Article>>>The Full Horror of Vista!!!!

[Doris Day - MFB]

Lonely? Out fishing?
Frank

Why would I be lonely Frank? I've got YOU!!! <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Frank]

Doris Day - MFB wrote:

,,,,,,,,,,,,linux loser trash dot crap deleted-----------------

Only a penciled neck geek or a New Orleans pimp would get their
definitions from wikipedia and then have the sheer stupidity to admit it
by posting it in a public ng!
Amazing!
Loser.
(smirk)
Frank

 

[Tiberius]

You are totally correct....

I personally have never said anything bad about any version of windows with
the exception of windows Me,
that was indeed unstable and problematic.

I never ever said anything bad about XP, never said it was bloat or
anything.. in fact it was a huge improvement...
The people who said XP was worse than 2K don't know what they are talking
about!

But vista is the same quality as windows Me, even worse.... because Vista
will be here for 3 years and there
is no good alternative in the horizon...

Vista adds nothing to the windows platform but problems.... and it will go
down as history as the worse
OS Microsoft ever made.... that every corporation will avoid.. UNLESS they
do some miracle with service packs..

that I don't think they will though... its such a mess that its not fixable.

Yes, history is an indication but not always, as circumstances may not
exactly the same.

For one, I never had or said the same for XP or earlier versions and none
of around me had the same feelings.

I did do some researches (as my memory isn't that good) when I read a few
times about "some people said the same thing about previous Windows".
Well, it's true that some articles published at that time did reflect to
the same tone, but not all of them. Many did compliment XP and 2K but now
criticizing Vista.

So true, some naysayers may have been doing this all along, but not all
current naysayers are falling into the same group.

It's up to the company whether or not to open its mind.

This is the first MS OS that I have not wanted in my (our) systems since
Windows 1.x. Honestly speaking, it was not an easy and pleasant decision.

The same was said about XP, to the point where some stayed with Win
2000.. now, with the release of Vista, some choose to forget earlier
events because it weakens their argument against Vista..

I have no conclusion on performance - faster or slowness, as it indeed
varies on too many factors. Even on compatibility issue, I have no
verdict because limited samples available to myself, as compared to the
unknown numbers of hardware and software in the world.

On the other hand, I do think an objective person with reasonable
knowledge of computer usability will tend to agree:

[...]dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a
functional improvement, [...]

That actually is one of few major problems that I have with Vista.



http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml

A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to
Vista recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their
account, company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be
problematic, and other quirks that left them less than satisfied.

The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical
new release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer
at a minimum to avoid complications.

The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows
XP, dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a
functional improvement, and several things that work at best
intermittently and at worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd
never moved," Angus Kidman said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.

The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot
times were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys
router failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the
problem. "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something
pretty fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.

Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML
home page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with
Vista, "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a
new window because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has
managed to convince us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and
switch to Firefox, which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour,
and seems to run faster as well."

Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run.
It reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even
though Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display
and sound card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us
was that none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready.
So much for certification."

The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista,
"a dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[john]

The same was said about XP, to the point where some stayed with Win 2000..
now, with the release of Vista, some choose to forget earlier events
because it weakens their argument against Vista..

<snip>

I see that opinion here a lot, and I don't agree with it, never did.
My 1st experiences with XP were far better than with Vista.

With XP literally ALL hardware was discovered, drivers installed and
EVERYTHING worked on the very first try, and that was on all 4 of my
machines at home - [2] desktop and [2] laptops - the only small exception
being I needed to find a touchpad driver for one of the laptops, which
wasn't a "showstopper" anyway since I had a MS mouse connected. Both
desktops were home built and neither had any issues.

iow, all systems pretty much worked right "out of the box".

I've seen posts here touting how Vista has XXX-thousands more drivers in its
database than XP had, which leads people to the conclusion that, if
anything, it ought to be easier to find drivers now than before. At the
very least, if it worked in XP it should work in Vista. nothing could be
further from the truth. In XP, if a modem was discovered but couldn't be
readily identified, at least XP would install a generic driver for it in
order to enable it - not so anymore.

