My major problem with Vista is its handling of legacy documents at work that were generated with Win 2000 Office. Every XL spreadsheet, or Word Doc when opened in Vista is screwed up in some way. Years of work setting up standardized templates with Excel 2003 are unusable and need major revision to print and use with Vista and its Office Works Program. Vista is brain dead and constantly tries to save these legacy files in the wrong file format, and must be corrected manually. The folder to save them in, also must be manually corrected. To the business user, the cost of the new system is nothing compared to the hours and hours staff will need to make it work with their old documents. MS seems to be punishing those that haven't gone with every new up grade from MS on the road to the latest fiasco called vista.

II also see that everyone dislikes Windows file manager, which has sucked on every system ever sold by microsoft. I use Total Commander for file management as it is light years ahead of MS. Using MS drag and drop is like trying to polish a floor with a tooth brush, its pretty hit and miss and that floor buffer is so much faster.

Yes Vista has some good points and improvements, but not for the business user. Probably why XP new systems sell for more than Vista systems. MS, you should be ashamed to sell such schlock that doesn't even support older MS Software. Pathetic.

About bloat...

Microsoft obviously makes a lot of stupid decisions about how things should work. But isn't some of the generational bloat due to an increase in proper/improved programming that is enabled by newer hardware? I'm referring to the use of less optimized, more componentized, and managed code.

NT 4.0 was seriously bloated at the time, but that was because it was designed properly (for the time), with preemptive multitasking, a semi-modular kernel, services, etc. It took time for consumer level hardware to catch up. When Vista was released, dual-core processors and 1+ GB RAM were normal.

Can someone enlighten me about this? I'd like to know how much has improved from a code perspective, and thus a security, stability, and maintainability perspective (theoretically). Or whether this whole idea isn't as significant as I thought it was.

Disclaimer: I haven't used Vista. I am running Server 2003 on this desktop though :)

I have been using Vista for about 6 months with my laptop. And it has worked ok as long as I have worked on it doing simple things like web browsing, email. But my problems still come from the video and audio area. With the protections built into the software is a mess with my legal video not being able to view it or audio not working at all. I did try it on my desk top with the premium version for about 2 months, but had the same problems. I did get a work around on audio but I had to go thru loops to get it. I also had smaller problems that most users had up here in postings.
I did like the information that it gave for when you did have problems. But then you could see the problem. But you couldn’t fix it. Like for example graphics system is over utilized. I have a ATI 1950. Its not a big card but it isn’t small.
I have reinstalled my XP and I will leave Vista sitting on the shelf for now. I can deal with the problems XP gives me more that Vista’s problems.
O and my video plays better with XP!
So add me to the list of complainers of vista not ready.

I've used Vista as my primary desktop OS for about 6 months now, on a very fast gaming computer. I received a legit free copy of Vista, so I have no money invested in which OS I use. My impression: if I didn't need DX10 for gaming, I would switch back to XP in a heartbeat. Why?

1) The new Explorer interface is stupid. They took away the ability to customize the toolbar, toggle the file tree, put a delete and undo button on the toolbar etc. The file list window is clunky in that it's constantly flipping the filename I'm editing off the screen. It forgets my view settings constantly. I like list mode, so why is it that every few days it wants to show me thumbnail mode for no particular reason? Lots of stupid little things like that. A file explorer is one of the most important management components of an operating system. It should be perfect in this day and age. Vista's implementation looks pretty, but it's cumbersome and unpolished. XP wasn't perfect either, but Vista is several steps backward in terms of functionality.

2) The sidebar is a lame gimmick that hogs desktop real estate. I shut it off after 5 minutes.

3) File transfer is slow. I mean WTF! It's REALLY slow. Gigabit ethernet, USB external hard drives, internal hard drives: they're all slower in Vista compared to XP, especially when accessing folders with hundreds of entries.

4) It grinds the hard drives constantly, on a system with 2 gig ram. I've disabled file indexing, auto defrag, and every other unnecessary background process I can think of, and it STILL grinds the hard drives. Maybe it's Superfetch in action, I don't know. But the constant hard drive access doesn't seem to be doing anything that's speeding up the system, that's for sure.

