Why do people hate Vista?

[AllGamer]

LOL that is so true.

Well the stuff about 98 being better than XP, that part remained true until XP finally got full support on drivers and other stuff, pretty much the same scenario here of XP vs Vista

back then in that transition time most games run better and faster in 98, but now in days, it's laughable if you can get a game running properly in 98, since they are mostly optimize for XP.

So this Vista vs XP thing is just another DeJavu, and things will sort out itself as soon as the world migrate to Vista, and supports for XP starts dropping, as it did in the XP vs 98 war.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hmmmmmm

7-30-2007 Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago

Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago, according to a survey by patch management vendor PatchLink Corp., while more said they will either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X.

In a just-released poll of more than 250 of its clients, PatchLink noted that only 2% said they are already running Vista, while another 9% said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months. A landslide majority, 87%, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows.

Today's hesitation also runs counter to what companies thought they would do as of late last year. In PatchLink's December poll, 28% said they would deploy Vista within the first year of its release. But by the results of the latest survey, fewer than half as many -- just 11% -- will have opted for the next-generation operating system by Nov. 1.

Reconsiderations about Vista have given rival operating systems a second chance at breaking into corporations.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmmmmm

7-30-2007 Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago

Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago, according to a survey by patch management vendor PatchLink Corp., while more said they will either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X.

In a just-released poll of more than 250 of its clients, PatchLink noted that only 2% said they are already running Vista, while another 9% said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months. A landslide majority, 87%, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows.

Today's hesitation also runs counter to what companies thought they would do as of late last year. In PatchLink's December poll, 28% said they would deploy Vista within the first year of its release. But by the results of the latest survey, fewer than half as many -- just 11% -- will have opted for the next-generation operating system by Nov. 1.

Reconsiderations about Vista have given rival operating systems a second chance at breaking into corporations.

So they will be on XP forever?....I think not since sooner or later they will have to upgrade to Vista or even Vienna ,kind of pointless argument really,we all know business companies are never the first to jump on the new platform whatever it may be,end of the day Microsoft are the ones that win and can choose what OS stays or dies,I look forward to their next OS Vienna and seeing the same old arguments.

Bottomline XP won't be here forever ,most sensible people know this.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmmmmm

We can both cherry pick links Dave...

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmmmmm

7-30-2007 Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago

Fewer businesses are now planning to move to Windows Vista than seven months ago, according to a survey by patch management vendor PatchLink Corp., while more said they will either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X.

In a just-released poll of more than 250 of its clients, PatchLink noted that only 2% said they are already running Vista, while another 9% said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months. A landslide majority, 87%, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows.

Today's hesitation also runs counter to what companies thought they would do as of late last year. In PatchLink's December poll, 28% said they would deploy Vista within the first year of its release. But by the results of the latest survey, fewer than half as many -- just 11% -- will have opted for the next-generation operating system by Nov. 1.

Reconsiderations about Vista have given rival operating systems a second chance at breaking into corporations.

If anything, this is more indicative of the fact that they did a really good job with XP, rather than any inherent flaw in Vista.

Aside from a few specific usages, there's no *need* for Vista in the office for some time to come. Hell, there's not even a really good reason to use 2000 over XP for basic office duties. 98 was unstable trash, but since 2000 its all been stable and good. Its going to eventually come down to hardware support, just like it did for XP vs. 2000. Just as with XP, they'll upgrade when it becomes more a question of "why not?" rather than a question of "why?".

But Mac OS and Linux are not going to gain any ground here...thats absurd. One has VERY limited hardware support, and the other has limited software support, and all three are stable and secure (in the right hands).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmmmmm

We can both cherry pick links Dave...

Bahahahahaha :laugh: Apples & Oranges

One would expect such a seasoned veteran to know better.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Hmmmmmm

We can both cherry pick links Dave...

Bahahahahaha :laugh: Apples & Oranges

One would expect such a seasoned veteran to know better.

I think that's what he was telling you. You should know better. If you dig long enough you can find links supporting any argument. Even dumb ones.

 

[VladMM]

Looking at businesses is hardly any indication of what we are discussing here. The fact that they will not upgrade has more to do with bottom lines that anything else - i.e. they have to calculate in training time for support personnel, training sessions for users, transitional downtime (setting up machines etc) and it is understandable that at this stage they would see little or no benefit by choosing this path.

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
LOL that is so true.

Well the stuff about 98 being better than XP, that part remained true until XP finally got full support on drivers and other stuff, pretty much the same scenario here of XP vs Vista

back then in that transition time most games run better and faster in 98, but now in days, it's laughable if you can get a game running properly in 98, since they are mostly optimize for XP.

So this Vista vs XP thing is just another DeJavu, and things will sort out itself as soon as the world migrate to Vista, and supports for XP starts dropping, as it did in the XP vs 98 war.

98 vs XP? My goodness... XP's initial release was leaps and bounds better than 98.

 

[nerp]

Anyone else not care if "businesses" are not planning on moving to Vista anytime soon? I'm happy with it. Whether or not the rest of the world clings to XP is about as important to me as what you ate for lunch yesterday.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
LOL that is so true.