 

[Sharon T]

You were using a beta version of Vista? How is it that Vista has detected
all my drivers? I really have not experienced any such complaints.
Furthermore, seeing that your signature is about Bill Gates, you must be
someone who dislikes Microsoft for that matter.

The same was said about XP, to the point where some stayed with Win
2000.. now, with the release of Vista, some choose to forget earlier
events because it weakens their argument against Vista..

<snip>

I see that opinion here a lot, and I don't agree with it, never did.
My 1st experiences with XP were far better than with Vista.

With XP literally ALL hardware was discovered, drivers installed and
EVERYTHING worked on the very first try, and that was on all 4 of my
machines at home - [2] desktop and [2] laptops - the only small exception
being I needed to find a touchpad driver for one of the laptops, which
wasn't a "showstopper" anyway since I had a MS mouse connected. Both
desktops were home built and neither had any issues.

iow, all systems pretty much worked right "out of the box".

I've seen posts here touting how Vista has XXX-thousands more drivers in
its database than XP had, which leads people to the conclusion that, if
anything, it ought to be easier to find drivers now than before. At the
very least, if it worked in XP it should work in Vista. nothing could be
further from the truth. In XP, if a modem was discovered but couldn't be
readily identified, at least XP would install a generic driver for it in
order to enable it - not so anymore.

--
=======================================
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
- Bill Gates
=======================================

 

[john]

ok mr moron.. if you like it better from the original NON mac site here it
is:
this is the original location of the article, that other site just copied
it...

but YOU are biased enough to not want to believe it because you happened
to
see its a mac site didn't you?
You think I am a mac user or lover just because I posted that?

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12147/1101/1/0

doesn't matter - you'll get an earful here about posting a "biased" article
from the same people that post, then rally around press releases from
Microsoft that boast of record sales figures.

 

[Alias]

Jail?

There you go again. Why must you make up things about me? Can't refute
the arguments so you have to make up lies?

Alias

 

[john]

Even so, a year ago, there were still posts in the XP newsgroups that
stated Win 98 as being the best OS ever,

<snip>

I still think NT4 was their best effort, ever - before thsy started messing
with PnP...
Once you got the proper drivers (not always an easy task) it was absolutely
bulletproof...

 

[john]

You were using a beta version of Vista?

I guess I was, the RTM beta I bought at Circuit City for $200.

How is it that Vista has detected all my drivers?

luck I guess.
I "did my homework" and used the Upgrade Advisor, as is the common advise
here, and everything came up roses. Unfortunately I trusted it. After
install, my video card, modem, printer and card reader were all bricked.
yea, I know - all my fault. Just like people who buy "Vista Certified"
video cards then find out they don't work either.

I really have not experienced any such complaints. Furthermore, seeing
that your signature is about Bill Gates, you must be someone who dislikes
Microsoft for that matter.

No, I like Microsoft just fine, a real American success story if ever there
was one.
Their products just suck lately is all..

 

[Adam Albright]

Doris Day - MFB wrote:

,,,,,,,,,,,,linux loser trash dot crap deleted-----------------

Only a penciled neck geek or a New Orleans pimp would get their
definitions from wikipedia and then have the sheer stupidity to admit it
by posting it in a public ng!
Amazing!
Loser.
(smirk)
Frank

Frank, you already established what a moron you are. No need to
reconfirm it daily. I guess you love the attention.

 

[MICHAEL]

I'm not sure just how many Win98 users you are referring to,
but, for me, moving from 98 to XP was quite an eye opener.
Stability and performance improvements in XP, made 98 feel
cheap, outdated, and antiquated real quick. I knew instantly
that XP was so much better than 98, I told everyone I knew to
upgrade... the decision to suggest that wasn't even close. Sure
there were problems, when the masses move to an entirely different
OS, especially one with a completely new code base from 98, there
are going to be driver problems. But, the payoff, with some aggravation,
was noticeable and well worth it. I absolutely can not say the same
about Vista.

