Acer: PC Industry 'disappointed' with Vista

Acer president Gianfranco Lanci became the first major PC manufacturer to openly attack Microsoft over the Windows Vista operating system in the Financial Times Deutschland on Monday. Lanci said the operating system was riddled with problems and gave users and businesses no reason to buy a new PC, according to the report. Taiwan-based Acer is the world's fourth-largest PC manufacturer, after HP, Dell and Lenovo. "The whole industry is disappointed with Windows Vista," Lanci said. Despite the long wait between Windows XP and Vista, the latest operating system still lacks maturity, "Stability is certainly a problem," he said.

Users are voting with their feet, Lanci said, so that the Vista launch has had the smallest impact on PC sales of any version of Windows in the history of PC manufacturing. He added the situation didn't look likely to change in the next six months. Many business customers have specifically asked for Windows XP to be installed on their new machines, Lanci noted. While industry pundits have detailed user problems with Vista over the past few months, including sluggishness, the expense of acquiring hardware powerful enough to run the OS and lack of support for many critical applications, PC makers have so far looked on the brighter side. HP, Dell, Lenovo and Toshiba have continued offering XP-equipped machines, but these are generally aimed at consumers or small businesses, not large corporate clients.

News source: TechWorld

Microsoft itself says Vista has been a smashing successs, saying it had already sold 20 million Vista licences by March. Last week the company said its quarterly income was $13.4 billion ($6.5 billion), up 13 percent from the same quarter last year, growth it said was partly due to strong Vista sales. The company has said most Vista users are satisfied and that nearly all software and hardware is compatible. On the other hand, the company recently told analysts it expects Windows XP to make up a significantly larger part of sales than it had previously expected, at Vista's expense. Chief financial officer Chris Liddell has told analysts that he expects XP to make up 22 percent of sales in Microsoft's new fiscal year, up from the previous estimate of 15 percent. Vista would make up the remaining 78 percent of Windows sales. Windows XP sales will, in other words, be nearly 50 percent[/extended

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Laptops without USB cables

Next Story

7-Zip 4.50 Beta

92 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Every time MS releases a *new* OS, it digs out the same old marketing lines.

Previously it is said that Vista = XP + Windows Blind.

Now, it appears that: XP + Windows Blind > Vista, but < Vista in cost.

I laugh every time I see a new post about Vista and then 3000 comments about how it sucks/doesn't suck. Same **** when XP came out and same **** when 2000 came out. Nobody wanted to upgrade, everyone refused to use it because it required better hardware, it was buggy, it didn't support ****, blah blah.

Just like with the last 3 releases, Vista, XP and 2000, it took until SP1 before they were even bearable for the average person. This is how it's always been and yet everytime, you get the same people jumping to the gun to buy it just so they can come here and complain about it. I swear that these people are gultins for punishment. If you don't like it or your machine is too slow under it, then don't use it. Vista is by no means designed for a system that is 7-10 years old. I have an old P4 2.4/512 RAM/36GB drive that runs fine on it and I have my new Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/300 GB drive that runs really good on it.

Face the facts people, you will all switch eventually just like you did with 2000 and XP. I haven't switched yet, but I'm damn sure going to once SP1 comes out. And as far as the typical uneducated group of people that still troll message boards saying it's "Eye candy and nothing more". Again, same thing was said for XP, because users can't stand change and change is inevitable in every aspect of life today. There's nothing you can do to stop it, simple as that. It's not about the GUI upgrades, it's about all the other technology they have put in to it and so far, it's a lot better than XP ever was, even today. But yes, it's going to take a service pack and some usage from the general public to get this thing going in the right direction. This is normal as it is with any operating system MS has ever released. I don't understand why people come on here, say the same **** that's been said over and over and act surprised when something doesn't go right. This is the computer world for you, so suck it up.

Basically to summarize this rant, this has all been said before, it's all been said about XP and 2000, it's all the same ****. SP1 comes out, you will all be praising the high heavens and switching to Vista. Even if you don't switch then, you will switch eventually after realizing how stupid you sounded "back in the day when you said Vista sucked". This is how the computing world operates, so give it a rest already. Even after that, if you are too stubborn to realize you were wrong, there's always Windows 7 which will be out in about 3-4 years anyway.

What happened to the promises of Vista being more stable than XP? It's the same old story from MS.--IT IS MORE STABLE!

What were you expecting from Vista??? That is going to do your laundry too?? Come on, From what I’ve experienced so far (and my system is rather old)I can’t complain, sure it has issues but ALL OSes do! It’s never enough for you people is it? Is Microsoft EVER gonna fully satifsfy everyone—hell no, and you know why? Because it’s IMPOSSIBLE. As soon as people realize that and quit whining the better.

WHATEVER!!!!

And that’s coming from a company that used to make some of the worst desktop PC’s Ever Made!!???I used to own an Acer PC back in 1997 and it was a total piece of shi........!!! Anyways he got a nerve!! BTW to ALL you Vista hating LOOSERS—I happen to like vista and if you wanna be stuck in 2001(the year XP launched)OS technology then go ahead, but just STFUP about vista already!!!