Well the stuff about 98 being better than XP, that part remained true until XP finally got full support on drivers and other stuff, pretty much the same scenario here of XP vs Vista

back then in that transition time most games run better and faster in 98, but now in days, it's laughable if you can get a game running properly in 98, since they are mostly optimize for XP.

So this Vista vs XP thing is just another DeJavu, and things will sort out itself as soon as the world migrate to Vista, and supports for XP starts dropping, as it did in the XP vs 98 war.

Blah Blah Blah this isnt ture... Everyone says this but i dont remember any problems when xp came out. I installed it once and never went back... unlike vista im on my 4th install (sticking this time though)

 

[imported_falacy]

From the perspective of a person who provides telephone tech support all day, I "hate Vista" for what amounts to the following sentiment:

Why, in God's name, did Microsoft not just sell Vista as a bunch of optional upgrades to XP?

Honestly, you try telling an 86 year old lady who doesn't know any better how to reboot her new Vista machine. "Click Start, then "Turn Off Computer" just doesn't cut it in Vista. Nope, Microsoft just had to remove all those nasty words that have been helping people find what they've been looking for since the dawn of the windowed GUI... Now we have to explain the "Start Menu" and the "Circle with the line in it button" and you would be surprised how much these little details effect our average handle time (fortunately for me, I can take as long as I like to resolve the issue). And, it's not just the Start Menu, but the whole of the Vista UI that is more difficult to assist someone in navigating verbally.

It seems to me that Vista is Microsoft's great "waste everyone Else's money" fiasco of the decade, because so many millions of dollars are being pissed away supporting/fixing it, yet Vista really does not offer enough of an upgrade in features, security, or compatibility over Windows XP to justify the cost and, often times, frustration of migration. Most businesses I support have no intention of upgrading to Vista, ever, for these very reasons.

Personally, I cannot agree to the terms and conditions in the Vista agreement, as I simply do not wish to hand over MY computer to Microsoft's every whim. Funny how the word my has been removed from the Vista UI...

The bottom line is that there are lots of things to like and dislike about Windows Vista. Until we see a fundamental change in computer hardware, I see no compelling reason to stop using my dual boot Linux/XP Home setup, as everything I would like to do with a computer I can already do just fine.

 

[bsobel]

Blah Blah Blah this isnt ture... Everyone says this but i dont remember any problems when xp came out. I installed it once and never went back... unlike vista im on my 4th install (sticking this time though)

How long after XP came out did you install it, we went thru the exact same thing with the 2K and to a lesser extent with the 98 crowd.

4th install, wth is wrong, drivers? Ive been on RTM since Novemeber and rock solid on all the boxes its on.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't like Vista due to money, same goes for MS. I couldn't afford their OS before, therefore they lost me as a customer...so to Linux the poor folks like me go ...but wait, it's not bad at all

 

[Cutthroat]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
I don't like Vista due to money, same goes for MS. I couldn't afford their OS before, therefore they lost me as a customer...so to Linux the poor folks like me go ...but wait, it's not bad at all

Well you're right, Linux is free, mostly. But Vista is the cheapest MS OS yet. I bought my copy of Vista HP OEM for $130, I remember seeing XP selling for $599 (more than video card at the time), I didn't buy it then.

 

[Mem]

Blah Blah Blah this isnt ture... Everyone says this but i dont remember any problems when xp came out. I installed it once and never went back... unlike vista im on my 4th install (sticking this time though)

There were loads of problems with XP, took 2 service packs to get XP to a decent level for both security and bug fixes,you don't remember the driver problems for example with Nvidia and VIA boards with XP in the early days ?.... Yes I had the problem like loads of other people.....those old timers here will remember the driver problems that caused in gaming with XP and bang BSOD,not to meantion the old AT threads on the subject.


As to your 4th install,its clear its not an OS problem but something else,you would be amazed on how many people blame the OS for problems(regardless or whether its XP/2K/Vista etc..) and it turns out to be something else,oh and Vista took me 20 mins and installed fine first attempt.

I don't like Vista due to money, same goes for MS. I couldn't afford their OS before, therefore they lost me as a customer...so to Linux the poor folks like me go ...but wait, it's not bad at all

Vista OEM prices are cheap, only a price of what 2 games with a good 5 year plus lifespan,good value IMHO,however there are still a lot of people on pirate copies of XP and that's one reason why they won't pay or upgrade to Vista.

 

[videopho]

I paid $79.99+ tax (50% discounted) for an Vista Home Premium Upgrade at a now defunct ComUSSR store.
I then paid another $10 for the 64 bit dvd upgrade from MS.
Folks, the amount I paid for such an outstanding piece of OS I've ever owned is a chum change.
I'd wholeheartedly recommend anyone who is still reluctant to jump on the Vista bandwagon, to do it now if you can.

 

[Modelworks]

As I said before.
Businesses will stay with XP for a long time.
They have no reason not to.

If your running a business and all your current needs are met by the software you already use daily, that doesn't have driver issues, doesn't have problems with the applications you use, then you don't upgrade.

