Would you call Windows Vista: ME 2 (Mistake Edition 2)

Would you? Although it might not be as stupid as Win ME, is it a Mistake edition?

 

Neither of the above, while I dislike a number of things about Vista, I think it WILL come into it's own (eventually) I think SP1 or maybe SP2 it will be okay.

 

I say we withhold judgment UNTIL SP1 is out...if there are major issues still, then we can call it ME2. For now, I call it Vista Beta 3.

 

NO it is clearly the future of Windows and far superior to XP

 

Windows ME is on its own class, I cannot think of another piece of software that is as bad as it.

Vista is not bad but hugely over-hyped. Some say it is those changes under the hood but I fail to see any thing that is impressive. There are various little improvement but for a project that cost the most in history(5x the moon project or something like that), I would say it is a total disappointment.

 

it will easily become the future. how can you expect a project this big to come out and be perfect? it needs time to fix the bugs. wait for the service pack.then you'll see

 

though vista is now not as successful as XP
i suspect that it will well.....grow on u sooner or later that is
but then again i too await the SP1 to make my final decision

 

Microsoft's new operating systems always suck in the very beginning; everybody panics, saying "this is the end of Microsoft", but in the end they usually manage to patch the sinking ship. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

I think the poll needs more options. I don't think I'd call it superior to XP, YET. But it's definitely better than ME, SO FAR. It's tough to vote on a poll with only the 2 extremes to choose from.

 

Isn't this basically the same thread as this one ? We discussed this back then when the whole ME II phrase was introduced by the media. So is this a possible revisit now that the beta for SP1 is supposed to be coming next week?

 

I was not talking about the bugs but don't find it to be really revolutionary foundation for the next decade. The kind of leap like NT did.

All those hype about its 3D desktop and it ends up with some task switch flip ?

 

I don't recall anyone having so much trouble with the upgrade to WIn98. I don't think people said 95 was a mistake or that it sucked either. From 3.1 to 95 took a while, yes, not because the OS sucked (well, in some ways it did, but not compared to what we had before), but because there were a lot of things to adjust to.

2k was pretty much universally praised as far as I know. XP didn't have any major problems either, except that some people preferred the classic interface.

I can only think of two OS'es from MS that have received this much criticism. ME and Vista.

 

I don't. I expect it to be better than what they released 6 years ago.
BUt yes, it will become the future. Because there isn't really much of a choice for most people.

 

Bitter much

Yeah, what he said... it will become the next OS just because... although I think Businesses might skip it, unless they manage to seriously make it actually work right on a lot more stuff... funnily enough it reminds me more of Linux right now because (before the Linux advocates kill me) you need just the right hardware and a lot of software doesn't work.

 

Linux is way more compatible with hardware than Windows. When's the last time you tried installing XP or Vista without half-a-dozen drivers past the welcome screen to set up your monitor, modem, wireless, ethernet, mousepad...etc? I'm no fanboy, but it's almost a given that out of the box, you'll get more services working from a Linux installation than you will from a Win installation.

 

Well, I have a machine here in the other room that came with Win98, got upgraded to Win98SE, and had an available upgrade to WinME that was never installed. It went to WinXP instead.

I am using a laptop with WinV right now to post this.

No voting from me, though, because I don't like the binary choices provided.

 

Last time I checked, when you installed Windows, you better have all your drivers ready and in hand. Because you'll need to download and install and configure (and reboot) for about 20 different drivers before your PC is usable. In fact, I this very same forum has an entire thread (a "Sticky", no less) dedicated to what hardware works or doesn't work with Vista. Further, many laptop vendors only offer Vista and do not offer XP any more as a choice on the new models. Folks who try to install XP on these are having a very very difficult time, since there are no XP compatible drivers available! Several threads discussing this problem in the HP-Compaq forum right now.

I installed Linux without downloading a single driver. It just worked. SATA, PCI Express, Firewire, USB, Gig-E, DVD-RW, everything just worked out of the box, I did not have to download any drivers, nor did I have to reboot. (Edit: I did have to download the latest nvidia driver to support the 8600m).

All my Linux software works perfectly and never ever crashes.

Last time I checked, people were singing the blues over their software, or their drivers, or their games not being compatible with Vista. I also read a post in here recently (you know who you are) who mentioned he had to click "submit report" following a software crash in Vista, something like 60 times since he bought his new Vista laptop.

So in summary, It appears that Windows, not Linux, requires just the right hardware, and a lot of software doesn't work.

 

could you please elaborate on this?

 

I guess what I mean is that Windows just works if you have the right hardware, Linux is the same, if you have the right hardware it just works.

If you have the wrong hardware (for either) it's a royal PAIN, now right now I think Linux actually has MORE compatible hardware but.

I guess since it's extremely rare for me to actually FRESH install windows anymore (rather than just recovering from backup disks) I rarely have to install drivers, but did notice some of that on Linux (and certainly have read many threads about it).

