First PC World gets all up on the soapbox that
(until a certain date) the MacBook Pro is the fastest PC the mag had tested, but consider the next step taken: PC World has boldly declared Vista #1 with a bullet in their Biggest Tech Disappointments of 2007. Ok, sure, we get that it's "disappointments" and not "crappy products" -- the two imply very different things, and it's hard
not to be somewhat disappointed by any product that took the better part of a decade to come out -- but if PC World harshing on Vista this bad doesn't smack at all of linkbait, well, we don't know what does. Oh, and here's that link.
P.S. -Seriously though, can Vista get a break here? We mean, honestly, it ain't all THAT bad.
posted Dec 17th 2007 1:56AM
Speaking as a person that uses Vista on a daily basis - No argument here.
Speaking as a person that uses XP on a daily basis with my (free upgrade) copy of vista sitting in the drawer since Feb (because all forums/reports are telling me to hold off the "upgrade") - I guess also no argument here.
To be perfectly honest, I've had a rather pleasant experience with Vista. I purchased two copies of Vista Ultimate the day it came out in the US for my lappy and a desktop (I was interested in the BitLocker app, and a few other features).
The only real issue at first was the lack of peripheral-specific drivers from a number of manufacturers. Most of those peripherals had basic support from Microsoft, but bespoke software and drivers from the various manufacturers took another month or two. Since then (late April to May), everything has been working fine, no hiccups, very stable, perhaps three or four crashes over the last 9 months.
I was disappointed with the slow roll-out of drivers by certain manufacturers (Creative, Western Digital), and pleased with others (Nvidia, Logitech, Dell). Aside from that, I was also a bit disappointed with the whole Ultimate Extras (but that’s old hat by now), as well as the memory cap in the 32-bit edition. Of course I was thrilled that MS included the 64-bit edition as well, which seems very well supported at this point (something which couldn't be said for XP 64 for a long time).
All in all, it’s been pretty decent. In the grand scheme of things, other OS's could more aptly be called a true 'disappointment', such as Windows Millennium, MacOS System 7, WinNT 4 SP2, Redhat 5.2, OS/2 Warp, etc...
Just my two cents/pence/centimes/roubles/baht/ringgit/won
comparing to OSX 10.5, vista is way much better. at least vista still allows programs to run. 10.5 keeps crashing lightroom and pretty much any other imaging software.
I was expecting OSX to do better.
If vista is the biggest disappointment, OSX10.5 is the greatest disappointment.
me too - they are just trying to get hits for the website. Just like People magazine do about celebrities - more people talk about it - meaning more people get see their sponsor ads which leads to more money by the hit. Cheap move! Money rules the world.
I agree with Fraggle.Rock. I have had almost no problems with Vista. Yes, I have had some. When I upgraded initially, I just did an upgrade. I was already having problems with XP before I upgraded so I did not expect it too well. And it didn't. But I've had few problems since I did a clean install. I installed the 64-big version of Ultimate, which could have been contributed to most of the problems a year ago, but 3rd party hardware and software venders have had long enough to put out more stable drivers and software. Actually, all my hardware had drivers for 64-bit except my Linksys USB wireless adapter. Hauppauge and K-World TV tuners had drivers for 64-bit. It's Linksys fault there aren't drivers for my adapter, not Microsoft.
As far as software, it not a big problem. Vista has x84 emulators for older software if you need it, and most software still needs it. Most software has no problem running on 64-bit Vista. Most problems come from add-on for IE. Yes, it does say why IE crashed if you click on "More Information." The other problem isn't a problem at all. I have hardware DEP enabled on my PC. So if a website tries to install software on my computer without asking me, my computer forces IE to close. It's annoying, but it's better than getting viruses that try to force their way on my computer. I think it was these programs caused problems with XP for me, because IE never forcefully closed on XP and told me that it was stopping a program from installing.
These reports that dismiss Vista because of a lack 3rd party support should be ashamed of themselves. It's like shooting a runner in the leg and then yell at the runner for coming in last. Or if you will, saying a new game console sucks because no one has made any games for it yet.
Oops. I meant x86 emulators. And also, I think I lost 16-bit compatabilty, but I have nothing that old except maybe that old DOS golf game that I haven't played in 5 years. Mainly because I don't know where the disk is, but Ski Free still works so I don't care about the golf game.
First of, I can't agree more with you, not just agree with you, but I also share the same whole feel of using Vista for about a year now.
Here is the thing you guys, based on my use and experience with Vista I can definitely say that this OS is the best OS I've ever used in my entire life; wait a second there, don't get all pissed off at me, I want to share my thoughts and all what I'm saying is really and truthfully my sincere thoughts through my one year of experience with Windows Vista Ultimate.
