[Cheddarhead]

This is an edited post - seems I used too many uppercase letters in the original, which is like "yelling", I am told.
The vast majority of claims made in this piece by Jacobi - and many of the responses - stretch the bounds of reality. To me, it's irresponsible journalism. I think Mr. Jacobi ought to be at least a little ashamed, and PC World, too, for allowing this kind of diatribe to pass editorial muster.
I know of NO ONE (uppercase intended) who has the kinds of problems highlighted in these discussions. I'm running Vista on both a PC and a laptop. I haven't had any of the problems discussed here. No crashes; no loss of resources; no software issues; etc. In fariness, these are new, so-called Vista-ready PC's.

Also in fairness, I did have a driver issue with a Dell A-920 All-in-One printer... scanner wouldn't work. Took Dell about 60 days to make it work right, but work right it did. And yes, I did have to update several programs, ALL at no cost.

Vista may not be a Lexus, but it's a LOT better than these discussions would attempt to lead us to believe. I like it - works GREAT for me, and everyone I know who has installed it - on "new" PC's, yes.
Message was edited by: Cheddarhead
Message was edited by: Cheddarhead

[XweAponX]

"And I wish people would stop trying to suggest that it's some media conspiracy to dislike Vista..."

Exactly. Vista sucks for 100 percent of my clients. If a thing sucks, no conspiracy is required.

People who actually want to PUT UP with the inconvenionces of vista... Are IDIOTS.

Also... I agree with what Jacobi said about the ASIO drivers- The SAME THING happened to me.

Vista is incompatible with the world in general.

[rgreen4]

I am visiting good friends over Christmas, and their grandson who is living with them received a new e-Machines computer for Christmas (along with a puppy). Granddad and I set up his machine yesterday. It tooks us slightly more than an hour to clean off the garbage, install a wireless network adapter, download the drivers for it, attach an older Dell AIO printer and download its drivers. Everything works well, the printer and wireless adapters are several years old, and the machine only has 1GB of memory.

We also installed Avast anti-virus and Superantispyware on it. So much for the theory that Vista won't run decently in less than 2GB. I'm sitting here on my laptop with Vista and 2GB and when I open task manager it reports 73 processes and I'm using only 35% of my available memory. And by the way, Granddad installed Vista on his machine several months back (it had been XP) and has had no problems and loves it. In fact he was wondering what all the fuss about Vista was about.

I find it interesting that most who slam Vista have not used it for any length of time, in fact one said it was on his machine for 45 minutes, which means he never really gave it a try. His choice, but then when he slams Vista, he does it without knowing what it is really like first hand. I have used it now for 8 months and would not even consider going back to XP.

[Jackie40d]

Most of the people getting it were the ones whom ordered it on CD / DVD and then tried to install it and right out of the box . . haha it was a major pain . . you got one which was put together for it and installed OEM . . Lots of difference there . . I got one which had it on it and looked at ir for 20 seconds long enought to push the DVD open button and insert a DVD of Linux Mandriva 2007 i586 and shut off the computer and re start it so . . I really did not try it out and since I have seen the computers which it did not go right on I was not going to play around with it . . Being that Linux Madriva 2007 DVD i586 was much more stable and found EVERYTHING on the laptop and I put Code Weavers Pro on it so I could load some of the MS stuff like Quicken and load my files into it . . Will shortly add VMware-player and VMware-server and then add Win 2K just so I can run some stuff which did not have Linux Drivers yet like my Verizon USB port Broad Band Modem . . and some of my Movie making stuff like Pinnacle Studio 9.0c and the ADS Tech DVD express and the movie converter to put stuff on YouTube The rest has stuff already in Linuix that will do the job . . Actually there is a program like quicken in Linux I have not checked to see if it would inport the quicken data yet . . Would be nice if it did . . I got stuff going back for years on CD and disk . .

