Convert a Vista Sceptic!

I just realized I can get a copy of Vista Business for free through university. Now the question is, why would I want to?

So I figured it might be fun to turn it into a little challenge for all you stinkin' Vista lovers...

So here's the deal:
Convince me to install Vista on my home computer. You probably already know a good deal of what I use my computer for, and why I'm not impressed by Vista, since I haven't exactly been quiet on that front...

But just to summarize:
I'm a computer science student with a part-time programming job. That means two things.
1) I like to pick my computer, or the software on it, apart on a regular basis, and I like the freedom to do anything I like, install or write weird software, reinstall from time to time, mess around with my partitions layout, and pretty much anything.
2) It also means I don't want anything that limits my productivity. I don't want to have to deal with incompatible software, and I don't want an OS that slows down my system noticeably. And I don't want eye candy that is impossible to ignore (So no dancing singing clip-art, no toolbars jumping all over the place, and I'm not even sure I'm hooked on the idea of transparency)

And second, I'm an avid gamer. I don't want to sacrifice gaming performance, unless I get something really nice in return.

And one thing you have on your side:
As I said, I like playing around with new software and such. Vista obviously falls into that category. And hey, I might be able to write a lot of fun little utilities for it.

Ok, enough talk.
The rules are simple.
No personal attacks, no flames, no nasty words.
Just your best debate skills, along with any "evidence" you like. Interviews, reviews, home-made images or youtube videos or anything that may demonstrate how amazingly useful Vista is.
I'll try not to get too involved in the discussion. I'll try to simply respond to your cunning arguments by saying whether or not they sound the features you talk about sound useful *to me*. (If you try to tell me that Vista is stable, I may just point out that my XP installation is already perfectly stable, so that argument is rather useless to me)

Teach me the error of my ways!

 

Windows XP has official support from Microsoft until 2010.

Linux + beryl + wine has nifty effects, and you can still play many games.

I figure it's not worth it, especially given your "I don't want to sacrifice performance for crap" statements. You might consider upgrading to Win2K

 

for you:
1. its free
2. its 64bit capablities will make working with large file faster.
3. it is a multithread OS so the your X2 or core2duos can run closer to there potential
4. its supposed to be more secure
5. almost everyone at some point will upgrade to vista so this way you are ahead of the rush.

thats the only reason I will get it, it does have some features that i like for example i can turn the screen off(or so I am told) in use, which gives me better battery life when using Jaws. but that is useless for you.

i personally getting my free copy of Vista business 64 Bit, but i will not install it untill there are drivers for it.

i would not Install it now it would just acquire it, thats all but eventually you will have to get vista. unless you put off upgrading until the next operating system.

 

get it play with it if you don't like it uninstall it simple as that the only opinions you have to answer to are yours
IMHO vista rocks just because it's new!
jim

 

honestly on every system I have seen vista run on, it has overall seemed much much much quicker, everything. gaming, normal use etc. boot up times shut down times.

compatability isn't a big issue, unless you are using extremely random software there souldn't be a problem at all with that.

the new interface is just much more efficient to use, etc. and anything you don't like can be changed disabled.

bottom line is, i really doubt your performance will suffer AT ALL. it will probably improve.

ALSO, i don't really care if you use VISTA at all, make a decision for yourself unless you are offering prizes, etc. haha, seriously

 

I'm on the fence until I acquire more knowledge. I'm not in a rush to get said knowledge, so until then, I'm liking what Patrick said on TWiT (paraphrased): "yeah... Vista's... Vista's an improvement on Windows.. ME.."

