This looks to be more of a Windows Me (millennium) release. Me was hyped as a new os but was really just a spiffy looking version of 98SE that not only ran slower but also came with a slow memory leak to boot. Frankly I think a lot of users have the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality with their PC's. WHo knows maybe the 2nd coming of Vista could allow it to live up to the original hype, though I am not going to hold my breath knowing Redmond's track record.
[citation][nom]Cowboy[/nom]This looks to be more of a Windows Me (millennium) release. Me was hyped as a new os but was really just a spiffy looking version of 98SE that not only ran slower but also came with a slow memory leak to boot.[/citation]
I'm surprised you didn't mention the excessive instability or the fact that it didn't want to shut down alot of the time. I think the software was sentient, it tried to torment you until you reformated... again.
Nothing wrong with Vista. Infact Windows XP is nothing but utter crap. I'm running Vista x64 Edition and that thing is just fast as it was on first day after installation. Apps and games under it work perfect. I think x86 edition is waste of time. If you want to play Crysis you need 4Gb of RAM. As soon as Microsoft kills x86 edition it will be better. I'm not sure why people dislike Windows Vista, but it's the greatest OS release after Windows 2000. I installed Vista like 9 months ago. In meantime i swapped my i680 mobo with i780 mobo, replaced SLI 8800GTX setup with GTX280 SLI setup...OS just works.
In fact, I also don't understand why people hate Vista so much. It's much more stable than plain vanilla XP, even in many cases, better than XP SP2. (XP SP2 is faaaaaaaaar more stable than XP) Just give the guys to roll out the next SP.
What the haters were able to do in XP better than in Vista? Maybe spreading their viruses around?
I've got 64-bit Vista as well, and I have absolutely no problems. I'll admit, I was hesitant when I made the switch from XP. I needed to upgrade to a 64-bit OS and heard bad things about XP 64, so I bit the bullet and get Vista. I'm glad I did, because I've found Vista to be the most stable Windows yet.
Microsoft has ironed out most of the bugs in Vista now, and its performance is not too far from XP anymore. People need to understand that there will always be a performance hit when you upgrade from OS to OS. Expecting Microsoft to come out with a revolutionary OS that has the same requirements as a 5+ year old OS (at the time) is ridiculous unrealistic. Yes, they botched the launch, and it had some pretty serious performance issues at first, but they've brought Vista to a level that is much more acceptable.
Don't forget that when XP came out, it required much more resources than any of the previous Windows (I remember RAM requirements for many programs being double for XP vs 2000 or ME). But now people love it and praise it as one of the best operating systems of all time.
The REAL problem is that bashing Vista has become so trendy that journalists everywhere are capitalizing on everyone's hate for it. I've seen so many of them writing 10 page articles in magazines about how awful Vista is because they know the article will be well received. It's like they're saying "What do you guys want to write about? Oh I dunno, let's just bash Vista, that always works!"
If everyone would just step back, erase their biases, and try a recent build of Vista, the community would have an entirely different impression of OS.
With all due respect, I don't quite understand the article. I was never under the impression that Windows 7 was going to be a major change from Vista. Although alot of tech sites said they 'hoped' it would be, the fact of the matter is that Microsoft never promised it as such. I hate to fault the author but this almost sounds like an attempt to convince people that Microsoft doesn't know what they're doing. Hasn't anyone at Tom's heard the beta impressions of Windows 7 yet?
Vista's bad reputation is IMO a direct result of the fact that Microsoft stupidly marketed it to users with systems that don't have the power to run it - so they've made their own bed. I run Vista on several systems and it's proven a solid OS, but I don't run it on anything older than about a year or with less than 4 gig of ram.
On a new box with plenty of memory and a decent graphics card Vista is solid and performance matches XP... but performance falls off much faster than XP as you push it onto older hardware.
I'm running both Vista and XP on different but comparable machines. I must say that although Vista is a step forward and handles alot of stuff like a dream, there are some annoyances like slower transfer speeds comparing to XP. I've noticed specially CD HD USB (in any order) to be quite alot slower than on my XP machine.
