Zoomba said:

The biggest barrier to Vista adoption by the end user is that it simply does not present a compelling enough reason to switch.

I'd go just a little further than that in saying that there's no compelling hardware out there that would make you want/need the new O/S to get the most out of it.

I'm a bit saddened at the lack of more development and push into the 64-bit direction.  Microsoft continues to let and/or encourages their OEM partners (Acer/Gateway, Dell, HP/Compaq, IBM, Lenovo, etc.) install the 32-bit versions of the O/S rather than the 64-bit versions.  Most of those vendors don't even offer an upgrade path to get 64-bit versions of the O/S rather than 32-bit, so, if you want 64-bit you have to go BUY a new copy of the O/S in order to get it.  Why?!!?  I bought a laptop that is capable of running 64-bit, should, by rights, perform better with 64-bit O/S on it, and yet I'm left running a 32-bit O/S because the vendor didn't want to deal with the hassles of offering a 64-bit version and/or they didn't want to answer a bunch of stupid questions about where the drivers are for that 64-bit version of the O/S.

Microsoft needs to get out the big stick and smack around their hardware vending partners to get 64-bit drivers out there, and they need to get out the stick and smack around their hardware vending partners to provide their customers with a clear path to move to 64-bit and away from 32-bit.

Until enough people are using 64-bit to get it to critical mass, we're going to be suffering from the lowest common denominator and be left half-stepping with 32-bit apps, 32-bit drivers, etc.  At the rate things are going, it may be another 10 years before we finally hit critical mass in that area, and by then we'll be using whatever replaces Vista and celebrating the fact that Microsoft has finally created a compelling operating system again.

I'd say that there is.  But it's not significant and not marketed well. 

I think MS thought that the new UI (not just aero but navigation) would make more of an impact.  The fact is that from Win3.1 to Win95 the interface improvement made a impact.  To a lesser degree to XP but still there.  The sales pitch was that upgradign will make you life significantly better.  Vista can't do that.  It can make you life incrementaly better in lots of ways . . . but not enough to get market buzz.

If Vista cost $50 a go, then it would be a sell out. But they priced it far above the actual value they are bringing to the table. Which, it appears, is less utility than you can currently get from XP.

I can See why Vista is sucking.. and why people like it. this runs right into internet explorer 7 i am a classic user.. start with commodore64, old apple, win3.1 and some Tandy laptop

~WinXP~
1. You don't have the advanced options so said to me like WinXP "us more advanced then regular people want them options"
2. You have that overly large thumbnail view.. "come on that was just evil"
3. No program support "which everyone knows"
4. Super Security - yes I know we need Security but so secure superman has troubles? - "yah lame"
5. The overly amount of versions.. "hey we don't need that many.. Home, Professional that's all we really need"
6. The Price Tag what was it $800 to $600 for ultimate "yah no bring it down to $400 to $300 and ill buy one"

There's Probably so much more also aren't they working on some new o/s already to be lunching out some time between now and 2012, and lets not forget.. win2003 it looks like a crappier version of vista

~IE7~
Yes yes I love updates to browsers and the shiny buttons, but when I'm forced to use the new interface and I don't have the option, to give me a IE6 look from the program its self come on.. and tabs.. wtf... please when I say turn tabs off I want NO TABS I want my annoying pop ups.. gimmie... gimmie... GIMMIE..

little more on the interface of IE7 file edit view.. the menus there.. I want to move them to the top were they should be.. i want my back home and refresh buttons were they should be options taken away.. not given.. blah.

why do people like it.. winVista And IE7
its pretty yah I like that start bar.. but its like the yellow book.. windows for dummies "no offence it really has been said"
people who love firefox.. tabs tabs and more tabs mahahaha

Yeah, I noticed orright....was playing good cop, bad cop....just wanted to be the bastard for a change.

Although it is somewhat dated, this article was thrust upon me again today, whether there is any significance or not I don't know, but it seemed relevant in the context of many not wanting to move on from XP, that MS must want its new flagship to sail ahead of the fleet.....aaarrgghh!!

I can't.  

I think that when the avg standard for RAM exceeds 3GB you will see this change since the 32bit OS will not recognize beyond 3GB. However, the lack of forward thinking in this area does amaze me.

