Vista really isn't all that bad

[squigglethecow]

Only Microsoft has this idea stuck in their head that anything new has to double the hardware requirements, double the difficulty, and double the price. Their only saving point currently is the Windows userbase lock-in

 

good point, agreed 100%

[S.SubZero]

XP installs on older Win98 hardware and runs pretty well; it's fairly snappy on a P3 550MHz.

Who cares? How many P3-550's are out there? More importantly, how many P3-550's are out there where the owner wants to upgrade? If they are still on a machine that went out of production nearly a decade ago, they likely won't be dropping a couple hundred bucks on an OS.

 

XP was around for over half a decade doing everything we needed or wanted it to do for us.

Prior to XP, people had been using DOS for almost 20 years. Does this mean DOS is a preferred product? Four times longer than XP!

 

 

Vista often doesn't even run smoothly on the hardware it's sold on, let alone legacy.

While this issue has become a legal one, it's also true that today, in October 2008, a PC sold with Vista will be far more capable of running it than one sold on the first machines when Vista was originally released almost two years ago. One needs to work a little harder to get a machine that can't run Vista to some level of "good" today.

 

Vista added 'features' which were largely uncalled for and are often turned off in annoyance.

UAC is a necessary evil. The common user (ie. soccer mom) isn't particularly tormented by UAC prompts, as they don't tend to install a lot of "bad practices" apps and they don't tend to spend 10 hours a day clicking Administrative Tools icons. At least UAC in Vista can be toggled. In any other OS that uses elevated privs for things (ie. OS X) you can't just click a couple of things and turn it off. Any time a (real) Mac user runs a Software Update that installs a new kernel or other system files.. they have to enter their password. Run a new app the first time, it asks if it's OK to run.

 

Vista fills a hole we simply don't need filled; no one I know was whining and clamoring for a newer OS.

I didn't think I wanted Vista either until I used it. I find it refreshing and easier to look at all day than some dreary grey theme or dopey Fisher Price luna junk. Some people can still look at XP all day. I try to avoid it whenever possible.

 

Now he walks in and sees a different (often confusing) interface to learn, sees programs running just as slow on his older XP box, and every little problem or glitch after that becomes one more reason to hate this new Windows Vista thing. Maybe he even buys it for the slick GUI, not being geeky enough to know that XP can be made to look the same....

The preloads at the computer store will never run right. They come with the same old junk bloat apps that have plagued preloads for years. First order of business on any machine bought from a store is to wipe and restart fresh. Even MS is getting tired of the bad rap they get because of this. For the record, XP can't do Aero. It may look like Aero, but it's not Aero. A skinned theme does not make Aero. It's a lot more than that.

 

When I bought my Acer laptop half a year ago, I chose a third option. I wiped Vista off it, installed XP on one partition, and OSX on the other. I now pretty much exclusively use Leopard and enjoy it very much. Both it and XP run circles around Vista on my "budget" hardware. Of course, most people won't do this. But I'm glad I had the choice. Being an IT geek forces me to be a realist, but it also helps be a non-conformant

If stealing OS's to run on your "budget" hardware is how you roll, that's fine. My hardware is a little higher up the food chain, and I don't feel like dealing with an OS that may or may not brick on the next Software Update. Vista sees all of my hardware without me having to hand-pick it, and OS X on my Mac is where it belongs and it runs as it should there.

[vbetts]

good point, agreed 100%

 

Oh, but then you forget the time and hardware difference between XP and Vista.

 

I love how people complain about the requirements for Vista. For one, hardware isn't that much anymore since it's been expanded on so many levels. You can get a dual core cpu under $50. Back when XP came out, single core cpus were still pricy. As well as ram! 2 gb of ddr2 800 right now is just above $30. And you act like Vistas requirements aren't reasonable at all. 2 ghz cpu, 512 mb, 15 gb of space. 2 ghz isn't a lot not compared to cpus. The standard of ram is 2 gb right now, and ram is still dropping in prices, and harddrives are completely cheap.

