Vista to be discontinued in 2008?

HiTekJH

n00b
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
24
For those of you that don't listen to the TWIT (This Week In Tech - one of the best there is) podcast, Leo and some others this week are saying Microsoft may be admitting defeat in the next year. Companies are DEMANDING to use XP Pro SP2 over anything Vista as it has been a HUGE nightmare for them. Vista from what is said is going to go down the same path as ME did and that Microsoft may be waiting to announce something next year. While nothing is OFFICIAL, the way they talked it would seem as though Vista may be scrapped entirely in a move to salvage what remains of their little OS reputation for quality.

If you have not heard this podcast this week I would suggest doing so as it has some great stuff in it. I can see Microsoft scrapping it like ME but MUCH sooner and just releasing one service pack and then saying their starting over to save their butts before it gets fully out of hand.

I know from everyone I've talked to, including myself, they can't stand Vista and went back to XP Pro SP2. Everyone knows about all the headaches and issues by now so no need to go over them (which would take 50 pages at least). It will be interesting though in 2008 to see what they do if TWIT is correct.
 
I don't see that happening. Microsoft has spent WAY too much money in the "Wow is now" campaign.

However, along with the "scrapping Vista" comment, Microsoft is already doing it, but not in a way we are used to seeing. Vista was 'scrapped' in favor for Windows Server 2008's design and kernel, which is being brought to Vista in SP1.
 
I don't think so. It is too early to release next operating system, it is too late to pull vista out of market. I think MS will let XP and Vista coexist for a while. May be another extension for XP on the store shelf in late 2008?
 
I dont think they would tbh, they might change alot of things in SP1 but I doubt they'll scrap it within two years.
 
They got it wrong. XP is a legacy OS - that's the one they are discontinuing in June 2008.

btw, Vista rocks - if you've tried it, you'd probably realize it. Check this forum - there's a thread with a couple hundred replies and 80% says they are sticking with Vista!

XP is really really painful to use after you've been using Vista - the performance features are incredible...
 
I'd have to disagree. Vista has terrible performance compared to XP. Yea it has some "wow that looks cool" effects but for ease of use and overall application performance WinXP is superior. I've used both and Vista was worse than any nightmare I've ever had.
 
I'd have to disagree. Vista has terrible performance compared to XP. Yea it has some "wow that looks cool" effects but for ease of use and overall application performance WinXP is superior. I've used both and Vista was worse than any nightmare I've ever had.

In January 2007, the Firing Squad showed that XP with visuals enabled incurred a significant gaming performance hit when compared to XP with visuals disabled. (i.e., rounded corners, show contents while dragging, etc).
On the other hand, Vista showed no penalty for having visuals (Aero) enabled, since the "eye candy" is offloaded to your GPU and completely disabled when you load a game.

Last month, they revisited the topic and found that, unless you're using SLI (immature drivers), you will have better game performance in Vista than in XP for many games.

When it comes to desktop applications, it's a no brainer. Here, I'll click on Photoshop CS2 - boom - less than 1 sec later, it's open and ready to use. How, you say? Superfetch! Windows knows this is an application I frequently use, so it is preloaded into RAM. When I click the icon to launch it, it loads nearly instantaneously. Compare that to 10sec + with the same hardware on a legacy OS like XP.

How about older hardware? Well, I was using an old school Dell P4 / 2.8GHz with Vista until May of last year and I had the same experience.

Sure, there are immature drivers from some hardware vendors... but eye candy is the least of Vista's revolutionary (evolutionary?) features. Yes, other OS's have put together pre-emptive caching solutions, but nobody has put all those features together in an easy-to-use package like Vista.

What about installation? "Press F6 to load RAID drivers" is a thing of the past with Vista's installation. How about out-of-the-box driver support? It's much better than in any previous Microsoft OS.

All I'm saying, is don't just say "performance is horrible" without giving it a fair chance. Superfetch does take a couple weeks to optimize your hard drive to put the frequently used applications at the top of your drive. It takes awhile to learn your usage patterns so it knows which applications to preload into memory.

