Whats wrong with Vista?

[tedebear]

Get a Macbook Tedebear!

I'd love to but everything else in our house is Sony VAIO and running on XP, even thought I can't imagine ever wanting to link them all I think I'd better stay with something similar!

 

[beorhthelm]

You can always turn off User Access Control (UAC) by going to control panel/user accounts and changing the default setting for UAC.

If you have a piece of software or hardware that simply refuses to work with VISTA (are you listening EPSON) you could install a copy of XP in addition to VISTA.
The PC when it boots will give you the option of starting in either version of Windows - problem solved.

so to solve two major problems, you A) disable one of the few major features of the new OS, and B) pay for an additional licence for Windows XP? And thats supposed to be progress?

 

[maffew]

vista has not got much of use to me that you cant download some kind of widget for xp. Its too hardware hungry for an OS, and you shouldnt need a flash graphics card/gig plus ram, and pref dual cores just for the OS

I would keep xp for now

 

[tedebear]

Hmmm - I'm seriously reconsidering this laptop now..

Thanks for all the help!

 

[bardo]

I bought a laptop with Vista on it for my elderly Mum a couple of months ago and she seems to get on with it OK but I think it's a bit slow to load and close down (even with 1gb of RAM) though apparently Microsoft have a patch on test to improve this. Other thing was I found was that I couldn't work out what was happening with network connections when things weren't working properly whereas it was much more obvious with XP; in the end I had to connect my own laptop with XP on to sort it out.

 

[TonyW]

Its Vista, not "VISTA".

Its not reasonable to expect that new equipment won't work with a new operating system; and Vista isn't particularly new - its been in testing for nearly 3 years.

And dual-booting is the biggest pain in the arse ever - if a vital piece of hardware doesn't work in Vista, don't use Vista - setting up a dual boot requires partitioning, configuring the boot loader, and most importantly a multiple minute reboot procedure to get in to the "other" system.

Sorry, but some of that is just plain wrong!

Dual-booting is a piece of piss, especially with Vista, VISTA, ViStA or however you want to write it!!.
The bootloader is automatically generated (I agree you need a new partition, and ideally a second drive to house the OS and keep each of their boot sectors from over-writing each other) but Windows does all the work for you.

I have tried it and it works fine, more straightforward than setting up a dual boot system with Linux (am I allowed to write Linux like that ). which by the way works fine too, with either XP or vISTa.

And I don't agree that backwards compatibility is a God-given right these days. If something doesn't work with a new OS, then you can either continue to use the old OS (for a time) or upgrade and ditch whatever doesn't work. Otherwise we'll never drive the PC industry forward.

Hell, there are people out there still moaning that they can't get things to work on Win 98.

It's 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TonyW]

so to solve two major problems, you A) disable one of the few major features of the new OS, and B) pay for an additional licence for Windows XP? And thats supposed to be progress?

No, progress is getting rid of the old equipment and buying new stuff to work with the updated OS.
Oh, and UAC can hardly be described as a problem. If you want to be advised when your PC is about to make serious changes. leave it on, if you don't, turn it off - its a feature - not a problem.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I bought a Toshiba laptop with Vista and it is VERY slow to load

 

[Robbie G]

I have vista and find it fine, but then again i haven't installed many games, applications etc.

The only thing which is pissing me right off, is how they appear to have dumbed down the Office applications in Office 2007. It's so frustrating how they have set up the programs with things now in tabs, rather than drop down menus!

 

[tinx]

My Printer is an Epson R300 doesn't have drivers for vista and the bundled vista driver removes all the good functionality form the driver. As I use my printer a lot this is an issue, I also have a scanner which I use quite a lot which also doesn't have full functionality therefore I removed vista and went back to my trusty XP OS which everything just works on and faster.

All the cosmetic changes look very nice in vista but for it to run efficiently you have to turn them all off.

 

[Cian]

No, progress is getting rid of the old equipment and buying new stuff to work with the updated OS.
Oh, and UAC can hardly be described as a problem. If you want to be advised when your PC is about to make serious changes. leave it on, if you don't, turn it off - its a feature - not a problem.

UAC, compared to the rights escalation in any modern Linux DE or Mac OS X, is horrifically designed, terribly implemented, and woefully controlled.

Also, since when is a one year old laptop "old"? Since when have any of the features in Vista been worth calling "updated", other than the UI? The moving set of goalposts Microsoft set out meant that there are machines with "Vista compatible" stickers on them incapable of running the new UI.

You sound horribly like a Microsoft fanboi - trying to justify obsoleting new hardware (note, its not old hardware Vista doesn't work with, its half the printers on sale right now); trying to justify the hell that is dual booting (bye bye bootloader if you put XP on after Vista); trying to justify buying new hardware to let you use an overpriced OS update which contains little more than the average recent service pack has.

 

[TonyW]

UAC, compared to the rights escalation in any modern Linux DE or Mac OS X, is horrifically designed, terribly implemented, and woefully controlled.

Also, since when is a one year old laptop "old"? Since when have any of the features in Vista been worth calling "updated", other than the UI? The moving set of goalposts Microsoft set out meant that there are machines with "Vista compatible" stickers on them incapable of running the new UI.