Having used the beta, some things strike me as good. I'll pretend that there aren't any downs and focus on those:

1. The start menu. I really, really like starting programs by typing their names.
2. The Widgets. I actually use these. I'm a person who never knows the date. Having the calendar is a nice convenience. I like the weather one, and the notes one. Maybe that's just stupid.
3. The firewall has outgoing rules. (I think. I only was in there once, a while ago.)
4. The windows explorer address bar thing is kinda nice.
5. I think they fixed one of those ridiculous networking timeout issues.
6. The Users directory is easier to navigate to than the buried Documents and Settings one, though that's not a huge deal. This is just me again, but having the word "My" removed is a relief too. I always felt... dumber somehow... when using the "My Documents" folder.
7. Apparently Vista has real symlinks.

edit: ok. nevermind that about pretending there're no downs. I'm angry about the way it looks like drm is going, hardware-wise, and I've had the worst sound driver issues... hopefully they'll be cleared up soon after it's released to the general public. I do have a less-usual soundcard (an audigy 2 zx platinum pro superlative plus ultimate really-great e_e; ).

edit2: windows photo viewer lets you pan around with the left mouse button in real time -- that is, it updates as you move the mouse. on the other hand, it doesn't interpolate images when you zoom.

 

Just remember, those of you that are basing your opinions on the Beta, that what you were/are using is a BETA title. The software obviously had bugs, and that's why MS put out a public beta. The actual software title is apparently much better quality. I haven't used it, but I'm waiting for my copy to come from Intel.

Just don't be to harsh on what was a BETA OS with very obvious flaws.

 

I think there was a thread recently that had a fellow who could not get his games to work in Vista Business edition. I know, I know... supposed to be convincing you to get it. Perhaps the biggest plus is that the thing is free. Just look at it as another Linux distro you are trying out; If you don't like Vista Business just reformat.

I noticed that someone in this thread said that Vista performs just as quick as XP does. Is there any truth to that... I mean supposing you turned all of the eye candy off would the performance be equal?

By the way I was looking at the stat sheet for Vista business 64Bit and apparently it supports 128GB of ram (yes thats gigabytes)

 

That has been my experience. Vista seems to run just as fast as XP did, interface-wise, at least (eyecandy on. that cost is offloaded to the graphics hardware anyways). I do have two gigs of ram, and that probably plays a part. Performance in games seems similiar. I don't have any solid comparisons -- Oblivion just seems to be around the same framerate as it was previously.

 

1) Its free for you. C'mon!
2) Sure, Vista may not be "worth it" for some people, but its still free for you! (I'm probably gonna keep nagging you with the "free" part)
3) Its visual enhancements are nice.
4) Its faster, more secure (for the time being), refined tools like Windows Photo Gallery and Windows Movie Maker. The Vista version of Movie Maker is much better.
5) It has Gadgets! Okay, so you can get them from Mac OS X or Yahoo or others, but whatever, you still get Gadgets.
6) Search! Its still nice to have instant search integrated inside, even if others already offer Instant Searching.
7) Vista "Backup Save" thingy ma jiggy. The thing where you can revert to the previous document before it was saved. Its useful for some, and if you find it annoying you can turn it off.
8) Its free for you! C'mon!

 

Hepatitis is free too Just because someone gives you something for "free" and claims it's worth more doesn't make it so.

 

Well, we live in the 21st century and there are vaccines available to prevent being infected with hepatitis

Sure, but it would not be any better if you had to pay for it

 

Here is what I can say from using Vista on my Macbook can say so far:

1. It is something new. You must at least try Vista if you want to stay up to date. I can tell you that Vista is totally different than the impressions reviews etc. give you. You have to use it yourself in order to fully appreciate it.
2. It looks gorgeous. All the colours and icons have been revamped (about time too), making the default theme is much nicer than my good old trusty XP Royale Theme.
3. It is very responsive. Despite needing many times the resources XP requires, Vista feels very responsive and fast if those resources are available. I run it with 512MB of RAM, and the OS is fast. Haven't tried 3rd party applications yet though.
4. It is a huge improvement over XP Service Pack 2. Maybe not in the resource hogging department, but definitely in most other areas. I have to stress SP2, because annoying messages like OMG ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO LAUNCH THIS APP and OMG YOU CLICKED ON A LINK THAT OPENS IN A POP UP began appearing with SP2, and those annoying messages are still present in Vista.
5. Besides, isn't it time to be changing your OS after 5 years of boring XP?

 

Don't bother.. that's my thought...

So far all comments seem to lead to "but dude it looks so pretty"

Who cares... I don't need it to look pretty, I need it to work well, XP is okay, Ubuntu covers other stuff (now if only I could get around to actually properly partitioning and installing Ubuntu on my machine).

