Neowin member ispamforfood (interesting nickname!) has posted an interesting question on our Back Page News forum asking "Raise your hand if you're tired of negative Vista articles".
It is true that there are many news outlets that are having quite a bit of a lark bashing Microsofts latest offering, hardly surprising based on the real-world problems that many people suffered after upgrading their Windows XP machines. In defence of Microsoft, the recommended machine to use Vista with has increased quite a bit from Windows XP where 256MB of Ram was quite enough (or 512 for optimal performance) and now the recommended is 1gig or 2 depending on who you believe. Personally, I had 1GB in my machine when I upgraded (clean installed) but I only saw an improvement after I added an extra 1GB, bringing my RAM up to 2GB.
It's probably also fair to mention that Microsoft has since released Performance & Stability updates, which do fix a lot of annoyances such as slow copy/paste (calculation time) to other partitions. Anyway I have also done a poll, so voice your opinion by voting Yay or Nay to negativity on Vista by clicking the Member Poll link
Link: Neowin Discussion in Back Page News
Link: Windows XP was also treated the same (thanks deck)
It is true that there are many news outlets that are having quite a bit of a lark bashing Microsofts latest offering, hardly surprising based on the real-world problems that many people suffered after upgrading their Windows XP machines. In defence of Microsoft, the recommended machine to use Vista with has increased quite a bit from Windows XP where 256MB of Ram was quite enough (or 512 for optimal performance) and now the recommended is 1gig or 2 depending on who you believe. Personally, I had 1GB in my machine when I upgraded (clean installed) but I only saw an improvement after I added an extra 1GB, bringing my RAM up to 2GB.
It's probably also fair to mention that Microsoft has since released Performance & Stability updates, which do fix a lot of annoyances such as slow copy/paste (calculation time) to other partitions. Anyway I have also done a poll, so voice your opinion by voting Yay or Nay to negativity on Vista by clicking the Member Poll link
Link: Neowin Discussion in Back Page News Link: Windows XP was also treated the same (thanks deck)
vista user
+1 as well. A new OS should be at least as good as its previous version in almost every area and better in others. Otherwise, how could you say it's an upgrade??
I don't mind seeing these Vista rants but they should bring something new to the table, but then again MS set the expectations of the user to be a troublefree and benifical upgrade....
MS could admit it was what they hoped for (as was predicted with all the issues leading up to launch) instead of just saying they'll fix it with patches which would at least aknowlege the negative freedback and restore some faith in it. To those that say it's like XP on launch, you'd expect a big company like MS to learn from past mistakes right?
I can only hope MS buy Apple's OSX that allows users to install it on their PC's, and show them what an OS really can do, ah well you can always dream...
For anyone whos wondering I dual boot with Vista and XP, and don't own a Mac (yet).
Used vista for a while, liked it a lot, just don't try to use it with 1gb ram. Unistalled 'till sp1, using xp now and missing vista.
Used vista for a while, liked it a lot, just don't try to use it with 1gb ram. Unistalled 'till sp1, using xp now and missing vista.
Runs fine for me with 1 GB of ram
Used vista for a while, liked it a lot, just don't try to use it with 1gb ram. Unistalled 'till sp1, using xp now and missing vista.
Runs fine for me with 1 GB of ram
the thing suppose to run on a 512 ram that its the basic config, and 1gb the "premium"
Also, I already posted on the forums a detailed argument that suggests that Vista is suffering the exact reaction that XP received when it was first released. I even posted links to Cnet articles from XP and Vista releases -- the articles are remarkably similar.
So please, everyone, stop your complaining and let's just use whatever OS we like.
In what way limited, we can't improve unless you tell us why
In what way limited, we can't improve unless you tell us why
Limited in that I don't think Vista is great, but I don't it deserves the negativity.
Also, some people may be indifferent.
As for my original post; here it is.
Just stick to the negativity! Supporters just register your support and move onto the the Vista Fanboy subjects
P.S. I also like to say "Wake up America, your government are screwing you, and imploding your economy"
So please, everyone, stop your complaining and let's just use whatever OS we like.
Couldn't agree with you more!
I'm not sure I understand why people feel they must get so passionate for or against Vista or anything they don't personally make really. If XP works for you on your machine and does what you want then you don't HAVE to go with Vista. It isn't a law and there isn't some guy with a gun to your head saying "Go Vista or ELSE!". Keep using XP, just like some people still run Windows 98. What matters more is that you're able to do the things you need to do. After all, the computer is just a tool...