Cheers,
 
While it does seem a bit extreme that MS would drop Vista soo soon (there has been calls that it would prob be best for MS todo that, but calls *NOT* by MS), the performance hit you get with Vista is astounding

even with top hardware, which some say should then make the difference between XP and Vista go....

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031455266&postcount=382
 
Im not sure I can agree with you eeyrjmr. Sure Vista is a bit jerky the first week or two but after that (when prefetch/superfetch/whateveritscalled has done its thing) Vista is more responsive. At least my setup is. The first few days I was wondering what MS have done but now its almost as responsive as my two Windows Server 2003 setups. Many of the problems with Vista is not, at least not directly, at Microsofts fault. Creative, for example, who make nice products have up until now had really lousy drivers. This did change however with the last update.

Many people still seem to think that a system that makes use of a lot of resources is a bad system but my opinion (and I suppose Microsofts) is that if I have 2gb of ram I should try to use as much of it as possible, not as little. This means that Vista must be more scalable than any other OS and while it isn't, it will hopefully continue to grow as the computers keep to evolve. I believe people said the same thing about XP when it came, remember the 450mhz computers with 128mb ram, 16mb Riva TNT cards and 20gb harddrives? XP would be awfully slow on such a system but look what we have today and guess what we have in a year. Vista, with drivers, will mature and grow. As far as I know, SP1 for Vista will contain a new kernel, much as Dyne says. Perhaps the kernel is such a big change that you could basically see it as a new system.
 
MS will not pull vista...

there reputation will take a bigger hit by pulling it than leaving it on the market...

vista is a good OS and will be the furture.
 
I had to work through about 3 months of bsods before I got vista running stable and I still don't have 5.1 sound on my nf4, which leads me to make the claim its just not ready for the average user.

hahaha, I had to say it, everyone one makes the same argument for linux. But really after the bsods I got it running smooth, there are benefits to it over xp, if you have the machine to run it. I have heard some folks prefer ME over Vista, but I think thats outrageous, and no way do I compare Vista to ME. Vista is not bad the hardware support on it is still lacking, (but I come from a linux background I am accustomed to it) though off topic I don't mind all the doom and gloom vista talk because this might make hardware manufacturers take a look at alternative OS's. If vista works its great but if it isnt I can see why people are getting upset.
 
Sure Vista is a bit jerky the first week or two but after that (when prefetch/superfetch/whateveritscalled has done its thing) Vista is more responsive.
You hit the nail right on the head. Most people who complain that Vista is too slow don't give it a chance to optimize itself. I've seen countless reviews where Vista is loaded from an image, the tests are run, and then a conslusion is made. Even on modest hardware Vista is as responsive or more responsive than XP. There's plenty to debate and discuss about driver compatibility issues, etc. In fact, many "performance issues" can be attributed to drivers, and not the OS itself. The FiringSquad article shows that.
 
I have absolutely no issues with Vista so this is all news to me. I know alot of people have been complaining about Vista, but I just cannot understand. For me Vista has literally been the smoothest best error free experience I have ever had with an OS.
 
The "problem" overall with Vista was not Microsoft and their development. It was the complete lack of interest from 3rd parties and manufacturers. A huge majority of companies didn't start software development for Vista until months AFTER it was released. That is quite sad considering Vista had a huge beta campaign starting almost 2 years before its release that most any vendor could of participated in.

The other issue at hand is that since the problem above has occurred, BUSINESSES can't move to Vista very easily due to lack of support. Most of the people on these forums are Enthusiasts and will stay up late at night tweaking this or that to get Vista to run nicely. IT personnel don't have the time to go around every machine on their network to optimize performance.

Realize this people. Microsoft has been able to provide us with a stable OS that works on a TON of different hardware for over 15 years. You can't even begin to compare it with the MacOS's because they forced their OS to run on THEIR hardware. Oh, and Linux has had all the time in the world to show that it can be a successful OS for the everyday user but nope not until now (2007) is that becoming a reality (I am referring to Ubuntu and it is still shit when it comes to break fix problems).