I have Vista installed on two desktops and one laptop. I find Vista
to be stable and reliable, and got it installed on all three machines
without too many problems. Vista is as good as XP and the updated
look makes it "feel" newer. But, that last sentence is exactly why I am
so disappointed with Vista.... 6 years and a supposedly $6 billion later-
this is the best Microsoft can do? There is no night and day between
Vista's stability and performance compared to XP. There most certainly
was a difference between XP and 98, that shouldn't even be argued.
There are some areas where XP is still faster than Vista for many users.
Networking, moving/copying files, deleting files, Windows Explorer,
for example.

Back during XP's release I would have suggested folks run out to
buy XP retail and upgrade as soon as possible. Now, if someone
were to ask me, I'd say wait until they need a new computer.
I thought XP to be so much better than 98, that it was worth not
even waiting for the first service pack.... just do it. I can say without
a doubt, I do not feel the same for Vista. There are no compelling
reasons to move to Vista, unless your computer dies. Let's also
forget about the "Wow", cause there isn't any. Well, there is the
"wow" you feel when using Windows Mail, actually a state of disbelief
that such a horrible piece of software could be included in a new OS
and be considered an upgrade.

Why do I have Vista installed on three machines? Because some of us
are just that way... early adopters who do silly things like that without
having the *need* to do so. Having beta tested Vista for so long, I had
gotten used to it, too. Even though I still have XP installed on those machines,
I only boot back to XP to do updates. Yes, XP now looks a bit old to me,
but looks can be deceiving... XP is still a fine OS. I actually spent a few hours
using XP the other day, and there are times when XP really does seem to be
a bit snappier. I wouldn't consider going back to XP, I have too much money
and time vested in Vista. Although, I do find myself wondering, just exactly what
can I do in Vista that I wasn't already doing in XP, and am I doing anything faster.
Not really.

XP's stability and reliability over Win98 was huge. That's not so
with Vista over XP. Some of you need to stop telling that lie, too.

From Win95 to WinXP, there were 4 OS releases for the consumer masses,
each better than their predecessor, and in noticeable ways (except for WinME).
Even though WinME was not impressive, it did at least introduce some new
features to the masses. I never migrated to WinME. Now, in almost the same
amount of years from 95 to XP, we have waited for Vista. This is it? This is the
best Microsoft could do with all the time since XP, and with all the money and
resources they have? Really? This is not the same as going from 98 to XP,
I think most of you guys know that. For whatever headaches that upgrade
caused, the reward of a much better OS was worth it. Is Vista? Only if you
*need* a new computer. Of course, many users may find putting XP on a
new computer to be the better choice.


-Michael

* Mike Hall MVP:

Most home users had Win 98, as did a few small business'.. Win 2000 was too
expensive, and there was too much enforced security for the average user..

The Win 2000 SP2 update was a disaster, and almost destroyed WIn 2000
credibility, but it recovered in time, and made it as far as SP4..

XP, while not much different to Win 2000, defaulting to less security but
the option to lock it down as with Win 2000, was hated by the Win 98 users..
Nothing was the same, and the Fischer Price front end had many critics.. but
all of the people that I turned from Win 98 to XP have never looked back,
and I have had far less return calls from the clients.. some of them had to
upgrade hardware, and others bought new machines, but all had a way more
peaceful Windows experience than ever before..

Even so, a year ago, there were still posts in the XP newsgroups that stated
Win 98 as being the best OS ever, that XP was bloated crap.. so what has
changed in XP since middle of last year? Nothing at all, except that a new
target has emerged for the naysayers and trolls..

Yes, history is an indication but not always, as circumstances may not
exactly the same.

For one, I never had or said the same for XP or earlier versions and none
of around me had the same feelings.

I did do some researches (as my memory isn't that good) when I read a few
times about "some people said the same thing about previous Windows".
Well, it's true that some articles published at that time did reflect to
the same tone, but not all of them. Many did compliment XP and 2K but now
criticizing Vista.

So true, some naysayers may have been doing this all along, but not all
current naysayers are falling into the same group.