 

No, they don't lead to it, it's just that looking pretty is one of the more obvious improvements of the OS, which is why everyone's listing it.
It is not the only improvement, it is one of the many.

 

upgrading to vista is like picking up some unknown mushrooms to be eat. Don't eat it unless others have tested it for poisons. I can assure you that there are problems in Vista. Let other people be your doomed guinea pigs. If you have can get a copy for free, do it. It might not last any longer. Just burn it to a dvd and let it collect dust until SP1 or SP2 comes out. However, it might be fun to see just how bad Vista is. That's why i'm installing it on a spare computer that's I don't use anymore. Just remember: if you want your computer to commit suicide, upgrade; though it might be fun to watch it do that (then reformat). However, if you are actually planning to use your computer for productive purposes, don't.

 

Watch Bill Gates keynote on Vista:

http://www.microsoft.com/events/executives/billgates.mspx

 

Yes, but no-one seems to be able to define others, the only benefit listed in your post is it looks pretty, however you've listed a good number of negatives.

Their are two reasons right now that I would upgrade to Vista.

1. Because I have a 64bit processor and programs that I know will make use of it if I install Vista 64bit version.

2. Because some program I MUST run needs Vista.

 

Ok, let me try to answer a few of the interesting reasons then.

It's free: Yes, viruses are free too. That doesn't mean I want them. The important question is, does it also add any value?
64-bit is faster: I used Windows X64 for a while, didn't notice any difference. I also don't usually work with really big files.
It's better able to take advantage of multicore: It's technically no more multithreaded than Windows XP was. if you have any *practical* experience showing multithreaded software performing noticeably better, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
"It's the future", or "You'll have to do it sooner or later". Sorry, I don't buy that. Lots of things are the future. Personal space flight is probably the future too, but I'm not going to go out and acquire my own space shuttle any time soon. Again, does it add value *now* is what I want to know?

The new interface is more efficient to use: Examples please? Microsoft has been praising the interface for the last three years. I don't care about hype or empty buzzwords. I want to know what's *really* an improvement in it.

Anything you don't like can be disabled: First, that's not much of a reason. It's basically just saying "With enough work, it won't be *worse* than what you have". I'm interested in whether it can be *better*. And second, is that really true?
Can I disable the thing where each level in the start menu covers the previous one, for example? I prefer having all the parent levels of the start menu clearly visible when I'm using it.
(And what about the things I can't disable, such as the DRM infections?)
It's a valid point though, especially if you can add some more detail to it. Customizability is definitely a think I appreciate. If I can get rid of unwanted junk and bloat and stupid useless features that shouldn't be in an OS in the first place, that's nice. If I can do it to a greater extent than XP allows me, we may just have a winner. But I'll need more concrete examples of where Vista lets me get rid of *more* annoyances than XP does.

Being able to start programs by typing their names: Isn't that what the Run dialog has always done? The one I can open just by hitting windows key + R?
The widgets: Meh, most of them seem pretty useless to me. I tried the image library/viewer thing back in beta, and it froze for 10 minutes while it scanned through my image files. And what does it give me that, say, Picasa doesn't do equally well? As for the calendar, I've already got today's date down in system tray, next to the clock.
The address bar in Explorer: May be a big improvement on XP's Explorer, but third party programs have had the same feature for years.
Symlinks support: Nope. It has about the same support as XP does. It's still not supported on the filesystem level. The only difference may be that Vista actually *uses* them. I'd be interested in knowing how much it does this, though. Does that make it easier to organize your files differently from what Windows suggests? (Program files or Docs & Settings on different partitions, for example). If that is easily possible, it would certainly count in Vista's favor.

Sound issues with audigy 2 zx platinum pro superlative plus ultimate really-great: Er, that's the same I have... Oh well, they'll probably get that fixed...

Better bundled programs, such as Movie Maker or Photo Gallery: Does that make them worth using? I've never used Movie Maker (and I don't plan to. I'm not a movie-making kind of person.
But does the photo gallery offer something better than what third-party apps do and have done for years?

