Windows Vista: Not Worth the $$$
Saturday, April 28, 2007 by Gideon MacLeish | Discussion: OS Wars
Someone made a comment on another thread that Vista has gotten the nickname "ME2". And while that may be oversimplifying things, the truth is that in the big picture Vista is likely to be remembered more as a disaster than a success. Maybe "New Coke" would be a better analogy.
In my rather limited empirical experience I am seeing a lot of people purchase ill advised Vista upgrades, only to see them dump them in favor of their old XP installation. Not techies, mind you, but regular end users. End users who, to put it bluntly, do NOT like the new O/S.
I have said for months that Vista may be the O/S that pushes Linux into the mainstream. I honestly like Vista, but when I put myself into the seat of someone who is not very familiar with computers, it's a pain. Many people have spent time painstakingly learning the basics for their XP systems; by changing the file structure and even the names of the tabs so thorougly, Microsoft has put them back to square one, and made not only their computers, but their operating systems obsolete.
But the biggest users are usually the business users. And Vista is, in my opinion, destined for modest success at best in that arena. If I were managing a network of computers on XP, my advice would be simple: don't upgrade. XP's extended support will go through 2011, and MS' next OS release will be two years on the market by then (ok, given that MS has NEVER met the deadline on an OS release, let's say one year).
Windows Vista is, in my opinion, not worth the cost of upgrading. Not unless it comes installed on a purchased machine. And it may well be a significant marketing blunder on the part of the boys in Redmond.
 |
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Dr Guy
Reply #22 Monday, April 30, 2007 9:50 AM
Reply #22 Monday, April 30, 2007 9:50 AM
| The advantages Vista offers over XP are not compelling enough to an enterprise environment to justify buying all new systems. I bet you won't see Vista in large, non-tech, companies for another 5 years. XP still suits their needs. |
I say 3. That is because the rotation of desktops is being set to 3 years, and while the new systems will come in with Vista, most will downgrade to XP (it was just a year ago this agency went to XP). ONce all the systems have been cycled out, then I am sure there will be a killer app that requires Vista (in our case it was Exchange via HTTP).
And a question for wriker - who is "you people"?
NGTV
Reply #23 Monday, April 30, 2007 11:15 AM
Reply #23 Monday, April 30, 2007 11:15 AM
Gideon,
the Win16 -> XP path was even worse. No drivers for MONTHS, old software stalled, and for the first few months before SP1 came it was just as avoidable. We're seeing the same patterns here. XP was a polished version of 2000, Vista applies too. System Admins won't need AERO for sure.
Vista to most people who appreciate it, was like a out of box dream. It was instantly usable, although definitely not for prime performance. But for the first time in Windows history, has an OS been that polished, bugfree (no, I wonder why stupid FUD implies more bugs) and a boon to configure and set up.
Oh well, besides UAC.
The only people making Vista look really bad are the really annoying reason-less "tech blogs" out there- no, not you.
To them, Vista probably sucks because they got a beta version with a key, installed and became frustrated, and won't give it a second chance. (Which, compared to Apple's OSX RC's reception, was pretty much hypocritical- they PAID for it. Euch.)
All I've seen is baseless banter against DRM, DRM, DRM, the occasional Directsound removal (that was a little pissing to my new Sound Blaster), DRM, DRM. Never mentioning a proactive solution- XP drivers COULD be installed for performance restoration, but the UI jumps back to basic (but it's still much better than XP.)
Just like hype for some band that got great reviews on Pitchfork, it'll settle.
Give it a year before jumping on the real bashwagon.
the Win16 -> XP path was even worse. No drivers for MONTHS, old software stalled, and for the first few months before SP1 came it was just as avoidable. We're seeing the same patterns here. XP was a polished version of 2000, Vista applies too. System Admins won't need AERO for sure.
Vista to most people who appreciate it, was like a out of box dream. It was instantly usable, although definitely not for prime performance. But for the first time in Windows history, has an OS been that polished, bugfree (no, I wonder why stupid FUD implies more bugs) and a boon to configure and set up.
Oh well, besides UAC.
The only people making Vista look really bad are the really annoying reason-less "tech blogs" out there- no, not you.