Another point. Try finding another OS with a large a Knowledge Base as Microsoft's. Microsoft has almost every single thread of information about each individual error somewhere out there in its KB.

If Microsoft just shut down and packed their bags look at the options we would be left with. The EU is ripping Microsoft a new one for the most IDIOTIC reasons I have ever heard of.

You people whining and crying about Vista just need to get a diaper change.

Maybe the release of Vista has been a failure. But Vista itself will come around. It will have to or you guys mind as well start freshening up on your Mac/Linux skills because that is all you will have left.
 
Well I have had Vista Ulitmate on one of my computers now since Feb. and it is slower than my XP machines, which by the wayI have the Vista disks for them just laying around right now. But I am still waiting on more 64bit programs and not these things that load as 32 bit programs. So I wait. I have six XP machines and six Vista OS Disks just waiting and waiting.:rolleyes:

But yes Vista works.
 
No way that's gonna happen...Vista is no ME. I never realized how good Vista was until I went back to XP. Overall my experience with Vista has been great. Quad Core absolutely flies in Vista.
 
Just to make it clear from my ORIGINAL post, one of the replies here is correct in the TWIT podcast this week had a verbal mistake when Leo meant to say XP would be discontinued now in June instead of early next year like they first said NOT Vista. It wasn't until I listed to that portion 3 times that I was sure it was just a verbal mistake and he interchanged the two.

While this thread I'm sure will stir debate, I must say it's good to hear about the different aspects from ALL users regardless of their OS they use.

Personally, I have a high-end PC very capable of running Vista and have indeed tried it myself. I hated the darn thing so much that I can see where, why and how it's being compared to ME. As TWIT pointed out this week, SOME of this is due to the way Microsoft is letting 3rd parties use their OS for installing and integrating with the OS. I thought the same thing Leo did in that Microsoft should be MUCH more controlling with the 3rd parties in terms of how it installs on Vista. A lot of the install issues stem from the 3rd parties NOT taking advantage of Vista and creating LOTS of problems for the end user. Much of this is the CONSTANT barrage of clicking for security to install something. It should be like on Linux and Apple OS, you run in user mode for all use, Admin mode to install stuff and simply input your Admin password once to confirm WITHOUT all the pop-ups.

The other problems stem from the underlying kernal. If you listen to Steve Gibson, he is very knowledgeable on security and is a Windows lover but HATES Vista for the way they have made it a living nightmare for end users with how they use security in Vista. Him, Leo, Chris Perillo (spelling?) have all sent reports to Microsoft and think they need to change the OS quickly next year to save it. They may not scrap it, but a big overhaul at least for how they handle security is almost a must. Maybe SP2 in 2008? I can see Vista as having maybe a 4 year shelf life at most with at least 4 SPs released. Don't think for one second Microsoft doesn't know Vista is a clunker and they are starting over having learned from their Vista mistakes. MANY users with high-end PCs even like myself went back to XP SP2 and are quite happy. Essentially, if you read the technical details, basically Vista is just a much nicer GUI interface and implements security more than XP at a much worse expense to the end user. All the tech guys are saying the same thing, Steve Gibson, Leo, Chris, etc. and I know MANY users and most PC companies such as Dell are telling Microsoft they are using XP no matter what until some of the Vista junk is better next year.
 
Also understand that they've planned and built a server OS from the same kernel. No, they will not be pulling Vista anytime in the near future. As XP was, Vista is a little flakey due to driver and software support. XP was much improved with SP1 and SP2, moreso with SP2.

Some larger companies are requesting XP because they are still in the dev and testing phase with other applications, not because it's a terrible OS. It usually takes 2 years for an OS to gain wide acceptance in the business world, that's just the way it works.

And what I've seen in Windows 2008, it's pretty darn impressive.
 
