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
I'm silently loving it...
...sorta. The only issue I have is my on-board sound didn't have any Vista drivers (no great surprise really). The XP drivers hadn't been updated since 2003! So I thought, oh well I'll be a PCI sound card. It's working but I can't get anywhere near as good a sound out of it as I did with the on-board sound. I guess I'll just have to wait for better drivers from Creative.
Still, I love it. I thought I would get sick of all the effects and what not, but I love them.
I wasn't going to get Vista at the ridiculous prices but I found a copy of Home Premium (Academic Upgrade) for $AU94 (definitely genuine)! So I thought, 'What the hell!'.
Yes so far I have not found anything I dislike about Vista. It just has so many neat features
Happy to be a Vista Lover!
The only complaint I have had is the inability to turn off the hardware acceleration manually. Other than that everything I use has been compatible or has manged to work it out pretty quickly!
Vista has been great! So far no crashes, inspite of loading several older programs. Sometimes everything slows to a crawl when Vista "hits a wall" and tries to figure a program out, but then it just shuts down the program and keeps on humming. (I have solved those issues by running the older programs in an XP emulation mode in Vista.)
I really don't know what the experts are all complaining about. For us novices, it is great!
I am running Vista Home Premium on a homebuilt (first one!) intel motherboard, E6750 dual core processor, 3gb Ram, 500 gb hard drive, NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT graphics card.
I've never had any of the problems that people talk about. I will admit that I do have some problems with vista but most of the time I just love it. The interface is good and its definately better than xp!
I started out with the beta and have not had any problems. I am using it on a laptop and a desktop that I built. At first drivers were a problem but I expected that.
I would recommend it to anyone.
Not happy initially but loving it now.
I had some problems when I built this gaming computer in Jan and switched back to XP till some of the updates came out.
Only issue is with the onboard sound card gets a little quirky at times. I had better sound with XP and PCI card. Oh well, I can hear well enough to get killed in game!
I just don't see what everyone is complaining about
Not every OS will work perfectly for everyone. I've had no problems with Vista since Jan 30, 07, and have no desire to downgrade to XP. SP1 has made what I believe a very stable and productive OS even more stable. No complaints here.
Vista for home use vs business use
by commorancy - 5/19/08 2:27 AM
In Reply to: I just don't see what everyone is complaining about by sntholiday
For home users, Vista works almost as well as XP for most applications. The only issue is for older cards and drivers. As long as you invest in a new PC designed to run Vista, it will run without issues. If you want to upgrade your old XP PC, that's where some issues arise. It's cheap enough now to buy a reasonably fast dual core for home use that works fine with Vista.
For business users, the issue is far different. In businesses, you're looking at major compatibility problems with many in-house applications. This means substantial redevelopment time to port these apps over to Vista. On top of this, the overhead of Vista's glitzy features don't really enhance productivity for employees. What enhances productivity is speed, not glitz. But, companies could live with the glitz if performance were the only factor. It isn't. Another factor is price to get desktops upgraded. In many companies, it's not enough to attempt to upgrade the employee's system (due to older hardware incompatibilities). In a lot of cases, IT will have to purchase a new system for each user to get Vista to run in a reasonable fashion. If this were for only one person, it wouldn't be that bad. But, in many companies you're talking possibly hundreds of employees. Investing $500-1000 in getting better systems for hundreds of employees becomes costly fast. Couple this with the time it takes to migrate each employees settings and apps to the new Vista system, and you'll understand why businesses are slow to adopt. This is the main reason why Vista isn't selling overall to businesses. Businesses make up a huge portion of Microsoft's operating system revenue and businesses just aren't upgrading to Vista very fast at all.
So, while Vista works in most cases for home users, it isn't overall the best deal when it comes to businesses.
