Perhaps Win7 should be based on WinXP instead of adding more bloat to Vista? I think Microsoft should get a clue. They should give customers what they want and not what Microsoft wants them to have.

or is it just for Windows in general? From what I remember (and I don't feel like watching all three commercials that I know of in their entirety to check) it was all about Windows in general, and didn't mention Vista. One could argue that there were references to Windows 7 in them as well(Bill adjusting his shorts, and what he gave to the kid). Isn't Windows 7 coming out H1 2009? So maybe they are extending XP until they announce Windows 7. Or maybe they just want to make my computer into cake...

Just my $.02

I hope Microsoft keeps pushing Vista. It's doing good for Linux! :D

Have any of you that are bashing vista like this actually used it? Versus my XP install it needs less maintenance, in general computing it feels snappier, it works with all my 2-3 year old hardware. It uses memory more intelligently and crashes, well honestly, almost never. Even pre SP1 I didn't have troubles... Am I just lucky? I wish I could leave my XP machine up as long as this one.... And don't even get me started on Linux or OS X... Average consumer, Vista > XP > OS X > Linux

I thought that windows 7 was based on the WS 08 kernel....not a vista patch

Long Live XP! haha

Vista downgraded the best part of XP... speed and simplicity. (makes my $400 Mtron SSD seems slow.. even though it is running much faster than just on regular HD. And don't even get started on external drive transfers)

If MS weren't so lazy and just put a super thick coat of paint over the old one.. in fact actually spend that 300mil to get the UI corrected!

Please explain to me how using 1.6 GBytes of RAM just to run the OS (with Aero) is a "more intelligent" use of memory?

I don't own Vista, because I haven't upgraded any of my computers since its been out, but I have messed with friends/relatives computers and countless ones in various stores (Fry's, Best Buy, Costco, Circuit City, Wal-mart, etc). All of them, so long as Aero was running (which most consumers would), used up a gargantuan amount of RAM, with nothing else running! I won't even go into the size of the install.

As a software developer myself, this is a prime example of all I loath about most software products from the last 5 years. Code compactness and simplicity are so far removed from developers' minds, that you get strange looks when you criticize them for the ridiculously bloated and completely unmaintainable pieces of crap they put out.

It's not just Microsoft though, even Kernel.org has been bit by the bloat bug, just look that the Linux Kernel size growth from the last 5 years. While still an order of magnitude smaller than Windows, it has grown by a ton, and shows no signs of slowing down.

Microsoft needs to scrap what they're doing and start over. The "micro-kernel" approach that has been presented by one of Microsoft's engineers has great merit. Scrap Win7, and go spend a few years developing an OS off of that design, that would be a true game-changer.

There's no reason to downgrade to XP other than consumer perception.

However, when forced into decisions they're uncomfortable with consumers will explore other potential options.

I think this is a way for MS to keep consumers "in the family" and away from other options, at least until the downgrade % drops below 10%-ish.

If I am happy with how XP performs why should I change to Vista? It has nothing to do do with perception. It is just that XP is very stable and less resource hungry than Vista. Vista is a product that doesn't deliver what consumers really need.

They simply have to. Until there is a decent replacement for XP, they have to keep it going. Companies have software that simply will not run on Vista. Software that is from 1999 and ran on everything else fine, but not Vista. I know for a fact they aren't going to buy some new $500,000 software package that's going to take them months to switch over to, just because they hired one more person and now they cannot buy a pc with XP. Bullshit. Vista still sucks and I won't use it. It's a skipable OS.

FilthyRichmond.com is teh dogs balls!

Whew hoo! Anythign is better than that stupid Vista. I bought a new Dell right out of the box with Vista and it would crash and lock up. Ended wiping the HD and loading Linux! Problem solved. has not locked up since.

Jiff
www.privacy.es.tc

@sumgi: I agree. Linux sucks in a billion ways but Beryl/Compiz adds a metric ass-load of user friendly mouse/keyboard combos that make window management very very easy and kind of pretty. And I have yet to meet a machine I couldn't get it to run on. On the other hand, in the last couple of months I've had to look at friend's and relative's "new" vista desktops and laptops and those experiences have been quite annoying. Everyone I know who "knows computers" and uses vista hasn't had any deal breaking problems but the average joe either gets lucky or gets screwed with vista.

For example we have an apple airport at work, the office next door has a linksys wireless router and the cafe at the end of the block also has wireless access. All 3 have zero security you just have to know the "name" of the network to get on. We've got one vista user in the office who's never been able to get online wirelessly. Not at any of those 3 access points, not at home, not at starbucks. We can't find where to put in the network name. She took it to 2 computer repair places, every time they thought they found where to put it in, it wouldn't stay. I've spoken with the cafe owner, they mostly only see people with macs using the internet. I saw one guy online with xp. I asked him to show me how he got on. It works yes,... but the retarded ass, unintuitive things you have click on compared to ubuntu or os X is laughable.

This is talking about the option to have XP rather than Vista on NEW computers, not your old junk computers with 1gb of RAM.

So you say your Dell with vista crashes out of the box? Why don't you try putting a fresh copy of vista on so you don't have all the added bloatware.