I would like Vista if it would work correctly on my computer. It is not an old computer BTW.

Edit : here are my computer specs
Athlon 64 X2, Asus A8N-SLI SE, 2048 Mbs RAM, SoundBlaster Audigy 4, GeForce 7600GT x2 in SLI.

hal90001 said,
BTW to ALL you Vista hating LOOSERS—I happen to like vista and if you wanna be stuck in 2001(the year XP launched)OS technology then go ahead, but just STFUP about vista already!!!

Listen buddy, the only "LOOSERS" around here are the ones that ran out and bought Vista like it was going to change their lives or something.

ACER isn't the only OEMs complaining about Vista.

Furthermore, what does Vista do that XP can't? XP also has IPv6 support if you really need that. Vista performance hasn't been better than XP's, so where's all the technological innovation? Even DX10 can be ported to XP if MS would stop lying to people so it can sell more copies of its unstable OS.

Instead of piling on lame features no one asked for, MS should have improved the OS so it performed significantly better and was significantly more stable.

What happened to the promises of Vista being more stable than XP? It's the same old story from MS.

toadeater said,
Even DX10 can be ported to XP ...

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

nVidia has a lot of OpenGL examples that shows functionality only available on their 8xxx lines of cards (DirectX 10 line of cards) that implements functionnality from DirectX 10 in the form of OpenGL extensions.

It all works well under XP.

Link : http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/1...gl/samples.html

It is not the first time Microsoft lies to it's userbase. But this time it is really ridiculous.

tx83 said,

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

nVidia has a lot of OpenGL examples that shows functionality only available on their 8xxx lines of cards (DirectX 10 line of cards) that implements functionnality from DirectX 10 in the form of OpenGL extensions.

It all works well under XP.

Link : http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/1...gl/samples.html

It is not the first time Microsoft lies to it's userbase. But this time it is really ridiculous.


Well, they say XP won't have DX10, because they refuse to put DX10 on XP. It is not that they *can't* put DX10 on XP.
A lot of things are possible, but for the sake of money and technical advancement, people refuse to do it.

toadeater said,

Listen buddy, the only "LOOSERS" around here are the ones that ran out and bought Vista like it was going to change their lives or something.

ACER isn't the only OEMs complaining about Vista.

Furthermore, what does Vista do that XP can't? XP also has IPv6 support if you really need that. Vista performance hasn't been better than XP's, so where's all the technological innovation? Even DX10 can be ported to XP if MS would stop lying to people so it can sell more copies of its unstable OS.

Instead of piling on lame features no one asked for, MS should have improved the OS so it performed significantly better and was significantly more stable.

What happened to the promises of Vista being more stable than XP? It's the same old story from MS.

just curious as to why you woudl even think ipv6 is a feature or even useful, the world is still on ipv4 and doesn't look like moving anytime soon now that NAT is here

I never had an problem from the RC2 days.....and the RTM is working fine...


I dont use my vista system only for Browsing, i do DirectX gaming, running photoshop, Flash,a custom (our company owned) CRM package..

Vs.net 2005, office 2007& SQL 2005....

i had a minor issue when copying files to my harddisk from my dvd drive which made data loss...but it was due to my IDE based old DVD writer(which is now thrown away!!)....got SATA based (ASUS :-( )DVD writer and now everything works charm...

Specs: Intel 945 , Intel core duo, 2 GB , DVD writer, 1 IDE 80 GB Seagate, 120 GB SATA Samsung , nvidia 7300 LE graphics (256 MB) Aero works charm!! + a broadband connection.

Everyone in my home use my system without any issues. i dont know why the big company like Acer is criticing Vista.

HP, Sony Vaio based Vista laptops doesnt create any issues at all (once all the crap wares like free & trial products are uninstalled).

i am sorry and i will gety bagged for this, but home users don't count, use it in the real world and then tell me it is brilliant.

i can guarantee with any PC or any OS i have dealt with there is a lot more crap to fix at work than at home.

Been using Vista Ultimate since November 2006 [beta for even longer] and it is in no way crap. It boots up faster than XP, even with the same programs but more hardisk space used up. Sound quality is much much better and applications and games load and run a lot better/faster.

I've had 4 BSODs which I linked to a crappy nvidia driver, changed it and never saw another BSOD again. 2 Application crashes, 1 for msn messenger and 1 for ie.

Neither me nor my dad has had any problems with vista [aside from the crappy nvidia drivers and itunes lag neither which are microsoft's fault]

My specs: 2.0ghz centrino, 2gb ddr2 ram, nvidia 6800 go 256mb
Dad's specs: 1.8ghz core 2 duo, 1gb ddr2 ram, ati x1300

---

While industry pundits have detailed user problems with Vista over the past few months, including sluggishness

Crappy driver support, and old hardware is the reason for this.

the expense of acquiring hardware powerful enough to run the OS[/b]

What expense? Vista [minus aero] runs quite well on older hardware. If you want all the effects then get a better computer. Funny how people complain about OSes requiring new hardware when new games always seem to require high-end computers, and people rarely, if ever, complain about that.

