Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 1:46 p.m.

Ballmer is a piece of work.

Hey Ballmer - why not admit that the MAJORITY of your customers want to stick with XP.

Windows 7 better blow the doors of Vista because unless it is better than XP I'm sure someone will come out with an XP like Linux that runs XP apps, but does so faster than XP in the next couple of years.

Posted by BeenHereAWhile at 4/17/08 1:57 p.m.

These are surprisingly honest comments coming from Ballmer. I'm not sure how many companies could get away with admitting that they shipped a faulty product without offering its customers some kind of compensation.

I'm just about done with my transfer to Ubuntu at home and will soon be weaned off of Microsoft products forever. I long for the day when this process is easy enough to hit Microsoft where it hurts: its pocketbook.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 2:05 p.m.

I switched over to Macs last year and every time I use a Vista based machine I find it both slow and irritating to say the least.

Posted by number.61 at 4/17/08 2:34 p.m.

This all sounds too familiar when Microsoft wanted to move everyone off Windows 2000 Professional and go to XP.

The same comments were made on why 2000 Pro should be extended and how XP will never make ground.

Now all the sudden XP is the king. I'm sure soon we'll be seeing the same fight to keep vista in the near future when another major version is released.

Posted by citizen at 4/17/08 2:45 p.m.

Vista is the worst OS ever. Ballmer is "a work in progress."

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 4:17 p.m.

I like Vista quite a bit. Can't say I have any desire to go back to XP.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 4:53 p.m.

Every operating system is a work in progress; every operating system has bugs. It is the nature of computers.

This is why traditional media sucks. This is obviously link bait. You have demonstrated that you are not a real journalist and do not understand technology.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 6:59 p.m.

@ the first comment
a majority of users do not want to stick with XP, the majority may use XP but only because their computers came with XP preinstalled and dont want to deal with installing a new OS. It takes people time to get used to any new operating system, because people get expectations from their current operating system. I recently switched from XP to vista and after the "honeymoon" period (where I was just amazed by all the new features and flashing lights) I dicovered that the button to go up a level was gone. I was forced to think about how i would get up a level and expend more energy than I was used to. However Vista in general is far more efficient and easier to use than XP.

You should try to use Vista for some time and then compare it to XP, I think you'll find the same thing as me.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/17/08 7:11 p.m.

I have used Windows 2000 at home with complete contentment for several years, and am now upgrading to XP Pro (while I can) only to allow compatibility with Office 2007, QuickTime security patches, and the like. My PC is perfectly adequate for my purposes and (because of limited integrated graphics) isn't Vista-adequate. Not to say that Vista isn't worth getting, only to point out that many such as I won't upgrade without compelling reason. My cars tend to be several years old as well....

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 3:06 a.m.

I always gave Micro$oft the benefit of the doubt, I wanted PC hardware flexibility. The vista comes along and the hardware flexibility turned into a hardware nightmare. Nvidia driver and vista for my GeForce 7900 GS results in a blue screen every 15 mins if not sooner. That p*ssed me off big time, my expensive PC became unusable and Micro$oft had the ruddy cheek to disable my XP authentication. One data backup later, one hard disk format later and on installation of Ubuntu 7.10 later and I am a happy computing user. Ubuntu rocks, Nvidia rocks .. again, WINE rocks and I'm not paying good money for Micro$oft to say "its a work in progress".

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 5:38 a.m.

Lol

I am tired of all of the bull ppl say when "I am tired of Micro$oft, I have switched to (Insert whatever OS you want) and I am never go back!!"

I work in IT, and I have yet to meet even ONE of these individuals since I started my carrer in IT almost ten years ago...

But from as many ppl I have read switching over, it would seem like I was the last person left in the world to use Windows!

When XP came out, and I was tired of the eye candy, I ditched it becasue XP was a PoS when it was released. Now it is fully matured product, and 100% reliable in itself. Any problems expirenced by XP Pro are brought on by the user, not by XP.

Yes, I use Vista Business x64. Yes, i do miss my up arrow and my disk path in the address bar. Other then those issues, I have had NO problems with Vista.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 5:44 a.m.

well i prefer XP,,, and I couldnt get XP with my new laptop sony vaio they gave me that VISTA and i dont want to go buy XP licensed again...

so i wish that you microsoft people stop bullshitting in your PR and do some real on ground things for those struggling from VISTA

Which mean remove that OS from the Market and let it go, and than when u r better and u feel u can do better release a better working OS.