5) Change for change sake. A lot of customizable settings are now buried in several layers of menus, FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER!

6) After so many years of development, it should have been so much better. Vista's interface was obviously designed by committee, with the lowest common denominator setting the bar.

7) By changing so much "under the hood", changing protocols and lacing everything with DRM, they made it so much harder for hardware manufacturers to write clean tight drivers for video and sound.

Hell, I actually like Vista, enough that I now use it at home in preference to XP. Games run better than they did (although still not quite at XP levels) and the UAC is a necessary evil.

But, Vista sucks - really sucks - because of sloppy product support.

Until key software in the office is supported under Vista, it's not just a bad OS for our office, it's downright useless. Granted, it's not Microsoft's fault but this is why I can say Macs suck for gaming. Macs are great for some things, but gaming is not one of them. I'll use the same argument for Vista. Vista is great for general home/entertainment tasks but serious Office software in the CAD/Engineering/Architecture community still has major issues. Our accountants also have issues with Vista and they use some fairly new SQL2K5-based programs.

Businesses are slow to migrate to new platforms because old software works, is patched, tested, reliable and people know how to use it. New sofware comes with bugs, frequent patches to interrupt your work, compatibility issues and perhaps the issue of retraining your staff. Unless a business can afford to experiment with Vista and take the financial loss of downtime caused by any issues, it's a risk and therefore an obstacle in the successful adoption of Vista and Microsoft need to address "problem programs" more aggressively if it seriously wants to phase out XP.

It all comes down to this: all types of file transfer take allot longer with Vista than with XP; that means disk to disk transfers, disk to USB storage transfers, and transfers over a LAN. This type of activity is basic function for an Operating System. Microsoft spent allot of time and money on Vista, yet all they have to do is drop the ball in one significant area. And it's like finding a huge turd in the punch bowl...

Now I realize that this aspect depends on drivers from other companies. But that's what worries me the most. See from my perspective Intel and Asus aren't going to worry about these issues if Microsoft don't apply some "persuasion". Microsoft wants to wear the "industry leader" label without the costs of being a "leader". So in the end, I may never get the firmware, or driver, updates required to get Vista to run properly.

All I can say is: I'm glad I didn't pay full retail for this OS!

I am chuckling here at all the people complaining that Vista runs better on 2gig of ram. IT'S 100$ FREAKING DOLLARS! It's not going to break the bank. It's so damn cheap, I upgraded to 4gigs just for the hell of it. Good lord people.

Who buys a computer these days without 2gigs of ram? Even the very basic models are starting to or already coming with 2 gigs instead of 1.

EDIT: For the record, my 100$ 2GB ram purchase also has a 40$ MIR. So it's actually 60$.

Vista Home Premium 64-bit on my desktop
Vista Business 32-bit on my laptop.
Too lazy to reinstall the laptop to the copy of Ultimate 64-bit that I have.

One small thing that is really nice is the live previews when mousing over windows in your taskbar or using flip3d. Quite impressive and actually useful. Plus, it continues to have a maximize button which OSX doesn't.

I'd like to start another thread: efficiency

If we see a new CPU that has a lower TDP, that's enough to say it's a step in the good direction.

If we see a new GPU that offers the same at less wattage, we say that's great.

Now we have a new OS that needs a lot of watts more to do EXACTLY the same (more CPU load=more watts, more GPU load=more watts, more physical RAM=more watts). And more watts means more noise, more heat, more CO2, more hardware issues...

If we have left the path "more computing power means more power" in CPUs, shouldn't we start to think in a change of path in the OS?

I'd like to see a new OS that could do the same, with less computing power. But they offer one that can do the same, but asks for more... Something just doesn't add up.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/10/21/wye-wyg-windows-vista-vs-m...

This is exactly how I feel...when I'm not running Linux that is. FYI I use OSX, Linux, XP, and Vista on a daily basis. And I'm not exactly opposed to changed -- just purchase my first Mac in August, and I lurk Distrowatch every week or so. I guess I've just gotten sick of babysitting an OS. My primary desktop OS at home, VectorLinux 5.1.1SOHO, is in the exact same form for years now.