Ive been using Vista since its release and I have never had any problems with it. I doubt I could even make my computer crash, unless I were to try something ridiculous such as running a few games and prime95 stress test simultaneously. Even then it would probably slow down rather than crash.

Before complaining, about Vista how about you read an instruction manual on it, then actually try it out, as in first hand experience. On modern hardware it run perfectly, and it installs extremely quick.

Windows Vista = Windows Millennium Edition 2.0: Electric Boogaloo.

In the main (first) paragraph, it says "Downgrade to XP". I think you mean "upgrade" to XP.

In the main (first) paragraph, it says "Downgrade to XP". I think you mean "upgrade" to XP.

No error.

@EEngineer. Vista uses as much memory as it can because it caches as much of the software and data you use as possible.

It 'learns' as you use it, and it tries to use any free memory you have available to cache any frequently used programs and data so everything loads faster.

When you start a program the memory is freed as necessary by booting off the least accessed caches.

This is the most efficient use of ram. Much more efficient then having useless 'free' memory and loading everything each time from disk.

Frankly i don't understand people's obsession with having as much free memory as possible while the system is idle.
Free memory is nothing more then wasted electricity.

MS will mine for the word Vista in web traffic,
then tell its stockholders there is increased interest in Vista OS, and to be patent.}}

Also,....who actually fell for Vista anyway??

you are all a bunch of sheep.......idiots.

I've been running Vista on MODERN hardware since about 6 months after it's release. I've had no issues what-so-ever. In fact I'd say that my experience with Vista was better than that of XP when it first came out. Also, what is the point of having 4GBs of ram when only 1.5 is used? I much rather have the o/s load as much into ram as it can hold so that my system will run as quick as possible.

Have any of you whiners even used Vista for a extended period of time? (I'm not talking about hours or days here either)

Who those have never been using Vista thoroughly should not quote 'Vista is bad, worse,...' and should take a try with an acceptable hardware requirement now to enjoy it's GREAT!
ps. I'm getting addicted to Vista.

It seems that more and more people are using Vista are starting to understand that it was a FUD campaign by Apple fan boys(there were some open source but they're not gaining any market ground). Vista will be adopted becuase it is better than XP. OSX can't hold a candle to Windows.

One of my friends has to work on a Mac at work. He said it was alright because it was brand new. But now he tries to load his e-mail, web browser, and one other program and the damn thing just freezes on him. He said that he can load 10 different things at the same time on his PC although it would take awhile it would load them.

Capitalism lets the market decide what is right and best. Trying to force a product that no one wants is not Capitalistic.

....what exactly is your RAM doing when it is not being used by the OS? When I spoke of using memory mroe inteligently I was referring to things such as superfetch, and the fact that Vista is pretty darned good about letting go of memory when it's done with it. That in and of itself has saved me from countless reboots. I've been using Vista since about a week after release. I popped another gig (total 2GB) of RAM in my 3.5 y/o Pentium D with a GeForce 7300LE and my only complaint about it was the slow copying, which has since been resolved. It's not like I'm running a liquid cooled 5GHz C2Q with 16GB of RAM, so saying this one run acceptably on low-mid level mainstream hardware is absolute BS.

Since they make money either way. They could've given XP GUI A small face-lift in the form of a service pack and continued selling it for another five years until they came up with something that was really better.

This was on Microsoft's Life-Cycle page over a month ago.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

HAHAHA XP FtW

Everybody bitches about Vista, and most have never really used it. I believe the vast majority of issues with Vista come from OEM bloatware and other crap that manufacturers put on the PC before it leaves to go to the customer. I re-install the OS as soon as the machine arrives (personally and for clients). Vista installed properly runs great. Vista x64 dominates!

I have used Vista since the beta program. It does not crash on me. It is much faster than XP if configured properly. XP cannot use 4 CPU's and 4Gb of RAM. It can barely us 2 CPU's and 2Gb of RAM. Loading XP on a new high-end PC is a waste of hardware.

Vista x64 is the Server 2008 x64 kernel. Windows 7 will be nearly the same OS. People that want Microsoft to "start from scratch" are being ignorant. Should we throw out 20 years of Windows development because you don't know how to make it run properly. BTW Vista is based on XP, XP was based on 2000, you get it now.

I am not trying to pick fight here, i just think people are too attached to their perception and to their machines. Computers are tools, they are not your friends. A cool computer does not make you a cool person. If people spent more time learning and working in Vista, and less time complaining that XP was better, they would like it like I do.

Sincerely,

Pedro

@altervista: I bet that Vista laptop has more than one WiFi/sniffer program that was installed. Plus all PC's hate unsecured WiFi and do not like to connect.

PS: Where is Enlighten? He should be here hatin' on Vista.

