Windows XP forum: Poll: Will you skip Vista entirely and wait until Windows 7?

Our desktops have XP and our new laptop has Vista. Have owned the laptop for a couple months now. No problems.....at least with the way I use it. It came with 3GB and even though the menus look a little different I've had no problems so far.

Perhaps some of the problems with Vista occur when people install it on a computer that was running XP previously and that causes issues with the programs previously installed under XP?

~Sue

RIVER.

I have XP on my laptop and (was forced to) have Vista on my new desktop. Possibly because the new desktop is a quad-core with 4 gig of RAM, I've had no 'issues' with Vista. Having gone through 3.1, ME, 95, 98, XP, and now Vista, I suspect Windows 7 will be 'more of the same', since Microsoft seems to confuse features bloat with improvement... I have no confidence that waiting for another iteration will provide much relief...

I kept up with all the civic improvements being downloaded to XP, so that when my XP machine decided to freeze up completely due to all the pictures I'd downloaded (among other things) I bought a brand new Compaq slimline. ALl my computers have been Compaqs, to make shifting to a new system easier. I've run through 311 at work, then 95, 2000, XP, and now Vista, all self-taught by using at home. So far, I've been on Vista for about six months, and I can't find any major problems in changing. In fact, I think a lot of things in Vista are easier. It DOES tend to get knocked off of the internet a bit easier if your settings stray from a second user, but that is simplified by separating the users' accounts. Vista has many options which the XP did not. SO I am very happy. My old XP is now restored somewhat with a disc copy of the restore from Vista, so I am using THAT as a storage, emergency restore rather than clutter up my new computer with things that I want to have but don't need every day.Now why didn't I think of doing that with my other old computers?

Search function might as well not be included. Takes forever to come on and turn off. Garbage!

I don't know if you're for XP or Vista but the index make things a little slow at first but it's a fuss when finished. Whatever OS it's still the same process.

So, your solution to one expensive proprietary system is another expensive proprietary system? What's wrong with that picture?

"I didn't complain about Vista's expense. I'm not a price-is-no-object guy, but I can afford a decent system, and I'm willing to pay that extra %15-%20 for a Mac because MS has just gone too far..."

I've had a long and not always happy relationship with Apple going back to the Apple II days. While Jobs & company are a kinder, gentler evil empire than Gates & company, they're still monopolistic at their core.

So, the issue is what does the cost of entry buy you? You pay 15-20% more for a Mac and that buys you what over Windows? It definitely buys you a better designed OS since it's built on Unix. Like Microsoft, buying from Apple offers the perceived comfort and security of one-stop shopping. But that's an illusion. Microsoft provides a closed OS but opens it up for 3rd party applications. Apple provides a more open OS, but keeps tighter control over applications.

My only point is that Linux is free, also based on Unix, and at least as reliable as Mac's OS X. The better Linux distros, e.g. the Ubuntu family, Mint, Fedora, Mandriva, Sabayon, PCLinusOS, et al, are every bit as stable, user friendly, and usable as OS X or Windows. Paying more doesn't necessarily buy you anything of value.

I know it's hard for some people to distinguish between inexpensive and cheap. Others unfairly equate cost and value. But I've been using Linux in one form or another for more than a decade and the current distros with modern graphic desktop environments offer essentially all of the functionality of Windows or OS X for zero cost. I still use Windows as a business necessity, but I know that I can live without it. I still support Windows since my wife and daughter use it on our home network.

The only advantage Apple has over Linux is the availability of MS Office for OS X. Even that's not too much of an issue since between Open Office (free) and SoftMaker Office ($80), I can work with most types of MS Office documents. The only significant exceptions being encrypted documents (e.g. spreadsheets) and MS Project files.

Just a thought, how much of your Linux support issues are Linux desktop issues and how much are market share issues? For example, I doubt if I could ever wean my daughter and granddaughter from Windows because they're trained to use it and everything else (even Mac) seems alien to them. OTOH, my wife is a relative newcomer to PCs and Linux has never been that much of a problem for her.

