Vista just doen't do it

I think Vista is, as they say, "not ready for prime time". I've tried it out
for 2 weeks now, and have encountered way too many problems.

Earlier this month I purchased a new Gateway Notebook with Vista Home
Premium pre-installed. This notebook is for my grandson who is a college
student.

So many functions have been changed. Even the most experienced computer user
is going to be very low (for a long time) on the learning curve. For
example, the Vista Control Panel no longer contains a DISPLAY icon. Instead,
there is another much more vague icon (I can't remember the name) to gain
access to the display properties.

Another familiar Windows XP function that is now much harder to find is the
FILE EDIT function. I still haven't found out how to do a file SELECT
ALL/COPY on Vista. Oh, I'm sure it's there, and I would eventually find it,
but why has Microsoft made general usage so much different? There are
numerous similar sources of unnecessary confusion.

I expected Vista to provide better performance, improved video editing
functions, and the like - BUT I was dismayed to discover that Vista has
accomplished this while also putting every user back to square one
knowledgewise. I hate to think what this will do to office efficiency for
those companies who rush out and buy Vista too soon, and I definitely would
not want to be in charge of their Information Systems departments right now.
What a nightmare that must be!

The worst problem I encountered was trying to get the new laptop to connect
to my home network. There are many technical forums - where multitudes of
users are complaining about Vista wireless connectivity not working. One of
these forums, for example, is at
microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing. Take a look.

It took an entire day to get the wireless connectivity problem resolved, and
that was on a brand new machine. I hope my grandson will be able to connect
wirelessly at school. If he runs into too many glitches I will probably have
to get rid of Vista, reformat his drive and install Windows XP.

I also purchased an upgrade version of Vista for my own laptop. It installed
OK, but several device drivers were not recognized, and wireless
connectivity was just impossible to achieve. I had Windows XP running on
that machine, and it was connected wirelessly to my home network during the
beginning of the Vista upgrade. The wireless icon on the lower right-hand
edge of my laptop screen showed that it was connected. Unfortunately, after
Vista took over, wireless connectivity was gone, and I have spent days
talking to Vista MVPs about the problem. Their answers, though well
intended, accomplished nothing except to add to my confusion.

When I originally set up my home network, it was a little difficult, but not
like this. I was able to create the network without any help at all, and all
of my computers connected wirelessly or via CAT5 cable without any undue
delays. With Vista, users need help, and lots of it.

From my experience during the last 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion
that users should avoid buying Vista (or new computers with Vista
pre-installed) for a year or so - until it is more reliable and enough time
has passed so that compatible device drivers are more widely available.

If you are thinking of upgrading your old computer to Vista, it may be too
demanding of your existing hardware. Looks like a minimum of 1GB of memory,
2GHZ of speed, and 100 GB of hard drive space are needed for decent
performance. The display adapter should be much more capable too, if you
wish to take advantage of the Vista video capabilities. With new machines,
hardware limitations should be less of a problem, but I still suggest
waiting for a year or two.

My 50 cents worth.

Yes, I decided to do precisely that about three weeks ago -- or at least
until SP1 -- preferably SP2.

What GOOD Things does Vista do for you that XP Pro SP2 could NOT?

Can you come up with TEN of those?

'Nuff Said.

DSH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:%23jBYIOwWHHA.4240@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> From my experience during the last 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion
> that users should avoid buying Vista (or new computers with Vista
> pre-installed) for a year or so - until it is more reliable and enough
> time has passed so that compatible device drivers are more widely
> available.
>
> If you are thinking of upgrading your old computer to Vista, it may be too
> demanding of your existing hardware. Looks like a minimum of 1GB of
> memory, 2GHZ of speed, and 100 GB of hard drive space are needed for
> decent performance. The display adapter should be much more capable too,
> if you wish to take advantage of the Vista video capabilities. With new
> machines, hardware limitations should be less of a problem, but I still
> suggest waiting for a year or two.
>
> My 50 cents worth.

wow. a book..
I agree the drivers have been slow to be released but the industry is
catching up.

push 'alt' and your menus will appear.

