Print 185 comment(s) - last by rupaniii.. on May 25 at 9:41 AM

One writer/analyst is speaking out blasting XP "holdouts" and lauding Windows Vista while comparing XP to a crummy airport terminal

Don't like Windows Vista?  Love Windows XP?  Well columnist/pundit Rob Pegoraro with Fast Forward, carried by The Washington Post, doesn't like your attitude.  Having heard a wealth of criticism for Vista and praise for XP, Pegoraro said enough is enough in an impassioned article detailing his stances on the XP vs. Vista debate.

There have been many recent reports of both consumers and particularly businesses rejecting Vista and waiting for Windows 7 to upgrade.  Despite Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates bragging of "strong sales" in the consumer sector, OEMs are pushing hard for Microsoft to extend Windows XP's life.  If they can't convince Microsoft, they're going to offer it anyway, even if not officially sold by Microsoft anymore, via certain loopholes such as downgrade privileges.

Downgrades?  Rubbish, says Pegoraro.  Pegoraro, a strong Vista supporter, states, "By the strictest definition, Windows XP has been dead since January 30, 2007 -- the day its replacement, Windows Vista, arrived in stores and XP promptly vanished from most new computers."

Pegoraro doesn't think that Vista is a bad product.  He points out that Vista does have its issues, "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products", and acknowledges that these factors have driven strong XP sales.  He mentions that in Q1 2008, XP sold 87 million copies worldwide, according to IDC analyst Al Gillen, while Vista sold 132 million copies worldwide.

Pegoraro also pointed to the slipping of the Microsoft end-of-life deadline for XP from January to June, under manufacturer pressure.  And Pegoraro brings up the wealth of online "Save Windows XP" petitions, lead by a massive one hosted by the tech magazine InfoWorld

He points out that XP was not exactly beloved by all when it was Microsoft's flagship product, and he accuses the public of changing its tune when presented with Vista.  While running XP on existing systems is logical, he argues that on new home computers it is ridiculous not to run Windows Vista.  He states, "It's another thing to say that on a new home computer, Vista is so unacceptable for mainstream use that you'd be better off with its predecessor."

Security is one major flaw in Windows XP, which is blasted by Pegoraro.  He points out that even with three service packs and other smaller updates regularly released, Windows XP still needs to multiple security programs to safely connect to the internet.

With a bit of sarcasm, Pegoraro comments, "XP is not something that needs to be "saved," as if it were some architectural triumph in need of historic preservation. It's not an Old Post Office or a Union Station; it's more like that crummy midfield terminal at Dulles International Airport, a once-serviceable structure that outlived its utility years ago."

Most things that are wrong with Vista are also wrong with XP, he argues.  Again, not shying away from controversy he comments, "And that, in turn, helps explain why Apple is selling so many Macs."

Vista is easier to use without configuration he argues, which in the end is another mark in its favor.  He argues that most problems with Vista were fixed with its first service pack and third parties are jumping on board.  As an aside he blasts those third-parties that haven't jumped aboard saying, "If they haven't, they probably never will. Presumably, those dead-enders are uninterested in any new sales to the customers they've ditched in this way."

Is Pegoraro a fan of XP on small computers like the ASUS Eee PC?  Not so; while he says he can see the appeal, he argues Linux or other operating systems are much better for the purpose.  He states, "But the builders of these little laptops don't have to choose between obsolete or sluggish Microsoft software. Faced with those unappealing options, many of them are instead loading the more efficient, free and open-source Linux operating system, which happens to perform many everyday tasks just as well as Windows does."

Finishing on a controversial note, Pegoraro adds, "If you're unhappy about Vista, don't get sucked in by the misguided nostalgia for XP. Root for the success of non-Windows computers. Or buy one yourself. Nothing attracts a company's attention like taking your business elsewhere."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The man is right
By 306maxi on 5/19/2008 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 4
If you don't like it then don't use it. There are millions of people like myself out there who are all too happy to use Vista. Me personally? I think Vista sucks so I'm waiting for Windows 7 which will probably suck and be bloated so I'll wait for Windows 8 but I hear that's got lots of DRM so I'll wait for Windows 9 but that has got a fancy interface so I won't go for that either. Windows 3.1 for me it is then!

RE: The man is right
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 5
LOL! :-D
Indeed, it's pretty funny to read people who are waiting for Windows 7. I bet they hope it will be Windows XP in disguise.
I honestly doubt it would be any lighter. Who's gonna need it in an age of octacores and 8 GB of RAM on a basic PC?

RE: The man is right
By PontifexMaximus on 5/19/2008 5:23:48 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree with you based on past experiences with Microsoft products, Bill Gates is actually touting Windows 7 actually will use lower power, take less memory, and be more efficient than Windows Vista.

Condensed analysis here:

Of course, Bill always has the knack for making these vague, empty promises that never quite materialize.

RE: The man is right
By BladeVenom on 5/19/2008 5:37:24 PM , Rating: 3
You mean like in 2004 when Bill Gates said the spam problem would be solved in two years.

RE: The man is right
By Ringold on 5/19/2008 8:25:27 PM , Rating: 4
Bill Gates was close; 2004 + 2 = 2006, but gmail didn't go completely public, according to wikipedia, until 2007, but I got an invite fairly early.

Spam problem? Solved!

RE: The man is right
By Gholam on 5/20/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 4
You mean the same gmail that's functioning as an open relay for anyone with half a clue?

RE: The man is right
By othercents on 5/20/2008 5:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, gmail has made it easy. We just block anyone with a gmail account and our spam problem has gone away.


RE: The man is right
By Strunf on 5/20/2008 6:22:55 PM , Rating: 1
Your spam and all your contacts that use gmail...

RE: The man is right
By Samus on 5/21/2008 2:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
anyone using gmail for business is a lost cause. grow up and get a real mail service.

RE: The man is right
By Elementalism on 5/20/2008 8:22:24 AM , Rating: 1
The only thing Google did was filter your spam mail into a box. Something that could be accomplished years earlier with othe products. They clearly havent figured out the spam issue though. Becuase 99.9% of the stuff in my gmail's spam folder shouldnt have even arrived to my mailbox. Of all the email's I have had over the years. My gmail is the most spam ridden of them all.

RE: The man is right
By Integral9 on 5/20/2008 9:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe that's a sign you should stop subscribing to all those get rich quick and male enhancement catalogs... I know they are tempting but they never work and shrink your balls...

RE: The man is right
By plinkplonk on 5/20/2008 12:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
no it's a sign that websites he/she has signed up for intentionally, maybe even this one, have been selling his information...not that he/she wants to get rich quick

RE: The man is right
By mondo1234 on 5/20/2008 3:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Bill G. imply that the solution to spam was to charge 1 cent for email so it would be cost prohibitive to send spam?
I am sure none of that money would find its way to his pocket.

RE: The man is right
By javiergf on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By Oregonian2 on 5/19/2008 7:59:21 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think he said 640K would be enough, I think he said that 640K is enough. Which at the time it was. At the time it was more than enough. Like saying now saying "3GB is enough" in terms of memory on a 32-bit processor. It is.

Processors then had a 1-MB (20 bit) address space accessible in 64Kbyte chunks. The 8086/8 model.

It also didn't take a megabyte program and gigabyte OS to say "hello world" on the screen.

RE: The man is right
By xsilver on 5/19/2008 10:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
With 4gb of ram and a dual core proc I can only get "hello wo" on the screen!

Im missing out!
Time to upgrade to 8gb and quad core

/end joke

ps. who's to say that 640k isnt enough if you decide to do word processing in DOS?

RE: The man is right
By goku on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By PrinceGaz on 5/20/2008 12:43:21 AM , Rating: 3
640K was more than enough to run DOS WordPerfect 5.1, which was a very capable word-processor package used and liked by many people.

In its day, DOS WordPerfect was pretty much the industry standard, but WordPerfect for Windows was a bug-ridden mess which led to its demise and Word becoming dominant. There are rumours about why WordPerfect for Windows was so bad, most of which involve Microsoft and their using non-public Windows calls with Word for Windows not available to WordPerfect.

Bill Gates never actually said anything about 640K being enough for anybody, only that it was enough for now and in the near future (which it was).

RE: The man is right
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 6:57:23 PM , Rating: 4
A new Windows that requires less than a previous one?
No way, I believe it when I see it.

RE: The man is right
By afkrotch on 5/20/2008 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Windows ME was released after Windows NT and Windows 2000. It required less. It was also complete trash.

RE: The man is right
By Crassus on 5/21/2008 3:51:03 PM , Rating: 3
And it belonged to the 9x family, as opposed to the NT family. Apples and Oranges.
(I am not implying that ME was good in any way.)

RE: The man is right
By just4U on 5/21/2008 5:50:53 PM , Rating: 1
It wasn't trash. It was just short lived is all. I found it to be a better OS then Win98SE. While I tinkered a bit with win2k, I pretty much stuck with WinMe until XP came out.

I bet you 95% of the people who say it sucked never owned the damn thing to begin with and have no clue about what their talking about. The rest were either not literate enough with computers or just more comfortable with what they were using at the time.

Same holds true for Vista. <shrug>

RE: The man is right
By bldckstark on 5/23/2008 1:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
I had several ME computers. ME sucked. 98SE was way better. If you migrated from 98 to ME it carried over many 98 drivers. If those drivers got trashed, there was no way to restore them unless you re-installed 98 then ME again. It was very unstable and highly likely to become corrupted.

Many people agree that ME was the worst OS Microsoft has ever produced. Win2K was the best OS at the time, and is still pretty good even by todays standards.

RE: The man is right
By Quiescent on 5/24/2008 10:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
I did an upgrade from WIN98SE to WinME... I had to act fast after one week of use to save my Win98se and downgrade quick! WinME was making everything including explorer.exe crash.

I also went to a school with WinME on every computer, including the server. Each and every computer would, at minimum, have 3 system files error out at start up.

