Your thoughts about Vista??

[Paul Kurtz]

This is the one thing I have seen on Macs that is really superior to
Windows. In windows sometimes the program will have an "unistall"
option in its menu entry. But most of the preinstalled items will
need to be removed by going through the control panel. In XP it the
"Add Remove programs" control panel option, In Vista it has been
renamed to "programs and features". Either will present you a list of
installed apps that you select and then choose to uninstall.

Plenty of help on the net for this stuff.

Cheers
James

Thanks James, that sounds simple enough.

 

[James Arnold 1971]

Furthermore, many (if not
most) enterprise agreements for software are used for counting actual
used licenses and not versions. That is to say, I purchase a
license to install an instance of application x, but it doesn't
really matter what what the version is, as long as its supported by
the vendor.

Actually, no. Many licenses are version specific. This is
especially the case for niche applications within a company. While
they are few, they can be rather expensive.

You are both wrong and right

Many software vendors seem to be moving toward a "subscription" model where as long as you pay for maintanence you can install the latest and greatest version of whatever. But if you stop paying you are limited to whatever version you have when the subscription expires (often with a time limit).

But that is somewhat separate from licensing based on use. This can be used to "share" a fixed number of licenses among many users, or to work in pay for use type of situation (which can be a real challenge to implement). In my experience while not entirely mutually exclusive two situations deal with different issues.

Also the software that leverages these types of agreements tends to be very expensive and or specialized and in a lot of cases customize the agreement for the purchaser. The smaller software packages seem to still do stuff the old way with a licnese for each version.

James

 

[ptodd]

This is the one thing I have seen on Macs that is really superior to
Windows. In windows sometimes the program will have an "unistall"
option in its menu entry. But most of the preinstalled items will
need to be removed by going through the control panel. In XP it the
"Add Remove programs" control panel option, In Vista it has been
renamed to "programs and features". Either will present you a list of
installed apps that you select and then choose to uninstall.

Plenty of help on the net for this stuff.

I recommend CCleaner for uninstalling programmes. For some reason the add/remove programs thing in Windows has always been really slow. CCleaner will do other things, like clearing the system registry, but I wouldn't advise doing too much if you aren't confident what it is doing.

There are also various 'decrapifier' programs specificially designed for getting rid of the rubbish that comes on new PCs - I won't vouch for them, as I've always done things more manually. Alternatively, lots of people swear by making a clean install of the operating system before they do anything else; that should be straightforward, if a little time consuming.

Hope that doesn't make it all sound overly complicated.
--
Peter

 

[blackhawk13]

This is the one thing I have seen on Macs that is really superior to
Windows. In windows sometimes the program will have an "unistall"
option in its menu entry. But most of the preinstalled items will
need to be removed by going through the control panel. In XP it the
"Add Remove programs" control panel option, In Vista it has been
renamed to "programs and features". Either will present you a list of
installed apps that you select and then choose to uninstall.

Plenty of help on the net for this stuff.

I recommend CCleaner for uninstalling programmes. For some reason
the add/remove programs thing in Windows has always been really slow.
CCleaner will do other things, like clearing the system registry, but
I wouldn't advise doing too much if you aren't confident what it is
doing.

There are also various 'decrapifier' programs specificially designed
for getting rid of the rubbish that comes on new PCs - I won't vouch
for them, as I've always done things more manually. Alternatively,
lots of people swear by making a clean install of the operating
system before they do anything else; that should be straightforward,
if a little time consuming.

Hope that doesn't make it all sound overly complicated.
--
Peter

--Best thing to do is go with a clean install; uninstalling programs, especially antivirus, can cause a sluggish, unstable system. Buggy apps, not Windows is to blame. This is a common problem. Sometimes running the "SFC SCANNOW" command will repair damage caused by buggy uninstalls installs. I always use this at least once when loading XP.
-Fortune favors the bold-

 

[Emeka U]

sounds like rhetoric. I don't think you've got any experience in the
"real world" with this.

Oooh, getting a little personal here, are we? Young boy, I don't
have to prove anything to you.

um, sorry if I offended you...surely this wasn't my intended purpose. I'll ask you to please not resort to calling me a 'young boy', as i don't take kindly to it. 'Young man' is fine, as it is more accurate...

How many [current] applications you know
that work in XP that don't work in Vista?