How much time has Cyril had with OSX and various Linux distros? Maybe a ton for all I know lol. Either way, you are of course free to choose your OS of choice. :)

In fact, I feel like I'm missing out when I have to use XP on another machine.

DrCR

I assumed Vista Business shipped with a 64-bit version. My mistake. Vista 32-bit was only recognizing 2.5GB of the 4GB I have installed. So after spending $400 CDN I had to spend another $40 to get M$ to ship me the 64-bit installation DVD inorder for me to access all of my memory. Compare this to another OS (Tiger) from 2 years ago that cost me $150 CDN which allowed me to access 8GB of memory from day one!

Vista isn't bad, it sucks. There is a difference. It has some good elements, surely, but it also has some bad elements.

In sum total, it sucks.

I find it humorous how Apple does something such as use the system's 3D card to compose the GUI interface and it's considered revolutionary. Microsoft does the same exact thing and all the nerds rally against it as power hogging bloat. Microsoft seems to never be able to do anything right in the eyes of the nerds.

Yea, vista isn't horrible.

People keep saying vista sucks even though they've never tried it because they don't want to have to buy a new OS and don't want to feel behind the times. It's a lot easier to say it sucks than admitting that you're not living on the bleeding edge.

Hardware support is another reason.

I do find the forced upgrade for DX10 rather annoying. Are they trying to kill off PC gaming?

The defrag option is less graphical than XP's. It only comes up with a dialog box with the option to start/stop the process. After allowing it to defrag all night, I stopped it and the process kept running in the background, like it was crashed. Had to shutdown so as to not kill any half writes from the process.

What a crap OS. I have it fully patched, btw.

The search feature is really bad too, as most will know.

If you are clueless and uninformed perhaps you should inform yourself BEFORE writing an article on a techsite?
Just an idea.

Most of the blowback related to vista is the same type of blowback that has been heard with every release of windows since Windows 95. Most of concerns do not pan out or gets fixed by MS. The exception being ME. ME was just as much a marketing failure as it was that Windows 2000 in enterprise environments was vastly superior and 98 for gamers was perfectly adequate.

Vista's issues are similar in that it has an image problem but also has some serious technical issues with limited to no workarounds. These issues include legitimate Enterprise concerns of legacy application compatibility, IE7 compatibility and it's new license key scheme.

About the Microsoft sales numbers. The following count as Vista sales. Every new retail computer that ships with Vista; Every new computer that ships with XP and an vista upgrade voucher; All enterprise volume licensing customers both new and existing.

If you are an Enterprise volume licensing customer, say you have 500 seats, you are entitled to install any version of windows (NT, 2K, XP, vista) that you desire. All of those seats count as vista sales. Example. A very large 10K desktop enterprise network uses Windows 2000 as its standard image. (For reasons only known to that enterprise) When they go to renew their Volume license agreement, bang, more vista sales numbers despite the fact that vista is not installed anywhere on that network. As for how much this fact affects the MS sales numbers is debatable.

Everytime I see responses about Vista I am simply shocked. It is stunning to me that so many people are so...stupid regarding new systems.

Every single OS since the beginning of time has had the same basic function - serve as the basic software level of the computer, through which the user initiates her work.

Comments like "Does the same thing XP does with more resources" are, in light of that fact - idiotic. Every single OS in the history of mankind "does the same thing XP does" (on some level) - and the vast majority of them do it with less resources. Go back to DOS.

I understand geeks are passionate in stupid ways - people ar emost defensive of the things they are most passionate about. Think about the uproar over the changes Lucas made to the original Star Wars films. What the hell does it matter whether he changes them or not? And yet, in internet forums and D&D clubs across the country - there were mass-burnings-in-effigy of George Lucas. Why? Because - as the author pointed out - Anyone who is passionate about something feels as though they take possession of it. (This doesn't just apply to Geeks as the author implies - think about Sports fans, or History Professors, or music fans - anyone who considers themself "passionate" about anything - hell, think about the way you feel about your significant other? Can he/she do anything wrong in your eyes? Is he/she given the benefit of the doubt, and when someone comes along and offers a change (say, a new significant other) aren't you vehemently against it?)

