[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Microsoft: Don't Misunderstand UAC, Other Vista Features here

[mathion]

One wonders, with all of the 'misunderstandings' Vista has generated with people, whether Microsoft would be best served by pushing it, or hyping XP's SP3, withdrawing the kill date for it and letting end users continue to install it (and OEM's to offer it) until at least after the release of Windows 7. XP didn't have this much trouble a year and a half after its release. It was clearly superior to Win 98. The clarity of superiority of Vista to XP is utterly missing insofar as speed, productivity, implementation and hardware costs go. We won't even talk about DRM's or other under the hood things that allows MS to turn you off like a light switch in Vista. People who understand the issues clearly don't want Vista as much as XP. And if Microsoft insists on forcing XP on us, I expect more and more users will turn to Linux. At least with Linux, you expect different - and it costs a lot less. If we can't have XP, we'll take something less expensive and with fewer issues.

[mpheadley]

Ultimately I think Vista is going to be if not already the next Windows ME. Who do you know still uses ME?!

[rgeiken]

For a home user, getting rid of UAC makes your computer work just like XP except being able to get a gadget column that provides some useful applications. I have had Vista for about 9 months, and recently it is has been smooth as silk. I don't pine for XP myself. Vista has had it's learning curve, but at the moment, it seems to be ready for prime time. I can't imagine that Microsoft expected any home user to continue to have UAC running on their computer. I found out to disable it and all references to it many months ago. I have AVG anti virus and Zone Alarm Firewall, and my computer seems to be very secure since I haven't had a virus since I got my vista computer. A good ISP that will screen out viruses is also a plus.

[RNR19952]

Vista = ME

[voyagerfan5761]

I third the Vista = ME statements. I have never seen any computer running ME. Actually, I have. Once. I think it was in an Internet cafe (shows how much they knew).
@mathion: Amen! Though I think you meant "forcing Vista on us," not XP. ;-)

[piyushsingh]

mpheadley said:

Ultimately I think Vista is going to be if not already the next Windows ME. Who do you know still uses ME?!

OMG , how can you compare vista with ME. rofl

[RNR19952]

Because of the customer experience
Some people like Vista, to me it offers nothing over XP, except for shadow copies. Windows ME was the same response, bad user experience with no added value. I have worked on two machines that ran Vista smoothly, a handful of ME machines ran smoothly too. Most people either went back to 2000 or 98.

[ImaPhake]

Actually, comparing Windows Vista with Windows ME is an insult.

An insult to Windows ME, that is.

[RNR19952]

ROFLMAO

Ouch!

[Tech4me]

[~47126] .....(Because of the customer experience) You are right.....depend on who you ask......for instance.:

If you ask a guy in the Jungle (Who is on the horse on the time) to compare with a Lexus.....? Of course He 'll pick the horse in the flash.....Rest my case.

[piyushsingh]

ImaPhake said:

Actually, comparing Windows Vista with Windows ME is an insult.

An insult to Windows ME, that is.

And if that is true , then you will say that all those who have paid for vista an are using it, are noobs who dont know anything about computers ?????

[ImaPhake]

Just consider yourself lucky -- that's your answer.

As is true with everything else, there will always be people who don't have any problems. Just because your computer runs fine with Vista doesn't mean everyone else will have the same experience. After a year-and-a-half since the release of Vista and people still having major issues with it should tell you something here.

Other than that, my congratulations to you for not doing anything to cause your OS any distress. Everyone should be so kind.

[RNR19952]

Anyone would, as the horse is more suited for the jungle?
Where would you drive a Lexus in the jungle? Bad analogy?
Most of the people who have Vista that I have spoken to, just do not like it.
It is slow, clunky and locks up more than XP. There is no ROI in upgrading someone's network. It's a hard sell, try to tell a customer if he wants to run Vista, he must spend about $1500.00 per PC just for that privilege, when he can get a smoking XP box for half that. There is no added value. I have been looking for some, it is just not there.....

[bdg2]

In my opinion Windows ME really wasn't too bad.

[phalco]

Oh, roosterpoop! I turned off UAC and haven't had a problem since. If you like XP fine, but please stop with the anti-Vista rhetoric- it's here- handle up on it! After all there will be no cheese with that whine.

