I have tried Vista for many months, but I finally made up my mind to go back to XP Pro. Vista is a step in the wrong direction on too many fronts.

Final release is q1 2008, However all Public will get its goodies with Release Canadate in early Nov. Stated Mary Jo Folley from ZD net.

Some are small as they REALLY arn't GOING INTO "TRUE" VISTA at all. Vista Ultimate will gobble down Full Gigabyte like Gravy & Dumplings & time is ripe for Ultimate with release of 790 CHIPSET by dozens at Schools Opening, its ULTIMATE with no Doubt, so is 690, yet limited to micro atx often, or 200 on 3d'6 mark with added slot 3 to 6k, now its gonna be 12 K plus run with certain new flavoroids hitting 30,000 3d '6markNear Theoretical limit when this 16x stuff started with tyans' dual processor dual card server/workstation 20 months ago, now one processor, three 16x. multiple crossfires n' one basicly & Vista Ultimate, its SUPER World That Is Blossoming Today & all Fall '7. I recommend adding beta3 server 2008 to your build right now, w/quicktime as theres no media & you'll be above all others for years to come at modest cost. Other super scalar events will be years in printing, so you can't lose thing buying at top today.

Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEKJ M.D.

I will not run Vista - EVER. When XP no longer runs the programs I want I WILL be switching to another OS. Hopefully after a few years the Mac OS or Linux will be just as functional and productive for me. I refuse Vista and all it's baggage, I absolutely refuse it.

LOL, I find it so silly for people to HATE Vista like "John Doe." Yea, I'm still running XP but I figure after a few more months, or probaly around SP1 release, I'll migrate to Vista. Why? Hell, why not. It's not THAT much different then XP, and it's got a lot of nicer features then XP. It's just needs a few kinks worked out. Take a break from your computer, relax man. I remember when XP came out, it's the same story all over again.

Not worth the money and propped up by microsoft as a must have. XP 64 is more than enough until new Op comes out 2010.

I dont see how people are having issues with vista. Ive been running it since release without a single issue (save some Nvidia driver problems). I dont get where people find the faults. I ran it on a shit P4 and it ran fine with 1.5 gigs ram. I got my quad with 4 gigs, and its now an absolute dream to run. No slowdowns, no problems (once again, thanks Nvidia for giving me the sole issue ive had with Vista).

I guess theres no point in attempting to convince people that Vista is fine, because it really is. Im quite happy with Vista, and migrating from XP was an absolute non-issue. All programs i had before worked fine (save a few games, but i blame that on the developers *cough* EA!!!!)

Im not even looking forward to SP1, quite frankly, because i dont see anything broken in Vista (and im a power user). SP1 wont be what SP1 was for XP, thats for sure.

so i guess john doe is not a gamer. of course, when a new operating system comes out, there are bugs. there are still bugs on XP! it's been 7 months that i have vista. i had to wait 5 months for some of my drivers. it's part of life. and guess what, Dx10 will shine one day. and xp will not support it.

Take a break from your computer, relax man. I remember when XP came out, it's the same story all over again.

yup.yup.

I'm use to here this crap. 'I'm not going to vista for this reason....'. I listened to the exact same crap when XP came out, and when 2000 came out, and 98 before it. I will give you that you are very original. RAM is cheap, why not make an OS that can use it? HD space? 250GB is about average, and most people won't use 50GB. McLovin is right. Get over it. Vista isn't that much different to XP, particually when you turn off UAC

I dual boot so I can run Vista when gaming and XP when doing other things.

Same whining I heard with XP. "I'll never switch from Windows 98! XP is slow and buggy. I don't need all that NT baggage."

Fast forward to SP2. WinXP is now rock-solid, highly compatible, and modern systems ran it without batting an eye. It's the same story every OS generation. If you want to switch from Windows to something else, go for it. But that doesn't mean you have to hate on Vista/MS publically in every forum and comments page on the web. Let your money do the talking.

For the record, no, I do not use Vista. So I'm far from biased. There's just no rush to upgrade for most people - its a likely eventuality. But that's no fault of Vista. It's Microsoft's fault, for doing a good job of fixing up XP.

I run Vista Business x64 on my Core2 Duo machine w/ 3 gigs of RAM. I couldn't be happier with it.

My understanding was that vista sp1 would include a new kernel. Also, I still don't see any mention of SLI support, something that will be a key factor for me.

Upgrading from XP to Vista? I still haven't (and probably never will) move away from 2000 sp4.
Comparatively, XP is way too bloated, and all those "user friendly" features and looks just get really annoying to someone who prefers to get their hands dirty (don't mention linux, i already use Gentoo at home, unfortunately i need Win for work programs like Protel).
Speaking of work, we sell acquisition/analysis PCs with the radars we build, and we still use 2000 on them, because XP won't run the hardware/programs we want (we're constantly scanning ebay for 2000 licences as it is). We haven't yet tried Vista, but as we're selling as bare-bones as possible, i doubt we ever will...

I've been doing this for 23 years as my only profession. Building computers, supporting computers, Windows, Macintosh, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc...

But I can say one thing for certain, from my experience, avoid Windows Vista like the plague for at least a year.

It's like buying a new model car the first time it ever comes out, there's always bugs and at the least incompatibilities.

Honestly, there are features in Windows Vista that are amazing. Microsoft, for the first time EVER has focused on this thing the rest of us know called SECURITY.

This is a good thing.

With an extremely poor implementation, called UAC, User Access Controls.

Now, I'm an extremely negative person towards Macintosh and the older Mac operating systems, but they've done an excellent job with Mac OSX.

Their first breakthrough was using BSD as a kernel. This allowed their second breakthrough, using Intel processors.

They now have a very solid (if not secure) operating system where they can sell hardware (and software) at a price that's competitive to PCs.

Vista, is an EXTREMELY poor attempt to copy it. And while yes we hated XP for the first year or two, it now rules as the most solid Microsoft operating system ever (after 5 years of patching). Vista will one day reach the same plateau, but it will be a long ways off.

