Yeah, Dell was the first PC vendor that stepped back from Vista to offer XP again.
I run Vista Ultimate and I've not really noticed any problem with it. I'm cool with it. But I will say that it isn't enough of a step up from XP to warrant the cost. And some of the changes they made were just plain dumb. Why, when you R-click your desktop, rename "Properties" to "Prefrences" when it does the exact same thing?
And it hides options by default that I got used to just always being there.
But, I'm a gamer and Vista has DirectX 10 and games are getting there. What really annoys me is that Microsoft is making DX 9 games (like Halo 2 and the upcoming Alan Wake) Vista-only. I'm sure most Microsoft 360 games that come to the PC will be Vista-only. Even though the 360 only supports DX 9.
Yeah, and the faster Vista fails, the happier I'll be. There is nothing good about it. The DRM giveaways to the Media conglomerates, the horrible performance, the drivers that noone can manage to write correctly. Seriously, it's been out for a year, and major components are still using beta device drivers. Even DX10, the thing they were hoping to drive gamers to Vista for, is minimal value, and the only game that even uses it, Crysis, is too intensive to run on ANY current system at 'high' graphics settings.
I've watched people struggle for weeks with intermittent Vista errors, things that work just fine on XP. People are saying 'oh wait for Vista SP1', but as far behind as Vista is from XP now, it's probably polishing a turd.
Every OS Microsoft comes out with has these issues. They're the same every few years, so much so that I'm surprised how few people notice that they're recycling the exact complaints they made about Windows 95, Windows 98, 2000, XP, etc. Well, except XP was below average for number of problems.
Ultimately Microsoft will simply stop making XP available, and then most of the issues will have to be resolved one way or the other.
I just got Vista Ultimate myself about 3 weeks ago and test drove it on an old Athlon 2800 in a dual boot configuration. I agree with the slower performance - probably a 1/3 to 1/2 performance hit compared to it's XP normal. WEI score of 3.5.
However, I got Ultimate well, ultimately because of the next computer I am building, a 4x4 AMD Phenom, scaling to 8 CPU cores, eventually. From everything I've read, Vista handles the threading to multiple CPU cores more efficiently then XP does. When quad core or larger CPUs become more mainstream in the marketplace, Vista will probably become more attractive - assuming Microsoft has worked out the bugs.
Dean, yes, they do have some of the same complaints. But having used all of those, the only one that has ever seemed anything close to the issues Vista has was ME, and everyone STILL thinks that was a complete dog.
So XP was below average for problems, and 2k before that was below average. And 98, in my remembrance, had fewer problems than 95. So in the face of a nice trend like that, we're supposed to go back to the average amount of problems? And that's even without the I/O system they had promised but then pulled before release?
I don't think everyone was spoiled by XP. I think the ball was dropped big time on Vista.
Considering how much of Vista is a re-write, I'm not surprised. It certainly has driver problems, like NT did back in the 90's.
I wont be recommending server 2008 because of all the new code in it, plus most of my clients don't even fully utilize 2003, or 2000 for that matter.
Vista has worked fine for a few machines, and been a complete pain in the ass for others (aka lots of billable hours), and many have been somewhere in between.
My recommendation to my clients was basically "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They'll be waiting for the next version if possible. Most of them are still running older versions of Office, per my recommendation.
DRM is a new problem. I can't remember any issues with a new release running twice as slow as the previous version this far out from release. And corporate customers are avoiding it because it's unstable. There is little added functionality. Vista is their worst release ever.
I mean, 95 was unstable as hell, but it was a huge functional/aesthetic upgrade. 98 was slower and didn't add much, but it was more stable. With Vista, everything seems to be worse.
Ultimately Microsoft will simply stop making XP available
They've been trying for a while now, and haven't been able to do it. If they do, Vista might even break the MS OS monopoly, if someone else gets ambitious enough.
I've got a Vista machine, which started off funky but has gotten downright stable over the past few months. I haven't had a crash in recent memory. I've got a 64-bit machine, so I needed an OS that would make use of the floating point and memory space. (and still run games) XP64 has more driver problems than Vista, and there's less being done to remedy that situation. Long term, Vista will be the winner. Also, of course it's slower. There's more overhead. Every new generation is slower because it's doing more. If you want the ultimate in speed run command line linux. It's really fast. Or DOS, it doesn't even have thread/process switching overhead. And to all the Mac users- when I can get all the software I (emphasize the I) need, I'll switch. For work I'm a full time Fedora user, and at home I play games, ergo I have Vista.
My father-in-law has been nursing his old Windows ME machine along, first waiting until Vista came out, and now until it's faster and more stable. I really think he should just stick with XP.
I suppose it's possible that MS would abandon Vista as an evolutionary dead end, but it seems very unlikely. They'll be service packs to fix the worst of it, and new machines that will be fast enough to make the performance hit insignificant. I expect it will eventually replace XP in the consumer marketplace. It'll happen a lot more slowly than MS wants it to happen, though. Businesses will be a lot more cautious, but that's nothing new - some of them still run NT 4 servers and Windows 95.
My big question of the day is- how long until DRM bites the big one? Consumers don't like it, and the open source hackers will find a way around it, and distribute it. People will rip DVDs and Blu-Rays, and distribute them via p2p. End of story.
I bought a new computer in June with 1 GB of RAM and with Vista installed, and its performance was definitely weak compared to the XP machine it replaced. I added 2 GB of RAM a few months later, and the performance has been much better, though it still seems more glitchy than my old machine with 640 MB RAM and XP.
Well, I'm an old dog. I don't understand half of what you all are talking about. I still use XP, but only because it's what came with the system when we bought it. My girls and my wife all have laptops with VISTA, but they spent quite some time kicking and screaming before things settled down with their systems.
Me? Well, I'm eventually gonna be retinring this desktop PC for a laptop, but I will still want XP on it. I'm not at all fond of trading for a new OS and having to relearn everything, new terms, all the "kewl" features that noone really needs, etc.
I am, however, building a new desktop for gaming. It's a 486 with DOS 6.2 and GeoWorks as the GUI. I have a ton of older games and software that I dearly love, and the only way i can play them is to build a new machine. Fortunately, I still have all the DOS 6.2 discs and the manuals, etc. I also have all the old GeoWorks discs and manuals as well. Whay a GREAT system GeoWorks is/was.
My previous XP-running laptop was just absolutely falling apart. So I ended up getting a shiny new Vista machine, and frankly I've been happy with it. Perhaps I haven't noticed the performance drop because it would have to be a heck of a drop to be worse than my last machine, I dunno. And while there are some things about Vista that I do question, there are some other things I like. Overall it seems fine to me, perhaps it's just cause I don't do much beyond Firefox, Office (2007, I know, I know, but I was already getting Vista so it was like, what the heck), and the occasional old video game.
Oh sorry to post again so quickly, but I totally forgot an important point: the ever-marching tide of GUI "innovation."
The first thing I've done with my last 3 computers has been a concerted effort to make it look like Windows 95. I like my borders gray and my titles blue, ya heard?! Seriously though, as far as I'm concerned, I was plenty enough happy with the "feel" of Windows 95/98, and for that matter with Mac's System 7/8.
Might as well admit that I've even got my browser skinned to look like Netscape Communicator 4.8 (thank you Foxscape).
The lack of DirectX 10 support on XP will eventually drive gamers into Windows Vista whether they like it or not. Honestly I haven't had a problem with it. Most people who have had problems are people who refuse to buy new hardware. If you don't like upgrading every 2 years then don't dabble in electronics. People treat them like cars. They are not. Vista is still buggy because it is still less than a year old. I remember the complaints about Windows XP, now almost everyone uses it and is happy with it. Same cycle.
12.4.2007 8:35pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
"Get a Mac!"
You think the arguments over atheism have been hot? I just threw a Molotov cocktail into this discussion!
most manufacturers offer you the option. The pushback against Vista has been to large for Dell et al to ignore.
I run Vista Ultimate and I've not really noticed any problem with it. I'm cool with it. But I will say that it isn't enough of a step up from XP to warrant the cost. And some of the changes they made were just plain dumb. Why, when you R-click your desktop, rename "Properties" to "Prefrences" when it does the exact same thing?
And it hides options by default that I got used to just always being there.
But, I'm a gamer and Vista has DirectX 10 and games are getting there. What really annoys me is that Microsoft is making DX 9 games (like Halo 2 and the upcoming Alan Wake) Vista-only. I'm sure most Microsoft 360 games that come to the PC will be Vista-only. Even though the 360 only supports DX 9.
I've watched people struggle for weeks with intermittent Vista errors, things that work just fine on XP. People are saying 'oh wait for Vista SP1', but as far behind as Vista is from XP now, it's probably polishing a turd.
Ultimately Microsoft will simply stop making XP available, and then most of the issues will have to be resolved one way or the other.
IDK about laptops, but that's not what I'm buying. Dell will sell me an XPS desktop with XP. I was pricing one today.
However, I got Ultimate well, ultimately because of the next computer I am building, a 4x4 AMD Phenom, scaling to 8 CPU cores, eventually. From everything I've read, Vista handles the threading to multiple CPU cores more efficiently then XP does. When quad core or larger CPUs become more mainstream in the marketplace, Vista will probably become more attractive - assuming Microsoft has worked out the bugs.
So XP was below average for problems, and 2k before that was below average. And 98, in my remembrance, had fewer problems than 95. So in the face of a nice trend like that, we're supposed to go back to the average amount of problems? And that's even without the I/O system they had promised but then pulled before release?
I don't think everyone was spoiled by XP. I think the ball was dropped big time on Vista.
I wont be recommending server 2008 because of all the new code in it, plus most of my clients don't even fully utilize 2003, or 2000 for that matter.
Vista has worked fine for a few machines, and been a complete pain in the ass for others (aka lots of billable hours), and many have been somewhere in between.
My recommendation to my clients was basically "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They'll be waiting for the next version if possible. Most of them are still running older versions of Office, per my recommendation.
DRM is a new problem. I can't remember any issues with a new release running twice as slow as the previous version this far out from release. And corporate customers are avoiding it because it's unstable. There is little added functionality. Vista is their worst release ever.
I mean, 95 was unstable as hell, but it was a huge functional/aesthetic upgrade. 98 was slower and didn't add much, but it was more stable. With Vista, everything seems to be worse.
Ultimately Microsoft will simply stop making XP available
They've been trying for a while now, and haven't been able to do it. If they do, Vista might even break the MS OS monopoly, if someone else gets ambitious enough.
But then again Microsoft obviously hates me and most of their other customers too.
So, I reckon thngs kinda even out over time.
Ryan
I suppose it's possible that MS would abandon Vista as an evolutionary dead end, but it seems very unlikely. They'll be service packs to fix the worst of it, and new machines that will be fast enough to make the performance hit insignificant. I expect it will eventually replace XP in the consumer marketplace. It'll happen a lot more slowly than MS wants it to happen, though. Businesses will be a lot more cautious, but that's nothing new - some of them still run NT 4 servers and Windows 95.
Ryan
Well, I'm an old dog. I don't understand half of what you all are talking about. I still use XP, but only because it's what came with the system when we bought it. My girls and my wife all have laptops with VISTA, but they spent quite some time kicking and screaming before things settled down with their systems.
Me? Well, I'm eventually gonna be retinring this desktop PC for a laptop, but I will still want XP on it. I'm not at all fond of trading for a new OS and having to relearn everything, new terms, all the "kewl" features that noone really needs, etc.
I am, however, building a new desktop for gaming. It's a 486 with DOS 6.2 and GeoWorks as the GUI. I have a ton of older games and software that I dearly love, and the only way i can play them is to build a new machine. Fortunately, I still have all the DOS 6.2 discs and the manuals, etc. I also have all the old GeoWorks discs and manuals as well. Whay a GREAT system GeoWorks is/was.
respects,
The first thing I've done with my last 3 computers has been a concerted effort to make it look like Windows 95. I like my borders gray and my titles blue, ya heard?! Seriously though, as far as I'm concerned, I was plenty enough happy with the "feel" of Windows 95/98, and for that matter with Mac's System 7/8.
Might as well admit that I've even got my browser skinned to look like Netscape Communicator 4.8 (thank you Foxscape).
So point is, I'm probably a curmudgeonly dork.
Go ahead. Make my day.
Tux
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.