No I don't think I said that. You should re-read my post. I don't think you read it properly.
At any rate, I've noticed topics like these go no where. People have made up their mind and they're going to stick with it, even till death. So.. enjoy your soon-to-be outdated OS.

If by "soon", you mean the 4 more years for which Microsoft has stated they will offer extended support, I will, thanks .

Or, better still, if by "soon", you mean when Ubuntu stops offering support, I will, thanks .

Youi have an interesting perspective, astyanax. But a limited one.

What's so great about topics like this is that we all are able to provide our own opinions, sometimes we might even get a chance to change them. So I beg to differ with you on the statement that these topics go no where. I do agree with you that people do make up their own minds. Isn't that just great!! It's what makes us different.

I'm glad you like Vists, when the next OS does get released this topic can come up again, and believe it or not there will still be people running XP.

I don't really understand where all the gripe about Vista comes from.

Yes, the improvements over XP are much smaller than initially planned.

Yes, if you have a working XP machine, and are not in the market for a new computer, you might as well stick with XP.

But...

No, Vista is not less stable than its predecessor (that was the biggest downfall of ME, which was much less stable than Win98SE), and as such is not a "second ME".

No, on a new system Vista is certainly not a worse choice than XP. There are things that are a bit easier and there are things that are a bit more difficult.

Maybe I was just lucky: but even though I am running Vista 64bit, I had no problems with my hardware. Scanner, printer, modem, router, blueray keyboard, everything was working from the beginning. Yes, I had to download the newest 64bit drivers for all the products, but I usually did that on my XP machine as well, just to get the newest drivers.
Since February, when I got my new computer running Vista, I had a total of two BSOD's which were caused by me installing not yet officially released OS-updates.

NeverwinterNights2, C&C Tiberium Wars, HOMM V, Age of Empires III, LOTR Battle for Middle Earth 2.... so far no game I threw on it has caused me a single problem, even though they are all written for the 32bit platform. The oldest games I have currently running on Vista without a hitch are C&C Generals and Neverwinter Nights (the first one).
Why anyone would want to run his/her DOS/Win95 games on a 21-inch flat-screen monitor and a DirectX 9 compatible Graphics-card is beyond me. I haven't tested any of those "dinosaurs" on my new computer, because that's what I keep my old laptop for.

That's not universally true, aufisch. On these big box machines shipping with 512mb RAM and integrated video, XP is a MUCH better choice. And on the bargain basement computers WalMart is now stocking with VIA chips, I wouldn't even THINK about installing Vista.



Again, the comparison between the two was from a marketing standpoint, NOT from a performance standpoint. And from a marketing standpoint, the comparison is apt.

And if you are upgrading a machine to Vista, it CAN have the same stability issues, depending on the specs of the machine.

But the argument had to do with marketing more than performance. Vista is a good O/S, but not worth the upgrade for many EU's.

I agree with that statement, although I hardly can't believe that such machines (with exceptions of some low-end laptops) are still sold, especially now that RAM-prices have fallen.

What can I say? It's a WalMart world, sadly.

With a large proportion of the world's population listening to a very small percentage saying Vista is dumb and doomed, then I guess it must inevitably be so.

In other words, I've paid good bucks for an OS I'm entirely happy with, and it's gonna go down the unsupported sewer, all because of a few self-proclaimed experts who decided they didn't like it cos they couldn't figure it out.

I've read about primitive cultures, some of which still exist today in various parts of the world, where the witch doctors could say everyone in a particular village will die of some terrible curse....and sure enough, over time they'll all die without apparent cause.

Funny that, in this so-called civilized world, we will say 'but that's all native superstition and bunkum with rational explanations ...yet it seems we have progressed very little from our primitive roots. The witch doctors have pointed the bone at Vista and it's doomed cos the majority blindly heeds the prophets of doom (much like the uneducated villagers taking the witch doctors words as gospel) rather than truly appraise it for themselves to make an informed decision.

I think this is why I can't tolerate film, food or music critics, they draw large salaries to ruin other peoples work with an opinion

And then you have those journos who pick a product to review and carbosh the buggery out of a perfectly good item, simply because they had problems turning it on while drunk late at the office that night....having jammed up the on/off button by slurping their coffee/pizza sauce over it. (yeah, I saw the true confession of a journo on TV who openly admitted to giving a product a bad review because he was to drunk to turn it on, that when had sobered up he still couldn't because it was jammed with food and drink.)