It's up to the company whether or not to open its mind.

This is the first MS OS that I have not wanted in my (our) systems since
Windows 1.x. Honestly speaking, it was not an easy and pleasant decision.

The same was said about XP, to the point where some stayed with Win
2000.. now, with the release of Vista, some choose to forget earlier
events because it weakens their argument against Vista..


I have no conclusion on performance - faster or slowness, as it indeed
varies on too many factors. Even on compatibility issue, I have no
verdict because limited samples available to myself, as compared to the
unknown numbers of hardware and software in the world.

On the other hand, I do think an objective person with reasonable
knowledge of computer usability will tend to agree:

[...]dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a
functional improvement, [...]
That actually is one of few major problems that I have with Vista.



http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/05/14.9.shtml

A company that took its time, did everything right, and migrated to
Vista recounted the full horror of the experience. According to their
account, company employees found Vista to be slow, Explorer to be
problematic, and other quirks that left them less than satisfied.

The Transit company took the optimal path. They waited for the typical
new release bugs to be worked out. They purchased a new PC from a major
vendor, Lenovo, that had Vista pre-installed in order to avoid upgrade
nightmares. Finally, they kept the installed software on the computer
at a minimum to avoid complications.

The verdict? "...we've found nothing that works better than in Windows
XP, dozens of things that are annoyingly different without being a
functional improvement, and several things that work at best
intermittently and at worst not at all. On the whole, we wish we'd
never moved," Angus Kidman said in a Blog report carried by ITWire.

The first observation was that Vista was "hideously slow" even on a new
Vista certified PC with twice the RAM and a faster processor. Boot
times were longer than the predecesor. The connection to the Linksys
router failed, and heroic support from Microsoft failed to resolve the
problem. "...if you can't get basic IP working in 2007, something
pretty fundamental is going wrong," Mr. Kidman wrote.

Another irritating problem related to using a local file as an HTML
home page. Mr. Kidman reported that this was hopeless effort with
Vista, "...since Internet Explorer insists on launching any page in a
new window because of a security restriction. As such, Vista has
managed to convince us to ditch Internet Explorer after nine years and
switch to Firefox, which doesn't indulge in such ridiculous behaviour,
and seems to run faster as well."

Finally, out of curiosity, Microsoft's Vista Upgrade Advisor was run.
It reported that the computer didn't have enough drive space, even
though Vista was preinstalled. And then it reported that the display
and sound card "weren't certified for Vista. The third thing it told us
was that none of the Lenovo utilities on the machine were Vista-ready.
So much for certification."

The bottom line was Microsoft should have worked harder to make Vista,
"a dog," a bigger advance over Windows XP/SP2.



--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

Doris Day - MFB wrote:

,,,,,,,,,,,,linux loser trash dot crap deleted-----------------

Only a penciled neck geek or a New Orleans pimp would get their
definitions from wikipedia and then have the sheer stupidity to admit it
by posting it in a public ng!
Amazing!
Loser.
(smirk)
Frank

It was an attempt to help you out dear. The first step in recovery is
admitting you have a problem. Obviously, you're still in denial. That means
we'll have to put up with your bullshit for the forseeable future. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Tiberius]

I agree with all that you posted.... indeed its the same thing here..

I also love MS, its the "vista era" products that suck
lets see what they will do with what was called windows live mail desktop...
the beta was a fiasco.... now they are saying they are changing it... and
will release it in a couple of weeks.

I really hope they get that right at least.....

 

[MICHAEL]

I have been in this forum since June, I have actively been using Vista
since then, I now have it installed on three machines, and I will not
being going back to XP. However, Vista is *not* all that. There is
absolutely no comparison- an *honest* appraisal- with the world
of difference going from 98 to XP and the expensive service pack to
XP, aka Vista.

Sure, you may not have experienced any major problems, that's great.
I haven't, either. But, can you tell me where the "Wow" went? Perhaps,
your "wow" comes down to nothing more than a clean OS install,
which many users could get by just doing a clean reinstall of XP.
Is it the new paint job? That certainly doesn't make Vista a better OS.
Maybe, you're like one of those users who go out and buy a new computer
with Vista installed, and then sing the praises of Vista being so much "faster".
Of course, they ignore the fact that their new machines are more powerful
and without years of accumulated junk.

