Microsoft Vista - Beware!
- Thread starter Bulldog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 67
- Views 12K
- Status
Sorry for the length! being in IT makes me have opinions about this stuff...
Here's my twin pennies on this thing.
Firstly, in the past people have either upgraded for a reason, or they didn't upgrade. People upgraded from Win3.11 to Win95 because it had a major overhaul of the GUI, more capabilities and... really who wouldn't want better than 'ol 3.11?
A lot of the 3.11 boxes could install Win95 and run pretty well. Win95 to Win98 introduced more hardware compatibility, slightly improved interface, better Plug-n-Play (Plug-n-Pray, anyone?), and increased system stability. Again, the more recent Win95 boxes could take the 98 upgrade.
The next step in this line is debatable, so I'll cover both angles. Next official rung on the ladder for home users was Windows ME; everyone I know (or admit to knowing
) got Windows 2000 instead. What M$ meant for an office OS, home users grabbed due to the comparative rock-solid stability and much improved GUI / feature set. Sure, when it came out it lacked any sort of real gaming support, 95% of DOS apps wouldn't function, and video drivers were a hack-fest nightmare to say the least. But people were much more inclined to try it anyway than the alternatives- sticking with 98, or eventually WinME.
The only place you ever find Windows ME anymore is on parent's / grandparent's pc's because that's what came on it when they bought it at Wal-Mart. It never caught on because no one had a reason to upgrade to it. Stability was equal (if not decreased) from Win98, bugs and glitches abounded, and the entire thing was quite obviously an alternately-themed previous generation OS. It touted nothing of interest, proven by the fact that home users seized the NT-based Win2k with all its gaming flaws. Patches, service packs and drivers were written for 2k that I'm betting no one anticipated having to do, so the home users could better enjoy the "business" OS.
Next up is XP. This was the best of both worlds; gaming and multimedia support from the day of release, plus the stability of Win2k's NT kernel. Most people running Win2k had enough of a beasty system to handle XP, even if after using it for a couple months you upgraded some hardware. XP was basically what everyone wished Win2k had been... a home OS that was stable enough to run in an office environment. It's now widespread and anyone working in IT that buys or sets up computers uses it. It's the accepted standard and norm, even more so than Win98; remember, back then NT 4.0 was the accepted work OS, splitting the two markets while XP covers both. It's been out since 2002 and is well established in both hardware and driver support. Today's apps and games are meant/made to run on it. It's pretty darn stable- even if you botch things up miserably with bad programming etc you can restart explorer without rebooting and keep right on truckin'.
So enter our latest offering, Windows Vista. Here's where Microsoft gets all sorts of things wrong.
Straight off, your hardware isn't good enough. No, I don't just mean the driver support- Win2k started with miserable driver support and did OK. I mean that your hardware was made more than 12 months ago and isn't fast enough to run Vista properly. Whereas XP can happily run on a 500MHz laptop with 256MB of ram, you may as well own an Apple IIe and try and run Vista. For the first time, M$ is forcing a majority of users to buy entirely new computers to handle this OS. Previously many pc's could handle two OS version in a row, if not three (with some more ram); I've seen 300MHz laptops that shipped with Win95 go through Win98, Win2k and then XP. It's certainly not lightning-fast, but it's functional with the laptop's maximum 256MB of memory.
Secondly, this already annoying fact is compounded by the fact that software and drivers working fine in XP won't always function in Vista. Everyone says, "Let's all wait a while for compatibility to mature..." No one said that about Win2k, despite huge initial incompatibilities. Are we smarter now? No, there's just no reason to upgrade. Is XP very unstable so needs replacing? No. Will the latest software and games only work under the next OS? No, in fact a lot don't. Does it provide us with any new features at all? Well, sure...
