Windows

Poll: Does Windows Vista deserve its negative image?

Windows Vista has achieved Edsel status in the eyes of many IT pros and end users alike? Does Vista deserve this indignation? Take our quick poll and let us know.

In a recent TR Dojo video, I discuss five Windows 7 features, like the Problem Steps Recorder, that I think will make Microsoft's latest OS more popular than Windows Vista--at least in terms of public opinion. Deserved or not, Vista has achieved Edsel status. But, does Vista deserve this indignation? Take our quick poll and let us know.

About

Bill Detwiler is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and Tech Pro Research and the host of Cracking Open, CNET and TechRepublic's popular online show. Prior to joining TechRepublic in 2000, Bill was an IT manager, database administrator, and desktop supp...

85 comments
SerrJ215
SerrJ215

It hogged resources, it was nothing but eye candy, It came out almost two years late and it is nearly twice as expensive as Windows XP. The only possible reason why I even considered upgrading to Vista was becuase HALO 2 PC version was a Vista exclusive and I didnt want to buy an Xbox. I have been saying this since the RC1, Vista is pretty, and thats about it. Look lets just look at Vista as what it was, an expensive beta test for Windows 7. Just like Windows ME was a flop but it helped develop Windows 2000.

andrew5859
andrew5859

I agree, Windows ME was a disaster and developed glitches within months of use and I even heard from MS at one of their road shows when XP first came out. I feel the same about Vista, it sucks a lot of resources and runs slow. I have a Dell Inspiron B130 w/2.0Ghz processor; 2GB Ram; 120GB HDD, but the draw back is that it also runs on the mobile Intel 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Family Chipset which Intel didn't make any upgrades to their chipset prior to Vista. Vista is not old hardware friendly, whereas Windows-7 is.....Vista is a flop and I would take Win-7 or XP over Vista. Also....MS needs to lower their price on their OS's so people can more readly purchase it if they want to upgrade from older OS's

mrsilva
mrsilva

Apple was very smart with their advertising. They started at the same time Vista came in the market. We all know when an operating system is launched, lots of hardware drivers and new created software cause lots of problems. Only when they start patching, the conflicts start going away. The key thing is, it has nothing to do with Vista, but with the third party manufacturers rushing their new products. Apple knew the same had happened with XP(and please don't say these problems did not happen with XP, my customers complained all the time in the beginning) and they timed their commercial, because the general people has no clue about any of that. Almost everytime I am called to fix a vista computer, it is a related hardware problem. PC computers that are being sold too cheap to have quality parts. The motherboards and even memory used in cheap pcs are terrible. I've been building average $1000 or more Vista pcs And my customers do not understand why Vista has a bad reputation.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

A resource hog that is nothing but eye candy, was the exact comment made over and over again when XP ewas released, except it was insecure, had nasty compliancy issues as you needed a new box just to install it. Today it is teh cat's meow, LOL. As for coming out two years LATE, I JUST had a debate with a guy tha Vista was premature. You lot sure do get your wires crossed sometimes. :D Face it, of all operatign system ever released by MS, the worst, out of the gate, was XP. Just because they fixed after years of patching, it doesn't make it the best OS from MS. As for resource hog, my Vista install runs flawlessly, as do many others according to peers here. Vista has great feature improvements over earlier Windows versions, if you took of the linders and had a real look you just may find them. How about asking staff in the office how much easier navigation is with breadcrums? Just because YOU don't see the benefit of a feature it doesn't mean others won't. WinME developed Win2K? What planet are you on???? It was released in orde rot separate Win2K as a business use platform and ME as a home user platform built on the old kernel without a DOS boot option, but with SOME of the Win2K features in it. Essentially it was a stripped down, home user alternative to Win2K. [i]"Windows Me was the successor to Windows 98 and, just like Windows 98, was targeted specifically at home PC users.[2] It included Internet Explorer 5.5, Windows Media Player 7, and the new Windows Movie Maker software, which provided basic video editing and was designed to be easy for home users. [b]Microsoft also updated the graphical user interface and the shell features and Windows Explorer in Windows Me with some of those first introduced in Windows 2000, which had been released as a business oriented operating system seven months earlier.[/b] "[/i]

mbc
mbc

This is like comparing some 19th century heath robinson contraption (ME) to a modern car! OK, both provide a Win32 API, (oh.. and a windows gui). But NT/W2K/XP/Vista and now Win7 are all built on a totally different (NT) foundation to the half assed unstable disaster that W95/98/ME used. NT took a large chunk of it's design from a 'proper' operating system, VMS. I went from W95 to NT4, so skipped even W98. The only thing otherwise that they both had in common was misplaced marketing hype! Vista was 2 years late, over promised on features and quality, and was still unready when it was finally shoved screaming out of the door. Third party developers deserve a large chunk of the blame for this, both due to a lack of effort to produce decent drivers, and a similar lack of effort to update application software to function with Vista's much improved security features correctly and smoothly. However, there must have been more serious fundamental issues for Vista's SP1 to replace the OS Kernel, in effect making Vista SP1 a different operating system to the original release. Vista with SP1 was perhaps at last a decent operating system, and most driver issues, and many application issues had at last been ironed out, but by this time the battle for market acceptance had already been lost. So whilst Vista as it exists now is maybe OK, the original abortive release definitiely deserved it's bad reputaion.

Another Canadian
Another Canadian

Why and because of that I have done a triple boot this month starting with a new HD of 500 GB 32 mb cache from WD, ASUS mobo P5QL-EM to replace my original motherboard in my Gateway quad core, took 2 stick of 2 GB ram each so 4 GB RAM total of OCZ, able to load XP SP3 at the first install, installed my Vista no SP and upgraded to SP2, no problems so far, did try the RC Win 7 32 bits version(it has a bug) that prevented me before to make it work correctly because they make a mistake that prevented everything to get to the root drive or c: root drive, altough I was able to install MS Office 2007 but only I read about the bug I started to understand why my other error with programs and games and I am not a PC repair tech but as I have build all my PC except that @(*(#*( Gateway motherboard that was even inferior to the quality of a XFX motherboard in my HO (lost the bios), money is and always an issue as 2 kids, college, savings etc, So that why I learned early to fix my PC and upgrade myself since 1996. Anyway I have installed Win 7 64 bits on my third partition the one without the bug at the release and guess what all my games and programes 32 bits work great and BTW Windows has improved a lot their PC hardware update because I did not have to search or go to Logitech for my Web Cam Fusion staring with the "New XP SP3" after of course I did provide the nix drivers, Vista no need to provide any drivers but I did install them anyway from asus website, also for XP for all the Mobo drivers and Win 7 did install all the drivers itself, no generic drivers. System is very stable in all Windows version and Win 7 if staying the same then now it is a winner and will please all my family and relative. This comment come from a "real worker" that like "PC hardware" as an hubby like your father once did toward his "Mustang" :). And from experience you get what you pay for hardware and that include Linux hardware or Mac Pro hardware. I dislike the all in one like Mac solution too tight lock to my taste or the Dell no compatible parts, when you know what you are doing in a PC by experience :) I already told my Mom that it is Win 7 for her in dual boot XP/Win 7 to make her feel safe at first :). PS I did built my Windows Home Server and this system just rocks solide and work with XP to Win 7 excluding 2000 as not supported or NT but who care for home owner anyway. For me Win 7 is so better then XP and yes it is what Vista should have been at first but Vista is very good also if on capable hardware.