I had Vista64 installed on a new PC. The OS itself seemed OK, but nothing compelling over XP. However,
- Hewlett Packard 'premier' photo printing software is unavailable under Vista, and the 'replacement' software is far less capable, as I eventually found is stated on their own website
- 2 post-Vista cameras do not talk to Vista directly (was able to use PTP on an SLR), forcing me to use other less usable (for me) methods
- brand new highly popular game not compatible with Vista64
- Name brand TV card not compatible with Vista
- Name brand pre-vista external backup hard drive does not work with Vista even with the latest drivers
- could not get MS web cam to work with Vista64 despite downloading latest (huge) drivers; a colleague managed to get this working under Vista32 afetr significant pain.
- No IPSEC VPN client from Cisco (what work supports), though I am told there is a VPN client in Vista.
- fortunately a range of other issues were solvable after some effort
Basically a raft of incompatibilities and difficulties with Vista with recent hardware & software from the world's biggest vendors.
I upgraded to XP.

I would not install Vista on any of my machines if Microsoft were giving away licenses.

I'm tired of all these retards saying "oh if you don't like vista you must have never tried it". Get a clue! I've tried Vista numerous times and see no benefits of it over XP besides some flashy and useless graphics. Oh indexing...that's a useful feature...so much so that 90% of users with a brain turn it off immediately to prevent hard drive thrashing. Oh UAC...that's a nice feature...cause I LOVE confirming my desire to do the simplest tasks like opening explorer. If you actually knew anything deep about Vista you'd instantly recognize like I did that it's a slowed down and bloated up version of XP....run gpedit.msc and say otherwise (it still uses the words "Windows 2000")! The only people that like Vista seem to bear resemblance to all the dumbass mac fanboys out there....who prefer shiny things over usable things.

If MS really wants to get me away from XP then they'll have to build something from scratch that is faster than XP, more customizable, and less flashy than Vista. Instead of telling people what they want they should give users a choice...think Firefox and the wonders addons did. Imagine if Aero was an extension...

With XP still in the market its now official to release Direct X10 for XP. You already can mod your Xp to look like Vista and have all the eye candy. So lets hope Direct X10 comes out.

Yeah I use Vista Home Premium, with an Intel Core Duo 3 GHz processor and 4GB of memory.

With 30% memory used, when I fire up Warhammer Online, after about 40 minutes of playing I start getting warnings to close Warhammer Online because I am running low on memory. If I ignore it, about 10 minutes later it starts beeping at me and then locks up with the screen blank because I am no longer getting any output from the computer.. which is locked up.

So yeah, I have used it and with max memory. Prefetch optimizing my memory my ass. Vista not a hog, my buttocks.

Since when do we expect the GUI that is Windows to totally take over our computers? Oh, right, since back around Windows 2 or 3.

I want an OS that needs only 256MB or less to function. God, take me back to the Windows 3 days with QDos.

Sure those days were primitive, but as one guy here pointed out, why do we think it is normal for the freaking OS to use 1,200 Megabytes of memory just to RUN!

I don't think we are going forward in technology, we are going BACKWARDS..

"Why don't you try putting a fresh copy of vista on so you don't have all the added bloatware."

You think installing Vista fresh avoids bloatware? The damn thing INSTALLS FRESH with LOTS of bloatware, for EXAMPLE Windows Media Player. That's just ONE.

Check out blackviper.com if you want to figure out how much bloatware your fresh install loads up right out of the box. noob my ass.

"It 'learns' as you use it, and it tries to use any free memory you have available to cache any frequently used programs and data so everything loads faster."

Please, don't make me laugh. As I pointed out earlier, when I run Warhammer Online, it jumps from 30% memory used to 74-78% used. And this is with newest video drivers, all patches, etc.

Then about 40 minutes later it's learned enough to start whining to me about shutting down Warhammer Online so I can free up memory. Then 10-15 minutes later, it promptly locks up Vista hard. Have to reboot.

Yeah, it is learning all right. It is learning that I am going to uninstall it very very soon.

"Have any of you whiners even used Vista for a extended period of time? (I'm not talking about hours or days here either) "

Yeah.. been using it for about a year. Had to reinstall it once from scratch because one of MS's patches made it so Vista wouldn't see ANY internet connctions.

So yeah, and if it whines at me that it needs more than 4gb of memory when I am running ONE game, then I can only shudder at what it would do if I only had 1.5gb installed.

"I believe the vast majority of issues with Vista come from OEM bloatware and other crap that manufacturers put on the PC before it leaves to go to the customer."

Well since I build all my systems from scratch I would hazard that you are wrong in your belief. I have built DOS 3, DOS 5, Windows 2, 3, 95, 98, 98SE, Millenium (shudder), 2000, XP, XP SE, and Vista, and of them all only Millenium is worse than Vista as far as delivering what was promised.

If all I need to do is run the Desktop with the Sidebar, then it's great and uses that 4GB like a dream.

i bought a new laptop recently that has Vista on it, and i could not even get it to play video files properly. it's a dual core Celeron 1.73Ghz system with 1GB of RAM, which should be fine for just general web surfing/emailing/video watching, right?

WRONG

even after turning off ALL the "pretty" features and paring down all the extra crap that the manufacturer installed onto it from the factory, anytime i would watch video files (.mpg, .avi, etc.), the video would start freezing about every 15 - 30 seconds for 5 - 10 seconds at a time, then would start playing again.

i made sure i had all the latest video/audio codecs, i made sure Vista was kept up to date on Windows Updates, i made sure there were no viruses on it (even by reinstalling the OS from the restore partition once), and nothing i did would keep the video from freezing up on me.....