The first reason I won't upgrade to Vista is the price...way over priced. The second is "having" to upgrade other things in order to use the thing. My WindowsXp works perfectly fine...does everything I need or want it to do. I've yet to see any compelling reason to upgrade to Vista. This is not saying I don't like change or I'm jumping on the "I hate Vista" bandwagon...I have no problem with change as long as its a good change and not more problems or holes in the system.

I'm on the I hate Vista bandwagon, just so we're clear. And I don't like change. But that doesn't change the facts that I would be ignoring if they weren't in my favor.

My PC is XP lap is Vista mainly I use the PC because it's what I am use to now but so was 95 and 98 and I prefer XP to them so expect as I use it more I will use the laptop more and more for ever day things. Not had any problems with Vista on the laptop it runs ok and thats all it needs do.

I'm having to use W2K right now and it sucks compared to XP...



I said this in another thread. Many people I talk to leaving walmart with a new PC say they are going to re-format the drive and install XP. Just something to think about. Also every person I talk computers with around here say they hear nothing but bad stuff about Vista so they are not gonna get Vista nor upgrade to Vista.

But if given an equal choice on a configurator between Vista and XP, is there an actual advantage to choosing Vista?

Not if all your other systems are running XP.  I just bought 2 for a client, and Dell let me specify XP.

I have a dual boot XP/Vista system. 90% of the time I boot into XP, make of that what you will   

Well I wasn't going to do so this, but what the heck. I recently did two posts that might help explain what's happening here. Once you read them again you might also be left with the impression that maybe Microsoft does realize the strength and staying power of XP.

Microsoft program puts new Windows on old PCs
WWW Link

Microsoft extends Windows XP's stay
WWW Link

I know, a shamless act of self promotion.   

My view on the situation.  

Kona, Kona, Kona, I hope you've picked yourself out a nice warm cave...as you remain in the computing Stoneage with all these other dinosaurs who refuse to move with the times.

Ya know, XP was actually worse in terms of stability/reliability at the same stage, yet many of those who condemned MS/XP to an early grave are now hanging on to it for grim death, now there's a new kid on the block to bully into hiding.

I suppose, though, if you listen to the doom-sayers long enough, you'll be able to convince yourself they're all right and Vista is a death knell to your PC....actually, it would be. That old Compaq of yours would curl up in the corner and die at the thought of running (a real OS) Vista. BTW, how's that 2000 of yers coming along???

In general, I guess my point/question is this: how many people give Vista a bad rap because they have underpowered machines, and know it, meaning there's no point to getting it no matter how much they (secretly) want it????

Also pertinent, how many of the reviewers/journalists/so-called experts tested Vista on underpowered/inadequate machines with not enough RAM/CPU, etc?? Given how many of those inadequate early pre-builds that got released into the wild, it's a good chance the test machines were Vista UN-ready, so did not give a fair/true indication of the OSes ability/stability, etc.

For example, I began to read a lousy review by some twit writing for an Oz newspaper, but when I realised he was testing Home Basic on a Dell with only 512mb Ram, there was no way on earth I could take him seriously and stopped reading (with that page being cut up and relegated to the bog for if/when we run out of toilet paper)

I make these points/pose these questions because I've been running Vista Ultimate trouble free since the first public beta and have no complaints because I find it to be quite stable/reliable....as do millions of others.



Was speaking to a rep for MS Australia on Tuesday and he said that this would be up for review after Vista SP1....whether or not sales increased in the 1st quarter of 08. He suggested that if Vista sales worldwide improved enough during Q1 then XP OEM licenses would most likely be no longer be shipped to mfg's.

To put it simply, I just cannot afford to upgrade to Vista (outrageous) and to update my hardware. Besides, all my software works without problems.

There it is in a nutshell. Expense.   

Starkers - I am not complaining about running Vista on my machine. If I will not buy a copy of XP right now what makes you think I'll run out and get Vista in any flavor? I'll stick to 2000 and Linux until I get a copy of XP next year.

I was talking about people running Vista on Dual Core CPU, 2 Gig DDR and 400 Gig hard drive with 256 meg video cards complaining about Vista.

There is more than enough people even here to tell you that Vista wasn't ready.

And I don't live in the stone age. I have a pretty good setup. Even has the latest DVD Burner technology with the exception of LightScribe. Not everyone can afford to keep up with the Jones nor should some try as they know what is wrong with the next big thing...

