[Zimmelman]

In my world, speed and reliability are paramount; not cartoon like interfaces. At the end of the day, it matters how productive I am, not how happy I am with my expensive cartooney GUI.
Microsoft, if you're listening... SPEED, STABILITY, and SECURITY are the most important features you should be worried about -- period!
We have no plans to downgrade to Vista. We are, and will remain, an XP Pro shop until something truly better comes along.

All new PC's in this office come with XP Pro, even if it costs a bit more (usually does) it's worth it.

[colbert2422]

I lost my documents and settings in a black screen crash on Windows XP, SP2 as a result of trying to change my video card. Since then I never keep any critical file on the same hard drive as the OS. with that precaution, I'm very very happy with XP

[rockstarride]

Why do poeple keep saying that Microsoft is "forcing" people into Vista, doesnt MAC do the exact same thing with OSX. I have had NO problems with Vista, and guess what it runs fast on my box, so why is everyone haveing problems!! 512 ram aint cuttin it folks. Like the article said, lets push FORWARD, lets not hinder future advancments for another year of XP support. MAC sucks by the way!!

[itproandteacher]

Bregt said:

Vista needs a antivirus program just like XP , did I say that Vista doesn't need one? ?:| Linux, Unix and OSX: they don't need a antivirus program. UAC sucks but if you try to install a program on Unix-like OS or modify system settings, it asks for a admin password. that is security.

Um... EVERY OS should have an anti-virus installed because no matter how intelligently designed and secure an OS is, it can't protect the lowest common denominator users from being taken advantage of by weasels trying to perform identity theft, drive-by downloads, etc. Just because Justin Long told you in a commercial, or you heard it from a fanboy site, doesn't make it true. Intelligent use does protect you from MOST attacks, but not all.

I've run XP for years, and love it! I'm learning Vista, and given enough hardware, it runs really well. I think it should be considered for home use long before the enterprise, just like anything Apple. I don't get the sense it's enterprise-ready, but probably more accurately - enterprises, third-party software vendors, and hardware vendors aren't ready for it. ;)

[alayman]

My wife just got a MacBook Pro for her new job, and I liked what I saw. If Microsoft wants to force me to adopt a new operating system in lieu of XP, they can kiss my business goodbye. It will be a cold day before I pay good money for bloat-ware in a fancy package. If Microsoft wanted to do something truly innovative, how about designing a completely new OS that doesn't have to support ten previous versions of bloat-ware. A lean, fast, stable platform would be something worth buying!

Aaron

[djsyntek]

I hear a lot of Pro-Vista people saying that the same was said for XP. XP was a memory hog, ran slow, etc etc. The difference between XP release and Vista is XP had tons of hardware support and you could run it on older systems with next to no problems. XP also had repair installs and was fairly simple to convert file systems from FAT32 to NTFS. Now then, about Vista currently. It looks great, it really does, it has better support for multicore systems and the page file system seems to be better. Some of the features are nice, like the desktop search. And for the most part it runs good. Unfortunitly XP runs great and doesn't nor did it, require you to update your entire systems hardware. Many people are finding a lot of their hardware completely incompatible with Vista. By time Vista has all the kinks worked out Windows 7 will either release or have come close if you include the liklyhood of delays. Vista feels to much like the new Windows ME. Further more, computer manufactures need to stop selling underpowered computers to foolhardy consumers. I can almost gaurentee alot of the Mass disapproval of Vista has been from people who bought the cheapest "Vista Capable" computer they could find in hopes of being up to date with all the technophiles. Further more, Microsoft needs to stop selling multiple versions of their OS. You should get everything you need in 1 package and then during the setup determine what you machine can handle and what features you need as a user. Also, it would be smart of Microsoft to make the next release x64 only. I have a machine running x64 Ultimate, and sadly not alot of software either works with x64 or takes advantage of it. 99% of the processors in computers sold today are x64 capable, so lets get it over with and move to it. I think another important step for Windows is no longer have Minimum requirements and Recommended. Sure you can run Vista on a 2ghz singlecore processor with 512mb of memory, but its not really running as it is struggling. If you recommend the computer have 2ghz duelcore with 1gb of memory to "full use the software and all its features" then that should be the minimum settings. I'm not saying Vista is horrible, I'm just saying currently XP does everything I want it to about 20% quicker then Vista, and for work, I don't need all the media crap. Even on my XP machine my settings are set to performance, regardless of the fact I'm running it on a machine that would make vista look good. As consumers or users, what we should want is a stable OS that works with current software and is more productive then the previous version. Which is the point of why Vista isn't where its at. I'm more productive on XP then I am on Vista regardless of what I'm doing.

[pipercub]

The day Microscrap ends support for XP, they better have an alternative to Vista because i know a few who will go to Ubuntu or another distro that will have emerged as a viable replacement. They are to big for their britches.

[free2speak]

I have used XP since the beginning. I would be interested in Vista Ultimate, but I refuse to pay the high price for Microsoft's latest OS.

[bbeshlian]

I have had no trouble with Vista since I started using it. I was running XP on my trusty old Compaq (which my kids have now) with 512 MB of RAM and a PIII 866Mhz processor and realized I had to move up or shell out $$$$ and go back to a MAC. My new ACER has 2 GB of RAM an AMD dual core processor, etc. and is running Vista very smoothly. I bought the machine bare and unlike our friends at the BBC I had Vista installed and running in 30 min. I spent the remaining 4 hours patching Vista, installing and configuring my ISS, installing my programs and moving files. I had a very Merry Christmas (for a geek). BTW I went to Microsoft's Vista upgrade site before I did any of this and got prepared. Maybe if we spent the extra 45 min to 1 hour doing this (like I did) a move to Vista won't be painful, like I initially thought it would be. "BB"

[g4acre]

I have 2 identical Dell XPS410's 2 gig ram duel core etc,etc. they were built with Vista in mind.my XP pro vs my Vista= XP- very fast & reliable,all my app's run well. Vista- slow to boot,slow to shut down,way to many app's wont run on it,ask me every time I try downloading something,did you start this action,well hell yes who eles would have? I will be using my Vista PC only for a short time to see if SP1 helps it out.then I will be installing XP or another OS.I cant accept[t Vista's slow ways. G4acre

[mathion]

I think the most telling thing about Vista's acceptance level (or lack thereof) among computer users is less that it's new and different (So was XP compared to Win 9X) but that there is THIS MUCH RESISTANCE over a year after the OS was introduced. XP's detractors way back when were mostly silenced after the first year and it enjoyed a much greater acceptance among all computer users by then. But with Vista, the detractors seem to only grow as more and more people experience Vista for the first time. With far greater computer penetration in the world today than when XP was introduced and a greater acceptance of improvements in technology now than then, and we still have this much argument about the merits of Vista proves that it is not an accepted new technology. It may yet be forced on us unwillingly, but I know this: You could NOT get Windows 98 OR ME installed on a new computer a year after XP was introduced. To me, that proves a lack of Vista acceptance among computer users.

[cfischer83]

Windows 7 sucks! I tried it on my brothers machine to check my email and it is SO unreliable! Why is Microsoft forcing us to buy Windows 7 when Vista is so good? Vista wasn't broke, so why try to fix it? Vista is more stable, reliable and faster AND all my drivers and apps work better with it than Windows 7. Windows 7 is just Vista with more animations and glitter. Gamers won't go to Windows 7, consumers won't go to Windows 7, and enterprises won't go to Windows 7! My boss told me that under no circumstances will he ever allow that bloated piece of junk into his offices.... I'm was thinking about just keeping Windows Vista until Windows 8 comes out, but I think now I'll just go to Linux or Mac.

.... oh wait....

I posted this 3 years too early... please come back and read this in 2010.

Thank you,

Converted (and happy about it) Vista user.

[cfischer83]

Mathion:

You don't know what you're talking about! You can still find Windows 2000 at stores in some places and you could get ME as late as 2003, as far as I can remember.

Also, XP was never accepted like the way it is now until after SP2 came out almost 4 years later... the reason it seems to be more intense now is because in 2001 there weren't nearly as many comment systems (such as this), blogs and most importantly........... an advertising system where hits = money which means you're going to hear negative 100 times more often than positive.

[mathion]

First off, if it was posted 3 years too early and we need to check back with you in 2010, that's only 1 year, 8 months and 11 days off. The specs for Windows 7 are unreleased so driver compatibility, speed, reliability, GUI, stability, system requirements and all other aspects of the OS are unknown. My expectation is to have Windows 7 compared to XP rather than Vista because even if 200 million more licenses for Vista are sold between now and Windows 7's anticipate release date (late 2009 or early 2010 - and 200 million is twice the number sold in over a year and four months of release for Vista), the world will still have FAR more XP users than Vista users.

Some people have good experiences with Vista. Some do not. The do not's seem to outnumber the do's. I expect that if Windows 7 is any faster or requires less hardware to run at full speed, it will be accepted quite readily by everyone, including Vista and XP users. Those are Vista's major Achilles heels and in an economic downturn, cost of hardware and loss of productivity due to speed/implementation will drive the market. An interesting post, but I expect Vista will end up down there with ME as the OS that never was. In the meantime, not wanting to invest huge amounts of money in 1 GB video cards, tons of RAM and high-end bus speeds, I'll opt for XP Pro for my next system. My current system uses 2000 Pro, and it is as fast as, and does all, I need it to do. We all have our preferences. Glad you like Vista. I've seen it in several dozen configurations and know how to make it work, but I'll never like it for 'under the hood' reasons.

[quinnt01]

After a lifetime of Windows I opted for a Macbook Pro instead of Vista. After 4 months I continue to be astounded with how useful Leopard's features are for my job. I can still run XP on my Mac when I have to, but that's rare and I'll never buy another Windows machine again.

[shhash]

I've experienced vista as a much better hastlefree system than sp2. Vista without sp1 is just enough for me, coz my hardware support is fine with basic vista, its faster than win xp, also intrusion proof (compared to xp) and finally your GPU's presence is much felt with aero effect. "Microsoft rules" and VISTA rocks-

[CPUtoast]

There is vast potential for future evolution in operating systems. I predict that their
monolithic nature will shrink, because suites
of applications will come wrapped in their own, specialized operating systems - systems that are customized to maximize the efficiency of the applications.
"It's the application, stupid."
I use music production software that is ill served by gargantuan OS's like Windows. What does Microsoft care about niche users like me?
In the future application providers won't need to be slaves to monopolistic corporations. Different, specialized OS's will coexist on the same machine, perhaps even running at the same time; and hardware will be designed to switch from one OS to another instantly.
We must break up monopolies. They are anti-democratic and fundamentally evil.
Also, Steve Jobs and his company are overrated.

[clifweb]

I use Window XP because sometime I have to uses it. (C# Programming) Fedora is the greatest, good performance and stability the only problem: Limited Games (Thanks to MS DirectX), No Adobe products. Choose the best for you! Linux, Mac or MS

[djsyntek]

I've been beside myself trying to figure out how in the hell all these users can say Vista is faster then XP. I'm absolutly obsessed with tweaking my systems and often will spend hours changing differnt settings to speed up processes. Then I realize that all these people saying Vista was faster on their new system then xp was on their old most likly had 25 programs starting up with windows, couple of toolbars on their internet explorer, and tons of crap running in the background like I've seen so many computers have and users do. Here is my point about Vista vs XP.

XP is more productive then Vista. AND Vista is bloated with features that you as a consumer and deffintly the corporate world will never use.

Vista is the new ME. I personally went and purchased a copy of Ultimate x64 which has the 32 and the 64 bit version in the shiney black jewel case. Also if you didn't know... for 30 days you can choose not to put in a key at the Vista installation using the "Vista anytime Upgrade" DVD and for 30 days evaluate any version of Vista. And my conclusion after testing the system for quite awhile was that at the end of the day, Windows XP SP2 still reigned supreme. The only reason I would want to move to Vista is take advantage of the dx10, but until more games require it, I and the majority of the tech savvy world are sticking to XP when it comes to windows.

[rtfire1]

I have a vist duel boot desk top with xp service pack 2 vist is faster and not by much. I use a stop watch to time how loong it takes things to get done say burn a dvd vista is faster, boot up in the morning vista and shutting down. It keeps up like this vista is fast but have it on a pc made for vista not hacked together to run vista. I love my xp pc's but vista is faster