Is this a 'sign' of things to come for Vista?
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Feb 1st 2008 9:33AM
posted Feb 1st 2008 9:33AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Vista takes a lot of crap because of the drivers. It's the hardware manufacturers fault that they don't come out with good drivers not Vistas
Really who would want to do this?
I've had vista for about 10 months now and not had a single problems, it's way better than XP.
Ah...just what I like with my morning cup o joe.
A big heaping bowlful of FLAMEBAIT.
TBH, I'll be upgrading to Vista as soon as I get a new video card (currently using onboard because I'm crazy) and double my ram. Also the service pack'll wanna be out too.
That is, unless XP's third service pack does something new and interesting...
Better give em business so they can afford a second W... that Upside down M isn't fooling anybody..
Is that cartoon guy flipping us off?
(cue banging head against wall)
I think it's less of a comment on the quality of Vista and more an acknowledgment of a need some users may have. Imagine Joe Noname buying a new PC in Walmart with Vista pre-installed and deciding they want to go back to the familiar XP, but they don't know anything about installing OS, so they go to a place like this.
I agree! I think Vista got hit by the perfect crapstorm. I think a lot of users that are used to customizing things towards their liking (and/or people not caring to relearn a new OS), hardware companies dropping the ball and PC manufacturers loading it with all kinds of crapware contributed towards bad press.
From reading comments, the people that build PC's that installed it...love it. The people that happened to get it with their new laptop complete with buggy drivers and loads of crapware...hate it (mind you, those are usually the same types that rarely upgrade drivers).
I actually installed Vista on an old laptop (single core Celeron 1.2mHz) and it really did improve the experience and speed. XP took twice as long for things to open and allowed me to multitask half as much. Granted, this is without Aero (the laptop won't support it). My custom build desktop only uses Vista Ultimate and I've NEVER had a problem.
I upgraded to Vista from XP Pro for the media centre component. Probably wouldn't of done it otherwise. I agree that its still a bit buggy, although not nearly as bad as most people make out. Lookin forward to SP1.
I've used Vista for about 6-7 months now and its only crashed about 8 times, mostly because I use NVIDIA Beta drivers instead of stable builds.
I have no idea why would want to to get rid of Vista. Sure its not perfect, but its a fine successor to XP in my opinion and can only get better with time. Frankly, the only thing that annoys me is the redundant permission windows, but you click so many of those things anyway whats one more?
just turn off the user accts, and it wont ask you for permission anymore
Who would trust a 30 year old cartoon George W Bush to fix their computer?
Must be a slooooowww fucking day huh Josh?
Makes you wonder how much they charge to format your hard drive (something XP can do on install) and install XP? Better yet do you get the copy of XP? Have to supply it or are we talking fell off the back of a bit torrent?
The cartoon guy looks like a cross between George W. and ALF.
I've got Vista for almost a year on my laptop, and I've done some reinstalls similar to what they offer for some people on their laptops. I gotta say, there are some computers out there without XP drivers now, and are pretty much Vista only, wouldn't be surprised if most of the computers coming now will only have Vista drivers. Vista ain't bad from what I've experienced, and all I have is good things to say about it, lol. From what it seems, the Vista hate is lowering now, but it's true that Vista doesn't startup as fast as XP, or probably doesn't perform well on hardware designed for XP, but with some of the extras in it, I prefer Vista over XP. That's just my opinion anyways.
Hmm, I can see where they're coming from. I used my GF's 4 month old Vaio laptop for the first time in a while last night. I couldn't believe how slow (the pre-installed) Vista was on it! She'd been complaining for a while, but I thought that it was just that she was used to the XP way of doing things.
I think I'll wait and see what SP1 does to the performance. If it's still rubbish, I'll 'upgrade' it to XP (assuming Sony let me have all the drivers for the trackpad, camera, BT etc.)
Seriously, there are those of us out here using Vista with no trouble. No question it was a rocky start and I sure would not recommend running it on old hardware, but my experience has been positive over the last six months.
It's weird, but I installed Vista Ultimate way back in February 2007, and apart from a missing Creative Soundblaster driver, having to hunt round for an Ethernet to USB adapter driver, and working out that you have to right click some things and run as administrator if you want to save to certain "secure locations" or run really old games, I haven't had a single problem with Vista. It runs my 2d and 3d graphics programs and Crysis, Bioshock etc (I've got a 8800GTS) without problems, and I wouldn't go back to XP.