Saabjock
Saabjock

Initially, Windows Vista was very bad compared to XP. It was an absolute..."resource hog". After SP2, it became much better. I found Internet Explorer to be the source of many of Vista's problems. After making Opera my default browser, most of the original problems went away. Go figure! Two MS products...not working well together.

HypnoToad72
HypnoToad72

1. Activation: Upgrade a video driver? You might trigger re-activation. Ditto for a BIOS upgrade. 2. Vista, to run at a reasonably mediocre speed, requires 2GB of RAM and a system bus of 400MHz. Try 4GB for real-time minimum usage; some articles claim 8GB is the 'sweet spot', meaning 32-bit Vista is out of the question. 3. Prior to SP1, Vista was a real mess. Lost data because of it too... but I kept on, because I was stupid... (no longer) 4. Anyone who says "Windows 7 is what Vista should be" is advocating Windows 7 should be given to any Vista owner for free. I am tired of the "(new version) is what (old version) should be" line, which has been going on for ages too. I'm tired of being fleeced for no positive outcome. Vista is poorly written bloatware, and Windows 7's system requirements (1GB more disk space than Vista!!) doesn't help either.

charleswdavis6670
charleswdavis6670

Most of the responses seem to be from users with little reading ability. Few even ran the Microsoft Upgrade Advisor before jumping in an updating old hardware. How many have sophisticated facilities to actually test the speed of the systems? I note that not a few bought minimal systems with Vista and then complained that Microsoft didn't tell them! I seldom see the UAC. What are you complainers doing on your computer that makes it such a "bother?" I would much rather have a couple of extra clicks than remove a trojan...

phil.taylor
phil.taylor

There wasn't enough backward compatibility which is what I think eventually killed it. If you didn't need to use certain legacy apps then it was fine. I think MS were lefy swinging a bit by other sw/hw manufacturers who were VERY slow to develop drivers or support Vista. Also @SerrJ, Windows ME and Windows 2000 originated from Completely different source trees. ME was the next version of 98 and 2000 was from NT. What the release of 2000 finally allowed MS to do was kill off the 95/98/ME range in favour of the more stable NT codebase.....

TechMitch
TechMitch

No it is not deserved. When XP came out every one complained until SP1 was released. See a pattern? No one really ever gave this OS a chance IMO. 32-bit vista home premium. This OS runs circles around my WinXp. This computer ran for 2 years without reinstalling even once until my root drive started a death spiral. I had to reinstall XP about every 3-6 months on my last system. The only issue I had with Vista pre SP1 was driver problems with my GeForce 8800. I Seriously have no desire to buy Win7.

8string
8string

This is my take only, based on running it on three home machines, two 64 bit, one 32 bit, dual boot, with my old XP system on it, and also comparing it against a Macbook Pro running OS 10.5.xx I also use. 1.It's prettier than XP...BUT 2. Its slower than XP. 3. It's not worth the upgrade compared to XP 4. It boots slower than XP. 5. The aggravation of driver and software upgrades was not worth the price in usefulness of the OS. 6. So many standard ways of doing things changed that it was more aggravating than satisfying. 7. Trying to teach my spouse the changes was not worth the upgrade. 8. The Mac is faster and easier in more ways than it's aggravating, and distinctly easier to use than Vista (not so of XP). Vista was a knee jerk reaction to OSX (court records show this, and it's no secret folks). Vista is certainly a flop in my book. I am hoping beyond hope that Windows 7 is the product that Vista should have been. I use Windows because ultimately there are useful programs that run on it and don't run on the Mac. However, it's obvious that MS is in deep trouble here, especially given the economy and the dislike of the OS. Here' s hoping that Windows 7 reclaims the high ground!

psmith
psmith

I upgraded my wife's business systems to Vista and have never had any significant issues of any kind at all. A couple of packages required version upgrades, a couple of older USB devices were incompatible. But beyond these minor (and predictable) problems, which were easily dealt with, there've been no problems at all. She's not exactly a 'techie', but had no problem handling the new interface, at all. In fact she complains when she has to use an XP machine anywhere else, about XP being kludged and and unintuitive. She uses her systems for business operation, EFT, scheduling employees, payroll, CM and accounting, not to mention web site maintenance. Maybe that's not using a system to YOU, but it certainly would be to about 99% of the rest of the world excluding you. Her experience has been pretty much completely positive, as has been mine supporting her systems. I guess it all boils down to one's POV: de gustibus non disputandum. I'm not really a fan of Vista at all (after all, it's not Linux!) but think most of the rap on it is pretty much just crap.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Absolutely, pure crap, seriously. I have runVista on a system that ses mroe action and runs more apps than mostother poeple's systems as it is used for three businesses of different types, personal use as well as video and audio production. RUNS FLAWLESSLY. 1) Never reactivatd in the nearly 2 years I've had it. Have upgarded and installed plenty. 2) XP required new, more powerful boxes too, which was why most people hated it when released. It had so much eye candy you had to shut off before it would run properly. 3) Prior to SP1, XP had teh most reported security holes of any MS OS released ever. So many so that Ms refused to patch them until releasing SP2, over 300 of them actually. 4) Stick with your preference then, it doesn't make others any worse. Search TR for XP topics from a few years back, you will read how XP was terribly insecure bloatware that nobody wanted to use because it was just eye candy that required a hardware upgrade to run at all. What, are you 15?

SirWizard
SirWizard

I'll address several points of the earlier poster. No, I didn't bother to read the Vista hardware requirements. I installed Vista onto the solid-state drive of a new Core i7-based system with 6 GB of RAM and a Radeon HD 4870 video card. Vista boot speed on that system felt comparable to that of XP on the old anemic Pentium 4 box I keep around for spare use. I didn't need to perform detailed tests to say Vista felt slow -- my perception isn't that far off. Vista is gone, replaced with Windows 7 RC on my fast system now. Lest my hardware's speed be judged as inordinately slow, I performed a measurement of the time to open an Excel spreadsheet with 1,800 rows full of data, stored on one of the disk drives (not solid state like Drive C.) From an Explorer double-click to the fully opened spreadsheet on screen takes 1 second by my stopwatch. Surely, I can tell fast hardware from slow. Though the speed in Windows 7 is much better, it still has much of the klutzy Vista interface, especially compared to XP. Vista User Account Control was an unending pain in the nether regions, but it's still a bother under W7. (I'd rather let anti-malware keep the Trojans away and eliminate numerous mouse clicks.) I often test / install / remove software and have frequent grief from UAC, along with its constant harassment over any sophisticated file and disk management software. And why would I use such software when "modern" Windows has such a dandy user interface that I need a host of multiple mouse clicks in Explorer to go up a few folder levels. XP used to require just one click per level, so there's a Vista problem that wasn't fixed in Windows 7. And what about the OS denying me access to a folder, regardless of approval?! Under XP, I could copy a file from the IE8 temporary files folder, making it trivial to save an interesting flash video. But under modern Windows, the folder is "Access Denied" for me, the Administrator. Compare the simple little game, Minesweeper, in XP with either the Vista or W7 versions. The XP version has a clean and extremely readable interface. The bloated upgrades are so visually noisy as to make it hard to see the numbers beyond the clutter. This serves as just a minor example of visual eye-candy replacing usability as Microsoft marches onward but downward.

will7
will7

I agree with you. Even if the UAC did complain, it was easily turned off. Yet I would rather be warned of an issue than be left open to something going on with the system I didn't know about. And it has always run the productivity software I required of it; both Microsoft's and Open Source. Now, as for a "game" OS, 'yes' it has a lot to be desired, but I use it for account management and writing. It fits the bill.