There was a learning curve for DOS,
There was a learning curve for Windows 3.0
There was a learning curve for Windows 98/XP
There will be a learning curve for Vista.

it's all good

"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:%23jBYIOwWHHA.4240@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I think Vista is, as they say, "not ready for prime time". I've tried it
>out for 2 weeks now, and have encountered way too many problems.
>
> Earlier this month I purchased a new Gateway Notebook with Vista Home
> Premium pre-installed. This notebook is for my grandson who is a college
> student.
>
> So many functions have been changed. Even the most experienced computer
> user is going to be very low (for a long time) on the learning curve. For
> example, the Vista Control Panel no longer contains a DISPLAY icon.
> Instead, there is another much more vague icon (I can't remember the name)
> to gain access to the display properties.
>
> Another familiar Windows XP function that is now much harder to find is
> the FILE EDIT function. I still haven't found out how to do a file SELECT
> ALL/COPY on Vista. Oh, I'm sure it's there, and I would eventually find
> it, but why has Microsoft made general usage so much different? There are
> numerous similar sources of unnecessary confusion.
>
> I expected Vista to provide better performance, improved video editing
> functions, and the like - BUT I was dismayed to discover that Vista has
> accomplished this while also putting every user back to square one
> knowledgewise. I hate to think what this will do to office efficiency for
> those companies who rush out and buy Vista too soon, and I definitely
> would not want to be in charge of their Information Systems departments
> right now. What a nightmare that must be!
>
> The worst problem I encountered was trying to get the new laptop to
> connect to my home network. There are many technical forums - where
> multitudes of users are complaining about Vista wireless connectivity not
> working. One of these forums, for example, is at
> microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing. Take a look.
>
> It took an entire day to get the wireless connectivity problem resolved,
> and that was on a brand new machine. I hope my grandson will be able to
> connect wirelessly at school. If he runs into too many glitches I will
> probably have to get rid of Vista, reformat his drive and install Windows
> XP.
>
> I also purchased an upgrade version of Vista for my own laptop. It
> installed OK, but several device drivers were not recognized, and wireless
> connectivity was just impossible to achieve. I had Windows XP running on
> that machine, and it was connected wirelessly to my home network during
> the beginning of the Vista upgrade. The wireless icon on the lower
> right-hand edge of my laptop screen showed that it was connected.
> Unfortunately, after Vista took over, wireless connectivity was gone, and
> I have spent days talking to Vista MVPs about the problem. Their answers,
> though well intended, accomplished nothing except to add to my confusion.
>
> When I originally set up my home network, it was a little difficult, but
> not like this. I was able to create the network without any help at all,
> and all of my computers connected wirelessly or via CAT5 cable without any
> undue delays. With Vista, users need help, and lots of it.
>
> From my experience during the last 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion
> that users should avoid buying Vista (or new computers with Vista
> pre-installed) for a year or so - until it is more reliable and enough
> time has passed so that compatible device drivers are more widely
> available.
>
> If you are thinking of upgrading your old computer to Vista, it may be too
> demanding of your existing hardware. Looks like a minimum of 1GB of
> memory, 2GHZ of speed, and 100 GB of hard drive space are needed for
> decent performance. The display adapter should be much more capable too,
> if you wish to take advantage of the Vista video capabilities. With new
> machines, hardware limitations should be less of a problem, but I still
> suggest waiting for a year or two.
>
> My 50 cents worth.
>

From this I see three main issues that you had:

1. Driver problems.
2. The UI was changed.
3. Network was hard to configure.

1. Nothing to do about this. You just have to wait.

2. If every new OS had the exact same UI then how would progress ever come
to play? Is there a taskbar on the bottom? Is there a start button? I
would hardly call that square one. In order to learn something new you have
to....well....learn something. It takes a little time to learn. However
Vista should be very familiar to someone that has used XP. You say things
where hard to find. Yet you found them. How hard is it going to be to find
them again? Piece of cake, right?

3. I agree. I don't see the benefit of the changes they made. Does anyone
else?

You mentioned IS and nightmare. Not at all. Of the people we've moved to
Vista, they do NOT want to go back to XP. But then again they don't have to
worry about #1 or #3.

2 years? That's a bit much. 1 year? Drivers will be much more stable.
However I think it it'll happen quicker then that.