I never imagined I would have gotten more BSoDs on WinME than Win98SE. It was outrageous and scary. I didn't have an extra harddrive to save important files in case my computer completely crashed beyond fixable, and I've had that happen with Win98se after trying to attempt a 7 day uptime and somehow everything just died. (Needed to reformat)

So yes, I can speak for myself on behalf of WinME failure. Every computer I saw with it on were trashed beyond hope. And it was not PEBKAC either.

As far as I know, WinME was an attempt to put two extremes together with DOS and NT. But perhaps I've learnt wrong in why there were so many bugs in the OS. You have no idea, your eyes have been covered by whool.

RE: The man is right
By Quiescent on 5/24/2008 10:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
Correction on my behalf. I had Win98 at the time, because I didn't need wireless just yet. I had to upgrade to Win98se for wireless support.

RE: The man is right
By robinthakur on 5/20/2008 6:24:40 AM , Rating: 4
I think that there's currently a long overdue correction which will take place for OS bloat. It is blindingly obvious to most people that an OS should not take up the kind of space, or consume the overheads of RAM and CPU cycles which it does. I'm not talking about Super-fetch. I understand the way it is meant to work. I don't think UAC should be junked just because the general public have no idea what secure computing actually is.

Even XP was a bit of a hog and bloated by unnecessary and unoptimised features. Still at least MS released a lite version of it. If anyone's ever used NLite and seen how small you can get an install down for Xp or even Vista you've seen what can be excised if you don't need it. To not do this with Vista was a real mistake and allowed them to be blind sided by linux etc where although they offer nothing like the usability or compatibility of Windows, they do seem to do an awful lot more with limited resources and are more secure. Hmmm. I myself use Vista Ultimate and Leopard but have wide experience with Linux.

Vista is somewhat different under the hood and offers a new interface which is pretty nice looking but really isn't anything special that would convince most people that they need twice the RAM and CPU power that they needed before for XP to run it.

Perhaps MS could try giving you the option of a stripped down version when you install it with "power user" settings automatically enabled or standard bloated pap for the regular baboons.

RE: The man is right
By just4U on 5/21/2008 6:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't understand peoples problems with ram usage... If I have 2Gigs of ram I want it to be used not sit there doing nothing. From what I understand Vista takes advantage of that ram but free's it up when you ask for it via another program that requires it.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

The same holds true for other hardware... why get more powerful systems if nothing needs it? Heck most systems would fly on win95 right now if the hardware was supported but you don't see us all jumping on that bandwagon.

RE: The man is right
By larson0699 on 5/22/2008 1:40:52 PM , Rating: 1
What a fascinating, wasteful mentality.

You have 2 gigs of RAM for the apps that need it, like archiving, encoding, and games.

That it's *there* doesn't prompt the necessity for constant 100% use. It's electronic. Give it a break.

I see this guy being first in line for Bloat 7 because of its 4-dimensional interface stressing his 16-core CPU 100%. What a tool.

robinthakur OTOH has a point concerning what's essential in the OS vs. what's trash. And nLite helps greatly in that respect.

RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: The man is right
By hadifa on 5/19/2008 6:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
The designer who decided that backspace would now be "back" instead of "one folder up in the directory structure" should be shot repeatedly.

Am I missing something, in XP backspace is "BACK", or at least that's what I think.

RE: The man is right
By fromthewoods on 5/19/2008 7:10:09 PM , Rating: 3
The man is right. In XP "Backspace" = "Up one dir"

In Vista "Backspace" = "Back"

I, for one, love the new bread-crumb style file navigation.

RE: The man is right
By Etsp on 5/20/2008 12:30:17 PM , Rating: 3
I like it a lot, however, there is still need for a static "up a level" button, as the breadcrumbs may end up too long to fit on the address bar, so you don't have access to the folder you want to get to until you go up a few levels. It is much easier in this case to have a static up a level button, instead of clicking on the bread crumb, repositioning the mouse, click again, reposition again, rinse and repeat. It should not be a replacement for the up a level button!.

RE: The man is right
By plinkplonk on 5/20/2008 12:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
this is ridiculous, blasting a feature of vista because you are too lazy just to use a mouse and navigate there yourself, GOD FORBID you lose 3 seconds of your life.

RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/20/2008 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
God forbid indeed. Maybe we should go back to pen & paper, who cares if it's less effective.

RE: The man is right
By Klober on 5/20/2008 5:52:49 PM , Rating: 1

First of all - a feature? And what is the purpose of this "feature" when it does the exact same job as hitting Alt+[left arrow] (i.e. Back)? Windows Explorer is just IE in a different role (basically anyway), and as such many (if not most) of the IE hotkeys also work for Windows Explorer. Not to mention half the mice sold nowadays have back/forward buttons, which also work in both Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer, and makes this change even more redundant.

Second - it's not laziness, it's efficiency. For many of the mundane/simple tasks I would rather use keyboard shortcuts because they are static, whereas when using the mouse the placement of whatever you need to click on varies. You go right ahead and keep right-clicking Computer, clicking Properties and then clicking Device Manager - I'll hit Windows+R, type devmgmt.msc and hit Enter. We'll see who gets there first. ;)

In short, personally I don't need two hotkeys that do the exact same thing and agree with AndreasM. Change Backspace to what it used to be - Up One Folder! It was so much more useful back then.

RE: The man is right
By Shawn on 5/24/2008 7:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
Vista doesn't use IE for it's explorer like XP did.

RE: The man is right
By thebrown13 on 5/19/2008 7:14:52 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, Aero is terribly ugly.

Wtf planet do you live on?

RE: The man is right
By SamuelW on 5/20/2008 4:52:49 AM , Rating: 3
Compiz, which despite having a public image as just being eye candy is much more useful than Aero.

RE: The man is right
By glitchc on 5/20/2008 9:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
We live in an interesting world where one software designed to make your windows look pretty is touted to be more "useful" than the other.

RE: The man is right
By JoshuaBuss on 5/20/2008 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think compiz was ever developed just to 'look pretty'. Effects like transparency and scale offer invaluable utility.

RE: The man is right
By glitchc on 5/21/2008 9:28:41 AM , Rating: 1
And that utility would be?

RE: The man is right
By crimson117 on 5/23/2008 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 3
It's not only invaluable, it's indescribable.

RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/20/2008 10:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
On planet Earth, sadly. The only reason Aero looks nice is because XP looks horrible compared to it. This isn't some kind of Mac flame either, as I have never seen OS X nor used a Mac for longer than five minutes.

RE: The man is right
By kensiko on 5/19/2008 7:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
For the backspace, you should try a mouse with 5 buttons. It's necessary once you get used to it.

RE: The man is right
By AndreasM on 5/20/2008 10:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
I try to avoid using the mouse as much as possible, it's so much slower compared to the keyboard. Sadly Microsoft seems hell-bent on neutering all the keyboard shortcuts. :/

RE: The man is right
By sabrewulf on 5/24/2008 4:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
Up one level in Vista is ALT+UP. trying RTFingM next time, sheesh.

RE: The man is right
By phxfreddy on 5/19/2008 6:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
I like the part about USE WHAT YOU WANT. How about we all vote by using what we want. ...oooh wait ...that IS what we are doing. How about I use XP....oh wait...I AM!

RE: The man is right
By GoodBytes on 5/19/2008 7:14:23 PM , Rating: 3
If I recall correctly, when Win2000 was out, people HATED IT because about nothing worked on year MS re-package it with a theme, log-in screen, and move things around, JUST to say it is different, and released it and people were happy (in the sense that stuff runs on it (it was still complained the same way as Vista now). The reason for this it is just that companies made WinNT supported applications, and after a year, you actually had new software versions that worked under XP.

What I am trying to say, is that Windows 7 will probably be a repackage Vista, nothing more. And if Vista get adopted quiet nicely by the time Windows 7 will be out, Microsoft might turn it as SP2. By that time, everyone will have 64-bit CPU's, 2-3Gb of RAM, specially that they are extra cheap now, and a video card that can draw a cube or two.

RE: The man is right
By goku on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By RedStar on 5/20/2008 4:33:50 AM , Rating: 1
win2kpro was not ready for gaming until sp 2 --when it finally could use direct X.

I have used win2kpro until 1 year ago when i switched to vista. I refused to go to XP since it was a "sidegrade".

Now people using XP are saying the same thing about vista.

*waves vista flag*

RE: The man is right
By EODetroit on 5/20/2008 10:33:54 AM , Rating: 4
I still have Windows 2000 on one of my computers... saying it sucked for games is idiotic... it was great for games due to networking that actually worked, and it still works great for games to this day. I still run WoW on it, and I can't think of anything that isn't one of those "Vista-Only" games that DOESN'T run on W2K.

The only thing Windows 2000 doesn't have that I actually miss in XP is the Picture and Fax Viewer. If it wasn't for that I could honestly say XP is no better than 2000.

As for Vista... I don't see the need to pay Microsoft more money in order to slow my computer down and do absolutely NOTHING better than XP. I don't give a DAMN what some writer at the Post says, he has no influence over me... and in 15 minutes when I forget about his article he'll go back to being someone I'll never think about ever again.

RE: The man is right
By tjr508 on 5/20/2008 11:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
I only use XP over win2k because of the WIA service for cameras.

RE: The man is right
By Eri Hyva on 5/20/2008 5:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Irfanview has been around since 1996 :)

I really liked Windows 2000, too.


Did you know that you can play WoW perfectly with Linux?

And Photoshop CS2 and so on...

RE: The man is right
By goku on 5/20/2008 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about, Windows 2000 debut with a perfectly working version of Direct X. I know this because I have the RTM release of Windows 2000 which has no service packs or updates of any kind and I can tell you, Direct X games work fine on that system. The games that don't work are the ones that still don't work for what ever reason, but it's not because Windows 2000 didn't include Direct X.

Think of it this way, why would they forget to bundle Direct X in Windows 2000 if Windows NT came with Direct X? Yes you heard right, Windows NT DID have a version of Direct X.

RE: The man is right
By ultimatebob on 5/20/2008 7:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's not how I remember it. I remember all of the IT folks that I knew loving Windows 2000 when it came out, because:

* It was easier to use than NT 4, but was just as stable.
* It was almost as easy to use as Windows 98, but was FAR more stable.
* It was the first Windows OS where plug and play actually worked correctly most of the time.