What are you doing in Vista that couldn't be done in XP? Better uptime?
Fewer freezes and crashes? I really want to know.


-Michael

* Sharon T:

You were using a beta version of Vista? How is it that Vista has detected
all my drivers? I really have not experienced any such complaints.
Furthermore, seeing that your signature is about Bill Gates, you must be
someone who dislikes Microsoft for that matter.

The same was said about XP, to the point where some stayed with Win
2000.. now, with the release of Vista, some choose to forget earlier
events because it weakens their argument against Vista..

<snip>

I see that opinion here a lot, and I don't agree with it, never did.
My 1st experiences with XP were far better than with Vista.

With XP literally ALL hardware was discovered, drivers installed and
EVERYTHING worked on the very first try, and that was on all 4 of my
machines at home - [2] desktop and [2] laptops - the only small exception
being I needed to find a touchpad driver for one of the laptops, which
wasn't a "showstopper" anyway since I had a MS mouse connected. Both
desktops were home built and neither had any issues.

iow, all systems pretty much worked right "out of the box".

I've seen posts here touting how Vista has XXX-thousands more drivers in
its database than XP had, which leads people to the conclusion that, if
anything, it ought to be easier to find drivers now than before. At the
very least, if it worked in XP it should work in Vista. nothing could be
further from the truth. In XP, if a modem was discovered but couldn't be
readily identified, at least XP would install a generic driver for it in
order to enable it - not so anymore.

--
=======================================
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
- Bill Gates
=======================================

 

[MICHAEL]

John and Tiberius,

It is not enough to use and like Microsoft products- you must
never speak badly of any Microsoft product.... especially, Vista.
That is the gospel according to some Microsoft fundamentalist
fanatics. They are as annoying and useless in constructive dialog
as the anti-Microsoft crowd and the Linux Borg that spew their
fanatical blather in this forum.

There is no middle ground with some of these loons-
you're either with them 100% or against them.


-Michael

* Tiberius:

 

[Mike Hall MVP]

Michael

I agree that Vista has some way to go, but it will be all 'that' soon..

I have been in this forum since June, I have actively been using Vista
since then, I now have it installed on three machines, and I will not
being going back to XP. However, Vista is *not* all that. There is
absolutely no comparison- an *honest* appraisal- with the world
of difference going from 98 to XP and the expensive service pack to
XP, aka Vista.

Sure, you may not have experienced any major problems, that's great.
I haven't, either. But, can you tell me where the "Wow" went? Perhaps,
your "wow" comes down to nothing more than a clean OS install,
which many users could get by just doing a clean reinstall of XP.
Is it the new paint job? That certainly doesn't make Vista a better OS.
Maybe, you're like one of those users who go out and buy a new computer
with Vista installed, and then sing the praises of Vista being so much
"faster".
Of course, they ignore the fact that their new machines are more powerful
and without years of accumulated junk.

What are you doing in Vista that couldn't be done in XP? Better uptime?
Fewer freezes and crashes? I really want to know.


-Michael

* Sharon T:

You were using a beta version of Vista? How is it that Vista has detected
all my drivers? I really have not experienced any such complaints.
Furthermore, seeing that your signature is about Bill Gates, you must be
someone who dislikes Microsoft for that matter.

The same was said about XP, to the point where some stayed with Win
2000.. now, with the release of Vista, some choose to forget earlier
events because it weakens their argument against Vista..

<snip>

I see that opinion here a lot, and I don't agree with it, never did.
My 1st experiences with XP were far better than with Vista.

With XP literally ALL hardware was discovered, drivers installed and
EVERYTHING worked on the very first try, and that was on all 4 of my
machines at home - [2] desktop and [2] laptops - the only small
exception
being I needed to find a touchpad driver for one of the laptops, which
wasn't a "showstopper" anyway since I had a MS mouse connected. Both
desktops were home built and neither had any issues.

iow, all systems pretty much worked right "out of the box".

