The Vista nerd rage feedback loop

Ask anyone in the techie community about Windows Vista, and they’ll tell you the same thing: Microsoft’s latest operating system is a failure. It’s slow, bloated, and riddled with flaws. Nobody’s buying it, and it’s pretty much Redmond’s biggest blunder since Windows ME. There’s a very strong consensus on this, and you’ll no doubt conclude that Vista is indeed both an awful piece of software and a commercial failure—that is, until you talk to actual Vista users or, heaven forbid, Microsoft itself.

There seems to be a striking difference between what the tech press and techies in general say about Vista, and how Vista users actually feel about Vista. As someone who’s been using Vista on his primary PC for ten to twelve hours a day since February 17, I can attest to this first-hand: it just isn’t anywhere near as bad as everyone says. It’s not even a little bad—I can honestly say I haven’t once in the past seven months felt like moving back to Windows XP. In fact, I feel like I’m missing out when I have to use XP on another machine.

I’m not the only one to feel this way, either. Out of the tech-savvy people I know, only a couple have reinstalled XP after trying out Vista. The rest might not have any strong feelings one way or the other—a friend of mine got Vista on his new laptop and doesn’t see a reason to install it on his main PC, for instance—but they’ve all settled in just fine as far as I’m aware. The last time I heard somebody say, “I’m thinking about installing Vista, but I hear it’s awful,” the response was, “No, it’s really not that bad.” And the last person I know who upgraded said verbatim, “Vista isn’t as terrible as I’d suspected.”

Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence, and everyone knows Vista isn’t selling well at all. Right? Well, maybe not. Following the Vista launch, Microsoft posted its highest quarterly profits yet, lauding “robust demand” for the new operating system. In May, Microsoft boasted that it had sold nearly 40 million copies of Vista. In the company’s July financial statement, Microsoft credited Vista as the primary source for a 15% year-over-year increase in OEM revenue. Yes, XP demand is still strong, and copies of Vista aren’t flying off store shelves like hot cakes (nor should they considering Microsoft’s pricing scheme), but Vista is hardly failing commercially.

Despite the above, tech journalists and bloggers alike post article after article clamoring about Vista’s utter failure as an operating system. Those articles go from citing “low” sales numbers to throwing around the Big Bad Three-Letter Acronym—DRM. Such articles invariably fail to mention that Vista’s only built-in DRM relates to protected Blu-ray and HD DVD media, that it’s necessary to play those media at their intended resolution, and that XP does basically the same thing. People like Ed Bott occasionally attempt to quell the hysteria, but they largely go unheard.

Some even less informed articles rant on about Vista’s high memory use—evidence of masses of bloat, they say, when in reality it’s little more than Microsoft’s SuperFetch memory system in action. Complaints of massive hardware incompatibilities are rampant, too, even though hardware support has largely improved in the few months following the Vista launch, and the fault lies with hardware vendors—not Microsoft—to begin with. The list goes on.

So what’s really wrong with Vista? It’s not flawed technically and its hardware requirements aren’t outrageous (the Aero user interface can be turned off, and although it does seem a tad more memory-hungry than XP, memory is extremely cheap nowadays). It won’t drown you under unwanted DRM software, and it won’t kill your family, club baby seals, or crucify puppies. Features like User Account Control prompts are a little annoying, but they can be tweaked or disabled, and they’re actually useful from a security standpoint. Not to mention Mac OS X, Linux, and any modern operating system has a similar system in place. Hardware and software support left something to be desired originally, but as I mentioned, it has improved significantly since the retail Vista launch eight months ago.

Personally, I think the bad press Vista receives is simply a feedback loop. Geeks don’t like change, and they’re often very vocal about the fact. Throw in some fear, uncertainty, and doubt from misinformed bloggers and tech journalists, and you have geeks telling each other to hold on to Windows XP like it’s the best OS ever made—even though in reality, it’s very much outdated and flawed in many ways. Of course, this is hardly the first time a new Microsoft operating system has been shunned by the techie elite. Many geeks similarly recoiled in horror from XP following its release in 2001, and I personally know some who stuck with Windows 98 SE for a couple of years after XP’s introduction.

In conclusion, I think too long has passed between Windows releases, and I think geeks have simply forgotten what operating system upgrades are all about. Most of those railing against Vista now will likely make the jump eventually, and the rest had better be ready to wait a long, long time if they expect a better step up from XP than Vista.

Comments closed
    • ramjet50000
    • 11 years ago

    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.

    • StuffMaster
    • 12 years ago

    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 🙂

    • zimpdagreene
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • QuailRider
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • Chrispy_
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • Gandhi
    • 12 years ago
      • Taddeusz
      • 12 years ago

      As much as I like my new Mac Mini and Mac OS X. I’ve even pre-ordered Leopard. The guy who writes Roughly Drafted is one of the worst examples of Mac fanatics. The title of his blog says it all. It has to be one of the best examples of bad writing and poor research I’ve ever had the unfortunate experience of coming across.

      For example take the article you pointed to. He’s over exaggerated several points just so it’s more sensational. Like the price of Vista. True, who really wants Vista Home Basic. But if you’re going to report the truth do it with some integrity. As far as the 3D interface is concerned Apple got it wrong first, it’s now Microsoft’s turn to do the same. They had the same overuse of translucency even before Vista was a sparkle in Bill Gate’s eye. Microsoft is just a little behind the curve and didn’t learn anything from Apple’s mistake.

      I was reading Roughly Drafted for a while but really got tired of his inaccuracies and bad fanaticism. I try and stay as far away from him as possible now.

      • StStephen
      • 12 years ago

      I am continually amused by the Mac posts, always gives me a good laugh.

        • Taddeusz
        • 12 years ago

        Why is that? Have you ever actually sat down and used one before? Much more intuitive to use than even Windows XP.

          • A_Pickle
          • 12 years ago

          No offense, but he didn’t say anything about Macs themselves. Just the forum ramblings of elitist zealot Mac users.

          The two are not interchangeable.

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            Sorry. Yea, I guess I took it the other way.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      It is a bit sensationalized.

      It took Apple a while to get lot of those features right.

      Lepoard isn’t really that much of a different OS (under the hood) than its predecessors rather it is more like a service pack.

      It is still embarrassing for MS to fall short in its promises for “Longhorn”. Vista feels solid, but incomplete because it was rob of its potential. It is probably why some Vista critics feel that Vista is “XP with a face-lift”

    • DrCR
    • 12 years ago

    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. 🙂

    l[

    • Cannyone
    • 12 years ago

    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!

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      I still failed to understand the whole transfer problem.

      Data transfers from my I/O and NIC in Vista x64 are as fast as they were with XP64. I am running a Realtek Gigabit Ethernet solution, ICH7 and Highpoint 2310 4x PCIe SATA RAID card.

      I suspect the problem may simply be immature controller/NIC drivers and misconfigured hardware: HDD/ODDs are running in PIO mode, NIC running in 10Mbps mode etc.

        • Cannyone
        • 12 years ago

        Um … actually you are correct! And it seems these issues where a result of my own personal “id10t” error. To put it succinctly I didn’t install the AHCI drivers correctly. When I had a motherboard go down on me, I was forced to reinstall Vista. This time I decided to try some things out. Namely I left the BIOS set to “Emulate IDE”. Now things work “as they should” the vast majority of the time. I realize this kills the hot-swap and NCQ capabilities of my drives, but I can at least transfer files and successfully complete a Disc burn with my ROM drive. Maybe now I can that floppy creation program on my motherboard’s disc to run…. Then I can try to reinstall (properly this time) with some AHCI drivers. (Another OS install… OH Joy! *roll eyes*)

    • Taddeusz
    • 12 years ago

    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.

      • Gandhi
      • 12 years ago

      l[

        • A_Pickle
        • 12 years ago

        Flip3D isn’t Aero. Alt+Tab isn’t useless, and neither is Flip3D. I suppose when you’ve been without a decent window management system ’til version 10.3, you tend to harp on the other side… but…

          • Gandhi
          • 12 years ago

          l[< I suppose when you've been without a decent window management system 'til version 10.3, you tend to harp on the other side... but...<]l Alt+Tab is not a decent windows management system, and neither is Flip 3D. We are comparing the latest OSes from Microsoft and Apple - Vista and Tiger. Do you see anyone bitching here about Win2k?

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            Win2k sucks, it’s just a less polished version of XP 😛

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            That’s funny… I’ve been using Alt+Tab for years now. It works pretty damn well. Of course, I’ve also had the priviledge of having a taskbar for the past… 12… years…

      • rechicero
      • 12 years ago

      >Microsoft does the same exact thing and all the nerds rally against it as >power hogging bloat

      Probably because most nerds don’t give a damn about Mac OS. I don’t know if it’s a power hogging bloat or not, because I don’t use it…

      Anyway I like what you said… Because you say that Vista, as Tiger (I suppose) is a power hogging bloat, don’t you? 🙂

        • Taddeusz
        • 12 years ago

        No, I don’t agree that it’s a power hogging bloat. I say that others believe that. It’s been proven that it’s not.

        I don’t want to rehash your tired argument but just wanted to give a negatory reply.

        As for OS X, nerds should give a damn about it. Certainly it’s not perfect but it runs quite well, dare I say better than even your beloved XP. My Mac Mini has been my best purchase lately.

    • Porkster
    • 12 years ago

    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.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      WHAT DO I SMELL? BACON!

      • Entroper
      • 12 years ago

      This is true, but XP didn’t have a good defrag anyway. It would be nice to actually see a robust implementation of defrag in some version of Windows.

      • A_Pickle
      • 12 years ago

      I’ve had no problems with Vista’s defrag… and it’s nice to see it schedule-able. That said, I think it’s really dumb how, a la Office 2007, Microsoft has put NONE of the features of the old defragger from 98 SE, ME or XP. I used to use that “Analyze” feature a bunch, I shouldn’t have to commit to a defrag. The Vista interface with two whole buttons pisses me off — there ought to be, at the very least, an “Advanced” button that lets you analyze, defrag, schedule a defrag, defrag at boot, etc.

      But Vista’s search is pretty sweet. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts about it. I dunno what you decided to do… turn off indexing or whatever… Vista’s search is pretty damn good.

        • ssidbroadcast
        • 12 years ago

        Sounds like you guys are ready for OS X.

          • Gandhi
          • 12 years ago

          LOL! Careful, there is a reason why this article title contains “nerd rage” in it.

          • A_Pickle
          • 12 years ago

          Er… how?

    • End User
    • 12 years ago

    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!

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      The joys of running into 4GB limit.

      You have the problem of legacy addressing eating up the memory in 3.5-4GB range (both in 32 and 64-bit OS). This problem can be addressed (no pun intended) by a BIOS setting called memory remapping or something like it.

        • A_Pickle
        • 12 years ago

        I feel inclined to add that Windows XP x64 Edition and Windows XP 64-bit Edition (for Itanium processors) were out before Tiger…

          • End User
          • 12 years ago

          Tiger and XP Pro x64 were released in April of 2005.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            And XP Pro x64 gave you the option of accessing 128 GB of RAM from day one.

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 12 years ago

      $40?

    • A_Pickle
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • danny e.
    • 12 years ago

    hahah
    §[<https://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.

    • herothezero
    • 12 years ago

    q[

    • Unckmania
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • Stripe7
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • Jambe
    • 12 years ago

    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 /[

    • Inkedsphynx
    • 12 years ago

    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$.

      • rechicero
      • 12 years ago

      The big fat question is:

      What do you get for those 100$?

      And, another one:

      What do you get for those 100$ + several hundred to buy Vista if you are upgrading?

      And if you like to throw away 100$, I can send you my bank account 😉

        • Inkedsphynx
        • 12 years ago

        You get 2GB of ram for those 100$ (60$ after MIR). I figured that’d be abundantly clear.

        And, as I just posted in reply to another post….

        Stop with the hundreds of dollars crap people! If you’re that concerned about your money, buy OEM! I just bought Vista-64 bit yesterday for 110$ from Newegg. I paid the same for Vista-32 when I built my last system in the first place. That copy is staying with the old system that’s going to my girlfriend.

        The point is, it’s not nearly as expensive and outrageous as everyone seems to want to make it.

          • Snake
          • 12 years ago

          Ahh, but with respect, if you are upgrading a laptop the cost of the memory can be a lot higher – and then you add in the cost of Vista, the time required to collect the compatible drivers (if they are even /[

            • Inkedsphynx
            • 12 years ago

            I wasn’t commentating on all that junk, I was merely referring to people that bitch and whine about cost, when you can upgrade to vista and add 2GB of ram to your computer for 170$.

            In regards to all the other stuff you talked about, I would never say Vista is better than XP more than XP was over 98, but Vista is better than XP. As I stated dozens of times before Vista came out, the video drivers being seperated from the kernel was worth the 110$ I spent alone.

            And I’ve yet to have a single device I own not have drivers that work fine with Vista. Not saying all of them do, but most of the common ones, especially now, do.

            And, laptops are obviously a different beast altogether because most people don’t upgrade laptops. Nowhere near the number that upgrade a desktop. So I’d argue the point is moot because you’d end up buying the laptop and it’d have your ram and vista already on it.

            • Snake
            • 12 years ago

            l[

            • Inkedsphynx
            • 12 years ago

            It helps that I don’t use alot of external devices. Printer now and again. Camera thingy once in a while. Most of my internal hardware worked just fine with Vista without having to futz with it.

            I realize this is the exception to the rule, but I also think that the device incompatibility is greatly over-exxagerated by most people. It’s usually only a device here or there *[

            • Snake
            • 12 years ago

            Hmmm.

            An interesting story I just came upon:

            §[<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2190228,00.asp<]§ "l[

            • Firestarter
            • 12 years ago

            I can think of one thing in Vista that I would really like in XP: a quick search bar in the start menu.

            I just downloaded ViStart, it has the quick search thing but well.. you know

            • bozzunter
            • 12 years ago

            What is the “great benefit” of taking a fully-functional XP computer, one that does everything you want it to TODAY, and upgrading to Vista? You have spent a minimum of almost $250 for the OS and memory, 1 hour for the Vista install, uncounted numerous hours for backup / install / restore activities, the hours spent tweaking to get your system back to where you want it…

            This is exactly my point. When I read “Vista is better than XP” I guess it depends on how people weight the factors. It has functional problems and what are the benefits, apart from the new way to explore folders? I haven’t seen one, either in the “bibles” I read, or in the article which opened this thread, or in these posts.

            I guess there’s nothing which changed someway my modus operandi, hence I’m simply left with all Vista’s problems. I can’t really see a reason to upgrade a fully functional XP computer to Vista, although I still see few in order NOT to buy a new computer with Vista installed…

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            I’ve actually been looking at laptop memory lately. It’s actually pretty cheap. You can get 2GB (1GBx2) of DDR2 667 for about $70 sometimes as low as $60. That’s a penance compared to how much laptop memory used to be.

            • Gandhi
            • 12 years ago

            Laptops have limited memory slots compared to desktops. The higher capacity memory modules are much more expensive. Check the 2gb modules for example.

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            I agree. Those prices are quite a bit more expensive than the 1GB modules. That being said, other than for engineering/design purposes, why would you need that much RAM in a laptop? 2GB is more than sufficient for anything you can throw at it short of some professional specialized uses.

            • Gandhi
            • 12 years ago

            l[

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            My brand new Mac Mini runs great with 1GB of RAM but then I don’t do much on it other than browse the web and stuff.

            • Gandhi
            • 12 years ago

            The the default RAM should be enough for you. But 1 gig is not enough if you virtualize Windows, or anything more than surf and email.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            I just bought 4 GB of RAM, DDR2-667, for my laptop for under $200. I’m fairly certain ALL of the 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) offerings for laptop RAM on Newegg are under $300.