Also understand that they've planned and built a server OS from the same kernel. No, they will not be pulling Vista anytime in the near future. As XP was, Vista is a little flakey due to driver and software support. XP was much improved with SP1 and SP2, moreso with SP2.

Some larger companies are requesting XP because they are still in the dev and testing phase with other applications, not because it's a terrible OS. It usually takes 2 years for an OS to gain wide acceptance in the business world, that's just the way it works.

And what I've seen in Windows 2008, it's pretty darn impressive.

I'm going to have to fully disagree with you there. Listen to TWIT and some of the other podcasts like Steve Gibson on Vista. They have said and others know companies such as Dell are trashing Vista due to it's horrid issues NOT because of any testing/dev, etc. but rather because Vista is junk at this point until at least SP1 comes out. It's the entire OS with the way they have implemented certain things if you follow Steve Gibson. Also, according to Gibson Vista was supposed to be the more secure OS compared to Vista and it's not, at least as it stands now. They all agree Vista is basically junk and similar to what they did with ME.

To each their own though.
 
I thought the same thing Leo did in that Microsoft should be MUCH more controlling with the 3rd parties in terms of how it installs on Vista. A lot of the install issues stem from the 3rd parties NOT taking advantage of Vista and creating LOTS of problems for the end user.
While I agree to some degree, you have to realize anytime the words Microsoft and "more controlling" enter into a conversation, bad things follow. This only furthers my viewpoint that no matter what Microsoft does, people will bitch and whine. That's the line Microsoft toes. If they open it up too much, people complain about compatibility issues. If it's closed down and monitored, people complain about anti-competition practices, boo whooo MS is a monopoly, etc etc.
 
I'm going to have to fully disagree with you there. Listen to TWIT and some of the other podcasts like Steve Gibson on Vista. They have said and others know companies such as Dell are trashing Vista due to it's horrid issues NOT because of any testing/dev, etc. but rather because Vista is junk at this point until at least SP1 comes out. It's the entire OS with the way they have implemented certain things if you follow Steve Gibson. Also, according to Gibson Vista was supposed to be the more secure OS compared to Vista and it's not, at least as it stands now. They all agree Vista is basically junk and similar to what they did with ME.

To each their own though.

You're going off what you've seen in a podcast from Steve Gibson? I'd like to know where you received the information that Dell was trashing Vista. Dell was receiving pressure from businesses and consumers to simply OFFER xp on some of their systems. Keep in mind, Dell was a supporter of Vista from the get-go. Yes, they do offer XP as a significantly large number of their customers are big businesses that simply cannot make the migration to Vista instantaneously. That's just the way it operates. Did you know that Gateway also offered Windows 3.11 for years after Windows 95 was released?

How are you determining that Vista is junk. What SPECIFICALLY are you against in Vista, minus the annoying security prompts?

With any new OS, there will always be resistance from some folks. That has ALWAYS been the case.

Take your tinfoil hat off.
 
Here's my take on my so many people seem up in arms about Vista more than any previous operating systems made by Microsoft in the past (not counting ME)..

The simple fact that the world has finally gone digital.

A standard has been adopted and nobody wants to change it. People fear change. It's just that simple.

There's nothing wrong with Vista. It just needs to be shoved down some people's throat to make them have no choice but use it, and then it'll grow on them and eventually they'll realize it's potentials.

Microsoft is simply a victim of their own sucess, thats all.

As for the person who said Vista is slower, show me one operating system in the past that isn't slower than it's predecessor. That's a ridiculous excuse to migrate. Upgrade and keep up with technology. Technology isn't going to wait for you. To blame only Microsoft is very narrow-sighted. Games require far more power now than ever before, and it's going to get worse. Database programs are much fatter than ever. Video compression continues to strangle CPU resources along with encoding them. Everyone's taking advantage of the latest and upcoming hardware, not just Microsoft.
 
Vista was 'scrapped' in favor for Windows Server 2008's design and kernel, which is being brought to Vista in SP1.

