Six months ago the PC press was salivating about Vista - writing all the things that Microsoft wanted to hear.
In the last issues of rags like PC Magazine and PC World it's now open season on Vista..basically they describe it as the biggest piece of crap out there - that's it not even good enough to be XP SP3.
Ironically, Linux development has slowed down a bit while people try to make sense of this. What a shame.
Personally, I'll stick to XP until MS gets Vista half right (some us still need to run MS Office)
Well at my work it's still very much in our minds, what with new technologies like Silverlight, WPF and the new .net technologies. A few people here use it, but having said that already a few people in my department have switched over to Ubuntu, and it looks like the rest of us will follow shortly.
VMWare can solve all our problems. With regards to Office, there are alternatives (You can even connect to an exchange server for mail and calendar now). XP is great IMHO though and I won't be in a rush to go with any operating system until I have much to gain.
I have Vista on my main computer and XP on my laptop - I don't carry it around tho I just use it as a low noise/power torrent box because my main computer would be too noisy and power consuming to keep running overnight.
I don't have any problems with Vista. I'm sure that in a few years time everyone will be using it having forgotten about the problems.
1) January was way too long ago.
2) If you have a chance of trying vista for free then go for it and decide for yourself.
In the thread that NoJive suggested there are a lot of linux users complaining about vista while they obviously have less experience using windows/vista than they have with linux. Because I'm mostly a windows user (need to use it at work and choose to use it at home because of games) when I've tried different linux distros they have felt uncomfortable, clumsy and bugged to me. For example when about 2 years ago I tried to use ubuntu it couldn't recognize my monitor's native 1024*768 resolution and instead it displayed 800x600 ... and in the whatever 'display settings' equivalent thingy that there was there were no higher options either and no way to override anything. For that matter all the settings dialogs were much less advanced than their equivalents in windows. Of course I just need to find config file x and edit line y and force another resolution because the damn thing is bugged and I'm perfectly capable of doing that but why as an user should I concern myself with that and waste my time on such things. Same crap with my network card - works perfectly in windows without me having to install anything ... but no ... not in ubuntu. And it wasn't anything special or rare either ... regular nforce2 chipset.
And don't tell me to stfw or alike when my network card doesn't work.
Most people here have used Windows, and if you read that thread and more recent ones involving Tao and Argo Navis ( Which Linux today?) you'll see that it's a recent thing for people here to be switching over to Linux.
Besides Ubuntu 2 years ago is very different from how it is now, it's gone through 4 major updates!
Maybe you'd like to try Linux again it's changed a lot.
I have Vista installed to dual boot with XP on both my desktop and my laptop; so far, I'm nothing but impressed with Vista. All those little problems it appears to suffer from are relatively minor compared to what we all went through with early XP.
I'm keeping XP on both machines for legacy purposes - some games I have (and I am an avid gamer) are far too chuggy under Vista, or simply won't run at all. This is no biggie, and I can very well imagine ( eventually) having nothing but games on my XP partition, and everything else under Vista.
I don't know why Vista is getting such a bashing, as it truly is superior to XP (not just superficially). My only gripe is that many features under Vista would be fairly simple to implement under XP - but I don't imagine that XP will be given any deliberate longevity boosts while Microsoft are hard-selling their new baby.
I should note that my desktop machine has an old Sempron 2800 CPU aboard, and glides through Vista very nicely, though the GF6800GT, and 1GB RAM (absolutely, the minimum you'd want to run Vista on under any circumstances, IMHO) do take a bit of strain off the CPU. I have noticed that Vista also appears to run faster and more reliably on inferior machines than XP does - with some obvious exclusions (ie- Photoshop really struggles to find elbow room on my office PC, which only has 512MB RAM, and a Celeron CPU - ugh!) - while things feel slightly under-powered, boot time, application loads, and application switching appear much improved over XP.
I'm sold on it. I spent a good few weeks suggesting to anyone who asked, "give it time; wait for service packs"... but now I'm suggesting that they play around with it now. For one thing, all our major clients are already transitioning to the new OS.
I still intend to play around with Linux in earnest at some point (triple boot, XP/Vista/Linux perhaps), but while the pressure is on to provide Vista solutions to my clients before their respective companies complete their metamorphOSis, I may as well jump in head-first.
(ie- Photoshop really struggles to find elbow room on my office PC, which only has 512MB RAM, and a Celeron CPU - ugh!)
You think THAT's bad, my newly acquired desktop (third hand) has... 64MB RAM and a 6GB HD! I also have a wonderful 14 inch CTR monitor that makes my eye bleed, but believe or not, it runs XP! I have no idea how on earth, though. Might be because it has absolutely nothing installed on it
I haven't tried installing Photoshop yet, I'm worried it might jump out off the window...
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 09-14-2007 15:25
I personally hate Vista, and will not buy it, have refused to install it at work, and it has been nothing but a pain in the neck to support.
I am hoping that this OS will give Linux that needed "boost" to get it into the mainstream - maybe wishful thinking, but the market needs some competition, dammit!
Vista is just a way to give MS more money. Until MS feels the heat, they will not feel the need to produce something that really is a great product.
Other than DX 10, it really brings little else. Ok, they copied over the security protections from Mac & Linux. The search was changed...gah.
All this works on my XP machine as well, with 3rd party tools except for DX 10. So why do I NEED to buy Vista?
And why do I need to buy it in all these versions?
Supporting the OS is a nightmare.