 

At the moment, YES ... Vista is Mistake Edition 2.

Vista Overall has a more stable and smoother UI to it, and the security is also much improved(almost invaluable). IE7 is also much better on Vista.

But IMO (as I tested on 4 differ machines) Vista requires at least 2GB and and Processor of 2.0Ghz+ in order to really multitask without running into problems. Running on 1GB works, but I wouldn't multitask heavy apps. And the Driver Problems were not fun either, there are some hardware and older software that I will never be able to use on Vista.

So about the time Vista gets it together with Service packs, plenty of people (like myself) will already be stuck on Leopard and Ubuntu. And I don't see XP going anywhere soon. I think XP might actually still be selling more retail than Vista. Or getting pirated like crazy.

Vista might be what XP is at SP2 ......Who knows?

 

Yeah. Tried Vista, didn't like it, went back to XP. Going to keep using it for the forseeable future, until a stable OSx86 works on my computer, or I buy a mac, or Ubuntu becomes user-friendly enough to the point where the terminal isn't necessary.

At the rate they release packs, SP2 won't be here until a year before Vienna. And by then, Ubuntu will have left it in the dust - as will OS 11.

 

How true. Accepting that Vista is "not ready" and using the excuse that "Oh, just wait until SP2 or so, then it'll be great!" is like buying a brand new 2008 sports car and finding that it's slow and runs like crap, meanwhile believing that "Oh, once the manufacturer comes up with some improved engine parts, they'll hopefully perform a recall, and then it'll be great! You just wait and see!".

 

That is the point. very few people do fresh install of Windows. New machines come with windows installed, old machine can restore from vendor provided disk. device purchased in between has the proper driver CD.

So for an average consumer, compatability of windows is very high device wise, linux is iffy. throw in the proprietary stuff like the famous AMD/NVIDIA, linux would still be lagging.

 

So conejeitor what did you do, load Vista on old hardware?

You guys crack me up, Vista runs just fine.

And to think that alot of you guys consider yourselves computer savy!

 

I wouldn't call Vista ME 2. ME was by far the worst OS ever in terms of stability and especially security.
I recall having to cold boot at least 5 times before the OS becomes stable enough to run and having the trouble of closing at least 20 pop ups.

Vista is far more stable and secure than ME ever was. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say Vista is better than XP.
It'll take some time to get used to.

 

Why do you assume that because Vista "runs just fine" on your computer, it should run "just fine" on everyone else's computer? Do you really think it's a big conspiracy, where everyone's just pretending to have problems with Vista, because their computers are really just like yours?

Why do you assume people who have problems with Vista use old hardware? Do you really believe there are that many people with sub-optimal machinery frequently posting on a board dedicated to the latest software and hardware? Do you believe everyone who prefers XP to Vista must be using machines designed for Windows 95?

And finally, why do you assume people here aren't "computer savy" simply because they don't like Vista? How many experienced computer users do you have to come across who prefer XP to Vista in its current state before you stop judging all of them as incompetent?

 

Problem with Vista is not the OS itself(which I like), but what previous Windows had such a huge incompatiblity problem(Drivers & Software) and require almost the Max RAM of what the average owner has on their PC? Most people still have 512MB.

I dealt with 98, 2000, ME, and XP when first released. None required the average user to Upgrade Hardware from the average general specs as Vista does.

 

I didn't know this board was dedicated to posters who only have the latest and greatest hardware and software. I guess I better go crawl in the corner and die.

 

Take yer Dos machine and get outta here!

Seriously though - I just get tired of the argument that people who don't love Vista must automatically use ancient machines and be computer illiterate. That kind of arrogance isn't going to win anyone over. Neither is the "Vista works for Me, so something must be wrong with YOU" tactic.

 

Well, here's a good example:

I don't like Vista.
Literate? - Yes.
Experiences with Vista? - Just about as much as anybody really.

Credentials? - EE Student, Co-Op working as a computer programmer, using computers since age of 3 (or 0b11 for the geeks!), used almost every OS since Win95, owned five different laptops, used many more, and quite a few people come to me for help with their computer problems. I've repaired quite a few, fixed several OSes, etc...and I had issues with Vista.

Some people are going to have issues, others will not...it is highly dependent on which software/hardware you have. The HP forums had a HUGE thread at one point about 'vista-ready' machines not actually working with Vista because of a MAJOR driver issue and an audio chip...guess what?...no one but HP was at fault!

 

So is the vice versa, "Vista sucks for me and you like it, something must be wrong with YOU".

Oh, "Vista" can be replaced with linux or OS X or whatever favorite, in the above two sentences.

 

I love Vista. It beats launch XP hands down and adds so many usability enchantments over XP SP2 that there's no way in hell I'll ever take any of my three boxes back to XP.