JeffWainright
JeffWainright

Granted, once UAC and the other irritating security features are disabled, Vista isn't quite as horrid as ME. Nevertheless, the problems I ran into working with my wife's Vista laptop were enough to convince me to make the switch to Kubuntu. I'm holding out hope that Windows 7 is better, but it's a slim hope at best.

owner
owner

You will love 7. 7 took all good parts of VIsta and really expanded on it. I have been running the RC since May or June and I love it. I was also an early adopter of Vista and really liked the OS despite the hardware issues that were present. It's even faster than Vista on my laptop and I think MS got smart and included a larger set of drivers so most of my hardware just worked. Don't do to Win7 what others did to Vista.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Exactly it, too may n00bs seem to completely forget tha XP was the worst release (out of the gate) MS ever put their name on, including WinME.

gewolfe
gewolfe

Beta XP from the beginning, Beta Vista from the beginning, Beta 7 from the beginning, All camps have their plus points and minus points. I look at Win7 as Vista SP3 and having installed many upgrades and clean installs find it XP SP3 for stability and even better for usability. New features like power shell and built in ISO burner and for the home user a powerful wizards for solving network, printing and other problems. Hats off to all those who put in so many hours building this OS along with all it?s predecessors. I say the same to the open source and Apple folks as well.

spawnywhippet
spawnywhippet

Failure of root drive? Probably due to the fact that 100% of the time it's spinning at full speed carrying out indexing, searches, paging etc. Seriously, the hard drive LED on my HTPC Vista machine has screen burn. When I boot it with XP or Win 7 it's so much faster that I feel plain embarrassed for Vista.

admin
admin

If u had to reinstall XP each 3 months probly was due to your own fault, I cant even imagine a reason 4 doing it if it isnt user fault. Vista was running during 2 years, agree, but probly of that 2 years u lost half clicking anoying "security" windows and waiting on reboots or other daily tasks.

jackie40d
jackie40d

Well Vista was the cause of me going to Linux ( Ubuntu ) and adding Virtual Box to run some programs in windows not yet avaliable in Linux ! And I took a lot of people with me or converted them to using Linux and got way from Windows completely and now they like it No major patches of fixes for patches every week and the update manager works real good inside of Ubuntu ! I am waiting on the newer 9.10 to get out to update my laptop from all the blogs and comments about it it is a gob faster running So waiting for the next one Then My Desk top goes to it and load Virtual Box and XP Pro with SP3 added and run all the stuff then means a day long install geez tons of stuff to be installed under virtual box/windows ( unless its already under the newer Uuntu 9.10 ) I added Virtual box to my laptop to run a few games and some programs from windows ( also so I could run Magic Jack and make Phone calls with it and send Fax's to Senators and Congressmen ) Bet they wish I would go away hehehe ( evil Laugh there )

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Show that WinXP is not faster than Vista at all, over several uilds with comparative service packs, each time Vista proved faster (even if marginally) in most areas. VXP SP1 - 587.4 Vista SP1 - 565.2 XP SP3 - 572.3 XP SP1 - 428.9 http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-10879-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=280962 "Court records show this" They show a lo tof other BS too but nobody actually pays it any attention. Did you know that GM's foundation was built upon Ford's? They BOTH used an internal combustion engine AND four wheels!

liory
liory

come after XP, it reminded me win ME. XP is / was too god for people to accept vista and the problems it had.

SKDTech
SKDTech

I cannot offer opinions on the 64bit version as I am not running it but I have read many reviews that claim it runs better and has better support than 64bit XP(which I also haven't used). I have run Vista on 1 desktop purchased release day(Jan 30, 2007), and two laptops(1 purchased with Vista preinstalled a year after release, the other was an XP machine purchased in 2004) 1. So what, arguing prettiness of the interface is pure personal preference and useless in debating the merits of an OS 2. In my experience across three machines Vista runs at least as well or better than XP as long as you have better than the minimum/recommended hardware, surprise, surpise XP runs like crap too when you only provision a machine with the minimum/recommended specs. 3. It is worth the upgrade in my opinion, Vista has better security built in than XP with the inclusion of UAC, more mature firewall, Windows Defender and separate network profiles that default to consider any network connected as an untrusted network until told otherwise. 4. Not in my experience but YMMV 5. Your argument implies that you have found Vista useful, congratulations and how are driver and software upgrades any more of a hassle than in XP? I will admit that the hardware manufacturers were behind the curve in their support of Vista when it came out but once they caught up everything seems to be back to business as usual regardless of which windows you run. 6. It has happened in every release of Windows. Do you use Classic view in XP's Control Panel? I do, and I use it in Vista too. I would say most of the changes seem to be more intuitive. 7. She is going to have to learn a new system sooner or later, if the two of you would prefer to wait then good for you. 8. In my opinion Mac is more aggravating and harder to use than Windows(any version). But hey, I started using computers with DOS on an 8088. Can you show me some links to these court documents, including evidence in the form of internal MS memos that show their kneejerk reaction? In my experience 7 is definitely a step up from Vista but Vista is no slouch in my book. Based on the internet, you would think the world is full of people frothing at the mouth over Vista. While I have encountered some who have been confused over some of the changes Vista brought with it most have not cared one way or the other. The majority of the consumer market on the MS side of the equation get whatever OS is preinstalled on their new PC and never give it a thought.

SKDTech
SKDTech

There is a way to change from your login to SYSTEM. I have found it useful on rare occasions.

fastboxster
fastboxster

The reason security was "fixed" in Vista (and Windows 7) is because the OS was getting corrupted by stupidity. Linux has the same issue (and a similar fix, the "su" command). The difference is that in the UNIX world people didn't log into root unless they had a specific need to. In Windows, everyone was logged on as Administrator even when they were just browsing the web. Microsoft fixed this by creating a new "root" level security. If you want to muck up your file system, you "take ownership" of the system files and then remove the "deny" attributes on the folders. Presto! Or you can just study the system, and learn to appreciate it (you would appreciate it if you understood it). With the UAC, there were some real issues in that you frequently had to approve things twice or three times. Now the approval lasts for a period (this is a good fix). In Vista and above, the files are "protected" by default instead of vulnerable to mistakes by n00bs. You're still free to muck it up if you like though.

