I do quite like vista myself, I have a fast machine, and compares to the same computer with XP it flys on vista.
This is also because I have 6gig of ram, and XP64 is more hassle than its worth.
I haven't found anything that slow or annoying, And the whole "securities" tab with file permissions is.. good, sure, it takes a bit of time geting used to over XP, but XP is odd.. and not that easy to work out how todo things.
Vista is easier to use, once you drop all the habits you picked up from XP.
Note: I havent had a BSOD on vista, that wasnt todo with a incorrect OC, and when programs lock up, they dont take half of the system with them like vista, I have NOT had to reset my computer to get it working, I have NOT had to force power it off once.
Older games (we are talking 2000 here) have some issues, but as long as you install DX9 and run them in compatibility mode, they work perfectly.
So what enterprises are not upgrading? Business are always slow to uptake things, and if you know anything about IT and industry, is that you should never rip out a working system and fully replace it.
It would be interesting to know how many companies are trialing vista alongside XP/2k/NT ect.
SP's have also mostly been stuff like upgrading networking/speed/other small things.
Vista SP1 was the largest SP, and the only one so far that changed the kernel 6.0-->6.1.
Actually that Security tab is there in 2000, XP Pro, XP x64, and all versions of Vista. It just isn't on by default on a lot of XP installs.
Also, Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 still use kernel 6.0 (just an updated version of it) - Windows 7 is going to use kernel 6.1 (figure *that* out).
Yeh, they have the annoying "easy sharing setup" thing on.
Which i found out how to turn off today, to get Vista and XP to talk, so I can do networked backups (I must say that the vista backup software is good).
And I didnt know that about the Kernel, you learn something new every day ;)
I installed Vista on my family PC and use it occasionally (mainly using my XP Laptop) and I have to say, it is a good system, only the "Windows needs permission" parts are rather annoying. Otherwise, it is quite stable, especially SP1, looks nice, is quite responsive (not IE though, nowhere near as good as Firefox), and not that much of a system hog if your PC is decently equipped.
So stop the hating, please, it's not like Macs are perfect, and Vista is FAIL.
"I haven't found anything that slow or annoying" Now I'm sorry but that means you are stupid or lying or high (or all of the above), a sensible even slightly critical person would even find annoyances in freaking nirvana after all :) And yes I tried vista, and yes it has tons of annoying things, mostly design choices, and true if I let go of my 'xp habits' ie liking to have control of my OS/computer then perhaps I would be less annoyed.. And what hassle with XP64 are you referring to anyway? And no my XP doesn't crash on me more than vista, and yes I had vista lock up and had to restart processes in it to get it to respond again on the same hardware where xp64 runs. Also MS has tons of articles on how to fix crashes on malfunctions on vista and statistics on what makes vista crash the most etcetera, and fixes released every month for grievous issues, but I guess they are just big liars then eh?
I was commenting on my experience with vista, yes other people will have had worse, thats not my exp though is it?
XP annoyed me at first, I had to google stuff to find out how to make things work, I learned XP's odd way, then I moved to vista, and it was better, faster/ect on my hardware.
Yes, I dont have a slow PC, I have a fast one (Q6600@3ghz/6gig DDR2@990mhz, 10k rpm HDD), and I can say vista runs better for me.
I wouldnt put vista on a PC thats to slow for it.
I turned off UAC, just the same as i turned off things in XP that annoyed me, (security center/ect)
And XP64 seems to be VERY picky about drivers, it was never a mainstream os, more of a bodge job, which it was.
And your talking about fixes for crashes/patches/ect, vista has had less patches than XP.
XP was shit when it came out, vista wasnt great, but it was better than XP pre XP2.
We are still comparing a OS thats done with patches/fixes ect, to one thats "new".
We will all love vista, and hate the idea of WM7 at this rate ;/
For those looking for a device strictly for reading, the new Kobo is a nice little option. It's small enough to slip into a pocket, can do more with a PDF than the competition, and at $129, it's $10 cheaper than both the Nook and Kindle WiFi.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
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.
