The Top 5 Reasons Why Vista Failed

[bonsai]

Sure, steam updates everything automatically, but you can turn it off if you want.

You can turn it off in Ubuntu too.

It's wonderful never having to go out and search for updates. A new version of Pidgin released? Guess what? Click one button and Ubuntu will download and install it for you, you never even have to open a browser. That sort of power is forward thinking.

 

[Monkey God]

If you say so. I guess I dont care because I dont see the windows model being especially broken.

 

[dj_taboo]

They didn't list UAC on there?

 

[Monkey God]

They didn't list UAC on there?

No, apparently the reason I wanted to bash my skull in with a ballpeen hammer from frustration was because of Apple ads, not the abomination known as UAC

 

[kllrnohj]

I dont want my OS to update everything installed. Windows update its own code base if I tell it too (via configing windows update) and my apps dont update unless I want them too. Why would I want my apps updating without my say so? Sure, steam updates everything automatically, but you can turn it off if you want.

Lets not muddy the waters with linux UBER ALLES if we can please.

The default is actually to just tell you there are updates, with checkboxes to unselect ones if you don't want those updates to be installed.

Who cares if dependencies have nothing to do with Linux itself. It doesn't negate the fact that a lot of software require other software to run. It's semantics. I never said Windows didn't have dependencies, but rather I was saying bonsai was full of it comparing Linux to Windows using this argument. All operating systems have dependency requirements. All software do too. Otherwise, what would be the point of having an operating system if you could just turn on your computer and use software without ever seeing Windows or Linux or MacOS?

No no no, I mean dependency resolving is the problem of a DISTRO. Different distros handle it differently. That is all I was trying to point out

 

[Drudenhaus]

The majority of folks don't even use SLI, so realistically, we'd still be on 2000 if it wasn't for microsoft pushing products and tech.

Damn straight! I use Win2K as my Windows VMware session at work.

I'm personally looking forward to the next generation, as I'm a technophile, I enjoy new stuff and to play around with it (bleeding edge syndrome i guess).

Same here, just not with Windows. I upgrade everything on my Gentoo system as soon as it hits portage and often times I unmask unstable builds. Personally, I'm more interested in playing games and watching movies in Windows than experimenting with new UI or security features (or having to use Alchemy to get EAX effects in games).

I remembered how arguments started as to why people should continue to use 2000 instead of XP because of the very same arguments that Vista is spurring right now.

You are right, history does repeat itself I'm now waiting for the next generation to come out and we should reference this thread

lol I was thinking the same thing. Granted though, there are huge differences between 2000 => XP and XP => Vista (DirectSound for example )

On a site note, 3ware finally has non-betas drivers for Vista (with the 9.5.1 release) so I could have the option to actually use Vista. If I did feel the need to go 64 bit, I'd probably go with Vista instead of XP x64.

 

[Atl530i]

BS. Mac campaign had nothing to do with it. IT knows why they don't use Macs, and it's not because of marketing.

If I put vista on my company computers, there would be a revolt. They bitch about the speed of the machine as it is, and our standard box is very current and very fast. They'd fire me if I made them 20% slower.

I'm sure like most other companies, we will need to move to a 64 bit OS soon. And when we do, we will go to Vista 64. Because if we're going to 64 bit anyway, we might as well change OSs while we're at it.

The #1 reason should have been:
XP Works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

QFT. I found the Mac commercials to be really funny and stupid at the same time. Each platform has its purpose. Realistically, the Mac platform is not that much different then the PC platform now besides the OS. They both run Intel chips so what is the big deal anyway. I've seen people that have installed Vista on a Mac and OS X on a PC, who cares? I think Apple is confused, am I a Mac or a PC?? I don't know....

So? XP was slower than 2000. 2000 was slower than 98. 98 was slower than 95.. see where I'm going?

XP was designed to work on new computers over 5 years ago.

I do agree with this to an extent. When I upgraded from 98 to 2000 I did notice my boot times were a little longer but that was it. After that extra 5 seconds it worked perfectly and was not that slow at all. When I upgraded to XP, it wasn't that much slower at all.

I love Vista 64bit on my desktop at home and would love for it to have the same run that xp got

I also think they need to stop selling laptops with vista and 1GB of ram, that hurts its image more than broadening its base.

