Whats up with all you HATE for Vista. Impatient as hell

Then why does my desktop run smoothly on 1GB?

I full gig to start up? I seen my friend load Vista on a 512MB and it ran started up just fine. He probably isn't able to Multi task at all though

 

Can i call up HP & will they offer me XP professional sp 2 ???? free?

 

Well, Microsoft has made a "downgrade to XP" option available to Vista users. I'm not sure on exactly who it applies to though. Google it.

 

try installing another gig...and it will even run more smoothly ...i have all the features enabled as well including sidebar and aero

 

Are you so sure? Perhaps I cannot afford the extra $60 needed to upgrade to 2GB, because I have to pay for a laptop and internet connection. I understand that features mean more memory consumption, but when I use Vista, I cannot see where that extra memory is being put to good use.

As it is, I can afford to spend $200 upgrading to 4GB ram, and I can afford to buy Vista. I just cannot see the justification in either if everything I run can be handled by XP/OS X/Arch already.

(The 4GB is just to run them all at once )

 

i said 1 gig...2 gigs would def be more

In fact, it is being put to good use...making restore points...discfetching...more powerful multitasking....if 1 program gets bogged down...it doesn't affect other programs...that is just a few I can think of

from my experience...i would never even consider XP again...in fact, when i have to use it at the hospital...i feel like frowning at the 'candy'ed' UI

 

And you know this person's finances so intimately, how?

 

it's all basic deduction....if you have a notebook, which averages ~$500, assuming he has the worst notebook...and you can afford a internet connection, which runs at minimum $10 a month...tell me how he can't spend a mere $20 for an extra gig of memory?

It's like spending $25,000 for a car...but you can't afford to buy gas or have auto insurance?

 

$20 for 1 gig? Where did you pull that from? Here in Australia 512 is a minimum $100.

The cheap knock off's from Hong Kong go for about $50.... but hey- price does say something about quality, and I dont want crap going into my machine.

 

oh yea..i keep forgetting that everything is still so expensive outside of the US....my apologies for making assumptions

in the US u can get 1gb of kingston (or any other good quality ram) for $20
you can buy 2x1gb for like $40

now you must admit..for ~$20 for one gig of ram...people shouldn't be complaining about vista when they only have 1gb...in the US of course

 

Thats ok. I may get something later on.

 

I mean, some laptops have an XP option when you buy them.

Not sure how you can upgrade to XP once you have a Vista-loaded laptop, though [I'm not expert, which is why I just bought my Vostro with XP already pre-loaded ]. There are a bunch of topics on upgrading Vista to XP. Search the forums.

 

Yes, I did mean right after a fresh install, it runs at 400-425 MB. But that still leaves a good amount of space for programs et. al. Word processing and Internet browsing can easily run on that much.

I'm at 777 MB right now with 13 Opera tabs, 1 IE tab w/YouTube, Media Player, a couple Explorer windows, and Calculator. Certainly 1 GB is enough for that.

Sidebar would add a decent amount, antivirus would add some, Aero would add a couple MB (in Classic right now), and video card drivers would add a bit - but only antivirus is really considered necessary. 1 GB is easily enough for all those except Sidebar. It won't be crippled for basic tasks.

I've run XP with 512 MB of RAM for a long time - it runs OK until you get to about 650 MB RAM usage. I'm confident Vista would be fine with 1024 MB. Including using other (non-gaming) apps.

Of course, I would recommend getting 1.5 or 2 GB if possible.

I think you're putting the blame at the wrong place...Dell's much better than most vendors at not forcing Vista (though not all models always have it). Try to get a Gateway with XP, or an Acer. Microsoft is the cause of your woes, both for making such an inadequate OS and for trying to force it on the market.

DSL seems to give connection and router problems regardless of the OS (including with XP). It might be your ISP. The AT&T DSL at my house isn't very good. Never have liked AT&T very much...

:laugh: Good analogy!

 

Yes, I already know this. As I have 1GB on my desktop and 2GB on my notebook. The point I was trying to make was that 1GB should do just fine at running Vista.

I think Vista got it bad rep from the RC2 days and the first 2 months of release days before all the updates. That's when 1GB truly sucked on Vista.

