Piling on Vista

[Vladimir]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/bu...ll&oref=slogin

More red meat for the anti-vista crowd.

[Rick]

I must of laughed for five minutes. It serves Microsoft right; the arrogant ***'s If I had known what I know now I would never have bought one.

[Husar]

I heard it comes with SecuROM!

[The Wandering Scholar]

That link is just.. words fail me.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Good thing my new PC is ideal for running Vista

First post from my new PC and Vista and I have to say, Vista is much prettier. Seems more accessible as well.

For the people who are getting "burned" by installing Vista onto systems that simply cannot handle it: They have every right to feel the way they do. MS is definitely not being upfront about what it really takes to run Vista appropriately.

Then again, we've been dealing with these same kind of lies for years, from many companies. Just refer yourself to the "minimum" and "recommended" system requirements for any PC game. The specs they list are never enough to run the game without experiencing severe performance issues.

Nothing new here...but still- Unacceptable.

Word to the wise- Core 2 Duo, 8xxx line of Nvidia's graphics cards, 3+ gigs of RAM...or else don't even bother with Vista.

Basically the way I see it: Unless you plan on using Vista for gaming, ON a gaming PC...it's totally not worth it as of now. And unless you have those specs I mention above, it's going to be even worse for gaming than XP is currently for you.

Once again though in fairness- If you have a system that can handle it, go for it. No worries. Direct X 10 alone gives you a reason. Still, I would have to imagine that the large majority of people looking for Direct X 10 in the first place are PC gamers.

[Husar]

I "only" have a 79xx graphicscard and concerning Microsoft being honest about System Requirements, I want you to show me a game that runs and looks like it does in promotion videos when you barely meet the minimum requirements...
Apart from that, I had the beta running on an Athlon XP 2400+ with 1GB of RAM and a 6600GT, with AeroGlass on and it worked, I also played games on it and it worked...
It's just my experience of course, but for me it worked, although it could take half a second for the start menu to pop up or so.

[Lemur]

From an IT-guy standpoint, apparently it looks no prettier. Check it out.

Throw Vista away. That's what my colleagues at our fellow IDG publication InfoWorld have now argued that Microsoft should do. Give it a dignified resting place, as a stepping-stone OS, and come up with a replacement that's more sensible for enterprise IT. There is historical precedent in the consumer OS space for such a move; look at Windows ME and how it became a footnote in Microsoft history.

"Microsoft should toss Vista in the trash, as the company did with Windows Millennium eight years ago, then issue a Windows XP Second Edition (as it did with Windows 98 eight years ago) that capitalizes on some of Vista's key benefits. Then the company should focus on Windows 7, rather than keep trying to push Vista down unwilling customers' throats.

[ArtistofWarfare]

From an IT-guy standpoint, apparently it looks no prettier. Check it out.

Throw Vista away. That's what my colleagues at our fellow IDG publication InfoWorld have now argued that Microsoft should do. Give it a dignified resting place, as a stepping-stone OS, and come up with a replacement that's more sensible for enterprise IT. There is historical precedent in the consumer OS space for such a move; look at Windows ME and how it became a footnote in Microsoft history.

"Microsoft should toss Vista in the trash, as the company did with Windows Millennium eight years ago, then issue a Windows XP Second Edition (as it did with Windows 98 eight years ago) that capitalizes on some of Vista's key benefits. Then the company should focus on Windows 7, rather than keep trying to push Vista down unwilling customers' throats.

Good thing I don't work in IT.

[Viking]

In the mean time, my Vista runs flawlessly.

[Orda Khan]

In the mean time, my Vista runs flawlessly.

Same here

....Orda

[CBR]

Same here

You also liked Windows ME so your opinion doesnt count


CBR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sticking with my XP Pro. It's fast, reliable, plays top-of-the-line games (FSX!), and it works. That's all I need, thank you very much.

