Sunday, May 25th 2008
Technology Analyst: Get Over Vista Hate
A reporter and technology analyst for the Washington Post recently took a rather strong point of view regarding Windows Vista and XP. He accepts that Vista has it's flaws, such as "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products." However, he points out that the current market behavior, which is something along the lines of "don't upgrade until Vista gets better, and beg to keep XP on shelves" is not doing Vista or Microsoft any good. He points out that XP is not a historic monument in need of preservation, and is more like an old car: it's had a good run, but in view of some XP flaws when compared to Vista strongpoints, it's time to move on. The analyst also pointed out that fundamental supply/demand economics is keeping Vista from rising to greatness. As long as the market holds on to XP, and refuses to move on to Vista, software makers will not see a very good reason to adopt or support Vista, which causes most of the problems Vista has today. You can read more details at the source link.
Source:
Daily Tech
157 Comments on Technology Analyst: Get Over Vista Hate
On a side note, belittling those who:
-don't know about Vista
-don't care about Vista
-simply opposed to buying Vista
-not willing to pay for it
-etc
doesn't help validate or recognize that point of view. It not only turns people off even more but it shows poor sportsmanship when things don't go their way.
If you learn how Windows is built, you would see where Vista differs quite a bit. You would also understand the differences and supposed minimal differences that result in this 'very little benefit' attitude that you and others seem to have, because you're such knowledgeable and informed computer engineers...
Vista runs like ass when it's not properly maintenanced and slimmed, because Windows, true to it's heritage, is bloated for the basic home user or gamer; because it's NOT Unix, and it's not suppose to be. The same is true of XP. It's just lighter on the resources, so thus 'slimming' and 'maintenancing' are less required.
Basically it comes down to "I don't know how to take care of my XP, but it still runs fine, so why bother?" Then the user runs Vista, doesn't get the same performance and says "Vista sucks."
The author of the article was absolutley right. The more idiots hang-on to XP based on unfounded claims and myth-based reasoning, the more difficult it is for Vista to replace it, and subsequentley for developers to make use of it.
because, in the long run, it's cheaper to keep and properly maintain an older car than it is to go buy the newest dealer-lot model; and if you haven't noticed, newer models come with a lot of bling, bells & whistles, and other useless "fluff" and flair that aren't worth the money you're charged to have them.
In light of this analogy, I'll keep my "classic" model (otherwise known as XP), and continue to maintain it thanks to it's faithful service so far
I had the "I'll wait till SP1" attitude also. I'd played around with Vista for the past year, but stuck with XP for everything (8 computers in the house, not including 2 servers). But as soon as Vista SP1 came out on Technet, I built up a new test system with it, and started messing around with it on the side.
What I found was quite amazing. First, the thing is amazingly stable. It NEVER crashed on me. Second, what people hate about it (what I hated about it) can be turned off. All that dopey DRM and security stuff can simply be removed, just like it could be in XP (remember the incredible noise people made when they did XP SP2 and everything stopped working?)
I spent a couple of weeks messing around with it, changing service settings, video settings, playing with drivers, etc, and Voila, its solid as a rock, and quite friendly and nice too. (Thanks Black Viper!)
Microsoft built some nice software, but did an absurd job packaging it, and initial setup for most people makes it a hateful experience. They blew it there for sure, but not on the product itself. Simply turning off User Access Control and Security Center makes it instantly livable.
I've now moved 3 machines (my main system, my gamer rig, and 1 of my kids, getting ready to move my wife too) onto Vista. I really like it, including the stability and the improvements to the file system, networking and stability. Aero is really nice too. No turning back now for me.
Incidentally, what I found on the gamer rig, was most interesting. It is SUPREMELY more stable than XP ever was, and I've always had edgy, modded, and nearly spontaneously combusting gaming rigs. The OS NEVER crashes now with games that have issues, Vista contains it, and gracefully closes it, and then recovers as much memory as it can. That NEVER happened on XP, where it was always BSOD city with misbehaving games, and all that nasty interaction with GPU and sound drivers.
Too bad this thing is so emotional with everyone. People get really mad over this like it really matters..... :laugh:
for starters, I don't have any DX10 games that have urged me to move over yet (although, STALKER: Clear Sky) will prob do me in;
and I can't stand how audio is handled in Vista - stoopid, stoopid :banghead:
those are the only two things that have stayed my upgrade - I'll more than likely try it out for DX10 when a certain game is released . . . but if I don't feel it's worth it, I'll prob go back.
Now, if MS comes and fixes the audio architecture - I'll move on up the minute I hear word on that.
the OS failed to meet expectations.
i prefer my x64pro, very nice :)