Rob Cheng
Dave Methvin
Steve Hogan
Lyle Schuknecht
Bill ZahrenVista Does Not Suck
I bought Vista in March 2007, and after 16 months, I am happy to say that Vista does not suck. Yes you read that right. VISTA DOES NOT SUCK. Like many people, my history with Microsoft and operating systems goes back to the early 80's with DOS 2.0. When I compare the two, there is literally no comparison. Vista is the clear winner.
In fact, fast forward 10 years to 1990, and Microsoft finally releases Windows 3.0 which was stable enough for mass adoption. Again, Vista blows the doors off Windows 3.0.
All of this is tongue in cheek, but there is a rather serious point behind this article. The very nature of the software business is one of continous improvement. Bugs get reported and they get fixed. New features are added on to the old ones.
So right after Windows 3.0 came Windows 3.1. Windows 3.1 was a runaway success. Customers, both businesses and consumers, snapped it up. Perhaps the most important thing was that Windows 3.1 was the first version of Windows to be bundled with new PC's from companies such as Hewlett Packard and Gateway. Before Windows 3.1, the primary way to purchase Windows was from a store that sold Lotus 123 and Wordperfect. Just another addon.
Try our FREE Optimize 2.0 scan Now!
Optimize 2.0 now scans for and removes craplets! Run our Free PC Pitstop Optimize 2.0 Scan to find out about files that are left behind from interrupted program installations, system crashes, or browser cache bugs. It also checks your Internet settings and registry for maximum performance!
Fast forward 4 years, and Microsoft made a huge advance with the launch of Windows 95. Prior to Windows 95, Windows 3.1 ran on top of MS DOS. Many of us old timers remember typing "Win" after the computer had rebooted to get into the Windows environment. Windows 95 consolidated DOS And Windows into one operating system. But they did not stop there. They greatly improved the driver model enabling a whole universe of printers, sound cards, keyboards and everything else to easily connect to the Windows universe. Despite all of these great improvements, I still say that Vista handily beats Windows 95.
Then came Windows 98, and Windows 95 despite its many accomplishments was not very stable. The BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) was quite common and frustrating. Windows 98 made huge strides in reducing but not eliminating BSOD. Due to these strides, corporations began to take Windows seriously.
Then in 2000, Microsoft laid a huge turd called Windows ME. Who knows what they were thinking, but Windows ME was plain horrible. It was slow and it crashed more often than Windows 98. It was a nightmare. Clearly, Vista leaves Windows ME in the dirt.
In November 2001, the cavalry came to save the day with the introduction of Windows XP. XP was a total rewrite of the Windows Operating system, using a much more stable core. The predecessors to Windows XP were Windows NT and Windows 2000. XP was Microsoft's holy grail. XP converged the Windows consumer and Windows business operating environment into one unified program. Furthermore, Microsoft scrapped all versions of Windows 9X legacy code.
XP was a breath of fresh air. After enduring 10 years of Blue Screens of Death, and hours and hours getting peripherals operating correctly, XP brought the bacon. It was a huge home run. It makes a alot of people sad to see Microsoft discontinuing XP because XP is a lot better than Vista. Sorry Microsoft, still today XP is a better operating system than Vista.
So the big question is why is Vista worse than XP? This is not the nature of the technology industry. Each year, things get faster and cheaper. Never do things get worse. The reality is that Vista is an entire rewrite of Windows. Rather than building off of their most successful code base of all time (XP), they scrapped it. It all seems wrong. Like Windows ME, you scrap your bad code, not your best code.
So why? Here is my guess. There are two big differences between Vista and XP. The driver model and the video layer. In both cases, these changes were not made to help us, but to control our access to the content we view. Vista has a "feature" called DRM or Digital Rights Management. I think that once Vista is on a critical mass of PC's, Microsoft will be able to cut deals with Hollywood and other content providers to sell and display their content on our PC's. So every time, we watch a movie on our Vista PC, Microsoft makes a buck instead of Blockbuster.
Of course, we have little to no say in this matter, because Microsoft has essentially forced the PC manufacturer's to put Vista on all new PC's. In order for this plan to work, Vista does not have to be better than XP. It just can't suck. So folks, I am happy to inform you that after close to 18 months of use, Vista does not SUCK.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
hello i agre that vista soesn't suck but i got ghost recon advanced warfighter and i cant get it to run because vist a is missing a file…..WUT THE HECK.
please
vista is a great ingine and i have uninstaled and reinstalled 3 times can u help me or give me a site to visit.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
You can go to our Help Forums and get help with any problem you are having. http://forums.pcpitstop.com/index.php?showforum=3
July 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I have vista and ghost recon advanced warfighter runs fine. what file is missing?
July 16th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I agree with alomost everything said Rob.
Of course you skipped win 2000 in your progression of things, which is a shame because that was Microsoft's best and most innovative operating system. Windows XP was basically win2K with added window dressing and a few things tossed in to bloat it and make mom and pop feel comfy cozy aka a smurf theme.
I don't know where you get the idea that it has a Unix core, because it most certainly doesn't, and never has. The only "published" documented thing MS took from Unix was the tcp/ip stack. If XP has a Unix core I would love to see it
That said, XP is OK, but I personally think Vista to be superior, just like I used to think win2K was superior to 98SE. I rember saying the same things about win2K that I today say bout Vista, Vista is far better then XP just like 2K was better then 98.
People used to argue with me about it, because win2K being a total rewrite of their OS, like Vista is today people had software and driver compatibility problems, as things got ironed out and drivers were available for 2K, then XP came along, and being that is was basically the same kernel with slight modifications drivers were abundantly available. Still their were teething problems and people clung to their 98SE claiming it was better at gaming, drivers…….
AS we move along and drivers and software is made to work with Vista the next MS OS will be released, and it will be the same basic kernel as Vista, with many of the drivers already included and software will be readily available and thus people will say it is the best thing since sliced bread. LOL
But I can't help wondering where in Gods name you came up with XP has a Unix core?
July 16th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Bruce,
I can be corrected, but my understanding is that XP is the consolidation of the two code bases of Windows 2000 and Windows 9x. Windows 2000 driver model and the Unix core which essentially was lifted from NT. As I recall, Microsoft hired some Unix guy from DEC ( can't remember his name ) to create NT, which was the underpinnings of what was eventually to become XP.
But don't get hung up on that, because whether XP is Linux based or not, my points are essentially the same.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
It's definitely not based on Unix. Whether some "Unix guys" worked on it or not, it doesn't contain any Unix code or even follow it's philosophy, besides the tcp/ip stack like bruce stated above.
It's hard not to get hung up on mistakes. I'd suggest amending that sentence so that people who are in the flow of reading the article don't stop reading midway to figure out where you got the whole Unix core from (I know I did).
July 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
OK. I took out the offending comment about Linux. My bad.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
love my vista 64 home premium, more than my xp pro 64, sure you have a few thing to master in vista 64 ,but the rewards are there.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Actually NT owes more to OS/2 then any other operating system, it had nothing to do with Unix.
Microsoft would have had to either license Unix from Novell or some other company, or use BSD.
They used the BSD license for the tc/ip stack and that is as far as their Unix stuff has gone.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
UACs…Virtualization.. Oh wait you didn't right click on me and run as administrator? "directory couldn't be found". You want to install what where? "directory cannot be found." You want to put what where? Are you sure? Are you sure your not sure what to do? "access denied."
Poor grandma and grandpa..
July 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Wow!!! I'll stick with XP!
July 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Has anybody played with XP service pack-3?
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
It blows!!!
I am sitting here with a new system that I just built. Got a nice shiny new Vista Premium 64bit to go with the slick Phenom quad core processor. Well the CD will not install and now I'm haggling with Microsoft to get a replacement disk.
Therefor, I can't even comment on if Vista sucks or not. I wish I could, but I just can't. Oh, great Microsoft gods in Redmond please let me be in a position to comment on if Vista sucks or blows.
Oh, did I say I did get Linux running on my shiny new system? If it were not for wanting to setup a Media Server using wireless Media Extenders I would pitch the idea of trying to get Vista working.
And for those of you who like trivia IBM still has a team that works on OS/2. Not a big one, but I have seen them with my own eyes. They work in little florescent light filled rooms with pizza box holes cut in the doors and a steady stream of Coffee and Jolt piped in.
Cheers,
Ray
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Yes, I have SP3 and I have lost the ability to do any updates if I so choose to do them. Other then that SP3 has been fine for me. I have read many articles from people that have had problems with it. The old statement about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it pertains well with SP3.