TechMitch
TechMitch

I was playing a Shooter game back in the day when Vista was released...I was giggling at all the people getting kicked by punkbuster for not having their games running with Administrator priviledges (who apparently didn't have a clue what they're doing). I'm sure they immediately went crying back to the computer store screaming Vista is garbage. I was actually angry when the OS went from a MS-Dos shell to a GUI interface. Why I knew all the DOS commaneds and could get around easily and quickly. Then Came Windows 3x and 98. Oh lordy, Vista is the first OS I've actually liked. and yes I've used every OS except ME and NT. Most of the comments I have read from people make them sound like they used the OS 15 minutes and ran back to XP. Rather sad actually.....

keeneydj
keeneydj

Sounds like just about all of your problems stem from not being used to the new features. Learn what folders are protected. Some directories are held under close lock and key by the 'SYSTEM' in Win7. Games should be installed into a public directory that way they don't need read/write permissions. Some programs would be better to do this too. The 'Windows' dir, and the entire 'Program Files' tree is actual admin. lvl only access, etc.. Even though your user is listed as the admin, doesn't mean you have top admin privileges. The top admin has to be enabled through safe-mode, and system priv. are not attainable. (to my knowledge. You should NEVER need SYSTEM lvl privileges though.) Second the file explorer is wonderful. There is still a 'Windows Explorer' under accessories in the start menu. Win7's 'My computer' explorer is nothing short. File trees on the left, shortcuts above that, more shortcuts across the top, plus any directory you go to you can just click the back button. My suggestion... Use the search bar. Just type the directory or the file name (or module name, or...) and the explorer finds it. You are just used to XP... NP.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

First of all speed, was proven in peer benchmarks here to be the same and actually marginally etter than XP all around. http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-10879-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=280962 UAC - if you don't like it, you can turn it off in a few clicks. Folder navigation: Vista uses breadcrumbs file navigation which results in FAR FAR fewer clicks to move back and forth throuh Explorer folders than ANY pervious version. You don't even need to open My Computer or Explorer, just use the drop downs right in the address bar of ANY window to ZIP back and forth to copy, paste, move or view files. This shows one thing about your comments, you simply have not given Vista or Win7 any time in actually discovering the many advanced features and valueable improvements over XP, just like SO many others that parrot the same old BS around here. Simply an unqualified opinion. Did you ever even READ Miscrosoft's descriptions about the new features in Vita or did you just install it, play for 15 minutes and then run screaming back to XP for your cookies and milk? As for eye candy, that all began with XP , which wasn't even useable on most machines then until run in classic mode. What a pile of horsecrap your comments are, 110% purely unqualified rubbish.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I am gettign tored of FF myself, I don't seem to have virus issues, if it does pick up som emalware and crap, it seems easy enough to clear out and get back up to speed again. (Love the AVG Free rootkit tool!) For the time it takes to clean and optimize my system every month or so, I would spend mroe time waiting for FF to get going. I even tweaked chrome to fix FF settings for faster startup, but it is still slow in comparison to IE these days. Too bad really, I used to like FF a lot.

keeneydj
keeneydj

for sure. That was the first big integration of MSIE and the OS. It was loophole/backdoor heaven. ^Reason I use firefox. FF is starting to get all big and overweight too now IMO.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

ME is by far the worst OS from MS for many horrific reasons, I don't contest that. My point is just that, when released, XP was noted to have over 300 security holes that MS refused to patch until releasing SP1. That number of security holes was the highest of any release to date, including ME.

keeneydj
keeneydj

Xp was pretty buggy, but it seemed ME was the most dismal failure of the OS'es we have been mentioning. I don't think I ever ran into an ME comp that you didn't have to reboot it 3 times just trying to open the file explorer... Maybe XP and ME were about neck and neck with each other at their respective releases, but they never actually (even tried?) fixed ME. ME was junk, period.

stan
stan

I hate to sound old but I beta tested NT. That of course has nothing to do with my opinion of Vista. I loved Win2k because it was stable and supporting it was fairly easy. XP was not my friend at first, but as it became more stable I liked it too and found it also easy to support. I never learned to feel the same about Vista. I have used it personally so that I could be familiar enough to support it, and at best I have learned to tolerate it. Now, enter Windows 7. I started with casual use in the beta stage and found nothing that I didn't like. It is now my primary OS and I love it. This will be the first OS that I will recommend at initial release! Vista was not ME, but not worth switching to in the enterprise.

lucvdv
lucvdv

You've got a point there. I participated in the Win2000 and XP beta programs, but never regarded XP as an SP to 2000. In fact, when it came out, I hated XP much more than the most rabid Vista hater hates Vista today (tended to call it FP instead of XP, for "Windows Fisher Price"). Had to learn to live with it when Win2000 support was dropped, and got so used to it in the end that I actually started to like it. When Vista came out, I didn't regard it as a service pack to XP. I was a bit doubtful at first, but contrary to XP, I loved it after using it for just a couple of days. Now 7 comes out, and it *does* feel in all its aspects as an SP to Vista, but I still love it. I only hate having to pay cash again after so short an interval, for something that doesn't even feel very new (despite what those say who love it while they hated Vista). As for the poll: what the results make me think is that 60% of those who responded either never used Vista and just repeat anything negative they hear "because it's about Microsoft so uit must be right", or else are very easily influenced by mere gossip and even dumbly repeat it while the evidence to the contrary is sitting in front of their noses. With some exceptions of course, including everyone who voted yes AND commented here :)

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Vista was designed for multicore processors and it manages a multicore system much better than XP does. Process management and priority is excellent on a machine designed to run Vista optimally.

keeneydj
keeneydj

A8N32SLI Deluxe (nForce4, 2000MHz hyper) Fx55 SD (2.6GHz 1MB L2) 2GB OCZ Plat. (2.3.2.1 at 400Mhz 2.85V) nVidia 9500GT 512MB Segate 'Cuda 7200.9 160G sata3 (150MB peak if I remember right) It wasn't that the superfetch didn't work, or work well. It was that on a single core machine (even a fast one) Superfetch and the indexer wanted to be doing something all the time. That would cause pauses and what seems like performance issues. My comp is completely within specs, and a pretty decent one to boot. It had more to do with the fact that vista was made to have multiple processor cores. A single core ran it just fine, only you had to deal with hiccups every now and again. Especially if you had a lot of media and were messing around in the media library.

TechMitch
TechMitch

What are you running Vista on? A 386? or running only minimum ram specifications? Using IDE not SATA?

keeneydj
keeneydj

Honestly talking about ppl here that are complaining about how slow/crappy Vista was/is. I'm with you OZ. Vista was just fine. And yeh, most of the annoying aspects of Vista can be easily dealt with.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Doesn't work how you want it? disable it. Just like the BS XP throws in for new installs.

keeneydj
keeneydj

Superfetch v1.0 stunk. Couple that with the search indexer, and yeh, it was a pretty HD intensive OS... No argument there. Especially if you had a TON of media to keep track of.

owner
owner

People bitched and moansed about not having something like that for years, so MS complaied with what the users wanted. It's no different that Linux in that regard. I also had to re-install XP a couple of times a year to keep it running smooth. XP wasn't very good at garbage collection. I don;t know why you were rebooting though...unless you were istalling hardware where you had to shut the machine down, most installations did not require a reboot...even less than XP and XP was pretty good about that.

TechMitch
TechMitch

No sir. WRONG. Oh wait windows XP crashes, it must be user fault . I wish Gibbs would smack me on the back of my head for stupidity. Vista was running with annoying security windows? Uh no I disabled that within a week of installing the OS. Next you'll be trying to convince me Linux has cornered the market......

