Sign In
Register
Help
The author makes some valid points. However, his first line("Vista is awful") immediately discourages me from reading the rest of the article.
This author's biased, unfair, offensive article alienates users like me and many others, who do not agree with his hard-core attitude. In the future, I will be certain to avoid Mr. Vaughan-Nichols's articles.
Vista R.I.P.
#41
mrwarrenzhang 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 30-January 08
Posted 07 October 2008 - 03:58 PM
MultiQuote
#42
thogul5908
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 16-August 08
Posted 07 October 2008 - 04:06 PM
So let me get it right After 200.00
in upgrades.200.00 for Vista software
There gonna scrap vista.I did like XP
but went with Vista after all the wonderful things it does.Not to mention the Security.Are they planning any support for Vista ?
After all this when my computer dyes
I am getting a MAC.Good by microsoft
in upgrades.200.00 for Vista software
There gonna scrap vista.I did like XP
but went with Vista after all the wonderful things it does.Not to mention the Security.Are they planning any support for Vista ?
After all this when my computer dyes
I am getting a MAC.Good by microsoft
#43
crazy4laptops
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,644
- Joined: 20-November 07
Posted 07 October 2008 - 04:09 PM
linux first, try it out
and then spend money on overpriced hardware and software. (mac)
and then spend money on overpriced hardware and software. (mac)
#44
objuan911
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 07-October 08
Posted 07 October 2008 - 04:34 PM
My mom has an amd computer with Vista and I am tech support. Say anything you want about XP pro (which I have) I LOVE VISTA FOR MOMS!
She cannot screw it up. She cannot delete anything without being asked twice. I can get evertyhing I need done from remote location. I have seen Vista run on a high powered system and I think I MAY like it.
I saw BOB, I knew BOB Vista is NO BOB.
Juan
She cannot screw it up. She cannot delete anything without being asked twice. I can get evertyhing I need done from remote location. I have seen Vista run on a high powered system and I think I MAY like it.
I saw BOB, I knew BOB Vista is NO BOB.
Juan
#45
raife1
- Full Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 84
- Joined: 05-November 07
Posted 07 October 2008 - 05:38 PM
I was really hoping to see a considered piece that detailed >actual< market-information and listed the many, specific, demonstrations of the overwhelmingly-poor consumer-responses to "Vista". Or, perhaps this article could have contained a, thorough, logical-analysis, and an exposition of verifiable information from Industry-sources (or maybe, even, some new admissions, or information, from Microsoft, itself)... which would have effectively warranted the title of this article (contained as it was, within a "news" category).
But, while I certainly agree with much that the author has said (and, personally, COULD corroborate many of the general-assertions)... in its present form... this "news", really is clearly, just, an opinion piece.
So... this is simply not effective journalism.
But, while I certainly agree with much that the author has said (and, personally, COULD corroborate many of the general-assertions)... in its present form... this "news", really is clearly, just, an opinion piece.
So... this is simply not effective journalism.
#46
bookworm46808
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 04-April 07
- Location:Michigan
Posted 07 October 2008 - 06:04 PM
After reading earlier today the article "The 10 Most Overrated Products" by Darren Gladstone which says XP is overrated and Vista is underrated, I wonder what is going on in the back offices of Pc World. Do we need to clarify the definitions of "news" and "opinion"? Mr. Vaughan-Nichols does not speak for everyone nor does he know everyone. I for one am quite happy with Vista that I've had for almost 2 years now.
#47
cb3431
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 21
- Joined: 25-November 07
Posted 07 October 2008 - 06:08 PM
Microsoft offers support for it's products for 7 years after the product is pulled from production. If you are concerned about support then a Mac is not for you. Apple has no problem pulling the rug out from under its users. If you recall when OS X first came out and then when Apple moved to the Intel chip.
#48
rgreen4
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 7,729
- Joined: 22-October 06
- Location:S. Georgia
Posted 07 October 2008 - 06:32 PM
The only talk of scrapping Vista is by the Vista haters, not Microsoft. The typical life of a Microsoft OS is about ten years. Windows 2000 was released in 1999, went on extended support in 2004. Extended support means that no more enhancements will be released, only security updates. Windows 2000 is just about to expire and within the year will no longer get security updates. Windows 98 has expired. XP will be supported a little longer because after the release of SP3 it goes on extended support which means it will be viable for 5 more years.
