After Don Reisinger's rant over at CNet News it's now eWeek's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols jumping on the Windows XP Extended Stay bandwagon. I thought I'd mention that it's not unusual for Microsoft to extend its (OEM) support for older Operating Systems. It happened with Windows 2000, NT and all the 9x variants, well except for Windows ME (anyone remember that?).
Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with Vista Basic PC's? Because in all honesty Microsoft doesn't do itself any favors by releasing something that "looks" worse than XP on low end PC's. Add to the fact that XP has had 6 years to establish itself and became a very reliable OS after SP2 (Service Pack 2).
Windows Vista probably won't be widely adopted until the release of SP1 (and that is mainly in the business sector only). This is standard practice.
It's only fair to mention that the mass exodus to Windows XP was mainly due to the fact that it became the first fully 32 bit client OS after Windows 2000 which was designed for the business sector and not shipped on (OEM) consumer PC's. Due to the wide success and adoption of Windows 2000, XP was built on top of that very reliable kernel. Vista is simply an upgrade, whereas XP was a totally new OS. Upgrading now is not a necessity in many cases for consumers.
Anyway, enough from me, if you want another laugh click Read more to enjoy yet another "expert" opinion on Vista.
Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with Vista Basic PC's? Because in all honesty Microsoft doesn't do itself any favors by releasing something that "looks" worse than XP on low end PC's. Add to the fact that XP has had 6 years to establish itself and became a very reliable OS after SP2 (Service Pack 2).
Windows Vista probably won't be widely adopted until the release of SP1 (and that is mainly in the business sector only). This is standard practice.
It's only fair to mention that the mass exodus to Windows XP was mainly due to the fact that it became the first fully 32 bit client OS after Windows 2000 which was designed for the business sector and not shipped on (OEM) consumer PC's. Due to the wide success and adoption of Windows 2000, XP was built on top of that very reliable kernel. Vista is simply an upgrade, whereas XP was a totally new OS. Upgrading now is not a necessity in many cases for consumers.
Anyway, enough from me, if you want another laugh click Read more to enjoy yet another "expert" opinion on Vista.
Opinion: Vista has turned into the desktop operating system no one wants, and even Microsoft is beginning to get it.
Today, I think of Vista as the zombie operating system. It stumbles around, and from a distance you might think it's alive, but close up it's the walking dead.
The first sign that Vista was in real trouble was when major vendors started to offer XP again on new machines. In February, Microsoft insisted it had already sold more than 20 million copies of Windows Vista. Oh yeah, like there were actually 20 million copies of Vista already out there and running. Pull the other leg, it's got bells on.
If Vista was doing great, then why did Dell break ranks with the other major OEMs to start offering XP again and become the first top-tier vendor to offer XP in replacement for Vista in April? Adding insult to injury, Dell actually had the effrontery to offer desktop Linux to its customers.
Other OEMs followed Dell's lead, or to be more precise, its customers' demands. Lenovo, for example, when it rolled out its revamped high-end ThinkPad T61p workstation notebooks in July, made a point of offering not just Vista but XP Pro and, yes, several Linux distributions, including Novell's SUSE, Red Hat and Turbo Linux.
So it came as no surprise at all to me when Mike Nash, Microsoft's corporate vice president for Windows product management, announced that, due to OEM demand, Microsoft will keep selling XP until June 2008. Of course, he also claims there is little chance the June 30 date will be extended.
View: Full Article @ eWeek
Link: Digg it!
I recall when XP was launched I looked at the big green start button and thought “yuk” now its just normal back in those early days XP was also going to slow down some peoples existing systems unless they upgrade.
Now with Vista it’s the same thing all over again I know some Asus laptops come with downgrade rights to XP.
Where I work all the PC’s are still using XP or 2K as they don’t have the budget for good hardware.
Me personally I’ll be purchasing Vista OEM when I build my next system for now I’ll stick with XP.
Please, what a load of bull. My current system is loaded with XP Pro SP1 with no firewall and no antivirus of any kind as it has been for the last 3 years! I have not had a single, count em, single virus, spyware, malware or other problem since I stopped using IE and the computer runs as good as the day I put it together. IE is most certainly insecure in XP SP1 at default settings but disable activex and use another browser and you never have to worry about another virus again, especially with Opera.
Btw, I also have Vista installed as a dual boot and when I go from using Vista to XP the latter feels like it's running on a computer twice as fast.
