Vista today = XP 6 years ago. Stop complaining!

[revvo]

The release of XP offered something new to the consumers. An NT-based system that was great for consumers, unlike Windows 2000 which does a great job as a server but as well as XP for the end-users and gamers.

Vista is just a polished up XP with a few extra features and an annoying failed attempt at sudo called UAC, a virtual clippy ****ing you off about everything you do that you end up turning off because it slows your productivity down by five hundred percent.

There are some neat things on Vista though, it's the small differences on the interface that add up that make me say "oh, that's cool". Maybe after SP1 I'll upgrade my desktop but there is no rush. It took Microsoft this long to stabilize and fix XP so why should I leave it when XP's solid?

[Denis W. Veteran]

All good points made in this thread, but notice how the regular whining about Vista (instead of legitimate criticism) haven't and probably won't ever surface in this thread...

All it takes is a thread/newspost with a title like "Microsoft Accused of Bribing OEMs to Push Vista" before we get the usual Vista sucks crap comments.

[whocares78]

EDIT: On a side note, I really wish Microsoft would follow Apple's lead and just release one version of their operating system at a reasonable price.

so you don't want to have any servers then?

All good points made in this thread, but notice how the regular whining about Vista (instead of legitimate criticism) haven't and probably won't ever surface in this thread...

All it takes is a thread/newspost with a title like "Microsoft Accused of Bribing OEMs to Push Vista" before we get the usual Vista sucks crap comments.

umm well as it is AT THE MOMENT, vista sdoes suck crap

[Slimy]

umm well as it is AT THE MOMENT, vista sdoes suck crap

Only for some. The majority are using it just fine.

[whocares78]

Hahaha. You don't even know if it's buggy because, as you said, you're running XP! Having used Vista since Beta 1, I believe I'm much more qualified to judge Vusta and I say that Vista is bug free and does EVERYTHING I want - I reguarly use Adobe CS3, 3DS Max 9, Office, Nero, Visual Studio, Expression Suite, Nokia PC Suite, heaps of games (including Bioshock, Company of Heroes and Crysis (demo) in DirectX 10!), and etc WITH NO PROBLEMS EVER!

BUg free

if you say that about any application, especially an OS then you my friend are NOT qualified to judge anything.

Nothign is bug free, they are there just sitting there waiting to be found, and believe me this is somethign i know about, i find bugs on a monthly basis. it is half my job.

secondly you use fairly common apps which will of course have been updated for Vista, so i am not surprised there either. My company is developing vista compatibility at the moment, (and yes it has taken an extra 6 months or so becasue of all the changes in vista) so if you were running my companies applications then you WILL have issues.

Only for some. The majority are using it just fine.

and the unfortunate truth about those using it fine are they are mainly consumers using it for surfing the web adn checking email.

as a corporate network admin - vista does not work for my company- lots of problems with various applications (not ours)

do you know how many corporations have moved to vista, becasue that is the real indicator

[notuptome2004]

The release of XP offered something new to the consumers. An NT-based system that was great for consumers, unlike Windows 2000 which does a great job as a server but as well as XP for the end-users and gamers.

Vista is just a polished up XP with a few extra features and an annoying failed attempt at sudo called UAC, a virtual clippy ****ing you off about everything you do that you end up turning off because it slows your productivity down by five hundred percent.

There are some neat things on Vista though, it's the small differences on the interface that add up that make me say "oh, that's cool". Maybe after SP1 I'll upgrade my desktop but there is no rush. It took Microsoft this long to stabilize and fix XP so why should I leave it when XP's solid?

well hello to the user that knows nothing of what windows vista is and has not used to there fore no clue what he is saying

[Lt-DavidW]

Vista is just a polished up XP with a few extra features, a virtual clippy ****ing you off about everything you do that you end up turning off because it slows your productivity down by five hundred percent.

You mean the Office help assistant? What has that to do with Vista? :huh:

[deck]

The release of XP offered something new to the consumers. An NT-based system that was great for consumers, unlike Windows 2000 which does a great job as a server but as well as XP for the end-users and gamers.

Vista is just a polished up XP with a few extra features and an annoying failed attempt at sudo called UAC, a virtual clippy ****ing you off about everything you do that you end up turning off because it slows your productivity down by five hundred percent.

There are some neat things on Vista though, it's the small differences on the interface that add up that make me say "oh, that's cool". Maybe after SP1 I'll upgrade my desktop but there is no rush. It took Microsoft this long to stabilize and fix XP so why should I leave it when XP's solid?

Actually, XP is more like a polished up version of 2000, since they were built on the same kernel. Vista was going to be completely different, but ended up taking the kernel from Windows Server 2003/2008 - which is still entirely different from that of Win2000.

[revvo]

well hello to the user that knows nothing of what windows vista is and has not used to there fore no clue what he is saying

I have vista business and have yet to find a feature that would convince me to upgrade from XP on my desktop. Nice try though. If I didn't know jack about computers, I'd probably upgrade but because I do, I know I don't need it on my PC.