I have 1 computer running Vista Ultimate and I have 2 drives 1 with Vista Ultimate and 1 with XP Home. XP is definetly faster but if you know your way around with Vista it works great. You can easily turn of all the confirmations requests it asks. Vista is much more secure.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I disagree. Vista is the absolute worst windows system EVER. Vista is the best advertisement for Mac available. Never again will I purchase Windows.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I had a Desktop PC crash and die in May of laqst year and was forced by my needs to buy a laptop and by Microsoft to buy it with Vista. The geeks at the store were able to retrieve most of my data including my .pst files. Much of my software didn't work, and since I am an amateur astronomer, I had equipment that could not longer interface with my laptop and,even though after almost the same period of time you've had Vista, I learned many workarounds, and Vista practically forcing me to buy the new version of Office (2007, I can honestly say Vista does not suck. Office 2007 sucks.
Vista blows. Vista blows big chunks. Vista has cost me money and made my life with my chosen hobby miserable. I understand the need for upgrades of software and OS periodically and I do not begrudge Microsoft this process. However, if we are paying for it, at least do it well. I have been a Microsoft defender for many years and Vista has burned out all that good will I had since 1987 DOS. I am also sorry to say that Vista could not hold a candle to Windows ME. I suffered through ME, when I got a new computer just before XP was rolled out. Sure, ME was troubled and crashed. But my software was compatible.
I changed my mind. Vista blows, but it still sucks. Never knowing which direction to go.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Jim Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Has anybody played with XP service pack-3?
Now, *there's* a question I'd like to see answered!! I uninstalled it because of all the problems. Windows Update keeps trying to get me to d/l and install it again. It ain't gonna happen unless I can be sure that all those problems have been dealt with!
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I picked up the original beta vista and had a few problems, but as soon as the release was out i had figured out what had to be done to make vista rock. simply msconfig and turn of superfetch and ready boost. they both suck the life out of your system. even with a quad raid.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I still think VISTA sucks. Have had it now for 9 weeks and our new PC has crashed more times in those few weeks then XP did in the 2 years. I also hate loading "NEW" software only to find out that it's not supported on my Vista 64 PC–What a bunch of crap. I'm glad we still have the other PC in the basement so I can go down there and work on something that doesn't crap out when I'm doing something—-Ray
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Most people want to turn on their machine and have it work . All the " allow/disallow ", " run as admisitrator" are unknow to most pc users who just want to get their email and or play a game or go on a chatline … most people do not want to read a book on why something is happening nor do they know what a help file is. At least Xp does'nt ask a lot of dumb questions to people that have no clue.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I have never used Vista yet so I can't say. I'm holding out with XP because I have several programs I can't live without and I'm told many programs I'm using with XP won't work with Vista. An Example is Microsoft picture it publishing 2001. I have a few others too. Can anyone explain this to me? I mean if somebody had Adobe Photo Shop I'm sure they just loved paying another thousand dollars to replace that.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I've had every Win Op system since "95" and I say ,Compared to XP vIsTa blows goats!
I've been using it since it was released as a beta , and now use the public release (prem home)It Truely sux if you have built up a collection of software over the years.
My Alienware laptop still runs XP sp 2 and I still love it and use it more than me PC!!! Eff vIsTa!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I agree with Bruce. I adopted Vista early on at my company (and on my home pc) and I have not had the crashes, the blue screens, or the issues that my coworkers have had with XP. In fact, my wife chose Vista over XP on her notebook and found it to be intuitive and easy to master. You say you have an issue with UAC? Turn it off. Instead of c:\Documents and Settings you have c:\users. I actually LIKE the Sidebar and I leave aero enabled because *gasp* I like how it looks. The only thing that comes close to it is Beryl or Compiz-fusion in the linux environment. Unix core? Sure, yea right. Only Sun, HP, IBM and *gasp* Apple have UNIX 03 certification.
Having Virtual PC Express virtual-machine support; the Subsystem for Unix-based Applications (SUA), which is designed to allow Unix applications to run on Vista machines is a far cry from saying that Vista has a unix core.
Oh, regarding XP SP3, it's not bad, but it ain't Viata.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Vista crashes as much if not more on my laptop than Win 98… including the BSOD. Its slow even with all the visual tweaks turned off and I get the feeling the MS is more concerned with making things pretty for the eye appeal of users that don't need a really responsive system. What the hell happened to progress… g-d damned MS has been making me bang my head since 3.1… are the issues that have always remained EVER going to be worked out???
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 am
I, too, have been using computers since 1983 and have experienced most if not all the other operating systems. Based on my experiences with Vista and my technical expertise as a Certified Repair Technician, Vista still sucks!! There is no way to compare Windows of old to the current Vista since they were all coexistent of one another…Vista is not. Vista is harder to get around in, do things with, and it runs slower during boot and shutdown plus it is a power hungry product that sees no end in sight. Updating Vista is a chore as well and has been very troublesome at the wrong time it decides to install an update. XP is and always will be the only operating system to use. I've yet to understand the reasoning behind changing the concept of an operating system so radically different that it now changes everything we've learned in the past and it makes that knowledge darned near obsolete. Shame on Microsoft!
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 am
I to go back to the Dos days and went through all the various offerings from MS. I was happy with MS 3.1. Problems seem to mulitply 10 fold after that until XP. Wow!!! That is a great system, or should I say WAS? I am no power user by a long shot, just a long standing hack.I have always managed to make the needed installations until I ran into this Vista now setting in my lap as I publish this. I would not say it sucks as I am sure there is a lot of getting used to for me. So far cannot just down load Power point viewer or any printer and get them to work!!! The sorta good thing about this vista is that it does not just seem to go into an endless loop and leave you setting there wondering just how long this is going to take, or as with the MS 9X stuff just give up and present you with a crashed screen. So, I will say that after 30 or so years of this learning process, this 64 bit incompatibility situation I am now presented with leave me with a computer that will not display power point viewer sheets sent to me or the ability to print out information I wouldlike to refer back to later. I have a rather new Lexmark fax/scanner printer that will not mate, and an NEW HP scan printer that will not mate to my HP laptop. Now this Vista is keeping my interest because it does tell me that "oops that that aint going to work and you maybe be able to view this or that web site to see if someone has come up with a work around." Well that is nice, now I spend most of my time trying to find out if someone has found a workaround and gone to the trouble to publish it. So for not much luck, just a lot of sympathy. I actually think it will mature and be a stable and useful system, a little better than XP. Right now I would defend with my life if someone attempted to remove my XP or 2000 based system. I have faith, or is it just hope that the hundreads of dollars I invesgted is not a complete waste. Time will tell???
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:31 am
i like vista not had any problems with it at all and i like xp but sorry to say vista got my vote
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
I did forget to say that the Vista does immediately find the newly installed hardware and it will immediately tell you, "New hardware found on system, however it is not going to work". Now is that considerate or what?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Vista is the ugly step child that nobody likes but has a better personality because of the added security. that being said, within the next 12 to 18 months a new child will be born out of redmond and let's hope that M$ is listening and fix the problems with this new born (windows 7) soon to be here
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Vista is actually pretty easy to work with, once. Once you turn off all the glam and shiny idiot buttons, it performs at an acceptable level, as well. Albeit, it does then look like Win2K.
I had some small issues with getting certain older games to run, but most of them traced back to running in backward compatibility mode, or simply needing to right-click and run as administrator, and definitely nothing that could not be over-come.
For those that don't like Office 2007, give Open Office a try. It's free, and completely compatible with all Office documents, as well as has additional functions you may find useful.
Happily using Vista 32-bit Ultimate.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I am a Vista user (a) because my XP system crapped out, I needed a replacement and found one at a price I couldn't refuse, and (b) until I decide to by a Mac.
Does Vista suck? No, not entirely. Have I recommended it? No. I'm no expert - I won't touch the Registry. But I've been a microcomputer user since WordStar and VisiCalc.
I am self-employed. I use my laptop largely for e-mail, Internet searching, word processing, spreadsheets and some presentations. I do not have large audio files. I do not edit video. I let my wife store photos of our grandson on her PC.
My glib comment has been for years that Andy Grove gave us more cycles on a regular basis and Bill Gates took them away just as quickly. My 1.6Ghz machine takes longer to start up than my 25Mhz did 15 years ago - and much longer than my son's low end MacBook.
I appreciate the greater security and stability in Vista than XP. But what has been lost sight of by MSFT is that there is a large user community that wants stability and security, but doesn't need all the "recreational" add ons that have bloated the OS (or that has them available for download from an MSFT server rather than as a mandatory part of the initial install) and made it less attractive to professionals.
