Piling on Vista

[ArtistofWarfare]

That is rather paradoxical as if they already had vista they wouldn't need to make up reasons not to buy it would they? Also those with Vista are usually those that were lumbered with it when buying a new PC, for the most part they didn't actually go out and buy it.

True, but the fact remains- Those of us who were "lumbered" with it are not complaining.

It seems it's those who have yet to be "lumbered" you have the largest gripe with Vista. Which is quite ironic.

Why not give it a try and see why people who have it, are happy?

And as I've stated several times: Most of these issues (as another reported happening on a laptop) have everything to do with people trying to run Vista on computers that just can NOT handle it. Trying to run Vista with 1 gig of Ram and 2.2 ghz Pentium 4's is just not going to cut it. When you get the error messages, it's not Vista's fault- Vista's just the messenger.

As Husar said- It looks good. If you have the right computer for it it's going to lead to an easier user experience on Windows. It will organize itself better and faster, it will process faster, it will load faster, it has more customization, it's easier to use and easier to search your hard drive now...etc etc etc.

This notion that it's just "nothing better than XP" is crazy. Every day I use Vista I see more and more how much of an upgrade it really is.

Again- How can the people who haven't installed it yet have opinions on the subject that are just as strong? By reading opinions of other people who refuse to install it?

It's a witch hunt...

If you don't want to buy it because of cost issues: Say that. But that has NOTHING to do with the quality of the operating system. That's a personal decision based on finances.

[caravel]

True, but the fact remains- Those of us who were "lumbered" with it are not complaining.

Correction, you are not complaining.

It seems it's those who have yet to be "lumbered" you have the largest gripe with Vista. Which is quite ironic.

I have used it, seen, read about it and don't want it. The company I work for also doesn't want it.

Why not give it a try and see why people who have it, are happy?

As above, I've tried it, seen it and wouldn't be happy installing it on my PC (even if it could run it) as there is no need for it. I prefer to reserve the maximum amount of resources for the system.

And as I've stated several times: Most of these issues (as another reported happening on a laptop) have everything to do with people trying to run Vista on computers that just can NOT handle it. Trying to run Vista with 1 gig of Ram and 2.2 ghz Pentium 4's is just not going to cut it. When you get the error messages, it's not Vista's fault- Vista's just the messenger.

Why go out and buy the latest hardware only to run a bloated hog of an OS on it? If I had the latest PC I'd still run Windows XP and Linux as I do now, Vista would not even be on the menu as it has nothing to offer me.

As Husar said- It looks good. If you have the right computer for it it's going to lead to an easier user experience on Windows. It will organize itself better and faster, it will process faster, it will load faster, it has more customization, it's easier to use and easier to search your hard drive now...etc etc etc.

Husar's comments are very tongue in cheek. I would not upgrade my PC's OS on the basis of it's "looking good". I'd prefer to spend that money on something more useful. If you've money to burn it's not an issue but for most people it's just not worth it. Vista retail sales have been poor and it is already being labelled as the next ME by many professionals. The only way Vista is spreading is through OEMs.

This notion that it's just "nothing better than XP" is crazy. Every day I use Vista I see more and more how much of an upgrade it really is.

How?

Again- How can the people who haven't installed it yet have opinions on the subject that are just as strong? By reading opinions of other people who refuse to install it?

That's an over simplification. Opinions are based in either installing it themselves or of having used relatives/friends or work PCs with it on.

It's a witch hunt...

Actually it's not, but that's how you seem to like to portray it. I can assure you that it is not a "witch hunt" of any kind.

If you don't want to buy it because of cost issues: Say that. But that has NOTHING to do with the quality of the operating system. That's a personal decision based on finances.

It's not simply cost issues, the issue is why pay for something that offers no real advantages. So far I'm hearing a lot of "it looks good", not just from here but in some other forums, but not a lot else. If I want "looks good" I can stick to compiz fusion, I don't need to go out and pay for something that is basically a tarted up version of Windows XP with some extra bells and whistles, DX10 support and some added security.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Correction, you are not complaining.

I have used it, seen, read about it and don't want it. The company I work for also doesn't want it.

As above, I've tried it, seen it and wouldn't be happy installing it on my PC (even if it could run it) as there is no need for it. I prefer to reserve the maximum amount of resources for the system.

Why go out and buy the latest hardware only to run a bloated hog of an OS on it? If I had the latest PC I'd still run Windows XP and Linux as I do now, Vista would not even be on the menu as it has nothing to offer me.