[Cheddarhead]

Thanks for the positive comment! It's kind of lonely out here in this discussion for those of us who like - make that enjoy - Vista? OOPS! Did I say enjoy Vista? Yes... I said enjoy...

[apatz]

I was one of the early responders to this thread and just wanted to reiterate that I enjoyed my time with Vista. I liked the interface, the widgets that could be put on the desktop to give me "at a glance" my computers status. My biggest (and only) issue with Vista was software support. I am the Director of Technical Publications for an airline. We have no choice about the software we use for writing technical documents. This affects not only us but every other major organizations software usage. If Vista supported the software that I have to use on a day-to-day business to run our airline I'd be using it exclusively. This includes the latest releases of most of the Adobe software products including Acrobat 8.0 and Framemaker 8.0.

What seems to work with Vista well are Microsoft products. Unfortunately the absolute worst software to use for creating "book type" documents is a Microsoft Product like Word. The "Master Document" feature in Word is the biggest piece of software junk ever created. Having used Microsoft Word since pre-Windows days I'm fully qualified to make that brass and bold statement.

[Jackie40d]

Welcome to the group . . Of us whom have very little good to say about "VISTA" and its Problems with software and hardware . . My Computer is now fully 64 bit and 128 bit dual memory and really fast . . and will be faster when the PCIe 16X 512 GDDR video card arrives ( just doubling my video card ram )

But I will not add "VISTA" to it over my dead body . . Not even inside of Linux do I trust it . . I might add XP Pro after M$ gets off their bottom and gets the SP 3 out before that I wil only put Win 2K in there ( inside of Linux using VMware-server and VMware-player ) things go so much easier inside of Linux its not funny no more "B.S.O.D." and this code which says ask your adminsitrator about this screen and some cdrt4.sys or Inf file is not working or lost . .

YOU NEVER see them in Linux . . I wonder WHY ? maybe its because of the better made O/S

[rgreen4]

You saw people take the Vista DVD and attempt an upgrade over XP and have trouble. Well, the people who took the XP CD and attempted an upgrade over Win98 also had similar problems as did those who popped the Win95 disk in and did an upgrade over Win3.1.

Anyone who read anything other than the newpaper or listened to the watercooler scuttlebutt info about upgrading, knows that an upgrade is only really successful with a clean install. Yes, its more work, but I learned a long time ago, that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

My laptop came with Vista, my newest desktop is a built by owner machine and has the OEM version of Vista installed by me. My Media Center PC came with XP MCE and has the HP supplied OEM upgrade to Vista. I installed Vista on my older laptop and although eveything worked (unlike when I installed Ubuntu 7.10 on it), the video was installed as a generic card (no drivers for the ATI 9100 mobile GPU) and I did not like the 800x600 resolutions, so I went back to XP.

The item on the laptop that did now work, but is critical to laptops is the wireless adapter - apparently Linux does not/will not/can not support Broadcom wireless devices (according the the Linux forum).

Microsoft provided a very good tool that could be downloaded and scan the machine to see what problems would come up with installing Vista and suggested ways to correct it. (It suggested I replace the video card, which unfortunately is not possible on a laptop. If people would have just used the Vista upgrade advisor, I'm sure their experience would have been better.

You described all the workarounds you have had to go through to get Ubuntu to work, and that just makes my point. Vista just works, and if you has spent half the time working with Vista that you have spent trying to make Ubuntu work for you, you would probably been happy with Vista. When a device does not work with Vista, some blame Microsoft, but when that same device does not work with Ubuntu, then they say - well it's open source and what can you expect. I for one expect an operating system that is touted as a functional OS, open source or not, to work with one of the most widely used wireless devices in computing. Not only does it not support Broadcom, the forum documented troubles with Linksys Routers and wireless adapters.

[rkinne01]

So you're saying that Linux has no problems? Zero? None? I just ran a Google search (problems with Linux). Would you like to modify that statement or should I just post what I found right now?