I have Vista 64 installed as well. The main reason being is so I could have more then 3GB of RAM and that's it. I do a lot of Photoshop work so it helps. I did not upgrade because it was the newest OS or it looked cool. I actually disabled a lot of the crap that I did not need in Vista. It runs fine now.

As for new computers coming with 1GB RAM with Vista, I think those machines are value machines and come with Vista Basic with does not have the Aero interface. So it should run okay, but not as fast. Nonetheless, you are right. Last night while I was at Wally world looking around, I came across a new E-machines (yeah I know...) that was brand new that STILL had XP Home SP2 on it. It had a Celeron 440 chip and a gig of ram. Some companies are still offering what is left of their XP stock which is a good thing for sub-$400 machines.

My top 5 reasons:

5) Vista project had bad rep because it was delayed and changed and restarted so much.

4) XP was not atrocious like 3.1/95/98 so people's expectations were different for Vista.

3) People's perception of software compatibility.

2) You need a new computer, you are not upgrading to Vista, this upsets people who must have the newest OS for whatever reason.

1) People don't like change. (from something that's already good)

Your first reason makes a lot of sense. People do not like change when it comes to a lot of things.

Ding ding ding. I went from 98 to 2000 for stability. 2000 to XP for SLI support and better multimedia support. XP to...still on XP. Why? No reason to waste my time reinstalling just yet. I'm not going to nuke my current, working XP install to upgrade for the hell of it--I need a reason to do that. Maybe in the future I'll think that DX10 is worth it, but not right now.

I agree with your comments. I upgraded to Vista X64 because XP 64 has crappy support. My reasons were for more RAM. DX10 was just a bonus as I do not game that much anyway.

vlite FTW

I used that program to integrate the Intel RAID drivers into the install because Vista doesn't have those drivers already as far as I know. It worked fine for me, but others have had issues I guess.........

When Vista was first released, I gave it a try. I reformatted and reinstalled XP back on my main computer that day. It was a horrible experience, nothing worked right and Vista never really ran right. My computer of the time was fairly new as well. It was a Pentium D with 2GB RAM.

I bought a new laptop in July 2008 that had Vista Home Premium x86 SP1 installed on it and gave it a try. I am quite happy with it because I decided to leave Vista on the laptop. My initial intentions were to reformat and install XP on the laptop even before I picked a new laptop. The boot times are a little longer then with my older XP laptop but I do not care, it works perfectly fine. On my main computer, I have Vista Ultimate x64 installed because I liked the way Vista worked on my laptop. I wanted more RAM so Photoshop would run more effectively because of images that had a ton of layers. I still have XP installed on my 2.4a P4 simply because XP runs perfectly fine on there and Vista will not.

XP still has its place as does Vista. I think Microsoft waited to long to release Vista. Before Vista, MS was coming out with a new OS every 2-3 years anyway.

 

[HardDrugsUser]

when vista fanboys attack!

 

[jynxycat]

Their #1 reason is hilarious.

"One of the big reasons that Windows XP caught on was because it had the hardware, software, and driver compatibility of the Windows 9x line plus the stability and industrial strength of the Windows NT line. "


Ha. XP hardware driver support in the early days was awful.

 

[JimmiG]

5. Apple successfully demonized Vista

I agree 100% with that one. Why did Microsoft just sit there doing nothing for two years while the ads got more and more absurd and detached from reality?

4. Windows XP is too entrenched

Agreed. There are a LOT of XP PC's out there so people feel comfortable using it. PC = XP for most users. To most, Vista is just this new, fancy Windows version, that is also a bit scary and too different.

3. Vista is too slow

This might have been true in 2006, but on a modern system Vista is actually faster. It boots faster, Superfetch makes programs start faster on systems with more than 2GB of RAM, and there are more self-tuning features that keep the system running smoothly year after year. The intelligent automatic defragmentation that gets enabled by default is a huge improvement for people who use the same installation for years, but don't have a clue how to defrag a drive. The only time Vista is too slow and bloated is if you try to install it on a netbook or other "mini-PC", or on your 5 years old Compaq with 512MB of RAM. Also from 40 million lines to 50 million lines isn't a big increase at all. I thought Vista was several times bigger than XP...

2. There wasn’t supposed to be a Vista

Disagree. Those subsciption plans didn't get very far and most people were completely unaware of them. Microsoft assured its users that product activation wasn't going to be turned into a subscription service, it was just there to prevent piracy. None of this would affect Vista sales anyway.

