Windows Vista Heading the way of Windows ME

[ryanbatc]

lol BA, I've seen that somewhere.....it's pretty accurate!

To the OP, I've used vista RC's during their beta time, it was alright, but I never loaded anything big on it, so I'm not really aware of the problems with it.

I thought about loading it for Microsoft FSX, but for now, I'm sticking to XP Pro SP2

[mapes]

You guys think Vista is bad...."what about bob."...Microsoft Bob it's probably the worst thing they ever did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_bob

[Devilguns]

I think Vista's main problem is that it really didn't offer any reason for any one to upgrade. The only thing that had me interested was DX10 and that turned out to be a big joke.

Even when I built my new rig there was no real need in my personal and business computing to even warrant it. If 64 bit Vista Photoshop became the industry standard then yeah, I'd have to adopt.

The thing thats really funny was Micro$oft really could have had some thing with the PC gaming industry. Instead they shoot themselves in the foot with the Xbox 360.

'Why get a PC when you can have a 360? Hey how come no ones buying Vista?'

[Hawkeye426]

I hope MS and Co get the driver support properly working this time round. Imo it's one of the major things that killed Vista.

What are you guys talking about??? Vista IS NOT DEAD! I don't understand why everyone hates Vista?? It is a very good and STABLE OS, I have been running it since beta (Then it was unstable), and have run it on high, and low end machines. The only problem with the cheaper PCs is that Vista is slow. There are plenty of drivers for it, and a major factor, for not upgrading to any OS, is if a SP has not yet been released. Form an IT perspective I already have about 30% of my clients who have pre-bought vista and are awaiting SP1 before they install it over their XP machines. Vista is more user friendly than XP, and as annoying as UAC is it DOES WORK! I do penetration testing on my business clients and, UAC prevents a lot of exploits that would work under XP, if you got access to a user account. The only problem I have with Vista is it requires too much hardware overhead for gaming. (At least until DX10 games come to fruition), but remember folks that XP was the same. It also required much more memory, HDD space, and better CPUs, and GPUs. Do you honestly expect a better OS that uses LESS hardware?? Get you heads out the the ground.

[CarbonFire]

Woah there Hawkeye, you act as if we insulted your mother

Vista is not a bad opertaing system per se. Not everyone is going to have an issue with Vista, but the potential for problems is high enough that it outweighs the benefits for many to upgrade.

Sure, for a non-technical person buying a high-powered commodity PC, it's probably fine. From what I've seen of its user-friendliness it's marginally better, but by no means a quantum leap over XP, which most people are already used to. IMO, MS needs to get working on a 64-bit only environment. The 32-bit (and 16-bit legacy) architecture that MS has been dragging along now for years is the number 1 cause of problems with windows. It's inherently insecure and riddled with holes and backdoors. Vista 64 is a step in the right direction, but at best it's a half a step. The bulk of Windows PCs out there will still run the 32-bit version of Vista, which has all the same legacy problems that XP now has. Sure, it's got more walls (like UAC) up to protect users from themselves, but essentially it is still carrying the legacy baggage that opens it up to a host of exploits. Hackers and spammers will find ways around most of these walls, no doubt through the users somehow.

I've been contemplating moving up to Vista 64 at some point, but with reports of driver issues with Creative's X-Fi, a host of game incompatibility issues, and the whole "games are slower under Vista" problem, I'm not really feeling too compelled atm.

That said, as Devilguns mentioned, Photoshop 64-bit would have me buying Vista64 in a heartbeat.

[WalkinTarget]

Vista UAC can be easily dealt with by using TweakUAC. It leaves UAC enabled but answers most system prompt requests for you.

[juneau]

Woah there Hawkeye, you act as if we insulted your mother

Vista is not a bad opertaing system per se. Not everyone is going to have an issue with Vista, but the potential for problems is high enough that it outweighs the benefits for many to upgrade.

Sure, for a non-technical person buying a high-powered commodity PC, it's probably fine. From what I've seen of its user-friendliness it's marginally better, but by no means a quantum leap over XP, which most people are already used to. IMO, MS needs to get working on a 64-bit only environment. The 32-bit (and 16-bit legacy) architecture that MS has been dragging along now for years is the number 1 cause of problems with windows. It's inherently insecure and riddled with holes and backdoors. Vista 64 is a step in the right direction, but at best it's a half a step. The bulk of Windows PCs out there will still run the 32-bit version of Vista, which has all the same legacy problems that XP now has. Sure, it's got more walls (like UAC) up to protect users from themselves, but essentially it is still carrying the legacy baggage that opens it up to a host of exploits. Hackers and spammers will find ways around most of these walls, no doubt through the users somehow.

I've been contemplating moving up to Vista 64 at some point, but with reports of driver issues with Creative's X-Fi, a host of game incompatibility issues, and the whole "games are slower under Vista" problem, I'm not really feeling too compelled atm.

That said, as Devilguns mentioned, Photoshop 64-bit would have me buying Vista64 in a heartbeat.

Exactly! Vista for most people will offer very little that's new to them. But the potential problems that can arise are ridiculous.

So this is how i view it.

XP offers everything i need a PC to offer. It's been worked on for years and is now a very solid OS.

Vista offers a few things more that are useful. But has a host of problems that you will never be 100% sure when they will get fixed. These negatives outweigh positives.

[Devilguns]

Do you honestly expect a better OS that uses LESS hardware??

I agree with that to an extent but once you start playing with something like Ubuntu, you really see what an OS can do using less hardware. Until core aps Like Firefox, Photoshop, Flash ect, are released Vista only there is no reason to upgrade. You make points of User friendliness and stability but that doesn't do anything for me. Seriously it's probably been over 4 years since I've seen a BSOD.

Back in the DOS days my comps used to see at least 2 OS up grades. Then I had Win98 machines that out lasted ME and 2000. It should be no surprise to anyone about XPs Longevity. It's not that people have a problem with Vista but there is no real need to upgrade. OS upgrading used to be a real bread winner for MS.

I think another reason why adoption of Vista is slow because a lot of custom apps that businesses used to use were programs run right off the hard drive. Now a lot of companies have switched to web based applications. Nothing there to warrant 64bit and certainly not 4 gigs of ram.

Microsoft really has to get their head together on this one.

[mapes]

Do you honestly expect a better OS that uses LESS hardware?? Get you heads out the the ground.

Cough cough unix....will kick the hell out of any Windows box on crappy hardware

[SgtRock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVbf9tOGwno

That was so funny Arrow