Vista will be supported to around January, 2017 (released January, 2007). Microsoft releases new OS's but has never said that you had to spend money to upgrade to a new OS, and in fact if you have a valid license to run Windows on a machine, you do not have to upgrade if you do not want to. I have an old machine that runs Windows 98 perfectly well, but will not install XP. I don't connect it to the internet, but it runs fine for the old program I run (doesn't run in XP). Many of us who run Vista, still have older machines that still run XP and will for the foreseeable future. One is an older notebook with a P4 and 1GB of ram that runs Vista, but because of the video card limitations runs in 640x480 mode only. I run XP to get 1280x800 resolution, but miss all the Vista improvements when I'm on it.
With over 180 million Vista licenses around the world, why would anyone even contemplate scrapping it?
Vista will be supported to around January, 2017 (released January, 2007). Microsoft releases new OS's but has never said that you had to spend money to upgrade to a new OS, and in fact if you have a valid license to run Windows on a machine, you do not have to upgrade if you do not want to. I have an old machine that runs Windows 98 perfectly well, but will not install XP. I don't connect it to the internet, but it runs fine for the old program I run (doesn't run in XP). Many of us who run Vista, still have older machines that still run XP and will for the foreseeable future. One is an older notebook with a P4 and 1GB of ram that runs Vista, but because of the video card limitations runs in 640x480 mode only. I run XP to get 1280x800 resolution, but miss all the Vista improvements when I'm on it.
With over 180 million Vista licenses around the world, why would anyone even contemplate scrapping it?
#49
alexb
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 20-January 08
Posted 07 October 2008 - 06:46 PM
i have 2 vista running computers (1 native, 1 mac/vista dual boot, 1 xp native)
yes, vista has/had problems. and XP is faster on most computers. yes vista took 5 years to develop instead of the more normal 2 like XP .Vista could use improvements like the overly active waring boxes that are annoying. yes, vista has a lot of overhead that requires more powerful equiptment to run properly. my point is this. vista is less than we expected but it is not so bad. it is actually rather good.it is not spectacular, but it is still good. it looks nice, performs well on a nice system because it is more hardware based, rather than software based. Vista was designed to make proper use of todays hardware. Xp was designed for the hardware for its day, Vista was designed for the hardware of today. on drivers, yes, drivers were initiatively hard to come by on certain hardware like graphics cards. this was not all Microsoft's fault. yes, they could have distributed the Vista development kits to the manufactures to give them more time, but the driver problem was more the hardware vendors fault, not Micriosoft. on security, would you rather have a very sensitive security, or one that you cant tell if it is working at all other than seeing maybe a red bubble in the start bar? the reason some companies are still with XP is not because Vista is insecure, but because more people are trained in XP security than in Vista securities since XP has been around longer. it is diffiucult for companies to change OS because it requires retraining in the new OS. it is easier and simpler for them to use XP for now. oh, and for those who still like XP, you can get it rather easily as the END USER. the author of this article should check up on his reasearch. they come in OEM multi or single packs, but you can still get them easily. the differece between an OEM and a retail pack is the lack of a cardboard box. (i bought XP Pro 64 from New?gg.c?m) the final point. if your computer cannot run vista...dont bother, if it can...upgrade and take full advantage of DX10. most computers can (my brothers referbed $500 laptop with AMD processors can run it easily)
(have 1pc with vista 32, 1 pc Mac/Vista 64 and another with xp pro 64 and have used linux)