We get DRM. Hooray for the man trying to monitor and control our media privileges! Everyone wants that! We get a nifty new way to view our Windows in a 3D fashion. Hey, didn't apple do that years back? I remember running some 3D desktop software on Windows98 that did similar, and it was freeware... huh. What else? Oh, and you get to have twice the horsepower at half the speed! What? Yeah, that's the bottom line for me. I just built a rather nice new box with very decent specs- AMD64 5600+ dual core, with 2GB of DDR2 800 ram- and XP friggin' flies on it. Which means Vista would run fairly well. I just got a new engine in my car, now I should install Windows Vista anchors to the back bumper? Why? Bloatware is acceptable if it's a fair trade; Win98 could be installed onto a 200MB hard drive and run on at 200MHz, while Win2k would easily more than fill twice that and need a better cpu... but the stability was 100% worth it. Where's the trade-off in Vista again?
And that's what it all comes down to, in my book. There is no good reason to "upgrade" to Vista. Every previous new OS had solid reasons for switching, and the best they can do with this one is "Oh, look, pretty ways to arrange your windows!"
Sure, the 'latest-and-greatest-gotta-have-it' people will get it. The ones buying new computers will get it by default. But it'll take a real reason for me to purchase the most expensive operating system in history.
Here's my twin pennies on this thing.
Firstly, in the past people have either upgraded for a reason, or they didn't upgrade. People upgraded from Win3.11 to Win95 because it had a major overhaul of the GUI, more capabilities and... really who wouldn't want better than 'ol 3.11?
A lot of the 3.11 boxes could install Win95 and run pretty well. Win95 to Win98 introduced more hardware compatibility, slightly improved interface, better Plug-n-Play (Plug-n-Pray, anyone?), and increased system stability. Again, the more recent Win95 boxes could take the 98 upgrade. The next step in this line is debatable, so I'll cover both angles. Next official rung on the ladder for home users was Windows ME; everyone I know (or admit to knowing
) got Windows 2000 instead. What M$ meant for an office OS, home users grabbed due to the comparative rock-solid stability and much improved GUI / feature set. Sure, when it came out it lacked any sort of real gaming support, 95% of DOS apps wouldn't function, and video drivers were a hack-fest nightmare to say the least. But people were much more inclined to try it anyway than the alternatives- sticking with 98, or eventually WinME.The only place you ever find Windows ME anymore is on parent's / grandparent's pc's because that's what came on it when they bought it at Wal-Mart. It never caught on because no one had a reason to upgrade to it. Stability was equal (if not decreased) from Win98, bugs and glitches abounded, and the entire thing was quite obviously an alternately-themed previous generation OS. It touted nothing of interest, proven by the fact that home users seized the NT-based Win2k with all its gaming flaws. Patches, service packs and drivers were written for 2k that I'm betting no one anticipated having to do, so the home users could better enjoy the "business" OS.
Next up is XP. This was the best of both worlds; gaming and multimedia support from the day of release, plus the stability of Win2k's NT kernel. Most people running Win2k had enough of a beasty system to handle XP, even if after using it for a couple months you upgraded some hardware. XP was basically what everyone wished Win2k had been... a home OS that was stable enough to run in an office environment. It's now widespread and anyone working in IT that buys or sets up computers uses it. It's the accepted standard and norm, even more so than Win98; remember, back then NT 4.0 was the accepted work OS, splitting the two markets while XP covers both. It's been out since 2002 and is well established in both hardware and driver support. Today's apps and games are meant/made to run on it. It's pretty darn stable- even if you botch things up miserably with bad programming etc you can restart explorer without rebooting and keep right on truckin'.
So enter our latest offering, Windows Vista. Here's where Microsoft gets all sorts of things wrong.
Straight off, your hardware isn't good enough. No, I don't just mean the driver support- Win2k started with miserable driver support and did OK. I mean that your hardware was made more than 12 months ago and isn't fast enough to run Vista properly. Whereas XP can happily run on a 500MHz laptop with 256MB of ram, you may as well own an Apple IIe and try and run Vista. For the first time, M$ is forcing a majority of users to buy entirely new computers to handle this OS. Previously many pc's could handle two OS version in a row, if not three (with some more ram); I've seen 300MHz laptops that shipped with Win95 go through Win98, Win2k and then XP. It's certainly not lightning-fast, but it's functional with the laptop's maximum 256MB of memory.