To them, Vista probably sucks because they got a beta version with a key, installed and became frustrated, and won't give it a second chance. (Which, compared to Apple's OSX RC's reception, was pretty much hypocritical- they PAID for it. Euch.)All I've seen is baseless banter against DRM, DRM, DRM, the occasional Directsound removal (that was a little pissing to my new Sound Blaster), DRM, DRM. Never mentioning a proactive solution- XP drivers COULD be installed for performance restoration, but the UI jumps back to basic (but it's still much better than XP.)
Just like hype for some band that got great reviews on Pitchfork, it'll settle.
Give it a year before jumping on the real bashwagon.
Vailene
Reply #24 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:51 AM
Reply #24 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:51 AM
I've been a tech for 15 years. Also a Microsoft Certified Professional along with many other certifications there is no need to bore you all with.
Vista in itself is the best Operating System, Microsoft has ever released. (Of course that's in my own humble opinion. For whatever that is worth)
Regular End-Users and Techies alike both complain the MOST about Vista being harder to use. WRONG!. Vista is a heck of a lot easier to use! And what's funny is, no one seems to ever pick on switching everything over to Classic view. I've had some Techies say, "There's a classic view!?" Yup.. How about that? Lol
The worst part about Vista is it's obvious compatibility issues with pretty much anything 3+ years old. Software and Hardware alike. I use that as a very general statement, of couse.
In aspect, whenever an Operating System or anything for that matter changes.. A majority of people hate it. That's a fact that's just always going to exist. But, to those people I say deal with it, and evolve. I hear on a day to day basis the dumbest things being a tech myself.. One of the major ones I hear (believe it or not) Is people don't NEED ringtones, text messages, the web on their phone, etc... Where some people find these things necessary for there every day lives.. Again, it's all their opinion to say those things.
I'll end this rather length reply about nothing with this. Whether you like it or not, changes that are happening are going to stick. Better to just go with those changes and not complain about them. Whether many people think the changes make everything harder or they simply aren't need.. Is just a shallow statement in itself. Learn to evolve, and learn to embrace these seemingly stupid, but necessary "changes".
Vista in itself is the best Operating System, Microsoft has ever released. (Of course that's in my own humble opinion. For whatever that is worth)
Regular End-Users and Techies alike both complain the MOST about Vista being harder to use. WRONG!. Vista is a heck of a lot easier to use! And what's funny is, no one seems to ever pick on switching everything over to Classic view. I've had some Techies say, "There's a classic view!?" Yup.. How about that? Lol
The worst part about Vista is it's obvious compatibility issues with pretty much anything 3+ years old. Software and Hardware alike. I use that as a very general statement, of couse.
In aspect, whenever an Operating System or anything for that matter changes.. A majority of people hate it. That's a fact that's just always going to exist. But, to those people I say deal with it, and evolve. I hear on a day to day basis the dumbest things being a tech myself.. One of the major ones I hear (believe it or not) Is people don't NEED ringtones, text messages, the web on their phone, etc... Where some people find these things necessary for there every day lives.. Again, it's all their opinion to say those things.
I'll end this rather length reply about nothing with this. Whether you like it or not, changes that are happening are going to stick. Better to just go with those changes and not complain about them. Whether many people think the changes make everything harder or they simply aren't need.. Is just a shallow statement in itself. Learn to evolve, and learn to embrace these seemingly stupid, but necessary "changes".
OpusCroakus
Reply #25 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:02 PM
Also realize that many business critical applications will not run on Vista. And probably will not for at least a year or more. So, there's DEFINITELY no way those users can/should upgrade.
Technically, that's all well and good. But there's no reason that the new OS should cost 2+ times as much as the prior one (XP)! Can you say "bloatware"? I knew you could.
Possibly true. However, due to increased product activation/stricter licensing, one can no longer reformat, reinstall, swap hardware, etc. which the tech enthusiast does quite often. MS is just getting more greedy, and including more crap into their OS than they need to.
It's not an "Me2" from a functional standpoint... unless you take into account backwards compatibility (which as both a business user and a tech enthusiast you SHOULD). It's a "Me2" from a sales/marketing/etc. standpoint.
Overall review: Vista is an extremely overbloated, DRM-infested, horribly overpriced PIG.
