Neowin.net

Too bad they don't have anything worth replacing it with. Newer is not always better.

Your personal opinion is noted, but it's still your opinion and not fact.

Does this make your personal opinion a fact... Hmmmm

You can install any flavour of Vista in 30 day evaluation mode for free, reset it 3 times to 90 days, and then reset the reset counter legally (forgetting the the illegal reset utilities) so in fact Vista is near enough free, with MS blessing!

So why is Vista not a runaway success? Anyone daft enough to install Vista bloat (on a trial basis), if they have a perfectly good XP O/S running is throwing their money away. On the plus side, the initial installation process is fairly painless, so worth a go, if you have a high end PC to mess about with!

What is the criteria upon which you can base a claim that something is "old and outdated." I am really interested in reading about it.

I dunno about Quillz, but I would say when support is dropped. It can get a little gray when talking in terms of "new features" being added, or maintained by a fixes for "small bugs/issues", or some would even say only when "security bugs" are not being addressed.

I think it is obvious that XP is now not falling under the first two categories, and only security issues will be considered for patches. And after a while, even that will cease.

AFAIK, the 30 day grace period isn't a trial period. It's not like you can go to Microsoft's website and download a free 30-day trial of Vista.

I'd like to hear your explanation that Vista is bloat. Every new OS is "bloated" compared to its predecessor, whether it's Windows, OS X, or *nix. And it's well worth the money to get away from XP, which is FAR from perfect. People credit XP with bringing gaming to an NT-based OS. That's all well and good, despite the fact every game I've ever played on XP worked on Windows 2000. All I'll remember XP for is unleashing the worm and spyware era on the regular home user.

I consider software that was released seven years ago to be "old and outdated" because a) Microsoft no longer officially supports it, b) we have a much better OS, Vista, both technically and aesthetically and c) As software progresses onward, it continues to leave XP behind.

Yes, it's my opinion, of course, but it's also 2008. For me, I have absolutely no reason to use Mac OS X Tiger, or Windows XP, or Ubuntu 4.10. I keep my OS up to date, and as far as Windows is concerned, that means using Vista.

Some people don't give a crap about what OS they are running as long as it does what they need it to.

Some people don't like "upgrading" to an OS that offers them nothing ultimately beneficial.

Some people don't like the new layout of Vista or the "improved" features.

Some people don't like slow and bloated software that requires four times the hardware requirements in order to run well.

I must reiterate, just because it's new does not mean it's better.

Haha, interesting logic there. Because it's newer it MUST BE USED! We don't care how slow, buggy, overly resource intensive or inferior it is compared to what's already out there, it's new!!!! NEW people!

Wrong. MS is stopping the sale of OEM and CAO license. The support (i.e monthly patches) will still be available until 2014. XP is not even close to be outdated, it is mature and stable.



XP run faster, much faster and if I really want to I can install a theme that will make XP look just like Vista.



In your dream. Vista is still very far behind XP, and doesn't look like it's going to get there any time soon.



It's 2008: SO. Where in the sky does it say that we can't use XP in 2008.

and how long ago was this 6months. seems to me you did something wrong if Vista didn't (DO IT) for you . i still think most of the user who still complain about vista that don't run it complain in a past tense moment of when drivers were kinda crappy and stuff and make current judgment views on vista using their experience Then when drivers were not up to Par as they are now and less updates had been released .

yeah... I have a laptop and I generally use it less than my desktop because it has Vista. And no I cannot put XP on it (I can but certain options, like adjusting the scree lighting will be unavailable).

Screen lighting adjustments are typically done with your monitor's built-in controls. Your OS should not have any ability to make them.

Let's count how many anti-Vista complaints we can find that contain NOT ONE SINGLE detail of why Vista "sucks", but just some novice computer user who can't figure out how to turn off UAC ranting about how they can't figure out how to install their printer drivers or something.

This is #1!

Untrue with laptop brightness controls. The OS is supposed to be able to alter that.