[InspectorGadget]

I have "Dual Booted" between Vista and XP for over 5 months now and I have not noticed and problems. I actually have it so XP boots first. I do regret buying Vista, for the reasons you state and more. I have an ATI video Capture card that does not capture video in Vista, and the list goes on. Until Microsoft corrects (for free) the problems with Vista, I am going to stay with the dual boot.

[rgreen4]

Your problem is with ATI, not Microsoft, as ATI is responsible for drivers. If ATI chooses not to develop drivers for a device to work with Vista as they have done with the ATI 9100 Mobile card in my older HP laptop, that is not the fault of Vista. That's the way it has always been, it was the case with DOS, and all versions of Windows since 1.0.

[JimmyDahGeek]

>> apparently Linux does not/will not/can not support Broadcom wireless devices...



Please don't post information that you don't know anything about. Linux DOES work with Broadcom wireless devices. I know because I'm using one right now.

http://ubuntuforums....920&mode=linear

[XweAponX]

Hey Chowderhead:

Chowderhead said:

The vast majority of claims made in this piece by Jacobi - and many of the responses - stretch the bounds of reality. To me, it's irresponsible journalism. I think Mr. Jacobi ought to be at least a little ashamed, and PC World, too, for allowing this kind of diatribe to pass editorial muster.
I know of NO ONE (uppercase intended) who has the kinds of problems highlighted in these discussions. I'm running Vista on both a PC and a laptop. I haven't had any of the problems discussed here. No crashes; no loss of resources; no software issues; etc. In fairness, these are new, so-called Vista-ready PC's.

1) Regarding Jacobi's "Diatribe" instead we have a fresh statement of fact rather than any so called diatribe.


2) You DO know of a person who has had the kinds of problems highlighted in these discussions: ME


"Me" represents 100 plus businesses in San Diego each with at least 5 Workstations connected to Windows 2003 Server.


And ALL of my clients have tried Vista and rejected it. 100 percent of them, not just a few of them, not most of them, but ALL of them, they inundated my house and cell phones with calls until I returned and deleted Vistpoop from their workstations and reinstalled XP Pro.


I am not happy with Vistcrud - NOT Happy.



So not you know 500 + 1 people who have had ALL of the problems with Vista discussed here in this ah er, "Diatribe"






Kudos to Jacobi to spit in the face of the Microsoft SHILLS


Vista is the Millennium Edition of 2007 and needs to be pulled from the market IMMEDIATELY,


All caps intended, I only "yell" for emphasis.

Also, there is no quantification required for us to say, that basically, Vista SUCKS. We are the users of it, the OS needs to meet OUR needs.

Vista does not meet OUR needs, WE "meet" Vistas needs. This is not good design. Vista does not allow alterations in what is basically LOW functionality.

Therefore, Jacobi can post any diatribes he wishes and it is more valid than any properly formatted document from 1,000,000 Microsoft Employees (if they have that many employees).

We do not have to go into WHY Vist is not just BAD, But VERY bad, but even the people here, that are stating there praise of it, know deep down, that the day Vista was released was a DIM day for computing indeed!

I do not want an OS that uses the type of programs available to "Windows Live" - And this is the direction VistPooPoo and MicroPoo Office 2007 is trying to herd us into accepting... Well, I REJECT this kind of programming will 100% of my soul, which I will NOT sell to Microsoft.

Any OS I use WILL Be fully functional and I will be allowed to search ALL the folders on my hard drive. And I will have FULL control over the WHOLE operating system- Not just part of it... And I do NOT need "Data Execution Prevention" and other technologies to Prevent me from exercising my GOD given right to install and run Viruses (if I so choose)

But speaking of Viruses, the most insidious, is Vista itself.

"A VERY happy user of Windows XP Pro and MCE and all MacOS Operating Systems"



Edited by MPHEnterprises - No Personal Attacks and Watch Your Language

[rodent042]

Hmmmm... Double-standards, anyone?