Please, what a load of bull. My current system is loaded with XP Pro SP1 with no firewall and no antivirus of any kind as it has been for the last 3 years! I have not had a single, count em, single virus, spyware, malware or other problem since I stopped using IE and the computer runs as good as the day I put it together.
Then you must have something upstream that is protecting you, perhaps you have a router with a built-in (and automatically enabled) firewall, or your ISP does some blocking as there is NO WAY IN HELL that you can run unprotected XP SP1 with a direct connection without getting hit by something. It doesn't matter if you use IE or not.
dw2003's tale of woe is extremely common. The trick is to have the latest SP on CD / Flash drive (and have the ISO created by c't Offline Update) and reinstall the OS without the network cable being plugged in, and only plug it in once you've patched as much as possible offline.
dw2003's tale of woe is extremely common. The trick is to have the latest SP on CD / Flash drive (and have the ISO created by c't Offline Update) and reinstall the OS without the network cable being plugged in, and only plug it in once you've patched as much as possible offline.
Viruses don't sit there waiting to attack computers the moment you hook them up to the internet. That's nonsense. They need means of communication and transferal. You can get infected one of four ways, when using an insecure browser to view a compromised website, when someone else specifically knows of your computer's existance and its subsequent ip address, when you install a program sent via email or use an insecure email client or when you install an infected program yourself. No ifs, ands or butts about it.
Don't believe everything you hear, it's just fear mongering.
i do customer service
and literally..all of my customers woh call and use vista..and i say "So how u like vista so far"..they all say they dont like it..that its slower..that doing the simple things that took 2 seconds in xp take longer in vista..and that they are fedup with it
hopefully Sp1 makes vista into an actual OS..ill need DX10 some day when the new PC im getting in nov..or maybe theyll bring DX10 to XP(not likely but that would be awesomeness)
I agree completely. Most of the time, I don't have to deal with UAC, it seems that very little I do triggers the UAC. But I can see( and have with my girl's machine) just how annoying the UAC on a non-updated vista install can be. And optimized memory usage would be great regardless.
Also, how is offering a choice the sign that vista's dead? I mean, that's just hoping on the hate bandwagon right there.
Plus, like all windows OS, after the first SP, it will be better. I mean, the push most of the major fixes out as is, but the SP has the fixes that have been in development since release.
And to the guy who can't find his shift key and claims to work a service desk: Endures bitch.
You either find it worth posting and let it stand on its own (you can always add another item pointing to an opposite opinion) or you just don't post it. This way it sounds as if someone really can't stand the criticism of their favorite OS.
XP *was* quickly very successful because it was the first consumer 32-bit OS, and just because it's "common" for users to wait to at least SP1, doesn't mean he's wrong or stupid, just that he's correct although maybe stating the obvious. What I think will be most interesting is if SP1 will solve these start up problems, because I'm far from sure of that. We still haven't even started planning for it at our office here, and yes, we're fully aware that SP1 is coming soon.
Unless the guy is a complete moron he should of come to the same conclusion I did, XP was slated in the same way in it's first year as every other OS before it (possibly not 98SE though!
We syndicate a lot from the tech community and unfortunately people aren't writing glowing reviews of Vista yet and additional to that the problems with patches over the past few weeks are news worthy in itself. Just like the newer story above this one on Windows Update failure after XP CD repair.
Thanks for your opinion though.
He is. He posts nothing but bull**** about anything MS. If I have time I can dig up a list of crap he wrote that screams out WTF.
Oh and let's not forget the level of censorship in a world of speakers for "free" software, i.e. FSF's BadVista.
I was an early adopter with Windows XP, and I had one hell of a time. Driver support was awful, program support was awful, and I wanted my Windows 98 back. Everyone around me with Windows 98 was laughing at me, telling me how crap Windows XP was.
However, time passed, and now everyone uses Windows XP, driver support is fantastic, and program support is fantastic.
The same thing will happen with Vista, although for me driver and program support has been fantastic. (I accept some people may have had a few problems, but lets not kid ourselves here, the Windows XP launch was far far worse in this area)
Every OS MS will make from now to eternity will get insulted at launch, everyone won't need it, they are happy with the older version yada yada yada, yet everyone will upgrade in the end and will get ready to insult the next MS OS at launch.
It's the way of the world
I'm not saying Vista is bad, just that it improves in some areas, and comes short in others, due to design decisions, not simple bugs that will fixed in service packs, or problems that will be solved by new drivers.