For me Vista works well and I love it enough that I can't go back to XP... I think we need more unbiased reporting on Vista and technology in general, but that will never happen. In our industry there is very little respect given to high quality opinions. People just seem to jump on whatever bandwagon seems to fit them at the day.
"Are you tired of negative Windows Vista articles" is what is called a Yes Or No Question.
Oddly enough, this means (surprise surprise) that the poll options you use for such a question are
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) No opinion. <---- optional
This is not rocket science, people.
Also, I already posted on the forums a detailed argument that suggests that Vista is suffering the exact reaction that XP received when it was first released. I even posted links to Cnet articles from XP and Vista releases -- the articles are remarkably similar.
So please, everyone, stop your complaining and let's just use whatever OS we like.
So unless we have something positive to say about Vista we shouldn't say anything at all? I'm sorry dude, but no.
Just stick to the negativity! Supporters just register your support and move onto the the Vista Fanboy subjects
P.S. I also like to say "Wake up America, your government are screwing you, and imploding your economy"
Geez, Man! With "friends" like the U.K., who needs enemies?
Your government may be our "friend", but if they are anything like you, your people certainly aren't. I guess you're just reacting belatedly to all those American G.I.s who left "little bundles of joy" behind when they left your gloomy little island for good back in '45 .
But the facts are, people like you treated Microsoft exactly the same when XP was first released. In fact, you are making the exact same comments they made about Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, and Windows XP before you. You people just hate Microsoft, and for no other reason than because they are rich, and you aren't.
But you ARE correct in saying "our government IS screwing us", since we have only ONE government.
As a general rule, ALL "governments" are screwing ALL their populations, including the ancient, decrepit, and inbred House of Tudors' "government". So what else is new?
Donald L. McDaniel
Erin Go Bragh!!
Like your "friends" in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
A true friend will tell you what you don't want to hear, especially when you're on the road to destruction.
Now, thats classic "Ugly American" rhetoric if I ever heard it.
You apparently have a selective memory as well. Yes, XP had its problems, but it was no where near as bad as Vista's.
Resistance is futile.....
As a general rule, ALL "governments" are screwing ALL their populations, including the ancient, decrepit, and inbred House of Tudors' "government". So what else is new?
Hardly. You fear your government while in the rest of the West the governments fears the people and that is why quality of life is higher as well while it is on the decline in America.
Did you know that America is not and has never actually been a democracy? Its a constitutional republican with a democratic tradition.
We're actually a Representative Republic. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you argue.
What makes Vista worse than XP pre-SP1? If you're going to make a comment like that, back it up with fact.
You've got that backwards.
As bad as nVidia and Creative Vista drivers had been it was much worse for XP, mainly because it was the first time there was a big need for these companies to get working on the NT kernel. And the sheer number of security issues in XP at launch is mind-boggling, Vista doesn't even come close. The only thing you can possibly claim is XP had fewer bugs that merely impacted performance.
I've been using it since back before it was Vista (on and off from 5270, but swapped over to my main OS at Beta 2, or maybe the build after Beta 2. I dont' remember.), and even back in the pre-RC1 days I didn't experience any of the crap people are giving it.
Performance & Stability updates are on Windows Update
The only thing that annoys me now, really, is the slow copy/move.
The only thing that annoys me now, really, is the slow copy/move.
Apparently the problem in that has something to do with the IDE system. I switched my BIOS from IDE to SATA (Intel 965 board) and it stopped doing that. I sent in a defect report to Microsoft on it months ago.
On the other hand, if there are only negative articles being published by other sites you have to realise that maybe they have a point.
WAR WAR WAR!
Sure it was late, but in part I think that Microsoft being more open compounded this issue, if they missed deadlines for 95 or 98 - who would have noticed? Sure, if 98 turned up in 1999 then it might have looked odd, but Microsoft were a lot more secrative then, they have adapted and this new found information can be bad .... there is no doubt they missed deadlines and it was later than they wanted it to be, but as end users, we usually wouldn't have known.
Vista seems more secure to me, month after month I am seeing very few security updates for Vista, which I think is a good thing ... they have this great new Automatic Update centre without the IE ridden tosh that was Windows Update, but I barely have to use it, there are few security updates coming, I find I spend more time downloading driver updates! Which leads me to the fact a lot of Vista's faults may not even be down to Vista, companies had a while to develop drivers but when Vista came out, they weren't ready .... they were premature, not soley Microsofts fault.