It's responsive, even with 512MB RAM: Hmm, sounds nice. Of course, a clean installation of XP is responsive too. Keep us informed when you start adding third party apps.

Some interesting points so far. Thanks all, keep it coming. I should probably stress though, that I'm not interested in what Microsoft has to say about it, or about whether or not it's *said* to be faster or more secure. I'm after actual first-hand evidence. Have you come across a particular thing that Vista just does *much* better than XP? Does it manage lots of files better? (Under XP, Explorer practically chokes on a folder with thousands of files. And if you try to *copy* them, it spends the next hour on "preparing to copy".
How exactly does the interface make my life easier? This is one area where I think Mac OS has got it right. What they do instead of alt-tabbing is just so **** nice and elegant, and allows you to have dozens of apps and documents open simultaneously *without* it getting messy.
I know Vista has revamped alt-tab, but does it work better, does it come close to what Mac does, or is it just prettier to look at?

What are the things that make your life easier when you use Vista?

Oh yeah, and of course, ++rep to everyone who provided valid points. (If you don't get any, assume it's because I repped you recently, and can't do it again yet)

Edit: Oh yeah, I found this post really interesting. Can anyone think of any redeeming features to compensate?

 

Windows Flip 3D is a nice elegant way to switch to what you want without using alt+tab and also gives you a preview of what window displays what.

When you hover your cursor over a running application, it gives a thumbnail of what it looks like, this could be nice because you don't have to switch to it to see what its doing.

Of course, searching in the start menu is handy and searches all your files and folders and even email for what you are looking for.

Also new feature in explorer where you can have a preview pane. This is so that you don't have to go into Word or Adobe or whatever to see what your file looks like.

Speaking of MS Word, everything you do that formats how text looks like (fonts, themes, etc) ALL have feature where hovering over the font or theme you want gives a preview of how the text would look like with that theme. extremeley useful to me when I want to test out each type.

Increased security - user account control, you can set permissions whenever you try to modify files (so example copying a file requires admin permissions).

I also like how the start menu doesn't expand to save room.

And widgets of course, displays news, time and anything else you would want on your desktop.

For tablet PC: input panel always handy wherever you want it, pops out when you need it, goes away when you don't.

Windows Defender is an automatic spyware remover without having to install spybot or something.

And Windows explorer can burn files. No need to use Nero or third party app, works fine too.

 

I wouldn't say more efficient, just more accessible. The number of links and options on the pages have increased (like the tasks in the side bar of Control Panel or any sub menu), allowing quicker access to specific tasks (there now is a link that will lead you directly to a startup items manager, which in my opinion is a gigantic improvement over XP - no more need for msconfig or registry editing).
Most of these things are minor, but hey, it's usually the small things that make the big difference (take expose for example. It just tiles up all your open windows so you can pick the one you want to open. Can be done by Alt Tabbing, but just saves that bit more effort).

Well, the Search function in Vista is more similar to Spotlight in OS X than to the abysmal piece of junk that is in XP. So, you can open Windows Media Player by pressing the Windows key and typing media (provided you don't have frequently used files named 'media')(also note that this is much better and user friendly than Windows key+r followed by mplayer.exe). Of course, this is nothing new if you have OS X or that new Linux search engine whatever it's called, but it's something that wasn't in XP, and it's good.

Exactly, in the Beta. Now, in the Business Edition, the gadgets sidebar works just like Dashboard in OS X. Although it is quite a resource hog (on my Macbook at least, which is all software rendered as I'm using Parallels), it is still something that XP did not have, and it is nice.

It's built in now. No more need for those 3rd party apps. Just like the Photo Gallery software.

That's gonna be a while. The OS X on my Macbook becomes too slow to bare with Vista running in the background (even though Vista is running fine because of Parallels pre-allocating all the resources to itself and leaving OS X with nothing), so I won't be using it as my main Windows for quite a while (maybe after Parallels gets 3D support or when 2GB RAM prices drop to £100 or below).

Close to Exposé? Hell no. But it is better than the Alt Tabbing in XP. You can now CLICK on the window you want to view in the Alt Tab menu, so if you have two dozen windows open and you want to access number 21 but accidentally pressed Tab 1 time too often, you won't need to press Tab another 23 times.


