Vista is worth the challenge.

[Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 \(5384\), OPP2007B2]

I'm not a power user, developer or programmer, just a home user with a
hobby. I remember when Windows x64 was in beta before RC1, the complaints
were the same as they are now about Vista x86 or x64. Having proper drivers
for the operating system is more critical than most people understand and
aren't written by MS. I briefly tested Vista x86 on a test machine with only
1 hard drive and partition. I found that doing an upgrade installation wasn't
a problem if incompatible programs including AV were removed prior to the
upgrade, or an installation replacing XP 32-bit, files were saved in a
"Windows old" folder. The only way to remove Vista x86 was to format and
reinstall the original operating system. The successful installation was
achieved by reading and following the directions prior to installing Vista
x86. Currently I have Vista x64 installed on a test PC and on a separate
hard drive on my main PC. The operating system has been very stable, UAC was
annoying but not a hindrance. This operating system is different than XP
which creates a learning curve similar to the differences between Windows
3.1 and XP. The security protocols are new and reverse the pattern of
relaxing security starting with Windows 95 through XP (not including NT or
Windows 2000), each operating system upgrade eliminated security more. Now
security is more important than ever before because the treats can affect
millions of computers not just a few. Learning a new operating system is a
challenge and shouldn't be dismissed because it's different or difficult at
first. Bypassing, eliminating or modifying things because they're different
than XP defeats the purpose of Vista or any new operating system to follow.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I support your conclusions completely. The only additional thought I have
is that the compat list that appears before starting the upgrade proper is
not mandatory enough. It should not be possible to proceed with certain
packages still installed IMHO.

 

[Dennis Pack x64, v64B2 \(5384\), OPP2007B2]

Colin:
Thanks for catching that I didn't empathize strongly enough that the
removal of incompatible hardware or programs is mandatory. I agree fully
that if incompatible hardware or programs are present the installation
should stop unless they're removed.

 

[pvdg42]

I'm not a power user, developer or programmer, just a home user with a
hobby. I remember when Windows x64 was in beta before RC1, the complaints
were the same as they are now about Vista x86 or x64. Having proper
drivers for the operating system is more critical than most people
understand and aren't written by MS. I briefly tested Vista x86 on a test
machine with only 1 hard drive and partition. I found that doing an
upgrade installation wasn't a problem if incompatible programs including
AV were removed prior to the upgrade, or an installation replacing XP
32-bit, files were saved in a "Windows old" folder. The only way to remove
Vista x86 was to format and reinstall the original operating system. The
successful installation was achieved by reading and following the
directions prior to installing Vista x86. Currently I have Vista x64
installed on a test PC and on a separate hard drive on my main PC. The
operating system has been very stable, UAC was annoying but not a
hindrance. This operating system is different than XP which creates a
learning curve similar to the differences between Windows 3.1 and XP. The
security protocols are new and reverse the pattern of relaxing security
starting with Windows 95 through XP (not including NT or Windows 2000),
each operating system upgrade eliminated security more. Now security is
more important than ever before because the treats can affect millions of
computers not just a few. Learning a new operating system is a challenge
and shouldn't be dismissed because it's different or difficult at first.
Bypassing, eliminating or modifying things because they're different than
XP defeats the purpose of Vista or any new operating system to follow.

Well said!

 

[Guest]

But shouldn't HAVE to fuss with the OS. Yeah Vista has alot more features,
but it is BROKE. A OS should naturally, or near naturally, fit the user like
a glove.

The graceful nature that the api's interface with the hardware and software,
the seamless memory management, the alert network sensing. The OS should
glide, along with added security, stability, responsivness, a well thought
out end-user interface, and for god sake be able to run a application without
crashing. Paint and Word 2007 produce COM+ errors, and those are MS
products....wtf????

Vista is dead.

 

[Mark D. VandenBeg]

But shouldn't HAVE to fuss with the OS. Yeah Vista has alot more features,
but it is BROKE. A OS should naturally, or near naturally, fit the user
like
a glove.

