Vista Issues and Usage

[Guest]

I have never been so disappointed with an operating system in my 20 years of
Information Technology. This Windows Vista release has become the laughing
stock of operating systems in my group of professionals (and growing). I
have NOW been recommending to ALL of my peers NOT to upgrade to Vista and to
move to Apple OS or Anything OTHER than Vista (I am NOT an Apple Fan ) - My
experiences with Blue Screens, Hardware compatibility, software compatibility
has been a complete nightmare. I have over 900 systems that I support within
my many organizations as well as 350 more systems to purchase by the end of
2007 - My infrastructure planning has changed DUE TO this release of Vista.
I do not understand why Microsoft chose to make COSMETIC changes that
hinder IT professionals using development tools, network monitoring
/searching software and numerous hardware drivers that WILL NOT install.
Extremely disappointed to say the least.


----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...81b&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

 

[Andyistic]

Those changes you see are not purely cosmetic.
They moved the complete GDI system deeper into the video subsystem.
If you have a decent video card (i.e. GeForce 8800), then Vista's graphics
will out-perform XP's GDI in every way.
If your video card is the minimum necessary for Aero, then you probably will
be disappointed in the graphic performance.

As for other hardware problems you may be having, it's really a matter of
getting current drivers which
were signed for Vista.
Most people have problems when they insist on using drivers from XP that
weren't really meant to be used in Vista.

I had my share of problems when I first worked with Vista (I was a beta
tester).
I went through all my hardware bit by bit using the most suitable drivers I
could find.
Now I have my system running under Vista (both 32 and 64 bit versions) just
fine.
If I can pull this off, I'm sure you can too.

-- Andy

 

[Guest]

Thank you for your response:
I have all of the latest Hardware/Software on 14 Thinkpad T60P series (3
with Vista) - All FULLY LOADED and Vista Capable - The GRAPHICS performance
is not the issue - it is the hardware/software that is NOT supported with
Vista. Here's a common sense question: How can Microsoft release an
Operating System to anyone KNOWING that most of the day to day
hardware/software being used in corporations do not have the Vista Driver's
available or software compatibility?
If I am purchase Vista I would have to buy ALL NEW workstations/laptops with
Vista preloaded to assure compatibility. If so, I now should think about
buying Apple with OS X preloaded or UNIX systems. The reason they are stable
is because the op sys is built FOR the hardware - I see this is what
Microsoft may be thinking. This is NOT cost effective to corporations.
I cannot bank on Hoping that Vista will work with up and coming
software/hardware or even (more importantly) older hardware/software.
Keeping the cost issues for the above mentioned - the next 300+ system I
purchase in my new buildings are being reviewed.
Still utterly disappointed -

 

[Stephan Rose]

Those changes you see are not purely cosmetic.
They moved the complete GDI system deeper into the video subsystem.
If you have a decent video card (i.e. GeForce 8800), then Vista's graphics
will out-perform XP's GDI in every way.

ie GeForce 8800???

Give me a friggin break!!!

We are talking about an OPERATING SYSTEM here!! Not Quake 10!!

It should NOT require a $600 video card to operate smoothly!!

The hardware requirements of Vista are one of the major things that are just
utterly ridiculous.

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Richard Urban]

Are you saying you didn't have any of these problems when upgrading from
Windows 3.1 (well within your 20 year experience window) to Windows 95? And
you didn't experience driver, hardware and software compatibility when
upgrading from Windows 95 to windows 98?

And you had no similar problems when upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows
2000 or to Windows XP.

I find that highly unlikely and question the motive for your post. You
obviously do not have the experience with computers and upgrading to newer
operating systems as you claim to have.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[Adam Albright]

Are you saying you didn't have any of these problems when upgrading from
Windows 3.1 (well within your 20 year experience window) to Windows 95? And
you didn't experience driver, hardware and software compatibility when
upgrading from Windows 95 to windows 98?

Want my experience? I had one issue with Windows 3.1. That was way
back when you had to install Windows by feeding your computer a stack
of floppies. Lucky me, disk #6 (I'll never forget) had a corrupted
file, so the install kept coming to a crashing halt. I waited over six
weeks before Microsoft sent a replacement floppy. :-(

As far as all the other versions of Windows between 3.1 and XP, no,
didn't have a single problem with any compatibility issues aside from
a few driver issues which is expected.

And you had no similar problems when upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows
2000 or to Windows XP.

I find that highly unlikely and question the motive for your post. You
obviously do not have the experience with computers and upgrading to newer
operating systems as you claim to have.

When will certain MVPs learn their function isn't to browbeat
Microsoft customers?

Did it ever occur to you or pentrate your thick skull that more
experienced users if they have problems can all by themselves resolve
the issues? Well duh... I had a minor problem installing Vista. My
fault. I trusted what the Vista Update Advisor said. Namely my system
was "Vista ready" and the few drivers it mentioned that it "didn't
have any information on" wouldn't cause any problems. They did. So I
resolved that and the 2nd attempt was successful.

One question, why do so many MVPs always seem to have a chip on their
shoulder? You don't know anywhere near what you think you known. Take
that to the bank.

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

It's not like this is Vista A, but 95A on a 486 is cramped too.

 

[Nick Goetz]

Are you saying you didn't have any of these problems when upgrading
from Windows 3.1 (well within your 20 year experience window) to
Windows 95? And you didn't experience driver, hardware and software
compatibility when upgrading from Windows 95 to windows 98?

And you had no similar problems when upgrading from Windows 98 to
Windows 2000 or to Windows XP.

I find that highly unlikely and question the motive for your post. You
obviously do not have the experience with computers and upgrading to
newer operating systems as you claim to have.

That should no longer be as relevant.

You'd think that the "powers that be" (Microsoft, hardware & software
developers included) would have perfected or at least greatly improved the
transitions from one OS upgrade/change to another (I beleive that with XP
they did - more or less).

Could it possibly be a question of what the user/buyer will tolerate versus
what the provider can get away with?

Nick Goetz

 

[Richard Urban]

Yes, one would think that with all the experience gained since 1992, in
upgrading operating systems, that Microsoft could have found a way to make
things happen.

Maybe a gold seal program for those manufacturers that had their hardware,
drivers and programs ready to go at launch time. This seal would be
prominently placed upon the retail box and could be displayed on the
companies web pages. Of course, some sort of incentive would have to be
awarded to the manufacturers that delivered - one that truly made a
difference to the manufacturer. One, that if the manufacturer didn't have,
would really affect him for a long time.

None of this made for - designed for - cross your fingers and hope it works
type of recommendation.

As far as older programs go though, you are still on your own - because they
do not marry well with the current security standards in place in Vista.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User