Let me say that again, for me, Windows Vista is the best OS I've ever used in my last 10+ years of PC experience; I've tried all Windows old products, Apple's, and others such as Linux and friends. I can't but say that my experience with Vista was "full and complete", this OS has taught me a lot about how people think of stuff around; I might sound little "poetic" but believe me I did really learn a lot from Vista.
When I bought Vista Ultimate, I was kind of scared, thinking: What the hell did I just do? buying an OS that has only 10% or less support from companies all over the world! I thought that what I did is a mistake, buying something this early. So I went back home opened the box and loaded the disk and in a matter of minutes the OS installation had started, so I thought: I have to continue this, no returning back.
When Vista finished installing I went through the settings, walked around the files just to learn how stuff is structured, I tried stuff, missed up with other stuff and then started "hunting" down the required drivers to make everything work well. I wasn't all that happy from all of this, but I just kept going through everything in the OS so that I could learn where to go every time I needed something, just like what I did when I first used an Apple OS and a Linux OS.
And now, after 11 months, I can tell what I found out from using Vista and from the people who used Vista (my friends and family):
1. My sister: she is new to PC's, Vista was her first or maybe 2nd real experience in the world of personal computing, so I didn't have lots of choices, I made her use Vista. She was "normally" enjoying and playing around the OS, I watched her start programs and close others, told her to ask for any help if she needed it, and told her to check out the "help" documentation before she asked me for help. So, just last week, she was using her friend's laptop which had Windows XP on it and guess what did she tell me? She hated everything about XP!! She told me that it looked a lot like Vista but everything was in the "wrong place and looked lame"!!! lool, I seriously laughed at what she said and told her that XP is old and bla bla, the whole story which she wasn't interested in at all, hehe.
2. My brother: me and my brother started using PCs at the same time, only my brother is not very interested in technology advancements of the everyday world, he is more into cars. He has his own PC, so I convinced him to upgrade to Vista just 4 months ago. He installed it, and he told me what I was expecting: What the hell is this? Where is everything gone? Where is "File" and "Tools" and questions of this type; I helped him learn and told him to chill and look for stuff around, I asked him to forget about XP a little. So he bared with me and since then, he still uses Vista until now, his PC had some issues with the "Creative" sound card, but it got solved before a month or so, and since then he tells me that everyday he goes to the library at his university he feels outdated by using the XP computers they have, he says that XP is dull, "things do not tell you where to go", in other words each window feels different; which I have agree with, Vista has really done a great job in unifying the system window components, meaning that wherever you are you feel that you just were there and links are provided in a clean clear friendly look.
3. My friends: Some where like my sister and others like my brother and some still fight with me about making them buy Vista, huh.
Based on these incidents and on my experience with Vista I can say this: Vista is great, in every way possible to explain, it is just that it isn't an "XP" anymore, it is more of a first version of the next generation of Microsoft's OS's; I'm in love with everything about it, the UI, Windows Mail, Calendar, Movie Maker HD, DVD maker, Contacts, Photo Gallery, Defender, Media Center, the way games get organized, the way folders show you information inside and outside, the sidebar, gadgets, adding to that the Windows Live services for "FREE"!!!! (Not advertising :p)
Now listen to me, I don't want to sound like a fanboy, as a matter of fact there is a fanboy inside each one of use "Tech readers", but I sincerely am expressing my true thoughts on my experience with Windows Vista; With Windows XP I use to do computer stuff, now with Windows Vista, an OS to me is more like a life style, meaning that if I'm loyal to it, it is loyal to me. :)
Don't get all pissed at me for any misspellings or for the long fat post, but I felt like sharing my thoughts with you guys. Have a nice day.
I use Vista Ultimate on my quad core PC, very disappointed, my brother uses Vista Ultimate on his low-end laptop and it runs beautifully - even faster than XP according to him.
Just shows how two people can have two entirely different experiences, thus two very different opinions. =)
Most expensive version of Windows I've ever purchased and all it's done is reduce my system performance dramatically and add annoying access rights popups everywhere.
My dual ATI x1900 system running an 8 year-old game (Half-Life: TFC) under Vista produces me a whopping 50-70fps with 40fps spikes when turning on a flashlight.
I'm pretty sure it's not all ATI's fault or the hundreds of other corps with under-performing vista drivers.