Summary: I hate Microsoft. I don't like Macs. I loooove Linux, but if Apple could only license their OS to work on every PC they might take a good bit more market share than 5%-10%. I hated Apple before for costing 2x for 1/2 the performance, but they're close now and I really want them to win some market share.

I too almost got caught up in the "Vista sucks" rhetoric; but, after installing it and learning how to make a smooth transition (well, I'm dual-booting) I'm enjoying Vista very much. The software compatibility feature takes care of the software issue (older software runs fine in XP-compatibility mode), and my HDTV Wonder is my only hardware with no support. Big deal. Vista is way faster than XP on almost everything I have thrown at it so far, and I score almost 1k more PCMarks when booting in Vista. The bugs are minimal, and I think the only people whining are those who don't know how to take advantage of the features that make it such a smooth transition from XP to Vista. Learn about it, and then bask in its conveniences/security

Man oh man, never thought I would be thinking about switching to Mac if it was not for Vista...
So imaging when I skip that step and actually start thinking about changing to Mac....lol must be my day

There are things that XP can do better than Vista and much fewer things that Vista can do better. Until that changes, and it will, (because of Vista getting better AND programs having Vista in mind), I'll be ready for a switch. Until then, I don't like MS "forcing" people on Vista, in their own legal ways. DX10 can be implemented on XP, and (I'm not the expert) from what I have read, it might even have a better performance and security if it did.

Vista works fine for those who have installed it correctly (i.e. proper drivers for their hardware). My only issue is the cost. It's incredibly expensive and way over priced. Mac OSX is much less money to buy retail and you don't have to get the dumbed down version to afford it like with Vista.

Not that anyone really needs Vista Ultimate but it just seems like they are holding out some features for 99% of users who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars for an OS. It's somewhat insulting IMO.

As far as the SP1 fix... I think many of the listed fixes are already released as individual updates in Vista so I doubt the release will be dramatic.

Quote from OpenAL.org: "Microsoft® will be removing DirectSound 3D Hardware support from Direct X with the launch of Windows Vista. DirectSound and DirectSound3D will still function; however, they will no longer use hardware acceleration."

Indeed, I tried Vista and I found that EAX (read: all environmental audio effects for most games) had become a thing of the past. Oh well, back to XP...

Hey John Doe you moron, just admit that you dont know shit about Operating Systems. I have 2 Linux Boxes and 2 Windows. Both for my work. They're equally effective IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Only fools who dont know shit will say Windows sucks.

Mac OS? LOL ! Thats the worst of the worst piece of crap out there. It crashes for no reason. and people like *you* thinks that its secure, ROFL. there are tons of known security holes for that crap underground.

Vista is my baby :)

John, your comment is so typical of a mis-informed person who reads other peoples comments and takes those as his own. I bet you said the same thing about xp pro when it was released. YOu robably stated "I will never use XP pro and when Win98 no longer runs programs I will switch to the Mac or Linux". Well, guess what, Macs will never run games and you're too stupid to run Linux. Vista does everything that XP pro does.

XP had the exact same response when it first came out. Those who were crybabies then too were the gamers complainging they lost 5FPS in games or had driver stabitity problems etc. Just ignore them, just like they did with XP now they swear by it when they first condemned it too. They will eventually see that ALL newer operating systems need time to mature. There has never in the history of software been a perfect first version of any OS that was bug free, and almost all of them were improved over time.

-T

There is no whining about vista on my part.

I do think you are comparing apples to oranges when you reflect on the operating system history though.

The windows version that you all discussed wasn't mature. Before Gates began copying from the Amiga and a little from the mac he was expressing how dos is all you ever needed.

Amiga was mutlitasking and doing things windows is just now doing. And gates was on dos 6.0, so when they started copying catting every as many products they could and including it in the operating system. There was NO thought of gaming and not a lot on graphics. So win 3 had you leaving the operating system and returning to dos mode for gaming.

Their coding as well as cpu power wasn't up to par. But now it is, and XP64 was a re-write.

What I want them to do is FINISH a product instead of shifting to the new one and abandoning a product unfinished.

@John Doe: It's probably silly to decide now whether you will ever run an oprating system in the future. It pretty much screams that your decision is idological rather than practical, and that's usually uncompelling to any who don't share your ideological position.

@Blah: Your anticdotal experince is no better when than John's ideological one when you attempt to force-extrapolate it. I'm glad that you've had no issues (except one that required you end up with NVidia tech support, which sounds like an issue to me). That doesn't mean it's the same for others.

For example: There's a 90% bandwidth throttling on network recieves when playing music. That's not rumor. That's not "for some people". That's a known 'feature' of the operating system... it's also different than XP and, for many, a problem.

Your position "there's nothing broken", is demonstrably false. Microsoft herself has a "what to fix" list that's public.

@all: I'll go to Vista if and when it seems to be the best course of action. Right now I'm happily running XP and have no compelling urge to spend the time or money upgrading to Vista. Personally, I'm still think XP feels a bit like Melinnium to W2k's W98.

I am disgruntled that, as a gamer, my choice will likely at some point be made for me. I'd like to have actual options (perhaps they'll get gaming to run well under LINUX before DX10 gets implamented in a "must have" game for me). I'm not happy with the pricing, I'm not happy with the fact that WGA servers going down tends to devalidate the install license (as happened last week to many users), and I'm not convinced that the OS itself offers, at present, a clear advantage over XP for me or my needs.

I don't think MS can do anything right based on all the flaming they get on this site and other sites. Here we go...ThERE IS NOTHING "WRONG" with Vista (stupid name aside) that we have not seen in any other OS from MS up on release. MS is not Apple, so they have a lot more variables to deal with when it comes to making sure the OS will work on various hardware configurations. I think MS should say, screw everyone and come out with their own standards from computers and create it through their Xbox division and sell them like Apple does with their Mac line of computers. Yeah, bring on the bitching about their monopoly and blah blah blah...if you don't want MS to create the standards, then shut the hell up and play nicely. Vista is a good product and is nothing like Win ME. So, what your damn scanner from 1990 doesn't work with it..get a new one that have a better interface and better scanning capability. Learn to move out of your comfort zone...let go of XP...live a little you narrow minded bashing fools.
Note: I don't work for MS, but they are not as bad as people make them out to be. Actually Mr. G does good work with his foundation, so I will throw some support their way.
Peace and Love to all

'Ghost' - "RAM is cheap, why not make an OS that can use it?"