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

UAC is EASILY disabled, no clickign security messages. Reboots? We were just discussing that in another forum here, how XP requires reinstalls every year and Vista never even gets rebooted for months and even then it is only for something to do and not out of necessity. I run mine in sleep mode for weeks before even rebooting, no isses at all.

fastboxster
fastboxster

The nVidia Go 7600 was the #1 selling laptop video card in the *prior* year. The 8600M was the new card just coming out. Vista only worked with the 8600M, although it was *not* readily available yet (this was nVidia's official stance). If you recall, Dell did not sell *any* laptops initially because they couldn't get their platforms to work reliably. Sony didn't want to lose the early adopter sells, so they customized the reference driver (the reference drivers are in fact written by Microsoft and nVidia) and went ahead and put their unreliable junk out (and they *never* bothered to fix it when they learned it didn't work well -- EPIC FAIL). THE REALITY AGAIN, CPU benchmarks are not designed to measure OS performance. Nor are DISK benchmarks. In fact, it says right on the disclaimer that you cannot use different versions and expect comparable results. The OS is what the OS is. If you buy a laptop that has a Vista logo on it, and it doesn't work reliably, and you can put XP on it and it works, the VISTA *IS* the problem. You cannot argue that point away. If MS didn't get buy-in from vendors to "execute" the Vista vision, then they failed. The market has spoken. One of the things Vista had hoped to do was standardize driver crash recovery. nVidia and ATI had built-in driver crash recovery, but in inconsistent ways. Vista put the crash recovery in a higher level of abstraction, where stable portion of the OS (kernal) could better test if the driver had crashed or not. Problem is, this "broke" the methods nVidia and ATI were using (and nVidia and ATI didn't care enough to update their drivers to support this except for their brand new expensive cards). So Microsoft attempted to work-around this problem to get backward compatibility with the old approach. It didn't work. This is just one of like 30 major things "wrong" with Vista.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Nobody cherry picked anything, teh tester used his own system and the available drivers for it. To suggest you need to test a different card is in itself cherry picking for failure. XP was much worse as far as VENDORS writing compatible drivers. Again, it has NOTHING to do with Vista at all as MS doesn't write proprietary drivers, the hardware manufacturers are responsible for that. If they fail at writing drivers for an OS, then don't buy their video cards that aren't compatible with a current OS, it's not a reason to say teh Os is useless. Flaky drivers were also an even bigger issue with Xp, your point is moot. "However 90% of companies are nto using this tech.." Therefore a slow performance in an area that encompasses such a miniscule portion of teh market is irrelevant and again does not make the OS bad. It is highly likely that changes that could have been made to accomodate your needs may have caused issues in other parts of the OS that effect a much broader audience, and thus would be dropped. What's funny is that you downplay one users benchmarks using several builds comparatively with XP builds. On the same machine, which is a very common machinne with very common applications, XP was slower than Vista. You dismiss that as being a one-off, however you then go on to whine about how it doesn't work with a tiny segment of the market, as if THTA has more relevance. Put your hands in the air, give your head a good shake and think again.

fastboxster
fastboxster

Those tests are not real world. You'd have to look a *all* video drivers (or at least the majority) instead of cherry picking the one best supported. Video card performance was one of the biggest issues (requiring hardware upgrades to get the the same or similar performance). No doubt nVidia wanted to sell the upgrades too, so they weren't motivated to "optimize" their old cards. Flaky drivers were among the biggest problems (as the architecture changed big time). Also SMB copies slowed down (network file transfers) by 400%. These slow downs were to make the OS aware (hooked) so they could enforce Information Rights Management (IRM) on the file system among other things. However 90% of companies are not using this tech, so it was just observed as a "things are really slow for no reason".

fastboxster
fastboxster

The reality is that things changed from XP to Vista, and some changes were dramatic. Users of nVidia nView tools were "out of luck" when Vista rolled out. Some manufacturers of drivers have never really got their new drivers to support the new architecture (there are no decent drivers for M-Audio accessories for example). Also if you go to Channel 9 to see what is done for Windows 7, you will see Microsoft guys talking about "what they did wrong" with Vista. There were cases where the video blocks were copied instead of referenced for their "layer" implementation that caused things to slow down by an order of magnitude and doubling the amount of video memory required (i.e. forcing an upgrade). Many of the "mainstream" drivers have been updated, but some have not. I still don't have decent drivers for my Sony VGN-AR390E laptop's video card (nVidia Go 7600 - the reference drivers don't work and Sony's blue screens when using Media Center). However, if I roll back to XP, all is good. Windows 7 is better, but some of the problems remain. Microsoft had done a lot to fix them (by allowing vendors to showcase their products if they get signed drivers, etc.) but vendors don't understand the importance of this (mainly because the lack the talent to get their drivers signed anyway). Overall, Microsoft is on the right path, but to say that Vista didn't have any real problems except "marketing" is short-sighted. They released their product prematurely (Windows 7 is the same code base, but with most of the big ticket items fixed. So this is what they should have had for the Vista release). I might not be so motivated to say this if I didn't have a $3000 Sony paper weight that I bought just to get Vista.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

But only because so many pople were screwed by XP, they finally got it working, to little too late. People were drawn to the eye candy (that I refer to as the Fisher Price interface) that was absent in Win2KPro, a real operating system, like flies to sh*t. The only time I have used XP was in a machine a client bought me, where I stripped as many XP features out as possible and ran it in classic mode. I actually still use classic with Vista too, I don't care for a dog & pony show when I am trying to use a computer.

owner
owner

No...Vista's main problem was that the ant-MS camp came out in force to deride it. Unfortuantely, that includes a lot of the pundits who claim to be computer experts. I find that in a lot of areas, these guys don't have a freaking clue. Look at the Mojave Project that MS did. People thought that they were looking at a new verson of Windows when they were actually looking at Vista. Not one complaint about it...they all thought it was a great OS. Vista's failure was a marketing one...not an actual problem with the OS.

SKDTech
SKDTech

And I was an early adopter of both XP and Vista. XP had far more problems on release than Vista and XPs problems took longer to be resolved. Vista's biggest problem, in my opinion, lies in the six years between it's release and XP's.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

PLease elaborate and explain these problems. You obviously don't remember the endless list of problems XP had when released then, the most insecure and buggy release from MS ever.

johnnyparts
johnnyparts

Xp Home anyone??? What a pile that was. XP Pro sp3 is a good OS but it had to get there slowly. I bought Vista Ultimate, running Phenom Quad, 4 gb ram, 1.5 Tb storage, only regret is I bought 32 bit because I was afraid of driver compatibility (Windows 3.11 was where I started, so you other older types can relate to driver issues), otherwise has been rock solid for me. I am a 7 beta tester also, but so far haven't felt the need to spring for upgrade. Have Ubuntu and Xp pro on this rig too (quad boot) but 99% of the time I'm using Vista. Can't say it any better than that.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

and play Yahoo games, accept every damn piece of extras they send you, and you'll soon be overloaded with them.

been-there-done-that
been-there-done-that

Wow, I am running XP with NO service packs or updates EVER installed for XP. I think 4 years or more now and I have NEVER gotten a virus, root kit , ad ware , spyware and any of the other nasties that are out there. My machine runs as fast as the day I installed everything.I make ALOT of money cleaning clients machines of these nasties but I somehow avoid them all. I have only been using Symantec Corporate AV, Spybot S&D, Spywareblaster and an occasional root kit scan. I keep all these up to date. The funny part is I visit porn all day. Open every e -mail I get and visit every phishing, malware, fake antivirus site there is. I just don't get it. I feel left out of all this exciting virus stuff ! What am I doing wrong ? Please help

mjc5
mjc5

But you see Oz. We have the option of using a system where we don't have those problems that are our fault. IT since 1979. Vista is better than Windows 1.