1. It broke too much stuff

It broke my webcam from 2005, but that's Logitech's fault for not providing adequate support for their products. They lost me as a customer. All other peripherals and all software works great. UAC can prevent rootkits and similar from getting installed, provided you actually read the prompts before clicking Allow. If you *really* can't stand UAC, it can be disabled easily from the control panel so I don't see what the big deal is. Again, with modern hardware, Vista is actually more compatible than XP. There are almost always drivers available either in Windows itself or when you allow it to automatically search for drivers online, meaning you don't have to go to e.g. the website of the printer manufacturer and try to hunt down the correct driver for your OS/language/printer model.

 

[bfellow]

It broke too much stuff and firmly entrenched thats why we have 5 out of 30,000 machines that have Vista.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I Predict that People are going to be sorely Dissapointed when "Windows 7" Comes out... From the builds I have looked at, It looks Amazingly like Windows Vista with New features....

Yet there are many people on here that bitch and moan the Windows Vista is too much eye candy. You want it to look better, while others want the next to look the same or worse... People complain that Vista is more eye candy and less features than expected. And you are saying there are more features than visual updates, and that's bad...

I think XP has been out a long time, has a good hold on the market, it WORKS GREAT, and will run on pretty much any hardware from the past 10 years. Upgrade to Vista, and it can be a huge upgrade (RAM, CPU, motherboard, hard drive). If you are going with a new PC, then Vista is great. If you are upgrading an older machine, you gain a lot less.

I do see people upgrading to 64 bit, and Vista 64 bit is the best MS OS for that role. XP 64 bit just isn't very polished.

But, XP works, and works well. It saturated the market, and so many users see no reason to upgrade. Vista is a great OS, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have enough features to totally redo every computer in your organization or even your home. If all your programs work fast with XP, why change?

 

[Ur_Mom]

And the Apple ads were BS. Mac's are PC's. The same as a PC running Linux, BSD or Amiga OS. It's still a PC. The OS doesn't matter. A PC=Personal Computer. The Apple ads are targeted towards the uneducated folk... Apple people (even the so called "guru's") think that they are of a higher breed, more educated, artsy-fartsy etc... Yet, their beloved companies ads are incorrect, stereotypical, and just ... HUH!?

So, I don't see the Apple ads making much of a difference. I've got a friend that loves Apple PC's (Ha! See what I did there?!), and she likes Vista, but she's just so used to the MacOS, she doesn't want to switch. She doesn't want to learn a new OS. Personally, I'm a complete idiot when it comes to AS/400 machines. I'd be like an old man the first time he touches a XP machine. So, a lot of it is that they don't like change. They know XP, they don't want to learn something new. The new OS needs to have consistency with the other versions, while offering a lot of new features.

BTW: The MacOS is a great OS (BSD based, correct?), but all of my work is done on a Windows based PC. My games, apps, etc. are all on Windows. And the MacOS offers me nothing over a good Windows installation. So, why switch? There is no reason to give up what works. I'd be spending money on something that did the same thing. But, the MacOS is a great OS, so I'm not bashing that! As well as Linux based OS's. Nice, fun to play with, but they don't offer anything that I can't do with Windows (except for cost!). I run a Linux PC, as well (Debian).

I wouldn't mind running MacOS in a VM, though.

 

[TechBoy]

Vista is my favorite OS I have ever used from Microsoft. It's the most stable one for me at least. Also It has one of the most features they ever released along with better security by far.

But #4 four shore!

 

[NKDietrich]

Their #1 reason is hilarious.

"One of the big reasons that Windows XP caught on was because it had the hardware, software, and driver compatibility of the Windows 9x line plus the stability and industrial strength of the Windows NT line. "


Ha. XP hardware driver support in the early days was awful.

Yeah... that part made me laugh hard. How can we trust an article written by some idiot who didn't even own a computer in 2001.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

2001: XP is slow, bloated, and takes a top of the line computer to run. I'll stick with 98.
2007: Vista is slow, bloated, and takes a top of the line computer to run. I'll stick with XP

 

[mufcfan]

I really can't understand those who whine about UAC.

