Windows Vista Why Vista?

What fireworks.

Looks like Diwali (Indian festival of Lights has come early).

Keep it coming. I am enjoying it.

For the record, I use Win XP Sp3 & have not found any reason to upgrade to Vista.

 

How about this for a reason, it's a better operating system!

 

I would switch to Linux - its better OS. Less of security hassles. More hardened right of the box [so as to speak].

 

No Arie. Its NOT a joke.

I have been investigating Linux desktop for last 1 year & find it serves my needs well.

Running *nix servers for last 6 years & no virus or crashes till date.

 

I am not a tech person, just an enthusiast.

I bought two new Dell XPS computers as soon as Vista was shipped, an before I had read any of the bad press. I am glad I did it. I bought Vista because I did not want to have to later go through the process of an upgrade of any kind. I figured there would be a learning curve, but it was blessedly short.

The business of Vista being slow compared to XP on a new machine is a canard. Most people buy a new machine when the current one gets to obsolete, maybe 3-5 years. The new machine is always so much faster than the one it is replacing that any OS will fly, compared to the old machine.

Only two of my apps did not work. My Epson scanner would not install. That was fixed in a week. My mp3 recording software, Total Recorder from highcriteria.com would install, and edit, but not record. That took about 13 months. In the interim, I used Freecorder.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista for the vast majority of users.

Paul Thurrott likes Vista, John Dvorak at PCMag likes Vista, my tech buddy who at first blamed all of the problems on Microsoft, bought a new Dell computer with Vista Business. Now, two weeks in, he loves Vista.

The best feature for the user is the way Explorer now works, from any program on the system. WMP11 is fabulous in Vista.

The thing people should be complaining about is Office 2007. Bloat if ever there was bloat. Everything is the ribbon is hiding. I had to put all of my command items for each program on the Quick Action Tool bar.

>>RSM

 

I do not feel that Linux can be equally compared with any of the common Linux distros, as the distros have extensive customization and packaging around them "out of the box ".

 

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has admitted the company intentionally accepted some early compatibility problems to make sure Vista was as secure as possible. But he claims customer complaint figures show Vista is better than previous editions of Windows.

 

That sounds icky, but to be fair, this was also the case with me going from Win2k / WinME -> WinXP.

Very good point for Tech Support and/or IT type jobs.

Can you provide the specs of this PC please? Thank you.

Wow! That's a lot of creative-hobby / arts / production apps! I am jealous of you. I think I may break into your house at night and burn copies of all of them. Watch your back!!!

Really? If the specs of your machine above are very high, that doesn't surprise. I am intrigued though, as I would have assumed the Vista cannot run games as well as XP, because of all the bloat and extra (and/or extraneous) ****.

I will ask again as I did to others, what exactly are the security updates? I have absolutely zero problems with WinXP in regards to security, since SP1 came out. If you are a "smart" (no offense intended) user, you know that Microsoft OS's, unfortunately, are targeted more due to their large market share in home PC's, thus are more prone to being infected, and you will run some kind of preventative software. For me, that means running FireFox 2.x and Immunizing with SpyBot Search & Destroy. And of course, using a NAT Router but that really goes without saying and is a moot point since everyone should have one of those these days. Anyway, with the two pieces of software above, and using WinXP SP1 or newer, I literally cannot be infected with viruses and/or spyware/malware/adware, unless I deliberately go to "blacklist" sites (Warez, Cracks, creepy fetish sites, etc.)

Do you mean tweaked to have the same performance as WinXP SP2/SP3?

IRT the wet feet comment, did that been there and the water was too cold Can you be specific and elaborate on these "under-the-hood" changes please?

Are you refering to organization of folders such as Documents & Settings, Application data, Program Files, et al?

I can. It's called My Computer -> rightclick CDROM/DVDROM drive -> Properties -> AutoPlay.

From the Start bar/menu? Yeah this is cool. It seems to be waaaay faster than the Windows Explorer-based Search in WinXP as well, which is really nice.