.....until it pissed me off for the last time and i wiped it out to install WinXP SP3 on it. everything works like a dream now, no video freezing, it takes a very short time to boot up, does everything that i bought the laptop for and never once has it complained, locked up, frozen, or crashed.....and all on a measly, cheap-a$$ Celeron 1.73Ghz dual-core system with a paltry 1GB of RAM.

i'm not going to say that i'll never, ever use Vista, because who knows? one day M$ might wake up and actually do something worthwhile, like.....oh, i dunno.....listening to what people say they want/need, instead of the other way around.....but until that happens (i'm not holding my breath, how about you guys?), i'll stick with WinXP SP3 and actually be able to use my computers, instead of spending all my time troubleshooting them.

and btw, i do have to know Vista pretty well, seeing as how i field technical support calls for my company's wireless internet service at my job, and more and more people have computers now with Vista on them (and believe me, i get an earful of their frustration & anger with Vista ALL the time!)....and i'm not the "trained monkey" type of tech support person unlike a lot of the ones who do the jobs that have been shipped overseas that read off of cue cards & help files.....almost all of my knowledge on operating systems that we support, i have memorized from having had so much experience in dealing with it on a day-to-day basis.....it's really kinda funny, because after i fix their problem, i get people who tell me that they've spoken with "X" number of techs before me (from other companies, like their computer manufacturer or their ISP), and none of them have shown a 1/10th of the level of knowledge that i displayed in correcting their problem....and these other "techs" SHOULD know more than me about their own service or products.....

The price of RAM has dropped considerably since the Win3.1 days. You shouldn't worry about paying for 2 GB's of RAM. XP Pro can easily run on 2 GB of RAM. However, if you really want to run an O/S on 384 MB's RAM, you COULD buy an older PCI (not PCI-express) motherboard and run Win98SE on it. However, you will not be able to run newer applications or hardware, such as cameras and video MP3 players on it.

B^D


"I want an OS that needs only 256MB or less to function. God, take me back to the Windows 3 days with QDos."

It isn't about the price of ram, it's about an OS that runs efficiently with a minimum of overhead. Something that does it's job by giving me an interface to run the actual PROGRAMS I install.

The point of the OS shouldn't be that you spend most of your time maintaining the OS.

1. Vista costs significantly more, so we can presume they charge OEMs more than they charge for XP.

2. When consumers ditch their XP for Vista, that's total gravy for MSFT.

It's not about Vista being "better", unless you care about eye candy or DirectX10. It's all about MSFT WANTING MONEY.

I have to say, if they would fix the damn memory situation with Vista I wouldn't have much opposition to using it. But I don't build computers just to run Windows, I build them to run other programs.

You are perfectly able to run mp3-players and webcams on a box with 376MB of RAM.

Even with win98se on it. You seem to have forgotten that we had winamp (aka mp3players) and webcams back in the days of win98se.

Hell they even worked with Linux back then.
Now although win98se would work, you can find plenty of decent alternative operating systems that will run all basic applications, like webbrowser, email, webcam, msn, mp3, cd player, movie player (codec depends on cpu power)

Vista is better for consumers, most of them just don't know about it. It's easier to support, easier to diagnose, and easier to use...

Why aren't all of you still driving 69 Mustangs?

The reason Vista caches as much as it can is because otherwise it would take 5 minutes to open something and we would see how slow it really is.

I compare vista to ME (CRAP). I can't wait for the general population to wise up & dump MS Windows for Linux. Microsoft is as corrupt as FannieMae & freddieMac together... BIG TIME DIRT BAGS.. supported by people who don't know any better.. The day i get to stop worrying about Microsoft software changes, is the day I invite all of you to a PARTY...

I just ordered 2 PC's from Dell Small Business, and yes, they are going to have XP (and a Vista upgrade disk that is likely to join the old Win95 floppies, in the trash can) And no, I didn't pay more for it...I actually paid less for the deal. If I went for the Vista Business without the XP downgrade, it would have cost me $100 more.

I would not have purchased these computers any other way. I have too much necessary software that won't run on Vista that can't be replaced without spending $1000's, and giving up vital functionality in the process.

But, no matter how many times Microsoft extends the time limit for selling XP based PC's, the end of life for XP will be in about 2 years, unless Microsoft decides to release a SP4, which is highly doubtful.

In about 2 years, when the official end of life approaches for XP SP3, they will have to make the decision as to whether or not they will extend support, as they did for Win98/ME users.

If they do, the only thing you will get is critical security updates. No new version of IE, no IE service packs, or any other Microsoft software will be created with an XP compatable version.

You may think this is fine, but remember how that worked out for 9x users. They didn't get that final service pack for IE6 that included the popup blocker and other security enhancements. They were left to suffer drive-by malware attacks that could have been prevented with that final IE6 service pack that was made only available to IE6 users running Win2k/XP.

