Microsoft Plays Practical Joke On People To Convince Them They Like Vista

from the talk-about-getting-desparate dept

It’s no secret that Microsoft has a bit of a problem on its hands concerning the general public’s impression of Microsoft Vista. The fact that people regularly joke about “upgrading” to the previous OS version, XP, is clearly an issue for the company. So what did it do? Apparently, it played a bit of a practical joke on people, getting them to play around with Vista, while pretending it was an early version of the OS that will come after Vista. Microsoft was clearly trying to get quotes out of people about how cool it looked — and the company carefully made sure to get users of a wide variety of operating systems (Mac, Linux, Windows XP and Windows 2000, according to the site). While it might come across as a neat little publicity stunt, it does give you a sense of just how bad Microsoft’s initial marketing campaign was. In order to make up for it, the company had to trick people into trying out Vista. Ouch.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: microsoft

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Microsoft Plays Practical Joke On People To Convince Them They Like Vista”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Dan (profile) says:

Getting annoyed by this

Alright here goes:

The only people I have ever met that “hate” Vista are people that have never even used it. As a first year student at Georgia Tech, I bought a new laptop with Vista on it. Most of my friends used Vista. As far as I know, none of us had any issues with it, other than poor driver support from third parties like nVidia. In the year that I’ve had this laptop, I have had zero BSOD. Compare that to the 5 or 6 that I’ve had on my XP Professional desktop, that sits right next to my laptop on my desk and is used far less.

Microsoft’s biggest mistake was to let the Mac ad campaign drag Vista through the mud for so long without any kind of rebuttal. Ask any informed person that uses multiple OSes (like me, Leopard, Ubuntu, XP, and Vista) on a routine basis, and they’ll tell you that Vista just gets a bad rap, and isn’t anywhere near as bad as XP was when it first came out.

Michial (user link) says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

I’ve been running Vista since Release day last year, and can relate to #1. My observation is that the people that are complaining about Vista are either IT people that are too lazy to learn something new, hardcore pirates, and those that have never seen it.

I have to honestly say that for it being a Microsoft product it is one of the most intuitive packages I have ever worked with. Things are where you EXPECT to find them, or they are easily searched for. No bugs and I cannot even claim the driver problems because all my hardware worked from day one.

Trevlac says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

I do. I’m a Geek Squad agent and the number of OS corruptions or missing drivers or viruses and spyware infections we’ve seen since the release of Vista has immensely decreased.

The number of people just calling in to whine that they aren’t familiar with the OS has immensely increased.

Statistically I see horrible problems with XP and a lot more often than with Vista. About the worst problem right now is people using Limewire since it’s built with that old version of Java and it messes up explorer.exe and all kinds of stuff. But you shouldn’t use that piece of trash software anyway unless you WANT corruptions and infections.

All-around, if you don’t use legacy software that was coded badly to begin with, Vista is more than just fine, it’s better than Windows XP.

A few key notes:

Computers these days are more than capable of running it, hardware wise, for the same price that old XP machines were.

XP is 8 years old and still has corruption problems. That is simply inherent.

XP is unable to use a Quad-core processor.

XP is limited to 32-bit OS and 3.37GB of ram because the XP64 isn’t hardly compatible with anything, while on the other hand the Vista-64 is what all software designers are now going towards.

Vista has the hard drive live-indexed.

Vista has built in encryption

Vista has phenomenal troubleshooting abilities for networks and software. Trust me, next time your drivers go missing or your network messes up and Vista starts automatically fixing the problem, you’ll thank it.

XP will not be supported anymore.

Chris says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

Being that GA Tech is one of the top 5 engineering schools in the nation, GT students are adequately educated.

Bill you should consider enrolling at Tech (if you could get accepted) and learning how to tweak and cater Vista for one’s computer performance and capabilities.

Though it is not ideal to have to tweak an OS from its default condition, but I run Vista fine on laptop after a few adjustments.

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

That is about the snottiest thing I think I’ve read thus far. Regardless, if you think that college teaches you IT, you haven’t had a real IT job yet. I am good friends with the owners of several ISPs and the only people in their companies that have college degrees are phone techs. If you aren’t aware, engineering an ISP isn’t the same as tweaking Vista so if that’s your criteria, you’re either very young or very inexperienced/stupid.

Cranky Greg says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

I use XP (work and home desktop) and Vista (home laptop) regularly. I’m also an old *nix guy, but I haven’t used Mac much.

I despise vista. It continually aggravates me.

I hate the way every setting I was used to has moved for no apparent reason.

I hated the resource-gobbling extra crap that was enabled by default. Now that I’ve disabled most of it, system performance is ok. Of course, it pretty much looks like XP, too.

I hate the teeny-tiny start menu program list stack panel. Stack panels suck, especially if you have to scroll to find stuff. The expanding program list from XP was MUCH better for finding things except you can’t even switch to that in vista. You can switch to the 2000 start menu, but I prefer XP’s.

I hate the explorer search. I literally almost drop kicked my laptop across the room when it couldn’t find any files matching *.doc underneath a folder even though I knew there were many there. (Yes, there’s got to be a way to make this work, but it should work out of the box and I’m an impatient, cranky, old man.)

Did I mention the performance sucks?

I hate the emphasis on making things pretty and whiz-bang instead of useful. I think MS was really reaching for reasons to buy a new O/S since they keep getting slapped for bundling. There’s really nothing new here that’s very useful IMO.

Oh yeah, and I hate office 2007 as well and looking for that somewhat-rarely used function on the toolbar. Where is it? Somewhere in the massive screen-real-estate grabbing ‘ribbon’ thing amongst the jumble of text, icons and random crap. Have fun finding it. Drop menus & toolbars were just fine. Why change them?

XP never blue screens on me, performs reasonably well (for Windows) and has everything where I expect it to be. I’ll probably switch to linux once XP becomes obsolete.

All this is opinion, of course, so if you like Vista, then fine. I just wanted to point out that people do actually exist that have used vista and hate it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

“I had an issue trying to search for something on the new Windows OS… its *obviously* a terrible OS. I mean, if *I* can’t figure it out right away, it must be bad.” “Oh wow, they changed their interface and re-grouped things in ways that I have to figure out… ugh, why can’t they just never update an interface or never try to find better ways to group functions just so I don’t have to learn anything ever again. Damn this technology stuff… always changing on me.”

When somebody says, “performs reasonably well (for Windows),” you’ll never actually please them with a Windows system until its running a Linux kernel. In their eyes, if it doesn’t take a PhD to get a piece of hardware running.

Monarch says:

Re: Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

Ok, for those of you bashing Linux. I hardly know Linux at all, and guess what? I have a Linux machine I don’t hardly use, I built it to learn it. Took me a couple hours to get a USB wireless adapter to work with Ubuntu, but I figured it out.
Now a friend of mine has a computer whose boyfriend installed Vista on it, and asked me to try and get a wireless card to work, as she couldn’t get in touch with that so called boyfriend. Well, I’m one of those who haven’t used Vista yet, and probably won’t until I’m forced to. Hell I was like that with XP also. But I’ll tell you what, it was easier to learn how to navigate Ubuntu than to learn to navigate Vista. OH AND GUESS WHAT?!?!?!? I could not get the wireless PCI card nor my USB wireless adapter to work with Vista, no drivers for either. But guess what, they both work with Ubuntu and XP!

Moral of the story..,
The only way anyone is going to get me to use Vista, after that experience, will be because an application I need to use requires it, or my company switches to it. Until then Microscrap can keep it.

Trevlac says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

As a technician, allow me to address a few of your concerns.

The settings were moved, so now it’s time to re-learn them like you did when XP came out and you went from 98. Or like you did when 95 came out from 3.1. Microsoft does this with every generation of OS.

The resource grabbing extra-crap is enabled by default in XP too. Remember how it had indexed searches on? Also, when you buy a manufacturer computer they put their own trials on there that slow it down anyway. Since 90% of people buy manufacturer computers they’ll have to optimize it anyway so it’s peanuts compared to removing Norton 360 trials or getting rid of that ridiculous Acer e-software.

You can change the start-menu style to classic. The stack list is more optimal than the classic because you can’t lose your place by accidentally hovering the mouse over a blank space.

The search works fine. Have you talked to a troubleshooter about your indexing problem?

Look at the features list for Vista. Built-in encryption, file backup, network automation, troubleshooter, live indexing, parental controls, optional glossy interface, ability to have movies as your wallpaper, performance increase with media and gaming-related software, DirectX 10 graphical interpreter. The list goes on friend.

Concerning office 07: that has nothing to do with the Vista OS but I’ll say this, people complain about every graphical UI including adobe, fluxbox, KDE, and program manager from 3.1. Even the Mac OS UI pisses people off. You can’t please everyone.