 

1gb sticks are oretty cheap now and if ever il upgrade to 4gb i bought mine at newegg.com at the US, all electronics are much cheaper there

 

I've been running Ultimate on 1gb since release with no problems. I am planning on upgrading to 2gb soon, however.

the way Vista manages memory is much, much better than xp. Nice to see it make use of all available for cache.

I didn't read through much of the thread, but felt like adding something pointless

 

It makes me wonder about what you guys are doing to your computers to make Vista such a crap OS.

I havent had a glitch, freeze or halt with Vista from day one. I have all my programs installed from XP and the computer runs superbley.

Porn, illegal software, cracks, and 1000's music downloads probably the main culprit i'd say ;P. Simple- dont fill your computer with crap!

 

1000 music downloads aint crap lol, whats the use of it if u dont maximize its use not adhering to porn illegal software and such ^^

 

that is because vista is compressing your ram..I originally had my config at 2gb. At restart I had around 1100 free. With 3 gb now, and same exact software and configuration, My computer restarts with 1900 gb. This means that vista has more ram to work around, and doesn't have to result in compressing your ram

try it out

 

Zonealarm is still not working properly with vista..hangs warcraft III when i tried playing...so i had to remove it then just install a pctools firewall. other than that..just have to wait for SP1 to fix some issues ..

 

Vista may crash, but I bet it is a result of drivers or incompatible software (zonealarm?). Go to the Start orb and type reliability then enter. This will show you what is crashing.

An Uninteruptible Power Supply (UPS) would prevent this and be especially useful if you truly have that many outages.

Again, a UPS would prevent this with ANY OS.

This is not a Vista problem, but a problem with the software provided with your player. Most players (unsure of creative) actually load as a removable drive when the software isn't installed. This allows you to drag, drop, copy, and delete right from the OS.

Again, obviously a problem with the software vendor... Not Vista. Could it be another ZoneAlarm issue? If I paid $400 for software and it did not work as expected I would be on the phone with them daily until they knew me by first name or fixed the problem!

I use bit torrent and trillion and have had exactly 0 issues with either. ZoneAlarm?

ALL software has bugs, even XP.

They are probably right. Zonealarm and a modem that resets due to loss of power.

I haven't read one thing in your list that is specifically a Vista problem.

I bet your putty problem is also related to ZoneAlarm.

I'm not a fanboy, and I'm not trying to kick you when you're down. I do think you are frustrated, and I feel for you. Look at your apps and drivers to find your answers. If you work the problems out I think you will like Vista.

 

But the net effect is still that Vista crashes where XP doesn't. The underlying reason is less relevant to the end-user. What matters is *whether or not it crashes*.

Sure, an UPS would be handy, but he didn't need one for XP. Shouldn't Vista be able to handle the situation at least as well as XP?

It's a Vista problem if it occurs in Vista. Remember this is an end-user talking, not a Microsoft programmer.
From the point of view of the software developer, sure, it's Creative's fault (isn't it always? )
From the end-user's point of view, it crashes on Vista, not on XP. That's what's important.
(And I'd say the fact that it's this easy to crash Explorer might just be a problem with Vista *as well*)

See above.

Some software has more bugs than others. Some have more severe bugs. Why not use the software that has the fewest *significant* bugs?
You're skirting the issue here, like all the other Vista fanboys. If you hadn't lost contact with reality in your blind fanboyism, you wouldn't say rubbish like that. Of course bugs matter. A bug that bothers you is an infinitely bigger problem than one you never notice. And ten bugs are a greater problem than one bug.
If you can prove that Vista has *fewer* bugs than XP, and that the ones it does have are less significant, then you may have a point. But saying "all software has bugs" is just sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALAAAICANTHEARYOU. Feel free to do that, but it's not very helpful to the rest of us, so don't bother posting it here.

Nevertheless, we are talking about problems that occur on Vista, but didn't on XP.

Of course not. It's hard to read with closed eyes.

That's a joke, right? Haha.
You're a fanboy because you display all the qualities that define a fanboy. Needlessly defending a product (which doesn't have feelings, and doesn't need defending), trying to deflect all criticism, ignoring facts and reality. You're in denial, perhaps, but still a fanboy.