As for it needing better computers and resources, etc, so what? Every OS does, unless they take a step back, and Microsoft know the audience for Vista will probably not go installing it on old machines ... either it will be a techy who understands he'll need to upgrade a bit to run Vista nicely, or a n00b who will wait until he buys a new PC to get Vista ... this market for people who want to use their old computer yet run a new OS seems silly to me.
NO. NO IT DOES NOT! I Use XP, Ubuntu AND Vista on this PC. While I like Ubuntu, it does not have DX 10, Aero glass or Flip 3D. It just doesn't. Sorry. Please try again.
The latter two can both be replaced with Compiz Fusion, which is better IMO. DX10, well, it has OpenGL, but it's not really the same, so I'll give you that.
The latter two can both be replaced with Compiz Fusion, which is better IMO. DX10, well, it has OpenGL, but it's not really the same, so I'll give you that.
I like Compiz but to be fair it doesn't seem to use pixel shaders much if at all like the Aero blur needs.
That said, when Aero transparency is off a DX7 card should be all Vista needs for the rest of the hardware driven interface. I agree. But it's not a big deal, I mean those are what, 7 year old cards? Vista runs fine on 4 year old video hardware with Aero, which isn't that bad.
Are you kidding? Please tell me your joking. The former offers no benefits currently at all and the latter two are mere insignificant interface designs that some find absolutely useless (since all they are is eye candy). Furthurmore, what makes you think such things cannot be accomplished using OpenGL? Have you used Compiz Fusion at all? Which, btw, runs much faster than Aero on the same hardware.
Are you kidding? Please tell me your joking. The former offers no benefits currently at all and the latter two are mere insignificant interface designs that some find absolutely useless (since all they are is eye candy). Furthurmore, what makes you think such things cannot be accomplished using OpenGL? Have you used Compiz Fusion at all? Which, btw, runs much faster than Aero on the same hardware.
Can you read? I use Ubuntu, and yes, I use Compiz... but it's NOT THE SAME as Aero Glass or Flip 3D!!! Is that hard to understand? I also mentioned NOTHING about OpenGL. DX and OpenGL ARE NOT THE SAME! I never said OGL couldn't do the things DX10 does, I just pointed out THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING! Jesus, some of you Linux guys have thick skulls.
Perhaps you just need to use the compiz configuration tool, if you check out this video (Link) at around 2 minutes in you'll see how easy it is to replicate such things with ubuntu and compiz. Having used the same effects at home I can tell you you certainly need not install 2 GB of ram to enjoy them either. The compiz team are nothing short of brilliant. I realize DX10 and OpenGL are not the same thing by the way.
OP (linux user)
Perhaps you just need to use the compiz configuration tool, if you check out this video (Link) at around 2 minutes in you'll see how easy it is to replicate such things with ubuntu and compiz. Having used the same effects at home I can tell you you certainly need not install 2 GB of ram to enjoy them either. The compiz team are nothing short of brilliant. I realize DX10 and OpenGL are not the same thing by the way.
OP (linux user)
I just got done with a clean install of 7.10. It's working great. I really like it so far. I DO have the advanced tools setup, but I'm having trouble getting my "cube" to do all the cool things in that video. So far, there are no transparent windows... hence, no "glass".
You obviously do not know what Compiz can do, so please kindly stfu. I mentioned OGL because you can do pretty much everything with it that you can do with DX, yes that includes something as trivial as "glass."
Btw, I'm not a Linux guy, I'm not any kind of guy other than my own who uses products based on their usefulness.
Although I use and really love Vista, I do agree with this comment. You shouldn't have to upgrade your hardware in order to run it. That is f'd up!
You have me very curious about Ubantu Linux now. I've only used solaris, hp-ux and dynix/ptx. Obviously not for home use but I love unix. It really is a superior operating system.
like it or not, there is only a small minority of people that actually like vista
like it or not, there is only a small minority of people that actually like vista
Um, ok. There's a small minority of people that like OSX too since Apple has such a small PC market share. There are also way less people that like Linux. I say this because out of all the people I know, (for real, not internet aquaintences,) NONE of them use Linux, and only my brother-in-law has a Mac because he uses some obscure music software that only works on it.
like it or not, there is only a small minority of people that actually like vista
Um, ok. There's a small minority of people that like OSX too since Apple has such a small PC market share. There are also way less people that like Linux. I say this because out of all the people I know, (for real, not internet aquaintences,) NONE of them use Linux, and only my brother-in-law has a Mac because he uses some obscure music software that only works on it.
im not sure what mac and linux have to do with the article
like it or not, there is only a small minority of people that actually like vista
Ever hear the phrase vocal minority?
