Gideon MacLeish

Windows Vista: Not Worth the $$$

▼

Windows Vista: Not Worth the $$$

from JoeUser Forums

Someone made a comment on another thread that Vista has gotten the nickname "ME2". And while that may be oversimplifying things, the truth is that in the big picture Vista is likely to be remembered more as a disaster than a success. Maybe "New Coke" would be a better analogy.

In my rather limited empirical experience I am seeing a lot of people purchase ill advised Vista upgrades, only to see them dump them in favor of their old XP installation. Not techies, mind you, but regular end users. End users who, to put it bluntly, do NOT like the new O/S.

I have said for months that Vista may be the O/S that pushes Linux into the mainstream. I honestly like Vista, but when I put myself into the seat of someone who is not very familiar with computers, it's a pain. Many people have spent time painstakingly learning the basics for their XP systems; by changing the file structure and even the names of the tabs so thorougly, Microsoft has put them back to square one, and made not only their computers, but their operating systems obsolete.

But the biggest users are usually the business users. And Vista is, in my opinion, destined for modest success at best in that arena. If I were managing a network of computers on XP, my advice would be simple: don't upgrade. XP's extended support will go through 2011, and MS' next OS release will be two years on the market by then (ok, given that MS has NEVER met the deadline on an OS release, let's say one year).

Windows Vista is, in my opinion, not worth the cost of upgrading. Not unless it comes installed on a purchased machine. And it may well be a significant marketing blunder on the part of the boys in Redmond.

30,509 views 67 replies
Reply #52 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I suggest you learn how to contribute intelligently to a conversation instead of engaging in name calling. We are talking about personal opinions here, and everyonbe else's is as valid as yours.

Yes, that 'would' be nice....

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #53 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Sorry for my English.

As a computer enthusiast, with many years of experience, I can say that Vista (not Ultimate of Basic edition) is worth buying.
For one, I have a high-end custom build PC (I paid around 3k after taxes), purchased in Jan 2006. And I can tell you WinXP doesn't like it one bit. Unlike many, I adopted XP when it shortly got released, with its SP1 pack. Due to my PCI-E Ethernet card, PCI-e video card, SATA HDD, and Dual Core CPU's, WinX SP1 gives you problems like you never seen before. Until you upgrade to SP2, you see the fallowing:
- Messages: "File is corrupted", "Invalid Win32 application", and blank message with an OK button.
- Random lock-ups, and downloaded files off the net is corrupted (stops at 2-5%) 9 on 10 times. This is VERY annoying when you try to upgrade to SP2, as you have to successfully download and run the SP2 package.

You may think that my computer is broken (that is what I thought when I got it). Yet, it is not the case, as the mili-second you have SP2, everything works PERFECTLY, and fast as it should. And runs even better when you do the after updates of SP2. If you install Linux on it, you also have *no* issues.
Please note I do have a genuine copy of Windows XP Pro.

When I tried Vista Beta 1, 2, RC1, and RC2, the second it got installed, my printer worked, applications runs and startup visually faster, thanks to it's improved (frankly I find it better then Linux) resource management. And has a huge amount of XP bugs fixed and improvements, like: programs don't steal focus, while Windows starts your startup application you can access the Start menu, improved window management (under XP I need a dual screen. Yet it is not the case for Vista), certain objects like the Start menu, improved setup, do not hide tool tip (finally I do not need to remember to press F6, and install the SATA driver on FLOPPIES (does not allow any other media)! (yea, else Windows will fail to startup))

-------------------------------------
The usability of Vista seems to be much better, as my parents, which are real computer illiterates, can do things that really surprised me, like starting up application without me doing it for them, open/close the computer, insert media and access the directories. For some psychological reason, they have no problem with Vista. When I got back to XP as public beta ended, they were back to scare 1, and complained to put back Vista.

Moreover, many people do not like change. When something is different they get lost and instead to dig a tiny bit, automatically they go in their "Oh it sucks!" mode. Something that I found very idiotic.

In addition, many users just look at the overview of Vista; it is more than just some bug fixes and a new skin. It has A LOT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

And let's not forget people that don't get what DRM is, and think it ads it on their media when it clearly does not.


Vista was design for NEW 2 000$CDN computers or better. Like Macs, it's good and have *no* issues due that you pay ~2-3k for the hardware part. I bet if you install MacOS on a dell 200$ laptop, which seams to be the case for many, it will be just as horrible or even worst then Windows.