I think I will move to MacOs soon, just ordered my MacBook Air

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 5:45 a.m.

well i prefer XP,,, and I couldnt get XP with my new laptop sony vaio they gave me that VISTA and i dont want to go buy XP licensed again...

so i wish that you microsoft people stop bullshitting in your PR and do some real on ground things for those struggling from VISTA

Which mean remove that OS from the Market and let it go, and than when u r better and u feel u can do better release a better working OS.

I think I will move to MacOs soon, just ordered my MacBook Air.

cheer!
ghalo
http://www.jean.ghalo.com

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 8:05 a.m.

XP was a work in progress too. It wasn't useable for many people until SP2. It's the nature of software.

Microsoft, however, has a history of making crapware, and holding back innovation. Eg. Everything from system requirements for Vista to the fact that the world has to use 3 letter extensions still.

I was looking forward to Longhorn for years and what do you know. The same old empty promises, FUD, and lies.

Posted by lou91940 at 4/18/08 11:00 a.m.

Vista as a "work in progress" kind of reminds me of Apples OS X 10.0.0 Remember that one? It came with my dual system OS9/OS X jelly bean G4 iMac. When I first booted into OS X as the system administrator, and after trying out a few things, I couldn't even empty the trash or get permission to so. I was so frustrated by OS X that it was several more months before I ever made another serious effort to learn how it worked. After a while and with a little patience I finally made the transition, by that time to 10.0.1, and never looked back. So maybe Vista really is, as was OS X 10.0.0, a work in progress.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 3:59 p.m.

Firstly, I do not hate Microsoft. But I have some serious (for me) issues with Vista Ultimate 64-bit.

The first serious issue is that it takes 5 minutes to boot on my new desktop machine. After leaving this computer idle for four months, I booted it up yesterday, and it downloaded all the various updates since last December, and upon shutdown, it installed the various fixes and "improvements" That took a longish while, but it finally shut down in an orderly, if tardy, way. Fine - but here's the rub:

When I re-booted, it took 10 minutes !!! to finish booting! Both 5 minutes as well as 10 minutes to boot into an operating system is not acceptable. My Windows XP Pro machine takes 41 seconds.

The second issue I have is that my Vista-based computer will not run Itunes software at all. Vista says that I need to contact Apple, and Apple says I have a problem with the OS. Admittedly, I have not verified that this is still an issue since all of the various fixes were installed, and there is also a new Itunes version that I can try - but really, does anyone check this stuff before it goes on sale? I mean that Itunes is only used by a few million people!! (Need I mention that Itunes runs without a hitch on XP?)

A couple of people mentioned above that the up arrow is gone from Vista. True enough, and that worried me a little until I realized that I could simply click wherever I wanted to on the line that describes the exact folder I am in. Actually, this is even faster than hitting the up arrow as in XP, so for me this is actually an improvement.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 7:40 p.m.

I'm a longtime fan of Microsoft. I was a leader there, although I no longer work for the company. Two months ago I moved to Vista, and the experience has been so problematic that the small company I own is now moving to Macs. When I buy new laptops for my two teens this summer they will be Macs not PCs. I look forward to Microsoft releasing products in the future that lure me back, but Vista sucks and Office 2007 fails to make it easy for people who already know legacy versions of Office to make the transition. The days when Microsoft can dictate how the world works are over. Now they truly have to compete.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 9:14 p.m.

Microsoft is top dog, get over it. I love my Windows XP x64. I did not really care of XP i found it slow. I really would hate to leave windows XP x64 which is based on windows 2003.

Vista looks good But i'm afraid of one part. The upgrading and the registration of windows vista. That is where vista loses it for me. I dont want to phone microsoft everytime I install a video card.

Go buy your closed source closed eyed mac. For that matter buy a foolish iphone with only "Edge" speed what a joke. Or by a Ipod with only itunes music what a joke. Pay the dictator of computers Mr Jobs.

I'll build my computer upgrade every week. Or month or year. New parts, old parts. Load Windows/Linux/Beos/etc.etc... Freedom.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 9:42 p.m.

Many people don't want Vista because it is BIGGER and bloated than XP.

Especially UAC...
I don't recommend to turn off UAC but if you want,
turn it off by using WinBubble.

-john

Posted by unregistered user at 4/18/08 11:51 p.m.

