Windows

The next version of Windows is Windows 7


MicrosoftAccording to News.com, Microsoft is planning to ship the next major version of Windows within roughly three years compared to the more than five years for Windows Vista. It is also to be known internally as Windows 7 from its previous code name of Vienna.

Sources close to the company says that the company discussed Windows 7 last Thursday at a conference for its field sales force in Orlando, Fla.

Some key points for Windows 7 would be:

  1. There will be a consumer version as well as a business version.
  2. 32-bit and 64-bit editions will be available.
  3. A subscription model to complement Windows is being considered, though no decision has been made on that yet.

According to Microsoft:

"Microsoft is scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year time frame, and then the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar."

It is clear that Microsoft hopes to avoid the delays in Vista which has opened it to much criticism, especially with customers who have signed up under its Software Assurance scheme.

You can read more about the Next version of Windows: Call it 7 (News.com).

Before we even talk about Windows 7 though, have you migrated to Windows Vista yet?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay on top of the latest tech news

Get this news story and many more by subscribing to our free IT News Digest newsletter, delivered each weekday. Automatically sign up today!

About

Paul Mah is a writer and blogger who lives in Singapore, where he has worked for a number of years in various capacities within the IT industry. Paul enjoys tinkering with tech gadgets, smartphones, and networking devices.

130 comments
jwlcarlos
jwlcarlos

WHAT? Another version of Windows AGAIN? What about Vista?! Come on Microsoft!

jimjenson
jimjenson

Vista - Maybe ff a few years! Right now, I'm thinking Vista is the 10-ton Windows. You'll eventually get it open, but it might take 15 minutes. I've got a user on a pretty descent Dell Laptop and the HD keeps working for at least 15 minutes after boot, thus slowing the whole system down. So if you ever get this Window(s) open, don't shut it down!!! I've also seen several other users who let their system go to "Sleep" and it wakes to a black or blue-striped screen, causing a hard boot to get anything back. Too many issues right now with Vista, but hopefully in 2-3 years we'll have Vista w/SP2 and it'll all be running smoothly. (Of course, then Windows 7 will be getting close to release and we'll have that to deal with). I think most of us bashed XP when it came out, but 2 service packs later, it's pretty solid (as can be with Windows).

tosha_slenning
tosha_slenning

Yes and no...Yes for computer illiterates..thus would save time, money and a pc technician's sanity such as mine. No for implenmenting in a work/business environment. We are waiting until service packs are released before considering the Vista upgrade. However, personally...I enjoyed the change and the smoothness of the program. We all have to remember that when WindowsXP rolled out...there wasn't anything such as software or hardware drivers that were available either... but time and patience did prevail. Same goes here... patience and time is a virtual...I find it funny that you all said the same thing when WindowsXP rolled out..and now look at yourselves...you are all XP lovers! lol.

tosha_slenning
tosha_slenning

Yes and no...Yes for computer illiterates..thus would save time, money and a pc technician's sanity such as mine. No for implenmenting in a work/business environment. We are waiting until service packs are released before considering the Vista upgrade. However, personally...I enjoyed the change and the smoothness of the program. We all have to remember that when WindowsXP rolled out...there wasn't anything such as software or hardware drivers that were available either... but time and patience did prevail. Same goes here... patience and time is a virtual...I find it funny that you all said the same thing when WindowsXP rolled out..and now look at yourselves...you are all XP lovers! lol.

jszivos
jszivos

Dare I say it? Lucky number seven!? I think that Microsoft is going to learn from their mistakes with the Vista releases. They are going to work with the software manufacturers, not against them...

Tig2
Tig2

I have no reason to migrate to Vista and am doubtful to move to any Microsoft based OS, now or in the future. I may have to run it at work, I don't have to run it at home. I am still trying to see the 'value add" to migrating to Vista at all, much less in the first year of release. Edited to change the title to something meaningful.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

I've a lot of concerns regarding MS Windows, the major one being - When will they actually rewrite the code from scratch and get rid for the open back door security holes for the other MS applications? A clean tight operating system would be a lot better than the constant rehashing of faulty code they currently do. The second one being why they need to have new drivers for the same hardware for each release of Windows. In DOS you got a hardware driver, it worked in DOS 3 through to DOS 6.2 - but not in Windows. This can only be due to MS making unnecessary changes in the OS; once you have a hardware driver for a device for an operating system, it should work in that OS for ALL versions. Regarding Vista itself - it's was outdated before it was released. Back in the late 1990s, I had to use Red Hat 6 for a college class, and had my first exposure to Linux. But I was used to Windows and stayed with it. When XP SP2 was released, I had many major issues with the WGA crashing systems. I got so fed up I started looking actively at Linux. I got hold of some copies of Linux like Mandrake (the Red Hat replacement) and SuSE from circa 2002 / 2003. When I had the opportunity to look at Vista on a system at a retail store, I was surprised to find most of the Vista glitter was like the 5 year old Linux systems, and the security system was a constant hassle and less secure than the older Linux systems. I'm now running SimplyMEPIS 6.5 Linux and getting better performance and security than I can possibly get on Vista; and it's easier to use. For a decade Linux security has been to use a User account, leave the account open, open a sub-window, enter the administrator (called Root) account, enter the password, do the administrator work, close sub-window, go back to general account. For most of Windows you have to log off and log in again, and the process in Vista is supposed to mimic the Linux one, but is much more troublesome. Sorry, no migration to Vista or Windows 7 for me, I've already migrated past them to Linux.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

From Win2K to WinXP at work and from Win98 to PCLinuxOS and Kubuntu at home. Don't see a need to migrate again in the near future. Aside: Why do I get the feeling that Windows 7 will be to Windows Vista what Windows XP was to Windows 2K: another new interface and a service pack roll-up?

yschoo1
yschoo1

It is really bothersome! Where are those folks who have had great experiences with Vista? Waiting, waiting, I'm still waiting. I have 3 computers at home running, one on XP, one on OS.X and yes, one still on ME. I'm still using ME because I want it to be a constant reminder to me what big $M could do to make you a "geek" and suffer. At the end I would like to extend my gratitude to Mr. Gate because he has made me quite a competent computer problems solver. I have even forgotton the misery they have given me. Now, Mr. Gate, it would be really nice if you would kindly, give me a full version of Window Vista Primium so that I could learn some new tricks just to prove those negative comments are "wrong". I have tried Ubuntu and I like it and I wish one day it will be as easy to run as OS.X. By the way the company I work for is still using Window 2000 and has no intention in the foreseeble future to migrate.

paulmah
paulmah

Have you migrated to Windows Vista yet?

Peconet Tietokoneet-217038187993258194678069903632
Peconet Tietokoneet-217038187993258194678069903632

It is not a very good time to upgrade to a new os (Vista), but for other people to get to know about the system it is worth while. I am running Vista on two computers (different licenses of course) and only had one bsod because of a forced program just to test the operating system and it's repair features, to my amazement it repaired perfectly, no missing programs or docs. Runninig Vista Ultimate. It is a tad slow at shutting down but i just leave it to shutdown, sometimes it is slow due to new updates before shutting down. Otherwise not a bad os, just a new learning curve to understand and fiddle with, perfect in my line of work because that is my work, finding out why it does not work and then finding the answer, sometimes it is simple sometimes it is hard but that is the way i like it, it is the same in Linux except that you can put in your own code to make things work (your can not in Windows, hence the updates). As with Windows 7, it will be too early to bring out onother os so close to Vista. To me it will be another os to tinker with and to find problems. And NO Bill Gates does not pay me just in case some one asks. I have a customer who is still running windows 3.1 with floppies. I have to have these on hand just in case his computer crashes. I keep the floppies in cool place just in case.

eseminoff
eseminoff

As a network technician, I installed this on my desktop PC at the office, tried it for a couple months, and promptly went back to XP. I had too many issues with remote access to clients via any type of VPN even after disabling some of Vista's new networking "features". I'm going for Vista training at the end of next month, but unless Vista matures in its support of some legacy (not really, only two years old or so...misc timekeeping software packages, VPN clients, etc.) software, I don't plan on rolling it out in mass.....