Eh. I will admit, however, that I used Windows Classic on WinXP OS for quite a long time, but now really enjoy the new GUI/graphics/visual theme(s). So if/when I start using Vista, i'm sure i'll warm up to the new sexy GUI eventually Well, provided it doesn't lag like molasses.

Non-isse; see above.

Exactly. My current WinXP SP3 machine works flawlessly and with great performance using my current hardware. Sure, i'm about to get better RAM and a better graphics card, but beyond that, I am not planning on buying a new PC for at least another 1-2 years. In that timeframe, WinXP SP3 will continue to be a great performance platform using this/my hardware.

Very true, but see my post above in response to Evan Omo. Vista essentially requires a hardware upgrade if you want usability and equal performance to XP, even if you aren't needing or wanting a hardware upgrade currently.

Which I am not and is not what this thread is about

This is not meant to be Microsoft bashing -- how do you their comments/opinions aren't swayed by interested parties? Backlash ***** for people in the press/media industry, and they also could have received a bunch of free stuff when reviewing/using the OS or system in question. There is placebo affect in some of those cases, as well as a possible kickback from whatever Manufacturer is in question. I am not trying to create or support a conspiracy theory, I just felt the need to please devil's advocate when you mentioned a magazine review.

Can you explain this further please? Thank you.

Eh. Absolutely no need for this software unless you're a sheep such as individuals using iTunes on Windows. I am severely irritated by the "everything-program" mentality of software such as this. I use foobar2000, VLC, and more recently Media Player Classic. The last program plays almost every video filetype you can think of, and also plays DVD without using any decoder hardware or software. It's also the fastest, least bloated, and least buggy media player i've ever used.

Code:

You mean he says there's less complaints with Vista than there are/was with XP? Honestly that doesn't surprise me. The vast majority of users like **** this is pretty and easy, which is the main aim of Vista IMO.

 

I didn't upgrade my old machine to Vista, I bought a new machine with Vista pre-installed. I was a little hesitant at first because I had read through the Vista forum here and saw all the problems people were having.

I am glad I have Vista Home Premium (wish it had fax). I haven't had any of the problems others have experienced.

Many years ago I had a 1976 AMC Pacer, but after 250K miles I was fixing problems and trying to anticipate the next problem more than just enjoying the ride. With all the spit and baling wire and modified parts, it just wasn't the same old Pacer. So I upgraded, reluctantly. I missed my old car for a very long time - wished I could have it back. But as I got used to the improved performance and bells & whistles my new car had that the Pacer didn't, I began to like my new car just as much as the Pacer.

So it is with Vista. Over time XP would be updated so much it wouldn't be the same old OS it used to be. Upgrading would be essential to keep the consumer happy with their experience.

I'd like to have my old Pacer back....but it wouldn't perform to my expectations.

 

Sduibek-

First, how did you do that quoting, pulling everything together in a beautiful post?

New equipment: I bought two new computers to replace two aging PIII's, which are still on duty for crunching for BOINC and WCG. I bought two Dell XPS machines a desktop with Home Premium; a laptop with Business. CPU's are Core 2 Duo, 2 gigs and 2.5 gigs, 2 gigs of DRAM, integrated sound, discrete video cards. I replaced 2 PIII's, CPU's about a gig each, 512 megs of DRAM. If Vista is a bit slower on the new machines than would be XP, that was way way not a problem because the machines were inherently so much faster.

Explorer:

When I open a program like Word, I click the File Open icon on my Quick Action Tool Bar and a modestly sized Explorer window opens. I can then go anywhere. Also true in WMP, Real, Google Earth, evrything.

Also, now, one can create a new sub-folder from anywhere. On my XP machines, I need to go to Explorer, highlight the folder in which I want to add a new sub-folder, go up to file open and click File|New|Folder. This is true unless I keep a New Folder file in every folder.