What I want is a PC that starts up in far less than one minute, that does its own housecleaning and keeps invaders out without spending $100/year on third party software.
Finally, as a stockholder when MSFT was growth company, I believe that the company needed Vista more than the market. The Office products are cash cows, as was XP. But given the size of the company, there is little else in their product warehouse that has or will drive meaningful growth. Popular as the XBox is, it's too small to impact revenues or earnings (if there are any from it).
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I built my computer and installed Vista on it about a year ago and have not had any problems. I think most people who have problems have them because of older games or there computer is not powerful enough for Vista.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
To run Vista I need to double my RAM. As I run real time systems, I also need a faster PC.
To what end? To be as fast as XP.
Bloatware.
XP has been stable with very few issues.. (appart from SP3 which I refuse to use until debugged).
To move to Vista I need a new scanner etc etc.
I don not buy a new car becuase the cambelt has been changed so why should a new OS mean new hardware..?
I'll move in three years when it's all sorted and hardware is cheaper and faster..
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Vista is far superior to anything else Microsoft has offered in the past, including XP. Now maybe someone might have a hard time playing some childish waste of time video game on Vista, but those people have no business owning a computer to begin with and should just buy one of those kiddie game consoles while leaving computers to people who know how to operate and produce something useful with them. Why own a computer if you aren't going to produce something with it? 99.999% of computer problems are cause by the person sitting in front of them, not the operating systems, but here in America -Home of the Blame- the whiners refuse to admit it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Sorry Rick and others churning out the same old MS bashing statements, in my experience as a computer tech for at least 90% of users if not more there is nothing wrong with Vista
If the machine is not high powered enough to run vista don't install it and if your machine can't handle Aero - turn it off, manufacturers also have to take some blame here for flogging way too underpowered machines just so that the price looks good.
if you want to use some 10 year old piece of junk hardware don't expect MS or the hardware providers to waste time getting it to work, the same goes for some ancient piece of software nobody but you uses any more and that can be replaced by something newer, more featured and often freeware
if you install new OS/software etc don't expect everything to be in the same place use common sense and that often forgotten F1 / help button or even google if you cant find it. you are an experienced user this should be simple for you and a completely new user will just learn where things are the same way you did 10 years ago
lastly ALL PC's are different, they are not some apple clone with all the same parts and software installed and it is simply unreasonable to expect everything to work first time for everyone when you have no idea about the state of their operating system , come on MS can't stop every fault happening especially when many are PC specific issues and are down to corruption or incompatible non Microsoft software
and yes I also go back to dos 3.1 and have used all versions of windows and dos since then.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Chuck , sorry but 64 bit is known to not be working completely with all hardware so common sense would suggest if you are having so many problems just install 32 bit vista and go 64 bit when all your hardware has working 64 bit drivers either that or only buy hardware that is known to be compatible.
sorry if this sounds harsh but I don't see many people using 64 bit unless they have good reason too ie: more memory support
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
It's all very well Michael saying "turn off UAC" - when you do that you get continually harrassed by message balloons saying "User Access Control is switched off. Click here to fix the problem". I like the look of Vista and the way it's organised, but it seems to be riddled with bugs!
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I have XP Pro on my Dell laptop, Vista Premium on my Gateway laptop and Vista Ultimate on my HP. I like Vista, however, Ultimate is more stable than the others two versions of Vista. I still like the XP Pro almost as well. There is a slight learning curve to Vista but I have had no particular problem with it as far as the OS goes. I don't know what all the squabble is about. can't use my printer's cd on Vista, however Vista recognizes the printer so it is still useable. Ihave 64 bit on the HP which only refuses one program so far.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I recently got a new PC something I was dreading because of have to have the "dreaded" Vista, well after a month now I have to say I love it I am not someone too experienced with computers but I have to say I have had no problems at all and I find it much nicer to use than XP I had no problems putting microsoft picture it on there and my other programs as well I give it 100% thumbs up
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
…all this talk about people and things that "suck." Such a cliché, over and over, youi can't hear any conversation without the word. But just what IS it that is being sucked on? Surely somebody must know, the word is used so often. What does the word mean? WHAT is being sucked? If you dont know, or don't want to say, then why keep using the word. Don't be a hypocrite.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Tell all the MAC fan boys and the people afraid of change (XP users) to stop spreading all the rumors about all the problems Vista has. Truth be told…if the XP fan boys would dump their computer they got in 2004 and get a new one, Vista would run just fine. What really needs to happen is NVIDIA needs to get off the rear ends and make a driver that is stable. I have been running Vista since the day it was released and I would never go back to XP.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I fortunately got out of computing as of the 8080A era ('74 -'75) and have only gotten back in about 1997 or so. I've seen (endured) W95&98. I have been using W2000 Pro ever since a computer professional exposed me to it.
I am a 'tweaker' who consistently surprises my immediate peer group with how my machines run.( just shy of T1 and sudden, almost startling screen response ) W2000 is reliable, updateable without scrutiny from Mother Microsoft. I will retain this system for as long as I can. I am quite happy with it and am continually amused with all the woes and comparisons regarding the "newest" operating systems.
I have too much fun with my boxes to put them (and myself) through what the latest operating systems have to offer.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Vista Premium 64bit SP1 and Vista Ultimate 64bit SP1 blows the doors off all XP versions.
To all that have or want to upgrade from XP to Vista… Wipe your hard drive before you install Vista. Do a Fresh Install of Vista Only!
Also, get the latest drivers for your motherboard/chipsets/components/software ONLINE… DO not use the driver discs as most of the drivers, programs and app.’s are obsolete. The same goes for Your motherboard’s BIOS. Go online and get the current BIOS for your Motherboard and CPU configuration. Yeah it takes a little investigating (Google) but to sit and bitch will get YOU nowhere!
To those that have loaded XP SP3 on top of SP1 or SP2 and cannot update via Windows Update… Here is the FIX:
After XP SP3 Download – Windows Updates will NOT Install…
Easy To Fix…
Just go to C:\Windows\System32 and find and register Wups2.dll.
To do that, right click on it and select 'Open With' then 'Choose Program' then Browse to C Drive then WINDOWS then System32 and find Regsvr32…
If you choose to 'Always use the selected program to open this kind of file' then all you will have to do is double click on any .dll to register it.
Once you have registered Wups2.dll your problem will disappear.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I am Running WinXp Win XP Pro on three Dells, Mac OSX Leopard, on a Mac Mini and Vista on the Mac Mini on another Partition.
Vista runs fine on the Mac. I didn't put any third party antivirus software on I as I use Vista locally , and have both a Hardware Firewall and the Vista security. In this configuration Vista is very quick. The Dells are loaded with AV software and kinda creep along in comparison but hopefully keep my local network secure if anything gets though. (Yes I only send out email from a protected Dell)
Of the three OS I like MAC OS first, Vista Second, and XP third
Th only hassles are the Updates to Vista which depending on whether or not I am using the Parallels virtual machine at the time - can cause grief, Booting straight to Vista - no problems so far.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Wow Mike,
That was just plain silly.
OS's are just the interface to make your hardware work, and a PC's (actually.. technology in general) is supposed to make things easier and more enjoyable. This means different things to different people. If an OS cannot do that it fails in it's primary duty.
Vista is clearly a step backwards in making things easier, whether it was necessary do so is up for debate.
You may be right in assuming that an OS might be fit for one thing or other and if you bought an OS for a specific purpose like business then perhaps it shouldn't work as well for gaming, but Vista being sold as the OS for the whole enchelada.
In the consumer market, ideally we are looking for a solution to integrate all the technology that we might own. To meet our business and personal needs and integrate it all seamlessly and easily to make our lives easier.
XP practially invented that idea, Vista… not so much.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I think after Mikes post it would be good to state wirths law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law - software is slowing down faster than hardware is speeding up!
Now obviously Vista is "superior" in sense of more advanced, however at what sort of time cost?
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Earlier in this chain there was a query about XP/SP3. SP3 contains many of the updates which were available in Microsoft update. However istalling it on an already existing system with many programs can be fraught Having backed up my data, I did a complete new installation and installed SP3 with no problem. Then re-installed around 40 programs I use and all OK. As a word of warning be vary careful of registry cleaners in general.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Sorry Mike, You must do very little with your Comp. I use mine a Lot for Publishing and Photo Labbing. I started with the old Commodore 64, and have had every op. system since. 99.999% of XP/XP Pro owners feel sorry for Vista Users who sit in front of comps. inputting data all day. XP Pro Has Never caused me one problem. I have not reformatted in 4 years. Seniors I work with, have either quit using vista computers as they never know whether to click Yes or no to half the screens, or have gotten their Money Back.