"The item on the laptop that did now work, but is critical to laptops is the wireless adapter - apparently Linux does not/will not/can not support Broadcom wireless devices (according the the Linux forum)."

"Microsoft provided a very good tool that could be downloaded and scan the machine to see what problems would come up with installing Vista and suggested ways to correct it. (It suggested I replace the video card, which unfortunately is not possible on a laptop. If people would have just used the Vista upgrade advisor, I'm sure their experience would have been better."

A. The Broadcom statement is completely false. How many years old was that forum?!

B. Had you looked at http://www.linux-drivers.org/ you would have known what hardware was supported and I'm sure your experience would have been better.


In another post:

"Your problem is with ATI, not Microsoft, as ATI is responsible for drivers. If ATI chooses not to develop drivers for a device to work with Vista as they have done with the ATI 9100 Mobile card in my older HP laptop, that is not the fault of Vista. That's the way it has always been, it was the case with DOS, and all versions of Windows since 1.0. "

And why don't you have this same attitude regarding your network adapter and linux (if you were even correct about Broadcom)? Fact is, plenty of companies support both and the numbers grow every day. The nice folks who code linux even manage to make many chipsets work without direct support from some companies.



"vista just works"

Tell that to countless businesses globally that would have to upgrade billions of dollars worth of equipment in order to upgrade to Vista. Tell it to the countless network admins who refuse to install it on any mission critical hardware until SP2 because its too buggy for them to risk their jobs over (Google is your friend). Also, I'm sorry but I should not need to double my memory and add a new video card, scanner, printer or (insert incompatible item here) to install a (paid for, mind you) beta copy of an operating system every few years. I've had my fill of that b.s. with Microsoft AND slacker hardware manufacturers. 3rd Party aside, where is the backward compatibility that you would expect from such a cutting edge company? I'm not talking back to 3.1 but come on! XP driver support maybe? Please spare me the "cutting edge companies don't look back" speech too. Hardware Compatibility Layer? hmmmm? Your OEM versions worked just fine? No offense, but the hardest part of an OEM install is typing in the CD key. If they didn't work on equipment that they were completely tested on I'd be more than a bit worried ;)

That said, I don't have any pure hatred toward Windows as you and others seem to have against anyone who doesn't agree with you. I have seen this schoolyard brawling with every release. I've read "I'm not having problems with Windows XX so obviously you're an idiot" a thousand times and it never looks any more intelligent than the last. They'll eventually get the bugs worked out in a service pack or two and companies will eventually (albeit many reluctantly) upgrade out of necessity due to the support cycle. Then in a couple of years we can all meet back here and have another argument about the next Microsoft release.

[TheWitness]

Well, I now have two computers running Vista and "played" with both a bit. Here are my "comments":
# The user interface, although not on par with Ubuntu's neat addon, is ok.
# I kind of "hate" the new Task Scheduler. Some of those things should just be hidden from a user.
# The new Event log UI is way to complicated.
# I LIKE the performance monitor add on. That was Ok.
# The shadow copy thingy, is going to cause more headaches with users and their worn out hard drives and is a total looser IMHO
# The disk optimization addon to speed application performance (don't know what it is called). Didn't we reject that in Win98? I also think that hard disks are much faster now. Maybe it optimizes which DLL's get swapped out (aka pinned or not pinned) now instead of just moving binaries around.
# I absolutely LOATHE the warning at every system administrators action. Who's bright idea was that? Where is the off switch?
# I sort of like the new freecell. Nice big cards and some interesting sound effects. However, with the unlimited undo, I never loose now:|
# Why are my two HP Pavilions with dual core and 2gbytes of RAM so much slower than my old 486 with 512MBytes of RAM?


If I were Microsoft, I would spend the next two or three years at pulling the crap from the code. Maybe do like the bios people do. Have a "rabbit" to make your system as fast as possible and a "tortoise", with all the unneccessary feature bloat. Then give us the option of moving select features over to our "current configuration" Instead of a list view, have all features prefixed with a little "rabbit" or "tortoise" icon to make it easy for us.