I think he meant that for some, if not most laptops, such as mine, the brightness can be altered anytime from the POST screen to the Windows boot screen to the OS itself.

No this is the Thread where i tell you i make better Coffey then you and that my coffee is awesome and your sucks . he he little humor

Windows 2000 is actually better than Windows XP, as it has less bloat, but Windows XP is far better than Vista. It has fewer issues. If you need an example of one, look no further than Windows Home Server.

By the way, a critic will probably say that is only one example, but logically speaking, you only need one.

XP is not far better than Vista. There is nothing about XP that is better than Vista anymore. Its last claim to fame was higher framerates in certain games, and even that's no longer true.

"If you need an example of one, look no further than Windows Home Server."

Um, Windows Home Server is Windows Server 2003 SP2-based.

Absolutely, I agree 100%, I wish they had made a 64 bit version of w2k, I wouldn't even touch XP64, XP isn't too bad but it's way better than that steaming pile known as vi$ta.

BRAVO! You made an entire three+ paragraph email without stating ONE SINGLE FACT about anything!
Good job!

You don't like Vista because "it has issues" and XP is better because ... ? And lastly, we should run a Home Server OS on our PC instead of a client OS because..you say it's better?
Bravo sir, bravo.

That makes TWO totally pointless posts!

You guys are just great, now you have decided that XP64 is bad because, uh, you think it might be, and XP isn't too bad because... I checked several times for your list of reasons and comparisons, but then I realized you HAD NONE.

Three totally pointless emails claiming Vista sucks for no other reason than it's the trendy elitist thing to do.

Legacy OS fanboys are cute that way. They cling to what's outdated and less productive, then try to sound intelligent by spouting off technical specifications of their machines they copied off of a Google search, and try to convince the majority by saying an outdated operating system that doesn't support the capabilities of the latest hardware will somehow perform better than an operating system that takes full advantage of the latest hardware, and has much better memory management. OMG VISTA IS USING ALL MY RAM, I ONLY HAVE 3 FREE JIGGABYTES, I HAVE 400 FREE UNDER XP. VISTA FAILZ!! Then we have to waste our time explaining that free RAM = wasted RAM, and how the amount of free RAM your OS isn't properly utilizing does not equate to faster performance.

Heh, don't even bring up the RAM bit with Vista hate, it's been totally blown out of proportion that it's become a joke. Like you said, people buy RAM to USE IT! Why is it now wrong if your system boots up using 800MB instead of 400MB out of 1GB or more bad? People will often say "well it's using it so my apps don't have any now!" But then they know jack about the superfetch which over time preloads bits of your most used apps in RAM waiting for you to use them before you even think about it. If you're like me and use the same set of apps day in and day out it's a great feature and boosts performance.

The other big thing people talk about is "bloat". That is fully subjective to each user though so I don't even think twice about it. Bloat for one user doesn't equal bloat for every user out there. If there is an built in app or service you don't use that doesn't mean it's not used by others. I remember the first year XP shipped and that was called "bloated" also. There are loads of tweak guides out there anyone can use to turn off services they probably don't use, and compared to XP, Vista installs with many set to manual instead of Auto just so they don't run unless they need to anyways.

I never claimed XP64 was bad, I simply stated that I wouldn't touch it because I wouldn't need it if there was a 64 bit w2k, XP isn't too bad IMO but I prefer w2k over all other operating systems however the 32 bit limitations prevent me from ever using it.

If you weren't such an ignorant vi$ta fanboy, full of hatred and contempt toward anyone who dares to disagree with you and your beloved law breakers at micro$oft, then you might have been able to comprehend what you are reading, fanboy.

Windows Home Server has little to do with Vista.

It's actually a Server 2003 variant. It's much closer to XP than it is to Vista.

I hope you realise that using $ when spelling Microsoft or Vista doesn't make you smart or clever, it just makes you look like an anti-MS fanboy. Which is a shame, because you almost had a respectable opinion until you started that crap. Well done!

Thanks. I'm currently drinking a cup of tea.

Relevance to news post? Err, none.

