life easy.
A self-professed "active Sys Admin" that can't handle a command line. Now THAT'S irony!
That is all you needed to say.
MS certifications are about as tough to get as tying your shoes. It is also less useful then shoe tying skills.
- by ch1200 July 24, 2008 7:16 AM PDT
- You do not upgrade!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by kelmon July 24, 2008 8:28 AM PDT
- I totally agree with the final line. Vista is not suddenly going to improve your computing experience unless it gives you access to applications that won't run on another OS.
- Like this
-
- by The_Decider July 27, 2008 1:32 AM PDT
- The OS matters as well.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 7 pages (209 Comments)Vista comes into its own only when bying a new computer. In my part of the world you now get a first-class laptop with 4GB RAM, 256GB disk, Vista Home, and external 300GB hard disk and MS Office for 999.- USD.
Why on earth have anything else since it works like charm?
Anyway, OS:s are only a necessary evil. Only applications matter.
As bad as Windows is, would you really want VB and .net "programmers" managing memory and disk IO? *shudders