hi angry hippy: Well, by the time you can't get security updates for XP you may not have to worry anyway as most of the hackers will have moved on to Vista even earlier.

I found it to be that way with Win98; by the time MS quit supporting it most hackers were deep into XP and few virii were then left for Win98. I ran a dual boot of Win98SE with XP Pro and it worked fine for two years. I have a number of friends who still use Win98SE and I often helped them with problems.

This dual boot ended when I bought a new motherboard for a faster CPU and some other features including SATA ports. I found Win98 would install; but, would not run as it could not recognize the new Intel chips on the motherboard. XP was fine. Going to the Intel site I found two patches which were supposed to let Win98 see the new chips. I installed these -- nothing. I installed a third patch a month or so later -- still not able to run Win98SE on new motherboard. Intel, after a short 6 months decided they did not want to waste time in providing further patchs for Win98 to use their new motherboards.

So, it's not only Microsoft that wants your system NOT to be backward compatible.. But, I do have a second and much older computer (or 1997 vintage) which does run and I put the Win98SE on that one (to replace the Win95 it came with) and I turn it on sparingly when I need to help someone out.

I guess I am saying is by the time Vista takes over to the 90% level and MS stops supporting XP then maybe we won't have much hacker interest in XP anymore.

Harry

Bobby Phillipps reports on how Trillian quickly opens in Vista (2 seconds). I just timed mine in XP Pro and it was 3.5 seconds til the initial logo panel opened, 9 seconds until the buddy list opened. And about 1 second more until the people on at this moment were lit up. I do like Trillian.

And, this was with one download running and one video program also running; plus me doing these posts.

And, if programs open with a blink as you report; how come others are saying your system freezes for 10 seconds or so when opening programs as per Sander and others on this and similar threads? I don't use Vista, have never yet tried it; but, I can't assume all the others complaining are simply making up things, can you? So this is conflicting news; but, most are saying it is slower if I am reading the post right.

But, I've had my say (again); and, I am done with it.

I'll certainly listen to others on this thread; but, I don't need to say any more myself.

Harry

well first and foremost I have a machine that can handle all the bells and whistles, quad core 6700, 2 gig gaming memory, about a TB and half of sata disk storage, and a dx10 card. This system was setup up for vista in mind, yet most things run slower on my vista hard drive than my xp hard drive since they are sata drives I simply unplug the OS I don't want to use that day so the hardware is identical its the same machine. I know how to strip out the services I do not need and their are quite a few, but your avg home user who is buying from those OEM markets will not. Most people buying the retail OS know what they are doing. To make matters worse the last time Microsoft did this they stopped selling the disks at retail also, which means if you do not have your media backed or your back up and media get destroyed like happened recently due to a huricane here in florida, your SOL. As a channel partner with a win2k contract and winXP one I could get copies of the disks they were no longer selling liesinced to me, yet if someone want to replace a disk as a legit end user they would not be able to. So MS has done this before and they got fined but it did not force them to continue to replace the disks unless you wanted to sue MS over it. It made things very interesting when clients told me they needed new win2k liences when what I told them was the only legit way was to buy xp support contracts which included win2k liences so most likely companies buying new pc will simply have to buy vista lieces that cover xp, since the current ones actually cover xp and everything prior. So the only people who are being told they had to buy a more powerful machine that will run slower than the one they have now. This is not a good thing, MS would be happy if no end-users ever bought their product again because the support costs far out weigh any money they make on it.
I get the feeling that numbers of vista sold have less to do with them stopping selling xp to oem, and more to do with EOL by 2010, and it
will still be more like 2012, at this point.

Oh and the boot times are deceptive, it just to be when you saw the log in screen the machine was booted. With xp to get faster boot times they simply waited to load have of the OS after you saw the screen so that you thought it booted fasted, when it was actually taking longer for the machine to stop thinking. Vista is worse only they got really sneaky, it loads 2/3 of the OS after boot and limits total cpu time to less than 80 percent, so you think its done unless you log it.