I am sure the recommended specs of Leopard are similar as well.

and lack of support for many critical applications,

And how is this Vista's / Microsoft's fault that companies can't provide support for their own products?

-Razorfold said,
Funny how people complain about OSes requiring new hardware when new games always seem to require high-end computers, and people rarely, if ever, complain about that.

Funny how you are comparing the HW requirements of an OS with those of a videogame

ichi said,

Funny how you are comparing the HW requirements of an OS with those of a videogame :rolleyes:

What I am saying is that when games require new hardware constantly why wouldn't OSes?

-Razorfold said,

What I am saying is that when games require new hardware constantly why wouldn't OSes?

Because OSes aren't videogames?

Nowadays in the desktop world people (gamers aside) keep buying hardware just to service the OS. A complete nonsense.

I don't know about you but if I buy new hardware it's to get better performance from apps, not to feed the OS so it "runs" instead of crawling.

ichi said,

Because OSes aren't videogames?

Nowadays in the desktop world people (gamers aside) keep buying hardware just to service the OS. A complete nonsense.

I don't know about you but if I buy new hardware it's to get better performance from apps, not to feed the OS so it "runs" instead of crawling.

Back to my original point. Vista runs on older computers fine when the visual effects are disabled. I know someone who has gotten a longhorn m4 build running on Pentium II.

Practically everyone who bought a decent computer back in like 2002 [2.0ghz processor, 512-1gb ram] will be able to run vista fine.

And do you really expect that newer OSes should be able to run on crap hardware? We don't live in the DOS world anymore... And if you think about it, buying new hardware to make applications run faster, or play high-end games and then complaining about vistas requiring new hardware is a bit contradictive? [considering you already have the hardware, if you get what I mean]

-Razorfold said,
And if you think about it, buying new hardware to make applications run faster, or play high-end games and then complaining about vistas requiring new hardware is a bit contradictive? [considering you already have the hardware, if you get what I mean]

The difference is in buying new hardware to speed up the apps vs buying new hardware just because of the new OS. Do you really need faster hardware to run office, msn and your internet browser of choice?

If a geforce3 is able to do fancy 3d compositing stuff just fine, and that's all you need it for, it doesn't fall under "crap hardware" in my book.

ichi said,
-Razorfold said,
And if you think about it, buying new hardware to make applications run faster, or play high-end games and then complaining about vistas requiring new hardware is a bit contradictive? [considering you already have the hardware, if you get what I mean]

The difference is in buying new hardware to speed up the apps vs buying new hardware just because of the new OS. Do you really need faster hardware to run office, msn and your internet browser of choice?

If a geforce3 is able to do fancy 3d compositing stuff just fine, and that's all you need it for, it doesn't fall under "crap hardware" in my book.

crap hardware in my book = anythign older than 5 years, i really don't care how good it was in it's time. it is not just the capabilities it is the compatibility, i can guareantee a geforce 3 & 4 will not run direct x 10, youd be lucky if it ran dx8

whocares78 said,
crap hardware in my book = anythign older than 5 years, i really don't care how good it was in it's time. it is not just the capabilities it is the compatibility, i can guareantee a geforce 3 & 4 will not run direct x 10, youd be lucky if it ran dx8

Last time I checked you didn't need dx10 to browse the web or write a letter.

Hardware performance doesn't degrade, it either keeps working or breaks. If I was able to get my work done with X hardware I don't see any reason to need twice the processing power and memory to do exactly the same (specially when it doesn't even guarantee that the work will get done any faster).

How fun is to keep buying newer, more powerfull hardware, just to see most common apps keep running the same as before? Sure, you can justify the upgrade if you are a gamer, or if you use to run resource intensive apps (video editing, 3d modeling and the likes) but for common home/office use it's as stupid as it gets.

I mean: a core2, 1GB ram and a geforce 7xxx to read the mail, surf the web, listen some music and chat with friends? Come on.

I had my share of BSOD (1 or 2 per day), incompatible hardware (my scanner and printer), applications crash (Powercinema 5 crash more than any other apps, and it is certified for Vista).

Good for you if you didn't encouter any of it. But it is REALLY not my case.

My computer :
Athlon 64 X2, Asus A8N-SLI SE, 2048 Mbs RAM, SoundBlaster Audigy 4, GeForce 7600GT x2 in SLI.

I never ever had a problem since I have this hardware. Windows XP SP2 is stable, Fedora 7 is stable.

I am not alone with problems. Those that don't have hardware problem, have software problem. I don't know (in my real life, at work) anybody who didn't have a problem with Vista.

I don't know anybody who didn't go back to XP after one or two weeks.

All I can say, you are really lucky OR you don't use your computer for anything except browsing the Web, checking you e-mail and/or play Solitaire.

Edit : While I was talking with my coworkers, we realised that we had all tried Windows Vista Business Edition (The edition most suited to our needs), maybe Windows Vista Home Premium or Windows Vista Ultimate works better. Also, we used the international version of the product.

If all those who had problems with Vista have the Business Edition or had the international version (not US), maybe it is related.

P.S.: Yes, the software is genuine, taken directly from MSDN.

Thats funny, I find Vista FASTER and MORE STABLE than XP. And I honestly mean that.