Personally, Windows XP didn't add much except a prettier interface and better wireless support as far as I'm concerned. It wasn't any more stable, and wasn't more secure than Windows 2000 until Service Pack 2 came out.

RE: The man is right
By just4U on 5/21/2008 6:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
yeah I remember people saying that you didnt have to go thru hoops to install a driver on win2k (as compared to NT 4)

XP was/is noted for the mass exodus away from 9x. That's was it's main role... which it accomplished in flying colors.

RE: The man is right
By drunkenmastermind on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: The man is right
By eye smite on 5/19/2008 11:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
This guy sounds like a drama queen wanting attention more than anything else.

RE: The man is right
By destrorexe on 5/20/2008 8:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
"Is Pegoraro a fan of XP on small computers like the ASUS Eee PC? Not so; while he says he can see the appeal, he argues Linux or other operating systems are much better for the purpose." i agree windows and windows products alike are screwing around to much, we need to go back to the original operating system LINUX!!!

RE: The man is right
By on 5/20/2008 12:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
I took advantage of their Customer Preview Program and was totally unimpressed. With all that was dropped prior to Vista's release (like the new file system) that would have been of significant value, the expensive "upgrade" to Vista on an XP machine was not worthwhile, IMO. No significant added value while slowing machines down significantly.

My brother just bought a brand new dual processor notebook with "only" 1GB of memory and Vista and it's a dog compared to my 6-year-old notebook running XP as far as desktop responsiveness is concerned. Sure, start some heavy CPU intensive app and it'll blow my old machine away, but typical use doesn't entail that sort of thing. Web browsing, email and word processing are not demanding.

RE: The man is right
By plinkplonk on 5/20/2008 12:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
why the hell is your brother using 1GB to run vista, duuuuuh

RE: The man is right
By Emily on 5/23/2008 4:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, my laptop came with Vista, but I was also provided with XP Pro should I want to 'downgrade'. I decided to give Vista a fair shot, and for most part, I am indifferent from an usability point of view. I did find something to nitpick the other day though: when associating a given file to a given application using the 'Open with' menu, put the program under the 'Recommended' section. However I could not a straightforward way to remove it out of the Recommended section after making a mistake, and ended up having to remove it from the registry.

It's a small thing, but it did bug me and it surprises me that something so basic and previously working fine failed after the 'update'.

Break things for the better
By LyCannon on 5/19/2008 6:21:58 PM , Rating: 5
I think that if you are going to break things, break them all the way. Can anyone tell me why there is a 32-bit version of Vista?

The majority of software vendors had to do some serious updates *especially* hardware vendors. How difficult would it have been to change thier code to be 64-bit?

Next, who many CPU's that were sold upon Vista's release, that were truly ready to run Vista (With Aero) that are NOT 64-bit?

So again, why is there a 32-bit version of Vista, Or Server 2k8? I don't remember the migration from 16 to 32 bit taking this freaking long...

RE: Break things for the better
By DEredita on 5/19/2008 7:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I been running Vista 64-bit for 8+ months, and been happy with it. It's just unfortunate that HP seems to be the only major computer vendor selling Vista 64-bit systems. I think Dell should also be selling them. I set up Vista Business 64-bit on an Optiplex 745 (E6600 Core 2 Duo w/ 4GB of ram), and it runs flawlessly.

RE: Break things for the better
By RogueSpear on 5/19/2008 10:50:35 PM , Rating: 3
The OptiPlex 755 (don't know about the older 745) has offered Vista x64 as an option for quite some time now.

RE: Break things for the better
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2008 7:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
Just ordered a bunch of new parts and order Vista Business x64 myself. I wanted it for the backup tool that it comes with.

And even Dell is spotty with 64-bit availability. I was looking at laptops last night and while one model would offer 64-bit another wouldn't. I personally wouldn't get 32-bit Vista because to me its pointless. 64-bit is the future. And generally regarded as more stable since all the drivers have to be Microsoft certified. Plus with 4GB of RAM being $70, why not use 64-bit so you can utilize it all?

RE: Break things for the better
By Master Kenobi on 5/19/2008 7:14:05 PM , Rating: 4
Actually it did.

Windows 95A, B, and C.
Windows 98, 98SE.
Windows ME.
(All 16/32bit hybrid systems)

Windows NT, 2000, XP were the only fully 32-bit systems but they were able to execute 16-bit code still. Only Vista cuts out the 16-bit application capability (about freaking time).

RE: Break things for the better
By Oregonian2 on 5/19/2008 8:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
1. Is it really good that you can't run 16-bit apps in Vista? Is there some joy in seeing an app not be able to run?

2. Can't vista run a virtual OS (with software that Microsoft provides for free) so that one can still run 16-bit apps on one's Vista machine (sorry if this might make you sad, if true)? This feature is the only one that is making me consider going to Vista at some point (although to run some Vista incompatible apps made by companies no longer with us).

RE: Break things for the better
By Ringold on 5/19/2008 8:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
As someone who still thinks Stars! was the best 4x strategy game ever made, I wish they'd kept some sort of way to easily run 16bit software, short of using a virtual machine which may be what I have to do if I want to play it again.

RE: Break things for the better
By MBlueD on 5/20/2008 2:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
I second that (all of it :) )

RE: Break things for the better
By Moishe on 5/20/2008 8:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yes... I still whip that game out now and then! I would think there would be a 16bit virtual OS built into every new MS OS.

RE: Break things for the better
By mathew7 on 5/20/2008 3:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
Can't vista run a virtual OS (with software that Microsoft provides for free) so that one can still run 16-bit apps on one's Vista machine (sorry if this might make you sad, if true)?

Yes, but you will need an OS with another license in the virtual computer.
In 64-bit OS, 32-bit apps are run in a virtual machine, as were 16-bit apps in 32-bit OS. MS just ditched the 16-bit VM because they would have to reoptimize it for 64-bit.

RE: Break things for the better
By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 8:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
No, MS "ditched" 16-bit support because new cpus running in AMD64 mode do not provide support for 16-bit VMs. XP64 doesn't run Win16 apps either. There's just no support for that in the CPUs. A more correct statement would be that MS did not bother pouring resources into 16-bit emulation that very few people need. (there are already existing products out there that will do that!)

Sidenote: Window handles in 32-bit Windows are still 16-bit (upper 16-bit goes unused) so that Win16 apps share the same handles. Win64 now uses 32-bits of the 64-bit handles.

Sounds strange if Vista32 dropped Win16 support. But I haven't tried Vista32, so I would not know.

RE: Break things for the better
By mathew7 on 5/21/2008 3:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
No, MS "ditched" 16-bit support because new cpus running in AMD64 mode do not provide support for 16-bit VMs. XP64 doesn't run Win16 apps either.

That is not true. It has nothing to do with x64, as the 16-bit emulation is the same for 32-bit as for 64-bit. Your BIOS is actually 16-bit (if not 8-bit, like in 8086). You can still run DOS (8-bit mode) on x64 CPU. That is what backward compatibility means. And that is the difference between AMD64/EM64T and Itanium. Also 16-bit setup programs still run in x64. I saw somewhere a press release that setup programs are the only 16-bit apps supported because of their widespread use to deploy 32-bit apps.

By Master Kenobi on 5/20/2008 9:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. I use it myself. I have Vista x64 Ultimate installed. I also have Virtual PC 2007 installed (Free from Microsoft website). Inside it I have an installation of XP SP3, and 2000 SP4. Older 16-bit apps seem to run more favorably in Win 2000 than XP.

By PhoenixKnight on 5/19/2008 8:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
What about XP x64? That didn't have support for 16-bit code, either. Not that XP x64 was really worth using, though...

RE: Break things for the better
By TheOtherBubka on 5/19/2008 10:25:37 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with Oregonian about MS and where they went wrong. When Apple introduced OS X, they made sure those who had older software weren't "left out" for some period of time until the software should have a new version available. So in my humble opinion, MS should have provided full XP compatibility into Vista 64 similar to the way Apple did with OS 9/OS X. Too complicated? MS could have also provided a translator similar to FX32! or provided XP on a separate boot partition to ensure backward compatibility for their customer. It's not like it would have 'cost' MS much to provide XP together with Vista. I think the most difficult thing would have been for the hardware vendors to ensure they would have both drivers included.

RE: Break things for the better
By JCheng on 5/20/2008 2:49:33 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Break things for the better
By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 10:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
Apples and oranges.

Most of the apps that stopped working, stopped working for a reason. Usually those apps install their own device drivers (e.g. copyprotection schemes, hooks to OS system calls to intercept viruses or similar). Antivirus applications are notorious for installing system hooks. Well, guess what?

NT was found to have several serious security holes. Unfortunately these were used by benign apps like disk defragmentation apps and AV products. Rather than fix the hole, MS opted for backwards compatibility. Now, with Win64 those device drivers need to be rewritten anyway, so now MS felt they had ample opportunity to fix that old security hole...

That is the major reason the antivirus vendors are complaining. They feel they can't find proper ways of implementing real-time monitoring, and thus bitch about MS not providing them with the old security hole.

Regular XP applications rarely pose much of a problem with Vista. MS spends a lot of resources on backward compatibility and often break their own documentation in order to provide the user with apps that still work. Most mistakes happen in third party apps, and there are (unfortunately) many compatibility hacks in the OS to make sure they continue working (despite being poorly coded to begin with).

If anything, Microsoft spends too _much_ time on backward compatibility! :(

RE: Break things for the better
By homerdog on 5/19/2008 9:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Next, who many CPU's that were sold upon Vista's release, that were truly ready to run Vista (With Aero) that are NOT 64-bit?

The Core (not Core 2) processors didn't do 64bit. No clever "Vista Ready" marketing could fix that, so Microsoft gave us a cool 32bit version. Alright I'll take off my tinfoil hat now...

3rd Party Support
By isorfir on 5/19/2008 4:48:04 PM , Rating: 1
its incompatibility with some older products

Some older? That's an understatement. Vista came with my laptop and I used it for awhile, it's really not that bad. But too many things just didn't work or required work arounds. I was tired of waiting for Vista compatible fixes for things that I knew worked in XP.