I dont know anyone that uses anything but Windows. Ive never met a single person that uses Linux, Ubuntu, or anything else. But Microsoft really did mess up with Vista. It was 5 years between the release of Win98 and XP, and when XP was released, yes it was a work in progress too, but there was NEVER this much backlash against upgrading. Eventually bugs were found, worked out and that was the end of it. But generally people were happy with the overall improvement in stability, security and user-friendliness of XP, compared to 98. Vista, on the other hand took a step backwards in all those departments. Thats why people refuse to upgrade. My brother has a computer from Dell with Vista pre-installed and its terrible in my opinion. The compatibility issues ALONE are enough to make me stick with XP. Never mind the fact that certain Explorer functions have been UNNECESSARILY modified, moved, or removed completely. Plus it a RAM hog. UAC is just annoying. And this guy has the nerve to say that "we did a lot of things right." Look no further than the Mac commercials to understand how much you did WRONG with Vista. I see a new commercial every MONTH, becuase there are just so many flaws with Vista that Apple can't roll out these ads fast enough. There was never this many problems with any of Microsoft's previous releases but this one is definitely a failure. They better get their act together with Windows 7.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 3:16 a.m.

I also have Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit and besides some minor incompatibility due to 64-bit, I am pretty much satisfied. It is as fast or faster than XP and has some cool features. I remember when Windows 95 came out and Windows 98, they were so buggy! I waited for Vista to get a ton of patches before using it because I had already tried it in 2006-2007 and it had a lot of problems. Now seems to be stable! =)
I adjusted the settings for best performance so I see the same theme as Windows 2000, no fancy stuff.

The 64-bit is good because if you want to have more than 2 Gb RAM you can't stay with a 32-bit OS.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 3:24 a.m.

I've been using Vista Ultimate for a while now and would never go back to XP.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 4:50 a.m.

I changed op sys in an older desktop running WIN Xp to VISTA [Basic]. When I completed my evaluation of Vista I came to the conclusion that the Vista Op SYS was the one to best meet my current needs. In fact, I liked VISTA so much that I purchased a new desktop with VISTA [Ultimate].

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 5:18 a.m.

I have been using windows since win95. I can say that windows vista is a very good os. Stable, good security and easy to use. I dont understand why some people keep critizing its weaknesses. Lets face it no os is perfect. In the end we the customers choose to buy what we want to use, whether windows or mac...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 9:36 a.m.

"a majority of users do not want to stick with XP"

You are kidding right? 99% of our computer sales go with Windows XP, thats because customers ASK for it all the time.

I dread it when a customer insists installing Vista on his new machine. About 40% of the time there is some oddball error that takes me 30 minutes to resolve. Then there is the multimedia cards & vista. It took a whole year for any company to come out with any software that works with vista at ALL. Sure the driver always worked, but the software never did.

Vista is a piece of crap. Microsoft knows this and is extending their sales until 2010. Then had sold out of all the original license key combinations, and have made a totally new batch of keys and a new sticker to go along with it.

XP will be continue to outsell Vista for a long time.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 9:37 a.m.

oops. Correction:

Vista is a piece of crap. Microsoft knows this and is extending their "XP" sales until 2010.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 3:41 p.m.

to all vista crybabies: stop crying and grow up! if you can't install it right then get someone who can and stop....well....crying like little kids. it's a good OS that has not matured yet. remember when xp came out and you cried about that too? you stuck with it and now think it's king.

i am dam tired of you crybabies talking about what a system hog vista is. are you too damn cheap to pay $40 measly dollars for 2 more gigs of memory to get vista how you want it?

i'm willing to bet you crybabies even complain about your beer being too cold!

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 3:45 p.m.

I tried Ubuntu 3 months ago. Very happy with it. There is no reason to use windows of any kind. Im a carpenter, it's that easy to use. And so much faster than my xp.

Eric

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 7:03 p.m.

Come on people. Vista is a great OS...seriously if you could a) be bothered learning it (just like you did with XP or Linux) b) run it on a DECENT PC and c) have software and drivers (hmm Nvidia drivers??) that actually are 100% COMPATIBLE with the OS.

I have ZERO I mean ZERO problems with Vista and it's the fastest machine I have used (and I've built loads of machines over the years) - ok it's a quad with 4 gigs and a 10K drive but it rocks and it NEVER EVER plays up...AT ALL.

Can't unfortunately say that for XP...there is always something a teeny bit flakey with every XP machine I have used...and I really quite like XP but only use my XP machines (ready numerous) for legacy stuff or older software I'm not buying upgrades for.

Just imagine Vista at SP2.

Anyone remember XP when it came out?? It was a POS.

So...the whiners are juuust like the ones who didn't want to move from Win 2000 to XP all those years ago.