            That’s not particularly expensive, and that’s plenty as is. You’re only going to convince morons looking for someone/some company to blame (MS) that Vista /[

      • morphine
      • 12 years ago

      Reasonable enough if you’re talking about the US and a $1000+ PC to begin with. In the rest of the world, 1GB of RAM usually ends up more expensive, especially taking into account differences in the rest of the economy.

      • Shining Arcanine
      • 12 years ago

      If I recall correctly, I brought Windows Vista Ultimate for $17 at my university’s store.

    • SGT Lindy
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • morphine
    • 12 years ago

    I for myself haven’t used Vista all that much. Installed it once, found it somewhat confusing and didn’t find anything really “new”. But that’s not the question here.

    Here’s the real thing: in my office we’ve rolled back quite a few laptops from Vista to XP (MS allows you to do that, at least here, if you’ve got Business or Ultimate). Some customers (regular Joes) already asked in advance for XP laptops. Being curious, I happened to ask one of my resellers if they were experiencing the same, since we don’t move that many machines here. They were. Lots and lots of times.

    Main reasons for this? Main complaint: “It’s SLOW”. Yes, I know that laptops come with all sorts of preinstalled crap, but the difference seems to be just too much. And yes, I can stomach that if you give it 2GB of RAM, then it’ll be just as fine as with XP. At which point I’ll ask: “what are you getting for those 2GB that you need?”. Not much. And that leads us to point B: some of those that complained sluggishness also pointed out that it doesn’t really bring anything all that new, just a couple features here and there, and it’s prettier. And the UAC is incredibly annoying for just about everyone, and only ends up working against its original purpose, which I guess is point C (my personal side-take at UAC is that it’s good theory with poor implementation). Point D would be the odd incompatible app. Not that widespread, but still valid.

    Apart from laptops? Among roughly a dozen of desktop machines, we’ve been asked for two (2) Vista copies. One of them asked to switch back.

    I also hope you’ve been watching the news. Big vendors are re-offering preinstalled XP, and *they* have good reasons for it. After all, it would theoretically be in their best interest to preload a more expensive OS.

    You see, here’s the main thing: let’s just assume for a second that SP1 fixes most of the outstanding problems and brings speed up a notch. At the end of the day, the big problem still stands: for 99% of people, apart from the pretty face and a few minor features, Vista doesn’t bring anything new. I do know that internally it’s a big overhaul, but in the end you just want to use your machine.

    I try to draw a parallel to the XP/2000 situation, but it’s not quite the same. First off, the general hardware requirement difference between 2000 and XP wasn’t so great, and at least XP brought much, much better hardware and driver support to the table. Given that many people were switching from 98 to XP (instead of 2K to XP), they got all the NT kernel goodness and smoothness.

    My prediction is that once SP1 is out, and presuming it solves the outstanding issues (file copy, network bandwidth, etc), and improves performance at least a bit, then Vista will start getting mainstream adoption. And by that time maybe, just maybe, I’ll switch too 🙂

    • ubiloo
    • 12 years ago

    I see a number of people writing about how Vista is better than XP and how predictable some errors are in the first months of a new OS.
    Sorry, it is not.
    It is not a matter of speed or being or being not an enthusiast.
    I’ve used VMS, Linux, Solaris, Windows, DOS, AIX.
    I used Sparcs, PC servers and clients, RISC 6000, VAX machines.
    I “was born” with the ZX Spectrum and used sometimes the Commodore 64.
    The point is, once you come out with a new product, you must ensure that some basic functionality work and work in a way (when talking of an OS for the masses) that is more intuitive than it was before.
    It is not. Dot.
    It is not a matter of broken drivers. It happens, it MUST happen if you improve a kernel. Everybody knows. It’s not the point.
    Vista is buggy like it is in early beta.
    Vista is demanding beyond reasonable levels.
    Vista is not ready from prime time.
    Finally, people who have used Windows for years are so Windows-minded that they do not understand that some things can be done in ways that are more intuitive for anybody, not just for who already knows Windows.
    That makes a difference hard to tell to who has never experienced anything else.
    All Vista “new” eye-candy features are just an ugly copy of something that has been done elsewhere. There is nothing “done better” in Vista.
    Just things done another way to please some odd philosophy or lobby.
    Take somebody that has never seen a PC.
    Let him work with Vista and XP for some time.
    Then tell me.

    • ubiloo
    • 12 years ago

    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.

      • niofis
      • 12 years ago

      The same happened to a Vista machine I was using, opened a webpage to watch a security webcam, click a button to save a snap from the camera and saved it to the Desktop. And as happened to you, the picture couldn’t been seen there, used Explorer and no luck, opened mspaint, switched to the desktop, and the picture was not there either, not even command window with admin rights as able to see it.

      Then I thought it was because I misplaced it, made a search for it and was nowhere to be found, finally tried to take another picture going to the same web page and doind the same procedure and when I was about to save the new one, the old picture apeared in the desktop, but only for the save as window.

      So I rightclicked the old one, selected preview and the machine halted for over a minute to show the image, tried to save a copy and halted for some more time.

      Vista feels rushed out, and not yet finished.

    • SGT Lindy
    • 12 years ago

    Fix this problem and I will go back to Vista.

    §[<http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/showpost.aspx?postid=1138289&siteid=17&sb=0&d=1&at=7&ft=11&tf=0&pageid=28<]§ §[<http://rputtagunta.blogspot.com/<]§ Note that is not some ANTI-MS site its a technet forum and that problem (extremly slow file copy) is a HUGE problem. I support small companies going from to another, and many times I must copy files from my notebook to a server and it takes FOREVER to do so with Vista. Just google, Vista slow file copy and see what you get. I like Vista for the most part, the fresh look, the search feature, super fetch using my memory better, but honestly on my 2.0 Core Duo notebook, with 4gigs of RAM Vista feels just a tad more sluggish than XP. Most things its the same or faster, but over all a bit more sluggish. Add in the ocasional pause for no reason at all for 25 seconds and it was enough for me to go back to XP until a SP or 2.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      I have never encountered the problem myself and I have transfer well over 200GB worth of data with expected transfer rates (40-60MB a sec).

      • provoko
      • 12 years ago

      That was fixed in the last patch.

        • SGT Lindy
        • 12 years ago

        If you have read the technet post….it might have fixed for a few but most it has not.

        If you look at the fix list for SP1 you will see……

        §[<http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9790540-7.html?tag=nefd.lede<]§ Performance enhancements: Microsoft says SP1 will offer performance boosts including the speed to copy and extract files, time to become active from Hibernate and Resume, CPU utilization within Internet Explorer 7 and CPU utilization in laptops, thereby reducing battery drain, and shortening the time when browsing network shares.

    • drsauced
    • 12 years ago

    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.

    • rechicero
    • 12 years ago

    I forgot to post a link about the “do the same, ask for more” theory:

    §[<http://www.hellgatelondon.com/system-requirements<]§ * OS: Windows XP with SP2 or Windows Vista * Processor: 1 .8GHz or faster (2.4GHz for Vista) * RAM: 1GB or more (2GB for Vista) How many watts more to run exactly the same game? For me, this is just unacceptable. And no, this is not because of DX10. The requirements are the same in Vista with DX9.

      • krazyredboy
      • 12 years ago

      I don’t know about those numbers for XP. I build systems all the time, that have processors between 266mhz and 1Ghz, and I never have any trouble with XP SP2. Even with less than 256 megs of ram, although, I will grant that that is pushing it.

        • rechicero
        • 12 years ago

        This numbers are the system requirement for a game ;-).

        Just an example of how Vista needs more to do exactly the same (run that game).

        Of course, we could look for official requirements for Vista and XP (but this wouldn’t be to do exactly the same). Anyway, we are talking about x5-x10 requirements to do… what more?

        XP:

        §[<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx<]§ PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features) 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space* Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor Para Vista Home Basic: §[<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx<]§ # 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor # 512 MB of system memory # 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space # Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory # DVD-ROM drive Para Vista Premiun and better (same link) # 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor # 1 GB of system memory # 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space # Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: * WDDM Driver * 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) * Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware * 32 bits per pixel

          • Taddeusz
          • 12 years ago

          So you’re judging the OS itself by it’s minimum system requirements? That’s not very helpful. Those requirements are supposed to be used to judge baseline requirements. Certainly you could run it on less. Although Vista will refuse to install on a system with less than 512MB of RAM.

          Really, though, even XP SP2 has a realistic minimum of 512MB. While running XP with 256MB or even 128MB of RAM when it originally came out yielded acceptable performance the realistic minimum requirements went up as time passed. Right now I wouldn’t run an XP system with anything less than 1GB of RAM. Installing 2GB on an XP system gives a nice performance boost when you have a dual core processor. Particularly with games.

          Vista actually runs quite well on 1GB of RAM. I can personally attest to that fact. 2GB, just like in XP, yields a notable performance boost. Albeit probably a larger performance difference than on XP.

          Again, comparing minimum requirements is pretty pointless. Doing real performance tests will give you a better idea of the realistic requirements.

          I’ve personally had one of the Vista betas running on a Celeron 2.6Ghz, 512MB RAM, and a GF FX 5200. It wasn’t anything to write home about. Nothing you’d want to play games on. But it wasn’t slow either. I’m sure Vista RTM would have run better.

    • tremelai
    • 12 years ago

    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.

      • sigher
      • 12 years ago

      OMFG you just ADMITTED ‘ME’ wasn’t very good!

    • rechicero
    • 12 years ago

    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.

      • Damage
      • 12 years ago

      Vista raises system power use substantially? Really? Have a link w/proof?

        • willyolio
        • 12 years ago

        i remember reading an Ars article that vista totally didn’t affect power consumption at all.

        • rechicero
        • 12 years ago

        Damage, If I’m mistaken, my apologies, but it was my understanding that more GHz means more wattage and more physical RAM means more wattage as well. And it’s a fact (with links) that Vista asks for more GHz and more physical memory to do the same.

        Anyway, you could try Hellgate London in XP at 1,8 GHz and with 1 GB of RAM and, after that, Hellgate London in Vista at 2,4 GHz and with 2 GB of RAM. Both on DirectX9. These configs should perform exactly the same and the second one should use more system power.

        And this is just an example that I can speak about (NDA lifted).
        You could also look for minimal configurations for a basic working XP and Vista and, again, you should see more power use in Vista (it requires about x2 RAM to run as XP and, of course, Aero is going to ask more from the GPU). Why don’t you work a week with the first rig, measure the total power use and another week with the second, and compare. It could offer a more or less valid test of office efficiency.

        Of course, you could also make all this tests with the same config (and different performances) and say there is no difference…

        I don’t know how many watts more need Vista, but if it needs just 10 watts more to do the same… Not an step in the right direction 😉

        Ah, and I’m not a naysayer. I even liked Windows Me (as I like Vista, I do think is good enough). I don’t even hate MS (well… maybe a little, they sold me a great keyboard and stop offering drivers a few months after)
        I just say I don’t see a several hundred dollars value difference with XP (to change). Do you?
        And I also say that it works well enough with new PCs but, then, I wonder if a less powerful rig would have similar performance for less money.

          • Inkedsphynx
          • 12 years ago

          I thought that TR did a measurement of power requirements quite a while ago, perhaps in a blog?

          Either way however, if you need to improve your hardware to run Vista, you’ll probably need to improve your hardware to start running current software anyway. Vista does not require all that much.

          Lastly, people keep espousing the “several hundred dollar difference” between XP and Vista. For Retail this may be true. I just paid 110$ for Home Premium 64-bit from Newegg. That’s not much more than XP 64-bit is, so I think the “several hundred dollar” claim is rather misplaced, at least here on a tech site where most system builders will buy OEM.

        • A_Pickle
        • 12 years ago

        Hehe. Thread-starter pwned by Damage. 😀

          • rechicero
          • 12 years ago

          Mmm Are you blind? Can you read? Can you think for yourself?

          2,4 GHz means more power than 1,8 Ghz, right? And if you need more voltage to reach 2,4, you need even more power. Because you do know that power raises with frequency and voltage, don’t you?

          2 GB of RAM means more power than 1 GB of RAM, right? Because you do know that RAM consumes power, don’t you?

          (and if you missed that link, read again)

          If the same program, to do the same under Vista, needs parts that need more power… I think I could provide you a link: §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic.<]§ You could learn something more here: §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason<]§ If we compare "minimal", "medium" and "more than enough" systems for XP and Vista, do you really think they will be the same? Or maybe the XP ones would need less MHz and less RAM to do the same=less power to do the same? Do you think using more power to do the same work is efficient? Ah, and by the way, the great user account without administrative rights don't let you use a USB printer (at least with an OKI printer). Did you know that? I had to suffer it til I found out that all I had to do was use an administrator account. Today, in that same rig, I had to forget about installing a WIFI PCI card, because I couldn't find, in several stores, one with drivers for Vista. Of course I know there are a few. But I have to order them. I've never said VISTA is crap. It has things I like (I even like UAC). But I do say it's less efficient, it doesn't offer anything that improves everyday work, there are software incompatibilities and you can forget about using a lot of common hardware (as my current Microsoft (!!) keyboard). Thus, this campaign to praise Vista is IMHO plainly stupid. It's good enough, but not better and by no means "great". If you have XP, your best choice, right now, is save you money and wait. Or waste your money and, after that, your time fighting against the stubborn reality in every fora you read. Because the facts are simple: If you want the same performance of XP, right now you need better hardware. And now you can continue on with you l33t teenager speech... I'm sure I'll got pwned again :-D. A few years a go, was cool to hate M$. Now, It looks like every little l33t teenager wants to stand out defending MS even when nobody (or, at least, me) is attacking. Please, remember: criticism is needed to improve.

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            I still don’t understand where you’re coming from. New versions of Windows have had a history of requiring significantly better hardware than the previous one.

            I’m currently running Vista 32-bit on my Mac Mini which has a C2D 1.83Ghz CPU, 1GB RAM and on-board 945 video. It runs Aero rather well. I’ve personally run Vista on hardware as slow as a Celeron 2.6Ghz with 512MB of RAM and an FX 5200 video card. It wouldn’t have run any games but it was usable.

            As far as gaming performance goes unless you’re going to be doing DX10 there has recently been a comparison with XP and Vista with the latest drivers. With the latest drivers, both ATI and Nvidia, with the exception of SLI Vista is almost in parity with and sometimes outperforms XP. So, the more time passes the thinner your arguments against Vista get.

            As far as power goes I’ve seen multiple reviews that show Vista on the same hardware doesn’t use significantly more power than XP. So your argument falls apart there.

            • rechicero
            • 12 years ago

            >So, the more time passes the thinner your arguments against Vista get.

            And, if you read my post, you’ll see “right now” several times ;-). Right now is not worth to change from XP, right now Vista needs better hardware. Am I wrong, right now? I’m not a Vista basher, and I hope It’ll change. But, right now, upgrade from XP to Vista, IMHO, is a nonsense.

            >As far as power goes I’ve seen multiple reviews that show Vista on the >same hardware doesn’t use significantly more power than XP. So your >argument falls apart there.

            If that were my argument, maybe. But if you read my posts, my argument is that XP can do the same with less hardware. I’d like to see something like… I don’t know… Maybe a test with different hardware with one condition: same productivity. A performance per watt test from a software point of view. i. e. What do you think it would happen if we compare XP with 1 GB with the less power hungry graphics possible vs Vista with 2 GB with the less power hungry graphics possible (for Aero, as it’s one of the most prominent new “features”). They should offer similar performance in every day work… But, do you think the power consumption would be the same?

            >I’ve personally run Vista on hardware as slow as a Celeron 2.6Ghz with >512MB of RAM and an FX 5200 video card. It wouldn’t have run any >games but it was usable.

            And you could buy an ACER Travelmate 2201lci with 256 MB of RAM and XP… Anyway, That’s not important. I don’t say it’s a huge difference, I just say THERE IS some difference.