XP statistically BSOD’s more commonly than Vista.

Most of what you said was opinion yes, except the part about it blue screening more, that’s a flat-out falsity.

John (user link) says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

As an old guy myself, I was interested at how much you sound like me!
I too have had the issue that Vista has stuff moved and renamed for no reason. Also it forces users to do what it wants, not what THEY want and have been happy with while using XP.
I can’t seem to add it to my home network of xp machines, but what irritates the most, it is on the wifes new Sony laptop that does not have drivers available to go back to XP with it. I say go back, that means chronologically, not in tech superiority.
Than there is the control panel, with fixed large icons.
I told the wife not to get it, but she figured I could fit XP on to it. We gave away a new PC we bought last year to a relative rather than bother with the Vista on it.
I will be trying Mac once XP gets too unmanageable or if MS foul it up in some weirdo marketing move.

hegemon13 says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

I have ‘used’ Vista plenty, fixing problems at the computer shop I worked for until recently. It stinks.

Part of it is Microsoft’s fault. They created a huge, bloated OS that requires 1GB of RAM to run smoothly, then told resellers than a system with 256MB of RAM could be marked as “Vista ready.” Many of the fixes for “problems” were hardware upgrades to brand new computers that could not support the OS they were running. Personally, I do not see any compelling reason to “upgrade” to a more bloated, resource-hungry OS when XP runs perfectly stable on my computer and does all I need it to do.

The other half of the problem lies with the hardware manufacturers. Unfortunately, driver support for Vista was slow to non-existent. Owners of nforce2 boards, which are older, but not nearly old enough to be called obsolete, learned that no driver would EVER be available for Vista. A number of printers less than a year old at the time of Vista’s launch have never received a Vista driver. Though all new hardware is well-supported, those with older hardware are out of luck.

Part of the success of XP was that the stability advantage of 98/ME was a compelling reason to upgrade older systems. That just is not the case with Vista because most older systems either do not have the power or the driver support to run it.

Wolferz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

You know I heard people make the exact same argument for sticking with 98 when xp came out… and for 98 when 95 came out.

Oh and I’m a computer tech too. Have my own business in fact. On that note it seems you don’t know much about what’s going on in the computer world. For a computer to be listed as Vista Ready a computer has to have at least 1 GiB of RAM. A Vista Capable machine has to have 512 MiB of RAM. Any computer that does not have these specs is not allowed to have Vista markings on the computer… any OEM that did so was breaking Microsoft’s licensing terms.

But hey, don’t feel too bad. Most “computer techs” have no more idea what they are talking about than 10 year old Timmy Mathison from across the street. At least you aren’t the only one passing himself off as knowledgeable.

Maxwell says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

Odd, my experience is just the opposite. Of the users I know running Vista, most have since told me how disappointed they are and how confusing it is to have to re-think where everything resides and how it’s supposed to work now.

From a support perspective, I have to agree — what a nightmare trying find things in the needlessly rearranged menus and restructured filesystem. I’m not saying that XP is the be-all-end-all for anything but please MS, make up your mind where things will live and what they’ll be called and then stick to it!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

Yea. Interfaces should never ever be updated. To hell with possibly making it easier to use for newcomers. Menus and stuff moved. Its a new OS. Deal with it. If thats there major issue, they’ll have that with any sufficiently updated version (god forbid… i wonder how they dealt with going from windows 3.1 to windows 95…)

Porked Potato says:

Re: Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

Well, let me say again. I had an IMPROVEMENT after installing SP1.

Not that I was complaining before.

I mean my brain is not afraid to learn new things. It only took me a few days to get used to the new file structure and interface.

People are just big babies. Go buy a mac if you don’t like it, have fun swinging from Jobs ball sack while your at it.

Chris says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Getting annoyed by this

Vista…marketed as a race car? Where were these ads? Did I just miss them? Again no driver issues, bugs, or speed problems for me ever since Creative wrote a friggen driver for my sound card. That was a week after it went on my box. A month or so after it’s release. Stop complaining, tuck your tail, and ask someone what they did differently. If not, buy a Mac. (speaking of interface changes)

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Getting annoyed by this

Crawling from a pit of alligators into a cess pool might be an improvement but it doesn’t mean you smell like roses. I note that you did NOT say that your performance improved when downgrading from XP to Vista, only from Vista to SP1. Very interesting.

Dan C says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

I agree, problems with Vista have been few and far between. I have seen this anticipation, aggrevation, anger and acceptance cycle before from various version of Windows since 2.1. Driver issues are real. Resource issues are real but can be optimized. Speed issues are usually memory related and/or configuration related. Yes Vista is slightly slower in some operations but it is as stable as XP. It also uses new technology like superfetch that can improve performance. There are new troubleshooting tools that make my job in IT easier. It is a more secure operating system than XP. There are tradeoffs but we must continue to attempt to move forward and stop driving the ’67 Chevy without floorboards and seatbelts. OS’s aren’t a religion – I’m tired of the factions that assemble around them.

Dan C says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

I agree, problems with Vista have been few and far between. I have seen this anticipation, aggrevation, anger and acceptance cycle before from various version of Windows since 2.1. Driver issues are real. Resource issues are real but can be optimized. Speed issues are usually memory related and/or configuration related. Yes Vista is slightly slower in some operations but it is as stable as XP. It also uses new technology like superfetch that can improve performance. There are new troubleshooting tools that make my job in IT easier. It is a more secure operating system than XP. There are tradeoffs but we must continue to attempt to move forward and stop driving the ’67 Chevy without floorboards and seatbelts. OS’s aren’t a religion – I’m tired of the factions that assemble around them.

sam says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

I’m with Dan. XP was far worse when it was released. Vista is much faster booting. Poor driver support is a flashback to XP first release. I have a friend who knows next to nothing about PCs and she likes Vista (after dumping a printer that is not supported with vista). should you run out and upgrade XP for Vista? not really. But it’s not something to fear ether. LOL it took me 3 years to embrace XP. It’s funny to hear how everyone is now warm and fuzzy with it.

Ed (user link) says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

I just don’t get it. I’ve worked on a whole bunch of Vista systems (~20+) of different brands and models and every single one is slow as dirt. I don’t know what kinda gear you guys that claim it boots faster than XP are using, but that’s straight-up hogwash. Vista takes forever to boot. We’re not talking about resuming from sleep here folks. My favorite – on a new Vista system after unboxing, after waiting forever for that P.O.S. to load, you get to a screen that says “Please wait while Vista tests your system performance” and it takes…. for…. ever. OH. MY. GOD. I want to puke. Get me to the frickin’ desktop already! I don’t care about your silly performance ratings! Other posters have already hit all the main points – slow as dirt, needs WAY TOO MUCH RAM, they’ve rearranged everything, it’s just a joke. Microsoft has admitted to making User Account crap annoying on purpose! Turn it off and you get warned that you turned it off. Oh, transferring files… another beauty. S…l….o….w…

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

We’re not “warm and fuzzy with it”, we simply don’t want to move to a more inferior operating system.

I make quite a decent living converting people’s new machines over to XP from Vista because they hate it that much. The rate of converts hasn’t gone down since SP1 either.

Matt says:

Re: vista is crap, but congrats for making your 50cents buddy

Really, vista is total crap. I don’t know one person who doesn’t have a gripe or a problem and wish they didn’t have it. Many don’t have the technical knowledge to know how bad they have sold into because those folks didn’t have a choice (try to get a non vista pc for the last many months?)

NEthingBUTvista (user link) says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

I work for in IT, I have a solid understanding of both the OS, and the average, uneducated consumer, which is who buys vista, especially on an out-of-the-box PC, they love the look-pretty crap, the functionality is garbage, and Windows 7 is joke as well, its another epic failure, brought to you by MS!

Bryan James (profile) says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

Hi, nice to meet you, I work in IT, use Vista daily and HATE it. why should I need 2 GB of ram just for the OS?!? Why for some major “features” of the OS do I need a 3d Graphics card? I use Linux and XP on far lesser machines (p3’s compared to a quad core, 2gb ram vista machine) and move around much faster.

Admittedly it does better after SP1, but still needs a ton of work

Kjell Andorsen says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

Look, if you want to use ancient hardware, then don’t use Vista. It’s really simple, so please stop whining about it. Buying a computer with 2GB ram these days that will run Vista without issues is still a lot cheaper than buying a computer that would run XP smoothly back in 2002. And back then we had the fanatical anti-MS crowd singing the same tune.

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

Funny, I can’t see where the GP said he was using ancient hardware, only that he didn’t see a need for 2GB of ram just to run the operating system.