Las the device drivers and limiting access to OS kernal, well orignally the kernal loaded after the device drivers, oh wait it still does in every operating system because the kernal needs them, only with vista it makes the driver too parts one a small stub the OS needs and the other hlaf sits on top of four stacks it has to go through to comunicate with any other device. So now instead of talking to device finding out what it needs you have two api which everything has to be coded through or it does not work, no shortcuts no way to simply the code, so you have to walk around the outside of the building four times talking to someone having them re-phrase what you want to tell the person inside the house to get the message from the forth guy that sorta remotly sounds like what you said to the first person to tell the guy inside and when the mesage goes back it is garbed just as much and people wonder why their are no working drivers! try an experiment get four friends one who is tech savy and three who maybe know how to use email, explain something techincal to the first one have them pass it to the second and so on and have the last be the savy have them write down what they think the explanation is on, and a question about it, have them keep the paper and ask the question of the second to last person, and so on till it gets back to you after you hear the question get the piece of paper it is worth a good laugh. It usually works unless they now what is going on, then it either gets really silly because someone pasted it word for word, someone totally throws it out the window or both.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It doesn't matter if you choose to blame the software manufacturers or MS, as either way the if games and programs that you use don't work on Vista, Vista a waste of time and effort. Unless you're idea of being a gamer is limited to FPS shoot-em-up games, there are many many games that don't work properly with Vista.

I'm a gamer and not one of my current games work on Vista. (Civilization III/IV, every EA sports/EA games: Madden '07, 06, NBA Live '07, '06, MVP Baseball ''05, Need for Speed Underground, Most Wanted Black, Carbon, etc., etc..), and V8 Supercars II '06/III '07. All of these games have the latest patches but don't work on Vista. There's a lot more that I don't see the need to mention.

You can't play a DVD on Vista without downloading and installing a 3rd party codec package. MS's own Office updates is not compatible with Vista. Connecting a client computer to 2003 server is an all day project if you follow MS's directions for doing so.

I've got Vista Business setup as a dual boot on my personal computer. Vista hasn't been used much in the past month, other than to check for upgrades that make these games and some programs work. There hasn't been much in the line up available upgrades yet.

Sander Sassen said:
I never said others didn't. What my main complaint is is that most of the users complaining about Vista are the ones that haven't even tried it or are going by what others have said. (word of mouth) People are so quick to judge Vista that they are not willing to give it a chance. Vista is still in its early adoption stage. That is why I beta tested it for so long to make sure that the hardware and software that I own actually work.

Mark,

I'm going to have to disagree with you on several counts, first off the fact that Vista is still in its early adoption stage is nonsense, it has been in development since '00, that's seven years. I'd expect a perfectly working OS, and certainly something that is better than XP in every way. If I factor in the pricing for Vista I would expect nothing less.

However the truth of the matter is that Vista is underwhelming in almost every aspect, and I have been running the early betas etc. as well and have seen it go from good, to worse, to downright terrible. I used the spit-shined version of XP analogy before and I still strongly feel that's the case here.

Best regards,

Until you actually download an RC copy or get one from a friend, you have no right to bitch about the OS. It is in actuallity a lot better, more secure, and a hell of a lot more stable that XP.

If you are just going to go buy reviews of a bunch of biased bastards on teh internet from various websites such as newegg, then you really do not have much of a review. Everyone in the world is looking for just one thing to hate Vista whether it be a "resource hog" or whatever. You have a really good comptuer. As long as you have 2GB of RAM, you are fine. No more no less. If anyone tries to tell you you need 4GB, they are full of crap.


Again, dont be going by what people are saying. Try it for yourself WITH an open mind. If you dont like it and or you have incompatibilities, then you can bitch. Until then, no one wants to hear it.

Its going to happen anyway. At least HP, Dell and Gateway will be selling comptuers with compatible hardware.


Windows Vista is not a bad product at all like people are making it seem. Again, try the OS for yourself. Until then, we don't want to hear it. I don't mean to sound rude and obnoxious, but I hate it when people start bashing Microsoft and Windows Vista when they have not even used the product.

Sander Sassen said:
By early adoption, I am referring to since the Jan 31, 2007 release day. This is only April and companies are still working on Vista compatibility with their software/hardware.

The OS has only been out for 3 months and software vendors are still playing catch-up. The same went for Windows XP when it was first released. This is like when a new procedure for doing a certain type of surgery comes out. All the doctors have to learn about how to do it. They don't just know with a snap of a finger. It takes time.