Why, exactly?
What is it Vista's purpose is?
What is the purpose of *any* OS? Is it to look pretty? If it was, Vista would score a few points. But it isn't.
Is it to be "new"? Again, that would score Vista some points, but that doesn't matter.

It is to run your applications. Plain and simple, nothing more, nothing less.
What you are saying is basically "if you work around the fact that it doesn't run your applications, you'd like it".

IF WE IGNORE THE FACT THAT VISTA FAILS AT ITS ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE, is what you're saying.

On those terms, I don't think I'd ever be able to like Vista. Just like I wouldn't like Photoshop if it couldn't help artists make awesome images. And I'd hate Word if it didn't let me write documents.

Ands you know why I bothered to write this long post?
It's not because I hate Vista. I don't, I just prefer not to use it.

It's because I think it's ridiculous that the Vista Defense Force always misses the point. There are some good things to be said for Vista, and yet you always miss the target, ranting on about how "Yes, the actual *experience* when using Vista might suck, but it's not Vista's fault".
No one else but you cares about whose fault it is.
If you want to defend Vista, and it's obvious that you do, then find areas where there is something to defend. Talk about how pretty it is (personally I don't care about pretty in an OS, but some do, and I'll admit Vista beats XP there). Talk about how it supports IPv6 better than XP. or how it's slightly less insecure than XP. Talk about how it'll be supported by MS after they stop supporting XP.
And have the common sense to not defend Vista in the cases where it sucks. When people experience problems with Vista, your endless litany of "It's not Vista's fault" is just useless background noise. If you don't have anything relevant to say, don't bother posting. When something works on XP, but not on Vista, Vista has a problem, no matter whose "fault" it is. Have the common sense to accept this, accept that your precious Vista isn't perfect. And don't bother defending it in the areas where it's inferior to XP. No matter the reason.

 

Totally agree with Jalf here. Who cares whose fault is it? Does it mean I have to give up using my stuff just because it doesn't work with Vista? One big NO. On the user end, it doesn't matter if it's the OS's or the software's or the hardware's fault. If it doesn't work with Vista AND it works with XP, it is simply natural to react negatively towards Vista.

I haven't even used Vista but because of all the horror surrounding it, I'm even afraid to try. Blame me, the user who can't afford and isn't very knowledgeable enough to do an upgrade to XP, if ever Vista fails on me.

Look, if Vista works for you, you don't have to hate everybody else who is having a hard time with Vista. Just consider yourself lucky! And pray for the rest who've been inconvenienced by Vista. No need to be all dramatic about people's thoughts on your oh-so-beloved OS. My two cents.

 

If I buy a new car, and I know I want to install an Alpine stereo in it, you can be darn sure I will research both the car and the stereo to see if they work together as I expect.

He specifically says power issues are common in his area. I would also bet a little of this a result of ZA.

*removing fingers from ears*
I call a spade a spade. I'm not a fanboy. When MS screws up I tell anyone that will listen. I can't give exact numbers because I'm not privy to that information, but Vista has had fewer patches and fewer support calls during the same time period than XP. I think that might equate to fewer bugs/issues.
*reinserting fingers*

Again, you're judging me by one post. A little unfair and presumptuous don't you think?

How am I ignoring facts? The fact is the Vista is more compatible at launch than any other OS. The fact is that Vista is running perfectly fine on the majority of computers. The fact is that forums usually contain a majority of negatives. Very few post threads like "I'm having a great time with my Vista PC".

I sure hope you are generalizing here.

It really sounds like you have a problem with me. I'm sorry if you feel that way. The point of my post (and the original quoted posters other post) is that ZoneAlarm was causing part of his problem. I'm sure if he investigates it a little further he will find several of his original problems were caused by ZA (bit torrent, trillian, obtaining another IP, putty, etc). ZA has many known issues with Vista.

In his instance I believe most of his issues weren't Vista. I wasn't bashing him, nor am I bashing you with this reply. I'm not exactly sure where your hostility toward me is coming from. If I've misconstrued your tone I apoligize.

