[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Vista R.I.P. here

[chipbennett]

Why is this article in the "Business Center"?

Shouldn't it be under "Opinion Columns".

I'm no fan of Vista, but this article isn't "news", much less business-centric news.

Rather, it's punditry, pure and simple.

[crazy4laptops]

Vista runs like crap on low end systems. I was leaning away from vista ever since the public betas, but now that i have a new powerhouse computer with vista, i'm really starting to like it. (unofficial mojave sucess)

I can agree with everyone on this, vista's power management is not very good.
This is the bare minimum for xp comparable speed/response time-

2ghz dual core processor, 3gb of ram (ddr2), ati or nvidia grapics 256mb+, sata 300 hdd, and a defrag program

I prefer xp's solid core and the security of linux, but i've got a few small issues with both of these operating systems on my new computer.

[cb3431]

chipbennett is right, this is a not news article. This is a childish tantrum.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols you aren't being forced to use Vista. You clearly hate Vista, so don't use it.
You didn't give one concrete example to convince me that Vista is bad. You did aid in convincing me that PC World is not a reliable source for news.

[palavering]

This, is, most certainly, the opinion of someone who hasn't used Vista much--if at all. I have been using Vista since it first became available. It didn't support some drivers at first. But that was the fault of the software companies, not microsoft. I find Vista reliable and secure. Moreover, everyone complains that Vista is slow to start and shutdown, yet they want every electronic component ever made to work within the OS--and it nearly does just that. But with so many drivers to load, how can anyone complain that it loads slowly?
The person who wrote the Vista article ought to have his essays labeled "unsupported opinion."

[Badgerman]

I built a box in 11/05 just for Vista. I knew it would need lots of RAM. So I gahered;

Intel 840EE
Gigabyte GA-I955X
2gbs. Patriot DDR2 PC6400
3 Western Digital Raptors in a RAID 5 config.
Sapphire X800GT 256mb.

The system run great on XP Pro but Vista RC1 blew Vista off the desk. Vista ruled!

Since a electrical surge I have upgraded to a Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6. Then I saw a sale and got 4mbs. RAM and that made it so hot I grabbed 8mbs. Patriot Extreme with 4.4.4.12 timings, overclocked it from 3.2 to 3.8 and went to RAID 0 since I added an 80gb Barricuda to play with Linux and backups are simple. This box will smoke any config of XP there is. Sure Vista needs quite strong hardwae to perform but how can MS move forward if they keep making OSes to support outdated hardware. I had ME and it was bad. Vista isn't bad. It flies! With the right hardware.

[rgreen4]

I cannot agree with you more, it is punditry. Especially when leading the writer to believe that a) Windows7 is on a fast track because it is expected to release slightly more than two years after it's predicessor. This is in fact, the normal schedule that Windows has followed from it's outset. It was a complete redesign of VIsta after Longhorn was scrapped. And b) that Windows7 will be marketedly different from Vista, when it has already been announced that Win7 will be based on Vista code.

[jestep]

Vista is terrible plain and simple. Anyone every attempting to support it either has never had XP working correctly, or is making money from it somehow.
It offers no benefit over XP, and that alone is reason enough not to ever switch.
Burning money on an OS that requires more expensive hardware but offers no gain, is a waste of money. On top of that, the time required to learn to administer Vista costs money. Troubleshooting incompatibilities costs more money. Everything about it turns businesses away. Applying this to Windows 7, unless Windows 7 is a vast improvement, and XP goes EOL, I still don't think business owners have a reason to switch. From your average business user's standpoint, if Microsoft Office and the internet work well, why spend more money? XP works great, it's predictable, it runs on minimal hardware (Not quite as quick as Linux though), there is ample support for it, there is a surplus is certified administrators. There's really no reason to switch at all for most businesses.
We have over 500 computers with XP on them, and if we're forced to go to Vista or 7 for that matter, it's a straight shot to Linux for us.