I thought you knew but XP64 has 128 gigabytes (GB) of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory. our current limitation is the suckie mother boards.

In fact for a reference and learning please use this link
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/top10.mspx

'eav' - "there are still bugs on XP!" *Exactly so why not deman they finish a product before moving on.

'CB' - "run Vista when gaming and XP when doing other things"

Are you making this up? games run slower on vista currently. So I don't know why your switching for games supposedly. And all of the cards aren't up to par when full scale DX10 kicks in. Most flocking for the bleeding edge nvidia didn't realize that.
www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/directx10-games_15.html#sect0

Alexvrb - "WinXP is now rock-solid, highly compatible, and modern systems ran it without batting an eye."

You're on the money, and I think people are getting it confused. You should upgrade when there is something substantial to upgrade for and not just because a new one came out. The latest is not always the greatest. And the fact that microsoft has to manufacture reasons to go to vista such as DX10 not released on XP64 and another exclusivity scam. LOL what a farce these games are exclusive to the xbox and halo 3 is exclusive to vista. Then claim you have a 'window for games' campaign

'Ghost' - "Vista isn't that much different to XP, particually when you turn off UAC"
'Blah' - "Vista does everything XP does"

I agree with you as I stated it's windows ME. Win ME was a collection fill the coffer scam on Win 98 user. And SE was better than ME. Just as XP64 is better than ME2 AKA Vista.

LOL the better questing is why pay up to 399 for an upgrade that in both of your own words isn't that much different than XP... 399 for eye candy?

If they release Vista 2 and 3 prior to 2010 I guess you all would buy that too...

Windows Vista is the safest M$ OS to date, and according to Tomshardware's article, the safest OS in general. It had by far the fewest number of critical valnurabilities during its first six months even compared to Linux. That alone is good enoug reason to upgrade.

I am very happy with my XP Pro. I switched to XP the moment it was out and was very happy with it. All these people saying people didn't like XP from the start, I can say without a doubt, I loved XP over 98SE.

Also, these people who say we haters of Vista shoudl actually try Vista. I never tried Windows ME and I know without a doubt it's a terrible OS. Should I waste my money on that OS to find out it was terrible? No, I read the reviews and heard people's opion about the OS.

Overall, I like XP, find it better and easier to work with. Less of a resource hog. It allows me to operate without a lot of nagging. I know that in the future as we get more core in the CPU we will all need to upgrade to Vista or the new OS that will be out in a few years but why switch now when XP is fine for me.

I loved it since the day it came out and I still love my XP.

Windows Vista? sure it looks pretty and works under certain conditions. . . however it's not the OS that microsoft promised. Vista, or initially "Longhorn" was supposed to deliver almost or on par linux file system operation with "WINFS". check the wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS
This however was not the case. so we are left with a watered down OS. And in my opinion is what windows ME was before XP. . .so Bill, we are still waiting. . .

Installed Vista 64bit Ultimate. went back to Xp a month later, nothing worked well, lots of driver problem, the system was just unusable for many tasks (i.e games, adobe, etc). Sure office worked fine, and it looked nice. I might take a shot again at it after SP1.

I agree with those guys above in that Vista is quite like XP. Granted Microsoft made some hits and some misses with this edition. I think people just find it hard to move from their comfort zone. They get accustomed to their workspace and it is very difficult after some time to move on. But move on we must.Many of my customers found it very painful to move from 98 to XP for example but they are glad now they did. Xp was a pain when it first came out but it is quite stable now. Not perfect but stable and vista will be the same in due course. Because of all this I have taken this opportunity to become familiar with Vista(SP1) and some of the Linux distros with the aim of migrating to both from XP soon. Time to move on.

I think the main issue with vista is the hardware requirements. Some try to run it without required spec and become frustrated when it doesn't work as expected. Others expect drivers to be perfect right off the starting line. Some just don't see the need for an upgrade (justified sometimes). As hardware become ever cheaper and new games come out we will see a gradual move to the new OS. By the way--- is anyone complaining about office 2007 ??

As we all know Vista was called Longhorn during it's rise from Windows server 2003. Then the vista name was tacked on and Server 2008 got the longhorn name. Now Vista SP1 is including the Longhorn server kernel which is an updated Vista kernel. I can tell you that there is a big difference in performance and the funny thing is when a program looks at SP1 it reports it as "Windows server longhorn xxxxx edition" so Vista will be closer to a server build than XP was to NT's(2000) kernel seeing how the Longhorn server kernel came from Vista and now Vista has been updated with it's own advanced kernel..... WOW it's all so funny!!!

but further notes, I have been running Vista RTM since late las year when the RTM was released and I have had no issues what so ever, and if everyone remembers when XP was released the driver situation was just the same if not worse. I remember being told by my printer manufacture that no driver would ever be available for my printer, and was told to buy a new one. How cheesy is that?!?! so far I have not had any driver issues(NO NVIDIA CRAP HERE!!!!) and everything has been running very smooth.

People should not judge Vista prematurely. I understand people paid good money for XP and are not in the mood to invest wad in another OS that is simply evolutionary. But that doesn't mean you pan it and try to discourage others. For those who want to upgrade and try out the new features or don't own XP pro or 64..Vista is an excellent choice. I use it and even though I had a few issues with companies not providing 64bit drivers for legacy hardware (I didn't use the 32bit version which runs them fine) but everything runs great, just as good as XP. If I'm not mistaken, it is actually more stable than my experience with XP. There is also an added incentive for gamers because of DirectX 10, even though Microsoft forced the issue. I used 98, Windows 2000, and Me. Vista is nothing like Me bloatware. And when XP first came out, everything ran slower on it than 2000 so you are rehashing old arguements. The previous user is right about older apps like Adobe having issues, but newer versions run fine.