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

manufacturers would be to use the industry standard command sets that the manufacturers build their hardware to work with - but MS haven't done that for well over a decade, so why should they suddenly start doing that now. the second best way would be to stop charging the hardware manufactures for access to the command set, so the cost of doing drivers is cheaper. The third best way would be to not change the command set AFTER they release the OS into the world. But again this would require MS to actual consider someone other than themselves - fat chance.

slksport
slksport

Right click, select "Run As", and while the low-privilege user is logged in you can run a tool as an admin. Been around since Windows 2000 - that's seven years, in case your copy of Linux doesn't include a popup calculator... Sure, Linux is a clean, tight operating system. It also doesn't have one tenth of the games Windows has. Or a high productivity database environment like SQL Server 2005 (SSIS? Or even DTD jobs? Good luck, go roll your own.) Rich integration platforms like BizTalk? Well, you might get Websphere to run, if you don't mind spending a quarter of a mill. Robust reliable messaging backbone like MSMQ, which you get for free? Oh, well, maybe if you want to spend a whole lotta money on MQ - if it'll run on your particular flavor of Linux. Want a rules engine, like the one you get for free in Windows Workflow Foundation? Good luck. An LDAP like Active Directory - sure, just be prepared to write a big fat check. See, you pay up front for Windows Server products but you get all kinds of stuff included, from IIS to MSMQ to Active Directory, all integrated. More features can equal more security holes, but it also can mean more value. With great power comes great responsibility. Nobody can possibly hack an etch-a-sketch. Does that make it the most secure laptop around? Sure, for myopic people who think anything more secure than Windows must be superior to Windows. Don't get me wrong: I hate bloatware and features for the sake of a checkbox on the comparison chart. MSFT takes too long and doesn't listen to customers and doesn't stop to think why some people like things about alternative products. But so much of the Windows-sucks-Linux-rules crowd are busy building dorm-room junk and don't face real enterprise-level problems and real world deadlines for robust integrated platforms. Just my two cents. /rant off

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

I agree with much of it. For me, I tried red hat back in 98/99 and thought it was a hassle, so I kept on MS. I had no real reason to switch OS's anyway. Until Vista. Vista beta's opened my eyes, and since I had to re-;earn everything again, I got curious. I had recently read a bunch of apotheons posts about open source and Linux upgrades, along with other participants in the discussions. So, I started playing with different Linux distros. I found them easy to pick up on, even with more than a few 'quirks' from an MS only standpoint...lol Mostly I am using SUSE and PCLinuxOS (and Win XP SP2) I quit my job because of moving to Vista, and I refused to support it. So now I am not even in IT anymore. But, at least I will not have the headaches, and I am much more free than before, as choices are avail that I was unaware of previously.

barrie.duke
barrie.duke

Surely the questions are: Will I save money - No Will I work faster - No Will I network more easily - no one has said. I think the saying came from across the pond - If it ain't broke don't fix it. I don't expect to replace our network for another three years - and I could go to Ubunto to cope for some time longer. We charities don't possess unlimited funds and even with free Vista's from Microsoft hardware is a serious cost. Our clients are still running 98 and ME. The Vista users with all new hardware have few problems. I conclude that unless working efficiency is affected it's a case of 'leave well enough alone'.

yschoo1
yschoo1

Guess we are in the same boat! My son has a $1500 Dell notebook (new from Dell before Christmas)running Vista Primium. It has problem with the Apple Airport Express Base Station off my Mac Mini. The funny part is it has no problem with my other pc running XP and even Linux Ubuntu. Vista only provides limited access to the Airport Express. It took us more than 2 hours to figure out Vista cannot automatically configure to allow a total access. We haven't try to access our 2 older printers yet. It was enough all for one day. Are they not supposed to make life easier? If XP can do it, shouldn't Vista be able to do it better?

vinodfuture-ids
vinodfuture-ids

actually yes........... i have tried it...........but for tat i have to spend a lot of money on my system which was really not at all compatible to Win vista.....................!! but results were good....it works nicely, but the software support is still not good..... it need much development............

JDSAL
JDSAL

Everything said here was the same about XP. I run Vista and I have no regrets whatsoever. The GPO enhancements are excellent, remote support improvements work great, hard drive encryption very stable and integrated. Sure there are some-far less than XP original-problems, but I am confident that they'll be addressed in SP1. Of course I'm more interested in equipping my corporate users with software they know how to use instead of zealotware aka Linux, OSX.

jeffro in Berkshire
jeffro in Berkshire

I have a complete network of mixed level machines (9 machines at present) all running Vista Business (except 1 running Vista Home Premium - as a Media Center HTPC) and it all does work! I have the Kids restricted under standard users and have only the occasional request for a password to install a new game or program. The machines are of varying ages from "DOGS NUTS" top of the range in-house built machine on my desk all the way back to an Athlon 2600+ based machine - YES i will conceed that they do all have at least 1Gb RAM (but hey with the cost of RAM these days its not too much to upgrade). Yes you do need to hunt out the replacement drivers but only those who brought NEW PCs or with REALLY short memories will have avoided that situation when XP was released and again (if your old enough) when WIN95 was released. There are many reasons why the drivers are different and the manufacturers have had the outlines for them for a considerable time - but they seem to think that if they drag their feet MS will change the plans and let them through anyway! The only concession was that the drivers SHOULD have been MANDATORY signed (many in the industry believe that this was a concession too far!), we would not then have drivers hogging resources and failing to release RAM when closed down etc etc..... Many manufacturers only now make profit from the consumables (print cartridges and Games) and ploughing financial resources into re-creating drivers is not profitable - THIS IS OUR FAULT!!!!!!! consumers want a better and better bargain and very rarely pay for what they get - Take the XBOX360 and PS3 situation into consideration. But yes Vista does work in both a home and work environment and yes it does take time but if you want something that just works - watch the TV or something equally 1 dimensional (and by that I mean ONLY has 1 job to do!) For all of you who actually made it to the bottom of this post - thank you for sticking with it! If youve read any of my previous posts you already know that I go ON and ON occassionally - but thats passion Jeff Imms Helping Hands - IT Educating clients not humilating them!