Reply #25 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:02 PM
Is Vista a worthwhile OS for the enterprise? Hell no. System requirements are far too steep for most medium to large organizations, since most of their machines are probably 3+ years old, recycled from employee to employee, and loaded with the bare-essentials to begin with. Vista represents a greater cost beyond simply purchasing OS licenses. The advantages Vista offers over XP are not compelling enough to an enterprise environment to justify buying all new systems. I bet you won't see Vista in large, non-tech, companies for another 5 years. XP still suits their needs.
Also realize that many business critical applications will not run on Vista. And probably will not for at least a year or more. So, there's DEFINITELY no way those users can/should upgrade.
Is Vista a wortwhile OS to Mom & Pop User? Honestly, it's no better and no worse than XP for people who just want to surf the web, send email and type letters. To the average user, aside from UI changes, Vista isn't actually a step backwards in terms of stability. Should these people upgrade their existing systems? No. However chances are they'll have it on their next new PC from Dell, HP or Gateway. That's fine. Those users won't suffer too much (or any more than they did transitioning from 98 to 2000/XP).
Technically, that's all well and good. But there's no reason that the new OS should cost 2+ times as much as the prior one (XP)! Can you say "bloatware"? I knew you could.
Is Vista a worthwhile OS for the tech enthusiast? Well, if you're not going over to the OSS side of the fence, Vista packs a lot in for the technophile to play with. If you like having new gadgets to fiddle with, and want to be ahead of the general curve on tech, then Vista is probably something you're moving to soon, if you haven't already. You won't have trouble relearning the UI and functionality, because chances are you've had to relearn that dozens of times as you bounce around between different operating systems (Linux, MacOS, Windows etc.)
Possibly true. However, due to increased product activation/stricter licensing, one can no longer reformat, reinstall, swap hardware, etc. which the tech enthusiast does quite often. MS is just getting more greedy, and including more crap into their OS than they need to.
Vista is far from "ME2" WinME was a horrible OS that didn't actually function properly even without any apps running. Vista is a suitable addition to the Windows line, but right now there still isn't a compelling reason to move over.
It's not an "Me2" from a functional standpoint... unless you take into account backwards compatibility (which as both a business user and a tech enthusiast you SHOULD). It's a "Me2" from a sales/marketing/etc. standpoint.
Overall review: Vista is an extremely overbloated, DRM-infested, horribly overpriced PIG.
Astyanax
Reply #27 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:42 PM
Who cares what large corporations want to do? How does that effect the decision of an every day PC user looking to upgrade to Vista? IT DOESNT.
And of course large businesses will not upgrade immediatly, such is the case with EVERY OS!
If you are trying to run Vista on a PC over 3 years old you deserve every second of trouble you have gotten, plain and simple. Blaming Microsoft for troubles on old computers is like blaming McDonalds because your a fat ass - it makes no sence.
There is an unlimited amount of times you can activate Vista. If you change something like your motherboard then a simple 5 minute call gets you reactivated. I know this because i've done it. But yes in the early beta they had planed to restrict the amount of times you could activate your copy but after very bad feedback they immediatly backed down from doing so.
Reply #27 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:42 PM
Also realize that many business critical applications will not run on Vista. And probably will not for at least a year or more. So, there's DEFINITELY no way those users can/should upgrade.
Who cares what large corporations want to do? How does that effect the decision of an every day PC user looking to upgrade to Vista? IT DOESNT.
And of course large businesses will not upgrade immediatly, such is the case with EVERY OS!
It's not an "Me2" from a functional standpoint... unless you take into account backwards compatibility (which as both a business user and a tech enthusiast you SHOULD). It's a "Me2" from a sales/marketing/etc. standpoint.
If you are trying to run Vista on a PC over 3 years old you deserve every second of trouble you have gotten, plain and simple. Blaming Microsoft for troubles on old computers is like blaming McDonalds because your a fat ass - it makes no sence.
Possibly true. However, due to increased product activation/stricter licensing, one can no longer reformat, reinstall, swap hardware, etc. which the tech enthusiast does quite often. MS is just getting more greedy, and including more crap into their OS than they need to.
There is an unlimited amount of times you can activate Vista. If you change something like your motherboard then a simple 5 minute call gets you reactivated. I know this because i've done it. But yes in the early beta they had planed to restrict the amount of times you could activate your copy but after very bad feedback they immediatly backed down from doing so.
