Please avoid Vista like the plague

[Wayne M. Poe]

You don't need Vista. If you have a good running XP Pro installation,
save money and build a quad core system and have something truly fast.
If you have XP Home, save money, get Pro, then build Dual or Quad Core
and enjoy a truly fast system.

Don't get sucked into the über graphical GUI. You need a high horsepower
system just to run in it very well. Put XP on said system and you'll get
an extremely fast and relatively light weight OS. All the extra DRM just
adds insult to injury in my book. Factor in the high cost (a new copy of
XP Pro is a fraction of the cost.)

If you need a super graphical interface, get Win Blinds and any of the
Widget software that's been floating out there for years. If you're
worried about DX 10. First, you wont really have software that really
uses it for some time. Second, DX 9 and lower is actually emulated and
games and such that use it run slower on Vista than on XP Pro on the
same system (according to many reviewer I've read.) Lastly, DX 10 will
be released or ported some way or another; the fewer the people that buy
Vista will help expedite this.

So please don't buy into the hype. Please don't waste your money. Stick
with XP (or what ever current OS) if it does everything you need and
works well for you. Please send Redmond a strong message.

 

[Frankster]

Don't get sucked into the über graphical GUI. You need a high horsepower

system just to run in it very well.

Boy I couldn't agree with you more. I am still running DOS3.1! It's fast as
hell on my new machine. O'course, I can't do much, but it sure produces a
directory list f*a*s*t!

-Frank

 

[Lakesidezx]

Oooops, too late, I've already bought it and I can't notice any slowdowns
over how this same box ran with XP pro on it, even my games still get 60fps
on the ones that have a fps cap at 60

 

[Peter M]

Gosh I better tell my old xp2800+, 2gigs, and radeon 9600Pro, that it's
running Vista wrong and should be running slow.

 

[Zim Babwe]

Oh no, how to I get rid of the plague?

 

[steveb]

Switching to Vista at this point is for hobbyist or the IT professional that
is required to know Vista for their particular line of work. I have 9 pages
of certification transcripts from Micorosoft, Cisco and SANS institute and I
have wasted 3 days trying to establish my work environment on Vista.
Because of further tweaks of TCP/IP and other security settings, most of my
security analysys software won't work. So my mobile bank network
penetration-testing notebooks will remain XP and Linux indefinetly.

There is no business reason to use Vista over XP. It looks like a very
costly migration to me because of elaborate security obstacles that have
been setup that impact the user, the support staff and the network manager.

 

[Jan Hyde]

"Lakesidezx" <[email protected]>'s wild thoughts were
released on Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:35:15 -0800 bearing the
following fruit:

Oooops, too late, I've already bought it and I can't notice any slowdowns
over how this same box ran with XP pro on it, even my games still get 60fps
on the ones that have a fps cap at 60

If anything my experience is that it runs faster.



Jan Hyde (VB MVP)

 

[Dustin Harper]

Don't knock that. Just for fun I installed Windows 98 on a P4 3.4 GHz
machine and it FLEW. I want to try my old DOS 6.22 and Win3.11...

And people thought that NVIDIA drivers sucked for Vista. Try DOS drivers
and Win3.11 drivers.

Dustin Harper
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.vistarip.com

 

[Richard Urban]

Way too late. I already have it and am liking it tremendously!

Peddle your trash elsewhere.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Richard Urban]

DOD 6.22 and WFWG 3.11, on a VirtualPC virtual machine boots in a blink -
literally.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Wayne M. Poe]

Boy I couldn't agree with you more. I am still running DOS3.1! It's
fast as hell on my new machine. O'course, I can't do much, but it
sure produces a directory list f*a*s*t!

You know that isn't the same as the current situation. If you have an XP
Pro machine and have kept it clean, tell why would an upgrade be
necessary. There's no way you can compare this to someone who would be
using an early DOS (or early Windows.)

 

[ChrisM]

In message (e-mail address removed),
steveb <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

:: Switching to Vista at this point is for hobbyist or the IT
:: professional that is required to know Vista for their particular
:: line of work.
:: <Snip!>
:: There is no business reason to use Vista over XP. It looks like a
:: very costly migration to me because of elaborate security obstacles
:: that have been setup that impact the user, the support staff and the
:: network manager.

This is the point everyone seems to be missing in all this arguing whether
Vista is a good thing or not. It might be a great OS, but it doesn't really
offer much (at the moment) over XP or even 2000.
It is pretty much inevitable that anyone that wants (or needs) to keep up
with the technology will have to upgrade to Vista eventually (I'm not going
to get into the M$ vs Linux argument at this point).
However, there is no NEED for me to make the jump now. Ok, if you WANT to
then fine, go for it. Personally, I'm fairly sure that I will upgrade
eventually (within 6 months or so maybe), but for the time being, I have a
perfectly good working system running Win2000, and can see no real point or
advantage in upgrading at the moment. Indeed, it seems sensible to me,
seeing as I have no compelling reason to upgrade, to wait and see what
happens with respect to bugs and service packs and so forth.

Sure, sooner or later, I'll probably find somthing that I can't do with this
setup that I'd like to be able to do (play HD-DVDs or run some new piece of
software that required Vista or whatever) and at that point, I'll
re-consider my options, and will probably upgrade. Until that happens, I'm
quite happy as I am, unless someone can convince me otherwise...

 

[Wayne M. Poe]

Oooops, too late, I've already bought it and I can't notice any
slowdowns over how this same box ran with XP pro on it, even my games
still get 60fps on the ones that have a fps cap at 60

Enjoy all the DRM, and it sounds like you aren't running the super
graphical desktop. If you are running a toned down desktop, then why
even bother going Vista. You're just paying for more of the same.