Now I'm not saying it's got everything right, and I know a couple of friends who have had some problems, but it's not the pile of rubbish that people are panicing over. It's certainly better than the total nightmare several friends have has with Ubuntu (won't start-up, runs but can't get the soundcard to work as it's too new and not supported, graphics corruption with ATI etc etc), and I am not adverse to trying OSX, but they need to make it run on PCs, as I can't justify spending money on new hardware when there's nothing wrong with the hardware I've got, and I don't want to be tied into only being able to use Apple hardware (that's an even worse monopolistic attitude than Microsoft in my opinion).
So Vista's OK with me...he's hoping that Windows 7 is a 3.1 to 95 jump though.
I'm sticking to Vista because I've only got 512MB RAM on my laptop and I'm afraid of futzing around with it to install more. I'm moving on a different upgrade path- hello OSx86.
Bah, sticking to XP Pro, not VIsta.
There is a Mom-and-pop computer shop in Chesapeake, VA "MRO Computers" that runs a TV ad now that politely says "Vista not right for you" in the middle of their ad.
On another note, I wonder just how many of these types of places around the country try to fold astronomy into their stores. I know every one I've ever been to has a selection of about four different telescopes with dust on them. I just don't get it.
idk dudes... vista seems fine to me installed it 3 months ago or so. still have XP running too on differetn harddrive but everytime i keep swhiching vista just kills XP in everything so far even boot up time. my comp is not really something and average user would have so i dont really know if it has issues with lower end hardware.
Grow up Engadget!!Windows rules the world!! Deal with it.
Why is the sign giving everyone the finger?
Vista isn't ready. These signs are in just about every mom-n-pop computer repair joint in middle America. Vista is buggy, sluggish, difficult to navigate, and inconvenient to use. I've replaced a few vista installs with XP (and in some cases, kept both for dual boots), and there is really no reason for a new OS to slog through common operations like it does, especially when the identical hardware on XP hums right along. Until SSD's become an affordable norm and there are better "power user" settings for Vista, it will not be something i use from day to day. no chance.
Less a sign of things to come than a sign that Engadget are just adjusting their seat on the bandwagon.
I say: uninstall this machine eater, slow, anoying OS, and find a way to install LEOPARD :-)
P.S.: Please, don't throw me any rocks ! I'm not a fanboy, but I use both OS's (work / home) and it is my honest opinion that Vista sucks.
This is just so overboard now it is plain silly. Sure, I can see some (big) businesses wanting to drop back to XP, because large corporations are notoriously slow with their migrations (and in fairness usually an overburdened IT department). But at this point, especially for somebody going with a new machine (thus not having concerns about outdated drivers... at least in theory), there is no reason to unload Vista for XP.
This has been fueled... a lot, but industry "experts" that talk about the slow uptake rate of Vista, but they conveniently forget, that "way back when" the move from Windows 2000 to XP was not all that brisk initially either.
The fact is that regardless of what OS you are running, it is far more stable, and most users are satisfied sticking with what they have, at least for the duration of the machines life, unlike the days of Windows 3.X or Linux Slackware or the original MAC OS, where OS updates were more needed for functionality sake.
OK, I am not trying to start a flamewar here, but somebody has to jump in and bring up the obvious counterpoints to these comments.
Aside from the annoyance of moving a lot of settings around (in many instances, to no noticeable improvement in terms of the number of steps taken to get something done), there are a few good reasons to go with XP over Vista. For one, performance. This isn't a matter of subjective opinion in most cases - look at the Benchmarks. Most game and processor intensive apps just run slower. Combine that with the annoyance factor of the unending security prompts, and you have a couple of very good reasons to avoid Vista. Tell me, what do I get in return aside from eye-candy? A few small things - but to me these are just not worth it. If performance is not critical (i.e. none of you are gamers who want a decent frame-rate running recent games - either that or you have money to burn on hardware) then I can see it. A lot of people don't use their PC for Games or other CPU intensive apps. For these people I am sure that Vista is fine. I am also sure it is in many peoples interest to be nagged with security prompts if they do not understand what there PC is doing most of the time. But otherwise - and I am asking this sincerely as I maybe missing something based on my limited experiences with Vista - why would I want it???