In fact, I've tried it on another computer, and it even runs just fine on an old AMD 2100+ socket A cpu with 512mb of ram. Not for games, but for normal computer use. For games you need more ram than 512mb.

I'd like to see Acer selling their computers with old technology. I guarantee you it won't happen despite what they claim. And since people are buying it with a new computer, there is no excuse to have any compatibility problems unless Acer messed up themselves.

Even on ShopNBC, they sell Acer computers all the time, and guess whats on their computers, its Vista, not XP. So why is Acer spewing this crap if XP is so much more popular in their eyes.

I had used 2000 and XP since early beta, and neither was this bad of a launch. All my hardware worked with them when they were released. I had XP running on 2 other computers of different builds without any issues. I can't say the same for Vista. I had to struggle to get it installed with 2-year old hardware. No, it isn't wholly Microsoft's fault, as Nvidia should have been better prepared, but it sure left a bad taste in my mouth. Usually, Microsoft works very hard with driver developers to get things right, but it seems like they have dropped the ball, which I find strange since the driver model for Vista has been available to developers for quite a while. /shrug Oh well. I went back to XP on my development box, and left my entertainment machine on Ultimate. I went back due to stability, IIS 7issues, and incompatibility with some software I am using, not because I think the OS is crap. It has some nice things that I do miss when I'm in XP, the searchable start menu being the biggest, along with IIS 7.

Thrawn said,
In the United States, Acer has a smaller market share then Apple Computer... and that is saying something.

So does IBM (Lenovo), so does Toshiba, so does Gateway/eMachines (as of the latest numbers), so does Sony. The only companies that outsell Apple in the US are Dell and HP/Compaq. What was your point again?

TRC said,
Actually I don't think either example is really saying anything.

OK, how about this one: Acer became this year the second biggest OEM in Europe (first when it comes to laptops).

ichi said,

OK, how about this one: Acer became this year the second biggest OEM in Europe (first when it comes to laptops).

still not really saying anything, maybe if anything it says americans and europeans have different preferences, but umm didn't everyone already know that???

whocares78 said,
still not really saying anything, maybe if anything it says americans and europeans have different preferences, but umm didn't everyone already know that???

They're selling truckloads of computers, and more laptops than anyone else in Europe. That what it says.

I had Vista Ultimate installed on my 2 best machines, which are EASILY capable of running the POS. Reverted back to XP Pro after 2 days!!

2 whole days to decide its crap, I can see you really tested it well. I didn't like it the first time I installed it but I did give it another chance and more than 2 whole days.

NinjaGinger said,

2 whole days to decide its crap, I can see you really tested it well. I didn't like it the first time I installed it but I did give it another chance and more than 2 whole days.

For the average user, if it isn't immediately easy, usable, enjoyable, there's something wrong. As so many Windows users have done throughout the years, you've simply decided to accept the situation (or are forced to) instead of looking elsewhere.

LTD said,

For the average user, if it isn't immediately easy, usable, enjoyable, there's something wrong. As so many Windows users have done throughout the years, you've simply decided to accept the situation (or are forced to) instead of looking elsewhere.

nothing specific to windows all OSes users are generally going to stay wit what they know, hence the reason mac practicaloly gives their computer to schools, trying to gain market by converting them early. it's nothing about accepting the situation it is about sticking with what you know, why go learn a whole new os if you don't have to. most users really don't care what os they use they just care that they can access the internet and check their email.

Is Acer still in business? :P

While industry pundits have detailed user problems with Vista over the past few months, including sluggishness, the expense of acquiring hardware powerful enough to run the OS and lack of support for many critical applications, PC makers have so far looked on the brighter side.

I'm using my XP hardware and I have no issues running Vista (runs better with Vista than XP). I hardly think it's MS's fault that hardware vendors are not writing quality drivers fast enough. I do not remember it taking this long for vendors to write quality drivers for 95.... It's almost like they want Vista to fail.

hagjohn said,
Is Acer still in business? :P

Did you even bother to read past the title?

Quote - FIRST FRIGGIN' PARAGRAPH
Taiwan-based Acer is the world's fourth-largest PC manufacturer, after HP, Dell and Lenovo.

phantasmorph said,

Did you even bother to read past the title?

Acer is very popular around the world - it seems that US customers have some sort of xenophobic driven hatred of anything thats from companies outside the US.

Their new emerald line looks very good - too bad using the Intel 4965 which is incompatible with Solaris and very immature hardware support on Linux (supported, but not very stable).

it seems that US customers have some sort of xenophobic driven hatred of anything thats from companies outside the US.

Don't be ridiculous, most companies are from outside the US these days. The real issue is familiarty. Acer doesn't sell many computers in the US, so to the average consumer here they seem to be more of a generic off brand. People buy brand names they're familiar with, no matter where in the world you are.