So...u want to go and learn a Linux or Mac OS...go ahead...but be honest...if you install crap stuff on them or run them on crap hardware...PLEASE admit that they are just as flaky. I've seen plenty of flaky computers of EVERY OS variant over the years.

Just be realistic. Vista is going to get better and there you all will be in 2 years whinging like children about how crap Windows 7 is...ahh can't wait...

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 7:56 p.m.

My two main issues with Vista: it's slow as hell, and they stripped a lot of functionality out of Windows Explorer. Explorer is pretty much useless without the ability to customize the toolbar or easily switch the folder tree on and off. Oh, and Explorer *never* remembers custom window views properly. Vista really offers very little benefit over XP. I'd ditch it in a heartbeat if I weren't committed to DX10 for my main gaming desktop.

I recently purchased a Macbook Air, and OSX does so many things "right" that I'm really shocked at how bad Vista is in comparison. It's not that Vista doesn't do the job. It's just that it's so damn inelegant in its approach. I recommend everyone stick with XP until MS offers something worth the trouble of upgrading. Oh, and Vista SP1 totally hosed my install (black screen upon rebooting, from which even a 'repair installation' attempt was unsuccessful. I had to reformat and reinstall. Thanks MS, you really made my weekend (b@st@rds!).

Posted by unregistered user at 4/19/08 11:58 p.m.

I will compare Vista to Win 98 ME (if you remember it due to its short life time). I had zero problems with it, in my eyes it was a clear upgrade over Win 98 SE, but I had tons of issues with my customer PCs, can be that my PC was an overkill or that I used it instead of fooling around with install/deinstall of apps and drivers. Dont know, my ME was working fine since it was introduced till I installed newly released XP (I had no probs with XP either), bud as I said I was probably the only person in town.
Dont say that people are whiners, theyr Vista experience may be way different then yours, what if you are just few lucky users with no problems? Look at the sales of Vista and XP, and keep on mind that majority Vista sales was FORCED by MS to OEMs.
I cannot tell if Vista is good or bad, yes I still didnt install a single copy, no one is asking for it, but I have more and more demands for preinstalled Ubuntu, isnt it strange? MS simply missed the concept of Home/SOHO/Office PC with Vista. I do understand the term "Work in progress" same way as Win 98 ME was, Vista is test rider for new system (new XP) and in ten years no one will remember the great OS Vista. All of you here are right, people who say that Vista is nicer then XP, that it runs faster then anything they got before (proly they bought new PC with Vista), people who say that Leopard has more elegant concept of doing "things", peole who has to deal with technical support and repair malfunctioning customer PCs, people who cannot play last games with full eye candy on (do to not working drivers and DX10 existence for Vista only) etc. Every one is right, but hey you all are just a sand corn in a dessert, but the market force is showing it clear.
Keep the faith!

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 2:19 a.m.

I bought a new PC with Vista 32bit HomePremium on the first day it was released. Here is my experience. After getting my machine I updated everything including BIOS and needed to re-authenticate the installation. Having bought OEM I could not do this via net but had to call "support". Ridiculous. To make it worse I had to listen to elevator music for about half an hour after which my call was transfered to an international support. Luckily the person there spoke native english. Over the not so perfect phoneline we exchanged about 80 digits. Handy. Needless to say I never since have dared to update my BIOS since the guy said that it always results in a need for re-authentication.
After I patched everything I initially faced some problems with various software and hardware but overall nothing a couple of software/driver patches wouldnt fix. Or so I thought. People here are making a statement like 'hey come on its early days yet remember the problems with XP when it was released'. This was true in my mind say 8 months ago still but why arent all these software crashing bugs getting fixed? My USB digital TV receiver is working abysmally and this after patching it for a year! Many games I would like to play STILL crash after one year of patching. And the drivers are up to date for sure. And if you follow the discussions about the problems with Vista its not like they are unique but instead the crashes in Vista are well known and reported. But why dont they get fixed?

Overall Vista itself seems to be quite stable, and all the problems look like they are coming from software not really supporting Vista. But it is of no importance to me who is to blame, I just regret having bought Vista. Maybe two years from now I no longer do.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 10:54 a.m.

Want Vista to feel like a nice upgrade to XP. Shut off UAC. Yeah you'll hear IT people blah blah blah about how they don't recommend it, but removing that makes Vista pretty nice, and if you just use proper security software you will be ok.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 11:12 a.m.

Maybe it's just me, but isn't software which is "a work in progress" called "BETA"? Beta is offered for free with no guarantees or warranty. It doesn't cost a couple of hundred dollars and/or maybe require some expenditure to change the hardware as well to properly function.