Hey Kona, please don't take everything so literally! I was joshing with you about the stone age and picking out a cave....it was very much tongue in cheek cos I last recall you wanted to know about your Windows 2000 machine and how to "speed this pig up". I mean, if your machine is struggling with 2000 at present and it's even older than XP, it stands to reason Vista would die an 'orrible, 'orrible death on it.

Now my dear ol' granny would have said: "If the cap fits, wear it!", but I'm won't. Truth is, though, there is a lot of people who complain bitterly about/badmouth things they can not have/use, and that was a point I was trying to make (in a roundabout way).



Thing is, Kona, there'll always be some who are dissatisfied/disenchanted with certain products, but in the case of Vista I'm still hearing more happy stories than bad raps. Truth is, though, XP was in worse shape at the same stage and took six years to become the stable OS it is today....but if MS hadn't released it into the wild when it did, XP would still be a computing pipe dream.

Unfortunately, for PC users, as much as software and OSes go through rigorous lab testing, lab testing isn't enough and it still needs to be released and used on the multitude of configurations in the wild before all the bugs can be found/resolved.

As for keeping up with the Jones', just keeping up with yourself at times can be a daunting/full-time task.....

Starkers - I would have no trouble running XP on here. I just don't remember 2K being this slow but it's a Compaq redone 2K so that might be the clue we are looking for.

And now we have no choice but to wave goodbye to that stable OS we already have and buy a new one which is less stable, less secure, has huge compatibility problems, requires more hardware resourсes and gives nothing (speaking of functionality). Oh, and believe me, my PC more than capable of running and I'd say flying Vista, but me... I'm experiencing lack of motivation to spend my money on something I already have.

ps. Sorry for my English :^)

...I wouldn't go that far. I don't know about you, but when a Display driver fails I really dislike having a BSOD. In Vista that sort of thing doesn't happen. You get a nice little warning message saying that it failed and that it's going to attempt to restart the display driver. In XP you would get a nice BSOD and that would be it.
Again, I don't know if you enjoy getting blue screens or not, but I'd rather not.

In some cases, yes.
I'm running x64 and I haven't run into a signel compatibility issue yet. Games, Codecs, they all work fine.

So don't upgrade to it. You have nothing to worry about, for the time being.

With that being said, it's always better to get used to things sooner rather than later.

--
I think the main reason people don't want to switch is very simple, they don't like change. Once you get used to something, you tend to want to keep it the way it is.

I'm sure XP would run great on your Compaq....hopefully you'll be able to reformat with XP fairly soon....might also be a good idea if you can to beef up your RAM a bit as well. RAM is dirt cheap right now - I just got myself 2 DDR400 1 gig sticks for AU$110.00, the best price I've ever seen it...so it might be best to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak.

BTW, I have absolutely nothing against XP. In fact, now that I've just acquired myself another main case, I have a spare and enough parts from previous upgrades to build me a dedicated XP Pro box to save dual booting between Vista & XP. Yep, that's right, just cos I have and espouse the virtues of Vista, it don't mean I'm ready to let go of XP just yet....over the last 5 years or so I've become rather fond of it.



I think another factor, apart from becoming accustomed to/fond of older technology, particularly with computing/software/Oses, is the learning curve involved in becoming as proficient on the newer machine/OS, etc. Some people with busy lifestyles simply don't have the time to learn new operating skills, and others fear the change because they had difficulty coming to terms with the previous incarnation(s)....

I saw this when my sister begrudgingly upgraded from 95 to 98 to XP....more recently when my mother asked her to look at something/turn on her Vista machine, I could hear the trepidation and reluctance in my sister's voice....and when it was on, she seemed overwhelmed by its difference/the thought of having to navigate past go....er, the start button. I jest not!

Fuzzy Logic said:

That you're a nutter?

I'v got the same setup, but am in Vista 99.99999999999% of the time

As I gaze down this thread I see a hint that we may well be getting had by Microsoft and we are justifying something that really has no justification. Progress supposedly is about saving us time and money and about simplifying things. Vista requires a bigger, more powerful and therefore more expensive computer to run effectively. It is more complex in its operation and takes up more disk space.Plus it has no real advantage or gain. I own a copy of Vista and took it off. I have looked down this thread and conclude that Vista is a con job and a lot of people have fallen for it. Who says we inevitably have to use Vista.....if it was the only available OS then that would be true. It isn't though and it is my guess that they created a donkey when they created Vista.