I have been able to get a supply of XP Pro installs and most can now use their comps which run like lightning, when I tweak.
Microsoft, is losing a large demographic of first time baby boomer comper's, who are starting to get Mac's. It is a Shame!
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The problem with Vista is not that it sucked, it's that it took years to make, is expensive and yet still vastly inferior to Linux or the Mac OS - The glossy interface and 'Aero' features that Microsoft have trumpeted for years just don't cut it. I've just converted to Linux and I won't be going back. Goodbye MS.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Got Vista x64 Ultimate with SP1 included in mid July. I have a HPScanjet 3800, Laserjet 1320n (WiFi), S-Link DCS-2100G cam, 2yr old 250G Seagate USB drive. Motherboard is Asus M3N78-EMH m/b, Phenom 9750CPU and 4G of DDR800 RAM. Easily found 64bit drivers for all the hardware and all my old 32bit software runs like a dream - Office2003, Paintshop Pro, Cobian Backup, Metastock, Delphi, C#, etc etc. Only ever had a problem with one program - Paretologic Anti-Spyware, however, I think some of the older security programs may not do what it should because of changed folder structure, e.g. C:\Users\\Searches. But then, neither did I ever have a problem on XP Pro but quite a few hassles with XP x64. Only got x64 so I can develope for and test programs on that platform. To date I really do not know what all the gripes are about. Maybe if you got Vista long time ago and just ran updates, the updates did not fix all the problems?
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Vista BETA 1 to first day release to long time elated VISTA 64 user. "Vista does not suck?" LOL.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I have two fairly new computers, a desktop and a laptop. Both are HP, so came with Vista. Oh, how I miss good old XP, which was the best Windows version of any I'd used before. Since buying my media center computer with Vista, I've seen the BSOD more often than I can remember over the 20 preceding years. And, I've had to ditch a fine scanner because Vista won't run it. I am not a happy camper!
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Here we go again with the boys at PC Pitstop against Vista. Gets old doesn't it?
Be that as it may, for the ones having problems with Win XP and updating, there is a real simple fix. The problem can be cause by a couple things, one being using the XP disc to effect a repair of XP, which I and others do a lot, as we all know some files go "bonkers" at times. Regardless of the cause, to fix windows update so you can download and install the necessary updates, do the following:
1. Stop the Automatic Updates service. To do this, follow these steps:
a. Click Start, Click Run, then type cmd, and then click OK.
b. At the command prompt, type the following command, and then press ENTER:
net stop wuauserv
2. Then after it stops the service, register the Wups2.dll file. To do this, follow these steps, as the command prompt should still be open.
a. At the command prompt, type the following command, and then press ENTER:
regsvr32 %windir%\system32\wups2.dll
If you are running XP Pro x64 Edition type the following instead and press ENTER:
regsvr32 %windir%\syswow64\wups2.dll
Click OK on each verification message that you receive.
3. Start the Automatic Updates service. To do this, type the following command at the command prompt, which should still be open, and then press ENTER:
net start wuauserv
4. You will see the message that the service is running. Exit the command prompt by typing EXIT and press ENTER.
You can now run Windows update and it will download and install the updates.
Please note the spaces that are in the commands. Type them in exactly as they are here and it will work.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I have Vista Ultimate 64 on a high end PC. I have been programming computers for many years, and I certainly know my way around. In terms of what the future of computing will be - Vista is a step in that direction. Albeit, it has left many users frustrated. I will tell you however, that every problem you've had in Vista can be worked around, aside from software/hardware that is incompatible. Why is it incompatible? In the case of hardware, it is because the manufacturer has not put forth the effort to make sure their products can meet the quality requirements that Vista enforces. Buy hardware from someone who cares about their consumers. In the case of software, it's because the developer assumed that they could do anything with your computer they wanted (as was the case in prior versions of windows), but Vista is protecting YOU! How many people do you think, with UAC still enabled, have gotten a virus after using a program from a friend? Not many I bet.
As for technology is supposed to be easy: What is a computer? It is a tool for computing quickly and reliably. Some would argue that Vista fails at these also (I have no problems) but no where is easy a requirement - even if it does lead to more success. The fact of the matter is that people are too LAZY to deal with UAC. It's not whether they can decide to click yes or no - it's that they don't read what's right in front of them. DO YOU TRUST THIS PROGRAM? YES OR NO… it's not difficult.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
# Wendy Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
"…I'm told many programs I'm using with XP won't work with Vista. …I mean if somebody had Adobe Photo Shop I'm sure they just loved paying another thousand dollars to replace that…."
That's nonsense. It's true enough that a few programs wouldn't work with my Vista 64-bit and had to be upgraded or replaced (including Eudora, which I hated to lose), but most of my important software works just fine, including Office 2003, which someone griped about, and so does PhotoShop CS2, while an upgrade to CS3 cost me around $200, not a thousand dollars.
Vista needs a computer that can handle it. I left XP for Vista-64 bit when my motherboard crapped out and the best option was to go new - with a Core 2 Quad 6600 with 4 GB of RAM. Much of my work (besides the usual email) is editing 18MB RAW image files. Working with those files took forever in XP but Vista is like working in a new world!
The only big hardware problem in the transition was my scanner, because the manufacturer didn't bother supplying a 64-bit driver for it, but a new Epson 4490 solved that and does a super job of scanning my old negatives as well.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I use XP Pro on all my machines at home and on my laptop. They all run well and are very stable. Our church computer runs Vista and I end up fixing things all the time. I think I finally have it squared away but have noted that it is much slower than any of my XP machines in boot and general function. I know that adding memory helps but it already has 2 gigs. Sigh! All of my home network computers run 2 gb and they are great on XP.
I beta tested Win 95 and was glad to see 98 and finally 2000. Once MS got XP straightened out, it was fine too. I hope they get Vista debugged before they put out another OS.
Ray
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I had my last laptop die about two weeks ago and need to replace it immediately therefore resorted to BB. I opted for a Toshiba with Vista Ultimate….yes I was scared to death after listening to all the horror stores from friends and in the media. Well, I am hear to say other than one 3-in-1 printer not connected yet (HP says it does, Vista has been and still is a delight to work with. I am still not used to all of the various options available with this platform but find it very fast and stable. It has never frozen on me yet.
I am a believer so far.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Firstly I'd like to thank Mr. chengrob for a well written, refreshing and mildly amusing article.
Secondly I'd like to state that Im a current XP user and I go back as far as Win95 during my time in the silicon revolution. Why is this important to know, well because as an avid Windows child I intend to make a comparison with the Microsoft softzilla which in my mind at least, puts things in perspective.
Ok so here we go, I agree that MS has made strides forward, it was inevitable, surely?Some were negligable, Win98, some outright WTF, WinME (for the record I did not buy into that and what a good decision that turned out to be) and finally an OS, WinXP, which MS with its vast resource from world wide sales, in my opinion should have been able to produce much earlier. OK, I agree that its agruable whether the hardware available in those days would have been capable of hosting such an OS, but thats besides the point and this is where I intend to make my comparison…….
Linux, a competing open source OS, (which in fairness has had as long in terms of timeframe to develop) has managed to do the same with a fraction of the resources available to MS. It has openly challenged the free world to give its input into its development (unlike MS) and is currently being used in as many server applications because of its achievements as a stable platform. Not only that but many countries backbone infrastructure runs on Linux! Now, I cast your mind back to my earlier statement Mr. chengrob and state again that I am not an Linux user, never have been to date, so I have no interest what so ever in giving the thumbs up to Linux, but one has to look at the numbers and wonder;
What took MS so long all things considered? Probably busy counting money and enjoying their yachting adventures. lol.
Why did they release a version after version and force its "PAYING" clients to act as beta testers for the Monopoly? Coincidentally, it continues to do so to this day.
In my mind this is clear, its all about control and profits, and has been the case from the very core of the MS conception, when young Mr. Gates the salesman that he is, left his job at Apple armed with the idea of a "GUI and a mouse" computing environment, intent on capitalising on Mr. Job's idealistic character and drove someone else's idea to market, achieving exactly what he intended.
Do you feel looking back at history that it was fair for MS to release its "incomplete" (in my view) software to the masses, using the paying customers as its testing hordes in order to allow them to polish off what the "marketed" product promissed in the adverts and the retail box, which conincidentally it fails to deliver to this day?