A few.

interesting...not sure what apps these are, and how important they are to your business. But I guess if they are business critical, then you've got a problem.

Furthermore, many (if not
most) enterprise agreements for software are used for counting actual
used licenses and not versions. That is to say, I purchase a
license to install an instance of application x, but it doesn't
really matter what what the version is, as long as its supported by
the vendor.

Actually, no. Many licenses are version specific. This is
especially the case for niche applications within a company. While
they are few, they can be rather expensive.

maybe I should have made things a little more clear, at least from my perspective. I will grant you that certainly there are applications that will only dole out licensing that is version specific, especially in the consumer market. However it has been my experience that when negotiating enterprise incensing, vendors are much more flexible in how they charge....and versions they let you use. Your license agreements can be as flexible as you installing as many versions as you need...counting them at the end of the year, and paying the vendor adequately. Perhaps this is simply just a matter of how the contracts are negotiated.

I'll direct you again to the flip side of this. How many of the
applications that don't work are 10-15 years old. And is it
reasonable to keep supporting these apps? Further, I'll pull you
back to a question I asked in a previous post in this thread. Are
you expecting these apps that currently don't work with Vista, to
work with the next gen Windows OS? If so, I think you're in for a
surprise.

No, we are fully expecting to upgrade or replace those applications
at that time. But, by then upgraded versions or viable alternatives
should be more plentiful.

...but that's not a guarantee, so how do you know you won't be in the same situation 3 years from now?

Again, you didn't think this response through?? Not sure how big your
company is, but how long do you think it will take to roll out a new
standard desktop OS to a global company with say 25-30,000 desktops?
I would figure 2 years or more. Plus, you've got to engineer and
test the load that you're going to deploy, right? Give it another
year (conservative estimate...its likely 2 years). So if windows 7
is available in 3 years, and you need to then do your engineering on
the load before pushing it out, and then take 2 years to actually
roll it out....my calculation say that 7 or 8 years has passed. If
you're expecting all your current apps to be supported on XP for that
long, maybe think again...or get ready to take out the wallet and pay
those high support fees to your vendors.

What makes you think we have to wait for Vista 7 to be out before we
start planing our migration? Do you think MS is going to break
compatibility with Vista as it did with XP? I personally doubt that
very much and are willing to bet my company on that. Windows 7, or
whatever Windows version comes after Vista, is going to be built on
Vista's foundations and is going to take a lot less to come out to
market than Vista did. Applications that run on Vista will run on
the next version just fine. Essentially, we are treating Vista as a
beta version for Windows 7.

I agree that the new OS will be similar to Vista, but isn't that going to cause the same grumblings when it comes out. If its just another 'vista' I would expect that there are still some folks who will gripe that their apps dont work, or their hardware is unsupported. Its the same noise with virtually every MS OS release...

So, when did you start planning your Vista migration? Two years ago?
What a laugh! I'm sure that to you MS can do no wrong, right? You
probably have some Microsoft paraphernalia around your office and may
even have a few items of clothing advertising MS's products. Am I
right? Hey, that is fine with me. But, I just don't think we are
going to come to an agreement as to what the best strategy to follow
is.

talk about getting personal!! If you must know, we started planning for the Vista migration about one year ago (looking at the OS, evaluating what apps may have trouble, etc...).

And just because I don't hate Vista doesn't make me an champion for Microsoft. It just makes me someone who recognizes the OS for what it is...and can see through the often incorrectly skewed opinion.

In any case, good luck with your upgrade strategy.

--
I likes shootin' things with them new-fangled picture-takin' devices!
VISIT OFTEN: http://emeka.smugmug.com (comments welcomed)

 

[rm2]

sounds like rhetoric. I don't think you've got any experience in the
"real world" with this.

Oooh, getting a little personal here, are we? Young boy, I don't
have to prove anything to you.

um, sorry if I offended you...surely this wasn't my intended purpose.
I'll ask you to please not resort to calling me a 'young boy', as i
don't take kindly to it. 'Young man' is fine, as it is more
accurate...

Very well. Young man it is.

How many [current] applications you know
that work in XP that don't work in Vista?

A few.

interesting...not sure what apps these are, and how important they
are to your business. But I guess if they are business critical, then
you've got a problem.