I also think you aren’t reading very well. He said he uses XP, and didn’t seem to be complaining about it but you implied he was anti-M$. You don’t have to be anti-M$ to know that Vista was not an improvement and to complain about it.

jonnyq says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

Maybe you’re misunderstanding the reasons people “hate” Vista?

People “hate” it for these reasons:
– It’s a drastic change in interface with little to no real day-to-day benefit.
– It’s a drastic change in requirements with little to no real day-to-day benefit
– It’s a drastic change in price/cost with little to no day-today benefit
– The artificial market created by making 6 different version with different featuresets confuses people, creates a support nightmare.
– Third-party compatibility issues really are Microsoft’s fault. Why was the API changed so drastically? Why is backward compatibility that hard?

It’s not a “zomg Vista is unstable” issue. That’s a strawman argument.

If you use other OS’s, you’ll know that OSX is a drastic interface change that offers a lot of benefit. Apple worked hard on backward compatibility as well. Compositing on Linux desktops has added a lot of extra features without drastically changing the interface and moving menus around, and yet my nVidia drivers for Linux are still compatible, and the requirements haven’t changed a whole lot.

Wolferz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Getting annoyed by this

“- Third-party compatibility issues really are Microsoft’s fault. Why was the API changed so drastically? Why is backward compatibility that hard?”


“- The artificial market created by making 6 different version with different featuresets confuses people, creates a support nightmare.”

It was a requested feature. And it’s 4 “editions.” With various sub-versions for 64bit vs 32 bit machines and OEM vs Retail. Something like 16 versions total if you wanna get technical. Oh and I’ve had no problem supporting them. For 99.9% of problems the edition or version of vista is irrelevant, as the symptoms and solutions is the same. If you take a little time to learn the differences between editions and take a quick run to system properties to get that info the rest is cake.

“- It’s a drastic change in price/cost with little to no day-today benefit”

Price didn’t really change… XP Home = Vista Home for price. XP Pro = Vista Premium for price. If your looking to save some money and don’t need the extra features you can get Vista Home Basic, the cheapest windows since windows 95, or if your a business with special needs you can get Vista Business.

“- It’s a drastic change in requirements with little to no real day-to-day benefit”

Many of my clients like features like the indexing service. And while the requirements have gone up, the cost of a computer to run it is lower than it was at XP’s launch. So it doesn’t really matter that requirements are higher. You can get a Vista Ready computer for $400 from Dell and never have a problem with it being slow.

“- It’s a drastic change in interface with little to no real day-to-day benefit.”

Many of my clients like the new layout better. They find it faster and more intuitive to use. Personally so do I.

ya' right says:

Re: I call Shenanigans!

I’ve used Vista and it SUCKS. I’m so tired of hacking the registry to get my DVD-ROM/CDR to recognize a disk. I hate the nag “such and such is trying to modify” and I know you can turn it off, but what is the point.

It was a bomb, 75% of the promised features were dropped to get it out the door WAY later than promised, and that’s the way it is. I’m glad you are happy, but there are a LOT of people who know it sux and say it sux, so it sux.

Wolferz (profile) says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

I recently (bout 6 months ago) built a computer to use as a workstation and server for a client. I’m aware that the server should have been a stand alone machine and I told the client this as well… as I had been telling him for years. Unfortunately this client had been using his server as a workstation for years without problem… except for his kids getting on it to play games and generally gunking it up with spyware.

So on their new server I installed Vista Business. At first the office worker, my client’s wife, did not like it. However the computer remained rock solid stable and without spyware for the duration. She stopped complaining about it after about a week.

Recently they have attempted to do several new things with their server (streaming video to their website). As a result of using it as a workstation as well they had problems. I explained to the client that he really needed a separate machine for his wife to work on. He purchased a machine off of ebay running Windows XP (paid $150). It’s a fine little machine for what she uses it for and I installed Firefox and Avast! AV to keep it clean. Two months in and she’s all but begging me to convince Robert she needs Vista. She HATES XP now. I hear about it every time I come in to check progress on their new building.

*shrug* This combined with my own experiences and the mountain of misinformation I hear constantly repeated by people bashing vista tells me vista isn’t nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Tom Maddox says:

Re: Getting annoyed by this

I’ve been using Vista for several months on a pretty high-end desktop. I hate it. I hate the way it crashes, its general intolerance for software it doesn’t like, the way it and my printer don’t do well together.

I have had multiple screens of death.

Meanwhile, my XP computer, on the same network, hums along.

So go ahead and get annoyed, Dan. You’ll have a hard time getting as annoyed as I am with this OS.

GearsofPeace says:

This sounds like...

Marketing bullshit.
1) Microsoft has decided that “Vista is great, its just perceived as shitty” is the way to re-market Vista.
2) Step one: gin up some bogus “Dishwashing liquid? YOU ARE SOAKING IN IT!” survey, that supposedly proves this point, even though they give no real details about it, except for the smug “Gotcha” conclusion.
3) ?
4) Profit.

Patrick says:

Vista sucks

Anyone that thinks that Vista is an improvement over XP is delusional. I absolutely despise it for such great “features” as taking three times as long to boot up and needing to reboot in the morning before it will connect Outlook to the Exchange server if left on all night. It’s also a step backwards with jump drives taking twice as long to recognize them. I keep an old XP desktop to use when I want to get actual work done.

PHil says:

Re: Vista sucks

“I absolutely despise it for such great “features” as taking three times as long to boot up and needing to reboot in the morning before it will connect Outlook to the Exchange server if left on all night. It’s also a step backwards with jump drives taking twice as long to recognize them.”

That’s not vista’s fault, sounds more like your software is buggy. My vista boots up faster than my XP and my outlook isn’t wierd.

Matt says:

Re: Re: Vista sucks

Why are you all complaining about this? I have 2 identical desktops, one with Vista Ultimate and one with XP (both with all available updates).

The boot speed is about the same on either, and Vista is WAY more visually impressive. Especially with Ultimate. It is much easier to navigate networking drives, thumbnails are shown for every picture/movie file, and the start menu has a box where you type the beginning of a word and it automatically shows you files or settings that begin with those letters. Not like that cumbersome and practically useless XP search.

And when you highlight a file in explorer, it automatically shows you relevant information (free space, file type, artist, size.. whatever applies to that type of file). And when you click “end task”, it ends the God damn task. XP just pretends it didn’t hear you. Did I mention only 1 BSOD in over a year?

If you are running an old, crappy, out of date machine that uses old hardware then those manufacturers don’t always come up with a Vista-compatible driver, but who’s fault is that? Just buy a halfway decent computer with hardware less than half a decade old and everything will work out fine.

Mike Moore says:

Re: Re: Vista sucks

Sure it is Vista’s fault.
If I build a PC with a set of swappable drives (which I have) and load Vista on one, XP on another and Server 2008 on another guess which ones load the fastest? (BTW all use the same software and hardware.) Hands down Server 2008 boots fastest (35 Seconds), then XP (40) and then Vista (90).

I am s Systems Tech from a Ski Resort and we have around 300 machines 1 uses Vista the rest are XP except the servers. I refuse to upgrade to Vista at this time same as IBM and Intel. Sure it’s stable but at what cost? Total hardware replacement! It’s not worth it and XP is not broke, it just finally got fixed.

pferland (user link) says:

Re: Vista sucks

What I hate is when people blame a driver misconduct on the OS. most if not all the problems that I have had experienced or heard of are third party software. I was having a constant issue with my computer at work (Dell Optiplex 740). I have Vista x64 on it, and my network card would just randomly stop working. I would get the little yellow triangle, and the only way to get back on the network was to reboot or reinstall the drivers. So, I switched from the generic Dell/Broadcom Nextream driver to the Broadcom 57xx driver for Vista x64 and all has been well since. Although when i was installing x64 for the first time, I had 4GB of ram in the box (didnt matter the qty of sticks or anything, just more then 3GB) I would always get a BSOD, bring it down below 4GB and it would start running again.

Jakaan says:

Re: Vista sucks

Patrick is absolutely right. I have an old eMachine laptop with 1GB of RAM that runs XP, and I have a new Dell Inspiron 1720 with 4GB of RAM and the old computer boots quicker, works quicker, and has far fewer “hang ups” (not quite a crash, but almost) than the new computer. I also had to use a friend’s Mac book recently for a couple of days and it has Leopard on it, and I guarantee you if I had it to do all over, I’d scrap the Dell and spend the extra money on a Mac.

XP Nut says:

looks pretty, but looks are everything

Sure, it has some neat features… but it’s really about performance. Windows XP runs circles around Vista in performance. Even with access to more memory, XP just SMOKES vista in performance in both games and applications (like Photoshop).

Do a search and you’ll find MANY unbiased, third party tests that all say the same thing… Vista looks pretty, but looks are everything. When you want to actually DO something other than LOOK at the computer, you’re going to want XP.