[squigglethecow]

Oh, but then you forget the time and hardware difference between XP and Vista.

 

I love how people complain about the requirements for Vista. For one, hardware isn't that much anymore since it's been expanded on so many levels. You can get a dual core cpu under $50. Back when XP came out, single core cpus were still pricy. As well as ram! 2 gb of ddr2 800 right now is just above $30. And you act like Vistas requirements aren't reasonable at all. 2 ghz cpu, 512 mb, 15 gb of space. 2 ghz isn't a lot not compared to cpus. The standard of ram is 2 gb right now, and ram is still dropping in prices, and harddrives are completely cheap.

 

As you can see from my signature, my computer is above the vista requirements. I rate 5.5 on the vista scale

And yet, it lags. It freezes and it takes up 42% of my ram on startup (first time I booted, seriously).

 

 

I get what your saying, and yea people cant expect vista to run on older machines. But it doesnt even run on newer machines!

 

Even so, a company with good ethics would have designed their program to work on lesser computers (ie: stardock engineers their products so they will work on older computers). Granted, advancements require...well, advances.

But vista has taken this too far. It does lots of cool things, but mac does cool things to and uses alot fewer reasources. If mac can do it, vista should be able to as well.

[gpatxxx]

I use Windows Vista Ultimate x86 on my Athlon X2, with 1 GB of RAM, and it's very usable.

If Vista is slow, blame the OEMs for preinstalling crapware and inutilities on your PC, but "clean" vista is a good OS.

[OblivionMon]

I use Windows Vista Ultimate x86 on my Athlon X2, with 1 GB of RAM, and it's very usable.

If Vista is slow, blame the OEMs for preinstalling crapware and inutilities on your PC, but "clean" vista is a good OS.

I might have to agree with you a little bit there but I used vista ever since it came out until I just began to notice the horrible interface and I went searching across the net until I found docks for vista. After some time of searching I began to admire the interface of OS X; specifically OS X Leopard. I even went so far as to make my Vista comp look just like Leopard but it was fake, it was a mask over the face of a monster and upon researching Leopard religiously I noticed how much easier and intuitive it was. So I was led here and the rest is evident. With my experience OS X is really the greatest OS I have ever used. No longer do I need to scan my computer and set up schedules to do so, no longer must I traverse the Program Files Folder for a missing application and no longer shall I wish to see CCleaner again. I have rid myself of Vista, XP and the whole Windows experience, not to say others can still enjoy it but I really impose that once one sees the beauty, elegance, ease of use, and stability of Mac OS X Leopard, you can forget about Vista and hop on board the Mac wagon.

[vbetts]

As you can see from my signature, my computer is above the vista requirements. I rate 5.5 on the vista scale

And yet, it lags. It freezes and it takes up 42% of my ram on startup (first time I booted, seriously).

I get what your saying, and yea people cant expect vista to run on older machines. But it doesnt even run on newer machines!

 

Even so, a company with good ethics would have designed their program to work on lesser computers (ie: stardock engineers their products so they will work on older computers). Granted, advancements require...well, advances.

But vista has taken this too far. It does lots of cool things, but mac does cool things to and uses alot fewer reasources. If mac can do it, vista should be able to as well.

 

Vista and Mac aren't the same thing. That's also the problem. Yes, both use the same platform(Intel), but they are completely different. They use different cores and everything, and sorry about your luck with Vista. I've had great expirences with Vista. Vista is good, but at the same time, Vista has one big flaw. And it's both Microsoft and hardware companies fault. Vista will run great on some computers, but then run terrible on others, even if both use say an e8400. Microsoft does need to do more improvements to Vista, but hardware companies have to write decent drivers for Vista.

[CharredPC]

Who cares? How many P3-550's are out there? More importantly, how many P3-550's are out there where the owner wants to upgrade? If they are still on a machine that went out of production nearly a decade ago, they likely won't be dropping a couple hundred bucks on an OS.