Chef Garry
Reply #28 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:26 PM
however, I'm not going to replace a perfectly good, functioning PC simply to use Vista. I'm not getting the sense that the advantages of Vista justify that kind of outlay.
Reply #28 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:26 PM
If you are trying to run Vista on a PC over 3 years old you deserve every second of trouble you have gotten, plain and simple. Blaming Microsoft for troubles on old computers is like blaming McDonalds because your a fat ass - it makes no sence.
however, I'm not going to replace a perfectly good, functioning PC simply to use Vista. I'm not getting the sense that the advantages of Vista justify that kind of outlay.
OpusCroakus
Reply #29 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:52 PM
All I'm trying to point out is that there are a LOT of us users who work for a large corporation, and therefore have our OS's dictated to us. I'm just offering a point of view here.
If you are trying to run Vista on a PC over 3 years old you deserve every second of trouble you have gotten, plain and simple. Blaming Microsoft for troubles on old computers is like blaming McDonalds because your a fat ass - it makes no sence.
Gee, I guess it must be nice to have all that money and nothing better to spend it on than a brand new PC, huh? I'm an Engineer and Developer... but I also have a family. I have 4 desktop systems and 3 laptops. The newest purchased between 2 and 4 years ago. I cannot afford new hardware - my wife wants to eat instead (some nerve, huh?).
There is an unlimited amount of times you can activate Vista. If you change something like your motherboard then a simple 5 minute call gets you reactivated. I know this because i've done it. But yes in the early beta they had planed to restrict the amount of times you could activate your copy but after very bad feedback they immediatly backed down from doing so.
MS has COMPLETELY changed the licensing terms in regards to what an Upgrade version means vs. a Full version. They have changed what can be run in a virtual machine, and restriced the Home versions from being a host for virtual machines. All of this is completely unacceptable to ANYONE in the industry.
Reply #29 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:52 PM
Who cares what large corporations want to do? How does that effect the decision of an every day PC user looking to upgrade to Vista? IT DOESNT.
And of course large businesses will not upgrade immediatly, such is the case with EVERY OS!
And of course large businesses will not upgrade immediatly, such is the case with EVERY OS!
All I'm trying to point out is that there are a LOT of us users who work for a large corporation, and therefore have our OS's dictated to us. I'm just offering a point of view here.
It's not an "Me2" from a functional standpoint... unless you take into account backwards compatibility (which as both a business user and a tech enthusiast you SHOULD). It's a "Me2" from a sales/marketing/etc. standpoint.
If you are trying to run Vista on a PC over 3 years old you deserve every second of trouble you have gotten, plain and simple. Blaming Microsoft for troubles on old computers is like blaming McDonalds because your a fat ass - it makes no sence.
Gee, I guess it must be nice to have all that money and nothing better to spend it on than a brand new PC, huh? I'm an Engineer and Developer... but I also have a family. I have 4 desktop systems and 3 laptops. The newest purchased between 2 and 4 years ago. I cannot afford new hardware - my wife wants to eat instead (some nerve, huh?).
Possibly true. However, due to increased product activation/stricter licensing, one can no longer reformat, reinstall, swap hardware, etc. which the tech enthusiast does quite often. MS is just getting more greedy, and including more crap into their OS than they need to.
There is an unlimited amount of times you can activate Vista. If you change something like your motherboard then a simple 5 minute call gets you reactivated. I know this because i've done it. But yes in the early beta they had planed to restrict the amount of times you could activate your copy but after very bad feedback they immediatly backed down from doing so.
MS has COMPLETELY changed the licensing terms in regards to what an Upgrade version means vs. a Full version. They have changed what can be run in a virtual machine, and restriced the Home versions from being a host for virtual machines. All of this is completely unacceptable to ANYONE in the industry.