As someone who uses Vista ultimate everyday since switching from Mac after Apple brought out Leopard I cannot but totally disagree that Vista is a disappointment. I've had the system locate needed drivers on the internet... something OSX cannot do. As Macs get more like Windows it's very easy to switch. Vista is my favorite OS ever... though my favorite MacOS was 8.6
i bought a vista home premium upgarde for my lappy (amd athlon 64 dual core 3800+ (yup- the real processor in a lappy- sucks power, but its fast!), ati radeon 128 mb dedicated video card and 256 additional shared video ram, 2 gb ram...). it bogged the system down so bad, and i never did find drivers for some of my stuff. i sufferred through it for about 4 months (still having some things, like a printer, that i couldn't use), hoping that updates would make performance and compatability get better....but it never did. i eventually "downgraded" back to XP (which you cant really do, you have to do a clean install of XP!), bought a macbook (yup, vista made me switch!), and now the old xp lappy sits collecting dust on a shelf.
i did however put the copy of vista on my htpc machine, and it seems to be pretty good, just a little slow to load programs and stuff (which does not bother me since i literally almost never exit media center on this box). i love the new media center in vista.
all of that said, i had a fantastic experience learning a new OS on my macbook (first time ever touching a mac OS since back in my high school days on LCiis!), and a horrible experience learning the new microsoft OS, bought the mac, love it, wont ever buy a PC again- although I will be biuld another PC for media center.
theres my experience...
Well, I can see that from a consumer perspective it's a big disappointment. Apple's OS will never reach this level of disappointment though, since very few expect anything from it and those that do are usually fanboys. Hence, PC World should be safe from Apple's ire...
I think Vista is pretty cool. I like the interface, the options, it's a nice step up from XP. Now, as for reliability: that's an issue. Rankedshamrock593 is totally right. I bought identical 2 PCs at the same time, 3 months ago, with exact same specs. 1 was for my mother, 1 was for myself. She doesn't know much about PCs, while I dual-booted my XP system with Fedora. I can tell you that even though I've installed almost no applications into my Vista, I'm having a boatload of problems - crashes, inability to update, errors, etc. She has had absolutely none. Zero! Strange! I guess luck!!
The question people don't answer is whether it is really $400 better than XP. Some people say how "it's not so bad" or "they don't have any problems with it" but those are hardly convincing arguments to spend $400 (or $200 even) when XP works fine and is FASTER on the same hardware.
Its not that bad but for a OS that took more than 5 years in the making its pretty bad. I have a mac running leopard and Xp and a new Sony notebook running vista and Dude nothing comes close to leopard or not even the old Tiger OS. Someone said that they when from leopard to vista and its loving it?? Yeah right dude maybe if you keep saying that to yourself over and over your might start to believe yourself but let me tell you my friend, its impossible once a person goes to apple there gone for ever, and that's a fact my friend, why?? Microsoft is just too sloppy right now they are getting better but they are taking too much time to do so
I love vista. It runs great, is stable and while XP gave me no problems, vista also gives me no problems. I've been using it since the later RC's and apart from the usual early driver problems (no different than XP was), it's been great. The UAC works and while it's annoying to me, it keeps people who don't know what they're doing from screwing things up by accident. My parents and some friends that I've built vista based systems for need that extra level of nagging to keep them from doing stupid stuff.
It's funny that people bitch about lack of drivers. It just shows how many of these self proclaimed "experts" weren't in the market when XP came out. The same goes for UAC. The people that bitch about it most are the ones who need it the most. The first thing they do is turn it off and then a week later they start blaming vista for all the garbage they've installed. I mean it's just a cat that watches your mouse curser, how could that be bad right? Oh and that toolbar..and the other toolbar (I don't remember installing that!), and then there's the screen savers and a few games. oh and that other toolbar with the smiley faces, I love that one!
I think that Microsoft would make so much more money if they made a Vista theme for XP that came with DirectX 10 for $30. But that's just me.
This is only embarassing for one reason. I have been telling everyone I know how great Vista is and how much I like using it. I also enjoy telling people how many doors the OS opens for the future technologies that are currently over-priced or just not out. So a PC mag comes out and says it's a dissapointment. I feel like I'm doing somehting wrong here. What kind of stuff are people trying to do with Vista that Vista can't do? And how much do people expect an OS to do anyway? For me, this would be like complaining that the iPod shuffle isn't as small as we expected it to be. Come on folks it's as small as it's gonna get. I have had no more trouble with Vista than the trouble I had with XP years back. And will someone tell me what the other OS's are doing that's so special...mike
No kidding Carl, I would buy that so fast. Call me superficial, but the biggest pull to upgrade to Vista is that beautiful UI, StyleXP only gets you so far.
In the same report were also listed as Top 2007 Tech Disappointments:
#5 iPhone
#8 Leopard
But Engadget wouldn't want to mention that or provide the link!!!!!!!!
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140583/article.html
Shame on you Engadget!, you provide a link to almost every story you blog about but this one.....wonder why?
