[Evildave]

I think the more operative phrase may be that an OS shouldn't need 100+MB 'Service Packs' not to SUCK.

A history of shipping buggy, insecure crap doesn't excuse shipping more buggy, insecure crap with broken drivers with a new 'feature' that allows Microsoft to remotely disable your critical drivers without providing a replacement, thus disabling your computer out of the blue while you are trying to do work with it.

Here we have an OS that PROMISES to disable your computer, and every computer with the same piece of video or audio hardware someday because somebody in Czechoslovakia figures out how to copy a movie with it. I could be working against a deadline (and I do 'multimedia' type work) and blow milestones and be denied payments because Vista gets a suicide packet from Microsoft. Goody. Even worse, anybody who manages to emulate or exploit this revocation system can screw over Microsoft Vista computers anywhere, any time, at will. Maybe you think you'll just buy another sound or video card? What if you have a portable computer with that soldered onto the motherboard?

Even if Vista worked 'perfectly' (which it DOES NOT), this is more than enough reason not to use it, or any future M$ OS that has this 'feature' in it.

Don't believe they'd be so STUPID? Read a few articles about it. Of course, it's all supposition about what they would and wouldn't do when the crisis comes. Will they respect their users or the movie studios more? Microsoft signed contracts with various elements of the movie industry guaranteeing they would revoke drivers. They are liable for billions in damage compensations if they don't kill your computer. Their users clicked 'OK' on the contract that says Microsoft can turn off any software (drivers included) that they like whenever they like, and that there are no damages beyond the cost of the Vista software, no matter how expensive the other software and devices that they disable is. They further forbid you to 'work around' such deactivations. READ THE USER AGREEMENT.

Of course, since they continue to accidentally disable computers by the thousands just by patching their OS, maybe it's not such a big worry. If it doesn't bother you that your computer may fail to restart after poorly tested 'automatic updates', it probably doesn't bother you that they may at their discretion deliberately stop your system or software from working.

[mathion]

I've used Vista in many different systems in the course of my job. With ONE exception (out of 20 systems), the end users HATED it.

In creating such a different OS GUI after the overwhelming majority of computer users have gotten used to the old one, Microsoft did a huge disservice to the very people it was supposed to be helping: The end user. Yes, Vista's Aero interface is 'pretty'. But so is a 'dumb blond' and neither of which are particularly useful outside of a few limited things. Throw in the exorbitant hardware requirements, the lies about 'Vista capable' machines (none of them were particularly capable), the fact that XP will run faster on EVERY system Vista is on, the high level of support and use for XP versus Vista, the ability of MS to disable your computer remotely through driver revocation, the confusion over the six different versions and their outrageous costs and the fact that Microsoft is going to come out with yet ANOTHER OS within 2 years, the question is why would anyone bother with Vista?

Folks have 'work-arounds' for the Vista driver issues, but considering the average computer user can't tell a device driver from Driver's Ed, having them do these 'workarounds' is like asking a toddler to explain Einsteins's special relativity theory. While I will be making a lot of money because of the lack of foresight involved when most computer users get Vista (Usually by buying a 'cheap' model of computer which doesn't have the horsepower to give the user a good 'out-of-the-box' Vista experience but which would have kicked butt in XP), I'd rather not turn off computer users from computers because their first experience with Vista is god-awful.

Based on the complaints I get daily by Vista users, I'm taking to calling it Vista Me.

I've fiddled with Vista long enough to know it will NEVER darken my hard drives, even if my current system has the horsepower to run Ultimate. My favorite OS is XP Pro. I currently use 2000 Pro on my main system and will probably upgrade to XP Pro this year (Because of limited OS options for replacing hardware that is wearing out - not because I can't do what I want to do software-wise). I'll go Linux before I go Vista. I've not heard much about Windows 7 (due out in late '09, early '10) but given that the support for XP won't be going away any time soon (I can still buy and get support for 2000 Pro!), I don't see any reason to accept Microsoft's latest OS offering.

Oh, and I think one can get a lot more hits with the word 'love' than 'hate'. 100 million licenses issued doesn't mean 100 million users (Multi-user licenses aren't all used and count toward that 100 million user mark and OEM's will buy a LOT of multi-user licenses in order to build and sell future computers) or even 100 million computers sold with Vista. There was enough of a demand for XP to be an OS option that ALL computer manufacturers still offer it. Finally, at no point in this post did I use the words I and hate and Vista in that order. Until now, I didn't use the word "suck" This post would not appear as a hit for those (like me) who don't like Vista unless they use those two limited expressions. Anyone have any data on the number of actual computers shipped with Vista versus the number shipped with XP (As opposed to license sales, which are not reflective of actual computer demand) since Vista came out? That's one statistic Microsoft seems reluctant to release.

[mathion]

One other observation about Vista and I'll leave it be for this thread: Fiddle factor. Those who crow about their ability to get Vista working like a "squyrrel on crack" had to fiddle with it to get it to run that fast. The average computer user doesn't have that kind of expertise. Nor do they have the hours and hours spent dealing with the issue in patches, updates, work-arounds and other tweaks us geeks do by second nature but leave most computer users shaking their heads and reaching for full bottles of sedatives - or calling their friendly neighborhood computerman.