Why should anyone excuse such a slack mea culpa as Ballmer's statements, after the hoopla Microsoft rolled out with Vista's release? Is he saying they were kidding us all this time?

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 1:59 p.m.

I must ask those bashing Steve Ballmer if you were at the summit to hear his discussion? I WAS there and the discussion was straigh forward. Comments and questions from the audience were welcome.

On various machines and virtual machines I run Win 98SE, 2000 Pro, XP Pro, Linux Ubuntu, Solaris and Vista. Out of these I use Vista (32bit Ultimate) as my main OS as it is the best and strongest. I have run Vista since it was in beta 2. Are there driver and software issues? Yes, there are. In fact I run the 32bit version instead of the 64bit strictly due to this issue. These issues are not the fault of Microsoft. They are the fault of third party venders and those that install the OS without, first, checking to see if their hardware is supported. Instead of bashing Microsoft about driver issues I think your time would be better served lobbying the third party venders to get off their hind sides and start building proper drivers for their devices. Also, do a bit of research on your own. I have a HP 5550 printer that HP will do nothing driver wise. It runs just fine on my system due to drivers supplied by Microsoft. It is not the responsibility of Microsoft to supply drivers for third party devices but they do so anyway. I also hear about scanners not working. In many cases I hear that the drivers will install but are useless due to the software not working. I have an ancient Visioneer 8200 scanner. Drivers install but the software dosen't work. This does not cause an issue as any program that allows 'Aquire from twain' will use the drivers and bring in the scan with no issue.

Is Microsoft sensitive to the fact that many people have software that they need but will not work in Vista? Since they made Virtual PC 2007 available for free for just this reason I would have to say that they are.

To finish I must comment on the "work in progress" statements. Any newly released OS is a release in progress. If not there would not be three service packs for XP and four for 2000.

Posted by walts_spot at 4/20/08 7:29 p.m.

Keep dead wood, hire foreign help, surpress fresh ideas, pretend your doing R&D = Vista.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 7:48 p.m.

The problem with Vista is that it is really slow, i hear saying people install it in a decent machine, problem is even if you do it is still slow compared to XP and Mac OS. My IBM (note not Lenovo) Thinkpad Pentium4M with 512MB RAM with XP installed boots faster and runs word and excel faster than my ACER laptop that has 2.5GB RAM and 1.86Ghz dual core CPU with Vista installed. I had an AMD Athlon 3200+ CPU and 1 GB of RAM it worked really well with XP then i installed Vista and i found it really slow! took forever to boot and it couldn't even recognize the built-in ethernet and audio of my motherboard. I got curious and i installed a hacked version of Mac OSX on my machine. It worked perfectly! even booted and did things faster than XP! Because of that experience i bought a MacBook which i am very happy with and my whole office will start using apple computers as well. I saw one comment that MAC is a closed source OS, what do you mean? Windows is "closed" source also! Mac OS in based on Darwin which is open source in fact you can download the source code for free and compile it yourself. You can also upgrade MACS, i can upgrade my ram in my MacBook if i want to. You can also upgrade video cards, hdd, add some cards to the MacPro. However i still keep a PC or rather an XP machine at home cause I use it for games! No point in playing games in vista or osx. Yes Windows XP was a work in progress also but it performed way better than Win98 (no point in comparing XP to 2000 since 2000 was not made for home users) from the start so even if it was buggy people didn't mind upgrading. Yes it booted slower than 98 but it was more stable and had better features than 98. Problem with Vista now is that you really do not need the new features! UAC is annoying, the eye candy is just too slow, windows mobile center is just the same as ActiveSync. What i like about Vista though which was a feature of Win98 but they took out in XP is that you can create password protected folder shares! no need for ADS and NTFS permissions which is not really needed if you just want to keep your 8 year old from poking through your business files.

Posted by apothecare at 4/20/08 8:56 p.m.

This all sounds too familiar when Microsoft wanted to move everyone off Windows 2000 Professional and go to XP. The same comments were made on why 2000 Pro should be extended and how XP will never make ground.
Now all the sudden XP is the king. I'm sure soon we'll be seeing the same fight to keep vista in the near future when another major version is released.

