My place to shout out loud about random stuff.

You heard and read the tales of many bloggers and daily life PC users of how they anxiously waited for Windows Vista's much awaited public release, and how it broke their heart to know that it isn't quite much of a... well...operating system.

And almost daily, many organizations hoping to direct the use of computing in the hopes of expanding their business, purchase Windows Vista and give it a test drive, which is almost always a test crash.

 

Why? Why is all this happening? Wasn't Vista supposed to be Microsoft's biggest success? And though I won't provoke arguments by saying that people should downgrade to XP, I'll say that most of the software present in Vista isn't as useful to us now than the software present in XP was useful to us then. I'll give some examples: Windows XP, when it was first released, shows the amount of progress Microsoft had made since Windows 2000 and Me. It boasted many new security features, a brand new GUI, and was the perfect OS for homes, industries, and laptop users alike.

 

And Microsoft was kind enough to keep their users happy with the latest security updates and newest versions of Windows software at their Windows Update site. And then last year, Microsoft released Windows Vista, which it promised would include all the features needed to make your computer do everything. That's not an official claim, but the amount of hard work and bloatware they put into Vista seems equal, so they were surely planning to make the OS a revolution in personal computing, right?

 

And speaking of bloatware, Vista is full of it. I won't anger those fans of Vista by saying that Vista should be replaced and a more updated version of XP should be released with all the good stuff of Vista in it, but let's face it, it's the right choice, isn't it? Windows Vista was never received with as much as enthusiasm as Microsoft was hoping for. The OS was found to be slow, memory consuming, and laptop batteries reported exhausting usage when one ran even the Basic version of Vista and the laptop had all the system requirements checked. So, now we come to versions. Believe me, I sat up all might reading reviews about Vista where I read the whole list of Vista versions several times, but there are so many that I can't remember them now. Hopefully, I'll just suffice by taking you through them one at a time. First there's the Home Premium. I've read its features and let me tell you this, DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON IT....HOME PREMIUM IS NOT WORTH IT! Then there's the Business versions, two of them I guess. They pack a whole lot more than the Home one, some more bloatware and combine together to form a good OS for those multinational biggies that can afford to use it on their PCs.

And finally, we come to the Windows Vista Ultimate one. No, I'm not listing more criticisms. Instead, I'll tell you my own personal experience in handling Vista. Till date I've bought Vista Ultimate twice. Both times, it installed perfectly well. Both times, it booted fine. Both times, the screen resolution never went higher than 640x480. Both times, I switched back to XP.

 

The main reason why I don't want to work with Vista again is the lack of compatibility with many graphic drivers.  Other reasons:

  • User Account Control [UAC] - Microsoft stated that they built UAC for a specific purpose, to annoy you.
  • Packed with less needed features- Vista relies more on eye candy than functionality. Though you can get a lot of things done with it, you can do the same [or more] with XP too.
  • Microsoft's failure to realize that the classic Windows Explorer interface is losing popularity. Let's just hope Windows 7 doesn't have that ruddy taskbar.
  • Bloatware, bloatware, bloatware- 1 GB programs with 1% usability.

 

I'd add some links for those who aren't convinced.

 Xp versus Vista at Tom's Hardware - Essential, you should check this one out.

Vista vs XP at InfoWorld - Haven't read much of this one but it has major sections of reviews, like usability, compatibility, etc.

Roundup: I'm not anti Vista. I love its new GUI as much as the next person. It also has Windows Defender, which is a great tool. The only problem is, its not worth it. Let's just wait and see whether Windows 7 makes up for what Vista messed up.

 

-Pixeleo


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on May 21, 2008
tl;dr

Translation:

I downloaded and installed Vista and it sux0rs.

I actually kinda agree . I wouldn't *buy* Vista for my XP machine, but my pre-installed Vista laptop is ok, for what I use it for.

put me in the 'Vista is ok, but...' collumn
on May 21, 2008

- User Account Control [UAC] - Microsoft stated that they built UAC for a specific purpose, to annoy you.

They succeded. It's bloody annoying!! Hence why I've turned it of

- Packed with less needed features- Vista relies more on eye candy than functionality. Though you can get a lot of things done with it, you can do the same [or more] with XP too.
- Bloatware, bloatware, bloatware- 1 GB programs with 1% usability

I don't use many of the 'built-in' applications in Vista, but I use more than I used with XP.
But I won't call either 'bloatware'.