So XP vs Vista is clearly another case than 98 vs XP to me, where the latter were based on two entirely different kernel branches. Since Vista adoption is still very slow, future still has a lot to say on whether it'll be a successful OS or not. Until then we can just speculate, but I personally think it'll at least have more hurdles in meeting a good adoption "in time".
Microsoft have a nearly impossible task when they write an operating system, it comes down to one simple equation no to computers are the same, no to users at the same!
They also have to consider time in development, and eventually they need to start recouping the money they are spending that means every operating system has to be released some time in order to pay the further development.
Every person that does wait on service Pack 1 should thank every person that purchases the operating system before that time because they basically funded service Pack 1. And so it should be that way Microsoft are there to make money.
For low-end computers, they should just stick with WinXP (and hey, I know no one wants WinME for good reason). Ever heard of anyone complaining how bulky WinXP was compare to Win2k and Win98? I'm sure you do when XP just have its SP1 out of the door. They're complaining because they have computers that are old and should not be considered upgrading at the first place. Now the hardware is so powerful and XP is really fast (because of the hardware) and this is the reason why the adoption of XP become so much faster.
Strongly agree as I was laughing on how this article got posted on eWeek anyways. Vista is an "upgrade"? Come on... I see XP as a OS with skinning, programs merged from Win2k and Win98, and new programs/functionality. But I don't see any major technological changes here. Vista on the other-hand, it has a new network stack, audio stack, and the UAC. The Aero Glass is something extra to me but it's really amazing. If you take XP and to draw every pixel on the screen (ie: play movie. programs in XP used overlay, they still use overlay in Vista but Vista's Aero "paste" them on the screen buffer), you'll find XP draw very very slowly. It's just to show how much tweak MS did to Aero.
1. Not everyone wants to upgrade their hardware and buy extra RAM to run something marginally improved over what they have already.
2. The vast majority of Windows users are not tech-savvy people, they've still barely learned how to deal with XP's quirks, Vista is terrifying to them with all its new complexity.
3. Vista simply does not offer anything that great compared to XP for most people. Remember, maybe you're a geek, but most people don't like wasting time messing with their PCs, they don't even want to know how it works as long as it works.
4. Businesses have much more to consider than getting the latest version of an OS just because it's new. Vista doesn't offer businesses anything significantly improved over XP, and Vista actually is more difficult to integrate into existing Windows networks as it is right now.
5. For businesses, it is more cost-effective and efficient to run XP virtual machines on VMWare blade servers, rather than "upgrade" to Vista. Virtualizing XP eliminates most of the problems it has: security, management, stability. Users can destroy their XP VM, then just load a new one and their desktop and all their apps are back in pristine form. Would you care to explain to your boss why they should use Vista instead of that?
People aren't fighting change, they're going for alternatives to Vista, or sticking with XP. Perhaps if Vista wasn't such a bloated, unstable, mess with hidden killswitches and DRM, it would have been more successful.
If Vista wasn't such a bloated, unstable, mess with hidden killswitches and DRM??? What are you talking about? That line, as with most of your post is highly subjective. And while maybe you had some stability issues quite a few others haven't. And if the stability problems are related to one of your installed 3rd party drivers how is that a Vista problem?
And bloated? I think people have taken that and turned it into something it wasn't originally. People look at file size and how much space Vista takes up and call it bloated, totally forgetting the fact that the DVD size is so big due to all the drivers they give you in there. Putting it down in a list, Vista adds some features but most of the changes are to the new bits of the core OS that people never see. The original meaning behind bloat is something that's packed with stuff that no one uses. But many of the new features in Vista are used by those who like the OS and so on.
And adding support for DRM is what you have to do if you want to be able to support hd-dvd and bluray playback. You do know that none of that support or code starts up or stops you from doing all the media related stuff you can do on XP right? The only people who have to even think about the DRM support are those who have DRM'd media video or audio files. But those are bad right? So we stay away from them anyways, right?
Lots of people run Vista on 1GB of ram, and it'll run just fine, most new PCs if not all have 1GB min. People started to upgrade to 1GB halfway through running XP, and you know why? Because those nice new "bloated" video games need as much RAM as you can toss at them. But not everyone wants to upgrade and buy new CHEAP RAM to play a marginally improved video game do they?