@saad rabia
You sound like a ubuntu adopter. Just replace every instance of Vista in your story with Ubuntu and it would still sound the same. The difference is that Vista Ultimate is $400 and Ubuntu is free. Why does a $400 OS need as much babying by tech guru family member as a linux based machine? Your family spent $400x4 on Vista. Those $1600 could've bought you lots of steak dinners for the help you needed to give your family members to get things going.
Guys... you confuse myself sometimes, I guess it’s simply, if you like it you use it, if not you don’t.
After reading all the gadgets they listed as the "biggest disappointments," this article has NO CREDIBILITY at all. They basically put EVERY MAJOR tech product of the year on it, including:
1. The iPhone
2. Vista
3. Leopard
4. Vonage
5. Yahoo
6. Wireless Carriers
7. Office 2007
While some of these products may not have lived up to their fullest expectations--these are FAR from being a huge disappointment. I don't know what they were thinking. The iPhone was a huge step forward in the mobile market, even though it has its flaws. Office 2007 was a nice step forward. Verizon Wireless announced its plans for an open network, and Google is making a universal cell phone platform. This is probably one of the best years in the mobile market!
It annoys me that they would bash almost everything that's out there because its not 100% perfect!
Let the fanboy wars commence!!!
What? you mean the war isn't over?
w/e - I'm going back to playing games on my mac w/ a bottle of champagne to celebrate the victory
Games? Mac is the PS3 of computers. THERE ARE NO GAMES.
Nah, I'm just joking... You do have some shitty ports.
although I don't really like Mac, based on your comment, I think you haven't used either a PS3 and/or Mac....
and no, Im not kidding...
Mac: Im a Mac
PC: Im a Pc
Mac: Im better than a Pc, PC World just confirmed it
PC : You're right time to find a new purpose in life
I hope your getting paid Zeus, otherwise, I'm sorry that your life is so empty that you find reason to PS3 bash even when the OP has no mention of it.
Grow up.
He's just mad he can't afford any of them. Mommy won't pay that much. Low-Income doesn't support that kind of inventory.
The PS3 has awesome games, but apparently someone's stuck in the dark ages (2006)
Also, my friend has Unreal Tournament 2004 on his MacBook, and i would say it is a very good port if it can look that good on Integrated Graphics.
Ed - I would hope so, being that it's a 4 year old game.
Well, they did also list Apple's iPhone and Leopard among the top 15 disappointments. So, given that these two have both proven to be huge successes for Apple (despite some legitimate complaints at the launch of each), PCWorld clearly has a skewed idea of what constitutes a disappointment. If they were going to pick on an Apple product as one of the top tech let-downs of the year, where's the Apple TV on this list?
Jason - What I meant was that it looks much better than most games on integrated graphics. The fact that it is playable on a base model MacBook at a reasonable quality is amazing.
Not sure what is so bad about Vista. I guess it takes a truly technical mind to understand why things are the way they are. Considering 99% of the bad mouthers out there aren't _truly_ tech savvy enough to know how the development process works, it doesn't surprise me they don't understand Vista. If it's not a total overhaul, apparently it's not worth anything.
MS did create an entire rewrite, early builds of Longhorn show something quite amazing but it required too much sacrificing of driver compatibility and hardware back in 2005 was not up to par. They began anew after 2005. Vista was born of XP code, but 'bettered'. It is better, even if the newbs don't understand it.
Personally, I don't care "how the development process works", or how "technically advanced" the system core is or whatever.
As the end user, all I care about is whether or not it's easy to use, and allows me to get my work done or play the games I want. With all the incompatibilty issues and nagging "please confirm to continue" screens, it is certainly entitled to a "bad" description. I don't need to be a "tech savvy" to see that.
Amen, mmh. Although I don't know how it works at the kernel level, the surface result that's viewable to me as the end user is an operating system which: consumes significantly more resources, adversely affects gaming performance, has compatibility issues with certain hardware and apps, and overall feels less responsive when compared to Windows XP. Maybe there's some great reason for this, but it doesn't offer anything over XP as far as I'm concerned and the real deal breaker is the amount of RAM and CPU cycles it uses. My experiences with Vista have all been negative so far and this is even on high performance machines. My friend's laptop with a Core 2 Duo, 2GBs of RAM, and a 7900GS felt sluggish even after a fresh reformat wist Vista Premium. The time spent hunting down all the proper drivers and slipstreaming the SATA driver onto a XP install disc was well worth it; the system is now noticeably faster.