            Anyway, with all you say (all pretty rational), you forget ONE thing. All you say is “Vista is not clearly worse tham XP” (“almost in parity”, “doesn’t use significantly more power”). That’s OK to me. Vista is not much worse than XP. In my experience I can agree with that. And because of that, I can’t see any reason to change from XP to Vista… To make such change, your statement should be something like:

            “Vista is a lot more stable than XP” (as XP vs ME-98, or 98 vs 95))
            “Vista is faster than XP”
            “Vista does the same with less resourcess”
            “Vista is more compatible than XP”
            “Vista is easier to use” (as Win 95 vs DOS)

            If you think for a moment, every single new version of consumer OS from MS (DOS-95-98-Me-XP-Vista) offered one or several of those statements, all but Me and Vista. In this two cases all you could say is something like “it’s prettier”. I just say “be prettier” is not enough to CHANGE (and I don’t even like Aero, but that’s just me).

            Vista should have been “Wow” and it’s just “Meh”. That’s all. But it can improve, of course. And I hope it does (because I know we are going to swallow it, like it or not).

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            I don’t understand why your transfixed with minimum requirements for a single game. If you’ve been in working with computers for as long as I have you’d know that minimum requirements mean nothing. More often than not I believe If you were to actually build a computer with the minimum requirements on the box you’d get barely passable performance. If it’s usable at all.

            Take Vista’s minimum requirements. 800Mhz CPU with 512MB RAM. I personally can vouch for the RAM but an 800Mhz CPU is already slow on XP. Believe me, I have computers at work that are lesser than that and are dog slow on XP. But yet they still fit within the minimum requirements of XP. Are they usable? Maybe on a good day. Nothing I would want to use on a regular basis but our employees put up with it.

            Your argument about power consumption and the system specs for each are unacceptable for a scientific test. It’s obvious that a system with more hardware is going to consume more power. If you want to compare the power consumption of each OS on it’s own with as few other variables as possible. Having different system specs only proves that the hardware has different power requirements. It doesn’t test whether the OS itself causes more power to be consumed or not. Which has been proved that Vista does not consume significantly more power than XP on the same hardware.

            These arguments keep going in circles. Personally, I couldn’t care less about power usage. The average computer uses about as much power as a 100W light bulb. Overall that’s squat. My Mac Mini uses about 30W power on average. My main system on the other hand uses about 150W. I only have those numbers because I was curious about how much power my computers actually use. It didn’t affect my buying decisions at all as I don’t actually care that my main system uses more power. I’m tired of hearing all the green rhetoric.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            g[http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms793200.aspx<]§ ) -PCI Express Link State power management. (Basically, throttles the PCIe bus.) -Processor power management. -ATI Graphics PowerPlay. (I have an ATI graphics card.) You have FAR more available to you as far as power management. g[<2,4 GHz means more power than 1,8 Ghz, right? And if you need more voltage to reach 2,4, you need even more power. Because you do know that power raises with frequency and voltage, don't you?<]g 2.4 GHz means more power than 1.8 GHz of the same processor architecture, generally yes. HOwever, is your computer constantly running at 2.4 GHz? Is it constantly using 2.4 GHz? Because if not, it's going to be idle -- and frankly, what counts is how much juice your computer pulls on average. If your computer goes to sleep at a C2 power state because USB peripherals are keeping it from entering a C3 or C4 deep-sleep power state, maybe USB selective suspend is a nice feature to have a little bit of control over. Vista can do that -- XP really can't. XP supports USB selective suspend, but entirely on the driver level. Good luck with controlling that. Maybe you write drivers for all of your hardware, and if so, great. I use my computer, and I just need it to work. g[<2 GB of RAM means more power than 1 GB of RAM, right? Because you do know that RAM consumes power, don't you?<]g Well, la dee da! Maybe I should yield to your obviously superior intellect. Of course, when you typed that, you did of course consider the fact that, with more RAM you will be accessing the hard drive less, especially with the help of that /[

            • rechicero
            • 12 years ago

            Now, without pwning we start to talk in the same language. That’s good.

            >You have FAR more available to you as far as power management

            I don’t use most of you talked about, but as I manage at least TWO of you Vista only features (-Processor power management. “graphic power management), I wonder if your problem is that you forgot what you could do with XP.

            >Is it constantly using 2.4 GHz?

            The program I linked as an example: yes. It’s a game… (and just one of several I know that need more rig to do the same in Vista. It’s just the one I’m not “NDAed” about ;-))

            >They don’t let you USE a USB printer?

            If I use a non-admistrative account, there is no printer. If I use an administrative account, the printer works perfectly.

            I don’t know what point you want to make talking about joysticks, a game and a keyboard… Maybe you don’t want to address the issues (and pointlessness) of non-administrative accounts (if I can’t print…)

            Remember I’m not biased against anything, I don’t say Vista is crap. Vista is ok and I like some features (or “featurettes”). But I need a little more hardware to have the same performance, and that’s an unbiased fact (and if you need more hardware, you need more power, that’s another fact), I have a little more compatibilities issues, and that’s another unbiased fact, it didn’t offer features enough to balance that (like greater stability, greater productivity, greater performance) and, thus, I think (IMHO) it’s a bad idea to change form XP to Vista.

            All I say is: “Vista is nor great, nor bad”. That’s all. If you want to make me a Vista basher, good luck 😉

            • rechicero
            • 12 years ago

            I forgot:

            >Well, la dee da! Maybe I should yield to your obviously superior intellect. Of >course, when you typed that, you did of course consider the fact that, with >more RAM you will be accessing the hard drive less,

            This is plainly wrong. And yes, maybe you should yield to my not-so-obviously superior intellect 😀 (just kidding). In fact, I like this prefetcher because it uses MORE power (but this time it offers some payback and, anyway, you could disable it).

            This is why:

            I’m sure you know that’s only valid if you have PLENTY of RAM and the prefetcher predicts everything perfectly. I mean, if you don’t have a lot of free RAM, the hard drive access will be, in fact, more frequent (you’ll have “your” accesss and a lot of loading and offloading from the prefetcher as you use and free RAM). AS you said, more access should mean more power.

            In Google

            I’ve looked for the first 4-5 appearance of this in Google (not in order)

            §[<http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/712015.html<]§ "I disabled superfetch. I got sick of the constant HDD activity" I didn't got sick, but I "feeled" more HDD use in Vista. Now I know it's right and why is that. §[<http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html<]§ "Although I am a total believer in the system-memory-as-cache religion, SuperFetch can still have some undesirable side effects. I first noticed that something was up when I fired up Battlefield 2 under Vista and joined a multiplayer game. Battlefield 2 is something of a memory hog; the game regularly uses a gigabyte of memory on large 64-player multiplayer maps. During the first few minutes of gameplay, I noticed that the system was a little sluggish, and the drive was running constantly." This is what I said. Prefetcher should improve performance if you switch "light" tasks a lot and all of them fit in your RAM, but if that's not the case... puff, you'll have some performance hit and a lot of HDD usage. The author of this is not biased against the prefetcher: "I'm perfectly fine letting SuperFetch have its way with my system memory. " Another point of view §[<http://chris123nt.com/guides/5365/<]§ "The following list of services do not *need* to be disabled, but I reccomend doing so since they only serve to annoy you anyway. (...) Superfetch (you may want to disable this if you see an instance of svchost.exe leaking ram and eating CPU)" Just a guide, but it points to "eating CPU": More power!!! Another more: §[<http://tiredblogger.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/superfetch-not-so-super-for-gaming/<]§ "Cool beans, huh? Pre-caching, in a way, and using your memory to it’s maximum is a GOOD thing—it really is. However, for those of us who run rather memory intensive applications, it’s not. Point blank. How I understand SuperFetch is that, similar to the prefetch trace files (.pf) created in Windows XP; however, takes it a step further and completely utilizes 100% (I have 4GB, I had 3MB free) of your memory by preloading/caching your frequently used programs. For Office applications, that’s a GREAT idea. Word, Excel, PowerPoint, maybe the occassional business tool—they load super fast! Well, for those of us who use their computers for very memory intensive applications, it becomes a bit of a bottleneck. I use my computer for a very select few tasks: Office tools (ala Homework), Visual Studio 2005, Virtual Server (for Orcas and some testing), Paint.NET (for graphic manipulation), and EverQuest 2 (for making stuff go ‘boom’ after the aforementioned applications have frustrated me). That’s it. Unfortunately, those are ALL memory and processing hogs. Take this for example. EverQuest 2, in Kelethin, takes up about 1.9GB of memory at 2560*1560 and in High Quality. Most of that is textures and such. If you remember back, I CONSTANTLY had out of memory errors (“EverQuest 2 and Vista Memory Issues”, “Dell 710, Vista, memory, NVidia, and more!”). Why? Because these memory intensive textures are constantly being swapped in and out of memory as you wander around and objects render in the game. (...) One interesting article on Wikipedia (source) cites that to truly use SuperFetch as it should be, you should be using the ReadyBoost (ala Flash Drives) for memory to prevent the hard disk thrashing." I didn't look for that source. If you look in Google you'll see I've used the first several entries. And that I DIDN'T ignore any entry that talked about less hard drive usage.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            g[http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/<]§ ), gaming performance between XP and Vista is roughly at parity. I've seen game boxes listing different system requirements for XP and for Vista, but rather than use that as a measure of how "heavy" Vista is, I prefer to go through benchmarks. g[http://chris123nt.com/guides/5365/<]§ "The following list of services do not *need* to be disabled, but I reccomend doing so since they only serve to annoy you anyway. (...) Superfetch (you may want to disable this if you see an instance of svchost.exe leaking ram and eating CPU)" Just a guide, but it points to "eating CPU": More power!!!<]g I do not take my advice, nor facts, from some guy on a forum. I would just as soon contest his "recommendation" that you disable SuperFetch as I contested your opinion that Vista increases overall system power consumption. I am looking at the same instance of svchost.exe that he's referring to, and while it has a high memory usage indication, it has nothing as far as CPU usage. I also refuse to take him with anything but a grain of salt, as, thanks to Windows Vista's Resource Monitor, I'm looking at the svchost.exe of his which hosts SysMain, SuperFetch's service name -- and it has used an average of 0.49% of my CPU. Looking at average disk usage -- SuperFetch isn't even LISTED as one of the top disk usage programs there. Of course, it's somewhat high on the memory side of things... who knew? g[

            • rechicero
            • 12 years ago

            l[<>You don't get processor throttling control in XP at all, as far as I'm aware. Maybe you could tell me where that is...<]l Rightmark CPU Clock. A free utility much better that Vista throttling & voltage control (IMHO). l[

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            Your arguments really don’t make much sense. Whether RAM is being used or not doesn’t change the amount of power that’s used. The RAM must be refreshed quite often in order for it to keep the data stored. That doesn’t change at all if the cells hold data or nothing. The RAM still gets refreshed. If the data is just sitting there in RAM it’s not using any more power than if it were empty and available.

            All your arguments fly in the face of reviews done that show that Vista doesn’t use appreciably more power than XP on the same hardware.

            Why are you so obsessed with power usage anyway? What does it really matter?

            • rechicero
            • 12 years ago

            I don’t understand what you are talking about. Of course, if your point is about superfetcher, the point is not about RAM, is about disk usage. And I just say (as every one of the first links of Google) Superfetcher uses the disk a lot (if you are not an office only user with lots of RAM).

            That’s all. Of course, what you said about RAM had a lot of sense, but that’s not what we were talking about 😉

            And for you and 329 (Read the links you post, PLEASE, Usacomp), the only link I’ve seen is a Vista Aero vs Vista no-Aero comparison. And that’s hardly what we are talking about here. I’d like to see a real performance per watt test (and that probably should mean different rigs for XP ans Vista). It’s easy, 2 rigs with same performance in different OS doing the same.

            • Taddeusz
            • 12 years ago

            Actually, I don’t believe it’s the Superfetch that causes all the disk use in Vista but the Indexing Service.

            For every person that complains about Vista there are probably 10 that have had no problems.

            I don’t really understand the problem with your printers. That’s not been my experience at all. I’ve had no issues installing USB devices with UAC turned on. It’s all worked as it should. It is entirely possible that all your tinkering trying to disable stuff in Vista has caused things to work abnormally. That would not be the fault of Microsoft.

            I haven’t messed around with any of the services in Vista and am running with UAC enabled and everything works fine.

            As far as power is concerned my electric bills haven’t gone up noticeably since I bought Vista so I’m not really concerned about if it’s using any more power than it was in XP.

            • rechicero
            • 12 years ago

            l[

            • Anomymous Gerbil
            • 12 years ago

            “You don’t get anything”? Clearly you have no idea about the many obvious and “hidden” improvements in Vista.

            • rechicero
            • 12 years ago

            If the system is not:

            more stable (=XP)
            faster (worse than XP)
            more compatible (worse than XP)
            more productive and easy to use (= XP)

            Then, I’m afraid all those “hidden” improvements are too hidden for me, I’m sorry.

            Vista and Me are the only MS OS that don’t improve in these fields, and we all know how Me turned out.

            • Meadows
            • 12 years ago

            1. Vista is more stable than XP. The task manager and the OS core are so solid and aggressive, that no bad program or crashing bugpile can ever push it out of its balance. My XP has hanged from mere software before. In Vista, Ctrl+Alt+Del can intervene no matter what the issue is, and can terminate virtually any problematic program, except for core services. But those were never problematic on Vista.

            2. Vista is noticeably faster on the same hardware as XP would be. Thanks to Aero, Windows offloads calculation of the interface to the graphics card (if you have a proper one), which makes using different windows quicker and better – the eye candy is only the frosting on the cake. I’m using more background services than before, but my XP system has never booted or shut down so quickly. I’m happy with it.

            3. So far I have found no compatibility issues with Vista whatsoever, and believe me, I’m using the 64 bit edition everyone is afraid of. There has been only one problematic program that didn’t want to run, which is Freedom Force, but chances are it’s badly written (because much older stuff, like Sacrifice, work perfectly). 16 bit programs don’t run, but nobody uses 16 bit software any more – if you have old games that are like so, you can get them to run easily using DosBox under Vista (just make sure you set the output to something that’s not “surface” – ddraw or opengl work fine).

            4. It’s easier to use than XP, because everything from explorer windows to the control panel or system settings is laid out better. Options were easy to find first time, even if I only tried guessing where to look. There were times when I had to use Help under XP to find something. As productivity, it is better to use in offices, because easier usability will comfort employees and improve their work quality. If you mean software level productivity, it didn’t improve much, but there were no steps taken backwards either. I own Photoshop CS3, which is probably optimized for Vista and 3D acceleration, because it has never been this good to use in XP (whether CS1, 2 or 3).

            Power consumption? Might as well be within the margin of error. Vista’s Aero interface is no different from old ways, it doesn’t render any frames if there is no movement. And the minimal work that it does require, is a snap for any low range videocard and above. Power conserving options are a lot more robust, and you don’t even need heavy hardware. You can get good responsive performance if you have a computer with 1 GiB dual channel memory, a generally cheap single core processor (or a bottom line dualcore) and new integrated video (such as the upper half of intel’s offerings, or a GeForce 6100 or 7100). And then you hardly spent any money yet (the above is obviously not for gamers, who would buy expensive stuff REGARDLESS of XP or Vista).

            It’s not even expensive, if you look at the fact that they used to release a new OS every year – they had a break, and they produced those years worth of improvements, so you’re not spending more on a per-year basis. The gap between Vista and Windows 7 might grow similar in size – your money’s well invested in this for now.

