Print 267 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Nov 22 at 12:58 PM

Turns out some of Vista's strongest critics may not even know what they're criticizing.

Microsoft, the reigning OS king, has received more than its share of criticism for Windows Vista.  The OS, which suffered both from poor initial hardware compatibility and from relatively large resource demands has been shunned by many of the largest players in the business community.  Some have come out in vocal support of Vista, arguing against those who feel Vista is broken an XP downgrade might be in order. 

These supporters got a little more ammo to back their arguments thanks to a comical experiment put on by Microsoft.  As part of its new PR efforts, which include "anti-Mac Guy" commercials, Microsoft conducted a top secret experiment known as the "Mojave" Experiment.

Inspired by an employee email from Microsoft's David Webster, the Vista team gathered over 120 XP users in San Francisco who were critical of Windows Vista.  After being questioned on video about their Vista impressions, Microsoft told them it was giving them a stunning opportunity -- the chance to view their secret operating system they had been cooking up, codenamed "Mojave".  The excited users showed great enthusiasm for the new operating system, with over 90 percent giving positive feedback of the 10 minute demo of the system.

The comic twist is that there is no "Mojave" and it wasn't a pre-release version of Windows 7.  "Mojave" was simply a fictitious title applied to a standard Windows Vista install.  Interestingly, the XP users seemed utterly unable to recognize Vista or its features, despite criticizing it.  Remarked one user on the new features, "Oh wow!"

While it has been pointed out that the experience neglects to consider installation and networking setup, the "Mojave" experiment provides a strong case for the upsides of Vista analogous to the classic blind taste test advertising gimmick.  While Microsoft is still deliberating on how to incorporate the footage into its advertising campaigns, suffice it to say, it is coming soon.

Windows unit business chief Bill Veghte says big efforts are needed to step up Microsoft's image against competitors like Apple and Google.  He states, "We have a huge perception opportunity.  We are going to try a bunch of stuff."

Mr. Veghte points to the "Assurance" campaign for Vista launched earlier this month which offers free technical phone support for the first time.  While the move will likely cost Microsoft in the millions, many believe it will help Microsoft show that it is willing to support Vista fully, including when users encounter trouble.

Footage for the campaign was first revealed last week.  The site which they will be featured on is here.  The footage will be released to the public on Tuesday of this week.

However, trouble in Vista Mr. Veghte asserts, is a rarity and the main problem for the OS is perception.  Mr. Veghte is known to stew over Apple commercials on his morning jogs.  His decision to encourage Microsoft to commit to the massive new PR effort was finally solidified when he decided that Apple had "crossed a line" from factual to fallacious accusations.  Marketing vice president Brad Brook echoed similar sentiments, stating that Microsoft would be "drawing a line in the sand'

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO also shares these feelings, stating, "In the weeks ahead, we'll launch a campaign to address any lingering doubts our customers may have about Windows Vista.  And later this year, you'll see a more comprehensive effort to redefine the meaning and value of Windows for our customers."

However, at the end of the day the Mojave ruse may prove a more valuable marketing tool than anything Mr. Ballmer or Mr. Veghte could say or do on their own, as it’s the voice of everyday users.

With rival Apple showing strong signs of hardware growth, fueled by its virulent advertising campaign, which many call factually questionable, Microsoft has decided to step up to the plate to challenge its assertions.  Mojave should be a key effort in this new campaign.  Mr. Veghte believes that the Vista team cannot wait for Windows 7 to change their fortune; they must attack now.  He states, "I've got to start having that discussion in the marketplace.  I've got to start driving that now. People feel guilty (about Vista). It's wrong."

Don't be surprised if you start seeing Microsoft "Mojave" commercials coming soon to a television near you.  

Comments     Threshold

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

By masher2 on 7/28/2008 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 5
Show 100 people anything you call "new and revolutionary" and 90% of them will say they love it.

Show 100 random people a petition and at least half will sign it, even if its a request to remove womens suffrage or something equally silly.

RE: Unsurprising
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 4:42:56 PM , Rating: 5
Show a website full of geeks statistics with no backing, and they'll rip your credentials out of your spine >: )

RE: Unsurprising
By wordsworm on 7/28/2008 10:49:52 PM , Rating: 4
As to the women's suffrage statistic -

Most people at universities are against women's suffrage. If you don't believe it, go around to some colleges with a petition.

RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 7/29/2008 12:08:59 AM , Rating: 5
Are you implying that in the USA their is more female suffering then male suffering, even though the suicide rate among males is much much higher?