I would like to add: what is the point of all the RAM you have, if you you don't use it.
If you don't use it, then you don't need that much RAM. and you waisted money.
Something else I don't get. With DX10 games coming out, you need a powerful computer, so even if Vista would work under your specs, games won't. I don't know for you, but for me, games are not worth playing on low settings or medium settings. It's not that I look for graphics in games, but I mean when you buy a game, where a lot was invested in graphics, why not use it.

Vista is like when XP came out, it will have a slow start, but it will be greatly appreciated with many as they get new, proper specs, computers.

My computer:
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ S939
- ASUS A8N32-SLI *Deluxe* (Nforce 4 16xSLI)
- 2GB of Corsair XMS RAM
- W.D 250GB SATA-II with 16MB of buffer
- Geforce 8800 GTS 768MB RAM (used to be on a Geforce 6600GT 256MB of RAM)
- Creative X-Fi XtermMusic
- Windows Vista Business ed. (~ of Pro version of XP with TabletPC (tablet PC features is on all edition of Vista))

Reply #54 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ah, I read many places... "why upgrade when you know in 2 years a new OS will be out". Well, after 2 years (which i beleive will be MORE then 2 years, maybe 3-4), you still know an other new OS will be out also after 2 years, and still not upgrade. In other words you will never upgrade. For Mac OS, isn't it every ~6 months to 1 year?!

I would like to add this too:
For those that say, they will switch to Linux. Well, I tried Linux last year. I can tell you it was sooooo cooooll!!! Yea, it different, and people ask all around you, what is that, and you show them the power of Linux. Ah good times. But installing softwares is complicated. There is no easy system like under Windows. Many of the free programs are decompiled, and you got to edit the make file to match your compiler, or have 1 million of those installed on your computer (which, for some, are not fun to install). You got new devices and certain featured of your devices that don't work (Logitech mouse/keyboard extra features/buttons). And no games. Wine doesn't do a good job. Not yet anyway. Oh and very slow development on software and the OS. Example: Look at iPod Linux, it walks on eggs! Since in begging of 2006 (when I tried it), you have the exact same problems as now. Unable to play videos other then RAW, you can leave the music playing menu, else it stops. So you can browse your music while your device plays, and more... It's been a year I wait of version 2 of the OS... still none. Have fun with Linux, but you will go back, as you will be tired from switching form Linux to Windows and vise-versa.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
But installing softwares is complicated. There is no easy system like under Windows.


Your experience with Linux is limited. Out of curiousity, which distro did you use? I have none of the described problems with Ubuntu.

As to the upgrades, note I am not saying Vista is a bad OS, not at all. Just that it is not a PRACTICAL solution as of yet for many people, and that I would not recommend it on a network I was managing. Windows XP Pro is a very good O/S, especially for anyone who remembers the Windows 9x days.

You're happy with Vista, that's good. But my goal on my home network is to find the ideal O/S for the hardware that I have. That's really what it's all about, isn't it? And as has been pointed out on other articles, most people don't have a need for 64 bit computing, so the upgrading is not as of yet essential. It would be like upgrading to HDTV 5 years ago; nice in theory, but where's it going in practice?

Yes, you can buy the 32 bit version of Vista. But when I have $200 worth of O/S on my computer, why would I want to dump it for a shinier new operating system that would cause conflicts with much of my software? My upcoming build will be constructed for Vista. And my XP apps will run on my XP machine. And my Linux apps will run on my Linux machine, 2000 apps on 2000, etc, etc, etc. ANd I have a hunch I'll be happy with all of them.
Reply #56 from WinCustomize Forums Top
But installing softwares is complicated.


like Gideon MacLeish said, it's not that complex. Fish out of water feeling is just from using a new OS with different methods than problems with installing. I used Ubuntu for over a year now, and I can tell you that that feeling will go away evenually.
Reply #57 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Hmmmmmmm......at least everybody got to install the bugger......it took me an hour to get the box open.....also a nasty cut......next after a new install I tried to get an Authorization (or whatever it is) number and the software acussed me of having a counterfiet copy....needless to say I'm back with XP......for quite awhile.      
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
For some of you saying that WIndows Vista isn't backwards compatible.. oh god, it is more backwards compatible then XP! In fact if you did a right click on any programs, and click on compatibility you would see all the different kinds of options from Windows 95 to Windows Server 2003 Service pack 1!