If you don't know how to use it, you're not going to like it
It's as simple as that. Vista is an awesome OS, but the rest of the world just can't catch up fast enough (nor can these old dogs learn new tricks, evidently). There are so many features and functions that are amazing - AND it has a built-in 'dummy proof' feature, where the moron who doesn't know what they're doing can actually cancel something they started that they actually didn't mean to start, and thereby eliminates other people (family members, co-workers, etc.) from accidentally deleting or adding something to your expensive and beloved computer. I.T. departments cannot catch up fast enough because most companies won't shell out the money it would take to make all things compatible. If they would, they might not need the I.T. person. Only suggestion - don't buy it as a download if you are upgrading - buy the CD.
Vista and Business
by commorancy - 5/19/08 9:23 PM
>I.T. departments cannot catch up fast enough because most companies won't shell out the money it would take to make all things compatible.
True to a point. It's not just the cost to 'make things compatible', it goes much deeper than this. Here's the breakdown:
* The cost to upgrade each employee's computer to Vista (probably easier to buy new computers than to attempt upgrading existing computers)
** The time and effort it takes to migrate each user's settings and applications from the old computer to the new computer
* The cost to upgrade and relicense each developer's computer to the newest Vista development frameworks
** The cost to upgrade each in-house application to support Vista
* The later cost to upgrade Domain Controllers to support more of Vista's advanced features
* The time it takes to train people on Vista new interface
There are a lot of infrastructure costs involved in getting everyone on the same page... more than what you might think. Even if a company was willing to outlay the cash to do all of this, what benefit have they gained? UAC controls are not enough to 'protect' users from themselves. UAC won't solve the overall issue that Windows tends to break of its own accord without outside intervention.
Then, there's the ROI (return on investment) here. Will companies reap any monetary benefits from doing a Vista roll-out company-wide? No.
Will the company gain better productivity from employees? Not really. Maybe to the extent that UAC actually delivers on its promise of more stability (not having to rebuild computers as often), but that productivity gain is quickly lost by the constant requesters that get in the way of doing actual work. So, while the computer might break less often, the employee must continually click through 'Are you really, positively and absolutely sure?' questions. If the employee is really determined to break the computer, UAC isn't going to stop them... and yes, there are actually employees who intentionally break their computer to force a 'break'.
Then there's the look and feel issues. Moving from 2000 to XP was fairly seamless. The menus were in the same places. With Vista, no longer is there a 'Start' button. The 'Programs' are now kind of hidden. Many of the control panels have been renamed and the overall placement of things is different. These fundamental changes mean a learning curve for corporate users who may not be the most computer savvy in the world. Changes such as this do require a learning curve from many people. So, getting them accustomed to where things have moved may take several weeks for them to begin to feel comfortable again.
For those of us who listen to BOL, most of us are computer savvy. So, installing and learning Vista may seem easy. For novice computer users who have grown accustomed to XP, the change to Vista will take some time to master. Again, this is productivity lost until they transition.
This is why it's a bit more complex than to 'make things compatible'. It takes time, effort and money to get every employee on the same page again with new computers in a change such as this.
Ultimately, the reason businesses are hesitant to upgrade to Vista is ROI: There will be a lot of money spent, but little in the way of return to the company or improvement for the company's customers. In fact, the company's customers likely won't even see any improvement as a result of a company upgrading to Vista. For this reason alone, this is the biggest argument against upgrading to Vista in business. The cost of Vista only serves to make Microsoft (and hardware makers) richer. The Vista roll-out, however, doesn't give any substantial benefit back to the affected company and offers several months of headaches, a large cash outlay, lost time during transition and possibly even downtime (due to unexpected incompatibilities).
Vista is pretty good. After I've installed SP1, there really doesn't seem to be any crashes or hiccups. And when I load the flash drive, it seems to download and upload a lot faster. I don't really see why so many people are complaining about Windows Vista.
(NT) Vista is awesome
I'm with throck, Vista is great.