Say what you want about Win98/ME and your opinion about the OS's themselves really doesn't count, here. We are talking about the actions of a company against its customers and how they are bullying you to buy their products. You are not allowed to get your money's worth out of anything they sell you. Ultimately, they will decide which OS you will run on your hardware and for how long. They are treating it as if it were their computer, and not yours. They did it to 9x users and they will do it again to you and your beloved XP. Do not think for one moment that they won't.

And at some point, they will release a version of Visual Studio that will compile applications that could and should run on XP, only that Microsoft will disable it and not allow any developer that chooses to release software for XP to be able to do so.

You don't thik they would do something like that? They already have. No developer can compile an application that will run on Win98/ME with the latest version of Visual Studio. It's not the developer's code that is preventing the applications from running, it's the nag that the compiler is adding into the application that prevents 9x users from being able to run it, even if the developer chooses to support 9x with his software. Compile that exact same code in the previous version of Visual Studio and it will run just fine.

Who the hell are they to bully developers by telling them what OS they can and can't support? Just because they have abandoned an older OS doesn't give them the right to FORCE everyone else to do the same.

So this is what XP users and developers have to look forward to, starting in about 2 years.

And if you are waiting on Windows 7, thinking it will be better than Vista, don't hold your breath. It will be more Vista-like than you would care to imagine. By then, you won't have much choice and you will swallow the crap they give you, unless you take the next 2 years to explore and migrate all you do, to Mac or Linux.

The clock is ticking...

You are standing at the fork in the road. What are you going to do? Which way are you going to go?

i really love to have windows xp over vista. i can go for windows 7 but not for windows vista. because if i go for vista then after 2 years another new os is waiting and i think windows7 will be a good os like windows xp

If Vista constantly crashes, even out of the box from a PC-maker, it is NOT better. It is NOT easier to use.

The reason why I don't still drive my '68 Fastback Mustang is because I sold it for an excellent price (more than you would believe) 3 years ago. The car was exported to Europe.

B^D

"Vista is better for consumers, most of them just don't know about it. It's easier to support, easier to diagnose, and easier to use...

Why aren't all of you still driving 69 Mustangs?"

The whole argument that memory is cheap, so it is okay for Vista to be bloated is flawed from a software quality perspective. Every line of code can potentially contain a bug. When you multiply the amount of code, you will multiply the amount of bugs proportionally if you can maintain the same average code quality. This best case scenario almost never happens, when the code size grows, human error will increase the average bug rate. So bloated software will always be significantly more buggy than lean software.

I am a software developer, at the moment I am developing a product that runs Linux on a board with 8MB flash storage and 32MB of ram, of which only 12MB is ever used. It runs the same Linux as I run on my desktop with 1GB of memory. Of course I am not running the same software on it, but now we're talking applications. The OS is the same. Nice and modular. Not one big convoluted blob of spaghetti like Windows. Oh and on my desktop, it never touches the swap, no matter what I'm running. Yesterday installed Ubuntu on someone's old 1GHz PC with 512MB of RAM. Only used about 180MB of RAM when running a Windows app using wine. Now that's progress in my book.

While you are able to connect MP3 players to a Win98SE system and upload MP3 files, the video software included with the newer players will NOT work. The MP3 player will connect as a USB "UMS" drive to Win98SE and work correctly. The video software no longer runs on Win98SE, at least that's what their tech support and the PDF manuals say.

Typically, NONE of the included support software will now work on Win98SE. When you purchase any video-capable MP3 player, you will essentially be using a strictly MP3 sound player without the video. In order to play videos on a video-capable MP3 player, you must convert your own content to a format compatible with the portable player. Because the included software does not work on Win98SE, you will not be able to do this.

Most camera manufacturers, such as Canon, stopped supporting Win98SE last year. While you could, again, probably connect a new camera to Win98SE and have it appear as a USB UMS drive, you will not be able to use any of its included software.

"You are perfectly able to run mp3-players and webcams on a box with 376MB of RAM.

Even with win98se on it. You seem to have forgotten that we had winamp (aka mp3players) and webcams back in the days of win98se."

I was in the beta testers for vista. At the time, a new PC that I only had for about 4months, Pent 4 3.2ghz 1.5gig ram, 80gig sata3 drive, nvidia geforce 7800gt pcie, sound blaster audigy 4 and after a fresh, clean install of vista, no errors. I get to the desktop and have to answer about 5-9 BS questions. Yeah that was prolly just the beta but, then i started having to say yes to many things that in xp are mundane and work automatically without my constant yes i wanna do this, yes i am the admin. That gets old real quick. Turning that off isn't an option as it would pretty much disable all the security on the machine just to stop it from doing that. Absolutely rediculous. I emailed MS back and said this is a joke right. It ran slow, very slow on what would have been at a the time at the very least a mid-grade system that met or exceeded the recommended requirements for vista. Recently my sisters bf had his laptop with him during a bday party for my daughter. My cameras memory card was full and he said, lets just plug your memory card into my laptop and pull the stuff off and you can keep going. Sure i said, and plugged the memory card in. When i was able to access the memory card i went to drag and drop the whole folder to an external drive i had brought with me. Vista said all my stuff was corrupt and wouldn't transfer. I opened the folder and selected all the files and tried the drag and drop them. After saying that i wanted to do it 3 times it finally transferred the files and said they were fine. Do i really wanna deal with something like that on a daily basis, not thanks. I don't need security asking me if i wanna movie a few pictures from a memory card to my pc 3 times just to be sure. So i say, vista.... no thanks!