BuddhaV10
Reply #30 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 2:10 PM
Reply #30 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 2:10 PM
geez, Vista is a hotly debated topic. as it should be. Gid, you are completley correct.
i am a gamer, and a media enthusiast. Vista will be a necessary upgrade for me, but not until games come out that need DX10. My XP Pro install is fine, and i sure as hell arent going to give up the programs that i've spent hundreds of dollars for, or go thru the hassle of update patches for vista. i use dozens of media apps, and to me, it's not neccesarily the cost as is it the inconvienience. and now, since i read that XP Pro will be supported till 2011, what motivation do i have to upgrade other than DX10? for the home user, vista is fine. not so for enterprise, gaming, media(yet), or power users. with 64-bit and DX10, ill probably jump soon, but i've already had to war with business once, and im in no hurry to try again.
a topic that has been undiscussed is piracy. Vista is "much" harder to steal than XP was. i appreciate that. but the thing to wonder is software piracy. with XP, piracy was easy, assuming you had a legit XP. with vista, it's probably just as easy, but there will be more inclination to do so, even for people that have legit software. say somebody has a legal copy of Adobe Photoshop 7. they've just purchased it for their brand new Vista machine, and it's not compatible. most would try to return it. but with retailers refusing opened software, thats a no go. the user has to choose between stealing a new copy of photoshop(Free), buying a new copy of photoshop($600), or going back to XP, which means a tedious reinstall cycle.(really annoying) as good as most people are, there are some who would gladly steal from Adobe. it's not right, but its the truth. sorry, but thats it. i know the good people of wincustomize wouldn't steal, but the entire world aren't wincustomize users(although they should be!). there are people that have no remorse, no indication of guilt, and no cares about software piracy. these are the people that need to be stopped.
for the record, i own fully licensed copies of XP Pro, Vista Business and Vista Home Premium. I do not pirate software, and own a legit copy of CS2 Photoshop. please dont think i am a pirate, i simply know of many people that do steal. while i cant make them change, i certainly tell them of the dangers of piracy. i just hope im there when the FBI breaks down their door and hauls their thieving asses away...
btw, for those wondering, there is an update for Vista to make Photoshop 7 compatible.i just used it as an example.
wow, my fingers hurt
i am a gamer, and a media enthusiast. Vista will be a necessary upgrade for me, but not until games come out that need DX10. My XP Pro install is fine, and i sure as hell arent going to give up the programs that i've spent hundreds of dollars for, or go thru the hassle of update patches for vista. i use dozens of media apps, and to me, it's not neccesarily the cost as is it the inconvienience. and now, since i read that XP Pro will be supported till 2011, what motivation do i have to upgrade other than DX10? for the home user, vista is fine. not so for enterprise, gaming, media(yet), or power users. with 64-bit and DX10, ill probably jump soon, but i've already had to war with business once, and im in no hurry to try again.
a topic that has been undiscussed is piracy. Vista is "much" harder to steal than XP was. i appreciate that. but the thing to wonder is software piracy. with XP, piracy was easy, assuming you had a legit XP. with vista, it's probably just as easy, but there will be more inclination to do so, even for people that have legit software. say somebody has a legal copy of Adobe Photoshop 7. they've just purchased it for their brand new Vista machine, and it's not compatible. most would try to return it. but with retailers refusing opened software, thats a no go. the user has to choose between stealing a new copy of photoshop(Free), buying a new copy of photoshop($600), or going back to XP, which means a tedious reinstall cycle.(really annoying) as good as most people are, there are some who would gladly steal from Adobe. it's not right, but its the truth. sorry, but thats it. i know the good people of wincustomize wouldn't steal, but the entire world aren't wincustomize users(although they should be!). there are people that have no remorse, no indication of guilt, and no cares about software piracy. these are the people that need to be stopped.
for the record, i own fully licensed copies of XP Pro, Vista Business and Vista Home Premium. I do not pirate software, and own a legit copy of CS2 Photoshop. please dont think i am a pirate, i simply know of many people that do steal. while i cant make them change, i certainly tell them of the dangers of piracy. i just hope im there when the FBI breaks down their door and hauls their thieving asses away...
btw, for those wondering, there is an update for Vista to make Photoshop 7 compatible.i just used it as an example.
wow, my fingers hurt
starkers
Reply #31 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 2:51 PM
Reply #31 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 2:51 PM
Well I don't give a flying hoot what anyone says/thinks....I got Vista Ultimate and it's worth every cent I paid out for it. Not only is it the most stable OS I've ever used, it's looks ten times better than XP and is no harder to use, so anyone proficient in the use of XP should have no real trouble navigating their way around Vista. It's a Windows OS on a home or business PC, for crying out loud, not the juggernaut system that's running NASA's huge data base.