Run's without a hitch now with SP1 (used to have the HDD stalls). It's pretty and its fast. Finally something that looks as good as a mac with windows superior functionality. w00t vista!
All you haters need to upgrade your ramz n jiggahurts! :P
I really hate it when people make claims they don't back up.
Please tell me how you believe Windows has superior functionality to OS X?
And to say it looks as good as a Mac is pure barf. What's the logic behind that statement? Apple's user experience is far more complex than the pig-lipstick they slapped on Vista. One single example of many is the fact that you read a dialogue box full of annoyingly obtuse descriptions in Vista and scratch your head before pressing either Yes, No or Cancel, and you're still not sure you pressed the right button half the time. (Look at UAC for example). Whereas on Mac OS X dialogue boxes you get simple explanations in the text and buttons which say the actual actions on them. You may think that is not much of an issue to technically adept PC users but that is THE issue. Not all PC users are technically adept.
To have to read a dialogue box carefully many times a day takes your concentration off the important things like trying to get your work done. Every time you take your mind off the real challenge your work throws at you (especially if you are a coder) it means you have to get your mind back into "the zone" a little. This slows down your productivity.
On the Mac they make user interaction easy but incorporate technically powerful code to make the "human-unnecessary" decisions for you. I mean, what is the point in your OS telling you that you plugged a mouse into a USB port for goodness sake? That sort of unnecessary computer-user interaction just serves to slow you down.
Look at the lack of intuitiveness of Vista back-ups compared to "Time Machine" on a Mac. Uuuuggghhh...
Macs are so easy they are accessible to anyone.
These are just a few reasons why people find the Mac is a far more logical easy to use platform.
Vista Schmista. It's just playing catch-up to the Mac since OS X came out. How can it catch up though when Apple has so much more experience in OS and GUI development.
OS X is based on NeXT's NextStep which was way ahead of anything back in 1989 when it was released. It was UNIX based and had features even the Mac could only dream of back then.
Protected memory, preemptive multitasking and multithreading, and symmetric multiprocessing. etc etc and was continually developed since 1985 by NeXT up until Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple and founder of NeXT) came back to Apple. Apple bought NeXT and developed OS X from there back in the late 90's.
Windows 2.1 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Win386.jpg
Macintosh System 6 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Finder608.png
NextStep 1 - http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/bsgfx/apple/nextstep-01-scr-.jpg
The first web server (which was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN) ran on a Next Cube and so did the first web browser called "WorldWideWeb".
In conclusion, the development of OS X started back in 1985 with NextStep and has been refined ever since. 23 years in total. And that 23 years has been spent improving and adding new features rather than just trying to botch the system to make it backward compatible (i.e. windows, hence all of the spaghetti code and unpatched security holes).
People have to remember that the original windows users just bought 'doze over the Mac because they couldn't afford a Mac. Windows market share has never been about quality. It's been about cheap and cheerful.
Does Apple provide you with your talking points, or do you come up with all this on your own?
To stay on topic, when the choice came to order my new PC with XP or Vista on it, I chose Vista.
I absolutely love it and would never go back to XP.
The topic is Vista. But thanks for re-confirming the image of the arrogant, self-centered Mac fanatic. "Complex user experience". How profound! "Pig lipstick" ... now, gotta admit that's a good one. Sometimes you arrogant f*ckheads come up with some good lines. Now go away and play with your snotty friends.
hmmmmmm... think we got a lil lier in the group!!!