And I don't know what game you're playing, but if you're capping off at
60, then something is definitely wrong. On a decent video card, any game
more than a year or two old should be able to exceed that. In some you
may have to turn down settings depending on your hard ware, but you can
get more than 60 fps...

 

[Lakesidezx]

It isn't *necessary* at this point in time, it's the *wow* factor, as well
as some reaons that IT kind of people might need to upgrade right now. It
will become *necessary* when MS stops supporting XP.

Other than that, it's not necessary to upgrade, but it is nice to upgrade
and have the new OS and still have everything perform just as good or better
than it did in XP. I'd gander that the majority of people don't keep their
computers really clean and they get really sluggish, so they could reinstall
XP and get their performance back or they could upgrade to Vista and have
just as good or better performance.

 

[Wayne M. Poe]

"Lakesidezx" <[email protected]>'s wild thoughts were
released on Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:35:15 -0800 bearing the
following fruit:


If anything my experience is that it runs faster.

This is the misconception MS is surely banking on. You're comparing a
new install of Vista to an established install of XP, and there's no way
to know who clean your XP was, so there is no way to know if your XP was
running as fast as it could of been.

The cold hard fact is XP takes far less head room then Vista. Put XP Pro
on a Dual or Quad core, as many magazines have, and you get a stellar
boost in performance.

But you can have the DRM and broken drivers and software
incompatibilities. Enjoy.

 

[Vronans]

Uh, don't buy into it?

Oh no, how to I get rid of the plague?

 

[Lakesidezx]

In message (e-mail address removed),
steveb <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

:: Switching to Vista at this point is for hobbyist or the IT
:: professional that is required to know Vista for their particular
:: line of work.
:: <Snip!>
:: There is no business reason to use Vista over XP. It looks like a
:: very costly migration to me because of elaborate security obstacles
:: that have been setup that impact the user, the support staff and the
:: network manager.

This is the point everyone seems to be missing in all this arguing whether
Vista is a good thing or not. It might be a great OS, but it doesn't
really offer much (at the moment) over XP or even 2000.
It is pretty much inevitable that anyone that wants (or needs) to keep up
with the technology will have to upgrade to Vista eventually (I'm not
going to get into the M$ vs Linux argument at this point).
However, there is no NEED for me to make the jump now. Ok, if you WANT to
then fine, go for it. Personally, I'm fairly sure that I will upgrade
eventually (within 6 months or so maybe), but for the time being, I have a
perfectly good working system running Win2000, and can see no real point
or advantage in upgrading at the moment. Indeed, it seems sensible to me,
seeing as I have no compelling reason to upgrade, to wait and see what
happens with respect to bugs and service packs and so forth.

Sure, sooner or later, I'll probably find somthing that I can't do with
this setup that I'd like to be able to do (play HD-DVDs or run some new
piece of software that required Vista or whatever) and at that point, I'll
re-consider my options, and will probably upgrade. Until that happens, I'm
quite happy as I am, unless someone can convince me otherwise...

No point in trying to convince you otherwise, if you are happy with your
current OS then leave it alone, when you feel like upgrading then do so.

I personally like having the latest OS on my computer even though I go
through the frustrating first couple months with driver updates, OS updates
etc.

 

[Loopy]

Hey Wayne. Have you ever bought a new car even though the one you're
driving is still running good? Ever used another web browser even though IE
is doing everything you want to do? Sometimes you buy things just because
you want a change or something new. Ever repainted a room just because
you're tired of the old color? I'm enjoying the new look of Vista Ultimate
and so far all of my installed programs are working, my HP printer is
printing and I have a 5.1 surround system working. I have a couple of minor
issues but nothing that prevents me from enjoying my new install of Vista.
Have you actually installed and used Vista or are you just parroting things
you've read.

 

[Saran]

Hope you like Big Brother and more of the same in Windows... Winblinds
can even make it look better without so much performance hit. Why waste
money on Vista? I've tested and theres nothing that really makes it
owrth it from what I could see.

Why would I want to spend more time and anguish to set everything up a
new (the "upgrade" install is rubbish) ?

Spending a lot of money and a lot of time for very little return is a
waste.

But if you want to feed those who feel they need to be in control of
everything (cough-riaa-mpaa-sony-etc-cought).... then thats your right I
guess. I mean if it wasn't for morons like yourself, Microsoft would
never of been so sucessful in the past.

 

[Beck]

You don't need Vista. If you have a good running XP Pro installation, save
money and build a quad core system and have something truly fast. If you
have XP Home, save money, get Pro, then build Dual or Quad Core and enjoy
a truly fast system.

Don't get sucked into the über graphical GUI. You need a high horsepower
system just to run in it very well. Put XP on said system and you'll get
an extremely fast and relatively light weight OS. All the extra DRM just
adds insult to injury in my book. Factor in the high cost (a new copy of
XP Pro is a fraction of the cost.)

If you need a super graphical interface, get Win Blinds and any of the
Widget software that's been floating out there for years. If you're
worried about DX 10. First, you wont really have software that really uses
it for some time. Second, DX 9 and lower is actually emulated and games
and such that use it run slower on Vista than on XP Pro on the same system
(according to many reviewer I've read.) Lastly, DX 10 will be released or
ported some way or another; the fewer the people that buy Vista will help
expedite this.

So please don't buy into the hype. Please don't waste your money. Stick
with XP (or what ever current OS) if it does everything you need and works
well for you. Please send Redmond a strong message.

The £70 I paid for my Vista is worth every penny with the excellent spam
protection that Windows Mail provides. I have never seen spam protection as
good as this before even with 3rd party anti-spam add ons.
Thankyou but I am going to stick with Vista and have no reason to go back to
XP.