Meet Joe. Joe bought a 512 ram 1.8Ghz single core pentium 4 in 2004 for 600 bucks. It's now 2008 and for 80 dollars has upgraded to 4gb's of ram and a 2.3 duo core for less than 150 dollars. So what is he to do with his existing working and non faultering high consumer rated Windows XP? Keep it of course. Why give up above par cheap stuff for an expensive less dependable version that will make above par seem mediocre. Good call Joe.

Are you actually using Vista - or just claiming it crashes constantly? Did you get it with a new PC or just install it on some old POS?

I bought Vista with a new PC *only* because we needed our software to support Vista, however while using it all-day, every-day, for over six months - I've *never* had a single BSD/hard crash.

I guessing you're installing Vista on sh*t hardware or there's some problem between your workstation's seat and keyboard. ;)

I bought an Acer Aspire with WinVista HE. It is okay. I liked WinXP better. I am constantly being asked about if I will allow this or that to install even though I am the one to install it. There are some things that will not work with Vista. It is frustrating. I am glad I have other computers with eComStation on them. eCS is an upated version of OS/2 Warp by IBM. http://www.ecomstation.com

I am hoping to replace Windows with ReactOS once it reaches 1.0. http://www.reactos.org

Don't people who claim to be "in the know" remember how bad XP was until SP2. Spyware was basically invented for the holes in XP. XP RTM was bad, Windows 2000 worked better. XP after SP1 was better but not great. XP after SP2 was great. All operating systems evolve and improve over time. To want a OS that uses 256mg of RAM seems to me to be a dumb thing. We deploy servers with 4, 8, and 16 GB of RAM. Don't we want to use these resources? Exchange 2007 is 64-bit only because it needs RAM (lots of it). Am I nuts? Do you only want your V8 to only use 4 cylinders?

People who claim that Microsoft doesn't care and only wants your money. Sure they want your money, and $200-$300 over 3-5 years is not a lot. Microsoft is the biggest smartest software company on planet earth. Without Microsoft most of you people could not read or reply to this article. They helped bring computers to almost all the people on the planet. They changed the world; what have you done?

Yes, I remember how poor XP was when it first arrived. Now Vista is doing the same thing. This begs the question: Why does Microsoft release software before it is ready? Yes, you are correct, Microsoft is the best, largest, most talent-filled software company in the world. So why does Microsoft constantly release software BEFORE it is ready for consumer use?

This phenomenon is not restricted to Microsoft. Nearly every other software company does the same thing. This is very common in this industry. Microsoft is the richest software company in the world. In fact until the run up in oil prices, Microsoft had more available cash on hand than any other company in the world bar none! Microsoft does not need to release software before it is bug-free. The only reason I can think of why they do it is because of GREED. Releasing a new O/S helps their bottom line because they can charge more!

While I'm sure Vista SP1 might be a good O/S for first-time Noob's who don't mind being babied through their PC experience, there's no way an advanced PC user would like it.

Well put. I agree that software companies put out their software early, I think that is has become the "business model". I also think that Microsoft delayed Vista/Longhorn for to long and were forced to release something, anything. They waited to long between iterations and had to strip features that were not feasible and somewhat rush Vista to market.

But also the market for Vista and any MS product is so huge that the only way to see if it works is to get it out to the world and work on correcting its flaws. Operating systems have to be compatible with so many different 3rd party programs and hardware platforms that it would be near impossible to foresee compatibility issues without us using it in real situations.

Honestly I can barely use XP anymore. I went back after beta testing Vista and i did not like it anymore. Maybe I have been lucky or I am just a snob... but Vista x64 is it for me. I think most people's gripes are justified and have sympathy for the common user.I think that Windows 7 is not going to reinvent the wheel or really make the nah-sayers happy.

Cheers!

Pedro - "PS: Where is Enlighten? He should be here hatin' on Vista."

You are a complete idiot... I never was 'hatin' on vista. I said overall its a good OS since SP1 on new computers.

But it is not, was not and never will be the next OS that the masses should jump too.

IT is not, was not and never will be worth the 'Up To' $399 price that they demanded for it. None of you have yet to post anything substancial on how it is.

The fact remains that XP x64 was the better choice and would have been better in the short term until windows 7 was released.. We need microsoft, consumers and developers to get behind that effort.

Instead Microfluff chose to fill the coffers with OPEN BETA PURCHASERS...

That is a fact...

"BTW Vista is based on XP, XP was based on 2000, you get it now. "

Vista IS NOT BASED ON XP idiot... It has parts of the server 2003 code base. And was slightly tweaked from there. vista x64 since SP1 had a kernel change. to synch it up to server 2008 which in turn stole some windows 7 functionality. This move made people be just what I stated, beta testers for some of the new windows 7 functionality.

Dude before you call someone out get a fl-ucking clue...

And while you are at it, please remove y0ouor head from the bellows of microfluff azz...