Secondly, this already annoying fact is compounded by the fact that software and drivers working fine in XP won't always function in Vista. Everyone says, "Let's all wait a while for compatibility to mature..." No one said that about Win2k, despite huge initial incompatibilities. Are we smarter now? No, there's just no reason to upgrade. Is XP very unstable so needs replacing? No. Will the latest software and games only work under the next OS? No, in fact a lot don't. Does it provide us with any new features at all? Well, sure...
We get DRM. Hooray for the man trying to monitor and control our media privileges! Everyone wants that! We get a nifty new way to view our Windows in a 3D fashion. Hey, didn't apple do that years back? I remember running some 3D desktop software on Windows98 that did similar, and it was freeware... huh. What else? Oh, and you get to have twice the horsepower at half the speed! What? Yeah, that's the bottom line for me. I just built a rather nice new box with very decent specs- AMD64 5600+ dual core, with 2GB of DDR2 800 ram- and XP friggin' flies on it. Which means Vista would run fairly well. I just got a new engine in my car, now I should install Windows Vista anchors to the back bumper? Why? Bloatware is acceptable if it's a fair trade; Win98 could be installed onto a 200MB hard drive and run on at 200MHz, while Win2k would easily more than fill twice that and need a better cpu... but the stability was 100% worth it. Where's the trade-off in Vista again?
And that's what it all comes down to, in my book. There is no good reason to "upgrade" to Vista. Every previous new OS had solid reasons for switching, and the best they can do with this one is "Oh, look, pretty ways to arrange your windows!"
Sure, the 'latest-and-greatest-gotta-have-it' people will get it. The ones buying new computers will get it by default. But it'll take a real reason for me to purchase the most expensive operating system in history.Here's my twin pennies on this thing.
Firstly, in the past people have either upgraded for a reason, or they didn't upgrade. People upgraded from Win3.11 to Win95 because it had a major overhaul of the GUI, more capabilities and... really who wouldn't want better than 'ol 3.11?
[...snip...]
And that's what it all comes down to, in my book. There is no good reason to "upgrade" to Vista. Every previous new OS had solid reasons for switching, and the best they can do with this one is "Oh, look, pretty ways to arrange your windows!"
A well written objective and refreshing summary that really gets the point across!
I have gone that same route, and yes I did upgrade to ME.
But, back in the days of PC DOS, I upgraded to the “CPM” operating system! When a floppy was a floppy - all 8”s of it! It was the upcoming business operating system platform using WordStar as a word processor program and others; even used a first of a kind Dual- Core computer, it was called the Xerox 16-8, two processors: one running 16 bit and the other 8 bit, if memory serves me right.
But back to Vista; outside of the eye candy ”WOW” and advertised security strength, the fact remains that there is little talk about the productivity of the operating system so far.
With reports that programs and games running slower and it being a resource hog, just as you stated: is there really a compelling reason to upgrade?
Last edited by a moderator:
While there may be no "compelling" reason to upgrade, and I myself am not upgrading my main PC, I did buy a new laptop with Vista Ultimate installed, and as I have stated, I like it a lot. It is fast, it seems solid, and after you get used to it, it really is a nice implementation of an O/S.
With regards to the above two posts, there are some great points made and they are easy to agree with. However, in the context of new and future computers, you can't be unhappy that there is a newer O/S to grow into.
I remember the same arguments when XP came out. Companies were "banning" it, and everyone was complaining that it was a "hog". Now, years later, it's regarded as a great O/S.
Every O/S has to start somewhere, and Vista is a nice start. It's not for everyone yet, and putting it on an older computer is really a mistake. Still, with a new, modern box, and with hardware prices still falling, this will be an O/S that will shine as time goes by.
It's easy to beat on MS. Heck, they deserve it at times, but the Vista O/S is not one of the reasons they should be trashed. It's very nice, when "properly" used!
With regards to the above two posts, there are some great points made and they are easy to agree with. However, in the context of new and future computers, you can't be unhappy that there is a newer O/S to grow into.
I remember the same arguments when XP came out. Companies were "banning" it, and everyone was complaining that it was a "hog". Now, years later, it's regarded as a great O/S.