            I feel sorry for people who frown upon reading lots. 🙂

        • doobtribe
        • 12 years ago

        you need a link that might be proof? Boy… ur not one of those that believes in everything it reads on some links are you? anyway…

        Use your head, you don’t need some review or links, take the Aero, and follow the logic, being it a 3D feature that will force ur graphics card to go into 3D mode, increasing GPU/RAM clock speed and with it power consumption! See its that easy! Your pre-fetch features and other HDD caching techniques will constantly keep ur drive busy reading and writing onto and off ram than its older XP, and so on. There’s your increased power consumption, was it that hard to reach to that conclusion on basic examples? Either way hope i cleared your power consumption doubts.

          • A_Pickle
          • 12 years ago

          Actually, he’s the owner of this site, and they did a test of what Aero/Vista means for overall power consumption. The overall consensus was:

          Nothing.

          Aero isn’t a terribly hard-to-run interface, Intel’s own GMA950 can run it just fine. Chances are, if you have a dedicated graphics card, it is providing more imaging power than you will ever use on the desktop. Aero makes use of some of that.

          SuperFetch, precaching items into memory, based on their frequency of use, will lighten the load on your more-power-hungry hard drive versus your memory. And finally, links on review websites should be all you need to decide this, most GOOD review sites are pretty honest. Take your pick, you can either go by empirical evidence or by your bias against Vista.

            • doobtribe
            • 12 years ago

            Why bother… Vista rules, and is here to stay buy it its out of this world, you never regret about it blah blah blah

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            Excellent argument. 🙂

            • doobtribe
            • 12 years ago

            Just sucks that M$ didnt give me a paycheck for saying that.

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 12 years ago

      Exactly a year ago today:
      §[<https://techreport.com/discussions.x/10945<]§

      • My Johnson
      • 12 years ago

      I would agree with you, but DDR2 is twice the density of DDR. So, if XP needs 1GB and in DDR terms thats two sticks, and Vista needs 2GB, and if you use DDR2, it’s still only two sticks of DRAM.

      I guess that would be applicable to other components, such as process shrinks, etc.

    • druidcent
    • 12 years ago

    Personally the only reason I’m considering going back to XP on my PC is I can’t get the bloody sound drivers to work.. 🙁 I’m probably going to see if SP1 fixes my issues, and if not, I’ll downgrade until they have a completely stable version.

    • d2brothe
    • 12 years ago

    *sigh*…well…I’m with ya Cyril. I know it’ll spawn an argument, but the damn thing is subjective (well, most parts)…the users ARE the ones who know. Alas, I refuse to argue more beyond giving my support…Vista isn’t that bad, its a significant improvement over XP (with the possible exception of stability and of course drivers)

      • rechicero
      • 12 years ago

      I can’t help guessing… What could balance drivers and stability (and compatibility) to say, in even in that case, Vista is an improvement over XP?

      I don’t say it isn’t, just wonder…

      In my book, a OS should be:

      1) Stable (and I think Vista is OK, as XP32 is. But s2btothe says otherwise and, yet, he says Vista is a significant improvement))

      2) Well supported for drivers (right now this is one of Vista’s bigger issues, not just because faulty drivers, but because there are a lot of hardware that NEVER will see a driver for Vista, i. e. every single piece of hardware from MS that is “old” enough, as the keyboard I’m using to write this)

      3) Compatible. If this wasn’t an issue, Windows wouldn’t be a monopoly. If it wasn’t a question of MS market lock, a lot of us would use Linux-MacOS. There are a lot of software that will never work in Vista. And not just games.

      In this 3 key points (for me), Vista is worse or, at least, not better than XP. Why should I pay several hundred dollars to update the OS??? Because is prettier? Because is a new philosophy? I don’t think so.

      Anyway, I know the monopoly will force me to change soon enough. DirectX 10, etc. And, of course, I’ll have to swallow it with any brand new PC, even if I prefer to use my good old XP.

      I accept that. And probably It’ll work OK. I’ll continue doing the same things I did with XP but after the Microsoft Monopoly Tax, that’s all. We have to accept that Tax. But saying it’s good for as…

    • simracer
    • 12 years ago

    A Windows meltdown (2KP) caused me to make the move to Linux on the desktop a while back and I really couldn’t be happier for having done it (Linux Mint). The Windows side is still ragged, but I only use it for gaming these days, so I can live with it.

    I now see all the Windows OS’s as “gaming only OS’s.” I just don’t use them for anything else anymore. So all the new eye-candy and added “security” Vista brings to the table is pretty meaningless to me, and I certainly won’t pay a premium price for it.

    It’s hard these days to justify even the cost of XP. And it’s that much harder to justify the cost of Vista when you realize some versions are more expensive than entire consoles.

    I might buy a stripped down “gaming only version” of Vista at some point. But only if the cost is low enough.

    Just give me web access (don’t need a browser, thank you–I’ll use Firefox) and the ability to network with my gaming servers, and I’ll be happy. That’s all I would want it to do.

    Don’t need Aero (I’d go past it as fast as I could to get into the games), and don’t need Media Player or anything else they want to me to use so they can spy on me. Just the basics.

    Ought to cost under $100 US, and if it’s very much more than that, I’ll be eyeing a PS3 instead.

      • eitje
      • 12 years ago

      You should give one of the Windows emulators out there a shot. I hear they’ve gotten pretty amazing – my buddy plays WoW through emulation on his main Linux box, and says it’s working great.

    • CScottG
    • 12 years ago

    I would be another that feels similarly to the “article”.

    Vista (simply as an operating system for a basic user) – is better. Not a whole lot better, but better.

    #1 It crashes less than XP.
    #2 Its *MUCH* prettier than XP (with aero).
    #3 With Ultimate – *should* it crap-out on me, I have an excellent chance of restoring it with the system back-up feature.

    Despite this I still would not recommend this OS for others without some serious caveats.

    Why? ***Drivers***.

    *MANY* people are still experiencing problems (multiple problems) with drivers.

    Certainly XP had a similar problem when it was introduced, BUT – with XP it was an all or nothing affair. For the most part you either had working drivers or you didn’t. New products usually had *working* drivers. Older products either didn’t have working drivers OR had drivers with reduced functionality. What wasn’t the case was drivers causing other problems not related to the specific hardware the driver was intended for (..at least not by and large).

    With Vista its appears to be an ongoing case of drivers not working some of the time, or causing other problems. And frankly – I see no end to this problem. I *hope* Vista sp1 (NON-BETA) will resolve this issue, but I’m not holding my “breath”.

    Moreover while driver problems are numerous – they are particularly numerous within ***essential*** components.. *specifically* the Motherboard and the Video Card.

    • jinjuku
    • 12 years ago

    They fucked up windows file explorer.

    • Saribro
    • 12 years ago

    q[

    • clone
    • 12 years ago

    I was using a laptop running Vista today……. my impression today was the same as I’ve gotten from every computer I’ve sold with Vista installed.

    they’d be faster if they were running XP.

    VIsta is prettier but I still get the impression that I’m interrupting it and I hate it because I know I’d be faster on an XP box using the same hardware.

    eventually this might change but so far not.

    • mercid
    • 12 years ago

    I have used vista and see nothing wrong with it…

    I think more tech savvy people are waiting for a service pack before they make the leap… shrug.

    • Sahrin
    • 12 years ago

    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!).

      • bozzunter
      • 12 years ago

      #169 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.

      If there’s one stupid person here it’s you, you don’t deserve many comments… A new OS must have new features, leave your philosophy for when you’re alone in your bed. We’re talking about improving everyday life with a PC, just take a look at MacOS and you’ll see what “new features” mean.

      • rechicero
      • 12 years ago

      Yeah, I’m stupid. And I’d be smart if I spent several hundreds in something that I tried and didn’t offer anything I liked.

      Mmm…

      I think I like being stupid, thanks! I don’t buy philosophy, I buy tools.

        • Jigar
        • 12 years ago

        There is something known as patch, you intellegent human being and XP can be patched. ..

        EDIT: Sorry didn’t meant to reply you..

      • jchung
      • 12 years ago

      Have you developed software for Windows? I remember the early days of doing Windows development with MFC. The MFC had bugs, i.e. memory leaks. When the tools you are given to do your development inherently has bugs, then the software you develop with those tools will most likely also have bugs. In a situation like this, can you honestly blame the developer for the problem? Or does the fault lie with the provider of the development tools?

      The point is that you can’t arbitrarily say its the hardware manufacturer or software developers fault that the system (OS + APP + HW) is unstable.

      • indeego
      • 12 years ago

      You can only blame MS for the stability of it’s OS: not the hardware vendors. Microsoft could have, since Windows NT4, put in controls that allow for quality review (or heavy restriction thereof) of driver code; but guess what? They didn’t. They half-assed the WHQL certification: to this day WHQL is no guarantee of absolute stability, it’s only a best case scenario. A quick glance at Intel, Nvidia, and ATI graphics drivers proves this: they all have vast KNOWN bugs in 2D mode, let alone 3Dg{<.<}g

    • rechicero
    • 12 years ago

    I used Vista, but now I’m back with XP. Why? Because after the week of “wow” factor (or 7 minutes for me), it’s just a XP that needs more resources to do the same.

    You can see it in minimun system for games. Where XP ask for 1,8 GHz, Vista needs 2,4 GHz. Where XP asks for 1 GB of RAM, Vista needs 2 GB…

    It works as OK as you could expect for a newly launched OS, that’s right. But (for me) it doesn’t offer anything but some compatibility issues and a big hunger for system resources.

    In a nutshell: It asks more and gives you nothing.

    • bozzunter
    • 12 years ago

    Am I the only one who thinks Vista is a kind of a joke, an operating system which needed a patch to “speed up copy of large files” (patch released one month ago)? Or maybe I was the only one on this planet to regularly copy 15MB+ files (damn big files, 15 MB…).

    Then, let’s talk about folder sharing between Vista and XP, XP can see Vista’s PCs with no problem at all, Vista can’t.

    But apart from this, I can’t even find a couple of features which let me think: hey, I do need Vista for this reason. I’ve been using it since the release date, but apart from a “few” problems it really makes me wonder why someone should move to the new operating system. OK, the navigation between folder is OK, but I read at least three “bibles” about Vista to understand if I were missing something and no, I’m not.

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 12 years ago

      Honestly, I haven’t had any troubles transferring 8gb ISO’s over the network whethere from my 32-bit Business or 64-bit Premium. Granted I use robocopy as it’s much simpler, but whatever.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      Hmmmm, no problems here transferring 200GB worth of data from HDDs to a new RAID 5 array.

      • SnowboardingTobi
      • 12 years ago

      Huh? My Vista machine can see my XP folder shares just fine.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 12 years ago

        Mine, too.

    • niofis
    • 12 years ago

    I used Vista for 4 months before going back to XP 64bits. My first impression was not so good, since it took over one hour to install.

    After that i was unimpressed with the Aero interface, granted I liked the black tone of everything, but I was hoping for more on the eye candy front, especially after using Ubuntu + Compiz for a while. So nothing new there. Also the widget bar on the right was very anoying.

    Now, I was ready to overlook the slowlyness of the interface (GeForce FX 5200 128 MB, might be the reason), UAC that’s anoying to no end, and other little perks, but one problem did make me uninstall and go back to XP 64 bits.

    I was (currently am) working on my Master’s Thesis, I came home one day and unrared my program, compiled it, and tried to debug, then crash!, it wouldn’t run. Modified my source code so much to find the bug, until I found it, returning a pointer was the issue. Anyway, I needed to restore the files so I could recover all that I had modified and, Windows just wouldn’t let me delete the folder, restarted the computer, it wouldn’t let me either, changed permisions for the folder, owner, etc to no avail. Got mad and reinstalled XP, did the same procedure that on Vista, and no errors at all.

    And that was it for Vista on my machine, the next problem I had with Vista was when I bought 2 laptops (Celeron M, 512 MB RAM) for my cousin and aunt. The came with Vista Home Basic preinstalled, chronometed 20 mins, until Vista would let me do anything, and that was every time I restarted, reinstalled Vista, and no luck. Had to go back to XP.

    And last (as of what I can recall right now), a friend Installed Vista on his laptop (core duo, 1 Gig RAM), and ran fine. But!, everytime he connected to the wireless network in his workplace, every machine on the same net (wired / wireless) drop out and lose connection to the internet or other network resources. Never happened before with XP, happened with Vista, and fixed again with XP reinstall.

    For all the above, I’m staying away for vista for the next several months or a year, otherwise I might finally switch completly to Linux / FreeBSD.

    • Kraft75
    • 12 years ago

    Microsoft said they would never allow more than 3 years to release a new operating system. I’m thinking why bother with Vista? In three years Vista might have matured to an OS I’d consider installing, but by then according to MS we’ll already have another OS to contend with. Maybe DRM will be dead by then, so I’ll consider the next one.

    • ew
    • 12 years ago

    Why isn’t this tagged ‘flamebait’?

      • ReAp3r-G
      • 12 years ago

      well i remember holding on for dear life to 98 SE…coz it was THE most stable thing even during XP’s reign…but i found myself inevitably changing to XP due to some software constraints, i even wanted to install 98 SE alongside XP but the mobo insisted on using XP only 🙁 …i missed 98SE but i was determined to make XP work in very much the same stable way as 98SE did…and now with vista i am doing the same…trying to make it work as best as i did with XP…so far so good…vista isn’t as bad as ME…ME was just THE biggest blooper ever…i couldn’t play anything on that piece of junk even its own built in games crashed the system…

      vista will get better as XP did thats the trend….hopefully

    • Afty
    • 12 years ago

    Does it really matter if Vista “fails”? People aren’t switching to other OS vendors, they’re just buying XP instead. An XP sale is still money in Microsoft’s pocket and may even result in a Vista sale down the road, once support for XP is cut off.

      • indeego
      • 12 years ago

      It does. Because people holding off on Vista is more time to consider alternate OS’s other than Vista. “I’m not ready to choose Vista, nor OSX, so I’ll stick with XP until I’ve got a clearer picture or see what’s available in “x” yearsg{<.<}g" Put another way, nobody expected Linux to have an Ubuntu/Kubuntu 5 years ago available at the level it is todayg{<.<}g

    • nstuff
    • 12 years ago

    This past weekend, and for the fourth time (Since Vista was released in ’06), I’ve installed Vista from scratch to give it another try. The first two times were met with the horrible file transfer bug, and codecs + drivers being immature, not to mention half the apps I used either didn’t work or were extremely buggy. MS is quick to brag about the number of devices that are supported, however i bet they would get very quiet if you questioned the quality of all those drivers. The first two times trying Vista RTM was met with massively horrible drivers, if they existed at all.

    So, for this past weekend, I installed the latest ATI drivers for my radeon X800GTO. No aero. Did some digging and found that the latest cats (7.9) causes Vista to think that my card is direct x 8 or lower. Can’t find anyone else complaining about this, but through a bunch of digging in log files, I was able to find the root cause. This issue, however, immediately causes Vista to give my graphics a rating of 1 and disable all aero features. Sent a note to AMD to complain and backed down to cats 7.8 which work fine. At least for allowing aero to work.

    Even now, watching tv with media center, the ati driver “stops responding” and is restarted (according to a little pop-up from the taskbar in Vista) every 30 minutes or so. Causes the system to freeze of r a few moments and then continue on. Windows Media Player has crashed at least once a day. Explorer has crashed only twice. However, this is actually a huge improvement as I’ve experienced zero bluescreens as I did with my previous 3 attempts to use Vista. The most recent attempt (about 2 months ago), i tried to install all the ultimate extras and Vista proceeded to go into a reboot loop, “configuring updates” every time it looked like it would let me login, then restart again.

    Some things that annoy the crap out of me. UAC (disabled so it is much better now). Installed only two ultimate updates, the card game and the dreamscene app. It actually said i had to restart for them. That was pretty pathetic. So far, I haven’t figured out a way to mute media center’s volume independent of Vista’s master volume. If i want to mute the tv, i should still be able to use skype. And no, the mixer is not a solution. The power management appears to be rather aggressive as it is constantly turning my main system drive off. It then freezes my system for a few seconds while the drive spins back up if I try to do anything. I can hear it spinning down and back up every few minutes. Doesn’t happen in XP (this is a dual boot system).