"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:#jBYIOwWHHA.4240@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I think Vista is, as they say, "not ready for prime time". I've tried it
>out for 2 weeks now, and have encountered way too many problems.
>
> Earlier this month I purchased a new Gateway Notebook with Vista Home
> Premium pre-installed. This notebook is for my grandson who is a college
> student.
>
> So many functions have been changed. Even the most experienced computer
> user is going to be very low (for a long time) on the learning curve. For
> example, the Vista Control Panel no longer contains a DISPLAY icon.
> Instead, there is another much more vague icon (I can't remember the name)
> to gain access to the display properties.
>
> Another familiar Windows XP function that is now much harder to find is
> the FILE EDIT function. I still haven't found out how to do a file SELECT
> ALL/COPY on Vista. Oh, I'm sure it's there, and I would eventually find
> it, but why has Microsoft made general usage so much different? There are
> numerous similar sources of unnecessary confusion.
>
> I expected Vista to provide better performance, improved video editing
> functions, and the like - BUT I was dismayed to discover that Vista has
> accomplished this while also putting every user back to square one
> knowledgewise. I hate to think what this will do to office efficiency for
> those companies who rush out and buy Vista too soon, and I definitely
> would not want to be in charge of their Information Systems departments
> right now. What a nightmare that must be!
>
> The worst problem I encountered was trying to get the new laptop to
> connect to my home network. There are many technical forums - where
> multitudes of users are complaining about Vista wireless connectivity not
> working. One of these forums, for example, is at
> microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing. Take a look.
>
> It took an entire day to get the wireless connectivity problem resolved,
> and that was on a brand new machine. I hope my grandson will be able to
> connect wirelessly at school. If he runs into too many glitches I will
> probably have to get rid of Vista, reformat his drive and install Windows
> XP.
>
> I also purchased an upgrade version of Vista for my own laptop. It
> installed OK, but several device drivers were not recognized, and wireless
> connectivity was just impossible to achieve. I had Windows XP running on
> that machine, and it was connected wirelessly to my home network during
> the beginning of the Vista upgrade. The wireless icon on the lower
> right-hand edge of my laptop screen showed that it was connected.
> Unfortunately, after Vista took over, wireless connectivity was gone, and
> I have spent days talking to Vista MVPs about the problem. Their answers,
> though well intended, accomplished nothing except to add to my confusion.
>
> When I originally set up my home network, it was a little difficult, but
> not like this. I was able to create the network without any help at all,
> and all of my computers connected wirelessly or via CAT5 cable without any
> undue delays. With Vista, users need help, and lots of it.
>
> From my experience during the last 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion
> that users should avoid buying Vista (or new computers with Vista
> pre-installed) for a year or so - until it is more reliable and enough
> time has passed so that compatible device drivers are more widely
> available.
>
> If you are thinking of upgrading your old computer to Vista, it may be too
> demanding of your existing hardware. Looks like a minimum of 1GB of
> memory, 2GHZ of speed, and 100 GB of hard drive space are needed for
> decent performance. The display adapter should be much more capable too,
> if you wish to take advantage of the Vista video capabilities. With new
> machines, hardware limitations should be less of a problem, but I still
> suggest waiting for a year or two.
>
> My 50 cents worth.
>

> Even the most experienced computer user is going to be very low (for a
> long time) on the learning curve.

This just isn't true. Most of what we have in XP is the same with Vista.
What changed the most in Vista is the appearance (and stuff under the hood
which most people wouldn't know about).
What's to stop you, or anyone else, from just getting a book on Vista and
reading the important parts, such as configuration? Anyone can do it!

> For example, the Vista Control Panel no longer contains a DISPLAY icon.
> Instead, there is another much more vague icon (I can't remember the name)
> to gain access to the display properties.

Just right-click on the desktop, and select "Personalize".
A window comes up with all the display-related items, including screen
resolution, etc.
This is pretty much how it is done in XP as well. No change there.

> I still haven't found out how to do a file SELECT ALL/COPY on Vista. Oh,
> I'm sure it's there, and I would eventually find it, but why has Microsoft
> made general usage so much different?

What's wrong with selecting the folder (directory) where these files are,
and just copying the entire folder to wherever you want it to go by dragging
it along? I don't see a problem here.

> I expected Vista to provide better performance, improved video editing
> functions, and the like - BUT I was dismayed to discover that Vista has
> accomplished this while also putting every user back to square one
> knowledgewise. I hate to think what this will do to office efficiency for
> those companies who rush out and buy Vista too soon, and I definitely
> would not want to be in charge of their Information Systems departments
> right now. What a nightmare that must be!

We must be using different versions of Vista.
My version allows me to do all the same video stuff (DVD editing mostly)
just the same why I do it with XP.
Granted, I do have a top-of-the-line video card, but there's nothing wrong
with being current in the hardware department, right?

> The worst problem I encountered was trying to get the new laptop to
> connect to my home network.

Vista had my workstation connected to Windows 2003 in no time.
Since 2003 is a domain controller, it's probably not the same set up as you
would have.

> It took an entire day to get the wireless connectivity problem resolved,
> and that was on a brand new machine.

My wireless connection using the built-in WiFi adapter on the Asus
motherboard worked without a hitch once the drivers were set up. What are
you not doing right?