An OS should work RIGHT from the get-go. It shouldn't need tweaks, patches, packs or other adjustments in order for the computer user to have an OS that actually does what s/he wants it to do - or more to the point, what the OS manufacturer says it will do. Comparing Vista to XP in what matters to the average computer user, the user most often finds it slower, harder to find things, harder to use, costlier and less satisfying than what they were used to. Those for whom Vista is their first experience in computers don't know what they're missing, nor do they understand that this is not how most computers today actually run. And none of them generally have the expertise to fiddle with things to improve performance or ease of use.

Vista is a step backward in so many respects that the only thing I can honestly say is improved is security. If security is the single driving force behind a computer user's experience, Vista is certainly better than XP. But I can't think of a single thing beyond that to recommend it above XP Pro.

[jakthebomb]

every single os had some sort of updates or patches. no os is perfect as for software. every os has its flaws, but vista was never like windows ME. those people who are dumb and buy a laptop or desktop with a intergrated intel graphics card, have no right to complain about vista. vista runs fine on all geforce 6200 and newer.

vista runs 3x faster with sp1. windows xp was slow at first but was spead up after sp1.

for now on i realy don't care for anyone's complants about vista. if you don't like it don't use it, let the people who like it enjoy it. stop bitching about the move to vista. enjoy your xp install, while it last.

jakthebomb

[technicalhitman]

I was one of the customers who bought a Windows Capable computer with Vista Home Basic. Fortunately, the motherboard had upgradeability and I was able to rebuild it as a Vista Premium system after dropping an additional 500 dollars. Now if you just add the recent memory upgrade, its up to 564 dollars in upgrades.

Microsoft did drop the ball on the Vista Capable series. I think they need to adopt the KISS method for future Windows releases. A more proactive process in Windows Logo programs to certify computers would be welcome.

[RastaMon]

Quote

those people who are dumb and buy a laptop or desktop with a intergrated intel graphics card, have no right to complain about vista.

Microsoft should have allowed manufacturers to advertise such machines as Vista ready.

If an operating system requires more than an intel graphics card for even the highest version to run well, that is indeed very poor code implementation.

[piyushsingh]

CTKEN said:

Using your logic this should be perfectly acceptable since all OS have patches and fixes released. I would ask how could a critical patch for IE7 get released without sufficient testing to know the cure is worse than the disease. Inexcusable. Somebody should get fired, and I don't mean some programmer. This is an absolute management failure because the proper controls were not in place to prevent this nightmare scenario. Oh, I forgot to mention that numerous folks have indicated it is quite difficult to remove the patch and could eventually lead to a reinstallation of IE7.

All os have patches and fixes. i dont think this statement has anything wrong in it.

Regarding that ie7 critical update - only an msft executive can explain you that.

[piyushsingh]

CaptainKeyboard said:

Your chagrin is the reason why I am sticking to my guns. I bought my first computer, Cybernet in 2002. I have Windows XP Professional SP2. I use Office XP Professional that included Publisher 2002. The good-old operating system and the office suite of programs work perfect for me. My computer does not catch many of the system "let-ups" that end up in breakdowns. I can perform a professional typewriting service with this keyboard and a Canon color laser printer and achieve top-notch results. If Windows Vista is an excellent operating system, it should not need an enhancement program such as a service pack. Now that my operating system has a service pack for the sake of operating on the internet, I have everything that I need. - Captain Keyboard

service pack is different from an enhancement pack. There arent many new features that a service pack adds or to be more precise vista sp1 will be adding only a few new features. Most of changes are security updates and performance upgrades. Consider sp3 for XP, it will bring only a couple of new features, but has all the updates released after initial launch. It isnt an enhancement pack.

What i meant to say earlier was that in case of windows, sp1 (of any OS) has a more to offer than any later ones and it is needed to complete an OS. XP SP3 or XP SP2 wont make much of a difference but vista SP1 and vista will .

[Karnthebetrayer]

I have not found any solid data the most vista users ARE happy with their vista set up. A casual user will be happy as a clam with it. However most people who use their computers for games or multimedia design (CS3 and the like) know their computer inside and out. I'm a user who likes to mod out his os. But not to the point of any lag either. Since I like the look of vista I installed Vista Inspirat 2 and ObjectDock Plus. Combined with a few add-on visual themes I have my vista looking os WITHOUT the frickin slowdown that I experenced with my Vista Ult. Someday I may re-install vista but for now I have wrote it off as a waste of money.

[CaptainKeyboard]

Keep in mind that Microsoft Windows Vista is not for every computer and every computer user. It is not an imperative operating system program. I am using Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2 along with Office XP Professional. The programs work wonderful for me with my Cybernet computer that I like to call my Keyboard. I like to mention that Windows Vista works well in computers that have separate high-end graphics cards, audio cards, random-accessed-memory that is no less than 2GB, and microprocessors that are at least as high as Intel Duo Core chips. There is nothing right nor wrong with having Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Vista. After all, they are all made by Microsoft Corporation, There are users who need a high-end computer and there are users who need a low-end computer. To each one's own.