Why is it the less you pay for software, the less hassle you have with it?

A good example is bioshock. If you buy it... it loaded with DRM but if you happen to get the modified one... you don't have to worry about DRM, installation limitation or copy protection at all.

It just comes down to... why pay a extra $30 for DRM and a box?

Why? Because it's worth it!!!

What are you talking about? I've tested this platform in a variety of areas and I'd have to say it's their (ms) best OS to date. And that's not taking the features into account at all. Feature-wise, the new security setup needs to be on all windows boxes everywhere.

You give no reason for your hate. Go troll elsewhere.

I TOTALLY AGREE: Vista is very similar to XP – And that is EXACTLY THE POINT: Why in this world should it then hog up all your resources!? Yes, I know it runs “fine” with 2GiB of RAM, and I know RAM is cheap; BUT SO WHAT! It is NO excuse for how inefficient EVERYTHING SOFTWARE WISE has become!!! Why should it hog up AT LEAST 512MB of RAM, whilst XP (When it originally came out, used less 64MB). What is SO different that you can justify this!? It is exactly the thinking that has led Japanese automakers to surpass US automakers: Ford/GM a few years ago: “Ahh, fuel is so cheap, lets slap in a inefficient fuel hogging V8 6L to compete power wise with Euro Cars of half the size on power, fuel is cheap”. That is PLAINLY idiotic!
Furthermore, why did this happen? I believe that most new programmers are PLAINLY, and I’m going to get quite flamed for this, IDIOTS (I have an Electronic Engineering and a Computer Programming degree). If Intel/AMD etc. etc. work their butt off to bring us new faster processors, what happens? Programmers immediately through in just another software layer in to make their jobs easier (But does not necessarily boil down to the end user). What is happening to C/C /Assembler? To prove my point, Quake 1: It ran on a Pentium 1 with 32MB RAM, fully 3D and some lighting even as well as sound processing with so many settings/ features in its console; and it ALL was done on the CPU (No GPU’s).
Programmers should go back to the people that created them in the first place: Engineers. It is honestly quite amazing what engineers can do with efficient programming, low memory and slow embedded CPU’s: Things like various medical devices, control systems in factories, car safety systems like stability control.
IT IS JUST AN IDIOTIC PLAIN STATEMENT TO SAY: WELL VISTA RUNS FINE ON 2GB MEMORY, SO IT IS FINE

And XP were also going through the same initial instability as Vista, agreed, and I believe that it would reach XP’s stability and reliability, but XP initially required 64MB RAM (128MB were the standard then and needed to do actually anything) and eventually scaled to at least 256MB with 512MB to be able to do anything with Service Pack 2: How much additional resources would this Service Pack also hog up (Especially RAM)?
On XP scale, that means 2GB RAM for OS and another 6GB for apps; THAT WOULD BE ABSURD! (Keep in mind the “standard” no-trick boundary of 4GB RAM for 32bit world. And, before you flame me with 64bit computing, Vista is SUPPOSE to be a 32bit to 64bit intermediary until the next OS which would be only 64bit so it SHOULD still cater for 32bit by what Microsoft promises).
PS: To tie to my previous post on efficient coding, for example see the resources required by ReactOS: It is so compatible with Windows XP that some drivers even don’t recognize the difference! And I love XP

If you want the real thing then get a MAC.
That's where I got all my ideas from. :)

I'm tired of hearing people complain about apps. not working. Right click on the shortcut icon of th eprogram, click properties, choose the compatibility tab, check the box for "run this program...," 'disable' the bottom 3 under "settings," and then open the friggin program. This has worked for everything I've used, no matter how old the software; and it lets you go all the way back to compatibility for windows 95. For hardware issues and lack of support, blame the manufacturers for not backing up their product, not MS. If Windows has always been an issue, why are you still buying it? ['because you end up figuring out it works' is the correct answer here]. You can whine and complain about games and monopolies, and the such, but remember that you are the one feeding the beast with your desires.

That's because it uses more features Nixo, more services, which require more code. And by the time XP SP2 came out, it would begin to run choppy on machines I had with 512MB of PC133 SDRAM. My mom has a P4 dell w/ XP that came with 256MB of ram and it was increadibly slow. So trying to make an issue on Vista's resource handling, is in fact a non-issue. Newer software releases have always required updated hardware. Try running XP on a 486. In addition people have claimed Vista to run fine even on 512MB machines (most likely home addition).

I was hoping that Microsoft will make an effort to increase the gaming performance of Vista, but I don't see anything in SP1 that addresses that. I would love to use Vista because it looks beautifully but since I depend on my system to run fast Vista is out of the question. XP runs games about 40% faster than Vista. In order for Vista to be usable for me, I would have to to purchase a system that is overclocked and cooled with liquid nitrogen (and that has a noise level of 10 PC's combined)

Not sure what you are talking about John, unless you are running a P3 or AMD k6.

AMD 3200
1 gig DDR ram
FX 5200 nvidia (no integrated VGA)
120g HD from Maxtor.. runs vista extremely fast.

That is not a powerful system by no means. Prior to that I had a socket A, and even it ran Vista RTM fine.

I work in IT,

The footprint Vista takes on the performance on the average PC is very noticeable.

Not worth upgrading to until MS optimizes the code to run a bit faster, or the average hardware spec catches up.

None of my clients are even thinking of upgrading to Vista. Not enough benefits for the average mid size Business, security is better but the cost of upgrading performance hit makes no sense at this point.

Will be interesting to see what happens when MS discontinues XP OEM licenses at the end of the year...