Anyways, the point is, people can be idiots.

RE: Unsurprising
By L33tMasta on 7/29/2008 12:28:56 AM , Rating: 3
We know. That's why they hate Vista.

RE: Unsurprising
By StevoLincolnite on 7/29/2008 3:22:05 AM , Rating: 3
I'm an XP user, I wouldn't say I "Hated" Vista, but I don't see the point upgrading to Vista for the simple reason that XP works perfectly fine. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

However, I did try Vista out for a few months, Possibly the more annoying thing for me that I found would have been the "Revised" Networking set-up.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Unsurprising
By murphyslabrat on 7/29/2008 1:45:34 PM , Rating: 1
I would also say, "what's the point" about upgrading to Vista. I am certainly not gonna pay another $90-$360 for a computer that aint broke. However, I bought a new laptop that came with Vista Home Premium....and it was a lot less than I was expecting, in both ways.

I like a lot of the new interface stuff, with a few glaring exceptions--like the networking setup. Overall, there is nothing to write home about, but there aren't any things I despise, either.

If you want something interesting, grab a copy of Ubuntu 7.04 or later, and you get Compiz.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 4:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ubuntu is what I use at home and work. :)

RE: Unsurprising
By fibreoptik on 8/4/2008 2:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure all those mainstream Windows/Mac games run real well in Unix...

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 8/4/2008 4:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the mainstream stuff works pretty well.

RE: Unsurprising
By kondor999 on 8/5/2008 11:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
When I see Crysis running *well* on Linux.

Maybe then.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 8/5/2008 4:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis barely runs on Windows..LOL give me a break. Although it does run on Linux . Here:

RE: Unsurprising
By Hare on 7/29/2008 2:47:41 AM , Rating: 4
English is not my native tongue but I don't think suffrage has anything to do with suffering...

right to vote: a legal right guaranteed by the 15th amendment to the US Constitution; guaranteed to women by the 19th amendment;

RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 3:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
Don't worry too much about him. He clearly doesn't know about suffrage. At least you were smart enough to look it up.

RE: Unsurprising
By tmouse on 7/29/2008 7:35:15 AM , Rating: 5
Not sure but I think that was his point (he failed to display the sarcasm flag). MOST of the people who "sign those petitions" mistake the word suffrage and suffering. To be fair MOST of the people pushing these "petitions" are doing so to prove how foolish people are but they take advantage by selecting the busiest people and often use completely improper english to further confuse them into signing. Things like rapid talking and slipping in sentences like don't you want to stop the women from suffraging in the US? Another thing to keep in mind is you do not see the editing. In one joke poll I saw during its filming 90% told the guy to f-off but the edited piece look like most of these films giving a totally fraudulent impression. Now, unfortunately I have heard two city high school students on a bus arguing whether the US had 49 or 52 states....

RE: Unsurprising
By feraltoad on 7/30/2008 3:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think he's employing some master level sarcasm. Although, it's so good I'm not sure.

RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 7/31/2008 9:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
“When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.”

RE: Unsurprising
By fibreoptik on 8/4/2008 2:23:19 PM , Rating: 1
suffrage does not = suffering


RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 11/22/2008 12:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I know....

RE: Unsurprising
By MFK on 7/29/2008 2:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
Show a website full of geeks statistics with no backing, and they'll rip your credentials out of your spine >: )

Read it 5 minutes ago and I'm still laughing!

RE: Unsurprising
By drebo on 7/28/2008 4:48:46 PM , Rating: 5
I think the point is that the majority of people who badmouth Vista have never actually seen it, much less used it.

I get it all the time in my shop--some guy comes in and says "I need a new computer, but I don't want Vista because 'everyone' says it sucks." I've had people who didn't know a stick of RAM from a floppy disk tell me how much better XP is than Vista.

While I presently see no reason for me personally to upgrade to Vista, I do not think it is inherently a bad operating system. It's different, that's all.

RE: Unsurprising
By geddarkstorm on 7/28/2008 5:52:07 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think this experiment shows for a fact in any way that most people who criticize Vista haven't used it. It might be the case, it might not. I haven't used it though I've seen it, so I have no opinion on it, but this is definitely not a "study" that proves anything other than that word of mouth and perception are two very powerful things.

RE: Unsurprising
By threepac3 on 7/28/2008 6:03:35 PM , Rating: 5
Wasn't that the whole point of the experiment?!!?!

