Silent Vista-loving majority?
by chustar - 4/30/08 5:37 PM
Is anyone here part of the silent vista-loving majority? I've used it for close to a year without any problems. Come on people, let's get our voices heard!
by: chustar April 30, 2008 5:37 PM PDT
0 people like this thread
it already has home premium
i already have home premium, but i fugure if i have ultimate installed, i can get win 7 for cheap when it comes out.
Actually that's a slightly distressing question.
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.
The main issues that I've had that were Vista Specific were more blue screen driver related errors, and Direct X for games. Vista runs 10 (could be 11 I'm going off the top of my head) and XP 9. They changed how direct x works. Anything that needs 9 may not find what it's looking for with 10 under Vista. The fix is to install 9 on Vista to fill in the gaps that 10 leaves. Or if the game is new enough run the update for it so it's not looking for the missing componentes of 9.
The other issue for lack of a better word is that XP was fairly Robust. Vista is and is't at the same time. It's more likely to have internal conflicts where errors happen because Vista doesn't get along with itself or it's own drives. Hard to describe. SP1 is more Robust than the initial release. I also get strange system hangs where the system has to pause and think for awhile before it suddenly unlocks and catches up to itself. Not sure if thats specific to a driver problem or Vista in general but it didn't happen under XP. Either it worked or it didn't.
Thus far all programs that I had that worked under XP work under Vista though some games took a tweak.
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.
I don't ever remember anyone forcing windows down my throat. You know, this is America, where you can buy what you want, and if you can't buy what you want, you are free to make what you want, so I get really tired of people complaining about Bill Gates and microsoft. Bill Gates is rich because millions of people put a high value on what he created. If you don't like windows, buy a mac and drink your starbucks, or stick with linux and quit complaining. You are always free to write your own programs and drivers for linux. I did try Linux for a few weeks though and it sucked. I have never had any problem with vista. I even found drivers for all of my old hardware. I paid for it when it came out and I will probably pay for Windows 7.
YES!! Thanks so much for your voice of reason.
You are right! That's why I switched to a MAC. And I'm loving it!
We know that Macs have hundreds of thousands of compatible drivers for the myriad numbers of peripherals that run on Windows...
Macs have their pros and cons on this issue
When you buy a Mac you buy into a monopoly that makes Microsoft look like the nice guy. That's a plus in that you get better compatibility when the OS company makes the hardware as well. It's negative because you have limited choice in hardware.
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?
BTW, my primary computer use these days is for digital art and animation. At the moment I do not have the funds to purchase MAC systems but I may have the opportunity to purchase several MAC PROs in the near future to speed up my work flow and provide a stable platform for my projects.
So much for reasonable posts...
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...
So much for reasonable posts...
I will admit that XP is a bit more stable than its predicessors but it's far from bug free. Ive worked as a freelance PC tech for quite a few years and I can assure you that Im not the only one who has had troubles with Windows so Im sure that there are plenty of people out there who wouldnt blame me at all for using the broad brush, as you put it, to paint my opinion of Windows.
Also, if you reread what I said about the driver compatibility problem I didnt blame Microsoft for it. I pointed out Bill Gates unethical business practices. Im pretty sure anyone who got stuck with one of those faulty X-Boxes that he intensionally shipped out to meet a proposed quota and then wouldnt grant any of the consumers he screwed a refund would agree with me on that. I guess it was my grouping the hardware manufacturers preference to force consumers to buy new hardware rather than provide drivers that are compatible with a new version of Windows into the same sentence that confused you and for that I apologize. I still consider that practice unethical. Not everyone now days has the money to be buying new hardware.
I do find it gratifying to see that Linux systems are making a surge in the business world. It seems that corporations are finally reconizing the value of a rock stable platform for critical business applications.
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!!
Thank you John! You put that all very well.
The biggest problem with our society these days is that profit has become much more important than what's good for the people. Greed is the great plague of the 21st Century.
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.
waste of space. literally. I had to upgrade hardrives twcie just ot keep up with it.
Ihad a T42, graphics (card) ok. outlook, and explorer super duper painfully slow.
I just got my x300 with xp pro, now we're talking FAST !!!
My recommendation is that Blackberry should start making laptops.