I do quite like vista myself, I have a fast machine, and compares to the same computer with XP it flys on vista.
This is also because I have 6gig of ram, and XP64 is more hassle than its worth.
I haven't found anything that slow or annoying, And the whole "securities" tab with file permissions is.. good, sure, it takes a bit of time geting used to over XP, but XP is odd.. and not that easy to work out how todo things.
Vista is easier to use, once you drop all the habits you picked up from XP.
Note: I havent had a BSOD on vista, that wasnt todo with a incorrect OC, and when programs lock up, they dont take half of the system with them like vista, I have NOT had to reset my computer to get it working, I have NOT had to force power it off once.
Older games (we are talking 2000 here) have some issues, but as long as you install DX9 and run them in compatibility mode, they work perfectly.
So what enterprises are not upgrading? Business are always slow to uptake things, and if you know anything about IT and industry, is that you should never rip out a working system and fully replace it.
It would be interesting to know how many companies are trialing vista alongside XP/2k/NT ect.
SP's have also mostly been stuff like upgrading networking/speed/other small things.
Vista SP1 was the largest SP, and the only one so far that changed the kernel 6.0-->6.1.
We cant expect almost a new OS for free ;)
Actually that Security tab is there in 2000, XP Pro, XP x64, and all versions of Vista. It just isn't on by default on a lot of XP installs.
Also, Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 still use kernel 6.0 (just an updated version of it) - Windows 7 is going to use kernel 6.1 (figure *that* out).
Yeh, they have the annoying "easy sharing setup" thing on.
Which i found out how to turn off today, to get Vista and XP to talk, so I can do networked backups (I must say that the vista backup software is good).
And I didnt know that about the Kernel, you learn something new every day ;)
I installed Vista on my family PC and use it occasionally (mainly using my XP Laptop) and I have to say, it is a good system, only the "Windows needs permission" parts are rather annoying. Otherwise, it is quite stable, especially SP1, looks nice, is quite responsive (not IE though, nowhere near as good as Firefox), and not that much of a system hog if your PC is decently equipped.
So stop the hating, please, it's not like Macs are perfect, and Vista is FAIL.
Hateing is stupid, its a OS ;)
Use what you like, tisnt that important.
I just turned UAC off (the popups), I run with avast and no firewall sitting behind common sence and a router.
"I haven't found anything that slow or annoying"
Now I'm sorry but that means you are stupid or lying or high (or all of the above), a sensible even slightly critical person would even find annoyances in freaking nirvana after all :)
And yes I tried vista, and yes it has tons of annoying things, mostly design choices, and true if I let go of my 'xp habits' ie liking to have control of my OS/computer then perhaps I would be less annoyed..
And what hassle with XP64 are you referring to anyway?
And no my XP doesn't crash on me more than vista, and yes I had vista lock up and had to restart processes in it to get it to respond again on the same hardware where xp64 runs.
Also MS has tons of articles on how to fix crashes on malfunctions on vista and statistics on what makes vista crash the most etcetera, and fixes released every month for grievous issues, but I guess they are just big liars then eh?
I was commenting on my experience with vista, yes other people will have had worse, thats not my exp though is it?
XP annoyed me at first, I had to google stuff to find out how to make things work, I learned XP's odd way, then I moved to vista, and it was better, faster/ect on my hardware.
Yes, I dont have a slow PC, I have a fast one (Q6600@3ghz/6gig DDR2@990mhz, 10k rpm HDD), and I can say vista runs better for me.
I wouldnt put vista on a PC thats to slow for it.
I turned off UAC, just the same as i turned off things in XP that annoyed me, (security center/ect)
And XP64 seems to be VERY picky about drivers, it was never a mainstream os, more of a bodge job, which it was.
And your talking about fixes for crashes/patches/ect, vista has had less patches than XP.
XP was shit when it came out, vista wasnt great, but it was better than XP pre XP2.
We are still comparing a OS thats done with patches/fixes ect, to one thats "new".
We will all love vista, and hate the idea of WM7 at this rate ;/
And again, this is just my experience with vista!