RE: Unsurprising
By leexgx on 7/28/2008 10:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
maybe but i am an tech gui my self small time really (do mostly home users and small bis networks) and i have more networking problems with vista then i do with XP (more the bigger the network) as i was unable to share an printer on an Vista completely due to the PC Dropping off the network (it just went into ignore and reject mode)

in the end i just slapped an Dell XP disk in it as it was an dell any way and after 1 hr (+ install) i had every thing ready shared and files back on his PC, and had 0 problems with the printer and file shearing on XP

the main reason IT support big to small size companies do not want to use vista is due
1, Cost Vista will not work on Most computers due to needing 1gb of ram to be usable (not every company burns money every 3 years on new computers)
2, programs that work on XP do not work on Vista (the programmer who ever made the database software and so on,)
3, to its unpredictable bugs in networking (format reload norm fixs it but should not be needed)
4, some users are very dim when thay come to computers so going from XP to vista is like going from XP to Mac, and in doing so means productivity is down or retraining is needed (that norm involves money)

i can see alot of companies are likey to just wait and see what windows 7 is like but if its far away like Vista is to XP its uptake will still take along time alot of companlys i have been with have Only gone from windows 2000 mostly due to that its support had been droped so thay had to move to XP as the dead line for XP is 2015 if the pcs even last that long may still be quite an number of pcs out there on XP

my View on Vista is i do realy like it looks very nice SUperfetch is very usefull tool (once it has finished filling your ram and stops messing with hdd), once it has finished faffing around with your hard disk Vista is nice and fast, but as an user my self there are an big list that would just turn this into big rant i guess (i can think of 10 or more anoying things in Vista)

RE: Unsurprising
By tmouse on 7/29/2008 7:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well I'll bet if anyone did a real study they would find that business adoption of VISTA is no worse than any other version. Companies simply do not upgrade operating systems, they phase things in by hardware attrition where the cost is simply not an issue (you have always gotten more for the same price over the last two decades). The custom apps are a problem but they simply do not make up the majority of the computers in most enterprises. Many enterprises were waiting for the proper version of VISTA to come out anyways. For the general populace VISTA is good since they are, by and large, too lazy or stupid to secure their systems. The point is VISTA had a lot of driver issues, which now are mostly solved. I also do not like the networking control panels (just because I do know what I am doing and now it takes a lot more steps to get things done when they do not work the first time). The interface issue is always a problem, I don't know how many times I have told my department head do not try to switch people from Macs to PC's or vice versa, since we have the software for both systems. Just let people use what their familiar with and do not take the productivity loss, this is not due to the users being dim its just human nature, I for one hate the new MAC OS interface but I can see how others love it. I do not expect windows 7 to be a major change, it will probably just have some of the things that were pulled from the VISTA development, but from a user point will not be noticeable and if it does not get as much bad media coverage (some was deserved some was not) many will have the same reactions as the test group.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 8:42:29 AM , Rating: 3
Well I'll bet if anyone did a real study they would find that business adoption of VISTA is no worse than any other version. Companies simply do not upgrade operating systems, they phase things in by hardware attrition where the cost is simply not an issue (you have always gotten more for the same price over the last two decades). The custom apps are a problem but they simply do not make up the majority of the computers in most enterprises.

Bingo, you nailed it. It takes time, testing, and changes to make legacy apps work with new operating systems, I remember the same song and dance when we rolled out XP just 3 years ago. It took us until just a few months ago to phase out the last of the 2000 machines in active use (still some stragglers at a failover site but thats less of a problem).

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 9:00:47 AM , Rating: 1
I think you are doing a little bit of a bait and switch. You don't think XP's slow adoption rate had anything to do with Win 2K launching in 2000 and XP launching in 2001 under a year later? I don't care how big a business is no IT Dept or business budget can move that fast. What would be the point?

Compare that with XP being 7 years old and then Vista coming out, that puts it into a totally different light because the reason behind the slow adoption is different.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 10:45:42 AM , Rating: 3
Compare that with XP being 7 years old and then Vista coming out, that puts it into a totally different light because the reason behind the slow adoption is different.