It doesn't matter how pretty vista is, if its doesn't offer something that someone can't already do then people will not upgrade.

People that don't care about technology don't upgrade unless they are either forced to, or something is provided that they must have.

You can tell them about superfetch, indexing,uac, etc all day long.
The average person just wants that pc to work. And if it already does they see no reason to upgrade.

Business will not upgrade unless forced.
Would you risk downtime on your business to replace a system that already works because it the new thing out ?

 

[lajos]

I am fairly content with my Windows XP SP2 right now that I was unfazed when the new Vista application first came out and created some buzz around the internet. I don't think many users are convinced to jump on the bandwagon yet. Perhaps, most did out of curiosity but ended up disappointed in the end. I think there's no need to hurry.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: bsobel
<blockquote>quote:
Make a version of XP that will be available for laptops that is not going to "dissapear".</blockquote>

Dave, what I think you are getting at is that the major vendors shouldn't be selling Vista along with a bunch of additional software on 512meg devices knowing darn well the user experience will be bad. Those same machines at 1gig (and ideally 1.5gig or more) would be fine.

Someone here posted about a Dell Vista rig that came with 512meg. Given the cost of memory vs the cost of memory when XP was released, a 1gig (or more) box should be the standard from these vendors. It would alleviate 99.9% of what your concerned with (IMHO).

Bill

Yeah, this is hardly a new problem either.
Back in the day when XP was released, Dell&Co sold tons of boxes with 128 MB of RAM(think I even saw a 64 MB one somewhere...).
I guess that would be somewhat usable if you really ONLY use one or two decently lightweight programs, but considering they also loaded these with the usual complement of search bars, system tools, AOL adds, etc, these boxes didn't exactly scream.

MS should demand more of OEM's IMO.
The lappy I'm currently typing on has 512 MB of RAM, that's just WAY too little even for XP when you're trying to get some work done.
I'd say I spend enough time waiting for disk thrashing every week to pay for a new lappy, given what they pay me per hour, but still, it's their money, so whatever...
However, it also comes with a nice "Vista Capable" sticker.
Oh really? Vista on this box would probably make me install an SSH client on my phone and use that instead.
I don't understand why MS even permits an OEM to put that "Vista Capable" sticker on a box that can barely run XP at an acceptable speed, it just provides enormous amounts of fuel for the ever consuming FUD fire.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: falacy
From the perspective of a person who provides telephone tech support all day, I "hate Vista" for what amounts to the following sentiment:

Why, in God's name, did Microsoft not just sell Vista as a bunch of optional upgrades to XP?

Honestly, you try telling an 86 year old lady who doesn't know any better how to reboot her new Vista machine. "Click Start, then "Turn Off Computer" just doesn't cut it in Vista. Nope, Microsoft just had to remove all those nasty words that have been helping people find what they've been looking for since the dawn of the windowed GUI... Now we have to explain the "Start Menu" and the "Circle with the line in it button" and you would be surprised how much these little details effect our average handle time (fortunately for me, I can take as long as I like to resolve the issue). And, it's not just the Start Menu, but the whole of the Vista UI that is more difficult to assist someone in navigating verbally.

It seems to me that Vista is Microsoft's great "waste everyone Else's money" fiasco of the decade, because so many millions of dollars are being pissed away supporting/fixing it, yet Vista really does not offer enough of an upgrade in features, security, or compatibility over Windows XP to justify the cost and, often times, frustration of migration. Most businesses I support have no intention of upgrading to Vista, ever, for these very reasons.

Personally, I cannot agree to the terms and conditions in the Vista agreement, as I simply do not wish to hand over MY computer to Microsoft's every whim. Funny how the word my has been removed from the Vista UI...

The bottom line is that there are lots of things to like and dislike about Windows Vista. Until we see a fundamental change in computer hardware, I see no compelling reason to stop using my dual boot Linux/XP Home setup, as everything I would like to do with a computer I can already do just fine.

You provide telephone support for MS OS's? And you honestly think Vista is nothing more than a built in WindowBlinds theme? Holy crap....I guess even the average joe can be a support tech now :roll:

Smells like a troll post to me...1st post and all....

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: Cutthroat

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
I don't like Vista due to money, same goes for MS. I couldn't afford their OS before, therefore they lost me as a customer...so to Linux the poor folks like me go ...but wait, it's not bad at all

Well you're right, Linux is free, mostly. But Vista is the cheapest MS OS yet. I bought my copy of Vista HP OEM for $130, I remember seeing XP selling for $599 (more than video card at the time), I didn't buy it then.

I accept donations

 

[gplracer]

I am a teacher and can get the upgrade version of home premium for a good price. I am thinking of it but i do not know if it will mess up my photoshop CS2 and the way pictures are handled when printing. I use custom print profiles and i just do not want any headaches.

 

[legoman666]

I didnt read any of the replies but the reason I dislike Vista is because it is unnecessary. Xp works fine. That and Vista is a resource hog, there is no reason each successive operating system release should be slower and use more memory.

 

[nerp]

Yeah, you obviously didn't read the thread because you're spouting innacurate information and don't understand Vista.