been-there-done-that
been-there-done-that

Yep, I gave in and finally got 3 laptops with Vista on them about a year ago and I have had not one problem with it.I was at first worried after reading and hearing all the whining and crying wah wah wah about how bad Vista was. OMG I am soo tired of the whining. It Runs great on all 3.. never an issue. And yes, the interface is slightly different.. and what new release is not ? I am too of the 8088 and the old DOS and CPM days remember that CPM ? Yes ran that on a Digital Rainbow. Am I dating myself yet ? Things in my world just keep getting better !

goodwin05
goodwin05

I agree whole heartedly . Alot of the neg with Vista is because of word of mouth not from actual use. If more people would try it for themselves they may find its not that bad. As a matter of fact I seem to recall when XP was first released it had thousands of problems and know issues. Now the same OS seems to be the toast of the town if you believe most posts. How soon we forget . Lets face it nothing MS puts out is perfect.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I call them SHEEPLE. :) The first really blatant instance I noticed was in politics when they smeared kerry as a Flip Flopper, by taking his previous comments out of context. Within hours, the entire US had him incorrectly pegged as flip flopping for not supporting the war in Iraq. In actuality, his comments were that IF inspections failed to complete, he would support the use of force in order to complete inspections, not to invade Iraq though. When Bush removed inspectors himself to prepare for an invasion anyway, who were inspecting on schedule and turning up nothing, the republicans smeared kerry for not supporting the invasion; saying he flip flopped, which was parroted and smeared all over the US in no time and noody challenged it. We see it from tehse wannabe techs who simply read BS online and then state it as fact from a profesional. That's why I have little respect for most techs these days, ever since teh MCE became a CRacker Jack cert that everyone had, the quality and IT business sense has gone out the window. Not all IT staff of course but a great many. There are some guys here that are my guru's and I value their opinions a great deal, since a friend passed away who was the most knowledgeable tech/programmer I had ever seen or have seen since.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I have found considerale increases in speed with Vista. One peer here TK did a full test over a few days and benchmarked several uild s to match XP and Vista as closely as possible, XP was NOT the winner at all. Just do a search for XP vs Vista benchmark on TR, you'll find it easy enough.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

How can you mention them in the same sentence, other than 'it's too bad they ditched Win2K for XP'? XP was the first out of the gate with alfashy interface, rounded, gradient fill buttons and crap. It didn't work properly on older hardware, there were no drivers and it was too insecure to be used for over a year. It paled horribly in comparison to Win2KPro, not even worthy of laying in 2K's shadow.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Surprising isn't it? I find more and mroe IT staff are recommending stickign to XP for absolute horsecrap reasons. If the company has no need to upgrade, if cost is the key issue, fine. For a company to pay a "professional" who simply reads some BS online and then recommends against the company using it, while parroting that same BS, it's no wonder so many companies don't trust or give any merit to their IT dept.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

First if you live in a world of ANY professionals, you need to learn the difference between THEN and THAN. 1)"2003 server can't read vista profiles." That would be an issue with Server 2003 requiring updating, not Vista. "2) if you buy a laptop with vista and want to install over with XP good luck finding drivers for that laptop," That's also not a Vista issue it is a third party hardware vendor's responsibility. MS releases many versions to vendors to test and write drivers long before the OS goes to market. The same went for XP when it came out too, in fact it was over a year before many manufacturer's caught up. 3) "Now you can turn UAC off but than your dropping the security thats making it more secure than XP." No, you could ALWAYS turn it off and that has NOTHING to do with it being more secure than XP. UAC is just a user warning, the operating system itself is FAR more secure than XP ever was. You may forget but there were just under 300 security HOLES in XP when released and they refused to patch them until releasing SP1. 4)4)I have Vista and now know it from the inside out as well as XP, Xp wins hands down, from my perspective why do you think that almost no companies are making the switch to vista and waiting for windows 7? Well you've proven yourself incorrect on your first point. Companies wont' move to XP becayus ethey have underqualfied IT staff such as yourself who parrot complete s abotu the new OS. They actually pay you for your pathetic knowledge of what is best for them. It took a couple of years after XP's release before companies moved to XP also, those who did upgrade won't bother so soon again. 5) "Xp will be around till at least 2013 considering thats when they'll stop supporting the software." We saw the exact same thing with Win2K when yoru beloved but hideously flawed XP was released too. Why woul dthey expect YOU to stay on top of teh market and learn a new Os when you can parrot lies and push to retain old equipment and an old operating system, now finally usable after nearly a decade. People that have no need to upgrade shouldn't feel aneed to upgrade, that doesn't make Vista or any other OS useless though, nobody, including MS said you HAVE to upgrade every time they improve on the OS. Your post and all points within are absolute horsecrap worthy for a n00bs XP fanboy forum. What are you, 9 and you didn't remember when XP was released?

owner
owner

I could reply directly to the the "Definitely" post...so here it is :-D I really don't like the breadcrumb navigation. I do a lot of jumping around with directories and find it dificult to navigate with a couple of clicks...it just seems awkward to me. Not a deal breaker though. The same applies to Windows 7, which I am currently using. I think Vista's big problem was that a bunch of people who were totally clueless made a huge uproar (like a bunch of chihuahas or however you spell it hehehe) and people listened to that without expereincing it themselves. That seems to be a common thread in how people think these days. I see it everywhere. Just look at the healthcare debate and how popular some of the lies and mistruths about that have taken hold despite the facts. Vista suffered a same fate. I think people have become all too willing to be lead by pundits and self-proclaimed experts (often funded by folks who have something to gain by it's failure) rather than looking for themsevles.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You are right, mostly, with respect to PC uyers buying cheap boxes. Microsoft offered three levels of compatibility with Vista and they were clear on the differences, despite a failed class action suit to the contrary. They in fact state that the minimum hardware requirements will allow Vista to run its CORE and NOT OFFER TH EADDITIONAL FEATURES, such as Aeroglass etc. This was to allow people will the ever so insecure XP, to enjoy a safer experience and get the core Vista with the added security features it offers. "A new PC that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista include innovations in security, reliability, search, and the organization of information. [b]Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista?like Windows Aero?might require advanced or additional hardware.[/b] Vista is the first Windows operating system with a user experience that adapts to take advantage of the capabilities of the hardware on which it is installed. All Windows Vista [b]Capable[/b] PCs [b]can run at least the core experiences[/b] of Windows Vista. All Windows Vista [b]Premium Ready[/b] PCs can deliver [b]even better[/b] Windows Vista experiences, including the new Windows Aero user experience. People just follow their wallets and don't think. When selling a new PC, a retailer must offer the lowest advertised price in teh area in order to drive business. PC's are a VERY low margin business, you would go otu of business very quickly if all you sold were enry level boxes at bargain prices and didn't sell upgrades and upgrading services at very high margins, as all big box retailers do. Their sales staff is trained to upgrade ANYONE who buys such an entry level machine,either a poor sales rep fails to sell the proper upgrades and thus fails the customer or teh customer thinks he's being clever by not letting them sell him upgrades. In either case it is nothing to do with Microsoft OR Vista. It's the result of extremely cheap consumers that think they know better and an extremely indundated, low margin industry. If more poeple actually had a brain and used it to find out why a new PC operates like crap, they would understand that it has nothign to do with Vista at all, Microsoft didn't build the underpowered el-cheapo box sold at 2pts margin from Big Box Deals R Us. But people are "clever" and told the rep they wouldn't buy into expensive hardware upgrades as they wanted the deal as printed in the flyer, no bait and switch is gonna happen here, that's for sure. Now they have a POS and blame it on the software creator. With respect to HP and Dell, I too despise Dell forusing cheap parts, offering no standardization and unreliable hardware. HP on the other hand has been reliable, except the old pavillion nightmares. You mentioned printers, I do like the old HP LJ4's they were/are solid machines. But for a dektop printer, nothign eats an Epson. they have a magnet and print head technology that is patented and offers FAR better flow control than any other. Epson is part of Seiko, the watch and clock people. Seiko owns a large piece of land in France that is the only place on earth that a rare earth magnet grows, they own them all. Those magnets are what allows Seiko to use the piezo print head technology that also prints 99.999% of receipts around the world. Epson also rebrands as Micros, Partnertech etc. Their heads are superior not my a small margin but by leaps and bounds. In fact one of the best all-in-one printers I've EVER seen for home use, is the ever so cheap NX400 (if you can still find one) they run less than $50 in some places, (yes, less than replacement ink) offer incredible scan and photo touch up features too, it certainly supercedes the models that followed. note: Epson is also the only printer that ships will FULL ink cartridges though.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