[Orda Khan]

You also liked Windows ME so your opinion doesnt count


CBR

Yes, I did. But there were even more who swore by 98SE and aimed similar abuse at XP and all the issues that came with it. Remember, XP was a little lacking on release or did MS release two service packs for no reason? TBH, I didn't mind ME and I had few problems with it apart from an occasional PC lock up and MTW required a PC reboot before online play.
However, with Vista, I've not had any issues at all. My chip is a dual core but by no means top end, my GPU is a 7 series and I have nowhere near the 3 or 4 gigs of RAM that I've seen recommended. There again I'll admit that I'm an old fart who only ever played TW, so no doubt there are games that would adversely affect performance...but there always will be

.....Orda

[Beirut]

Good article link.

By the by, assuming Vista does work for some people, aside from DX10, what are the advantages of getting Vista?

[Xiahou]

Yes, I did. But there were even more who swore by 98SE and aimed similar abuse at XP and all the issues that came with it. Remember, XP was a little lacking on release or did MS release two service packs for no reason? TBH, I didn't mind ME and I had few problems with it apart from an occasional PC lock up and MTW required a PC reboot before online play.

98SE was just plain better then Me and it was superior for gamers when compared to 2000. Once XPsp1 came out, it was the clear replacement for both 98SE and 2000. You had the benefit of the NT kernel and FS, with app compatibility similar to 98. Vista is to XP as Me was to 98SE.

By the by, assuming Vista does work for some people, aside from DX10, what are the advantages of getting Vista?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that one as well.

From an IT-guy standpoint, apparently it looks no prettier. Check it out.

I've heard almost all of those same complaints from people I work with. I've even heard some say they'd opt for OSX or Linux before they'd deploy Vista. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about it. The closest thing to praise Ive heard is a lukewarm response like, "Once you get used to it, it's not so bad". Hardly a ringing endorsement.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Same here

....Orda

Yup, downloaded Service Pack 1 last week, still- Everything flawless.

Haven't even gotten an error message since the day I got the computer with the OS on it (weeks).

It destroys XP. Not opinion.

People can try to dig up reasons to not buy Vista, but it's only because they don't already have Vista. I don't see anyone with it spending much time on this subject.

[caravel]

People can try to dig up reasons to not buy Vista, but it's only because they don't already have Vista. I don't see anyone with it spending much time on this subject.

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.

[Husar]

By the by, assuming Vista does work for some people, aside from DX10, what are the advantages of getting Vista?

I said it here before... *sigh*

It looks nice, it's the future, the rest are minor things like instant search in the start menu, the start menu doesn't extend across your whole screen and is generally improved IMO(well, I've seen people change it back...conservatives... ), it also looks nice, it comes with a nice sidebar, it looks nice, it has several minor improvements, it looks nice, ah, it has a game browser that automatically detects games (not all), since SP1 it also starts real fast, I'm inclined to say faster than my XP which weirded itself out a long time ago, oh and did I mention it looks nice?

All in all a very good free OS IMO.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It looks nice, it's the future,

ME was the future as well.

Besides DX10, I have yet to see a good reason to get Vista. I could have gotten it with my new computer, and decided not to - the bad outweighs the good, in my opinion.

[Orda Khan]

Those of us who were 'lumbered' with Vista (I had a choice) all seem to be saying the same thing, yet we are supposed to feel short changed because of all the stories from people who view it as the AntiChrist. I've used 98SE, ME, XP and Vista and only one of them without a single issue

......Orda

[CBR]

And Im getting grey hair and burst a few blood vessels out of sheer frustration every time I have to fix various stuff on my sister's Vista laptop. Some of it might have to do with a not so powerful laptop that wasnt meant for Vista although it officially should be.

Several gadgets she has bought just doesnt have drivers for Vista (not Vista's fault of course) and a general inability to easily install any USB gadgets because Vista cant figure out how to search for drivers automatically (maybe fixed in later updates/SP1), has not improved my opinion about Vista.

But ok, SP1 might the big thing.


CBR

[Husar]

Well, it installed all drivers just fine here, the only thing that doesn't have a driver is this old digicam. Like you say, if the manufacturer doesn't bother to create drivers for Vista, you can't really expect Microsoft to create drivers for just about everything out there. It can be an issue with older hardware because manufacturers just drop support, but then I think I couldn't get this old black and white scanner to run in XP either...

[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.