CodeBubba
CodeBubba

I think I'm going to sit this one out. I played with Vista for awhile (on a couple of different machines). It's nice - but from my perspective it simply can't replace XP Pro (which is one heck of a hard act to follow). Unless Vista becomes some kind of requirement I'll stick with XP. Absolutely nothing is broken; why fix it? -CB :)

grefan207
grefan207

I have had many options to, but because of all the negativity, have refused to do it.

wburden
wburden

With each version of 'Windoze' comes the mad rush by the mindless masses to upgrade and the soon to follow upgrade horror stories. Windows no longer meets my computing needs and a year and a half ago I began a migrating strategy AWAY from the Microsoft madness. Enter Linux and UBUNTU!!! Yes - some learning curve and back to a terminal command line in some cases, but that investment produces an operating system that PERFORMS and enables me to do real work rather than constantly protecting myself and fixing the broken components of what has become a large, unstable and comparatively slow OS. Sorry... We all have to face the truth sooner or later.

collinsb
collinsb

Just had my first exposure to Vista. It appears to be a very solid operating system but is it ever a pig on memory. I wouldn't recommend less than 2 GB of RAM for Vista Ultimate. I also learned that Microsoft did not release the code to outside software houses until the last minute, so developers like Symantec do not yet have all of the support type software ready to go. e,g, Norton SystemWorks. In my opinion, Vista was not worth the price. Windows XP Pro is one hell of a good operating system and for the average user (business or home) Vista isn't going to buy them enough to justify the price (time and money) of buying, deploying, and using!

ginkep
ginkep

In my daily work I need stable, responsive, no resource hungry, trouble-free OS. Job should be done quickly - no hassle with drivers, no play with fancy interface (kids lets could this). Concluding all this: I have Windows 2000 in my work places (just notebooks are packed with Windows XP PRO). I had no problems till.

internetspider
internetspider

If Someone is a businessman his business is growingup day by day, everything is running well, But sometime he must loss, this is the Nature or routine of this world. Likewise, Mr. Microsoft loss this time at WINDOWS VISTA. What will be the next, like Vista or XP.

seng04
seng04

I read some excellent points about our behavior that we often tend to forget--many of us have bashed Windows XP when it was first coming out. Do you remember? I certainly do! But today is different than it was in the days of XP. While we complained that we had to go from Win95 to Win98, to WinME to Windows2000 in short order, XP was said to be an overhaul that would fix many of the hardware performance bottlenecks and driver issues that plagued the whole Win9x platform, and the NT platform to a lesser degree. My argument for those who feel we are just bashing Windows for the sake of bashing, is that we are doing so for a different reason these days. It seems many of us feel as if the versions are moving too quickly, which creates frustrations for users and companies who have to continuously change their personal habits, workflows, and even infrastructure--a costly proposition in time & money! Microsoft's marketing spun Vista like it was coming out of the box as an armored truck. The problem is that Microsoft left the keys hanging off the driver's door. As such, it seems we are venting over yet another platform that does not offer much over what we use XP for in the first place. I hear many of us shouting that we want interoperability with our third-party devices, and Vista falls short. We want (the fantasy of) a perfectly secure OS. Vista falls short. Instead of obsessing with short product lifecycles and leveraging deep market penetration to literally "force" consumers to upgrade, M$ really needs to back off each design and let it mature. Think of the benefits: consumers would not be forced to upgrade everytime they bought a new computer. Companies would not be forced to support new operating systems when they are just getting used to the "latest" OS to begin with. Developers could actually work comfortably towards making the OS secure. Drivers would be plentiful, and would even have time to be debugged themselves! Emerging markets such as the gaming industry could actually plan for improvements on a stable platform instead of "planning on planning" to develop on an OS that will be out by the time their title is developed. What do you think? Does this summarize a lot of the sentiment that you've read on here?

cromei
cromei

My IT has been running one station as a parallel of our typical workstations and remains adamant that we not go there yet. We remain XP-Pro SP2 happy campers. We will revist Vista after SP1 or whatever Bill calls it. My IT advises me there are too many driver issues and performance issues.

yagar
yagar

I am holding out as long as I possible can. I tried Vista, it lasted less than a day on my machine. It was so slow, it was painful. This was a a computer that runs XP just fine. (3.2 gig processor. 2 gigs of RAM). At this point in time none of my business customers have gone to Vista. When they order new machines, they demand XP and so far still get it. If the end of this year dries up being able to get new machines with XP, I am seriously thinking of building machines for my business customers with XP. I hate building computers, except the occasional one for myself. If MS won't sell me copies of XP, I'm thinking of putting free copies on any machine I have to build. If you buy a copy of Vista then load XP it is legal. Then MS boost how great their new OS is selling, even though it's not being run. They are responsible for the mess they made with Vista, it should hurt them in sales. Forcing sales is just trying to cover up the mess they made. I'm not one to support bootlegging an OS but this time MS has gone to far. They did it with Millennium, now there at it again, but worse this time. I hope there is some truth to the rumors that Google is working on an OS. MS needs a big kick in the backside, maybe they will come back to reality and do something right for a change. Unfortunately Linux isn't catching on fast enough.

Meesha
Meesha

The "features" are not worth the disruption to the organization. We've tested several of our business apps, both off the shelf and custom, and none of them would work without either some tweaking or considerable tweaking. The time, effort and cost do not justify the upgrade. We have begun to migrate our systems to Linux and have had far more success. Complaints with Linux has traditionally been availability of drivers but it's worse with MS Vista. Even when a driver is supposed to work, other things go on the blink. UAC is crud for example. BitLocker wasted time. Users don't need or really want Aero at the sacrifice of cost, memory, etc. At the end of the day, there is no business application required that cannot find a replacement utilizing mashups and on the Linux platforms. MS with Vista has finally put the last nail in the proprietary O/S coffin.

AT Computers
AT Computers

I Will Only Migrate To Vista Ultimate, When The Problems Are Fixed And New Drivers Arrive. Currently Having A Driver Problem, No Drivers Available. Paid $400.00 For A Retail Copy Of Vista Ultimate After Asking Questions From The Geek Squad Of Best Buy Told Me There Were No Problems With The OS & There Were Drivers Available. Best Buy Geek Squad Are A Bunch Of Liers! Don't Trust The Geek Squad, They Don't Know Anything About MS OS! I Will Sit On The Vista Till Microsoft and Others Develope Drivers That Will Work. I'll Stick With XP Until Then. WINDOWS 7, I Won't Touch With A 10 Foot Pole! MS Greedy Coming Out With New OS in 3 Years, They Better Fix Vista First!

rasilon
rasilon

First off, who in their tight mind would believe that MS could ship another OS in 3 years? The idea that they can meet a scheduled ship date 3 years in advance is so funny that I can't talk.... ;-) Next, who cares?? It's going to be another year before any significant penetration of corporate accounts happens... We don't need/want another OS so soon.... Hank Arnold

noly_big_boy
noly_big_boy

Most of our applications ran in Vista although Oracle Discoverer has some problems with it. Security was tight but the good news is that, internet is really fast compared to XP with IE7.

AT Computers
AT Computers

I Bought The Vista Ultimate Package, Then Found Out That There Are No Drivers Available To Run Vista. My Machine Is Less Than 8 Months Old And Will Not Support Vista Cause ATI Has No Vista Drivers For My Graphics Card. I'm Currently Running Windows XP Pro SP2. I'm Sitting On My Vista Ultimate Until ATI Gets Me A Driver For The Radion 9250 AGP Graphics Card.

Dr.RED
Dr.RED

Vista has a lot of nice things about it, BUT, there are too many drivers missing for older peripheral hardware, printers mostly, that are missing. Hence, whenever a customer asks me what to do I direct them to Windows XP because the system is reasonably stable and the compatibility issues are not there. When MS fixes these issues I will likely start using Vista. Until then, it will be Windows XP.

eM DuBYaH
eM DuBYaH

Nope! Absolutely not yet. Will hold off as long as possible at that.

kevster25
kevster25

I have a full copy of Vista Business Edition and after working with it on a work PC, I decided to let it collect dust on my shelf (got it for free, anyway). I will continue to run XP and now Ubuntu on my other two systems. I refuse to do a forced hardware upgrade just to run it so it looks pretty.