A friend of mine just purchased a new notebook and asked me to remove Vista Home Premium and install XP. I told her that it is possible after numerous tweaks to get Vista to SHUT UP, but she would have none of it. Perceived opinion or justified, Vista is a class A loser now more than a year after it debuted.
Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test:
http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html
This is not even newsworthy.
Quote from Superprime: "Vista takes a lot of crap because of the drivers. It's the hardware manufacturers fault that they don't come out with good drivers not Vistas"
I would have to agree. At the same time, I do not think Vista is enough of an upgrade to demand the time and money that it has required from consumers, software developers, and hardware manufacturers. Now, granted, the underpinnings of Vista might make it worth the time and money, but most people just do not see any major advantages of Vista over XP.
You are all imagining things if you think Vista is slower than XP - just look at this report:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/94747/94747.html?Ad=1
And this isn't some Mickey Mouse amateur 3rd party opinion - this report was sponsored by the industry leaders - Microsoft themselves - so you know they're numbers you can trust.
@Nick Tulett: "And this isn't some Mickey Mouse amateur 3rd party opinion - this report was sponsored by the industry leaders - Microsoft themselves - so you know they're numbers you can trust."
That's why you probably _shouldn't_ trust the report. The report would hold more weight if it was performed by an independent third party. It's obviously in Microsoft's best interest to promote their latest product.
Human nature - Root for the underdog, hate the big guy.
It's already been a much discussed point that Vista is not perfect, but pretty good (if a little hardware intensive). Likewise people had a cow when XP came out, many refused to leave 2000 Pro. Stands to reason people don't change (not individuals, people as a collective) and they resist change. When Win7 ships, we'll have it all over again, with how Vista was rocks solid, and why would they want to change everything.
i don't think vista is bad at all. i've had it for a few months now and no real problems. yeah, you need 2GB of RAM usually, but each new OS that comes out needs beefier specs. what's funny about all the vista complaints is that many people are just parroting what they've heard from others and can't offer any real examples of problems they are having.
i'll say it: i like vista just fine. in many ways, it's an improvement. well, once you figure out how to turn of UAC. LOL
The problem with turning off user access control (the annoying pop-ups that ask you if you really wanted to do that every time you run a program - my install of iTunes was interrupted six times by Vista with its stupid questions) is that it disables the Windows Security Center warning of security problems. Since there is no way that I know of to make it stop giving you the red shield warning for having turned off UAC.
Now I've never had that security warning tell me anything useful, but I don't like having to ignore it completely. Also, it's also annoying the way Vista has screwed up the Windows Explorer to make it hard to see your folder structure. Plus, I hate change.
@Joshua: "Hey, uninstalling unwieldy OSs is all well and good, but personally, we'd like to know more about this notebook repair."
What are you talking about? Removing the unwieldy OS *IS* the repair ;-)
Yeah, I keed, I keeeeed, etc.
What the f..., why is this even news? Seriously. I'm sure as hell you wouldn't post a sign that said 'WE REMOVE MACOS/WE INSTALL VISTA', now would you? Coincidentally, I know more people who have done that than who have downgraded to XP.
I disagree, Vista is a very good operating system, but I think DOS is the best OS ever.
that cartoon man has quite the fupa.
Haha holy crap, I saw the sign and thought "what other store was dumb enough to use the Bush/Alf hybrid guy sign that A&D place in Milford uses?"
Glad to see the answer is a decisive "no one."
Vista has no advantage against XP. That's why nobody likes it. Yeah... I know, you installed and "it rocks". Maybe "it rocks" because you forgot how XP works on your hardware, much better, faster and sometimes stable than XP.
If Vista had anything interesting to offer, it'd be ok. Sadly Vista is only a new XP. Would you pay to buy XP again??? No way.
I meant Vista in the end of the first paragraph :P
I have loved Vista. People who have never tried it hate it, because of what they have heard. I do tech support for a living and people always call in blaming Vista when it isn't Vista's fault (usually).
When you have the mind set that you won't like something, you won't.