My wife was very happy with running xubuntu on her desktop. I recently bought here a new laptop, and she asked if I could install Linux onto that. I gave her the laptop as-received from Dell (with Vista) and she is just as happy with Vista as she was with xubuntu. She was not happy with XP, for the most part.

Try Ubuntu. Try Vista. Keep XP. Whatever works best for you.

Hmm, my Windows Vista must be broken. It's currently operating just fine.

Oh well guess I better fix it eh?

On about a total of 5 pieces of standard PC hardware.

lol, an operating system that actually operates, what are you thinking?

sort of like MTV, oh my god, who ever thought of a channel that actually plays MUSIC, hello MUSIC TELEVISION....

Why would I buy a car with so many stickers on the windshield that I couldn't see thru it, or buy one that takes 5 minutes to crank, or one who's lights dim everytime I open the glove box or turn on the windshield wipers......

same thing with Vista in my opinion, that's why I switched to Ubuntu, thanks Microsoft, Linux will probably see it's largest gain in market share ever this year because of Vista.

Yes, my Vista machines operate fine as well. We must have the same version, different than everyone else's though.

Crawl back to your cave little troll.

I don't really even consider posts from Mac users worth reading since 99% of all Mac users couldn't connect their printer to their PC if their life depended on it.

Macs aren't called 'drool proof paper' for no reason -- and if you want to take a Mac users opinion of an OS they have never used, you're just dumb.

OS/X boy, your OS sucks as bad or worse than all the rest, the only reason you think it's secure is because you have no security software and the market share of your overpriced hardware is so small nobody could be bothered to hack it.

Every one of your OS/X apps runs fine in Vista

[quote=computergeek83 said,#7.3][quote=jdhas said,#7]No thanks. I'll stick with OSX. same thing with Vista in my opinion, that's why I switched to Ubuntu, thanks Microsoft, Linux will probably see it's largest gain in market share ever this year because of Vista.[/quote]

LOL, Linux won't grow because of Vista, if anything after SP1 it has to grow in spite of it.

You bring up security as a justification for why OSX sucks (even though security has nothing to do with whether an OS is useful, productive, etc.) and then proceed to refute your own argument by saying nobody bothers to hack it. Good job.

This may come as a complete shocker to you, but much of Vista was derived and inspired by OSX. It's really not hard to spot the likenesses of the two if you look at them from an unbiased viewpoint. The starter of this topic may be a bit over the top and full of himself but realistically now, OSX does everything Vista does, only faster and with multitasking in mind.

OK then name some things, and make sure they're things that WEREN'T shown by Microsoft first in early Longhorn demos.

And saying Vista isn't designed with multitasking in mind is an outright insult to the programmers that worked on the memory management. Heck those that did the file IO priority work should be angry too.

How productive is a desktop that's malware infested? Again, the difference between Linux/Windows users is they have a perception of security and what a destoyed machine can do. Spam, DDOS, Malware - personally I think security is quite an important part of the productivity of a machine.

And please, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Windows has nicked ideas from OS X, and OS X has nicked stuff from Windows. Where do you think Steve Jobs got the idea for SpotLight? Yeah - from Longhorn. (It was shown off to the world then a year later OSX had it bundled in)

They're both as bad as one another in terms of copying ideas (as are most competitors in most industries) but you'd never get me to use Apple "software" whilst I breathe.

Windows XP was not to blame for your video issues, your graphics drivers were. I know this because I had the same problems with an old Radeon I used after my ATI AIW 9700 Pro died. Getting an Nvidia graphics card and installing the latest drivers fixed the problem. I am presently using Windows XP without any video issues.

Um no, windows was to blame for the video issues, look up how Windows rendered graphics in the past... that was the main reason they started working on DWM to eliminate this issue in windows... you MIGHT want to look up how windows accelerates 2D graphics, GDI, vertical image tearing and windows XP/200/98/95/3.11 they all had the vertical tearing issues... which you can see by moving a large window left to right quickly... now this does not happen in Overlay move with 3D acceleration because of vsync, how overlay works, and a lot of other things... but in 2D accelerated mode you had that tearing vertically happen a lot... heck it happened on every single windows XP/2000 system I have ever touched... it has nothing to do with drivers...

