This is where I post, and you can post too!
Was it worth it? Answer.... no
Published on January 24, 2008 By Dan Greene In OS Wars
First let me say I'm not joking when I say I'd love to reply to your posts, but I am seemingly unable to reply only edit the original post, does anybody have any suggestions, I'm using Vista lol and firefox. Is my brower missing the reply functionality?

I purchased an OEM copy of Vista, when I was given the dilemma by Microsoft of either purchasing a OEM XP License for about $10 less than getting an OEM copy of Vista via newegg.

What I can tell you is that I have been a computer user since the 80's and have a history of OS usage, dating back to whatever they called the OS on the Apple IIGS, DOS 5.0, Windows 3.1, Win 95/98/98SE/2000/XP and of course OEM VISTA ULTIMATE 64 bit.

I have finally settled down with Vista, but I am left looking for the new and improved features which really give me the feeling that they are all that (sorta) without the bag of chips.

I don't understand why Vista wasn't packaged as saleable service pack to XP because Vista truly offers an almost immeasurable benefit per dollar over XP.

One of the major downsides of Vista, is the necessity to upgrade hardware on older rigs to achieve performance standards easily obtainable with 2 or 3 or 4 year old hardware on XP. Also, with only 2GB of ram in the sytem, it is smooth, but it would be equally smooth with XP, so while there is intelligent (supposedly) buffering of the RAM by Vista, perhaps reducing the load time on programs you use consistently at certain times of the day, in Vista over XP I don't see that it is a major advantage over XP. I use XP at work daily, Windows 2000 weekly, and Vista at home.

At this point I am pretty comfy with Vista, I have totally disabled the UAC, and I am left to wonder if I am really safer with Vista vs XP. I did have a virus or nasty bit of malware at one time, with Vista, which I was able to safely dispose of using System Restore. On my old single core rig, System Restore no longer works for unknown reasoning, also I cannot reformat the drive, and install a clean OS, because I no longer have the activation code which I'll have to call up Dell TSupport and spend more hours of my life than it is worth to deal with that, while having a protected computer readily available should there be a problem.

However, with Vista Ultimate, no update to the speech recognition system, no word processor which interfaces with the speech recognition, and no real surviving feature that I get excited by.

At this point I would have preferred to get OEM XP and a cheap or bootleg copy of Office, just for the fact that I have spell check and compatibility with work computers, Excel files.

There are a few visual things but nothing to justify 5 years of development, nothing to justify the price, and certainly nothing to want me to invest any money in upcoming Windows 7 or go Microsoft in the future. Unfortunately they have damaged their company image, going from the evil almost monopoly to the exploiter of that power to release drab OS software that lacks completeness and robustness.

There is nothing that truly bothers me about Vista Ultimate, if you forget about, No MS WORD, No OS integrated Microsoft Virus Protection, and lack of incompatibility of the Vista Speech Recognition Engine with Open Office.

I believe that Vista, really does deserve the half assed product award. At this point.



How does one make a reply in ones' own post? JU must have changed since I was last here since I can no longer reply to users in the forum which is kinda stupid in my opinion.

Comments (Page 3)
9 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Jan 26, 2008
Sigh...   
on Jan 26, 2008
Where do you 'I shouldn't hafta upgrade my rig' '2 gigs ram is good enough for anyone' losers come from, except a horses ass?

The fact that your denying we should upgrade our rigs, when clearly anyone in the business for a certain period of time knows this already, tells me your 12 year old boys.

Go back to your ubuntu.
on Jan 26, 2008
Not here to bash Vista but just to report what I've seen.

I had a PT job for awhile in the custodial field, shall we say, as part of the job I was in many offices and or business places. I did not see Vista running on any machine. The vast majority had XP with a few 2000 boxes here and there.

At my regular job, which is a newspaper and is all computers, mostly Macs but the office people, sales people use PC's, "the computer guys" remove Vista from any new PC that comes into the building and loads up XP. They do this because they say Vista is not ready to use for business purposes. They are directed to do this from "Downtown". It's a big newspaper group, not a dinky little one.

Isn't it a fact that until this sort of thing changes Vista will never truly be accepted?
on Jan 26, 2008
Thats truely sad for those people. With the proper administrators there could be as we have at work. Vista business with total security - heck we even use the new servers too. Oh there are few laptops still running XP Pro. But for the most part it is Vista Bus.
These people do not want to spend any money on there systems anyway and if you ever notice - the computers are never maint. or even cleaned by a service tech. They could careless really about security till someone mess a work station up and it gets a virus or something. Thus and usually when this happens they fire the person for it too.
Those co.'s that do such things are stupid! It would have been so much easier to have backups for the work station and just install the backup from another hard drive. Where I work if the system gets a virus or something now - I just switch out the hard drive with a new backup and it is ready to go in about 4 mins. Easy as that... the servers are already completely protected and it is the quick fix for any system. Take the bugged bad hd and reformat it and install another backup on it and it's ready in about an hour if there is another system down due to virus or spyware infection. At home everything is backed up to a external system - where all I have to do is call it up and reinstall it in less they 40 mins max to recover. Documents and data is all stored by the same said system and is never lost.
I feel that some people just want to wear their selves out over the fact they can't use the new OS. For one reason..." They are what we call ole fashion in their ways !"
So say what you want too and those business's do whatever they want also... but it sure is nice where I work at with Vista being used and I use both XP Pro and Vista at home for mostly everything and anything I do.
So lets here it for the Vista bashers... Oh and don't forget those ole XP Pro bashers too! There was a time that's all I ever heard about is why this does not work on XP Pro.
Oh and buy the way I'm writing all of this on my Vista Ultimate with SP1 v.744 as seen here ...




