Is this a 'sign' of things to come for Vista?
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted February 1st 2008 9:33AM
posted February 1st 2008 9:33AM
posted February 1st 2008 9:33AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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?