> I also purchased an upgrade version of Vista for my own laptop.

Well I can't help you on this one.
All my installations are fresh directly from the retail DVD.
I never upgrade a previous operating system because that's always a
headache.
Besides, having the previous operating system around allows something to
fall back to.

> From my experience during the last 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion
> that users should avoid buying Vista (or new computers with Vista
> pre-installed) for a year or so - until it is more reliable and enough
> time has passed so that compatible device drivers are more widely
> available.

Instead of that, how about just installing Vista today as a secondary system
so you have something to work with and learn and experiment, but still keep
XP as your primary system?
If anything major comes along in Vistaland, there will be a service pack to
keep you updated.

Bottom line - if you want Vista to work, you need to be willing to put in
the extra effort and fork out for better hardware.
I can't help but put my head down whenever someone complains that they are
unable to get Vista installed on their old 80486 machine:
They're certain that the 16 Megabytes of RAM they have installed must be
enough.
It was fine for Windows 95, so why not Vista?
I won't even mention their state-of-the-art VGA adapter. :-)

.... Time for coffee!

-- Andy

you know it is not the big things, it is the little things, like no updates
to clock up my video card yet.
buying new software, what I have runs perfectly on xp. buying new hardware,
need a new scanner just like when xp came out (no drivers and none coming).
"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:%23jBYIOwWHHA.4240@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I think Vista is, as they say, "not ready for prime time". I've tried it
>out for 2 weeks now, and have encountered way too many problems.
>
> Earlier this month I purchased a new Gateway Notebook with Vista Home
> Premium pre-installed. This notebook is for my grandson who is a college
> student.
>
> So many functions have been changed. Even the most experienced computer
> user is going to be very low (for a long time) on the learning curve. For
> example, the Vista Control Panel no longer contains a DISPLAY icon.
> Instead, there is another much more vague icon (I can't remember the name)
> to gain access to the display properties.
>
> Another familiar Windows XP function that is now much harder to find is
> the FILE EDIT function. I still haven't found out how to do a file SELECT
> ALL/COPY on Vista. Oh, I'm sure it's there, and I would eventually find
> it, but why has Microsoft made general usage so much different? There are
> numerous similar sources of unnecessary confusion.
>
> I expected Vista to provide better performance, improved video editing
> functions, and the like - BUT I was dismayed to discover that Vista has
> accomplished this while also putting every user back to square one
> knowledgewise. I hate to think what this will do to office efficiency for
> those companies who rush out and buy Vista too soon, and I definitely
> would not want to be in charge of their Information Systems departments
> right now. What a nightmare that must be!
>
> The worst problem I encountered was trying to get the new laptop to
> connect to my home network. There are many technical forums - where
> multitudes of users are complaining about Vista wireless connectivity not
> working. One of these forums, for example, is at
> microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing. Take a look.
>
> It took an entire day to get the wireless connectivity problem resolved,
> and that was on a brand new machine. I hope my grandson will be able to
> connect wirelessly at school. If he runs into too many glitches I will
> probably have to get rid of Vista, reformat his drive and install Windows
> XP.
>
> I also purchased an upgrade version of Vista for my own laptop. It
> installed OK, but several device drivers were not recognized, and wireless
> connectivity was just impossible to achieve. I had Windows XP running on
> that machine, and it was connected wirelessly to my home network during
> the beginning of the Vista upgrade. The wireless icon on the lower
> right-hand edge of my laptop screen showed that it was connected.
> Unfortunately, after Vista took over, wireless connectivity was gone, and
> I have spent days talking to Vista MVPs about the problem. Their answers,
> though well intended, accomplished nothing except to add to my confusion.
>
> When I originally set up my home network, it was a little difficult, but
> not like this. I was able to create the network without any help at all,
> and all of my computers connected wirelessly or via CAT5 cable without any
> undue delays. With Vista, users need help, and lots of it.
>
> From my experience during the last 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion
> that users should avoid buying Vista (or new computers with Vista
> pre-installed) for a year or so - until it is more reliable and enough
> time has passed so that compatible device drivers are more widely
> available.
>
> If you are thinking of upgrading your old computer to Vista, it may be too
> demanding of your existing hardware. Looks like a minimum of 1GB of
> memory, 2GHZ of speed, and 100 GB of hard drive space are needed for
> decent performance. The display adapter should be much more capable too,
> if you wish to take advantage of the Vista video capabilities. With new
> machines, hardware limitations should be less of a problem, but I still
> suggest waiting for a year or two.
>
> My 50 cents worth.
>

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Yes, I decided to do precisely that about three weeks ago -- or at
> least until SP1 -- preferably SP2.
>
> What GOOD Things does Vista do for you that XP Pro SP2 could NOT?
>
> Can you come up with TEN of those?
>
> 'Nuff Said.
>
> DSH

But I hear that it looks sooo good! :-) Does it really matter if it doesn't
work well?