Have a good weekend everyone!
SGT  
on Jan 26, 2008
Some of you may find this interesting expecially the video WWW Link
on Jan 26, 2008
Wrong. MS recommends 256 for XP and it runs great with 512.


It sure as hell does not. You know how many PC's I built for clients with 512mb of ram and XP a few years back? DOZENS... they all pretty much choked when multitasking.
Because MS should realize that people shouldn't have to upgrade parts every other day just to run a OS that is half baked...

Wrong again, you think Microsoft is the only company to require better hardware upon each new release of an OS? Hell no. Everyone wants new features, but they fail to realise that these things come at a price. Most people are still freaking out because Vista uses 50% of the memory in their system yet they have no clue whatsoever about the way it manages memory (Superfetch anyone?).
To actually expect Microsoft or anyone else for that matter to continue to support old hardware is just plain out STUPID. (being a bit bold there, but it had to be said after that comment...)
Some of you may find this interesting expecially the video WWW Link

Maybe in 2 years we will start seeing the "Betas" roll out!   
Isn't it a fact that until this sort of thing changes Vista will never truly be accepted?

Businesses are always the last to adopt a new operating system, I really wouldn't compare Vista's success to weither the corporate world has adopted it or not. I know for a fact that many tech companies have, but huge ones usually don't due to so much bureaucracy involved.
on Jan 26, 2008
I've been runnihng Vista as my only O/S for over two years now, Yes I found it stable enough for me tastes even in beta. Most problems were even then just the typical beta annoyances not truly show stoppers for me. The laptop system on which I was running it went all wanky on me so many times that I got HP to replace it with band new hardware in October of 2006. Thw new system came with XP Pro and I got the option to upgrade to Vista Business for free.

That's right I have both XP and Vista and intentionally went with Vista because...

OMG

I like it.

The corporation for which I work is evaluating it now. I am a desktop engineer on the team that owns this tasks. We have over 52000 desktops to which it will eventually be deployed. There's a lot of work to do before we can roll it out. There's a lot of hardware we will have to replace before it can roll out. And you know what. That has been the case with every operating system release since we dropped text only and moved to graphical user interfaces. There are very large companies out there that are still working on getting Windows 9x out of the environment and moving to XP for christ sake. Does that mean Windows 98 is better than XP? Yeah right. Its a fact of life and has nothing to do with the pluses and minuses of a given operating system. Anyone who uses that as an arguement against a specific O/S is either a fool or simply shortsighted.

For god's sake when I moved from CP/M to DOS I had to replace all my hardware. Ditto DOS to Windows 2.x, ad nauseum.

Get over it already!

Geez what a bunch of whingy twits!

Oh my god, something's going to change. Everyone panic!
on Jan 26, 2008
I feel so much better now.
on Jan 26, 2008
i love you, hawkeye!  
on Jan 26, 2008
Geez what a bunch of whingy twits!


Not sure what this is - but I think I agree.
on Jan 26, 2008
Okay, not feeling very well today, cold and flu bug got me down and I'm having a real hard time concentrating.

That aside, just what difference does it make which OS a person runs? Is there a point to all off this? Yes I'm an old fart, check it out, but you folks just seem to really get worked up over this issue so much.

Can someone please explain to me way it is so important of an issue? Is this some of that "brown eys vs blue eye" crap? Most of you may be to young to remember that.

So don't flame me, just explain it so I can understand. I really hate going through life not understanding.        
on Jan 26, 2008
i have blue eyes and run vista ultimate 64, philly. not sure if there's a connection, tho.   
on Jan 26, 2008
      
on Jan 26, 2008
It sure as hell does not. You know how many PC's I built for clients with 512mb of ram and XP a few years back? DOZENS... they all pretty much choked when multitasking.


OK I was wrong. MS recommends 128. Straight from MS themselves:

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional

• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD /Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
• CD-ROM or DVD drive
• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device


Go look for yourself: WWW Link

Of course my XP zips right along on 512. Probably because I don't load it down with very many start up programs that choke memory...

Wrong again, you think Microsoft is the only company to require better hardware upon each new release of an OS? Hell no. Everyone wants new features, but they fail to realise that these things come at a price.


Some of us don't really want new features. We just want stuff to work.

To actually expect Microsoft or anyone else for that matter to continue to support old hardware is just plain out STUPID. (being a bit bold there, but it had to be said after that comment...)


With every past release Windows would support older hardware...

Why must that change?

on Jan 26, 2008
With every past release Windows would support older hardware...

Why must that change?




because unlike some people, the world must change. expecting microsoft to support hardware that ran on windows 98 is like asking toyota to keep an AM radio in the latest lexan because you like talkback. move with the times and if your happy with what you have keep it, but don't sprout off about how bad the latest offering is, it's getting kind of boring to hear you blather on about the same thing day after day. we get the point, you don't like vista. deal with it. but let those who are happy with it get on with what they are doing.
9 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last