What If Windows 7 Is A Dud ?

[wtsinnc]

I found this article
http://www.zdnet.com/
at ZDNet.com and was wondering;
what if Windows 7 is a titanic disaster, loaded with glitches and serious real-world limitations and conflicts with existing software and drivers, just like Vista was upon it's release ?

Will the public be patient and wait for MS to "get it right" ?

In short, is Microsoft's OS market dominance at stake with this release ?

[AKAJohnDoe]

-{ Quote: "I found this article
http://www.zdnet.com/
at ZDNet.com and was wondering;
what if Windows 7 is a titanic disaster, loaded with glitches and serious real-world limitations and conflicts with existing software and drivers, just like Vista was upon it's release ?

Will the public be patient and wait for MS to "get it right" ?

In short, is Microsoft's OS market dominance at stake with this release ?" }-

Just to be contrary, what if Windows Vista was not really "a titanic disaster, loaded with glitches and serious real-world limitations and conflicts with existing software and drivers"? What if the perceived problems were mostly due to the inability or failure of the peripheral device manufacturers to create drivers for their own hardware? What if the perceived software issues were mostly due to out-of-date or obsolete software continuing to be run long past its reasonable lifespan? What if all the negative hype was simply the result of the trade press trying to drum up readership and subscriptions for their own dying models of publication and sales?

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "I found this article
http://www.zdnet.com/
at ZDNet.com and was wondering;
what if Windows 7 is a titanic disaster, loaded with glitches and serious real-world limitations and conflicts with existing software and drivers, just like Vista was upon it's release ?

Will the public be patient and wait for MS to "get it right" ?

In short, is Microsoft's OS market dominance at stake with this release ?" }-

If 7 is a dud also, then more and more people will probably be buying Macs and slowly more will turn to Linux also. But it's a slow process... I doubt the future of Windows or MS rests on any one or 2 OS's.

[midway40]

Personally, it would not matter to me since I am satisfied with Vista but I would see problems with those who are skipping Vista for Win7. Will they hang on to XP for a while longer? Will they move on to another OS?

[wtsinnc]

Point well taken, AKAJohnDoe.

No doubt, the Vista "adventure" has taught lessons hopefully not forgotten by any number of software vendors as well as OEMs and end users.

I recall a news item from the summer of 2006 that involved something resembling a press conference where the CEOs of McAfee and Symantec were railing about Microsofts' refusal to divulge (to them) critical information about the OS- primarily the kernel structure. Without this information, they were unable to design compatible security software.

I don't know, only guessing, that the same occurred with the majority of companies looking to supply software and drivers. Upon it's release, there were precious few antivirus , antispyware, and particularly, firewalls that were fully compatible.

*** And, by the way; I agree that there has been much negative press which was decidedly biased against MS.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "Personally, it would not matter to me since I am satisfied with Vista but I would see problems with those who are skipping Vista for Win7. Will they hang on to XP for a while longer? Will they move on to another OS?" }-
Likewise, I am satisfied with Vista also. If 7 suffers a similar kind of publicity, then that could be difficult for MS. Especially since most business and corporate users have hung on to XP and are probably waiting now for 7 before they make any changes. If 7 is no good, and XP support is over, that might not sit too well in the business world.

[Arup]

Like Vista, Windows 7 will have to mature with a SP1 release, only then it would deliver its full potential.

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "Likewise, I am satisfied with Vista also. If 7 suffers a similar kind of publicity, then that could be difficult for MS. Especially since most business and corporate users have hung on to XP and are probably waiting now for 7 before they make any changes. If 7 is no good, and XP support is over, that might not sit too well in the business world." }-From what I've observed, most corporate and business users are one or two OS releases behind anyway.

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "From what I've observed, most corporate and business users are one or two OS releases behind anyway." }-
Where I work they are still using windows 2000, they updated from windows 95 6 months ago (and I was going to make a crack about the company being too cheep to update to windows XP).

[EASTER]

-{ Quote: "From what I've observed, most corporate and business users are one or two OS releases behind anyway." }-

Same here. XP Pro no matter how so-called outdated softwares as support for that lame argument. It's a critic's view IMO.

Vista is a fluke, and if 7 follows suite, no business is going to be so naive as to trust an incomplete and risky O/S as Vista. I yet to see a bank or business in my area that doesn't still depend on XP Pro. No vista shows anywhere i seen. Only home users who are the most gullible and have less to lose then business interests.

Corporations don't take chances especially in these hard times to make a switch and jeopardize their clients data and their own data sheets that XP Pro efficiently provides for them in comparison.

I know i might take some heat for my bias, but the proof is in the pudding, and the vista pudding still is a mess IMO. 7 could be nothing more than a Longhorn/Vista clone.

[raakii]

The problem with Vista is it not backward compatible.Can anyone tell me wat vista can do which xp cannot??? .I used both of them , i am still finding it difficult to find the difference except the GUI.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "Same here. XP Pro no matter how so-called outdated softwares as support for that lame argument. It's a critic's view IMO.

Vista is a fluke, and if 7 follows suite, no business is going to be so naive as to trust an incomplete and risky O/S as Vista. I yet to see a bank or business in my area that doesn't still depend on XP Pro. No vista shows anywhere i seen. Only home users who are the most gullible and have less to lose then business interests.