Pedro - "Microsoft is the biggest smartest software company on planet earth. Without Microsoft most of you people could not read or reply to this article. They helped bring computers to almost all the people on the planet."

LOL without microsoft we could read this article... I guess they along with Al gore created the internet.

Here's a new flash loser... Windows actually existed prior to microsoft. They copied and grew into the OS from the amiga operating system. Which was the true multi-tasking OS.

Learn your history... and look at windows funtionality over the years. For example Amiga executed games on top of the OS. LOL windows 3.? you had to boot in DOS to play games. Windows 95 you had to execute a dos prompt which forced your out of windows. etc

Headward - "Vista will be adopted becuase it is better than XP."

Adopted by who? and why?

Dude please tell me why would anyone with ANY SENSE switch to vista for the future. When windows 7 the better OS and one to switch to will be release in a little over 6 months.

I've asked you all over and over. you offer NO ANSWERS just post the same thing "Vista is the future", "Everyone will start switching to it", It's a must have for all system owners"...

Spewing the same crap over and over with NO SUBSTANCIAL reason why it's a must have purchase to upgrade too...

Windows 7 has many tweaks and upgrades to those small set of features you claim we need vista for...

Pedro - "Before complaining, about Vista how about you read an instruction manual on it, then actually try it out, as in first hand experience. On modern hardware it run perfectly, and it installs extremely quick."

Hank - "Are you actually using Vista - or just claiming it crashes constantly? Did you get it with a new PC or just install it on some old POS?"

"Even pre SP1 I didn't have troubles... "
Yeah right... vista never had problem and your FELLOW consumers were the idiots...
etc, etc etc
______________________________________
I want all of you to do me two favors...

Go to this link and look at the SP1 fixes. They have release many hot fixes since SP1... But if there are NO and NEVER HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS what are these microfluff fixes for?

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/20184cb6-7038-4e82-a32c-4bc10ffe56ab1033.mspx?mfr=true

Now read how microfluff has helped intel and proprietary computure makers make a killing of your FELLOW CONSUMERS unfairly. Does any of you have 1 ounce of consumer backbone? Any chance of sympathy for your FELLOW CONSUMER who gets scammed? Why when a company has been caught red handed do you post your FELLOW consumer is the stupid one?

Read and explain... Stop being posting cowards... EXPLAIN...

"Mike Nash, who is now a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an email message, "I PERSONALLY got burnt...Are we seeing this from a lot of customers?...I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."

Is a 2100 dollar purchase of a new sys by a top microsoft employee a un-informed consumer buying a cheapy?

Here I'll quickly put your faulty logic out of its misery.

"The messages, unsealed in a lawsuit against the company, show that Vista's early problems with hardware and software compatibility affected more than just average PC users"

www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36254/144

A judge carefully reviews class action suits and throw them out when they have no basis or are frivolous.

"many PCs with the Vista emblem are in fact not able to run many of the Vista features that are advertised in step with the hardware"

www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36186/118/

"A new PC that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista include innovations in security, reliability, search, and the organization of information. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista—like Windows Aero—might require advanced or additional hardware."

www.microsoft.com/hk/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/capable.mspx

LOL "might require" advanced or additional

That's pretty 'F'ing vague when you consider that "might" is equal too a consumer having to get a new processor, video card and memory.


AND NOW FOR THE NAIL IN YOUR HIGH CLASSED COFFIN...

"Many of the emails show that Microsoft execs themselves were not at all happy with the marketing scheme, and it appears that they launched it to help Intel sell an aging chipset and meet quarterly earnings numbers. The chipset in question, 915, was not capable of running Windows Aero. The problem, though, was that Intel had lots of those chips in inventory, and needed to sell them in order to hit its earnings."

John Kalkman - "In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded."

Mike Ybarra, wrote in an email to then Windows chief Allchin "Jim, I am passionate about this and believe this decision [to launch the Vista Capable scheme] is a mistake. We are caving to Intel."

"We are really burning HP --- who committed to work with us to drive the UI experience across platforms and have already made significant investments. Other OEMs have made bets against this as well. These three things just don't add up to me. We are allowing Intel to drive our customer experience."

I want you and the sorry people that claim to be a consumer to come back and justify these actions.

There are people here saying that unused RAM is a waste. I disagree - The point of having a lot of RAM in a system is not to be used up by the OS, but to be able to run many programs at the same time, or maybe one program that requires lots of RAM. I think that as far as memory goes, the OS should be fairly minimal. The OS is there to allow you to run other software, not to consume the computer's resources by itself.

if the day comes that they stop supporting xp, I will switch to apple or linux. It's that simple. The only thing really tying me to Windows at this point is MS Excel. It's simply the most versatile spreadsheet app out there with VBA programmability better than anything else.

So if they choose to offer only Vista and Windows 7 turns out to be based on Vista and they haven't fixed the UAC and memory problems, it's linux for me.

...put together a team that sits down and figures out:

1) Why people use an OS.
2) How to make an OS secure when connected to a network.
3) How an OS runs programs efficiently.
4) How to securely improve the OS over time.

In my view an OS like Windows exists to let people install and run programs that lets them DO things.