Guess not.
Hint: That means you're wrong.
Guess not.
Hint: That means you're wrong.
Seeing the amount of threads popping on sites like this one jumping on defense of Vista, I'm not so sure about who's the actual "vocal minority".
It's called having a level head and not just bashing stuff for the hell of it, and being sick and tired of those that do it.
This poll is kinda showing those without problems aren't a minority.
This poll is kinda showing those without problems aren't a minority.
You think you're the majority? Uh, hello? How do you explain all the articles online and published from a variety of sources that are giving Vista less than favorable reviews. I know of only one person that likes Vista and all of the people that I have talked to at work (who deal with computers) don't like it either. This is neoWIN afterall. Gee, a windows site with users that like windows; parish the thought. Go to other sites and the poll might be a little different.
Look, no Operating System is perfect, and every Operating System is prone to its problems. I'm not even going to go into specifics of why people bash Vista, it's ridiculous. Before Vista came out, I still saw people bashing XP, and now that Vista has come out, everyone has shifted their attention to Vista, and then saying XP is perfect/they have no problems with it. I find that highly amusing.
Wasn't Vista designed to be more user friendly to noobs? Isn't that one of it's strengths? Now, you turn around and say you need to be an advanced user to grapple with Vista.
Insanity...
Wasn't Vista designed to be more user friendly to noobs? Isn't that one of it's strengths? Now, you turn around and say you need to be an advanced user to grapple with Vista.
Insanity...
Agreed, Vista is more for granny, child and people that spend a few minutes at day using a pc.
For a seasoned users and higher, vista is just a burden, this kind of users known if they need to install a antivirus or not or if a specific page is secure or not.
Wasn't Vista designed to be more user friendly to noobs? Isn't that one of it's strengths? Now, you turn around and say you need to be an advanced user to grapple with Vista.
Insanity...
For example, say for instance you're upgrading your current computer from XP to Vista. Now, older hardware may need drivers that users have to hunt down. An advanced user would know about hardware and what drivers are, where as a typical user might not no what a driver is, and that (s)/he they need the proper ones. Indeed this is one of the lame excuses people blame Microsoft (drivers). Microsoft is not responsible if your graphics card in Vista does not work, it's the hardware manufacturer's responsibility to provide the drivers. Yes, this is one place where Apple has its advantages of being a hardware manufacturer and software manufacturer (Apple OS). There are tons of software/hardware configurations possible in the Windows world.
So, in any environment, an advanced user would know what (s)/he is doing rather than a n00b, same applies to the Mac/Linux world.
Light vs Dark
Good vs Evil
Fanboys vs Common sensers (I made up a word!
one thing I love bout vista is it's memory managment.. and with the apps I run vista handles them so much better... FAR less crashing from out of memory. but ya... xp is still a tad faster for alot of stuff.. and on a slightly older system that makes a HUGE diff
moving along. STOP with the negativity. submit bug reports.. make it better!
a- vista is good. (why?)
b- vista is fast as xp. (no way)
c- vista eat less resource. (oh my..)
d- vista is more secure (tips :don't compare with a xp without firewall/antivirus).
e- vista is way more cool. (apple fanboys will flame this claim for a sure).
f- vista is more stable (usually a fresh install will give stability for a while).
g- MS will kill XP support (tips :also vista, but who will die first?)
Last edited by warwagon on 27 Nov 2007 - 15:54
+¾ (performance hit is relative so I cant give you that one)
Undeniable fact.
Vista is Microsoft's product and they will make it as they want.
The reasoning for these complaints is because most users 1.) Can't run it on their current hardware. 2.) Doesn't look as good as they thought (deal with it, or get a new skin for god's sake). or 3.) They just criticize it for the hell of it.
I understand that businesses are having second thoughts about upgrading, and it isn't easy migrating as it is for home users. But seriously, I think it is worth the effort.
My friend, who bought Vista legally, just got a message which says that his Vista is non Genuine any more. I have installation on one of my PC's with was activated through one-click third party tool and works fine. So I've smiled and said to my friend: Now you've learned how to buy legal software.