Do you not think it would have been more appropriate to charge a percentage of Retail price against sales made pre SP1 XP release for example, then adding a percentage for sales made after SP1 release, SP2, SP3, etc. finally charging Retail price for a product which finally "does" what it says on the box and the MS marketing campaigns, in the process rewarding its client base who have gone through the pains and time lost with unstable and vunerable operating system environments?
Lets face it, time costs money, its why we all get up in the morning, employers buy into our time, but with MS this is free! Our feedback to them is free, time troubleshooting is free, etc.
The nature of the beast gives it all away really, because its much more important to MS to concentrate resource and efforts on on piracy and prevention of, because it ruins profits, bottom line!
Is this what we are reduced to commenting on these days "Vista does not Suck"?
Why not, "Vista has its problems, but those willing to take the plunge now, will be rewarded by lower costs ownership for their efforts and willingness to join the improvement program" or "Vista is a great OS and it does what it says on the box"?
The reality is, we do not have a choice, regardless of any arguments against, therefore we have every right to feel aggrieved and/or refuse to buy into the money making machine.
Correct me if Im wrong, but I havent seen any such articles being published against the Apple OS? It just works!
I understand that we dont live in an ideal world, far from it, but I'm opposed to the idea of being a guine pig for the benefit of others, especially those who are least in need of benefiting! Instead, throw a benefit the guine pig's way and you might be surpised how far it will go.
In summary, Im not impressed with MS's achievements to date, they have had enough time and resource to do better and we have every right to expect better on account of their forcefull hand over the years. Eye candy only works for kids these days, as the older generation are too wise and arguably lacking in the vision department anyway to be seduced by such cheap attempts to get hold of our disposable income.
Others have shown in can be done, but MS is too busy with law suits and ensuring their profits to look out of the box for a change, whilst the rest of us are left wondering which way to go.
Cannot, will not, be impressed by such effforts anymore. It's about time MS did better to earn our hard earned cash!
C'est la vie, as they say.
Its too late and Im too tired to proof read, so my appologies for any school boy errors
Hum
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
How much did vista pay you to say they do not suck. IT IS THE WORST WINDOWS YET!
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Congrats to you Rob!!!
I have switched from XP pro to Vista Ultimate, and have been loving it ever since! As all OS's go, it does need some tweaking to get it to act the way you want it to. But in general, I think Vista is a very nice operating system.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
you idiots it's what you pay for i have had nothing but ibm pcs and have had them run till i got another all with windows from me to xp. I have one that came with me i put 98se on it then xp.I still have it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Vista sucks [edited by administrator]!!!
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I have gone from the days of using DOS all the way to Windows and if I may say so, Vista Sucks.I have less to do in the IT world now than I used to. I have (5) PC's, 3 laptops (wireless) and 2 desktops on my home network. One of the desktops is used as a print server plus do work with it. I have no problem adding these printers to one of the other PC's and using the printer almost as if it was diretly attached to the PC I am using at the time with no problems. With the Vista Laptop when I try to change some setting or two it in many occasions goes into it's "grind" and if I'm luck it finally makes the changes & I can print with the new settings. This is just one example of frustration with Vista. Also, when trying to have share set on a global basis, it's a nightmare. I have no problem using XP to do this.
Net - net is I may try to go through the laborios process of going to Win XP Pro on this laptop, which is my primary PC.
Oh well, I guess I know nothing, but I want to use my Laptop and not have to play with it all the time to do what I need to.
Anyone have a very good method to move back to XP?
Fred
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Sounds great Will… But since you've never experienced Vista, I suggest you post on an XP Forum that you’re Happy about your upgrade from Windows 98 to XP. In 8 years (2016) when you upgrade to Vista, You can come back here and post how thrilled you are with Vista.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Vista is just another way to have Big Brother control us….If I want someone to say I can't watch a movie cuz its a no no then send the cops to my house otherwise mind your own damn business…I think Microsoft should remove the drm its exactly what Comcast got in trouble for blocking sites….another freedom of choice ripped out from under us
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I've been running Vista Ultimate for about 7 months now and I love it! The functionality is as good or better than XP. I play COD4 and Crysis online and in single player mode and I have had no problems what so ever (I also play most of my older games too.). I stream video, music and pics to about 9 different computers, my wife and I own 12 computers for our home business, at home (a mix of XP and Vista OSs), also stream to my PS3 using my Vista Ultimate box. It reminds me somewhat of ME as it is just a stepping stone from XP to Windows7, I had to tweak the daylights out of it and I have no problems what so ever now. Took me about a month to get it right and it boots faster, comes out of sleep mode faster and shuts down faster then XP ever could. Don't get me wrong I am still running 5 Xp machines (1 an XP Pro x64bit box!) and 1 233mHz P2 Dell laptop with 2000 Pro and 1 laptop with Vista Home Premium. So I am moving between these 3 OSs constantly and if Vista was a little more business application friendly I would probably be running only it! Come on people get over it, XP does some things way better then Vista but XP is a dead OS walking. You think Microsoft is gonna care about XP a year from now? Unless you run a large business and use XP to run your network you might as well as give in!!! Vista Ain't so bad folks!
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Vista Does Suck!!!!!
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I recently bought a new HP laptop with Vista. After crashing several times and it not allowing much of my software to run, I reformatted and installed XP. Now a happy camper. I'm one of the old-timers mentioned earlier…got my start with DOS, then moved up to windows once it was released. Remember the days of switches on video and sound cards and then configuring the com ports, the irqs and dma settings? Glad to be way past that
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I have worked with computers for over 40 years and I can say I am not impressed with Vista. Can't download SP1 even after following recommendations from MS. Seems MS is not responding to requests for help in a very timely fashion. I will admit I am an OS/2 bigot and was very displeased with IBM when they decided not to continue to develop it. Never had a blue screen with OS/2 and very rarely had to reIPL.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Put it this way, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates along with his half crazy brother, Balmer, will go the way of all the politicians, straight to hell. The intrusiveness, especially the DRM turned me totally off computers. I use my computer at work for my job and that is it. I bought and used computers since 3.1 was out but I give up because of all the intrusiveness, spam, scam, viruses and hackers. It's not worth it anymore.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
If Microcrud REALLY cared about fixing Vista, first they have to acknowledge that it's a goose egg. Main complaints by all oldtime Windows users is Vistas snubbing older software! Some just as old as XP!
Fix the bugs for software, issue patches and do what it takes to run programs on Vista before everyone runs out for a Mac attack!
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Vista is as great an operating system as George Bush and Dick Cheney are great leaders. They all need to be replaced by the end of next January.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Vista is a great operating system if you own a Mac. If you own a pc you can use Vista until you get a Mac or "Windows 7" is foisted on you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Who threatened you? Vista is the product and plan of retailers not software people. Call it ME Squared or Buy More Stuff Ware or Throw Away What Works Ware or Planned Obsolescence Ware. How abour Balmer Magic?
I've run 4 machines with Vista - why bother?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
As a system builder I've installed Vista on many different systems. Some work. Some don't. That's a problem in itself as there's no consistency in the components it fails on. But the biggest problem is that with all its bells and whistles turned on, it beats the daylights out of the HDD and memory. I've never seen hardware components die like they do on Vista systems.
Our own systems are still XP and (old reliable) W2K. Vista sits on my tri-boot system and collects dust for the most part. I still say Vista sucks.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Vista is more updated and way better than XP and XP Professional. XP is no longer useful since Vista and the updates have came out. I am VERY happy with Vista Ultimate and love the way the operating system handles everything from the internet, games and Direct X 10.1 which will NOT work on XP since it is made for Vista and the newer video cards. I guarantee you with the new motherboards and 3-way SLI you NEED Vista Home Premium or better PERIOD. There is no arguing if the consumer takes the time to quit complaining and point the finger at themselves and keep upgraded, then they would NOT have these unecessary issues
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Also memory is cheap so there is no excuse not to have 3 GB of video, and the reason why dark41 is having those problems is you need to have the system properly cooled anyways. I have been using Vista for 6 months and play all the latest games. I have the 9800 GX2 and 3 GB of DDR3 system memory and my computer has NEVER EVER crashed once, nor anyone else I know. Point the finger at YOURSELF.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Ladies, and Gentlemen, I have been an IT consultant for over 25 ears, started with an ATARI 400 computer, and went through all versions of Commodore computers, and GEOS operating systems before moving to Intel processed machines. I have used CP/M, all versions of MS DOS, OS-2, and MS Windows, as well as several versions of Linux, and Unix. I have also used all versions of Apple operating systems since the Apple IIE. Each operating system has fully supported the Hardware that it was designed to run on, except MS Vista. Most of you using Vista right now, who are complaining about the sppe of your system are running one of the HOME flavors, which means that if you are running a dual core, or quad core processor, you are only using part of your processing capabilities (Vista Home will only see a SINGLE CORE). To get the full processing capability out of these multi-core processors, you will need Business, or Ultimate. Even then, you will be limited to 3GB of useable RAM, unless you upgrade to Vista 64bit Ultimate. The OS isn't bad, but it is purposely crippled by Microsoft to ensure that you will pay the $245. to upgrade to the Ultimate versions. The 32bit Ultimate runns all software that I have tried with very few tweeks, but the 64bit OS is more limited in running essentially 16bit software, and will not run 8bit software worth a damn. Linux is a good alternative for Business software, but isn't up to supporting Home entertainment and gaming, yet…..