Wow, I saw that the other day when I went to get my car back from the shop!
As Nelson Muntz would say....."Haa-ha.
That's really rubbing salt into an open wound especially using the Dubbayu character. Sad, so sad.
Vista Ultimate isn't that bad, but it is a resource hog. I think people with sub-par computers might want to consider a downgrade. However Vista runs just fine on higher-end computers. Driver problems aside, there isn't much to dislike about Vista. That being said, I'm happy enough with WinXP Pro running in my BootCamp partition. I gave Vista Ultimate a shot but it overworked the fans on my MacBook Pro 2.33 (running under Parallels).
I'm just glad there aren't any stores saying they'll downgrade Leopard to Tiger (using Hillary Clinton's character).
That's awesome, I grew up in Milford. A&D used to push OS/2 Warp a lot, iirc.
in my spare time I do alot of side-work on folks's home/small office networks and removing Vista on new machines in favor of XP is a booming buisness right now.
I've 'downgraded' half a dozen machines this month alone
Who cares? They've already talked about the Sucessor of Vista Dated for 2010. So I'll stick with XP, till the sucessor comes out, I can live without DirectX10 for 2 to 3 more years. It's not like there are alot of games that use it, without the ability to Run DirectX9 as an option.
Vista is not bad, but it requires a high level of computer knowledge and understanding to get it to work right. If not, you will get frustrated.
Funny, I actually went to Milford, NH in the fall from Boston and I saw this exact same sign. I was going to take a picture, but i didnt have a camera!
I didn't know George Bush Repaired PCs.
Pointless posting just to give Apple fanatics a cheap thrill.
I guess the fact that Vista still is being used by millions more than twice the number of people that use Leopard just gets under your skin, so lets do some mindless bashing, that'll show em!
Apple folks need to spend a little time trying to fix OSX rather than laugh at anyone else.
Hmm, honestly, I can't say I've had one problem with Vista...yeah the security boxes are a wee annoying at first, but they go away once it learns what you do a lot of. I only get one a week now, tops. The only performance issue I ever had was on my old Lenovo X41 tablet that is actually slow on XP as well. I upgrdaded the RAM and it runs beautifully. The biggest complaint I would have is the drivers, but again not MS's fault. I can't speak for the benchmarks, but in my experience, Vista has been faster yeah it's got a bigger footprint whatever disk storage is so cheap now what does a gig or two matter? Overall it's been more stable and once you get used to it the interface makes sooo much more sense. And it's funny I didn't have any problems installing the upgrade (ahem Leopard...) and I've been using it since the Beta 2. I can honestly say it's crashed maybe twice, and both times I was doing something stupid.
PS my girlfriend had a Mac and switched to Vista never looked back
Think of VISTA as two upgraded components. The first was to the OS (it is just a better NT, the one that David Cutler envisaged from the start) and the second to the GUI. A number of improvements were made to the OS - those are covered in many articles and I will not go into them here. However, I believe all those OS improvements should also be applied to XP. Some have already been applied to XP in the form of patches ala Microsoft Update. As a matter of fact, the Update program itself borrows from the VISTA OS enhancement which lets background jobs yield to foreground jobs! But please don't take my XP GUI (Kodachrome) away.
Fred J.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I upgrade something, anything, I do it because I'm getting something better. Not better in someways and worse in others. Just better.
And I don't care why it's not better. So the 3rd party hardware drivers aren't very good. Who cares? It's still M$'s fault. Why don't they spend the $44.6 billion on writing good drivers instead of trying to acquire Yahoo?
@Richy, because the reply button isn't working
The reason that the Vaio's installation of Vista is incredibly slow is because of how much shit Sony pre-loads onto their laptops. It's enough to make me avoid them altogether. Google around a bit and you'll see what I mean.
"So the 3rd party hardware drivers aren't very good. Who cares? It's still M$'s fault. Why don't they spend the $44.6 billion on writing good drivers instead of trying to acquire Yahoo?"
So I assume it's Apple's fault too as well as Linux's too when a private company does't do drivers for their OS as well?
You want your stuff to run on the OS, you get busy making sure the drivers are compatible. That's basic care and upkeep for your product no matter what OS it is for.
