Do We Need Vista?

Having tested Vista for a few weeks now, I have not been impressed.
I cannot shake the conviction that most (if not quite all) of its features are there or can added to XP with a little effort and that MS are just playing catch-up for 'the masses' with what many computer-literate (or semi-literate in my case) people already have.
Once we have nLited our XP installations to strip out unnecessary clutter/programs/ services, patched the system (and XP is beginning to look a little more solid and reliable after 5-6 years!) and added appropriate back up and security sytems (e.g. FD-ISR or Rollback, HIPS/CIPS, AS etc.) there doesn't ssem to be a lot to justify an expensive upgrade.
Even the 'eye candy' can be replicated for free by a patched uxtheme.dll or Windowblinds or the Media center functions using free progs. like Media Portal.
After such a long wait this is a major disappointment for me.
Does anyone else see a reason to upgrade other than the inevitable forced migration MS will impose sometime in the (not too distant) future.

 

I think vista should be renamed to VistaME.

 

im gonna try Vista just for having a new OS. im tired of the same XP setup, same bootscreen, same features, etc.

plus i wanna see what nlite can do for Vista

 

I definitely don't want Vista. Most of the people I've talked to about it (outside of forums like this one) either haven't heard of it or don't plan to spend the money. M$ might like to think they can force people to Vista, but all they're doing to me is giving me more incentive to migrate to Linux and BSD more rapidly. I'll still keep a Windows partition though, Win 98.
Rick

 

Well said - couldn't agree more... And if anyone really likes that eye-candy, there's the free Vista Tranformation Pack:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/Vista-Transformation-Pack.shtml

 

I haven't tried Vista yet but from what I see, other than, IMO, some fairly meaningless theme enhancements and some attempts at security improvements (which may yet prove to be easily bypassed) the only thing I see that may truely be better is DirectX 10. Which of course is pretty much an unknown at this point. And of little value to non-gamers...

 

My brother got sick and tired of this MS nightmare and migrated to a Macintosh.

Lamehand

 

I can't speak for everybody, but i don't from what i've read, nor do most people i've spoken to. Of course until it actually finally arrives for real, nobody will know for sure how it performs etc.


StevieO

 

I only wanted a safe Windows without MS Applications.

 

I would migrate to a Mac in a heartbeat except that I very much enjoy trying out security apps, & chatting about them here at Wilders.

 

That's the way I've always seen it too ... it's just a stepping stone for M$ as they finally begin to focus on security (ie. implementation of unprivileged users) and will have a short lifespan like WinME - it's like most first generation products; a test run. Just think about some of the originally planned features that have been dropped for Vista, they're in development for their next release; which should come in fairly short fashion - I'd guess less than 2 years after Vista's release. I don't see any reason for anyone to upgrade unless they actually want more DRM controls imposed on them. Microsoft's next release should complete their vision and be worthy of a longer lifespan and purchase.

Ps. The price structure of Vista is absolutely ridiculous

 

From what I have read of Vista it is going to need better hardware to run, or, as I read it, will run slower on your existing h/w. I run 2k. On my machine it is stable in spite of all the clutter I throw at it, so for me it has no attraction.

 

Nice to meet another 2k fan. Have run it for years and love it. I to am constantly throwing stuff at my install with no problems. And if you prefer a little eye candy, that can be done as well with a few tweaks. Concerning Vista (VistaME LOL), while I do have a copy of RC1 setting on my storage drive and both of my towers will handle it, I have little\no intention of ever installing it. was never that impressed with XP either An over intrusive, bloated, over rated piece of coding IMO.

 

Hello,

I had intended to make a would-be review of Vista, but eventually decided against it. My impression is - XP with bells and whistles. If you strip down the graphics toys, you get XP, with few exceptions:

The wannabe Linux-alike security is a joke. The only thing separating you from malware is an extra click. If in Windows you need 2 clicks to do something, in Vista it's 2x2 - same prompts twice! That's so-called security. In fact, the extra prompts annoy you and lower your guard. No discrimination in prompts. Very ... unleet.

IE 7 has everything Firefox has 2 years ago.

Menus are too cluttered with would-be features. Actually they add nothing. Nothing new, cool or revolutionary.

The emphasis is on word My - video, music, entertainment, cool, cool, cool, as if the operating system was made for MTV fans - which will be eventually sued when they refuse to use DRM and download files using P2P instead.

All in all, there's nothing special, remarkable or innovative in Vista. If anyone though this would be a huge leap away from XP, they are in for a surprise.

Mrk

 

Microsoft thinks they need it ($$$). I don't think I need it and I know I don't want it.

 

Yeb,
I'm waiting until XP is no longer supported. At that point, hopefully Vista will be mature enough to have. If not, unsupported XP it is. All the bells and whistles of Vista can actually be had right now. I don't see what the big hype is all about. I think L Bainbridge is absolutely right about Vista being a catchup toy for average consumer. But even then, even if you give all the bells and whistles to the average consumer, vista will probably be to Xp what Xp was to it's predecessors.

 

Agree with all of this.
At least I felt there was some 'upgrade' in terms of stability and overall 'feel' and 'look' of the system when I moved from Win98 to XP.
XP vs.Vista really does have that 98 to ME feel.
I understand a number of MS Execs. apologised for ME after its release and said it was hurried. At least MS can't use that excuse this time.....

 

Wondering what ones they will come up with.

 

Microsoft: All the concessions we had to make as a result of litigation. From Europe & 3rd party security software vendors. We had to compromise the integrity of the kernel. Against our protestations & warnings of the possible consequences. What the world is seeing with all these malware infestations & OS instabilities is the direct result of Microsoft having to give in to frivolous decisions by those incapable of foreseeing the ramifications. Microsoft is to be found blameless in this.

 

Now that is to realistic. ROFL Are you a Corp. Attorney by chance?

 

Vista is just another attempt to enrich the coffers of the people at Redmond. I see absolutely no reason for getting it. XP has been rock solid here - not a single hiccup in two years of using it. Of course there will be people who must have the latest and who have money to burn.

 

Ran the Vista beta and RC1 for a little while. Looks nice and has a few nice features but none of which make me feel like I need to upgrade to Vista when it's released. I also think the prices are ridiculous (OS X is ~$139 or only $199 for a family 5-pack).

Until I have to or until I buy a new system with Vista pre-installed, I'm sticking with XP.

In actuality, if I didn't like playing games I'd already be using a Mac and/or Linux (and maybe running Windows on the Mac under parallels or through boot camp for the occassions I need it for work).

 

Did somebody see the transparent windows in winVista, one of the major inventions of M$ : windows you can look through

 

I ran the MS Vista Upgrade Advisor and was dismayed to find that, although my PC could run Vista, I had several applications which would have to be ditched. Hasten slowly will be my motto!

 

As most of what I do is internet focussed, that is web surfing and being a web developer, having faster hardware does'nt speed up the internet for me. Therefore I am still using old hardware that works fine on my works 10mb connection and runs firefox and office fine, I dont play games or do anything that requires more than my 800mhz processor can do.

That also means my machine is underspecced for Vista, so its a no go.

Features wise Vista is not a big step ahead, that was promised time ago.

I also think Linux for the past year has been good enough - with good enough apps to use as a desktop - sadly I am stuck with a exspensive printer which is windows only (cheap to run for my needs).
I also like OS-X, but never enough to buy a MAC.
But the competition to Vista - in its current feature-lacking form is not really much different/better than the alternatives, including sticking with XP, its basically a fancy GUI and different default settings.
I know our organisation (over 5000 desktops), is only just about to move to XP for its users (rather than the dev/support guys) !