At the end of the day, all the problems Vista is going through are the exact same ones Win2k and WinXP both faced in their start. Driver support is slow or poor, and apps aren't good enough. And relative to what you had before, people needed to upgrade their hardware and get more RAM. Win2k would run pretty well with 128MB of RAM, but how many would run XP with that much? Hell I ran it with 256MB and it was never that great performence wise so I upgrade to 512MB. Which is fine for minor work, but fire up a program like Photoshop or anything else that needs ram and even that's not enough. Upgrading RAM with a new Windows OS release is nothing new. The only thing that's changed is the memory sizes making things sound more extreme than they actually are.
W 98 was slower on the same hardware compared to W 98.
W ME was slower (and had compatibility problems) compared to W98. OK ME had it's own issues too.
W XP was definitely slower and required more hardware than any of the above.
W Vista is slower on the same hardware than W XP was.
Yet, people are all very surprised of this. Of course - the same thing happens with Apple. They don't just make you upgrade hardware for performance, but they actually now for th 2nd time, replaced the whole hardware platform and rendered stuff pretty much incompatible with previous generations.
Yet people are surprised of this. Every Windows release we read stuff like this. EVERY one. Get over it, would you?
I am going to make a bold prediction here:
When Windows 7 gets released - people are going to complain...
ITS not a huge jump over xp but its all the small things that I like over xp. Like having the search bar in the start menu or how much better the dual core support is.
I can switch things between the two cores without the program crashing on vista. On xp they would randomly crash when I did that.
See its the small things that all equal up for me on vista.
ITS not a huge jump over xp but its all the small things that I like over xp. Like having the search bar in the start menu or how much better the dual core support is.
I can switch things between the two cores without the program crashing on vista. On xp they would randomly crash when I did that.
See its the small things that all equal up for me on vista.
Vista is more stable for me too
I personally think a lot of the time people do not know how to configure their system. They find a driver on the Internet and try using it, and it is for a different chipset but instead of trying to listen to the warnings they try forcing in because they know what they are doing.
In all the years I've been working with computers, one thing always springs to mind.
Do not listen to everything you hear, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
<snipped - that has nothing to do with the article>
Last edited by PureLegend on 30 Sep 2007 - 18:22
I'm running Home Premium on my eMachines laptop with a 2.6Ghz Celeron and 512MB RAM - it's 3 years old and still runs it like a charm!
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista_sp1.asp
Vista bashing? Yes. It's expensive, sucks a lot of resources, safer? do you call something that thinks that you're stupid safer? and it's entirely a tool to brag other people about how "nice" your OS GUI is. (I fail to see other uses, except maybe DirectX 10).
Keep XP? Yes. It's stable, lots of driver support. Why would I need to pay +500$ for something that I don't need? Just to show people that I can have expensive OS and that my PC meet the requirements of it?
I've got a 8800GTS, AMD FX-62 with 4GB DDR2 @ 800Mhz, and it doesn't likes it. (Running something, anything, produces a TOTAL FREEZE after a while) I've explained many, many times that it's not a defective hardware issue, it's not a setting; but it's more probably that the people at ASUS haven't made a native Vista driver yet for the M2N32-SLI. (They claim that the driver works, it's labelled for Windows Vista x64, but it doesn't)
So I've reverted back to Windows XP x64, and it hasn't even froze ONCE. ASUS nor Microsoft couldn't give me a reasonable explanation of why that happened.
Vista effects? Get Linux. Freeware Windows XP tools can get some of the job done.
And don't give me that junk that Vista is faster than XP. Give me 1 Benchmark that proves otherwise, and I'll throw you 20 back.
Technological blunder? Don't think so, but potentially it could be. Upgrading? Hell no. Probably after SP1 gets out. And if it doesn't satisfies me, SP2. or Windows 7.
And those bragging that it's the same thing that happened with XP, I've got the Whistler CD back home, and I switched to XP the first day it came out. I regret buying that Vista copy. Anyone wants a free CD key?
Last edited by Azmodan on 29 Sep 2007 - 14:11
Ahhhhhh. There's the real rub. I call that pure B.S.
So I was a good consumer. I went out and bought an all-in-one device from HP that faxes, scans, copies and prints. Everytime I get in the shower I scrub and scrub but I can't get the stink of Vista and HP off my skin.
And then he'd go straight out and buys a new HP...
Here is a canned response I got from HP:
Barry, we definitely understand your concern and urgency. We the HP technical support was, is and always will be totally dedicated towards customer service and we strive towards your satisfaction. Unfortunately, at present there are no printer drivers for the Microsoft Windows Vista O/s.