Corporations don't take chances especially in these hard times to make a switch and jeopardize their clients data and their own data sheets that XP Pro efficiently provides for them in comparison.

I know i might take some heat for my bias, but the proof is in the pudding, and the vista pudding still is a mess IMO. 7 could be nothing more than a Longhorn/Vista clone." }-
I know you swear by Windows XP to death, however, Windows Vista is not as bad as you're making it out to be. I've seen a few businesses upgrade all their computers to Windows Vista; even my university has already upgraded the majority of their workstations. At the moment, Windows Vista is rock-solid--I've had more crashes with Windows XP than I ever had with Windows Vista.

Based on build 7000, I can see that Windows 7 will be better than Windows Vista. Even at its current state, it is stable and fast. I know it's still early to really decide, but Windows 7 should be better. It builds upon the foundation of Windows Vista, so most of the work has already been done. Compared to what Microsoft did when they transitioned from XP to Vista, the work they are doing for Windows 7 is a piece of cake.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "From what I've observed, most corporate and business users are one or two OS releases behind anyway." }-
Yep, this is typically the case.... let's hope 7 turns out well. Then everyone can breathe a sigh of relief....

[Arup]

For corporate use MS recommends 2003 and its quite stable and snappy as well, nothing fancy, has 2K's interface but its stable and so is XPx64 which is directly based on 2003 core with XP GUI.

[iceni60]

i've got vista, it doesn't work.

i heard Windows 7 is supposed to be better, i haven't tried it and haven't looked, but i heard the betas are on torrents if you're desparate to try it out, you can tell which betas are the newest by the numbers at the end, the last digits are the date and time of day of the release.

[rpsgc]

Look mah, a flamebait thread! Like there aren't enough of those... And, of course, it's already infested by the Vista hating XP cronnies. I guess stupid people never learn ::) Or have short memories, like, forgetting how many BSODs XP had before SP2 and all the other problems and instability. Yeah, XP is perfect, just godlike and Vista doesn't work. Uh Huh, sure.


And the better part, 95+% of people who bitch about Vista have:

A) Never used it
B) Used it for a day or less and simply surrendered to the FUD without giving it a chance or just gave up because it was different.

OMGS!!!11 IT HAS IS DIFFERENT, I ARE HAS NOT ADAPT!!11 I ARE GO BACK TO XP UHHHH!

or C) Had a Nvidia videocard and blamed the OS for the crappy Nvidia driver's faults.

[lodore]

before SP1 vista crashed alot.
this includes the programs that came with it including IE7,media player,side bar etc etc.
but since SP1 its genrally very good.
the only problem is that sometimes it slowsdown so much you cant use the mouse.
if you leave it it will work as normal again after a while.

[midway40]

-{ Quote: "From what I've observed, most corporate and business users are one or two OS releases behind anyway." }-

Till Feb. '04, we were using P3 Win98 workstations and Win2000 servers at work. Now we are using P4 XP Pros and Server 2003s. We usually get new computers and OS's every 4 years or so but since times are kind of tough now the owner said it will be another two years before we upgrade again (hence the increased workload on me and the SysAdmin in computer repairs). We do have a couple of Vista laptops that replaced ones that couldn't be repaired though.

[gerardwil]

-{ Quote: "
the only problem is that sometimes it slowsdown so much you cant use the mouse.
if you leave it it will work as normal again after a while." }-

That's my time walking the dog or take a shower ;D

Gerard

[dw426]

If Windows 7, by some curse of a god has any "Vista-like" problems, public opinions, or any of the mess MS went through with Vista, MS might as well just turn off the lights, lock the doors, and go home. These kinds of "failures" won't sit well for too long with the people who REALLY call the shots, the investors. Linux is going to stay put as long as websites/developers and hardware/software makers stick to proprietary formats/drivers. Apple however would salivate and grin from ear to ear if Windows 7 failed.

[twl845]

I wonder how much more resources Win7 will need? Vista needs about double that XP needs, and an upgrade to Vista needs a new computer or adding double the RAM, bigger HD, etc.

[iceni60]

-{ Quote: "Look mah, a flamebait thread! Like there aren't enough of those... And, of course, it's already infested by the Vista hating XP cronnies. I guess stupid people never learn ::) Or have short memories, like, forgetting how many BSODs XP had before SP2 and all the other problems and instability. Yeah, XP is perfect, just godlike and Vista doesn't work. Uh Huh, sure.


And the better part, 95+% of people who bitch about Vista have:

A) Never used it
B) Used it for a day or less and simply surrendered to the FUD without giving it a chance or just gave up because it was different.

OMGS!!!11 IT HAS IS DIFFERENT, I ARE HAS NOT ADAPT!!11 I ARE GO BACK TO XP UHHHH!

or C) Had a Nvidia videocard and blamed the OS for the crappy Nvidia driver's faults." }-
no, it really doesn't work, i've got vista so i know.

[lodore]

Windows 7 is meant to be able to run on netbooks.

[Judge Dee]

-{ Quote: "no, it really doesn't work, i've got vista so i know." }-
In my home, there are three computers with Vista, and they all work very well. No mouse slowdown, either.
It works well for many people.