I mean, seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how many people put their trust in the words and opinions of people just like this...in essence, total strangers who may very well totally disgust them with their living habits, yet their word is gospel when it comes to product appraisals....must be true cos they're respected and paid to give it.

As has been said, Vista isn't crap because third party devs didn't keep up or dropped the ball entirely on older products....and why would they have supported it when there'd be much more profit in selling new stuff rather than update drivers, etc. The software and hardware devs had as much time as anyone who was able to access the first Vista betas, so you'd think they would have had a big enough head start to have got things in a little better order before consumers were queuing up for their 'gold' editions.

Well there you have it...but too late, starkers, Microsoft is entirely to blame and Vista is crap, the majority says so, and the (media brainwashed) majority rules, right.

Going back to what I orginally posted, it would appear that choice of an OS seems to be what Microsoft wants to provide it's customer base. Sure hope that point has not gotten lost in all of this.

It's possible that once SP1 is released for Vista that all of this is cleared up. Then on the other hand.

I believe that Microsoft has said XP will be support of several more years with regualr updates. People will choose which OS works for them or atleast they should.

Let's not forget Microsoft's own arrogance in its handling the release of Vista...

1) It wasn't ready for release. Period. It's only working really well now, by the end of the summer, with drivers and performance upgrades. I now have no qualms about recommending Vista with a new computer buy, but I also make sure my friends have an email full of links to download to make sure their new Vista machine actually works as advertised.

2) They confused the market with WAY TOO MANY subversions (re: crippled versions of Vista Ultimate). OEMS have had to respond by choosing one version, Home Premium, while businesses have just chosen to avoid Vista almost entirely now (despite "business" versions). Vista Basic is just ridiculous marketing spin "see, there IS a cheap version of Vista! Honest!".

3) They are charging monopoly level prices for Vista as if was a compelling product AND we have no choice. Well it isn't compelling (stardock's products are a MUCH more compelling upgrade to XP than Vista is) and we do have choices (XP or OSX).

I've said since before release that there needed to be ONE version of Vista (now called Vista Ultimate) and that it needed to be priced realistically. When XP was released, it represented 10% of the cost of a decent computer. Today, a VERY decent computer is $500. And in today's world, $400 for Ultimate is INSANE.

Now, one could argue that there is a market for two versions of Vista, with the base being what is currently Vista Home Premium (which should include the business networking features that should never have been pulled out of the base OS) and that MS can charge for the PLUS version of Ultimate (additional eye candy and fluff tools/feature like they did with XP Plus). Fair enough.

Regardless, 8 versions of Vista is patently absurd, as is separating the business networking code out of the base version just to charge more (as they did with XP Home and Pro, what a crock). This makes MS looks completely incompetent compared to Apple, for example. And it doesn't pass the "smell test" of even the staunchest MS supporter, as I used to be.

They screwed the pooch here big time.

My recommendations, when SP1 is working and ready (and thus Vista rocks like it should have), re-release VISTA (which is Vista Home Premium + Business) and VISTA ULTIMATE (as the "I have money to burn and show off to keep up with the Joneses" version). LOWER THE PRICE. $100 seems right for Vista with another $50-100 for the Ultimate version (depending on if there are any actual extras in it worth paying for).

Otherwise, Vista is ONLY going to sell OEM via trickles for the rest of this year while XP continues to hold business users for 2-4 YEARS as they have no reason to upgrade to Vista...at all.

I appreciate all the replies on this post. Most of the stuff I put in the forums doesn't get anywheres this much activity.

Opinions aside it would appear that Microsoft is doing some rethingking about it current OS (Vista). Some food for thought, one of two seasons for buying or upgrading a computer is coming up, the Holidays. Doesn't it seem interesting that they would announce an extendion of the period of time for buying a computer with XP loaded now.  

OSX isn't a choice on a PC.

But you, again, neglected to include Linux among the choices. Ubuntu 7.04 basically works "out of the box" with many systems; my Dell GX240 was surfing the 'net 28 minutes after initial CD boot...with a full install.