The graceful nature that the api's interface with the hardware and
software,
the seamless memory management, the alert network sensing. The OS should
glide, along with added security, stability, responsivness, a well thought
out end-user interface, and for god sake be able to run a application
without
crashing. Paint and Word 2007 produce COM+ errors, and those are MS
products....wtf????

Vista is dead.

Vista hasn't even been born yet. How can it already be dead.

It's a beta, full of bugs and missing a BUNCH of things. The software
vendors and the hardware vendors are still working on compatibility issues
with their products as well.

Why don't you re-look at Vista when it is finished, or at least support your
argument with some example of how Vista is "broke" (sic) and how you are
sure that this will not be changed before Vista becomes an actual, retail,
consumable product?

 

[Jason]

Well said Mark, Collin and Dennis. Granted Vista has bugs but it is BETA.
I have to give Microsoft credit for at least trying to make a more secured
OS and considering the Vista core was rebuild from the ground up, it is
starting to be nice. At least it has improved a lot since beta 2 and I am
sure it will be even better by RC1.

 

[MICHAEL]

"considering the Vista core was rebuild from the ground up"

That's not really true.

-Michael

 

[Chad Harris]

It hasn't fulfilled its own definition of a Release Candidate with the thing
that was shipped to TAP 3 days ago.

CH

 

[Guest]

It's a beta for about two-three more weeks, then a RC. From what I have read,
the memory leak has been fixed... but some api's don't play nice (which yes,
can be patched), indexing still needs work. And I tend to believe MS MVP's
and people who have beta tested MS products for 12-20 years.

MS is two months away from finalization, do you want the headache of a
Windows Me?

 

[jonah]

I'm not a power user, developer or programmer, just a home user with a
hobby. I remember when Windows x64 was in beta before RC1, the complaints
were the same as they are now about Vista x86 or x64. Having proper drivers
for the operating system is more critical than most people understand and
aren't written by MS. I briefly tested Vista x86 on a test machine with only
1 hard drive and partition. I found that doing an upgrade installation wasn't
a problem if incompatible programs including AV were removed prior to the
upgrade, or an installation replacing XP 32-bit, files were saved in a
"Windows old" folder. The only way to remove Vista x86 was to format and
reinstall the original operating system. The successful installation was
achieved by reading and following the directions prior to installing Vista
x86. Currently I have Vista x64 installed on a test PC and on a separate
hard drive on my main PC. The operating system has been very stable, UAC was
annoying but not a hindrance. This operating system is different than XP
which creates a learning curve similar to the differences between Windows
3.1 and XP. The security protocols are new and reverse the pattern of
relaxing security starting with Windows 95 through XP (not including NT or
Windows 2000), each operating system upgrade eliminated security more. Now
security is more important than ever before because the treats can affect
millions of computers not just a few. Learning a new operating system is a
challenge and shouldn't be dismissed because it's different or difficult at
first. Bypassing, eliminating or modifying things because they're different
than XP defeats the purpose of Vista or any new operating system to follow.

I agree with most of what you say from a home user POV but for small
businesses the learning curve and general aggravation Vista will
entail is just not worth the time and money required. Vista is great
for inexperienced home users with single machines or small networks.
There is not enough in it to warrant a business upgrading from a
stable XP Pro - Win 2000 system. I look after a lot of small
businesses and I can tell you they are not going to upgrade, they are
there to make a living not to faff about with learning curves.

I am sure Vista will become viable for business as people get used to
it at home but that will be at least 12 to 18 months if ever for most
of my guys.

The fact that Vista is much improved in many ways over XP (when it
works correctly anyway) will cut zero ice when the first thing they
cannot find is the file menu FFS!.

This is not a revolutionary OS it is a highly tweaked and paranoid
version of XP with pretty graphics, horrible networking and an even
worse search facility and thats just scratching the surface. If it was
a revolutionary OS with the features originally promised then it would
be worth the effort.

I hope RC1 is a vast improvement.

I quite like Vista and I really like office 12 but I have the time,
knowledge and motivation to play with it, my clients do not.



Jonah