It lets them organize information (music, documents, spreadsheets, pictures, movies, etc.) so they can find them, view them, edit them, create them, etc.

Why is it so hard, especially with the money microsoft can invest, to sit down in front of a computer with NO OS installed to start from the ground up creating such a thing for people to use.

For Christ Sake, Steve Gibson has an app that can totally recover and scan hard drives that have failed and get them working again, and he does it with a program that is 170 Kb in size and that you can boot the computer to run.

It's just sad when the most bloated program on your computer is the OS itself.

Amen to that.. I am running Vista with the newest patches and when i run ONE program (not the little stuff in the tray, those are things that are part of an OS) I ALREADY start to run out of memory in less than an hour. And I have 4gb of memory installed.

Jeesh.

You are soooo predictable there Enlighten. 3 posts in row. Pissed as hell grrrrrrr. Are you the real Uni-bomber? You make me laugh. You cant even get your quotes correct. So much anger over something so unimportant. Have fun alone.

He's not alone, he's got me and others here with him.

When I bought my current laptop, it has Vista on it. But I found that you could order an XP restore disc from the manufacturer (HP) for $20, so I went ahead and ordered one. I've been happy with it since I put XP on. XP uses less RAM and less drive space, and it does everything I want it to do.

Windows Vista should be called "Windows Hasta La Vista". :)

Great news! When it comes to audio production, I simply cannot use vista due to incompatibility with the apps I rely on. I'm sure vista isnt the complete hunk of junk that some people scream about, but if my apps dont work with it, I simply cannot make the switch.

Great now the imbecile is awake and spewing this crap and FUD campaign.

"Headward - "Vista will be adopted becuase it is better than XP."

Adopted by who? and why? "

I guess the millions of users that are using Vista now. The IT departments that would love to upgrade to Vista because of the ease of use, less of cost to support it, better security, better networking, better support for cameras, mobile devices, etc. Not to mention it doesn't crash as often as XP.

I do have to say that if you have a fairly old computer, don't bother upgrading. But downgrading a computer to XP is just stupid.

The same crap came out when Windows 98 was released about having to have 256MB of RAM and again with XP having to have 512MB of RAM. Prices are always going down for hardware.

I'm guessing that Enlighten spewed the same BS when XP came out. How horrible and nobody will make him to upgrade to that resource hog from Windows 2000 or Windows 98(SE).

Take your FUD campaign some where else. People are using Vista. The people who are scared are starting to using it and are loving it. Deal with it. It is the future, either adapt and overcome or get left behind.

And you are a jack azz in sheeps clothing...

I did spew the same thing... Nor have I mentioned a problem with vista hogging resources.

You too take your azz from microfluffs innards, please. You have been shown to have no sense of consumer pride, fight, sypathy or ethics when it comes to defending microfluff...

Windows XP had substantial features over windows 98SE to upgrade too.

More importantly XP wasn't announce with a 2 year life span till the next OS was released.

As I stated before why would anyone switch to vista when the better OS is coming very soon.

I have no FUD campaign and could give jack spit what you use or do with your money. I will state my opinion and challenge anyone that tries to steer the masses into foolishness, Ultimately its up to everyone to make a concious decision how to spend their money.

I'm none of the things you've tried listing over and over.

I like the one you did before by calling me an mac lover here to convert people to crappy apple. Even though post after post i've pointed to windows.

And to prove how SSTUPID you are... you again posted the same nonsense "Deal with it. It is the future, either adapt and overcome or get left behind."

VISTA IS NOT THE FUTURE DICKHEAD!!! IT IS THE NOW, THE SHORT TERM, THE STOP GAP ETC to freaking ETC...

You are truly one of the top thickest persons to ever to have posted here. And it's a damn shame because in some of your post you seem to be a bright fellow.

As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water...

You say some people are afraid to upgrade to XP. When XP came out, I upgraded to it whole-heartedly. I thought XP was a good upgrade from Windows 2000, and even more so from Windows 9x. However, when I bought a new laptop last year that had Vista on it, I did not see anything new that would be useful to me. Now why would I want to use an OS that takes up more RAM and hard drive space but provides nothing new that I find useful? To me, that seems stupid. That's why I decided to buy the $20 XP restore CD so I could downgrade my laptop. It does what I want it to do, all my software works, and I have not regretted it. But you are right at one thing, I think at some point we may be forced to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 because there may be software that no longer runs on XP. I guess if our computers can run it, then it's not a huge deal..

I've been using PCs since the late 80s, and I have also gone on to get a degree in software engineering; so, I think I have enough experience with computers to know what I'm talking about.

Sorry people. I stirred up a big heaping pile of Enlightenment. I just could not resist. I knew he would fly off the handle with long winded posts and venomous language. I think we are his support group. If he doesn't get it out here....its up to the top of the clock tower with a rifle. Plus it makes me crack up. How can you get soooo pissed off at one OS and love another like a baby.

Computers are tools, they are not your friends. They are no different than other tools in the toolbox. Please use them as such. If you love a computer you need help. Don't strike out at others because they disagree with or have had a different experience than you. No one will force you to use anything on your computer that you don't want. The world is full of options.

Cheers!

Pedro

lolwut