Windows Vista forum: Poll: Whats your personal experience with Vista?

I have Vista on a laptop and what bothers me more than not being able to use many programs I used and loved that run on XP, is that I have NO CHOICE! Compaq made no drivers for me to use XP on my Compaq 572 laptop. I'm stuck with that fat, sluggish, piece of crap operating system whether I like it or not! Since then I've bought a Thinkpad on ebay that uses XP and I'm a happy camper again. I've been trying to sell my Compaq 572 on eBay, I hope I can get some dummy who likes Vista to buy it! There's a sucker born every minute who will buy the latest gimmick just because it's new, LOL!

I like it just fine. Like any computer i've ever had there have been problems. The Vista operating system has run pretty smooth. I have had a couple of software conflicts but not anything that couldn't be fixed. I have a notebook running xp and would upgrade it to Vista if I could.

I have an AMD Athlon 64x2 4600 AMD dual core processor and run Vista Basic sytem builder edition on a locally built machine.
Vista runs like a bat out of hell, I use Auslogics defragmenter every couple of days and have nil problems.
I enjoy the aesthetics of Vista. It actually feels and looks like a modern operating system should.

I started using Vista with the purchase of a new computer. I like alot of the aspects, however, much of my old software/games will not run on Vista. I don't know if this is due to Microsoft or the software manufacturers. Unhappy overall due to this.

I agree with your entire post.
If you are a normal computer user of say the last 20 years, you will be use to big changes, upgrades in both hardware (plenty of that) and software. It's just the way using a PC has always been.
Progress i believe it's called.
Now, I admit I like the fact that Linux users only get upgrades when problems are fixed and less for cosmetic reasons or just to sell more software.
MS, does make changes often just for the fact it is about time to sell a new version, but ALL Software companies (who profit) do that.

Other than that, Vista is a big improvement in everything. And most people fail to realize all the free stuff included in it, voice integration, backup etc... If your hardware is up to date, get the OS that was desioned for it, Vista.
Plain and simple.
If your hardware is dated, then stick with OS for that era.
MS, should never even attempted Vista upgrades, they should have just sold it on new hardware and that would have made for less isssues.

"I think the Windows Vista bashers fall into 4 DISTINCT categories:
1) El Cheapo's: People who CAN'T AFFORD TO or WON'T upgrade to Vista certified hardware. They are still trying to run legacy hardware and are mad that it won't work and they can't get drivers. Is it M$ fault that the manufacturer didn't upgrade your 1912, , legacy hardware drivers? Nope!! Plus Vista needs memory, you can't run it on 512 MB!! Try 3 GB."

No operating system should require 2+ GB in order to run. There are numerous POSIX compliant OS's which run quite happily with well under 512MB or RAM. Why should consumer's have to pay for Microsoft's predatory business and poor programming practices?

And why does it take that much memory? There are two answes:

1. Microsoft wants to maintain a monopoly position. MS is notorious for ignoring the standards (e.g. POSIX) established by industry, government and standards committees (e.g. ISO/ANSI) in favor of its own similar, but proprietary, "standards".

2. Microsoft sells to unsophisticated users who believe eye candy makes something modern. The problem with that is that every time they change the user interface to make things prettier and easier for the tyros who are their target demographic, they make it harder for those of us who know enough to work closer to the "bare metal" safely. I'm not a big fan of Apple, but at least they got that much right. On a Mac, you couldn't ask for prettier interface, but the underlying machine is still accessible.

"2) The "Supposed" Whiz Kid/ IT: "I've been using computers since the Abacus and it doesn't work." Did you try to tinker with it, were you under the "hood" and change settings?? Now it doesn't work so BASH Vista????? Or...... a closet #1 ??? If your software vendor didn't update to a Vista compatible version, is it Vista's fault?? NOPE!!"

Read my previous comment. When standards are established and people stick to them, everything works with few surprises. Is MS stuck to standards, then life would be a lot simpler for folks who felt compelled to tinker. Of course, fewer would fell compelled to tinker, because most of the standards MS ignores would make their OS's smaller and faster.

Of course, if MS published standards-based OS's, they couldn't maintain their de facto monopoly. Unfortunately, in hosing their competitors, they also hosed their customers. Again, this is something Apple did right, basing their modern OS's on POSIX-compliant Unix, then adding the proprietary stuff cleanly on top. Both companies would like to monopolize their markets, but Apple's approach leaves their customers largely out of their battles with competitors.

"3) The "I Don't Like To Learn/ Relearn a OS": YES there is a learning curve, I DON'T like the fact M$ renamed or made it harder to find/ do some of the tasks that I could just about do in my sleep under XP.
Just a side note, I'm getting there!! In fact I'm to the point of having to stop and think of how to do some things on my granddaughters
XP machine( she got my old XP box)."

So, you're defending change for the sake of change? It's not that those people are stupid or lazy, it's that they can see no reason to change something that's not broken. Some of us have enough to do without enduring learning curves - even short ones - just to be fashionable.

"4) The "Ye Olde Apple Dumpling Gang": People who have "probably" never owned a PC or bailed out around the the Windows SE era. Are you jealous that there are probably at least TWICE the amount of programs available for PC's???? Are you bashing Vista just to stir the pot??"

Thanks for supporting the anti-Vista arguments. You did so because there are more programs that will run on XP and not Vista than there are programs which will run n Vista but not XP.