TR was flooded with slams against XP when it was released. It was the same mass dissention as we've seen with Vista, except the issues were security and drivers. YOu are right, now that Vista offers a very secure platform, in fact probablhy their most secure initial release yet, people are whining about the UAC. Like yourself, I use thord party protection and some common sense, thus I simply turn off UAC (my personal mamchine only) and login as an equal to admin. Vista is a very 'useful' OS, which people never rant about. We hear about it being slow. XP was like molasses, until new hardware became more common, everyone was downgrading to Win2K to get some action out of new, entry level boxes with XP installed. However today, all is forgotten, XP is a hero and nothign else is anything like it, what complete horsecrap! Nobody talks about how great breadcrums navigation is, well except me, I LOVE it!!! Nobody talks abotu the staility and security, in fact Vista has never crashed ONCE in the two years i've run it and I run some REALLY intensive apps on just a weeneii little notebook with 2GB RAM. By all that I've read here about Vista, I should e pulling my hair out and crying for XP, however not at all, I've not looked back (mind you I did skip XP for myself and went from Win2KPro to Vista). I have dug around and pulled out the old XP rants on TR before, but they are so deeply buried and it tales a while to find them with TR's less than adequate search engine.

owner
owner

The corporate version runs pretty smoothly actually and never had any problems witht hat. The retail version on the otherhad was a total resource hog. You hit the nail on the head. Some folks just are willing to give up thier 286's and complain when Vista doesn't work on it(yes that was an exaggeration). Every new OS used considerably more resources than it's predecessor. That is going to happen with just about any piece of software. Look at games. I can remeber when a game would fit on a few floppy disks, now they require DVD's. Progress is going to entail more resources. It's not like back in the 1970's where a kilo pf ram would cost a small fortune or int he 80's where a small hardrive was several hundred dollars (I think the 1.5TB drives are under 100 now and ram is super cheap.) Instead of complaining about how bad Vista is, upgrade your system and give it enough resources to show you how it can really shine. I found it to much more efficient (processor wise) than XP was. Software ran much better, but then I have plenty of resources (2.8ghz processor and 4 gig ram and 2 800gig drives).

owner
owner

People seem to have a short memory and forget all the driver issues XP had when it came out. FOr example, Creative Labs didn't have anything beyond barebones drivers for thier sound cards for XP for 6 months after XP came out. They didn't make that same mistake when Vista came out, but many other hardware manufacturers did. You can't blame MS for the hardware manufacturers dragging thier behinds. They have plenty of time with betas and RC's to come up with drivers. There is no excuse to not have at least a base set of drivers that allows the device to function by the time the retail release happens. So don;t blame MS for that. I loved XP...I thought it was a great system. Never had any real issues with it. I also loved Vista. Never had any issues with that were not related to hardware. The only one I had was on my Acer laptop. AMD took almost a year to release chipset drivers for Vista. I think that is very inexcusable. Vista still worked fine, I just couldn't get full use of my graphics card since it was built in. I do think the UACD was a bit much...but then I wasn't oneof the folks complaining about security either...I used common sense and AV programs to stay virus free. I just thought it was funny that most of the people complaining the loudest about it were the ones that asked for it. I am now Running Windows 7 and it is awesome. Keep up the good work MS (and no, I do not work for them). Ans as far as MAc's go, the worst computing expereince (even worse than WinME) was while I was using a Mac. What a complete POS. I am glad that the Mac fanboys/girls don't have a problem wasting thier money on such an overpriced POS...I'll be sticking to PC's and Windows...I use Linux, but I still think the graphical desktops, with all the advances it had made over the past 10 years, is still non-intutive and very unfriendly.

tkmoller
tkmoller

manufacturers of pc's supply computers with the minimum because they can and mostly because thats what people will buy. So they buy those under powered computers then write posts about how much they dont like there OS. When they say it'll run off the minimum requirements they are obviously correct. however they do not say that it will run like crap. If you dont install any software or anyother program that requires better more powerful hardware then itll run just fine. Ive noticed though that people actually like to use there computers and therefor there bare bones computer is now slow and un responsive because they got the bottom of the line computer. Microsoft even recomends not running any OS with the minimum requirements. They dont put that on the box of course but if you do your research then you would know that. And good for you that youve had good luck with HP's. Ive had nothing but bad experiances with them. there printers are awesome i'll give them that. but there software blows, and if you've been dealing with HP's for a while you would know that as well. Ive owned over 4 dell computers in my time and two of them i recantly got. one a laptop and one a desktop. And these machines are by far the best computers ive delt with so far. i owned an HP and within three weeks i returned it.i purchase dell's for all my clients now and since i started to switch all the older computers out with dell's i have about half as many problems as i did when they werent using dell computers. Good thing about HP's is that they are not as expensive. but that saying that you get what you pay for definitely applies here. so i was thinking that perhaps its not the computer that has the problems. maybe its whoever is repairing, or setting them up. just a thought. So... make sure to double or even just one and a half the manufacturers recommended minimum requirements and you'll have an awesome machine that will run vista excellently. And if you buy a dell it'll run evem better.

computershowhost
computershowhost

Every Saturday @ 1:pm on the Radio and the Internet at SOS Computer Talk Show, Vista, Linux Mac OS is Debated who is the best, Three long time Microsoft Engineers and Mac, Linux Pros...argue and share Windows Vista Secrets and Mac's New Snow Leopard, Linux OS. These guys are funny and have solutions for any OS problem Free...SOS Computer Talk Show is Live Streaming Video, heard on the entire West Coast of Florida on wwba 820 am 1:pm EST. and on the internet

gbrownsword
gbrownsword

Really, c'mon. Most people buy a new pc with the os on it. It comes usually with the minimum hardware requirements and the store makes money by convincing you to upgrade something that should come ready to handle the os already. As for slamming HP's, I have had to fix very few of these over the years, but Dell's keep me busy, the seem to be the worst pc's out there!

