Windows Vista--Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Now, this thread is just begging for Lou to come along... I welcome his comments, but let's not let it get too far afield... :D

I'm saving up for a laptop to replace the one ya'll helped me rescue the files from... (You think I'm restoring all those razors just for fun? :) )

It seems like they all ship with Windows Vista now. I'm considering reformatting the hard drive and installing a clean copy of XP instead. I hate having tons of junk from the factory installed on my computers... I've used XP since it came out and have had no major problems with it.

So what should I do? Keep Vista, or hunt up a cheap copy of XP?

What's good about Vista for someone with slightly above average computer skills?

Josh

I have Vista for couple of weeks now. I also run the Beta versions of it. You will hear all kind of comments on the Vista's performance, good, and bad.

It sure is eye candy. All kinds of bells and whistles, reminding the users that computers are not all work. The thing Apple knew long time ago. It hogs resources, like RAM, so be sure you have plenty of it, especially if multitasking. I'd say at least 2G if you do serious (graphic, for example) work, and 1G if using the PC moderately.

The Vista's kernel is suposedly based on the Windows Server 2003, another MS product, IMHO the best OS that MS ever developed...'


bottom line, I am keeping Vista on my PC, and I do recommend it.

cheers,
Nenad

p.s. I am sucker for new software, especially OS's, so take my advice with a grain os salt :)

You can't get anything but Vista at the big box retail stores.

I'm in the computer sales and service business and we are recommending to all of our clients to avoid Vista - you may remember all the problems during the first year of XP.

Eventually, Vista will be stable, but as nenad said, it is a resource hog - don't even think about using it with less that 1GB of memory and a recent CPU.

The resource thing is a consideration. I'll be using the PC for my freelance graphic design/photography moonlighting...

Nenad, I know what you mean about all work and no play. The Mac/PC commercials are hysterical; I'm totally the guy in the suit with the calculator. :) I've used Macs for work at times, and I always end up longing for my PC...

Josh

I remember sticking with 98se up until a year ago when I got my first laptop. Of course a year ago 98se wasn't even thought of being packaged with new systems with it's death-day around the corner. I still use 98se for simply roaming the Internet - no real fear of viruses, who targets 98se anymore?
If I tickled the thought of more leisurely activities like graphic design, and got really into it, I'd choose Vista. Until that day comes...
That being said, I'll probably stick with XP until it's discontinued. Stability is a major issue with me and I know that any new-fangled contraption is wobbly straight from the gate. Personally I'd stick with XP.

windows .........









-Until Lou arrives
-whatever (TM) :D

I'm using XP Media Center. Have heard bad things about Vista, from corporations having it installed for 3 days before uninstalling it and going back to XP because their software didn't work with it, to a owner of the Genealogy chat where I hang out having all sorts of problems (java being the first that comes to mind). I agree, stick with 98se or XP for a year or two longer before you make the jump. I've already decided that this is my last windows os, next computer will be a Mac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve

windows .........









-Until Lou arrives
-whatever (TM) :D

---

sucks!!!

-thanks for that, Steve!

-whatever

-Lou

I have vista an haven't had any issues yet, been running it for a couple of months. I went from 98 to vista broadband wouldn't run on 98 or I would still be there. I skiped XP. At work the won't go to vista due to a multitude of DOS based apps. I also hear Ipod and Itunes have issues.
Don

I've been going over this subject for a while now, the problem with vista is its not a "New" operating system its just an upgraded XP, its like the difference between windows 2000 and ME one was the full version one was the newer upgraded version. There a lot of bugs with vista right and im happy with XP and Linux.
Heres an article to read about where Microsoft is going with its O/S.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=192501131

Okay...this is perfect....just freakin' PERFECT....after posting the above response, I was in the process of entering a more thoughtful, insightful and thouroughly entertaining (if I do say so myself) response...I was working on my fourth paragraph, when my Windows XP locked up. blinked twice and REBOOTED...all of my hard work, my inspiration, my furthereance of the world's body of knowledge with regards to Windows....gone.....poof!...AAARRRRGH!!!!!

So, for the benefit of all my friends here at SRP and the world at large, I shall TRY to reconstruct the posting, but be forewarned.....technical/informative/creative writing is a lot like sex, in that, once interrupted, it's difficult to pick up where you left off and get going again....(actually, in reflecting upon it, sex isn't like that at ALL....restarts take, what?...nano-seconds????)...anyhoo, try to keep up...
==============================

It all started on Sunday...the modem in my Dad's Windows '98 laptop finally gave up the ghost, and, with Father's Day peeking over the horizon, Mom said "Just go get a new laptop, and we'll call it your Father's Day present". She gave him a budget of $1000.