XP has proved to be a reliable and compatible operating system based on my years using it. Vista doesn't offer me any benefits or reason to switch. Even though I'm building a new gaming machine with a DirectX 10 video card (8800GT), I'm willing to go with DX9 instead to use XP. In the event some truly amazing DX10 games come out, I may install Vista Basic as a dual-boot and disable all non-essential services and use it strictly for DX10 games.
as a long-time xp user who has used vista for the past few months (too lazy to downgrade), my issue is that i'm much more productive with xp. what i want gets done in xp with little or no drama when compared with vista. sure, i've learned where everything is in vista, but it just doesn't seem as intuitive (or perhaps "simple" is a better word) as xp was. i used osx for a couple days, and was doing pretty well after a few minutes of poking around - everything is where i expect it to be. vista? meh. I know little of what's "under the hood" - i imagine the vast majority of home users are the same - beyond the pretty aero (is there a stylexp for vista yet?) and the nice window effects, what's better about it? i hear there's some improved functionality with tablet pcs, but uh.. i don't have one either.
it just feels like a crippled, albeit pretty version of xp. and it's not even that pretty.
Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten about "optimizing."
vista is bad, but yes I agree, it's not THAT BAD! Honestly, does anyone remember WIN 98 and WIN 98 SE? come on.
I agree that the ME was a poor try.But try opening the windows explorer in ME and VISTA and try timing it.VISTA takes twice as long.When a basic task is poorly executed thats when everthing else becomes a let down.Remember the operating system is just a base over which all the applications work.So get the basics right.
I got a lot more use out of the fast-booting and relatively stable 98SE than I plan to get out of Vista. I've used Vista and they'll have to pry my copy of XP out of my cold, dead, hands. Vista is bloatware, plain and simple.
Some writers are putter-inners, and some are taker-outters. This is what my college lit professor told me. Hemmingway, for example, was a taker-outter. He would trim a story down until only the bare essentials were there. Just enough clues to let you see the subplot. Just enough for you to REALLY get it.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is a putter-inner. They just keep piling on until they cripple the damn thing. I like all the "features" of Vista; the meta-data that keeps track of stuff for you, the integrated contacts stuff (that survived from Longhorn, right?), the sidebar. But they failed to give you any GOOD apps that come boxed with it. So after they bloated the bejesus out of your operating system, you're still left with a bells-and-whistles interface that requires you to buy more software to actually do ANYTHING USEFUL with your computer.
I still use Windows because of one program, and only one program: Corel Paint Shop Pro X. For every other program that I use, I have a suitable Ubuntu or Mac alternative. Unfortunately, I just can't gel with Photoshop or the GIMP. I need my PSP.
This weekend I installed the parallels demo on my work laptop (mac). I ran Paint Shop Pro smoothly and quickly even with only a gig of ram. Suffice it to say my next personal computer will be a mac running windows (xp) on Parallels Coherence.
The real problem is that it was wayy over hyped. This makes exaggerates any shortcomings.
Longhorn was hyped... it never happened though. Vista hype began due to the confusion that Longhorn WAS Vista when it was not! Windows 7 should be uber-lightweight and highly sandboxed/virtualized. A rather large departure from NT codebase. Vista is just XP 2007 - we all admit that. It had to be done because Longhorn would have failed miserably amongst the masses. Destined to be a tech demo ahead of its time.
@ EricR
Are you hyping Windows 7?
not only are you hyping windows 7, but you forgot that it took so many years for vista to come out - and you're saying it's just "xp 2007"
how is that acceptable? it would be understandable if vista came out sooner, but we had to wait 6 years for a new windows version. what we should have gotten was xp sp3 without the memory hogging effects and the real longhorn version when it is ready. instead we'll have to wait another 6 years for windows 7.
I'm not sure what you mean. Vista IS Windows XP SP3.
i remember when vista came out , the night before Bill Gates was on the daily show and i remember waiting for it to show up on a torrent site, then reading reviews after school and not wanting to bother with vista until a new laptop. :( vista sure is lame but its not the worse thing
^ clone zoidberg ^
i remember when vista came out , the night before Bill Gates was on the daily show and i remember waiting for it to show up on a torrent site, then reading reviews after school and not wanting to bother with vista until a new laptop. :( vista sure is lame but its not the worse thing , at least vista didnt BRICK MY LAPTOP!!!! HA
That was a stupid comment.
Well. I installed vista when it RTM'ed, although its definitely slower than XP in some aspects, no complaints here and looking forward to SP1 :D
I've been running Vista as my main OS since Release Candidate 1. I have never had any major problems with it, and the UAC doesn't bother me a whole lot.
RTM? It read the manual? It returned to manufacturer? What?
I use Vista everyday, and it does give me problems. I'm thinking of downgrading.
But, PC World is a worthless sack of shit magazine, and has been so for years.
Vista is generally usable.
ATM comparable to Ubuntu in my experience: some stuff works, some stuff doesn't and crashes constantly. But mostly works.