Seems to me that too many PC users are paying too much heed to the Vista doom & gloom being proliferated by the media soothsayers who not only believe their own hype but think they know more about manufacturing, presenting and marketing an OS/software. I've made my own evaluation of Vista based on my experience with it, and all that DRM interference talk is total BS as far as I can tell. I can play all my CD's and DVD's on Vista without issue, just as I can the songs I downloaded from eMusic to get some of the more obscure music I wanted.
Furthermore, apart from a couple of functions of my Audigy 4 sound-card being unavailable in Vista, I've had no problems with any of my hardware or software running without major issue, and if I need those record or EQ functions, I can revert to my on-board card so have lost nothing of real importance in the update from XP.
Okay, there's a bit of a learning curve, but it's no different to when XP became the new kid on the block after 98 & 2000, when non-belivers/non-supporters (perhaps some of the same) came crawling out of the woodwork to discredit the very OS they're now trying to defend/hang on to. So glad pre-historic man wasn't afraid of change/something new, otherwise we'd still be living in caves, eating raw or half cooked meat and wearing bear skins for modesty.
Besides, when taking into consideration inflation and the CPI, etc, Vista is roughly equivelent in price to XP when it first hit the shelves, so in that context I fail to see how MS is ripping people off. Also, my mother's machine is 5+ years old (with a P4 2.8 ghz and 1.5gigs of RAM) and it more than adequately runs Vista with Aero enabled, so all this latest and greatest hardware is a must to run Vista is more bullsh!t and hype from those still afraid to venture out of their caves to face the breaking light of a new dawn.
Seems to me that too many PC users are paying too much heed to the Vista doom & gloom being proliferated by the media soothsayers who not only believe their own hype but think they know more about manufacturing, presenting and marketing an OS/software. I've made my own evaluation of Vista based on my experience with it, and all that DRM interference talk is total BS as far as I can tell. I can play all my CD's and DVD's on Vista without issue, just as I can the songs I downloaded from eMusic to get some of the more obscure music I wanted.
Furthermore, apart from a couple of functions of my Audigy 4 sound-card being unavailable in Vista, I've had no problems with any of my hardware or software running without major issue, and if I need those record or EQ functions, I can revert to my on-board card so have lost nothing of real importance in the update from XP.
Okay, there's a bit of a learning curve, but it's no different to when XP became the new kid on the block after 98 & 2000, when non-belivers/non-supporters (perhaps some of the same) came crawling out of the woodwork to discredit the very OS they're now trying to defend/hang on to. So glad pre-historic man wasn't afraid of change/something new, otherwise we'd still be living in caves, eating raw or half cooked meat and wearing bear skins for modesty.
Besides, when taking into consideration inflation and the CPI, etc, Vista is roughly equivelent in price to XP when it first hit the shelves, so in that context I fail to see how MS is ripping people off. Also, my mother's machine is 5+ years old (with a P4 2.8 ghz and 1.5gigs of RAM) and it more than adequately runs Vista with Aero enabled, so all this latest and greatest hardware is a must to run Vista is more bullsh!t and hype from those still afraid to venture out of their caves to face the breaking light of a new dawn.
bachbeet
Reply #32 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 2:56 PM
Reply #32 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 2:56 PM
I definitely do not plan to "upgrade" to Vista. Backward compatibility is important. I'm perfectly happy with XP.
whatwhere
Reply #33 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 7:10 PM
Reply #33 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 7:10 PM
frankly i have winblows vista ultimate x64 and i have no probs with it i have absolutly no crashes no BSOD ETC what so ever.though the damn thing is a memory and cpu hog but honestly i think it's one heck of a rock solid,stable OS..now watch after i said that it'll probably crash on me LOL
steelsnake
Reply #34 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:26 PM
Reply #34 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:26 PM
a) I've got hardware in our company network for which no Vista drivers exist, nor are they planned.
Upgrading all "eligible" PCs to Vista would cost a fortune.
c) As people have said (and as is my experience too) Vista is a resource hog. I DO NOT plan on upgrading hardware just for a shiny new OS.