 

Which completely misses the point.
If you buy a new car, and it can't do something that your old car could, the new car isn't all that amazing.
If Vista can't run the software XP can run, the Vista has a problem.

He also said that he didn't have to reboot afterwards under XP.
In other words, XP handles the problem far far better than Vista. Vista requires a full reboot, where XP doesn't.

Here is a person describing all the problems he has with Vista, which do not occur under XP. It's obvious in this case that Vista works like crap compared to XP.

As for the number of bugs/patches, I don't know, where did you see that information? As far as I've seen, Vista has had an insane number of updates, but of course the number itself doesn't mean much, because many of them combine multiple fixes. And of course, this only highlights the fixed bugs, which isn't very relevant when people are still being bothered by unfixed ones. Neither of us have the exact numbers on how many bugs exist on each platform, or how serious they are, but what we do know is, here is a person complaining about serious bugs on Vista, but who has no bugs on XP.
And as I've said before, it's the end user experience that matters. If users are troubled by bugs, then the software sucks. If users don't notice bugs, then they don't matter.
That's the flipside of another argument Microsoft likes to pull out, that absolute performance doesn't matter, only perceived performance does.
Absolute bug count, or absolute compatibility doesn't matter, only perceived bugs, and perceived compatibility do. And in those areas, Vista can't yet compete with XP. It may be good enough for a lot of people to use, but can you honestly say that you've encountered fewer compatibility issues under Vista than under XP? (I've encountered exactly zero under XP, and you sound like you've at least found out about ZoneAlarm so far)

Is that so? We know that there is a lot of software that runs fine on XP, but won't run on Vista.
That means, for Vista to be "more compatible", there has to be an even greater amount of software that runs on Vista, but will not run on anything else. I can't think of any such software. Can you?
So I think this claim does ignore a few facts.

The fact is that you were responding to a person for whom Vista ran like crap. What "the majority" sees doesn't matter.

How do you mean? Simplifying a bit, perhaps. Exaggerating to make a point. But I still mean what I say. The primary goal of Vista, or any OS, is to run your software, as easily, as unobtrusively, as stable, as reliably, as efficiently as possible.
If the OS doesn't do that well, it sucks. No matter how many fancy shader effects they stuffed into the "minimize window" animation. None of that matters, if it doesn't run the software you want to run (without crashing, or requiring excessive reboots or anything else)
And like I said, people trying to defend Vista often end up saying something that can be boiled down to "Ok, so Vista is a pain to use, but it's not Microsoft's fault". "Ok, so there are compatibility issues with ZoneAlarm, or with this long list of other 3rd-party software. But it's not Microsoft's fault."
Ok, so your computer requires a reboot before it'll accept a new IP from your router after a power outage. XP didn't require that, but it's not Microsoft's fault".

Perhaps not, but the problem is still there, and it makes Vista a lot less attractive. That was my point.

Not at all. I have a problem with people who try to defend Vista for the wrong reasons. That might include you, but you're far from the only one.

While you might want to blame ZoneAlarm, the point remains that he didn't experience any of these problems under XP. So obviously the OS plays a significant role here. It might be that ZoneAlarm's developers should spend a bit more time on their Vista port, or it might be Microsoft who screwed up. We don't know, and it doesn't matter. All that matters is that these problems occur on Vista, but not on XP. Despite running the same software.
The point is that the end-user doesn't, and shouldn't, care about whether it's ZoneAlarm or Microsoft who suck. All that matters is that running Vista causes problems that didn't otherwise exist.

I'm not hostile. Just, um, direct.
(No hard feelings anyway)
But I do think that you, and most of the rest of the Vista Defense Brigade, keep missing an important point. You want to talk about absolute numbers of bugs, about *whose* fault it is (ZoneAlarm or Microsoft, ISP or Microsoft, Power outage or Microsoft, and so on). No one else cares about that. To the rest of us, it makes no difference "whose fault it is". That's a matter for the programmers involved to deal with. For the person trying to run Vista, or ZoneAlarm, or both, all that matters is "how many problems am I going to run into". And the net number of problems in this case is far greater with Vista than with XP. Which means Vista, in this case, isn't worth using, because it doesn't fulfill the primary purpose of an OS as well as XP does.
Just like it doesn't matter how many bugs have been fixed on Vista vs XP, or how many bugs remain. What matters is "how many bugs do I see?"