Drew@Omaha
Drew@Omaha

What benefits will I enjoy? Will my users be able to do more work, faster? Or will I end up having to deal with a whole new crop of user support issues? I would really like to know if I've overlooked something important by choosing to remain with XP Pro for the time being.

silentblue
silentblue

I run a UK based software company, so depending on what our clients run as an OS is what we program to!! So here's the Problems 1)Vista is here and on most new pc's for Home users which is now a very big market. So I got to allow for it in my applications. 2)I hear the same stuff every time Microsoft dish out the next-gen OS. Windows XP was cut down left, right and center when it came out now most of you want to stick with it??? 3)NEXT-GEN OS stop trying to run your old out of date software/hardware on a next-gen os and buy a new PC to run the OS. I wouldn't dig out my old Intel 386 PC to run Windows 2000/XP on? 4)Going to 'OS X' fine but just remember that it will not matter what OS you use the leading OS will always get virus, always have bugs, why you ask because people that build the virus will want maximum impact so they choose the most popular! Bugs in software will always happen because you can never test every situation. 5)No support from third parties (Drivers) I remember when windows 2000 came out the same happen! Give it time. Now I am not saying anyone is wrong in what they have posted, but everyone has different needs! Currently I use Mac's, PC's with Windows 2000/XP/Vista and Linux, when dev in Java I use all at the same time for testing :)

ivefallen
ivefallen

I've been running Vista on one of my backup PC's since RC1. It runs quite nicely and I haven't had any major problems. I did run into a very small issue with a new SATA controller. Updated the driver and everything runs perfectly. I've experienced 3 BSODS's since running Vista and all were driver related. All the usual "suspects" work just fine. OpenOffice, Adobe Reader 8, Firefox, VMWare workstation 5.5, etc. From a user perspective, I do not see an immediate need to upgrade to Vista unless purchasing a new PC or laptop. As an IT professional, I do not see any harm in becoming familiar with Vista. But, that is just my opinion. My company is investigating Vista and has made no plans beyond that as XP currently meets our needs. Overall, I think Vista is okay. Not earth-shattering, definitely not ME and is (in SOME ways) a step up from XP. Once again, this is all JMHO.

djMot
djMot

You people are so negative! Not ONE positive comment in this thread so far! Wow! Yes it has blemishes, but so do all versions of Windows. That said, I LOVE VISTA! There is very little about it to hate. I'm sure there was a lot of hemming and hawing over XP when it was pre-SP1, too. Tough. Look what you are all saying now - how you'd never leave XP. I get that you want a mature OS. But look, isn't this really a forum for the technology leaders in the pack? If so, I've never heard such ridiculous commentary from the so called best of the best in all my life! As for me? I'm loving the security, new functionality, and the totally cool Vista experience. There is very little that isn't working correctly on my system. I took the time to understand Vista and work out the issues. I'm not impulsive and so quick to just give up! So while the rest of you are whining, I'm embracing the HERE AND NOW and a year from now when all of you that are saying, "I'll NEVER use Vista," are still struggling to figure out how to help your clients that are, mine will love me for being totally current and able to help them with absolutely no head scratching. Good Luck.

The Admiral
The Admiral

The quick answer is that by the time W7 is out, we will then adopt vista. The problem with a new OS release is migrating applications from slow application providers. When their applications don't run right, we don't move over. Since W7 will take 3 years to come out, we will likely skip Vista and go with W7 SP2 before we jump.

Fred123456
Fred123456

In the work enviornment we have had Vista for about 8 months. My Dad has had it on his new laptop for about 4 months. I have had it on my laptop for about a month. At work, I'm pretty happy with Vista, though the install is our own with a lot of services shutdown that we just don't use. At Home It's been, just ok, I've been annoyed with all the "cute-zie" interfaces and the security services are just plain annoying. A Client I have been dealing with a consulting client with a small business who bought a Lenovo. And aside from the annoying software installed, we are having a big problem with a HP Printer. It seems HP has Vista drivers that are what I would consider a stop gap. The printer itself disappears after the latop itself goes on the road. So overall Vista is kinda cheezie on a 32 bit system. But on a 64 bit quad core it seems to be a great OS. Though its the security screens that really bother me. Their has t be a better then to ask me all the time if I want to do the action I'm actually performing.. Win 7.. Three years? Thats too funny..

rctech
rctech

I have Windows XP SP2 and Suse Linux 10.2. I use Windows only for running MS Office and Adobe and Macromedia Tools. The rest is done in Suse Linux 10.2. I already used Vista to see how it works and to test the performance. No way. As long as I can I will keep Vista away from my computer.

jrw1411
jrw1411

Tried Vista but not happy with driver issues so have gone back to XP. Microsoft should dump Vista its a rubbish operating system they can afford the loss!

maudai2000
maudai2000

Why bother. What kind of audit trail and security features do you think Microsoft will put in there? Can they only spell the word S_E_C_U_R_I_T_Y correctly? Did IBM ever go into the toy making business (please read XBOX)?

raisch
raisch

In my mind, Vista lacks a compelling business case and considering the work involved in testing all our tools and technologies on a new Microsoft operating system--and Microsoft's truly amazing ability to break the least expected things when upgrading, we're happy to remain on XP until a real alternative comes around.

steve
steve

OS X is quickly gaining support here in my IT department

OldER Mycroft
OldER Mycroft

...I wouldn't employ the use of the word 'RUN' - STUMBLE is a far more appropriate term. I'll wait for the film of the book. XP is looking better every day that Vista stumbles on through.

Neil Higgins
Neil Higgins

Full of enthusiasm at first (business edition).Then I came down off the ceiling,looked at Vista objectively,and decided to move on.No going back to XP however. Now Ubuntu inspired.Sorry.

seanferd
seanferd

or have historical knowledge of (for those of us who are young'uns), the days when an operating system was designed to run hardware, rather than the hardware having to be designed to meet the "logo testing" requirements of the (disk) operating system?

j-mart
j-mart

The quake 3 engine has been "open Sourced " and has been relesed under GPL, a small step but may open up Linux gaming options in future. Quake 3 though it may not be the latest new game offering, is a native Linux install now. It could be the trickle before the flood to come.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Maybe. On a good day. With a dedicated, experienced, administrator for each installation to make sure backups run, clean up the trash, respond to error messages, and just do general housekeeping. MS SQL Server may come free with Windows Server, but you get what you pay for. And you don't even have to search Google for the alternatives, I've provided them for you: MySQL - http://www.mysql.com/ Postgre SQL - http://www.postgresql.org/ Edit: links

jszivos
jszivos

Yeah... su has been around forever. Also run as really does suck. Did you know it doesn't support msi extensions through the GUI? A lot of software is still installed with msi's. I've tried doing a runas command in the command line using microsoft installer to install these pesky msi files but with no luck. I am sure that it very possibly but ridiculously time-consuming and difficult. Now, imagine doing this everytime you want to install software... It's even more annoying when you have users within the organization that have local admin to their machine but they can't do a runas - forcing them to log out. We can't even lockout the admin account as a result so there is a possibility that they leave the admin account logged in or accidentally accept spyware. With Linux it's a quick fix... just type "su username" in the command-line! Taaadaaa! Are you really stating that Windows is the best OS because it supports more games? I could have sworn we were talking about the business world, but yes, Microsoft does have an advantage with PC games. Linux may have cedega but it's buggy, and Vista has DX10 - checkmate! Microshaft does give server distros tons of software but they certainly are watered-down versions. You have to pay $1000s for Exchange, SQL Server software, expanded IIS features, etc. With Linux it is ENTIRELY free. I completely agree with you that Windows servers are easier to manage but they are far more expensive and it makes your entire organization dependent on Microsoft. AD is fantastic because it entirely integrates with EVERYTHING. It's very easy to manage and manipulate. I personally feel that the best enterprise is a hybrid of multiple platforms for multiple reasons. Security, budget, customization, efficiency. By sticking with a single platform you are limiting your personal skills and your business's options. Part of being in IT is learning what is best for the business/users/system managers and integrating it. I'm just keeping my fingers cross hoping that Microsoft doesn't make the mistakes with this operating system that they did with Vista. They have to realize what the customers, business, and software developers want....