JPong says:

Re: looks pretty, but looks are everything

Not that I have any Photoshop comparisons but here is a link you should check out.

Notice how Vista SP1 equaled or bettered anything XP did?

XP is nice and all but the requirements for Vista are blown out of proportion. Just this morning I checked my System Monitor, I was using 800MB of my 4GB of RAM, and guess what 130 of that was Firefox, and another 80 was iTunes. I get an improvement gaming in Vista and I haven’t bothered to tweak the install since I built my new computer.

The security features are nice in Vista, and the UAC is not nearly as bad as most people would have you believe. It is annoying the first couple days when you are installing all your apps but after that it is a nice extra layer of protection.

ModestOne says:


Only people that have never used Vista don’t like it?

Are you insane?

The only people I know that are actually negative about Vista, are people that have tried, HARD, to use it, and have ended up going back to XP.

I should not have to wait 10 mins for my computer to restart, or shutdown.

I should not have to have 3 gigs of memory completely occupied, and the entire computer unusable, just because I left my computer on a couple days..

I leave my XP machines and Linux machines on indefinitely, and RARELY ever feel like I have to reboot.

My Vista machine? If i don’t reboot it every two days, it will force me to, by locking up applications constantly.

Also, I shouldn’t need to provide authorization 4 times in a row for something I clicked on myself. (And should not have to disable everything to get around it.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Vista is actually pretty friggin' nice

I’ve had far fewer issues on my Vista machine than my XP machine. Even if you take into account only the issues that affected my XP machine since I got my Vista machine, its still been less (though, its like saying XP had one problem and Vista had none… Windows in general just isn’t as bad as people say). I’ve had significant more trouble with my Ubuntu system than I’ve had with my Vista system. People complain about driver compatibility with Vista, yet nobody complains about trying to get a friggin’ wireless adapter to work on a linux box. I plug it into Vista, it works. After an hour or so of figuring out WHAT to do and getting what I need, I can then go about the arduous process of editing files and installing other packages just to get the adapter working on Ubuntu. People let Linux slide with so much crap that Windows handles so smoothly. You *need* to be an expert at Linux to get it to run as easily as Windows.

Its just popular to bash Microsoft and especially to bash Vista. It’s not a bad operating system. In fact, if it was released back then as it is now, it’d have no publicity issues whatsoever. Its only people who used it *then* that are speaking badly about it. Yea, it had a rocky start and it kinda sucked… but its not bad anymore.

Old_Bones says:

I my experience those who don’t like Vista are the same crowd who where pissing and groaning about XP when it first released. Been running Vista Ultimate 64bit, since day 1 on my desktop and have a new notebook with the same OS. No problems, no BSOD, it just works. Learn your tech before you whine like a girl.

R3d Jack says:

Here's an anecdote

I know one person who knows PC’s and who likes Vista. He’s a PC support tech, and he likes the security system. Vista’s security system guarantees that the user can’t screw up their machine. It basically turns a PC into a thin client (that needs lots of resources). What’s not to like?

On the other hand, I use Zone Alarm Suite on my XP machine, and it handles security nicely, and it lets me tell it to remember my choices. I bought a iMac for the family, and it’s faster than my XP machine and the LAF is fantastic and fast.

I don’t hate Vista, I haven’t tried Vista, and I will do whatever I can to avoid using Vista. XP (with a couple add-ons) and OS X are simply better OS’s.

Patrick II says:

There are many issue related to Vista that really pisses me off. Being a gold partner of MS I’m on the bleeding edge of technology. Vista has been by far the most upsetting release to date.

– my first laptop was upgrade from XP to Vista, after a couple months of frustration (and a battery life of 10min.) I reverted back to XP (couldn’t be happier).
– My second laptop is beefed up (4gb mem, 256mb vid, 72k/rpm disk and duo centrino) with the power life has gotten better, somewhat. Its all the little stuff that happens within Vista that gets so frustrating.

My solution: Vista will get better…eventually. Download a free copy of ‘virtual PC’ from MS and install XP on that. When something doesn’t work on Vista (Cisco VPN, for example) I simply startup the image and work from there. Its a tiny step forward.

Hodgii says:


I started using 2K and XP in 2002 and have been using Vista for the past year. I have had no problems with it after i turned off the UAC. As far as finding features in Vista and Office 2k7, it’s a little key called F1…been there for years.

And correct me if i am wrong here but isn’t it the hardware manufacturer’s responsibility to produce drivers for any OS?

Anonymous Coward says:

I think a lot of the Vista fanbase are of a younger generation (which is perfectly fine and not meant as an insult). But remember the past upgrades? 95 to 98 almost removed the need for manually juggling IRQ’s etc.
98 to XP saw the functionality of plug and play work for the first time.

XP to Vista…….. ok, it’s shiny…… I guess I’ll go buy a Mac or install Ubuntu instead…..

Flyfish says:

it works

I have almost 30 years in IT, I started with early dos, vms and unix.

Vista works ok – the interface is annoying – yep they moved everything. But on the single PC I have that has it installed it runs just fine (64 bit sp1). Is it as stable as XP? perhaps not. Am I having constant problems with it? Nope.

As near as I can tell Vista got a worse rap than it deserves (just as Macs get a better one), except for the stupid interface changes. But then they’ve got to have something to put on the new improved MCSE tests for those who bother with such tripe. Testing is a revenue stream too.

CM says:

There is nothing wrong with Vista

I have two identical, high-end systems. Dual core intel class machines with 4 gigs of ram and 7900 series Geforce video(512mb). One has XP sp3 and the other Vista sp1. I have identical software loaded on both – including Office 2007, Adobe Photoshop CS2, Battlefield 2142, Ages of Empires 3, MS Flight Sim X. Everything I have tested has significant performance increases on Vista. Performance increases range from nominal (office 2007) to extreme -graphically intense games which run far better with much greater detail displayed. Most people that have gripes about Vista are wrong in believing it will bring new life to a marginal, or down right old system. If its 3 years old… it’s an old computer. As for those who purchase a new computer with Vista pre-loaded and actually believe XP runs better on it. I have but one thing to say. You are doing yourself a great dis-service by pulling the most secure Microsoft OS and replacing it with a very highly patched, soon to be antiquated OS. Don’t get me wrong, XP is a solid platform (best to date for Microsft) and has served the home and business markets well. However… it’s time to move on. Embrace the future

ScytheNoire (profile) says:

Vista > XP

I’ve used both Vista and XP extensively and Vista is superior to XP in many ways. On a GOOD computer, Vista is great. XP is just so damn old and insecure. Vista is bloated though, and it’s hard to justify it’s high price at retail for what little extra you get over XP. So if you have a new multicore CPU with 2GB+ RAM and GeForce 7+ video card, go with Vista. If you don’t, stick with XP until you can get a good computer. But on a good computer, nothing wrong with Vista, just a bunch of haters who have crap computers or don’t know what they are doing.

Zach says:

Vista ain't that bad

I use Vista 64-bit on one desktop (gaming, recording tv, watching blu-ray), Ubuntu Linux on another right next to it, and Fedora linux on my laptop and can say that Vista really does get more of a bad rap than it deserves. Certain parts are annoying:
-Privileges dialog is too intrusive and generally isn’t very useful (they should look at the Ubuntu or Fedora versions for how it should be done)
-Blu-ray support is flaky at best (I’ve just gone to ripping them all first)
-System reqs are a little extreme
In reality Vista is nothing more than a Serious update to XP Pro with a bit of added security.
I personally avoid the apple OS like the plague mostly because the DRM of the Itunes environment and that it just feels like linux with something missing (all real user control)

chris (profile) says:

people think vista sucks, that means it sucks.

the “market” is still composed of people. people’s opinions, however uninformed, determine the market. the market for vista just isn’t that friendly.

MS is still high from the days when people camped out for windows 98 and is still trapped in the delusion that they can do no wrong.

it’s a different world now. the great unwashed masses have had computers long enough to be comfortable with them, and with the internet, so they are a much harder sell for a new version of windows than in the past.

in the past, people got the latest version of windows with their first computer so they could finally get online. back then people didn’t know any better. that’s changed a bit.

while they may still not know any better, they are reluctant to change and vista is not compelling enough to overcome said reluctance.