- Microsoft's failure to realize that the classic Windows Explorer interface is losing popularity. Let's just hope Windows 7 doesn't have that ruddy taskbar

Explorer has been 'outdated' on my PC since Win95/98. Ever since I discovered Norton Commander and later moved on to Total Commander, Windows Explorer is only ever used to located the Total Commander installation files

All in all; I'd rather use Vista over XP
I won't list any reasons other than one, since peoples tend to get 'naggie' when Vista is better for some than others.
The reason: It is soooo much faster! Maybe not on bootup, but heck I'll survive
I have XP and Vista installed on the same PC and Vista kicks XP's butt into next week, on speed.
(Remember, this is on my system. It may be slower on other systems)

on May 21, 2008

My system specs:

2.6 GHz, 512 MB DDR RAM, 40 GB HD, and Intel 82865G Graphics controller.

I know Snowman, it ran pretty fast on my computer too. But the only problem is that it took up too much hard drive space and the screen resolution sucked. Maybe I should get a new HD and wait till they add the "Vista compatible" tag to my graphic drivers.  

on May 21, 2008
I use XP on my work system, Vista on 3 of my 4 home PCs and Server 2003 on the remaining system.
Personally, I prefer Vista by far as it is the faster of the 3 OSs I use.


One things for sure, Vista will replace XP. Dell has stopped selling XP loaded systems and other manufacturers will soon follow. Like it or not, XP is on it's way out.
on May 21, 2008

You know, I agree, though I'm feeling quite sad about it.

The only problem with XP is that its getting old. I've got Xp on my computer, so I'll try updating to service pack 3, though I've heard that it isn't really special. Anyhoo, Vista is the next bug OS that's replacing XP. Probably because Vista is doing now to XP what XP did to Windows 2000. They all come and go.

on May 21, 2008
Anyhoo, Vista is the next bug OS


Freudian slip?
on May 21, 2008
My system specs:
2.6 GHz, 512 MB DDR RAM, 40 GB HD, and Intel 82865G Graphics controller.
I know Snowman, it ran pretty fast on my computer too. But the only problem is that it took up too much hard drive space and the screen resolution sucked. Maybe I should get a new HD and wait till they add the "Vista compatible" tag to my graphic drivers.


You'll need a lot more of everything before you'll get Vista to work right on this machine, stick with XP, heck if you add more memory (lots) and a decent video card you might see a big difference in XP. I don't plan on going "Vista" anytime soon, way to many bugs and I don't quite have enough of everything to run Vista properly, even if I did I would stay with Xp, nothing wrong with it.   
on May 21, 2008
You'll need a lot more of everything before you'll get Vista to work right on this machine,


Beat me to it.

Vista might say it will run with 512 MB, but it certainly doesn't run well. I wouldn't put Vista on a machine with less than 2 gigs of RAM.
on May 21, 2008

 

on May 21, 2008

Typo  

I meant big...

on May 21, 2008
My system specs:
2.6 GHz, 512 MB DDR RAM, 40 GB HD, and Intel 82865G Graphics controller.
I know Snowman, it ran pretty fast on my computer too. But the only problem is that it took up too much hard drive space and the screen resolution sucked. Maybe I should get a new HD and wait till they add the "Vista compatible" tag to my graphic drivers.  


You are trying to run Vista on those specs? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, funny, funny, funny. And you're bitchen about Vista not working? Dude, get a clue.
on May 21, 2008
And you're bitchen about Vista not working? Dude, get a clue.


Hey, come on. No need to be a jerk about it. Vista says it'll run on specs like that.

And it will.

It just won't run well.

Heel, boy.
on May 21, 2008

Yeah, I know. I need a PC makeover.

 

Pixeleo runs off to a computer store.

on May 21, 2008
^So say we all.
on May 21, 2008

On my machine Vista runs fast.  Also boots fast considering I run a ton on boot up.  But  I'am running a core2 CPU @ 2 ghz with 4 gig of ram.  Other than bitching because they renamed things and moved things around, which took me time to relearn, I like Vista.  

4 Pages1 2 3  Last