You sound horribly like a Microsoft fanboi - trying to justify obsoleting new hardware (note, its not old hardware Vista doesn't work with, its half the printers on sale right now); trying to justify the hell that is dual booting (bye bye bootloader if you put XP on after Vista); trying to justify buying new hardware to let you use an overpriced OS update which contains little more than the average recent service pack has.

As you will be well aware, it is, shall we say highly recommended, that you install operating systems in chronological order in a dual boot system (98,XP,Vista).
And, anyone attempting to set up a dual boot configuration without first doing a bit of research on "how to" is obviously asking for trouble.
If you do it that way - voila- one boot loader screen.

A one-year old laptop may well be (quite reasonably) considered to be an "old" machine- depends on its spec.

UAC, as I said, don't like it - turn it off!!

Vista is no service pack style update. It is a highly stable and reasonably secure operating system (as long as you get a decent firewall, or know how to tweak Microsoft's to block outgoing traffic).
I've been running mine HARD for several weeks now and it hasn't hung or crashed once. Not once. How many people can say that about XP?

Vista comes with a whole host of updated features that many people will find useful.

Its very easy to forget that all of these complaints were aimed at XP when it first came out. I had plenty of issues with hardware and software not working when I installed XP.

If you have printers that don't work with Vista (and yes I own an Epson R800, and no I can't use it with Vista) then you have to weigh up if now is the time to change or not.
You can't slag off a company for trying to drag the masses forward.

As for being a Microsoft fanboy I used to run a university network, the student and academic community HATE Microsoft. Its the usual student rebel thing, but believe me, I have been part of that culture for years. No I have no axe to grind in support of Gates Towers.
But Vista is good, if you've got the hardware to run it.

 

[Fixtures]

Its Vista, not "VISTA".

It's "It's", not "Its".

 

[Marshy]

yawn

 

[Goodfella]

You should be fine tede if you get one that has at least 1gb system ram, as Vista will run slow on less, also if you doing any kind of graphics work, make sure it has a decent card that doesn't use shared memory.

 

[Cian]

I've been running mine HARD for several weeks now and it hasn't hung or crashed once. Not once. How many people can say that about XP?

My XP Pro workstation here has been up for 39 days. Quite clearly it hasn't hung or crashed during that time period - theres some security updates it wants me to reboot for, which I'll do on Friday, though.

So, anyway, you're proposing that anyone who has Vista removes it, partitions their system, installs XP, then installs Vista as a reasonable solution for its inability to use previous standard printer drivers, and see that as reasonable? Right. I worked in a universities IT department previously, I'm surprised you aren't suggesting adding Solaris to the multi-boot mix, but it matches the mindset of most of those I worked with...

And yes, you can slag off a company for trying to "drag the masses forward" when they're trying to drag them in to using hardware thats not cheap, not energy efficient, and when used gets them no performance gain over their existing systems running XP.

 

[REDLAND]

My XP Pro workstation here has been up for 39 days. Quite clearly it hasn't hung or crashed during that time period - theres some security updates it wants me to reboot for, which I'll do on Friday, though..

My MAC hasn't crashed ONCE in 11 months

 

[tedebear]

You should be fine tede if you get one that has at least 1gb system ram, as Vista will run slow on less, also if you doing any kind of graphics work, make sure it has a decent card that doesn't use shared memory.

Super - thats the kind of advice I was after - thanks!

Guess I should have expected the wank-crank responses as well though

 

[TonyW]

I am about to buy a laptop - but the specific model I want only comes with Vista - is it really that bad? if I'm using the laptop without need for anything other than music, photos, web design and general web page surfing - are there any grand issues I should worry about?

The thing is, they could be grand issues.
Depending on the equipment you already own, you may or may not be OK.
You will need to check that your camera and or video camera works with Vista, that your modem or router has no issues, and that whatever package you use for web design is Vista certified.
The amount or RAM and processor speed may or may not be an issue, but if the machine is a decent one, you could well be OK.

 

[TonyW]

My XP Pro workstation here has been up for 39 days. Quite clearly it hasn't hung or crashed during that time period - theres some security updates it wants me to reboot for, which I'll do on Friday, though.

So, anyway, you're proposing that anyone who has Vista removes it, partitions their system, installs XP, then installs Vista as a reasonable solution for its inability to use previous standard printer drivers, and see that as reasonable? Right. I worked in a universities IT department previously, I'm surprised you aren't suggesting adding Solaris to the multi-boot mix, but it matches the mindset of most of those I worked with...

And yes, you can slag off a company for trying to "drag the masses forward" when they're trying to drag them in to using hardware thats not cheap, not energy efficient, and when used gets them no performance gain over their existing systems running XP.

Removing Vista and installing XP to a new partition may be the only option if somebody has a vital piece of kit that's not compatible.
And yes, that IS reasonable when you are upgrading to a totally new system. Of course it is!!

Vista isn't about performance gains - not yet at least.
MS have released an OS that is incredibly easy to use for the computer novice, that's about 90% of the population.
People want to be able to switch the damn thing on, do what they want without it crashing, and feel fairly secure. Vista gives them that.

As hardware and software catches up with Vista, which it will, the new OS will come into its own and everything will speed up, and work!

As I said before, half the bloody computers in the World had a problem when XP was first released. Its the way it has to be to take home computing forward.

Solaris, nah, we ran on Novell