WMP11:

In XP, and prior to the murder of Music Match (MM10) by Yahoo, I used Music Match for superior ID-e tagging and some syncing, WMP to rip and to sync. WMP 9&10 sucked at ID-3 tagging. Also, If I wanted to sync a huge batch of mp3's, WMP would choke. I would need to go to MM10.

WMP11 in Vista handles all of these chores with elan.

WMP is not my default player. Because I am a huge user of internet radio, web streamin from Public radio stations all over the country and also streams from Live365, I have Winamp as my default on one computer and Real Player on the other. WMP is not great on web streaming.

Paul Thurrott is one of the most highly respected writers on Windows in the industry. I am not going to defend John Dvorak. If you read him, you would have to conclude that he is not in anyone's pocket.

Before I answer as to my comment on Vista being fine for most users, I will have to go back to the first post in the thread and then come back

>>RSM

 

O.K., I am back. I would assume that you and your colleagues and cohorts are pretty experienced users, maybe I/T folk. If so, you are certainly entitled to like or dislike any software; but, you are not in the vast majority of users.

>>RSM

 

This should be my last $0.02 & PC Specs

I've had this machine for a little over a year. It is stock plus a few upgrades - like memory, additional drives, pumped up power supply. It has been very reliable ...

• Intel® Coreâ„¢ 2 Duo Processor E6700
• Vista® Ultimate
• Asus P5N-E SLI
• 4GB DDR2 800MHz
• 800GB SATA II RAID-0 + 2x 250GB 7200 RPM SATA II HDD's
• (2x) SATA 18x Dual Layer DVD±R/±RW Drive
• GeForce 8800GTS PCIe 320MB
• M-Audio Fast Track Ultra
• Hauppauge HVR-1600 NTSC/ATSC/FM
• Enermax INFINITI 720W SLI™

 

Sorry to disappoint you Sduibek, but even with SP1 installed and NAT and immunizing with Spybot Search & Destroy, you are NOT protected. All of these offer some level of protection but are not fail proof.

You don't have to go to "blacklist" sites to get infected. Nowadays these sites come to you. [Remember Flash files could be infected ?]. Moreover, even clean sites have been known to dish out malware from time to time.

That's a very simplistic assumption & quite dangerous.

 

Well, yes, I may have exxagerated a bit. I am not saying it provides 100% protection, but it provides enough protection that unless you are an idiot, you won't have any problems And for the record, I am not assuming anything. I've had my HDD destroyed in various forms, some due to viruses, and i've made my fair share of mistakes in regards to security concerns / issues. The thing is, with basic functionality like a NAT and Windows Firewall, the latest Windows Updates, Spybot Search&Destroy latest version, and using FireFox, it's not an assumption it's just the way things are. Now, I realize that's a lot of steps, but honestly I would be using FireFox and Spybot even if I had Windows Vista (for various reasons) and to me the Windows Update thing is just the smart thing to do.

Anyways, short version is that I see what you're saying, but I don't really think it applies to me. From personal experience, I can honestly say that I do not currently run a background autoscaning antivirus program ever, unless i'm going to some such aforementioned blacklisted location, and I've had maybe 1 or 2 run-ins with a virus in the past 1-2 years, and about the same number of spyware/malware/adware. I usually only scan for viruses manually and occaisionally, which hasn't been a problem due to the other measures I detailed above. Note-- I am only counting the ones caught during a manual scan -- not the ones caught and deleted from the background auto-scanning whilst visiting blacklisted locations. You just gotta be smart about it. The whole security thing is way blown out of proportion in my opinion.


EDIT: Sorry about my verbosity. I can't seem to help it
EDIT2: To the posters above, I am not ignoring you I swear! I'll be responding to those in the next day or so.

 

Very lucky indeed.

Wish you good luck for future.

 

Ditto that for me! Too much time is spent worrying about security and anti-virus/spyware/malware/adware. 3rd party security software - resource zapping trouble - talk about how to turn your PC into a sluggish pile of overheated sheet metal and plastic buttons. Those apps are tantamount in poor performance and poor compatibility issues.