So, being a man wise beyond his (considerable) years, he called me to ask for advice (yeah, I know....I couldn't believe it either!). I unloaded with both barrels...told him EXACTLY what I thought of anything Windows, and strongly recommended a Mac laptop (which would give ME the opportunity to get some 'hands-on' Mac time). So I did a little research, and the closest place that carried Macs was BestBuy in a town (Coeur d'Alene) about 45 minutes away. The cheapest one was $1100...hmmmm, a little over the budge, but hey, what isn't right? Plus, it was Mom's money we were spending, anyway.

So, Monday after work, the old boy picked me up and off we went on a technology field trip.

Our first stop was at a Radio Shack so Dad could pick up an amplified telephone for Mom...while he was paying for the phone, I went over and browsed their (rather limited) display of laptops...and there, on the top of the heap, was a Compaq laptop....$549. Good Grief...a lbrand new laptop computer for $550!!! Since the only one they had left was a display model, they said they would give us an extra year of warranty....

...as much as I hate Windows, I just couldn't bring myself to recommend that he/she spend an extra $550 (ie TWICE the price) to go with a Mac. Dad forked over the dough, and we marched home with a laptop loaded with Vista....I haven't had a chance to play with it, but I'm pretty sure, it will probably suck too, but hey!....we saved Mom $550.

Actually, the ONLY thing that Dad does is cruise the financial sites on the internet...no applications....he occassionally prints up a page or two, does a little email and saves pictures of the grandkids, but that's about it....so he's probably safe there...but, damn, I sure would have liked the opportunity to play with a Mac!

I'll check out the Vista and get back and let you know just how MUCH it sucks...but, be assured, suck it shall!

-whatever

-Lou

Lou,

Hilarious--thanks for adding your insights. :) I think I can honestly say that in five years of using XP, I can't remember ever having my computer lock up or shut down. Individual programs, like Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator, yes. Quark XPress--heavens, yes.

Maybe it's your hardware that sucks. :shrug: :)

Josh

maybe it's my....dare I say it....computer skills that suck....







....naaaaaaah!!!...it's WINDOWS...

-whatever

-Lou

The jury is still out on Vista.
I use Vista64 ultimate at home. It is great for things like surfing, mailing, working with Office2007 and things like that.

But for development I still prefer XP because Visual Studio does not run natively in 64 bit mode. That will be for the next release.

The reason that corporations and small store owners don't like Vista is that a lot of the legacy software they use does not run on it, but that does not mean Vista is bad.

Hi, I'm a Mac. :D

My biggest gripe about Windows, apart from the general suckiness of how it does things in the background and that you have to REBOOT ever time you install system upgrades and certain software and that it has more holes than a swiss cheese and that it's bloated beyond belief, is the way applications can make things go tits up. I mean, sure, I've had applications crash under X-Windows on Linux, but then the application disappears and you get a core dump file you have to delete, but nothing else happens. On Windows, an application crashing can kill other applications, and can even bring up the Blue Screen Of Death, or in some instances even reboot the computer without telling you there was a problem. Not very user friendly, IMHO. :td

Having said that, Windows wins hands down if you look at hardware support. Plug a new piece of consumer hardware into it, and it usually works. It may be annoying to wait while Windows installs the hardware drivers (with rebooting occurring now and then) to get it to work, but at least it works. With Linux you have to tweak the system by hand much of the time, install half-assed home cooked drivers, and pray to Linus Torvalds that it will work, and even then you might have to besiege some haughty Linux gurus online and nag them into revealing the arcane secret switches you didn't know existed and didn't know you had to supply to the driver in order to get things to work properly.

OTOH, when some hardware doesn't work on Windows, it's usually close to impossible to coax the system into making it work, for a layman...

I still run Windows 98SE on one of my computers, and Windows XP Home on my laptop, mainly because I have more programs for Windows, and because most computer games I own are for Windows. :w

I only have experience with pre OS X Macs, so I can't say anything about the new Macs. I never liked the pre OS X Mac operating systems, though. Whenever I sat down with a Mac, I would usually get the "bomb" popping up and have to reboot the computer, losing work... :shrug:

Just my 2 cents.