I'm not sure about the speed complaints, because Vista is WAY faster than XP in apps and games on my dual-booter. The trouble could be the video hardware drivers for most people, and my vid. card is probably not good enough to be of any trouble (x1600 pro). Maybe that is why I don't see a gaming difference. Vista loads faster, shuts down quicker, runs apps much quicker and efficiently, and just plain hauls compared to XP on my machine. Security seems to be far superior, and, from what I understand, that is the reason system resources steadily use more RAM (speed up everything and help with stability). Don't be mad because your system can't handle new software; that is the nature of the beast. Many of the complaints here boil down to "I want to be able to use my mid-level system forever," and we know that's not how the computer world functions. Evolve. Yes there are faults, but Vista is working better than XP for me, and I only expect it to improve. The majority of computer users will notice no difference because they are not using their computers to the best of their abilities. Of course it doesn't make sense to go blow 300 bucks in order to surf the web with prettier windows and visual effects. For those who do more, the RAM argument is weak. Systems have required more RAM as they have progressed, and having an OS that runs as swiftly and cleanly as Vista does is going to require it. So then, I guess a counter-argument in the context of the above automobile discourse is 'one cannot drive 200 miles per hour with a 20 horsepower motor.' We pay for advancement.

Why get a MAC, so I can't find any apps that will run on it. or have to run a virtual windows enviroment to get something I really need to run (which takes an extra 2GB of ram anyway). MAC's not the solution.

Go Bill, go! LOL LOL LOL

I know Vista has more features than XP, but, as I've said, there is no way that those few extra features can justify THAT kind of increase in resources (And even if it did, how many of those features only bloats up the OS and is actually used?) - READ.

It is not about requiring more resources for newer, more feature filled software: That stands to reason, DUH (Don’t insult me). It is the extremity of the situation. For example (I know this is a very grossly unscientific remark, but see it for the point): Does Vista offer in every aspect even close to 8x the features than XP? (Just on the amount of RAM resources required, not to mention CPU resources when comparing no service packs Vista and XP; 512MB vs 64MB). What was the gap in resources of Windows 2000 vs XP? Not as much as Vista vs XP.

As I’ve said: Do yourself a favor and see resource intensity of ReactOS and also for fun compare for example BeOS to Windows 2000. Not even speaking of Minix or micro-Linux kernels running on REALLY small bedded devices: Have you ever worked/programmed embedded devices? Exactly. Do you have any idea how fast an OLD 486-class processor actually is; you would if you’ve worked with embedded devices? It is sad to see how much of the performance/space that engineers painstakingly design into, is just wasted by inefficient/lazy/quick $$$’s programmers. Do you even know what a software layer is?

PS: Your mom is calling

PS: Your mom is calling

I'm a programmer myself and I am well aware of the small footprint and effecient code those OS's. I used to code in assembler and C/C ..and the difference was noticeable. But this is Windows..it's the nature of the beast as someone said. It's a different class of development and programmers IMO. MS isn't going to reverse years of their own code and scrap it. That kind of revolutionary OS that will be widely marketed for home and office use isn't here yet.

Wake up! Who writes the drivers, nVidia and ATI, not Microsoft. The reason gaming performance still lacks (compared to XP) is the drivers still aren't solid. If you have tried several different releases of the nVidia drivers for Vista, you'll notice that each release can dramatically change the FPS you get in a game. It definitely not Windows Updates that is doing that, its nVidia.

Most of the problems with gfx drivers for Vista have mostly been fixed in the most recently releases, with the exception of SLI, which still has some problems.

Nixio said: "Gee - Vista lovers"
Nixio said: "I have an Electronic Engineering and a Computer Programming degree"
Nixio said: "PS: Your mom is calling"

It would help your argument if you acted a little more mature.


Nixio: "IT IS JUST AN IDIOTIC PLAIN STATEMENT TO SAY: WELL VISTA RUNS FINE ON 2GB MEMORY, SO IT IS FINE "

My Apple IIe ran fine with 64k. I could do word processing, edit pictures, play computer games, do software development, etc...

DOS ran fine with 640k. I could do word processing... And... Oh gee... Basicly the same stuff.

And so on... Each generation does only a tiny bit more than the last, but the requirements always shoot through the roof in comparison. (Notice the 10x increase just between DOS and the Apple IIe?) Now... Does this mean it's acceptable?

Maybe... Maybe not... But nothing you said is very convincing when push comes to shove, especially considering there are MANY different correct ways of doing things.

For example, I had to create a new parallel programming framework for certain specialized tasks, it takes about 2 GB of RAM to run even a simple program. I'm sure you're getting ready to say "SLOPPY!". However, this 2 GB is used for scheduling data, buffering, and many other data structures which produce a result which is about 50% faster than other comparable parallel programming frameworks. Meaning, it's better for systems that have a "large" amount of memory. (Actually, this is fairly small for a lot of computers.)

If you knew much about engineering like you claim, you would know that there are often times trade offs that need to be worked out. Vista may indeed be coded in a sloppy manner. However, we all KNOW FOR A FACT that it was made for new and upcoming computers. As a result "high" requirements are a given.

It's possible that there may be a "hump" that needs to be passed with Vista, before you can get better performance out of it than XP. It's also possible that some people might be experiencing problems with drivers or other software when combined with Vista. Or it could be badly set settings. And of course there will be bugs that will be worked out. But all these things are true of all OSs, including Mac OS X and Linux distributions.


Nixio: "Have you ever worked/programmed embedded devices?"

Yes. Obviously you haven't. Not even remotely an apples-to-apples comparison. Embedded devices are generally specialized. So it's easy to optimize. Even so, many embedded apps aren't optimized and are written in a sloppy manner. But it doesn't matter because there isn't much to worry about. For example, on my last embedded project, the OS didn't have to worry about networking, video, multi-threading, other apps, or much of anything really. Microsoft meanwhile has to practically account for everything between here and Pluto to make their customers even remotely happy.

Enlighten: "Not worth the money and propped up by microsoft as a must have. XP 64 is more than enough until new Op comes out 2010."

Surely you're joking. XP 64 has more compatibility problems than 32-bit Vista.

- 16-bit code doesn't work. (And many apps have that)
- ALL device drivers and low level code need to be in 64-bit. A great many programs use low level code for copy protection or interacting with the hardware.
- "Cross platform Java apps" frequently can't be executed with a 64-bit JVM, because they interact with native code that is 32-bit (The 64-bit JVM for Windows 64 can't make the crossover between 32-bit and 64-bit) And that removes one of the advantages for many people. Not to mention the fact, that it confuses some people quite a bit.