Then, on the Microsoft development side, for every feature a developer (rather development legal entity) moves to the "rabbit" column, they (the entire legal entity) get a promotion.

Regards,

TheWitness

[rgreen4]

I state facts as I know them. I installed Ubuntu 7.10 on my HP zv5330us laptop because it could not be upgraded to Vista, and I wanted to give Ubuntu a try. I kept reading posts stating that Ubuntu was easy to install and setup and worked with everything. My experience with Ubuntu was to be kind dissappointing and is documented in other discussions on this forum. I spent 3 hours trying to connect and setup my laptop with built in wireless to my wireless router, a task that takes 5 minutes or so with XP or Vista. I kept thinking it was something I was doing, but then I made this post and only go one response.

Incidently, when I went back to find this post and it's one response, which may have been incorrect, in my search it turned up 50 plus pages of posts on the Linux forum (all flavors) of problems with wireless connections.

I then tried Ubuntu on my desktop and although could connect to the internet, had other problems. I decided my time was too valuable, removed Ubuntu from both machines, reverted the laptop to XP, reformated the Ubuntu drive in my desktop and rebooted Vista - it works. The large number of postings on the Linux forum when taken in context of the small installed base have convinced me that it may work for someone who has a lot of time to kill fighting an OS, but not I.

In the future, I will state that Linux has problems working with broadcom wireless chips but that an involved workaround is available. I can only state facts as I know them at the time.

[rgreen4]

I will admit to a bit of double standard, although I still stand on my statement. His ATI video capture device does work with Windows, just not Vista at this point. Windows and hardware manufactures have had agreements for almost two decades that Windows would have generic drivers so that the hardware would work in a base mode. Thus, when I installed Vista on my old laptop, without specific ATI drivers, Vista installed generic drivers and the screen worked, but in 800x600 mode.

That is distinctly different than an OS, granted open source which means it gets support when the supporters feel like it, which is touted as working with everything does not work with a wireless connection on a laptop, which today is critical to the basic function of the laptop. As I have already conceeded the information I received was faulty, however, it does not change the fact as evidenced from the Linux forum that the device support is spotty and difficult to setup.

One does not have to install 2GB of memory for Vista to work if you install a clean copy, and do away with many of the resource robbing add-ons that come on many installed machines, expecially the ALL IN ONE SECURITY SUITES from Symantec and McAfee.

I just helped a good friend set up his grandson's Christmas present - a new eMachines desktop with 1GB of memory and Vista. I runs fine, plays the games he wants and has not given any problems - it just works. We spent more time downloading drivers for a USB wireless device so he could connect to his grandfathers network than we did setting up the network.

Many business applications and games use direct video calls and that is a bad habit left over from DOS. Microsoft has been warning for decades they would cut off that path and told all programmers to go through the kernel for security purposes, and they were ignored. In Vista, that path is closed and that caused most of the problems. That path has been closed forever in Mac OS and probably in Linux as well.

[RedRat]

All of these comments regarding Vista, XP, Linux, Apple, etc all are quite different. Your choice of operating system is going to be dependent on exactly what you want to do with your machine. Frankly, if all you are going to do is surf the net, look at a few pretty pictures, maybe download a few tunes, and do email, any OS will pretty much do it for you. If you play computer games then XP and Vista will probably have to be your choice. If you do graphic arts (photos, video, etc) you probably might want to look at Apple.


Also, your level of computer expertise will play a very important part in your decision. If you don't know how to turn the machine on or don't have a clue as to how run a program, you probably are a candidate for a Mac. If you have been around computers for a while and need business applications or home office support, then Microsoft and its OSs are for you.