In this case - geeks are passionate about their computers. Microsoft, much as it is hard for the geek to believe, is an engineering company. They don't look for the pretty solution - they look for the best solution. Every single action taken by Microsoft, seen under that light, comes into stark relief and makes some modicum of sense.

Vista is the genesis of the philosophy. Stability has always been a problem with Windows PC's. It's common knowledge among the geek crowd that this usually the fault of hardware makers or application designers. They fail to code their apps in a manner conducive to stability, and Microsoft pays the tab in public relations disasters.

Basically, what it comes down to is - every feature in Vista - like it or don't - is inspired by and designed to resolve a problem that was present in Windows 5.1. You can critique the engineering decisions made by Microsoft if you want (I generally think they made the right - or most sensible, at least - choice in every single case I have examined) - but to use words like "hate" and "stupid" and "useless" to describe Vista is...ridiculous at best. It's a piece of software engineering technology. If you think you know a better way, propose it! You're welcome to. But remember, that it was the very problems of XP that drove Microsoft to create Vista - so by going back to XP you are embracing those flaws. (and looking like a died-in-the-wool-head-in-the-sand-mule to boot!).

I think vista looks cooler but that's it with annoying UAC that isn't really needed for home users. It's a forced option for some of us. Especially that dx10 feature. Why can't MS make dx10 available for xp as well?

I will laugh when blatant problems get left unpatched, because making a patch will invoke further wrath of... shudder.... "the media."

Hey, Microsoft, thank you for providing me a good operating system. And thank you for trying to provide the same level of quality to other people who have not been as fortunate to have my experience.

hahah
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13329

It improves the reliability of Windows Vista when you open the menu of a startup application.
It improves the stability of Internet Explorer when you open a Web page.

nice. this makes a strong statement for those complaining about stability.
my beef with vista lies more to do with the fact that it offers very little in the enhancement realm.. but the stability is much more important.. and if they cant get that right I'll be waiting even longer.

An interesting story I just came upon:

Wow...a Vista-bashfest by Vaughn-Nichols? Who knew that was coming? I mean the guy only bows before his penguin shrine everyday...

When I tried Vista it forced my Dell 8600 laptop to run it's fan in stage 2 of 3 instead of 1/3 that XP does, somewhere CPU use was too high, no matter what I turned off (Aero etc) - on battery or powered.

The interface isn't for me, I couldn't possibly care less about a fluffy 3D interface, I've never used XP's Luna theme and I've been using XP since 6 months after release, I need a functional fast operating system with clever powerful features, I don't 'watch' my OS I _use_ it to get stuff done.

Another reason why I don't want Aero is I do a hell of a lot of RDP'ing and you can't get Aero over RDP.
I would find switching from Vista classic (or XP classic) to Aero, to classic to Aero when switching in and out of my RDP sessions to be very disorientating.

ALSO Aero seemed to offer no real actual benefits to usability, sadly I have to admit after using Mac OSX that the whole expose thing is surprisingly awesome and convienient, that operating system truely makes a mouse user damn near as powerful as a good keyboarder (wow!)
Aero's flip 3D however was ridiculously bad at actually saving you time and effort.

The widget thing / bar on the right was stupid, it should be like Mac OS - it's there, when you need it, hidden and very easily accessable, NOT a bar stuck on the side (auto hide or not, Mac OS wins that)

The search functionality wasn't as good as locate32, I think in file names, not in contents, if I want my CV I search for *resume*.doc on all drives and I'll find it because I memorise the file name (admitedly locate32 isn't native to XP)

Therefore overall Vista didn't offer me anything that honestly helped me.
I used a full retail version of Ultimate and manage to re-produce a bug where connecting to a VPN would instantly blue screen it too (fully patched)

I dislike the smaller 'stylish' min / max / close buttons at the top right, I like them square and easy to find.