And what the hell is with the "M$"? Is your S key broken?
Vista is a huge resouce hog. Its like "lets make it so bloated that people will have to buy new super fast computing chips, vga cards and ram, then get kickbacks from so-and-so"
I remember some of the early Vista (Home Basic) not 'Ultimate' (oh the irony!) came on computers with a miserable 512mb of ram and it crawled. (Yes the pc makers also played a part in making the Vista experience crap). I removed it and install XP SP2 and it was soooo much faster.
Stunning, Simple, Secure?
I say its Sucky.
Clear, Connected, Confident?
C r a p.
I have not had one single problem with Vista, @ "Jamar": installing Ram in most laptops is very easy and can be done by loosening usually one screw, take off panel, swap out ram re-screw, and reboot...just get the right ram for your machine, I would recommend 2GB to run Vista smoothly. I think it's great personally, and you can go into system control panel and turn off the "Adjust for better viewing experience" and turn on Adjust for better performance, then go into power options and select the "high setting" and it will give a very XP look and speed things up a bit too....for those of you that don't want the "eye candy".
But I also own a Mac Book and LOVE It TOO!!! soo....there's my 2¢
Faslane
I've got a pair of pliers that I use to bend the unwieldy metal wire back into place when it goes haywire. I also have some Scotch tape that I use to make sure that any loose pages don't fall out. That's how I fix a broken notebook.
Gee, my company has been doing this since Vista came out.
is think's so bad?
What a remarkedly pointless post. It is funny how out of character it is with engadget which is generally useful and relevant. It is literally like it dropped out of this moronic poster's ass.
I like Vista. I like Vista 64bit even more. Drivers are really coming of age now and my 8gig quad core runs WAY faster than 16bit XP. I know I can run 64bit XP, but oddly enough it is way harder to find the proper drivers vs. Vista in the 64bit land.
@ Monrad - reply is still broken
Vista has nothing XP doesn't - Except:
- Integrated Media Center versions
- A more driver robust X64 version
- DirectX 10
- Integrated instant search on your PC and network shares from the Start menu
- Scheduled backups
- Integrated Parental controls
- Security (UAC, which I know some hate), risky processes needing user interaction to elevate the function since a user account in Administrator group =! Administrator account anymore
To name a few. Not even mentioning the other fluff like: Breadcrumb bar, Preview tooltips, 3D flip, Aero, etc.
I do think it's appropriate that the cutout man on the sign is giving Vista "the-bird."
it's funny that i know more people who have uninstalled leopard to 10.4 than people who goes back to XP.
yea... I'm having no problems whatsoever with Vista and I've had it since last year as well. The only issue I have is not being able to run old un-updated analysis softwares, but that's it.
Vista >>> ALL. People just need to be computer literate to understand this. It's features are unbelievable, and if people don't cheap out on their PC configurations, then it shouldn't have any issues. It runs far more stable than XP ever did to me.
That's a funny picture...but it's not a surprise. I've already "handled" six of these for friends. For those that ask why you'd do this, the answer is simple. Vista is an overly complex, bloated, and sloooow operating system. In the six that I've done, the performance increase after "upgrading" to XP is astounding. XP takes a mediocre Vista system and turns it into a screamer. The tough thing, is that some manufacturers, like HP, refuse to offer XP support for some models. So, some machines require a little digging around at Intel, nVidia, ATI, etc. to locate the correct XP drivers. HP even went so far as to tell the laptop owner that, "You can't install XP on that system. It won't work." Funny guys, those techs at HP.
Hey I'm from the neighboring town! Cool! haha.
My laptop came with Vista.... I downgraded to XP (and installed Linux on the other half of the other part of the HD)
Vista boot time: About 1.3 minutes from BIOS to bare desktop (I'm not counting the rest because of the bloatware, it would not be a fair comparsion)
XP boot time: 17 seconds from BIOS to full desktop
Vista: Looks nice. But just that. AND not too nice, Linux looks nicer
XP: Looks as nice as Linux, AND is actually functional(after you do some system tuning, of course, but you really have to be a n00b to not know how)
Now here's a service that offers no redeemable value, unless you were stupid enough to buy one of those $400 PCs.
Haha, I think I know that computer shop, I drove by it two days ago...