The difference being that W2K wasn't pulled until long after XPpro had become stable, in this case, MS is pulling the plug before Vista even gets a meaningful and
effective service pack

The next step here (which MS previously went to the edge of, chickened out and then stepped back) is to
deliberately sabotage XP in some way that CREATES the motivation to convert

There have been several attempts so far, killed by the
failure of Vista's own technology, that include:

*the promise of DX10 as an exclusive bonus for gamers,

*the enhanced "security" features which mainly stopped people from accessing their OWN computers/software

*the 3D desktop environment which offers so little (any)
benefit, yet slows performance drastically to the point
where many users must disable it...

The REAL crunch will come when MS must come through for
the hardware and software developers that paid big bucks for Vista exclusivity during the pre-launch
period

Vista PROMISED software developers, especially game and
business suite developers that, in exchange for purchasing the "Vista Ready" or "Games for Windows" logo.. that VISTA users would be FORCED to buy the latest version of their products, without an upgrade path and that Vista would monitor the user to pre-empt the use of pirated (or even just OLD) software sold by that company....

Vista PROMISED hardware vendors (in exchange for purchasing the "Vista Ready" or "DX10 compatible" label, that they would have EXCLUSIVE access to the SDK
for Vista compatible drivers

Wonder why so many products had driver issues and why so
many previously stable programs could not run on Vista?

Not an accident...companies hedged their bets, bought the Vista logo only for those products that they NEEDED
to keep alive and assumed that the popularity of the "new" OS would shorten the life cycle of the products that they abandoned

When Vista sales tanked at launch, MS panicked and started letting vendors into the club for free after the
others had already paid to get in....

The next Vista SP might reverse this...without continuing support for XP, MS can honestly make a case for the need to strictly enforce Vista "compatibility"
(which actually means, did the cheque clear?)

If the co-emergent SP for XP suddenly causes stability
issues for some newer hardware and software, it WON'T
be a coincidence...

Fact is, Microsoft offered the carrot and nobody took a bite....now, they will try using the stick.....

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 10:17 p.m.

In reference to post #119810... LOL!!!!! Have you ever considered writing Sci-fi?

Actually, if read close enough, you make a couple of good points. It is a shame that you hide the good points within so much garbage.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 10:31 p.m.

I bought Vista Ultimate about two weeks after it came on the shelves. The upgrade process from XP home wasn't very smooth I must say. And also, Ultimate could be more different than the lower tier versions. But other than that, I have no problems with Vista at all, SP1 install went off smoothly and I'm already noticing more stable and quicker performance.

I always hear things like Linux and Mac are 10 times better ...etc. But Windows just gets things done. It's just so much more compatible with everything.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 11:41 p.m.

As a network and hardware tech, it's fair enough to realise that, like it or hate it, most corporations will shift to it after Microsoft ends their XP support. That would be a "management" fear decision more than one by most IT pros or users I believe. For home users, yeah Vista has Aero and more eye candy and if you love it then fine. But I'm staunchly with the majority of people who 1)find that XP does a BETTER job with their current PC needs than Vista 2)don't want to upgrade their PC just because it needs a better graphics card, (if you use a notebook it's replacement time) - whoever said just upgrade memory needs to review the OS hardware reqs for both XP and Vista and 3)can see no compelling REASON to part with their hard-earned for dubious (if any) immediate benefits (I won't even get started on Outlook 2007 as a definite step BACKWARD...) :) It's gotten to the point where the current operating systems/software do the job well enough (whether XP, Linux, or OSX) for most people. Most people just don't see the need to go to Vista. And "most people" are being seemingly ignored by Microsoft. I predict Microsoft will have a harder and harder time getting people to shell out for smaller amounts of improvements. There will always be unquestioning sheep that provide their paycheck though. Enough so they'll continue to operate the way Steve Ballmer does. 'Nuff said.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/20/08 11:50 p.m.

"To finish I must comment on the "work in progress" statements. Any newly released OS is a release in progress. If not there would not be three service packs for XP and four for 2000."

Which means Microsoft has trained its users--both IT and consumers--not to take its products seriously until SP1 at least and possibly not until SP2, which means waiting 12 to 18 months before *considering* adopting the OS.

Apparently, you see nothing wrong with this picture. For a company which is in the business of selling software, this is an unforgivable way of doing business, one which frustrates shareholders and institutional analysts. If you ever wondered why it is MSFT trades for essentially the same amount as it did five years ago, here is a huge clue.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 1:35 a.m.

Say what you want, best thing about Vista is it's incredible ability to drive RAM prices down because it's such a bloated piece of garbage.

That being said, XP was the same way in terms of bloated piece of garbage. lolololololol

Heres hoping that Vista doesn't get the same chance XP did so microsoft can actually deliver what they promised with Longhorn for oh I don't know, the last 4 or so years?