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

and they've had it since the first versions, took MS several years to catch up on that. BTW: Run As doesn't always work right, I've had some W2K system where it works, others where it doesn't. usually works well on W2K Server and Advanced server, and often messes up on W2K Pro. You want really top range servers, buy some of the top quality Unix or Linux server versions from Mandrake or SuSE or any other major release with full support. For basic server functions, you get them free with nearly all releases of Linux. basic mail server or file server or web server - get all that's needed with a basic Linux release of almost any version. Funny you mention games, the majority of the major games run on Linux / Unix servers, not Windows servers. Also i can get most Windows based games to run on Windows with WINE. One thing I can do in Linux with WINE is to run my Win 9x games with my Win NT games, and my Win XP games on the same machien without having to dual boot it - something Windows CAN'T do. So more companies write their games to go with Windows only than write them to go with Linux only, whoopie; more and more are writing games to run on both now. MSMQ is free, where mate. Not on any of the versions of Windows I have at home. Oh, do you mean it's part of what you pay for with the Windows Server edition - that's not free mate, it paid for with the system. My issues with Windows security isn't that something else is more secure, but they claim top security and fail to deliver, THEN MS release a new versions with all the security holes of the last three versions - they should fix the damn thing before they release it. It's their lies and poor work. I've used Windows since Win 3 was released in Australia. But I gave up on it about 18 months back when WGA started crashing my system on a regular basis, because it's so badly written it kept telling me the software I bought from MS Australia, in the fancy boxes, was pirate. I got fed up with having to regularly rebuild the system, so I rebuilt it with Linux and find it now works out of the box with a lot less hassles than Win XP. My main concern is the computer has to do the job, Win XP wasn't doing the job all the time for me; Linux is. It's as simple as that. re your comment on the Linux stuff being dorm room junk; if that was so, why have all the changes MS made to Windows in XP and Vista been to duplicate capabilities that Linux had before they started writing XP or Vista? It's such junk that MS have to duplicate, sadly, they always manage to do it badly.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

properly for a change, in which case, I'd give it a try - but you'd have to prove it was a complete rewrite without any security thwarting back doors in it first.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

"Are they not supposed to make life easier? If XP can do it, shouldn't Vista be able to do it better?" You assume that the people at MS are acting in an intelligent manner for the benefit of the client. Their whole strategy is aimed at making you buy new software and hardware - that requires you to NOT be able to use what XP could. They don't care about anything made prior to the release of Vista, unless they've been paid to.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

perspective is a bit different. When XP came out, i tried it and liked it, but grew to hate it when they added the WGA (NB: Never did like the on-line activation, but saw that as a small issue then). My biggest complaints about Microsoft and Windows is they've been telling us since NT was released how security is so top line it's perfectly safe; repeat for Win2K, Win XP, and now Vista. Tends to lose a bit of validity along the way - especially as it's always failed to deliver security. They also tell us how easier it is with each new version, yet it's harder to find things with each new version. It's my opinion that MS would lose 90% of its complainers if they just stopped screwing around with Windows and started spending time fixing it properly. Why do we need to have whole new versions of applications with each release, the existing software should run on the new OS perfectly. Think back to the 1980s and 1990s. Got software that ran in DOS 2, it ran in all the versions of DOS, and most even worked perfectly in Win 95 and Win 98. I got Word back in the days they called in Word for Windows, it runs well in Win 3.11, Win 95, Win 98, Win NT, Win 2K, some hassles with XP but still worked, but won't load on a Vista machine. Word documents saved in Word 2a or Word 6 won't even open properly in Word 2003, Word XP, or Word 2007. This lack of compatibility is my biggest complaint. Drivers are simple instructions that turn the Operating system instructions into those needed for the hardware, yet we need new drivers for almost each different version of Windows, it's not because the hardware changes, but MS change the basic instructions sets for Windows, just to make this incompatibility happen. They need to start thinking about the client base, and not their pocket, or they'll lose it all.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

Wow, next thing you'll tell me is that MS has buggy products.

collinsb
collinsb

I recently purchased a brand new high-end Toshiba Laptop that had Vista Ultimate loaded on it. I purchased this laptop for my granddaughter to use at college. Once we got her to college we quickly discovered that the Ethernet card installed in her laptop was not supported by Vista - no drivers. Since that time, I have been able to get the necessary driver from the Ethernet board manufacturer. While we were waiting for the driver to be developed, she was able to use her sister's laptop which was loaded with XP Pro SP2. The problem was this, Microsoft was so hot to get Vista pulling in more cash, they failed to send out the necessary code to the various OEM's. Microsoft loses more and more customers by the day due to this calus treatment of their customers. Their market share is so big right now that even losing 5% per year wouldn't hurt them. The question is this, "If this keeps up, what will the stockholders have to say in 20 years?"

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

numerous support headaches Massive upgrades to hardware Vista deactivating itself driver nightmares seven flavors of the same OS running around re-activation of software every time you upgrade the hardware.

collinsb
collinsb

I agree that Vista is realtively solid - at least for a virgin release. The only difference I can see between your stance and mine is that I would rather be on the leading edge than on the bleeding edge. I've been at this for over 40 years and have learned that it is better to wait, at least until the first major service pack has been issued. Beta testing shouldn't be complete until all drivers have been developed and thoroughly tested and release to market shouldn't occur until beta testing has been completed. I don't believe Vista has enough added bells and whistles to justify the price but those it does have are pretty darned good. I think Vista's biggest value is in it's potential but with getting customers ticked-off because of missing drivers won't help it realize that potential any quicker.

contactus
contactus

I bought the software and it's still in the package. Why would you want to be a non paid MS troubleshooter? Why are they bringing out Windown 7 and not upgrading Vista with Service Packs? I could not afford the down time and research time necessary to continue by business successfuly with a Vista install. Wakeup MS, wakeup users... Bruce...

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Most people I know are looking at it askance.

Drew@Omaha
Drew@Omaha

You didn't provide one solid, compelling reason that would convince me to upgrade from Windows 2000 / XP Pro to Vista. You love it. Great. Good for you. Apparently many of the other people with negative comments have had negative experiences. I bet you loved Windows ME, too.

Mark T
Mark T

Vista has many improvements over XP though for many people it isn't dramatic enough to warrant an upgrade. I do find it interesting how Vista has polarized how people view this operating system. I tend to think that this is due in part to XP being such a stable and workable operating system (certainly after SP2) that compared to other operating system transitions this has the appearance of not being much of an upgrade. For many users their hardware, that is only a couple of years old, doesn't allow for all the bells and whistles to run the way they should. When things are dialed back to run on a more modest hardware platform the OS doesn?t look that much different to XP. To my mind this has been the greatest source of negativity. Still, most new computers that are sold will have Vista installed as the operating system, so love it or hate it Vista will be there and growing in market share, ignoring it won't make it go away. I expect many of the smaller niggles to be fixed with updates and service packs, much the way XP was. As users move to newer hardware, multi-core processors, faster memory/video bus systems, etc. Vista will surely dazzle.

bobzoom
bobzoom

I still cannot see a practical reason to move from Windows 2000. What can the others do in a work environment that Windows 2000 cannot? For a fact XP is not as stable as 2000. Why switch? What's the added value?

