Conversely: Well you’ve convinced me! Some anonymous internet person thinks Vista rocks, what more proof can the OP possibly require!
As far as I can tell, Vista has many cons and some pros, not the least of which is the majority of new games are meant to run on it and nothing else.
There is a difference between simply stating an opinion, and stating an opinion and backing it up with some manner of evidence. Vista sucks because of A, B, and C is a little more helpful, don’t you think?
Vista Sucks! Is in no way going to help anyone decide any one way or the other.
Maybe you can elaborate for us? What exactly are the cons for Vista?
[sub]ubuntu[/sub]
What? No! I didn’t!
Really!
Vista has had many hardware compatability issues. Some people don’t seem to have any problem, many do. If you follow computers (trade press, forums, recently released microsoft e-mails regarding vista drivers, intel intergrated graphics chips, etc.) then you are typically aware of this stuff, but not everyone pays attention to it.
As stated in the MS e-mails, the vendors apparently didn’t think vista would ever ship (given that back in 2002 the ship date was “slipping” to end of 2004), and many didn’t put much effort into writing drivers.
Yes, the vendors need to write drivers, but MS did not do themselves any favors with how they managed longhorn/vista.
I’m sure it will get better regarding drivers etc., but the other problem is that there just isn’t anything compelling in Vista to offset the drop in performance. The interface (in my opinion), while pretty is very low on the list of things I personally would like to have. Security is top of my list, but it needs to be much more extensive than what they changed in Vista.
I work at a major technology firm whose name you know and whose products you almost certainly use. After careful consideration by our adoption review committe, we have been explicitly banned from upgrading to Vista on our company workstations. We’ll remain on XP until we determine whether Vista’s successor is more enterprise capable. Make of that what you will.
Hehe. I’m glad you did it before my resistance wore down. That’s the upgrade path I’m looking to follow.
Overreactive suits who don’t know any better calling the shots, perhaps? Or homegorwn applications that no one wants to bother upgrading?
We upgraded to Vista at my workplace where we toil under some 1990 dos apps.
Everythign works fine. Except for the VPN which didn’t work for a couple months. Finally the company released Vista drivers and all was good in the world. And this was like 5 months into Vista.
To conclude:
If your new PC meets the requirements there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t leave Vista installed, unless you absolutely, positively MUST be able to use the 15 year old el chipo Scanner your aunt got you for a birthday present. Otherwise you’re almost certainly golden.
My guess: Intel (because it sounds similar to the story about Intel from the other day)
If the problem of Vista unexpectedly hiding file extensions is “imaginary”, then why are there pages and pages of Google hits for “vista show file extensions”, all of them involving puzzled people who can’t figure out why Vista isn’t showing their file extensions and need advice on how to do so?
Obviously, I’m not the only person to be blindsided by this “imaginary” problem.
It appears you did not read my post. Or if you did, you obviously missed something.
When did I say the problem was imaginary? I called the file extension “issue” as a DIFFERENCE form XP imaginary.
I just installed XP on my old laptop about a week ago. One of the first things I had to do was Go into folder options and disable the “Hide extensions for known file names” setting.
The poster I was addressing, used this point as “proof” that Vista was inferior to XP. I only pointed out that the same thing happens in XP by default after a fresh install.
This post is factually incorrect. There are reasons why you might not want vista. Here are some:
Vista might be fine for some things, I have a laptop with it, and it might not be fine for other things, my other new computer will have XP because of software compatability issues with the application I will be running on that machine.
Oh give me a break. Will I have to quote myself everytime someone responds to one of my posts? Is reading comprehension that bad on these boards? Or in other words my post is NOT factually incorrect, though I will happily point out some factual errors in yours.
I mentioned, twice now, that you should meet the hardware requirements before considering Vista. Secondly, vista’s Aero is optional, you CAN turn it off if you want. Thirdly, Aero runs on your GPU. This = an IMPROVEMENT in GUI reaction time and performance, as well as looking nicer since it’s not being done in software mode. The only exception to this is when you are runnign a very low powered GPU (read my hardware consideraitons above).
Some hardware wil not work with Windows XP either. The number of modern hardware devices (read 4 years old or newer) is vanishingly small. So again, unless you absolutely need ot plug in that 6 year old scanner, you’re almost certainly going to be ok.
Some software will also not work in Windows XP. Mind you I do agree that software devs (NOT VISTA) has a ways to go yet. Though again, most modern software runs just fine on Vista. Hell, I’m runnign Diablo 2 and have been able to run Betrayal In Antara (a 1990 game Title) with some compatibility tweaks easily accesible through the right click menu. Not to mention the very old software we use at work also runs fine on Vista.
Digitla rights management? What are you talking about? HDCP? You do know that you either have Vista and HDCP or you don’t and you won’t be able to play HD movies at all, right? Of course you did! :rolleyes:
In my experience the suits push for upgrades, being sweet-talked by the M$ salespeople. The people who don’t want to upgrade are those doing productive work, who don’t want to drop everything in the middle of a project to troubleshoot incompatibilities. That goes for any new software, or even patches, but the resistance to Vista seems to be greater.
As for homegrown apps, they may be mission critical. I trust you are not saying going in and modifying a bunch of things that are working is trivial, are you?
No I’m not. Depending on what the people at his work are doing it might just not be worth their trouble I suppose. It’s hard to get large corporations to change the status quo. I was only providing reasons that might not necessarily equate with Vista = teh suxxor!
Most people consider the fact that someone made the exact same bonehead mistake again to be a major aggravating factor.
And so do I. As I mention on the post you took my quote from. THAT WAS NOT MY CRITICISM OF THAT POST. Jeebus on a pogo stick.
I have a rickety old laptop running on XP (as it must). My super-duper-fast desktop is giving me grief and I am switching to a Mac.
So… if I am allowed to hijack. What spiffy, ground-breaking features I am missing by not getting a new Vista laptop now?
Exactly. I have a hard enough time using the Fisher Price interface in XP. It’s even worse the times I’ve had to help someone running Vista. It’s gotten to the point where I just use the keyboard shortcuts to get into the file system and the like, since it’s the only thing I know will be consistent.
Do you not see how this statement is incorrect?
[Computer shop owner hat on]
In the grand scheme of the universe, Vista is fine. It has a few compatibility issues but most of the ones I have come across involve apps for business that the average home user never sees.
My biggest bitch is with the big OEM’s and them putting out machines that barely meet system requirements for the OS let alone apps running in it.
I deal with vista every day, it works, nd it is way more virus/spyware resistant out of the box than many people give it credit for.
I have seen virus infected Vista machines, but it still pretty rare compared to XP.