Vista isn't the best Operating System on the planet right now. It's far from it. OS X totally rapes it in many aspects in my opinion, but compared to XP, it is definitely better.

 

Windows Flip 3d: Well, have you tried Mac's version? If not, I'd appreciate the views of someone who knows both. Yes, it looks fancy, but here's the important question. Does it enable me to have more apps open at the same time, without losing my overview?
With XP, I can have maybe 10 windows open at the same time before I'm forced to spend more time switching between them. At 15 or so, switching between windows is just a painful chore.
On Mac, I've seen people easily and casually have a hell of a lot of windows open, neatly separated and easy to switch between them, or just see a thumbnail of what each contains.
So, does Vista's version offer some of the same? Does it allow me to keep track of, and switch between, more active windows than XP does?
I don't care about how fancy it looks, and seeing thumbnails when I hover the mouse over doesn't matter much either. What I want is a quick and simple way to switch between lots and lots of windows, without getting a cramp in the finger used to hit tab all the time.

Of course, searching in the start menu is handy and searches all your files and folders and even email for what you are looking for.

Preview pane in Explorer: Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't XP do that? Unless I disable it, it will show preview of at least some file types. (And I find it annoying as hell, because it leaves less room for Explorer, which is the app I'm trying to use)

MS Word: Huh, do I need Vista for the latest version of Office? (Anyway, I don't use Word, and it's my experience that wysiwyg and previewing and messing around with the layout yourself is the wrong way to go when writing documents)

User account control: The one that doesn't require a password or anything, and doesn't tell *what* it's asking for permission for? I find the added security doubtful at best. (And you've always been able to set permissions for modifying, reading or deleting files, and all that)

The more compact start menu: Yuck, I hate that. But hey, that's just me.

Widgets: Yeah, but are any of them actually useful? Assuming I pretty much always have a browser open (so news are easily accessible), my task bar is expanded so it shows the date as well as the time (so the calendar one is less vital), and finally, I can hardly ever *see* my desktop...

Can burn files from Explorer:: Yes, XP can do that too. And it's usually the first thing I disable when I get the chance. I want my OS to do OS things. I'll install the programs I need, like and prefer to do other tasks.

Easier access from control panel: Heh, I already run my control panel in classic mode, which gets rid of the sidebar, and just shows me a full list of everything in the control panel. Which means everything is available with just one click.

"It's built in now": Yeah, which might be nice and convenient, but I don't like it on principle. It's the reason why there were *zero* improvement in web browsers for 6 years. It's the reason IE pops up from time to time, no matter which browser I specify as standard. It means that *if* I find a superior alternative, well, I can't really get rid of the built-in stuff. I have to lug around Messenger and IE and dozens of other inferior programs, just because Microsoft in their infinite wisdom decided that all of this belongs inside the OS.

Ooh, nice, didn't know you could click to select windows. (Although you know about shift-alt tabbing in XP if you move past the window you need, right? )

 

By its very definition a skeptic is someone who doubts accepted beliefs. In the end I don't think anyone can convince you that you will like Vista, a lot of it comes down to personal preference. Hear is a post a made some were else that might be applicable in this case

 

Ah, but can you for example Access the Device Manager in 2 clicks (3 if you count a double click as 2 clicks) from the Control Panel? Sure, it's only the difference of 1 click, but it's the little things that make the big difference (like if you forget that Device Manager is under the Hardware tab and go around clicking on Advanced, System Restore etc. which I have done so many times in previews Windows versions. I really appreciate the fact that everything is now on 1 or 2 tabs, not a dozen. This might mean that the window will be more full than XP, but the number of clickable text is still nothing compared to the links on a page at notebookreview.com).

Too lazy to reach

Which makes this thread all the more fun.

 

Of course. But my personal preference is for an OS that does what an OS is meant to do, quickly, quietly and efficiently. And now I want to know if Vista can give me that.
And yes, then it'll be up to me alone to decide in the end, based on all your input. And so what? That doesn't make this thread any less useful.