There have always been "killer apps" - programs that make one machine or OS superior to others. Anyone who needs or wants to use any of those will be stuck with whatever runs them. There are indeed many which only run on Windows, but most of those will run on XP as well as Vista. OTOH, Mac and Linux each have their own killer apps. There may be killer apps exclusively for Vista, but I haven't heard of any.

I do a modest amount of home user support, and find that people who have bought new machines have nothing but trouble getting them going with Vista ... and when we finally get it all patched together the machine is slower than the old one! Endless startup, broadband incompatibilities, slow file handling, peripherals not supported, etc. All this for a fluffy game-boy interface which is impressive only to teenagers. So far, I have steered four or five users to a Dell Vostro, where you can still get XP.
I Micro$oft is so proud of Vista and plans to dump XP, why not donate XP to the open source community? Support may be a bigger challenge than it was to clean up IE, OE, and Office, but there's a big pool of talent that might just pull it off. Or maybe make the last stable release of XP a free download and let the market decide?
Perry B

Currently looking to revert to XP, as this Vista has been nothing but problems and a pain. First the computer is slower than our old Compaq with windows xp, and locks even more than the older compaq with windows 95 on it still that the kids use to play their old games. Next issue was with the Wireless networking. After first working just fine with the Belkin Wireless N router, after going on a trip and useing another wireless network after about a month of working at home, was not able to set the network up to work fine again. Would get connected but only locally, no issues with the XP wireless desktop. Couldn't use the wireless adaptor form the desktop to use the wireless network with the laptop, as it did the same thing. Now that I reverted back the the linksys wireless g, back to no problem with the wireless network. Currently researching whether it would be better to load XP on to this machine. Will never buy another Vista POS. Will either go with Mac or Linux but there is nothing anyone can say to get me to go buy another one. I know I will never have to work on one machine with this operating system at my current global company. Doubt many other large companies will be idiotic enough to go to Microsofts current version of ME.

If someone can explain a logical reason to upgrade (downgrade?) to Vista, I will. The reason that is most prevalent is---Microsoft will not be supporting XP in the near future.
Vista is expensive to install on an existing machine, the machine needs more abundant resources, implementation can cause a myriad of problems----crashing, no drivers and etc. My copy of XP Professional does everything it should do and is stable. Therefore----Why Vista?

I bought Dell Vostro (great PC btw) specifically so I did not have to downgrade to Vista, a terrible interim operating system that is supposed to last less than 3 more years (Microsoft hopes to finish windows 7 in 3, not likely though)

Two thing have made Vista stable for me.
1 - Firefox beta 3
2- SP 1

Prior to FF b3, I had frequent browser crashes with both IE and FF when running games at http://www.ledgaming.com/. Besides the crashes graphic intensive web sites took forever to load and many page just timed out. FF b3 fixed both of these problems.

SP 1 fixed the random desktop crashes that I had.

I'm becoming less dissatisfied.

I do tech support and I feel that Vista may work for the person at home with only one or two computers it is a different story in the work enviornment and when you need help. Either Vista doesn't play nice with the other existing OSs out there or they don't play well with vista. Also from a help perspective it is harder to maniuplate Vista and do the things I can do with XP. It seems harder to find where you can change settings and things seem to be more setup to a prescribed way of being, for example I was trying to adjust a person's PC for sleep, hibernate, etc and instead of being given a straight up choice we are given choices that are supposed to cover all preferences. Also I use windows explorer a lot and I find the organization in Vista hard to use and also the fact of the way it moves around as I try to browse through it to see where I want to go makes me nuts. I could get sea-sick watching that!
I know I need more experience with Vista to address issues easily but what I have seen so far makes me reluctant to make the switch myself anytime soon.

I do not like Vista for three main reasons:

1. The washed out/non contrasting colours it uses for the desktop. Try highlighting a photo for copying or something and you can barely tell if there is a highlight box around it.

2. The fact that when I download a group of pictures from my camera I'm forced to go through the Photo Gallery first then highlight and copy them then put them in the Pictures program where I want to store them. It seems as a particularly useless step and very frustrating.

3. When I want to review my pictures and I select a particular thumbnail size to see the picture properly I have to do it with every picture individually rather than setting it once to the larger size and having it stay that way until I want to change it back to the default "tiny" thumbnail size.

As you can tell I use Vista mostly for picture handling, fortunately only on my wife's laptop when we're travelling together. My desktop still has XP and I will always use XP until forced to do otherwise.

I was one of the Express (HA!) Upgrade folk. I am certain my experience has been very different from many because I scrubbed my system of crapware (including Registry debris), and replaced non-compliant utilities and apps before the upgrade, and upgraded the BIOS firmware. Ed Bott and other columnist/authors are correct. It is the OEMs that are killing Vista, not Microsoft.

My personal opinion is this notebook runs Vista better than XP. Oh yeah, I researched and applied Registry tweaks to Vista - but I'm sure most XP power users do the same - only given how new Vista is, they are harder to find and/or find the little utilities that do them for you.

I'm not unhappy with XP. My two generation older desktop won't be upgraded. I know better.

I probably have more applications installed than most, some of which are not Vista compatible so the cost of upgrading will be significant. I also do some programming to complement a commercial program used by my church an must consider its database software. A new Dell with XP is being delivered today to keep me going for the next couple of years.