That coupled with no real reason to stay with Vista is why I downgraded. I suspect I'm not alone.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By Cherish on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: 3rd Party Support
By inighthawki on 5/19/2008 5:59:44 PM , Rating: 3
Out of curiosity, can you name some programs? I've heard a lot of talk about mass incompatibility, yet I've used vista since early beta versions and have yet to have one program not work, and I've used quite a variety of programs. Unless we're talking about software from like 10 years ago that people are too lazy to update...

I'm not trying to start an argument, I just seriously want to know some programs since I have yet to run into any...

RE: 3rd Party Support
By jvillaro on 5/19/2008 6:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. I would really like to know what is giving people a hard time. I haven't had any problems but I would like to know to be able to give other people a heads up when they ask.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By mathew7 on 5/20/2008 2:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
1. Since Windows has such a widespread platform, there are (were) small SW companies that made some SW for a few customers. They probably got banckrupt, but the customers still need to use those apps (used to it or don't have the money to rebuild them with a new company). Now, if that app worked with XP, they could buy a computer any time (until Vista). But if Vista breaks it, then that company will surely rely on Vista downgrade.
2. The transition from 2000 to XP cannot be compared to XP->Vista. That's because the transition 2000->XP also includes 98->XP. Do rememeber that not many gamers used 2000, because of some issues (lag is the bggest). XP was the NT kernel with 98 game-support. It took time, but anyone familiar to 2000 could configure it. Also, the 2000/98->XP transition was during the Megahertz race, where you could see performance improvements immediately (a 6-months old computer with 2000 ran noticeably slower that a computer with XP). Also, the HDDs were transiting from 5400rpm->7200rpm.
In the mean time, the total number of computers multiplied . So now, you have a small processor speed increase, HDDs do get performance, but nowhere as the 5400->7200 transition, and you start getting worried about power consumption. So the Vista vs XP performance penalties are much higher that 2000 vs XP.
3. Mobility...when you buy a laptop, you want it to start it and start using it. Standby solves this for any version but creates another problem: it consumes power. I had a P233MMX laptopt with 64MB RAM that would stay in standby 2 weeks with a 50% battery charge. Now, with my new C2D 1.8GHz 1GB RAM laptop, if it can keep standby for 1 week on a full charge I'm "happy". Hibernate helps the "standby" power consumption, but increases the "start using time". Also, sometimes I dual-boot with linux, and the OS start-up time is a very big concern to me.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By Shawn5961 on 5/19/2008 6:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sort of curious about that as well. I've used Vista since the public release, and I've only found one program that doesn't work. But that's an x86 to x64 compatibility issue, not an XP to Vista issue.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By fromthewoods on 5/19/2008 7:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
The only software that I have run into that "used to be" incompatible with Vista were things like VPN clients and Antivirus software: eg. Nortel Contivity Client, Cisco VPN Client, McAfee AV 7...

The difference with these programs are they usually make far reaching changes in the OS unlike your typical applications which usually just work in Vista.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By Plague421 on 5/19/2008 7:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
My clan and i have had some problems running ventrilo and America's Army at the same time, for example ventrilo would still run but would not allow you to communicate back while America's Army was maximized. i would have to minimize the game in order to say anything. We found a work-around for it (disabling UAC was a start) we had run both programs as administrator. And we still have the occasional random server kick from punkbuster for "inadequate OS privileges". Most of the problems were resolved after the new ventrilo was release and after the new patch for the video game, but those are a few examples of program compatibility i never had with XP.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By aos007 on 5/19/2008 9:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
How about TightVNC? Older versions of Quicken? Even Microsoft's own Outlook (2002 won't even work). Until recently, iTunes. Some hard drive benchmarking programs or popular cpu/fan temperature/speed reporting programs. Or some programs that do work but don't integrate nicely into the shell (such as Xplorer2, a popular file manager).

The attitude of Vista evangelists hardly helps. When one of the updates broke Windows Mail - a quite functional application that SHIPS WITH VISTA, people on Microsoft forums just said to switch to "WIndows Live Mail" as regular one is "obsolete" anyway. Really, now. Which by the way I had to after I switched BACK to XP after 8 months of 64-bit pain in the ass so that I don't lose all the new email.

And let's not even start on the fact that about 80% of programs that DO work are 32-bit only...

RE: 3rd Party Support
By Etsp on 5/20/2008 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
TightVNC's issues happened because Microsoft improved the security around how services run, and so TightVNC running as a service doesn't work, as it doesn't have privileges, however running it in user mode works just fine(think you still need to disable UAC though)

RE: 3rd Party Support
By Wagnbat on 5/19/2008 6:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
3rd party support is up to the vendors. BUT, it's up to Microsoft to convince the vendors that it's the next best thing.

I remember when XP came out, I went and got a machine. I then bought a $300 Brother Multi-Function printer for my new setup. It wouldn't work with XP. I called brother and said "Hey, this is your current rig. How come it doesn't support XP?", and they basically said "XP isn't worth writing custom drivers for. Use the nerfed XP native drivers". In plain english, I was unable to print in the highest resolution the printer supported, was not able to use their scanner software, and a couple other things. The printer worked, but not in the manner a $300 MFC at the time should have.

Again, the vendors need to see the future and where the money is. Right now with the economy the way it is, dealing with the "every driver has to be WHQL certified" issue that used to exist, and some vendors getting special treatment from Microsoft while others got none left a lot of people, even companies who didn't directly have dealing with MS with a sour taste in their mouth.

MS is wholly to blame for the current iteration of Vista in every aspect. INCLUDING 3rd party support. Take a cue from Sony. They had to hire IBM CELL designers to go to 3rd party companies to help explain how to program for the PS3. Not the best, but embracing 3rd party support makes the PC experience better for everyone.

That's why we own PC's right? Because we want access to 3rd party stuff without paying an arm and a leg for it (*cough*mac*cough*).

RE: 3rd Party Support
By theurge14 on 5/19/2008 7:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is to blame for every non-working 3rd party product that has a "Certified for Windows" sticker on the box.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 8:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
Any examples of "Certified for Windows Vista" products that do not work?

RE: 3rd Party Support
By jvillaro on 5/20/2008 4:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think he can't find one.
Just to clarify, a sticker that says "Certified for Windows" would not be the same as "Certified for Windows Vista".
For the second the application would tested extensivly so I doubt that it would fail to work if it had a logo.

And just in case i'm talking about software not the infamous Visto logo fiasco on laptops...

RE: 3rd Party Support
By DEredita on 5/19/2008 7:07:14 PM , Rating: 3
Please name the software that doesn't work for you? I've tested dozens and dozens of various software products at work (I'm a Software Coordinator), and only found that SAS 9.1.3 doesn't work, because of the way the installer is written.

Also, Adobe is specifically working on their Creative Suite 4 (64-bit) to work exclusively with 64-bit Windows (Vista). From what I have read, there will not be a 64-bit version for the Macintosh. :(

RE: 3rd Party Support
By mathew7 on 5/20/2008 3:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
Software made by small companies that got bankrupt or won't "recode" all of their SW made in 10 years with 5-10 developers. I still now a SW company that sells/supports SW written in FoxPro for DOS. And in XP it still works. Granted, it is a "local" company. But I never see MS trying to convert them.
Usually, small companies that are active for a long time don't invest very much.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By isorfir on 5/19/2008 11:36:27 PM , Rating: 5
Jeesh people, I was only relaying my experience and you pounced all over me like I made fun of your little sister.

Out of the people I knew, I was the early Vista adopter and was showing everyone what I liked about Vista. Like I said, from the beginning there really wasn't anything wrong with it. I just finally downgraded my laptop back to XP (since I had a license) so I could use more software without having to worry that Vista was the reason I was getting weird results.

First off, I got my Asus laptop right before the release of Vista, so it came with XP Pro with a free Vista Upgrade Coupon. Needless to say that was a pain in the ass (had to pay the $8 shipping three times with a 3rd party, which wouldn’t refund my previous money). Ended up using a student license of Vista Business through my university’s academic alliance with Microsoft anyway.

Installing it was a breeze, love the Vista install. After the install my built in webcam didn’t work, nor did my hot keys or Bluetooth. Vista’s fault? No, Asus was still getting all of their drivers to work, but I was still left with a half working laptop.

Some software that didn’t work/required workarounds in Vista:

My laptop came with Nero 6... uh oh, only the latest Nero works with Vista, not the one that came with my computer. Not even Nero 7 worked with Vista at the time, only the absolute latest.

Wanted to play some FFXI? Nope, needed to spend a couple hours working on that.

Had some commercial grade Xerox scanners at work I needed to get working. Nope. Xerox wasn’t even close with a driver for Vista. I subsequently purchased 4 laptops with XP Pro because of this business need. (Wanted to get my personal laptop working too, but alas).

There were other problems as well, but this was over 6 months ago and without loading that image I can’t remember everything that didn’t work.

In my position I had to downgrade since I was having problems utilizing it as a multi-media computer and couldn’t use it as a work computer. Will your mileage very? Of course. I’m not even telling you what to do; I’m just sharing my story.

So, to all of you who didn’t have a problem: great! As for me, I’ll wait until the vendor’s whose software I use all get on board, because I need to use my computer, not just fiddle with it to work.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By bmheiar on 5/20/2008 10:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
But not all features of Nero 7 & 8, will work with Vista (particularly 64-bit). From Nero's website, "Microsoft® Windows VISTA x64 Edition (All applications besides InCD, Nero Scout and Nero ImageDrive work in the x86 emulator that allows 32-bit Windows applications to run. Gadgets are NOT available under VISTA x64!!!)".