    Good things about Vista? Independent volume control for each app is wonderful. Faster install on a clean hard drive is great. Otherwise, every other “feature” of Vista has been provided in the way of 3rd party apps for a few years now and all of which are performed better by said 3rd party apps.

    Is Vista better than XP? I say yes as it should have been a service pack. Is it worth the massive cost to upgrade? Nope. I would say it could have been a $50 XP Plus pack and gotten rave reviews (if it were released 2 years ago).

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 12 years ago

      I’m running Catalyst 7.9 here with a Radeon X800XL. Windows experience index 4.9.

        • nstuff
        • 12 years ago

        Interesting to hear a similar card is working fine.

        For mine, I completely uninstalled the driver, restarted, and installed again with the same result. Immediately after uninstalling, aero was re-enabled as my card was picked up by a Microsoft driver. Installing 7.9 again disabled it. Finally, backing down to 7.8 worked fine.

        I believe each card has a unique identifier and possibly the entry for the id corresponding to the Radeon X800GTO is messed up? Only thing I can think of. My only hope this was either a one-time glitch and/or they read my bug report and fix it for 7.10.

      • Taddeusz
      • 12 years ago

      Do you happen to have an APC UPS? After installing Vista I was hearing my hard drives constantly powering down and spinning back up. After installing APC’s PowerShute software that has ceased to be a problem.

        • nstuff
        • 12 years ago

        I actually do have an APC UPS (500 i believe), but I haven’t hooked it up via the serial cable nor have I installed the software except when I first bought it probably 7 years ago. At that time, I just wanted to see what features the software provided.

        Interesting thought. I’ll give it a try tonight. Though, this same system has been running XP (dual boot) without any similar issues.

        Assuming it works, possibly the APC software just modifies the default power management settings in Vista? Do you have your APC hooked up via the serial cable?

          • Taddeusz
          • 12 years ago

          No, mine is a newer model. It’s hooked up through USB.

    • echo_seven
    • 12 years ago

    Have zero time today to read comments (I really wanted to…), but I just wanted to say:

    VirtualPC FTW!

    My main problem with Vista was how it broke about half of the programs I work with every day, so being able to get VirtualPC for free and then run XP VM on Vista solved all my problems. Good decision MS.

    • indeego
    • 12 years ago

    I regret the following:
    – Installing it so early. I had to deal with activation hell. Finally fixed in April after 4 separate calls to MS India.
    – Not installing 64-bit Vista. There’s no reason to use 32-bit OS’s anymore.

    I don’t regret the following:
    – Holding off on rolling it out at the company I work for. Until the recent hotfixes for hibernation/standby, I found the reliability of Vista terrible.
    – Getting the TR recommended system. This has been a great buy and I’m pleased with the parts and hardware. I’ve had few problems with games.

    Overall I’d say vista is decent. B+…I would never purchase it for my home, I would (and do) put Linux on.

    I will never use a Mac until they change their marketing, which drives me up a wallg{<.<}g

    • herothezero
    • 12 years ago

    q[

      • droopy1592
      • 12 years ago

      Why do nforce3 owners have to be whiners? How about take into consideration that EVERYONE that owns a socket 939 system (AGP or NOT) can run vista EXCEPT nforce3 owners. Every single one of them can RUN Vista with existing GPU/CPU/RAM, but nforce3 users were promised drivers and never go them. How about take into consideration that nvidia promised vista compatibility 4-5 months prior and 5 months AFTER vista’s release, and we still don’t have drivers. That’s not whining, sorry. When you’re promised something and this governs your purchasing decision, then you find that you were mislead, that’s not whining.

      Not all of us have money to run out and buy new hardware whenever we feel like it, or microsoft comes out with a prettier OS. Some of us are college students or may have other priorities as far as money is concerned. Vista is already high priced, now we have to get rid of our old PC (XPCs!) that is entirely capable of running Vista EASILY only because some lazy bastards don’t want to write drivers and rather force an upgrade.

      Nvidia was marketing vista compatibility long before and long after vista was released, so why are we whining again? I think it’s more like we were lied to.

        • Taddeusz
        • 12 years ago

        I would have to say that Nvidia hasn’t handled the Vista on NF3 problem very well. But you also have to take into consideration that because the NF3 is now a legacy product it is economically infeasable for them to support an OS that didn’t exist when the product was originally released to market. Like it or not the NF3 is old, 4 years old if my memory serves.

        It’s very possible that the issue between Vista and the NF3 isn’t one that can be overcome by drivers alone and might actually require a BIOS update, or worse, to correct. So you are expecting them to support a legacy product that is beyond it’s viability for continued support.

        It’s quite possible that they expected to be able to support the NF3 on Vista but they quickly discovered that it wasn’t going to be feasable for them to fix on the budget they had for supporting their legacy products.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 12 years ago

      Vista Aero runs great on integrated Radeon XPress graphics. It also runs great on a Radeon 9600 or Radeon 9500Pro. That’s some pretty old and inexpensive mainstream graphics hardware.

    • packfan_dave
    • 12 years ago

    Hmm… I flipped my laptop over to Vista Ultimate x64 (I’ve got an MSDN subscription, hence cost not really a big issue) shortly after Vista was released (it was only a few months old; 2 GHz C2D with 2 GB of RAM and non-integrated video). Nothing made me go ‘wow’, but nothing made me even consider switching back to XP, either.

    • Jeffery
    • 12 years ago

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Modern enthusiasts have dual core processors and 2 to 4 GB of RAM kicking around in their system. Vista is the only game in town with palatable 64-bit support, and we are already seeing games that push the 2GB barrier. Businesses that want to hold off on Vista I can understand, but for everyone else… suck it up. Anyone who buys a new gaming PC with XP as its sole OS is a crumuginy old loser.

      • shank15217
      • 12 years ago

      xp 64-bit is rock stable and also supports 4+ gb of ram

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 12 years ago

        Driver availability for XP 64-bit isn’t very good.

          • Taddeusz
          • 12 years ago

          I’m running Vista x64 on two machines at home and have had no problems finding 64-bit driver for the hardware I own.

          I do understand that there are certain companies, namely Linksys, that have yet to produce 64-bit drivers. But I have yet to have any hardware I own be unworkable due to lack of drivers. It’s been a non-issue for me.

            • Entroper
            • 12 years ago

            He said XP64, not Vista64. XP64 is rather poorly supported because MS has hardly even made consumers aware of its existence.

            • indeego
            • 12 years ago

            XP64 is supported fine. If you built/bought systems for the purpose of 64-bitness–you shopped expressly for 64-bit robustness–which means stable drivers. If anything, XP 64 is a mature OS compared to Vista 64-which, like all MS software, suffers from gold release bugginess.

            I understand what Cyril is doing, he’s trying to get readership on the site by offering a controversial opinion, a.k.a. Rush Limbaugh or Savage, “You geeks don’t know what you are complaining about!) but really the truth is somewhere in the middle. I’ve seen end-users without prompt from me, complain about Vista and suspend modes. I’ve seen end-users rave about Vista. And I’ve seen businesses back off on rolling it out even after they spent significant time testing it. I’ve seen the support packs and their long list of fixes. It’s an OS that for the length of time between development cycles shouldn’t have had the bugs it did. In fact, I could more excuse Vista having issues with display rendering versus having issues with suspend/power management. Power management has been fairly stable for about 5 years now… so why all the screwups? I still can’t resume Vista 100% successfully without my sound crapping out 1/10 timesg{<.<}g

        • willyolio
        • 12 years ago

        yeah, i’m really enjoying XP-64 right now. i didn’t have any driver issues (maybe i was lucky), and it’s solid. regular 32-bit software runs without a hitch.

    • geob3d
    • 12 years ago

    I think hostility to DRM and DX10 not being made available for XP is an explanation for a goodly percentage of hardcore geekdoms distaste for Vista. And then on top of that MS and ATI spent a good part of last year telling us that games would run faster on Vista, only to change the messaging at launch that there would be an invevitable slowdown of a few percent due to the graphics driver moving out o the kernel. Many a hardcore gamer would rather cut off a non-essential body part than give up 3-5% performance (let alone more).

    Personally, I like it. I’ve been waiting a year longer than I wanted to in order to get a laptop with Vista x64, DX10 gpu, and 802.11n. . .but I’ve finally got it (Thinkpad T61p).

    OEM sales (rather than retial) was always going to be the real driver for Vista for a great many reasons, not least of which is the burgeoning market percentage of laptops, concerns by joe and jane non-geek about trying to do an OS upgrade on their own, and driver/app compatibility and stability in the early days of a very different OS.

    Also running x64 Ultimate on my desktop and that works pretty well too. Absolutely prefer the interface and UI over XP, hands down, within just a day or two.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      DX10 part is non-sense. DX10 needs Vista’s new driver library in order to correctly, but the spec itself is in a complete disarray due to the penis-stroking contest between AMD and Nvidia.

      DRM is a concern, but the whole issue is loaded with tons of FUD and BS. Vista and XP SP2 have the keys for DRM and will only use them to protect “DRM-encrypted” content. You can still have full control over non-DRM encrypted data.

      I disagree on the Vista running games slower than XP. It is entirely from having immature drivers and compatibility mode for older pre-DX9 apps. DX9 games under Vista already surpass scores under XP. The delta will only get wider with time.

    • herothezero
    • 12 years ago

    q[

      • A_Pickle
      • 12 years ago

      The new Windows Explorer /[

    • PRIME1
    • 12 years ago

    Is it the new ME…..No.

    Could it use a Service Pack……Yes.

      • Flying Fox
      • 12 years ago

      q[

    • FubbHead
    • 12 years ago

    The first thing that hit me after the install when I tried it out, was actually “god, it’s ugly”. With all those resources, and that was what they came up with? Microsoft must really have become decadent.

    And I soon became tired of the millions of wizards and “help” I needed to deactivate to get things done without it bugging me about it, aswell as that UAC thing or whatever it’s called. And I really didn’t find anything new I needed either, and the general experience was that it was indeed “bloated” and very tedious. They’ve probably done a couple of changes right with Vista, but at the same time a whole lot of changes for the worse, IMO.

    And for the price they’re asking, they gotta take me for a total idiot.

    But I’m obviously open for a future upgrade, a service pack or two down the road. And when hacks to enable 3rd party skins, slipstreamed and nicely preconfigured discs, etc, is available.

    • kvndoom
    • 12 years ago

    Not gonna say it’s good. Not gonna say it’s bad. Just gonna say XP runs fine and I simply don’t need to upgrade. I’m in no hurry to pay money to fix what’s not broken.

    • Snake
    • 12 years ago

    To the writer of the article:

    You are, I believe, missing the point. You made it quite precisely in your _[

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      XP got the same crap among the professional users who are spoiled by being exposed to W2K.

      “OMFG, XP is really just a metrosexual version of W2K!”

      Did it XP failed in the professional arena? Nope, it just took longer to get a foothold. I expect the same for Vista in general.

        • Snake
        • 12 years ago

        That is probably a good point.

        But Vista also has a bit of a “handicap” versus XP – whether or not one truly wishes to admit it to gain all the advantages of that Vista brings with it’s high initial purchase cost, many people must also do some (or tremendous) hardware upgrades.

        When XP was initially introduced, you could get it to run pretty well on 2 to 4 year old equipment and still gain all (or most of) XP’s upgrade benefits. You cannot do that with Vista – more RAM, a more modern processor and if you wish Aero Glass, a “recent” GPU is required.

        This brings the initial cost of Vista into the “[significant] computer upgrade” category rather than a simple, less expensive “computer upl[

          • A_Pickle
          • 12 years ago

          g[http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/5536/twopointfour0sb.jpg<]§ I would be willing to put to test that I could get Aero to run on an even older GPU, such as a Radeon 9500 or a Geforce FX 5200.

        • nexxcat
        • 12 years ago

        Except Microsoft told ActiveDirectory admins to upgrade to XP, so they can add the new security policies introduced with XP to their AD trees.

    • zgirl
    • 12 years ago

    Well I have been using Vista on my work laptop (Business 32-bit). I can say while it has some nice new features I am underwhelmed. I also seem to encounter several little bugs that drive me up the wall. Nothing show stopping but issues I never had with XP.

    Plus XP seemed a little more polished when it cam out. I used it from RC1 and never looked back. Vista, no so much.

    Plus I have had to upgrade a number of apps just to work with Vista and they still don’t work well.

    Also for those that said XP wasn’t a big upgrade I have one thing to say Windows Unified Driver Model. That was a huge upgrade in regards to how windows handled drivers over 2K.

      • A_Pickle
      • 12 years ago

      That… wasn’t a huge upgrade. The Windows Unified Driver Model may have been “a big upgrade” and all, but… did end users notice? Did it really impact driver development? Fact is, I don’t know of ANY hardware devices whose XP drivers won’t work for 2000, and vice versa.

      That isn’t the case with Vista, so it’s a considerably /[

        • Krogoth
        • 12 years ago

        It is a huge leap. It prevents drivers from locking up the OS when they experience ether a hardware or software problem. It already saved me the trouble of resetting my system when I pushed my X1900XT too far in overdrive bars.

          • A_Pickle
          • 12 years ago

          Great. My point stands — 2000 and XP drivers are interchangeable. 2000/XP and Vista drivers are not.

            • Krogoth
            • 12 years ago

            It is because 2000, XP and 2003 are all based on NT 5.x. Vista is NT 6.x and uses a completely different driver library. The unfortunate drawback of that is it requires a complete rewrite of drivers for existing hardware.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            I’m aware of that. My point is, the fact that 2000/XP/2003 can all use the same drivers while Vista can’t join in on all the fun REALLY changes things in an industry-wide fashion – hence the driver re-writes you mentioned.

            The Unified Driver Model might’ve been a big change from 2000 to XP, but… Vista’s new driver model is probably a bigger one, and contributes largely to the dilemma Vista faces today (not that I’m saying Vista is responsible by any stretch — there are a LOT of manufacturers who need a fire lit ‘neath their arses).

    • Magnus
    • 12 years ago

    Once again as has happened countless times, I will put in my voice in defense of Vista. Been running 64 bit Vista for months and the only mishaps in my usage were cause by overheating due to insufficient airflow at the time of a heatwave. Other then that, rock solid. Boot times arent and issue as i just set my computer to sleep, the slow boot times reported dont affect me.

    All of my hardware is recognized and functioning properly. Every game i have tried to play works fine in Vista. All the apps i used in XP have worked fine in Vista and the system is all around responsive and snappy and whatever other work you want to use for ‘fast’.

    I dont know if this has been posted already, but the tests for xp vs vista in gaming, 7 Months later:

    §[<http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/<]§ With the exception of SLI configurations, Vista and XP are basically at parity. Granted, this is where someone jumps in and says that Vista only being roughly equal to xp in performance just shows that it sucks, but oh well. Personally i think its a good sign given the situation on release. Similar perfomance in games is to me a good sign and the appeal of vista might just increase.

    • sigher
    • 12 years ago

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

      • Flying Fox
      • 12 years ago

      And you have a clue and are informed? I don’t see it in your post yet.

        • sigher
        • 12 years ago

        My post is just a comment, not an article, for some reason I expect an article to have some more effort and credentials than a comment.
        And surely you don’t need me to tell you about vista, there are plenty of more qualified people that can give more insight.
        I refer you for instance to the exchange between guttman and MS that was a bit of a milestone in the vista controversy.
        And then there’s the details of the vista patches, available on MS’s site, and the comments from nvidia and ATI/AMD and other companies and retailers.

