Vista - Any known software issues ? ?

I'm thinking of switching to Vista so I can take advantage of the improved font rendering. Does anyone know of software issues that still haven't been worked out?

Examples:

Kaspersky Internet Security: Now Vista compatible
HP LaserJet Printers: Now Vista compatible
nVidia GeForce Drivers: Now Vista compatible (finally)


Can you guys list more compatible or non-compatible?

Thanks,

-Rob

 

Theres probably 500,000 threads about Vista on here, why don't you check some out.

Personally, I haven't had a single issue with Vista and I've been running it since beta...
..(on a mac)

 

It depends on how important font rendering is to you, me i avoid vista like its the plague covered in Tuberclosis and deep fried in bird flu. In short yes there will be incompatibilities, just consider yourself lucky you have picked a manufacterer that lets you choose XP still. But the worst ive heard and this is a flog worthy offense:

StarCraft = Incompatible

 

Minimal issues, but I would MAKE sure you're mission critical or must have applications are compatible with Vista or you'll be running them in a virtual machine.

 

BLASPHEMY !~!~!

 

I KNOW! I've made a VM image for my friends that contains that in Win 2000 image, but it just isnt the same.

 

I am loading Virtual PC 2007 as we speak I FORGOT about Starcraft (I know <GASP>).

Phil

 

Vista is very stable. I've been running it for a year on several systems with absolutely no problems. It has a vastly superior infrastructure to XP and I wouldn't want to run XP any more.

I believe anyone arguing differently is just religiosity.

 

Yes but my main concern (besides no StarCraft) is that it is so hard on resources when compared to XP, and i dont like that, I like seeing my CPU's under 5% 95% of the time, i like the fact i have 1.5 to 1.75 GB of free RAM, and i love the fact my GPU doesnt get used almost at all with it. In my mind it means that the hardware isnt getting stressed 100% of the time and even at idle, so I therefore think itll last longer. And i personally like Virtualbox for VM's.

 

Sorry for double post but heres a screen of task manager i dare any vista user to beat this with firefox, opera, trillian, and Media Player open and playing

 

I sitting here running vista ultimate with almost full lenovo bloatware. My system is using 1.5 gigs of memory. I have 3. The interesting thing is that my processor use is zero. It's totally flatlined and I run a performance monitor all the time, not just some time. Keep in mind that a full copy of SQL also runs in the background.

Your statements about stressed hardware and cpu overhead just are not born out in experience. If my vista system were any quieter as far as cpu demand was concerned.... it would be turned off and vista has a lot more to offer than XP.

Vista does seem to use more memory. Memory is cheap. But something I've known for decades is that new operating systems always require more memory because they have more functionality.

I think it's strange when vb6 diehards come in and say, "VB6 does random file access than .Net." It might. But what i point out out is that .Net has a different design center than VB6 did. .Net doesn't rely on files as much as it does managing information in memory. So why condemn a new technology by the standards and constraints of an old technology. That's sort of like waiting for Godot. Godot is never going to get here. You're going to be stuck on XP with no place to go.

 

Actually, compatibility, and running virtual are two separate issues in Vista. The virtual part only applies to 64-bit Vista. Every program that is written in 32-bit is running in a virtual machine, including about half the stuff MS includes with Vista64. Very few programs are written in 64-bit. Only a few rendering programs. All MS programs, including Office are running in a 32-bit virtual machine on Vista 64. In 32 bit Vista, there is no virtual machine, unless you install one. There is no capacity to run 16-bit programs anymore, which is where much of the incompatibility comes from. Most 32-bit programs run fine in Vista, unless the have hardware driver problems, bypass standard MS API's, or use chunks of 16-bit code (the world was amazed at how many programs had this, when Vista first came out...). You can probably find a list of what won't run on Vista, which gwets shorter every day.

 

your system may say those things, but overall it will not run be it games or any other detail oriented apllication to the same quality settings mine will (assuming both machines are identical except OS) because it has Vista floating around in the background sucking down resources, even if it doesnt say it it is and it will not perform all things being equal to the same machine running XP.

And they are wo seperate things but yet they are also not, Vista is meant to be the successor to XP thus it must take an example from it, but all it seems they did was make it prettier and give it more support for newer hardware. i will admit i have used vista a combined total of maybe 48hrs and XP i cant even begin to estimate, but I will wait for Windows 7 and see what that brings until then as far as i am concerned Vista is just Windows ME 2007.

 

Well Vista's memory management is geared towards using as much memory as possible to "anticipate" and hopefully speed up applications. I don't think that is a fair comparison given the change in architecture of the two operating systems. I can agree that XP has its advantages, but Vista isn't aweful either. They two are different rather than one being that much better than the other.

 

Well, Hawkeye I think your description of the situation is a bit oversimplified. Many applications will work faster in XP, but many will work faster in Vista. An example is SAS's latest revision which is optimized for Vista. I think there is no real winner here. I like Vista for the eye candy, and in the 64-bit varient for some real strides in security. But I can fully support those who still cling to XP with good reason in some cases. They both have their place for now, but XP will be less competitive as time goes one.

 

True, I think the only option here is to agree to disagree, but I think we can all agree that 3.1 is still the best Windows OS ever.

 

Well I think NT was the best version ever, and it should have been rolled out to the consumer products, but Microsoft chickened out.

Yes lets agree to disagree, but I think they are both good OS's. Phil

 

"your system may say those things, but overall it will not run be it games or any other detail oriented apllication to the same quality settings mine will (assuming both machines are identical except OS) because it has Vista floating around in the background sucking down resources, even if it doesnt say it it is and it will not perform all things being equal to the same machine running XP."

My system doesn't say so, my performance monitor does and I wrote it. I know what it does and how it works. You resort to hyperbole and almost hysterionics in asserting what you do.

Phil is saying what I said only in slightly different ways. It's ill examined to judge a new technology with a different design center by the standards of a old technology. Like I said, you are locked into XP with no place to go.

 

Vista is a mini revolution in how Microsoft has constructed operating systems, and as such it is a bit painful in its infancy, but as the product matures I think it will be a great stepping stone for the next generation of operating systems and programs. The difficulty in comparing XP and Vista is that the two are inherently different it isn't like comparing XP to W2K the two are build around some very fundamental differences in design. Not bad mind you, but different.

Phil

 

"but I think we can all agree that 3.1 is still the best Windows OS ever."

Windows 3.1 was great. It didn't do anything. No, it will not do to declare an apriori consensus on something where there is no consensus. I ran NT and it was OK for it's time. It's out dated now.

 

3.1 didn't much, and had very few devices, but it worked well for what it did. No argument here on that point.

 

3.1 was interesting. I never saw it do anything autonomously at all. If I wasn't typing... a drive light never blinked. Win95 was a little different. My system began doing autonomous things. Of course this has grown over the years.