You mean the Office help assistant? What has that to do with Vista? :huh:

Bad comparison I guess, but both are annoying and useless to me.

Actually, XP is more like a polished up version of 2000, since they were built on the same kernel. Vista was going to be completely different, but ended up taking the kernel from Windows Server 2003/2008 - which is still entirely different from that of Win2000.

I never said XP wasn't more polished because I agree with you on that. What I meant was 2000 was and still is very solid as a Windows server OS but it wasn't aimed for end-users.

[notuptome2004]

I have vista business and have yet to find a feature that would convince me to upgrade from XP on my desktop. Nice try though. If I didn't know jack about computers, I'd probably upgrade but because I do, I know I don't need it on my PC.

oh so havening a more stable desktop and a better faster system is not a reason to convince you. vista is built with new architecture mostly new Kernel and many many under the hood changes as well as over the hood changes . hell integrated search alone makes it worth it and no you cant compare a 3rd party program with something built in to the core of vista . there is many many many small features in vista that make it better then XP, Let me ask you how do you like the Per-application volume control i know i love it.

[S7un7]

I'm completely for XP right now, and I have used Vista. I do agree that eventually Vista will replace XP like everyone is saying. But it's funny that so many people say Vista works perfectly or is bug free, "for me". Just because it works perfectly for 'you', doesn't mean it will work for a large corporation or even some advanced home users. Corporations and advanced users use different software and more advanced features of the OS where the average home user isn't even aware of these features. It all comes down to how the end user is using the OS.

*This is a generalization, It's not meant to single out anyone on Neowin.

[Midge]

I use it at home as my main OS it runs perfectly tbh

but no way in hell would i install it on the systems at work, its not ready for that yet imo

[Garry]

It's quite a simple equation for our company...

We techies won't use Vista since you can't run Exchange System Manager or the full range of Server 2003 Admin Tools on it. If we can't use it then we won't roll it out to our users.

Furthermore, in a corporate environment, I'm completely at a loss as to why we should spend thousands training users to use Vista, and hundreds of man-hours rolling it out - what are the benefits?

[Lt-DavidW]

You mean the Office help assistant? What has that to do with Vista?

Bad comparison I guess, but both are annoying and useless to me.

Airplane food is annoying to me and, like Clippy, is also not relevant to Vista.

[xplatinum]

what I hate about Vista is the fact that everything seems to be organized and presented in a newbie-like environment. Everything seems over-simplified. Where's my classic windows explorer where I had my drives on the left and the content on the right ? Now I have to live with this huge chunk of shortcuts on the upper-panel (left) which I don't even use ?

I haven't used Vista in months but I recall having alot more annoyances.

[Dick Montage]

Bad comparison I guess, but both are annoying and useless to me.

Translation: I cannot differentiate between two different products - I'm on an anti-microsoft rant and your logic cannot stop me!

[Eredain]

I never heard the same complaints with XP than I hear now with Vista. The jump from 9x to nt was so great that nobody that understood a litle said a word. Now the jump is from nt to nt so it's not so important.

[br_]

i have been saying this since before vista came out. i've tested tons of builds, and i've been using rtm ultimate since november. yeah i've had problems i'm not gonna lie but when you consider that i am always on the bleeding edge with things (i use firefox 3, wordpress 2.4, etc.) it's not POSSIBLE for everything to work perfect. and vista is generally faster than xp, and almost as stable as xp sp2. a lot of these bashings are simply because microsoft is the spawn of satan and the cause of all problems just like dell and aol. though what people don't look at is when these organizations go so low that if they don't try as hard as possible to fix that, they'll go out of business. and actually, after they started turning around (dell having the ideas page, aol going free, microsoft being less monopolistic and actually looking at what the consumer WANTS) they started actually getting GOOD. i actually want a dell laptop (and if i didn't build all my own desktop pc's maybe a dell desktop too) and i like aol, and as i said i like vista. i think they all are turning around in order to stay alive.

[Laurë Veteran]

I've been running Vista on my laptop (Dell E1505) since March. After I shoved an extra gig of ram (now at 2 gig), it took

off. Haven't had really any problems with it other than wi-fi, which was fixed in a KB article.

That article with the 6 months into XP looks a LOT like the articles you read about Vista now.

I remember a few of my friends when I put XP RC2 on my home box were laughing at me saying XP was a POS, are now

saying the same thing about Vista. I'm sure when whatever comes after Vista is released, they will be saying the same

thing. It's human nature, to an extent.

I agree with the OP, Vista sucks as much as XP did when it first came out. If Vista continues to follow XP's pattern, it will be usable in another couple of years.

Vista only had 3 years of actual, hard on, development, since it was rebooted after the first 2 years and the kernel completely scrapped for a whole new one.

Both XP and Vista are good. I have had very little trouble with each of them. But as with any OS, especially ones that revamp how it works inside, will cause trouble. MS knew that drivers and applications would not work. MS knew that it was being released with bugs, which is why bug fixes are regular. And with some as complex of Vista, MS knew it would miss a whole lot of things that could go wrong - just like what happened with XP.