Not really. It took until 2004 before the majority of our apps, drivers, and legacy apps were fully supported on XP. We faced the same problem with Vista right out of the gate. Hell, we still have Novell Netware on our systems, yea thats right NOVELL NETWARE. When all your network shares are built on the Novell systems, without a working and bugfree Novell Client for Vista, we were sunk without even getting to testing the other apps we use in the environment. XP, Vista, same adoption problem from my standpoint. Support for XP was minimal until after SP1, and XP didn't even get rolled into most companies until SP2. With the long delay between XP and Vista, the procurement budget for a new OS has been slashed into oblivion. The price tag to upgrade an enterprise agreement from XP to Vista is high and management generally chooses to wait as long as they can and "save money" as they like to call it. We only pushed XP adoption because we knew that 2000 was EOL and didn't want to support a product that Microsoft themselves won't support. This is what is also driving the Vista adoption, we know when XP dies, we need to be off it by then. With the current 4 year hardware refresh cycle, starting Vista into the environment now should put us on track for a complete switchover just before the XP EOL date.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 5:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
EEEEEEKKK Novell... I feel sorry for you. Although what version where you using when Win2K was out?? I mean 5 was pretty well supported and worked on Win2k and Win XP. The only problem with XP would have been adding back IPX if you were still on 5, which would have sucked, but it wouldn't have been that bad.

I do wonder what kind of applications, drivers you used (not that you have to tell me). Especially since the last version of Win2k kernel and the Windows XP kernel were minimal in their distinction. Most drivers were interchangeable.

In the grand scheme of things I still do disagree. The change from Win 98 to Windows 2K was absolutely unbelievable. I don't think there were many domain controllers which stayed on Win NT for that long once Win2K came out. Likewise for the clients, keeping Win 98 on a Win2k network while fine, does deny you the granularity that Win2k brings. The addition of Active Directory and managing domain forests was heads and shoulders above anything NT could do. That's not even talking about the stupid service packs.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 8:22:57 PM , Rating: 3
No doubt the change from 98 to 2k was good. We actually went from 95 to 2k at work. At the same time we also migrated from Token Ring to Ethernet (Yea in like 2002). My company is ass backwards more than I want to know, just tellin you what I face daily.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 8:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
Novell 4 still, and we still are using Novell 4.91.

RE: Unsurprising
By johnsonx on 7/31/2008 4:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
wow, running NetWare 4 in 2008? I took my (customer's) last NetWare 4.11 server out back and shot it about 6 months ago, and before that I hadn't seen one in years. That last 4.11 server might still be running today, except that the customer had gone out and bought 2 vista boxes at office depot or whatever, and then called me up to put them on the network. You guessed it: NetWare 4.11 doesn't speak IP (at least not for file/print services), Vista doesn't speak IPX.

Now that customer runs Linux.

RE: Unsurprising
By InsaneScientist on 7/31/2008 12:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are doing a little bit of a bait and switch. You don't think XP's slow adoption rate had anything to do with Win 2K launching in 2000 and XP launching in 2001 under a year later? I don't care how big a business is no IT Dept or business budget can move that fast. What would be the point?

Compare that with XP being 7 years old and then Vista coming out, that puts it into a totally different light because the reason behind the slow adoption is different.

Actually, the price thing wasn't likely much of a factor.

When a corporation buys licenses for Microsoft products, they don't buy them individually at the retail price, they buy them through volume licensing.
One of the perks (to some extent) that can come with a volume license is a package called software assurance.

Basically, what that does is that you're not buying 50, 100, 1000, or however many licences for Windows 2000/XP/Vista/etc, you're buying that many workstation licences.... for whatever Microsoft's current workstation OS is, and if the OS is upgraded before the license runs out (usually 2 years), you effectively get the upgrade for free.

Many system admins opt for software assurance, even though it costs a bit more, because it's a failsafe, and because Microsoft has usually only waited about 2 years between releases.

Thus, the 1 year gap between 2000 and XP wasn't a problem price-wise, you get it for free off of a software assurrance package, the problem was that it was new, the bugs hadn't been worked out, and nothing was compatible with it yet.

Price wise, the 6 year gap between XP and Vista was more of a problem for us (system admins) than the 1 year gap between 2000 and XP.

Also, people's memories are getting awfully short. (not neccesarily yours, I'm just complaining in general now)
Compared to 2000 (not 98, and certainly not ME), XP wasn't as good of a platform initially. SP1 helped a bit, but it wasn't 'till they rewrote half the kernel in SP2 that it really became the OS that we know now.
Vista started out on a much better foot than XP did (as far as the OS itself is concerned, not driver support), so we'll see where things go from here.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/31/2008 7:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
My memory is pretty good (not that you were saying mine wasn't) SP1 for Windows XP brought about stability for the OS. At that time if you weren't doing anything wireless, XP with SP1 was pretty darn stable. Even without SP1 you had the messaging bug that was causing instability but the first few patches addressed that.