Did I mention Windows Explorer sucked? I spend 80% of my time in it, managing files, doing 'stuff' and it's hard to explain but there was a lack of 'lines' and dividers and bars, showing me data clearly.
I found it difficult to quickly interpret what is on the screen because the interface looked,... weird, perhaps it is too complex but it just looked 'odd'
Also the + appearing only on a mouseover on folders is just plain dopey.

The damn silly task pane is forced on as well, which is on in XP but disable-able - I don't think you can in Vista (don't quote me)

I disliked the breadcrumb style address bar in folders at the top of explorer, admitedly just today someone found a home made patch to disable it but it's not a stock option in Vista and wasn't available when I tried it.
(Breadcrumbs done right on a web page? excellent - implimentation in Vista? feels wrong)

Further to this, I own a valid, genuine corp CD key of Vista Ultimate, I've re-installed several times with identical hardware and it picks up my key as 'in use' and I need to phone activate with them.

Even with 4gb of ram on my desktop the disk thrashes about like a fat woman in a pool, the performance is _NOT_ faster than Windows XP in general alt -tab and application usage, things are NOT more responsive, programs are NOT being pre-cached properly, it IS slower, definately with 4gb on my machine than XP is.

The menu's are so convoluted it's insane, I had to google to find out how to disable hiberfil.sys because the new power configuration menu is worse than a policy editor, it's a bloody abortion.

Did I mention explorer? I did, but I can't help but mention it again and again, the little arrows at the top (size / name / folder / date modified) frankly look stupid, consume space and confuse (Even on 1920x1200)

It stuffs up dual boot XP / Vista installs when trying to clone a disk with Acronis True Image / Disk Director, Vista install is simply not bootable.
The new boot menu takes about 4 seconds to open for no apparent reason.

Aero's live thumnails in the alt tab menu if I recall also suck.
Don't quote me on this but iirc a super fast alt tab simply doesn't register, same as the alt tab replacement powertoy for XP.
For high speed users swapping BAM one app to another this is very annoying to hold the key that .1 of a second longer.

I actually found several bugs and inconsistencies with the interface when I used it last, an example (may be incorrect - it's been 3 weeks sorry)
I like to use details view, with status bar on all folders - I set this but when I click my computer the look and feel on the right in explorer changes - it doesn't show the drive letters on the right
(or perhaps I'm thinking of when I click on desktop?)
Either way, it wouldn't stay consistent, showing folders, shortcuts and files on the right and in details view always - XP does this.

Ultimately I find Vista begins to clarify what all the linux, mac and general Microsoft haters have been saying over the years, while I never previously agreed with many slashdot nutcases, claiming MS is losing their mind, Vista is the first indication I've seen that there really is a genuine lack of communication and thought going on there.

I really genuinely find Vista's UI to be honestly a mess, as if not only 100's of people worked on it but they didn't discuss it or keep it consistent.

Windows XP (if you're a Windows user) is reliable and simple, it's fast and frankly, besides DX10 and some other small things, it 'does it all' for most of your users, home and office.

How is adoption going to pick up when most users need MS Word, IE or Firefox, Printing, Burning, Downloading and connecting their digital camera / playing mp3's - that's all most people need, XP does it very well
(it's probably been said before about 2K or 98, I won't deny)

When all is said and done, I would STILL use the thing if someone just made a shell replacement that made it look absoloutely 100% identical to XP classic mode but with a Vista 'engine'. I don't hate DX10 nor do I detest the search, I can always use my own, I don't have to use flip 3d but I do CONSTANTLY use Windows explorer and I need it looking nice, simple and clean to do shit fast, - I felt hamstrung :/

Well. I'm going to try Vista for the first time today. My main reason for moving is DX10, and frankly i think that's the main reason i can think of for a gamer to do so. Then again, as i read the posts, that's the only reason for anyone to move over.
I'm quite scared, but i feel i have a powerful enough build to handle Vista at least with decency.
I have tried a few Linux distros and i have to say, once you have compiz-fusion installed, the Desktop just shines in ways Windows users could never imagine. Aero is a big ripoff, but that's something everyone knows including the most avid Windows fans(with a few neurons too).
Then again. I know that sooner or later Vista will be the one OS just like XP is now, and the sooner i make my move, the more skill i can develop in the time until the next fat ugly OS from MS arrives, which wheter you hate or love, you'll still have to accept as the dominant.
And even if it doesn't work and VIsta sucks forever i can always enjoy sweet lovable Fedora.