Which is the SAME exact thing you get in XP Pro.
Reply #59 from WinCustomize Forums Top
In part, I do agree that it costs a bit much - especially here in South Africa.
I don't know how the ideas of Windows Vista came about, but surely MS did some sort of survey system that gathered enough information for what the MAJORITY wanted.

Vista, at the end of the day, is a great OS. It will be for a while. We've said that we should let it gain steam for a while and see what happens - and I agree.

The styles and designs (in terms of Aero) of Vista are also great, and some people think that's why it costs so much. There are many new features in Vista, and yet some of them are system software changes, ones that most people do not see. Things like reliablility and structure changes.

Yes, Vista is great - but why pay for it now when we can wait for prices to drop and service packs to be released. That's what I did with XP.
Reply #60 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Yes, Vista is great - but why pay for it now when we can wait for prices to drop and service packs to be released.


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Vista prices to come down....I don't see it happening anytime soon....maybe in the 6 months prior to the next Windows release, but not a heck of a lot sooner.

As for waiting on the service packs to make Vista more reliable/stable, that's not necessary either....I've been running Vista Ultimate for the last 7 months, and not once have I had a crash, freeze-up or BSOD, etc....something I cannot say for the same period using XP.
Reply #61 from WinCustomize Forums Top
As for waiting on the service packs to make Vista more reliable/stable, that's not necessary either....I've been running Vista Ultimate for the last 7 months, and not once have I had a crash, freeze-up or BSOD, etc....something I cannot say for the same period using XP.


XP was crash city when it first came out.
Reply #62 from WinCustomize Forums Top
As for waiting on the service packs to make Vista more reliable/stable, that's not necessary either....I've been running Vista Ultimate for the last 7 months, and not once have I had a crash, freeze-up or BSOD, etc....something I cannot say for the same period using XP.


XP was crash city when it first came out.
Reply #63 from WinCustomize Forums Top
XP was crash city when it first came out.

And so is Vista, which is why I made my point. Well, I have only experienced games constantly crashing. But still is true.
Reply #64 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Oh heck, I will pull the two cents out of my pocket again and say, Why fix it if it ain't broke. I won't upgrade yet, I don't want it, don't need it. Vista is a pain. Tried it on a friends computer that she just bought and hated it. I think if you can keep your computer upgraded then just leave XP in there till they get something that really works well for all. I like XP so why shouldn't I leave it alone right now? If if works for you then don't waste the money. If you are showing off for friends then do somethings else with your computer to show off. Everything should be what works for you, and don't let anyone tell ya different. I have seen people upgrade to vista only to remove it and go back to their old XP. I don't know. I will never jump on anything till it's been around a while and I know there are no bugs in it. New cars, been there and had recalls up the ying yang. OS same thing when I got XP. Now it works for me. I'm good thanks. Staying with the old for now.
Reply #65 from WinCustomize Forums Top
And so is Vista, which is why I made my point. Well, I have only experienced games constantly crashing. But still is true.


The point is that it's not true.....I've had Vista Ultimate for the past 7 months now and not one single crash, BSOD or freeze up. Vista is quite stable on a capable machine and is reliable enough now to run as a primary OS. Many of the complaints I've come across have been from people trying to run Vista on a lower end or older machine which is not adequate, so of course it's going to be unstable, but that's more the fault of the user than it is of the OS.
Reply #66 from WinCustomize Forums Top
i completely agree with starkers. i've never had the first issue with vista on my machine. my younger brother has had issues with his but his system is an amd athlon xp 3200+ based machine. altho it was top-notch 3 or 4 years ago, it's pretty much an entry level system now.
Reply #67 from WinCustomize Forums Top
my younger brother has had issues with his but his system is an amd athlon xp 3200+ based machine. altho it was top-notch 3 or 4 years ago, it's pretty much an entry level system now.


While I've heard complaints from people with below par machines - because they didn't understand Vista's hardware requirements - I also hear from detractors, whingers and denigrators who've never even seen Vista, much less used it, and all because they've listened to all the anti-hype instead of trying it for themselves.

To me, that's just as idiotic as buying a product, sight unseen, based purely on the hype of the day....but decidedly worse, because the negativity may influence the naive (other fools) not to try a stable/reliable product.