Philly,

Yes. And these holidays promise to be exciting. I actually have a big computer purchase planned for the holidays. I will be purchasing an laptop for my children, to participate in OLPC's "give one, get one" campaign.

So the MS announcement won't affect me! LOL!

I stuck with Win2k until my machine broke & had to be replaced (lasted 10 years, BTW), simply because it was stable as a rock & worked*. In fact, we still have about 15 Win2k boxes (all also 10 years old) running on our office network (out of ~22 total), using a W2k3 Server.

I will stick with XPPro until the machine I bought 6 weeks ago breaks (and maybe beyond - I have an unopened OEM XPP disc on hand), simply because it is stable as a rock & works*. That will limit my ability to skin for WB, but that is a hobby.

*The OS facilitates getting your work done; is, in other words, efficient, and not an obstacle to be overcome.

Since most people have to buy a new computer to use Vista, MS has given Apple a terrible opportunity to capitalize on this. People who are upgrading an existing PC are more likely to stay with the same paradigm (which now Jobs can offer with a new computer with bootcamp btw). But people buying a new computer are going to consider Apple and it was foolish of MS to ignore this and/or make life so much easier for Steve Jobs. HUGE mistake.

I ignored Linux because it remains a hobbyist's OS. Ubuntu has done a good job of providing a solid "end-user 101" desktop experience out of of the box, as you say. In other words, consumers can browse the Internet and get/send email under Linux now. And that's great.

However, since the hardware cost is the same across all OS's, the $100 one saves by going with Linux is not proportional to the value added by Windows' massive software and hardware legacy or Apple's superior bundleware (i.e. iLife applications). So I still can't recommend anyone a Linux desktop to the 99% of modern computer users.

I encourage Linux devotees to continue pushing, especially with MS tripping so badly with Vista. This is a perfect time for someone (anyone?!) to move Linux into a viable consumer contender. Will it happen?

MS would never do this unless the OEMs demanded it (by already offering this option). They lost the 2006 holiday sales season because of the initial Vista delay and they don't want to lose another one because of the current negative publicity.

As far as the holiday season goes, Apple will have a new OS X revision with bootcamp installed by default. The only way Jobs could go for the jugular even more would be to offer a Windows to OS X upgrade path for existing PCs. Fortunately for MS, I doubt Apple had enough programmers on hand to cover the iPhone and the new OS rev AND such an ambitious undertaking. As it was, a lot of the really interesting OS X developments won't make it into this new release because of the iPhone coding push.

Either way, it should be an interesting showdown.

Sorry, but that's not the way I found it....yeah, surfing the net was simple, but too many times I found stuff that only ran from command lines, etc...or downloaded apps didn't have an exe type install but had to be assembled, sort of like piece by piece and put in place via command like prompts.

For someone without command prompt type experience, Ubuntu is somewhere one can easily get lost/confused. Yeah, it may have come a ways from earlier editions, but it still has a way to go before it can be considered a mainstream OS.

Oh well, I'll continue dual booting XP & Vista until it looks like it's more manageable for non-geeks like me.

No, they have not spent billions the public have done it for them. In fact they beta tested prior to launch and now all those who have purchased Vista are still beta testing it for them. Fancy paying 150 bucks or more to a company to test their product. Does that happen in any other industry? I'll say it again - Vista was 'half baked' when it was launched and still should be in the Microsoft oven, cooking, today. And when it comes to driver and software issues made by third parties can I ask a question. When were those third parties given access to the final release version to allow them to either upgrade or change their product so it would work on Vista?

Here's an interesting piece on this subject matter that is worth reading. I don't agree with all the sentiments but it's worth a read.

WWW Link

Let's face it,MicroSh*t has been ripping people off for years. Windows 98 was what Windows 95 was supposed to be, Windows Xp is what Me was supposed to be. Me was one of the crappiest operating systems to ever come out, with its memory leakage problems to name just a few consumers should have gotten a rebate if they got stuck with it. Now Vista comes out and you know the next operating system to come out will really be the fix for it. All the years they had working on Vista it should not have all these compatability problems. Microsoft has been passing shoddy programs for years and now people are starting to finally realize just what a terrible company they really are. They were good in their early days since most of what they came out with was stolen from the people who really created great programs and their way to deal with it was to keep you in court so long you just settled with them just to get your money. Now that they are doing it on their own it shows what kind of company they really are.

