Am I the only one who loves Windows Vista?!?!?
- Thread starter T J
- Start date
I can't say I feel compelled to upgrade to Vista, but then again, I was dragged kicking and screaming from Win98 to XP back in 2004 
From a business perspective, the OS just isn't up to the task as it's often trying to introduce too many things at once that larger networks with various hardware considerations are just going to have trouble with. And this is why a large proportion of business have chosen not to upgrade.
On the home side, to be honest, from my experience with Vista, I'm not convinced it's worth the upgrade (as mentioned, it's similar to Windows ME with its shortfalls and the controversy it's caused). I've noticed problems from simple things like a USB pen drive or mouse not being recognised, to the OS insisting there's no NIC present (then helpfully suggests I download drivers from the internet), despite it working the previous time I booted up.
There's also the issue of it making all users privileged users by default, and the fact that IE7 seems to get itself right in the core of the OS and the registry, despite it claiming it's isolated from the system and more safe than ever...
While XP does all that I need for the moment, I see no reason to upgrade for what would essentially be a prettier looking desktop. And frankly, I can survive without a plethora of resource hogging widgets. I'll probably skip Vista and wait for Windows7...
The majority of people I know have decided on their own that they preferred XP to Vista. I'd be interested what the results would be if there was a poll on this
From a business perspective, the OS just isn't up to the task as it's often trying to introduce too many things at once that larger networks with various hardware considerations are just going to have trouble with. And this is why a large proportion of business have chosen not to upgrade.On the home side, to be honest, from my experience with Vista, I'm not convinced it's worth the upgrade (as mentioned, it's similar to Windows ME with its shortfalls and the controversy it's caused). I've noticed problems from simple things like a USB pen drive or mouse not being recognised, to the OS insisting there's no NIC present (then helpfully suggests I download drivers from the internet), despite it working the previous time I booted up.
There's also the issue of it making all users privileged users by default, and the fact that IE7 seems to get itself right in the core of the OS and the registry, despite it claiming it's isolated from the system and more safe than ever...
While XP does all that I need for the moment, I see no reason to upgrade for what would essentially be a prettier looking desktop. And frankly, I can survive without a plethora of resource hogging widgets. I'll probably skip Vista and wait for Windows7...
The majority of people I know have decided on their own that they preferred XP to Vista. I'd be interested what the results would be if there was a poll on this
Last edited:
Vista is great if you have a lot of money and you don't mind buying a whole bunch of new equipment and software. If you are the average person on a budget why would you waste good money. I have yet to talk to an IT professional that will touch Vista.
When I built my new system, I put Ubuntu on it just to keep from using Vista. When I have to use windows, I will find a copy of XP or dig up 2000 before I use Vista.
When I built my new system, I put Ubuntu on it just to keep from using Vista. When I have to use windows, I will find a copy of XP or dig up 2000 before I use Vista.
I used Windows Vista on my sisters computer, and I'm far from impressed.
Not gonna make the switch.
Vista needs new computers with plenty of CPU power and RAM to run on XP level of performance (which requires 3x less in terms of computer power).
Vista also doesn't offer that much novelty in comparison to XP.
If it was a radically different OS than XP that had tons of new things, well then the hardware demands might have been excusable, but like this ... no way.
The new graphics user interface is nice yes (but nothing special since I was able to replicate it on XP without increasing resource use).
Vista does run stable for the most part, but for average users, and people who use their hardware for gaming/3d art/photoshop-ing and the likes, it is not a contributing factor.
I use my computer extensively for all of those purposes, and moving to Vista (even with a new computer) would be a hinderance.
If anything, XP is coping with new hardware (CPUs with multiple cores, GPUs and the likes) without issues.
A lot of people who buy new PC's end up getting cheap and already assembled computers which aren't really that good for (pre-installed) Vista and end up having a lot of problems.
Yes, Vista works, but essentially speaking, it's just a dressed up XP offering little novely with 3x larger hardware demands.
Translation:
Not worth the 'upgrade'.
For most people, I'd personally advise to remain with XP Pro and wait for further news on Windows 7, or until Vista is aditionally filled with new service packs that will transform it into something that makes it worthy of upgrade.
Upgrading for the sake od DX10 is worthless since most games don't even support it, and there is a good possibility DX10 will become available on XP.
However, if you simply MUST HAVE Vista because it's new, go for it.
It's stable and works ok provided you have the computer specs which are necessary for it to run with all it's options enabled at XP levels.
I personally see no reason to make the switch as I'd gain nothing and lose a lot.