Final word: No Vista for my employer. Zero benefit, lots of drawbacks. Buhbye Vista, have a nice day.
At home? I don't see myself shelling out that much cash just for a new OS. My current OS does all I need it to, doesn't crash, has perfect driver support. Since I build my private PCs myself I don't get a bundled OS with it... thus... again... buhbye Vista, 'twas nice to skip you.
Upgrading all "eligible" PCs to Vista would cost a fortune.c) As people have said (and as is my experience too) Vista is a resource hog. I DO NOT plan on upgrading hardware just for a shiny new OS.
Final word: No Vista for my employer. Zero benefit, lots of drawbacks. Buhbye Vista, have a nice day.
At home? I don't see myself shelling out that much cash just for a new OS. My current OS does all I need it to, doesn't crash, has perfect driver support. Since I build my private PCs myself I don't get a bundled OS with it... thus... again... buhbye Vista, 'twas nice to skip you.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #35 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:48 PM
That's it, in a nutshell!
That's really the elephant in the room, isn't it?
You missed my point, I think. I know that change is inevitable, and as an IT pro, I have to know something about Vista. My question is whether it is worth it since Microsoft's next O/S is due to ship in two years.
It is a virtual certainty that MS' next O/S will fully implement 64 bit processing, something that is not fully supported at present. Both hardware and software will be better implemented for the 64 bit environment, making Vista little more than an extended, expensive beta test.
I'm not heralding the death of the boys of Redmond, not by any means. That would be inconceivable at this point. I am saying, however, that there are many Vista related concerns that will make the end user think long and hard about alternatives. And that as a result Microsoft could suffer some on market share. But when your market share's something like 95%, you've got nowhere to go but down.
Reply #35 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:48 PM
Besides, I don't really care about saying "WOW" every time I look at my computer.
That's it, in a nutshell!
Oh well, besides UAC.
That's really the elephant in the room, isn't it?
Learn to evolve, and learn to embrace these seemingly stupid, but necessary "changes".
You missed my point, I think. I know that change is inevitable, and as an IT pro, I have to know something about Vista. My question is whether it is worth it since Microsoft's next O/S is due to ship in two years.
It is a virtual certainty that MS' next O/S will fully implement 64 bit processing, something that is not fully supported at present. Both hardware and software will be better implemented for the 64 bit environment, making Vista little more than an extended, expensive beta test.
I'm not heralding the death of the boys of Redmond, not by any means. That would be inconceivable at this point. I am saying, however, that there are many Vista related concerns that will make the end user think long and hard about alternatives. And that as a result Microsoft could suffer some on market share. But when your market share's something like 95%, you've got nowhere to go but down.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #36 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:03 PM
Bingo. Even when I get a newer machine online, I'm not planning on sacrificing the dinosaurs just to get my home network up to speed.
Right now I have three computers, a fourth in the planning stages, and a fifth hopefully awaiting the successful soldering of a new power jack. Two desktop PC's have 1.8 and 1.0 ghz procs, respectively, the third (my Ubuntu machine) has an 866 mhz PIII. The laptop I'm hoping to revive has a 1.0 ghz proc. Only the planned PC (the TRS-80 case mod, for those of you keeping score at home) will even DREAM of 64 bit processing...and I'm kind of waiting to see what comes out of the Intel/AMD price wars (I'm an AMD man, so they'll likely get my green). I don't plan on throwing any of my machines away even though I know they are antiques in the computer world. They're still functional for most of our apps, and it seems silly to migrate older applications that use fewer system resources onto a massively overpowered machine. Better to save the power for the programs that can make better use of it.
Will my new machine be a Vista machine? Probably. But will I upgrade my P4 to Vista specs? Sorry, it's just not worth it.
Reply #36 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:03 PM
Gee, I guess it must be nice to have all that money and nothing better to spend it on than a brand new PC, huh? I'm an Engineer and Developer... but I also have a family. I have 4 desktop systems and 3 laptops. The newest purchased between 2 and 4 years ago. I cannot afford new hardware - my wife wants to eat instead (some nerve, huh?).
Bingo. Even when I get a newer machine online, I'm not planning on sacrificing the dinosaurs just to get my home network up to speed.