I recently traded my privacy to MS for a free copy of Vista Ultimate.
I cant wait to dual boot for DX10! (all I will use it for)
PS: It was a very hard decision to give up my privacy. I spent hours thinking about it. I highly recommend you do the same (think) if the opportunity presents itself again.
First it was "ME REPAIR NOTEBOOKS", then he rotated the M...
@Garst: I were stupid enough to buy a $400 system, and I'm happy with it...
No, wait, I'm not stupid... I know what I _need_ it for, and how to make it work better than your $799
I've had Vista since it came out ( I bought it on its release day). I've had the occasional problems and crashes, but nothing that I havn't experienced before on other Operating Systems.
I like Vista far better then XP, I would never go back to using XP.
besides in a couple weeks SP1 will be released, that should help shut up the haters out there.
I've had it with Vista. Performance is slower. Battery life is worse. It runs ok one day then the next I have the "won't go to sleep" problem. After fixing it with some fix that said it couldn't run but still did, I have the "waking from sleep" problem. It turns out that vista decides to wake the computer from sleep in the middle of the night just to check for updates! What genius came up with that idea? I had no battery life left in the morning when I really needed it!
Now I've turned the updates off and it keeps telling me that's a security risk. I know it is! I'd rather update manually than have a system that decides what do with my computer when it so chooses!! User account control was the same nightmare - I couldn't do the simplest of things without it asking me whether to proceed and program compaitbility was the pits.
I'd go back to XP any day but everytime I buy a copy off ebay the licence key has already been used and it refuses to activate. I can't buy it retail.
This shop has the right idea. I don't want Vista - it was FORCED on me!
The only thing I hate about Vista is its elimination of Shift+Tab to navigate backwards throughout form fields. (Or is it Internet Explorer 7's fault?) On Windows 2000 & XP (and even the obscure, 2003-derived XP x64), I could move around a complete Web form by using only Tab to move to the next field and Shift+Tab to move back to previous field. Now here on Vista's IE7, although I can still move to next field with Tab, to return to previous field I need to drag my mouse pointer to that field and click on it! Shift+Tab no longer works! I just hope SP1 fixes this blatant inconvenience.
Shift+Tab works fine for me in Vista (x86-32 and x86-64 - I'm running both). Not sure what's going on with your situation, though. Sorry!
But does it work for you on IE7? Or are you using a different browser (Safari, Mozilla)?
Can't wait for Vista Ultimate 64 (hopefully with SP1) FREE in the mail because....
MS Windows Feedback Panel works! Yaaaaay! I thought they didn't get my submission in time but I got an email today saying I'm due for my free product soon because they've been getting lots of info from my WFP on the PC. Whooopee!!!
Now I can slap this 32bit Home Premium on my other machine and all will be well in my home.
Oh...and there's nothing wrong with that sign...as other persons have said many people need to have their Vista downgraded because they don't want change. They like XP and want it, and there's nothing wrong with that. 300 computers from beest buy and tiger direct and walmart don't come with OS options you know?
@SHoe
Performance in Vista is actually very much on par with Windows XP, especially in gaming.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/default.asp
From those benchmarks, Vista's gaming performance (as of Aug 2007) are either exactly on par, slightly lower, or slightly higher than XP’s.
Not only that, but the whole "Windows XP runs faster on the same hardware than Vista does" is such a flawed argument. DOS runs faster on the same hardware than XP and Vista, should we all downgrade do it? As OS's progress, they will use more resources. With my experience of Vista, I have found the performance to be just as good as Windows XP's (and better in some places).
You also bring up "Combine that with the annoyance factor of the unending security prompts". Unending? Unless you are performing constant unsafe operations on your system, you shouldn't be bothered at all with UAC. It only prompts you if you're performing administrative actions, which you shouldn't most of the time (or if a process on your system wants to perform an administrative action). The fact is, every other OS has this feature, and the lack of UAC-like system in Windows has made Windows a very easy target for security attacks.
Furthermore, UAC IS OPTIONAL! If you don’t like UAC, then disable it.
I actually just gave up reading Gizmodo so I could avoid backhanded MS-bashing posts such as these. Is this blog any different, or are the writers rational and fair in their Apple/MS coverage?