So who is going to be switching to Vista?

Mike89 · Post by **Mike89** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:43 pm

Was just curious what you guys think about Vista.

I'm always ready to listen to what others think to get other points of view and maybe insight that I don't see.

Myself, I'm not excited at all about Vista. Just don't see what all the hubba is about. XP is filling my needs just fine, runs very stable and is set up just the way I like it (after all my fine tuning since it came out).

How many of you guys are going to immediately ditch XP for Vista when it comes out?

123cool · Post by **123cool** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:54 pm

gonna be waiting for atleast a year maby 2, i just bought this rig and im pretty sure vista will be prertty buggy untill a service pack comes out for it. im not excited when i eventually cant run games because i dont have dx10 then i will swap to vista.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:04 pm

Seriously, even if you WERE excited about Vista, learn from the past. New OSes need to go through a long teething period before they're stable and reasonably secure. The biggest problem with a new OS is always going to be lack of driver compatibility.

Case in point: WinXP was not even remotely a stable OS until the release of Service Pack 1, and was nowhere near secure until SP2.

Anyone who requires a stable OS (power user, business user, serious gamer) should stay the hell away from Vista until a year has gone by. Late 2007 we might finally have a stable Vista with most of the serious bugs worked out, and by then you'll start seeing games that you'll care about playing that look a LOT better running under Vista's Direct3D 10 API.

On a more basic level, why would you want an OS that - right off the bat - will require you to DOUBLE your memory? If you're a serious gamer you need 2Gb of RAM nowadays. The latest games just don't run worth a damn with anything less.

Vista, however runs like crap on 1Gb and really needs 2Gb just for normal day-to-day operations so you're going to want 4Gb for serious gaming.

I dunno, there's nothing in Vista right now - other than the bling which I don't need or want (I run XP in Classic Windows theme right now FYI) - that will improve my OS experience, and is worth the known aggravation issues that come with a new OS.

Heck if it wasn't for just a couple of things that XP does better, I'd still be running Windows 2000 Pro.

I'm definately going to recommend my small business clients and home users stick with XP for most of 2007.

If you are curious about Vista, I would strongly recommend you dual boot or run it on a testbed or virtual machine. I definately wouldn't install it on my main workstation.

Mike89 · Post by **Mike89** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:05 pm

I keep reading thinking I might see that, "wow, gotta have this" kind of thing that grabs me but so far I just don't see anything. Aero? Just don't care much, surely not enough to make that kind of change. DX10? I know that someday I'll have to change just for that reason (since I am a heavy gamer) but don't see that as a valid reason for at least a year (maybe longer). Better security? Well the way I have XP set up now (with various programs), I don't have any security issues (for what I do), so don't know what attraction I'm going to have to move to Vista for that reason. IE 7? Maybe I'm in the minority but I like IE 6 just fine. It does everything I need it to do.

So many unanswered questions, like how are games going to play with it, how is the performance going to be compared to XP, compatibility issues with current programs and hardware, stuff like that.

I remember when I upgraded from 98 to XP. I was slow to do that too but after I did, I wondered what the hell took me so long and how did I ever get by with 98. Dunno, maybe that same thing will happen with Vista, but I sure don't see it right now. Microsoft is doing a lot of PR trying to convince businesses and home users why they NEED Vista. Right now they sure need to do a lot more to convince me (for my home and work computers).

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:11 pm

Upgrading from 98 to XP is an unfair example. This is more like the upgrade from WIn2K to XP.

The security and stability issues are what concerns me. As Steve Gibson and other security people have pointed out, it's absurd to say "Vista is more secure than XP'. No one can predict that - only time and testing will tell.

Microsoft called WinXP "The most secure Windows OS" but that fact is that for the first 2 years 98 and 2K were far more secure than XP.

I never rush onto ANY new OS bandwagon, and I've been around since before Windows 3.1. It's always the same everytime.

Look at all the poor bastards who wasted their money upgrading from Win98 to WinME. For what?

My favorite line about the AeroGlass interface was from some reviewer's website:

"It looks like shellac on a shingle."

LOL!

Mike89 · Post by **Mike89** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:17 pm

Look at all the poor bastards who wasted their money upgrading from Win98 to WinME. For what?

That's what I mean (BTW, I was one of those poor bastards, heh heh).

I just gotta see more to convince me to change to Vista. I see a lot of people that are apparently going to jump right into Vista the moment it gets here. Why? Dunno, maybe just because it's new or the thought it's the "in thing" to do.

BTW, like your cat. I have one that looks very similar. I just have to get him used to the headphone thing.

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:26 pm

When you start to think about how secure Vista will be, think about this: How many times has Microsoft went to patching Vista on a flaw that was already existing on other Windows OSs previously in which they carried over the code?

It wasn't like Vista was created from scratch, they used alot of existing code in which there are security flaws existing, and which they are still being found. Then lets not forget the new code added to Vista. This will increase the potential for exploits, whereas Vista on release will likely be way more insecure than XP.