In the two hours I had to work with Vista organizing files, Explorer (file manager) crashed on me 4 times. That's telling.
The only problem with that, is that Ubuntu is free, and Vista is far from free. If I'm going to pay the money for an operating system, I want it to work with most things. I'm still waiting for more drivers to be released so that I can try Vista (again) on my computer.
PC World has gone down hill anyways. I don't even bother reading that magazine anyways. But if you ask me, I think someone at PC World is a bit buddy buddy with Steven-o. Seriously who would really believe that MacBook Pro is the fastest computer they tested. That was the biggest overstatement I've seen in a long time.
> But if you ask me, I think someone at PC World is a bit buddy buddy with Steven-o.
I read several issues in the past. Believe me: that's not true.
They might got some Macs by now, but before even simple features available in Mac OS (even Linux) for *ages* had produced articles filled with uncovered surprise, excitement and awe before every new M$Windows version.
The point is that now people have more choices and the [censored] journalists seem finally getting out under of the rock they were living since Win3.11.
PC world should just close it's doors and all move to mac world... since... most PCs uses windows, if there is so much hate against windows... why torture yourself with the work, just quit... and move to another platform... Mac comes to mind...
To the people coming to Vista's defense and barking it's "not that bad," follow the link and read the actual article. As a vista user myself, I agree wholeheartedly...to repeat what the article says, the sad truth of the matter is that vista is still slower than XP. Incredibly slow star-up, annoying hurdles...I have to confirm twice just to change a freaking file name? Absolutely cannot wait till the next aluminum macbooks come out to make the switch.
Vista SP1, fixes a lot of the problems you are describing. With SP1, copying files is a lot faster and there is only one prompt to change the files you are talking about. SP1 (the pre-release) has given me no problems: its even gone so far to increase performance a tad.
Is this the same PC World that was caught in a lie (oddly enough regarding the MacBook Pro & Vista) and you guys mentioned here: http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/07/macbook-pro-really-was-pc-worlds-fastest-tested-laptop-until/ ?
How many PC Worlds do you know of?
I agree PC world is a shitty mag.But why would they hype macs and bring down the PC enterprise by simply falsifying benchmarks.For most people PC = Vista even though literally thats not true.Those who had the greatest expectations were most put down...
"There are other (PC) Worlds than these."
-Jake Chambers
Thank you...as shitty a magazine PC World is, this title was LONG OVERDUE.
I own a WHQL (WinXP platform from two years ago) certified piece of computing equipment. And Vista won't install on it at all. Is Vista great? I don't think so. Doesn't look like they did much testing to me. I'll be generous and give it an "F" instead of a zero.
Most WHQL passed hardware can use on Vista as well, but not display drivers because the WDDM.
Virtualized video memory, GPU interruptibility and Cross-process sharing of DirectX surfaces....
Has nothing to do with the video. It wouldn't even pass go.
Certification is the WHOLE hardware... not merely the video (the video card was one I added... doesn't matter though... onboard or not... just would not install).
Vista works as well, if not better than XP for me. Although I don't have any circa 1995 Canon LPT1 printers around...
Kinda OT: Tiger got updated after 30months (2 3/4 years) by leopard And now Leopard's out with not so much that's new for lotsa money? I'd say that's a tad disappointing. FYI: XP was 5yrs old.
To feel the difference between Mac OS versions you have to use them.
10.3 was "good enough". 10.4 was "good". 10.5 is "better".
Apple doesn't play uncertain game of M$: rewriting software fully every 5 years. Apple just doesn't have money for that - nor wish it risk angering its user base with all the problems which are commonplace / daily routine of Windows users.
This is drastic difference in user bases. Apple users would whine on forums/blogs/news articles about every little annoyance to pressure Apple into fixing it. Microsoft users instead search for second party tools to fix what annoys them - because reporting that to M$ or bash on forums is pointless. Heck, there is even no way to submit report M$ - while way to report problem to Apple is well known and publicized. M$ instead publishes extensive APIs so that 2nd party tools can tap into OS and fix all the annoyances - but nothing end user can utilize is provided.
Just to reiterate, Mac OS is very different beast. Comparing it to Windows (like some fanboys (Jobsy included) like to do) is like comparing apples to oranges. You have to use it exclusively for some months to feel the difference.
i dont really have too many problems with vista, but i agree its slow, and i guess even though i dont like how everyone wants to badmouth it and go on and on about how great their macbook is, i think its good that people ARE talking bad about vista becasue then microsoft will try harder to make better products, and MAYBE, just maybe, when the next version of windows comes out, i'll be able to buy it and it'll actually run on my current machine without me having to upgrade to a quad core processor with 4 gigs of ram or something...
yes it is THAT bad. good for linux tho :)
and for apple, who are getting just as monopoly-bad as microsuck
Sigh.