I found this out the hard way (one software title I did not look into while researching Vista & software compatibility, before getting Vista), after I finally took the plunge this past weekend into the Vista realm with the system I built last X-Mas (Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 board, Intel Q6600, 4 GBs of Kingston HyperX PC-8500 DDR2 RAM, eVGA Geforce 8800GT SSC 512MB card, 3 500 GB Seagate SATA HDDs, & misc other hardware). I installed Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit on one of the HDDs to give me a dual-boot system, XP Pro SP3/Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit. After it was all said and done, my Windows Experience Index score was 5.6 (RAM & HDDs were 5.6, while everything else was 5.9). I was hesitate to switch over to Vista with all the bad reviews, press, personal opinions, & etc., on it. But I wanted to see for myself, so I waited till when SP1 came out to try it. I did a dual-boot system just in case I need to go back to XP, for any reason.

While in the process of installing Nero, I noticed that InCD (DVD) did not install, the feature I use the most in Nero. So now I have to restart and boot into XP, if I want to transfer something to a DVD +/- RW. I hope Nero will fix this, and add this feature back in so where it works with Vista 64-bit.

I also lost the use of my HP Printer & Scanner (separate units), since HP will not update the drivers for "legacy" hardware for Vista. I even tried some of the workarounds, that I found online. But none of them seem to work. They work for the initial setup, but once restarted and etc., does not work. But oh well. So I will have to go and purchase a new printer & scanner, or an all-in-one unit. I probably need too anyways, since they are 5-7 years old. But I knew that might happen before diving into the world of Vista, since I did some researched on Vista and listen/read all the comments on Vista on DT and other websites.

I am still messing around with it, since it has been less than a week now. I haven't had any major problems. I haven't installed all my software yet, doing a little bit at a time. Letting it run, for awhile before progressing on. UAC is ok, popped up only during software installation & etc. Though it does become a nuisance at times. Especially on older software that I do not want to spend the money on to upgrading just yet. I do wish there was no DRM feature in Vista. Been doing some research (online searches, reading forums & etc) to see if it can be disabled. I guess I will have to use XP for all my media files. But oh well. Just one reason on why I did a dual-boot system.

RE: 3rd Party Support
By esandrs on 5/20/2008 12:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, the "InCD" functionality of Nero is built in to Vista. In fact, it is the default option for burning files to optical media.

When you put a new RW disc in, you should be prompted to prepare it as a "Live File System" (InCD style) or "Mastered" (Nero burn-style). You can even set the UDF format between 1.5, 2.0, 2.01 (Default), and 2.5.

Check it out...

RE: 3rd Party Support
By bmheiar on 5/20/2008 1:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ok.. cool.. I did not know that. Thanks..

First Impressions
By SeanMI on 5/19/2008 5:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
It’s amazing to me how many people have a grip with Vista. I’d say the majority of them got a bad first impression and completely abandoned it for XP. My concern is the reason people get that bad first impression.

For the home user the initial reaction to the performance degradation is a product killer. The issue with this assessment comes from the source. Most people are judging performance on an underpowered computer with a SH!T TON of crapware installed on it from <insert major vender here>. Now, I understand the underpowered part is part Microsoft’s fault for the whole “Vista Capable” crap, but it doesn’t make Vista a bad OS. Unfortunately there is no changing the user’s initial impression...

Now, for the IT professional, I think it’s going to take a little time. Let server 2K8 get out there so the advances in Vista can really be taken advantage of. Also, once third party developers get their stuff sorted out, the Vista adoption rate will increase. Once the adoption rate increases at work, look for the home adoption rate to pick up. Most end users I know are comfortable using the OS they use at work, at home.

What would you guys think if Microsoft released its major server revision BEFORE the client ? Do you think the adoption rate would be quicker, knowing that a lot of the advanced features could be implemented immediately once the client was released?

RE: First Impressions
By phxfreddy on 5/19/2008 6:52:05 PM , Rating: 1
Please please please please Please please please please
Please please please please Please please please please
Please please please please Please please please please
Please please please please Please please please please

Someone tell me what single thing I can do with Vista I can not do with XP ???

OS's are getting over the product cycle hump. If there is no reason to buy new why not just use what you have?

RE: First Impressions
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 7:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's what the author says. There's really no need to upgrade your PC to Vista.
As well as there's no need to install XP on a laptop with Vista pre-installed, or install a Vista copy on a new computer.

RE: First Impressions
By Leirith on 5/19/2008 7:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to try out DirectX 10. The new 3DMark supports DX10/Vista only.

RE: First Impressions
By MScrip on 5/19/2008 8:06:09 PM , Rating: 5
I will be installing Vista 64bit on my new build this summer. I'm ready for more than 4GB of RAM for today and tomorrow. I'd rather install a 2007 OS instead of a 2001 OS. That's just me I guess.

RE: First Impressions
By Oregonian2 on 5/19/2008 8:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
If YOU don't have a problem then you don't have a problem. I've incompatibility problems with Vista where I can't even buy upgrades (even if I didn't see that as a problem) because the companies don't exist anymore -- but I still want to use them. Niche things, but they're my niches. Others have niches too, but they will have different ones. There are a LOT of non-existent PC product companies no longer around.

If one keeps in the mainstream only using popular stuff from companies that still exist and are thriving, then I doubt there is a problem that money can't fix.

I'm one of those like they say in TV drug ads where "death" may be a side effect in 0.1% of the cases. Not a problem unless it's you. :-)

RE: First Impressions
By phxfreddy on 5/20/2008 3:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
So the article here...the article it references.....and all the comments here are essentially FREE MARKET-BABBLE for Microsoft since we're all going to do what we're going to do.

Open source marketing. Bill Gates thanks you!

RE: First Impressions
By MRwizard on 5/19/2008 10:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
You can't get a RSOD in XP. Then again, I've never seen one in vista, must be that stable :D

RE: First Impressions
By Omega215D on 5/19/2008 10:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
I like the fact that if something crashes in Vista it doesn't take the whole system down with it unlike XP (desktop crashes that take the taskbar with it). Only major foul ups create the blue screen on both Vista and XP.

RE: First Impressions
By drinkmorejava on 5/19/2008 11:23:17 PM , Rating: 1
You might think it a bit crude, but many people have had an epiphany when I've shown them how to do ctrl+alt+del, task manager, file, new task, "explorer"

Windows is doing its job just fine by killing explorer but not the whole computer. Somewhere along the line someone forgot to have it auto-restart though. I've seen Aero crash plenty of times, they just bothered to put another 5 lines of code in somewhere. Just to make it a conspiracy, I’ll say it was Microsoft implementing planned improvements for future products.

Windows ME
By Phlargo on 5/19/2008 5:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
As tired of all the debate about Vista and XP as I am? Do what I did, "upgrade" to new millennium: Windows ME.

ME: The right choice for a new millennium.

RE: Windows ME
By Hlafordlaes on 5/19/2008 5:48:03 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, my next build is a Tualatin/6800GT box with DOS and 98SE for legacy gaming. In a lot more hurry to do that than upgrade to Vista for now.

RE: Windows ME
By Master Kenobi on 5/19/2008 7:08:16 PM , Rating: 3
Virtual PC 2007 is your friend.

RE: Windows ME
By AssBall on 5/19/2008 8:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
Virtual PC 2007 is your friend.

Yeah, really...

But go ahead and spend extra money, time and power on an old crappy system that's a pain in the ass instead so that you can play Wolfenstein... It gives you +5 to NERD.

RE: Windows ME
By emboss on 5/19/2008 11:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
Does having SLI'd Voodoo 2's in the machine give another +5?

*looks around hopefully*

RE: Windows ME
By goku on 5/19/2008 11:24:17 PM , Rating: 1
Those emulators don't give you direct hardware access which makes them a bitch for running older 3D games. The best way to run an application is to run it in its native environment, plain and simple. No need to rag on him.

RE: Windows ME
By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 8:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
Old parts are expensive and reliability is an issue. I doubt those old games would suffer much in an emulator anyway. If anything, you run the risk of having too much juice available, so the game runs too fast! (despite the overhead of the emulator layers)

RE: Windows ME
By goku on 5/20/2008 12:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
How old of games are you talking about? Running 286, 8088, 8086 games is one thing, as yes that would be an issue with games that old, however games today don't suffer that issue because they're all programmed to synchronize with the system crystal. Thats why there is the turbo button on older machines, in order to slow down the system for those older programs that were programmed with a given CPU clockspeed in mind, instead of synchronizing with something that does not change, like the quartz crystal.

RE: Windows ME
By AssBall on 5/20/2008 12:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about nowadays but there used to be programs that could fake your clock signal to slow a game down. This is how you sometimes had to run X-COM and the like in win98 on pentium 2/3s and not have it go bonkers-fast.

I also wonder. What games are there can't be ran fine on 3 year old hardware but still stress a VM or emulator?

RE: Windows ME
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2008 8:01:13 AM , Rating: 2
Got a dual P3 1.1GHz Tualatin system sitting at my place with 1.25GB of SDRAM. Sell it to you. :)

i agree
By Inspector Jihad on 5/19/2008 7:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
people love to complain. i wish more of them would just shut the fuck up.

RE: i agree
By JonnyBlaze on 5/19/2008 10:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Would one of you anti-vista drm tin foil hat idiots please tell me one situtation where drm in vista is a bad thing.

RE: i agree
By Omega215D on 5/19/2008 10:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
If MS didn't include DRM then media producers will have a field day with them in court.

RE: i agree
By somedude1234 on 5/19/2008 11:20:56 PM , Rating: 4
Recent story about Vista MCE users finding out the 'benefits' of upgrading to Vista:

Tivo, MythTV, Mediaportal, SageTV, BeyondTV, GB-PVR and other users unaffected... not sure about XP MCE, but I believe this may have been vista-specific.

MS recently gave every single 'plays for sure' customer a great big middle finger. What other surprises are down the road?

Why again should we pay for the privilege of handing over control of our computers to 3rd parties?