[djohn]

Coming from The DOS Days going through versions of windows,There could not be IMO anything worse then ME,Then along came XP, It was like going from a Ford Pinto to a BMW.That being said XP was not that great at first pretty stable for the most part but after some MS patching/fixing its all good.Same can be said with vista at first it was not to good but know it is pretty stable after SP1 and software that actually works on Vista.I think when 7 comes as a Vista user, I am not touching it unless it proves stable from the get Go.Know that my system runs great I rather Not break it with another broken OS.

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "I wonder how much more resources Win7 will need? Vista needs about double that XP needs, and an upgrade to Vista needs a new computer or adding double the RAM, bigger HD, etc." }-
Windows 7 will have the same or slightly lower system requirements than Windows Vista. In general preliminary performance tests indicate that while it is much better for office and home productivity tasks, gaming and graphics related performance takes a slight hit.

I am using Vista and with enough RAM (2GB+, 3GB recommended) it runs as fast as XP. But to be honest, apart from DX10 the only other thing I found particularly impressive about Vista is that it crashes and hangs far less than XP did, making it a more stable OS (Well, XP already didn't crash a lot but Vista almost never crashes or hangs for me!).

[Pedro]

So it only changed crashing frequency? ;D

[Fuzzfas]

I have only tried Vista for few hours. What impressed me, was that the opening alone of a new folder, was making my CPU momentarily to climb to about 40-60% (AMD x2 3800+, 2.7 GB RAM), when on XP it doesn't change at all. Also the slugginesh of the windows opening. In fact in order to have the windows to pop up at "XP speeds", i disabled aero. Only then it was *close* to the feeling of the XP. My system was also more instable, probably because of the drivers support for my motherboard (in pre-SP1 era i had terrible bsod).

The only thing that really attracted me in Vista use, was the thumbnails in the task bar. But then i discovered there are 2 little programs that do the same job in XP. So i upgraded back to XP.

Windows 7 will be better than Vista. Why? Because in the meantime, more people will have gone to quad cores/DDR3 and so it won't seem so "heavy" as Vista used to seem. I myself will probably move to quad core when Win 7 will come out and i am sure that when i do, it will seem as snappy, fast and light as XP seems to me now. ;D

Operating systems always get better, once you pay 400$ for a good hardware upgrade. Maybe a mass transition to 64bit will help too, to take advantage of more RAM (new AMD mobos i am lookint at support 16 GB RAM. I bet Win7 64bit will "fly" with 16GB :) ). So, all this will increase the number of people that will say "Win 7 runs great! Better than Vista and as fast as XP". :thumb:

[iceni60]

-{ Quote: "In my home, there are three computers with Vista, and they all work very well. No mouse slowdown, either.
It works well for many people." }-
it seems a lot of people are happy with it, and a lot aren't happy with it, that makes it bad, and that's the reason you can talk about xp and not have the same thing happen. but you can't talk about vista and say it works without being corrected, just like you correct me, that makes it about 50% there and therefore it's rubbish because that's not good enough, and it's also why windows 7 will be out soon. it's not difficult to work out.

edit does that first sentance make sense? lol. i'm too tired to correct it, so i hope you can follow it.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "it seems a lot of people are happy with it, and a lot aren't happy with it, that makes it bad, and that's the reason you can talk about xp and not have the same thing happen. but you can't talk about vista and say it works without being corrected, just like you correct me, that makes it about 50% there and therefore it's rubbish because that's not good enough, and it's also why windows 7 will be out soon. it's not difficult to work out.

edit does that first sentance make sense? lol. i'm too tired to correct it, so i hope you can follow it." }-
So you're saying that since some people doesn't like Windows Vista, it's bad? Or am I not following you correctly? In any case, Windows 7 follow Microsoft's normal release cycle (~3 years). Since Windows Vista was delayed, it seems that it will be out sooner than it should be, which is not the case.

[iceni60]

-{ Quote: "So you're saying that since some people doesn't like Windows Vista, it's bad? Or am I not following you correctly? In any case, Windows 7 follow Microsoft's normal release cycle (~3 years). Since Windows Vista was delayed, it seems that it will be out sooner than it should be, which is not the case." }-
no, what i was trying to say is - since it doesn't work on so many machines, no matter what the reason (for me, i admit, i think it's more to do with the vista ready sticker not being appropriate for my laptop, plus all the crap HP pre-installs) it's a fail for MS. there are just too many people who say it doesn't work for MS, or anyone else, to say vista is any kind of success. there are so many people with vista problems that it's impossible to talk about vista without it turning into a flame war, that wouldn't happen if vista worked perectly. i think there are lots of reasons vista isn't perfect and it's not all MS's fault.

i can't talk about it anymore, i only wanted to say it doesn't work because i went and bought a new computer with vista just to try it out and i haven't been able to use it through no fault of my own.

i've used linux now for a few years and haven't touched a MS os in all that time, so it's not a big problem for me.

doesn't a release cycle start when the last OS was released, or went gold?