We only have a problem if we move to Vista now. Things are chugging along just fine right now.

maybe I should have made things a little more clear, at least from my
perspective. I will grant you that certainly there are applications
that will only dole out licensing that is version specific,
especially in the consumer market. However it has been my experience
that when negotiating enterprise incensing, vendors are much more
flexible in how they charge....and versions they let you use. Your
license agreements can be as flexible as you installing as many
versions as you need...counting them at the end of the year, and
paying the vendor adequately. Perhaps this is simply just a matter
of how the contracts are negotiated.

Young man, your experience is probably limited to the industry you work with. In time you will see that in different industries vendors have different ways of doing business, especially ones that fill certain niches.

I'll direct you again to the flip side of this. How many of the
applications that don't work are 10-15 years old. And is it
reasonable to keep supporting these apps? Further, I'll pull you
back to a question I asked in a previous post in this thread. Are
you expecting these apps that currently don't work with Vista, to
work with the next gen Windows OS? If so, I think you're in for a
surprise.

No, we are fully expecting to upgrade or replace those applications
at that time. But, by then upgraded versions or viable alternatives
should be more plentiful.

...but that's not a guarantee, so how do you know you won't be in the
same situation 3 years from now?

Nothing is guaranteed. We just do the best we can to lessen risks, lessen problems, and maximize investment and opportunity.

Again, you didn't think this response through??...

What makes you think we have to wait for Vista 7 to be out before we
start planing our migration? Do you think MS is going to break
compatibility with Vista as it did with XP? I personally doubt that
very much and are willing to bet my company on that. Windows 7, or
whatever Windows version comes after Vista, is going to be built on
Vista's foundations and is going to take a lot less to come out to
market than Vista did. Applications that run on Vista will run on
the next version just fine. Essentially, we are treating Vista as a
beta version for Windows 7.

I agree that the new OS will be similar to Vista, but isn't that
going to cause the same grumblings when it comes out. If its just
another 'vista' I would expect that there are still some folks who
will gripe that their apps dont work, or their hardware is
unsupported. Its the same noise with virtually every MS OS release...

Did I say that we are not moving to Vista due to user grumblings? No I didn't. You are welcome to go back and read the reasons I mentioned for not moving to Vista right now.

So, when did you start planning your Vista migration? Two years ago?
What a laugh! I'm sure that to you MS can do no wrong, right? You
probably have some Microsoft paraphernalia around your office and may
even have a few items of clothing advertising MS's products. Am I
right? Hey, that is fine with me. But, I just don't think we are
going to come to an agreement as to what the best strategy to follow
is.

talk about getting personal!! If you must know, we started planning
for the Vista migration about one year ago (looking at the OS,
evaluating what apps may have trouble, etc...).

And just because I don't hate Vista doesn't make me an champion for
Microsoft. It just makes me someone who recognizes the OS for what
it is...and can see through the often incorrectly skewed opinion.

I just didn't appreciate your arrogant tone. Sorry if I misjudge you as being a MS fan. And yes, there are a lot of skewed opinions on either side of the fence. It is not easy to look through the hype and make decisions based on realities. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in your case, moving to Vista now makes sense. It doesn't in mine.

In any case, good luck with your upgrade strategy.

As I said before, I wish you well on yours too.

 

[Eugene Powers]

so was nothing really to fix. There were less bugs than XP came out and there still less bugs now even compared to XP SP3 and yes my 2 remaining computers (both my wife's desktop and laptop) running it and it still locks up every day just like it did on my computers. But after I installed Vista 32 and 64 on all of my computers problems just magically disappeared. The only issue was speed and now it is no longer the issue after I installed SP1.
--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Lee Jay

 

[Emeka U]

We only have a problem if we move to Vista now. Things are chugging
along just fine right now.

fair enough...

Young man, your experience is probably limited to the industry you
work with. In time you will see that in different industries vendors
have different ways of doing business, especially ones that fill
certain niches.

Though I might not be as old as you, I've had experience working in a few different organizations (large and small). The company I work for now uses a large variety of software to get its work done. Everything from niche applications to the everyday office suites...this also spans many different OS platforms from Windows, to Linux/UNIX, to SAP. I guess I'm trying to convey the fact that I believe my experience is varied enough to qualify me to speak about such a subject.