If you are comfortable with playing with your operating system and you want a stable system then you a Linux person. While Linux has come a very long way since the early Red Hat days of 15 years ago, it does require a bit of knowledge and willingness to get your hands dirty. It is not a simple install as with Windows. I do give Microsoft credit for making Windows installation pretty straightforward. Linux is getting there, but has not yet arrived at the Windows stage of installation. Macs come with the OS already installed most Mac users stick with what came on the machine.

I have Linux on one machine and will soon build another newer machine which will have Linux on it. I have an XP machine and two Vista machines. They all work well for what I want to do on them. What all of this comes down to is where do you want to go and how do you want to get there. Linux is stable, secure, fast on minimal hardware, and does not have demanding resources. However, applications for some things are limited and their interfaces are not terribly intuitive or well thought out--basically many apps seem slapped together with hardly a thought for the inexperienced user. Windows offers a plethora of applications of all types and their interfaces are pretty straightforward and less complicated. So it really is up to the individual to decide what OS is for them

[rodent042]

There is nothing spotty about ubuntu's support. You didn't go to their forum, did you? You went to a general linux forum and got an answer from 1 person who knew as much as you and was in the same boat as you. Wow, you sure did give it the old "College try"! Was ubuntu's support down? Did it just not dawn on you to check with the people that put the project together?

"(open source)...which is touted as working with everything..."

Where did THIS gem of misinformation come from? You are really reaching now, my friend.

I still stand on my statement. Broadcom is supported and works fine. I don't even care that you didn't try. I don't care if you or anyone else ever uses linux. You should all use what works best for you and meets your needs. I use Win 2K, XP, debian and knoppix liveCD because all have different qualities which I desire and sometimes need in my line of work. I do, however, care that you and others like you spread lies, ignorance and unwarranted bias on subjects that you really know nothing about.

What amazes me even more is that you downloaded a free OS and had a small problem that you didn't even bother to try and remedy through THEIR support and you feel obligated to bash it... yet , after spending money on Vista, if Microsoft released an HCL driver patch that required you to waste 2 days backing up everything you have, completely reinstall Vista, flash your bios, shake a voodoo chicken over your screen, your printer/scanner would no longer be supported and the patch meant that none of your graphical apps from XP would work any longer you'd do it in 1/2 a heartbeat and still praise them. Let me play Sigmund Freud here a moment... Vy do you and ozzers feel zis uncontrrrrrollable urge to defend zis company? Did your Fazzer not hug you ven you vere young? (Hey, its a joke. Laugh a little!)
"it does not change the fact as evidenced from the Linux forum that the device support is spotty and difficult to setup."
You appear to be an educated fellow. How can you even write this when you, yourself, claim it is the job of the manufacturer to provide drivers and expect to be taken seriously? Do you count your misinformed post and the incorrect reply in your evidence? How many others on that forum are just outright incorrect because people gave it 1/2 a try? How about a quick Google search for "problems with vista" which brings back over 6 million hits. I guess they all imagined their problems? I'm sorry but Double standards don't fly with me and those that have them will twist the facts however they feel necessary to show that they are right.

ALL operating systems have flaws, including Vista. To deny that simple fact is to shine down one's brilliant ignorance upon the world. I reiterate, simply because you didn't have a problem with an OEM upgrade does not mean that problems do not exist. And, again, if I bought a pre-packaged system with Vista installed I would expect it to work out of the box. OEM is not the same thing as attempting to upgrade your system (which, incidentally, is what this article was about)

[Pikachu]

This is really not in response to anyone in particular, but I am really enjoying this heated debate! Whenever I get a mail-alert saying there's a new post I drop everything (well, almost) to go see what's new. And I thought I had strong feelings on the subject (post 118) but whoa! nothing like some some of youse guys...Some of the reasons I enjoy it so much is that almost everybody knows what they're talking about, seem fairly to very intelligent, can convey their thoughts and opinions, and some posts are so funny (I mean this in a good way) I laugh out loud in my solitude.
Be well, y'all, and keep 'em coming!
Message was edited by: Pikachus mother