When someone compares windows with linux then he/she says that linux is secure as hell and its easier to use. But when the bashers talk about vista only they say that UAC is crap and vista is hard to use with it. Yet it's nearly (if not fully) the same prompt thats in linux with the exception that you only have to click a single a button and entering the password is not compulsory in every config. But it's sooo hard to click that damn button.

BTW: November 27, 2007 5:13 AM PST Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test
I wouldn't link to a 10 month old performance benchmark.
Well, get a machine with 2GB ram and a proper HDD and you will write the opposite this year.

I use vista ultimate x64 and the only thing that won't run is sony vegas (even with vista patch). My hardware wasn't among the fastest even at their release. You don't need expensieve hardware to get vista to run properly.

I've got 5 tips for people with problems:
1. Get as much memory as you can. I use 4GB Kingmax DDR2-800 and its totally enough.
2. Get a CPU with at least 2 cores. I use a C2D E4400 without problems.
3. Get a DX10 videocard. I've got a 8600GTS, the choice should depend on gaming and resolution needs.
4. Run every setup in admin mode, most of them will run in admin mode by default, but better be sure.
5. Get a RAID setup. I use 2x500GB Seagate (32MB cache) drives and I have no winchester problems.

PS.: 6. Don't use Creative's hardware, it won't work properly or won't work at all.

 

[HardDrugsUser]

2001: XP is slow, bloated, and takes a top of the line computer to run. I'll stick with 98.
2007: Vista is slow, bloated, and takes a top of the line computer to run. I'll stick with XP

In my case it is:
2002: Windows 2003 Server
2008: Windows 2008 Server

Windows 2008 Server sucks much less than Vista, but still it is TERRIBLE!!!

 

[ICOM]

Maybe it's because people really don't give a shyt about operating systems anymore. All I care about are the applications (games) that run on the OS.

I wish MS would release an OS specifically for enthusiasts/gamers. Give me a stripped down 64bit OS that's free of all crap like Aero, IE, Media Player and other sprinkles and shyt that I don't want or will ever use. Now, sell it to me for <$100 and let ME decide which "new features" I want to download, purchase and install instead of making me pay for garbage that I could care less about.

 

[kllrnohj]

I really can't understand those who whine about UAC.

When someone compares windows with linux then he/she says that linux is secure as hell and its easier to use. But when the bashers talk about vista only they say that UAC is crap and vista is hard to use with it. Yet it's nearly (if not fully) the same prompt thats in linux with the exception that you only have to click a single a button and entering the password is not compulsory in every config. But it's sooo hard to click that damn button.

That comparison doesn't really work. Linux has been built from the ground up for users to run with lower privileges. The only time I ever get asked in Linux to run as root is to install and update programs, that is it. UAC, on the other hand, is an annoyance. Too many Windows programs don't follow the design guidelines, and place user settings and such in the install directory (meaning a UAC prompt). Hell, changing settings in the control panel causes a handful of UAC prompts. Some Linux config programs (such as user management) also start in a limited state, so you can check your information and look at statuses of things, but if you want to edit them then you have to enter your password.

Even just trying to run a program that I downloaded requires hitting "Yes" or "Shut the hell up and do it already" to about 10 dialog boxes. Linux will just do what I asked it to and run the thing without prompting me and asking me if I really want to do what I just said I wanted to do.

In short, UAC can go fuck off and die. It is way to much of a hack on top of an architecture that just wasn't designed for limited privilege users.

 

[kllrnohj]

I wish MS would release an OS specifically for enthusiasts/gamers. Give me a stripped down 64bit OS that's free of all crap like Aero, IE, Media Player and other sprinkles and shyt that I don't want or will ever use. Now, sell it to me for <$100 and let ME decide which "new features" I want to download, purchase and install instead of making me pay for garbage that I could care less about.

So you want Vista Basic EU edition?

 

[Joe Average]

Vista failed? Funny, 'cause when I visit retail stores all I see is Vista installed on everything, so Microsoft made mad cash in the process of getting it everywhere.

What exactly defines "failure" anyway...

As for the common UAC bitching and moaning, nothing new to see here, move on. The ignorant folk will forever bitch and moan about it and never once acknowledge it's at least a step in the somewhat-right direction for Windows. If you want *nix like security, run a *nix derivative OS, simple.

Of course, that'll put you smack dab in the sub-minority but whatever... enjoy living in the closet. Hope the light given off by your monitors is enough to live on while you continue to reside in the darkness...