And the list goes on and on... In fact... From my experience most people's problems with Vista stem from the fact they are using the 64-bit version and are coming from 32-bit XP. Hence, they have to deal with 64-bit compatibility issues and not Vista compatibility issues.

Also... Windows XP 64 wasn't even out that long before it's replacement (Vista 64) came out. It was out about... What... A year? Ya... I'm sure support for XP 64 is going to be outstanding since it is also a new platform and it's already been replaced. Kind of like the Sega 32X was.

Actually... Speaking of which. You might want to check out the requirements on new hardware devices. A lot of them (from my experience) require XP 32 and Vista 32, and will not work with XP 64 or Vista 64.

Something a lot of people don't realize is that Vista Ultimate is not just the latest Windows. It's also essentially all the latest Plus! packs and the Unix add-on.

I'm not saying it's a good deal or that you should buy it, but alot of people's calculations are wrong, because they did not factor this in.

Additionally, if you are going to get really picky about price you need to take into account that a few years ago Microsoft was actually GIVING AWAY copies of Windows NT 4 to people who bought any of their SDKs.

So you could pick up NT 4 for like $20 or so (can't remember the exact price) if you bought the cheapest SDK. And that was for the retail version. XP Professional right now is about $270 for the retail version. That's a much bigger jump in price, than the jump from XP Professional to Vista Ultimate.



(And just so you guys don't think I'm just a Vista lover/astroturfer. I DO think the prices are WAY TOO HIGH. You can pick up the latest Mac OS X for $170 (and that's for a family pack, which includes 5 licenses!))

Honestly... I dual boot Mac OS X and Vista 32. (Plus I have another computer around here that has Vista 64. Of course, I have more that run other OSs, including BeOS, but they aren't important for this discussion). I hardly noticed any problems at all, even when I was running with all beta software. (Beta drivers from Apple, beta OS from Microsoft, beta Apps from a number of different places.) Even then it only crashed a handful of times.

The REALLY funny part is that the one that runs Vista 64, is an "old" computer which was built a number of years ago. It does have dual processors and it does have 2 GB of RAM, so it was pretty high-end then, but it's not great now by any stretch of the imagination. My dad bought a computer not long ago for about $500 or so that's better than it is. Anyway... It runs Vista 64 just fine.

As a result, I'm kind of tempted to toss Vista 64 on my dad's cheapo computer and see how it runs just for kicks.

Actually... The Mac has a lot of apps available for it. In fact, quite a few come with both a Windows and a Mac version in the same box. The biggest problem for someone who is going to make the switch is that many apps don't come with two separate versions of the app in the same box, so those will need to be purchased again (except you'll need the buy the Mac version this time around!) and for others there is no Mac version, so you'll have to find a replacement.

In general the problem is not that you can't get apps (or games or hardware), it's that you'll have to replace a LARGE number (or maybe even all) of your applications and games in order to get them to work on a Mac.

However... These days it is easier on someone who wants to switch. You can use Boot Camp on the newer Macs, which is a free program that allows you to switch back and forth between Mac OS X and Windows. With this both OSs will operate at full speed. Obviously, this is not a perfect solution, but it helps!

On the embedded devices: Funny, “Yes. Obviously you haven't” – Sorry, but most likely on more than you my friend. I know it is easy to optimize embedded, but, you can’t argue, the mindset when one programs for embedded devices, is efficiency (Small footprint and high performance) which is not the case with computers (Which you would definitely know since you have worked on embedded devices); how easy is it when your designing a piece of software on PC not to care about the simple things because there are so much of it. Just for an EXAMPLE: Take non strongly typed variables in many languages instead of a strongly typed variable, takes just a few more processing cycles than a strongly typed one and usually more memory: How many of these might be used in a large system and never gets replaced because the code runs fine (But not as efficient as it can?). The summation of these sort of things that slips through the cracks builds up to make a whole system very inefficient. We don’t have to fix the “problem” (Or inefficiencies) because engineers will bring out exponentially faster machines (Which is the kind of thinking I tried to warn about with US automakers vs the rest of the world). Please, I can see that you are intelligent, but think through what I’m trying to say before you start insulting me.

Your statement “Microsoft meanwhile has to practically account for everything between here and Pluto to make their customers even remotely happy”, agreed, but did Microsoft not have to consider the same things in XP?

Look, the question I pose, and again to you, is: Is that footprint justified vs. XP? Is that footprint JUSTIFIED vs. things like Minix, various Linux distributions, things like ReactOS/BeOS? When the question was posed about XP’s footprint, I did not feel that t was as unjustified as with Vista as XP’s increase was more linear vs Vista more exponential increase.

Buggy, slow, not compatible with games, driver issues, hardware issues (EAX not working, NVIDIA SLI and general performance issues, DUAL CORE not handled right... Enough major issues?). Most of my hardware not working under vista. Nostromo speedpar n52 and Razer Diamondback mouse are very important for me in gaming-wise so withouth these I cant play properly and enjoyably. And these are definitely crap under vista.

No thanks, maybe a year later (or more). But if big big game companies says no for DX10 why bother?

Dont waste your time and money guys, stick to xp with NOD32, AD-Aware and a router on your CURRENT hardware (no software firewall you herd that right) and you will be good for years still!

Tenebrae...

I wasn't joking and no where in my post did I say XP64 didn't have problems. But that backs up my point even further and should push you guys farther from yours.

I haven't heard answer to questions...

Several people have said vista is not much different.

So why spend up to 399 to have a fancy looking interface? Vista really only has two feature worth anything and thats a slight hard drive improvement and ofcourse DX10.

But you guys kill me... it has nothing to do with letting go of the past. It's more about a company that even in your own words has 'F'ing bugs and things to work on.

If you read my 3nd post titled "I agree with some of you". The end states what we need is for microfluff to actually finish a product before moving on to the next so called version.

I'm so sick of you b!ow boys defending them. Some of you don't care about being screwed and hit with a heavy dosing of over pricing. When do you stand up like men and women and fight?

