CNet rates Vista one of "worst products in history"


Recommended Posts

Can someone please enlighten me as to why Vista (post updates) is not a mature product?

Because a lot of people who don't own Vista, or can't afford it, or don't want to spend the ten seconds it would take to learn about its new features and how to use them properly automatically want to make themselves feel better by saying it's ****. It's so much easier to say something is garbage then ignore it, than it is to actually use it, get used to it, and appreciate its new features.

Most of these people are, coincidentally enough, absolute morons when it comes to tech stuff. CNet included.

All i can say is lets face it any microsoft OS that comes out will recieve negative attention. Its true every OS they have put out has had some complain one way or the other.

That's because Microsoft's hype machine raises expectations too much. Let's not forget "The wow starts now!" :whistle:

true the wow was not as big, but also remember most of us here saw the potential for vista and didnt see the wow in the final product, but for the average consumer the wow was that they had to adjust to the change in vista, if they had used the original longhorn model people would be too confused.

Why do you think Microsoft is releasing Windows 7 in 2010 instead of 2013 or 2014?

Windows 3.1(93)

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows 2000

Windows ME

Windows XP(01)

Vista (2007)

Vista is the exception, not the rule. Why does this have to pointed out everytime one of these reviews is posted?

Windows 3.1(93)

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows 2000

Windows ME

Windows XP(01)

Vista (2007)

Vista is the exception, not the rule. Why does this have to pointed out everytime one of these reviews is posted?

Very good point.

This is strange. I don't think I am ready to upgrade to vista yet. I just built a new computer and I am going to stick with XP I guess.

That's too bad, your new PC will likely run Vista just fine, unless you went cheap with bottom of the barrel hardware and thought 1GB of RAM was more than enough.

The average PC back in late 2001 was something like a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4 w/128MB RAM. When these machines were running XP, of course they were going to be much slower than running Windows Me. People bitched and complained.

Now this average is a dual core processor, most likely 2.8Ghz or something with 1GB RAM. In two years time, when the specs are 4Ghz 'Intel Whatevers' w/4GB RAM then Vista will be flying just the same as XP. Not that everybody here already knows this - but some people just forget.

I'm running Vista on a 5-year-old P4 Northwood 2.66Ghz w/1GB RAM and its doing absolutely fine. The only crashes I have encountered are when I've been screwing around with overclocking.

That's too bad, your new PC will likely run Vista just fine, unless you went cheap with bottom of the barrel hardware and thought 1GB of RAM was more than enough.

Vista runs fine for me with 1 GB. I was able to record a show in MCE and play a game (Advent Rising) and the recording played fine.

I will get more ram because now the prices are just too damn good not to get any, deals every weekend :D

i respect your opinion, but i can't agree with you, its the worst OS i have ever used

Obviously you never used Windows 2000 before SP3ish in a non-businessy envionment. Or XP when it came out.....

Though, I think the OSes were pretty good, the fault lied in vendors being crappy. Still, they were pretty bad to use. I shunned XP for a while.

Edited by MioTheGreat
Obviously you never used Windows 2000 before SP3ish in a non-businessy envionment. Or XP when it came out.....

Though, I think the OSes were pretty good, the fault lied in vendors being crappy. Still, they were pretty bad to use. I shunned XP for a while.

i used them both and enjoyed them a lot more then vista so far. the potential for vista is there, it's just not "ready" yet for me.

I am staying with XP until the next version of Windows, if that's a repeat of Vista i'm going Mac.

It will be, because just about every Windows before it has been. Then again, Leopard has been a 'repeat of Vista' too so I guess you're screwed no matter who you run to.

Windows 3.1(93)

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows 2000

Windows ME

Windows XP(01)

Vista (2007)

Vista is the exception, not the rule. Why does this have to pointed out everytime one of these reviews is posted?

3.1, 98, ME, XP are not major revisions. 95, 2000, Vista and supposedly Windows 7 are...

I would never go back to Windows XP. Vista is just fantastic here, and I haven't yet had a total system crash under Vista whereas I often did on XP.

Yes, it has niggling issues (file copy/move :whistle: ), but otherwise it's a damn good OS.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.