wmorris
wmorris

ditto, personal note: Vista is a good OS, and handles my applications better than xp as I am a web designer (one of many hats worn) and use adobe master collection to its fullest. I did a test (6 timed tests) of converting a 700mb mov file to flv using adobe media encoder and xp os (same machine dual boot, same speed disks) was much slower handling the conversion, actually I was shocked. I found that secretly I was giving Vista a bad rap too, I thought for sure XP was going to be much faster, that the overhead I had in Vista was bogging my computer down, I had more apps installed, and twice the registry size on the Vista disk, but excatly same hardware was available for both XP and Vista. I agree that the Hardware makers when they finally came out with optimized drivers for Vista they outshine the XP ones. There are always going to be things that are not liked by changes to any os. I hate the Vista audio model, but that is another topic. I can't use accelerated recording using total recorder in rhapsody under Vista. a change that affected me, but Vista is still a good os anyway.

alfred.nims
alfred.nims

We are using Vista on 4 laptops and 1 Desktop at home. Three of those laptops are about 3-4 years old and Vista works fine on all. The company I work for with thousands of employees in 19 offices worldwide has moved to Vista. After doing our due diligence testing the apps (3rd party and home-grown) we developed a deployment plan and never looked back. I find the biggest problem seems to come from the new machines that were sold with Vista pre-installed. OEMs put their own crap on these machines which may have caused problems. Quite a few of my friends had this problem. But when I reinstalled just Vista on their machines the problems seem to have gone away. XP was good after they finally worked out all its problems. I am currently using Win7 RTM on my laptop and I like this also. I have never used the Home versions so I can't speak on those; XP or otherwise. I think its curious how so many IT pros complain, instead of really digging in. After all we are IT pros not end users.

blackepyon01
blackepyon01

Same here on point #8. My first computer, I got when I was 9 (hand-me-down from my Dad). A Tandy 1000HX. 7MHz 8088 processor running MSDOS 2.11. I don't need any fancy interface to do my thing. I find Mac, back from the early days of it's OS to be a pain to use for what little it can actually do. My question is: why would MS want to mimic an interface which only had (at the time) about 10% of the market? Especially when the one they had (Win2k, XP) worked so much better.

gharlow
gharlow

The same could be said for XP. At the time of it's release, it was a REAL resource hog, relative to the hardware of the time. Today, even a $300 sale machine will run Vista very well. I am not saying MS could not have done a better job with efficiency, since Windows 7 clearly shows it is possible to do more with less.

n.smutz
n.smutz

Losing half your computer to the OS is a good thing? Twice the resources should be doing some sweet processing, not wasting away on overhead. What is vista, 20% nicer for 400% greater resource consumption?

dfa19
dfa19

OK my friend, If you live in the world of IT professionals than you would know that Vista was a complete hassle. 1) Adding PC's to a windows network is a hassle if its your first time attempting, 2003 server can't read vista profiles. Why should you have to recreate a users profile w/ a new version of windows? it should come backwards compatible. 2) if you buy a laptop with vista and want to install over with XP good luck finding drivers for that laptop, you'll find them, but it will just take hours to find it over the net since most manufacturers websites for example HP didn't have a single driver for 10 laptops I had all different models. 3)Security is better however its almost to secure, it has many issues with certain network apps regarding security. Now you can turn UAC off but than your dropping the security thats making it more secure than XP. 3)While the prettiness of the OS has no merit the layout certainly does, from and admin perspective they moved everything around or changed the name so its harder to find. 4)I have Vista and now know it from the inside out as well as XP, Xp wins hands down, from my perspective why do you think that almost no companies are making the switch to vista and waiting for windows 7? Because its more of a hassle to do that and upgrade all you incompatible software to vista when windows 7 will support legacy mode to allow you to still use the same appz on 7 as you did on XP. 5)Xp will be around till at least 2013 considering thats when they'll stop supporting the software.

tkmoller
tkmoller

vista is an awesome OS. From what you wrote in the first few lines will tell ya why vista isnt working to well for you. 1st you got an HP with an AMD processor at 1.7Ghz and the minimum required 2GB ram and home premium. When microsoft or any software company says what there minimum hardware requirements are, you need to double it then youll have something worth it. What you got would be perfect for XP but when you have all the minimum of everything then ofcourse your not gonna have a good experiance with Vista. Also.... dont get an HP next time. Sony or Dell make great computers.im also quite surprised you like Symantic (Norton). in all my years in IT I've had nothing but troubles dealing with that software. That might be another issue as to why you were having difficulties with your vista OS. i Also recomend downloading a maleware program seperate from the Symantic software. other companies software will find different things. its good to see what else is out there. Go to malewarebytes.org and download the free version. its awesome and i guarantee youll have some maleware that you didnt know you had and what Symantic couldnt find. Anyways, windows & will be much better than vista but i would give it another chance if i were you. If you have a machine thats powerful than vista runs perfectly. Also recomend the 64bit version.

gharlow
gharlow

Intel Q6600, 8gb Ram, Raptor 150gb Drive, Intel 975bx2 MB.. Very few crashes. I did have a problem copying very large files over the Network early on, but this appears to have been fixed with SP2. I am an independent repair tech and really worry my virus cleanup business will suffer when XP goes away! Antivirus tools are largely ineffective, and yes, most people with viruses got them doing stupid things like visiting infected sites with Internet Explorer or clicking email attachments. I see quite a few who tried to get "free" video codecs.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

XP wass the most bug ridden and insecure OS from MS to date. They had so many security holes that they decided not to release patches individually due to R&D costs and instead told people to wait until SP1, thenSP2 and finally SP3 in order to secure it. Upon its release it was found to have several HUNDRED security holes that needed patching, right out of the box, and yet no patches were available. By far the most security holes of any release to date.

lazaurus
lazaurus

I 'tried' Vista Home Premium pre-installed on a HP/Compaq laptop; AMD 64 X2 1.7Ghz, 2 GB Ram, 80 GB SATA HD, Nvidia nForce 430/Geforce 6100. Nothing but boot lock-ups, system crashes, UAC glitches, DEP shutting down 'vital' Windows components, at least 3 times a week. I toughed it out until the current SP early this year. But in late March it finally wore through my patience, which is a record for me, Nov '07 to March '09. As to your complaints about XP, I've yet to have a XP system infected by anything but user stupidity! And I use/install Symantec security software with zero infections or even infiltrations since the '02 version to today.

gharlow
gharlow

After waiting a year for MS to iron out the early bugs I switched to Vista and never looked back. As a tech, I find XP machines root kitted ALL the time and infested with god knows what. I see very few Vista machines in the same state. Yes, UAC was annoying and yes there are aspects of Vista I did not like, but with a decent machine and good amount of Ram it is fine and a LOT more stable than XP. As for Linux, nice but no cigar yet. I keep hoping, since I doubt MS and I will stay friends for ever.