/Nicholas

Edit: Oh, and regarding the original post: Windows Vista... I've heard that some software that works under Windows XP won't work on Windows Vista, so unless you are going to buy all software new and "Vista proof", you probably should stick with XP.

I'm not going to highjack Josh's thread....I'm not going to highjack Josh's thread.....
....
....
....

Bugger it! Grow some grunions, men, and use Linux!! :tu

:HJ

(So that's :td :td for Vista from me, BTW)

James.

My experienced knowledge would tell you all to leave Vista for another year until hardware has caught up i.e. price and bang for your buck. It's too expensive to run Vista well enough yet but in a years time when hardware will be cheaper, you will be able to upgrade ram for next to nothing which will run is easier. This delay will also provide time for software to become fully compatible aswell.

Vista has a function which enables it to use a 'pen-drive' (removeable memory stick or usb pen) as extra memory. Handy if your machine is struggling.

I build PC's, semi-pro online game, work in IT for a living and I wont be going near Vista for another 12months minimum.

You can make the choice ;-)

Ok before I start, I will say that I am a systems programmer with 10 years of experience on both Windows and Linux

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minstrel

My biggest gripe about Windows, apart from the general suckiness of how it does things in the background and that you have to REBOOT ever time you install system upgrades and certain software and that it has more holes than a swiss cheese and that it's bloated beyond belief, is the way applications can make things go tits up.

---

While you do (often) have to restart for system updates, it can usually be deferred by clicking 'later'. I shutdown my pc every night. Big deal.

More holes than swiss cheese? If the firewall is enabled, nothing gets in.
The major cause of virus infection and worms are still naive / uncaring users who click everything they get via mail or downloads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minstrel

I mean, sure, I've had applications crash under X-Windows on Linux, but then the application disappears and you get a core dump file you have to delete, but nothing else happens. On Windows, an application crashing can kill other applications, and can even bring up the Blue Screen Of Death, or in some instances even reboot the computer without telling you there was a problem. Not very user friendly, IMHO. :td

---

Applications cannot ever bring on the blue screen of death. only kernel components can. an app crash does not cause a reboot either.
Applications can crash, but they won't take others with them. each app runs in its own memory space.
What you said was true for windows 98 and windows Me. all other versions of winows that grew out of the NT family has not had this problems.
The only blue screens I experienced in the last 5 years were caused by crappy device drivers, and a couple of times failing hardware.
dead hardware will cause any consumer system to crash. Analysis has shown that 3d party drivers and bad hardware in total cause > 80 % of all system failures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minstrel

Having said that, Windows wins hands down if you look at hardware support. Plug a new piece of consumer hardware into it, and it usually works. It may be annoying to wait while Windows installs the hardware drivers (with rebooting occurring now and then) to get it to work, but at least it works. With Linux you have to tweak the system by hand much of the time, install half-assed home cooked drivers, and pray to Linus Torvalds that it will work, and even then you might have to besiege some haughty Linux gurus online and nag them into revealing the arcane secret switches you didn't know existed and didn't know you had to supply to the driver in order to get things to work properly.

---

Linux has it's good points, though it is decidely not user friendly. there are basically 2 ways to get someone to answer your questions:
1) grovel, and complain how you really would like to use this perfect system called linux, if only you could get X to work.
2) post an angry message, saying that linux is stupid because it can't do X. then you will quickly get 3 ways to do X.

what annoys me about linux is that there are no stable releases, there is no system level design documentation that is written down somewhere, documentation is usually out of date and hardly any component has a design phase BEFORE it gets coded. This leads to such things as the whole USB subsystem being ripped out and recoded 3 times with totally incompatible new susbsytems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minstrel

OTOH, when some hardware doesn't work on Windows, it's usually close to impossible to coax the system into making it work, for a layman...

---

The same goes for linux. if your hardware is not supported right out of the box, or with a simple recompile, it is close to impossible to get it to work unless you are a C or C++ programmer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minstrel

Edit: Oh, and regarding the original post: Windows Vista... I've heard that some software that works under Windows XP won't work on Windows Vista, so unless you are going to buy all software new and "Vista proof", you probably should stick with XP.