 

[Joe Average]

So you want Vista Basic EU edition?

Sounds like that person wants a Vbox 360...

 

[HardDrugsUser]

Maybe it's because people really don't give a shyt about operating systems anymore. All I care about are the applications (games) that run on the OS.

I wish MS would release an OS specifically for enthusiasts/gamers. Give me a stripped down 64bit OS that's free of all crap like Aero, IE, Media Player and other sprinkles and shyt that I don't want or will ever use. Now, sell it to me for <$100 and let ME decide which "new features" I want to download, purchase and install instead of making me pay for garbage that I could care less about.

It's not enough, they have to recode from scratch many core components.
For example explorer.exe should by rewritten...
The users are not aware of this but windows components often crush behind the scenes and restart themselves pretending nothing happened.
There is a bug in explorer.exe that I track since win2000... it is still present in Vista/Server2008

 

[nilepez]

This is a great article, if you throw out facts and reason.

Here are a few facts for those interested:

• Business is adopting Vista at a faster rate than XP
• Consumers are adopting Vista at a faster rate than XP
• XP was only on 42% of Corp Desktops in 2004
• XP was on 48% of desktops in 2005
• Windows 2000 was pulled from the market in 2004
• XP had driver issues when it came out.

Ed Bott has pointed out before that some of the writers now bitching about Vista and how it's destined for failure, while singing XP's praises, made the same arguments about XP in 2002.

There's virtually nothing useful in that bloggers post.

 

[Lamont]

I just installed Vista Ultimate 64 this weekend, and so far it's great. It had it's problems with software that wasn't a problem because there was an update for everything that I use. All of my hardware works (I haven't installed UT2007 yet).

 

[BBA]

Only problem I have with Vista is compatibility. But then again that has to do more with having 64-bit OS and trying to run 32-bit programs on it.

I have disabled UAC not because of the prompts, but because it hinders programs from saving stuff. For example, I configured Quake but I didn't do it it admin mode, so it didn't actually save my configuration anywhere when I asked it to.
Now I'm going to have to do it all again (this time in admin mode)

I agree 100%.

While the changes do increase online security, the hassle all the prompts give to the average consumer and especially to the average gamer is just too much and become ineffective because people tend to automatically click the 'allow' button no matter what.

The whole reason for vista was improved security, a response to the market criticism of vulnerabilities and the bad reputation that went with it insecure systems. Funny that now the IT community is revolting against Vista for just the opposite reasons.

I think Windows 7 will be a big hit as the third party compatibility will have advanced enough to make it's vista base code tolerable. Kind of a revisit to Windows 2000 vs Windows XP back in the day...

 

[Mav451]

I think Windows 7 will be a big hit as the third party compatibility will have advanced enough to make it's vista base code tolerable. Kind of a revisit to Windows 2000 vs Windows XP back in the day...

This is my hope exactly. My PC is in the basement, and my router is on the 2nd floor - i'm not about to switch to b/c of the two-fold driver pwnage:

1) Signed drivers
2) 64-bit drivers.

That double whammy eliminated any chance of using my WLAN adapter from 2005. Since an OS without Internet is useless, x64 is useless.

By the time 7 is out, I'll have settled on a solid N adapter, so my complaint will be moot. Patience is the key here.

 

[Mav451]

*ethernet (100'+, through doors, open floor, and up two sets of stairs)

- I left that word out haha.

 

[hyt3k9]

I don't agree with any of the stuff in that article. IMO Vista wasn't everything it COULD have been based on one major missing component...

Marketing.

Microsoft didn't drive home the "new" and "flashy" OS, with jazzy commercials, magazine ads, etc.. they left the public to figure out their own perception of their product. Unfortunately, it became the popular thing to be a "Vista basher"

Most people I talk to, that have a negative perception on Vista either 1) don't even own a computer with Vista on it, or 2) just jumping on the bandwagon, because someone they know is bashing it for <insert dumb reason here>

Bottom line, it required a graphics card... and all the pussies out there that had inferior systems couldn't run it, and instead of just buying a new box and sucking it up.. they would rather cry and whine about it to the masses.

Bring on Windows 7.. let's just move on. I use Vista, and like it very much. I have never had a horror story from it, with incompatibility since I pretty much stay on top of the curve of hardware for the most part.

/end rant.

 

[Blazestorm]

Eh, I actually like Vista better than XP now...