be glad you didn't..ME was THEE biggest POS OS's you will ever have..i ran that for around 10 months and let me tell ya it was one of THEE most biggest,hugest piece of shite OS's you will ever run...constant BSOD's,constant screw ups,constant lock up's ETC i had to litterally nuke the drive once and sometimes twice a week...it was that bad...and the only thing i used to do on it,was play video games...98 was millions of times better then ME..LOL 95 was better then ME.the only thing good about ME was the system restore...though you had to reboot your system when you disbaled it where as XP and vista you can disable it and not have to reboot and if you got nailed with a virus ME's system restore would not allow your antivirus product to delete the virus where as XP and vista will.

I really need to get out more....the anti-MS sentiment/Vista bashing has me feeling somewhat depressed....Vista is doomed, my copy will be obsolete before I get my money's worth and I'll need a replacement cos XP 'll be in pretty much the same boat by then.

I need some air.

I found that a large proportion (not all of course) of the people who cry: 'Vista is crap', are people who got their version of Vista through a p2p-Network. Pirated copies of Vista have been around since the beta-versions, and many of those are still being distributed as the real thing. There are also tons of "customized" and "light" Versions available. I believe Vista was probably the first OS to be pirated so heavily at such an early stage.
During the time I contemplated buying a new computer I did some research about Vista, and I was absolutely stumped on how many idiots out there tried to load their pirated 64bit beta-version onto their Pentium III systems. - Guess what, Vista didn't work and was of course "crap" - buh-huu

People who have bought an XP machine, should run XP or upgrade their PC to be Vista compliant.
One would have thought that should be clear by now. After all, it was already the same back when Win95 came out. My old "designed for Windows for Workstations 3.11" - laptop never ran really good with Win95, even though I spent an arm and a leg to upgrade the Memory to a whooping 16Mb.

Much the same can be said for the so called "new"-systems which are obviously still available through some 'extremely cheap' supermarket chains. That's just really old hardware, which is now sold off/cleared through those chains, and was never really designed to go with Vista.
It is of course not the customers fault if those shops then throw 'Vista home basic' on it, just to make it look like as if the hardware were actually new.
And it is surely understanding if the computer savvy but cash-strapped customer who buys such older "new" systems then insists of running his new box with the OS it was originally designed for; WinXP.

Not as long as Macs cost twice as much as a PC, in my opinion.

EX: I am buying a new laptop. The $1200 starting price for an iBook is too rich for my blood.

Besides, as long as Mac stays completely proprietary, with an extremely limited set of vendors, I don't think most Americans will give them serious consideration.



starkers,

You run a wider variety of programs than most EU's, though. Yes, Linux has limitations. So does Microsoft, actually, it's just that we've become so used to working in an MS environment that we do not notice them. I will agree with Excalpius that there is more that needs to be done (but this is a good time to do it), however, I remain firm in my contention that Linux requires no more of a learning curve than Vista, we just tolerate it with Vista because it's what we know.



LOL starkers.

The anti MS sentiment is, in my opinion, good for the industry. If people consider options besides Microsoft, then ultimately it will make their developers work harder. And that benefits everyone.

aufisch,

Yes, many who cry "Vista is crap" are running it on substandard machines. Can't argue there. I wouldn't, for instance, even consider it on my main home box (Dell gx260, 1.8Ghz P4 Processor, 1GB RAM, 256MB video) because, while it technically meets the system requirements, it's not powerful enough to run it with the other apps I want in an optimal environment.

But there are many legitimate arguments as well. One of the games I cannot play on Vista, for instance, is "Rise of Nations". I'm not about to throw out all of my software simply because Microsoft doesn't like to create backwards compatibility.

As I said above, I believe this debate is good. It is productive. Microsoft won't allow itself to fade into oblivion, and if end users seriously consider jumping ship, it will give the boys in Redmond a much needed heads up. Microsoft is not listening to the consumer because, historically, they haven't had to, and it's about time they did start listening. Because while Grandpa Joe, who has stuck with his faithful Pentium computer running Windows 95, may not be the market they are after, he does represent a portion of it that shouldn't be ignored entirely.

I couldn't have said it better myself.