I've seen posts here touting how Vista has XXX-thousands more drivers in
its database than XP had, which leads people to the conclusion that, if
anything, it ought to be easier to find drivers now than before. At the
very least, if it worked in XP it should work in Vista. nothing could
be
further from the truth. In XP, if a modem was discovered but couldn't
be
readily identified, at least XP would install a generic driver for it in
order to enable it - not so anymore.

--
=======================================
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
- Bill Gates
=======================================

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[MICHAEL]

Mike, I hope you're right.

I do have some hope... if Longhorn Server is any indication
of the future performance of Vista, there is reason to be happy.

Aside from Vista, I will give Microsoft a lot of credit for the beauty
and simplicity of Windows Home Server. I really think Microsoft
will have a hit with that. I have been truly impressed with the functionality
and performance of WHS. This product will appeal to the masses, and even
the enthusiasts.

Take care,

Michael

* Mike Hall MVP:

Michael

I agree that Vista has some way to go, but it will be all 'that' soon..

I have been in this forum since June, I have actively been using Vista
since then, I now have it installed on three machines, and I will not
being going back to XP. However, Vista is *not* all that. There is
absolutely no comparison- an *honest* appraisal- with the world
of difference going from 98 to XP and the expensive service pack to
XP, aka Vista.

Sure, you may not have experienced any major problems, that's great.
I haven't, either. But, can you tell me where the "Wow" went? Perhaps,
your "wow" comes down to nothing more than a clean OS install,
which many users could get by just doing a clean reinstall of XP.
Is it the new paint job? That certainly doesn't make Vista a better OS.
Maybe, you're like one of those users who go out and buy a new computer
with Vista installed, and then sing the praises of Vista being so much
"faster".
Of course, they ignore the fact that their new machines are more powerful
and without years of accumulated junk.

What are you doing in Vista that couldn't be done in XP? Better uptime?
Fewer freezes and crashes? I really want to know.


-Michael

* Sharon T:

You were using a beta version of Vista? How is it that Vista has detected
all my drivers? I really have not experienced any such complaints.
Furthermore, seeing that your signature is about Bill Gates, you must be
someone who dislikes Microsoft for that matter.

The same was said about XP, to the point where some stayed with Win
2000.. now, with the release of Vista, some choose to forget earlier
events because it weakens their argument against Vista..

<snip>

I see that opinion here a lot, and I don't agree with it, never did.
My 1st experiences with XP were far better than with Vista.

With XP literally ALL hardware was discovered, drivers installed and
EVERYTHING worked on the very first try, and that was on all 4 of my
machines at home - [2] desktop and [2] laptops - the only small
exception
being I needed to find a touchpad driver for one of the laptops, which
wasn't a "showstopper" anyway since I had a MS mouse connected. Both
desktops were home built and neither had any issues.

iow, all systems pretty much worked right "out of the box".

I've seen posts here touting how Vista has XXX-thousands more drivers in
its database than XP had, which leads people to the conclusion that, if
anything, it ought to be easier to find drivers now than before. At the
very least, if it worked in XP it should work in Vista. nothing could
be
further from the truth. In XP, if a modem was discovered but couldn't
be
readily identified, at least XP would install a generic driver for it in
order to enable it - not so anymore.

--
=======================================
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
- Bill Gates
=======================================

 

[Adam Albright]

I have been in this forum since June, I have actively been using Vista
since then, I now have it installed on three machines, and I will not
being going back to XP. However, Vista is *not* all that. There is
absolutely no comparison- an *honest* appraisal- with the world
of difference going from 98 to XP and the expensive service pack to
XP, aka Vista.

Sure, you may not have experienced any major problems, that's great.
I haven't, either. But, can you tell me where the "Wow" went? Perhaps,
your "wow" comes down to nothing more than a clean OS install,
which many users could get by just doing a clean reinstall of XP.

My view, no wow, more a blah version.