Nothing is guaranteed. We just do the best we can to lessen risks,
lessen problems, and maximize investment and opportunity.

understood...and in my current case, we're working to do the very same

Did I say that we are not moving to Vista due to user grumblings? No
I didn't. You are welcome to go back and read the reasons I
mentioned for not moving to Vista right now.

no you didn't, and I was trying to push this view in your case. I guess I was getting back to the 'general feeling' about why people don't want to use Vista.

I just didn't appreciate your arrogant tone. Sorry if I misjudge you
as being a MS fan. And yes, there are a lot of skewed opinions on
either side of the fence. It is not easy to look through the hype
and make decisions based on realities. I am going to give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume that, in your case, moving to Vista
now makes sense. It doesn't in mine.

you have my sincere apologies for sounding arrogant (I generally am not). Guess its hard to convey context and emotion through type.

Let's just leave the conversation here then. In all, it was nice chatting with you, and I hope there are no hard feelings...I harbor none.

--
I likes shootin' things with them new-fangled picture-takin' devices!
VISIT OFTEN: http://emeka.smugmug.com (comments welcomed)

 

[Lin Evans]

Also read the 28 pages or so of comments by readers - most of whom have had similar experiences.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2286065,00.asp

Consider also the fact that "major" players such as Dell, HP, etc., are continuing to offer XP regardless of what Microsoft decides about killing XP - there is a reason for this. Dell will offer XP until Windows 7 is relased which will probably be 2010.

Yes, some have had good experiences with Vista but many have not. Vista has not been a shining example of improvements in an OS but rather an example of what "not" to do when making a new OS.

Best regards,

Lin

--I am thinking of buying a new PC only problem is everywhere I looks
it's Vista. I have only heard bad things about Vista but to tell you
the truth this is just from a friend. So you Vista users are you
happy with it?

Thanks
Mike

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

 

[rm2]

No hard feelings here either. Peace be with you.

 

[Eugene Powers]

If you read all of the threads and comments very few people are disappointed with Vista and majority loving it. Those who are disappointed are much louder than those who are not so it gives impression that Vista is bad but in reality exactly opposite is true. One of the disappointed here Blackhawk has only used Vista for a week and probably used original RTM but he is louder than anyone else so it should give you the picture of the state Vista is in.

--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Lee Jay

 

[Alex McLeod]

I dislike Vista intensely. I have nothing positive to say about it. I have one machine running Vista and several running XP - and I always find it refreshing to return to XP after using the Vista machine. Okay maybe that's a positive: Vista makes XP feel great .

Every time I use that Vista machine I find something else wrong with Vista.

• Important features are renamed and relocated. Expect to lose a few hours figuring out things like where the Display control panel has gone.

• None of the new eye candy actually looks good.

• File operations are bewilderingly slow.

• Ordinary file operations suddenly require "permission". Then the new file permissions system sometimes fails inexplicably, and random files can become completely irremovable.

• Networking between XP machines and Vista machines is flakier than networking between XP machines and Macs . There appears to be no way of reverting to XP-style networking.

• Vista will automatically change hardware settings when you plug in external devices. There appears to be no way of disabling this.

It amazes me that Microsoft still haven't twigged: its most loyal customers get the most out of its products by SWITCHING THINGS OFF.

I'm still trying to figure out how to switch off all the awful new features in Vista, and I'm ready to fork out the cash for the upgrade to XP-64 - after I've thoroughly evaluated Ubuntu, that is.

 

[Lin Evans]

How can you possibly make this statement! The "vast" majority of the readers concur with Dvorak's finding and add additional reasons.

It's fine to like an OS but it's not right to misrepresent what readers are saying in the threads. That's begining to sound like an "agenda" rather than an unbiased report.

I strongly suggest that people read this for themselves!

Best regards,

Lin

 

[Ken_5D]

How can you possibly make this statement! The "vast" majority of the
readers concur with Dvorak's finding and add additional reasons.

It's fine to like an OS but it's not right to misrepresent what
readers are saying in the threads. That's beginning to sound like an
"agenda" rather than an unbiased report.

I strongly suggest that people read this for themselves!

Best regards,

Lin

I run Vista now on a bunch of machines.. 3 in the house.. 2 for work... It runs great.

People are young of have short memories.. because everything that has been said about Vista was said about XP in its first 2 years.
"Its got too much DRM / I hate activation"
"My Video drivers crash all the time"
"Its just Eye Candy"
"I am staying with Windows 97 / 2000"

Vista is more stable unless you get a bad driver or hardware combo if building your own machine.. ATI seems to be a bit more stable based on what I read.. but I have Nvidia in all my desktops. Haven't had an issues since Last June.