We now return to our regularily scheduled interweb opinions.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 2:48 a.m.

Thank you all for a good laugh! I will say that one or two of you just might have a thought in your head but most are just apeing gripes that they have heard with no actual knowledge.

Again, thank you for a good laugh.

Gripe all you want but have the guts to be specific. What problem are you having? I just may be able to help. If I can't directly help I can ask others. Since I do happen to have Ballmer's direct email address I'm sure that I just might be able to get answers to specific problems.

Saddly I doubt that that offer will be taken. You people don't want answers or solutions. You just want to gripe as you don't have the insight or desire to figure anything out on your own.

Most of the posts I've read here are pathetic. I'm out of here! You bore me with your lack of... well, any real original thought. While there are exceptions, as a group you have no idea what you are talking about. Try doing some research before opening your mouth. There are a few here that actually speak with reason. Please know that I do not include you in what I say.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 4:32 a.m.

Being a heavy IT tinkerer, I tried Vista beta 2 when it came out. Of course, it was a beta - meaning it needed more hardware oomph than the finished product, and came with unfinished drivers and no guarantee to being stable.
Still, I loaded it on a machine that would earn 'Windows Vista Premium ready' - and it ran like molasses, making me hedge my bets and undust my dormant UNIX k@kz0rzs skills.
Then, Vista came out; and, being the local system breakdown fixer, I started getting (right away) machines with Vista installed, that just didn't work: too slow, crashing too often, UAC being a pain, or the brand new Vista Ready webcam wouldn't install...
I demonstrated Linux to some, and installed it as dual boot: more often than not, they just don't boot Vista anymore. So yes, they've paid the Microsoft tax; but no, they don't like Vista, and don't even use it.

Mitch

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 4:44 a.m.

Well, honestly I see no differences between where XP was and where Vista is now. People hated XP back in 2001 but now it's the Windows benchmark. If Vista runs slow on your system, UPGRADE. Like everything else in IT, OS design progresses. So do hardware requirements. Deal with it. Sadly, this hatred of MS is getting tiring. The same arguments have been said since MS-DOS days. Nothing new. Face IT, Linux/MAC OS will never grab the market share from MS no matter how much you diss MS. You seriously can't expect MS reproduce XP year after year. Where does the innovation come from. Vista is a peek of whats to come. Sure Vista is a POC and it has its flaws but it also hammers XP in certain departments. As to the comments of incompatability, if Nvidia cant write a working driver, fire the Dev team. Same for all the other developers. MS has well published development frameworks. If they stuck to them your apps would work on Vista. And thats a fact. For MS to admit that there are failures in Vista is very big of them. Cant say the same for Apple. They just lock the thread on their forums. Same goes for Linux. Linux wont gather momentum because it has 0 development standards and no roadmap. Thats the downfall of OSS and the downfall of Linux. P.S. Take a peek at zone-h.org and check which OS is topping the hack list. Tell me now who's serious about maturing their OS for the future.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 7:26 a.m.

Seriously... with all hating aside (there is obviously plenty to go around). Here's the real deal: XP SUCKED when it first came out. How many years did it take for them to get it running well? Answer: about a year. Vista, on the other hand, is so top-heavy that it's going to take until the next-gen OS launch to even get it running close to smooth. People on here that say "Oh, but you are all just hating.. my Vista runs great!". You are:
1) An inexperienced user, or someone who needs absolutely ZERO legacy support, or someone that has the time and effort to put into either getting a hacked driver or finding a work-around for driver issues.
2) Losing your mind: Vista took 5 minutes to load on a buddy's Alienware system and that was after he'd ran it a few times and tried to streamline it. Maybe we're just tards....
3) Oblivious!: How user friendly (to someone who is a legacy user) is the new Office 2007 and the rest of the Crapta AERO interface family (Explorer, etc)? Answer: Not at all, but somehow we stumble through. I've been doing Powerpoint presentations for years and until 2007, I had no issues with upgrades. I still do all my presentations in 2003 just because I don't have the patience to re-learn where all the tools are and/or figuring out what that "outside the box" thinker thought that the new "quick access" areas were supposed to accomplish (frustrate and take up more work space... that's BRILLIANT!)

XP was not perfect when it came out, but I do remember a lot better driver support from both OEM's and Microsoft at launch than Vista.