RE: i agree
By Chris Simmo on 5/20/2008 1:25:25 AM , Rating: 1
I have a media center PC to run my home entertainment system, and it is because of the ease of use that I love it, but I will never record anything I wanted to permanently keep through media center. Though that isn't really there fault, they were forced to put it in. But other then recording, Vista DRM hasn't gotten in the way for me at all. Though in aus, we only have 5 free to air channels (each channel has 2-5 other channels, but they mostly play the same thing), and for a greater part, there isn't much worth recording

RE: i agree
By mondo1234 on 5/20/2008 4:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I like Vista.
By Mitch101 on 5/19/2008 5:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
Its like the early Intel Celeron release those initial chips were complete duds however later generations of Celerons were quite good performers however there was a bad haze that followed the Celeron name that even if you talk about todays Celerons people equate it to the first generation Celeron and the chips are a dud when its no longer true.

I still believe the launch of Vista was a year too early and with limited driver support which is the main cause for Vista getting a bad rap that for whatever reason people still say Vista is lousy today. Since SP1 its really been significantly better and I recently replaced XP with Vista for good. I have only been using it daily for 2-3 months and that is enough for me that I wont go back to XP. I'm looking to upgrade 2 more machines from XP to Vista because its really working well for me.

Out with the old. I have a really outdated scanner I got when XP launched and a Video capture card or two which wont migrate to Vista but hey how long are analog tuners going to be good for anyhow? I can get a USB HDTV tuner for $35.00 so why fight it. As for the scanner I never really used it anyway and today I would get an AIO printer unit anyhow.

I haven't found a game I could play in XP that I cant in Vista and with good framerates. A Radeon 3870 can be had for about $130.00 now and so can some 8800GT's But I will let the next Generation of DX10 video cards settle the war between XP DX9 and Vista DX10 framerates which is what 4 weeks from today? Visually DX10 will be able to trump DX9 when developers start utilizing DX10 hardware. 300FPS means nothing to me as long as the games play smooth and without error.

Software compatibility? I run Vista Ultimate 64 bit which isn't even a native 32bit application and I have not come across any 32bit programs that wont run on Vista. World of Warcraft didn't out of the box but after it downloaded the updates I haven't had a single issue with it. I am never going to develop in VB6 so what would be the reason to install that? Anything I need on a daily basis works now on Vista.

To me Vista is not about using your old hardware with Vista its about when your ready for your next PC then go with Vista. If you have an older PC then stick with XP because well thats what hardware of yesterday was made for. Or you can try Ubuntu if you must keep your old hardware alive. If your going to build a New PC I cant see why you would want to run XP any more.

RE: Sorry I like Vista.
By mathew7 on 5/20/2008 3:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said 2 more times on this topic: old SW.
What if your 5-year old computer had just died? You need to replace it, but with Vista, your 6-year old 16-bit app does not work. At least with linux don't have an OS "copy" problem.
This is like the x86 ISA: the thing that made it popular (compatibility) is what backfires now. At least AMD/Intel kept the compatibility. When Intel tried 64-bit without 32/16-bit compatibility, it failed (Itanium).
However, in Vista they just put TOO MUCH in it (not compatibility). Half of it is just to prevent the problems risen over the design of previous Windowses (security).

RE: Sorry I like Vista.
By Noliving on 5/20/2008 9:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad for you I have a computer that is from 2002. That is 6 years old. It came installed with windows xp home edition. I would love to know which software that was created and released to retail in 2002 making it 6 year old software uses only 16 bit installers and not 32bit installers.

RE: Sorry I like Vista.
By Mitch101 on 5/20/2008 3:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
I would test his theory however I cant seem to find a Floppy drive much less a floppy disk anywhere anymore. ;)

Chances are if your running a program that is 6 years old or even worse 16 bit you need to upgrade to the newer version already instead of complaining why a 6+ year old program no longer works on a brand new OS.

Its like complaining that the spark plugs on your new car aren't compatible with your previous cars because you got a deal on them 6 years ago and still want to use them.

RE: Sorry I like Vista.
By mathew7 on 5/21/2008 3:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
Chances are if your running a program that is 6 years old or even worse 16 bit you need to upgrade to the newer version already instead of complaining why a 6+ year old program no longer works on a brand new OS.

What if there is no new version? What if the (small) company delivered the SW to 20-30 customers and went bankrupt? Those 20-30 customers can't rebuild the SW by themselves because it's too costly but the SW still has big use for them. Customers (non-IT) don't like forced changes. They got used to something, and it harms the productivity to change it. Now this matters even more because the non-IT-users/total-users ratio is bigger than when XP appeared.

RE: Sorry I like Vista.
By Mitch101 on 5/21/2008 10:30:07 AM , Rating: 2
Buy a $30.00 laptop from a garage sale and put your 16bit applications on that.

One analyst?
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 4:51:31 PM , Rating: 3
Finally, DT mentioned a tech guy who is sane about XP and Vista.

RE: One analyst?
By KristopherKubicki on 5/19/2008 5:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
It took us a while to find one.

RE: One analyst?
By Cherish on 5/19/2008 7:01:00 PM , Rating: 3
What about Paul Thurrott? :-D

RE: One analyst?
By 67STANG on 5/19/2008 5:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure that this one is any more sane than the "others" than DT posts here. The only difference is, this guy is on the other end of the spectrum as a Vista fanboy rather than an XP fanboy. I applaud DT for somewhat balancing the views posted on the subject.

While I may not agree with this guy's views on XP-- he is just another opinionated guy with no real pull in the industry, I do agree with his "S, or get off the pot" mindset.

By B3an on 5/19/2008 5:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
I build and sell computers with XP and Vista on them. Only sell about 4 a week, but i've been doing it almost a year now, and about 40% of the people that buy them want XP even though the machines i sell, while normally low-end (under $300), can easily run Vista as even low-end hardware these days is very capable of it. For instance: AMD dual-core 4400+/4800+, and 2GB RAM.

I've no idea why these people buy XP. I HATE installing it too, with Vista i can just stick in it and then most of it is automated, then once it's installed i can already connect to the net without needing to use the motherboard drivers CD.

RE: Agree
By Oregonian2 on 5/19/2008 8:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because your customers don't have that problem with installation?

:-) :-) :-)

P.S. - I don't do the number you do, so my very few installs of XP weren't that big of a deal. If I were doing the number you do, I wouldn't be doing it that way anyway -- I'd do what IT departments do and just have a standard installed disk image that I'd ghost to each new machine's disk. Each may have to be hand activated and the like, but there's no install time, per se.

RE: Agree
By qdemn7 on 5/19/2008 9:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
"I've no idea why these people buy XP. I HATE installing it too,"

Here's a simple idea...why don't you ASK your customers? That would too hard, though. It's obvious that you care more about your convenience than the customers wishes.

I have a co-worker who works part-time at a local computer shop. They build and sell 4 or more systems a DAY. No one, and I mean NO ONE wants Vista. People will buy systems with Vista from other retailers, and then bring their system to their shop to get Vista removed and XP installed. Even though it voids their warranty. That's how much the general public doesn't want Vista.

RE: Agree
By MRwizard on 5/19/2008 10:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
I HATE installing it too, with Vista i can just stick in it and then most of it is automated

I'm one of those ppl that have to reinstall XP on a monthly basis. i found a little while ago a free tool that will automate the entire process, even intergrate your service packs and drivers and whole lot more than just that. Its called XP ISO Builder and it RULES!
(man i hope i don't get sued over marketing BS)

RE: Agree
By Chris Simmo on 5/20/2008 1:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. I build between 5 and 15 computers a week. I have a lot less problems with vista then with XP. Of course if a customer comes in and says that they are running really old software, I won't take the risk, and give them XP, but 99% of people walk through the door and say that their big IT friends or family have said not to go with Vista, I tell them they are looking at from an IT point of view, not the home user who is about replace everything and run new apps point of view. I then give them a quick run through Vista, particularly how nice its multimedia features are, and just about all of them are sold. As far as I am concerned, I can't wait for XP to go away, its one less point I have to go through with customers. New hardware just seems to run a lot nicer on vista.

Wrong Argument
By Generic Guy on 5/19/2008 5:09:33 PM , Rating: 5
Rob Pegoraro makes the wrong argument. Changing from one machine to another (e.g. Linux or Mac OSX or whatever) has the same underlaying problem: incompatibility with your existing software.

People are not complaining just to be fashionable.

Vista has an unwinnable problem. On one hand, Vista breaks some software, especially custom enterpise apps, so no interest in Vista there. On the other hand, if your stuff works with XP, there's really no compelling reason to shell out for Vista and requisite upgrades. Changing the default login away from an 'admin' account is nice, but after disabling UAC (or mindless users clicking ALLOW) naughty or insecure software is still going to find its way into Vista like it does XP.

Add in top-to-bottom DRM, which easts up CPU cycles and may rear its ugly head in unintended ways during long projects and other tasks... and you have a very unappealing OS for folks who are paying a lot of money for the privilege of having the machine tell the owner what is and isn't allowed.

Bob should let the market speak for itself.

RE: Wrong Argument
By Wagnbat on 5/19/2008 6:50:43 PM , Rating: 1
I think his whole rant is pretty much the wrong argument. Such as comparing 2008 sales of XP to Vista sales during the same period, after he specified "XP was dead January 2007", he then compares sales in 2008. If it's dead, how does it still sell 90 million copies?

XP is not something that needs to be "saved," as if it were some architectural triumph in need of historic preservation. It's not an Old Post Office or a Union Station; it's more like that crummy midfield terminal at Dulles International Airport, a once-serviceable structure that outlived its utility years ago.

Using his craptastic analogy... If TSA was involved in the building of a new airport terminal, and despite being clean and fancy looking, it took travellers 5 times as long to get through all the fancy new security measures (urine sample machine anyone? :P), of course they would lament the loss of the crummy midfield terminal. Most PC users want efficiency over flash.

RE: Wrong Argument
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 7:23:09 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. And his statement that if people can't or won't use Vista they should just jump ship and use Linux, Mac, ANYTHING but the dreaded XP just reeks of spitefulness and bias.

Bob should let the market speak for itself.

Truer words are seldom spoken.

By Eri Hyva on 5/20/2008 12:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Vista = Windows Me (that is Windows Millennium Edition for you young folks).

Me did some cosmetic things for Windows 98SE, but nothing really new or important.

Nobody remembers it today.

Windows 7 is going to be a new operating system, with new file system (Vista uses the same than Windows NT from July 1993) , with really new features.