          • flip-mode
          • 12 years ago

          See, the thing is that if you make a critical comment but fail to back it up in any way, shape, or form then you just come off like a TROLL, which of course we all know isn’t at all the case. Oh, wait…

            • sigher
            • 12 years ago

            And your post wasn’t a troll, that’s the modern troll for you, they randomly go at a poster calling him/her a troll. I think they picked it up from politics.

      • Kharnellius
      • 12 years ago

      And perhaps you need a new line as I’ve seen this a number of times now. What,do you have a little txt on your desktop that you just copy into every post you make?

        • sigher
        • 12 years ago

        Unfortunately is applies over and over and over again, perhaps I should make a macro to paste it, but if I started to expect it that much a better fix might be to avoid the internet, because it’s anyway getting harder and harder to not notice how many; to put it somewhat polite, simpleminded people there are on the internet, and just avoiding youtube and its comments isn’t enough to be safe at all.

        Point is that regardless if you are pro or anti vista this article shows a certain amount of lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, and so loses a lot of its momentum I think, would only be fair to expect some (minimal) research not just an observation that there are pro and anti vista people, and he only heard fragments and didn’t read the arguments and then comes to some grand conclusion and he will share that with us.

        In short it’s more suited to be a comment on an article than the article.

          • krazyredboy
          • 12 years ago

          Well, for one, it’s a blog. I would imagine, if it were a full fledged article that it would contain much more technical and factual matter. But, it’s a blog and is just a way of talking about what he has experienced personally and from other people.

          There is no reason to be overly critical about what somebody puts into an article or blog, as it is their prerogative. If there were a blatant discrepancy in the information or an attack on somebody personally, then that would be a good reason to chime in and explain where a person may be wrong. What I have noticed most about you is that you seem to only ever want to start a fight and it is usually without any merit.

          Now, I see no issue in getting defensive if someone were to attack you personally, but when has anybody done that in an article. You always have something negative to say, whether the subject was technical or not. In fact, since I have never, personally, viewed a positive comment from you, I have come to the conclusion that you are, basically, just trying to get people’s attention and that you wish to be the focal point of a future debate or conversation. However, don’t get mad after I have said that, as you are not the only one. Yes, there are plenty of other people like you, on this site and others, and I must admit that I am, occasionally, one of them. I like to think, though, that I know when to stop and that I know it isn’t, generally, necessary to add my 2 cents.

          Mostly, what I am trying to say can be shown as a couple of key points and questions:
          1. Do you really have to say something negative?
          2. Is there really a reason to attack somebody personally, if they have never attacked you or never mean to attack you?
          3. Criticism is fine, but choose to, at least, present it with some forethought and intelligence.
          4. Sure, say that you dislike something or some product or some person, but, at least, try to do it within the context of the subject matter and not at the people presenting it. At least, then, your comments make actually hold some importance; you can really let people know how you feel and maybe even make an impact.

          In any respect, whether I am right or wrong, why not try to say something important from time to time. I’m certain, since you have an account on this site, that you have some general knowledge of what we talk about and that you, like many others, are very interested in learning about all of the new, and exciting, ideas and technologies that are coming out everyday. If not, what is the point then?

          I suppose, you may just ignore this altogether, and that is your right. And, at the same length, I won’t be surprised if I see a rebuttal.

          As for your macro, the only thing I can suggest is to create one that will shutdown your computer whenever you decide to make a comment. I think the most effective way for you to make an impact on everybody’s opinions is to not comment at all.

            • Nitrodist
            • 12 years ago

            Well said. It’s a blog article, not a article.

            • jordanmiller
            • 12 years ago

            Thank you for pointing this out as I, too, thought it was supposed to be an actual article. The space on the front page looked nearly exactly like the PSU article in that they had a similar style and no-where said blog until after the jump, which I didn’t notice until after scrolling back up at the end.
            Before I came to this blog post I expected a true article, which I believe many of these commenters expected as well as there was nothing to indicate otherwise from the main page.

            • sigher
            • 12 years ago

            Well even if it is a blog, and I don’t think a techsite has blogs, more editorials since a blog is not something you write once in a while on a techsite but you write normally on a separate site and more frequently and is delivered as a blog not slam in the middle of the same space as rotating articles appear, this still is presented as a statement towards us the readers and encouraging responses, and I don’t think I was that extreme with my reply, I honestly felt what I said, namely that it wasn’t researched very much, and truly the ‘if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen applies’, don’t make a “blog” and put it in a rotating article space in the middle of what you set up as a techsite where many people frequently comment if you want to avoid any critical remarks.
            But I’m sure he can handle my remarks, and perhaps even expected them, it’s you guys that feel so stressed it seems.

            • echo_seven
            • 12 years ago

            It definitely is a “blog”, it was a feature that the staff started about 7(?) months ago? I know AnandTech and ExtremeTech do blog sections, but neither is as directly integrated into the main page as TechReport’s is. I agree, my first impression was “wtf why is there an opinion editorial on the front page?”. But I guess its okay, on the right side it shows under “blog posts”.

            • crazybus
            • 12 years ago

            Not to mention “This is a blog” is emblazoned in large letters at the top of the article. 😉

            • jordanmiller
            • 12 years ago

            Right where ads are usually at on various other sites…it just gets routine to scroll down to the meat of an article. There is no where on the main page indicating this is not a serious Tech Report article, which is what people expect when they see them on the main page. Blogs have no place right next to the serious articles, especially ones with absolutely no information and just unfounded opinion…
            Coming from a server/software development admin, Vista is a huge pain. It is bloated and has numerous “improvements” that makes working between different OS environments terrible. Good luck getting Vista to mount SMB, to mention nothing of catastrophic bugs between Outlook Exchange ’07 and ’03. Guess how many times our server crashed before we figured out that little gem.

            • sigher
            • 12 years ago

            As I explained, on the front page there is a rotating attentiongrabber that changes each time you visit, and this time it was a blog rather than an article, I did not goto the blog section and responded there, I fucking hate blog, they are all drivel.

          • A_Pickle
          • 12 years ago

          g[<...but if I started to expect it that much a better fix might be to avoid the internet...<]g That would be nice. For the rest of us. g[<...because it's anyway getting harder and harder to not notice how many; to put it somewhat polite, simpleminded people there are on the internet...<]g *[

            • sigher
            • 12 years ago

            More trolling, thanks for the effort.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            I’m happy to see you felt compelled to reply to my post after five days.

    • marvelous
    • 12 years ago

    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?

      • Flying Fox
      • 12 years ago

      q[

        • A_Pickle
        • 12 years ago

        g[

        • Vrock
        • 12 years ago

        Why shouldn’t I be allowed to run as admin?

        I’ve run WinXP as admin for 6 years now without issues. I don’t like being treated like an idiot user.

          • Taddeusz
          • 12 years ago

          Because an admin can inflict more unintended damage to the operating system than someone who is just a regular user.

          This is the reason it’s common practice in the UNIX world to run normally as a user and use superuser privilages only when needed.

          Certainly, it’s your computer, do what you will. Knowledgable computer users aside, it’s still ill advised to continually run as an admin. Particularly for your average every day consumer.

          As has been stated elsewhere computer enthusiasts tend to get in this mindset of ignoring the needs of the common person and assuming that what’s good for him is good for everyone. This mindset is totally false. Computer enthusiasts are but a small percentage of a small percentage of all computer users.

            • Vrock
            • 12 years ago

            Again, why shouldn’t *I* be allowed to run as admin if I please? Disable it by default, fine, but allow the user to enable it if he/she wishes.

            I don’t need annoying, nagging boxes asking me if I really want to install “X”, or if I really want to allow this Active X control to initiate, or whatever. Allow me to disable these idiotic “features” and run my computer the way I please.

            • Entroper
            • 12 years ago

            You can disable UAC.

            • Vrock
            • 12 years ago

            Well then, no worries! 🙂

    • Nelis
    • 12 years ago

    I’ve been on Vista for a few months now. I do not have any terrible grips. My only issue is the boot time. MS was saying faster boot times etc.. However I fail to see that. My system takes around 1.5-2 minutes to boot (fully, with start menu etc…) In XP it takes about 35 seconds.

    I would be happy to get Vista to under a minute, unfortunately all of the tweaks I’ve found have failed to decrease the time.

      • kaikara
      • 12 years ago

      My Vista boots faster than XP that I was dual booting with on the same system. Maybe you have a startup problem of some sort that you need to diagnose.

      I also just got a new laptop with vista and it boots up really quick. probably 30-40 seconds.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 12 years ago

        Agreed. Vista boots alot faster on my laptop than XP did.

      • indeego
      • 12 years ago

      Don’t power it off. Sleep it or hibernate itg{<.<}g

    • droopy1592
    • 12 years ago

    I’d roll vista as soon as nvidia and/or microsoft fixed nforce3 support, which was claimed up until 3 months AFTER vista was released. Techreport even had a story on how nvidia said nforce3 drivers were going to be released soon.

    I guess nvidia screwed me over for the last time.

    You CAN NOT run dual core on an nforce3 board and have a happy system, especially with an ATi video card.

    • alex666
    • 12 years ago

    I’ve used Vista Home Premium regularly for about 6 months now on one of my home systems: a DS3 with 2g of ram and a e6600 running at 3.36GHz and a 8800 GTS 640.

    Impressions:

    (1) Vista runs much faster in day-to-day usage than I thought it would, probably a result of the superfetch. Stuff just flies open. I love that.
    (2) UAC is very annoying as are some other features, and MS inexplicably has done nothing to remedy these annoyances. I’m getting tired of them.
    (3) I have not had the problems with Vista nvidia video drivers that so many people have described. I’ve run new and old games without issue.
    (4) XP just seems like a leaner and meaner OS. Despite its many positives, Vista does feel bloated, and it also feels unfinished. I know, I know, that’s so subjective, but it’s my experience.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 12 years ago

    I made the jump from XP to OS X and haven’t looked back.

    Oh wait, this is about Vista.

    …Vista’s Texas Hold Em /[

    • Leefer
    • 12 years ago

    Well, Vista doesn’t work on my two year old hardware, how’s that for a reason?

    I don’t know if my problem is Vista or ATI, but it’s moot if my hardware works great with XP, but hangs and BSOD with Vista. Vista doesn’t like my two ATI video cards (X300, X1300). I’ve got three monitors and the box dies when I drag screens from one video card to the other. Anybody seen this problem? MB is Abit AN8 Ultra with latest ATI (Sep) drivers. Oh yeah, Vista is a fresh build from scratch.

    Since XP works fine, I’ll have to stick with that.

    • End User
    • 12 years ago

    Vista Buisiness (4GB/Q6600) performs well for me apart from 3rd party hardware compatibility issues. I dare not run in SLI mode or my system will blue screen and I must restart the system after a cold boot to clear the mega static coming from my Creative X-Fi sound card (everything was fine when running XP on the same system).

    I am puzzled as to why it took them 5 years to mildly enhance XP.

    Why the f$*k does Vista Business not ship with the 64-bit version?!? For a $400 OS purchase that is pathetic (oh, and $400-500 CDN for an OS is ridiculous).

    My biggest beef is that they still cannot manage multiple windows properly (Expose kicks butt!!!).

    • marvelous
    • 12 years ago

    Is it just me Microsoft just imitates Mac? All MS does is copy MAC since windows started.

    Vista? It’s too much overhead for the average home user. It looks pretty and nothing else. Does it have uses? For the gamers looking for MS forced dx10 option and maybe UAC for people in business segment. Other than that you need beefier hardware and more ram to run.

    I am currently using vista x86 after vista 64 gave me too much problems in the drivers dept. + my games doesn’t run the way I like it. I switch back and forth from xp to vista since I only have 2 gigs of ram at the moment. Some programs just don’t run too well with 2 gigs and vistax86.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      Vista just needs a little more CPU/memory than XP and a GPU capable of DX9 render path in order to work. BTW, low-end DX9 capable GPUs are dirt-cheap these days.

      IMHO, it doesn’t make sense to use Vista on a system older than Althon XP/P4 Northwood generation. You should probably use it on a CPU that is new enough to handle x86-64 natively.

        • marvelous
        • 12 years ago

        It’s still slower than xp currently and games run slower. It needs to mature a bit. You also need more memory.

        I’m on core 2 duo. I don’t have problems running basic tasks. When gaming though. I need more ram and better video card.

          • Krogoth
          • 12 years ago

          I found the it to be exact opposite with newer games. They actually run a little faster than XP. I do agree that Vista runs older games slower (pre DX9-era), but any modern system can run those games fine despite running like 50% of performance of what they would run under XP.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            That’s a lie. I have a midrange card and now I need a better card. I lose on average 3-5fps even in recently released games like bioshock, MOH, World of Conflict… That’s difference between being playable and not being playable on high settings on some games especially for mid range cards that barely gets by on xp with recently released games.

            • Krogoth
            • 12 years ago

            Not with my hardware and configuration. I get a sight boost, like 1-3FPS. It is hardly earth-shattering nor noticeable, but it does exist in DX9-era benchmarks.

            I do admit that in older pre-DX9 apps there is a huge disparity. Vista only runs such apps at like 50-60% of the FPS they would get in XP. It is no big deal, since the games are so old and XP score is like 400-500FPS and half of that is still 200-250FPS.

            You better took a closer look at getting the latest drivers with your hardware and make sure you are running CPU, memory and GPU at the same speed as they were in XP etc.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            I’m using the latest drivers. Maybe you need your head examined because it’s actually slower in vista. Almost every web site that compares vista and xp performance have the same conclusion. It’s only you who say vista gives you better results.

            • Inkedsphynx
            • 12 years ago

            Woo! Way to demonstrate the blog title in action.

            Maybe next time use more caps, more bold, spell a few more things wrong, toss in some “!!!1!11!” and continue your lack of hard evidence to dispute anecdotal informations.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            Go read a freaking website that compares between vista and xp then. I know I have and it’s slower period.

            • Inkedsphynx
            • 12 years ago

            I guess I’ll have to bow before your impressive ninja-edit skills to make yourself look like less of a douche-bag.

            Regardless, if someone presents anecdotal evidence, you can throw numbers at them all you want, that doesn’t make their experiences false or invalid. Hence where the “YMMV” statement came into existance.

            Just because 40 people test something and find that X is slower than Y, that doesn’t mean that Y might not be slower than X for any given person.

            Lucky for us, little in life is absolute. But feel free to continue keepin’ on keepin’ on in your little world of mouthbreathing and insecurities over which OS you use and which OS others prefer.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            I edited long before you jumped in like a douche.

            In life maybe YMMV. But in computer world performance is absolute.

            I have vista x86 installed douche. I just need more memory and a better vid card to make it equal footing with windows xp.

            • Inkedsphynx
            • 12 years ago

            If you had edited long before, I wouldn’t have seen it in the first place *rolls eyes*

            And you’re wrong, YMMV holds true in the computer world almost more than anywhere else in life.

            The card you have won’t perform the same as the identical card I have. Why? Because we all have different hardware configurations, software configurations, etc etc.

            If this weren’t true, we’d all have the exact same speed of computer and nothing would matter.

            Suck it up and quit whining. You don’t like Vista? Fine. But that doesn’t mean that it’s slower for everyone in the world, and that doesn’t mean that nobody likes it.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            Techreport takes a while douche.

            YMMV only downwards and fluctuates with different processors. It doesn’t matter because YOU have same hardware before you installed vista. Unless the douche upgraded his or her system before installing vista.

            • Inkedsphynx
            • 12 years ago

            Ugh, I should have just kept my mouth shut. Anyway, still goes to show, you’ve proven the title of this blog post is deserved and accurate.

            • Jon
            • 12 years ago

            Inkedsphynx and Krogoth, don’t feed the monkeys, marvelous is an idiot, just ignore him. I think we can all agree on that.

            The bottom line is that I see no noticeable difference in gaming with Vista over XP. Personal experience of course.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            Jon you are the real monkey here.