Rex A. Clough
Harmony Computing, New Mexico.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
sorry, amigo. vista is garbage. it is the space holder until they get it right, again.
it is a 'win ME' dog/clone. i have 4 clients using the silly program. ONLY ONE has relatively few problems. reason? she uses it for ONLY homie stuff: email, recipes, photos, playing elvis cd's, games, etc.
the ones who were on quickbooks [WERE] have horrid problems, as the vista does not accept the 'regular' qb, but you must get the 'new' one [qv, 430 bucks].
other folks have already written in for the correction disk, meaning they went home to XP / PRO.
vista is for the salesmen. they get to sell the machines with lots of garbage, new 'upgrades' of the regular programs that SHOULD work but will NOT any longer, and upgrades for other peripherals.
so, change the name to vi$$$ta.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
errrr i still cant find where rob mentioned anything having a unix core…. but then again i do have a brail computer
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Silly question-why doesn't Microsoft build a new 'work' system based on the simplicity of 3.1? Surely with all the advances in hardware, this should be superfast and stable.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
After a year of using Windows Vista Home Premium 32bit I know I will not be going back to Windows XP SP2 even for a thousand bucks.
Too primitive and patchy for me. I love Vista's new features, and it is great to use if you disable a few things first.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I bought a new Dell Laptop with Vista. I could watch the web pages load for minutes at a time. I replaced Vista with Umbuntu which made my lapto;p speedy. I also bought a very speedy IMCAC. Anywone who says Vista does not suck has been bought and paid for by Microsoft. It sucks big time! You lie!
July 24th, 2008 at 12:32 am
I got Windows 2.0 bundled with my IBM. You're right VISTA is an improvement. I immediately removed it because it was so awkward that DOS seemed simple!! Actually I think history shows that Windows was made freeware when Xerox got out of the computer business. In those days, IBM was developing OS2.
The model T was an improvement over the horse and buggy (no pun). The big objection is that it is a memory hog and slow for the resources it takes to run it. But if it is so great why did Microsoft announce a new OS for 2009 and extend support for XP.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:38 am
I have used both Windows Vista 32 Bit and 64 Bit and I have to say the 64 Bit is alot faster. I had no issues of 32 bit software like you do with Windows XP 64 bit. You can't run certain 32 Bit Anti Virus software on Windows XP 64 Bit but you can on 64 Bit Vista. The only downside to vista is you need a good amount of memory if you wanna use all its new features. It runs wonderful on 1 gig or more.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:49 am
What are they smoking?
Vista Sucks Period. On a Brand new machine, Vista freezes and cannot get out of it for at least 5 minutes. I had the computer redone and installed XP and now runs better than that crappy Vista.
Microsoft Lost their brains when they brought out vista.
No wonder people want to hang Microsoft by the ying yang.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:07 am
The pc is a touchy,very hitech, extension gadgit. they are evolving as fast as the powers to be allow. The home pc could control the government if unleased to its potential. I started with formula translation at bama in 1973, enjoy the art forms that crust and call themselves programs from 1's and 0's digitalhaven53
July 24th, 2008 at 2:36 am
The concept of "old" keeps getting smaller and smaller. Why is a 2-3 yr. old computer too slow to run Vista? Before, we could go through at least 3 operating systems from what it was purchased with before having to buy a brand new system, or merely upgrade some RAM. Now I can't even buy the type of RAM from computer stores because it is obsolete in a couple years. My first computer was a PC Jr. from IBM in the 80's. Every type of data interface one could plug into that is now very obsolete. Catridges, floppies, etc. I'll admit that is old. 2-3 yrs is not old. Fairly certain my next upgrade will not have any version of Windows on it.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:46 am
A friend of mine purchased a new HP computer, dual core processor, 500gb hard drive, 3GB memory with Vista Premium. The system is extremely slow. It won't load Flash Player 9. She can't play videos.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:46 am
I have a machine with XP and one with Vista. My Vista machine crashed with the BSoD yesterday so no change there.It frequently fails to connect to my network unless rebooted and does not allow my XP machine to access it. IE on vista frquently says it cannot connect to a web site which my XP machine accesses without problem. Given the steady advance in software performance to which you allude in my opinion Vista is another ME. It sucks!
July 24th, 2008 at 2:52 am
I still have my same computer from 1992 with Windows 3.1, and I refuse to buy another one until this one gives out. So I have no idea what it's like to use any of the newer Windows versions on a regular basis. In my opinion Windows 3.1 rocks and is all anyone truly needs, people just like more bells & whistles, but 3.1 is easy and straight forward, it gets the job done, plain and simple.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:25 am
A good article once I knew where you were going.
Working and repairing many Windows systems in OZ I get to see and 'HEAR!'many customers experiences.
Vista is a great system for intermediate to advanced users. Don't recommend to beginners or novices or… if you have a PC with memory under 1 GB. Ready Boost doesn't make Vista chug that faster if you have small cache.
XP is a great system but you do have to do a complete re-install every couple of years to get it running sweetly.
You can save problems and stop getting viruses if you have a good firewall and don't visit sites that have rubbish attached. IE7 is as good as Firefox or Opera now with its Phishing and Anti popup technology.
Tip1: (IE users)If you don't want rubbish to sit in your Internet Temp Files and attract outside attention open IE browser > Tools > Internet Options > Advanced> scroll down to Security and check the 'empty Internet temp folder when browser shuts down'. This should save a few hassles.
Tip2: Don't get gadget happy with Spyware killers and Antivirus programs. Install a good firewall and one Antivirus program that you like. AVG is good for beginners, Avira or Avast is good for experienced; then leave it alone.
Tip3: Use Alt+F4 to close programs. Shutting with the X often opens little nasties that are attached to email downloads.
Tip4: Use a freeware program like Revo Uninstaller to remove your programs or go to to the system uninstaller in Control Panel. Registry gets chocker with broken files if you uninstall from within the program.
If you do all this then neither XP or Vista sucks.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Windows Vista DOES suck !
A year or so ago my laptop sporting XP decided to start wafting blue hazy stuff out of the air vents. I needed a new one fairly quickly just to keep me going. OK,so the new one only had Vista Home Basic on it….but what a nightmare.
It started of with the automatic update running. After several hours I had reached the magical figure of 12% downloaded. In the end I crashed it and did a one by one download of each available update manually. That only took just over 4 hours.
There was nothing wrong with the internet connection….that was working fine, so I guess it was just down to Vista.
Then I tried downloading some music from CDs into Media Player. A single CD would take 4-5 hours. On XP it takes 4 minutes)
And as for the graphics, well I'm one of the few who actually admit to playing the odd game of FreeCell. Quite intereting that the graphic reproduction was awful, with sound effects following about a second or slow behind graphics.
My list goes on. And look how long it took Windows Vista to get it together wih Java.
I'm not the only one round here who's had problems. My mate from the next village bought a Vista Home Premium machine recently. His modem/router was made by Sagem. His setup disk reported that it was only for use up and including XP. So we obtained a Sagem setup disk for Vista, which merely reported that it was exclusively for Vista, and that the computer did not have Vista installed. (but it wasa Vista machine!)
As for me, well I have replaced Vista with XP, and all is now extremely well. As far as I am concerned, it was an UPGRADE to XP from Vista. Even my old W98 machine, which by necessity is still in use, works better thn Vista.
Yes, Vista really does suck
Regards, Pete
July 24th, 2008 at 6:46 am
I have just bought a new cheap laptop with Vista pre-installed. After many years of using all flavours of Windows I cant honestly say I'm thrilled with Vista. It's slowwww and so intrusive that I cant see it lasting much longer on this machine. I've got the full memory the laptop will allow and the "permissions" switched off, but still I cant get to like it. It takes me ages to find things and where it stores half my "saves" I really dont know.