Right now I have three computers, a fourth in the planning stages, and a fifth hopefully awaiting the successful soldering of a new power jack. Two desktop PC's have 1.8 and 1.0 ghz procs, respectively, the third (my Ubuntu machine) has an 866 mhz PIII. The laptop I'm hoping to revive has a 1.0 ghz proc. Only the planned PC (the TRS-80 case mod, for those of you keeping score at home) will even DREAM of 64 bit processing...and I'm kind of waiting to see what comes out of the Intel/AMD price wars (I'm an AMD man, so they'll likely get my green). I don't plan on throwing any of my machines away even though I know they are antiques in the computer world. They're still functional for most of our apps, and it seems silly to migrate older applications that use fewer system resources onto a massively overpowered machine. Better to save the power for the programs that can make better use of it.
Will my new machine be a Vista machine? Probably. But will I upgrade my P4 to Vista specs? Sorry, it's just not worth it.
The__Goo
Reply #37 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:24 PM
Reply #37 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:24 PM
lest we remind ourselves... remember windows 98 wasn't debugged to a usable OS until second edition. and then with the release of XP, it wasn't fixed until service pack 2. When the Vista SP2 is released then maybe we can look foward to a decent OS. Until then XP Pro is staying Home.
Jafo
Reply #38 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:30 PM
Reply #38 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:30 PM
lest we remind ourselves... remember windows 98 wasn't debugged to a usable OS until second edition. and then with the release of XP, it wasn't fixed until service pack 2. When the Vista SP2 is released then maybe we can look foward to a decent OS.
That probably about covers it...
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #39 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:46 PM
Very true...even Windows 95 was problematic until the later versions with USB support.
Reply #39 Tuesday, May 1, 2007 11:46 PM
lest we remind ourselves... remember windows 98 wasn't debugged to a usable OS until second edition. and then with the release of XP, it wasn't fixed until service pack 2. When the Vista SP2 is released then maybe we can look foward to a decent OS. Until then XP Pro is staying Home.
Very true...even Windows 95 was problematic until the later versions with USB support.
DesignCaddy
Reply #40 Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:30 AM
Reply #40 Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:30 AM
I've had very little trouble with backward compatability, myself (the only game i play happens to not work). And yes, i still don't have logitech drivers that work for my keyboard. But i'm on a 64 bit system..
my little sister and brother in law both just bought new computers, my sis has a dell pc, bil has a vaio laptop. I'd say the bil is the complete 'clueless' of computer users, even as he runs his own business. He has no trouble using his new computer, when i honestly expected him not to like vista. The sis, while being saavy in computers, is not an expert - and she's also had no trouble coming in to vista. she likes it, especially the application previews in the taskbar, alt tab, and how the new shell is (oh, and the games ).
People who upgrade are going to have trouble. I can't blame MS, to move forward you eventually have to cut off dead weight, and if that means we need new device drivers, or if 16 bit has to be cut out, then so be it. In another 6 years we'll be phasing out32 bit. But if you buy a computer with vista on it, it runs great! Things are different, but i dont believe so different that people can't adjust. You can always set it back to classic mode and not have to sort through the flash, as my father has done with XP.
It requires certain taste, but i believe new computer buyers have an advantage we didn't have when we bought XP based computers for the same price.
my little sister and brother in law both just bought new computers, my sis has a dell pc, bil has a vaio laptop. I'd say the bil is the complete 'clueless' of computer users, even as he runs his own business. He has no trouble using his new computer, when i honestly expected him not to like vista. The sis, while being saavy in computers, is not an expert - and she's also had no trouble coming in to vista. she likes it, especially the application previews in the taskbar, alt tab, and how the new shell is (oh, and the games
). People who upgrade are going to have trouble. I can't blame MS, to move forward you eventually have to cut off dead weight, and if that means we need new device drivers, or if 16 bit has to be cut out, then so be it. In another 6 years we'll be phasing out32 bit. But if you buy a computer with vista on it, it runs great! Things are different, but i dont believe so different that people can't adjust. You can always set it back to classic mode and not have to sort through the flash, as my father has done with XP.
It requires certain taste, but i believe new computer buyers have an advantage we didn't have when we bought XP based computers for the same price.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Monday, April 30, 2007 8:02 AM