Comparing XP to Vista at first launch there just isn't a contest first you have driver compatibility since Win2K drivers for the most part worked with XP.

It's actually easier to talk about what XP doesn't do than what Vista did when it launched. First, XP didn't implement UAC which normally would be a negative except Vista's implementation hides behind windows and doesn't always grab focus. XP's driver compatibility was and still is heads and shoulders above what Vista was capable of doing at launch. You didn't have video drivers crashing out repeatedly while playing games. XP doesn't nor ever did have problems adding jetdirect printers. XP didn't have a problem transferring files. XP didn't require 4 times the minimum spec requirement of it's predecessor, XP didn't have a negative impact when running games.

Like I said my memory is pretty good in terms of what XP did versus Vista :)

RE: Unsurprising
By JediJeb on 7/29/2008 10:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
We still have a Win 3.1 computer running, just because the piece of equipment attached to it requires it. Once the computer dies we will have to invest about 30k in a new piece of equipment because there is no longer an interface to work with newer computers. If only computer systems would last as long as our equipment.

As for VISTA, I have used it but don't really care for the interface, but then when I use XP I always turn on the Classic view lol.

RE: Unsurprising
By mondo1234 on 7/28/2008 7:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Mojave" was simply a fictitious title applied to a standard Windows Vista install

Well if they couldnt spot a "standard Vista Install" then they have never even seen Vista (not even in Best Buy?) It would be a great commercial for the opponents to do the same with showing the Vista Haters an XP install with a new theme and call it "Cherokee". There could be some funny anti MS commercials on this if the other side wanted.

RE: Unsurprising
By retrospooty on 7/28/2008 6:10:44 PM , Rating: 1
"I think the point is that the majority of people who badmouth Vista have never actually seen it, much less used it."

I disagree, alot of people use it and hate it. I use it and don't have any problems - I only keep it because its pretty LOL.

But seriously - most (normal) people say "My IT Guy (or nerdy little brother or whatever techy in thier circle) says it sucks, so I think it must suck. The fact is that person has not used Vista, but the nedry dood did, and didnt like it.

RE: Unsurprising
By Targon on 7/28/2008 7:36:32 PM , Rating: 5
Many people hated Windows XP when it first came out for various reasons, but look at how it is accepted now. People do not like change, and not SAYING the word "start" scares many people. These are the same people who freak out if you move the bar from the bottom of the screen to the top of the screen, just because it's not what they are used to.

RE: Unsurprising
By rudy on 7/28/2008 7:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
This is true if there is not a significant reason to change then people will resist it. With windows 98 it sucked and people really needed to upgrade cause it was an instable buggy OS. But when XP got into full swing people had a fairly solid OS and had no reason to upgrade. The massive success of XP is probably M$s worst enemy.

On top of that M$ has never been very good at advertising. Apple just does a better job in that area. And people do tend to believe the junk on the apple commercials. M$ now perhaps to late is seeing this and is finally ready to strike back. Lets see how it pans out.

RE: Unsurprising
By tmouse on 7/29/2008 8:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind XP was out a lot longer, people just got used to it. I did not see any real differences between XP and 2000, out side of some pretty interface changes, which I quickly changed (heck I’m so set in my ways I have made my VISTA desktop look like the old classic desktop, just a matter of preference.

RE: Unsurprising
By mindless1 on 7/29/2008 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
True, many feel MS changed Vista for no good reason other than to make it seem more different from XP.

MS' test though, it ignores two important factors: What system it was running on, whether anyone who genuinely liked it more than XP for everyday use, liked it enough to pay for a beefier system to run it. Secondly, liking something doesn't make you more productive using it. There's retraining time that is lost but even then an individual may find one OS or the other more friendly to use.

RE: Unsurprising
By Mutz1243 on 7/28/2008 4:54:10 PM , Rating: 3
One of the reasons half the people will sign a petition to remove women's suffrage is because they do not know what it is. As far as Vista goes too many people have never used it and bad mouth it. I have been using Vista for since January 08 and love it.

RE: Unsurprising
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 5:02:32 PM , Rating: 5
"Women suffering?! That sounds horrible! Better add my vote to the petition!"

RE: Unsurprising
By rollakid on 7/28/2008 8:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I love how vista looks. No comment on how it functions. But I hate the system requirement.

That experiment isn't all that useful if they do not let the user "use" it. If I were to just sit there and let them show me what "mojave" looks like, I'd love it too. But if they say "Hey, take this dvd home and try Mojave on your pc and tell me how you think of it", I think I'll hate it as well.