Im not exactly sure what you are referring to when you say that Vista is "underwhelming in almost every aspect." Please elaborate. (edit* if you are referring to it being not good, tell me in what way other than some incompatibilities)

Mark,



Time? Time you say? Never in the history of OS development have manufacturers been given soo much time to ready their drivers and implement product support for Vista. As mentioned, it has been over seven years since development started and since the past two years there's been several betas out that all use the same driver model and method as the current version, hence manufacturers have had ample time. There's no excuse but wanting to cash in on Vista's launch, and Microsoft isn't home-free either because XP has a far larger estabilished base of hardware it supports without needing 3rd party drivers.



I think my columns paint a pretty good picture of what I'm referring to. But there's plenty of other examples. Just look at the memory imprint, the disk usage, the fact that every restore point you create eats up 8GB (!) of diskspace. How the swap file is constantly updated hence slowing your system down due to excessive disk I/O, how many, many popular games don't run, or don't run nearly as fast as on XP, and the list goes on, and on, and on.

After seven years of development, several PUBLIC betas, more than with any previous Microsoft OS, the largest group of beta testers ever, I expect an OS finely tuned to hardware available today and tomorrow which offers better performance, is less resource hungry and basically is a sleeker, more efficient, but above all, a better OS in every possible way than its predecessor. Vista fails to deliver on these counts and that's a shame, as Microsoft has had every opportunity to show that it can come up with something that's better than any previous OS. I like to make the comparison with Linux, almost without exception every distribution gets better, less resource hungry and more efficient when new kernel updates are made available.

But obviously that would mean you'd NOT have to make some hardware upgrades to enjoy Vista to its fullest, which would mean hardware companies do not get to ride on Vista's introduction. And frankly that was never going to happen, Microsoft would be foolish to slap their hardware partners in the face like that, hence Vista would need to have more stringent hardware requirements than previous OSs. That's just how these businesses operate, it is all in the game.

Best regards,

Right. Those were only betas. Not the final release. Drivers have to be re-written for the final release. I had tried using beta drivers for my SB Live! 24-bit card on the final release and it would not work. The beta driver for my sound card was not for build 6000, but for 5562 or some crap. Whatever RC2 was.


Its been hard fro me to keep up with anything lately what with school and work. But as far as memory goes, 2GB is fine. So is 1GB if all you are going to do is surf the net. Thats it. Other than that, 2GB is the sweet spot and there is no need for more than that right now. Possibly later one down the line, but not know. What everyone fails to realize is that as technology progresses, things are going to get more and more demanding. Since Vista uses ~600MB on a fresh install, that is like running XP with 512MB of RAM. As technology progresses, computers have to have better components. Vista is a multi-core OS. It is not made for single core use. Basically what I'm trying to get at is as time goes on, computers will demand more. As they demand more, computers will be selling with the correct type of hardware to comply with it. Once Windows Vienna ships out, it will demand more than Vista then people will complain about that and say how they will stick with Vista. Its a never ending loop.

Then you obviously don't know Microsoft all that well. As far as performance, like I have stated, any machine running with 2GB of ram will be fine even running most all games. Going back to your statement on how games dont run nearly as fast as they do on XP. For me, I dont see that as being necessarily true. If anything, I lose a couple FPS with max settings in Vista compared to XP. For me though, I dont much care. As long as I get over 30FPS or above, im happy. And with nVidia's drivers. As the newer drivers are released, the better game play is and more stable the driver.

You should know by know that with everyone in the world and their constant demands for Microsoft to implement this and that that Microsoft would and does in fact give in to those demands for more features in their upcoming OS like widgets and what not. If Microsoft does not give into those demands, people complain that they do not listen to their customers and continue to complain on why they should bother using their OS. If Microsoft gives in to those demands and implements the most popular features into their new OS, users complain that they stole ideas from Apple and Linux and then continue to complain that the OS is bloated and say that it offers nothing more over XP. Either way, Microsoft cannot win. There has to be leeway somewhere. Yet, its not in the line of sight. If its too sleek people bitch. If its to bloated people bitch. Its a lose lose situation for Microsoft. The same can be said for XP compared to Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 compared to 98.

The only way that you are going to get what you are expecting out of Vista or any other Microsoft OS Sander, is if Microsoft made the OS open source and I very highly doubt that they are going to do that any time soon.