Here's something to chew on: it really seems to me that Vista (like almost all software these days) was rushed out the door. The problem with Vista is that it was so premature that it didn't allow any development time for the OEM's. Who, in turn, took the opportunity to blame Microsoft for their new driver authentication crap and only provide Vista driver support for new products. It was kind of funny how XP could import almost any legacy driver and at least have functionality! Everyone is blaming Microsoft for drivers, but it's just as much on the OEM's as it is on them. Hell, if Microsoft wouldn't have developed a 40gb monster that has to ask your permission just to do a seek function on the HD, maybe... just maybe they wouldn't be where they are right now. Just my $.02

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 4:50 p.m.

Some great insights I've enjoyed reading. Wow. There's always a few people who can't see things objectively (e.g. the "I run Microsoft on my PC therefore it's the best and Linux, OSX, etc. suck" mentality) which makes for some pretty hilarious knee-jerk comments. The person who referenced the zone-h.org page obviously didn't realise that the site monitors website defacements instead of server hacking in general. The www.netcraft.com samples over 162 million sites and shows the explanation for this - the large majority of web servers are running Apache (and hence mainly Linux). So no surprise there. That'd be like arguing Linux is better because Windows file servers similarly outnumber their Linux equivalents and also get hacked more(hackers aren't brand-loyal). So a totally flawed logic there. The statements in that post reveal why Microsoft is in no danger of suddenly going out of business. As to the hilariously inaccurate claims about Linux locking threads on their forums or that Linux has "zero development standards and no roadmap", this defies the reality that major corporate shakers like IBM, Redhat and Novell (to name only a few) are investing gigantically in Linux for now and the future. And you can bet that they (like Microsoft) are paying people big bucks to ensure they've got some serious development standards and a business and development roadmap that'll increase their own profits/market share. They're not fly-by-night companies. Comments like that twist the thread into a cheap "I like Linux better than Windows" or vice versa rather than on the situation described in the article on what Microsoft is saying about Vista, what kind of response the majority of users and companies has been to Vista (sorry Vista users), and what will Microsoft do now. I found the most interesting (and backpedalling)comment Steve Ballmer made above as:
"In the meantime, we have some customers -- a lot of customers -- using Vista. A lot of customers. And we have a lot of customers that are choosing to stay with Windows XP. And as long as those are both important options, we will be sensitive and we will listen and we will hear that." If MS was comfortable in the fact that "a lot" of people that choose Vista are ENOUGH people then those statements wouldn't need to be made. It's an awkward situation for them. And the world also sees it (well, some Vista users excepted). Will Vista get better? Undoubtedly, yes. From a business point of view for MS, it HAS to. But will Microsoft really listen about users preferring XP? Only time will tell....

Posted by unregistered user at 4/21/08 8:15 p.m.

To the user who claims that Vista runs with "ZERO" problems on their admittedly very high-spec machine, pat yourself on the back for having a wasted gig of RAM in your system (Vista currently can only recognize 3Gb of RAM, a known issue and one that hardware vendors are choosing to look the other way on as they continue to sell extra memory to people like this). Both your knowledge of Vista, XP, Win2000 and other OS'es speaks for itself in your post and furthers the impression that satisfied Vista users are not only (very much)in the minority but hate to be reminded that they've splashed out for big hardware and a new OS for...what? The self-deluded smugness is what Microsoft loves to appeal it's marketing machine towards. You can be a poster child for them.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/22/08 8:45 a.m.

The problem is not about XP being good and vista being bad. Every product takes its time to become stable and people to get used to it. But the whole point is how MS is trying to force it down every ones throat. Just because MS has released a new OS - the end user now has to invest millions to upgrade all their hardware and software and train all their people again - and all this while everything is working fine with XP. Does not make sense uh?

I would rather keep using something that is working than waste my time (MS is not paying for all the time) I spend trying to get Vista to run on my network...

Meanwhile enjoy...
JMJ

Posted by unregistered user at 4/23/08 9:04 p.m.

Amen to that, brotha. :0

Posted by nike air force ones at 5/12/08 1:04 a.m.

Very helpful, thanks!!

air force 1 sneakers | air jordans shoes | nike air force ones shoes

Posted by unregistered user at 6/21/08 1:09 a.m.

Can't say I'm impressed that he knew they were releasing an inferior product but did so anyway, especially when they
asked us to pay $300 for the Ultimate version. Funny how apple could release a great OS in OSX Leopard, Plus not play all the different versions game. Then to top it off only retail it for $129.00

Posted by unregistered user at 8/11/08 1:59 a.m.

I hope vista will be so much powerful that previous operating systems will be no more required...

Microsoft CRM Customization