As you can see, I do not like Vista. Don't even get me started on the DRM!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Agreed - at least until they fix the damn thing.
The problem with monopolies such as Microsoft, is that they don't need to innovate to survive - they can continue to serve up mediocrity and still suck up tons of cash.
Microsoft: you are a bunch of morons but since I feel sorry for you, this is what you need to do.
Build a secure, robust, compact, new OS from scratch - no bloat, no huge vulnerability/security gaps, no big brother, no DRM, no IE, a new browser, a new UI, new file management system etc....all under 150 megabytes
--now add a VM layer that allows you to run the crap that is not backwards compatible - drop the Home, Business, Premium, Elite, Super Elite, Enterprise, and Death Star versions - focus on version for all....and F*** activation.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 09-18-2007 17:42
I don't expect them to go open source.
I would like them to produce an OS that is not pushing this or other corporate garbage at us, though.
Like DRM.
And the OS should bring advances with it, not make-up and surface polish.
Like the File System they were planning on shipping - it was promising to be at least interesting.
Maybe in the Service Pack?
At least they included the security measures that other OSes have been enjoying for years.
And then there is the slowing down of the TCP/IP, which they admit, but will not detail. And now with the "silent auto-update" fiasco with WinXP (where your machine will be updated whether or not you have auto-updates turned on and want them) - who knows what they have built into Vista and are planning on doing with it?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I ran Vista Ultimate 64-bit and had no troubles with Vista. Troubles came with 3rd party drivers which are troughn together to fast. All in all in runs with 4GB memory very fast and smooth.
I can understand your frustration with DRM issues, WS, but in essence, for Windows to be able to provide you with access to (for instance) HD movies, they have no choice but to ensure that their product meets the strict (excessive) requirements of the industry that provides such media. No DRM would simply mean NO MEDIA - the capacity to view digitally protected content would simply not exist.
As for advances - I see my Vista installations loading programs faster, switching between applications quicker, booting in half the time, speeding through application installations that would take forever on XP (inexplicably), a workable searching/indexing system (for once), and a multitude of other improvements beneath the skin that smack of an awful lot more than a surface sheen. Even without Aero (and a plethora of, admittedly unnecessary, GUI alterations), Vista boasts a noticeably different engine under the hood.
Of course - as you point out - it would have been nice to see a little more in the way of previous promised file-system innovations.
As for the security measures... you mean User Account Control? I don't use it, and it annoys me that I can't stop the security warning from reminding me that I have disabled the idiot switch. I have no use whatsoever for it - I am quite capable of determining for myself whther or not FREESEX.JPG.exe is womething I want to click rabidly on. I've rarely seen security problems with Windows that can't generally be put down to poor practice, or user stupidity/ignorance ("Why in hell did you click on the 'install anal hack toolbar' button?!?")
Finally though, I can't argue with you over your last line. Perhaps Microsoft's greatest problem at the moment is that their staff seem unable to keep anything under wraps. I often wonder just how much we don't know about half the stuff we apparently trust...
I think it's just fashionable to bash MS, just as it's fashionable to bash the US at the moment. However little of it is deserved barely matters any more simply because it's just so much fun doing it!
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 09-20-2007 00:32
quote:As for advances - I see my Vista installations loading programs faster, switching between applications quicker, booting in half the time, speeding through application installations that would take forever on XP (inexplicably), a workable searching/indexing system (for once), and a multitude of other improvements beneath the skin that smack of an awful lot more than a surface sheen. Even without Aero (and a plethora of, admittedly unnecessary, GUI alterations), Vista boasts a noticeably different engine under the hood.
Ermmm...I don't see these advances.
My WinXP SP2 works fine, boots in under 15 seconds (that is booted to the point where everything has loaded up), applications load up quick (of course, applications vary), I use a 3rd party app for great searching/indexing, and I have not really noticed any other "improvements" under the skin. Aero? Well, I have my nice GUIs for XP...why should I need Aero? What does Aero do for me?
On the other side, your TCP/IP is slower than mine, you have DRM that degrades your Audio - among other things (mine does not, and I do not have DRM) AND I do not have problems finding drivers
You say it is "fashionable" to bash MS - true, some do find it fashinable. I am not remotely interested in bashing MS, however. I am interested in an OS that suits my needs.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 09-20-2007 21:04
quote:As for advances - I see my Vista installations loading programs faster, switching between applications quicker, booting in half the time, speeding through application installations that would take forever on XP (inexplicably), a workable searching/indexing system (for once), and a multitude of other improvements beneath the skin that smack of an awful lot more than a surface sheen. Even without Aero (and a plethora of, admittedly unnecessary, GUI alterations), Vista boasts a noticeably different engine under the hood.
Ermmm...I don't see these advances.
My WinXP SP2 works fine, boots in under 15 seconds (that is booted to the point where everything has loaded up), applications load up quick (of course, applications vary), I use a 3rd party app for great searching/indexing, and I have not really noticed any other "improvements" under the skin. Aero? Well, I have my nice GUIs for XP...why should I need Aero? What does Aero do for me?
On the other side, your TCP/IP is slower than mine, you have DRM that degrades your Audio - among other things (mine does not, and I do not have DRM) AND I do not have problems finding drivers
You say it is "fashionable" to bash MS - true, some do find it fashinable. I am not remotely interested in bashing MS, however. I am interested in an OS that suits my needs.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
posted 09-11-2007 00:42
Which Linux today?