ZeroMAX said:
Tell me, then: Who came up to you and said, "Buy Vista now. I'm forcing you to buy Vista. Do it!" No one. You're simply choosing to upgrade, because you want to play the latest and greatest games. Don't twist it to make it look like it's Microsoft's fault. You're the one who chooses to stay up to date on your gaming.

Mark,

I am going to respectfully have to disagree again



Not so, there's an element of choice involved, which I illustrated with my Linux kernel update example. Microsoft obviously cannot make a more efficient OS that has less stringent hardware requirements purely because it would make the hardware manufacturers look foolish and basically slap them across the face, they both need each other to survive. Linux is open source and hence there's no profit margins of revenue goals driving kernel development, it is even viewed as a programming feat and an accomplishment if a kernel is optimized to be more efficient and the processor load and memory requirements are reduced.



Well no, but Microsoft should realize that evolution works best by listening to the demands of the environment and its biggest influence, ie. the end user. Monetary gains are of course their primary concern, the share holders want to see great revenues, and Microsoft is of course in lieu with the hardware manufactures that like to sell new hardware with every new OS release. For Microsoft to stop operating under this approach would make the industry fold, as that's been the driving force for the past few decades. Now that open source starts to impact their sales more than ever before however, they might want to break with that approach and start coding for efficiency and 'computer mileage' as I often describe it, rather than expect the hardware manufacturers to sell the hardware to run the code.

Best regards,

ya but its funny 98 SE basically flies on this hardware, where it seems with each new iteration of Windows based on NT, things have become slower, and it doesnt matter if your running a top grade CPU the OS seems slow, tweaking helps it a little but MS really needs to streamline the OS, or allow Users to select options they want installed into the OS. and From looks of it MS couldnt get away from having the Classic Skin in the OS, same with XP, as technically those are default, they need to either get rid of that or streamline the pretty UI. Honestly Vista Business looks best next to Vista Basic.

One small problem is that there are so many processes and services running that the end user may never use, or even think of. (This goes for Windows XP and Windows Vista)

A nice feature would be a simple checkbox list prior to installation asking:

Will this computer be used for X? []
Will this computer be connected to Y? []
etc.

You can disable half of the services running on Windows XP, and still have a stable and secure operating system.

Mark,



Oh, a minor comment about the above comment you made. It is only in the PC industry this applies, in other fields and industries things tend to get more efficient, just look at cars, better fuel economy, better mileage etc. I'm sure a lot of people would have strong objections if GM launched a new model that cuts the mileage of the previous model in half, but does have new two-tone paint and nice rims.

Best regards,

i think Services are worse than TSRs, at least with that OS you could shut them off directly, NT you have to run services.msc or msconfig just to turn them off. Atleast TSRs were not hidden under 1 name (svchost.exe) IMO that is the worst thing MS did on the OS is name alot of the services under 1 name, because that makes it even easier for hackers to trace, and implement their own service inside of one of those services. If it was possible id revive 98SE and update alot of the code, base the driver framework around XP/Vista.

first off, harry. i do not support or in anyway condone MS's business practices.
however, i also stated that there is not much that i can do about it, effectivly.
in fact i am forced to learn and study MS's products line up because i am owning a small
business and most of my customers request MS products.

well, and here you say it yourself. it's not just MS, it's all big business. ATT/SBC, GM,
boening, you name it. good? right? no! does it happen anyway? yes.

are you in for a boycot?


details please. i think i have an idea what you mean but i am not sure


did you see intels cpu line up this year and the roadmap for upcoming cpu's.
btw, it doesn't look better at the amd camp

i don't think vista is the greatest product but it's far from being the worst. it is defenitlly a step up from xp. is it worth the extra money and the possible upgrades? that lies in the
eye of the beholder. i also am missing some significant featrures and changes that i hoped
for to come with vista that have been scrapped in the last minute. most of all WinFS.

i also have no more or less of a hassle to implement vista into a domain network and i don't
see why people can't believe that the games that have been release before vista are not
running on vista. i was p**sed when i installed dark messiah only to find out that it would
run through the trailer and then stop. but you know, it clearly states on the cd "XP Only".

and since ppl keep harping about driver, hardware and application support. MS is merely suppling the platform. since we had the example of cars. who was to blame when all of
the ford explorer's started to crash because of flat tires.
first ppl pointed the fingers at ford but quickly figured that firestone was to blame.
so why keep pointing the finger at MS.