Don't these silly people know that its not Microsoft's fault that it puts out a crappy product? Its the consumers fault for not being computer experts and its also the driver writers' fault as well for not being owned by Microsoft as well so that they could get the proper info they needed from M$ to make device drivers that would function properly under Vista. [Note: sarcasm]

Foub said,
Don't these silly people know that its not Microsoft's fault that it puts out a crappy product? Its the consumers fault for not being computer experts and its also the driver writers' fault as well for not being owned by Microsoft as well so that they could get the proper info they needed from M$ to make device drivers that would function properly under Vista. [Note: sarcasm]

You do realise most of the companies at this point have had all the info they needed for atleast a year. Don't try to blame it on microsoft. IF you can find hardware with good drivers then vista runs flawlessly. Its not microsofts fault that hardware manufacturers have been lazy with there drivers.

majortom1981 said,
Foub said,
Don't these silly people know that its not Microsoft's fault that it puts out a crappy product? Its the consumers fault for not being computer experts and its also the driver writers' fault as well for not being owned by Microsoft as well so that they could get the proper info they needed from M$ to make device drivers that would function properly under Vista. [Note: sarcasm]

You do realise most of the companies at this point have had all the info they needed for atleast a year. Don't try to blame it on microsoft. IF you can find hardware with good drivers then vista runs flawlessly. Its not microsofts fault that hardware manufacturers have been lazy with there drivers.

Vista is a OPERATING SYSTEM, so the interaction with the drivers is the MORE IMPORTANT PART OF THE SYSTEM, even a operating system can be gui-less.

So, if MS wasn't able to suply, enchant or to "bribe" to manufactured to build drivers for their OS, then is MS fault. Even more, if you are a little manufactured, to create a driver came with a cost plus Microsoft didn't help much porting the drivers for Vista ... and to sign a drivers will cost a lot of money and time spend.


majortom1981 said,
You do realise most of the companies at this point have had all the info they needed for atleast a year.

Like for anti-virus and firewall programs?

Don't try to blame it on microsoft. IF you can find hardware with good drivers then vista runs flawlessly. Its not microsofts fault that hardware manufacturers have been lazy with there drivers.

I have around 25 years experience with Microsoft's OSes, I know what I'm talking about. They make crap. The secret to M$'s success is that Bill knew how to write a contract. Manufacturers had to pay royalties for each PC they built whether it had Windows on it or not. And of course, his family's connections at IBM... Its like with VHS and Betamax Video tapes, Betamax is superior, but VHS won out anyways.

Magallanes said,
Vista is a OPERATING SYSTEM, so the interaction with the drivers is the MORE IMPORTANT PART OF THE SYSTEM, even a operating system can be gui-less.

So, if MS wasn't able to suply, enchant or to "bribe" to manufactured to build drivers for their OS, then is MS fault. Even more, if you are a little manufactured, to create a driver came with a cost plus Microsoft didn't help much porting the drivers for Vista ... and to sign a drivers will cost a lot of money and time spend.


I'm sorry, but ********!. Vista was available in public pre-release form for many months before it went RTM in November last year. There was ample opportunity for hardware vendors to get their drivers ready for Vista, but most chose to wait until the OS was released to the public before even beginning with serious driver development. Some put out really poor beta drivers prior to this (nvidia for example), but these just didn't cut it.

As a part of the Vista Tech Beta team, I can say with 100% confidence that all the information needed on the new hardware architechture of Vista was available several months before RTM. Granted some of it was subject to change, but there was enough for hardware vendors to start developing at least 4-6 months before they actually did start. They just refused to spend the money early enough. Shameful.

majortom1981 said,
Don't try to blame it on microsoft. IF you can find hardware with good drivers then vista runs flawlessly.
Umm your assuming all the issues are driver related. My one issue so far is slow file transfer times which is not a 3rd party driver issue.

TCLN Ryster said,

I'm sorry, but ********!. Vista was available in public pre-release form for many months before it went RTM in November last year. There was ample opportunity for hardware vendors to get their drivers ready for Vista, but most chose to wait until the OS was released to the public before even beginning with serious driver development. Some put out really poor beta drivers prior to this (nvidia for example), but these just didn't cut it.

As a part of the Vista Tech Beta team, I can say with 100% confidence that all the information needed on the new hardware architechture of Vista was available several months before RTM. Granted some of it was subject to change, but there was enough for hardware vendors to start developing at least 4-6 months before they actually did start. They just refused to spend the money early enough. Shameful.

doesn't really work that well developing for a beta OS, what happens when a bug is found, you have to rewrite your code cause they changed the way they do something, which is indeed fairly common. you obviously don't work for a development company

Foub said,

Like for anti-virus and firewall programs?

I have around 25 years experience with Microsoft's OSes, I know what I'm talking about. They make crap. The secret to M$'s success is that Bill knew how to write a contract. Manufacturers had to pay royalties for each PC they built whether it had Windows on it or not. And of course, his family's connections at IBM... Its like with VHS and Betamax Video tapes, Betamax is superior, but VHS won out anyways.

i do not see how you can call XP crap 25 years in IT or 2, it is the most stable os i have ever used, and yes i have used linux and i have used macs, and what the hell are you on about "Manufacturers had to pay royalties for each PC they built whether it had Windows on it or not" to who??? what has this got to do with anything???

whocares78 said,
it is the most stable os i have ever used

Not a single person that I've known, on any of the companies I've worked for, thinks the same.
But then again, YMMV.

ichi said,

Not a single person that I've known, on any of the companies I've worked for, thinks the same.
But then again, YMMV.

i woudl be keen to know what you think is better.

i am assuming you do not know very many people.

whocares78 said,
i woudl be keen to know what you think is better.

z/OS, HP-UX or Tru64, to name a few.

i am assuming you do not know very many people.