 

I work in IT. There's tons of older hardware out there, even Pentium II and Celeron machines. Just because you never see anything below 1GHz in your world doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. My point is also still valid, even if you missed it; XP has better performance per hardware than Vista. Also, when's the last time you shopped for XP? Six months ago it was only $127 (legit copy with COA). Now it's down to $79.

 

Prior to XP, people had been using DOS for almost 20 years. Does this mean DOS is a preferred product? Four times longer than XP!

 

You're missing the point, maybe on purpose. In case you're not: DOS is a command-line primitive OS. Obviously almost anything with a GUI is an improvement. My words were that XP did everything we wanted and needed. You're not honestly saying DOS fills that description, are you?

 

While this issue has become a legal one, it's also true that today, in October 2008, a PC sold with Vista will be far more capable of running it than one sold on the first machines when Vista was originally released almost two years ago. One needs to work a little harder to get a machine that can't run Vista to some level of "good" today.

 

Wow... so your argument is that two years after Vista comes out, it runs pretty decently on the current hardware? That's fabulous! Oh, wait, didn't I just mention that XP ran great on 3+ year old hardware when it first came out? I guess I'm missing your biting counterpoint here.

 

UAC is a necessary evil. The common user (ie. soccer mom) isn't particularly tormented by UAC prompts, as they don't tend to install a lot of "bad practices" apps and they don't tend to spend 10 hours a day clicking Administrative Tools icons. At least UAC in Vista can be toggled. In any other OS that uses elevated privs for things (ie. OS X) you can't just click a couple of things and turn it off. Any time a (real) Mac user runs a Software Update that installs a new kernel or other system files.. they have to enter their password. Run a new app the first time, it asks if it's OK to run.

 

UAC teaches people one of two things: Either get used to clicking OK to everything (after the entire system has dimmed and paused for a few seconds), or turn the annoying thing off. I don't call either a success. At least OSX's password prompts are quick, and you actually have to know the password (likely being the computer owner) to get past it. It's bad enough how often Windows users hit OK to random pop-ups; now they're being trained for it!

 

I didn't think I wanted Vista either until I used it. I find it refreshing and easier to look at all day than some dreary grey theme or dopey Fisher Price luna junk. Some people can still look at XP all day. I try to avoid it whenever possible.

 

So you're one of the "it's shiny and pretty- oooh!" crowd. That's great. You're Vista's target audience.

 

The preloads at the computer store will never run right. They come with the same old junk bloat apps that have plagued preloads for years. First order of business on any machine bought from a store is to wipe and restart fresh. Even MS is getting tired of the bad rap they get because of this. For the record, XP can't do Aero. It may look like Aero, but it's not Aero. A skinned theme does not make Aero. It's a lot more than that.

 

We're obviously having two different arguments here, so let's clear this up now.

 

There's the consumer argument, and the technical argument. Consumer-wise, average end-user PC buyers such as yourself like the shiny interface. The transparencies awe you. You buy the new dual-core 2GHz machine, and it works for you. You can get your email, surf the web, everything you did on your last machine. So you're happy. Well, good for you. I would never suggest you try going back to XP. It would be a pointless, horrible experience for you. So stop arguing, I'm on your side in this case.

 

Now the technical argument. Vista is a bloated mess of code. The hardware requirements are silly. XP does everything Vista does except the eye candy, which is enough for some people. Those of us with a little IT knowledge see that it takes double the hardware to do the same exact things on this "better" OS. We see change for the sake of change, with few if any real benefits. These facts have spilled over into the mainstream media, forcing Microsoft to spend billions batting clean-up with "No, Vista's good, really!" commercials.