HP is working to ensure the best user experience for HP Inkjet and LaserJet printers connected to PCs running Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista. HP expects to complete the certification process for applicable drivers by July 2007. Drivers will be posted as they are completed on the Web page given below:
http://www.hp.com/support/lj1012
Notice that the link they gave doesn't work and there still has not been any drivers. I still haven't used up the original toner...
Here is a canned response I got from HP:
Barry, we definitely understand your concern and urgency. We the HP technical support was, is and always will be totally dedicated towards customer service and we strive towards your satisfaction. Unfortunately, at present there are no printer drivers for the Microsoft Windows Vista O/s.
HP is working to ensure the best user experience for HP Inkjet and LaserJet printers connected to PCs running Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista. HP expects to complete the certification process for applicable drivers by July 2007. Drivers will be posted as they are completed on the Web page given below:
http://www.hp.com/support/lj1012
Notice that the link they gave doesn't work and there still has not been any drivers. I still haven't used up the original toner...
Just curious did you try the XP drivers in Vista?
Here is a canned response I got from HP:
Barry, we definitely understand your concern and urgency. We the HP technical support was, is and always will be totally dedicated towards customer service and we strive towards your satisfaction. Unfortunately, at present there are no printer drivers for the Microsoft Windows Vista O/s.
HP is working to ensure the best user experience for HP Inkjet and LaserJet printers connected to PCs running Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista. HP expects to complete the certification process for applicable drivers by July 2007. Drivers will be posted as they are completed on the Web page given below:
http://www.hp.com/support/lj1012
Notice that the link they gave doesn't work and there still has not been any drivers. I still haven't used up the original toner...
So, who gets the blame for this? HP or MS? Who's job is it to make sure your printer/scanner works with the OS? MS aside from giving you a generic driver, should they also make a special driver for every HP product out there before they release a new OS? You see the irony in this? MS changed the driver model for the better with Vista, which helps with performence and stability. But this comes at the cost of compatibility. You will always have this tradeoff to make. It's the massive lengths MS goes to to keep everything from 6years ago working on a new OS that drags that OS down. But if they cut that compatibility, then you get people, many of which have posted here about this article, bitching at how ****ty Vista is.
You have to stand back and understand how things work before you jump in and moan about things. First of you bitch that it's not secure. MS makes core changes to make it secure, and not just UAC mind you, but other core kernel and subsystem changes. This has the side effect of screwing with compatibility. So, what do you want? MS to fix the problems in windows or to keep compatibility with older apps/hardware? Because, and this is a fact, you can't have both.
The previous OS should be available for two years after release of a new OS.
It's a fairly simple idea. Not all of us are superly successful VP's or kids with doting parents that will give us an allowance to upgrade every 6 months. In the real world, it's a bit longer, maybe 4-6 years. After all, despite $400 computers, it still takes about $1200 on an upgrade to have it be an effective upgrade because you'll need more than the default memory, some new peripherals, and software upgrades to fill in for all the stuff that gets broke.
On my very old PC, Windows Vista Home Premium runs faster than XP. I've only 768MB of RAM and 1.7Ghz CPU, Geforce 6200 256MB AGP ( aero enabled! ) .
If Vista runs very very well on my old PC, why on your modern PCs should not work??? I'm shocked, I can't believe your better machines can't handle Vista!
This my old PC has been automatically recognized by Vista, I didn't installed any drivers because everything has been fully recognized with built-in drivers and with drivers that Windows Update downloaded and installed automatically.
All applications I used on XP, still work on Vista or work with a free update I downloaded from the official web site. No problems, No crashes. I'm very happy with Vista since the day zero (30 January, when I received my original copy of Vista)
There is an huge list of Windows Vista compatible applications and hardware (it's not completed):
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Wind...patibility_List
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Wind...patibility_List
Last edited by franzon on 29 Sep 2007 - 16:34
Sorry, I can't quite read what you've written there. Could you increase the font size?
I agree.
These assholes don't understand that most of the Vista problems are mostly because of drivers and a small number of incompatible software.
I'm a power user (programmer) and Vista works fine for all my needs (gaming/music/movies/etc..), so all these whiners are just looking to make headlines.
bull****. Flawlessly my ASS.
I agree.
These assholes don't understand that most of the Vista problems are mostly because of drivers and a small number of incompatible software.
I'm a power user (programmer) and Vista works fine for all my needs (gaming/music/movies/etc..), so all these whiners are just looking to make headlines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm an Idiot too...!!!...