yes, vista has/had problems. and XP is faster on most computers. yes vista took 5 years to develop instead of the more normal 2 like XP .Vista could use improvements like the overly active waring boxes that are annoying. yes, vista has a lot of overhead that requires more powerful equiptment to run properly. my point is this. vista is less than we expected but it is not so bad. it is actually rather good.it is not spectacular, but it is still good. it looks nice, performs well on a nice system because it is more hardware based, rather than software based. Vista was designed to make proper use of todays hardware. Xp was designed for the hardware for its day, Vista was designed for the hardware of today. on drivers, yes, drivers were initiatively hard to come by on certain hardware like graphics cards. this was not all Microsoft's fault. yes, they could have distributed the Vista development kits to the manufactures to give them more time, but the driver problem was more the hardware vendors fault, not Micriosoft. on security, would you rather have a very sensitive security, or one that you cant tell if it is working at all other than seeing maybe a red bubble in the start bar? the reason some companies are still with XP is not because Vista is insecure, but because more people are trained in XP security than in Vista securities since XP has been around longer. it is diffiucult for companies to change OS because it requires retraining in the new OS. it is easier and simpler for them to use XP for now. oh, and for those who still like XP, you can get it rather easily as the END USER. the author of this article should check up on his reasearch. they come in OEM multi or single packs, but you can still get them easily. the differece between an OEM and a retail pack is the lack of a cardboard box. (i bought XP Pro 64 from New?gg.c?m) the final point. if your computer cannot run vista...dont bother, if it can...upgrade and take full advantage of DX10. most computers can (my brothers referbed $500 laptop with AMD processors can run it easily)
(have 1pc with vista 32, 1 pc Mac/Vista 64 and another with xp pro 64 and have used linux)
#51
butlerwm
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 121
- Joined: 27-July 06
Posted 07 October 2008 - 07:14 PM
> Quote from alexb: (...1 pc Mac/Vista 64...)
[/quote]
Just a quick query, alexb. Vista 64 on your Apple box... are there any issues with the dual boot configuration? I have a spare Ultimate 64, from a previous machine, but am using XP Pro 32 on the other side of my Mac. Also, how well does Vista 64 run on the native Mac hardware? I have Ultimate 32 on my primary laptop, Ultimate 64 on a PC workstation, and XP Pro 64 on another PC desktop.
I don't like Vista... mainly because it uses more of everything. But I recognize it will get to a point when XP support will lag behind. So I'm trying to decide if I should keep XP on the Mac.
[/quote]
Just a quick query, alexb. Vista 64 on your Apple box... are there any issues with the dual boot configuration? I have a spare Ultimate 64, from a previous machine, but am using XP Pro 32 on the other side of my Mac. Also, how well does Vista 64 run on the native Mac hardware? I have Ultimate 32 on my primary laptop, Ultimate 64 on a PC workstation, and XP Pro 64 on another PC desktop.
I don't like Vista... mainly because it uses more of everything. But I recognize it will get to a point when XP support will lag behind. So I'm trying to decide if I should keep XP on the Mac.
#52
rgreen4
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 7,729
- Joined: 22-October 06
- Location:S. Georgia
Posted 07 October 2008 - 07:25 PM
Minor timeline correction. Windows XP follow on to Windows 2000 was unusually short, because it is not a new OS. Windows 2000 was the marketing name for Windows NT 5.0, XP is the marketing name for Windows NT 5.1. XP was right of decimal point upgrade of 2K, which is also the reason that allmost all Win2K drivers work for XP. Vista was an unusually long development because the original development of Longhorn was scrapped because of the significant changes in hardware and the pulling of features planned for the follow-on after Longhorn down into the new OS. The development sequence of Vista is NT 6.0, and of course Windows 7 is NT 7.0.
#53
jestep
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 18-June 08
Posted 07 October 2008 - 07:43 PM
Microsoft admitted defeat when they extended XP's availability, and then did it again. And of course Microsoft doesn't want to scrap Vista. They pushed it out to every PC distributor and they've spent millions (or billions) on development, so there's no way they would make a move to pull their own future.
I think that people's view of Vista id very dependant on what their experience is, and what type of computer purchasing they do.
For personal uses, non-anti vista specific uses, or new users, Vista obviously presents a completely reasonable choice for an OS. As suggested, it works great on new hardware which is becoming cheap for the amount of performance, and is becoming very power efficient. New users don't need to go through an ugly adjustment period as existing users often would. It's not inherently diffucult to use. It's now fairly reliable and I would choose it long before I ever went to a Mac.
