It's fine for anyone with a more powerful processor and more ram. With Windows 7, keep the visuals, use a lot less resources, and add more features. A pretty good combination for success, I'd say.
so much bling bling and so poor performance. I known that "almost every people" is able to buy a quad-32gb-ssd-32lcd computer but there are still people that runs a computer using a rusty&trusty pentium-4.
I haven't used Vista, but the general consensus seems to be it runs fine on recent hardware. If Windows 7 improves performance significantly then that will be a nice win for the platform. It is nice to be able to install Leopard 10.5 on pretty old hardware and get good performance. With stuff like Spotlight and Time Machine (and their Windows equivalents) you can't work miracles, but the next OS's on both sides should be pretty good. Improving performance seems to be a major goal for both.
Vista x64 now runs great for me as well but the launch was completely bungled. I personally did not switch over to Vista until 2 months after SP1 was released.
The long development cycle with several resets nuked alot of the features that was supposed to make Vista a knockout product. Instead, it felt like a warmed over evolution of XP. Combine the hype with inital problems with bad/absent drivers, very heavy hardware requirements, and stability hiccups. Toss in Apple's skewing of Vista with the scathing "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campaign and the damage has been done.
Many developers in my office have had "Mojave" moments where they grudgingly admit Vista is "not as bad as I thought." I still do have many criticisms of Vista. Power on to usable desktop is too long, any system with less than 2GB is slow, and the UI requires too many clicks.
Well, as a developer, XP 64 is about 30% faster overall than Vista 64 on the same hardware, and Vista does nothing for me that XP doesn't do, and I turn off all the visual stuff anyway.
Performance is what I need, not pretty visuals and not useless "security" measures and certainly not pervasive, embedded DRM.
After 18 months using Vista I finally "downgraded" to XP, and to quote Apple, "it just works"... better. VMs load faster and I can can have 4 performant VPCs active at one time. On Vista I could load 3, and they were noticeably slower than on XP.
A core 2 2.4 processor and 4 GB RAM go a lot further with XP.
I'm hopeful that WIndows 7 will fix all the mistakes that MS made with Vista. Maybe they'll let it finish baking before they ship it this time...
I've never had issues either. I run Vista on two machines, one is a laptop with 2.4 dual core and 2gb of ram with integrated graphics, the other is a desktop with 3.0 dual core and 3gb of ram with a 9800gtx+. They both run perfectly fine with all bells and whistles and each of these machines cost under $1000. Maybe in early 2007 when people were trying to run it on their aging Dells with 512-1024 mb of ram and integrated graphics those specs might have seemed crazily exceptional but nowadays 3gb of ram is like $40 and a competent video card can be had for $50-80. Vista is a hog the same way XP seemed like one when run on old Win98 machines. On computers of proper spec it runs just fine.
I am glad to see Win7 can run with lower requirements because of the growing popularity of netbooks and lower powered machines. It got Microsoft to concentrate on tweaking their kernel and getting things running as well on lower specs as they do on mainstream specs.
@thak: i agree with you...vista isn't bad after all. look at those stupid "i'm a pc, i'm a mac" ads and on top of that apple spreading "bad vista" word on blogs as well...which has caused havoc
i agree vista has not been taken up in the corporate world due to incompatibility with all those corporate softwares but for normal home usage or gaming...it rocks!!!
@CraigJ: it's too bad that you apparently don't know what you're talking about then. If XP gives you everything you need, fine. But when you dismiss vista based on "useless security measures" and "pervasive DRM", then you're kind of painfully demonstrating your ignorance. Please don't tell me you still believe the Gutman claims about Vista's DRM, or run XP as an administrator?
"It's fine for anyone with a more powerful processor and more ram."
That's been my impression, too, but that still doesn't explain the seemingly large numbers of people buying powerful new super machines and going out of their way to downgrade to XP. That just seems silly to me. I don't know if I'd install it on a five year old machine, but if I was buying a new PC with decent specs I don't see any reason to demand XP instead of Vista.
I just got a core i7 gateway with ATI HD 4850, and I absolutely love Vista! I have had no problems whatsoever. You guys do know that you can disable the pop-ups that have the security verification. It takes like 2 seconds.