And I'll get Windows 7 when it comes out too... doesn't really matter to me...

Got access to the Microsoft Company Store = ridiculously cheap copies of Windows...

 

[uclajd]

Everyone who defends Vista does so on a "why it doesn't suck," or "now it's just as fast as XP" basis. But tell me, why should a person upgrade from the current XP SP3? What is the compelling reason to do so?

Isn't the reality that a new OS release every few years is absolutely necessary to Microsoft having any real chance at growth and therefore the health of its stock? XP is now a great OS, but MS isn't making enough money on the drip drip drip of new PC purchases and makes none on XP patches.

I just can't shake the impression that Microsoft needs you to buy Vista a hell of a lot more than XP users need to buy it.

 

[Atl530i]

I don't agree with any of the stuff in that article. IMO Vista wasn't everything it COULD have been based on one major missing component...

Marketing.

Microsoft didn't drive home the "new" and "flashy" OS, with jazzy commercials, magazine ads, etc.. they left the public to figure out their own perception of their product. Unfortunately, it became the popular thing to be a "Vista basher"

Most people I talk to, that have a negative perception on Vista either 1) don't even own a computer with Vista on it, or 2) just jumping on the bandwagon, because someone they know is bashing it for <insert dumb reason here>

Bottom line, it required a graphics card... and all the pussies out there that had inferior systems couldn't run it, and instead of just buying a new box and sucking it up.. they would rather cry and whine about it to the masses.

Bring on Windows 7.. let's just move on. I use Vista, and like it very much. I have never had a horror story from it, with incompatibility since I pretty much stay on top of the curve of hardware for the most part.

/end rant.

I think most of those who bashed Vista did not even try Vista. These people went off of what other people (or friends/family) said and decided not to like Vista as well. Those other people were probably trying to use Vista on a system that could not handle it anyway. Someone here said that users are running XP (a 7 year-old OS) on pretty new hardware, so it may be a little faster anyway. Those stupid UAC messages could have been turned off, but hell, lets just bitch about it instead. When Vista first came out, I could honestly say that I tried it and did not like it because it really did not work for me at that time. I now use it on my main PC and laptop with no problems, SP1 seemed to have fixed most of the bugs that the original release of Vista had.

 

[Atl530i]

Everyone who defends Vista does so on a "why it doesn't suck," or "now it's just as fast as XP" basis. But tell me, why should a person upgrade from the current XP SP3? What is the compelling reason to do so?

Isn't the reality that a new OS release every few years is absolutely necessary to Microsoft having any real chance at growth and therefore the health of its stock? XP is now a great OS, but MS isn't making enough money on the drip drip drip of new PC purchases and makes none on XP patches.

I just can't shake the impression that Microsoft needs you to buy Vista a hell of a lot more than XP users need to buy it.

My reason is because I wanted more RAM so Vista x64 was in order. I needed more ram for Photoshop and my ridiculous huge music and video libraries. A lot of other people that have Vista x64 probably wanted to use all of the 4GB of RAM they have as well.

 

[uclajd]

Bottom line, it required a graphics card... and all the pussies out there that had inferior systems couldn't run it, and instead of just buying a new box and sucking it up.. they would rather cry and whine about it to the masses.

Tell me why I should run out and buy a new OS that requires a new graphics card purchase - not to mention buying all new Vista-capable applications and doing a complete system re-install, including apps? What is the compelling reason for all of this expense and hassle? To prove my manhood by "Sucking it up?" Because Microsoft decided I needed it? Is it really that much of an improvement in my computing life over XP?

I need actual reasons why (Vista cost @ $XXX + a video card @ $XXX) = or > (Vista goodness-XP goodness). How is Vista worth the expense and hassle of the upgrade?

 

[uclajd]

My reason is because I wanted more RAM so Vista x64 was in order. I needed more ram for Photoshop and my ridiculous huge music and video libraries. A lot of other people that have Vista x64 probably wanted to use all of the 4GB of RAM they have as well.

True, but there is a 64-bit version of XP.

 

[Atl530i]

True, but there is a 64-bit version of XP.

From what I hear it has crappy support as well. Microsoft has links on their WinXP 64 page to Vista 64, so what is the point, lol.