 

In the end, it's all academic. New computers (essentially) only come with Vista. As PC's fail, they will be replaced. People like you are happy with it, and that's fine. I'm merely voicing the opinion of the tech savvy folk. Apple is gaining popularity, now capturing a record share of users. Linux is also becoming more widespread, even being sold on PC's at WalMart. The local college here paid to have their latest batch of Vista laptops switched to XP. All the wonderful new tiny mini-notebooks either come with Linux or XP, as Vista is way too bloated to consider. Even people's Grandmothers report to have heard bad things about it.

 

My facts are still facts regardless of how satisfied you are with Vista. Yes, it will dominate the market. It will replace XP. But that doesn't make it better. It makes it an example of how a strong userbase can overcome a horrible product, as long as you can stomp down the old one.

[vbetts]

I don't look for Vista to replace XP. I don't care really. Vista has been better than XP ever was for me. Only thing that I don't like to much about Vista, it offers nothing new that you really need. I'm not gonna lie, Vista is a hell of a lot more convient than XP is. But again, people forget one thing about when Vista and XP came out.

 

Hardware was totally different from when XP came out. When XP came out, you didn't have things like dual core cpus, or raid, or 64-bit. Hardware is a lot more complicated. And Vista ran on 3 year old hardware for me pretty good. Single core athlon 64 and all, it ran pretty great! I would never take back Vista. I'm running it right now, and loving it. It's not that I won't run XP, but I can't really seeing that XP can't address a full 4 gb of memory, which is what I'm on now with 64-bit Vista. And 64-bit XP? No thanks.

 

And there is no fact that Vista is a horrible OS. It's strictly opinion pretty much however you look at t.

[CharredPC]

vbetts: I 100% agree, it's a matter of opinion, and you're welcome to yours.

 

However, the public has their own opinion about Windows Vista.

 

The facts I stated speak for themselves. Your "nuh-uh!" response is unimpressive

[Nick14]

It works pretty good with if you grafic is supported by aero and if you 2gb ram my friend tried it on a Wind and it worked really really good

[Nano2k]

Apple is only gaining market share because of marketing and the iPhone, not because the new buyers are more tech savvy or looking into details, it's just marketing. Because of the marketing, people think that their iPod or iPhone will work better on a Mac than a PC and that OSX will never crash or get a virus, not mentioning the "cool" factor... I used OSX on a Hackintosh at work for 3 months and now I am back on Vista on the same hardware and it feels faster. I could just not get used to the interface, using Finder was a very frustrating experience, that probably explains why there are several Finder replacements available...

Although one has to admit that a lot of basic programs are much better designed in OSX than in Windows and make the system easier to use for regular people.

 

Linux is ok for netbooks to save a couple of dollars of the end price or for the OLPC project, but realistically for the general public it is not at Windows or OSX level just yet. With Linux it's pretty much like with a hacked OSX release, if it all works out of the box then you are ok, if you have to make things work by yourself you are in trouble. I am sure that for every netbook sold with Linux there are 10 or more sold with Windows. At a professional level, Linux is probably popular mainly to save costs, why buy Windows software if you can run your server on Linux for free? Still most IT companies will push Microsoft products because they are making money on the licenses they sell.

 

Yes Vista was slow and had some bugs when it came out, but XP was exactly the same when it came out. Now the performance (at least for my use) is on par with XP and there is a wide array of benchmarks to prove that. The base specs of the pre-built PC systems have increased and the drivers are mature.

 

Just as the Mojave experiment (mojaveexperiment.com) proved a lot of people were hating Vista juste because everybody said it was bad, without actual experience with the OS. At my office yesterday an early Mac adopter (who would probably consider himself an IT specialist since he does websites for a lot of small companies) was visiting and when he saw that I was running Vista he said, oh you are running Vista, Vista sucks it crashes all the time, I asked him if he ever had tried Vista and of course the answer was no (ridiculous), I also told him that my Vista crashes a lot less than my bosses iMac that costed 10 times the price of my computer. He ended the discussion as he probably understood I could easily disprove any of his claims.