 

You are kidding, right? Let's go back to the car analogy for a moment. I trade in my diesel engined car for a new gasoline engined car and promptly pull into the gas station and fill the tank from a diesel pump mislabeled as gasoline. The car runs like crap. Taking your lead, I should not care who screwed up. It doesn't matter. That fuel would have worked fine in my old car so I should blame the car manufacturer?

Your logic is usually quite sound, but here I think you've gotten a case of what the sports car racing community calls the "red mist". You hatred of Vista (and seemingly Microsoft) has clouded the issue.

Zonealarm is a bloated piece of trash. It has been for quite some time. It's instantiation under Vista is even worse. It may very well be the culprit requiring the reboot, not Vista. And yet this is Vista's fault???

Gary

 

We are looking at two sides of the same coin. A problem is a problem. That I don't disagree on. In THIS instance I'm blaming ZoneAlarm and offering an option that would allow him to see what is causing his computer to crash. You're blaming the OS. I'm placing the blame on software. Neither solve his problem.

I may not have worded that correctly. The intent was Vista includes more device drivers, hence compatible with more hardware.

The point of my reply is that you are saying I AM a fanboy, or member of the "Vista Defense Brigade". You are making that assumption based on one or two posts out of hundreds.

It's obvious that Vista doesn't give you the "warm fuzzies", and I appreciate that, but you're dragging me into an argument or exchange that isn't justified.

If we follow your logic... If he installs a new version of itunes and it deletes his music collection it is Microsoft's fault. If he installs an update for his firewall of choice and it blows out is ip stack it is Microsoft's fault. Kind of a "throwing the baby out with the bath water" approach. He has Vista. He has a problem. Help him work through it!

Back to the original problem... He has uninstalled ZA. If he checks into the Performance and Reliability Monitor it might just show him where the remainder of his problems lay.

 

Gotta agree with deputy here. How can microsoft be responsible for every single piece of software out there being compatible to the new OS. Considering such things as trivial as a mp3 in the grand scheme of things, how is Microsoft responsible for creative drivers/apps that are compatible.

If your upgrading to vista its your responsibility to check that your hardware and software is compatible.

 

FLAME ON

 

Nice.....lol

 

I gotta side with deputy on this. Everyone wants support for "legacy" software but isn't willing to realize how much coding it requires to keep things "secure".

And personally? Vista has had LESS problems than XP in regular usage. Seriously.

 

zone alarm do not have any issues on xp machine. I use zone alarm since 2000 and it works just fine. anyway, its not a big issue so its okay.

who told you, you can buy xp for $50 !!!!!!! its costing $150+ taxes for XP Home OEM version and $250+ taxes for xp pro here in india and I have format and re-install everything, I mean everything!

 

fanboy, I have un-installed zonealarm and so far it has only corrected the traceroute problem. ALL other freaky problems still exists!! and I really don't feel safe at all with windows firewall so I am going to install it again. All other problems like applications crashing randomly, explorer freezing etc. still exists and only way to get ride of the problems is reboot the computer. Example, java applets if they crash some times it need computer reboot. All the software and hardware which I was talking about work 100% fine in windows xp but do not work properly under windows vista, including router

Yeah, vista is good and its the future but it will be stable in 2009. If you are running vista without installing non Microsoft Apps it will work 100% fine without any problems but if this is the case why i would need windows at all, I can simply switch to MAC platform. Its the application I am still running windows and not the windows default software.

 

Stop shouting out fanboy randomly. Fanboys are people who have no logic and reasoning behind backing up whatever they support. His argument makes perfect sense.

Vista stable in 2009? How software runs on it really doesn't mean stability but just compatibility. Like I said in my previous post it was your responsibility to check if your router and other peripherals and software was compatible with vista before upgrading. My router wasn't compatible with vista until D-link released a new driver which made it compatible as was their responsibility.