GoodOh
GoodOh

I read what was coming before the name changed to Vista and made the decision that if MS couldn't get it out the door I was going to give OS X a try on my next machine. The new machine came along and I have a smile while my Vista running colleagues have grimaces. OS X is not as great as it is painted and Vista is not as bad as it is painted but I'm happy Bill gave me a reason to try something new that I have found myself enjoying. Maybe I'll be back to MS later? We shall see. I have a few colleagues who are asking themselves questions about Linux vs OS X vs Vista in a way they never would have even thought of in XP days. Vista may just be the best marketing tool for Linux and Apple that we have ever seen. MS must be peeved and Dell must be fuming. Of course OS X and Linux will remain marginal but the margins are slowly growing and Vista is a small part of the stimulus for that growth.

seng04
seng04

You know... Today's a good day for a rant! I tried Vista and can't get the drivers that I need for my peripherals (printer, camera, videocam & music gear), and yet my existing XP system is more stable now than it EVER has been. Throw in some registry, disk & system optimization/hacks (Thanks to TechRepublic whitepapers), and XP boots up like a virgin! For the forseeable future, going "Vista" is like taking a step backwards. I'd rather fire up my Commodore 64 before taking such a risk again. And now we're talking only a few more years until Windows 7 comes out? What, so I can display my pictures and store my music even more like Martha Stewart? All I can do is shake my head in utter bafflement... I am resisting the urge to "baa" like a sheep for now. Unfortunately, Microsoft knows how to herd even the most reluctant sheep.

bkneeland
bkneeland

Our IT outsourcing company entirely decided not to allow any of our business customers to use Vista in their production environment. Time is money. Especially to lawyers and doctors. We have only sold 2 laptops this year to kids of executives who are going into college. They bought have had problems. Low sound level is a big issue on laptops. At home I run 3 PC's, Main PC is Windows XP, secondary is Ubuntu, gaming machine is Vista. Every game is a project to get to run right. Turned off UAC immediately. Interface needs to limit to 3 clicks to get to anywhere. Not multiples of clicks, never mind able to get to wherever you are looking for by seven different directions. Too confusing... VISTA=ME=TRASH.

david_scott
david_scott

don't see any compelling reason to move from XP

nb
nb

I perfectly agree - Huge operating system, a core 2 duo CPU is already lacking in performance. To Add on the burden of Vista there is Microsoft Exchange 2007. We arrived at a point where a machine with 2GB of RAM is still below standards.

wlportwashington
wlportwashington

We've tested Vista Business edtion here in the office extensively for the past three months using varous users plus our own IT department. It is slow, hogs resources, supports almost nothing. A lot of our hosted solutions do not work on Vista plus our anti-virus is not supported by Vista. Vista crashed several times while trying to install a HP 1320 printer! This is the new Windows ME and I shudder to think what Windows 7 will be like. Gates and company should have stopped at XP Pro. It is fairly stable and works nice. The only good thing aboust Vista, it is eyecandy. And eyecandy does not get the job done. Vista should just be flushed down the tubes.

SandyM
SandyM

Fancy interface and takes a while to learn how to do things - that's all very well and has been a feature of each step change in OS so far, BUT no drivers for a 6 month old HP colour laserjet? What do I tell the user about that?

JesseLee
JesseLee

I have a new laptop arriving within the week with Vista installed. If I don't like it I will be installing Ubunto. Now its a game of wait and see. From what I have seen so far of Vista, it is just eye candy. Ah, well eventually most of us techs have to learn how to use it.

Double DeBo
Double DeBo

The company I work for has one laptop with Vista, so I had to learn the OS to provide good support. So I purchased a new Motherboard, CPU, Memory, PSU, and Video Card just so I could learn Vista. I had Vista on the new machine for 4 months and could stand it no longer, nothing worked correctly. So I spent a weekend redoing my nice new system with XP.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

In the early days of micro computers (now called personal computers or PCs) you needed a device driver to enable the early operating systems (DOS) to accurately send commands to the individual hardware items. Then they changed to Integrated Device Electronics (IDE) and included small electronic boards on some hardware, this was introduced in the days of DOS as well. Part of this switch in the very late 1980s, was to establish a set of industry standard command sets for the hardware. Each hardware manufacturer could use whatever they wanted, but the completed unit had to be able to accept the industry commands and process them - thus the small circuit boards on the hard drives. After this was introduced, you no longer needed device drivers for the most common devices - but did need to know which ones to use, thus the need to tell DOS boot discs if you wanted it to boot with CD drivers. This is what enabled 'plug and play' to work. However, Microsoft didn't want to go this route - no one, but no one, was going to be telling them how to do things. So, while you no longer needed drivers to make hardware work with Unix or Linux, you still needed specific drivers to make things work with Windows 95. MS didn't keep the same set of commands for all their versions of Windows, they frequently changed, thus Win 95 drivers don't work with Win NT, Win XP, or Win Vista, and the like. The really sad part of all this, is some hardware manufacturers now design and build their hardware to work with specific MS Windows versions out of the box without the need for drivers for that version of Windows, but you then need drivers to enable them to work with any other operating system - even those using industry standard command sets. I have a fancy sound card, sound system, fancy video card, extra wide monitor, scanner, and laser printer - to make any of these work fully with a MS Windows system, I need to load special drivers for each one, and need different sets of drivers for each version of Windows. The graphics will give me basic 800 x 600 as 16 bit colour out of the box, but need drivers for anything else. Yet in Unix or Linux, I just plug these in and they work straight away, the graphics will give me up to 1280 x 1024 at 32 bit colour with the basic command sets, no special drivers. This is due to Unix and Linux using the industry command sets, and the hardware is designed using the industry command sets.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

In the beginning, PC operating systems were designed to run the basic hardware, provide a user interface, and support basic I/O functions. [i]Software[/i] manufacturers provided drivers with their applications to allow these applications to work with various hardware. For example, AutoCAD provided printer drivers, plotter drivers, graphical pad drivers, and other drivers, all intended to support the various entry and output devices used with AutoCAD. The same held true for WordStar, WordPerfect, PeachCalc, etc. It has only been since the advent of Windows 95 that the OS itself provided central printer support. This led to centralizing support of other commonly used system hardware and eventually resulted in the kluge that M$ currently calls "Vista." Edit: clarify

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

how to install and administer a Linux box all by themselves; without anyone with any knowledge to help them at all. Knowing the town, I doubt they had any more computer books available for sale other than "Windows for Dummies" - Australian Personal Computer would likely have been available through the newsagency, but I doubt anything else would have been. APC has always been fairly heavy with Windows stuff, but did have the odd Linux item on their discs. I did offer to send up a copy of Red Hat 6.2, but there was no one in the town who knew enough to be able to load DOS and Win 3.1 onto a machine, and you needed that level of basic hardware and software knowledge to load Red Hat 6.2 - not like they are now days. Then you had to KNOW what your hardware was and how to do the software settings for it - not needed now. I'm sure if he was geeky enough and smart enough, he could have found enough Linux study materials on the Internet, but I doubt he could have understood it properly without a slightly more knowledgeable person as a tutor or mentor. Some people can learn things from scratch by themselves, but not all people can; and I think the kid concerned is in the later category.

apotheon
apotheon

"[i]so downloading a CD wasn't really feasible[/i]" That may make it more difficult to [b]get[/b] a Linux-based OS, but it shouldn't deter one from [b]learning[/b] about it once one has it. Were there any bookstores that carried books about Linux that came with a free Linux CD? A $40 book is a lot cheaper than a hundreds-of-dollars MS Windows license (measured in USD, of course -- I don't know what the exchange rate was like for Australian dollars). Magazines are even cheaper (though any that carried free Linux installation CDs might have been harder to come by).