Why not demand for substantial increases and not just 'oh it's new I got to have it'.

Some of you act like the operating system is the final application. It is suppose to be a means to run your needed application. Again if microfluff decides to put out a vista 2 and 3 prior to 2010 release of the next screw the customer campaign do you all just go buy it?

And to those of you who say but XP support will be dropped the end of 2008, I say big 'F'ing deal they never have and never will complete any application. Because they need you running like mice looking for the cheese.

I still run XP and will never go to Vista! So that makes an expert on the troubles of Vista. "I saw.." this or that.. Whatever. Like a child... "I don't like peas" but the child has never tasted peas...

Personal experience... I installed Vista when it was available through the Microsoft Partner challen 2 months before the retail release. It blue screened hard.. over and over... and this was attributed to a 'beta' ATI driver. The retail driver was release on the same day as the retail version of Vista... I have not had a single crash or any incident since. And I'm not a casual user. Video and image processing, 3D game development, general software development, gaming, etc.

I have found those who resist change only resist because it is in fact change. Move forward. It's called progress...

lets see...well, about half the programs i use don't work with it, being a microsoft small business partner, and having them send me the cd's before the rest of you got it, i had MAJOR issues. half the programs i use to RUN MY BUSINESS wouldn't work. including quickbooks 2007, mcafee and nero enterprise just to name a few. there were driver issues as well(as you can see from half the other comments) sure ultimate isn't bad if you run games on it, but in the business world its not practical. when i went to the vista launch conference, they told us business edition would not burn dvd's, when asked why, they said "because businesses should be backing up data on pc's, and we have no intention of fixing the problem" well thanks jethro, you've helped me to make my decision, what if its just some files i have on my pc that i would like to back up? vista doesn't work well with dual boot os's either. so lets see...
-driver issues
-faulty progs
-no run command
-dual boot issues
-no burning dvds or cds
they shouldn't have released vista so early without giving proper time to other corps to write scripts and fixes for it..."hey everyone, we're releasing vista in 2 months, start writing programs!" thats ridiculous, i would've rather had xp pro sp3 then have to deal with every customer coming into my shop saying "why doesn't this work" and i have to tell them, "its because its on vista". come on now people, vista is lacking in just about every aspect of the computer user world. let them release sp1, and sp2, i'll stick with xp pro

Vista Bussiness DO write DVD's.
You don't need the Run command, you can just click Start and start typing as if it were the run command - I, thusfar had no problem with that so far...

Just saying, and believe me, I'm NOT defending Vista

All you're doing now is rambling.

I already said I'm mainly a Mac user. I do use Vista, because some of the software I develop is used on Windows and I like to make sure my software is compatible with the latest version in case one of my users uses it.

What I'm tired of is people who exaggerate the problems with Windows and make up nonsense with only a small dose here and there of actual truth.

Enlighten: "I'm so sick of you b!ow boys defending them. Some of you don't care about being screwed and hit with a heavy dosing of over pricing."

I agreed with you (in essence) on price. However, I did state that most people's calculations are off because they didn't account for the various things that were once separate products that are now included in Vista Ultimate. Hence, while you may in fact be getting screwed (which I agree with), there is not a real price hike despite what many people claim.

In fact... It would be the same thing as complaining about "Mac OS X Ultimate" (if it existed) because of a price hike, if it included iWork or some other Apple product along with the regular Mac OS X.



As for the other people who use Vista... Maybe they're like me... Software developers for Windows... (Did that thought even occur to you?) Or maybe they were buying/building a new computer for some other reason and simply selected the latest OS, because they figured it would last the longest. Or maybe they do Tech Support and wanted to get ahead of the game by getitng experience with Vista.

In any event... If Vista works well for them and they like it, is that something they should be ashamed of?

bdizzles: "i had MAJOR issues. half the programs i use to RUN MY BUSINESS wouldn't work."

For anyone who knows anything about Vista and how to resolve it's issues, this tells us nothing. First off... The most important thing when talking about compatibility problems is... Were you using 32-bit or 64-bit.

As I already iterated... 64-bit has MUCH WORSE compatibitility problems than 32-bit. The silly part is that most people I met tried to run the 64-bit version and never gave any thought to the 32-bit one.

Generally... Problems with 32-bit can be resolved pretty easily. In fact... Vista 32, which I have on one of my Macs, runs almost perfectly. There have only been a few minor issues and I sure didn't replace anything to make it run.


bdizzles: ""hey everyone, we're releasing vista in 2 months, start writing programs!" thats ridiculous"

And like all the other complainers here... You just proved you don't know what you're talking about... I was LATE to the Vista game and I had a copy ONE YEAR in advance of release. Most other professionals I know who were interested had it sooner.

Additionally... Most applications require no changes to run on either 64-bit or 32-bit Vista. And most that do require changes, generally require small changes. For example... In my case, all I had to do was update one script and it worked on Vista. It took me all of about 15 minutes to track down, 1 minute fix, and about 1 hour to test. None of my other apps required even a single change.

Vista was NOT something Microsoft just dumped out on the community overnight with no warning.



Additionally... All "large" changes to OSs cause some/alot apps and drivers to break. I've seen the same stuff on my Mac and alot of my apps broke from Windows 9X to XP.

well now that i know that 85% of the people here are complete and utter liars... Look if your machine doesn't run vista without flaw then your machine is behind the times, stop driving the 1954 Lincoln grandpa... Its time to upgrade, don't flame me or blame MS or Vista for your woes... I have been running from day 1 and it is the best step MS has taken since win98. People that say they will are going to Linux, rofl good luck and have fun see you in a couple of months.
Vista is the future of computing for now so either get with it or don't complain when you get left in the past.

Nixio: "the mindset when one programs for embedded devices, is efficiency (Small footprint and high performance) which is not the case with computers"

Oh... My... God... Normally... I don't make such statements. But you are seriously confused. Nixio... It depends on the PROJECT. Nothing more... Nothing less.