Husar's comments are very tongue in cheek. I would not upgrade my PC's OS on the basis of it's "looking good". I'd prefer to spend that money on something more useful. If you've money to burn it's not an issue but for most people it's just not worth it. Vista retail sales have been poor and it is already being labelled as the next ME by many professionals. The only way Vista is spreading is through OEMs.

How?

That's an over simplification. Opinions are based in either installing it themselves or of having used relatives/friends or work PCs with it on.

Actually it's not, but that's how you seem to like to portray it. I can assure you that it is not a "witch hunt" of any kind.

It's not simply cost issues, the issue is why pay for something that offers no real advantages. So far I'm hearing a lot of "it looks good", not just from here but in some other forums, but not a lot else. If I want "looks good" I can stick to compiz fusion, I don't need to go out and pay for something that is basically a tarted up version of Windows XP with some extra bells and whistles, DX10 support and some added security.

Once again, I see this is a big issue with you Caravel (not being sarcastic).

I see you mentioning your company again, but I don't really see how this applies to this conversation. What your company wants to do with it's computers is an internal corporate issue. It has nothing to do with Vista. Further, no offense but- Who's your company? Why should the average home personal user of Vista care about their cost analysis?

It is what it is- Don't install it or do install it. The fact remains: If it doesn't go anywhere (this dream of MS scrapping Vista and creating an OS that some of you like better...is just a dream as Vista is selling fine) you WILL be installing it at some point in time. You won't have an option. Well, you will- Don't use any current software.

Until then- I don't know what to tell you except that I just continue to see a thread full of people who don't have Vista- Justifying why they don't have Vista.

You don't need to justify it. You're on XP still, some of us have moved forward in time. There's no justification or debate necessary.

Get it or don't. What the "debate" is over? I don't know- Lots of people are installing it right now and don't even know this debate exists.

You said it yourself-

1) Looks good

2) Dx10

3) Added security (It's laughably more secure and stable than XP...trust me).

I mean what were you hoping for out of the next OS? Culinary skills? What does it have to "do" in order to have you claim it is "worth it"?

And if it was free- Would we even be having this discussion?

[Xiahou]

1) Looks good

Highly subjective- personally, I don't care for it. I also didn't care for the XP/2003 theme, but once I turned classic on it was acceptable.

2) Dx10

True- but even now, almost 1.5 years after it's release, it still isn't widely supported/implemented.

3) Added security (It's laughably more secure and stable than XP...trust me).

I'd like to see either of those claims documented with more than your personal experience. If by "secure", you mean more annoying- then yes. But nagging security pop-ups just get turned off/ignored by users.

I mean what were you hoping for out of the next OS? Culinary skills? What does it have to "do" in order to have you claim it is "worth it"?

They could start by adding the features that were originally supposed to be in Vista, but were dropped.

And if it was free- Would we even be having this discussion?

You mean if it was free, would I be running Vista? Nope.

[seireikhaan]

Hmm... So when's Windows 7 supposed to be coming out anyways, so we can hopefully put this debacle behind us?

[Orda Khan]

I just love the way XP has become everyone's best friend

I don't know what to tell you except that I just continue to see a thread full of people who don't have Vista- Justifying why they don't have Vista.

You don't need to justify it. You're on XP still, some of us have moved forward in time. There's no justification or debate necessary.

Precisely

.....Orda

[Viking]

I have yet to find a reason to upgrade from Windows XP to Vista, but using both versions daily I'll just say that Vista looks infinitely better graphic wise; not to mention that the dreaded hourglass finally is gone.

[caravel]

Once again, I see this is a big issue with you Caravel (not being sarcastic).

On the contrary. I am not preaching about this issue, and I am not ordering people to accept what you seem to think is the inevitable. It may be news to you but there were releases of Windows, or "upgrades", that were mostly skipped by the vast majority of home users and for the most part entirely ignored by business. Users of Win98 did not necessarily upgrade to WinME, basically because it was crap, and users of Win2k did not necessarily upgrade to WinXP. This was mainly due to the fact that these OS versions were actually very similar to each other and had nothing much to offer over their predecessor. XP was essentially an updated version of 2K with some fancy visual themes. ME was Win9x with a Win2k style GUI and DOS mode made inaccessible, without some serious modification. It was an MS attempt to fool the user into thinking that this was a next generation OS, which is wasn't. My issue with Vista is that MS have done this yet again and are selling a product that offers nothing of what the original Longhorn promised. It is in essence a stopgap OS until the next generation OS is ready.