From a business owners standpoint, it's an entirely different situation. Unless you have an unlimited IT budget and patience, Vista is a ridiculous and pointless step in the evolution of an operating system. While 2000, ME, and XP integrated features like USB, better administration, Vista offers nothing markedly different than XP other than some shiny gradients and a more complicated and annoying user interface. One of the most annoying parts of the release (which is now corrected with some vendors) is that XP was no longer available, and maintaining a mixed Vista / XP environment offers a whole mess of unwanted challenges.
Looking at server evolution, Migrating from Windows NT to 2000 was a big change, lots of changes (almost all for the better) were seen with server 20000. 2000 to 2003 was far less significant but administration got a lot better, and most everything was improved a little, anyone who can use 2000 can use 2003. Same thing goes for regular windows. 98 to 2000 was a big change (intentionally skipping ME). 2000 to XP was minor, but again, basically the same functions easier to use. Vista changed everything by not adding any function, adding a lot of bubbly, shiny crap, without any true benefit. Specifically what has Vista fixed that was wrong with XP?
Arguments about RAM and hardware getting cheap are negligible. Lets face it, 512Mb of RAM is cheaper than 1Gb no matter how you figure it, and XP runs better on the equivalent hardware in just about every situation. When you have to apply all this to hundreds or thousands of computers, the price gets ridiculous when your paying extra for something that you just don't need.
The bottom line is that if Vista offered anything that was a major improvement to XP's usability, speed, or security, it wouldn't have been met with the backlash that it has seen. I don't bash Vista because I have some disdain for change. Vista has not offered any improvement over XP (on any hardware) that makes it a better choice than XP. If Microsoft can't give anyone a reason to switch to their new OS other than the fact that they made it, then it shouldn't have ever been released.
As for the article, I can't argue against this being opinion. But, PC World is one of the best online computer publications. If one miscategorized article is enough to make someone stop visiting this site, then you obviously haven't read enough here.
I think that people's view of Vista id very dependant on what their experience is, and what type of computer purchasing they do.
For personal uses, non-anti vista specific uses, or new users, Vista obviously presents a completely reasonable choice for an OS. As suggested, it works great on new hardware which is becoming cheap for the amount of performance, and is becoming very power efficient. New users don't need to go through an ugly adjustment period as existing users often would. It's not inherently diffucult to use. It's now fairly reliable and I would choose it long before I ever went to a Mac.
From a business owners standpoint, it's an entirely different situation. Unless you have an unlimited IT budget and patience, Vista is a ridiculous and pointless step in the evolution of an operating system. While 2000, ME, and XP integrated features like USB, better administration, Vista offers nothing markedly different than XP other than some shiny gradients and a more complicated and annoying user interface. One of the most annoying parts of the release (which is now corrected with some vendors) is that XP was no longer available, and maintaining a mixed Vista / XP environment offers a whole mess of unwanted challenges.
Looking at server evolution, Migrating from Windows NT to 2000 was a big change, lots of changes (almost all for the better) were seen with server 20000. 2000 to 2003 was far less significant but administration got a lot better, and most everything was improved a little, anyone who can use 2000 can use 2003. Same thing goes for regular windows. 98 to 2000 was a big change (intentionally skipping ME). 2000 to XP was minor, but again, basically the same functions easier to use. Vista changed everything by not adding any function, adding a lot of bubbly, shiny crap, without any true benefit. Specifically what has Vista fixed that was wrong with XP?
Arguments about RAM and hardware getting cheap are negligible. Lets face it, 512Mb of RAM is cheaper than 1Gb no matter how you figure it, and XP runs better on the equivalent hardware in just about every situation. When you have to apply all this to hundreds or thousands of computers, the price gets ridiculous when your paying extra for something that you just don't need.
The bottom line is that if Vista offered anything that was a major improvement to XP's usability, speed, or security, it wouldn't have been met with the backlash that it has seen. I don't bash Vista because I have some disdain for change. Vista has not offered any improvement over XP (on any hardware) that makes it a better choice than XP. If Microsoft can't give anyone a reason to switch to their new OS other than the fact that they made it, then it shouldn't have ever been released.