Haywood says:

It is ok if you tame it

I have 2 Vista machines under my care, + better than dozen XP & 2000 machines & 3 Linux boxes. If you have the hardware and expertise, Vista can be good, if not it bites the big one.
I agree with the fellow who pointed out the tweaks and adjustments moved for no apparent reason, it is like entering a foreign land, but the determined will persevere. The point being that if you want to sell a lot of them, why put yourself in a position where only the the advanced user will tackle the task. Had this been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, it would have been well accepted, XP is a little long in the tooth. But as it is most will throw their hands up and back step. I went for the gusto with my personal Vista machine, dual core chip, 4 gig of ram + a 4 gig flash ram in a usb port, 512m PCIe card, and after disabling most of the annoying power robbing stuff it runs as well an XP Machine with 1 gig ram. The learning curve was nearly vertical, but I can call myself an advanced user now. I highly recommend Vista Smoker, it does a lot of what I learned to do the hard way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, like my place of employment gives a HOEY about the price of something we already pay for in licensing.

I work as a network engineer at a bank and Vista hasn’t been any serious consideration to this point. It usually takes a 3 minute conversation to push out any thoughts on migration.

XP works flawlessly after having been worked to perfect stability and functionality over the last decade or so.

There simply is no need or reason to go through the hassle.

Alfred Vilsmeier says:

Vista ins't bad at all!

Well, I’ve been specializing in MS OS’s for nine years already and i can pretty accurately say :

Vista isn’t “crappy” or “shitty” like everyone says, you just gotta get used to it, changes come for a reason.
Peop-le keeps complaining that its slower than XP – question: Was Xp faster than 98? Win98SE would be there and back again while XP was still loading. Its a far more powerful OS, what would you expect?? Search features are great, love how i can even search all my mailboxes from the start menu. It’s true at the beginning it may be a little shocking to get used to vista but customizing User Account Control and Internet Security just does the trick. I still have some compatibility issues with some older software but it will eventually pass, thats the purpose of technology…
I don’t agree at all with people that says Vista is crap. I use Ubuntu, XP, Vista and Leopard EVERYDAY at work and I like Vista better by far to do common stuff only cause most of my tools work on diff OS’s.
get to know your system better, you’ll be glad you did…

Anonymous Coward says:

not only is it kind of desperate to resort to the tactics that fast food and a few other industries use (you think that sandwich was worth $20? what if you knew it was available for ~$5 at ****) it also falls apart when the demo is probably completely rigged, they probably spent hundreds of man-hours making sure that everything in that rig works, users are not allowed to install new things, and no need to configure anything.

also it is a 10 minute demo, hardly enough to find the real problems. compounded with the idea that these people don’t know their OSes well enough to notice Vista when they see it and the result is a misrepresentation of people’s problems with vista.

my laptop came with vista. I had it for two days, it took me over an hour to hook it up to my wireless network (the solution? turn off all of my wireless security, then re-enable it after I connected). that was just one of my complaints, but I couldn’t stand feeling the hand-held-are-you-sure-you-know-what-you’re-doing? that it constantly gave me, it is what made me turn to Linux as my primary OS (I had only used it as a secondary OS in the past) and among my various computers, only one has windows on it now (mostly due to using Linux in a specific scenario or having problem reinstalling windows for one reason or another).

and no I don’t hate microsoft or windows, I just dislike vista and plan to upgrade my windows computer to Server 2008 (currently has server 2003). I find the server line to be better (with less bloat too) than xp or vista while still allowing everything that they do.

Anonymous Coward says:

I enjoy Vista and am another who is sick of people complaining about it. I don’t what what people are smoking, but Vista boots up very quickly for me. I admit it is slightly slow to shut down .. but how often do you need to sit there and make sure it boots down before you leave.

People who complain about how settings have moved just need to grow up and stop fearing change. Yea, I still have a hard time finding the equivalent of “Add/Remove Programs” because of the change in name, but it isn’t enough for me to hate the OS. Change happens, get over it and adapt.

My computer runs for days at a time without rebooting, without any memory problems. I have never had a problem with drivers or anything, and I enjoy the aero glass feel.

I guess it is just a matter of opinion, but I do really think that tons of people have this preconceived notion to hate Vista … like kids and lima beans or something.

CJay says:

Practical Example

Had a $1600 Sony Vaio from 2002 running XP. Used it to work mostly in Word and Web Browsing. Bought a $2000 Viao with Vista last year as the old one seemed to be slowing down and not dealing with large documents well. New one is double the RAM and double the processor speed and is twice as slow as the old laptop in doing the same work. No technophobia, not unwillingness to upgrade, just pure and simple needing to get the job done faster and Vista failed. ‘Downgraded’ to XP and now I have the performance boost I expected from a new laptop. The one thing Vista did do better was detect the wireless printer with ease. I think Vista is an attempt to mimic the Mac Os but done with bloat instead of streamlined beauty.. but I rarely use Macs so that’s just an outside opinion.

Paul says:

Beside the point.

Vista’s birthing issues aside, the point isn’t whether or not Vista sucks. The point is that Microsoft is in a position to pull the rug out on everyone who is settled in and doesn’t want to change from XP. The issue for me is they want to retire XP and of course that’s what they have to do if they want to keep their monopoly business model rolling along.

Vista may or may not suck. It really depends on what you do and what your needs are. Monopolies however definitely suck.

VistaTard says:

I actully like Vista.

I have a question. How many days have you been able to run XP without needing to reboot? Now how many days have you been able to run Vista without having to reboot? My guess is that XP requires less reboots and maybee less freezes.

My next question is how many days since you’ve last had to reformat your PC running XP due to malware/adware? Did you loose those family photos and documents that you forgot to backup?

Hate to say it, but I actually like Vista. Haven’t had any adware or spyware infect my computer since installig it nearly eight months ago. I spent more time fighting adware and spyware on XP than actually using it.

I’d rather be repeatedly prompted from security confirmation dialogs in Vista then being prompted by the latest malware ad popups from within XP. You know the ones (Your computer has been scanned and determined to be infected with this laundry list of of security threats. Would you like to clean it? First, You much purchase a full copy of this ill-legitimate program, that you never actually installed in the firstpalce, to disinfect).

Most times you can’t disinfect XP from these and after spending countless hours of looking for a solution, through forums, searching windows registry, to rid XP of malware and end up with no solution but to re-format and re-install XP. Windows XP has been the least productive environment to me due to the adware/malware problems and I prefer to use Vista so that I can keep my sanity.

If I hadn’t the need to connect to the internet then XP would do just fine. But since the internet is part of my daily life, I’ll stick with Vista because it is more secure and less frustrating by not having to reformat.

I can trust returning to a non-infected computer running Vista after my teenagers have gotten on it to visit myspace.

Rodney says:


I am a Microsoft Certified Trainer, MSPS, and other things. To me, Vista is like Mac with Win 2.0 reliability. It is like a Mac machine in that if you don’t use exactly what MSFT wants you to, it blows up. Macs are just like Vista in that if you use something they don’t want you to it Just Doesn’t Work.
I average a minimum of 2 BSOD’s a day.
I Hate Vista so much I am finally going to go to Linux, since MSFT is going to stop supporting XP.
Imho Vista is worse than Mellinium. But not by much.

Rodney says:


I am a Microsoft Certified Trainer, MSPS, and other things. To me, Vista is like Mac with Win 2.0 reliability. It is like a Mac machine in that if you don’t use exactly what MSFT wants you to, it blows up. Macs are just like Vista in that if you use something they don’t want you to it Just Doesn’t Work.
I average a minimum of 2 BSOD’s a day.
I Hate Vista so much I am finally going to go to Linux, since MSFT is going to stop supporting XP.
Imho Vista is worse than Mellinium. But not by much.

Anonymous Coward says:


There’s the simple truth. If you have 2GB of RAM and a very basic video card you can enjoy Vista with all the ‘glory’ of Aero without any slowdown. It’ll kill your battery life on a laptop, but it isn’t slow by any means.

I have Vista on my laptop and my desktop. My laptop is an Inspiron 1501 with a AMD64 Turion X2 and 2GB of RAM and an ATI mobility card with 128megs.

I have Vista Ultimate x64 installed on it and I have no performance issues with the eye candy turned on other than an 80 minute battery, which is to be expected.

I have 8GB of RAM, 2 8800GT with 1GB (!), Q6600 Intel quad core 64 bit processor and an Asus Xonar D2X. Also running Vista Ultimate x64 with all the eye candy on.

That machine has two problems. First, Goldrush on TF2 causes a crash every other update. NO OTHER Steam games have any crashes or issues. Hell Doom2 in DOSBOX runs great.

Second, the sound drivers for the Xonar suck. Horribly. All my ‘issues’ are related to that sound card. The drivers are the only complaint anyone has with that card, and its a common complaint.

When it works, its worth its money. When it freaks out (all my sound coming out of my right speakers sometimes, or arbitrary channel switching) it sucks. Again, nothing to do with Vista as this happens to people on XP.

If you have Vista Ultimate x64, FEED IT. If you don’t have 2GB of RAM and a DX9 video card (any will do) you won’t be able to use Vista effectively.