Other than that, when you take a couple of hours to clean Vista up after installing it; turn off all the annoying messages etc. - it's a very nice OS.
[citation][nom]Dave K[/nom]Vista's bad reputation is IMO a direct result of the fact that Microsoft stupidly marketed it to users with systems that don't have the power to run it - so they've made their own bed. I run Vista on several systems and it's proven a solid OS, but I don't run it on anything older than about a year or with less than 4 gig of ram.On a new box with plenty of memory and a decent graphics card Vista is solid and performance matches XP... but performance falls off much faster than XP as you push it onto older hardware.[/citation]
You've certainly got a point there, and I agree that Microsoft made a bad move with their marketing. I remember them tacking all sorts of stickers like "Vista Ready" and "Vista Capable" that just confused consumers. It didn't help any when the computers they branded as Vista Ready ended up running Vista like molasses.
Nonetheless, I think Windows 7 will fare better. Even if Microsoft doesn't add much to the OS, it'll finally have the power to run it. I think Microsoft was just too ambitious with Vista from the start- they assumed technology was going to catch up to where it needed to be when Vista launched, and it simply wasn't there.
In another year, even the $500 budget boxes will have 2 Gig Ram standard, beefier CPUs, and integrated graphics that'll actually run Aero. In fact, I'm pretty sure that current-gen IGP's run Aero sufficiently. Windows 7 is going to appear to be lighter and more swift, even if it's just a re-branded, glorified Vista.
Frankly, I'm surprised Microsoft didn't call Service Pack 1 "Vista SE" instead, a la Windows 98 SE. SP1 was quite a substantial update, and that would've been a perfect time to try and turn Vista around and re-market it. Ahh well, hindsight is always 20/20, as they say!
Consider the following: Windows Server 2008 is an enhanced version of the Vista Kernel. I am using it as a workstation, in fact (free copy from a trade show valid on for a year, unfortuantely) and it is lighting fast, even with Aero. I kid not. Surely you can read online about 'Windows Workstation 2008'. Windows 7 will be an enhancement of this. So, it will be Vista in a sense that Windows ME was windows 98 but I think it will be MUCH better because it will have none of the con's ME had. I mean, what did you expect MS to do, throw away all the work with Vista? Vista is an excellent evolution as on OS, with the main protactor being that its performance was not optimized; This is to be expected, it is A NEW OS. So, yes; The new version of Windows, Windows 7, will be an enhanced version of Vista. So what? it will be better because My server 2008 install runs FASTER than XP (if you can beleive that...) although not by leaps and bounds. Can we stop the negative speculation and at least give them a shot... after all, the only reason most of you use a computer is because of MS, they probably have an idea of what they're doing....
The problem with Vista is it hogs all your resources, and adds absolutley nothing. Windows Aero? what does it actaully DO? Now, if we could move from one screen to the next and switch focus, that would do something, but we can't. Seriosuly, name me on useful feature NOT called DX.10!
As for the 4GB Limit on 32bit systems: If vista didn't need 1GB to run, and 2GB to run well, there wouldn't be an issue with lack of RAM. You get diminishing returns after 2.5GB system RAM anyway, so unless you CF/SLI two 768+MB GFX cards, you shouldn't have any memory issues whatsoever under a 32bit OS.
To prove my point: I have two games I run on Vista, CoH and Crysis. When I run both in DX 9 mode, the XP install is always about 5 FPS faster, even though XP can only see ~2.75GB of my 6GB RAM. Why? Because Vista is slow and unoptimized.
I also find it funny, people complain about how unstable XP was when it came out (still as stable as 98SE though), but Vista was just as bad (I had a "File System Error" while installing to a pre-formated disk).
Finally, the reason coorporations won't use vista is simple: They recylce computers (my work comp is a Pentium III 1.2 GHz). We can't RUN vista, so why upgrade when XP works?
Also note: You can NOT run 16bit apps under Vista, as they are no longer supported. I need an OS that supports 16bits, because thats what all the software I need for work is written in.