[coastie65]

No OS should be made that would require the user to have to use more expensive high end Hardware to run it. In my opinion, to be basing another OS on Vista code is ludicrous, they should have gone back to NT. The bottom line is they ought to do something that will keep ALL computers in play and not require huge upgrades or the purchase of a new computer. This nothing more than helping people like Paul Allen buy his $200 million Yachts with an annual upkeep and operating cost of about $20 million. coastie65

[rgreen4]

The most likely assumption is that the current and former PC's already have their OS's installed. The new OS is always designed for the increased hardware already available. Take USB ports for example. Today we take them for granted and forget that Windows 3.1, 3.11, Win95 and Win98 had no support for these devices, even with after market drivers. Windows 98 SE was the first OS in that series to support USB. Windows 3.1 had no support for CD drives, and in fact in order to support CD ROM's, a DOS driver had to be loaded, and then after Windows loaded it would recognize the drive.

Windows 3.1 was distributed on diskettes, (I stil have some around somewhere) with a CD-ROM optional. Windows 95 and 98 were distributed on a CD-ROM with a boot diskette and optional on diskettes (it took 20 something), and XP distributed on a bootable CD-ROM, and Vista on a bootable DVD.

You could run Windows 98 on a PC with less than 64MB, I have one that only has 48MB, XP supposedly runs in 256MB, but not well. You should have at least 512MB. You can run Vista in 1GB, but should have 2GB. Each OS throughout the history of Micro Computers has gotten larger, more complex and more demanding of hardware with each subsequent version.

It will be interesting to see if Windows 7 comes in a 32bit version as they say it will. If it does, it will be interesting to see what the memory demand is.

[rkinne01]

I just don't get all the anti-Vista bashing. Any computer made within the last couple years will run Vista just fine and older computers can be upgraded quite cheaply these days (RAM and harddrives are freakishly cheap right now, mother boards and CPU's are that far behind).

jestep, the list of improvements for Vista over XP are vast all you have to is look. Search is better, networking is much better, working with media files is great, etc.

Coastie, Windows 98 required better hardware than 95, and XP needed more tha 98SE. It's called progress, as technology improve stronger more robust machinery is required to run it. XP was a good OS but its time to move on to the superior Vista.

[palavering]

Your statement is ridiculous. The Vista OS is backward compatible. Does Mac do that for its customers? No!!!!!

[virtualpalaboi]

Vista is not for low-end users. As well as xp is not for lowest end computers.
Forget about mac since my air was blown by toshiba.
Prices of multi core sets was like Pentium4 when XP was new. If one doesn't meet recommended requirements, that one is not a Vista costumer. So as for any other OS.

And this article is misplaced, or rather intentionally..

[GMan]

This is yellow journalism designed to incite the passion of Vista-bashers. Nothing more.
Note to PC World: Your subscribers, like me, deserve better!
G-Man

[BKA4U2C]

I seriously can not believe PC World published this article. I expect this from some blog on the Internet, but here on PC World? Windows 7 will be built off of Vista so how is that throwing it out to the pasture? XP was not built off of Windows ME. I just canceled my daily emails from this site. Ridiculous.

[drachir]

It's nice to see continued Vista bashing. It's a pretty, crappy OS that runs poorly on most PCs, except for those who can afford to upgrade to a good dual or quad-core machine. It is indeed a work in progress. I am glad that Microsoft is making an effort to let the consumer skip another force-feeding of their Windows OS. It's bad enough that we are forced to upgrade every few years, but nice to save a few bucks sticking with Windows XP. Especially in the current financial turmoil. Who wants to go further into debt on a new overpriced OS and a required computer upgrade, when the consumer can opt for a beautiful high-def flat screen TV?

[dcvchicago]

What a pinhead! PC World has sunk to a new low.

[phillypa800]

AHAHAHAHAAHAAA!!! great opinionated article steve! AHAHAHAHAAHAAA!!! die vista die!!! hunk of crap!!! die!!! BASH! POW! BANG! DIE!!! AHAHAHAAHAHAA!!!

[cb3431]

This "article" was the final straw for me. I want to read articles that are factual and informative and PC World seems like a logical place to find factual articles on new or existing technology, sadly it's not.

[spaul40]

Gee Steven, I bet you even wrote this sorry excuse for an article on a Mac!