Technology Analyst: Get Over Vista Hate

[zekrahminator]

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

[DrPepper]

That was well said.

[EastCoasthandle]

If it's not one fanboy it's another. I must question why it's so important to make articles like this. The only true issue to get over is the fact that people have perceptions, ideals, opinions and beliefs. Once they accept this as truth (which is part of what makes human beings what they are) will they start to care-less what other people think about some random OS purchase.

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.

[jocksteeluk]

For myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.

[pbmaster]

I really don't care which OS I use. I just don't have the money right now to buy Vista.

[magibeg]

Vista has been alright on this end, i don't regret buying it at all in fact. Every once in a while on the forums you'll see someone switch to vista from xp and get a surprise that its not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. In fact it tends to be pretty good.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by jocksteeluk

For myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.

I thought of it just like a hardware upgrade ... like moving from AGP to PCIE

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by jocksteeluk

For myself XP was a true software upgrade, Vista on the other hand is a sidestep with very little benefit or improvement over xp and no doubt the majority of PC users would agree which is why Vista isn't doing so well.

Rather that was an initial impression, which was ballooned across the air waves, and those that don't know otherwise bought into it, especially those who are anti-MS, which is a ridiculously high amount of end-users.

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.

[DrPepper]

I like vista alot and even though people complain about driver crashes it happens on xp too, anyway usualy I put up with it until there is a fix.

[jocksteeluk]

Originally Posted by newconroer

Rather that was an initial impression, which was ballooned across the air waves, and those that don't know otherwise bought into it, especially those who are anti-MS, which is a ridiculously high amount of end-users.

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.

So your argument is that the majority of PC users are stupid because they are not knowledgeable enough to know how to "slim down" Vista to run good on their modest spec systems? Wasnt Vista meant to be more user friendly than XP? The Majority controls the market, Vista is flawed because the majority are not pc software geniuses.

[WarEagleAU]

Im not even sure how to respond to this. Ive used Vista and pretty much use it on a daily basis. My wife compares her laptop use (which has Vista) to my home gaming rig (which uses XP 64 bit) and likes mine better. Of course, I try to explain to her my desktop is alot more powerful than her laptop, so that tends to be a major reason of her liking the desktop. On the other hand though, she likes XPs user friendly features (becauses shes used to it) alot more than Vista, but does like how Vista has Media Center integrated as well as other nuances (aero, etc).

[imperialreign]

Originally Posted by zekrahminator

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

bad analogy on the analysts part . . . why?




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

[DrPepper]

So XP is like a dodge charger rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast and you need to stop every 3 miles to refuel ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.

[jocksteeluk]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

So XP is like a dodge charger rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.

I think it would be fairer to compare Xp to a Porche and Vista to a Hummer.

[imperialreign]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

So XP is like a dodge charger rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast and you need to stop every 3 miles to refuel ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.

I reckon, it'd be like saying that XP is an aging Cadillac Fleetwood where Vista is like an Acura MDX - they've both got all the options; but the aging Fleetwood is a nice drive, comfortable, decent on mileage - and the MDX does all the same, but comes with better theft protection, the built-in mp3 player, bluetooth, nav system, DVD player, backup camera, heated/cooled seats, etc, etc - there's really nothing wrong with the Cadi, good vintage year, solid, reliable if you keep up with the maintenance, and not too many luxury options to distract you from the road; but the MDX is still new to the markup, so you might encounter an engineering hiccup, and how many people will make use of all the luxury options, and how many more will end up t-boning someone cause they were busy starting at a NAV screen instead of the road?

[acperience7]

Why should I go buy Vista when Windows 7 is now on the horizon? The author can't forget that most people who get computers buy them pre-built and don't know a Stream Processor from an ROP, and could care less. Most computer users just want something that works for what they are going to use it for. When that computer starts having serious problems running that person's applications they move on. XP has no serious problems so why should they buy this OS, then just a few years later buy another OS? I don't know what kind of company that author keeps, but if I could buy a new car every 5 years I still wouldn't. Has he ever traveled on a normal road? The kind that's not filled with anything but sparkilng cars that are fresh off their first oil change. He needs to stop living in a fantasy land.

[nanohead]

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

If it's not one fanboy it's another. I must question why it's so important to make articles like this. The only true issue to get over is the fact that people have perceptions, ideals, opinions and beliefs. Once they accept this as truth (which is part of what makes human beings what they are) will they start to care-less what other people think about some random OS purchase.

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.

Well said, my point of view precisely.....

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.....

[Triprift]

All can say is like ive said before i hope for xp fanbois sake that Windows 7 does turn out to be the greatest os of all time cus if it doesnt then the petitions to have xp extended will be out again boring.

[imperialreign]

I have Vista, but I'm still holding out on it -

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


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.

[Haytch]

[QUOTE=zekrahminator;808870]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."QUOTE]

Thats right, Vista sucks.

I was one of them people that boycott Vista, and went on to replace Vista with XP Pro for every single customer i had. It seemed like a logical step seeing as the average customer did not have STEEP HARDWARE!

I refuse to ' get over it '. I respect my computer and expect from it!

It would be nice if they didnt compare Operating Systems to cars, but since they are, allow me;
Sure XP is an older model, but its like a Ferrari. Whereas, Vista is a brand new piece of crap that struggles to reach the speed limit.

If what is occuring with the general publics reaction to a pathetic solution to XP is effecting the company in a negative mannor, then perhaps they should address the issue!
The whole scam with DX10, exclusive to Vista is the only reason why someone would install Vista willingly, otherwise its simply to check it out.
95% of computers/laptops that come with Vista pre-installed run over 20% more productively and efficiently with XP Pro in it customized.

[Easy Rhino]

i use vista for dx10 gaming. if you arent gaming in dx10 you might as well be gaming in DOS. sorry, had to say it.

[AsRock]

I've had load more problems with Vista in 2 months than i have had with XP x64 in over 2 1/2 years.

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by jocksteeluk

So your argument is that the majority of PC users are stupid because they are not knowledgeable enough to know how to "slim down" Vista to run good on their modest spec systems? Wasnt Vista meant to be more user friendly than XP? The Majority controls the market, Vista is flawed because the majority are not pc software geniuses.

very well said...


the OS failed to meet expectations.

[farlex85]

I feel like if so many people didn't jump on the vista hate bandwagon, dx10 would be catching on quicker w/ developers. I think a big reason dx10 is moving so slowly and we still haven't had a game built natively for it is they would get hell for it, b/c so many people are still resisting vista for whatever reason (usually not a very good one imo). This is partly microsoft's fault for making dx10 a vista only requirement, and for having enough problems at the outset to set the market against them (although word of mouth has gotten pretty ill-informed sometimes on the interweb in this regard), but damn, when consumers start hurting progress, something is amiss.

[Rebo&Zooty]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

So XP is like a dodge charger rough on the edges but at least it can drive, while vista is like a Hummer: it takes a big engine to get it going anywhere fast and you need to stop every 3 miles to refuel ? I don't know I'm not familiar with cars.

haha, more like a hummber h2, looks nice, but is mostly made of plastic and when the plastic blings removed it looks very pathetic......very very pathetic.......

i prefer my x64pro, very nice