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

didn't have broadband, so downloading a CD wasn't really feasible, and the schools were only teaching Microsoft software - you had to wait until you were old enough to go and live in a city to attend a TAFE or the like where they had teachers who could teach you about Linux etc. Heck 33.6 kb modems were still hot sellers in rural areas then - the quality of the copper lines wasn't that good and broadband was only just starting to move outside the cities. If the only computing knowledge you had was as a basic user of MS software, jumping over to learn about Red Hat 6.2 and the like wasn't an easy options - especially if you couldn't easily get a hold of a disc with the software. as I said, downloading discs over a basic dial up was murder, and most had time cut outs as well.

apotheon
apotheon

"[i]there was no way to learn about Linux in a small Aussie town at that time[/i]" Are you saying that small Aussie towns didn't have Internet access in 1999?

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

Back in 1999, a friend of my nephew's was setting up a home server to play his favourite games at home instead of over the Internet. The guys he normally played with all lived locally, so getting together to do it was easy. he was already to set up his own little battlenet server, until he found out the server versions of his favourite games only came ready to run on a Linux box, the retail versions were all Windows, but the server version was only Linux, and he had no idea on how to set up or run a Linux box. That killed the idea as his dad was prepared to pay for hardware and software, but there was no way to learn about Linux in a small Aussie town at that time - he had to wait until after he finished high school and went away to uni to learn how to use Linux. makes you wonder why they never made a retail user Linux version then. That same company started putting both Windows and Linux versions of their games on their discs in 2002/3.

yschoo1
yschoo1

That's enlightenning and I stand corrected. Thanks to my Aussie friend.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

existing commands work - the problem is MS putting in a lot of time making sure existing commands DON'T work. If they left the command sets alone, or better yet, use the industry standard ones agreed to over a decade ago - all the software would be compatible. Third party programmers have difficulties because they have to adjust their software to fit in with the changed commands that MS have made, just to cause problems and try to obscure how you get into the operating system.

collinsb
collinsb

I know exactly what you mean regarding the lack of compatibility. I think just about everyone is getting sick and tired of having to pay for software multiple times because Microsoft doesn't put the time into making sure their changes don't screw everything else up. Quite a number of my friends and co-workers have gone to Linux and I have to say, this is the last time I plan on coughing-up hundreds and hundreds of dollars so Microsoft can sell a new operating system and a new version of Office. They are coming dangerously close to shooting themselves in the foot here and actually mave have done so already!

miller
miller

Vista cannot seem to open new windows on top of the old consistently causing the inevitable "my computer's locked up"

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

it's sharp, it cuts you bad, and that's a common word used to describe it, followed by such words as USELESS and GARBAGE. I'm still waiting for MS to tell us why they have to change their command sets between versions, as the only thing it does it force the need to do new versions of drivers and applications - the instructions to the hardware and the internal parts of the applications stays the same, is the interfacing with Windows that changes because MS change the code words for the fun of it. Do this part right, and 90% of the complaints don't exist as the drivers and software are there ready to use.

CodeBubba
CodeBubba

Yes, Win2K was excellent. XP Pro is also - they're really pretty much the same. IMHO, XP (or Win2K) was really the "sweet spot" with the O/S. I have had so little trouble with XP (on my machines and the ones I have for my wife & kids) that we will simply stay with it until and unless it just doesn't run any more (which is unlikely). Even Microsoft acknowledges this by lengthening support for XP (2011, I think) and even after that it ain't going to just stop running because they produce no more patches for it. If I buy a new machine that comes pre-loaded with Vista that will probably be OK (though it won't be soon) but if not I'll just take an existing licensed copy of XP that I own and rebuild it for the next 3 or 4 years. XP (and Win2k) have such a huge installed base it's going to be one heck of a long time before it's "obsolete". MS has got to know this. It's got to be getting way harder to migrate the user base than it used to be. With XP and existing tools it would be nuts to spend any more money upgrading right now - to provide what, a different front-end presentation? That's like trashing a car just so you can get a new color paint job. -CB

beechC23
beechC23

I agree; Windows 2000 was the best Windows OS ever. I used to run it on a laptop when I was doing field work on paper machines (FFT vibration analysis using a double- slot PCMCIA card fourier analysis system). I have only had one blue screen of death on Windows 2000...a forklift truck snagged a cable and pulled out the PCMCIA card while it was working. I was even able to get the OS to recover without a reboot, although I did have to reboot to get the card working again. Now I work in IT as a business analyst in the medical field. We develop in Java for both Windows and OS X so I have both. XP SP2 is better than vista and the resource base out there makes any problem relatively easy to solve. But OS X beats them all, and that is all I will use now in the home environment, as I am tired of being Tech Support for the family in addition to my day job...

seng04
seng04

I am still using a laptop with Windows2000 and would agree that it is incredibly stable. We have not had one issue for over a year, and are even able to hibernate or standby the machines for months on end without issues. Once M$ Sets the cuttoff date for support on Windows 2000, we plan to run our displays at half-mast, or should I say half-brightness... lol

vmaatta
vmaatta

I can't say for GoodOh but I just wanted to reply on my behalf. I did the same thing last year you see. Meaning I bought a Mac. And haven't regretted for a moment. There's all kinds of flame wars about Windows vs. OS X vs. Linux. And they are quite pointless.I use Linux at work, OS X as main personal OS and, yes XP is on that Mac too for some games. Now what comes to apps. There's a flood of apps for Mac. These days "lack of apps" is quite untrue when it comes to OS X. Actually quite many apps are made for OS X as well as Windows. OS X has better coverage of proprietary software than Linux and it's a unix based OS so there's about 40 years of software development to give the user a bit of choice on software.From a home user's standpoint games are really the only area where OS X is lacking support of vendors. But it's getting better too. From any other area of software... I personally haven't had any problem finding a perfect solution to my needs.And as a final thought: Using a computer is fun and productive again.. Instead of having to fight with the OS.

paulmah
paulmah

How did you 'replace' those applications/software that you used to use in say Windows XP? Mind sharing with us?

Finite_SA
Finite_SA

I will not bother to go into the list of reasons, but I just don't see ROI

apotheon
apotheon

Ballmer (since Ballmer is more the go-to man at Microsoft these days) won't let drops in MS Windows sales sway him from such a course of action. He'll blame it on "piracy", and lobby Congress to legislate against fair use and the distribution of open source software. The only way to really win this fight is destroy Microsoft as it currently stands -- and the only way to do that, at this point, is to get everyone using something other than MS Windows.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

switch to Linux or Unix or Mac, and convince all your friends to do the same. When Dell, HP, etc realise they're loosing a lot of sales because they insist on putting crap like Vista on the machines, they'll stop pre loading the garbage. When the MS sales drops enough, Gates will notice. Every copy of Vista not sold also costs him sales of Office and the related Windows software that will only run on that version of Windows. gates won't care until his sales suffers, and his revenue drops.

Bluesrains
Bluesrains

I agree, Vista Sucks!! Has anyone tried using "Help" theres NO index!! Vista gives you bread crumbs and finding an answer to anything is near impossible. I used Vista on a new pc, with 4gbs of ram, and it was very slow, crashed alot, and popped up a message if Im sure I want to do this, so often I almost thru the pc out the window! Id rather use a typewriter than go back to Vista! I cant imagine, Gates will do any better with 7. We should keep complaining and maybe he'll smarten up and use what works!! Forget the eye candy and give us a operating system that does its job!!! And stop treating us like dummys by taking away features to make sure we dont mess up! Id like to grab Gates by the tie and yank, yank, yank!!!!!