People who designed Vista menus definitely made a mistake. There is "3 click rule" - The principle that it should take no more than 3 clicks to access any feature, content or each logical step in a process (4-click rule with [Advanced...] button
Another example, sometimes MS can't get simplest things for ages. For example I am using Mozilla FireFox ONLY because it has JavaScript "Error Console" where I can see all bugs easily when developing websites. It is not hard to guess that developers serve as authority to average users and this means that if I am using FireFox then majority of my friends will go for it too.
Last edited by EJocys on 27 Nov 2007 - 17:33
* XP took too much ram <> Vista takes too much RAM
* xp took a 133MHz P2 which is too much <> Vista takes a high end chip
* XP is just eye candy <> Vista is just eye candy
* XP adds nothing to the OS <> Vista adds nothing to the OS
and so on and so on....
and so on and so on....
I think a lot of the world would very much disagree with you on that point. Windows XP added a hell of a lot to computing going from Win 98 -> XP
my laptop on all day, and use sleep mode. Once in a while when it wakes up, the wi-fi is a little sluggish and
I either have to turn the wi-fi on/off or reboot the computer to make it work.
If you have "modern" hardware, you shouldn't have a problem.
I remember people complaining when a new version of Apple's OS came out and they were bitching because of the
hardware requirements. Apple said something to the fact that if you wanted to run the new OS, you need new hardware to reap the benefits of the software. What's the difference with that and Vista? Pretty much the same deal, except that
MS sets the "requirements" too low, people buy it, and it runs like crap. If MS would just say screw you, and write the
requirements higher, (I mean seriously, are they that worried about their "image"?) people wouldn't have as much of
a problem running their OS.
If it keeps getting bad press, then something must be wrong. If it works for you, fine, ignore the news. If it doesn't, you can relate. But don't complain - that's the beauty of democracy; we see different opinions. Don't like it? Ignore it, nobody's forcing you to read it.
"Microsoft stole this from Apple / Apple stole this from Vista"
"Apple is the best OMG LOLS / Vista is the best OMG LOLS"
"Vista is Me 2"
If you want to, that is
Is it perfect? No! Am I looking forward to SP1? Certainly. All the same negativities were said about XP, people were sticking with 2000 because of the perceived problems.
Oh, articles? Yeah, those too.
I just remember everyone saying XP was nothing more than Win2k with a playskool GUI. There was rabid, seething hatred for WinXP six years ago. And as I sit here seeing the cost of memory going down and TB harddrives becoming more and more affordable, I'm baffled by this almost religious belief that Vista's system requirements are its downfall.
I imagine that, like XP, SP1 and eventually SP2 will put Vista in everyones favor.
I haven't had that many problems with Vista and overall like it and use it. I have my computer setup to duel boot XP/Vista, and I don't think I've booted XP once since that was setup.
I'm using what is probably should be the minimum requirements (and is about a 4+ year old computer): P4 3GHz, 2GB ram, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro.
Just childish and un-constructive comments are utterly useless and help no one, such as the infamous "<OS> IZ ME v2!!!1111oneone".
Everything other is great ...
You telling me that Vista uses more memory - hell yes, what did you expect ? That Vista will run on 486 DX2 and 2 MB RAM ? LOOL, better complain with increasing game requirements - they are raising 10 times or even faster than Windows OS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYIfyDENTIY
BTW, my system had scored a 5.9 under Vista when a score of 3.0 was the minimum needed to run Vista properly, so my equipment wasn't the issue as some would like to blame it on and as this video makes light of.
What finally turned me off of Vista was having my copy deactivated after just updating the video drivers when the previous 3 times there was no problem with it updating direct from ATI under Vista. If the drivers were compatible before, under Vista, why would they suddenly make them incompatible? Also, its not as if I didn't give Vista a fair chance as well. I used it for several months before I gave up on it.
Last edited by Foub on 27 Nov 2007 - 20:09
So basically you're going to be like those grannys I have to deal with every day still running 95 and 98 and wondering why nothing in the store will work with their computer anymore (and usually their system crashes a ton too since there haven't been security updates for a couple years now)
Complex for idiots like you: It does not.
I'm tried[sic] of all this "XP Sucks"
You can near about replace every "XP" with "Vista" in this post.
A vicious circle indeed.
Yes, and many complaints have been nothing more than useless pointed negativity/bashing of the product and oftentimes it's users. That last part shouldn't even be tolerated anymore it does nothing but cause forum problems.
The odd constructive article is appreciated, I'm sure by MS. 'Vista is the worst tech product in history' isn't.
There are benefits to this new architecture:
1. Users can do processor intensive tasks like encoding video without worrying about slowing it down, as tasks like scrolling down web pages are done by mostly the GPU which has nothing to do with the video encoding process.