If Windows 7 is like Vista except that it uses less resources, then I'm assuming that my current rig would be fine upgrading to it, unlike the people who used rigs from 4 years ago and upgraded to Vista. Am I correct in assuming this?
I'd like to know what you find silly in making a machine faster by simply changing the OS. Are people that buy faster processors - or even overclockers - all silly?
"but that still doesn't explain the seemingly large numbers of people buying powerful new super machines and going out of their way to downgrade to XP"
If it runs fast under Vista, it's going to run EXTREMELY fast under XP...
I've had an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate tied to a single core Athlon 2800+/2GB since Vista's launch day. Works freaking great on that old machine, and it works even better on my 4GB/Q6600.
I will install an MS preview release of 7 as soon as it's available, and I will buy it on launch day.
So the consensus is we are not going to upgrade to Windows 7. You know what? It's not Apple made the Vista sucks. MS wants you to start thinking now that it sucks so we have to upgrade. Vista works perfectly for me, Windows 7 is just looks like Vista they didn't spend millions to make this new version. It is a package of Vista that has the upgrade in which we already got through updates. Vista is fine Microsoft and XP is much better please DONOT discontinue the XP.
I, for one, am going to upgrade. Vista may be working fine, but that doesn't stop it from using resources, even though my rig can handle it. I can completely understand if people are having problems on older rigs. And since I always want my rig to run faster (as should everyone), I will upgrade to Windows 7 if the performance benefits and user-friendliness are better.
I use Vista at work and it makes me cry on a daily basis. I'm pretty tech savvy, but all the useless security crap and constant crashing, clasing and breakdowns make me want to tear my hair out. I've begged my boss for XP, but he won't give it. =(
True , it works great, but having recently installed windows 7, I can confidently say that it is truly unrefined. I was satisfied with vista until I experiences the efficiency of 7 on the same machine, and despite some bugs, I wont go back now.
I have Vista x64 running on the HP Pavilion dv1159se notebook I bought this month. 2.0 GHz C2D, 4GB RAM, and integrated Intel 4500MHD graphics.
The time from boot until fully functioning desktop is pretty long, especially since I have to go through grub first and 5400 RPM drive, but once it's up and running, I have no issues with the speed. I don't think it is as bad as a lot of people claim, and this is coming from someone who owned Macs exclusively for 5 years prior.
I have tried an early Windows 7 build and found that it does use less resources, which is a good thing. I'm still torn on the wide taskbar. I don't like it in KDE (I prefer gnome) in Linux, and I am still not getting into it on Windows 7, though some of the features are cool like being able to close windows by hovering over the icon, etc.
Well by now people that chose vista will be the real fans so of course they will say they think it's a-ok, that's not exactly a way to judge something. Even bush had people in his surroundings who claimed he was 'the smartest guy they ever met', because if they though about him like I do they'd make sure to be a few thousand miles away heh, so if he did an office poll he could hardly conclude everybody in the world though he was greeeat from the results.
I tried vista and to my sentiments it was much worse than I expected, I thought superficially it would be pleasing enough, but I was wrong.
I am really puzzled about that Mac ad campain that disses Vista every day. I have never had one iota of trouble with Vista. What is it that is supposed to be wrong with it?
Vista is a freaken abortion. Uncle Billy should should give us the "7." and we could return the Vista to him. He would only walk funny for a little while.
The Rip is the latest addition to the Boogie eWriter line, devices that let you scribble notes and drawings and can be wiped away with the press of a button.
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 don't understand what's so bad with Vista. Works great for me and everyone I know who has it.
It's fine for anyone with a more powerful processor and more ram. With Windows 7, keep the visuals, use a lot less resources, and add more features. A pretty good combination for success, I'd say.
apple said vista is bad...didnt you see all the commercials! therefore vista is bad.....
so much bling bling and so poor performance. I known that "almost every people" is able to buy a quad-32gb-ssd-32lcd computer but there are still people that runs a computer using a rusty&trusty pentium-4.
There's nothing like exaggeration to make your point moot.
