What's wrong with Vista?

Do you use Vista?

Have you used vista recently?

No?

Then perhaps you should.

I'm running it with the SP1 release candidate.

It is more reliable than XP SP2.

yes I have used it recently, once on a computer I made and once on a new laptop(no choice), the main became intolerable so I put XP in it about 3 months ago, the laptop became intolerable about a month ago and now also has XP, both are fine now

Sounds like you maybe getting som ID ten T errors.

Generally speaking, Microsoft has a solid history of releasing OS's with bugs and problems which in some cases were so problematic that for some OS releases people opted not to ever upgrade until a later OS was developed (Millenium for example) which make Microsoft Window users extremely hesitant to purchase a new Microsoft OS for anywhere from months to over a year when the bigger problems are documented and fixed. I see most of the people posting about how Vista works fine for them did not have the OS installed on their computer until the product had been on the market for at least several months and a lot of the problems and bad press that Vista received were with the initial or early versions.

Also, generally speaking every new OS that Microsoft puts out tends to use more resources than the prior one and generally speaking Windows OS are known to be big resource hogs. You have to consider what you are gaining from using Vista over XP and how much you are losing in terms of resources and decide if it is worth it to you. That answer is going to vary from user to user based on what what kind of programs they are running, particularly third party software.

I have seen Vista run on floor models at shops and so of course got an idealistic picture of how they work, but even so I didn't see anything compelling for me to upgrade. Everything I run on my computer with XP works fine. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

Edit: I found this article comparing performance of Vista and XP. Keep in mind this is from April, 2007.

http://www.crn.com/software/198702242

RAM is cheap ... time to upgrade

I play SL on both XP and Vista. Performance and visual aspects are about the same.

The only problem I can see with Vista is if you tend to be the sort of person who clings to old software it probably won't work on a Vista machine. Most popular apps are quickly adapting though and if you have software that sends you regular updates you will probably be fine.

That is not the problem. The more ram you feed windows, but more it wants.
It's like the town drunk when it comes resources.


Rox

People who buy a new computer that was designed for and shipped with Vista usually perceive Vista as quick and useful. People who dual-boot between XP and Vista on the same system, or upgrade from XP to Vista, perceive Vista as butt-ass slow and annoying. I am one of those people.

Peole that have XP pro and upgrade to vista then people that have vista to start with on a new computer

Vista is the operating system no one needed or wanted.

And Microsoft forgot to make it backward compatible so that a lot of programs and drivers no longer work. Its a Vista problem, not a 3rd party software problem.

To make matters work I've heard the estimate of $2.5 billion spent to create Vista. And really all they did was mangle the user interface to make it look different, eat up more resources and bust a lot of stuff.

hmm, more resources used, more useless visual effects, more stupid widgets running for no reason, less hardware support, more stupid crap that's hell to disable or turn off, less software support for current popular titles.... not to mention the bloat... ye gods...

MS' atempt to make their OS more 'user friendly' has turned into a case of nanny knows best, and really does nothing to compete with the Mac OS (which seems to be the drive here).

it's so gonna suck when I have to finally upgrade the home machine to Vista (more likely replace)... at least I had early experience with Vista to spot some of the problems.

All those are perfectly good reasons to stick to Win Xp. Every time I build a new computer(don't like pre-built systems) it gets Win XP and since the cheap prices on 64-bit components, i decided to go with Xp 64-bit. I'm very pleased with it, it's Vista but without the bloated non-useful widgets.

If I ever have to upgrade from my current OS it will hopefully be whatever comes after Vista. If that is just as useless I'll go back to Linux or maybe give a Mac a try.

I remember almost the exact same argument was put forth concerning Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Millinium (well, with some justification there ) AND XP. And when a new operation system is put out by Microsoft in a few years that very same argument will be put out once again. OS's are platforms that third party software work with.........not the other way around. It happens that Microsoft makes the most popular OS so it's up to the third parties to make their product operation on that OS. No one would expect the software designed for Mac or Linux to work on a Windows machine. But give credit where credit is due.........a lot of older software designed for XP do, in fact, work on Vista. But none of that software for XP will work on any Mac (without additional software to interpert the code).

Vista is not the problem child some are implying. It's not perfect, but then neither is XP. Once the third parties catch up we will grow to love Vista like we did XP.......then Microsoft will toss out a new OS to screw it all up again.

I don't remember that at all. Windows 98, then 98SE were definitely needed and desired upgrades to the foibles of Win 95. ESPECIALLY for home users.

Now, Millennium Edition was a serious flustercluck, much like Vista, and few wanted it, either.

In fact, I daresay the analogous parallels are 95 to 2000, 98/SE to XP, and ME to Vista. It's almost like history repeated itself, and for very similar reasons.



Apples meet oranges. There's no law stating that backwards compatibility (even via emulation; imagine that) is impossible, or even unfeasible. Indeed, the WOW subsystem for running old 16 bit windows apps persists into XP to this day (but, curiously, not in XP-64). This has nothing to do with other OSes running totally non-native code. I will point out that, if you install the proper libraries, you can run some very old POSIX-compliant code on MacOSX without too much trouble.