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "no, it really doesn't work, i've got vista so i know." }-
LOL... that's strange. I have Vista too. And it does work. :thumb:

[iceni60]

-{ Quote: "LOL... that's strange. I have Vista too. And it does work. :thumb:" }-
you must be used to windows OSes then and not see it, for me it's really bad compared other OSes, that's all i can think of. i can see how it hangs which you probably miss because you are used to it and accept it.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "you must be used to windows OSes then and not see it, for me it's really bad compared other OSes, that's all i can think of. i can see how it hangs which you probably miss because you are used to it and accept it." }-
I use both Windows and Linux constantly, and frankly I prefer Vista. It doesn't hang, there are no issues with it at all. This is Vista x64 btw. On the other hand, most Linux distros are infested with bugs and issues, and there is a horrendous lack of quality control in most distros in general. There is only 1 I know of that's above the rest, Ubuntu x64. Seems like you've drawn some quick conclusions on Vista based on some very limited experience with it. I would say the same thing about your Linux experience... it has many issues, but you've probably just come to overlook them and accept things as they are because you're used to it...

But.... to each his/her own... ;)

[iceni60]

it's common knowledge vista doesn't work on most people's computers. if you're having problems with linux it's probably too difficult for you, in that case it makes sense for you to prefer and use vista. :)

what are the problems you're having with linux? ubuntu has a beginner subforum, maybe you can get help there?

[AKAJohnDoe]

-{ Quote: "it's common knowledge" }-

A phrase commonly used in propaganda and when spreading falsehoods

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "it's common knowledge vista doesn't work on most people's computers. if you're having problems with linux it's probably too difficult for you, in that case it makes sense for you to prefer and use vista. :)

what are the problems you're having with linux? ubuntu has a beginner subforum, maybe you can get help there?" }-

There is no doubt that other OS's are a bit quicker than Vista, but I always return to Vista, I just like it best, pretty simple.

I think Vista on any new PC works fine. I believe most people's problems with it are due to trying to install it on an older PC, or perhaps trying an "upgrade". I know just as many people who have no issues with Vista at all on new hardware. So your "common knowledge" would only appear to be a half truth at best. :)

I'm not having problems with Linux, been doing it for over 2 years now. I have used them all. And most of them are buggy.... I come from a DOS background and was a programmer for many many years. Trust me, there is no quality control in desktop Linux distros. And that is what puts me off. I still use it and experiment with it, but it will never become my main OS.

[wtsinnc]

I feel pretty sure that Microsoft won't miss the holiday shopping season with Windows 7 as they did with Vista and I have no doubt they're under some pressure to make this OS available to OEMs as well as retailers by November.

After the horrendous (past) twelve months and consensus that at least the first half of 2009 will be more of the same, the electronics industry is desperate for a product that will spur the consumer to get off of their wallets.

That said, I don't see how W/7 can be a strong catalyst for a dramatic rise in hardware sales as 7's system requirements are quite similar to Vista's.
As has been already pointed out, thousands of computers have already been upgraded with faster multi-core processors, more memory, higher end GPUs, and upgraded monitors.
What's left to upgrade ?

For people like me, upgrading is out of the question; it would be far more practical to buy a new and fully compatible box with all of the goodies....
....far more practical if I did more than web surfing, e-mail, trying out new software, and occasionally backing up a DVD.
I bought Vista Ultimate but use XP because I'm much more familiar and therefore more comfortable with it.
It does for me all I need.

Just like millions of others, Microsoft got my money for vista, but if I am to buy it, I'll have to see in Windows 7 something that I just can't live without and isn't available in Vista.
That, I believe, represents the major obstacle to 7 being a success.

[iceni60]

-{ Quote: "There is no doubt that other OS's are a bit quicker than Vista, but I always return to Vista, I just like it best, pretty simple.

I think Vista on any new PC works fine. I believe most people's problems with it are due to trying to install it on an older PC, or perhaps trying an "upgrade". I know just as many people who have no issues with Vista at all on new hardware. So your "common knowledge" would only appear to be a half truth at best. :)

I'm not having problems with Linux, been doing it for over 2 years now. I have used them all. And most of them are buggy.... I come from a DOS background and was a programmer for many many years. Trust me, there is no quality control in desktop Linux distros. And that is what puts me off. I still use it and experiment with it, but it will never become my main OS." }-
i bought a new PC just for vista, it hangs on bootup. a lot of people have problems with vista, if it's a hardware thing maybe MS got confused when they decided what the specs for running vista are. i'm not bothered at all by vista other than listening to people say it works when i know different, along with 1000s (perhaps 1000000s) of others.

if you want quality control just install debian or any other server, or enterprise, distro and put a desktop on it. bugs get fixed far faster with open source projects plus they aren't hidden either. ms sometimes doesn't bother doing a security patch when it's needed, othertimes they sneak patches for things hidden in other patches, you could miss a really important security fix because the patch they sneak it with doesn't apply to you!

that's really it, i'm not talking about vista anymore in this thread, i think we all know the facts, i can't see the point in going on.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "i bought a new PC just for vista, it hangs on bootup. a lot of people have problems with vista, if it's a hardware thing maybe MS got confused when they decided what the specs for running vista are. i'm not bothered at all by vista other than listening to people say it works when i know different, along with 1000s (perhaps 1000000s) of others.

if you want quality control just install debian or any other server, or enterprise, distro and put a desktop on it. bugs get fixed far faster with open source projects plus they aren't hidden either. ms sometimes doesn't bother doing a security patch when it's needed, othertimes they sneak patches for things hidden in other patches.

that's really it, i'm not talking about vista anymore in this thread, i think we all know the facts, i can't see the point in going on." }-
If you bought a computer with the "Vista capable" logo, then that could explain your troubles. Microsoft did make a mistake when they decided what the specs should be in order to run Vista--the minimum was too low. As a result, PCs that were supposedly "Vista capable" weren't able to run Vista at its fullest. Also, late OS changes broke drivers and applications, leading to many poor user experiences around the time of Vista's launch. But a lot has changed since then... Vista is very stable at the moment. The bugs and driver incompatibilities have been sorted out for the most part.