That's my small comment from a small time user. Roll on Win 7, 8, 9,…………….
July 24th, 2008 at 6:51 am
It is nice to know that you think Vista does not suck, but that is not my experience. They have put so many "safe guards" in Vista that it is a royal pain by continuously asking you essentially "Did you really want to do this?" And performance degradation seems to be its forte. My computer was built as a Vista computer and, thank heavens, was delivered first with XP while we waited for Vista. After I installed Vista, I could not believe how slowly the computer began to run. So finally, after paying my vendor to help me do this, I reinstalled XP, and now have a great running computer.
In the meantime I am learning Linux so that when MS forces us to go to Vista, I will simply bypass the pig and run as much as I can with Linux.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Then why are there hundreds of publications just for VISTA and/or articles just to use the thing?
Luckily, I still have Windows XP. All the Windows Programs that I've used I could at least use without that much difficulity.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:17 am
wow I AM STILL AHOCKED that people like XP! I always hated the biggest waste of an OS 2nd only to ME that microsoft ever released. most Vista issues seem to me to be user error i even run Diablo 1 and 2 ond ghost recon not 1 game i cant run and run better on Vista than i ran on XP the fact of the matter Microsoft did the best thing ever scrapping XP.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I have rolled out XP SP3 on a number of the Dell Laptops I have at work with no problems whatsoever.
As for Vista I tried Vista on my home PC. It probably wasn't quite up to the job spec-wise, but it was ok except my on-board sound card wouldn't work at all. despite downloading the vista drivers. And the system ran really slowly. it did however pick up my graphics card network card and every other thing attached. No problem with any software especially office 2003.
Vista doesn't suck It just needs a faster PC on which to run at the same speed as XP!!!
I have gone back to XP at home and XPSP3 at work.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Isn't it most logical and more relative to base this off of the previous OS? As in life there should be an upward progression with the latest and greatest. Since Vista is not better than XP how can anyone conclude that it does not suck? If you were to buy a stock Corvette with 400 HP(just an example) and the next year Chevy releases the same stock car with 300HP you would get the same argument. THE NEW VERSION SUCKS. If you never had never driven a corvette before you would probably like the 300HP just fine………….
July 24th, 2008 at 9:40 am
It's ridiculous to say that Windows Vista beats Windows 95. Windows 95 was completely revolutionary for it's time. Windows Vista is not. You need to put things into perspective.
I am a full time web programmer. My Vista taskbar is filled up with 30 applications at a time because I have to have so many tools for my job. I see first-hand each day how terrible Vista is. My computer is slower than a snail, I get crashes every hour and programs are always freezing up. These things never happened in XP.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I like the point I read in this thread that this is the same problem people had with upgrading from windows 98 to 2000. I remember people being the same way in saying that they had been using 98 forever and they weren't gonna upgrade, it supported their software/drivers, etc, but then somehow, XP came out with the same core, just matured software and driver support from Windows 2000, and everyone jumped on that. We're at that same point now, Vista is being supported more and more, and we're about a year away from the next version of Windows. I'm more excited about that than I was about XP when it came out.
For those who complain about UAC, you can turn it off. If you know anything about security, you'll notice how much safer Vista is. I mean, even something simple like File Sharing. The average Joe on Vista shares files with no password by default, and wide open to the world. That same person will have to learn that file sharing in Vista is password protected by default. Rather than having to actively try to be more secure, you have to actively try to be less secure. Makes sense to me.
I think the main problem people have is that the best way to experience Vista is on a new PC. If you upgraded/installed it, just like XP in the beginning, you probably aren't getting the best eXPerience. You're probably having the standard windows upgrade bugs and incompatibilities that have always happened with new versions of Windows.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Thanks for a great article and lively discussion…did I say informative? Oh, yes I am very informed by the diversity of opinion and the sprinkle of facts.
The audience is forthcoming and the opinions unequivable; the winner is ….(hold breath here…) ALL of us!
The market has spoken and reminds us once more that the market is a blind grasping thing, with no more real insight than a lawyer attempting to fashion a single law to rule every occasion and every circumstance. The real result is a proof that the law (here the evolved "product") is an ass, and always will be.
Enjoy!
July 24th, 2008 at 11:10 am
After reading the article, I saw no mention of the term 'Vista outclassed XP' or something similar, so am I right in saying that although Vista may not suck, XP still is better.
I like the GUI in Vista, yes I do… infact I have a Vista style theme on my computer, but I use XP. It is easy to learn and not frustrating. With XP it is about performance, Vista is about style. Unlike XP, Vista keeps asking if you want to do something. So although Vista may be good XP gives less stress to deal with.
I know alot of people say that because Vista asks if you want to confirm everytime a program or a file wants to make changes, that it is impenetrable to viruses… arrogance will soon prove you wrong… I remember hearing someone say that because XP's base code had been rewritten it would be hard to hack… they were wrong. It won't take long until someone manages to bypass the UAC and manages to exploit and lock you out… all they have to do is make it so everytime that message pops up, it stops you doing what you want… therefor making it no more secure…
July 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I owned a Dell 1530 with Vista for 2 weeks, the tech people could never get the mail program to work. It was suggested by a couple I try and independent program like Thunderbird as Vista still had some problems. I should hang in there until Microsoft comes out with it's first service pack. I am a person who likes to turn on my computer and use it.
I bought an Apple Macbook Pro, I love it, and I will never buy another PC again.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I'm a retired programmer/analyst/databse specialist, and have at one time or another used every version of DOS and Windows - except Vista. I currently use three PCs at home, the newest purchased with Vista Ultimate installed about 14 months ago. My experience with Vista was dismal - far worse than ANY other version of Windows. I replaced it with XP about three months ago and have had NO problems since. VISTA DOES SUCK and I will not run it now or ever - even if it means dumping all my equipment and software and switching to Macintoshes.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Vista is better than xp, it makes most hardware work in install. The real bug with Vista is UAC why do we have to have that, and if we turn it off an annoying icon and nags.
This should be for company IT men not for Joe public.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The point is not if Vista sucks or not. The point is that there are better OS.
And so many versions of the same OS can't be a good thing.
If you try MacOS for a while you will probably never get back to Vista.
And what is this article about anyway? You said that XP is better… So Vista is better than what? ME??
July 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Ernie Mink,
You have no clue what my systems have in them. My own is running a E8400@3.8GHz with after market air cooling and a customized Kandalf case with 5×120mm fans and a 90mm HDD fan. The CPU never gets above 50C and runs folding @ home 24/7 at 100%. It also has 4gigs of Crucial Ballistix Tracer 8500 with a Corsair Dominator. Cooling isn't the problem, Vista is the problem.
XP Pro never has a problem on this system. XP Pro consistently benchmarks faster than Vista. Vista has corrupted hard drives twice (where it won't install from the DVD nor get to the repair screens). The only solution is to change HDD.
Like I said, Vista works on some systems and doesn't work on others, even when they're set up identically. You've built 1 computer in the last 6 months? I build 1 almost every day.
Also less than 5% of the people in the world care to have the latest graphics cards in their systems, let alone tri-SLI. Talk about a waste of electricity. Personally I couldn't care less about DX10 or games that require it.
You've been using Vista on 1 system for 6 months. I've been using Vista on many systems for 20 months. But I'm sure you know more about my problems than I do.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
BTW, I've run all flavors of 32 bit Vista. They all work and don't work at the same rate. I have no intention of using 64 bit until software starts taking advantage of it.
I have yet to have a customer ask for a Vista system. Suits me fine as I don't care to be dealing with HDD and memory warranties for the next 3 years.