-- Damn...! ...may be I will need to be a power user ( programmer ) to use the Vista...just to fix it... --
****, on my old ass Athlon 3000 with 1.5 gigs RAM and a ATI 9600 All-in-Wonder it works fine....and that was with the RC builds.
OK so you might ask why does it perform worse on benchmarks ? Well I guess all the bells and whistles it has will defenitely make a hit on performance. But Vista has better caching algorithms than XP (which still need some tweaking on resuming from hibernate/sleep). 1GB RAM on my XP was not being exploited well and 2Gb would have been a waste. Vista knows how to make good use of memory and the more you give it the more it will use as cache. That is why Vista feels smoother. Obviously benchmarking can eliminate the caching effect in some instances.
To me, RAM is a major bottle-neck of Vista. I had a laptop running 512MB RAM. With XP and its almost-to-none program caching, it runs fine. With Vista and its new, advanced caching, it constantly swapping between page file and RAM because Vista needed more RAM to cache all it wants. It eats up 300+MB RAM at start up and left little to programs. After I upgraded it to 1GB, everything is back to the way it should, no more excessive HDD access due to page file and RAM swapping; no more slowness for programs to load and etc... It only uses 500-600MB RAM at startup.
Vista knows how to use RAM properly for computers that have those RAMs. For computers that don't, Vista is just eating too much of it and leave little for something else.
I'm not really into benchmarks, obviously we can't compare a new technology with its 5-6 years old predecessor. If I run Win95 on my computer now, the OS would boot within 10 secs after the boot screen... (I guess)
There are issues, I'm still using it and don't feel compelled to write another angry review of it...yet.
SP1 can only tackle so much, the rest is in the hands of hardware manufacturers.
Last edited by ambiance on 29 Sep 2007 - 17:10
I'm assuming that just about everyone who does, doesn't realize how crappy Windows was before XP. Even so, XP is highly insecure out of the box, most of the people complaining about Vista are just typical people who know nothing about computers. They are used to having their default administrator account and doing what they want with it. They don't like it when something prevents them from doing their stupidity.
XP is similar to using the root account on Linux 24/7, heh.
These people should be 100% ignored and should just STFU.
For the people who do know what they are talking about, everyone should know that any operating system that encourages use of an administrator account is an insecure OS.
we all know how crappy it was before, XP but reality is NOW, right now, XP is better and why woudl you upgrade, when the next OS comes out they will complain again becasue Vista will be better then wiondwos 7 when 7 is first released. it's about what works, and a lot of vista just doesn't.
it's not just about the security
i ahev also found quite the opposite, the people i know that know about computers HATE vista the ones i know that have no clue LOVE it, but thats just who i know.
I wouldn't exactly say it is a dumbed down OS. It's much like a breath of fresh air for the series.
For one thing, gone with the trash GDI+ system which I've always hated, time to move on and use hardware acceleration for rendering the desktop. Mac OS X debuted with this technology, now 6 years later Windows finally has it.
The stutter-less audio and video playback works very well as it was advertised.
Also, there are numerous security features for the paranoid, too many to list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_...o_Windows_Vista
For one thing, gone with the trash GDI+ system which I've always hated, time to move on and use hardware acceleration for rendering the desktop. Mac OS X debuted with this technology, now 6 years later Windows finally has it.
The stutter-less audio and video playback works very well as it was advertised.
Also, there are numerous security features for the paranoid, too many to list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_...o_Windows_Vista
Compared to any other os that I can think of, yes, it is most certainly dumbed down; through the layout, the security, the preset functions, etc.
As far as the others, a hardware accelerated desktop is nice but Vista's implementation is quite frankly trash. It does little to take advantage of the fact other than useless little windows animations and glass and it is very inefficient and slow when compared to the OSX and especially Beryl/Compiz implementations. GDI is limiting but it's much much faster and I for one don't have a problem with it, especially since you can make XP look nice regardless.
I never had and still do not have problems with the audio or video in XP and I question why it was even changed to begin with. In fact video is much slower and now stutters in Vista for me, I never had that in XP. Yes, I'm up to date with ATI drivers.
The security features are badly implemented and overly extreme, to the point of being a nuisance.
What are you, 10 years old?
For the people who do know what they are talking about, everyone should know that any operating system that encourages use of an administrator account is an insecure OS.
Ignored.. really? Is that the way good software is built? By ignoring mass complaints? It seems so because that would explain how Vista turned out.