What about when an app would hang and you moved it's wondow also, or on older hardware like what I'm using now if I move a window around fast I get redraw lag behind, this doesn't happen on todays hardware but the point is GDI and GDI+ had loads of problems and it's a good thing MS moved to a fully 3D setup with DWM.

You forgot the most popular one: "OMG!@$ I USE XP ITS THE RoX0RS!11!"

Yes, there is the usual noise from alternative OSes, but the most complaining is from the XP crowd.

I've always wondered this myself. Not just here but any website that runs a story about Windows, there is always a group that comes out of the woodwork. Instead of at least trying to contribute to the related story, we get an unlreated post about how much someone likes to stroke it to a different operating system.

Works both ways though. Every Mac related discussion turns into some diatribe from the usual fanboys about how rubbish Apple are, how they overcharge for their hardware / software, how the iPhone is inferior to a Windows smart phone, etc etc...

Every single discussion thread is the same!

I think it is more your hardware than the software. Perhaps if you installed PerfectDisk on your old computer, you will notice it runs much faster.

What will that accomplish? Vista SP2 will be a regular service pack.

Possibly add the "huge speed increase" that was promised with SP1, but failed to materialize.

Most companies eventually developed decent drivers for Vista.
I managed to configure it so that the incessant prompting of UAC went away.
I like how it looks.

Bottom line, it ran slow as crap on every machine I ever installed it on, including my main 3GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM and an 8800GT graphics card.

If it can't manage to run at a respectable speed on that setup, I'll pass on it. Maybe I'm just less patient than the vocal minority who really love it.

Trust me. There are plenty of us who hate it in a vocal majority!

I've been using Vista since the day it was released, and never had ANY problems with it.
The only problem I have, is believing all these people who tell me how bad it is, when it works flawlessly for me at home and at work.

I agree with you 100%. If you see my rig specs, I have one hell of a setup and Vista runs slow. The UI lags, especially when in Classic Theme. It simply sucks. I went back to XP and I am going to stay there until Windows 7 comes out. Hopefully MS will do things right then.

Microsoft never said SP1 would provide a "huge speed increase". That's a fabrication made up by users who don't know what they're talking about, which is the vast majority of people who **** and moan about Vista. All Microsoft said was that performance improvements would be included in SP1, which they were.

Unfortunately for you, you fall into that category of users who don't have a clue. "Incessant prompting" of UAC does not exist. UAC rarely, if at all, pops up under the course of a normal day. If you're installing a bunch of software at once, such as after a format, then sure, but after that? No.

Wow, it's a good job I have geniuses like you to tell me that I don't have a clue.

I guess since I'm so clueless, it's probably time to call an end to my 12 year career as a developer, network engineer, and technician.

If I liked Vista, and pretended it ran fast even though it runs slow as hell, would that make me smart? I mean, not as smart as you obviously, but you know, smart enough to act like an obnoxious douchebag on the internet?

Well, if you're seeing constant UAC prompts, quite frankly you're using your computer wrong.

Anyway, if you see UAC prompts regularly, you're in a very small minority of users. The vast majority of user sessions go by without any UAC prompts, and the majority of those that DO have prompts only see one.

Brilliant.

I got the same snot nosed comment when I made some criticism of Vista. Like working as a Systems Administrator and having a 10 year background in IT, managing a variety of operating systems at a variety of levels isn't enough to install Windows.

What these people seem to forget is that Windows Vista is targetted at the home user. Ergo, it should be almost effortless to install and run. You shouldn't need to be a genius to make it NOT work like crap. If its impossible to make it work well with almost no effort then Microsoft have failed frankly.

Microsoft accomplished what they set out to do, make it more secure and stupid friendly; obviously without any thoughts on efficiency and speed.