That depends on how much people you need to consider it "very many people".

ichi said,

z/OS, HP-UX or Tru64, to name a few.

That depends on how much people you need to consider it "very many people".

i am glad you picked some well known well used OS's, as for HP-UX, if i remeber correclty and it was a few years ago, for the price of that i expect it to be absolutely perfect.

i actually thought we were talkign about commonly used OS's by everyday normal people. not application specific OS's like HP-UX but anyway, i spose in that regard you may be correct but in regards to a commonly used OS by everyday people i think XP woudl be damn close to winning

From most of the people who use PC for programming, web development and other kind of works even gaming I heard that they are not going to switch to Vista. Of course in one year 60+% of people I think will do that or choose other OS.

EduardValencia said,
60%! lol

i'd bet easily like 90%

umm do you know how many idiots are stil out there using windows 95 and 98, you will never get close to 90% of people upgrading in a year, i think 50% will be lucky.

EduardValencia said,
i'd bet easily like 90%

That "easily 90%" would mean replacing the whole windows install base with Vista, and assume Windows marketshare won't slip even a little bit. Even XP had a smaller marketshare before the Vista release.

That's just not going to happen.

Well, I been running Vista a long time, I like Microsoft I think to write OS for every user, every combination, every coder(including bad ones) is in my opinion nearly impossible.

But with that said I want to love Vista but I can't. Yes I'm still using it preying drivers, patches improve it. I like new features but feel most could be done with great skin, add-ons for XP.

My main points
1. I am a Microsoft fan
2. Setting drivers aside, memory issues, slow transferes, shutting down issues should not be in realeased OS.
3. Yes I know how configure system..............

Agreed with the slow transfers, copying and moving take forever and it's still calculating the estimate of how long the copy will take when it completes! Bring back the old Microsoft-Time (this is time based in a different dimension to normal time) based estimates which were better then it saying "Calculating..." all the time.

What memory and shutting down issues are you referring to? I have none.

running Firefox it's fine, if one the Internet explorer and having several tabs open eventually gets to the stage that not even the right mouse button works, you have to close down Internet explorer.

Yes I have 2 GB of RAM, not the perfect amount of RAM but it should be ample.

At the moment about 50% of the time it locks up on logging out, not such a big problem as I rarely reboot anyway.

Incidentally I thought they were going to get rid of the rebooting issues when installing new drivers and new software.

Don't know about Acer, but looks like HP is giving free copies of winXP to customers who purchased a computer with Vista (at least that's what I've been told).

ichi said,
Don't know about Acer, but looks like HP is giving free copies of winXP to customers who purchased a computer with Vista (at least that's what I've been told).

They did the same thing with XP, They gave dual XP/2000 license with the option to choose on first boot which one you want..

I believe they've done that for eons, I remember setting up computers where on first boot it would ask you to select either OS/2 or Windows 3.1, and after selecting the other OS would be deleted from the hard drive.

Vista just plain sucks donkey dung for all the changes and delays they incurred. If you need a super computer just to turn the thing on, that is totally stupid. It's already in need of an 8 million MB service pack and only been out a short time. I've NEVER incurred such issues going from one OS to another, like I have with Vista Me.

I had Vista Ultimate installed on my 2 best machines, which are EASILY capable of running the POS. Reverted back to XP Pro after 2 days!!

cork1958 said,
Vista just plain sucks donkey dung for all the changes and delays they incurred. If you need a super computer just to turn the thing on, that is totally stupid. It's already in need of an 8 million MB service pack and only been out a short time. I've NEVER incurred such issues going from one OS to another, like I have with Vista Me.

I had Vista Ultimate installed on my 2 best machines, which are EASILY capable of running the POS. Reverted back to XP Pro after 2 days!!

I like how you say it stinks but dont tell us why?

You also realise that out of the gate xp stunk also? it wasnt till sp1 that people started to like xp.

cork1958 said,
Vista just plain sucks donkey dung for all the changes and delays they incurred. If you need a super computer just to turn the thing on, that is totally stupid. It's already in need of an 8 million MB service pack and only been out a short time. I've NEVER incurred such issues going from one OS to another, like I have with Vista Me.

I had Vista Ultimate installed on my 2 best machines, which are EASILY capable of running the POS. Reverted back to XP Pro after 2 days!!

BS! Apple sells 2.3ghz core 2 duos for their macs

Linux+Beryl equires decent hardware , ubuntu 7.10 (beryl intergrated) will run best on highend hardware

New OS should and must demand new hardware, don't want to? don't use it... install windows 200 for we care and don't come whining here because I have vista running on athlon xp 2500+ with 2gb ram and radeon 9600xt and I'm pleased to the roof

ichi said,

Decent hardware being an integrated intel video card.