---

Let me tell you this as a programmer: The design principles that were guidelines under XP are now enforced rules under Vista.
With XP, programs are free to leave files pretty much anywhere, and even default users have read/write access in the program files directory
Microsoft gets flack for delivering an OS that is not compatible with its predecessor, yet at the same time they would get flack if it would not be more secure.
Linux is incompatible even between point releases and minor updates.
But that is all water under the bridge. Check up-front if your software runs on Vista. If it doesn't, stick with XP.

I hope this post did not come off as hostile, but a lot of people seem to think that linux is so much better than windows. It isn't.
Well, it is, for a given value of better. Better usually being philosophical or political reasons.

Quality wise, the BSDs like FreeBSD or OpenBSD are much more polished and generally much more stable than Linux. They are designed up front and come with accurate documentation and how-tos.
But of course, they don't use the GPL license so they are shunned by the fanboys and the 'cool' crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

...The reason that corporations and small store owners don't like Vista is that a lot of the legacy software they use does not run on it, but that does not mean Vista is bad.

---

Yes it does.;)

-whatever

-Lou

I am no expert, and by no means computer savvy to the point that many of you sound, but just common sense tells us to stay the :cen away from any new microsoft product for at least a year to 18 months before even thinking about using it.

I upgraded to XP about the time SP2 came out, literally within a day or two of loading it on the SP2 dowload arrived, and have (to date) never had a failure on my machine that was not hardware based. Before that I was using 98se, which I had been working on since about 2000. 95 before that was working fine for me.

Incidentally I used to have a G4 powerbook as part of my package from a company I used to work in, and that was hands down the best machine I have ever used. But I could not get any software for it, so I went back to Windows. I know things are a bit different now, but even so...

Si

Si

I knew this thread would be fun. :D

Thanks for all the advice so far. I'm leaning toward trying Vista for a few weeks to see if it works for me, but keeping my XP install CD handy at all times. :)

My main concern is that if the laptop is shipped with Vista, I might have a hard time getting all the drivers squared away after installing XP.

Josh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poona

...Vista has a function which enables it to use a 'pen-drive' (removeable memory stick or usb pen) as extra memory. Handy if your machine is struggling.

---

Really???......well, THAT doesn't suck.[EDIT:'...as much.']

-whatever

-Lou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scarface

Really???......well, THAT doesn't suck.

-whatever

-Lou

---

Someone mark this date down, quickly :roflmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshEarl

...My main concern is that if the laptop is shipped with Vista, I might have a hard time getting all the drivers squared away after installing XP.

Josh

---

Let me get this straight.....you're going to buy a laptop with Vista on it, and then install XP......hmmmmm:hmmm:

Will you have to remove Vista?...or can you put both on, and choose which one to boot? Where do you get the XP O/S...can it still be bought?

interesting....


-whatever

-Lou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve

Someone mark this date down, quickly :roflmao

---

Steve-
Thanks for pointing this out...I have edited my original post.

-whatever

-Lou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scarface

Steve-
Thanks for pointing this out...I have edited my original post.

-whatever

-Lou

---

That's great :roflmao I love the edit.

Way to go, Lou.

Lou,

I think I can pick up a copy of Windows XP second hand; I doubt it's available retail anymore.

If I did decide to go to XP, I'd just nuke Vista with a reformat. I hate all the junk software they load on these machines, anyway, and I tend to try to delete as much as I can. Just give me Windows, and let me install my own dang applications...

Josh

Windows' biggest assets in driver support and compatibility are hurt switching to Vista. So don't switch yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrigginJoe

Windows' biggest assets in driver support and compatibility are hurt switching to Vista. So don't switch yet.

---

If you buy a new computer off the rack, you really don't have much choice!

(...ya'know, it's almost like Gates PLANNED it that way!...do ya' think???....HOW RUDE!!!)

-whatever

-Lou

Yep, bundling is a bad thing. That's why, when I buy a car, I purchase the tires, radio, air conditioning, oil, engine and body all separately :D

-just kidding, maybe

Ya know, for us oldtimers in the computer business Microsh*t's tactics are a déjà vu of the way IBM used to do things... they were the original master of "proprietary", "planned obsolescence" and "forced upgrades". IBM has essentially gone the way of the dodo bird... one can only hope that's a trend;)

I write Desktop and Mibile GPS/GIS applications for Windows. The company I work for is not testing/prototyping/reccommending/supporting Vista

There are just a couple of things I would like to point out.