[exman]

Vista is great for video editing, encoding and transcoding work. Much faster than Leopard 10.5.5. There are not many useful tools on OS X, there are a ton of great tools on Vista (and XP) like megui, avisynth, vdub etc.

[vbetts]

vbetts: I 100% agree, it's a matter of opinion, and you're welcome to yours.

 

However, the public has their own opinion about Windows Vista.

 

The facts I stated speak for themselves. Your "nuh-uh!" response is unimpressive

 

Well, I hate to tell you this, but I'm not here to impress anyone really. But, those articles don't speak for every business out there. Now yes, maybe a majority of it, but not all. And any word from Microsoft is as good as a wet noodle.

 

I will say this though.

I have had no problems with Vista. It runs good for me, runs better than XP, good for 64-bit, does what I need it to, doesn't mess up on, it works for me perfectly. It fulfills my needs as the customer, so to me and other people, it's a great product.

[keypox]

I thought of another pro for vista: it works with my printer, osx doesnt.

[maverick_pranav]

question is just about how optimized ur pc is!....cant blame an operating system if most users have a ton of apps running in their system tray!!!!

though osx is my first love.. i dont have much complains with vista sp1 running on 1gb ram!..

perfectly plays carbon for me..and ram usage stays around 60 % most of the time even when working on vb.net it goes to 70% not above!...

[hecker]

I thought of another pro for vista: it works with my printer, osx doesnt.

Really? Don't you think that that might be the developer's fault? Get serious people. Are you even running OSX on a real mac?

[booger_sniffer5000]

Really? Don't you think that that might be the developer's fault? Get serious people. Are you even running OSX on a real mac?

 

What does running OS X on a real mac have to do with anything?

[dies]

What does running OS X on a real mac have to do with anything?

 

Apparently running OS X on "approved hardware" magically makes incompatible components compatible.

 

But on a serious note, if a cheap printer or webcam is the ONLY thing stopping someone from switching to something then what can be said, really...

 

BTW you can access and use any "Windows only" hardware through a virtual machine.

[tomazzzi]

I thought of another pro for vista: it works with my printer, osx doesnt.

 

This one was really fun

[Dainix]

When Vista first came out, I was very iffy on it entirely. Like Windows XP upon its release, it's something you can't rely on until after the first service pack. Since Vista has had its first service pack out for a while and UNO students can download Vista Business 64bit for free, I decided to give it a shot. What could it hurt? And if it didn't go very well, I can give XP x64 a whirl, and if that doesn't work, just copy my old partition back on and stick with something usable.

 

All in all, I'm very satisfied with it. It's been very stable, and all the applications I used in XP work just fine in Vista. Steam even runs quicker in Vista compared to my XP installation.

 

At first, I was a little worried using the 64bit version of the operating system, as it doesn't have a large driver pool. However, installing it initially pretty much covered everything, and running updates covered whatever wasn't installed. The only other drivers I had to find myself were the Bluetooth and SD card reader drivers. Everything else was covered by Windows Update.

 

I'm a little disappointed that the ATI Catalyst application does not cover my X1400 card in Vista 64bit. I'd like to play games in full screen while keeping its original aspect ratio.

 

With 2GB of RAM, it performs very well. At any one time, I don't think I've used more than 70% of it. I'll be getting my 2 x 2GB sticks in the mail tomorrow, so we'll see how much of an improvement it'll receive when it's jacked up to 4GB.

 

What really sold me was how well it integrated with my tablet. After finding and installing the drivers, it immediately activated the Tablet PC features of the system. It's much more responsive and stable than whatever XP offered me.

 

Vista's an interesting system. Like XP was to 2000, it was made to be more usable by the general public, yet also have the options open for the tech savvy user. When I first used XP, I looked at it saying, "This is a system any idiot can use. It's clunky, vulnerable to virii, and plays my games so much slower." I stuck with Windows 98SE until I was pretty much forced to upgrade, and around that time is when they had SP1 available. XP SP1 was so much more stable. Vista is pretty much following the same pattern.