In reality aero on vista requires only the 915 but intel doesnt want to write the driver for it. they keep making excuses.

majortom1981 said,
In reality aero on vista requires only the 915 but intel doesnt want to write the driver for it. they keep making excuses.

But still doesn't work with geforce3 nor geforce4.

Beastage said,

BS! Apple sells 2.3ghz core 2 duos for their macs

Linux+Beryl equires decent hardware , ubuntu 7.10 (beryl intergrated) will run best on highend hardware

New OS should and must demand new hardware, don't want to? don't use it... install windows 200 for we care and don't come whining here because I have vista running on athlon xp 2500+ with 2gb ram and radeon 9600xt and I'm pleased to the roof

But what about those of us who want features but don't want the flashy gui?

For me, I'm sitting here with Solaris x86 + StarOffice on a Core 2 Duo 1.83ghz machine.

It was loaded with Windows Vista Business by default - one would assume they picked the hardware and software bundle because they work together well - well, thats what conventional wisdom would tell you. The reality is that when I ran it - boot times are slower than Solaris, responsiveness is shocking especially under a heavy load, a strange error last night on a mates Vista computer, a strange black box appeared around his mouse cursor - explain that one!

As for comparing Windows 2000 to Vista. Windows 2000 came with some significant improvements - it was hugely more stable than Windows NT 4 for instance, a lot more applications ran, more hardware support and sure, on a 5400rpm drive it was painful but if you had a speedy 7200rpm with 256MB Ram, it was a speed demon. One could weigh up the extra hardware with what it delivered, and it all matched up nicely. Higher specs but better security and stability. That's a good trade off.

Windows Vista, on the other hand, hasn't delivered anything. New API's that none of Microsofts own applications actually use! hardware support that is pathetically immature at best, no clear path when the next service pack will be released, security updates coming out like there is no tomorrow - sorry, nothing has changed.

cork1958 said,
Vista just plain sucks donkey dung for all the changes and delays they incurred. If you need a super computer just to turn the thing on, that is totally stupid. It's already in need of an 8 million MB service pack and only been out a short time. I've NEVER incurred such issues going from one OS to another, like I have with Vista Me.

I had Vista Ultimate installed on my 2 best machines, which are EASILY capable of running the POS. Reverted back to XP Pro after 2 days!!

Thats 7.6 terabytes friend. Get with it!

ichi said,

But still doesn't work with geforce3 nor geforce4.


And why should it? The GF3 and GF4 are fossils (5 and 4 generations old respectively). Trying to run Vista on a GF3 or 4 is like buying a Porshe and trying to drive it on an old bumpy dirt track. While it will get you from A to B, the ride won't be very pleasant and the car will only be able to run at a slow speed. Upgrade to a nice smooth tarmac road (GF7xxx or 8xxx ).

TCLN Ryster said,
And why should it? The GF3 and GF4 are fossils (5 and 4 generations old respectively). Trying to run Vista on a GF3 or 4 is like buying a Porshe and trying to drive it on an old bumpy dirt track. While it will get you from A to B, the ride won't be very pleasant and the car will only be able to run at a slow speed. Upgrade to a nice smooth tarmac road (GF7xxx or 8xxx ). :)

I'm not saying it should, just that Beryl/Compiz does.

The original argument was "New OS should and must demand new hardware", which is not true. A new OS should require new hardware only when strictly needed, not for the sake of it, and at the same time take advantage of newer hardware when available.

Going on with your car analogy, if my car is running smooth and your's is not, maybe the problem is not on the road

cork1958 said,
I had Vista Ultimate installed on my 2 best machines, which are EASILY capable of running the POS. Reverted back to XP Pro after 2 days!!

It seem like you'll never go back to Vista. Can I (at least) have one of your Ultimate key? Think about it, you hate this OS. The longer you keep the key the more you'll hate the OS, the more your blood pressure will rise and the worst your health will become. Let's go of the things that make you unhappy (*cough*key*cough*).

I was just kidding about the key part. I think you should give Vista another try, maybe after SP1 would be more suitable for you. Personally, I find Vista working very well and won't go back to XP. Perhaps XP will run faster on my current hardwares, but Vista isn't that slow and once you're used to it browsing around folders are much quicker, as well as finding things. For my usage Vista has more pros than cons.

majortom1981 said,
You also realise that out of the gate xp stunk also? it wasnt till sp1 that people started to like xp.

That's why I didn't upgrade to XP until SP1, and why I sure have no plans to upgrade to Vista until SP1. Microsoft stonewalling about the need to release an SP1 for Vista isn't helping. Vista needs to be patched before it is ready for mainstream use.

Even patched, I still see little reason for businesses to upgrade. Vista is too much of a consumer OS, and it's biggest selling point is DX10. Vista is not more stable than XP, it doesn't perform better, it has "DRM", and the requirements are higher if you want to use Aero--which is pretty useless to begin with. Is it any surprise that Vista isn't selling? People don't care about eye candy as much as Microsoft assumed they did, it isn't 1995 any more, shiny 3D buttons can't sell software.

.[/quote]But still doesn't work with geforce3 nor geforce4.[/quote]
Aero never did. The Vista DVD still supports the 5000 series with Aero.