[iceni60]

-{ Quote: "If you bought a computer with the "Vista capable" logo, then that could explain your troubles. Microsoft did make a mistake when they decided what the specs should be in order to run Vista--the minimum was too low. As a result, PCs that were supposedly "Vista capable" weren't able to run Vista at its fullest. Also, late OS changes broke drivers and applications, leading to many poor user experiences around the time of Vista's launch. But a lot has changed since then... Vista is very stable at the moment. The bugs and driver incompatibilities have been sorted out for the most part." }-
well that's the problem i have, i have a brand new vista computer i bought just to try it out on and it won't boot without hanging, running applications take a minute, or more, to start etc, etc.

i posted in this thread to talk about the 7 beta and noticing vista being mentioned i kept it very short, but added this to the end of my post - "i've got vista, it doesn't work."

here is the post that followed mine -
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1378837&postcount=16

i replied, but i kept it short again - "no, it really doesn't work, i've got vista so i know." then Kerodo replies to that. it's the same thing everytime vista is mentioned, i go throught that again and again just because MS can't get the sticker right on their laptops.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "well that's the problem i have, i have a brand new vista computer i bought just to try it out on and it won't boot without hanging, running applications take a minute, or more, to start etc, etc.
" }-

If I bought my Vista computer, and after turning it on the first time I found it hanging, I would return it to the shop and ask for explanations. I bought my Vista computer in April 2008. Even without SP1 and having found preinstalled NIS 2006, it was fairly slow but never hanged. Needless to add now, configured to my taste it is as fast as XP in my other machine. Only shutting down Vista takes longer than XP:35 seconds and 15 seconds.

[midway40]

It appears that this thread has degenerated into another Vista bash-fest.

As someone else pointed out here earlier, so what if Win7 retains the so-called “bloat”. By the time of its release there will be more Quads in usage by then. Back in May I got an Acer—Quad 6600, 4GB RAM, 750GB HDD, for only $750. I have seen machines lately with the same specs even cheaper. What do you think the price will be a year from now? As it is with me now, who will care about processing power, HDD space, and RAM usage with such a setup?

As I have stated many times before, this is all part of the evolution that began when the PC was invented. I do not understand why some people are technological Luddites---only what to progress to a certain point and then stagnate.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "It appears that this thread has degenerated into another Vista bash-fest.

As someone else pointed out here earlier, so what if Win7 retains the so-called “bloat”. By the time of its release there will be more Quads in usage by then. Back in May I got an Acer—Quad 6600, 4GB RAM, 750GB HDD, for only $750. I have seen machines lately with the same specs even cheaper. What do you think the price will be a year from now? As it is with me now, who will care about processing power, HDD space, and RAM usage with such a setup?

As I have stated many times before, this is all part of the evolution that began when the PC was invented. I do not understand why some people are technological Luddites---only what to progress to a certain point and then stagnate." }-

Hey midway40,
not everyone can afford new hardware.
when there are operating systems that can do the same as what vista can do but is faster and more reliable why should someone put up with slow bloated vista?

[ronjor]

Everyone has an opportunity to comment on Windows 7 at their blog site. A good time for input would be now.

Engineering Windows 7 (http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/default.aspx)

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Hey midway40,
not everyone can afford new hardware.
when there are operating systems that can do the same as what vista can do but is faster and more reliable why should someone put up with slow bloated vista?" }-lodore,

Actually, the question one should ask is whether it makes sense to upgrade to a new OS (a paid one that is...) if there isn't a compelling reason to do so, at least I've not seen one articulated for the upgrade to Vista on legacy hardware. If the PC comes with it..., well, it's the OS. But I don't "use" the OS, I use the apps that I install under it.

Blue

[midway40]

-{ Quote: "Hey midway40,
not everyone can afford new hardware.
when there are operating systems that can do the same as what vista can do but is faster and more reliable why should someone put up with slow bloated vista?" }-

Let's time warp back to 2001. Your comment back then would be:

"not everyone can afford new hardware. I have a PII that runs Win98 nicely so why should I upgrade to the slow bloated XP?"

You cannot go and say that just because your hardware is older this new OS must be slow and bloated. Vista ran ok on my old P4 Dell but runs better on my Dual Core and Quad because it was designed for multiple core processors. Software engineers (especially OS) design software for contemporary hardware and hardware that is seen in the immediate future. Why should they design software for hardware conceived 10 years ago?

You're right, not everyone can afford new hardware. I am not rich myself (nor anywhere close to it). I have to charge my new computers and when I pay them off it is usually time for another PC (about every 4 years in my case). The difference this year is that I paid only $100 more on two computers than on the single Dell I bought back in 2004.

If your system cannot run Vista, fine--stick with XP. But don't go around with the blanket message that Vista is slow and bloated just because your system can't handle it. The thing is that I know you also have a Quad system so I cannot understand where your statements come from. It handles nicely even on my lowly laptop (in comparison to my Quad desktop).

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "Let's time warp back to 2001. Your comment back then would be:

"not everyone can afford new hardware. I have a PII that runs Win98 nicely so why should I upgrade to the slow bloated XP?"