 

So in your opinion its okay if operating system keep crashing, old applications do not work and you have to upgrade your network infrastructure just to run windows vista fancy aero interface?? How his arguments make perfect sense!!. yes, they make perfect sense to windows fanboys but not for rest of the business professionals.

My friend works in system administration of some big company and is responsible to manage 150 computers and he said he gets exteremly frustrated with windows vista users queries. In vista they have changed everything and now are preparing for retraining about 800+ employees in company in 2008.

He also told me Windows Vista UAC is major security problem. S pecially for people doing day to day work (except for those who only use computer for MS OFFICE and Internet Browsing). Every time you try to do something UAC ask for users permissions. You want to down a software ? yes/no -- You want to install the unsigned software --- Yes/no !! mysterious unsigned software is trying to install some component (yes/no), software is trying to act as a server (yes/no), software is trying to access internet zone (yes/no), software is trying to act as server (yes/no), damn it, if i am installing the software why user need to click yes, yes, yes everytime????? seriously, I heard people using UAC are just clicking on YES, YES only without even reading it which is going to be big security problem in the future!!!!! lol!!!

 

Forerunner, where do I get one of those Santa hats for my android? thanks in advance LOL

 

Max I was just talking about your software compatibility issues. I said nothing about the stability of vista in terms of crashes. Again like I said its the software company's job to ensure compatibility, if they didn't they would be losing profit wouldn't they? Considering that their software is not compatible with the new windows os.

UAC can be easily disabled. UAC actually offers no security, I agree with you on that. However disabling it takes all of 10 seconds. It merely states the obvious most of the time and wheter you click yes or no to any question in itself effectively poses no threats.

Zoidster I pmed you.

 

I think a lot of people are at roughly the same point I am with Vista:

The new interface looks kind of neat (although I actually don't like eyecandy in my GUI), but there doesn't seem to be anything on offer that makes learning a new OS worthwhile.

Vista adds very little that I want from an OS, and none of the features I was looking forward to (where's my WinFS?) and without the ground up code rewrite it was supposed to be. It has lots of compatibility issues right now, which are partly MS's fault (although less so now than at launch) and partly the fault of 3rd parties. Oh, and it burns lots of system resources.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a BAD OS, just that it's not for me. I'll stick with XP till they end of support it (just like I did with 2k, which they should still be supporting). If you love Vista, get all your stuff to work, and can't imagine switching back, then more power to you.

Interesting article here:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/11/30/vista_birthday/

 

Thank you for summing up my feelings about Vista. I have it installed on my T60 and runs fine. Yes it's a resource hog which I can live with but at least it's stable.

I tried going the Vista route on my gaming rig and I became more and more frustrated with the OS. I would venture to say that 30 percent of my games ran just like they do in Windows XP. Fifty five percent ran slower than in Windows XP and the last 15 percent did not run at all.

I went back to XP and i'll wait till Vista is in the same league performance wise as XP. I share the same sentiments as Jalf. There is no reason to run a OS that is currently inferior to what is currently available which is XP. And i'm talking about compatibility and performance. I experienced virtually no stability issues with Vista.

I was really looking forward to all the great things Vista was supposed to bring to the table. A new file system, no more registry, ultra security etc etc. What we got was essentially Windows XP with Windowblinds 6 as the interface.

Hopefully Windows 7 will be what Vista was truly going to be in the first place.

 

I've been using Vista for a few days, and I actually like it. Yes, I would have liked to see all the cool stuff we were promised, would have liked better quality control (why can my 9 year old computer running XP Home, sleep and hibernate just fine, when sleep is a disaster on my new one, WTF?) and better performance, but at least for now, Vista's surprisingly fine for me. Only time will tell.

 

Hardware and Software issues aren't Microsoft problems nor fault. It is to the manufacturer to do the drivers.

And most apps compatibility are solved by choosing the "run under XP SP2 compatibility" mode. I found that funny that everyone was using the "run under W98 comp mode" on XP at its beginning but no one seems to know it exists under vista too =/

 

They are MS's problem because MS is trying to encourage adoption of their new OS. As long as people think their equipment and favorite programs won't work, they aren't going to upgrade. I'm not saying that's fair, only that it's life.