This does bring up something else though. What about Home Starter, Basic, and Premium? I cant speak for Premium, but for Starter and Basic it seems Microsoft has intentionally crippled the OS.

My laptop came with Basic. It’s performance was just as bad as everyone raves. Curious after seeing a co-worker with a comparable laptop on Ultimate x64 I installed my desktop copy on it. Cranked all the settings up and its flawless. I can even play TF2 without impacting the graphics settings on my laptop.

So Vista sucks, unless you have the hardware and the Ultimate version. Just like many people thought XP home sucked compared to Professional (least people I know).

All that Vista defending said, I’m so getting Debian on my laptop. Vista is nice and all but Compiz-Fusion is way too fun to play with and I don’t dual boot.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

it is not an issue of not wanting to upgrade specs. it is an issue with the specs being exceptionally high when compared to other Operating Systems that do that same thing. you can run Linux with Compiz-fusion that gives your desktop environment so much shine and effects you’ll need sunglasses to use it on a computer that vista won’t even try to work on.

Joe K says:

Vista == BAD?!?

No operating system should ever need 1GB of memory to run. period. 1 GB to run at a “meets expectations” level. 2 GB to run smoothly.

Vista is definitely eye candy. In my experiences as IT support I make the following declaration. If you are a standard user Vista is fine. If you are a super user VISTA blows. Nothing is where it has resided FOREVER. The annoying security nonsense it pure stupidity.

So you can hate vista all you want but you either use it or use another OS. Those are your choices and if you knee jerk reaction is ” doesn’t run” then shut and use vista if on the other hand your main concern is MS Office for productivity because your corporate entity sold its soul to MS years ago then you have plenty of options. Linus, Solaris, Unbuntu, OSX. All are great slick looking interfaces with either great office analogs (OPEN OFFICE) or actual version of MS office to use.

So if you hate make changes to avoid the object of your hate. Personally I feel Vista is a bloated resource pig on a PC and the next version will only be worse. But it will include multi-touch so that should atone for its insufferable shortcomings.

Jamesxc says:

You have two computer set up identically? One with Vista and one with XP? For what possible reason would you do something like that? There is absolutely no point outside of trying to make a point on this discussion. If that is the case, I can only say that you need help.

I do not have Vista. I will never have Vista. I am also a college student, and all of the freshmen who come into the dorms with their brand-new Vista machines inevitably end up complaining about them. They don’t let me game. They freeze up all the time. Start-up takes too long.

Thanks, I’ll stick with XP, and when I feel like upgrading, Ubuntu is a far better alternative.

Anonymous Coward says:

I have been using Vista in my workplace for six months and I am not happy with it. It does not play nice with three different pieces of software I need to do my job. Thus, in addition to my Vista box I keep an XP pro notebook at my side so that I can 1) manage our phone system, 2) print reports from from our accounting system via Crystal, or 3) dump data from our accounting system to our CRM.

Is it MS’ fault that software critical to my job will not run on its OS? Yes.

I’ve upgraded desktop Windows versions five times in my professional life (WFW3.11-> Win95-> Win98SE-> Win2000pro-> WinXP-> Vista). When we upgrade from Windows version X to Windows version Y we should reasonably expect to see improved performance, new features that make is easier to get work done, and backwards compatibility. In the event I got many new hurdles and hoops that slow my work, noticeably degraded performance compared to XP on the same hardware, and critical software that is now broken. In four previous Windows upgrades I have not seen software break like that. For my purposes, Vista is Fail.

Systems Administrator - Knowledge(high) says:

Vista is fine

you vista haters are full of ish. i have used vista since it came out and have experienced just as great of stability as XP. vista only lacked driver support early on but i never had any problems getting my printer and scanner to work. for the gamers out there – Vista is better because it provides D10, great stability and is in fact faster than XP. go look at the newer benchmarks indeed! no, you dont need 4GB of RAM to run Vista. i game with 2GB of memory but it does help to be a smart consumer and buy a laptop/desktop with a decent video card or IGP solution that isnt made by intel

the majority of people that dont like vista is because they didnt want to take the time to learn something new since it introduced so many changes at once. i know this because i am a systems administrator and i have numerous users afraid of computers and still dont know jack about XP

Josh says:

Just finished rolling out a 500 unit Vista deployment with a mix of laptops and desktops. Prior to deploying vista I received complaint after complaint from employees who just “knew” that Vista was a disaster; they obviously saw the Mac commercials and were lead like sheep to believe the hype.

Long story short, I have not had a single complaint about Vista so far. Several how-to questions but the feedback that we are getting indicates that everyone is extremely satisfied with its ease of use and functionality.

Someone earlier said back it up with numbers… Well there are 500+ employees successfully utilizing Vista for well over a month with minimal Vista

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

well, what software were they using? what area did they work in? are we talking generic word processing / office work or heavy duty graphics design? web ‘development’? other programming?

If its a basic office setup then you said it right. “Successfully utilizing Vista … with minimal Vista”

ThinkCube (user link) says:

I agree with the first post and the other Vista lovers

The perfect example is post #3. You got your hands on a copy of Vista and put it on hardware that isn’t suppose to run it. Then you say it sucks and went back to your restore cd’s and load the OS your hardware is suppose to run. Go update your hardware! Every so often an OS has to leap hardware otherwise you get the same old OS in a different package(win2000 and XP). If you ran into trouble it is because your hardware vendor and most likely the video vendor didn’t bother to update its drivers or they just decided if people want it they have to buy it. Most users now days won’t be custom building a machine and those who bought one with Vista all know it runs fine because what ever brand they bought made sure it had compatible hardware. If your in the technology game then you have to be better than to take what is spoon fed to you. Every OS has growing pains when it comes to hardware. You don’t see any MAC users trying to put Tiger on there old IMac do you. No! because the hardware isn’t supported. Do you think we will ever get to 64 bit processing without someone forging a path against the neh sayers. My Vista laptop rocks and I have put it through some paces that would have killed the XP OS. it didn’t rock at first though. I had to get rid of the bloatware that HP put on it. I wonder how many people have blamed Vista because of what the computer Manufacturer put on the machine. Vista rocks. Keep moving forward and don’t go back.

grant says:

gimme a break

its a typical progression of a microsoft OS. XP SUCKED when it first came out. Took a least a couple of SP’s to get it to something that was stable enough to call complete. Vista will be the same way. I personally have far fewer problems with the initial release of Vista than i did with the initial release of XP. Get with the times people, if there wasnt a point in upgrading, then we would all be on NT 4.0.

CVPunk says:

what's the big deal?

I guess I just don’t get what the big deal is all about.
If you don’t like Vista, don’t use it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. I myself do not use Vista, but my IT boss uses it and has no problems. (except with a certain version of VNC) My parents use Vista on their laptop and I haven’t heard any complaints from them.
I have 3 computers at home, one running Kubuntu 8.04 with KDE4, one running a dual boot of XP/OpenGeu, and my daughters computer that runs Edubuntu.
Only 2 things kept me from getting Vista when I built my last pc. 1) I hate defragging a HD (don’t have to with Linux)
2) The price.

but, like I said… if you don’t like it, don’t use it.
Simple as that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: what's the big deal?

Here is a quick read if you are confused by what I said.

No, I’m not confused, but that blog article has several problems that I think are causing confusion for you.

For one, it was attempting to compare “FAT” against “Linux”. Huh? Linux isn’t even a file system. It is an operating system kernel and it can be used with several different file systems, one of which happens to be FAT! See here for a list of some of the file systems Linux supports.

For another, when was the last time you saw Vista (or XP) installed on FAT? How about never? Yet you seem to think that Windows equals FAT. Hardly. Ever heard of NTFS?

Then it goes on to talk about how “Linux” spreads the files around on the disk. The article doesn’t even specify which file system it is referring to. Well, I hate to tell you this but NTFS on NT/2000/XP/Vista does the same thing.

Now when M$ first introduced NTFS it tried to claim that it never needed defragmenting either. While it was certainly much better that FAT, people soon realized that the claim that it never got fragmented was a myth and defragmenting tools were then developed.

The truth of the matter is that most file systems suffer from fragmentation to some extent, even under Linux. But in the Linux world there are few tools to deal with fragemented volumes in-place. The usual way to defragment a volume on Linux is to copy the entire volume to another location, reformat, and then restore the data. It works, but it sure isn’t convenient or even practical in many situations.