Despite appearances, I'm an OS agnostic. My position has always been to use whatever tool is the best for the job. Back in the early 90's that was Windows 3.11 running over OS/2. Later it became Win2k. I moved from Win2k to WinXP once WinXP stabilized (i.e. after SP1). Although I've been using Debian Linux without a desktop environment (i.e. command line only) on my server for years, it's only been in recent years as Windows has become more bloated and more of a resource hog that I started using Linux on some of my desktop machines. The contrast between Linux and Windows is remarkable. I always knew Linux was more stable, reliable, and efficient, but I never appreciated just how much more stable, reliable, and efficient until I was running it 24/7 side-by-side with Windows.

As I approach retirement age and no longer need to use Windows for business reasons, I've made the commitment to migrate almost entirely to Linux. I'll still be involved with Windows to maintain my daughter's and granddaughter's machines (as well as those of various other relatives and friends), but I'm through fighting Windows support issues on my own machine. And Mac? Well, it sure is pretty and seductive, but while it has the technology edge over Windows, it's just another proprietary system sold by a kinder, gentler monopolistic evil empire. When I'm retired and living on a fixed income, I don't want to have spend money on OS and software updates every time Redmond or Cupertino tells me to.

But, let's get back to the market share issue... Windows and, to a lesser degree, Mac have achieved critical mass in the market. Almost everyone who says they know how to use a computer really means they know how to use Windows. Good or ill, Windows is the lingua franca of PC operating systems. Linux has an uphill battle since its free status is also its weakness - without massive license fee supported advertising campaigns to try to convince everyone how wonderful it is, the perception is that it's a geek's toy when in truth it's just as usable as a mainstream OS as Windows or OS X.

Linux is also hampered by the bewildering array of distributions. Although the underlying bits are all the same, each distro represents someone's idea of the "right" way to build a Linux system. Whenever I'm trying to wean someone from Windows, I usually steer them to PCLinuxOS. It offers about the best balance of Windows familiarity and traditional Linux benefits and most Windows users find it instantly comfortable. OTOH, to get the best out of Linux, you should probably go with one of the distros in the Ubuntu family (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Mint, et al). Then there's the desktop environment - the "look and feel" layer that provides the primary user interface. The most powerful is Gnome, but KDE will feel more at home to a Windows refugee.

With Linux, the simple truth is, "If you've seen one Linux, you've seen one Linux." Even closely-related variants can present wildly different user experiences. There are very few resources to objectively help erstwhile Windows (or Mac) refugees find the distro which would be most comfortable for them.

Don't let yourself go with the rage. Apple as it's own story about problem too. did you know that. The history was that people using Mac, Apple or whatever goes with this Cie., where in there little bubble excluded from the rest of the world cause the one who were using this **** didn't care about us until, they found out that by not sharing there sofftware with others because they were so expensive they were alone in their own world of graphics only. While PC was expending realy quickly and software were coming more and more affordable but they are still today, still, the same lean mince meat while we are the fat ground meat.

Be careful, Whatever OS you use or computer, they all have their own little surprise for you. Believe me, i've started electronics and computer in 1976. Iv'e got a pretty good idea of what history reveal. The fact are there. Check any OS and what software their using, you'll see that you don't get always what you want.

Have a careful shopping.

I'm running Vista Ultimate on all but one desktop PC and Vista Home Premium on a new laptop. The lone XP system is being used by my parents and they tend to shy away from change plus the machine it's on is border line when it comes to running Vista. I haven't had many issues with Vista and most of them had to do with lousy video card drivers.

Once Windows 7 makes its debut if that is what Microsoft will officially call it I'll move up once the hardware manufacturers have a chance to get their drivers done right.

