Blogs

Posted by Seligman at 1/28/08 2:41 p.m.

I've been using Vista since release day on my desktop, and other than the prettiness of Aero, I can't really point to anything I really like about it compared to XP. When I use my laptop, which still has XP on it, I never find myself missing some feature that's on my desktop. And given my troubles with WMDC, having to fight Vista to get something approaching XP's performance, I can't say I'm terribly happy with the upgrade just for some pretty visual effects.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/28/08 2:50 p.m.

Have been using Vista since release on two machines. One is current hardware. The other is marginal and I actually used vLite to trim Vista down for that one (works great btw). Generally happy with the experience on both and wouldn't go back to XP. Vista is more stable, has a few nice enhancements, and a much nicer interface. Most irritating downside is the slow file transfers (though I understand Sp1 addresses that to some extent. I just haven't upgraded yet). But the product just isn't as revolutionary as it should have been given the 5 year delay. Call it a 6-8 when it should have been at least a 9.

Posted by 8bitjoystick at 1/28/08 3:55 p.m.

So far I have not found a reason to buy it for my Windows XP machine and none of the PCs at my work run it. I have to trust Chris Prillo for his experiance with it. I am not encouraged about how slower current Direct X games for XP run on it. Since the launch of Windows Vista I purchased a Asus Eee PC that runs Linux, I've installed Linux on a freind's PC and I considered getting a Mac Mini to run Mac OSX 10.5.

So despite Vista being out for a year I still have not really found a reason to use it.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/28/08 3:57 p.m.

Have been using Vista for 8 months now. And I love the search feature on it. XP has desktop search option.. but the vista one feels just well integrated. Find Vista to be stable. The other difference, I have noticed on Vista is that I can get away, most of times, by just logging out and logging back in rather than rebooting. I think thats a big win. Besides, I had to reboot my XP box almost every 2-3 days. And I can go without rebooting on Vista for a couple weeks without much problem. I dont like the fact that it requires 1Gb of memory at the minimum. But I had a 1Gb laptop. I actually like the UAC feature unlike most. I dont know, just makes me feel more secure. Besides, that I really like some of little things in vista. Event as small as the date and time UI and the checkboxes in the explorer and different views. Wow I never realized I liked so much about vista :P. Cannot go back to XP.

Posted by number.61 at 1/28/08 4:23 p.m.

I've been using Vista Business and it's been interesting. I was shocked being the Business labeled OS of how much of a resource hog it is by default. On a clean, default install of Vista Business just the base OS locks up about 1.30GB of memory, and the Windows system folder is an amazing 8+GB in size! I hadn't even installed anything yet! This is meant to run on a business computer. I had to tune the OS for about two hours until I got it to my liking. The default security warnings are annoying and needed to be turned off QUICKLY!

I was also shocked, that for a "business" OS that I would be able to secure my laptop using their BitLocker. After following the steps to get it setup and running I found out that it's not available in Vista Business! WHAT!? How is this not available for business? Who else besides businesses would use BitLocker!? Someone please explain this too me.

Other then that, the new Start Menu is fantastic, and the search is great. I never have to use All Programs again, just hit my Windows key and type the app I want and boom! Simply great, on bar with Apple's Spotlight. The looks is good if you're computer can handle it. Personally for a business laptop I should have to install 3GB of RAM just so the OS could run normally.

For taking seven or so years to develop, I kind of expected more from Microsoft.

But the biggest thing is they released TOO many Vista versions. All you need is two . . . Home (with all the bells and whistles) and Business. You are only confusing the market with all the versions you release. I don't know why they feel they must release a Home, Home Premium, Ultimate, Business, Professional, Core, Elite, Student, Teacher, Professional w/ Media, etc... Who heads their marketing and/or branding?

Microsoft also charged too much for Vista. They need to bring the price below 200 for people to justify buying it. 300+ is just way too much to pay for an operating system.

Posted by Will in Seattle at 1/28/08 6:03 p.m.

We tried to install it on a machine at work but the thing was such a resource hog and so slow we uninstalled it and got WinXP instead - almost twice as fast.

At this rate there won't be any Windows machines left at work - we'll all go Linux instead.

Posted by Onyotaka Lukwe at 1/28/08 9:06 p.m.

I'm barely conversant with anything relating to OS's, but I really think the crapware loaded with a new desktop/laptop is the thing that puts people over the edge. Many perceive it as a Vista problem, rather than strictly a vendor problem.
Also, the Vista downgrade options create further bad blood due to the limitations and expense. It's just easier to snag a linux distro than downgrade.

Posted by ffextensionguru at 1/28/08 11:16 p.m.