1: Some of you have talked about retrograde installs of XP on a Vista machine. Microsoft has always made sure that people who try to go backwards are severely punished. I would not attempt this without a true low-level format of the hard drive.

2: Vista is basically the same scam as Windows ME. It is a hastility developed house-of-cards they forced on the market to fluff up cash flow forthe real next release of Windows in early '09. Any time or money you spend making things work on Vista is time and money wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catbone

2: Vista is basically the same scam as Windows ME. ....

---

http://darthno.ytmnd.com/


(...could it possibly get any worse???...I think not!...)

-whatever

-Lou

Cat,

By "low-level format," do you mean a regular reformatting? Or is it something even more elementary than that? (I dimly recall stuff about FAT32 formatting and such from the late '90s...)

Josh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catbone

I write Desktop and Mibile GPS/GIS applications for Windows. The company I work for is not testing/prototyping/reccommending/supporting Vista

There are just a couple of things I would like to point out.

1: Some of you have talked about retrograde installs of XP on a Vista machine. Microsoft has always made sure that people who try to go backwards are severely punished. I would not attempt this without a true low-level format of the hard drive.

2: Vista is basically the same scam as Windows ME. It is a hastility developed house-of-cards they forced on the market to fluff up cash flow forthe real next release of Windows in early '09. Any time or money you spend making things work on Vista is time and money wasted.

---

Low level formatting means filling the drive with '1''s, and nothing else. It is the only way to really clean up a hard drive. Hard drive controllers used to contain a ROM-based utility for doing so that you could access with a line or two of assembler code. But when the IDE standard came out, low level formatting was deemed unneccesary, so you had to buy 3rd party utilities for low-level formatting. I am not sure if such a thing is still available.

Most people in this coutry now seem to be horrified by privacy and anonymity. So it stands to reason that the marketing of a product that really erases data would be frowned upon.

As I recall, the only known cure for the beta release of Windows 95 was to replace your hard drive.

josh, there's lots of freeware low-level format tools out there.... just google. Some of the disk manufacturers also include the capability in their utility suites (also usually free for download).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catbone

1: Some of you have talked about retrograde installs of XP on a Vista machine. Microsoft has always made sure that people who try to go backwards are severely punished. I would not attempt this without a true low-level format of the hard drive.

---

You cannot simply install it on the same partition, but neither do you requrie a low level format. Just pop in the XP cd, delete the old partition, create a new partition and install XP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catbone

2: Vista is basically the same scam as Windows ME. It is a hastility developed house-of-cards they forced on the market to fluff up cash flow forthe real next release of Windows in early '09. Any time or money you spend making things work on Vista is time and money wasted.

---

Not true. ME was a stinking pile of shite, and a greate example of what happens when an arcitecture is stretched beyond its design limits.
Vista is an architectural masterpiece.
The device driver architecture is both extremely powerful, easy to use and supports pnp and powermanagement without needing a blood sacrifice.
The other kernel subsystems have improved a lot as well.
Vista is NOT a hastily developed house of cards (It was born out of the Win2003 server tree) and it will succeed, if only because Microsoft is not selling XP anymore after this year.

Just because a lot of visible things got cancelled / delayed does not mean that the underlying system is bad.
The next version of Windows will not revert back to all the mistakes of XP and earlier (regarding security and architecture stuff). If you are in the software business, you had better clean up your software to run on Vista because if it doesn't that means it is doing things that it is not supposed to do but got away with nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catbone

Most people in this coutry now seem to be horrified by privacy and anonymity. So it stands to reason that the marketing of a product that really erases data would be frowned upon.

---

If you think that a low level format really wipes your data, then you have a false sense of security. short of melting the platters of your hard disk there is nothing you can do to make previous data really go away.
The reason that low level formats are not in vogue anymore is that they are not necessary.
Low level formats can even decrease disk performance because you are messing with sector layout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catbone

As I recall, the only known cure for the beta release of Windows 95 was to replace your hard drive.

---

A simple fdisk followed by a format sufficed. I've done it tens of times, with NT4, win95, win98 and their betas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshEarl

Cat,

By "low-level format," do you mean a regular reformatting? Or is it something even more elementary than that? (I dimly recall stuff about FAT32 formatting and such from the late '90s...)

Josh

---

Hi Josh,
simply starting the XP install and deleting the partitions is all you need to do.
Then create (a) new partition(s) and install XP.
Low level disk tools are not necessary and can damage or degrade your disk. Trust me on both accounts.