I'm not a MS fan, though I considered XP SP2 a good O.S.
Even Win98 SE, by the time it came out, was in a way a good OS, though quite far from being a serious piece of SW. But the point is, being them OS for the masses, they were usable by the masses.
Vista is another story. It is horribly slow, undeniably. It improves dramatically with a lot of RAM, but if you see what a Linux machine with Gnome can do with half of that RAM, you'd shake. On modern hardware any interface should be, to say the least, snappy.
Also, Vista is buggy. But we'll come to that later.
My wife, not certainly a tech-lover, was just adapting to XP when we bought a new portable PC with Vista. RAM had to be added immediately: 5 MINUTES (!!!!!) were necessary to be operative after boot, before the update. Unbelievable.
The first update did not work: access to the MS sites for that operation was not allowed by Explorer (!!!). Why the hell do you provide an update facility that cannot work from the start?!
The solution is detailed in a help page on the Internet, yet I'm sure that occasional PC users HAVE NO WAY TO DO OR UNDERSTAND what is in those instructions. Let me speak frankly: it is unbelievable that company like MS, with its amount of money, cannot provide a way for the update facility just to fix the access problem with a click on the updater program itself. My wife looked at me like if I were a wizard while I was fixing the problem. Not to mention what happens when documents about solutions are in English only. No problem for me or those who know a bit of it, but in a nation like Italy there are millions of paying Windows users!
A giant company that actually produces only a couple of O.S. cannot fail to be really supportive on everyday tasks like upgrading...
Also, the interface is similar but not equal to that of XP. I find it subtly yet undeniably more confusing, but it marks the line between unexperienced and experienced users. Before graduation, I've also been teaching some PC basics: I'd never choose Vista as an operating system for students.

Yesterday the most ridiculous of all: I wrote a document and saved it under "Documents". Then, I could not see it. I performed a search... nothing. I re-opened OpenOffice, loaded the doc to see if it were in place: yes.
Then, I could see it by opening "Documents".
I tried some times: sometimes I see the file, sometimes I don't.
By moving it in a sub-directory (sorry: folder), apparently I can see it ALWAYS. I'm blessed: there are places, at least, in which Vista file explorer can see files ALWAYS!!! I can see files!
To be very honest, there are no excuses for such a level of shabbery.
XP was much better from an infinite number of points of view.
Maybe things will change by updating the system again, but a serious company cannot deliver such a piece of faulty SW, faulty in the most commonly used parts of it, to millions of users.
And I prefer not to comment on the fact that at least 12 thousand of regular customers have seen some features disabled because the OS thought to be hacked according to faulty MS servers. What would would you do if your car stopped telling you that fuel is scarce?
Vista is really BAD.

I dual boot Vista Ultimate and XP. Stopped using Vista as SLI did not work, tried using it again once SLI worked. Stopped using it because 3rd party stuff (cygwin/VPN tunnels) I need for work are not functional in Vista.

You had to have known this topic would bring out the trolls! What were you thinking? Part of me thinks that you simply wanted to get some laughs and used the inevitable onset of tinfoilery that ensued to assuage the crick in your funny-bone!

On a serious note, I concur. I may just be imagining things, but I do feel that the pre-SP part of Vista has been rockier than the pre-SP period for XP. Entirely subjective, I know — perhaps I'm letting the 'oh sweet jeeze M$ is the devil'-ing get to me.

I was disappointed with the 64-bit version of Vista but I knew what I was getting into beforehand, so I can't really complain. 32-bit runs 95% of my software without issue and it feels much snappier, especially when swapping between programs with big footprints.

I have worked at two companies this year. Both have Enterprise agreements, both have Vista through the agreement ready to use if they want.

Both have Zero intention of implementing it until at least late 2008.

I would be that MS counts their copies as sold copies of Vista......adding to those great Vista numbers.