You cannot go and say that just because your hardware is older this new OS must be slow and bloated. Vista ran ok on my old P4 Dell but runs better on my Dual Core and Quad because it was designed for multiple core processors. Software engineers (especially OS) design software for contemporary hardware and hardware that is seen in the immediate future. Why should they design software for hardware conceived 10 years ago?

You're right, not everyone can afford new hardware. I am not rich myself (nor anywhere close to it). I have to charge my new computers and when I pay them off it is usually time for another PC (about every 4 years in my case). The difference this year is that I paid only $100 more on two computers than on the single Dell I bought back in 2004.

If your system cannot run Vista, fine--stick with XP. But don't go around with the blanket message that Vista is slow and bloated just because your system can't handle it. The thing is that I know you also have a Quad system so I cannot understand where your statements come from. It handles nicely even on my lowly laptop (in comparison to my Quad desktop)." }-

Hey Midway40,
my machine has a quad core processer and 2gb of ram.
pretty much any linux distro runs alot faster than vista on the same machine.
i still have some slow times with vista.
espically file copying....
atm i dualboot because not everything runs on linux at this time but most stuff does.
there isnt really anything that vista can do that xp,OSX,linux.,freebsd,solaris etc cannot do.
yet vista is alot slower than the others. why would that be?

i prefer vista over xp. but i know that vista is slow even on decent hardware.

[C.S.J]

they need vista to work at the same speed as XP. :)

i have a good enough machine, with intel core2duo and 4gb ram and Vista isnt as fast as XP, thats always been everyones main argument.

[raakii]

Difference between xp and vista is not much !!

Almost Same discussion went on here
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=222483&highlight=vista+xp+advantages


I would like Mr Mark's statement to be repeated

"For anyone capable of spelling 'operating system,' there's no difference in what he/she can milk out of it, so the answer is - nothing. Power users will make whatever they wanna make out of it. Therefore, with 10x extra space and 2x memory requirement, Vista is a no-no for techies.

For non-techies, there might be some out-of-the-box improvements, but they are negligible compared to the downsides, since they're going to get infected anyway, so at least they should do it with low-spec requirements."


I dumped vista bcos , restoring an xp image takes 1 or 2 min ,but vista always takes longer than 5 minutes.And generally i dont like security features which microsoft is gonna offer me.Finally vista does can run some softwares as flexible as xp.

[Arup]

Speaking of speed, the obscure perpetually ignored Windows XPx64 is de facto fastest OS ever to come out of MS, file transfers are faster, boot time is faster, overall performance is super fast compared to my Vista x64 but as Lodore said above, Linux still manages to be faster, in my case Ubuntu with full Compiz on is faster than both.

[wtsinnc]

My primary problem with Vista is not speed, but appearance.
Admittedly, my computer by today's standards is close to ancient, but still, I find it really aggravating that I can't get clean graphics even with the latest drivers.

I have a Dell E510 incorporating an Intel P4 630 processor, 2.5 gig memory, a Radeon X300 video card, and a Westinghouse 17" lcd monitor. On my desktop, the icons are always "splotchy"; they look just like the icons look in XP in safe mode.

The latest ATI drivers don't correct the problem and, in fact, don't keep the user defined settings on reboot.

I've read that the only cure is to upgrade my graphics card and monitor.
Why should that be necessary just to see the most simple of graphics properly ?

[stapp]

Just wondered if having a read here may help in some way, you could have a look and see if your Color Bit depth settings are set at 32.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/78281-advanced-appearance.html

Other members may have some more productive suggestions.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "My primary problem with Vista is not speed, but appearance.
Admittedly, my computer by today's standards is close to ancient, but still, I find it really aggravating that I can't get clean graphics even with the latest drivers.

I have a Dell E510 incorporating an Intel P4 630 processor, 2.5 gig memory, a Radeon X300 video card, and a Westinghouse 17" lcd monitor. On my desktop, the icons are always "splotchy"; they look just like the icons look in XP in safe mode.

The latest ATI drivers don't correct the problem and, in fact, don't keep the user defined settings on reboot.

I've read that the only cure is to upgrade my graphics card and monitor.
Why should that be necessary just to see the most simple of graphics properly ?" }-
Unfortunately time marches on, and eventually, at some point, we all need to upgrade or buy new hardware. That's just the nature of things. I hung on to an old PIII for ages till I finally bought this new machine, and now everything runs well and I'm current and happy again.

As for speed, I agree with Arup above, XP x64 is faster than Vista x64, I have used both here, however, I'm still a sucker for Vista. At the moment, I am also dual booting Vista with Ubuntu, and of course Ubuntu is also faster. All I can say in defense of Vista is, sometimes speed isn't everything. Vista performs well enough for me to like and keep. And in day to day usage, I really don't see all that much difference... However, the edge definitely does go to XPx64 and Linux. I personally like the looks of Vista.

XP unfortunately, will be history in time. Windows 7 is coming next, and the choices will be that or a Mac or Linux. XP will slowly fade away, just like Win98 and Win2k have. Soon it'll be time to move on for those who haven't already. ;)

[jonyjoe81]

XP is here to stay, it'll outlive vista and vista2 (aka windows 7). When vista is humanely buried, XP will be one of the "honored" pallbearers. The many statements of XP's impending demise has been greatly exaggerated.