I see you mentioning your company again, but I don't really see how this applies to this conversation. What your company wants to do with it's computers is an internal corporate issue. It has nothing to do with Vista. Further, no offense but- Who's your company? Why should the average home personal user of Vista care about their cost analysis?

Very well, valid point, I won't mention "my company" again, but will refer to business as a whole. Business in general has not warmed to Vista. From a business perspective Vista has nothing to offer, and this applies to an OS that is marketed as "Windows Vista Business". That's a fact.

It is what it is- Don't install it or do install it. The fact remains: If it doesn't go anywhere (this dream of MS scrapping Vista and creating an OS that some of you like better...is just a dream as Vista is selling fine) you WILL be installing it at some point in time. You won't have an option. Well, you will- Don't use any current software.

Vista is actually not "selling fine". On what do you base this?

Until then- I don't know what to tell you except that I just continue to see a thread full of people who don't have Vista- Justifying why they don't have Vista.

There is no sense in repeating the same argument. How do you know who has and has not Vista? I've just stated in my previous post that people can have experience of Vista without actually installing it on their main PC. Your argument is almost entirely based on the principle that those posting what you would call "anti vista" comments in this thread are somehow misinformed. Let's not start using anti vista / pro vista labels in this thread.

You don't need to justify it. You're on XP still, some of us have moved forward in time. There's no justification or debate necessary.

You have not "moved forward in time". That's the part you're not getting. You are using an OS that is a newer version of the same OS that offers nothing much that XP doesn't already have. When it comes to running programs which is what an OS is actually for btw (it is for running programs, not looking nice) Vista is no different from XP. The difference is that Vista leaves less resources available to the system, which is important to gamers in particular.

Get it or don't. What the "debate" is over? I don't know- Lots of people are installing it right now and don't even know this debate exists.

You are the one debating, with quite some zeal, the merits of Windows Vista. I am merely responding truthfully to the comments that you are making. I am not preaching to people to go back to windows 98 or install Linux. That's up to them. My point is that I do not accept your idea that Vista is the next great upgrade to the fabulous Windows OS. And that we should all rush out to get it in order to "move forward in time".

You said it yourself-

1) Looks good

2) Dx10

3) Added security (It's laughably more secure and stable than XP...trust me).

I mean what were you hoping for out of the next OS? Culinary skills? What does it have to "do" in order to have you claim it is "worth it"?

And if it was free- Would we even be having this discussion?

How is it more secure and stable? Define it.

As to "what does it have to do"? It has to offer much more than those three points, as those three are not worth paying for. If Vista was free or I was fabulously rich I would still not take the time to even install something that offers virtually nothing new. Simple.

[ArtistofWarfare]

On the contrary. I am not preaching about this issue, and I am not ordering people to accept what you seem to think is the inevitable. It may be news to you but there were releases of Windows, or "upgrades", that were mostly skipped by the vast majority of home users and for the most part entirely ignored by business. Users of Win98 did not necessarily upgrade to WinME, basically because it was crap, and users of Win2k did not necessarily upgrade to WinXP. This was mainly due to the fact that these OS versions were actually very similar to each other and had nothing much to offer over their predecessor. XP was essentially an updated version of 2K with some fancy visual themes. ME was Win9x with a Win2k style GUI and DOS mode made inaccessible, without some serious modification. It was an MS attempt to fool the user into thinking that this was a next generation OS, which is wasn't. My issue with Vista is that MS have done this yet again and are selling a product that offers nothing of what the original Longhorn promised. It is in essence a stopgap OS until the next generation OS is ready.


Very well, valid point, I won't mention "my company" again, but will refer to business as a whole. Business in general has not warmed to Vista. From a business perspective Vista has nothing to offer, and this applies to an OS that is marketed as "Windows Vista Business". That's a fact.


Vista is actually not "selling fine". On what do you base this?


There is no sense in repeating the same argument. How do you know who has and has not Vista? I've just stated in my previous post that people can have experience of Vista without actually installing it on their main PC. Your argument is almost entirely based on the principle that those posting what you would call "anti vista" comments in this thread are somehow misinformed. Let's not start using anti vista / pro vista labels in this thread.