Well, I can do it in 4 clicks from the desktop.

Yep, I'm enjoying it so far. Learning a lot of interesting little tidbits about Vista.

(Anyway, I think I'll try to get back to my original format, of just bolding interesting points, and answering without quotes. Takes up far less space, and seemed to work well for this thread)

Oh yeah, another question. Do anyone know how Vista deals with dualbooting? I know it's possible to start other OS'es from Vista's boot loader, but can I do the opposite too? Say I want to use Grub (or even keep XP's boot loader), is that possible? I've read that Vista is really possessive about the MBR. Can I kick it out and install another boot loader without breaking my Vista installation? And without Vista deciding to overwrite it again later, when I least expect it?

 

anyone running 64bit vista? hows battery life?

 

Jalf, install VMWARE and try the **** thing. If you don't like it, you can still remove it. But at least give Vista a try. I was like you, sceptical of Vista until i tried it. Now i'm a convert

Hey you are getting it for FREE
Get it NOW. Install later if you fear software incompatibility

Let me remind you that XP also had s/w compatibility issues when it was first released...

 

Yay, religious evangelism. What a selling point. "I didn't believe it until I tried it", "Cures baldness too", "Vista changed my life".

I'm asking for reasons why Vista is better than XP. If you don't want to play along, that's fine, but please, don't tell me that "You should just do it, despite the fact that I can't tell you why".
If I wanted a cult, I'd join Scientology, or buy a Mac or something, thank you. I'm after actual product information.

Omgwtfbbq!!! Free! So effing what? As I said, viruses are free too. As Pitabred said, quite a lot of diseases are free. Spyware is free. DRM infections are free. Rootkits are free. That doesn't mean it adds value to the system it is installed on. That doesn't in itself make it desirable. It just makes it less undesirable.

And the relevance is what, exactly? How does that translate into "Vista is a good idea to install"?

 

Even though i give you 1001 good reasons to move to Vista, it won't make any difference to you as you have already made your mind to hate vista. What i'm trying to tell you is that you have to try it by yourself to see if Vista suits your needs or not before flaming others who try to help. It does not hurt to setup VMware player and test install vista. I don't see how it would break your system. If you still don't like it, you can still delete it.

Also, if you look back, every major MS OS had compatibility issues when they were first released. From 95 to NT to 200 to XP to Vista. A lot of people were criticising how awful XP was when it first came out and now you can hear nothing but praises.

Look, if you want to stay in the dark, then its fine with me. I'm not the one who's going to stay ignorant...

If you want people to help you, change your attitude. Don't create threads so that you can bash those who try help to you Skepticism and cynicism will get you to nowhere...

 

I think you've decided yourself, Jalf. It really doesn't matter how much we try to convince you, because I don't think you've missed any "major" feature of Vista, and minor features don't seem to interest you.

So I think you summed it up yourself, and you don't need OR want to upgrade to Vista.

 

Well at the very least just get the free OS disc and give it to someone for Xmas or a Bday or something like that. I am sure you can find someone who would like to upgrade but cannot afford the $200 cost.

Sorry in all of the excitement I forgot a lesion I learned a long time ago: You can never convert a skeptic.

 

to be more specific: a skeptic can only be converted through his/her own experiences

 

Well, since the final version of Vista isn't available to most of us, I don't think it's possible to get a consensus of factual information to convert anyone. Even then, with the different flavors of Vista, all the different computer configurations which affect Vista, and the different needs folks have for their OS, it really probably will be an end-user decision for upgraders.

The best course right now is too let the early adapters put Vista through its paces and see how things fall out. I've already heard that MS is working on the SP1 for Vista.

Also, giving it a few months for software and drivers to catch up and it should be good to go.

 

Jalf, I fear for our future when our children are not open to debate for the purpose of increasing knowledge and refining opinions... It's not a fight; it's a talky thing.

Inside the Vista Kernel: Part 1
^- The bit under the heading File-Based Symbolic Links is what I was referring to. Apparently that isn't a "true" implementation of symlinks, but all the same, it could be very useful for a demi-poweruser like myself.