Ultimately XP well be replaced, but it won't happen anytime soon. It's replacement will be something similar to XP but faster and more powerful and maybe a "prettier" desktop for those who prefer "looks" over function.

[wtsinnc]

stapp;

Many thanks for the suggestion, but my color depth settings are already at 32 bit.
The problem is somewhere else, perhaps hardware related after all.

Anyway, I am the OP for this thread and wanted to thank all who have posted for their contribution(s).
This has been enjoyable as well as informative.

[Thankful]

Doesn't seem to be a dud, at least not yet:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "XP is here to stay, it'll outlive vista and vista2 (aka windows 7). When vista is humanely buried, XP will be one of the "honored" pallbearers. The many statements of XP's impending demise has been greatly exaggerated.

Ultimately XP well be replaced, but it won't happen anytime soon. It's replacement will be something similar to XP but faster and more powerful and maybe a "prettier" desktop for those who prefer "looks" over function." }-
Dream on..... ;)

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "XP is here to stay, it'll outlive vista and vista2 (aka windows 7). When vista is humanely buried, XP will be one of the "honored" pallbearers. The many statements of XP's impending demise has been greatly exaggerated.

Ultimately XP well be replaced, but it won't happen anytime soon. It's replacement will be something similar to XP but faster and more powerful and maybe a "prettier" desktop for those who prefer "looks" over function." }-

As much as i prefer to have my CPU at 0% when i open explorer windows , so to have it available for running other applications , other than windows itself, eventually, new hardware won't have XP drivers. And then, adios XP... Vista 7 will be the reasonable step for those that don't want to pay for the current Vista. (like me).


-{ Quote: "Doesn't seem to be a dud, at least not yet:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236" }-

I am sure it will be better than Vista, since they learnt their lessons and this is a revamped Vista. But i find it a bit odd. Vista boots and installs faster than XP??? Should i believe this? What i remember was that in order to install Vista and apply the SP1, it was an ordeal. It seemed that it would never finish! I was desperately bored waiting for it to finish. And this guy says it's faster than XP? Hmm....

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "As much as i prefer to have my CPU at 0% when i open explorer windows , so to have it available for running other applications , other than windows itself, eventually, new hardware won't have XP drivers. And then, adios XP... Vista 7 will be the reasonable step for those that don't want to pay for the current Vista. (like me).




I am sure it will be better than Vista, since they learnt their lessons and this is a revamped Vista. But i find it a bit odd. Vista boots and installs faster than XP??? Should i believe this? What i remember was that in order to install Vista and apply the SP1, it was an ordeal. It seemed that it would never finish! I was desperately bored waiting for it to finish. And this guy says it's faster than XP? Hmm...." }-
Vista installs faster than XP... that is a fact. However, I find it a bit odd, too, that Vista beats XP on almost all of the tests. Maybe because he is using a high-end system.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Dream on..... ;)" }-

You're kidding, right? XP will go on for YEARS in the business world. Have we not forgotten there are still plenty of businesses still running Windows 98?

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: " Have we not forgotten there are still plenty of businesses still running Windows 98?" }-Windows 2000, maybe. Haven't seen 98 for a while.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Windows 2000, maybe. Haven't seen 98 for a while." }-

I see them in a LOT of doctors' offices. You know 'ol 98 when you see it.

[EASTER]

$M has always had a foolish and costly habit of running away in abandonment of their O/S's before they been totally brought up to complete satisfaction. And i said it all along, that's why they experience both sales losses and cracked versions all over the net.

I'm sticking with my XP Pro Volume License untill they show some real progress and not just generic add ons re-branded as some weird named release.

XP Pro ROCKS!!!

[eniqmah]

W7 will not be a dud. In fact, it's just Vista, tweaked and optimized.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "You're kidding, right? XP will go on for YEARS in the business world. Have we not forgotten there are still plenty of businesses still running Windows 98?" }-
It's hard to say what will happen. If Windows 7 actually turns out well, the business world could do a mass movement in that direction pretty quickly, as it would be about time anyway. I have no idea.

I think my point was and/or is, you can't stop the march of time, and "progress", no matter how much you might want to. Hardware keeps changing, and eventually, everything else with it.

Truth is, we're all just speculating. Time will tell....

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "It's hard to say what will happen. If Windows 7 actually turns out well, the business world could do a mass movement in that direction pretty quickly, as it would be about time anyway. I have no idea.

I think my point was and/or is, you can't stop the march of time, and "progress", no matter how much you might want to. Hardware keeps changing, and eventually, everything else with it.

Truth is, we're all just speculating. Time will tell...." }-

You're quite right, it may be that businesses are HOPING 7 turns out good so they can update their systems.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "You're quite right, it may be that businesses are HOPING 7 turns out good so they can update their systems." }-I really don't believe most businesses approach it that way.

If you're in a business and you want to do something - develop a new product or upgrade the PC systems - you have a make a cogent business case for it. Where's the return on the investment contemplated? Where am I making money on this expenditure?

At least where I am - a multi-billion manufacturing company with major production/sales in the Americas, EU, Asia - you really do have to be able to answer the question - ".... and this will contribute to our bottom line where?"