8 million meg and a super computer, i hope you have a lot of disk space, ridiculous exagerations do not make you look inteligent

to Beastage

as for ubuntu what specs are you refering to , this runs sweet as on my crappy old laptop.

kaiwai

Absolutley agree, 2000 made some dramatic updates how many rebooots did it get rid of again. i LOVEd 2000

ichi

I agree a new OS should not require new hardware, however it should not need to support ancient hardware, seriously geforce 3 & 4 are ancient. it's almost like saying windwos Vista should run on a 386

whocares78 said,
I agree a new OS should not require new hardware, however it should not need to support ancient hardware, seriously geforce 3 & 4 are ancient. it's almost like saying windwos Vista should run on a 386

Sure, absolutely the same

Both the geforce3 and 4 have been proved to be powerfull enough to do Aero-like 3d stuff. As long as there are working drivers for any of those cards there's no reason to require anything newer.
If for some reason old video cards stop working (eg. hardware dev cutting support) then ok, maybe it's time to get something new, but still that doesn't justify the OS requiring something that is not really needed.

The OS must give service to my hardware, not the other way around.

ichi said,

Sure, absolutely the same

Both the geforce3 and 4 have been proved to be powerfull enough to do Aero-like 3d stuff. As long as there are working drivers for any of those cards there's no reason to require anything newer.
If for some reason old video cards stop working (eg. hardware dev cutting support) then ok, maybe it's time to get something new, but still that doesn't justify the OS requiring something that is not really needed.

The OS must give service to my hardware, not the other way around.

so let me ghet this straight, what you are saying is, the geforce 3 and 4 should be supported by MS, not by the hardware manufacturer ?? so MS should some how make their OS work with old versions of Direct x becasue the thing is the aero and all that is designed to work with dx 10 a geforce 3 and 4 simply arent.

are you sying these cards do not work at all, or do they just not provide the 3d capability. generic video card drivers and all, any card at all should work fine in vista, just alll the cool 3d stuff that makes it any differnet from XP won't work

whocares78 said,
so let me ghet this straight, what you are saying is, the geforce 3 and 4 should be supported by MS, not by the hardware manufacturer ??

No.

so MS should some how make their OS work with old versions of Direct x becasue the thing is the aero and all that is designed to work with dx 10 a geforce 3 and 4 simply arent.

Aero is designed to work with new DX versions for no good reason (other than promoting that API... or maybe it's just laziness and poor optimization). It could work on older cards had it been designed accordingly, but as it stands now you need a DX9 compliant gfx card to get Aero to run. Given that older cards could handle it, as long as you are not a gamer that's an unnecessary upgrade (ie. a waste of money).

are you sying these cards do not work at all, or do they just not provide the 3d capability. generic video card drivers and all, any card at all should work fine in vista, just alll the cool 3d stuff that makes it any differnet from XP won't work

The point is all that "cool" 3d stuff could work, hadn't it been implemented to not work.

ichi said,

No.

Aero is designed to work with new DX versions for no good reason (other than promoting that API... or maybe it's just laziness and poor optimization). It could work on older cards had it been designed accordingly, but as it stands now you need a DX9 compliant gfx card to get Aero to run. Given that older cards could handle it, as long as you are not a gamer that's an unnecessary upgrade (ie. a waste of money).

The point is all that "cool" 3d stuff could work, hadn't it been implemented to not work.

Ok i see your point and understand the point you are tyring to get across, i just don't see it as a value for money thing for MS, which is basically what it all comes down to, they will look at the market and go well there is X% using the geforce 3 and x% using the geforce 4 X% of them will upgrade to vista, they look at the number of those users that they expect to upgrade then develop accordingly, i agree it is technically possibe to do anythign just not finanically, whci is in the end what development comes down to. $$$$$$$

Vista is no different to any other operating system that has come out in the 25 years I have used a PC. it's true that you need to upgrade hardware to get the true experience and I for one would find it very difficult to downgrade to XP now. It still has a few bugs, yes. but so did XP for it's first couple of years. All operating systems since Windows 3 to Vista has needed better hardware to make it work properly, most peeps seem to have forgotten that. so there experience is based on an XP machine not a Vista machine. When I upgraded to Windows 3.0/11, I had to get 4 meg of ram as the one meg just couldn't do it. I remember paying over £100 for the 4 meg and that included the 1meg in 4 sticks as well, and Ill never fill that 40 meg harddrive it's a monster. Now my terabyte is looking small. Run it with the right spec and it leaves XP in the dust. AS time has gone on the updates and autopatcher has made it more than the mess it was when first released. Just my opinion from using it.

Well, it's a little more than "no different" IMO... Already have a very capable system. But I can't use vista simply because it removes hardware overlay support, so my nice low-cpu-using TV app (and therefore dvr functionality I rely on) becomes obsolete and unusable. Long live xp

i have to disagree, XP by this point in it's life cycle hasd pretty much broken out of the it's just a GUI update attitude of most users. it was ok to say that for a while but Vista is not lookin glike improving anything and there is still a huge lack of support bu software vendors. the Vista OS really is a dog, just my expierience from using it