As for the article, I can't argue against this being opinion. But, PC World is one of the best online computer publications. If one miscategorized article is enough to make someone stop visiting this site, then you obviously haven't read enough here.
#54
Rocker452
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 21
- Joined: 01-August 06
- Location:Longview, Tx
Posted 07 October 2008 - 08:05 PM
I wasn't a fan of Vista when it first came out but since SP1 and turning off UAC I've come to like it. It took some getting use to but once I did it's not that bad. Now I still wouldn't go out and buy it( I think it's over priced) but if it came on a computer I wouldn't take it off.
#55
wra1th
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 11-May 07
Posted 07 October 2008 - 08:38 PM
I agree it is a costly venture for large corperations, but I have to disagree on a few points. First off, vista does have better security features I wont list them but do your research and you will learn all about them! Second, the visual aspects that everyone seems to think are unimportant are actually very much needed. the new appearance is not only eye appealing but eye appeasing as to not create as much strain on your eyes when working at a computer for long hours. (seen a report on this once explaining this to be factual) the "need" to upgrade is not really a necessity unless you need microsoft's support, that is the only thing that would possibly force a company to have to upgrade to vista, thus simply hiring competant IT personell could eliminate that problem, especially since everyone seems to think xp is so perfect. If it is so much better than vista why are they worried about losing support for this wonderful operating system? Who needs support for an OS the works so good! Microsoft wouldnt continue their effort to improve OS's if their wasnt obvious flaws in the ones they have already, they would simply improve and expand on their perfection right? On another note any business that has a sizeable amount of computers usually upgrades them on a regular basis and can simply account for the new os with the next major upgrade. the cost for workstations is not a sizeable difference when ordering large amounts of systems. Let the IT dept. whine and complain and then fire them and hire IT staff that is up to date and able to adapt with the future rather than being old dogs that cant learn new tricks.
#56
mjd420nova
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,517
- Joined: 05-August 06
- Location:Fremont, California
Posted 07 October 2008 - 09:44 PM
My initial encounters with Vista were not very good. The first was with an upgrade by a client and they were not pleased with the support from Mocrosoft or from the third party vendors and the drivers needed to make their printer, scanners, webcamera and sound cards work properly like they did with WINXPPRO. I have since found that if a user buys a new system with all those peripherals in mind and the unit comes with Vista preloaded, they are very happy. My personal encounter was the same, upgrading from XP to Vista left me with many previously functioning devices now defunct. I have not bought or built a machine with Vista in mind and probably won't for just the reasons stated. Why discard a well functioning OS for one that might or might not work.
#57
etschuetz
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 07-October 08
Posted 07 October 2008 - 10:16 PM
It could be the video card, but I doubt it. All of my other games run fairly well. However, I admit that some games that should look gorgeous do get a bit boggy if I turn graphics up. I am not terribly disappointed in the card. It will suffice me for another few months.
#59
drachir
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 08-August 06
- Location:Oklahoma, United States
Posted 08 October 2008 - 06:44 AM
I am actually an Electrical Engineer and Senior Software Developer. The company I work for is FlightSafety in Broken Arrow, OK. We write real-time simulation software for flight simulators. Most of our simulators and all our engineering workstations (roughly 300 of them) run Windows XP Professional. Everyone is happy with that, even our customers all over the world. It would be unthinkable to upgrade any of our machines to Vista. At my workplace, you would have to pry Windows XP Pro from our cold, lifeless hands. Even at home I run XP Pro on my own custom-built PCs. The highest-end is my own Intel Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of high-speed heatsinked RAM. It has an NVIDIA 8600 GTS graphics card. That machine would probably be capable of running Vista, but I am not interested in spending $200 just to find out if it can. Why bother? I don't need to. My next build will probably be in 2010. I will probably install Windows 7, or Vista2, Midori or whatever Microsoft will be ramming down our throats at that time. At least I'll be able to save a few bucks and skip Vista and its SP#1 this time around.