I see what you did there, replacing the 's' in 'Vista' with a dollar sign. Cute

That was on purpose? I figured more typing practice was in order But come on, Vista is a hard word to spell.

The average user would have less problems with Vista. Basically you're saying you're below an average user. Nice.

i lyk vi$tuh

Your loss, my uneducated friend. XP is downright bad compared to Vista nowadays.

"Vista has glitches not even Microsoft can fix" LOL what? Microsoft wrote the operating system, they know how to fix issues. What are these glitches? Please, name off 5 of these so-called glitches for me, and no, "OMG VISTA SUX S0 BAD!!11!1one" does not count.

VISTA GLITCHES

1. Lagging Classic interface - No matter what video card U have.
2. Can't remember folder settings or Windows position at times
3. Slow FPS on Games - again, no matter what video card you have
4. Closing a crashed application through taskmanager doesn't always work. Sometimes causing Vista to freeze.
5. Windows Movie Maker doesn't recognize composite video input cards such as Pinnacle HDTV PCI so you have no way to transfer video to Movie Maker, even with latest Pinnacle Vista drivers. XP Movie Maker recognized the card perfectly fine.

6. Movie Maker won't work with AVI files while XPs did.
7. Firewire device won’t work - Usually happens after Vista goes to sleep with the device plugged in.

Oh and my favorite glitch of all - Disconnects from the internet at random for no reason sometimes and sometimes it shows as being disconnected on the Network map and when you click on IE, guess what?, you are connected on the internet yet the connection map says and indicates you are not!

You probably had bad drivers

Edit: Yup

1. Classic interface does not take advantage of your video card, of course its slower than Aero! This has been proven plenty of times.
2. Remembers folder settings for me, never had an issue there.
3. If and When this happens, its only a few fps, big deal. If you were in it for performance, you should go back to win95.
4. Bad drivers.
5. Bad Pinnacle drivers.
6. Movie Maker is terrible =P,
7. Bad firewire drivers.

Disconnects? Probably bad drivers.

Last edited by EnzoFX on 02 Jun 2008 - 22:13

1. Classic does not useWDDM/Aero. It works along the same lines as XP's ****ty UI. Next.
2. Neither did XP.
3. No longer applicable. Vista has long since caught up to XP in framerates. It's likely your bad hardware. Next.
4. Always works if you click Show all processes.
5. Likely an old card that is no longer supported. Get new hardware.
6. Never had a problem with AVI files in Vista's WMM. Update your codecs.
7. People still use Firewire?

Heh, so basically what this proves is that the majority of problems are related to hardware drivers not being up to par yet. How this is a MS or Vista centric problem is weird though. I mean hell, drives make or break any OS.

MOTU audio interfaces use firewire, and I'm sure there's plenty of other devices that do as well.

Uneducated, LOL! Have fun with your hoggy of a program designed for idiots who have never used a computer before. Microsoft knows how to fix issues!? Windows ME proves otherwise.

You're too much.

Well said. People are complaining, blaming MS, when they should really be thanking them.

They need to start blaming the hardware manufacturers. Maybe then will they start releasing decent drivers.

They should thank MS that they're in a sense, forcing manufacturers to step things up, to release solid drivers under the new driver models. Vista is a nice step forward, a required one really. A lot of work went under the hood, and it will pay off, especially with Win7. Here's to a good step forward, like forcing developers not to require users to run all their apps as an Admin... That's what UAC is all about.

Nothing wrong with my drivers. I had the absolute latest drivers. How come everything worked fine on XP and not on Vista?

Please....

Even Steve Ballmer said the other day when asked about Vista, that i"f they could do it all over again, they would do a lot of things differently."

They know they ***cked up. The numbers don't lie and no, people are not connected with each other in a vendetta against Microsoft or Vista. The OS simply has not delivered what it promised. It is not a valid replacement for an already stable and working OS - XP.

You people are in love with its eye-candy and its big icons and all its gadgets which XP doesn't have but the OS is slow even at basic tasks such as file transfers and its interface lags at times. I am not the only that has experienced this, even with the latest drivers installed.