Vista does not do anything more than XP, so called new features can be added to XP with small freeware software.

Basically we have these Dos-based Windowses: Windows 95, Windows 98, and the NT-based ones: Windows 2000, Windows XP, Vista.

So Vista is XP v1.1.

Operating systems are not the best investment opportunities, especially with the ridiculously high Vista prices. One should not be forced to buy new OS, if you have once already paid for XP, why you should pay couple hundred bucks for Microsoft, when you don't get enough in return.

Luckily, it's not the 90's anymore, Microsoft does not have the 98% OS monopoly anymore, and they don't even have the most advanced and powerful operating system anymore. (Still they have the guts ask couple hundred bucks from the granny for a platform to be able to install word processor and Internet browser on.)

So let's not hate, but instead forget Vista.

The next real belt match in Vegas will be Windows 7 vs Linux. At the moment for example Ubuntu is at least in par or more powerful (in advanced hands) than Vista, let's see what Microsoft will have for us in the future. One possible scenario is that in 3-5 years Microsoft has 70% of the OS market, like what happened with IE and Firefox. Do Microsoft really think that the 500 million new PC buyers in developing countries will pay $200 for Windows 7, when Ubuntu and like are free and supported in their native languages...

By Elementalism on 5/20/2008 12:41:37 PM , Rating: 3
ME lasted a few months, Vista will go for years.
Vista uses NTFS 5, NT used NTFS 4
What freeware can force XP's FIFO memory cache to behave differently? How about making XP's security system mimic Vista?

btw Linux's desktop market share is about .6%. The only thing giving Microsoft a fight is Apples OSX which sits at about 7.5%. So lets not delude ourselves into believe Linux will after the 15th year of promises make great strides against Windows 7. Afterall, you apparently have great expectations for Windows 7. If they meet half of what you expect there is nowhere for Linux to penetrate :D

By Eri Hyva on 5/20/2008 1:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
that 0,6% is true BS.

Things are going very differently in 2008 than in let's say 2005, 2006, 2007. Linux has matured, the graphical interfaces Gnome (quite similar to Mac), KDE (Windowsish) are full-grown now, not in their teens.

In 2008 new computers are sold and will be sold with pre-installed linux in millions. That never happened before.
Times are changing, Zed, times are changing.

Windows(tm) is good for DirectX games, but if you want to do some real work or important things, better look elsewhere. I don't want to see Windows computers used in Air traffic control, in hospitals or in armies. Too risky.

Millions of new Linux desktop computers 2007/2008

But I didn't get the Eee. this is the one I get (and millions of other people will, too):
with linux, of course :)

But I am going to change the distro on the Wind to Ubuntu, of course. There is already a spacial version of Ubuntu for Eee, of course, Ubuntu-eee. Ubuntu Wind is coming.

XP vs Vista
By theurge14 on 5/19/2008 7:15:35 PM , Rating: 4
The reaction to Vista is not the same as when XP first came out. XP came out a mere 2 years after 2000 Professional came out. Businesses who had just standardized on W2K could not name a single reason to make the jump 2 years after the last version. Home users were still using Windows 98 SE at the time, which at the time was only 3 years old. The architectural differences between DOS-based Windows (Windows 98) and NT-based Windows (Windows XP) was huge. Home users had to be convinced they needed something NT-based in their house. This is why Microsoft skipped making Windows 2000 Home and decided to ship Windows Millenium (ME). Of course this turned out to be a huge mistake.

So 5 years after XP is out, Microsoft offers a version of Windows that is barely different. There's no huge architecture change this time around. Just non-technical upgrades like DX10. All the features they pulled out of Vista is what killed it. Monad, Powershell, hell they should've combined the 32bit and 64bit together. There's no excuse the largest software company in the world with a pile of cash bigger than Yahoo can't produce the software customers demand in 5 years. They should be embarassed, and rightly so.

RE: XP vs Vista
By Omega215D on 5/19/2008 10:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Vista made many changes under the hood and kept the GUI similar since it isn't broke from XP.

The same old argument about the only difference in Vista is DX 10 and Aero are getting old (like those who voted me down in the Firefox article). Start off by reading up on what changes were made in the various magazines such as MaximumPC and CPU.

DRM is something that is out of MS control since the likes of the RIAA and MPAA would have a field day with them.

How ironic
By neothe0ne on 5/19/2008 8:22:47 PM , Rating: 5
This past weekend, I DID jump off the boat. After using Vista x64 for several months, I finally jumped back to XP. The reasons?

RAM usage was ridiculous for Firefox and especially Adobe Premiere Pro CS3, which was unusable for constantly trying to take up 1.2gb of my 2gb (less actually usable) RAM. In XP, Premiere only takes up 37mb of RAM, half that when minimized. iTunes has response lag in the Vista x64 version that doesn't exist in XP. Crysis runs better in XP than in Vista on my 8600GT and the latest 174.xx/175.xx "leaked" ForceWare drivers found at XP's installation footprint is only ~2gb compared to ~19gb for Vista. XP's Explorer is snappier, XP boots up faster, the list goes on and on.

There isn't a single thing about Vista that's faster or better than XP for me. For some reason, I'm thinking it has to do with my AMD Athlon X2 4800+. I don't recall anyone with a Core 2 Duo complaining about Vista, nor do I recall anyone with an Athlon defending Vista. The real reason beats me, but I'm VERY pleased with my XP performance, and Vista can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

XP=fine, Vista=fine.
By ScottLuebke on 5/19/2008 11:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
Just like many of you I have been building, upgrading, and obsessing with computers for most of this decade. I clearly remember before Vista released and you couldn't talk about Windows without someone mentioning how much XP sucked. XP bashing littered the internet. And within a week of Vista releasing all that talked changed to praise for XP and hate for Vista. I have XP (it is the only Windows I happen to own) as a dual boot on my Macbook, yet I use Vista on nearly every other PC I come across. And I will tell you that going back to XP very much does feel like an old "post office" or "airport terminal." The interface is extremely dated. The hardware requirements are low, sure, but does it really matter in a world where my Grandmother has 2GB of RAM and a dual-core? Use XP if you prefer it, use Vista if you prefer, but please shut up about bashing, it is very annoying and we are all tired of it. Vista has pushed RAM capacity up and prices down. So what if Vista needs 2 GB to run fast enough for us, you can buy 4GB for $100! And just like use hardware junkies who can never make a decision on computer equipment, those who are waiting for the next Windows release will only find themselves running back to Vista and bashing Windows 7. You know it's true.

RE: XP=fine, Vista=fine.
By djcameron on 5/19/2008 11:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
I was reinstalling Win 98 on a friends ancient computer tonight and I laughed really hard when it said it was "Searching for Plug and Play Hardware". Remember when we called it Plug and Pray ? All this has happened before, and it will happen again!

By infestation on 5/19/2008 11:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
I run 4 Vista boxes on a variety of hardware and honestly haven't had a single real problem. My 67 year old mom just got a Vista laptop and is doing just fine.

Want a reason to stay away from XP? How about securtiy? I often wonder how many of the people spreading the Vista FUD have other motives for wanting to keep XP around.

Vista isn't perfect but it is in no way the dog people make it out to be. While I'm ranting, I wish someone would sue Apple for those Switch ads where they say Vista is unstable. That has to be treading awefully close to the line. I'm pretty sure I can't put together a commercial that says Fords kill babies (even though I'm sure a few babies have gotten the baby axe in a Ford).

By Aloonatic on 5/20/2008 7:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
*Disclaimer, I use and support both XP and Vista in my office and have trouble with both, don't really like one more than the other*

The security argument.

XP SP2 was supposed to deal with that and sort of worked for a bit.

Give it time and Vista will be in the same position.

I never understand why someone thing that an argument of "I have never had a problem" is more important than someone who says "I've had nothing but problems, installed XP again"

If you haven't had a problem and love Vista, well done you, give it time.

If you have had problems with Vista, it happens to everyone and you'll still get them with XP.

Not convinced by Vista propoganda
By pow1983 on 5/20/2008 5:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
For me MS have not convinced me why I should spend £100 to buy Vista. What am I going to benefit from?
People say "ooh it has so much better security". Well my PC with XP has never been hacked, ive never had a virus, ive not had any spyware. This is simply because I use decent applications to prevent all of them (vista is not immune to these applications). Maybe vanilla XP vs vanilla Vista, Vista would win hands down, however, im not dumb enough to not install protection or browse dodgy websites or open silly emails. I dont need a better looking interface because I dont sit and stare at my desktop all day long, I actually run applications, which look no different when they are run on XP or Vista. My XP doesnt run slow, and therefore I dont need the Ready Boost application. Finally Vista is no easier to use. Its exactly the same. Ok ok, the address bar in explorer is slightly different, its hardly a radical change. So WHY WHY WHY should I get Vista? No one can tell me.

By BikeDude on 5/20/2008 10:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
Vista is an incremental improvement and not all features will be useful to all users.

For me, the improved user interface, in particular a much improved start menu (CTRL+ESC, type the first few letters of an app name and finally hit Enter -- what could be faster?) and it just feels nicer.

It also happens to be the first 64-bit Windows version generally available. XP64 is OEM only. A lot more effort is now being made to make sure drivers are x64 compliant. (also a benefit to XP64 users though)

Finally there is a bunch of new APIs that applications can benefit form. Granted, some of them have been backported to XP (like Windows Presentation Foundation), but others have not (like DX10). Vista's new display driver model promises better utilization of modern video cards and the sound APIs have improved as well. There are a lot of minor improvements that won't matter much each by itself, but combined they help make Vista a good choice for a new computer. Your existing computer probably runs just fine with XP and you are probably right sticking by your rig.

However... I kept Windows 2003 for a long time at home, but a few weeks ago I had to upgrade because LG's combined HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive didn't work with Win2003 (it only recognised DVDs). Only with Vista was I able to play new content (well, my old graphics card and 30" Apple Cinema doesn't support HDCP, so I also needed AnyDVD HD, but don't tell anyone).