As far as incompatibilities not being MS's fault, that both is and isn't true. MS was working on the code for Vista until the absolute last minute, and making some fairly significant adjustments. I've seen numerous comments by hardware companies basically saying that they're sorry their Vista drivers weren't up to snuff at launch, but that MS didn't get them what they needed in enough time. Ditto some of the software issues. It's hard to write drivers or software for a new OS (especially since Vista handles drivers in a completely different way) when you don't have a final version of the OS to work with.

These reasons are becoming less and less viable the further we get from launch though. I think a lot of publishers and manufacturers are just waiting for the Vista install base to be large enough to warrant spending the money to guarantee compatibility. Plus, with SP1 making some serious changes, there's little incentive to work hard on drivers or software that might have compatibility issues again when SP1 hits.

Any time you get a new OS version you're going to have people complain about backwards compatibility issues. I think in the case of Vista you hear more of them from tech savvy folks than you usually do, simply because we don't think Vista is worth giving up our old stuff.

 

Well yeah, but I see pretty often "MICROSOFT SUX BECAUSE MY COMPLETLY UKNOWN HARDWARE FROM 2001 DOES NOT WORK ON VISTA!!!!"

Vista bashing, as Norton bashing (and god knows how much Norton changed in its 2005 and 2008 edition) started by somepeople reading somewhere that it sucks so they started spreading the word without even trying it first.

 

Zone Alarm had significant problems in XP, as well. Are you running another company's antivirus with ZA firewall? That can cause some of it. But there's no real "solution" yet - I've searched enough on it trying to find a solution to know there's no fix to ZA's hanging problems, regardless of which OS you're using. Happened on XP SP1, too.

Couldn't you just have a no-security compatibility mode? Though maybe that's how compatibility mode does work - I'm no expert on it. Vista does have a different kernel, though, which is always a slight barrier at least.

But personally? XP has had LESS problems than XP in regular usage. Seriously.

Yeah, the compatibility thing is what got me more than anything. Stability hasn't been the greatest for me either, but I can deal with Win95-type stability if everything runs properly.

Only time will tell with Windows 7. I'm still putting my chips on it not coming out on time - 2009 I think is the current year. 2011 or 2012 seems more realistic to me.

In the mean time, I'm giving Vista a second look with SP1 Beta. Seems a bit slower now if anything (in bootup), though with better battery life. But it doesn't seem worse than SP0.

 

Probably the biggest pain in the rear in deploying a new operating system is deciding how you want to configure everything. I spent hours drawing up a new chart for group policies.

 

2012 or 2013 seems to be a good guess for me only because if they released it in 2009 it would essentially kill off Vista.

I still have a sneaky suspicion that Windows 7 will be what Vista should have been in the first place. I also think that W7 might turn out to be a subscription based model OS i.e. "buy what you need" which is fine by me.

 

confirmed, zone alarm has some serious problems on windows vista. It severally effect internet connection randomly and the only solution to that problem is reboot. I have uninstalled zonealarm for now and searching for alternative firewall. any suggestions?

 

Glad to see you're making progress MaxBerry. You may wish to try Comodo - http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/

 

I agree with BrassMouse that compatibility issue is still partly Microsoft's fault...

 

As has already been said, it is Microsoft's responsibility to make it easy/possible for manufacturers to write drivers.
So it's Microsoft's fault as well.
It's up to Microsoft to ensure driver support for their software. It's a fairly fundamental part of the OS business. You need to ensure that people can and will write drivers for it.


But this misses the same very fundamental point that I've made a dozen times in this thread, and which Vista fanboys keep pretending they didn't hear.


No one cares whose fault it is
That is, no one except rabid Vista fanboys who feel a need to "defend Microsoft".

I don't give a damn whether it's Microsoft's "fault" or not. What matters is the result. The fact is that there are compatibility problems under Vista, which didn't occur under XP. That is all that matters. *Why* it is like this, or whose "fault" it is, is completely irrelevant to the end-user.

When discussing whether Vista is worth using, all that matters is how well it works, not *why* it has the problems it does.