And someone else might have mentioned it by now, but run has to be something in your path variable, or the full path of the file (unless I'm wrong. I didn't use it a lot.), wheras the Vista start menu thing is based off windows's new search. It will find anything in your start menu, or I think anything that you've set up to be indexed. You can even type part of the name and if you get a unique hit, just hit enter. (ie I can type "torren" and hit enter to launch "utorrent") -- it's a time saver, especially if you have a big start menu. The cursor defaults to that search box when you open the start menu too, so you can easily launch programs quickly without the mouse.

I think the search thing is factored into the OS in other places. I haven't fiddled with it a lot. Explorer has additional grouping options as well. hmm... and, when you F2 a file to rename it, by default now the extension isn't highlighted initially. That's nice.

 

"I should probably stress though, that I'm not interested in what Microsoft has to say about it, or about whether or not it's *said* to be faster or more secure. I'm after actual first-hand evidence." /quoted from Jalf

I might have an interesting scrap of information. I'll tell the story.

When I was in Kimberely, British Columbia, I came across this empty little computer shop in the midst of their Bavarian celebration. Since the town was small and quite unfamiliar to me, the tech shop really appealed to me, so I went in and found the place to be empty, with just a few outdated computer components in the display window. Basically it looked like the owner was moving out (or in) as the whole space was bare. He was working at a drawing table, just a few feet from his computer desk, carefully drawing some company logos. Since I was waiting to meet someone, I eventually began making conversation with him, talking about what-else-but computers, and we landed on the subject of Windows Vista.

He was one of the original developers of the Windows XP OS, he said. He'd worked in Florida with the original development team there, and found employment under MS to be quite enjoyable (downright lazy and enviable is all I'm going to say). At the time (almost a year ago) I knew nothing about Vista, so I asked him about what they had done with it. He came up with some interesting points regarding security and the UI.

Besides providing a very confusing explanation about how MS had reduced OS response times, he described that, unlike XP, which could be attacked multiple times from the same IP without the OS "learning" to shut out incoming data from that user, Vista can refuse incoming information from an IP that has attacked it with malicious code before.

He also provided detailed descriptions of the technical improvements (most of which I have forgotten by now) of the OS, such as the fact that the GUI no longer experienced windows overlapping (where you move a window and the revealed desktop space remains the same color as the window background) due to the use of vectors as opposed to the raster (pixel desktop) graphics used in XP. This also means that images can be zoomed in/out on without any loss in image quality. Vista's interface also relied more on the GPU which, he explained, contributes greatly to it's increased responsiveness as less pressure is placed on core system components.

And of course he added that Vista is better prepared than XP for handling newer hardware and peripherals down the road, such as that new PDA or UMPC or whatever without exposing the OS to new security threats that XP would inevitably succumb to.

What he told me may or may not have been true, but that's what I remember this guy telling me. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Jalf!

 

Just a complete aside, but you know that there are filesystem level hardlinks in Windows 2000/XP, right? You just have to set what's known as a "reparse point", using a tool such as junction from Sysinternals. I personally have my c:\tmp and c:\temp as the same real folder on the disk so I can save space and sanity when I forget which abbreviation of temporary I use

 

Well, moderate scepticism is a healthy and normal reaction but anything above that is called cynicism.

 

Then why not just give it a try and decide for yourself ? Since you don't mind reformatting , what is there to loose ?

 

Ok, let's get all the whining over with.

Where did I flame people who were trying to help? I'd quite like to know this, so I can apologize, because that has never been my intention. And unless you can tell me where I did that, I suggest you shut the hell up and stop blindly accusing me of things I've never done. And when you're done shutting the hell up with that, I'd appreciate it if you stopped telling me what *I* think. I'm fully aware of what goes on in my head, and *I* am the only one here who knows whether or not *I* have made up my mind about anything.
And you haven't given me 1001 good reasons for anything. So far, you haven't given me *one* good reason.

Yes, I am aware that I could just install it and try it out. But if you maybe read my first post in this thread, you would see that I am partly doing this for fun (a challenge and a bit of fun debate), partly to educate myself and others (is there really any harm in publically explaining the advantages you see in a piece of software? You seem to think so. Personally I think the more people write about what they like about Vista, the more *everyone* who reads it will benefit. And finally, I did it partly because right now, I'm not inclined to spend a week messing with an OS I'm not particularly interested in.