I've joined embedded projects where everything was an absolute mess... No unit tests... No verfication... No profiling... No documentation... Nothing. Functions that were 100's of lines long... Memory being taken up by god knows what. (BTW... My task has generally been to impose order on such chaos, since I'm fairly formal, but used to working on chaotic projects. So I can help make transitions from chaos to order.) Do you think that type of thing would help Windows Vista?

Meanwhile I've worked on well organized projects for simple web pages.

Please note... I'm not saying embedded programming sucks or that all of those projects are a mess... I'm saying that the quality of the coding varies from project to project.

Nixio: "Look, the question I pose, and again to you, is: Is that footprint justified vs. XP? Is that footprint JUSTIFIED vs. things like Minix, various Linux distributions, things like ReactOS/BeOS? When the question was posed about XP’s footprint, I did not feel that t was as unjustified as with Vista as XP’s increase was more linear vs Vista more exponential increase."

I already told you one reason... Vista was designed for new/upcomming computers. That's more than enough reason since it would determine their algorithm selection. (For example... Picking algorithms that use more memory, but scale better with multi-core... I don't know that they did that for sure, because I'm not that into Vista to study it that much, but that is one design choice they would have had to have made.)

Also... Microsoft carries alot of baggage... So that explains some things as well... BeOS for example, was not compatible between R3 and R4 (if memory serves me well). To make things short... They didn't have the baggage Windows does.

The increase was not exponential. You are definitely exaggerating... If it was... It would require more along the lines of 100 GB to 2 TB. (not a typo)

Also... If you were actually following Windows much at all, (of course you might be too young) you'd know that the EXACT SAME complaint you are making now was going on with DOS vs Windows 3.1 vs Windows 9X vs Windows NT vs Windows 2000 vs Windows XP. I know because I was originally on the same side of the fence as you and I am old enough to know these things (Doh!). And I'm not unsympathetic...

Personally... I think Microsoft needs to work on some things to help improve relations with their customers. The impressions people get (which is natural) are frequently very negative. I would say... Alot of it is simply because Microsoft doesn't put emphasis on the right things... Sometimes with development... Sometimes with marketing. (Like alot of people I know want "Virtual Desktops" on XP! Funny... It's a Power Toy which you can get for free from Microsoft. But most "experts" I know don't know that. Microsoft should have gotten the word out better. That's a simple thing they could have done... Yet... Nope.)

Its the XP story all over again only Vista doesn't have as many problems. A lot come from the software/hardware vendors not being compatible or causing problems.

Plus I have used XP since release in what was it...2001? And it have never used anything less than 256megs of ram after a fresh instal. Currently with all my drivers installed windwos uses around 300megs.

I think Vista will be a better OS once software vendors develops the software on it. Just like XP, which had a remodled NTFS kernal, Vista has a brand new kernal that supports most older software but will run better when designed for it.

Give it time and you will see.

“I've joined embedded projects where everything was an absolute mess... … But you are seriously confused” : Nope – I said is the major design goal for embedded devices (and it should be). If the projects you worked were a mess (And I know how many of them are), it is as you’ve said: it depends on project to project, but does not change a major design goal of efficiency.

“(of course you might be too young)”: Sorry but don’t flatter yourself too much (As you seem to know all insulting everyone), I was there, from MS/PC(or IBM) DOS v4; were using almost all Windows versions and even OS/2 Warp.

PS: How much is Microsoft paying you?

Simply more boxed responses from the typical "Hate MS" borocrats. In any event. The day Linux supports 200,000 programs and a similar number of hardware and driver issues as Microsoft does and DOES NOT have one single problem...That is the day I will switch to Linux. Until then, I'll stay where anything can work, where anyone can develop, where I can find innovation at the click of a mouse and KNOW that I can install something that just might do something that I can't do on a machine running anything but an MS OS.

Microsoft is the best thing in the world.

Dude you just compared specialised devices that do one task and one task alone to an entire operating system that handles multiple threads and multiple processors...

I dont know what you claim to have studied but not even a 1st year IT undergraduate would make that mistake.

You are utterly clueless.

which brings me to my second point:

go stick your finger up your rear and smell it if you have to but dammit pull your head out of your anus cause you are starting to love the smell of your own bull...

do you even realise what is going on under the hood of XP, Vista and many other OS out there?
do you even begin to realise that for a poor looser home user like yourself it is not very easy to specify what to include and what to exclude when it comes to low level and kernel features?
some features are easily removed but those that are part of the kernel and by extension big part of the OS itself cannot be removed at all...

here is an example:
your average internet Jo wont even use Domains. He probably wont even use NetMeeting, most likely he will never even hear about ISA Client and many more things. You think that Microsoft will sit down and selectively enable and disable every single feature in the operating system to suit your needs? Its a mass produced OS for crying out loud, what do you expect? Thats like asking a car manufacturer to selectively use different pistons and different gearboxes depending on the drivers age and ability for a give car model. Wake up and smell the coffee buddy. It just wont happen.

Of course the icing on the cake is the fact that "Pros" like you will go buy Ultimate or XP Pro and then complain its bloated... pfff go figure.

i tell you what, if Microsoft ever gave you the ability to selectively install components during the installation would you even know which ones you will need and which ones you wont?
Of course they do give you the ability to do just that but after the installation. Have you tried installing a Major Linux Distro in your life?
they also selectively let you install stuff which is great. Only problem is that your average user will select all the features anyway in case they need something and they dont know it.
So what are you on about anyway?

Or do you want to discuss code optimisation for an OS with millions of lines of code? If you expected everything to be optimised before release we would still be in DOS. It just cant happen for such large projects. Thats why you have patches. At the end of the day, last i checked none of the MS systems were so heavily unoptimised and bloated as you say that wouldnt run on new machines. Everyone thinks that a new OS should run on their old piece of junk and because their scope as average Jo users(aka Nixo) is email, file sharing, chat, internet, pictures and music. NEWS FLASH BUDDY, you get twice as many processes running twice as complicated code underneath the hood. Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean its not there and just because you dont know what it does it doesnt mean its not needed.

sheesh, im done! And to think im not a strong MS supporter. I guess its just the smell of BS that gets me.