Hardware

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Vista Pros and Cons

0 helpful
3 replies

by qballrail 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I've recently purchased a new notebook with Windows Vista pre-installed. Reports I have read show Vista more reliable if pre-installed rather than upgraded.

One thing I have noticed is that M$ has returned to the old ways of booting, S-L-O-W! I could BREW a pot of coffee waiting for this monster to boot, let alone, pour a cup. Boot time is outrageously long, even after removing several startup items from msconfig.

A very disconcerting find is that Symantec will not be writing a Vista-compatible version of System Works, a very old yet useful tool since DOS. I have used the trial version of 360 and I fear the folks at Symantec have gone a bit overboard on the user-friendliness of their products. Not only has the fragmentation map been removed, but the user has little control over what is scanned, fixed, protected, etc.

Even the native Windows defrag tool has taken steps backwards. Once the process is complete, Windows still reports that "you should defragment your drive."

I use Vista Business. The networking features are pretty well protected even from a seasoned professional. If I want to share out a file on my system so my son can have access to it from his machine, the process is not as simple as it was in XP and previous versions.

With those issues, Vista is a "pretty" OS. Fun, in fact. But I will never recommend it in an enterprise arena.

Any thoughts?

3 replies

by tig2

I never upgrade to a first release. I want to see what will wash out.

I will be required to use Vista in my business life. I will not choose to use it in my home life. A couple of reasons.

First, I support more than just my home network consisting of my laptop, fiance's laptop and some test boxes. I also support the computer users in the family.

We made sure that everyone upgraded their hardware at the end of the year. We all have the same version of XP.

Second- I have done some test driving on Windows and find that the changes will be confusing to less experienced users. What I know about this userbase is that they have little desire to have to completely re-learn how to do what they do on the computer.

Finally, my security requirements are more stringent than Microsoft's tend to be. For that reason, I examine the security and privacy settings on everyone's computer and have a ready suite of tools that will fix most anything.

And as a side note, the ability of Microsoft to choose to de-activate a license because WGA hiccuped AGAIN is a primary issue to me. When I need my computer to work, I need it to work. I and only I should have visibility into the file system and I find that allowing any company to have visibility- or even a conversation that I am not aware of- unacceptable.

I will select a new OS from the rich pool of OS's available and solution based on what best meets my "customers" needs. Vista will not be in that assessment pool.

by pgm554

is still a pig.

Slow to boot and according to more than a few benchmarks ,up to 25% SLOWER than XP on an equivalent machine(3 gig processor,2 gig ram,7200 rpm disk,128 meg video)using industry standard benchmarking programs.

So let me get this right,it's slower and needs more resources than the OS it's replacing?
Only from M$ would the world take this type of sh!t product.

by dirk de cocq

in england vista is not populair in enterprise still works with xp-pro
possible reason software incopatibility of the soft ware
any iedeas o this ?

This discussion is closed to new replies.