Hi All,
I'm a Windows driver developer and I recently installed Vista 64 to test my drivers on it.
Spec: uo@2.66">Duo@2.66, 2Gb of DDR2 800, GF7900GT

My experience as a user is rather vague:
1) The OS is a resource hog as compared to Linux or XP. My machine had 1Gb of RAM and it is definately not enough. The virtual memory must be enabled otherwise Vista start closing your programs (I liked the feature though).
2) UAC is a total mightmare compared to no security of XP or simple sudo on Linux. I have a folder with NTFS security. I'm the user with access to that folder, now if I try to create a copy of file in that same folder the UAC pops up asking me if I really want to do that. Yac, I had to disable this UAC monster.
3) MS has kept the graphics inside the kernel, I see it as a huge mistake. I expected by 2007 that no user process could hang up or crash my OS. That is not the case in Vista. It can't be blamed all to faulty drivers. MS own file explorer (still doesn't support tabs) can hang the hole OS. Or if you try a lengthy operation other programs are stuck cause they all depend on the graphics being available.
4) A few games I tested on Vista 64 did not run at all Farcry with 64bit patch hang up, BF2 didn't run, Q4 crap performance (I had 80FPS on XP).
5) I liked the new Office suite - OneNote07 is a killer.
6) Plenty of hardware still needs to be supported but thats not MS fault.

The only thing that keeps MS operating systems alive is games. Unfortunately Vista does not deliver in that department.
In terms of security I think UAC is a failure. Users will be annoyed by it and disable it all together.

Bobby Phillipps said:

Well. unlike the previous versions of the DX, MS chose to keep DX10 Vista exclusive. If they are looking after satisfying their customers, they would have released a version for XP.

Sure they didn't come to me and asked to upgrade directly...but they are indirectly forcing you to upgrade.

So, me being in need for DX10 to play the latest games (soon) isn't exactly being forced to buy vista?...I think you need to reconsider.

Anyway, your view of point...my view of point...and looks like we already hit a wall here

For Vista users, enjoy your experience

I am not against having to upgrade some hardware for things to move forward. DX-10 was/is a necessary evoluion for those who like gaming. Sooner or later you have to suckk it up, trash the old but well worn and highly successful, architecture ans start with aan almost clean piece of paper.

M$ made and efort to get together with game developers, hardware manufacturers and end users, asked them what they wante and came up with DX10. We will all benefit from that decision in the future as graphics change for the better.

As far as the OS kernel I wish that M$ had approached it with the same type of attitude. Completely dump the old kernel and offer a much more streamlined, stable and capable OS that would have the Linux and Apple guy's drooling with lust. Yes it would require new hardware such as 64 bit processors with multiple cores but the reward would be a sea change in how we run out PCs. Much of the old software wouldn't run on this new kernel but the huge performance increase and vast inprovements in user friendliness and system security would warrant the cost of enterprise transitions to the new world of a better M$ OS.

Well the hardware has changed radically over the last couple of years and is so different from what we built with just three years ago that it is nearly inconceivable for a layperson to understand. Alas, the revolution that was Longhorn was disposed of late in the game and the upgrade, touted as a revolution, tyat is Vista was released.

In actuality, Vista has only been in production a couple of years as all the hard work from the previous years was stripped out and M$ "started over". We got a warmed over, stripped down and denuded Longhorn that uses all this revolutionary hardware to pull its bloated bulk up to a performance level below XP. Woot!

I am being derided for "being close-minded for not even trying it yet lambasting the OS." Yet, all of you dumping on me don't seem all that enthusiastic about your experience. The best I have heard to date is Bobby Phillips saying it can boot faster. For the most part users say it isn't as bad as everyone says. That's it. That is the sum total of enthusiasm vista has induced. Woot again! Why the hell should I waste my time switching over to something with a ringing endorsement that "It isn't that bad." I'll switch over eventually, when I absolutely have to.

Now, with all of the above in mind casn you say that M$ has dne a goo djob over the last 7 years of development? Remember when Windows Me came out? Anyone? Does the Vista story sound eerily familiar to that mess. After that travesty XP was released and it was the sea change that everyone was looking for. It was flwed yes but it has proven to be a fairly good OS. My guess is that in two years you will see an entirely new OS, based on Longhorn, and Vista will go down in history as the Windows Me of the 2000's. Flawed, buggy and laughably overhyped.