Once you learn the new UI... the explorer makes working with files better and
faster

My boss who didn't like search now loves it because for the first time he can find stuff he wrote for work or ppts from 5 years back in seconds

It is more secure

If you don't like the look you can go back to a Windows classic look at keep all the improvements.

It has more system tools for toubelshooting and recovering from problems..

It isn't perfect.. and if you need to you can tear it apart like George on Sienfeld who would break up with the nicest most beautiful girl becase on toe was too large.

It is better than XP period.. but like any new machine.. remove the bloat ware you don't need and if building your own research the parts well...

But on the cheapest machines.. XP or Vista basic is a good choice. If you have a working XP system, no rush to upgrade what works.

As to companies keeping XP.. two reasons.. businesses are slow to adapt.. and upgrade cycles that were 24 months are much slower now because most office workers don't need dual core etc..so businesses as a whole are not feeling a need to move. Just because there is still value in XP which there is.. it is a good OS is not proof that Vista sucks..

If you read these board people tend to post more about problems then anything that works.. so if you read these boards you would be sure.. that Epson sucks, Hp sucks, Canon sucks, Nikon Sucks, Sony Sucks, Pentax sucks.. etc.

There is little motivation to post "My computer works as expected" lots more if it fails which any system will... and often not Vista but bad software interactions.
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Lin Evans]

"It is better than XP period.. but like any new machine.. remove the bloat ware you don't need and if building your own research the parts well..."

Again - that's "your" opinion - others differ.

Statistics don't support your assertions. Even companies such as HP who sell systems in the public venue with Vista installed do not use Vista internally on their own notebooks or desktop systems. "Many" U.S. Government agencies forbid purchase of systems with Vista.

There are good reasons for these decisions - lack of backward compatibility with legacy hardware and software, the need to "remove the bloatware" (this takes time and time is money). No perceived advantage at all to pay for additional hardware resources, RAM, enhanced video GPU, etc., just to support the OS.

Vista is a slug of an OS - perhaps Redmond will do better next time around.

Best regards,

Lin

 

[MertzPhoto]

I hate hate hate Vista. Its like all the moo rons from microsoft marketing division got together and decided to change everything that made sense and people were used to about XP and then plaster it over a horribly flawed and slooooow platform. It is hauntingly familiar to the disaster that was Windows ME. I have a laptop which in terms of hardware, I really like. Its a Gateway NX860XL. T7200 chip, 2 gigs of ram, fast HD, beautiful 17" 1920x1200 screen and freakin' VISTA. The hard part is that even though the hardware will support XP, because I have some sort of special jumperboard on my motherboard which enables support of my SATA hard drive, I can't just reinstall XP without making some kind of "slipstream" OS which contains special drivers. I can't even do a reinstall of vista at this point either because my vista disc doesnt have the special drivers either. And I am up to my eyes in work so I can't afford the downtime to try and drudge my way through the process. Everything about vista blows. Everything. It is a real resource hog, a battery drainer, unstable, illogical, non-intuitive and trying its darndest to take over the world. I am seriously considering getting a mac. Ughh.

-L

--

I can always tell if somebody likes a photograph I've taken, because they instantly compliment the camera.

 

[Ken_5D]

I hate hate hate Vista. Its like all the moo rons from microsoft
marketing division got together and decided to change everything that
made sense and people were used to about XP and then plaster it over
a horribly flawed and slooooow platform. It is hauntingly familiar to
the disaster that was Windows ME. I have a laptop which in terms of
hardware, I really like. Its a Gateway NX860XL. T7200 chip, 2 gigs of
ram, fast HD, beautiful 17" 1920x1200 screen and freakin' VISTA. The
hard part is that even though the hardware will support XP, because I
have some sort of special jumperboard on my motherboard which enables
support of my SATA hard drive, I can't just reinstall XP without
making some kind of "slipstream" OS which contains special drivers. I
can't even do a reinstall of vista at this point either because my
vista disc doesnt have the special drivers either. And I am up to my
eyes in work so I can't afford the downtime to try and drudge my way
through the process. Everything about vista blows. Everything. It is
a real resource hog, a battery drainer, unstable, illogical,
non-intuitive and trying its darndest to take over the world. I am
seriously considering getting a mac. Ughh.