You have not "moved forward in time". That's the part you're not getting. You are using an OS that is a newer version of the same OS that offers nothing much that XP doesn't already have. When it comes to running programs which is what an OS is actually for btw (it is for running programs, not looking nice) Vista is no different from XP. The difference is that Vista leaves less resources available to the system, which is important to gamers in particular.


You are the one debating, with quite some zeal, the merits of Windows Vista. I am merely responding truthfully to the comments that you are making. I am not preaching to people to go back to windows 98 or install Linux. That's up to them. My point is that I do not accept your idea that Vista is the next great upgrade to the fabulous Windows OS. And that we should all rush out to get it in order to "move forward in time".


How is it more secure and stable? Define it.

As to "what does it have to do"? It has to offer much more than those three points, as those three are not worth paying for. If Vista was free or I was fabulously rich I would still not take the time to even install something that offers virtually nothing new. Simple.

I don't mean to be rude here, but I'm going to be honest: Too long, did not read.

I mean- Over Vista? There's just not that much to possibly say. I thought the thread was closed.

Get Vista, or don't. Your option. End of story. There's NO debate.

[Lemur]

Get Vista, or don't. Your option. End of story. There's NO debate.

If there's no debate, then a lot of columnists, Slashdot posters, bloggers and Orgahs are going to be shocked that they've been writing about a non-issue.

When/whether to move to Vista may be a minor issue for an individual, but it's a huge bugbear for small, medium and large organizations.

[Husar]

When/whether to move to Vista may be a minor issue for an individual, but it's a huge bugbear for small, medium and large organizations.

How many of them have an account here and how many of them have been saved from making this major mistake by reading the org? Why would I, as an individual, care about the problems of a business, when was the last time that business cared about my problems?

[Papewaio]

I don't mean to be rude here, but I'm going to be honest: Too long, did not read.

I mean- Over Vista? There's just not that much to possibly say. I thought the thread was closed.

Get Vista, or don't. Your option. End of story. There's NO debate.

Pfft.

I don't think so.

Vista would be a better games machine iff MS was not so caught up in making sure the 360 is the premium games bed. As such they purposely stall releases to PC and/or not encourage developers to do a co-release. Either way MS is focusing on their console as a games machine.

I run XP at home (not rebuilt once in over 5 years) and XP on my work laptop. I can at anytime upgrade to a Vista machine. But none of the apps I run, including Office 2007 will work any better.

Some of my fellow techs want to use Apple Workbooks (still can manage Cisco devices off them)... and Apple is now more in line with PCs in their bang for buck... and if you want to play games well... you can either get a console or bootcamp it to XP.

Until a game comes out or a business application that requires Vista there will be no real driver to change across to it. As hardware gets better then there will be a natural takeup of the OS. But right now Apple has huge oppourtunities and they are for once taking up the challenge.

From the Apple website "How to move to Mac":

Why upgrade to Vista when you can upgrade to Mac? Especially when you can move all your stuff from an old PC to a shiny new Mac in less time than it takes to add the memory, hard disk space, and graphics card you’ll probably need to install Vista.

What is unusual is that Apple has been notorious in giving market share to PCs. If anything it wasn't Gates gaining a monopoly it was Job giving away a duopoly.

[Lemur]

Too good not to reprint:

Vista's 11 Pillars of Failure

Vista's 11 Pillars of Failure

ARTICLE DATE: 04.21.08
By John C. Dvorak

While the public's attention seems to be swinging toward Windows 7 (the next iteration of the OS)—a topic I'll address in the weeks ahead—the fact of the matter is that Vista remains. And it seems that the OS now has two distinct groups of users. One group happily uses Vista, with few concerns or complaints. In fact, many of them are baffled by all the grumbling. The other group is the fist-shaking Vista bashers who condemn each and every flaw the OS exhibits.

The latter group is by far the most vocal and easily drowns out the former group. Its complaints stem from the anti-Microsoft backlash, which reflects dissatisfaction with the company's history, business practices, tactics, and bogus announcements. Much of the disgruntlement, however, can be attributed Vista itself—and the poor marketing job done by Microsoft.

I mention the bogus announcements above because, at some point, you do get a little tired of Microsoft making exaggerated promises and then never coming close to delivering the goods. In the case of Vista, it has to do with the three "pillars" that were announced early on. The OS really delivered on only one of the pillars, and that pillar was nothing but Windows dressing: Aero, the resource hog and performance sapper.