On a second note, when clients ask me about Vista and what it will do for them, I have to tell them: Nothing XP can't do for you now and without the need for upgrade. When I read the system requirements to some of them, they are astonished, I mean this is the biggest jump in system requirements ever between OSs.

For me personally, XP works fine, but I am likely to look into a good Linux distro in the near future as now the card which I had that required Windows to operate has failed, I have no major use for Windows anymore.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:31 pm

Some people just have to have the newest thing. That's fine as long as they accept they're paying for the privilege of being unpaid Beta Testers for Microsoft.

Bad enough I'll have to run Vista on a testbed here (already doing that with Beta 2) just to be familiar with it when servicing Vista systems. As usual Microsoft changed nearly EVERYTHING to make life difficult for IT people.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:51 pm

Ill tell you what my thoughts are as of right now.... I liked that 3d screen box thingamajigger that Linux distros are coming out with now..

Also, just hope the Linux scene will finally get off their bums and finally implement the ease of use into the functionality of using your good ol' pc progs on the OS.... I mean I know you "can" run just about anything if you were to want to, but come on make it standard by now.....

I premise the demise of M$ as an OS (besides the business world) as of right now, as soon as some issues I have with the Linux OS are addressed.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:30 pm

Linux needs to be made easier for dummies. I have Ubuntu installed in VMWare just for fun, and for the life of me I can't figure out how to install an app that I've downloaded.

If I can't figure it out, how can granny?

I do like the look of Ubuntu though, and install was very easy.

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:05 pm

I do agree, Linux needs to be made simpler, and installation packages need to be brought forth in a standard for all Linux distros so there is no issues.

Heck, for Windows there is MicroSoft Installer, you'd think Linux with all the people working on it could have come up with something that works effeciently.

So far Linux looks more like a toy to play with than practical for everyone. Linux needs to stop being "someone's plaything" and take a bigger role.

canton_kid · Post by **canton_kid** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:57 am

I'll wait for Vista 2.5 or 10something.

Dos 3 was ok but I upgraded to Dos 3.3 eventaully, then I think to Dos 5.
Dos Worked pretty good as I recall. No crashes and programs worked. Course that was BEFORE Windows!

I got Dos 6 with a system purchase and do to WIN 3.1 crashes (also with system) I did upgrade to Dos 6.1 but it did not help as claimed anyway.
Gee, History shows MS cannot make MS programs work in a MS OS. (MS DOS and MS Windows)!

Was there something called WIN95??? MS ME or MSBOB??
Oh ya, I remember 95, I bought it, installed it, a few days later I deleted it and got a refund! Went back to 3.1

WIN 98SE was great, great for crashing! It had about as many problems as 3.1 maybe more, but at least it did alot more when it worked. Unfortunately at least 2 very expensive hardwares would not work in 98 that DID work in 3.1. My scanner and video capture card would not install in 98 due to MS changes in driver files. This was not the cheap $50-$100 stuff we have today either, heck just a 1gig drive or 8 megs ram was $200 (each) in those days!
Funny thing is that if I installed WIN 3.1 first then UPGRADED to 98SE both scanner and video capture worked perect, but Windows crashed all the time. Installing WIN 98SE fresh it still crashed but not as often, but then my stuff did not work! No new drivers were ever made for the hardware and MS did not have any either. Another funny thing was the crashes were mostly just when using MS programs! IE being the worst!
Yes, I was capturing and editing video way back in Win3.1 !!!! Is all this bloat and resource hog stuff really needed? File size was badly limited in dos, but I could capture AVI without dropped frames, cut frames and edit in a graphics program, paste back into the video, edit sound, add or remove sound tracks, etc... with 8megs ram or less.
I had the only Stereo Betty Boop color cartoon with a Charlie Daniels sound track. I made it in WIN3.1 and I lost it in a Win98SE system crash!

After all those years I finnally have a WIN 2K system that runs most programs from the DOS 6 and Win 3.1 days without crashing!!!! YES, finally after 10-15 years MS made a Windows OS that will run Windows programs!!!!

What will MS screw up in Vista though??? I'm in NO hurry to find out. They can have my WIN2k disk and money when they pry them from my cold dead fingers!!!

kull
Maybe by then they will also have the all the holes patched!

ance: MS Executive after looking at the list of people paying MS to be beta testers, I won't be on that list though!

DaMaN · Post by **DaMaN** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:46 pm

no time soon for me. Been VMWaring it for about a week and have to say I am not impressed.I hope some programs start to utilize more 64Bit code so we can get our money's worth from these 64Bit processors. I just feel so lied to with all this hardware. 64 bit, dual core, etc. when's the software gonna catch up so we can enjoy?

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:37 pm

It isn't like you are being lied to. The hardware does offer alot of benefits, but it is the programmers which are slacking. The software improvements as of late have been minor compared to hardware, there just isn't anyone cracking the whip for major improvements.