QFT

Unlike XP and Windows Server 2003, which for some reason are on different code bases, (Wonder why XP x64 kicks so much ass? It's on the 2003 code base.) Vista and Server 2008 are going to be on the same code base. This means SP1 will bring significant changes to Vista. Also, by keeping the server and desktop code together, you can bet stability will be a major concern for the big M, which is a very good thing for all Vista users.
 
one thing that MS would have to do if they were going to discontinue VIsta and extend the life of XP would be to port DX10 over to XP which they have stated cannot be done (although I don't believe them).
 
Maybe the release of Vista has been a failure. But Vista itself will come around. It will have to or you guys mind as well start freshening up on your Mac/Linux skills because that is all you will have left.

And thank god for it tooo... That is the day we should all be looking forward to,.... Pray for it, and it'll come.
 
SP1 may very well be a great and welcomed update, but keep in mind, as mentioned above, if the 3rd party companies still drag their feet in driver development, no service pack is going to make up for that. However, at the same time, this wouldn't be Microsoft's fault either. I personally felt Microsoft did a great job making betas available of Vista with PLENTY of time for companies like Creative to write new drivers and be ready for its release. Some things are out of the scope of control from the operating system's creators.

If Adobe screwed up CS3 for OSX, and it's performance was horrible on clearly faster and more powerful Macintosh computers (as compared to previous Macs), who's fault would it be? Would be be lining up to bash Steve Jobs? Would people say Apple sucks? Hardly. But, because on the PC side, Microsoft is involved, then they clearly are to blame, even if it defies rational thinking.
 
Microsoft is simply a victim of their own sucess, thats all.
I think there's truth being spoken here. In the past, OS upgrades were driven by improvements in stability and the fact that new software couldn't often run on the old OS.

At this point in time, XP is very stable, and "porting" programs developed for Vista to XP is trivial. Outside of Microsoft-developed software, you just don't see Vista-only software.

If XP was plagued by problems, or if new must-have third-party apps started coming out Vista-only, Vista would sell like hoscakes. People are spoiled by XP, so the second they have a crash in Vista due to improper drivers, or perceive something to be the slightest bit slower, they go back to XP because they know it works. It's not because Vista sucks, but because it's not XP, and people actually like XP.
 
I had no idea people were so FANATICAL over defending Microsoft or any OS for that matter. Anyway, I have made my points and pointed out the details and info coming from the podcasts mentioned and on various web sites. Bottom line is if you are happy great no one cares but you what OS you use because that's your choice and money. All I said was what the best people around are saying about it and from my own use. Unless you are gaming high-end on the PC then there really isn't much use in Vista due to all the issues outlined on the above posts I made.

While the security issues as mentioned are the worst issue with the annoying pop-ups over how Linux or Max OS does it with their Admin rules, it goes MUCH deeper. Again, all of this is documented by Gibson very nicely and you do NOT have the added security that Vista so highly taunts at this point. Rather or not it will ever be secure like the other OSs is anyones guess until SP1 comes out to test what they have done. But Gibson is certainly on his mark and can go up with the any name you want to throw out there in terms of his technical AND security knowledge. Vista is a failure in those terms so far. All the other issues will have to wait until SP1 to know more, but every expert agrees that Vista as it is is ME all over again and a bad waste of money with all their package levels.

My final say is that I'm siding with the expert tech guys of Leo, Gibson, Perillo (spelling ?) and others in that Vista is junk as it is until a MAJOR overhaul is done (SP1?) to know more. For now, XP SP2 is the best and most stable OS available for the PC and perhaps even until after Vista just like ME.
 