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?
I have that experience in XP
Both my work system and my home system have that "hold on while I think for a few minutes" experience from time to time. Both have XP. One is an older P4 and the other is an AMD 64. So although you haven't had that experience with XP, I'm sure plenty of us have.
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.
Vista is great!
I understand the frustration of people trying to get a new OS to work because hardware manufacturer's do not have drivers out to make anything work, but its been over a year now, and for the most part, everything is supported now (except 64 bit versions).
I had only two minor problems, the first problem with Vista was concerning sound, but after messing with it for a few minutes, I found a way to fix it. The second problem was the use of a printserver to put a printer on the network. A 32 bit version of Vista is able to use it but had to turn off print spooler and can only print directly, which freezes the computer until the print job is done, and my 64 bit version can't print at all, it will try and the job will freeze.
Even with these two issues, I am still pretty much satisfied with Vista. If you need help with distortion in sound, email me at: steven peterson (oneword)at ameritech dot net
not 'love' but yes.
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.
The Real Driver Issue
Just so you know.
Vista didn't have to have driver issues at all. Instead Windows Vista Content Protection (for content I don't have or care to use) imposes a steep price on both users of vista and the makes of drivers.
Maybe SP2 will drop this and Vista can speed up a bunch and get more stable to boot.
well, according to ed bott...
he's got some...stuff to say about that.
Chustar, I'm so glad you posted that link
Some people have bought into this ridiculous pap that Guttman has written about Vista DRM. Bott's article makes a laughing-stock of Guttman's "work", and hopefully the poster here who linked to Guttman will admit as much and acknowledge the real story. This is the kind of pathetic stuff that people glom onto and spread as if it were gospel.
It proved my point about DRM in the drivers. Interesting.
Silent - this is my first post
Just an opener by saying hi - I listen to BOL everyday and am totally entertained by cnet's JaMoTo! Top stuff
I have been listening to the comments made by Tom, Molly and Tekzilla's Pat Norton - and have got say that I took Vista on on the day it came out with a Sony Vaio purchase and have since purchased a HP Tablet with it on.
My appraisal of it has a different skew from the above i.e. I don't do any networking apart from usual stuff for work and home wifi / lan BUT I do own an immense amount of peripherals from many different manufacturers and have got to say that all the apps and drivers I brought from [IMHO the very very average] XP and my transition, hardware wise, has been on the whole seamless [except very early integration with iTunes?!? Now very stable].
This aside from the aforementioned persons issues - my main appreciation of Vista is the interface itself. Let's take the excellent intuative search / index options persent in every directory - man, this is so much better than the old search option that to go back to XP is painfull and slightly unintuative! I also must mention the "Apple quickview" feature e.g. being able to look into a documents content without opening the application - it is present in Vista but not immediately obvious, although it is a little unstable - it does its job!
Whilst I could complain about the memory hungry features, I currently use a HP table with 1GB of ram which I will upgrade this week to 4GB for this reason, it's no big deal considering it's a big step for MS in terms of a re-vamp of Windows in general. You don't need to totally re-write an OS to improve it but they will have a proper go one day! The only critisim is that like all MS apps - it's bloatwear!
I also currently run an eeePC with Ubuntu and Compiz-fusion and am totally in love with it - this OS has faults but it's horses for courses. I know that MS / Vista is a difficult bullet to dodge if you don't want or need it but there are a plethora of systems nowadays available, this doesn't excuse Vistas' failings when they assured all it was a wonder system!?!
Although if I do come across networking / driver or apps that don't work I WILL HAVE TO ALTER THIS POSTING!!! LOL
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...
Breaking News: Compiz Fusion Interface blows away Vista Aero
Ubuntu with Compiz Fusion and Fusion Icon blows Vista out of the water when it comes to refreshing, customizable, ease of use, and features. Wow is just one word that might come out of your mouth, and $0 dollars out of your wallet...
Autumn with falling leaves
Uses and Effects
Windows Vista vs. Ubuntu Compiz Fusion Beryl
3D Desktop! TouchScreen and XGL on Linux!
These are just a few examples of why the Ubuntu Desktop blows away Windows Vista, all while using less RAM..!!!!!!!!!
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.