            What kind of idiot says it’s personal experience when vista is slower on all websites that has tested vista gaming and xp gaming. Sometimes it’s slower much as 20% or even more. Most 5-10%. You also need more ram to run the same game you could on xp. You are trying to push that as personal experience? ~psssh~

            • Damage
            • 12 years ago

            End the name calling now, please.

            • danny e.
            • 12 years ago

            stop it now i mean it ?

            • danny e.
            • 12 years ago

            anybody wanna peanut ?

            bonus points to those who get it.

            • Inkling
            • 12 years ago

            Are those cliffs ahead?

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            If vista was so much better we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

            From windows 98se to xp was a huge step in the right direction. This however isn’t.

            Forced dx10 option. UAC. Need beefier hardware to the exact same thing you can do on xp.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            No… the exact same articles were present when XP was coming. Idiots abound. And sadly, they haven’t stopped posting their blather since six years ago — in fact, it’s gotten worse.

            • Madman
            • 12 years ago

            WOOHOOO, bring the guns an nail this one down!!!! Yeeehooo, he gets +1-3fps in synthetic benchmarks, WOOOOW, we all know how FAIR they are (NVIDIA/ATI turn on optimization for 3DMark please, oh wait, was it Microsoft?)

      • amphibem
      • 12 years ago

      What doesn’t run fine with x86 Vista and 2GB of RAM? At least not counting programs that want more than 2GB what ever the platform (some demanding games, high end audio for some examples). Iv played games, edited videos and done some reasonable multi-tasking and I don’t think I have ever seen max memory usage (using Sidebar Multi Meter gadget, so don’t know about games there). COH and Vegas fine modest settings though.

        • marvelous
        • 12 years ago

        2 year old Battlefield 2 doesn’t work that great with 2 gigs of ram. You need at least 3 gigs.

          • Entroper
          • 12 years ago

          That’s because Battlefield 2 just doesn’t work that great, period. The Battlefield games have never made efficient use of system resources.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            Does it matter? In xp I can run the game without swapping my hard disk while I feel like I have 1 gig of ram in vista compared to xp. Let’s get realistic here. You need more than 2gigs of ram to run vista with most of the recently released games. You need 3gigs to run comfortably. While xp only needs 2 gigs.

            • Flying Fox
            • 12 years ago

            I would not call BF2 “recent”.

            You were on the edge with your “midrange” video (6600GT?). So the new OS put you over the edge to “unplayable”. That happens unfortunately.

            That’s the sweet spot is always midrange plus a little more, not right at the midrange or slightly below.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            I wouldn’t call 6600gt a mid range card by todays standards. I wasn’t talking about BF2. I can add 8xAA with my current card but I need 3gigs of ram with vista. I was talking about games like bioshock, Medal of Honor:Airborne.

            • Flying Fox
            • 12 years ago

            So what is your “midrange card” then? X2600?

            Hardly a good sample, but I do know someone with Vista and 2GB and he’s good with Bioshock. What resolution are you trying to run?

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            g[

            • droopy1592
            • 12 years ago

            Don’t forget the new translucent menu bar that they copied for 10.5

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            I briefly considered mentioning that — I decided against it.

      • titan
      • 12 years ago

      Actually, Windows came about before Mac, and Mac started by imitating Windows. This time around, Windows has a lot of features that were already in Mac. To be fair though, Windows would have had it first if they released on time.

        • Gandhi
        • 12 years ago

        Oh that is just so precious! Get your facts straight

        §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface<]§

        • End User
        • 12 years ago

        Windows before Mac OS?!?

        Release order of the major GUI OS’s:

        1) Xerox Alto GUI OS
        2) Lisa OS
        3) Mac OS
        4) GEM
        5) Windows

          • titan
          • 12 years ago

          Yep, I was wrong. I thought it was the other way around. I knew that there were other GUIs before Windows and Mac, but I had always thought Windows was first. I stand corrected.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 12 years ago

            I thought that everyone knew that Steve Jobs stole those intellectual properties from Xerox PARC before Bill Gates ever got around to stealing them from anyone. 😉

    • Voldenuit
    • 12 years ago

    l[

      • Cyril
      • 12 years ago

      I’m not sure where you see a link between disabling hardware audio acceleration and DRM, and WGA was already in XP (not to mention it’s technically copy protection, not DRM). As for “tilt bits”, they fall under the Blu-ray/HD DVD umbrella. See this:

      §[<http://tinyurl.com/2psb77<]§ g{

        • Voldenuit
        • 12 years ago

        WGA in XP doesn’t (and can’t) disable key OS functionality and leave you with a non-functioning PC that only lets you browse the internet (to “redress the problem”) for an hour at a time. WGA in Vista can. The argument that the last server outage did not invoke the “reduced functionality mode” in failed authentications, but only the lesser, less severe first step of disabling Aero, Readyboost and Defender does not invalidate the fact that MS is selling people an OS with an emergency stop button on the mothership. And how on earth they can even justify disabling spyware protection in that first step is beyond me.

        In an aside, sony also promised that HDCP would not interfere with “regular use”. Yet the PS3 at launch was incompatible with earlier HDCP implementations (including, embarassingly enough, several sony HDTVs), causing flickering in game playback. Why game video needed to be DRMed is curious enough. The fact is that DRM pundits will take a mile if you give them an inch. So you should never let them have that inch in the first place.

        #45 And here I thought it had something to do with auto echo cancellation (AEC) requiring a feedback sample to work. Something DRM lovers don’t want the OS doing, and which spills over into not just movie watching, but also voice related applications and gaming.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      Hardware accelerated audio is dead. Get over it. Fast single-core and multi-core CPUs had made it virtually obsolete. Don’t fall for Creative’s PR nonsense. The only reasons to get discrete audio solutions are content creation and fidelity.

      Vista got rid of “native” hardware accelerate, because it does audio differently than previous versions of Windows. It may or may not have to do with DRM. Upcoming games are already abandoning support for hardware accelerated audio. Creative’s own “ALCHEMY” package only works with legacy applications.

    • dragmor
    • 12 years ago

    Vista isnt terrible its just that its not really an upgrade for most people. The problem is that XP reached the “good enough” status. Vista doesnt do anything new and doesnt have a higher stability/anti virus reputation. Its also got that forced upgrade feel because its not the same as all of the existing PCs on the network.

    I’ve been seeing alot more new Mac users of late. Mostly because of the style but they all comment that OSX feels like an upgrade from XP compared to Vista.

    Office 2007 is terrible, the ribon interface destroys 10+ years of relatively constant interface on a high use application set. I’ve seen lots of people move to open office after trying 2007 or uninstalling 2007 and installing an older version (pirating/breaking the number of installs license).

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      I concur on that advice for majority of users who are not living on the bleeding edge.

      Vista will start to make more sense when multi-core CPUs and x86-64 starts to take hold of the enterprise than mainstream markets.

      • Entroper
      • 12 years ago

      If you mean Office 2007 is terrible because it actually offers tangible improvements to the interface as compared to the stagnant 97/2000/XP/2003 releases, then your post is a perfect example of Cyril’s point: fear of change.

      Office 2007 is the first version of Office that I feel is worth upgrading to. The improvements go far beyond the ribbon interface, which I think most people would appreciate if they used it for more than ten minutes. I understand people not wanting to take the time to learn a new interface, but if it’s /[

        • DancingWind
        • 12 years ago

        I agree Vista mostly has the ‘fear of gange’ factor .. its sometimes s ostupid that some ppl say they dont like Vista because they cant find the ‘start’ buton .. and i’m not kidding.
        on MS2007 😀 now heres an improvement although it takes time to get used to especialy if you are looking for some obscure funtions and has higher resorce demand but overall I to feel that 2007 is a REAL upgrade.

          • Plinth
          • 12 years ago

          I LOVE the new interface on Office 2007, only downside is that I don’t know where everything is anymore, but I will learn.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            Well, but that’s the advantage of the Office 2007 interface. To do something in Office 97/2000/XP, I usually had to dig through the menus and peruse help files to find out how to do it. And I’d never remember how to do it when I needed to do it again.

            Page numbering comes to mind. I could NEVER remember how to frigging do a page number.

            Office 2007? That interface is the /[

            • Corrado
            • 12 years ago

            I agree. My mom is not a computer person, but needed a new PC so I built her one with some spare parts I had (3500+, 1gig, on an ATI chipset board, nothing special). At the time I had a bunch of leftover unused XP licenses from Dell Machines that work gave me because they had a site license. Put XP on it, put Office 2k7 on it and she said she almost bought office2k7 for dummies or whatever. Turns out she didn’t need it.

            My dad on the other hand uses Office 2k, XP, 2k3 every day at work. He HATED 2k7… because it was different.

        • Voldenuit
        • 12 years ago

        Tangible? Or perceived?

        I approached the ribbon UI in Office with an upbeat attitude. It took me longer to find things and get things done at the start, but I attributed this to a normal learning curve on a new UI, and assumed that things would fall in to place once I’d gotten used to it.

        Six months later, I can safely say that the ribbon interface, while prettier, is less efficient and less effective than the traditional Office interface. One of its weakest points is the lack of customisability. You can’t tailor the interface to suit your needs and habits easily, until you bust in some 3rd party apps (most of which are not that great in the UI department themselves).

        This was especially noticeable in the office environment when you have collaborative work on projects. O2k7 makes style management laborious. You have to hunt through the entire style set when you want to apply one, and it doesn’t keep tabs on recently used styles. In 2k/XP/2003, the active style is automatically highlighted when you select a piece of text/paragraph. Not only is this much faster when creating the document, it is much MUCH faster when proofreading a document written by someone else. Unless you want a professional document to come out looking like it was put together by a bunch of high school students, you had best be prepared to either:

        a. invest in 2x the proofreading effort
        or
        b. switch back to an earlier version of Office.

        Losing customisability is actually a big step backwards, and the opposite direction to how other professional applications have moved. Just look at Catia V4 vs V5 to see what I mean.

        It wouldn’t even have been so bad if the design choices in the Ribbon had been more /[

          • Flandry
          • 12 years ago

          I’d have to agree with you. While i’ve not yet used the newer version of office, a friend of mine who is an absolute wiz at Excel hates it because it requires more clicks/keystrokes to do the same as earlier versions, and some former features just seem MIA.

          I haven’t seen anything new in Office to justify upgrading since ~2000, myself.

          • indeego
          • 12 years ago

          Our users fly through Office XP. We have no reason to go to a new Office interface and retrain just because Microsoft said so. Training costs money. A lot of money. Plus you add in the cost of the license itself, and we are scratching our heads as to WHY we take something that works well already, and move people forward needlessly with it?

          An OS upgrade I can see. Even Vista you can watch people get a handle… they are still going to know how to launch the programs they need to get stuff done. But Office is a dramatic change, and requires a lot of planning for a core app. So yeah we’ll upgrade dragging our nails all the way, or we’ll see where Open Office is, because we’re not MS’s sheep just because they are MSg{<.<}g

    • blitzy
    • 12 years ago

    /agree totally

    Have been using vista myself for several months and the people who are crying are generally those who aren’t even using Vista or aren’t willing to give it a fair go. Most of the problems people bring up aren’t even the fault of Vista, usually its legacy apps trying to do things which need admin privs when they shouldn’t be or lack of driver support.

    Vista isn’t flawless but its definitely better than XP, people just don’t want to fork out money for a new OS because XP is good enough / they don’t get very much advantage from upgrading. Fair enough, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. But don’t go saying Vista sucks just because it makes you feel better about clinging onto XP.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 12 years ago

    I formatted my computer a few weeks ago, and decided to give Vista a try. I liked it, save for 3 problems:
    1) It didn’t recognize my boards cool ‘n quite
    2) It didn’t recognize my 2nd hdd (which turns out is going bad)
    (https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53460)
    3) No drivers for my ATI tv tuner card (blame this totally on AMD)

    so from a hardware standpoint, I had to go back to XP to get my computer functioning again, and I was really disappointed. But I’m planning on a new computer in the spring, so I’ll be all over Vista.

    I find the real funny thing is that this whole Vista thing sounds recycled. Probably cause I remember hearing the same when XP came out, people going on how it was bloated, and all sorts of other stuff, and how they’d continue using Win 98. Yep, people don’t like change.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 12 years ago

      My wife has an ATi TV tuner with no drivers…TV Wonder VE, probably the same card you have. That’s the only reason her PC is still running XP – because the card works.

        • Rakhmaninov3
        • 12 years ago

        Yeah my Hauppauge WinTV doesn’t have drivers for Vista either, which annoyed me somewhat, but to be fair, the card is 5 years old. Got a new PC a couple weeks ago and now that I’m used to it, I like Vista better overall. They made a few UI changes that didn’t make sense to me, like changing “Add/Remove Programs” to “Programs and Features,” which precipitated a 20-second, curse-filled search when I wanted to uninstall something and had to find it, but apart from a few issues like that, it works great for me. Fast load and shutdown, and it doesn’t slow down no matter how many programs I’m running on it during general use.

    • Krogoth
    • 12 years ago

    Vista is not a failure. It is certainly not ME 2.0. IMHO, it is just not a huge upgrade over XP.

    There are significant improvements with Vista that are mostly under the hood.

    The revamp driver library is a mixed blessing. It prevents a lot of instability and hard crashes, but the drawback is that the new driver library = complete driver rewrite. You are out of luck with older and odd-ball hardware.

    Vista handles memory and threading a lot better than XP. The difference is quite noticeable when I multi-task with a Q6600.

    Vista does not consume more memory than XP if you turn off Aero and other bells and whistles. On the other hand, memory is dirt cheap these days in systems that could benefit from Vista.

    Vista is very stable as I had never experience a crash. I suppose it is because I am not running the infamous Nvidia 8xxx drivers.

    I call the whole problems with older software BS. It is because users don’t run their software in “Windows XP” mode. XP had the same problems when you try to run some ancient programs that are written back when DOS and 9x were king. You had run the said programs in “DOS/9x” mode.

    I can understand the concerns with the new draconian EULA, but MS always own their OS you just are buying a license to use it since 9x. It is just that nobody takes the time to read the lengthly, yet cryptic (to non-lawyers) EULA.

    The changes are not quite enough to persuade some users to stomach the $150-300 for a new license. This reflects the lackluster adoption rate.

    I suspect in time when XP support finally sunsets. It will start first with mainstream licenses than corporate licenses. Users will be “forced” to upgrade in order to take advantage of newer applications and features that will come with hardware in the future. I also believe that Linux will start to become more than a simple hardcore programming OS. It will become something that an enthusiast worth his weight in salt can use without running into serious problems.

    Oh yeah, I forgot about UAC. The primary problem with UAC is that idea was great, but the execution is just terrible. It is like MS tried so hard to better than UNIX/Linux at security and didn’t want to admit that UNIX/Linux did it right. The result is that UAC is a huge nanny with a very hamfisted interface. The market that it intended to protect will simply keep clicking yes or turn the darn thing off.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 12 years ago

    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.

      • flip-mode
      • 12 years ago

      The live previews are nice. Flip-3d – useless. Alt+Tab does the same thing as Flip-3D just without the “3D”.

        • Rakhmaninov3
        • 12 years ago

        but the flip 3d is cooooooooooooool looking

        • indeego
        • 12 years ago

        Yeah I never use flip3d. Why? because winkey+tab on other machines does nothing, so that habit can’t form.

        Dreamscene is a joke, it increases the CPU use by 5-40%g{

          • Flying Fox
          • 12 years ago

          LOL I can’t even use Flip3D, the classic Model M keyboard doesn’t have the Windows key!

      • Da_Boss
      • 12 years ago

      I love that feature!!!!!