It has been since October when I found my self suddenly using Vista after my XP system died. For the most part I've been happy, especially once I disabled the UAC. It seems a lot faster than my XP system was, but then that system was 5-years old. Super Fetch is nice feature too. My only complaints are I can not totally terminate an unresponsive program without rebooting and doesn't seem to handle as well on gaming as did my XP system.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/29/08 12:44 a.m.

For the list of features vista offers that xp doesn't have Microsoft could have been better off selling that one feature in particular, highlighted @ the CES show, as an additional software for xp.

The additional memory that vista uses is being installed in some machines just so the vista can be used!

XP is a good product & looked forward to having, most people are happier with it & why reverting to xp is common.

I had a few brief opportunities to use vista on friends new PC's that they complained they didn't like it, but they are spoiled whiners lacking enthusiasm yet fools with money reserved their right to opt back into xp except a few who somehow got vista working in synch with their xp & other older windows systems in their multiple pc home environment & happy to have it. :)

Posted by unregistered user at 1/29/08 5:33 a.m.

The last Windows I used was 2000; I have never used XP or Vista.

But KDE4 (Debian) now has what I am told is a Vista look, and it's clumsy to use with all the clicking back and forth and big fat icons. Looking to reconfigure 4 to work like 3.5 again.

Posted by number.61 at 1/29/08 7:58 a.m.

Another item that continues to bug me . . . Microsoft still has not made the Windows Server 2003 Support Tools, Administration Pack, or the Exchange 2003 Client Tools compatible with any Vista version!

Sure there's a workaround to get Active Directory Users and Computers MMC to work, but none of the other utilities manage to run.

Another reason why this operating system is not ready for business.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/29/08 11:44 a.m.

Any OS that takes 1/10th of the space on a typical 80 gig laptop hard drive before any other programs or service packs are even installed isn't one I will use regardless of the maker. Same with driver and hardware support; if any OS maker doesn't provide stable drivers for things as simple and basic as monitors and file transfers then I won't spend my money until they do. Vista still hasn't after one year.

I've got a dual boot XP/Ubuntu laptop and far prefer both of those to any form of Vista I've encountered. Not only do they take less hard drive space and use less resources, but they do what I need them to, be it video rendering or just surfing online, without fuss or screaming fits about security. Plus I'm on a tight budget and I simply can't afford to buy new copies of my software and new hardware (which still may or may not be compatible with Vista due to the lag time in manufacturing) to run that software, especially when there's ample evidence that it won't play friendly with pre-Vista software and programs I need for my job.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/29/08 2:20 p.m.

I haven't noticed anything about Vista that is better than XP. Just lots of annoying things:
1) I recently bought my kids a new computer and Best Buy gave me no choice but to get it with Vista Home Premium (or pay $300 more for XP). Also, it came packaged with lots of annoying advertising crap on the desktop. Way to go MS!
2) I had to buy my kids a new printer because no Vista drivers exist for their old (but it was still fully functional) printer.
3) The Vista interface is kind of like a candy bar wrapper--neat, but not something I would ever care anything about. But you gotta love the disappearing desktop feature (not)! And the fact that it has the same commands as XP but they have all been renamed and are hidden in different places in Vista! Annoying.
4) And what is the deal with not being able to easily turn the computer off? Does MS now own energy stocks too? I'm trying to teach my kids to conserve energy by turning off electricity-using equipment when it's not in use. But in Vista it's almost too much for them to remember how to do it. You have to Cntl-Alt-Del, and then log off, and then finally click the little "off" button in the corner (but this will only turn the computer off if you first program the button so it doesn't just go into standby mode).

Bottom line: Vista is basically a yawn except when it's actively annoying.

Posted by unregistered user at 1/30/08 2:33 p.m.

To #91717: You should be able to shut down by pressing the windows (start) button and choosing Turn Off Computer, just like in XP. It usually worked for me (sometimes it froze halfway through shutdown), and is certainly included.

Overall I've been very displeased with Vista, to the point of reverting to XP last month (which has since served me very well). Vista caused graphics artifacts on my Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT card (stock frequencies) that didn't occur in XP, and some of my most-used programs refused to work for more than a few weeks in Vista without a reinstall. Then nearly every program crashed the first time I ran it after installation - and as I installed a fresh Vista install I know it wasn't bloatware trouble.

Vista performance was fine enough - I can't tell a difference between XP and Vista, probably due to exceeding the requirements by a good margin.

And the other major problem was Explorer always defaulting to "Date Photo Taken", "Tag", "Rating" etc. views on any directory with a single picture file, even after I'd told it 43 times not to.

Wireless networking setup is easier in Vista, but that's about the only benefit. One of my programs was incompatible with Aero, and it was too much effort to switch the interface every time I ran it, so I didn't even get most of the interface improvement.

Oh well. XP will be fine for several years yet. Maybe Microsoft will get it right in another Windows release or two.