This is why Windows7, at least they are trying for now, is going to be a much smaller system.

You see the problem I have with these arguements is that a company as big as MS shouldn't be releasing products that don't work very well for so many of their users. It should be usable now. They should have learnt from the XP experience and waited a year, spending that year to perfect Vista and give hardware manufacturers more chance to get their drivers fixed. Why would you release a half finished product and damage your reputation?

I know full well that bug free software is impossible, but that's no excuse not to make the best effort to remove as many bugs as you can before you expect people to shell out ?100s for it. You wouldn't be happy buying a new car or a new games console and being told you have to wait six months for a certain problem to be fixed. You wouldn't be happy walking accross a bridge if the engineers were telling you that it's liable to fall down and there won't be a fix for another six months. You'd expect those products to be as good as possible on their release or sold more cheaply on the basis that they don't work properly. It really doesn't look like MS made enough effort in my opinion.

oh so havening a more stable desktop and a better faster system is not a reason to convince you......

It won't be faster on my hardware, so no, it won't convince me to swap. When I'm buying something higher spec. in the future I will consider it. For now, I am not spending ?100s on computer equipment just to run an OS, when the one I have works really well.

It's quite a simple equation for our company...

We techies won't use Vista since you can't run Exchange System Manager or the full range of Server 2003 Admin Tools on it. If we can't use it then we won't roll it out to our users.

Furthermore, in a corporate environment, I'm completely at a loss as to why we should spend thousands training users to use Vista, and hundreds of man-hours rolling it out - what are the benefits?

Not only that, but if you do have driver/compatibility issues that don't show up until after the roll out, that's going to be very costly in terms of employees who can't do as much work and the support guys who have to fix it. Obviously home users can make a choice "I want the latest" but for business it's "what gets the job done most efficiently".

Also, Vista requires higher specs doesn't it? So the cost is higher because you'd have to upgrade a whole lot of hardware. Maybe in a few years when users are more familiar with it, it's far more stable and the PCs shipping with it run smoothly, it would make sense for businesses to start choosing Vista with new hardware. At the moment, you can buy a PC with Vista and you can't even trust that the PC will run fast enough to be useable.

[phantasmorph]

Well XP wasn't this bad 6 years ago so isn't really much point to this...

And this is the problem with sites such as this. People like Mr. Digix here, who is 17 years old right now, are commenting on a product that came out 6 years ago. XP was this bad 6 years ago, the same complaints were being made.

[diabulos]

Vista runs fine. It is not the refined OS I was sold by MS at first and it could use some tweaks here and there to give it more solidity (the networking interface needs a revise and so on) but remember that it does call for a higher order of hardware and as many people like to compare it with Leopard or Tiger, well Apple knows all the possible combinations of hardware that Leopard may encounter and that is an easy game!. I'll say that some of the applications native to Vista are less refined that the Mac corner (even the purchased software, they have the feel of the cheap cousin of the mac apps, except for things like photoshop or Ligthroom). For example, why is it that I cannot sync windows Vista calendar or address book with anything? you have to 'export' to another app (let alone to a windows mobile device, it just does not happen) integration is poor, Vista should be at a stage where you plug a windows media device and it can sync with the core applications embedded in the system (of course MS could not then flog Outlook on us, that's why MS should have broken ages ago, give competition to the different offerings). MS is not pushing the sync centre, for example, and motivating mobile companies to use it, instead of providing those crappy applications that most phones come with. The interface of the restore point is clunky and well, hidden, it does not have to become a circus like time machine, but it should be elegant enough that the average user feels confident it knows what is doing.

I know these are not huge issues (except it is still slow copying files on a top rig with 4gig mem) but add them all (and they are many examples of this in Vista) and you end up with an experience, overall, lesser than what Vista SHOULD have been in comparison to other offerings. Ubuntu handles certain tasks with far more flair and elegance than Vista at the moment.

[Kristian]

Not only is Vista performing fine for me, it keeps on performing fine with time, eliminating the need to reformat every two months or so which I had to do to keep XP running fast.

No new features to speak of? Well I certainly won't consider any operating systems without breadcrumb menus, start menu search and other niceties which all were introduced in Vista.

Bottom line is that it's better looking, better performing and better to work with FOR ME!

I consider XP dead and buried and won't ever happily work with it again!

[hotdog666al]

6 years gap and only a SLIGHT difference, bwhahaha!

I guess it won't be too bad in the future, but still, Windows 7 is hopefully going to be what vista should have been.

[Pretend]

XP and Vista are both good, you just need the right hardware to make it work.

and

Who's not to say Vista will be good as XP (on the reliability/hardware side of things)

[someguy03]

I take a digital design class in a lab of about 34 computers, and over summer they upgraded to Vista. Just last week we reverted back to XP because the instructers remote control software didn't work with vista. But is this vista's fault? No. It's the companies fault for not having a compatible version available yet.

I remember back when I had WIN98, I burned CD's using Easy CD Creator. The company said they had no plan to develop a version of the software for XP because they felt there was a lack of interest in the OS. That changed in 6 months.