      The thumbnail preveiws blew me away the first time I saw them. But I guess im pretty easy to impress that way…

        • atryus28
        • 12 years ago

        I’ve had thumbnail previews and nicer 3D desktop effects in linuc for quite some time now. I have to use Vista at work for testing, it is slower than XP on many things until you turn everything off. If has real legitimate issues. I work with programmers all day long and none of them like it either. simple things don’t work like they should but why would a desktop user notice the problems of programming or enterprise level support. So sure let the average person use vista if they think it is worth it.

        • format_C
        • 12 years ago

        You can get thumbnail previews in XP too – for free:
        §[<http://www.visualtasktips.com/<]§

      • derFunkenstein
      • 12 years ago

      Maximize button is for people that run one app at a time. The Zoom button to make the window only as large as it needs to be to display content is where it’s at. More efficient use of screen space = better. Maximize != efficient.

        • Gandhi
        • 12 years ago

        l[

        • A_Pickle
        • 12 years ago

        Er… yeah. I DO work on one application at a time. Most people do. I’d like to ask you, what applications are you using that you jump between them over and over?

        Doesn’t mean I’m not multi-tasking, I have the /[

          • Plinth
          • 12 years ago

          I agree. I personally can’t stand not having a window maximised, but then I do use a rather low, non-widescreen resolution.

          • Gandhi
          • 12 years ago

          Multitasking does not work as well on Windows because there is no such thing as drag and drop.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            I guess you’re right. I don’t actually drag and drop files from Windows Explorer to Filezilla for FTP upload to my site. I don’t actually drag and drop files from Windows Explorer right into Adobe Premiere Pro for editing. I don’t actually drag and drop files right into my one Trillian IM window for file transfer. Nor do I select a bunch of text online and drag it into Word, PowerPoint, or any other program. I also don’t grab URLs from my Firefox address bar and drag them straight to my Trillian IM window for a link. I actually haven’t done any of those. I don’t drag JPG’s into Paint.NET and it doesn’t accomodate them by asking me if I want to open a new document or if I want to insert them into the existing document as a new layer. I also don’t drag files from my primary Vista installation to my virtualized XP box.

            Man. I guess you’re right. I don’t actually multitask. I’m glad there’s someone here who can deliver me the pure, untainted-by-bias, truth! Thanks for being informed, and informing me!

            • Gandhi
            • 12 years ago

            You’re welcome

            • Meadows
            • 12 years ago

            He said you’re an idiot.

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 12 years ago

            How about copy paste?
            </ low blow against the iphone>
            😉

            • Gandhi
            • 12 years ago
            • Usacomp2k3
            • 12 years ago

            Umm. I’m failing to see the factual information there.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            Translation: You have presented a point where Apple fails. Screw you. <link to dumb video>

            • Gandhi
            • 12 years ago

            No, he was presenting a point completely irrelevant to Vista. It was a stupid comparison, so I posted a link to a stupid video.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            I suppose that, while the iPhone’s inability to copy and paste wasn’t particularly relevant to the conversation at hand, it’s a legitimately stupid fumble by Apple. Put simply, the iPhone /[

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            Wow.

            Lamest. Video. Ever.

    • ChaosX2
    • 12 years ago

    The problem with vista isn’t stability like it was with ME. It’s what Microsoft promised and what id delivered. Things like WinFS and other cool technologies were promised but ever single cool new feature was pulled except for Aero.

    I’ve been using Vista for a couple of months now and I’m not impressed. Vista is competing with WIndows XP. XP is just about as secure drivers are well supported an optimized, most critical OS bugs have been fixed by now. Is there no wonder why people are not switching. There just isn’t even in Vista to get anyone to switch.

    Everything is Vista is so new and different there is no wonder why the hardware drivers were crap at launch. In fact they still are not that great. You know how to you can tell that the driver problem is a Windows problem and not a vendor problem? All vendors, even the good ones are having problem producing good drivers on vista. Look at Nvidia and ATI, they’ve both had issues getting out new drivers.

    Is Vista a good OS? I would say yes, but it is not good enough for users to switch.

    By the way that new Window Switch feature in Vista is just a joke, even Linux has a better solution than that.

    Just my 2 cents.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      ATI’s DX9.0-era hardware drivers are very solid under Vista. I believe it is the same on the Nvidia front.

      It seems most of the driver complains come from DX10-era hardware which is no surprise since, the damm spec is a complete mess a.k.a Glide versus Direct3D 1.0 redux.

    • flip-mode
    • 12 years ago

    -[

    • A_Pickle
    • 12 years ago

    Vista Ultimate user here. I love it, and I know what you mean when you say that you feel a little empty when you go back to XP. All-in-all, a good operating system.

    DEATH TO THE NAYSAYERS.

    • ToeBot
    • 12 years ago

    Yeah, I’m gonna make the jump, from XP to PS3.

    • A_Pickle
    • 12 years ago

    This was intended as a reply to deathBOB’s post, number 11… 😀

    • paulWTAMU
    • 12 years ago

    Meh, the only version that has the stuff I want is Ultimate, and screw paying 400 bucks for the damn OS. Home Premium just doesn’t strike me as worth upgrading to at all. Not that it’s terrible, but after playing with it I see no reason to install it on my PC over XP.

    • YeuEmMaiMai
    • 12 years ago

    1. I use vista on both of my PCs and i am pretty happy overall

    disabling sound accelleration is pretty much the only negative I can see

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      hardware accelerated audio is dead and has been dead for years despite what the marketing drones at Creative try to convince you.

      It was murdered by powerful single-core CPUs and multi-core CPUs came later to beat the corpse into a bloody pulp.

        • mattsteg
        • 12 years ago

        Right, like I said, XP wasn’t really much “new” at all. It was primarily just repackaged with a friendly face. It certainly wasn’t any big technological innovation. Sure, it was a big step up for those left on 9x/me, but they were just catching up to the rest of us who were already running 2k.

        XP just wasn’t the “great leap forward” that people who stuck with the stale 9x OSes too long make it out to be. It was just another incremental step forward that happened to be marketed to new people. Expecting a random new OS to have the same level of improvement as going from a decrepit and overmatched OS like 9x/me to an iteration of a vastly superior OS that had been around for years but not marketed to them (and until maybe sp2 of win2k not at all ready to be) is expecting too much. It’s just not possible for every OS update to go to a “new” yet mature and stable codebase that’s been in production for years.

    • lithven
    • 12 years ago

    Finally an article to counter the bitching about minutia. When I first installed Vista a few months back I ran into a problem with my audio not working after hibernate. One (already available) hotfix later it was good and it’s worked ever since. Even UAC isn’t as bad as some people make it out to be. If I had to air a complaint it would be only that they didn’t open the APIs used for window management so the more able programmers among us (not me) can do more with windows on the desktop.

    • danny e.
    • 12 years ago

    it may not be terrible.. but as long as they were working on it, you’d think they’d have gotten it a lot better.

    my only experience with it was beta 2.. which was so unstable on my box that it wouldnt stay up more than 30 minutes. never bothered to figure out what the cause was.. (dual boot on this machine.. so its not hardware.. probably drivers)

    the sucky thing is.. they “copied” features from other os’s and then did them half-assed.

    sure there are a lot of nice things.. but take the uac prompts.. how hard would it really be to tweak that and make it a little more “usable”. even in this post you say “tweak or turn off”. whats the point of the freaking “feature” if you’re recommended work around is to turn the freaking thing off.

    this is why i am bothered.. it seems half the people say its the best thing since sliced bread. and the other half just sounds like MS fanboys. .. this post was not like that.. but putting the whole “turn off uac” thing is just sidestepping the point. .. its like saying “Vista is great.. you can turn off every feature and make it act exactly like XP”.

    grr. hopefully MS takes the criticism in a constructive way.. gets the REAL features that were SUPPOSED to be in vista back when it was “longhorn” ? and get that out in a couple of years.

    I’ll probably move to Vista next year sometime.. and I am sure I’ll like it eventually. The sad thing happening is the “you dont own me” creep that seems to go a little deeper with each software release..

    • snowdog
    • 12 years ago

    Vista is not another Millennium, but it hasn’t been the smoothest launch either and there is no rush.

    There is no compelling reason to upgrade and I will sit on the sidelines and let the early adopters work out the inevitable bugs.

    It is not resistance to change. I moved to win2k relatively early because it was a big step up, but then I stuck with w2k until XP was at SP2. This is a pretty sound strategy to keep using a stable mature product until the new one gets the kinks worked out and third party compatibility catches up.

    By all means keep beta testing, but don’t assume the rest of us are idiots for waiting for a more mature product and ecosystem.

      • My Johnson
      • 12 years ago

      I’m running into software only supporting XP or higher with Win2K. The end is near…

      Oddly, they only pop up warning boxes stating: “XP, Idiot.” instead of hard locking the OS.

        • Bauxite
        • 12 years ago

        A lot of those so-called xp only programs work fine on 2k, if you fool the installer. Some are easier to fool than others, the more annoying ones you have to install to an xp machine and copy it over.

        The only real exceptions I’ve seen have been hardware drivers, like SLI…so my main machine got its hand forced awhile back.

    • deathBOB
    • 12 years ago

    I hate Vista because I use it and I lost my XP disk/key. Vista does nothing fundamentally better than XP (whereas XP was a huge improvement in stability over previous Windows versions). In return for nothing but eye candy (which gets old pretty quick) my games run slower and my sound card no longer works properly. Weee.

    Plus I really, really, really wanted a good Expose clone but the Vista version just doesn’t compare.

      • mattsteg
      • 12 years ago

      Meh, going from 2k to XP gave little besides eye candy, some overhead, and a few broken drivers. There’s a lot more substantive difference between XP and vista than 2k and XP. XP was mildly-tweaked, already-released tech with a new, fisher-price face and retargeted marketing. Remember XP was an X.1 version and vista is an X.0 version. There’s way more new about vista than there was about XP.

        • snowdog
        • 12 years ago

        Most people went from win 98 to win XP and that was a huge upgrade.

        • danny e.
        • 12 years ago

        huh? XP was win2K based. it was a HUGE improvement over 98.
        .. Vista COULD have been awesome if they hadnt cut out half the features in order to release it “on time”. It seems somehow “rushed” even though it was so late.

        • deathBOB
        • 12 years ago

        I went from Me to XP. It was a /[

        • Krogoth
        • 12 years ago

        mattsteg, W2K was geared towards the professional market when it launch while the mainstream market was still stuck with 9x/ME. That is why they perceived XP to be a massive upgrade while professional users who were exposed to W2K were like “meh”.

      • A_Pickle
      • 12 years ago

      g[http://insentient.net/<]§ ) , a clone of Mac OS X's Expose built to work using the Aero user interface. Thanks to the fully 3D nature of the desktop windows, you can do all sorts of Expose-ish stuff with them... and they will keep playing that HD video in the Exposed window, etc. It's free. Enjoy. :)

    • Captain Ned
    • 12 years ago

    I’m using Vista on one of my work lappies. I convinced our IT boffins to turn off UAC from the get-go (if you don’t have admin rights, UAC is pointless), so no problems there. I’m not fond of the Mac-ish system fonts and the way they mess up webpages in IE7 (it’s Vista, ’cause IE7 on XPSP2 doesn’t have the issue), but that’s a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things.

    The one thing I do want, though, is to beat all of the “Vista takes all my RAM” idiots into tiny little pieces. Five minutes of research anywhere other than Slashdot will make it clear that Vista’s designed that way. After all, if you dropped all those $$ on matched low-latency/high speed RAM sticks, don’t you want your OS to actually use them?

      • Logdan
      • 12 years ago

      l[

        • Captain Ned
        • 12 years ago

        And since that’s a quarterly thing at most, I’ll gladly give up the UAC nag boxes in return for letting the IT boffin drive whilst I go downstairs and get a mug of joe.

        EDIT: Vista Business, BTW.

        • Taddeusz
        • 12 years ago

        l[

      • A_Pickle
      • 12 years ago

      g[

        • Krogoth
        • 12 years ago

        Vista does consume like ~64MB more memory than XP, because of Aero/Flip3d which you can disable. BAM! Vista consumes as much memory as XP!

          • MadManOriginal
          • 12 years ago

          Unfortunately the bloody pulp corpse of hardware-accelerated audio’s alternative is the dead-again zombie corpse of weak and mediocre-sounding at best onboard audio.

            • Flying Fox
            • 12 years ago

            Forgot OpenAL? It is possible to still have your hardware accelerated sound.

          • A_Pickle
          • 12 years ago

          DWM.exe consumes between 20 and 30 MB of RAM on a regular basis on my machine, and I have a 1920×1200 screen.

          :/

          • Flatland_Spider
          • 12 years ago

          I’ve had to disable more then just themes, and I’m still 200MB over my regular XP install.

          Vista (now) 438mb, Vista (fresh) 800MB (approximately), XP 233MB.

            • A_Pickle
            • 12 years ago

            Dear. GOD. READ THE #@$%ING ARTICLE.

            g[http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/superfetch.mspx<]§

    • Crayon Shin Chan
    • 12 years ago

    Glad to see someone agrees. I’ll agree as long as I have my vLite!

    • DancesWithLysol
    • 12 years ago

    In my opinion a lot of computer enthusiasts are (primarily) pissed off that Vista is more difficult to pirate than XP. Sure, XP had the whole activation thing too, but the XP Pro Enterprise version didn’t (which is what everyone ended up pirating/using).

    It didn’t help that the version of Vista that all the enthusiasts wanted (Ultimate, full version) was ridiculously overpriced.

    The driver quality issues that existed when Vista launched (exposed by a number of reviews on the web) was the final nail in the coffin. I remember some of the “reviews” at HardOCP even blaming Microsoft for problems with immature video drivers.

    My experience with Vista has been mostly positive, though. The only issue that I’ve been noticing recently is my girlfriend’s Vista PC has problems coming back from hibernation. It’ll freeze/blue screen shortly after being woken up. Vista blames the ATi x1950 driver. I set her PC to never hibernate and things seem to be fine.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 12 years ago

      I’m posting this from my second PC (with Vista Home Premium). It hibernates and recovers better than any PC that I have ever owned. I don’t know whether I should credit that to Vista or to the ATI chipset on the motherboard. Either way, there’s no problem with Vista’s hibernation for my sample size = 1 observation.

      I’ve had success with the integrated Radeon XPress graphics and with a Radeon X800XL.

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 12 years ago

    I’ve been using Vista as the primary OS on my second PC since RC1. It works fine. I don’t feel an overwhelming need to replace XP on my main system, but when I get rid of that PC and have to buy an OS for the next PC that I build, there’s no decent reason not to go with 64-bit Vista again.

    • mongoosesRawesome
    • 12 years ago

    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?

      • Firestarter
      • 12 years ago

      No, expensive hardware coupled with better consoles and console games will probably kill PC gaming.

      Why bother buying a $400 video card to play nice games when you can play the same game on a $300 console, with better support? I understand that FPS gaming on consoles is still.. handicapped at best, but Microsoft can fix that at will.

      • sigher
      • 12 years ago

      Experts and industry that damn well tried vista and confirm it’s a poor OS, as does MS basically, this is a case of fanboys trying to be blindly walk into walls pretending they aren’t there, but sure, if that’s how you live, go ahead.

        • A_Pickle
        • 12 years ago

        “Experts in the industry.”

        I prefer to call them “armchair experts,” people who surf Google and are automatically experts. It’s like drugs. They falsely perceive themselves to be the only pundit who can see the whole thing.

        Yup, Dylan Avery suuuuure was an “expert.” (hint: Google “Loose Change.” If you take that seriously, you probably also hate Windows Vista. You are also an idiot.)

    • Firestarter
    • 12 years ago

    Personally I had a few hardware problems (notably standby/hibernate), which kinda forced me back to XP.

    I’ll try again soon I guess..

    edit: I’ll consider myself lucky with my student MSDNAA subscription, if I had bought Vista I would’ve been severely pissed..

      • Logdan
      • 12 years ago

      y[

Pin It on Pinterest