Aso, I find the forcing of pre-installed Vista on computers that aren't really suitable to run it at decent performance levels to be incredibly stupid.
It's no wonder that people are mad when they buy low budget computers with an OS that kills them after a short use for most simplistic operations.
Not gonna make the switch.
Vista needs new computers with plenty of CPU power and RAM to run on XP level of performance (which requires 3x less in terms of computer power).
Vista also doesn't offer that much novelty in comparison to XP.
If it was a radically different OS than XP that had tons of new things, well then the hardware demands might have been excusable, but like this ... no way.
The new graphics user interface is nice yes (but nothing special since I was able to replicate it on XP without increasing resource use).
Vista does run stable for the most part, but for average users, and people who use their hardware for gaming/3d art/photoshop-ing and the likes, it is not a contributing factor.
I use my computer extensively for all of those purposes, and moving to Vista (even with a new computer) would be a hinderance.
If anything, XP is coping with new hardware (CPUs with multiple cores, GPUs and the likes) without issues.
A lot of people who buy new PC's end up getting cheap and already assembled computers which aren't really that good for (pre-installed) Vista and end up having a lot of problems.
Yes, Vista works, but essentially speaking, it's just a dressed up XP offering little novely with 3x larger hardware demands.
Translation:
Not worth the 'upgrade'.
For most people, I'd personally advise to remain with XP Pro and wait for further news on Windows 7, or until Vista is aditionally filled with new service packs that will transform it into something that makes it worthy of upgrade.
Upgrading for the sake od DX10 is worthless since most games don't even support it, and there is a good possibility DX10 will become available on XP.
However, if you simply MUST HAVE Vista because it's new, go for it.
It's stable and works ok provided you have the computer specs which are necessary for it to run with all it's options enabled at XP levels.
I personally see no reason to make the switch as I'd gain nothing and lose a lot.
Aso, I find the forcing of pre-installed Vista on computers that aren't really suitable to run it at decent performance levels to be incredibly stupid.
It's no wonder that people are mad when they buy low budget computers with an OS that kills them after a short use for most simplistic operations.
I have multiple computers that I use. My laptop has vista and my desktop has XP.
My complaints with vista were having to turn off UAC (make sure to do it before you install any other software as future upgrades by adobe/apple itunes screw up) and the occasional problem with updates. Otherwise, I like it.
Going back and forth between XP and vista is seamless. Sometimes, I do find that I miss certain features that vista has that XP doesn't, which always makes me chuckle when I read another vista bashing thread. They are the little things like wonderful search feature or being able to edit pix in preview, but missing in XP
My complaints with vista were having to turn off UAC (make sure to do it before you install any other software as future upgrades by adobe/apple itunes screw up) and the occasional problem with updates. Otherwise, I like it.
Going back and forth between XP and vista is seamless. Sometimes, I do find that I miss certain features that vista has that XP doesn't, which always makes me chuckle when I read another vista bashing thread. They are the little things like wonderful search feature or being able to edit pix in preview, but missing in XP
Rii
Rear Admiral
Same story with XP.
There are two reasons why XP has been more successful in the business and enterprises worlds than Vista, and neither of them relate to the quality of the OS.
(1) XP was released barely 18 months after 2K. Many businesses and enterprises weren't looking at an upgrade from 2K to XP, but an upgrade from NT4.0 to either 2K or XP. Those that were in the position to upgrade from 2K to XP chose largely to ignore XP, as it offered little more than cosmetic improvements over 2K in return for steeper hardware requirements. Gartner's press releases at the time back this up.
(2) XP held its position as Microsoft's premier OS for an unusually long time, such that even those who initially ignored XP were converted to it in accordance with their hardware replacement cycles, hardware that had by then advanced to point that XP's absurd system requirements were not a serious concern, and its various teething issues ironed out.
XP is entrenched today because Microsoft abandoned their plans for "XP Second Edition" in favour of SP2, they did this because the enterprise and business markets were coming up on an upgrade cycle at the time and XP had to that date proven to be less than a stellar success. Microsoft feared that by releasing another OS those markets would ignore both the new OS and XP and instead retain NT4/2K whilst waiting for the dust to settle. Of course history has shown that to be a rather short-sighted decision, as Microsoft are now having difficulty pursuading the world to move on from XP.
Most of the major vendors were shipping XP systems with 128MB of RAM in 2001/2002, this is nothing new. Then, as today, the price difference between not enough memory and more than your PC knows what to do with doesn't reach three figures. Unless you're buying memory from Apple.