Macs are personal computers. PC Magazine writes about personal computers. There is no irony here.
Intel Core 2 Duo processor, nVidia graphics card, 802.11g networking, IEEE1394 ports, 17" display. Do these stats describe a PC or a Mac? Exactly.
obviously it's a pc.
when you buy a mac, you don't know what's inside. or you don't even know it's a pc like the others but overpriced...
@roberto:
Apple provides full specification sheets on every model they carry and you are able to customize your order with parts that you choose.
Also, I don't understand this whole "overpriced" debacle. Apple products are usually expensive and expensive equals bad and has no correlation to quality, right?
I think what James means is by things like upgrading ram and what not: 2Gb of ram for 500 bucks is insane
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nclm=F295A333
now you can go to sites online and get apple ram for cheaper but how many "it just works" normal people would
Also you can compare that Apple store price to the price over at Dell for the exact 2GB DDR2 PC2-5300
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Memory_Upgrades/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=A0944543&mfgpid=193384#Overview
for 89 bucks
More expensive does not necessarily equal better, as you all know. My BF's eMac (just over 3.5 years old!) just died--well, the video died--the computer itself comes up OK, we THINK. Even though this is a known problem with eMacs of this vintage (and the serial number is within the specified numbers that Apple says had the problem) the warranty was only good for 3 years--too bad, so sad, if you want to have this repaired give us $425 (!!!!). I thought, well, maybe we can replace the part ourselves--but most of that cost WAS the part!
So we bought him a refurbished Compaq with Vista Home Premium for $350. Right now the eMac is just sitting around until we can find a way to get his information off of it. Then I guess we'll have to pay to recycle it (sigh).
Whereas my 6+ year old home-built PC tower (dual-booted Windows 2000 and Gentoo Linux) still works just fine. And I think it cost about $400 to build.
when Vista can't copy across a network to an XP machine even after SP1 RC1 then there is something wrong.
http://www.winextra.com/2007/12/15/vista-copymove-the-service-pack-1-rc1-follow-up/
I just ran a 45 gig transfer from my vista machine to my xp machine. went surprisingly fast over my gigabit ethernet. i do that stuff all the time. i don't know what that guy's problem is.
umm I think youre doing something wrong there buddy
Works for me...time to replace the user.
Steve, sounds like you have more problems than just Vista. I have been able to do that since day one.
@Jack Storm - ummm .. perhaps you can tell me why then this has been a persistant problem on a fresh - not upgrade - of Vista Ultimate that I am not the only one to have experienced the problem. It's been reported in more than one Microsoft forum not to mention other forums and blogs
@Jeff - well gee that was a useful reply but all the same I am glad yours is working for you
@Evan .. well consider that the problem disappeared the moment I went back to two XP machines I'd say the problem is pretty well figured out - but I'm glad yours works for you because I wish the case had been the same for me because on the whole I did like Vista.
umm Dont know what to tell you about that but i will tell you that i have a nice small network in my house of about 3 notebooks(1,Vista 2,XPs) and 4 PCs(3 Vistas 1XP) all but one are connected through WiFi and i transfer files to each computer without any problem. I must say that vista actually makes it even easier to set up wireless networks.
Now the only problem i had with Vista was upgrading the 1 PC that atm has Xp. Even though the advisor told me that that pc can run up to Ultimate it runs Basic horribly so i just downgraded back to XP and it was fine, mean while all the other computers that came with Vista pre-installed run great.
Sorry guys, but this stuff DOES happen. I've had it happen to me on occasion between my Vista x64 ultimate and XP Pro. Both running Gigabit LAN with jumbo frames. The copying just pauses at some point for a bit. I haven't tried it in quite a while so maybe it's fixed now, but it still happens when the other OS is Linux (SUSE 10.3 x64 to be specific). I do know that if jumbo frames are not working properly then you get intermittent slowdowns - which get worse the bigger the file is - even on XP machines. I also do know that you need to update Samba on Linux to fairly new versions as they fixed some protocol issues - without the patch, you'd kind of see the windows share but you'd wait for a minute for it to display and then half of the files would be missing and copying would not work. With patch it's all visible but then I get the same network slowdown bug as he's getting with XP - the file starts copying at full speed, then stalls for good 10 seconds or more, then resumes and copies another 10-20MB, then stops again...
Okay, but if Vista is "most disappointing," the iPhone is UNQUESTIONABLY "most overrated." So yay, now the PC fanboys and the Mac fanboys can live in harmony. The end.
I've downgraded at least 15 notebooks with preinstalled vista. And not right after they were bought, but after 1-2 weeks usage in average.
ps. XP was released in 2001
And you think that you have more then enough experience with the OS after 1 or 2 weeks?!