I haven't used Vista, but the general consensus seems to be it runs fine on recent hardware. If Windows 7 improves performance significantly then that will be a nice win for the platform. It is nice to be able to install Leopard 10.5 on pretty old hardware and get good performance. With stuff like Spotlight and Time Machine (and their Windows equivalents) you can't work miracles, but the next OS's on both sides should be pretty good. Improving performance seems to be a major goal for both.
Vista x64 now runs great for me as well but the launch was completely bungled. I personally did not switch over to Vista until 2 months after SP1 was released.
The long development cycle with several resets nuked alot of the features that was supposed to make Vista a knockout product. Instead, it felt like a warmed over evolution of XP. Combine the hype with inital problems with bad/absent drivers, very heavy hardware requirements, and stability hiccups. Toss in Apple's skewing of Vista with the scathing "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campaign and the damage has been done.
Many developers in my office have had "Mojave" moments where they grudgingly admit Vista is "not as bad as I thought." I still do have many criticisms of Vista. Power on to usable desktop is too long, any system with less than 2GB is slow, and the UI requires too many clicks.
Well, as a developer, XP 64 is about 30% faster overall than Vista 64 on the same hardware, and Vista does nothing for me that XP doesn't do, and I turn off all the visual stuff anyway.
Performance is what I need, not pretty visuals and not useless "security" measures and certainly not pervasive, embedded DRM.
After 18 months using Vista I finally "downgraded" to XP, and to quote Apple, "it just works"... better. VMs load faster and I can can have 4 performant VPCs active at one time. On Vista I could load 3, and they were noticeably slower than on XP.
A core 2 2.4 processor and 4 GB RAM go a lot further with XP.
I'm hopeful that WIndows 7 will fix all the mistakes that MS made with Vista. Maybe they'll let it finish baking before they ship it this time...
I've never had issues either. I run Vista on two machines, one is a laptop with 2.4 dual core and 2gb of ram with integrated graphics, the other is a desktop with 3.0 dual core and 3gb of ram with a 9800gtx+. They both run perfectly fine with all bells and whistles and each of these machines cost under $1000. Maybe in early 2007 when people were trying to run it on their aging Dells with 512-1024 mb of ram and integrated graphics those specs might have seemed crazily exceptional but nowadays 3gb of ram is like $40 and a competent video card can be had for $50-80. Vista is a hog the same way XP seemed like one when run on old Win98 machines. On computers of proper spec it runs just fine.
I am glad to see Win7 can run with lower requirements because of the growing popularity of netbooks and lower powered machines. It got Microsoft to concentrate on tweaking their kernel and getting things running as well on lower specs as they do on mainstream specs.
@thak:
i agree with you...vista isn't bad after all. look at those stupid "i'm a pc, i'm a mac" ads and on top of that apple spreading "bad vista" word on blogs as well...which has caused havoc
i agree vista has not been taken up in the corporate world due to incompatibility with all those corporate softwares but for normal home usage or gaming...it rocks!!!
Vista works great for me to....but I will be getting Windows 7
@CraigJ: it's too bad that you apparently don't know what you're talking about then. If XP gives you everything you need, fine. But when you dismiss vista based on "useless security measures" and "pervasive DRM", then you're kind of painfully demonstrating your ignorance. Please don't tell me you still believe the Gutman claims about Vista's DRM, or run XP as an administrator?
"It's fine for anyone with a more powerful processor and more ram."
That's been my impression, too, but that still doesn't explain the seemingly large numbers of people buying powerful new super machines and going out of their way to downgrade to XP. That just seems silly to me. I don't know if I'd install it on a five year old machine, but if I was buying a new PC with decent specs I don't see any reason to demand XP instead of Vista.
Vista had a bad reputation among everyone in the tech world long before Apple started making fun of it in the TV ads.
Now, perhaps most of those early Vista problems were solved with subsequent updates. But I'm just sayin'.
I just got a core i7 gateway with ATI HD 4850, and I absolutely love Vista! I have had no problems whatsoever. You guys do know that you can disable the pop-ups that have the security verification. It takes like 2 seconds.
