PC World Forums: Using Vista Instead of XP Is Dumb - PC World Forums

Post your comments for Using Vista Instead of XP Is Dumb here

The article is totally misleading . I m surprised how this can come here. There isnt a single bad thing about vista discussed here , all it says is that its bad coz its bad. LOL

I in fact have vista and I like it alot better then XP. it preforms just as good as XP for me and it looks much cooler. The only reason anyone would not like vista is if they had a sucky system. Does anyone remember when a new OS came out people were shocked at how much memory it needed.

What the hell were you doing for it to take you "16 lousy months from when it was first released to get Vista to run decently". I mean .. come on what kind of tuning takes 16 months?

There is a reason why Microsoft controls the OS market share and the browser market share. PEOPLE BUY THEIR PRODUCTS. You can dis Microsoft as much as you want, but in the end microsoft has the highest precent of the OS market.
Message was edited by: kellie -- no personal attacks, please

new61,
I totally agree.
I'm sick of PC World giving Vista bad press. Okay, it isn't a MAJOR MAJOR upgrade, but I got it preinstalled on my lappy and it works perfectly fine. All he says is "Vista stinks." Lousy argument, illogical reasoning - no factual evidence to back up the crap. I AM DISAPPOINTED, PC WORLD!!!!!!!!!!

PC world isn't the only place giving the virtual bird to Vista, and while this article isn't illuminating, it does bring up an interesting point. If Microsoft want to remain relevant, they have to stop treating their customers like scum. Forcing them to upgrade to a product that is highly unpopular is a market share killing mistake. A typical home user just wants to surf the web, print some photos and write a letter and other such simple tasks their old machine will work fine. Why should they be forced to upgrade their computer for a pretty picture upgrade to an operating system.

Whoa. Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that Vista is not flawless.A lot has to do with third-party compatibility issues--and you correctly pointed out, or at least insinuated, due to the faults of these vendors. Sure, MS should take some of the blame for jumping the gun, but Vista is not as horrible as your unsubstantiated rant seems to imply. The fact that it takes YOU 16 months to accomplish what someone like me (with computer experience as a consumer) could to in a few weeks (despite your obvious pride in boasting your 'computer' experience "since CP/M-80" ) speaks not too kindly the kind of 'expertise' PCWORLD purports to have on staff. One wonders how long it took you to get DOS to work with ALL your hardware.
This really begs the question: Dumb or Dumber?

@avd444, I totally agree. lol
@poglatg, MS is not forcing people to upgrade to XP. Heck, I'm typing this in XP. I have another laptop that's running Vista Basic & I have not had any problems with it - even with driver issues. The point is, people who are currently running XP aren't forced to do anything.

Maybe I wasn't clear on my point tech geek (ds tech geek, what you are only a geek in Nintendo ;) ). People using XP currently are'nt forced to do anything, true. Hell I still have an Amiga 500 at home, so I'm using a 20 odd year old operating system, I have a VCR in my room, and still occationally watch videos. When I say Microsoft is forcing people to upgrade, I mean it as much as you won't be able to purchase a shiny new copy of XP in a store, unless you go to a specific vendor, you won't be able to pick up a new computer with XP. In that way Microsoft are forcing people to upgrade. This may not be a bad thing per se, and is often a business model adopted by companies inside and outside of the ICT industry, but in this case I see it as a shot squarely aimed at their own foot.

As I mentioned before, a typical 'mum and dad' home user doesn't have or need the latest and greatest computer, and will no doubt run into troubles if they try and run Vista. You try and tell an average user just because the software says designed for Vista doesn't mean that they need to upgrade. As industry standard inevitably marches on to Vista, software will adapt to that 'Vista' feel. The 'mum and dad' user has to either keep their old computer with XP and hope they don't run into trouble, upgrade to Vista and possibly have a system falling over the whole time, upgrade their PC just to run an OS or (shock horror) try a different OS. This is where Microsoft have to pick their game up, as Linux moves out of the geek world and into the mainstream, OS like Ubuntu or Debian may actually pose a threat to Microsoft.