Last edited:
Ya know people keep saying that but I don't buy it. I didn't spend one red cent on equipment or software... It's soooo odd that all these people have this problem and I have none at all.
I think a lot of people complaining about Vista while praising XP didn't use XP before SP1 and 2.
I agree that people shouldn't upgrade to Vista unless they get a new computer or have a very powerful one to begin with, but hasn't that always been the case? Were there a lot of people trying to run XP in 2001 with their six year old Pentium 233 and 64MB of RAM?
For that matter, anyone try running Leopard on a 500 Mhz G4 with 256 MB of RAM? How does that work out for you?
I agree that people shouldn't upgrade to Vista unless they get a new computer or have a very powerful one to begin with, but hasn't that always been the case? Were there a lot of people trying to run XP in 2001 with their six year old Pentium 233 and 64MB of RAM?
For that matter, anyone try running Leopard on a 500 Mhz G4 with 256 MB of RAM? How does that work out for you?
Why would anyone try to run Leopard on a G4 at all? You'd lose Classic Mode functionality before you needed to. I mean, once you've got an Intel chip then it's gone anyway, but until then?
That's the thing, though. I have a couple computers from six or seven years ago--one of them is a Pentium III with 512 MB memory, for example. They run XP, Linux, and OS X just fine, so why can't they run Vista? What is so different or useful or great about Vista that it justifies such steep hardware requirements?I agree that people shouldn't upgrade to Vista unless they get a new computer or have a very powerful one to begin with, but hasn't that always been the case? Were there a lot of people trying to run XP in 2001 with their six year old Pentium 233 and 64MB of RAM?
One of the biggest issues is always 3rd party driver support. This happens with each and every new Windows release... and people always forget that it happened with the last one as well as pinning the blame on MS instead of on the hardware vendors (who frequently would rather you purchase new hardware instead of maintaining drivers of hardware that isn't even a year old).
It's also great if you don't have a lot of money and don't need to buy new equipment and software because it all works with Vista.
Seriously, where do people get the idea that Vista suffers from such a serious software and hardware compatibility that nothing at all works with it? Every piece of software and hardware from my old XP system worked when I upgraded to Vista; scanners, printers and various USB devices. Not a one of them was designed with Vista in mind.
Oh, wait, Diskkepper was incompatible. Oh, the horror.
It's like people are living in a dream world where XP is a 100% flawless operating system with no issues of any kind. XP worked for me for years, but it was not perfect. Vista is also not perfect (and the OSX system I use at work is not perfect).
I had two issues with my previous XP system that were solved moving to Vista. 1: ActiveSync and my PDA were a nightmare, and often did not work. Vista got rid of Active Sync and it all works great now. 2: My XP system stopped entering sleep mode, and nothing I could do would fix it. Vista sleeps just fine.
As for IT pros, they stayed away from XP for years as well. They are notorious for not wanting to change things. They'll embrace Vista just as Windows 7 comes out, at which point they will flee in terror from it.
Drivers and older hardware aren't really the problem with Vista.
From my experience, it's biggest beef at the moment is that it offers next to nothing XP doesn't provide while asking for 3x more hardware power and about 4x more RAM.
We got a prettier UI with DX10 and several new features that are hardly essential.
Not really worth the upgrade in my opinion at this time.
It's possible the new service packs will transform Vista into something worthwhile like it was done with XP, but it's also possible such a scenario won't happen.
Either way, I will personally wait until Windows 7 comes out and see it's innovations.
People probably say that something is wrong with Vista, because there is something wrong with Vista. I don't think people complain for no reason. Most people just want their stuff to work be it Vista are anything else. Vista works just fine if you have the money to upgrade your system or you buy a new one, which most people don't. Why should you upgrade when you don't have to? Computers are one of those things that soon you will be forced to upgrade because your 3-5 year old computer just will not work anymore.
I would rather not use XP or Vista or anything else Microsoft makes but I have to just to interact with the world and have a job. It would be nice if they actually just made something that worked right
I would rather not use XP or Vista or anything else Microsoft makes but I have to just to interact with the world and have a job. It would be nice if they actually just made something that worked right
Well, yeah, it would be stupid, but I've tried it, and to to answer FordSVT's question: just fine. Window minimize/maximize is a little slow, but nothing too bad. It runs, well enough to use the machine.
Rii
Rear Admiral
All versions of Windows have achieved market penetration primarily through OEM licenses packaged with new PCs. Your average consumer won't consider upgrading their OS, it just doesn't happen. That's not a Vista rule, it's a Windows rule. How do you think XP achieved its present position?