Sorry, but running Vista for 4 months now and I've nothing to complain. It is maybe not much better then XP, but it also doesn't suck or something.
My Boss is as die hard MS Fanboy as anyone I've met and he downgraded from Vista to XP. For the longest time, I've known him as a MSSQL admin/dev and he's always pushing things like Silverlight in my lap.
Another person I know, member of the .NET Dev community swears not to upgrade to Vista for some time.
So, no. It's not only the Linux/Mac fanboys who are proclaiming downgrades.
iduno... performance wise I can't really complain - I mean it's no worse then XP when that just came out... and quite honestly I'd rather use Vista instead of XP... But w/ that said I have it installed via Boot Camp on my 2.33/2GB/ATI X1600 MacBook Pro and it runs pretty well... but still nowhere nearly well enough to use it for anything but the games
Think of it this way:
Windows has always tried to allow for compatibility for previous applications and hardware. That said, Vista failed miserably at this. This isn't the first time, but in this case, many things don't work, or if they do, they're incredibly slow. Mac and Linux can't really say they go for previous compatibility. Mac just completely dropped a whole set of older hardware, and Linux changes code so often, it's impossible to keep track of what still works. (not bashing, I love and use linux...)
However, that said - imagine if everything running on Vista was DESIGNED FOR VISTA! Almost everything that the average user runs on Vista is just a modified version of the XP or older versions. This will only allow developers to "get by." It won't be a fully working product, and it won't satisfy users fully, but it'll work.
We can now only hope that the next version of Windows will force devs to rethink their ways and make things more compatible.
My opinion on Vista: I look at Vista, and I see a lot of work. But I also see XP. And I see way too much eye candy. I see that my crappy system could never run it properly. I've tried it, but I went back to XP. Now I use Linux. However, I'm hoping to get back to Windows once they get a decent version.
So in the end, to me, Vista was a let-down. Especially having tracked so much for the past few years, I was very disappointed with it. But I would not have labeled it so harshly. It was a good product, just not what was expected or what *everyone* wanted.
I have had no problems, Vista works great for me. It boots up fast (
Hmmm, most of my comment got cut off...weird. I stand by my previous statement.
This isn't always the case, but i find that a lot of the people that complain about Vista haven't ever used it for more than 10 minutes. A lot of the complaints i here about from people are how the interface has changed. This isn't a technical problem it's just a familiarity problem. If you give yourself a little time to get used to it, it really works a lot better than XP in a lot of ways.
I remember when XP came out and everyone hated how the start button changed and how stupid it was and that they were so glad they could change it back to 98/2000 mode. It's the same kind of thing.
Oh and the having to click confirm everyone that people complaing about, i agree that is annoying, but it can be disabled in like 2 seconds. Just run MSCONFIG, it's in there.
Don't get me wrong, vista has a lot of room for improvement, but i dual boot my system Vista/XP and i haven't booted to XP in months. no reason to. If you run decent hardware and decent software vista doesn't have any major problems.
I have been using Vista when in beta and have 2 copies of the final verions. I just upgraded to XP PRO and happy again. Vista is just plain crap! I could go on about what MS mind set in doing this, they are a "bad" company and should be put out of business for this polished turd.
--I remember when XP came out and everyone hated how the start button changed and how stupid it was and that they were so glad they could change it back to 98/2000 mode. It's the same kind of thing.--
I am an XP user, and I actually still run my Start Menu in classic mode. The new start menu designs are targeted at casual PC user, so it's no surprise power users will scoff at them.
I'm not particularly afraid of change either, I picked up Office 2007's new interface in few hours and I love the extra productivity it provides me with.
Vista's problem however, is that as of right now, both power users and casual users see it as an OS that does worse in the tasks they want to perform with it. Be it work or entertainment. There's no magical switch to make Vista as efficient as XP, like there is with the start menu.
Of course, I don't underestimate the remarkable ability of the average computer user to just use whatever you throw at him, bad or good. It's why, after all, Microsoft makes most of its profits on OEM licenses, and not retail.
The big question is: can I do my work on Vista? My machine came with Home Premium and I'll say that, yes, I can do my work. But with less efficiency, power-wise and time-wise, not to mention stability/performance issues, and that some of the changes in Vista appear to have been made for the sake of change, without any goal or reason.
I don't need to justify in a grand way why Vista is a disappointment, I just pick the option that lets me do my work easier, and utilizes my hardware better. It's XP as of now.
From this perspective, Vista is a disappointment, since you expect newer product version to better do what you want it to do, versus be better just on paper, because of a list of fancy technologies with fancy PR names (and I do know in depth what those technologies are, as a developer myself).