This post is hilarious. My current Vista theme is omganinja's Clearlooks theme. Not much eye candy there to speak of.

"OS is slow at basic tasks such as file transfers"

Wrong. This has been fixed long ago, even prior to SP1.

"The interface lags at times"

LOL ok. The UI is rendered by the GPU, which makes it LESS prone to lag than XP's ****ty CPU rendered UI.

Drivers. Plain and simple. Just because you have the latest ones doesn't mean they are quality. And install drivers on top of drivers on top of drivers every time a new version comes out doesn't always yield the best performance. A coworker of mine who was happy using Vista and had the latest drivers decided to wipe the system and do a clean install. He said the performance increase was amazing. Even with the same drivers.

Was is everything fine on XP and not on Vista? Well you would have to post what problems you are having. But the answer is rather simple: Vista has a different drive model than XP. All for the better. Sound and Video were removed from the kernel so when a driver crashes it won't take the entire system with it. In fact if you are playing a game and your video card crashes Vista can reset it on the fly and you can continue playing, all without your game shutting down.

On my system, with well supported hardware and quality drivers Vista is very fast and very stable. Every app or game that I have wanted to use works just fine. I have no issues whatsoever.

So again, what is it that's not working fine? I think you'll find it has nothing to do with Vista. You need to get the lastest codecs(I use Vista on my HTPC, there isn't a file format out there it won't play), Nvidia has crappy drivers, their performance over XP is quite poor. However ATI cards actually perform better in Vista. If this were a Vista issue both cards would have problems. It's clearly a driver issue and one that ATI doesn't have a problem with. I have no issues with internet disconnects. None at all. Do you happen to have an Nvidia chipset on your motherboard?

I've looked at your list you posted above. Everything is either a bad driver or you not understanding how things work.

Last edited by archer75 on 03 Jun 2008 - 00:05

Thanks for showing how uneducated you are. The OS you use has no bearing on how fast a webpage loads.

Really? You do know that the TCP/IP stacks on Vista are better than those on XP right? And that is why the internet is faster on Vista than on XP. Educate yourself.

I seriously doubt any change to the TCP/IP stacks make your "internet faster".

Pay no attention to the man drinking the Microsoft kool-aid.

As much as I like Vista, this is a little rediculous. While the stack has been improved, your internet access shouldn't have any bottlenecks at that level on any system, Vista, XP or otherwise.

What about ADSL and traffic shifting/packet prioritization?

If you're just browsing the 'net, you still shouldn't see a difference.

Mostly of someone posting "vista sux" and then 20 people assaulting them...
I like Vista. I used to think it sucked till I tried a clean install (not on a pre-installed one), it ran 10x better.

Threads like these are predictable entertainment. Predictable in the sense that the EXACT SAME handful of members initiate anti Vista comments, then the same crowd of Vista users flame them back, then another round happens...

Okay, I kid. It's not 'entertaining.'

Personally I'm not taking any sides since, well, I use both OSes regularly.

Exactly. I would neither expect nor encourage anyone to upgrade an existing machine to Vista; however, you would have to be a fool to demand Xp on any new half-decent PC bought today.

The junk software is likely the thing that give's Vista its bad rep.

I just got a new tablet from HP today, and I tried it out for a few minutes before reformatting Vista. It was horrible. Half an hour later, after a nice clean reformat, It's running beautifully.

I find that's exactly what it is. Every pre-built computer (by HP, etc) ran like absolute s*** without a clean format. The first times I tried Vista were on HP machines, and I thought that Vista sucked because of it.

Then I tried it for myself on a clean install, and it was fine.

IE7 is also for Windows XP.

But yes, IE6 does suck nowadays.

why windows 7 will be better: It uses the same driver model as Vista. The same drivers will work. What this does is give hardware vendors a couple of more years to get it right. People will say that windows 7 is better than vista but the truth is it just had more time for those drivers to mature.

Turning off UAC isn't a good idea. Quiet mode is way better.

And he got sick from it. Not a very good suggestion.