With the "pillars" in mind, I decided to take a look at the 11 reasons why Vista remains on shaky ground:

1) Market confusion. From the beginning, everyone moaned about the fact that there were simply too many versions of the OS for sale. Who needs all the variations? It's stupid—plain and simple. What you want is the one best version, not a slew of namby-pamby ones. This happened because the folks at Microsoft know only how to merchandise and, seemingly, not how to market.

2) Code size. I've got two words for you: TOO BIG. Enough said.

3) Missing components. Yes, WinFS, the promised file system and a core pillar of Vista, isn't there. The promises regarding the development of this file system go back to 1991. And Microsoft cannot make it a reality? Why?

4) Laptop battery-life drain. This was supposed to be fixed with special code and hybrid hard disks (HHD). Still, users have to resort to expensive silicon drives.

5) HHD fiasco. I'm still irked about being told by the HD industry that the benefits of the new generation of hard drives will "make people flock to Vista." That was over two years ago, and suddenly there's silence about the whole thing. One of these days, someone will tell me what really happened. My guess: It never worked correctly, and no one could make it work.

6) Bogus Vista-capable stickers. Microsoft's "Windows Vista capable" campaign was an incredible marketing botch. Computers were sold with an indication that they were "Windows Vista capable" when they were not. This did wonders for goodwill.

7) Missing drivers. It seems incredible that all of the Windows drivers that worked with XP did not necessarily work with Vista. How does that happen?

8) Conflicting advice. There was no consistent advice for users about implementation, and Microsoft did nothing to help. Some people said that you should get a new computer only with Vista preloaded and not upgrade. Others said upgrades were fine. Others upgraded and complained. Microsoft should have put up a specialized Web site that could test machines remotely and tell users whether it would be a good idea—or not—to upgrade. A promotional/test CD-ROM that could boot Vista (like those Knoppix Linux disks) would have been a good idea, too.

9) XP mania. You'd think that the world was in love with Windows XP. Everyone wants to keep it on the market, and this makes Vista look even worse. What's more, there were far too many reports about people reverting to XP after an "experience" with Vista. If Microsoft had the testing service that I mention above in place, this would never have happened.

10) Mediocre rollout. Unlike other rollouts of important Windows products, Microsoft did not put on much of a show with Vista. While there were some weird posters placed in subways and maybe a few TV commercials, none of it compared with the rollouts from a few years back, where the company got worldwide attention. By comparison, the company seemed almost sheepish or embarrassed by Vista, something that was also reflected in the recent lackluster rollout of Server 2008—a total snooze. This sent the wrong signals to users and may have made them hypercritical.

11) Performance. You're not supposed to deliver a new operating system that's been in development for more than four years yet performs worse than the previous OS. Performance should be at the top, not the bottom, of the to-do list. You get the sense that Microsoft just piles code on top of code and somewhere in the middle of it all is MS-DOS 1.0.

I could probably put another dozen items on this list. The point is that it's a big list already. With all the resources in the world at Microsoft's disposal, you have to wonder why the company cannot get everything right even once.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It is what it is- Don't install it or do install it. The fact remains: If it doesn't go anywhere (this dream of MS scrapping Vista and creating an OS that some of you like better...is just a dream as Vista is selling fine) you WILL be installing it at some point in time. You won't have an option. Well, you will- Don't use any current software.

Hate to break it to you, but despite Microsoft's best efforts, people do have options. And some of them are way more advanced than Windows Vista.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Hate to break it to you, but despite Microsoft's best efforts, people do have options. And some of them are way more advanced than Windows Vista.

I prefer to use the software the people on earth are using.

[caravel]

I mean- Over Vista? There's just not that much to possibly say. I thought the thread was closed.

It is you that is attempting to block/dismiss the opinions of a certain group of people, i.e. those that criticise controversial software. Instead of actually researching into these issues you have simply dismissed the opinions of others on the basis that if they're criticising any controversial software then they must have some kind of agenda or ulterior motive (such as being zealots that refuse to upgrade for no apparent reason). Honestly, this is how it comes across.

You might like Vista for whatever reasons, but making claims such as this deserves a response of some kind:

If it doesn't go anywhere (this dream of MS scrapping Vista and creating an OS that some of you like better...is just a dream as Vista is selling fine) you WILL be installing it at some point in time. You won't have an option. Well, you will- Don't use any current software.

Also if you won't even read other people's posts then you cannot expect anyone to read yours or take any of your opinions seriously.