The claim that file systems never get fragmented under Linux is just a myth propagated to excuse the lack of tools to deal with it.

truk says:

Vista Premium

OK… i’ve read all these comments so i have to put in my own. I’ve been running vista on my home computer now for about 6 months and I have to say i have mixed emotions about it. Its definitely a hog on resources and slower with all the security protocals and such. I hate the fact i can’t find things in the same place as XP but it boots ok, no blue screens, I have driver issues for simple things that are not old – bought since I have had Vista or right before. My nvidia driver has issues for some reason and will crash. I have a new laser printer that was Vista ready that won’t work with anything but my XP and Linux machine. Even though I do like its performance I have to have XP running in the house for software and other things I need every day. Overall I wish I could use something else… Xp is old and needed an upgrade, Linux is getting there but isn’t YET. I have it and will keep it but it just pisses me off now and then and I have to say someone dropped the ball on this really bad… I think they were thinking to grand and to techie when they designed it. Thats simple language for over Engineering.

Denny says:

Vista is fine with me

I was hesitant to upgrade to Vista but I eventually did. I haven’t had any trouble with it at all. At one time I even had it dual booting with Mac OS.

The only annoyance was UAC but that was very easy to resolve. I also prefer the classic Start menu which was also easy to go back to. Vista also boots up very fast and I’ve never had any issues with compatibility. Gaming runs great too. Never had a BSOD on Vista… And you do know that BSOD is usually hardware related right?

I don’t understand everyone who sits here and says Vista is crap… do you expect a “one-size fits all” OS and have 100% customer satisfaction?

If you don’t like, don’t use.

Old_Paranoid says:

Vista runs well

I will first disclose that I have been doing security work for Microsoft for the past 4+ years, much of that time on Vista and Server 2K8.

By the time that Microsoft released Vista, it was quite good – but there were a lot of bad drivers. SP1 dealt with the most annoying issues (such as file copy speed) and the drivers caught up. Now, Vista works well, frequently on quite old hardware. I have 3 Vista systems at home. 2 are modern systems with 2 GBytes of RAM and Core 2 Duo processors. The surprising thing is that I have Vista Home Basic running on old Windows ME box that I had upgraded to XP. It has a 1.7 P4, 768 MBytes or RAM, an old nVidia card, and I had to replace the CD/DVD, network card, and sound card as drivers were not available). It is responsive for general browsing and application useage.

As for the complaints about UAC, I don’t hit them frequently and I find that PCBSD’s sudo popups for installation to be at least as annoying.

As you might expect, I don’t allow my kids to run as administrator. They run as normal users.

Barkus says:

Tried it... Willing to wait for something better

I put Vista Business 32-bit on a laptop here just to try it out. I loaded it up with all the same work related software I have on my XP machine. Worked like a champ for the most part. Hopped right onto our Windows 2000 server based network (Yeah I know it’s old, I’m planning to upgrade all three companies later this year) and played nice with my network.

Vista is a resource hog. I had Ubuntu 8.04 on this machine prior to installing Vista and really, there’s no comparison as far as performance and general usability of the OS. Then again, you really can’t make a comparison between the two platforms because one is so much more of a burden on your system’s available hardware resources. I simply love Linux because it can run somewhat smoothly on just about any ancient piece of crap hardware you have laying around your workbench.

Before Ubuntu I had this laptop running on Windows XP Pro for a couple months. I have to say that the 2 major components I noticed a difference is were my Virus Scanner software and the Desktop / Laptop Backup Software. These 2 pieces really had a hard time playing nice with Vista although the versions I had installed were built and marketed as being XP and VISTA compatible.

About the only thing with Vista that I liked, and sorry if this sounds simple and juvenile, was the little “bread crumbs” functionality of the explorer address bar. I loved the fact that it didn’t just show the full path of where you were going but more over it let you instantly click back to exactly the point you wanted to go back to. That’s about the only feature that stuck with me. Not the Aero Desktop, Not the Side bar, and definitely not the fact (as previously mentioned) that simple little properties and functions of the OS management were moved to different places for apparently no real reason.

I give Microsoft an A for effort but think they still have some legwork to do before they can produce an OS and truly call it an “Upgrade” from XP.

Quick side note… bash me if you will but this is just my opinion nothing more! I’m not totally against Vista because hey, if it works for you then bravo, glad to hear it. I personally am willing to wait for the next iteration of what Microsoft has to offer.

UW student says:

I Hate VIsta most of the time

VIsta is good.. wen you run it in win98 settings its blazing fast, not bloated (well doesnt feel bloated), still the issues with dirver support are there but its getting better as time progresses. other than that vista at 98 graphics settings is pretty decent.. still prefer linux if u dont plan to switch off the comp for weeks at a time vista doesnt liek it much

Justin says:

Vista is almost great

After the new motherboard, processer, 1 gig of ram, (All specs of new “Vista ready” machines) another new processer (duel core this time), another 2 gigs of ram(to make it really Vista Ready), reformatting my harddrive to move the partition, a new hard drive to store the info that I had to move off my main drive. All together about $500 and 10 or so hours later to “upgrade” to Vista. I think I just want to say that Vista is good just to make myself feel better about spending so much time and money to make it work.

Paul Wherrett says:

XP > Vista

So far, I have “UPGRADED” more than 50 machines to XP. 40 of those were at work, and the rest have been friends/family and side-jobs. Vista is good for the first few days, once you start actually using it, it is crap! Why? because you need the hardware to run it and most people don’t want to replace their computer for a new operating system. Specially if the computer is NEW!… and that’s just the heardware part, then we’re talking about doing actually ‘real’ work on the machine and getting annoyed by the awesome DRM ‘features’.

I used Vista at work so I could get familiarized with the OS, but after two weeks of (3 days) dealing with hardware/driver issues, and (2 days) trying to make it feel like XP (as far as responsiveness and usability), I switched back.

This new Microsoft stunt wreaks of idiocity… don’t they know that if they shower, dress, and give glasses to a donkey to make it look smarter, it will still be a freaking Donkey?

XP has come a long way, Microsoft just decided to let it go and start from scratch, Vista reminds me of Windows ME…. ewww!!! Yuk!

Wayne In BC says:

Vista Sucks

I’m an IT Admin and Engineering Technologist (associative degree). I routinely work with both vista and xp in both Work and home environments. Vista is a bloated OS that is next to useless. Takes to long to do just about anything and you have to have the latest computer for it to work on. Even then it’s slower then XP. Vista will go the way of ME and 2000. Sure their will be some that swear that it’s the best OS ever, but we all know they sucked and Microsoft just pays them to promote it. My Vista machines needs to be restarted at least twice a day. MY XP machines run for months without being restarted. Don’t kid yourself Vista security sucks. Anyone serious about security will suggest 3rd party software every time. Windows should stick with being a simple OS leave the rest to others they might just get a good system one day.

tracker1 (user link) says:

Vista is decent.

I’d say, if you have a dual core CPU and more than 2GB of ram, with a decent video card, Vista isn’t so bad. I have it running on a C2D w/ 4GB ram on the 64-bit version… Given, I do about 60% email and web browsing with it. It works decent. XP is faster, Ubuntu is faster still. I happen to like most of the changes (other than defender, and UAC).

The revised user data folders all into AppData, under a single user directory is nice… wouldn’t mind not having a bunch of ~/.* files/folders under *nix… it’s similar enough though.

The new locations for “all users” data in windows takes some getting used to though. Many apps break because stuff is hardcoded, or uses ProgramFiles for application data, which is user specific in Vista.

Overall Vista is itself a step in the right direction. I think it could use some pruning. I was really hoping to see the mini kernel for windows 7, using hyper-V for sandboxed legacy apps though… not gonna happen. It’s been better than my initial views on XP by a huge margin… I didn’t see XP as really usable for daily activities until SP2…

Anonymous Coward says:

*shrug* This combined with my own experiences and the mountain of misinformation I hear constantly repeated by people bashing vista tells me vista isn’t nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

I feel the same way about OSX. Hey if it works, great. I like the fact OSX is based on FreeBSD. Pretty slick manuvering by Apple- using the FreeBSD code base. Add the Windows Emulator Wine and your complete.

HD says:

Microsoft's mistake

The first thing they did was announce Vista tooooo early and the whole thing dragged and got delayed month after month for ‘technical’ issues, then most of the laptops are shipped with vista but with 1 Gb RAM!!!

why the hell is that? mos of them run so slow, even when u play music on its Windows Media Players, it just plays it and stops and plays and renders it as if u’re listening to the track online on a HORRRIBLE connection…

and the graphice are just too much for the RAM to handle, and most people are NOT literate enough about it to uprade the RAM like some of us…

Another main thing is that the whole structure of the operating system is different that most popular software and prigrams just dont work on it… no one would like to risk that!

i have several script-writing software, am a film-writer, and other media and several applications that are useless on Vista, i will not switch my system for the sake of Microsoft .. i will be a new laptop soon and will install XP on it and work around the drivers and all that crap, but i will not give up all my work and software for the idiotic mistake of a large company like Microsoft.