Every O/S has to start somewhere, and Vista is a nice start. It's not for everyone yet, and putting it on an older computer is really a mistake. Still, with a new, modern box, and with hardware prices still falling, this will be an O/S that will shine as time goes by.
It's easy to beat on MS. Heck, they deserve it at times, but the Vista O/S is not one of the reasons they should be trashed. It's very nice, when "properly" used!
I just read about this today that the U.S. Department of Transportation (D.O.T.)
has banned Windows Vista, Office 2007, and Internet Explorer 7.
It seems that D.O.T.‘s critical applications do not work on Vista. There are some issues with legacy software, but the main problem is that the current standard DOT build doesn't meet Vista's minimum system requirements.
Since Al Gore help to invent the internet maybe he can help D.O.T.
As far as Office 2007, I am using Office 2007 and I like it very much. It takes a little bit of time finding out the new bells and whistles also finding where they moved things around, but overall a very nice upgrade.
Boy talk about copy right infringement quote of an article that title was misleading.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6166868.html?tag=nl.e550
Here's my twin pennies on this thing.
Firstly, in the past people have either upgraded for a reason, or they didn't upgrade. People upgraded from Win3.11 to Win95 because it had a major overhaul of the GUI, more capabilities and... really who wouldn't want better than 'ol 3.11?
...snip....
Excellent post! My thoughts exactly. Everyone comes to me since I'm the supposed IT guru they know...."Hey digi, should I upgrade to Vista?" I always answer..."Sure..I'll downgrade your computer for $50 an hour. When do you want to schedule it?" "Save your money and use this Google link below:"
http://www.google.com/search?q=vist...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Message with the wrong flavor
It is true that every new OS had initial problems in upgrading in the past; the matter is that Bill Gates stated that Vista is the most tested of the Windows OS and it has the best security. He expects that there will be few problems with VISTA. Also that Vista will have no problems with software backward compatibility!
This OS has been in the development stage for over 5 years! Originally it was suppose to be a new major update to XP, and it was decided to make it a new operating program instead.
Folks come to this forum to get solutions and to become aware of new and exciting news in technology.
I have provided links earlier to help people test their systems for Vista, and provide special Vista hardware tagging labels awareness, hopefully it helped.
I know that it seems that I am bashing Microsoft; I am just trying to make the awareness of problems associate with the upgrade, and I am not alone in this area.
Anyway it seems that this thread is sending the message with the wrong flavor, therefore it is probably time to let it fade.
My final two cents.
It is true that every new OS had initial problems in upgrading in the past; the matter is that Bill Gates stated that Vista is the most tested of the Windows OS and it has the best security. He expects that there will be few problems with VISTA. Also that Vista will have no problems with software backward compatibility!
This OS has been in the development stage for over 5 years! Originally it was suppose to be a new major update to XP, and it was decided to make it a new operating program instead.
Folks come to this forum to get solutions and to become aware of new and exciting news in technology.
I have provided links earlier to help people test their systems for Vista, and provide special Vista hardware tagging labels awareness, hopefully it helped.
I know that it seems that I am bashing Microsoft; I am just trying to make the awareness of problems associate with the upgrade, and I am not alone in this area.
Anyway it seems that this thread is sending the message with the wrong flavor, therefore it is probably time to let it fade.
My final two cents.
No problems with compatibility?! Hmphff.... I've already seen too many I lost count, which is one of the many reasons I wouldn't upgrade even if you paid me to.
Vista hasn't been tested more than XP. I can bet XP has a few more hours of runtime than Vista.
People didn't want to upgrade to XP at first since 2000 was awesome. 2 years later, that all changed. The same thing is happening with Vista right now. Vista will have its day. But it will not be in 2 years. I predict around 2010 we will be in the stage of Vista being a regular thing by then. I also predict that several hacks for the removal of embedded DRM will exist too.
: My company has also stated they do NOT want any Vista builds on their network. If you put one on the network you will be dealt with in the proper manner. We are a large international company...very large....we even have several Microsoft programmers/developers stationed in our buildings with our custom software developers. And no, we do not sell software.
- Status
Similar threads
