Oh dear! It seems that there are no allies at CNet when it comes to Windows Vista. I can only imagine that their IT department is still firmly attached to Windows XP on all their clients (except of course some very poor test machines). Anyway, a bright spark at CNet HQ has clocked Vista in at Nr 10 on their article: Top ten terrible tech products, with the Sony Rootkit fiasco just ahead of Vista at Nr 9. The list even includes the Sinclair C5 as the worst tech product, will Sir Clive ever be forgiven for that?
Do our active members even know what a C5 is?
Heres what CNet have to say about Vista: Any operating system that provokes a campaign for its predecessor's reintroduction deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that quietly has a downgrade-to-previous-edition option introduced for PC makers deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology.
Windows Vista conforms to all of the above. Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list.
View: The Whole Nightmarish Scenario @ C|Net
Link: Neowin Back Page News Discussion
Do our active members even know what a C5 is?
Heres what CNet have to say about Vista: Any operating system that provokes a campaign for its predecessor's reintroduction deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that quietly has a downgrade-to-previous-edition option introduced for PC makers deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology.
Windows Vista conforms to all of the above. Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list.
View: The Whole Nightmarish Scenario @ C|Net Link: Neowin Back Page News Discussion
This can happen if employees of a company are busy in ass-licking and none wants to report bad news to king.
Microsoft probably did not pay them enough, they got mad and now it's vengence.
I can understand why someone would want to stay with XP, it does the job quite well. But I'm running Vista Ultimate X64 before it got released (beta tester) and I've yet to have any problem with it. My PC is powerfull enough to make Vista perform like I want.
Most of Vista problem are not even related to Vista. Bad drivers, bad hardware. The only real thing I hate about Vista is the UAC that pop-up each time you want to do something. Microsoft got crazy stupid with "security" with Vista.
Microsoft probably did not pay them enough, they got mad and now it's vengence.
I can understand why someone would want to stay with XP, it does the job quite well. But I'm running Vista Ultimate X64 before it got released (beta tester) and I've yet to have any problem with it. My PC is powerfull enough to make Vista perform like I want.
Most of Vista problem are not even related to Vista. Bad drivers, bad hardware. The only real thing I hate about Vista is the UAC that pop-up each time you want to do something. Microsoft got crazy stupid with "security" with Vista.
I agree. C|Net is a horrible site and their reviews cannot be trusted.
The funny thing is that people were saying the same thing about XP when it came out.
its is one of the good OS out there,
C|net is on of the worst sites for review (N)
Well i have been running Vista for like 8 months now... never got rashed for a reson related to it (crashed 2 times bcoz of video drivers) and till now has been very stable for me... I dont know about what impression you got but the icandy you mentioned is please to....
unless you like working in an office with thrash splattered all around looking ugly... everyone need icandy where is your LOGIC???
Alright, fine.
But what about the Average Joe?
It's fair to say that its not the step up from Win 98 SE to Win XP that was back then.
It's fair to say that its not the step up from Win 98 SE to Win XP that was back then.
Vista isn't just "eye candy", there are a lot of under the hood features. Especially in the security department.
This sums up why I'm not upgrading. I couldn't care less about "under the hood features" that I don't really interact with.
This sums up why I'm not upgrading. I couldn't care less about "under the hood features" that I don't really interact with.
The vastly superior security alone is more than enough reason. No amount of third party crap/tweaking can give XP the same level of preventative security Vista has.
This sums up why I'm not upgrading. I couldn't care less about "under the hood features" that I don't really interact with.
The vastly superior security alone is more than enough reason. No amount of third party crap/tweaking can give XP the same level of preventative security Vista has.
No but a bit of user commen sense will
Will wonders never cease!!
CNet is most definately bad.
I run vista on a work laptop, and XPMCE on my main machine at home. Still too many problems with vista, and XP is a much nicer experience.
After them having that dual-apple ad on the Vista page and this I'd say CNET has lost the little bit of credibility they had left.
people always say that to defend vista.
I remember using a dodgy copy of XP RC1 and it was pretty much as stable as the final version. i seem to remember it was very well received, at least here in the UK.
So the whole "people said the same about XP" line is utter crap
So the whole "people said the same about XP" line is utter crap
It was nothing, and I mean nothing like as damp as the Vista release. Thanks for assuring me that I'm not losing my mind.
I was looking forward to Vista but I gave it a good crack for 4 months but couldnt get on with it. I hate the breadcrumb UI, i had strange networking issues (where it claimed there was an IP conflict even though i only had two PC with static IP - manually clearing the arp cache would fix it), performance is a bit of a dog even with a decent pc.
Theres no killer feature that sells Vista. If it doesnt work as well as XP what compelling reason is there to change?
Critics can't decide if it looks too much like XP or not XP enough.
-d
But let's start with what has got to be the number 1 reason: Nobody actually needs to be running Vista. There's no compelling features in Vista and too many downsides to migrating to it that it's just not worth the hassle.
I'm not sure if i make myself clear... it's like its not a huge mess on its own but at the same time they had all the resources to make it sooooo much better that I can't help but to feel disappointed by MS and the work they do.
Heres what C|Net have to say about Vista
Terrible. This could be the most poorly written thing to date on Neowin. I am by no means a grammar Nazi, but if something is going to be on the front page, it needs to be better than this.
Heres what C|Net have to say about Vista
Terrible. This could be the most poorly written thing to date on Neowin. I am by no means a grammar Nazi, but if something is going to be on the front page, it needs to be better than this.
At a place where unprofessional journalism looks better ?
IMO I kinda like the way it's written, not hard to read, and gets your attention because of how it's written...
Oh, wait....
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.