I like Vista is that it brings some minor tweaks, adds a few minor
features missing from earlier versions, plus the overall "look" is
more refined, assuming your system is powerful enough to support Aero,
but let's face it... a lot that's new in Vista can best be described
as mostly eye candy. Something to impress the uninformed kiddie crowd
that infests newsgroups like this, but sure to leave more experienced
users at best shrugging their shoulders wondering what took Microsoft
over five years to develop and what many are calling a turkey.

Some applications run faster yes, others seem more sluggish, even
Windows internals. The handful of marginal good things are offset by a
still klunky Windows Explorer that can't remember folder settings, a
overall very bloated Windows that's still prone to crash or just do
stupid things for no apparant reason, now more a memory hog than ever,
"featuring" annoying things like very noticeable far slower file
copying, moving, a highly annoying indexer that is more a joke,
kicking in needlessly way too often, obvious network issues for some,
all kinds of driver issues, way more than there should be, confirming
Microsoft mostly fights with it's vendors rather than working with
them.

Vista "features" such things as questionsable support for SATA drives
at best, depending on your MB and BIOS, caving into to Hollywood with
more useless and highly questionalbe coding everywhere to support
"protected" multimedia content which dramatically hinders file access,
which has been documented to seriously slow down the system.

The dreaded and next to useless and often frustrating UAC which in
it's present implementation is mostly a joke, the worst version of
Media Player and Movie Maker yet, removal of key features in the
business version, like no support for burning DVD's, yet trying to
pass itself off as "better" and the preferred upgrade path costing $40
more but having crippled items that are included in the less expensive
home premium version so there's not a lot to get excited over and
plenty to get pissed-off about. I paid $200 for this? It should have
been priced at $29 tops.

Everything points to a rushed out the door, mainly just a new,
prettier face, no major leap forward in any "wow" improvements I can
see. In short a disappointment, way bloated, hogging far too much of
my root drive and way too costly for what you get. Hopefully will be
better once the first service pack comes out. Which is what REALLY
pisses me off. I'm sick and tired of paying good money for a not
ready, half-baked operating system that's full of bugs requiring me to
act as a unpaid beta tester and daily curse at something that won't
work correctly till many months after release and only then hopefully
if SP1 addresses the mountain of known issues users have already found
while Microsoft does the usual dance and finger pointing. Just once it
would be nice if the boys of Redmond released a version of Windows
that WAS ready for prime time right out of the box. That is simply too
much to expect I guess.

 

[Frank]

Sure, you may not have experienced any major problems, that's great.
I haven't, either. But, can you tell me where the "Wow" went? Perhaps,
your "wow" comes down to nothing more than a clean OS install,
which many users could get by just doing a clean reinstall of XP.

You and obviously a few others thought that installing Vista would
change the world of computing right "NOW".
But using Vista with current or old hardware/software is not going to
produce any "WOW" right "NOW".
Vista is designed for use right now but it's technological advances are
designed to take advantage of future hardware/software features and
innovations and developments.
Look at it this way, if you simply installed Vista where you had XP
other than a new look, you'll not notice much difference. But XP is for
all intense and purposes dead. Development by hardware/software
developers will now focus strictly on the Vista platform.
It is the future.
Frank

 

[Alias]

You and obviously a few others thought that installing Vista would
change the world of computing right "NOW".
But using Vista with current or old hardware/software is not going to
produce any "WOW" right "NOW".
Vista is designed for use right now but it's technological advances are
designed to take advantage of future hardware/software features and
innovations and developments.
Look at it this way, if you simply installed Vista where you had XP
other than a new look, you'll not notice much difference. But XP is for
all intense and purposes dead. Development by hardware/software
developers will now focus strictly on the Vista platform.
It is the future.
Frank

That's what MS said about Windows Me. XP is far from dead. Windows 2000,
for that matter, isn't either. I think something is belching and
snorting in your brain.

HP just developed a control panel for Ubuntu to make using HP printers
easier to configure for Ubuntu. I guess HP should call you and ask you
about the future if they can stand listening to your belching and
snorting on the phone.

Alias