John (profile) says:

Two points

First, to everyone complaining about the interface changes and everyone complaining about the complaining: yes, things will change, including the user interface. BUT, is the change for the better?

The entire computing world has been raised and conditioned on the “File | Edit | View” menu system and now it’s a ribbon? Huh? Why change? Were people getting confused by File > Save to save a file?

And after how-many years of teaching people “Click the Start Menu”, the start menu is now a flag. How does this help new people when a tech support person says “Click the Start Menu” and the newbie has no idea what a start menu is.

Second, as I’ve said numerous times, the Vista “security” was doomed almost from the start. Here’s the typical scenario:

Vista asks the user: Do you really want to install Photoshop?
User: Yes.
Vista: Do you really want to install Office.
User: Yes, come on already.
Vista: Do you really want to install Quickbooks?
User: Geez, just do it.
Vista: Do you really want to install Adobe Acrobat?
User: I swear, I’m going to kick you across the room if you ask me again.
Vista: Do you really want to install Trojan V32 Worm?
User: What did I just say? Yes- install it and let me work!

Is security an issue? Of course. But getting pestered by an operating system when you just want to work is annoying.

Trevlac says:

Now that I’ve replied to several people it’s time to share my own experience. I am going to compare my computer’s benchmarks from when I had XP to my upgrade of Vista.

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Conroe E6550 @ 2.33 Ghz
GFX: BFG Nvidia 8800 GT OC 512mb
PSU: 550w
RAM: 2gb @ PC2,6400 800mhz

***Windows XP Pro Service Pack 3 32-bit:
Higher speeds in network transfer
Higher speeds in hard drive writing/reading

***Windows Vista Ultimate Service Pace 1 32-bit:
(With Aero-glass enabled, with a 1MB dreamscene wallpaper, UAC disabled)
Higher performance with Adobe CS3 (all products)
Higher performance with Crysis on medium
Higher performance with all Orange Box games on highest
Higher performance with Call of Duty 4 on highest
Higher performance with World of Warcraft
Higher performance with FFXI benchmark test
Higher performance of general UI
Higher performance of Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007

***Windows Vista Ultimate Service Pace 1 32-bit:
(With all resource-using processes off)
Highest performance with Adobe CS3 (all products)
Highest performance with Crysis on high and very high
Highest performance with all Orange Box games on highest
Highest performance with Call of Duty 4 on highest
Highest performance with World of Warcraft
Highest performance with FFXI benchmark test
Highest performance of general UI
Highest performance of Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007

So as you can see, programs related to media, gaming, and office use had the best performance on Vista (and better on Vista with all disabled) and even general OS speed was higher. Note this is on the same machine with the same hardware.

XP greatly outclassed vista in Network file transfer and hard drive read/write tests. I’d have to say if the worst thing about vista is the speed it saves data, I’m not too worried.

Edson Arantes do Nascimento says:

Vista? How bout DOS 5.0

I hate Vista! I’ll never leave DOS 5.0. I just upgraded to a 9600 baud modem, so Prodigy screams now. I can see at least 3 BBS’s a night. 8086 processory, 5.1/4 floppy, 15 mb HDD, and a sharp 9pin printer.

Seriously folks, you belt out the pedigree to prove how sharp you are, but you rant on the “man” (MS) like you are a bunch of hippies, whilst you churn out a living solving problems. To me, the more problems, the more you justify your existence., eh??

Oldie says:

This is funny

I manage over 150 machines, 100 of those are running XP the other 50 Vista. Who do I get the most complaints from? The XP users! Who wants to change OS? The XP users! Yes, they WANT to go to Vista.
All the machines are using the same hardware, HP DC7600 with ONE GB ram, onboard video and a 3ghz Pentium D chip. Vista runs great on this, it actually runs FASTER than an XP machine on the same hardware, which was something that pleasantly surprised me, to say the least. I was fully expecting it to be slower, it was when I was running the beta’s but the official release of Vista Business was far improved.
UAC does bug me on occasion, but it has come in handy a couple of times, so I leave it on. Another surprise was that Aero actually works on this setup with onboard intel graphics at that.
I use Vista on my work desktop, XP on my work laptop (mainly just used for XP screenshots for documentation and emails, that’s it).
At home, it is the other way around with Vista on my laptop (using an opensource battery manager, I get over 2 hours 20 mins battery life) and the only reason it isn’t on my desktop is the lack of directsound which I need for DJ’ing.
I’ve worked with a lot of OS’s in my time, Dos, Windows, Mac, Netware and unix, with a few flavours of Linux thrown in as well and I have found that I really enjoy using Vista, it is a change, something different.
SP1 has made it even faster, and I have NO problem recommending it to friends depending on their needs and hardware. Hardware being very important with this OS, given that not every manufacturer or model has vista drivers and they (non-tech/IT people) have had no problem with it, sure I get questions now and then, but no more than I get from any other OS.
Half the problems people are experiencing is hardware related and not MS’s fault, the other half are the upgraders that didn’t bother to clean their machine before doing so (seen that happen a few times), the rest I think are just dicks that went in with the preconceived notion that it was going to suck, and never really gave it a chance “this is gonna suck, (5 seconds later)yep this sucks, I wouldn’t use this and I’m gonna tell everyone how bad it is” yeah… GTFO of my face and go DIAF assmonkey…

Twinrova says:

This is no surprise.

Many companies use Microsoft products, so it’s no surprise I tend to “favor” them. In the past 20 years, I’ve felt constantly under pressure to learn about the latest and greatest features as each new product releases.

When XP was released, I felt much of that pressure released. So much better than ME/2000, I was actually proud to stamp an approval on XP (despite knowing its problems). XP gives users much more flexibility than any other OS to make it their machine. Many tech users quickly found ways to streamlining the performance, unmatched by any other OS to this day.

Most users tend to be “web surfers” who utilize all the PC’s power for internet usage. Photoshop? Hardly. The fact Microsoft pushes this “user friendly” version of the OS to these people was blatantly insulting to tech users, who knew from the start these fancy visuals meant performance cost.

I’ve tested Vista for 2 months and I am never, ever going to buy or recommend this product to anyone using their laptops in any type of professional manner, be that of graphics development or programming. I would, however, recommend it to mothers, grand parents, or anyone else not comfortable with computers.

Vista’s 3 major target problems are:
1) Driver library – Incomplete and a massive performance hog. All drivers are back loaded into memory before being released (if ever) after finding the component hooked to the machine. Rebooting time increased.

2) “Pretty pictures” – anyone who uses their PCs for any type of development knows memory is critical. Background images, sounds, etc are key components to remove. Vista relies on them, unless physically turned off, which can not be done 100%.

3) Processing threads – Truthfully, I can not explain what the hell goes on with this and if anyone can enlighten me, please do so. But when applications hang, I expect only the thread I cancel to be affected, but in my testing, cancelling one thread affects others (while it doesn’t close them, it sure locks them up!).

The only thing released by Microsoft in recent years worthy of its use (but still has a way to go) is ASP.NET. I’ve stopped using Office products because it’s senseless when the web is not only easier, but much more user friendly.

Visual Basic/C hasn’t been touched in years, again because web applications don’t require individual installs.

IE sucks. It will always suck as long as ActiveX is supported.

It’s been a fantastic process to build applications for people that don’t need a Microsoft product to use, but I can’t see myself giving up ASP.NET any time soon in order to deliver those applications.

As with everything Microsoft, a new release doesn’t mean a better release, just one with more bells and whistles that screw everything else up.

Now I must wait to see how much ASP.NET 3 will follow the same path or if Microsoft actually listened to developers (doubtful).

Anyometer says:


Ok, listen i have Vista installed on two computers a laptop and an old desktop computer. I do admit that i runs a bit slow upon booting with the desktop. The only reason is that i can’t upgrade anything mostly due to it’s embedded on the motherboard. I have absolutely NOOOO problems with either computers. I had more problems with XP upon finding the correct drivers and upgrading the operating system with updates. I had countless errors with XP for some unkown reason, for example everytime i shutdown some stupid message pops up claiming that it can’t find some path in the system32 folder. I wanted to install an application from the Microsoft website, and i wouldn’t let me download because i wasn’t updated, so i updated the computer and returned then it wanted me to install some piece of crap Windows Genuine Advantage software for download. Ok after that it still wanted me to install the software after i already did, rebooted the computer and still had the same issue. I installed Windows Instant Messenger and i could not run the application giving me an error code. I reported the code to Microsoft upon finding out that the code doesn’t exist. Grrrrrrr, i’m pissed off about XP i don’t like it at all. Vista relieved me of XP and it’s nought, however the only operating system that i’m going to use from here on forth is UBUNTU LINUX!!!!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...