Is this guy completely out of his mind. In my hands Vista Home Premium is a superb OS out of the box. Tweaks and customizations are possible with any OS, but Vista has needed fewer (to make may happy) than any of its forerunners.

For those who have a nicely functioning XP machine, stay with it. But this Vista FUD is nuts.

And, for an intelligent commentary about Intel's choosing to stay with XP for the time being, try this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=481

Stevie should stick to reading what has already been written by his betters, not adding his own garbage to the landscape.

@poglatg
Yes, your view is made clearer now...and your point is correct.
But didn't Microsoft force people to upgrade throughout all of their OS history? Even Apple does that with OS X - you can't buy Tiger off the shelf anymore. Also, XP looks way different than Windows 2000 - but most people have gotten used to it and actually like it over 2000. Also, Vista doesn't have many problems that mum and dad users would run into - unless their perepherals' drivers are outdated or they can't find something instantenously in the Control Panel (which they can search in Help for).

Btw, I knew that i'd get that DS comment sometime... it's actually my initials & PC World auto created it anyways...

[~159334] . You r 100% right.....But thats the way comps..doing business...Unfortunately (Or FORTUNATELY) we all have to learn new stuffs....sooner or later.....

I don't see any who buys new a car and ask for OLD ENGINE ........WHY...??????......(If you still have XP...Enjoy....don't have to change..)

I say.....KEEP YOUR BRAIN MOVING.....LEARN SOME NEW STUFFS.....ITS ALL GOOD. !http://forums.pcworld.com/legacyimages/
1!

What, are you a member of BadVista.org to boot? I haven't had any problems with Windows Vista Home Premium that weren't my own fault. Try using some more mature arguments next time you feel like making fun of Vista if you want to be taken seriously.

This may be a little off topic but I work for a fortune 500 company with hundreds, if not thousannds of desktops, and most of them are using Win 2000 Pro. They work perfectly fine.

I love the defenses, "Vista is working for me, therefore it's good. And, when it sucks, it's not Microsoft's fault, it's somebody-else's." The fact that it's been rejected by the majority of PC users, the fact that Microsoft's OS revenue was down 24% while Apple's was up 54% is purely coincidental to you folks. The fact that Apple makes jokes in its advertising about how bad it is and Vista users actually agree doesn't deter you. Neither does the fact that despite being more expensive, it runs slower on higher-end hardware than XP does. Think about that for a minute. You need higher-end hardware and the OS can't even use it as efficiently as its predecessor. I guess that's what you folks call progress. I guess you're all thrilled that they decided to scrap a UI that people have invested a decade or more mastering, just for fun. Oh, and using the abomination called UAC as their approach to "security" isn't the biggest joke in the history of computing to you all either. MSFT loves you.

Could someone please show Dog the article that UAC is proven to be the best weapon against certain types of malware and root-kits. Better than any other OS. Two things to remember here; first Microsoft's safety issues are only because they are the largest and no one rights spyware for Mac and Linux. A recent security conference found a lot more holes in Leopard than Vista. Second any performance issues can be attributed to a crappy system. My HP DV9000T worked great out of the box. I removed the crapware that took less than 15 mins and that was it. For full disclosure I own a MacBook Pro also and my next computer will be a new MacBook Pro comes out with Snow Leopard on it. That is not because Mac is a better OS; but rather a more secure one because of there small marked size.

Vista's UI isn't even that different from XP's! What, so people can't handle a search bar and scrolling programs list in the start menu instead of enldess cascading menus? Vista isn't as big a leap from XP as most people think it is.

Xp is much better then anyhting i found so far

Maybe you need a windows class to help you find the Start button. Maybe another class too to learn how to speak objectively. XP was much worse than Vista in its first year or so. Most people were sticking to their 98 or w2k versions including myself. Windows Vista is a cake walk compared to any version upgrades I can remember. My memory goes back to msdos 1.0.

attacking the person don't help anyone,only show's how dumb you can be doing that type of thing.

When people get on their knees and beg for an attack, I provide. What do you have to say about Vista?