[piyushsingh]

ImaPhake said:

Just consider yourself lucky -- that's your answer.

As is true with everything else, there will always be people who don't have any problems. Just because your computer runs fine with Vista doesn't mean everyone else will have the same experience. After a year-and-a-half since the release of Vista and people still having major issues with it should tell you something here.


Other than that, my congratulations to you for not doing anything to cause your OS any distress. Everyone should be so kind.

lucky !!!!!!!!!
Are there no people who have problems with Xp? There are so many on this forum who are happy with vista. Are they also just lucky ?

[rgreen4]

Phalco - welcome to the PC World Community. You hit the nail on the head, whiners they are. About a half dozen of them over and over on thread after thread. After a while you just tend to ignore them for the never ever post anything new.

In the early days of Vista, shortly after the release, it started and had some credence, until many more people noticed their antics and asked what it the world they were talking about. At first their complaint was that Vista booted too slow. Then when several posts pointed out their Vista machines booted as fast or faster than their XP machines, they claimed it was because the Vista machine had more computing power than the older, slower XP machine. When built my new machine, I installed Vista on one Drive and XP on the second, both clean installations. The fastest booting machine I have is that machine on Vista. It beats the XP boot times by 3-5 seconds, with exactly the same hardware.

RNR19952 - going from Windows 2000 Pro to ME makes about as much sense as going from Windows NT 4 to Windows 95. It would be going from the professional full featured Windows to the less powerful, you should know that. In that case there would be no need to "revert" back to W2K from ME. As for trying to compare Vista to ME, ME was not an NT based system, was the end of that development line of Windows, and never had the installed base that Vista has.

Railing against some of the changes in Vista from XP that you don't like and then saying that when Windows 7 comes out it will be better, totally ignores MS history. They have never gone back. Most of the problems with programs running in Vista are directly releated to developers ignoring what MS had been telling them for over a decade about their short cuts. They got in this habit in the days of DOS and never stopped. In one respect this is one area where Apple was able to do a better job by throwing the old system totally out the door. When they came up with the Mac OS, they were unconcerned with compatibility with the older programs. MS tried to maintain a compatibility with the old DOS system, and finally Vista is bringing an end to that.

I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to urge the release of Windows 7, for with it will come a new file format, one that was actually supposed to be in Vista, but pulled. I am looking forward to those who lamented the passing of 98 and railed against XP in 2001, only to lament the passing of XP and railing against Vista in 2007, to be lamenting the passing of Vista and railing against Win7 in 2010. If it won't run in Vista, it won't run in Win7 either. That horse is out of the barn.

[RNR19952]

RNR19952 - going from Windows 2000 Pro to ME makes about as much sense as going from Windows NT 4 to Windows 95. It would be going from the professional full featured Windows to the less powerful, you should know that. In that case there would be no need to "revert" back to W2K from ME. As for trying to compare Vista to ME, ME was not an NT based system, was the end of that development line of Windows, and never had the installed base that Vista has.

Most people either went back to 2000 or 98

Me was released after 2000, you could not upgrade from ME to 2000 So technically it is back...
No one in their right mind would go to ME after 2000?
And I am very aware that the ME was a 9x codebase while 2000 was NT5, XP is NT5.1. Vista is a failure, and most people in the industry agree with that anology, including Bill Gates or he would not be talking up Windows 7 already

[rgreen4]

Going from a 9x based OS to an NT based OS, would be considered an upgrade. You can only go "back" if you came from there in the first place. You might consider going from ME to W2K a downgrade since Win2K was out few months earlier, but you would be in the distinct minority to consider it a "downgrade".
As for Vista and ME being the same as far as the market acceptance is concerned, Vista sold more copies in the first several months than ME did in it's entire lifespan.

RNR19952 said:

Vista is a failure, and most people in the industry agree with that anology, including Bill Gates or he would not be talking up Windows 7 already

On that criteria, then XP is a failure, since MS and BIll Gates started talking up the next OS version (now called Vista) before XP SP1 was released. Hmm. Similar timeframe again.