And again, who cares about XP's compatibility issues when that came out? That has nothing to do with whether or not Vista is a good upgrade.

What? I am the one asking for people to share their experiences with me. How is that "staying in the dark"?
You are the one who apparently feels threatened by sharing of information. You are the one who isn't just staying in the dark, but is mortally scared of even the faintest light

Again, where did I bash anyone? And please explain to me how you are *not* bashing, flaming and trolling.

That's good for you. I'm glade you think. But here's a piece of information for you. My brain sits inside *my* skull, in *my* head, which is mounted on *my* body. That means *I* am the only one who knows what goes on in there. And I think that the reason I made this thread is because I have *not* decided, and because I think it *does* matter how much people try to convince me.
But thank you for reading my mind for me. It's so nice when people do that, so I don't have to think for myself.

--rep to you two for derailing the thread, for unbearable arrogance in pretending you can read my thoughts better than I can, for trolling and bashing, and for accusing me of the same.
Edit: Err, that'll have to wait. Seems I've given out too much rep the last 24 hours.

Thanks to everyone else, thanks to those people who don't actually mind sharing their experiences with Vista.

Certainly. I'm not in a hurry though. It's available as a free download, like pretty much any other MS software, and there's no time limit. I just have to get it before I graduate (which is in two years or so). But yeah, I don't intend to throw it away. Sooner or later, Vista will probably be hard to avoid. And when DX10 games start appearing, things will be a bit different.
So no, I'm certainly not throwing away my Vista license. The question is just if I should install it *now* or later.

Really? I think you may need to reconsider that one. I've converted several skeptics on various topics. I've been a skeptic about quite a few things that I've since then been converted about. I think what you mean is, you can't convert a close-minded person. But anyone who actually tries to learn, and are open to new information, can be converted.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going back on topic. Anyone who just wants to flame or who feel threatened by this dangerous controversial and abominable thing known as "debate" will be added to my ignore list. Thank you.

Symlinks support:
Interesting, thanks for that. Seems there's not that much new since XP. (The ability to symlink directories existed, and that's the most important one for me.)
However, the fact that stuff like the delete command now understands them is really nice. (deleting links got really dangerous under XP) Do anyone know if Vista itself uses symlinks, or allows the user to do so? (Say, is Documents & Settings a symlink, so you can easily move it to wherever you like? Or how about subfolders under Vista itself?)
In XP, I once tried replacing a subfolder under \windows with a symlink to another folder, to save space on that partition. Didn't work very well though, after a while, the folder just vanished. So if Vista itself allows (or even uses by default) symlinks instead of a hardcoded directory structure, that would be *very* nice.

Pitabred: Yes, I know XP and NTFS support reparse points and junction points already. I use them quite extensively myself. (Although the temp folder idea is quite good too. I think I'll have to add that to my setup) But they're not very well supported by NTFS. Basically, the path gets hardcoded into the symlink, with the current drive letter and everything. (So if you make a junction point pointing to C:\temp in your case, and then change the drive letter of that partition to D:, your junction point will *still* point to C:\temp (which may not even exist any longer). That also makes it a pain to use them between multiple OS'es. (I have two Windows installations, and for my symlink setup to work properly under both, I had to ensure that both use the exact same drive letters for every partition. That's no easy feat with XP's lousy installer. (As an aside, does Vista's installer give you any more control over where Vista should be installed, and which drive letters to assign?)

bc135: Thanks, interesting story. And yeah, he had some good points, it sounds like.

PhoenixFx: I never said I liked formatting. I just said I do it regularly.

 

When (If) I move to Vista , I will first install it along side XP (dual boot) cos then I can quickly switch back to XP in case of a problem. If you have plenty of HDD space then keep XP and install Vista separately; ditch XP when you feel you don’t need it anymore. (running two up-to-date copies of Windows installations is a hassle though; but then again : no pain no gain)

 

Closed this thread, too much arguing.