If Windows 7 is like Vista except that it uses less resources, then I'm assuming that my current rig would be fine upgrading to it, unlike the people who used rigs from 4 years ago and upgraded to Vista. Am I correct in assuming this?
@chefgon_ign
I'd like to know what you find silly in making a machine faster by simply changing the OS. Are people that buy faster processors - or even overclockers - all silly?
@thak: I'm sure that's what everyone will rely on now: the unbiased, truth of Apple... how can they be wrong?
"but that still doesn't explain the seemingly large numbers of people buying powerful new super machines and going out of their way to downgrade to XP"
If it runs fast under Vista, it's going to run EXTREMELY fast under XP...
@ Magallanes
Right...because my new 32 LCD makes vista run so much better...
@Magallanes
Vista has always run fine on my Pentium 4 3Ghz, you sir are an idiot.
I've had an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate tied to a single core Athlon 2800+/2GB since Vista's launch day. Works freaking great on that old machine, and it works even better on my 4GB/Q6600.
I will install an MS preview release of 7 as soon as it's available, and I will buy it on launch day.
So the consensus is we are not going to upgrade to Windows 7. You know what? It's not Apple made the Vista sucks. MS wants you to start thinking now that it sucks so we have to upgrade. Vista works perfectly for me, Windows 7 is just looks like Vista they didn't spend millions to make this new version. It is a package of Vista that has the upgrade in which we already got through updates. Vista is fine Microsoft and XP is much better please DONOT discontinue the XP.
@joeboy
I, for one, am going to upgrade. Vista may be working fine, but that doesn't stop it from using resources, even though my rig can handle it. I can completely understand if people are having problems on older rigs. And since I always want my rig to run faster (as should everyone), I will upgrade to Windows 7 if the performance benefits and user-friendliness are better.
Can people quit with the "XP is faster than Vista" on decent hardware bollocks please? Because, you know, it actually isn't.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
Now Vista can be slower on network transfer but that's a separate issue.
I use Vista at work and it makes me cry on a daily basis. I'm pretty tech savvy, but all the useless security crap and constant crashing, clasing and breakdowns make me want to tear my hair out. I've begged my boss for XP, but he won't give it. =(
True , it works great, but having recently installed windows 7, I can confidently say that it is truly unrefined. I was satisfied with vista until I experiences the efficiency of 7 on the same machine, and despite some bugs, I wont go back now.
I have Vista x64 running on the HP Pavilion dv1159se notebook I bought this month. 2.0 GHz C2D, 4GB RAM, and integrated Intel 4500MHD graphics.
The time from boot until fully functioning desktop is pretty long, especially since I have to go through grub first and 5400 RPM drive, but once it's up and running, I have no issues with the speed. I don't think it is as bad as a lot of people claim, and this is coming from someone who owned Macs exclusively for 5 years prior.
I have tried an early Windows 7 build and found that it does use less resources, which is a good thing. I'm still torn on the wide taskbar. I don't like it in KDE (I prefer gnome) in Linux, and I am still not getting into it on Windows 7, though some of the features are cool like being able to close windows by hovering over the icon, etc.
Vista works fine for me... never really understood what all the fuss was about... No issues, no blue screens! Still on an old P4.
I did have to upgrade my video card to get Aero...but you get nothing for free. Apple isn't that hot on backwards compatibility I hear.
Well by now people that chose vista will be the real fans so of course they will say they think it's a-ok, that's not exactly a way to judge something.
Even bush had people in his surroundings who claimed he was 'the smartest guy they ever met', because if they though about him like I do they'd make sure to be a few thousand miles away heh, so if he did an office poll he could hardly conclude everybody in the world though he was greeeat from the results.
I tried vista and to my sentiments it was much worse than I expected, I thought superficially it would be pleasing enough, but I was wrong.
I am really puzzled about that Mac ad campain that disses Vista every day. I have never had one iota of trouble with Vista. What is it that is supposed to be wrong with it?
Maggie
WINDOWS VISTA REALLY SUCKS!!! ILL BE GLAD TO MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE. I JUST HOPE IT ISNT WORSE ! ED
Vista is a freaken abortion. Uncle Billy should should give us the "7." and we could return the Vista to him. He would only walk funny for a little while.