It's so funny, for upto 2 years, maybe even 3, after XP was launched. Tons of enthusiasts on this forum and others swore by Win98 or Win2000 and bashed XP. hehehe
 
You're going off what you've seen in a podcast from Steve Gibson? I'd like to know where you received the information that Dell was trashing Vista. Dell was receiving pressure from businesses and consumers to simply OFFER xp on some of their systems. Keep in mind, Dell was a supporter of Vista from the get-go. Yes, they do offer XP as a significantly large number of their customers are big businesses that simply cannot make the migration to Vista instantaneously. That's just the way it operates. Did you know that Gateway also offered Windows 3.11 for years after Windows 95 was released?

How are you determining that Vista is junk. What SPECIFICALLY are you against in Vista, minus the annoying security prompts?

With any new OS, there will always be resistance from some folks. That has ALWAYS been the case.

Take your tinfoil hat off.

I wanted to clarify this before closing it out in this post. What I meant by "Dell trashing Vista for XP" was that Dell doesn't like Vista at all due to all of its issues, but still offer it of course since it's still being made by Microsoft. Again though, if you listen to the podcasts they give the impression that Dell and others are pushing Microsoft to abandon that piece of junk and start over.

You asked what I had against it, see my all my posts in this thread and read all the tech reviews and updates on the various web sites (Locker Knome, Leo, etc.) and combine with my own experience and it matches what all the experts have and are saying about it being ME junk so far. I'm NOT talking 3rd party fault here, Steve Gibson has outlined some SERIOUS issues and if you follow all this about Vista you will know it's the OS itself at this time. As I said, SP1 may change things some, but everyone thinks it's ME over again and Microsoft is already starting to abandon it with more info to come in 2008.

That's all I have to say on the matter, I've told you where to read and go for all the details over the past year and in the end it's up to you to decide. Hope things work out for you too.
 
haha, I've seen this coming for awhile. There is no doubt that vista is going along the same path of WinMe. I thought that was funny as ME was such a flop, and now vista. :)

Some of my good friends were on the initial release of vista and supported vista for several months. Ohh boy that was such a pita for them.

I work for a pretty large company, and NO ONE likes vista. Every person with a workstation has WinXP w SP2. Vista is for people that don't know better, or don't really care about functionality etc. :rolleyes::D
 
You can't take a lack of quick acceptance in the business world as a sign that an OS is bad. Many places are simply comfortable in what they have and don't want to go through the arduous process of an enterprise-wide software rollout.

When I started working for the IT dept of my school back in '02 (not there anymore), they were still on win2k, and we didn't even begin a rollout to XP until late '03.

Not only is it a PITA to deal with that many systems, it's a PITA to deal with that many /users/ who get confused if you rearranged their desktop shortcuts. Add in the time it takes to inventory any incompatible software (in our case some medical coding software from the early 90s and a scantron test management program) and find replacements or newer versions, and you can see that an enterprise wide rollout is not a quick and easy job. It has to work as soon as the systems are upgraded at the exact same level or better than before which means testing, testing, and more testing, and a significant delay between an OS release and adoption by the corporate world.

On a personal level, I've been using Vista since January and would never go back to XP. I use it both on a TabletPC for school/work, and my main gaming rig. Besides a few 3rd party issues, it's been smooth sailing the whole time. Comparing vista to ME is ridiculous.
 
It's so funny, for upto 2 years, maybe even 3, after XP was launched. Tons of enthusiasts on this forum and others swore by Win98 or Win2000 and bashed XP. hehehe

Of course...

Once an OS is released by MS, it takes TIME for it to be stable with driver support, and multiple patches and Service packs. I was and still em a big fan of Win2k. I had it on ALL of my box's. Now with XP being stable and a "decent" OS It's on my dual boot lappy, and my main rig as well.

Sometimes you just have to update. The differences between past OS's and XP are far and great..:)
 
I had no idea people were so FANATICAL over defending Microsoft or any OS for that matter.

I don't see anyone being fanatical here. I see people saying that they are not going with the "crowd" and automatically bashing Vista solely based on the fact that it's a Microsoft product.

This thread is suprisingly civil.

[RCKY] Thor;1031494862 said:
You can't take a lack of quick acceptance in the business world as a sign that an OS is bad. Many places are simply comfortable in what they have and don't want to go through the arduous process of an enterprise-wide software rollout.