 

[Gorankar]

Everyone who defends Vista does so on a "why it doesn't suck," or "now it's just as fast as XP" basis. But tell me, why should a person upgrade from the current XP SP3? What is the compelling reason to do so?

Isn't the reality that a new OS release every few years is absolutely necessary to Microsoft having any real chance at growth and therefore the health of its stock? XP is now a great OS, but MS isn't making enough money on the drip drip drip of new PC purchases and makes none on XP patches.

I just can't shake the impression that Microsoft needs you to buy Vista a hell of a lot more than XP users need to buy it.

I for one, do not recommend upgrading an existing install of Xp on an older rig to Vista. I do recommend it on any new pc that has 2 gigs of ram or more. With the exception of businesses not ready to migrate or the few people that have must have apps that don't work in Vista, I do not see why not.
If Xp is someone's particular preference then fine, but the amount of FUD still going around that people try to use to justify downgrading or not buying it is ridiculous. You don't need to be a "Vista lover" to see that.

If you are too cheap, or just can't afford to buy a copy of Vista, just say so.
If you prefer Xp over Vista cause you are just more comfortable with Xp, say so.
If you just don't like Vista cause your cousins, sister in laws, nephew says Vista is teh suX0rs, just say so.

No need to invent bullshit reasons for not putting it on a new rig or downgrading your Dell.

 

[Atl530i]

I for one, do not recommend upgrading an existing install of Xp on an older rig to Vista. I do recommend it on any new pc that has 2 gigs of ram or more. With the exception of businesses not ready to migrate or the few people that have must have apps that don't work in Vista, I do not see why not.
If Xp is someone's particular preference then fine, but the amount of FUD still going around that people try to use to justify downgrading or not buying it is ridiculous. You don't need to be a "Vista lover" to see that.

If you are too cheap, or just can't afford to buy a copy of Vista, just say so.
If you prefer Xp over Vista cause you are just more comfortable with Xp, say so.
If you just don't like Vista cause your cousins, sister in laws, nephew says Vista is teh suX0rs, just say so.

No need to invent bullshit reasons for not putting it on a new rig or downgrading your Dell.

That's funny. This thread has really been entertaining for me. The company that I work for still uses XP. Those computers would die if I installed Vista basic on them. Then again those computers still have 256MB RAM, lol. I've been trying to convince my boss to upgrade to at least 512 for a couple years now, lol.

 

[kllrnohj]

True, but there is a 64-bit version of XP.

XP 64-bit was so late to the game that its moot. Vista 64-bit is easily better than XP 64-bit, and XP 64-bit never really built up a user base. It might as well not even exist.

Everyone who defends Vista does so on a "why it doesn't suck," or "now it's just as fast as XP" basis. But tell me, why should a person upgrade from the current XP SP3? What is the compelling reason to do so?

Isn't the reality that a new OS release every few years is absolutely necessary to Microsoft having any real chance at growth and therefore the health of its stock? XP is now a great OS, but MS isn't making enough money on the drip drip drip of new PC purchases and makes none on XP patches.

I just can't shake the impression that Microsoft needs you to buy Vista a hell of a lot more than XP users need to buy it.

Vista has a variety of solid improvements. Security is a big one. Vista is so much more secure than XP is. I also like the new home folder layout, SuperFetch is excellent, there is DX10 (which hasn't really taken off, but its there), driver recovery has been tremendously improved so much so that a driver can crash, vista will reload it and most of the time thats it. Games will still keep running through a driver crash that the only side effect is a screen flicker when it happens. The search in Vista is much improved over XP, the program search in the start menu is pretty good, the new start menu is much better, the games explorer is also pretty cool. And, of course, Vista looks nicer. I spend a large chunk of my day using a computer, so if it is hard on the eyes like XP is, then I'm not going to use it, not when there are far sexier alternatives (Vista, Linux, OS X, all have excellent looking UIs). Running games in windowed mode also takes far less of an FPS hit since the card no longer has to switch between 2d and 3d mode, which I love for my laptop. I also like the sidebar on my laptop with a 1920x1200 display. It provides some good information, email and network status and the likes while taking up a minimal footprint.

That said, I find it is far more of a personal choice whether or not you like the features than anything technical.

If given the choice between Vista and XP, I would go for Vista every single time. I even dropped my XP install from my triple boot once the initial problems with Vista were ironed out. Then again, I'm also not trying to run Vista on a system with less than 2GB of RAM