-L

Ha Ha Ha... (not laughing at your problem.. but your assumptions)

Translation:

I have a machine with new hardware and the maker has provided very poor support and has no drivers for XP and no easy recovery system for when I mess up the machine
But I love it...

XP can't use my new hardware and trying to put it on my machine messed things up.. but I love it.

Vista was installed and tested before I mucked around with it.. I hate Vista..

Any problems with this scenario? the only thing that has little to do with your problem is what you are blaming.
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Ken_5D]

"It is better than XP period.. but like any new machine.. remove the
bloat ware you don't need and if building your own research the parts
well..."

Again - that's "your" opinion - others differ.

Statistics don't support your assertions. Even companies such as HP
who sell systems in the public venue with Vista installed do not use
Vista internally on their own notebooks or desktop systems. "Many"
U.S. Government agencies forbid purchase of systems with Vista.

There are good reasons for these decisions - lack of backward
compatibility with legacy hardware and software, the need to "remove
the bloatware" (this takes time and time is money). No perceived
advantage at all to pay for additional hardware resources, RAM,
enhanced video GPU, etc., just to support the OS.

Vista is a slug of an OS - perhaps Redmond will do better next time
around.

Best regards,

Lin

You have some seriously flawed logic...

A) Most companies move slower even PC companies when it comes to rolling out systems.. partially because they often have bought a hodge podge of internal applications from companies that are slow to fix things.. XP is a good OS so there is no need to RUSH to Vista.. that is not proof that Vista is bad.

B) The Goverment is even slower.. often because of standards that take years to ratify .. Vista is not even 18 months old.. many bussiness lag 24-36 months because of all the internal testing they have to do with all the customer bussiness applications.

You logic is close to "Everyone who breathed the air in 1880 is dead, thus someone poisened the air in 1880"

XP is a good OS even after all the hair pulling and doom speak when it came out.. there is no need to rush.. that doesn't mean Vista is bad.

It would be nice if schools tought logic these days.. sigh...
--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Lin Evans]

"Schools" do teach logic - I taught logic at the university level so don't even try that dumb approach with me.

Your logic is that the existing so called "hodge podge" of software, hardware and other associated issue need to be updated to accomodate a slug of an operating system. Microsoft is right, the rest of the world is wrong.

Well, that's not how it works in the real world. That "hodge podge" of hardware and software is what keeps industry running and any software developer with a clue makes provisions for backward compatibility. Apparently, Microsoft didn't have a clue or probably more accurately are so ego-centric that they "thought" they could pawn off this ill-conceived mess on the public with their typical "buy our new and improved" attitude. Let the public "pay" to beta test our great new and improved OS. Oh don't worry, we'll never debug it and we are already touting our new and improved Window's 7 - but just keep that green stuff rolling our way so we can placate our shareholders. Yep, let all those dumb developers who made hrdware and software systems which won't work with "our" new OS wake up and "fix" their products to be compatible with us - LOL....

If there is any faulty logic issue here it's yours.

Best regards,

Lin

"It is better than XP period.. but like any new machine.. remove the
bloat ware you don't need and if building your own research the parts
well..."

Again - that's "your" opinion - others differ.

Statistics don't support your assertions. Even companies such as HP
who sell systems in the public venue with Vista installed do not use
Vista internally on their own notebooks or desktop systems. "Many"
U.S. Government agencies forbid purchase of systems with Vista.

There are good reasons for these decisions - lack of backward
compatibility with legacy hardware and software, the need to "remove
the bloatware" (this takes time and time is money). No perceived
advantage at all to pay for additional hardware resources, RAM,
enhanced video GPU, etc., just to support the OS.

Vista is a slug of an OS - perhaps Redmond will do better next time
around.

Best regards,

Lin

You have some seriously flawed logic...

A) Most companies move slower even PC companies when it comes to
rolling out systems.. partially because they often have bought a
hodge podge of internal applications from companies that are slow to
fix things.. XP is a good OS so there is no need to RUSH to Vista..
that is not proof that Vista is bad.

B) The Goverment is even slower.. often because of standards that
take years to ratify .. Vista is not even 18 months old.. many
bussiness lag 24-36 months because of all the internal testing they
have to do with all the customer bussiness applications.