 

I rarely see that here. Just look at this thread, and count the number of people saying what you quoted in my post, to the people saying what I'm quoting in yours. I personally have never - and will never - call people stupid, incompetent, or gadget addicts for using Vista. I just prefer XP. It would be nice if all Vista users showed the same courtesy toward the non-Vista members of this board.

 

OK gang settle down a bit. It was not my intent to call everyone who throws in the towel stupid. Please accept my apologies.

Overclocker, specifically what piece of hardward would not work for you when you tried Vista?


I guess I have just been very lucky, my 4 year old HP 9650 printer was not supported by Vista - solution was to use the 9800 drivers. My 5 year old Canon scanner works better than ever after downloading the new drivers. My Bluetooth mouse and keyboard that alot of people have problems with worked pefectly the first time. Autocad2006 would not run right out of the box so 2 minutes after googling I had the fix.

I should also mention that I am running Vista on a new HP laptop

 

One of the funniest reasons I have read for people ditching Vista is that "it is a resource - I dont have any apps running and Taskmanager says I'am using 1/2 gig of ram"

I think that is just plain silly

 

especially when you consider that Vista manages RAM better than any Microsoft OS ever has. the new cache system works very well (my most often used apps start up lightning quick), and it gets purged whenever applications demand more memory to use.

 

I voted "yeah kind of" because it's a weak phrase, and the only alternative was "vista is better than bread sliced twice!" ... couldn't you poll people give answers that cover more than two small points along a large spectrum of possibilities? Eh, sorry; personal annoyance of mine.

There were enough problems, at launch anyways, to put me off, and I didn't see a whole lot of great new features... maybe I would over the longer term. I wish it wasn't as resource intensive as it is, but it's not awful.

 

Yes, but since ME it's been almost 10 years! Of course it's better, but how better respect to the current MS OS (WinXP)

 

That's not the subject of the poll according to the title...

If we're comparing Vista to ME, I'd say it started off better and will continue to get better. If comparing to XP, I say the jury is still out, but it's not nearly as black and white as the poll makes it out to be. Software tends to evolove quickly, especially with MS pouring money into it.

 

I guess you guys are right respect to the binary of the poll. I just wanted to have an idea. May be I'll do one more specific later.

 

how not silly is a vista fanboy?

 

I love vista, I have a triple boot of xp/vista ult x64/vista home premium x86 and I dread when I have to go into xp to do something. Vista is much better and more fun/intresting to use.

The only reason to have xp is if you have alot of old old stuff you want to use, like I cant get my n64 emulator or mortal kombat trilogy game to work on vista x64...

 

To me, Vista is ICoPoCaL (Tm)

U COldn't POssibly CAre Less

 

I will call it Windows ME + 12 Years = Era of Windows 95 transitioning from 32bit to 64 bit.

 

I wonder if you gave the same treatment to XP/2000/OSX/Linux when it first came out

Nothing is perfect on initial release. Even after years of development people are still finding flaws and exploits in XP.

You would have a point if everyone was having problems. However I would say that the majority of people running Vista are doing so without major issue.

 

Yeah, the jury's still out since so many people are satisfied with XP who aren't ready to take the plunge. Vista will need DX10 and its features above and beyond XP to drive its success.

Or MS can pull the plug on XP completely and "encourage" people to switch

 

I think there are limits as to to what point you can exploit a monopoly..

 

Exactly. Even Microsoft isn't greedy enough to think they wouldn't lose hundreds of millions of customers by trying to strongarm its entire base into Vista.

 

I'm not talking about security issues. I'm talking about hardware and software compatibility. Vista has problems in this department at a magnitude that XP/2000/OSX/Linux have never experienced.

And if you're looking for an example of perfect security on first release, have a look at OpenBSD. If a couple of guys working on a free Open Source operating system can produce one with a near-perfect security track record, why can't Microsoft with all it's $Billions? OpenBSD has had only 2 remote security holes in more than 10 years - Microsoft can't go 10 days without finding a new remote security hole.

And your argument that nothing is perfect on first release is absurd. That's what beta tests and quality control are for. Many, many, products are quite polished on their first release of a new version. Microsoft releases not-quite-finished junk and depends on their users to work the bugs out. Why do you think businesses never ever EVER upgrade to the latest Microsoft release of any product when it first comes out? They wait a year or two, then they give it a try. They don't do that with products from other vendors - just Microsoft products. But I guess I can't really expect a Microsoft fanboy to know about quality software.

BWAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Thanks Drew, I needed a good laugh this morning. I think maybe you don't read the internet much.

 

They don't have to - they have the hardware vendors to do that for them. Many new PC's and laptops are shipping with Vista as the only OS choice. And since the manufacturer is not offering XP, they don't have any XP drivers available for that hardware.

There's many threads here about exactly this subject - people buy a new laptop with Vista, decide they want to use XP instead, and find out that there are no XP drivers for their sound card or their ethernet or some other component.