I love Vista,I have Home Premium service pack 1.I have the Phenom 9600 quad core processor and 1tb(2 SCSI 500gbs)and a Thermaltake BlackX hard drive dock to swap out other hard drives.I use my pc for a media center but not with the media center that come with windows.I have the ATI 3870oc video card with HDMI 5.1 sound.I did have 1 problem in the beginning as well with XP Pro.I use both pc's at my home but Vista is my favorite.It is blazing fast,but I have hardware to back that up.Would XP be better with all the Hardware I got in Vista?I do not know but XP does not have the capabilities to play
Blu-Ray or HD-DVD without some extra help.I would NOT upgrade a pc to Vista from XP.I feel this is where it went wrong because Vista is Power Hungry and it must have the food to run!I am happy camper with my Vista pc and the LG GGC-H20L multi-drive that plays HD-DVD or Blu-Ray and will burn Blu-Ray,DVD and CD's.Will I try the new Windows 7?If I do it will not be a upgrade.My XP Pro has a Pentium 4 dual core processor 2.6ghz,it is still a pretty fast pc but can not compare to the Vista,and the Aero in Vista is really great to look at.I use WinBubble to switch it off before doing some things because it is not compatible with certain programs.When Windows temporarily turns Aero off the program will freeze sometimes.You have to learn this.These things upset some people and will freeze up the pc.It does not happen to me anymore,but it did at first and would freeze up PowerDVD Ultra.That straightened up after service pack one.
So if you use Windows,stick with what makes you happy but do not criticize before you fully understand the system and give it a chance.Happy computing!

Mark

Mark

What I meant was you spend to much money to learn after. Learn first an than think.

Me, I always those people that are so hungry as in a fast food to get the first new burger or thing....well you know, like getting the new playstation and trying to be the first at the door to get it. Well listen and I'm not here to tech you anything, but when I want something new I always ask myself do I realy need it or what I got now is enough for the moment and see who will have the first toy to break down on them. Then I think and say to myself, well Sylvio let's wait for the correction to see if it will survive an if it's really worth it.

No hard feeling. Sorry.

Do you know that if Vista would had never appear this technology would had probably be inside XP right now. It's only a program that always check to see if it sees something knew that he recognize and if not, well it not better than any program that will do the same job. Let's take XP for it. It had that technology already integrated. But it lack of information. What I mean if the programmers don't give this little contraption enough information to detect anything that he detect, well i6t does what XP was doing. Now thing about if Microsoft would had really put the programmers to more information to help the detecter, well you would have the same thing today. Listen, and I'm not trying to deceive you, but it's not the OS that does the job, it's all the people behind that makes a OS a real good OS. OS are made of enormous different kind of programs integrated in the OS. And with the new ways of programming, multitasking to our eyes look like everything is working at the same time, but the truth is that it's not. The OS at the amazing speed it can process information -and these process are done one after an other- nothing works at the same time, but at the speed its processed it looks like it. So do you understand now when I'm saying that it was not necessary to built Vista-Burger and if the programmer instead of building big programs without caring for the user by saying, AHH!, users can by fast machine today why bothering with that. Well I remember the time when memory and cpu speed was so precious that we had to make program or software as little as possible to run fast and smooth. Why they don't do that today? Simple, necause hardware manufacturer provide them the reason not to - powerfull machine.

I hope you better understand now the reason why I'm against all this scam of make people beleive that they need more and more means money.

Thanks

It's true that people who beleive that they could upgrade their machine with vista made a bad decision. But the fault was Microsoft who did not made it clearly that when Vista came on the market there were only a few hardware and software that could run under it. They knew about it but did not tell the warning loud enough for the people to understand clearly. Now there are more Cie. that are with this scam from Microsoft to make Vista better, well in a way, but the real thing is that the hardware Cie. wanted their share about distributing their drivers for almost free when they wanted to get their share too. That's why that windows came to low in compatible drivers and also for those who were not ready for this sudden change. Now that the war is over, and others are up to date Vista is starting to get more and more of it to make it more stable - but this is not done yet - just think about why now a new windows called "7". For me there's something fishy out here.

But let see the Microsoft adventure go. And still, maybe I'm repeating myself but don.t go to fast on this, please think before getting your feet wet.