so no problems till you installed sp1? interesting then explaine y MICROSOFT is droping VISTA> if it is indeed so good and bringing out Vienna, Windows 7 to replace VISTA? in 2009 y so quick waiting years for longhorn/vista ,but yet wait there is a longhorn release only for SERVER>? hmmmm, but 4yrs sorry 6 years of work just to drop it hmmmm, i think not quest should be asked is not how it run but WHY ARE THEY DROPING IT>>>>>>>>?????? y is vista being removed from selves by end of 2008 , why is xp still out till 2010 , y is it the nvidia and microsoft are in middle of court about a class action law suite for the fualty drivers or crashes? since vista is so good y would you drop a product that took billions to creat in a matter of under 2 full years to drop it and start over? explaine it can you ????? why does the vista have winload.exe in the win dir??? in which is a progie called PC TATTLETALE??? a keyloger???? xoftspy se will detect it , but yet after sp1 xoftspyse will not run? hmmm tell you something there? explaine y the conect to the network all over when idle, sit back watch you router or cable modem or what not one night log the the netstat see what post!@ be suprised of the finding **** post them here!!!! lol , in closing before offering opions please do a lil research!!!
Bad image problem
by andrewr - 6/24/08 2:02 AM
In Reply to: hmmmmmm... think we got a lil lier in the group!!! by jaces99
People such as yourself, who demonstrate limited capabilities (look at your spelling, grammar and sentence structure), through your ineptitude in using Vista, have created an image problem for Microsoft, and they, thinking the image cannot be corrected, have elected to cut and run with the next operating system, code named Windows 7 earlier than originally planned. All of this does not change the superiority of Vista. All it's requirements were well documented early in the game. Driver problems, hardware requirements, cosmetic changes requiring new learning were all discussed on the internet even when Vista was in beta. Do your research.
Listen to what the experts say
Read what the experts are saying about Vista...even if they: "demonstrate limited capabilities (look at your spelling, grammar and sentence structure), through your ineptitude in using Vista,..."
Too bad Vista is only for people with "capabilities" like you.
Personal slurs are a low-blow online
"Too bad Vista is only for people with "capabilities" like you."
Really, dude? Is that really neccessary? The experts I read (Adrian Kingsley Hughes, Molly Wood, Tom Merrit, Paul Thurrot, Ed Bott, Mary Jo Foley, Rafe Needleman, Leo Laporte, and some other people I don't remember) they all say that there isn't anything wrong with Vista.
There is a reason for that
Maybe they work for Microsoft, they have shares, or simply the use Vista for playing games at home.
The most common message I get from Vista is "not responding". Do you thing I invented that. By the way, I have "some" capabilities, I am completing a Master degree in Information System Security Management and most of the professors AND classmates agree that Vista is not stable.One of them mentioned Vista, RIP, based on a survey.
Please open your eyes, we changed the "blue screen" for "not responding" to name only a few bugs. It is not a problem of bad image, it is a problem of quality.
Not employees or shareholders
I could have called a few MSFT employees but I didn't want to specifically because you might say it's only because it pays their salary.
None of these guys are Microsoft employees and they all say they don't buy shares in companies they report on (we only have their word for it but if we don't trust the journalists, then maybe Bush isn't actually the president, since the only proof I have of that is that it's what the journalists tell me).
I don't suppose you'd be able to accept that different people have different experiences, will you? Like how my laptop has never crashed (except once when I was trying to hack the graphics card) or how I am happier with vista than with XP?
The problem with the "Vista sucks!" argument is that it refuses to acknowledge people's personal experiences.
(NT) I'm not exactly silent, but no worries here.
Not quite loving it, but I didn't really love xp either. Other than not being able to use vpn for work (they're not supporting vista yet...heck, they're only just now preparing to roll out IE7), I've been satisfied. But that is mainly because I got a new laptop rather than an upgrade. New laptop better than the old.
'Cos I'm getting a copy of ultimate in a few days. No, i didn't pay for it, i got it with the spyware for vista program they had last year. I'm planning to upgrade it when it arrives, but are there really that many compatibility issues?
I have home premium. My only problem is with my company's corporate VPN (I think Tom was having issues with that too so he downgraded to XP on his Mac). I just have to suck it up because it is a personal laptop (I'm not important enough to have a company laptop) and my company doesn't support Vista yet. Once it does, I can get assistance from my IT dept. It won't happen this year, though.