Will Vista ever get stable

I wont switch till the Vista firewall fails me. No funny or monkey business has been happened since i got it last year so im guessing the firewall is working

 

It would seem that running two firewalls on a single machine could prove problematic, both in functionality/reliability and in performance

 

Different people have different reasons. In my case, XP works fine, with no problems, while Vista is slower and has more annoyances (such as UAC). Why would switching now make sense?

If you are having security or stability problems with XP and Vista solves them, then it would seem to make sense to switch to Vista.

Absent a notable benefit, why change for the sake of change?

 

You can disable UAC, its put there as a protection measure. I can understand some people cant use a minority of programs with Vista. Why is vista taking all the blame? Why not partly blame the program developers for not keeping up?

Let me ask you this..Why did you switch to XP from whatever OS you used to have?

Switching now would make sense because its a newer OS meaning moving towards the future, unless you still wanna stick with XP even when windows 3000 super-ultimate-flawless edition comes out.

and yes ill admit its also part of microsoft's racketeering just to make more money but it still delivers.

 

I had no intention of switching just for the sake of it (since I LOVE XP) but, since my old notebook died and the new one came with Vista, I'm giving it a fair shake.

It's only been a week but, so far, I like it; I've dumbed it down a bit (shut off Aero, UAC, Sidebar, etc.) so it's more like XP and less intrusive but, at this point, I see no reason to go through the aggravation of installing XP. At some point, I might do a clean install of Vista, sooner rather than later if Outlook 2002 constantly pesters me for my password but don't see installing XP in my near future.

 

Actually I made(well technically not I but my family's or father's) the switch to Vista because it is new. Hey who would not want something new?

When Vista was first launched My father bought a brand new PC so that we could already give away our 2 year old PC to church.

I must say for 512 RAM it seemed fast at first.

Since I got the feel for it, I never really experienced anything significant enough to go back to XP since everything was working fine.(well maybe the fact that themes are now disabled bothered me but... there is now a solution)

 

This has been a very interesting thread, and there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. I guess I will put myself in the middle, because on one hand, I really like Vista visually, on the other hand it annoys me to no end in many cases. I run it on a high-end custom desktop right now, and I can sum it up with few points:

PLUSES
1. Visually very appealing. A huge step forward from XP theme, which I hated and always switched to classic (Win 2000).
2. Better media handling, from photos to music.
3. Has been as stable as my XP SP2 systems, once I worked out all the driver issues.

MINUSES
1. Slower in so many ways. For example, copying speed between folders or on the network is painful. Handling ZIPed files is torture.
2. Constantly uses more resources.
3. Changes for the sake of changes - like the way Control Panel was rearranged, or everything was moved around. Some settings are here ,some there, etc. No real structure to it.

All in all, I am generally happy with it, but I really think that the additional resource use is due mainly to compliance with DRM provisions and crappy coding based on the current out-of-hand Windows code rather than actual need. I have very high hopes for next Windows to be truly modular, and above all else, to be written mostly from scratch. Bloat is bad!

 

As far as compatibility with older software, it really isn't Vista's fault. The OS is different enough from XP that problems are bound to happen. To me, the slowness of hardware and software vendors to support Vista has been a big problem.

I do miss ability to install software from the last 5-6 years without thinking about compatibility like you can on an XP machine, but I do understand that you can't have progress without breaking something.

 

That was my point of view when I got my laptop too. Streamlined Vista isn't really that different from XP, especially if you have 2GB of RAM or more (relative system usage anyway...XP on a 1GB system vs Vista on a 2GB system). Some minor annoyances like, as scout mentioned above, "change just for the sake of changing." But really it's stable, much faster than my old system, and that's really all I care about.

 

Very good points. I generally find Vista to be fine. I think it's awesome for media, guess they got the hint from Apple. I really love what they did for pictures, music, etc, and it does look a lot cleaner.

On the other hand, I know exactly what you mean with the slowness of copy/paste and trying to extract ZIP files.

Overall, I like it more than XP. I've never tried a Mac before, and I'm intrigued by them...a lot of my friends are switching over to them and love them. Most of them, however, don't use the computer for much besides music, pictures, and the Internet. I'm pretty familiar with Windows and haven't had any major trouble with XP or Vista, which is why I've always been hesitant to consider switching.

 

It is great that Apple has gotten Mac to this point, because even if they only have a minute market share, people notice them, and Windows cannot simply stand still. Competition is always good.

 

If you have sufficient protection without UAC, why add the hassle?

The essential purpose of an OS is to run programs. If it can't, what could good is it?

I switched from W2k to XP Pro because of stability issues with W2k, plus at the time I thought new for the sake of new was fun.

I'll switch when there is some benefit to switching beyond the pure joy of the new.

 

I'd use Windows 2000 if it hadn't been killed off.

 

Quite true.