I think you will eventually realise that with modern hardware, it makes little sense to insist on using XP. After all, you can make Vista look like and behave much like XP (with equal performance), but you can't turn XP into Vista. There is, simply put, more in the box.

Loudmouth on Internet speaks
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 4:59:47 PM , Rating: 1
Film at 11 !

RE: Loudmouth on Internet speaks
By Whiznot on 5/19/2008 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Die DRM Die

By goku on 5/19/2008 11:27:43 PM , Rating: 1
Does dailytech hate swear words? I think so! SHIT, FUCK, CRAP

RE: testing
By codeThug on 5/20/2008 6:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
vista=new hardware
By Beno on 5/19/2008 5:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
i really loved vista but i still cant use it untill i upgrade my hardware.
unless microsoft gives out free computers :D

Fair and balanced
By stash on 5/19/2008 5:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
Calling Rob a strong Vista supporter is a bit of a stretch. What he is, for the most part, is fair. He isn't sensationalistic like the majority of tech "journalists" who are more interested in ad clicks.

Life Jacket Please...
By codeThug on 5/19/2008 6:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Gee I guess I'm not the only ship leaving the sinking RAT.

By DEredita on 5/19/2008 7:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
I been very happy with Vista Business 64-bit, which I have been using for at least 8 months now at work. Been so happy with it, that I am considering building/buying my next computer with Vista 64-bit instead of getting a Mac Pro (and save myself $1200+, which can get me a newer Macbook).

If you have the right hardware, Vista 64-bit is very stable, fast, and works as reliably as my Macbook.

I wasn't overly fond of XP, as some people are. Vista at first for me had issues, but throughout last year, it seems that Microsoft, 3rd party software companies, and hardware vendors all got their acts together and ironed out most of the issues.

I like Vista so hate me
By coldracerx on 5/19/2008 8:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
I have never understood why people that are tech blogs complain like regualr comsumers with unfounded issue.
We should all know that the life of a computer is 18 months so if M$ makes a new OS that needs a new machine then do so and shutup. I have been using Vista for a long time and in the past week I went back to XP SP3 and I hated it.
I was so used to the Vista ability to multitask and the great search that I had to reload right back to Vista.
To me on my Phenon machine vista was just better than XP.

By mollick2 on 5/19/2008 9:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
an analysist I can agree with.

By SamuelW on 5/20/2008 4:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
That they don't outweigh it's issues. While Vista does offer better security and has some nice touches like the run dialog in the start menu and the Sidebar the issue is that these benefits don't outweigh it's problems for a lot of people.

DX10 may offer better graphics (though it has yet to prove it much) but it usually seems to cause a 30-50% performance hit also, in a word slow. The same is reflected throughout the system, from the basic hardware requirements which make my parents' laptop with a gig of RAM run just above tolerable on Vista Basic all the way to some of the administrative features which now take considerably LONGER than they did under XP.

The same is true for the business world, if one thing is really important for businesses it is hardware requirements and while Vista has security improvements and benefits in system imaging for instance the ridiculous expense incurred just upgrading the hardware in an organization of any size is a considerable barrier to adoption there. Thats not even taking into account the normal issues like program compatibility which are if anything worse than usual.

While I might recommend Vista to people with more money than sense and no reasonably knowledgeable person to help them I can't reasonably recommend it to anyone else.

This guy rules.
By robinthakur on 5/20/2008 6:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless of whether the guy's right or not he has managed to simultaneously annoy the mac-haters, the anti-vista brigade, the pro xp factions and Microsoft, and for that he deserves our respect! Plus he's probably annoyed the mac users for saying that people are only buying OSX because Vista is in some way deficient. Lol funny guy...

Right and Wrong
By psychobriggsy on 5/20/2008 7:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
Vista does have its issues, "steep hardware requirements, its strict anti-piracy measures, its sometimes-intrusive security measures, its incompatibility with some older products"

Yeah, and in business, which typically likes to wait for products to be properly tested, incompatibilities are a major issue. The economy isn't red hot right now, if you hadn't noticed, so replacing hardware is quite low down the list of priorities. Never mind the cost of retraining for the new operating system. Instead, they can keep their current PCs running the already-paid-for XP for another year. There's also the "good enough" issue to contend with, which already hit with Office in many businesses who stuck with 2003.

And then Windows 7 will be nearing readiness (yeah, it's Microsoft so let's not hold our breath) or Vista SP2 will be out, and that will be when they convert.

However in the consumer space he is right. XP isn't brilliant software, it has many many issues and clunky aspects that are highlighted (you might not be aware of them after a few years of using XP day in, day out) when you use alternatives, or even Vista.

I agree 100%
By Elementalism on 5/20/2008 8:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
These luddites in the tech community need get over it. Vista is here to stay and is replacing XP. XP served its time but needs to drive off into the sunset.

btw those OEMs requesting extensions are most likely doing it for their business customers. The retail side they are happy to sell Vista.

Vista like XP when it was introduced takes time to be validated in business envionrments.

Upgrading this weekend
By Frallan on 5/20/2008 8:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
Finally i got hold of a licence. This weekend im gonne throw my slow BSODing Vista out and replace it with a nice XP.

Im getting off the boat - so pls let the man without clue keep his vista and boost about it.


XP vs Vista sales
By wallijonn on 5/20/2008 1:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
He mentions that in Q1 2008, XP sold 87 million copies worldwide, according to IDC analyst Al Gillen, while Vista sold 132 million copies worldwide.

If Vista was so great then it should have sold 219 million and XP 0. When XP came out people waited on line to buy it, many at midnight. Where were all the Vista lines? Where were all the Vista mid-night sales? Why has the price for Vista gone down while the price of XP has been going up?

So, XP should have been dead January 1, 2008 but instead it sold 87 million copies. What does that tell you? If the XP sales were due to people deciding to not install Vista, then 132 - 89 = 43 million actual Vista sales. Were 43 million new PCs sold in the same quarter?

By jamawass on 5/20/2008 7:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
I like vista and I've been installing M$ Os's since win 98. Vista is the most stable OS I've used, now ranks above Windows 2000 IMO. It runs more smoothly on my lower spec'd but newer laptop than win XP runs on my more powerful desktop. Both are dual core but vista just seems to be a better multithreaded OS. My only con is inability to install software with 16 bit installers which is why I haven't installed it on my desktop.
I love the Aero GUI and it definitely adds productivity, with the very long uptimes with Vista I often have as many as 20-30 windows open (yeah, XP would often choke on this even with 2 gb memory which is what my vista has) and Aero makes it easy to find a particular window.

By robpegoraro on 5/22/2008 6:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
... I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I "love" Vista or "laud" it. If you take a look at review* I did of Vista when it shipped, then the one-year-later evaluation** I wrote this January, I think you'd have a hard time characterizing me as any sort of Vista advocate.

- Rob



I Will Gladly...
By Quiescent on 5/24/2008 11:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
Get off the boat. And I won't be stupid and buy a mac doing it, either. All I really need is Fruity Loops Studio, which runs just as well in WINE on Linux.

The facts that many hate to face about Vista is the reason behind it's problems. The core problem that causes problems in Vista is just how it's coded. You can certainly screw up a little program that says "Hello world!" into using more CPU load and RAM usage than it should. It happens to games, it happens to OSs. Any kind of programmed "thing" that is certainly longer than 20 lines is increasing the chance of screwing something up, or not doing it right, and causing the program or OS to use more RAM and/or CPU load than it should.

This is the case with Vista.

And example of knowing that resources are being used more than they should is with Aero. Anything that makes your desktop look pretty may use quite a bit of resources, but we have seen how well 3rd party programs such as Windowsblinds do not waste so much resources as Aero does.

We have said that the management of resources are better in Vista, but it doesn't matter if programs are consuming more resources than they should. Management is necessary, but not always the fix. For instance, when I was using Ubuntu, fed up of Win98se, the resource management was great when I used it (2005-2006). However, when running just the little java application on Java's website to test to see if your Java is working, it would take up about 256mb of RAM (Normally didn't take up more than 100mb of RAM in Windows). And if Java is taking up that much RAM, then management is certainly not going to fix the problem.

All I have to say is that if I have to, I will go with Linux. I am sure that I am not the only one to speak this way. And if Windows 7 fails, then Microsoft is going to be a sad, sad company.

By rupaniii on 5/25/2008 9:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Windows Vista was written as a 64 bit OS and crammed into a 32 bit architecture.
Microsoft needed to dictate all machines be sold with no less than 2gb of RAM, and run in 64bit only mode, and BAN all Single Core Celerons. This way, anyone who bought it could utilize 8gb+ of ram if they saw fit.
The 32 bit version crumbles under its own weight and lack of system resources.

Support other OSs!
By mabright on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Support other OSs!
By AssBall on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Support other OSs!
By codeThug on 5/20/08, Rating: -1
By AstroCreep on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By Sazar on 5/19/2008 7:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually yes, they were.

It wasn't till SP1 that some of the whining about XP died down but it was really when some of the big vendors started releasing products which were compatible with XP and didn't break things appeared.

Unfortunately for Vista, 3'rd party vendors STILL have issues designing their programs to be compatible. Nvidia for example is one such.

RE: Seriously?
By AstroCreep on 5/19/2008 7:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'll go on a limb and say driver-support is the biggest reason for Vista's functional issues (between nVidia and Creative).

Functionally, Vista (by itself) is fine; sure it's a bit different than XP, but that's what happens with all MS OSes (new UI, new navigation).
Again, my biggest problems with it are over potential DRM and privacy concerns.

As far as whining about XP until SP1 came out...I honestly can't remember. I wasn't working in IT until about that point anyway, but the reason we held-off on XP was because of some of the more drastic changes to UI and navigation (compared to Windows 98 & 2000, which they had been using for years).

RE: Seriously?
By neothe0ne on 5/21/2008 12:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree.

I find that nVidia's ForceWare drivers work better on Vista x64 than on XP, since flat panel scaling is semi-broken in XP. Creative is another matter entirely. Thank you daniel_k, you've mooted the Creative/Vista driver issue.

RE: Seriously?
By das mod on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki