30 Days with Vista @ [H]

I have a gaming rig that I use to play a lot of game from 2142 to WOW to C&C and the only problem I have had with Vista was having to upgrade to the new Nero becuz the old one was not compatible. Other then that it runs flawlessly!
 
Okay, I just read the artcle (yeah, I'm a little behind on [H] reading), and I have a few things to say about Vista:

My system specs are in my sig. As you can see, I have a system that is very comparable to the slower system tested in the article. No dual-core processor, no DX10 video card, no 2GB of RAM.

I was not supid enough to pay over $250 to get Vista retail. Instead, I bought a fully-legal, upgrade or clean-install, OEM license of Vista Home Premium 64-bit on Newegg for $120. The differences between the OEM version for $120 and the retal version for almost $300? The OEM version doesn't include a manual or a pretty box. But, you do get a full (not upgrade, although the product description says it can do an upgrade if you want it to) version of Vista Premium for less than a retail copy of XP.

I reformatted my hard drive and started the Vista installation. As mentioned in the article, installation was easy. I notice the article said there should have been more information about the "home, work, or public" computer question. My question is, why? Windows is asking you whether this computer is at home, at work, or at a public place. What more information do you need to answer that question? The installation forces you to make an informed decision about automatic updates (essential to keeping your Windows computer secure). Furthermore, activation is quick and requires no user interaction.

The new Windows UI is, in my opinion, excellent. The search function in the Start Menu has become my new best friend. In fact, it is so fast and efficient, I hardly bother to navigate to my personal files anymore. I just type somthing that has to do with the file I'm looking for into the search box, and it will appear within a few seconds. For example, if I type "biology word", the search pane will list (within five seconds) all word documents that contain the word "biology", with the documents containing "biology" in the title first, followed by documents containing "biology" in the text of the document itself. If I want to run a game or any other program located on the start menu, I just type the name of the game or part of it and press enter. By default, Vista indexes everything in "users" folder; this includes pictures, documents, music, videos, downloads, the desktop, the start menu, and basically all of the files you work with every day. In Windows XP, I, like many others, disabled the indexing service because it indexed the entire hard drive, hurt performance, and was as useless as the search tool that it attempted to improve. Now, with indexing limited to only the files you actually use and a good serach tool to take advantage of it, I leave the indexing service on. I have not noticed any performance hits because of this.

Of course, I still find the need to browse through folders using Windows Explorer quite often. Fortunately, the Explorer UI is greatly improved. The bar at the top of the screen, instead of showing the path of the folder I am viewing, provides a new navigation system that is very efficient and difficult to explain. Let me explain it by using an example: say I'm in the "Mods" folder in the "BF2" folder in my documents folder. The bar at the top of the screen will look like this:

User -> Documents -> BF2 -> Mods

Each of these words and arrows on the bar are actually buttons. If I click on the "documents" button, I will be brought back to my documents folder. If I click on the "BF2" button, I will be brought back to the BF2 folder. Therefore, I can go back several levels without resorting to clicking the back button several times.

The real timesaver, however, is in the arrows. If I click on the arrow to the right of "documents", a menu will appear listing all folders and files in my documents folder. Hopefully, this gives you an idea of how this UI words and how it can save you a lot of back button clicking. And yes, if you really need to see the full path of the folder you're viewing, you can click on any blank space in the top bar and the path will appear (already selected, in case you were going to copy it).

As for security, I think I will be the only one here to praise the UAC. Yes, it gets annoying at times. But hey, I am willing to click some okay buttons to get the huge benefits UAC provides. If you do not get into the habit of automatically clicking okay (and I don't), UAC effectively prevents any programs, malicious or not, from doing anything to your computer without your explicit permission. When a program or website attempts to change something about your computer, UAC will ask suspend all processes other than the OS itself (thus preventing a malicious program from automatically confirming the UAC dialog) and ask you to confirm that you are the one who started the action.

I have not found myself gettng used to the UAC dialogs. When you get a UAC dialog, simply ask yourself "did I just do something that might have caused this dialog to appear"? If so, click okay. If not, look at the dialog more closely. So, if I see a UAC dialog immediately after starting a program, I just click okay because I was expecting it. If I see one when I visit a website (which should not invoke actions outside of IE), however, I will read it more closely. And yes, there have been a few times when I have clicked "cancel" on dialogs that prompted me to confirm actions that I was unaware of.

I am also thankful that UAC does not ask for a password, as that would make it far too annoying.

The only compaint I have about UAC is that it sometimes takes a little while for the dialog to appear, especially if you have a lot of processes running that it must suspend first.

I have had zero compatability issues with any of my hardware since installing Vista. This includes a Canon iP1600 printer, a Canon iP4300 printer, a Loitech G5 mouse, a Logitech racing wheel (the better one, can't remember the model number), and a Saitek X52 joystick and throttle. all of these things installed out of the box; I didn't need to download any new Vista drivers to get them to work. Of course, I need NVIDIA drivers for my video card, but that's easy and to be expected. Also, Vista uses my onboard soundcard automatically - I didn't need to install drivers for that.

Furthermore, I have experienced zero stability issues with Vista in the two months I have been using it. I have yet to see the Vista BSOD. I have never experienced a reboot other than when I request one. There has never been a time when an application froze and could not be ended quickly using task manager. Vista uses almost all of my 1 GB of memory, but it gives most of it back when other programs need it (I presume this is Vista's new prefetch in action).

Application compatability is fine. I have the new Office 2007 Professional Suite, and it integrates with Vista perfectly (though that's a subject for another topic). I do not play many games, but all of the ones I have work fine except for two. One has an online fix that I havn't bothered to try yet. I have not looked for an online fix for the other game yet. The two nonworking games are NFS: Carbon (works, but crashes occasionally) and GTR Racing (doesn't start; game insists that it will only work on XP and shuts down without trying, even in compatability mode).

I think the quality of [H]'s Linux article is excellent. However, I found a few problems with the Vista article:

-Unlike the Linux article, you did not make any effort to solve any of the problems you were encountering
-You did not talk much about the improvements in Vista, like the new Explorer interface, the search function, and UAC
-You made a few foolish assumptions, such as the fact that a program could use a standard keystroke to foil UAC (come on, do you think Microsoft would be that stupid?)
-You sort of rushed through the article. It was like you were thinking "this is Microsoft, so there can't be anything worth interest here. Nope, that feature can't work, so I won't bother trying it. Hmm, this is a Microsoft product; I'm sure there is no fix for that bug, so I won't bother looking. The new security feature doesn't sound like it will work; I won't bother researching it to see if my hunch is correct."

I don't think you deliberately tried to make Microsoft look bad. You were just so tired; you didn't give Vista as much effort as you gave Linux.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Of course, I still find the need to browse through folders using Windows Explorer quite often. Fortunately, the Explorer UI is greatly improved. The bar at the top of the screen, instead of showing the path of the folder I am viewing, provides a new navigation system that is very efficient and difficult to explain. Let me explain it by using an example: say I'm in the "Mods" folder in the "BF2" folder in my documents folder. The bar at the top of the screen will look like this:

User -> Documents -> BF2 -> Mods

Each of these words and arrows on the bar are actually buttons. If I click on the "documents" button, I will be brought back to my documents folder. If I click on the "BF2" button, I will be brought back to the BF2 folder. Therefore, I can go back several levels without resorting to clicking the back button several times.

The real timesaver, however, is in the arrows. If I click on the arrow to the right of "documents", a menu will appear listing all folders and files in my documents folder. Hopefully, this gives you an idea of how this UI words and how it can save you a lot of back button clicking. And yes, if you really need to see the full path of the folder you're viewing, you can click on any blank space in the top bar and the path will appear (already selected, in case you were going to copy it).
Click to expand...


Another fan of the "Breadcrumb Bar" as it's come to be known. One of the single coolest and most truly useful things about Vista, in my opinion, and it's nice to see I'm not alone. :)
 
I came across this article that some here may find interesting:

Windows Vista security flaws show progress, not perfection

If one can't access that link (e.g. if registration is required), let me know and I'll copy-and-paste the article here.

The gist of the article is:
Ed Skoudis said:
Given these factors, expect more major Vista security issues. It's probably the most secure Windows ever, but that doesn't seem to be enough to deal with the threats we face today and in the future.
Click to expand...
 
I just got done installing Vista 64-bit oem on a newer build.

My experiences off the bat are:

- I turned off UAC; sorry, while I'm tweeking, I don't need all the prompts
- The Creative Soundblaster X-Fi drivers were my main problem, and they are absolute junk. No music, just loud, loud static, from a $150 3-month old card. The card has been pulled and I'm running Vista audio drivers on the P5K Deluxe, not Soundmax either.
- The 4gb temporary problem was interesting; I had memory re-map off from a previous XP-pro install, and couldn't figure out why I was still only seeing 3.3 gb, and why I spent money on Vista x64 if I couldn't see 4gb. Problem solved, and I learned alot about windows memory mapping; Even w/ Vista, there is legacy ram/memory structures in place, and it takes the P5K bios to remap these addresses above 4gb (the video driver, sound card, other pci devices, etc. that need "addresses" below 4gb). Very interesting, but frustrating; AND, interestingly, this is at the heart of the inherent problems with CREATIVE!!@. The onboard sound is great, but, 5.1 and 7.1 speaker setups w/ on-board audio are limited, and not as good as X-FI.

All is relatively calm now after one long day, and my applications are being re-installed one at a time; the first one to bit the dust was Synctools; yeh, I know there's an obscure work-around, but I suspect there will be 1 or 2 more apps. that I can't use.

All in All, I LOVE VISTA 64-bit;

M
 
dekruyter said:
I just got done installing Vista 64-bit oem on a newer build.

My experiences off the bat are:

- I turned off UAC; sorry, while I'm tweeking, I don't need all the prompts
Click to expand...

I don't think thats a very good idea unless you plan on keeping it off. After I installed everything and in a fit of annoyance I disabled UAC for a few days. I then did some reading and decided that I could live with the extra layers of security, the prompts, and manually setting some apps to run as Admin (more prompts)

So when I went to enable UAC I had LOADS of problems with apps already installed. Some would not run at all, and others would save no settings anymore. I had to re-install a bunch of things-including the creative drivers and the THX panel.
 
Thanks for the heads up; so, I'll have to leave it on. And, will I get those promps then. I guess that's the whole point eh?
 
All of you who bought the OEM version of Vista will not feel so smart when you'll have to swap a major component in your computer and will be denied reactivation. They'll just tell you to 'contact the OEM fabricator' when your license stops working. Self shafted.. :D

As a sidenote I haven't seen a single Vista box that would be without problems so far. And yes, all were newly bought machines.

Starting from weird network related problems such as not being able to rename files/folders despite full rights and ending to bluescreening.

Vista brings nothing worthwhile. Eyecandy is not worthwhile you can get that to XP also and enjoy a similar performance hit as Vista does.

But Vista does without excemption bring trouble. You pay to get in trouble.
 
Finn said:
All of you who bought the OEM version of Vista will not feel so smart when you'll have to swap a major component in your computer and will be denied reactivation. They'll just tell you to 'contact the OEM fabricator' when your license stops working. Self shafted.. :D

As a sidenote I haven't seen a single Vista box that would be without problems so far. And yes, all were newly bought machines.

Starting from weird network related problems such as not being able to rename files/folders despite full rights and ending to bluescreening.

Vista brings nothing worthwhile. Eyecandy is not worthwhile you can get that to XP also and enjoy a similar performance hit as Vista does.

But Vista does without excemption bring trouble. You pay to get in trouble.
Click to expand...

lol I could refute your inarticulate fud, but instead I think I'll just call you an idiot... idiot.
 
Finn said:
All of you who bought the OEM version of Vista will not feel so smart when you'll have to swap a major component in your computer and will be denied reactivation. They'll just tell you to 'contact the OEM fabricator' when your license stops working. Self shafted.. :D
Click to expand...


Not a problem. People have already done this - you just call the provided 800 number when the activation fails, explain that your motherboard died and you had to replace it, and they re-activate it for you.
 
calebb said:
Not a problem. People have already done this - you just call the provided 800 number when the activation fails, explain that your motherboard died and you had to replace it, and they re-activate it for you.
Click to expand...

I've had copious occasions where the support tells to contact the vendor instead of reactivating. And the new strict rules of Vista should only make things worse.
 
Finn said:
I've had copious occasions where the support tells to contact the vendor instead of reactivating. And the new strict rules of Vista should only make things worse.
Click to expand...

But you told me you haven't used Vista :confused: :confused: :confused:

In any case, I've had copious occasions where support went ahead and reactivated it for me. (after all, they do not know if you flashed your BIOS, added a video card or replaced the motherboard!)
 
calebb said:
But you told me you haven't used Vista :confused: :confused: :confused:

In any case, I've had copious occasions where support went ahead and reactivated it for me. (after all, they do not know if you flashed your BIOS, added a video card or replaced the motherboard!)
Click to expand...

If you read more carefully you'll see that I was talking about OEM XP which had more relaxed licensing than Vista hence the comment 'should make it even worse'.
 
Finn said:
As a sidenote I haven't seen a single Vista box that would be without problems so far. And yes, all were newly bought machines.
Click to expand...

You might want to take a look at my box, then. :p

Oh well, I'm sorry it isn't working for you. Maybe you should try Vista 64-bit. It's the version I have (and my box has no problems), and from what I've heard, it is more stable than the 32-bit version.

All of you who bought the OEM version of Vista will not feel so smart when you'll have to swap a major component in your computer and will be denied reactivation. They'll just tell you to 'contact the OEM fabricator' when your license stops working. Self shafted.
Click to expand...

My only experience with the activation center was when I needed to reactivate Office 2003 after upgrading a computer it was installed on:

Me: Hi, I upgraded my computer and Offic 2003 won't install on my new one.
MS: Have you uninstalled Office 2003 from the old computer?
Me: No.
MS: That is not allowed. You need to uninstall the program from your old computer, because you can only have it on one desktop PC at a time. Call us back after you uninstall it.
Me: Okay
MS: Thank you for calling Microsoft.

A few minutes later, I call back.

Me: Okay, I uninstalled Office from my old computer.
MS: Alright then, here is your new license key.
Me: Thanks
MS: Thanks you for calling Microsoft.

I never bothered to uninstall Office from the "old computer".
 
Finn said:
All of you who bought the OEM version of Vista will not feel so smart when you'll have to swap a major component in your computer and will be denied reactivation. They'll just tell you to 'contact the OEM fabricator' when your license stops working. Self shafted.. :D

As a sidenote I haven't seen a single Vista box that would be without problems so far. And yes, all were newly bought machines.

Starting from weird network related problems such as not being able to rename files/folders despite full rights and ending to bluescreening.

Vista brings nothing worthwhile. Eyecandy is not worthwhile you can get that to XP also and enjoy a similar performance hit as Vista does.

But Vista does without excemption bring trouble. You pay to get in trouble.
Click to expand...

Sabrewulf165 said:
lol I could refute your inarticulate fud, but instead I think I'll just call you an idiot... idiot.
Click to expand...

At least Finn gave some examples to support his claim. But Sabrewulf165 has done nothing except resort to name calling. :rolleyes:
 
dekruyter said:
I just got done installing Vista 64-bit oem on a newer build.

My experiences off the bat are:

- I turned off UAC; sorry, while I'm tweeking, I don't need all the prompts
- The Creative Soundblaster X-Fi drivers were my main problem, and they are absolute junk. No music, just loud, loud static, from a $150 3-month old card. The card has been pulled and I'm running Vista audio drivers on the P5K Deluxe, not Soundmax either.

M
Click to expand...

Did you try the new x-fi drivers that came out recently? Check some threads in the Computer Audio forum. I just installed my Vista 64 last night, haven't gotten around to installing the x-fi drivers yet.
 
Yes; no Love!

I gave up and am using the wonderful onboard audio on p5k deluxe.
 
Finn said:
All of you who bought the OEM version of Vista will not feel so smart when you'll have to swap a major component in your computer and will be denied reactivation.

Starting from weird network related problems such as not being able to rename files/folders despite full rights...


Vista brings nothing worthwhile.
Click to expand...


I have had the folder renaming problem.....it's quite odd and random even....but I disagree that Vista is "worthless"....the same things were said about XP when it first came out, same as Win2k was also....things evolve and get better, and Vista will indeed, get better. Right now, if you have good hardware and some savvy, Vista is pretty good.
 
TheRapture said:
I have had the folder renaming problem.....it's quite odd and random even....but I disagree that Vista is "worthless"....the same things were said about XP when it first came out, same as Win2k was also....things evolve and get better, and Vista will indeed, get better. Right now, if you have good hardware and some savvy, Vista is pretty good.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the file/folder rename problem can often be fixed with a simple registry fix (KB934160)

Doesn't help much with a computer illiterate client on the other side of the phone though.

"What is registry editor?"
"All right, Sir. Let's take an another approach.."
:rolleyes:
 
TheRapture said:
I have had the folder renaming problem.....it's quite odd and random even....but I disagree that Vista is "worthless"....the same things were said about XP when it first came out, same as Win2k was also....things evolve and get better, and Vista will indeed, get better. Right now, if you have good hardware and some savvy, Vista is pretty good.
Click to expand...

You might just need to take ownership of the folder - check out my youtube video on taking ownership of files owned by users that are not part of your current Vista installation.
 
calebb said:
You might just need to take ownership of the folder - check out my youtube video on taking ownership of files owned by users that are not part of your current Vista installation.
Click to expand...


No, I am familiar with that....I can actually make a folder and assign it a name, using my Vista admin logon....then get denied the ability to rename it or even delete it an hour later under the same log in. I does not happen often....seems random.

I'll try the KB hot fix....
 
calebb said:
You might just need to take ownership of the folder - check out my youtube video on taking ownership of files owned by users that are not part of your current Vista installation.
Click to expand...


What video, and where?
 
I came across this article, titled:
The keys to locking down Windows Vista User Account Control

Some may find it interesting. Registration (free) may be required to access that link; I'm not sure. I can copy and paste it (sans pictures) if someone wants to read it but can't access that link.
 
No problems to report. Not one single BSOD.

My biggest concern with Vista is the "display nvlddmkm failed and was successfully restored" problem with Nvidia 8800 cards. I have several friends running Vista 32 that are just giving up and going back to XP because of this.

There's literally thousands of posts on this around the net and no solution.

I don't know why it's not happening to me, but I'm worried it could start at any time.

The nvlddmkm problem is doing huge damage to the credibility of both Microsoft and Nvidia and the fact that there's still no fix or even any explanation for what's causing the problem after 5 months has many convinced it's a that it could be the result of some fundmental flaw in Vista that is basically unfixable.
 
beowulf7 said:
At least Finn gave some examples to support his claim. But Sabrewulf165 has done nothing except resort to name calling. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You pointing that out is an invaluable contribution to this thread to be sure. I suppose I can assume that if it wasn't he who reported my post, then probably you.

If you people want my real opinion it's this: If you're messing with a brand new MS OS that's got a lot of large changes to it from the previous version, you better know what you're doing. If you can't figure it out or find a work-around, then don't come in here crying about it. Failing at Vista because you're too much of a noob and then saying you'll switch to Linux in the same breath is a laughable claim. I doubt that MS spent millions of dollars to create "junk" and "trouble." If you ask me, 90% of the people blindly griping about Vista are either having PEBKAC errors or are just parroting what they heard from someone else. The other 10% probably have legitimate issues related to sub-standard drivers currently being provided by nVidia and Creative (though for the record, I've personally had very little if any trouble with either)

^^^please note that I am generalizing here based on the majority of the Vista complaints I've read, not picking on anyone specific.

There now, Mr. Beowulf7. Does that make your day now that I've paraphrased what I would have originally said? No? Gee, guess you shouldn't have wasted the bandwidth to post your irrelevant objections, then.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
You pointing that out is an invaluable contribution to this thread to be sure. I suppose I can assume that if it wasn't he who reported my post, then probably you.

If you people want my real opinion it's this: If you're messing with a brand new MS OS that's got a lot of large changes to it from the previous version, you better know what you're doing. If you can't figure it out or find a work-around, then don't come in here crying about it. Failing at Vista because you're too much of a noob and then saying you'll switch to Linux in the same breath is a laughable claim. I doubt that MS spent millions of dollars to create "junk" and "trouble." If you ask me, 90% of the people blindly griping about Vista are either having PEBKAC errors or are just parroting what they heard from someone else. The other 10% probably have legitimate issues related to sub-standard drivers currently being provided by nVidia and Creative (though for the record, I've personally had very little if any trouble with either)

^^^please note that I am generalizing here based on the majority of the Vista complaints I've read, not picking on anyone specific.

There now, Mr. Beowulf7. Does that make your day now that I've paraphrased what I would have originally said? No? Gee, guess you shouldn't have wasted the bandwidth to post your irrelevant objections, then.
Click to expand...

What do you mean I probably reported your post? :confused:
 
Finn said:
All of you who bought the OEM version of Vista will not feel so smart when you'll have to swap a major component in your computer and will be denied reactivation. They'll just tell you to 'contact the OEM fabricator' when your license stops working. Self shafted.. :D
Click to expand...
Oh! You spreading that sorta stuff in yet another thread?

Tha'n is absolutely ridiculous. People who purchase OEM Vista are, legitimately in the eyes of Microsoft, the 'OEM fabricator'. They won't be told to contact anybody at all!

Not because of any debate, confusion or discussion about who the 'OEM fabricator' involved is, either. Because activation isn't the responsibility of the OEM fabricator in the forst place. The only way reactivation following hardware changes differs between retail and OEM is that, if an OEM user is dopey enough to say "Oh, I upgraded the motherboard so I could use a more modern one!" then he or she will most likely be told "You just ain't allowed to do that!" That's the ONLY conceivable circumstance in which reactivation would possibly be denied!
 
TheRapture said:
No, I am familiar with that....I can actually make a folder and assign it a name, using my Vista admin logon....then get denied the ability to rename it or even delete it an hour later under the same log in. I does not happen often....seems random.

I'll try the KB hot fix....
Click to expand...

Go to VistaX64.com for this and more tutorials and fixes; there are a few ".reg" fixes available.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
You pointing that out is an invaluable contribution to this thread to be sure. I suppose I can assume that if it wasn't he who reported my post, then probably you.

If you people want my real opinion it's this: If you're messing with a brand new MS OS that's got a lot of large changes to it from the previous version, you better know what you're doing. If you can't figure it out or find a work-around, then don't come in here crying about it. Failing at Vista because you're too much of a noob and then saying you'll switch to Linux in the same breath is a laughable claim. I doubt that MS spent millions of dollars to create "junk" and "trouble." If you ask me, 90% of the people blindly griping about Vista are either having PEBKAC errors or are just parroting what they heard from someone else. The other 10% probably have legitimate issues related to sub-standard drivers currently being provided by nVidia and Creative (though for the record, I've personally had very little if any trouble with either)

^^^please note that I am generalizing here based on the majority of the Vista complaints I've read, not picking on anyone specific.

There now, Mr. Beowulf7. Does that make your day now that I've paraphrased what I would have originally said? No? Gee, guess you shouldn't have wasted the bandwidth to post your irrelevant objections, then.
Click to expand...

You got that right; nice job!
 
[The following is an article from ZDNet.]

June 22nd, 2007
Even Softies get the Vista installation blues
Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 7:18 am

This is one for all of you readers who’ve had trouble installing Windows Vista. Don’t feel bad. Even some Microsoft developers — who have the Vista team on premise — can’t manage to upgrade to Vista.

Microsoft developer Andy Pennell wanted to install Vista at home. (Pennell is a developer on HDi, the interactivity layer for HD DVD.)

He bought a copy of Vista Ultimate. And then all hell broke loose — as he blogged this week in a post entitled “Installing Vista: My Personal Hell.” Trouble started for Pennell early, when he tried to get the media out of the new, curved Vista packaging:

“I was seriously considering a trip to the garage and to smash the box open with a hammer, when I discovered another transparent sticker that was holding two parts together. With that gone, the box moved a few more millimeters, until I realised the thing opens sideways, and boom: Vista was opened. I’ve installed entire operating systems more quickly and with less stress than opening this box…”

From there, things only got worse:

“Short story: installing Vista for me was a catalog of problems, some mine and some not. … (Things) went downhill to include weekend-long unsuccessful installs, bricking my PC, and exercising my Dell warranty to get a replacement motherboard, hard-drive and secondary hard-drive. And after all that, guess what: I still haven’t installed it.”

Pennell’s conclusions:

* “Vista cannot install to Dynamic discs (which is the default when you add a new drive to XP): switch them to Basic before attempting a Vista install

* “Only update your BIOS if you have good warranty cover on the motherboard, or are feeling lucky

* “Unplug memory card readers before installing

* “Dell’s warranty and support organization rock

* “My particular hardware cannot install Vista, and no-one knows why.”

Bring on Windows Seven!
 
I can understand why some want to downgrade from Vista to XP

Last week my ZDNet blogging colleague Mary Jo Foley reported that Microsoft is to make it easier for some Vista users (specifically those using Windows Vista Ultimate and Vista Business) to roll back to Windows XP until they are ready to make the move. This is a good move for everyone, except Microsoft.

Personally, I can understand why users who jumped onto the Vista train might want to get off. Even if you buy (or build) a PC specifically with Vista in mind, you can still end up with some nasty headaches when you try to slot a Vista PC into your hardware/software ecosystem. Here’s what I wrote about that just a few days ago:

...
Click to expand...
 
Catweazle said:
Oh! You spreading that sorta stuff in yet another thread?

Tha'n is absolutely ridiculous. People who purchase OEM Vista are, legitimately in the eyes of Microsoft, the 'OEM fabricator'. They won't be told to contact anybody at all!

Not because of any debate, confusion or discussion about who the 'OEM fabricator' involved is, either. Because activation isn't the responsibility of the OEM fabricator in the forst place. The only way reactivation following hardware changes differs between retail and OEM is that, if an OEM user is dopey enough to say "Oh, I upgraded the motherboard so I could use a more modern one!" then he or she will most likely be told "You just ain't allowed to do that!" That's the ONLY conceivable circumstance in which reactivation would possibly be denied!
Click to expand...

So in essence you're giving advice on people how to pirate their OEM licenses? It's illegal to give MS support false and misleading information in order to get the license activated.

You're breaking the forum rules dude. :rolleyes:
 
Oh shit! Thanks for that, beowulf7. "Hardware/software ecosystem" made me near piss myself laughing!

Fair dinkum, the bloke's a goose!

Of course there's reason for some people to downgrade. People need to downgrade if they've undertaken the upgrade before they are ready to implement it. Simple as that. If people rely upon unsupported hardware or software, or haven't undertaken adequate training to become competent in the altered environment, then the time for upgrading isn't yet "right" for them.

But the rest of that article is simply self-centred crud. The bloke hasn't found anything in Vista to hook him on it, and he's so bloody self-centred that he assumes everybody will feel the same way. They don't. Lots of people wouldn't want to go back even if they were paid to!

Finn said:
So in essence you're giving advice on people how to pirate their OEM licenses? It's illegal to give MS support false and misleading information in order to get the license activated.

You're breaking the forum rules dude.
Click to expand...
My comments didn't "advise" anybody to choose any option in preference to any other. They simply reported accurate truths. Upgrading a motherboard isn't a legitimate practice with an OEM license, and if people call and say that's what they've done they'll quite conceivably be denied activation, despite all the talk about being "more responsive to owner/builder needs". It's tolerated if the owner/builder needs to replace a non-functioning motherboard. But upgrading to new technology (ie a new system) was never covered by the intent of any comments made by Microsoft.

I tell it like it is. If that's breaking forum rules then I've a lot of company :)
 
Catweazle said:
But upgrading to new technology (ie a new system) was never covered by the intent of any comments made by Microsoft.

I tell it like it is. If that's breaking forum rules then I've a lot of company :)
Click to expand...

Yep many people do the same and one must wonder how this is tolerated by the admins who take instant measures against other advice on piracy.

Upgrading the motherboard and giving misleading information to the personnell has no difference from downloading a copy and using an illegal key. Both are just as much against the license rules.
 
To be quite frank I think purchasing OEM as a cost-cutting measure is just plain retarded, if there's gonna be a need to shift the license to a new machine at some stage. You're always looking over your shoulder if you go that route.

For me it's retail upgrade for the business box, and the non-commercial-use-only 'retail academic upgrade' on personal use machines.
 
[This is an article I recently read. I'm copying and pasting it below.]

6 Months After Launch, a Mixed Report for Windows Vista
Source: China Daily; North American ed.
Publication date: 2007-07-16
Arrival time: 2007-07-15

Chris Pirillo leaned away from his webcam and pointed to his printer/scanner/fax machine, which stopped scanning and faxing after he installed Microsoft's new Windows Vista operating system.

"I can't live in Vista if the software that I use in my life for productivity does not work," said Pirillo, in the third minute of a 52-minute video he posted on YouTube.

Nearly six months after it launched, gripes over what doesn't work with Vista continue, eclipsing positive buzz over the program's improved desktop search, graphics and security.

With Vista now shipping on most new computers, it's all but guaranteed to become the world's dominant PC operating system - eventually. For now, some users are either learning to live with workarounds or sticking with Vista's predecessor, Windows XP.

Pirillo is geekier than the average user. He runs a network of technology blogs called Lockergnome, and was one of several "Windows enthusiasts" Microsoft asked for Vista feedback early on.

Still, Vista tested even Pirillo's savvy. He fixed the hobbled printer and other problems by installing VMware, a program that lets him run XP within Vista. But when his trial copy expired, he decided the solution was too clunky - and too expensive.

He "upgraded," as he called it, back to XP.

Users' early complaints aren't a threat to Microsoft's dominance in operating systems. Various flavors of Windows run 93 percent of PCs worldwide. Last fiscal year, Windows accounted for about a third of Microsoft's total revenue of $44.3 billion.

Industry analysts say Vista adoption is plodding along, with most consumers and businesses switching over as they replace old hardware with new. IDC analyst Al Gillen said he expects Vista will be installed on the vast majority of computers in about five years, the time it took for XP to reach 84 percent of PCs.

It's too early for industry watchers to know exactly how many people are using Vista. At the same time, it's hard to gauge Vista's success by comparing it to XP, because the PC market has grown tremendously in the last six years.

In early May, Microsoft said it had distributed 40 million copies of Vista, which costs $199 to $399 depending on the version. But it did not specify the number actually sold through to consumers, versus those shipped to computer makers like Dell.

Microsoft would not say how many customers had installed the new system, but Forrester Research analyst J.P. Gownder estimated just over 12 million US consumers would have Vista by the end of the year, out of about 235 million PCs in the US.

Agencies

(c) 2007 China Daily; North American ed.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Publication date: 2007-07-16
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top