2. If the desktop freezes for any odd reason, drivers that follow the WDDM specs have the ability to be restarted, without rebooting the whole system. If this happened on XP, one would get a frozen screen, BSOD, or just a blank screen period forcing a reboot.
3. Aero looks nice, and the eye candy introduces a trivial performance hit, and is worth it for how nice the GUI looks. On XP, the GPU would most likely sit idle while just browsing the web, doing nothing, while one's processor will shoot up to 35% or more usage when dragging windows around or scrolling through folders.
I use Vista regularly at home and I find it to be a stable, capable and very attractive-looking OS. I like the eye-candy and the fade-in and out windows. It hasn't crashed once and it seems to behave itself.
On the negative side, the hardware requirements are quite steep, it still acts like a puppy-dog vying for your attention all the time with all of it's pop-up balloons and permission boxes, and it's still susceptible to pop-up windows, viruses, adware and spyware.
I think that all of the tech writers were expecting "revolution," and what they got was "evolution." There's nothing wrong with Vista if you look at it as the next revision of the Win2K/XP family. If you were expecting something magical, then I think that you set your expectations too high.
That and the popular media nowadays LOVES to report on dirt, drama and downfall. Upbeat and positive news apparently doesn't sell advertising, and tech writers have to appear objective, so they do their best to find flaws with everything.
Oh yeah. . . Mac OS X rulez.
I use Vista regularly at home and I find it to be a stable, capable and very attractive-looking OS. I like the eye-candy and the fade-in and out windows. It hasn't crashed once and it seems to behave itself.
On the negative side, the hardware requirements are quite steep, it still acts like a puppy-dog vying for your attention all the time with all of it's pop-up balloons and permission boxes, and it's still susceptible to pop-up windows, viruses, adware and spyware.
I think that all of the tech writers were expecting "revolution," and what they got was "evolution." There's nothing wrong with Vista if you look at it as the next revision of the Win2K/XP family. If you were expecting something magical, then I think that you set your expectations too high.
That and the popular media nowadays LOVES to report on dirt, drama and downfall. Upbeat and positive news apparently doesn't sell advertising, and tech writers have to appear objective, so they do their best to find flaws with everything.
Oh yeah. . . Mac OS X rulez.
True dat
Came out years ahead of it's time. Don't have a problem with the negativity because it's good to point out the problems. If one does spend $200 + on an OS, they oughtta know the bad long before the good. A problem I have with buying stuff from ebay. I'd like to weed out all the positives and look at what one says in what way in the negative.
One thing is for sure, if you don't need to run games, there's always Kubuntu/Ubuntu. Great OS for the spare computer.
the balance has been restored in the scheme of thing, as always.
1 we need a anti mac video
2 a few years ago people said they would not upgrade from 98 to xp they did not want to buy new hardware guess what now most of those people are on xp
and people that make games and software and drivers should hurry up and do a better job! so more people can upgrade to vista I hope its not this slow when windows 7(vienna) is released
But this is pretty well made. XP is 'flimsy' in some areas, some of it seems archaic (Updates, Wireless etc). It's about time they released a new version, and here we are.
At the moment it's a bad idea to upgrade from XP or something. If you build or buy a new system configured specially for Vista, you won't have any problems. I haven't. I'd feel bored if I had XP on this laptop.
You've posted this exact same crap in 3 articles now. Could you please shut up?
Friends, these people will rant for anything. Tomorrow, if something is released, they would rant, something is not released, they will rant, but what can you expect from these people? I would say, just ignore these people and be true to yourself. You are using Vista, you know how good or bad it is, why to listen to some idiots!
I got to agree...there are some issues like stupid UAC and so on,....but well...its a feature and I appreciate the extra layer of security. People just can't stop complaining. As others said.. if you are sooo inclined...just stick with xp or start your own OS.
I installed ultimate on my Sony Vaio and all i really had to do was find the correct device drivers and i was off and running. When I had the old device drivers, things were not running properly but that is really all I had to do.
In my opinion, I think that there are many inexperienced computer users out there and if they don't purchase a machine pre-installed with Vista, they are going to have problems.
So I just am assuming that all the negative crap is coming from the inexperienced computer users and I'm not bashing them in any way I'm just saying that is where this problem is coming from.
I LOVE it and think that maybe Microsoft finally got something right. That comment is coming from a Unix lover so take it for what its worth!
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.