Agreed. Also, upgrading a major piece of software such as Windows or even Office costs a huge amount of money. Why pay that money when your 5,000 PCs are running XP Pro and Office 2003 just fine? I would guess that I won't see Vista at work until Microsoft totaly stops supporting Windows XP with updates and patches.
 
I work for a pretty large company, and NO ONE likes vista. Every person with a workstation has WinXP w SP2. Vista is for people that don't know better, or don't really care about functionality etc. :rolleyes::D
This post here is exactly why so many people feel the need to defend Microsoft, or atleast inject some rational, logical thinking into the discussion. What's scary, is that you posted this full believing it, and expecting others to agree, simply because of what you've heard. Fact is, if you truly believe Vista is for people who don't know better, or don't care about functionality, you are only proving two things:

1) You have no clue what you are speaking about, and none of your "views" come from actual first-hand knowledge.
2) You're level of ridiculousness is only insulting to many of us who are professional IT staf/management.

It also goes to show how short-sighted you are. As others have mentioned, this cycle repeats itself over the course of time. At one point, people avoided XP like the plague and stayed with Win2000. Now, if you were to ask today which OS was better, the answer clearly is XP. Someone with your viewpoint is demonstarting a severe lack of knowledge and experience in these matters, and your comments only serve to fuel the ridiculous arguments that exist on here. Arm yourself with factual information, and then join the party. You wouldn't go to a knife fight with a photo of a knife, that someone else handed you, would you?
 
I had no idea people were so FANATICAL over defending Microsoft or any OS for that matter.
You are confusing fanaticsm with logical, rational thinking, based on the repetition of history. People aren't fanatical about Vista. People are frustrated with the same tired arguments over and over again, because so many people either ignore history, or are too inexperienced to know, and yet argue their claims anyway. The moment anyone wants to bash Vista, they simply need to remember back to the days XP was bashed over Win2000, and when Win2000 was bashed over good ol' NT 4.0, etc, etc.
 
You are confusing fanaticsm with logical, rational thinking, based on the repetition of history. People aren't fanatical about Vista. People are frustrated with the same tired arguments over and over again, because so many people either ignore history, or are too inexperienced to know, and yet argue their claims anyway. The moment anyone wants to bash Vista, they simply need to remember back to the days XP was bashed over Win2000, and when Win2000 was bashed over good ol' NT 4.0, etc, etc.

I think inexperienced is the key word there. I have been around for 8 windows releases now, and it is the same tired old story everytime. People have a tendency to proclaim products that they have or own as better regardless of the facts and FUD spreads like an airborne pathogen.
 
I think inexperienced is the key word there. I have been around for 8 windows releases now, and it is the same tired old story everytime. People have a tendency to proclaim products that they have or own as better regardless of the facts and FUD spreads like an airborne pathogen.

Vista is slower than MSDOS 1.0! I refuse to migrate to a slower operating system!

:D
 
I've been running Vista Ultimate on the system in my sig since January and other than a few minor things with the mobo's bios I've had no problems. Once I updated the mobo's bios every problem I had cleared right up.

Also, I don't understand what the problem is with the security popups in Vista. Ok, in Linux if you're usually running as a regular user and if you want to run/install something that could mess things up you are asked to enter the admin password right? Well, it's basically the same concept with the Vista security popups. I've only had them come up when I have something that is set to be run as an admin and I'd much rather quickly click on the "Allow" button rather than waste another few seconds typing in my admin password and hoping that in my haste I typed it in correctly. I don't see what the big deal is.

Everything I run in Vista runs either just as good or better than when I had XP. I'm not talking just apps like notepad either. I'm talking games like Battlefield2142, Office 2003, etc. I thoroughly hated ME and fail to see any similarities between it and Vista. Also I loved and still love XP but I like Vista so much more and will not be going back to XP. I have no reason to.
 
Back
Top