I don't think XP is perfect either, but it's proven much more stable and faster for us than Vista to this point.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Wow!!! guys come on i have been running vista for a year and a few months and yes as always. had a few problems well alot of them when it came out but i knew that there would be lots of bugs. XP had a lot of them too. but for a year now never ever had to reinstall vista never! so 1 you are creating your problems with vista or 2 you are just on the other side just bashing vista. xp to this day was a god sent. problem is it was the first true OS that kicked butt. but it also took a year or longer for the bugs. and by the way xp 64 blows! dont tell me it dont no driver support. vista is a great system by far . but IMHO they both are as good as each other . but vista gives me no crash in a year A+ xp A- only cause it did crash and the defrag sometimes didnt work. thanks and good luck with your OS
July 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
If I may offer my thoughts…the matter of XP vs Vista is soon to become a moot point as Microsoft is already forcing our hands. This is NOT a bad thing in that Vista is being patched, corrected and as stated "the bad gets fixed". I've run 64bit Vista Home Premium for over a year and have LOVED it! The first moment of truth? Not requiring a useless floppy drive ONLY for the one time use of installing RAID drivers…Vista can access CD, DVD, USB drives instead:). I have not had one driver, stability of performance issue as yet, can enjoy 4 gigs of RAM and a massive speed increase over XP (which I also admit to thinking very highly of). XP was and is a wonderful platform…but it is going to fade away.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I purchased a new desktop PC running Vista Home Premium in May 2007. Have had no real problem other than having to purchase a new printer (which I badly needed)as my old Lexmark X83 was not compatible with Vista.
I still have my previous (and first) PC purchased in 2000 operating on a network with the newer PC. This PC runs Windows ME and in the seven years I have owned I do not recall experiencing any serious problem nor a crash.
I cannot say that I prefer Vista to ME for my uses even though the PC with Vista has 2 GB of RAM whereas the older PC has only 512 MB of RAM. The only reasons I have for preferring the new computer over the old is a 22 in. LCD monitor and better speakers. Both perform well but must admit that the old PC w/ME does perform noticeably faster.
I should mention that the PC's described are the only PCs I have owned or are familiar with. I do no gaming but do work with photos (filing, cataloging, printing, slide shows, etc.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Most of the comments on this forum are based on a myopic view of the tech industry, Microsoft in particular. Microsoft is building a digital empire with a foundation of server and network management software at its core. Vista is simply the user portion of a much larger and complex digital management platform. Most of the comments are based purely on emotion and not reality.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Yes, unfortunately the demise of XP will play out as support for newer technology and software come into play.
For all of those that thing that Vista is hunkey-dory and that this is just hardware issues. Have ya tried configuring the OS?
I dont mean installing software/hardware and playing games. I mean build/share a network, integrate a HTPC, etc.. Its a friggin disaster.
I'm not talking about DRM (that was made to appease content providors, not the consumer and is just saving MS the headache they might have had later on, the fact that they sympothize with the concept of proprietary rights is just a bonus to thier philosophy).
It's the poorly impemented UAC. I've spent days backtracking and reading logs before to find that the UAC denied something to run without asking or letting me know. Ever have a windows media network sharing service error? Or any service error? They're all password protected with passwords randomly generated by the OS. Why would there be passwords on my PC that I can not find out?
I've had to delete DRM and system files on several occasions because of corruption for no apparent reason (no install or shutdown anomolies or eror logs to explain them..to be automatically rebuilt on reboot).
Why are there so many screens to go through and change settings for things like sharing, security, performance, networking..
When I make a change to my network, why do I need to do it in 3 separate places and 3 separate windows before it can take effect?
Poorly written and thought out, it can be fixed, but they need to understand whom they are fixing it for and why.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I completely agree with Vaughn !!!! SORRY ALL, BUT VISTA SUCKS and BLOWS AT THE SAME TIME!!! Z-Man
Vaughn Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I disagree. Vista is the absolute worst windows system EVER. Vista is the best advertisement for Mac available. Never again will I purchase Windows !
July 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
First of all, I am a computer tech.I have used and supported all Windows O/S's since 3.1. At that time Apple IIe's were the top of the line with their GUI. My opinion is that Vista is not ready to be released (even though it already has). I LOVED Windows 2000 Professional (there were no "Basic,Home,Buisiness or "Ultimate" versions) compared to all the earlier versions.
When XP came out, I knew that the Professional version was the best. I installed it and found out I could make it look like Windows 2000 with the classic view in "Themes".
There were a few driver issues… what else is new with a new O/S and new periferals? When I changed to classic view the perfomance increased. Then I looked into all of the other tweaks, thanks in part to PC Pitstop.
I downloaded Vista RC1 to test for Microsoft for 8 months. It was Vista Ultimate… and quess what? You can also go to clasic view in themes. It really sped things up. I know the security pop ups are annoying… (especially if you use some anti spy software that keeps popping up with your anti virus popping up)you can kill the Vista pop ups.
THE GOOD NEWS: From what I understand, Windows XP WILL be supported untill 2013. By then Vista will be straightened out by those doing the testing. What pisses me off is that Microsoft wouldn't give me a free copy of Vista Ultimate for testing and sending error reports to them. I won't work for them for free next time.
Advice: Stick with XP.
Run your PC Pitstop tests.
Find other tweaks on Google.
It is up to us to make our machines run well.
Stay way from Athalon and HP(Compaq).
64 Bit is the future (not to distant).
Microsoft is trying to compete with Linux and Apple. That is a big mistake. You are either Chevy/Ford/Studabaker or PC/MAC/BSD. I happen to like Windows and it is getting better all of time.
BOTTOM LINE: Make your O/S work the way you want it to. A computer is only as smart as the user.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Vista x64 Ultimate SP1.
OK I addmit its running on a big rig,
6400+ CPU,4gig ddr2 800,M2N-SLI deluxe,but the rigs grown with "Windows"over the years since
Win 95.BUT MAN IT ROCKS.The people that have moanded about Vista, and still do,would be better off using an Abbacus.Stick in NOD32,Spybot,and disable the frigging UAC.There are 4 comps in the house all running Vista,3 desktops and a laptop,wireless networked through a Belkin router,no probs.Yeah! Vista's a resource hog,so give it the resourses it needs,but if the heats too hot stay out of the kitchen.Apps and drivers WILL install if the "compatabilty" tab is used i.e Windows XP (Service Pack 2),I have a Creative Webcam Instant running on this machine,no Vista support is provided for that webcam,but if you know what you are doing,"Hey Presto".Windows,(any OS),is a filthy house keeper,so dust and hoover every now and again,i.e.Disc Cleanup,defrag,reg clean.Vista,s had its problems but so did XP.
XP was garbage up untill SP2.Vista's now got SP1,and guess what IT'S SORTED!
July 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I just want to say after reading this you also forgot about Windows 3.11 Which was ok but I bleieve that was there start in Netwroking.
but to me Vista stills cost too much for the little like me. Can't afford to get the good stuff of the better version of Vista as I have done a little research and found that there are different flavors of Vista too. So which one do you have?
July 24th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Sorry, but Vista is so bloated and not user friendly, it does suck. Can't get around it. I have not seen one redeeming feature in Vista my customers. I can get it to work for them after I've tweaked it and maxed out the memory, but it still sucks.
I've been using computers since the 70's.
Vista still sucks, though I will agree that Windows ME is the worst operating system in history. In order to have a crash free experience, you actually had to remove Internet Explorer.
Oh, UAC in Vista was put in place by Microsoft to irritate consumers so the consumers would force the software makers to make more secure software. So how come the UAC happens with all Microsoft products? Everyone email microsoft and insist they make their software more secure.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I am confused.
Microsoft uses its monopoly power to force a program on consumers that does not deliver what they want and you say somehow that this is okay because it is better than before?
I'm just a simple person. Vista has cost me hundreds of hours of time coping with their video drivers and "improvements". I shudder to think what it has cost hardware accessory providers such as Lexmark, Sony, and the likes.
Excuse me….I prefer to buy from companies that won't manipulate me or test out their product on my time…my next computer will be a Mac I think.
Do I admire them?….yes…Do I want them bankrupt?…..yes
July 24th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I started with DOS 1.0 on a Compaq portable sewing machine. Any thing compared to DOS prior to version 6 would not SUCK. But Vista, it compares to Windows ME, remember that product? Microsoft quickly abandoned it.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
…to come in Windows 8, which Microsoft has committed to a first public release of early 2011 [MSFT remains unclear if this will be first public RTM or first public BETA]. The inference - I sense - is aimed at XP stalwarts.
Microsoft's telling them, fine, your o/s won't be completely obsolete for another three years, but you better get used to more $$$ hardware to support the 3D-like audio / visual experience we programmed into Vista, because 8 will run on this $$$ hardware as a rock bottom requirement and may even expand upon it for 8.
Rob, I very much like your forecast and agree - Microsoft "forced" this hardware upgrade on Vista users in order to be prepared to buy our movies from Redmond instead of Netflix.
WMC (which is not WMP) made its debut in Vista for an important reason that's not immediately apparent to Vista noobs. DRM protection software is in both WMP and WMC. The difference is that you can run DVD's on WMP as always without being online; but you must be online to utilize the WMC when Microsoft starts using it to stream you