You logic is close to "Everyone who breathed the air in 1880 is
dead, thus someone poisened the air in 1880"

XP is a good OS even after all the hair pulling and doom speak when
it came out.. there is no need to rush.. that doesn't mean Vista is
bad.

It would be nice if schools tought logic these days.. sigh...
--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Ken_5D]

"Schools" do teach logic - I taught logic at the university level so
don't even try that dumb approach with me.

Ok, I stand corrected.. YOU should have taken classes on logic

Your logic is that the existing so called "hodge podge" of software,
hardware and other associated issue need to be updated to accomodate
a slug of an operating system. Microsoft is right, the rest of the
world is wrong.

Well, that's not how it works in the real world. That "hodge podge"
of hardware and software is what keeps industry running and any
software developer with a clue makes provisions for backward
compatibility. Apparently, Microsoft didn't have a clue or probably
more accurately are so ego-centric that they "thought" they could
pawn off this ill-conceived mess on the public with their typical
"buy our new and improved" attitude. Let the public "pay" to beta
test our great new and improved OS. Oh don't worry, we'll never debug
it and we are already touting our new and improved Window's 7 - but
just keep that green stuff rolling our way so we can placate our
shareholders. Yep, let all those dumb developers who made hrdware and
software systems which won't work with "our" new OS wake up and "fix"
their products to be compatible with us - LOL....

If there is any faulty logic issue here it's yours.

Best regards,

Lin

You do realize that your attempt at logic is an argument to stay with DOS 6.0..

Vista has a new driver model.. one of the benefits is drivers has less likely to to crash the system. So YOUR work does not get lost when a driver problem or hardware problem causes what would be a BSOD on XP.

Pushing early Nvidia drivers with Flightsim X last spring just after release it was pretty amazing to see the OS restart the driver several times rather than crashing.. this become even more valuable when you are doing graphic work.. and you don't end up losing 20 minutes of work or more because a driver crashed.

Its a major improvement.. so makers have to write new drivers to support the new model..

Even then my 6 year old brother laster printer still works nicely in Vista with its duplexing and special media handeling features fully supported. If your hardware doesn'tr work.. again why is your hardware maker trying to FORCE you to buy thier new models vs doing a driver update for Vista? Blame where it belongs.. Microsoft can publish the drive SDKs, the have no power to make hardware makers give you good support so you don't have to upgrade the hardware.

The hay store is replaced by the gas station.. and hopfully unless too many people who are resistant to change like you have their way soon gas will be replaced with Hydrogen stations of some kind..

If you really believe nothing should change.. I dare you to roll back your systems to Windows 97.. because XP caused a lot of what was supported in 97 to not work.. So XP must also be an evil slog of an OS...

Logic and Historic context.. vs Fear Uncertainty and Doubt... thinking vs fearing can be a wonderful thing...

"It is better than XP period.. but like any new machine.. remove the
bloat ware you don't need and if building your own research the parts
well..."

Again - that's "your" opinion - others differ.

Statistics don't support your assertions. Even companies such as HP
who sell systems in the public venue with Vista installed do not use
Vista internally on their own notebooks or desktop systems. "Many"
U.S. Government agencies forbid purchase of systems with Vista.

There are good reasons for these decisions - lack of backward
compatibility with legacy hardware and software, the need to "remove
the bloatware" (this takes time and time is money). No perceived
advantage at all to pay for additional hardware resources, RAM,
enhanced video GPU, etc., just to support the OS.

Vista is a slug of an OS - perhaps Redmond will do better next time
around.

Best regards,

Lin

You have some seriously flawed logic...

A) Most companies move slower even PC companies when it comes to
rolling out systems.. partially because they often have bought a
hodge podge of internal applications from companies that are slow to
fix things.. XP is a good OS so there is no need to RUSH to Vista..
that is not proof that Vista is bad.

B) The Goverment is even slower.. often because of standards that
take years to ratify .. Vista is not even 18 months old.. many
bussiness lag 24-36 months because of all the internal testing they
have to do with all the customer bussiness applications.

You logic is close to "Everyone who breathed the air in 1880 is
dead, thus someone poisened the air in 1880"

XP is a good OS even after all the hair pulling and doom speak when
it came out.. there is no need to rush.. that doesn't mean Vista is
bad.

It would be nice if schools tought logic these days.. sigh...
--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com