Au contraire; yes it is the problem child we are more than implying. Just like ME was.

Of course it is not "perfect" nothing is, and no one is expecting "perfect". BETTER, yes; PERFECT, no. Vista is definitely NOT "better" than XP.

I will close by noting that no one (OK, that one guy in Lower Slobovia, but come on ) grew to love ME. Most likely, few will grow to love Vista for the same reasons until the next REAL Windows gets here.

We love XP? Yeah right. That's why I went to linux.

Rox

I've had no problems running SL under Vista, and generally everything works better and faster than it did under XP. But I'm absolutely certain that that is because I switched to Vista when I had to buy a new pc which came with it and is much higher spec than the old pc.

In practical terms I can see very little difference between the two (once I switched off all the annoying things that kept asking me for permission to do what I'd just told it to do) other than some old software not running, and a lot of that will work if you fiddle with the compatability settings.

On a day to day basis I really don't notice much difference between doing things on a Vista pc at home and on an XP machine at work. I wouldn't bother to make the switch if I didn't have to, but I wouldn't be worried about it if I had to buy a new pc and it had Vista.

OK a few Vista highlights for me were:

The fact it asks for administrator permission for just about everything you do even though you are logged in as an administrator, like Nanny asking you if you are really really sure you want to do that as you might hurt yourself, oh and if you turn that off in services it constantly pops up to tell you that you did, I KNOW, the pop up being as annoying as the thing itself was.

The search doesnt work, I save files(more on this in a sec), and then try to find them and they are not there, search brings up nothing.

The save dialog for saves/downloads etc, the old XP one was useable but the Vista one is ridiculous, plus it includes shortcuts as locations, finding where you want to put a thing takes ages, you can end up saving to c:users\documents\my documents\documents\old documents\documents\my documents, and even then it wont be in the one you think it is

They renamed a load of things in control panel for no apparent reason, so you must randomly open each to find if it coresponds to what you are looking for, for instance "add/remove programs" in all previous versions of windows is now "programs and features", yes you might say no big deal once you learn the new name, my question is WHY?

This next one might be because I exported files and settings from my XP computer(surely many need to do this), but Vista has now changed the documents and settings folder to a folder called "users", but its also left phantom versions of the documents and settings folder that you cant access, it also seems to have about 5 folders it calls "documents" or "my documents", this meant whenever I saved a poser file I had to remember the complex tree to get to that particular "documents" folder, I then found the saved file wasnt actually there afterwards so I was left having to use search, which brings up nothing because it doesnt work, I saved the same file to 5 places and search still said it wasnt there.

MS probably put a lot of these things in to make it idiot proof as they must get so many calls "I deleted my whole hard drive and its your fault because I was only warned 3 times and I pressed ok on all of them", there is a culture these days that every bad thing that happens is someone elses fault and you deserve compensation, this started with XP where a lot of system files were hidden, whenever I install XP I must spend an hour or so "taming" it so it will do what i want and show what I want.

Windows 2000 Pro was the highlight of all MS operating systems to date, it didnt nanny you at all, you had access to settings you now dont, it assumed you had enough knowledge to use them, XP was like 2000 with nanny but it was tolerable and you could "tame" it into shutting up with that.

Im all for easier to use OS's for people who are not very geeky, I just wish they had made a "Vista Pro" which would be like 2000 was to XP, same but with no Nanny

I wont start with the software incompatability even for things that say they work on Vista, as thats been done.

The issue here is I can name any number of things with Vista that are worse than XP but absolutely nothing thats better, Vista is even slower at almost everything, my initial reason for trying Vista was Direct X 10 which MS say "will not work with XP", yeah right, its not to sell copies of Vista with "look at the bells and whistles you will get on games in a years time only on Vista" or anything

Hmm Everyday I turn computer on it goes on, do stuff, turn computer off, it goes off.
How much more reliable could XP be?
Why should I change, it runs every bit of software I want. The just got XP sorted and they replace it...............
All the IT people at work and people I buy computer stuff from discourage me from upgrading to it too.

Whats wrong with FORTRAN

Anyone for Aesop?

grapes yum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I likes Vista, but SL doesn't - I get audio errors, failed to parse paramater... etc etc.. my client window goes nuts when using SL and listining to audio.. and of course even though SL Download area says SL for Vista, they won't support it..

I likes Vista, but SL doesn't I get audio errors, failed to parse paramater... etc etc.. my client window goes nuts when using SL and listining to audio.. and of course even though SL Download area says SL for Vista, they won't support it..

I actually liked Millenium. The first computer I actually owned back in 2000 had ME. It ran fine for me.

Its not an SL problem. Its a Vista problem. Microsoft implemented Vista badly and forgot about being compatibility with earlier versions of its operating systems.

Bitch at Microsoft, not SL.

Its sort of like if the oil company "improved" the gas and you had to fix your car because the gas won't work in your car anymore.