--
Mike Pawlak

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but as I see it -
Vista is definitely a bear to get operational, a bear to get connected, and
a bear to learn.

I have been with computers since long before most of you were born, have
programmed back in the days when all code was written directly by hand in
binary, octal, or hexadecimal. I have spend years unraveling difficult
computer problems, so don't tell me I am not willing to put forth some
effort to learn something. The point is, a good OS should not require an
extensive effort to learn - especially for those who have worked with
previous versions. It should be a piece of cake, but Vista is anything but.

As everyone knows, Windows evolved into Window95. It was not a smooth
transition. Then Windows 95 evolved into Windows 98, and the transition was
an improvement over the previous transition. Windows 98 evolved into Windows
98SE, and that transition was even better. Finally, Windows 98 and 98SE
evolved into Windows XP, and those transitions were VERY smooth - and people
who made that transition didn't even have to slow down with their routine
day-to-day computer tasks. Everything looked the same. The structure was the
same. There wasn't anything significant that had to be learned from scratch.
The improvements were mostly hidden even as added capability was attained.

Now we have Vista. Despite what some of you are saying, it has (to put it
mildly) confused far too many users. The transition is not smooth, It is not
an evolution, it is a step in a different direction. Program fixes will be
coming for a long time, and I predict that Microsoft will come up with some
serious changes to this OS called Vista.

Just click on the Start Orb and type whatever you are looking for.
Since I have installed Vista, I have been really organized. Images,
music, documents, even this message can be easily found with a few keywords.
Vista Rocks.


"Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
news:eBcQDCxWHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but as I see it -
> Vista is definitely a bear to get operational, a bear to get connected,
> and a bear to learn.
>
> I have been with computers since long before most of you were born, have
> programmed back in the days when all code was written directly by hand in
> binary, octal, or hexadecimal. I have spend years unraveling difficult
> computer problems, so don't tell me I am not willing to put forth some
> effort to learn something. The point is, a good OS should not require an
> extensive effort to learn - especially for those who have worked with
> previous versions. It should be a piece of cake, but Vista is anything
> but.
>
> As everyone knows, Windows evolved into Window95. It was not a smooth
> transition. Then Windows 95 evolved into Windows 98, and the transition
> was an improvement over the previous transition. Windows 98 evolved into
> Windows 98SE, and that transition was even better. Finally, Windows 98 and
> 98SE evolved into Windows XP, and those transitions were VERY smooth - and
> people who made that transition didn't even have to slow down with their
> routine day-to-day computer tasks. Everything looked the same. The
> structure was the same. There wasn't anything significant that had to be
> learned from scratch. The improvements were mostly hidden even as added
> capability was attained.
>
> Now we have Vista. Despite what some of you are saying, it has (to put it
> mildly) confused far too many users. The transition is not smooth, It is
> not an evolution, it is a step in a different direction. Program fixes
> will be coming for a long time, and I predict that Microsoft will come up
> with some serious changes to this OS called Vista.
>

When Windows 95 came out People thought the same..

compare XP to Windows 3.x and vista to 95.

SJ / germany

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ehy8xXwWHHA.3568@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I decided to do precisely that about three weeks ago -- or at least
> until SP1 -- preferably SP2.
>
> What GOOD Things does Vista do for you that XP Pro SP2 could NOT?
>
> Can you come up with TEN of those?
>
> 'Nuff Said.
>
> DSH
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
> news:%23jBYIOwWHHA.4240@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> From my experience during the last 2 weeks, I have come to the conclusion
>> that users should avoid buying Vista (or new computers with Vista
>> pre-installed) for a year or so - until it is more reliable and enough
>> time has passed so that compatible device drivers are more widely
>> available.
>>
>> If you are thinking of upgrading your old computer to Vista, it may be
>> too
>> demanding of your existing hardware. Looks like a minimum of 1GB of
>> memory, 2GHZ of speed, and 100 GB of hard drive space are needed for
>> decent performance. The display adapter should be much more capable too,
>> if you wish to take advantage of the Vista video capabilities. With new
>> machines, hardware limitations should be less of a problem, but I still
>> suggest waiting for a year or two.
>>
>> My 50 cents worth.
>
>