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

What I did was shred 1/4 of the Vista dvd and hung it on the wall for all to see. And just to be clear, my shredder has had an issue with shredding ever since....

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

Back when the IDE standard was brought in, part of it was a set of industry standard instructions for all peripherals. When USB and SATA were introduced, they also had a set of industry standard instructions established for them. It was the use of the IDE standard set that allowed the plug'n'play to work. All the software and hardware used the same instruction set so it 'just worked.' However, for the last decade Microsoft has deliberately written their software so as to use non industry standard instructions. Thus the need for Windows drivers. Since they change the instruction set between versions of Windows, you need different drivers for Win NT to Win 2K/XP (both are based on Win NT5 and use the same set) and Win Vista. Hardware that's marked as Win XP compatible means its instruction set is the Win XP instruction set and NOT the industry standard set. Thus the need for drivers when using on non XP systems. If MS actually used the industry standard instruction sets we would no longer need any drivers for any standard peripherals. Some manufacturers have given up playing the MS driver game as they got fed up of being ripped off by MS. The manufactures of hardware and applications usually pay big sums of money to get the instructions sets. When XP first came out they paid up, but when MS changed some of the instructions in one of the early service packs it broke a lot of the drivers and applications. MS made them pay up again to get the new instruction sets, and the companies had to spend a lot of time and trouble quickly getting patches made and out to the public. Some no longer want to do this, and I don't blame them.

Jim_P
Jim_P

Yes, this is the real question. When it comes to driver related issues with hardware. We have to ask ourselves, who's fault is it really? Microsoft for not supplying the Vista Code to the Hardware Manufacturers in time? Hardware Manufacturers not standing up to having the drivers? Why would this be so? I am only thinking 2 things here. 1. Hardware Manufacturers didn't have the time in the time limit they were given. Which I find very doubtful as there are a lot of hardware that they have stipulated that won't be able to be used with Vista at all. 2. Maybe this is the ultimate way for hardware manufacturers to force everyone to upgrade their hardware so they don't have to deal with old hardware. Knowing that consumers will probably and most likely blame Microsoft for this and be able to squirm their ways out through the back door whilst watching their new products sales go through the roof? ? ? Maybe Microsoft and the hardware manufactureres are in both together on this? ? ? Not sure, only a suggestion. Maybe there are other reasons beyond this that may make more sense. Don't know. I am Open for opinions. Kind Regards, Jim

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I had forgotten the BSDs. I haven't played with one of those for about five years (FreeBSD 4.2 or 3, I think). It may be time for me to check back in to BSD.

apotheon
apotheon

. . . FreeBSD, PC-BSD, DesktopBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD? Just a thought (or five).

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

...maybe Ubuntu Linux...or PCLinuxOS...or Mandriva Linux...or Red Hat Linux...or... ;)

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

This is why we call M$ winBLOWS peripheral interface "PLUG AND PRAY" I am sick and tired of having to chase down new drivers for existing peripherals every time M$ decides it's time for their latest fundraiser READ: New OS.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

as they deliberately changed the command set to NOT use the existing command set and thus make all existing drivers unusable with Vista - the third party people have to pay MS large sums to get a copy of the command set, and most aren't doing that yet, as they need to pay again if MS make any changes with SP1 or SP2, like they did with SP1 of XP and killed off a lot of apps until new versions could be released. if a lot of the third party apps people stopped tying their systems down to Windows, you'd see a lot of businesses move away from Windows - the only reason they stay is they have a critical app that's windows only.

goyergeek
goyergeek

My company bought 6 Vista licenses for testing. I am not impressed with what Microsoft did in the vast ammont of time it had to develop it. However, most new softwares that cover such a broad range of issues, like any OS, is bound to have major bugs. As for printer drivers, Well perhapse you should have checked up on that before you bought the printer. Microsoft can't be held liable for other peoples lack of thought on the matter.

Nodisalsi
Nodisalsi

In the past I have experienced alot stress and hassle upgrading from any OS to any version of Windows. So I have come to the following conclusion: Windows is not an OS that can be used for upgrading or migrating - it has got to be factory installed to work properly. Then, if the factory install doesn't work then you can send it back with your consumer rights intact. I feel sorry for all those people who built their own PC's from optimal hardware configurations only to find that Vista doesn't support the sound card or write DVD's. What they should have done first is check Microsofts HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) before selecting their components. See http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/ed1e3b7d-5ea7-4ad3-be3f-af29f7b48dde1033.mspx?mfr=true for more info (requires IE6 or later - won't work for Firefox). PS: I know it amounts to anti-trust to make it difficult to make compatible hardware for your OS unless you are a "partner". And I agree that it is extremely bad etiquette to deploy webpages via http: protocol that will not work unless opened in your own proprietry browser. I don't come here to gripe - only to provide and find any advice which I hope is helpful.

daveo2000
daveo2000

I thought they don't settle down until well into Service Pack 2 or so.

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

Vendors couldn't count on a single thing MS said because it would CHANGE the next day...so yes it is the fault of MS that we have so many driver problems.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

1. An operating system is there to work with hardware and applications and should be designed to simplify that process - Windows is not designed that way. but more importantly: 2. About 15 years ago, the IT industry came up with a bunch of basic command sets that all operating systems and hardware are to operate with. These are set up in hardware groups - the idea was all printers would use the same print commands, and so on down the line - this is what enabled plug and play to work. MS disregard this and don't use the industry standard command sets. This has a flow on in that many hardware manufacturers now manufacture their hardware to suit the MS command set as that's where they see the main sales - the result is incompatibilities with various operating systems, even within Windows, as MS often change the commands between versions of Windows, thus the need for new drivers with almost every new version of Windows.

Double DeBo
Double DeBo

it looks pretty on the surface.....?

Sylvain_L
Sylvain_L

That a recenbt device's driver is not included in an OS is relatively easy to explain, if the printer wasn't around when the software's final release was made ready for retail, it can't have been included in. What shocks me is how much stuff was left out, drivers that were included in XP or support for devices well supported in XP (a few BlueTooth adapters come to mind). The fact that XP could use Win2K drivers if one wasn't available for it was an added bonus, now doing that to Vista often puts on up for a perpetual BSOD generator and a full rebuild. One would think that they'd move forward and not expect everyone to trash all their computers every time they release a new bug ridden OS.

Your Mom 2.0
Your Mom 2.0

It's the responsibility of the hardware manufacturers to develop operating system drivers for their hardware. That's the way it works and always has (and not just for MS). But I do see your point; if it worked for XP it should work for Vista. Wow, no one has anything positive to say about Vista. Guess we'll stick with XP at my business for a little longer. And when did MS let George Costanza name their upcoming OS :-)

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

It's their OS that can't recognize a 6 mo old printer with PLUG AND PRAY

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

It's their OS that can't recognize a 6 mo old printer with PLUG AND PRAY

ttetranscripts
ttetranscripts

Let put our thinking cap on. Is this Microsoft's fault or is it HP trying to get you to purchase a new printer. Nice try blaming Microsoft though.

dank
dank

Slow, no drivers, too much I/O activities, looses it's activation, takes too much resources, Fail to burn DVDs sometimes - why?? Tested it for several months need brand new computer just to open windows without terrible delays. When XP will die it's Linux time

Editor's Picks