As time passes, a critical application or customer relation management suite or logistics application or whatever, may no longer be available/supported/or released on the old OS, so to implement that package you need to migrate to the new OS. Or perhaps reports from the field start mounting that support costs really are lower if the systems are upgraded. Or productivity is higher due to some key new features/less crashing/you name it. However, it's all tangible stuff even if the cost saving estimates are on the very soft side. To get you calibrated, we really just finished our conversion to XP in the past year. That's right - right at it's supposed end of life - but this is all driven by the application base that we work with, which goes well beyond Office apps, and includes things like OS neutral browser front ends for enterprise level applications, process control applications, many different database applications which often need to talk to one another in some form, and so on.

My guess, given what looks like the timing on the Win 7 release, the pain involved in large scale conversions in a business environment (where stability and ability to quickly support is a premium), and the current economic climate, is that most IT groups will make do as long as they are able to and then convert to Win 7 with a turnover in the hardware base in a couple of years. As for Vista..., it will be "sold" on new PC's in the interim and downgraded to the local environment (say XP Pro) as needed prior to deployment, while on the consumer side... you'll get Vista unless you go with a netbook level machine (which - by the way - are really nice :))

Blue

[lodore]

Then again i still wonder why my college wasted thousands of £££ on office 2007 when 2003 done everything that was needed.
plus the fact they could of used openoffice and spent the money alot moe wisely.

not all business decisens are good ones.

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "my college wasted thousands" }-Security improvements?

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "Then again i still wonder why my college wasted thousands of £££ on office 2007 when 2003 done everything that was needed.
plus the fact they could of used openoffice and spent the money alot moe wisely.

not all business decisens are good ones." }-
Or they might have a volume license that allows them to upgrade all their installations without paying extra (MSDN Academic Alliance).

In my university, every computer science student are able to download the latest software from Microsoft (that's how I got my Vista Business license). Even Windows XP Pro is still available. Also, my university uses OpenOffice along with Office 2007 Enterprise.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "not all business decisens are good ones." }-Well, I guess that's hard to argue after what's happened to the commercial sector this Fall :)

However, academic and large commercial environments are very different. Goals are different, costs are different, other things (staff turnover, nature of the IT function, etc.) are different. Without knowing a lot of details that you may not be privy to..., your college's decision may have been wise, unwise, or a decision neutral coin flip. It's hard to say.

Blue

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "Or they might have a volume license that allows them to upgrade all their installations without paying extra (MSDN Academic Alliance).

In my university, every computer science student are able to download the latest software from Microsoft (that's how I got my Vista Business license). Even Windows XP Pro is still available." }-
Good points.... and also, an application is quite a bit different from an OS.

[Osaban]

IMO it is very simple: If you don't like the feeling of Vista then you stay with XP, Linux or Mac. I have now Vista, XP, and Ubuntu in different computers. I do appreciate the philosophy of Linux, the practical side of having a machine with XP (some programs do not run with Vista), and the gorgeous look of Vista.

Vista remains my favorite by far over the others. I do not understand why people who are happily married to XP they need to constantly whinge about Vista. MS is a private enterprise which is not using any public money, their financial future is in their own hands. I'm sure Windows 7 will be an improvement over Vista like Vista
has been over XP. If big corporations upgrade to Vista or not, I for one could not care less. I don't think big corporations would have the same criteria as home users when deciding to upgrade to another OS.

[Kerodo]

If business adopts Win 7, the UAC in Vista needs to go. No normal or typical business end user will stand for that stuff. In fact, perhaps that is one major reason why Vista has not been used in the business world.

I prefer Vista over all else also, but I can see how and why it wouldn't fly in certain environments...

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "If business adopts Win 7, the UAC in Vista needs to go. No normal or typical business end user will stand for that stuff. In fact, perhaps that is one major reason why Vista has not been used in the business world.

I prefer Vista over all else also, but I can see how and why it wouldn't fly in certain environments..." }-
Windows 7 Build 7000 has several options for UAC. I didn't really look at it in-depth, but it seems that you can choose different levels for the prompt. Also, I did not find the usual option to disable UAC in the control panel, although I might've missed it.

[raakii]

-{ Quote: "
I am sure it will be better than Vista, since they learnt their lessons and this is a revamped Vista. But i find it a bit odd. Vista boots and installs faster than XP??? Should i believe this? What i remember was that in order to install Vista and apply the SP1, it was an ordeal. It seemed that it would never finish! I was desperately bored waiting for it to finish. And this guy says it's faster than XP? Hmm...." }-

Yes vista install is faster and better , can easily done even through mounting the cd/dvd image!!but xp cannot. But Vista is pre-packed with unwanted graphics and useless Microsoft bloatwares.

[iceni60]

-{ Quote: "If I bought my Vista computer, and after turning it on the first time I found it hanging, I would return it to the shop and ask for explanations. I bought my Vista computer in April 2008. Even without SP1 and having found preinstalled NIS 2006, it was fairly slow but never hanged. Needless to add now, configured to my taste it is as fast as XP in my other machine. Only shutting down Vista takes longer than XP:35 seconds and 15 seconds." }-
it's true i might not have bought the computer if it hadn't come with vista, but i don't think there was any chance i'd use vista, no matter how great is was. i feel more comfortable with linux now.

personally, i think the specs of my laptop are quite good, but i don't know much about the processor, so maybe it's that which is really slow?? i could have made it faster but i didn't.