Buzz Out Loud Lounge forum: Silent Vista-loving majority?

Compute power has continued it's exponential rise for decades, and the OS/GUI world has seen fit to use it all up on prettyness. This jump in requirement for RAM and GIPS is just large enough to remind me that the second primary mission of Microsoft is to keep the hardware upgrade suppliers of the world in business.

I could write a book about the unethical practices of Bill Gates and certain hardware manufacturers who would rather force you to buy new hardware than write compatable Windows drivers for their older components. Since Bill Gates first released that horrendous excuse for an operating system called Windows 95 he has never produced anything close to a stable OS. I lost count of how many times I've had to reinstall Windows systems to eliminate the bugs that it developes all on its own. For over a decade Linux has been available free of charge and has always been much more stable than any system Bill Gates has forced down our throats. Unfortunately, many software and hardware manufacturers refuse to accomodate Linux users. The way I see it Windows should be free OS because when it crashes at least we'd have the comfort of knowing we didn't loose any money when we aquired it.

So much for customer satisfaction.

YES!! Thanks so much for your voice of reason.

We know that Macs have hundreds of thousands of compatible drivers for the myriad numbers of peripherals that run on Windows...

OOOOPS! How did I miss this one. LOL

You may not see what Gates is doing as 'forcing it down your throat' and that's ok because everyone has a right to an opinion.

I look at the situation like this. There have been alternatives to Windows, IBM OS/2 WARP and BeOS are examples, that have been mostly ignored by software companies. Now why is that? What incentive do they have for ignoring alternative operating systems? Why whould these software companies help Microsoft create and maintain a monopoly on the operating system market, especially when there have always been problems with Microsoft operating systems when they were released to the consumers?

I ask you. What's wrong with that picture?

Sorry you've had such a hard time with Windows, but to paint with the broad brush you do about stability is, in a word, ridiculous.

I've had stable XP machines for years, with any number of different components and programs.

And where do you come off suggesting that MICROSOFT needs to write drivers for older components??!! That's up to the hardware manufacturers, not MS. And, it's THEY who have no motivation to update their drivers for a new OS, but rather steer you to new hardware. Think about it; that's business 101. MS couldn't care less, unless particular components would drag their OS down. The OEM's want you to buy the latest and greatest stuff.

I love how MS gets blamed for sticking to a backward-compatible code base by half of its critics, and, on the other hand, blamed for not providing total backward compatibility by the other half. Amazing...

Slikkster, I wonder where you are getting your XP operating systems from. I have had a dozen or so XP machines and have yet to find one even a small percentage as stable and smooth operating as 2000 Pro. I was really looking forward to Vista in hopes that it would correct the many unstable tendencies of XP. WRONG!!!!!! Vista just furthers the many problems that have never yet been corrected with XP.

About drivers - - This is a very sensitive subject with me. Why should I have to buy new software every time I upgrade an operating system??? I have a WONDERFUL graphics program, for instance, that I have used with DOS 5.xx with Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. This application, and a few other older applications that I have learned to use and like, will not work with Vista. THIS IS NOT A SOFTWARE PROBLEM!!!!! This is a problem with Vista software incompatibility.

Vista is like an egg truck. An egg farmer has delivered eggs to his customers for 25 years with no problems with egg breakage. Same roads, same customers, same route, same driver, etc.; even the same breed of chickens. He buys a new truck and suddenly most of his eggs are broken when he gets to his customer's locations. When he goes to the truck dealer to get this situation corrected, they tell him, "We're sorry about your problem, but the problem is the rough roads you drive on, not our truck." This is kinda the cop-out that Microsoft feeds us with the software incompatibilities. If I have been using an application since 1987 and it has worked on every OS since then, it is NOT the software author who has created the problem when it will no longer work!!

I`m trying to figure out just what you expect from an OS. Do you expect your Windows 3.11 based programs to be able to run on any Windows platform forever ? You're probably upset that, no matter how hard you try, your VHS tapes can't be squeezed into that DVD tray as well. If you have an extra 6 year old GM headlight in your garage, would you expect it to fit in your new GM car, irregardless of the model ?

With most graphics programs, being able to open older version files IS possible, but only to a certain extent. Are you going to blame Vista for that as well ?

Be thankful that those old programs have run on the last half dozen Micro$oft OS's (keep your "old" computer for the older programs like I will be doing). You certainly would not have had that ability with a Mac where buying a new machine just to run the OS is not unheard of.

Vista has done a pretty good job of trying to create viable drivers for all the Tom, Dick and Harry's hardware / software out there (but definitly many are too basic in functionality) when the responsibility to "keep up with the times" lies with the manufacturers of the added hardware and software. Micro$oft makes the code available to them to use but many don't bother....for anything over two years old.

My Vista Ultimate is still, for about the past year, in its packaging since I know that some of my legacy programs (Win 95 era) will not run on Vista. Why would I expect it to ? When the new "box" is built, then I'll install it, keeping the old one with the legacy programs I need for some of my customers' work, beside it. If you look at the code structures involved in creating software and OS's, you would not expect software or hardware immortality either.

I'm curious why you would you post in a thread specifically dedicated to users who are happy with Vista?

The OP's thread is pretty specific: He's looking for users who are happy with Vista to speak out. If you want to post Vista rants, why would you troll here?

Not only did I get Vista back in January 2007 but I also purchased the 64 bit version. Talk about throwing yourself on a grenade!

Because it's possible to build a powerful WinTel box very cost effectively (assuming you don't need to be on the absolute bleeding edge of Intel technology) I was able to install Vista on a box that has a lot of horsepower. The system is fast, stable, and the fact that I am on a 64 bit OS has not been much of a problem in terms of program or game compatibility.

That said, allow me to make two important points.

1) Do not upgrade a PC designed to run XP to Vista! It's not worth it! This is the exact same advice I gave to people seven years ago when they contemplated uprgading to XP using hardware designed to run Windows 2000!

2) The first six months with Vista was pure H - E - double hockey sticks! Vista was not ready for prime time and it was clear Microsoft's launch partners were not ready either. Dumb moves all around and it's possible that these mistakes will ultimately be fatal to the OS because of the (deservedly) bad press.

Despite being a windows user and a beta-tester, I've never really 'liked' Windows. That said, Vista is far and away the best version to date. Once I used the beta, I never went back. I had some driver problems, but nothing too serious and I solved them. I think NVIDIA is really the culprit behind most people's problems. Or at the very least, third party driver support (though the OS should be able to survive bad drivers better than it does for sure.)

There are one or two pro-apps I use that don't work yet, but for everything else, it is a much better OS. Certainly for everyday use.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299&tag=rbxccnbzd1
he's got some...stuff to say about that.

It proved my point about DRM in the drivers. Interesting.

Like you I enjoy the Vista Interface. There are features that XP didn't have that I use on Vista, which frustrates me when I go back to XP machines. The only nit I have with the Vista inferface is explorer settings seem to be harder to find and set.

The desktop.ini file is a pain but that's XP as well...

From that article.

"Windows Vista includes a new set of features that allow playback software to work with protected media. This DRM infrastructure is bitterly controversial"

Perhaps Guttman has details wrong, yet Bott seems to confirm the DRM infrastructure that Guttman said was built into Vista just the same.

My point remains the same. It adds artifical complexity to Vista which in turn causes Vista to have more problems than if it iddn't have it to begin with. DRM is not needed by an operating system. to function well.