For the record I've used vista, on similar spec pc to mine (well, mine has more ram) and it was horribly slow, especially transferring data from a pendrive to the pc.

Not to say I won't move on though, my next pc upgrade would see me moving to vista or window 7, depends on when I actually do it.

RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 2:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
I've got Vista Home Premium on my laptop. Transferring files from usb key to laptop or over the network to another comp isn't all that change. It's a little slower by like 20 secs or something, but hardly "horribly slow."

I use Win2k, WinXP, and Vista at home. I prefer Win2k for my file server, as the file sharing is very simplified and left open as hell. I'm not to worried about someone accessing my system. If they want to, they can go ahead. Just get past the crap firewall on the router. Everything else is open.

RE: Unsurprising
By rollakid on 7/29/2008 6:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's interesting. Slower by 20 second over how many second?

Maybe it's my usb drive, kingston's first affordable 4GB usb drive, somehow slower than their 1GB and 2GB counterpart (tested by myself, especially when you're copying a whole folder of hundreds of files, single large file isn't that bad).

I remember my brother having problem with installing that korean MMORPG on his vista on one go, so we tried to just copy the whole folder over from my XP system.

When I tried to copy from my usb drive to his hard disk, it takes nearly double the time than it did when I copy the whole game folder into the usb drive.

Curious, I tried copy it back to my system to see if it is the difference in read and write, but it was not. Vista just sits there do nothing with the transfer window not showing any movement before and after the transfer for quite some time... wonder if it is checking for something.

So... it could well be my usb drive's fault, or maybe my bro's laptop have a really slow hard drive...

RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 8:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
I usually transfer around a few thousand little png files around. I read a lot of manga at work, so I do this daily. It's around 6-7 mins for me to transfer these files. Either via usb or through my network (use gig-e on mobo and gig-e switch).

Vista's copying/moving is different than XP. It doesn't finish, til it finishes. As in all cache must be cleared out and data sitting where it was copied to be considered complete in Vista. With XP, as long as the data makes it to the cache, it's considered complete, even if the data isn't fully written onto the other device.

I'm not a home, but here's an example on XP for what I copy around. 2468 files in 169 folders totaling 519 MBs. It's "To Love Ru" manga.

RE: Unsurprising
By rollakid on 7/29/2008 9:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
Certainly make sense. Too bad my brother's not here, he's overseas studying. I wanted to test out if SP1 did any major change as well.

For the record, the game folder we copy (cabalSEA) is about 2.18GB 14,827 files and 425 folders. I can't remember exactly how long it took but on vista it's almost twice as long.

I don't really hate Vista, it's not the right word. It's just that I do not want to "upgrade" to something and it ran slower on my machine without any change in specs.

Next PC upgrade is in order :D end of the year most probably getting ready for Fallout 3. Been waiting for it since... er...Fallout 2. Probably triple boot it with vista/xp/ubuntu...

ps: how nice... you get to read manga at work... all i ever read at work is dailytech ;)

I read COUGHdoujinCOUGH manga at home... sometimes...

RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/28/2008 4:58:55 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's all just a matter of context, with which marketing people all love to play with.

For example, UAC is annoying when it's framed in the context of the cool mac guy against the boxy microsoft guy. "do you want do to something?". But the fact of the matter is that it HELPS a lot of people, especially people who don't realize that when they click on a fake advertisement for free virus checking software they may be installing potentially damaging software on their machines.

At this point, I feel that the Mac advertisements have manipulated context to the extent that much of the populace will make decisions based on emotions or hearsay rather than practicallity. I must say that their marketing team is quite impressive.

While I personally use Ubuntu/XP, I do feel that Vista has gotten a bad rap. For me, I don't see a need to move to it from XP, but for most people purchasing a new Windows-based a machine, Vista would be a great way to go (coming from the context of the designated family IT guy who has to clean up XP/virus/spyware messes and hasn't had to clean up a Vista one yet).

RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/28/2008 6:21:09 PM , Rating: 5
A agree that UAC annoying, especially for people of your level of expertise. The implementation *could* be more user friendly. So in our opinion, this was a poor design decision from the user experience designer. But the people who are disabling UAC on their own accord probably know better anyway. I still maintain that for those people that don't really know what they're doing are better off leaving it enabled.

As for your comment about the "skin-job loaded with DRM and bad memory management", you are essentially saying none of the extra features of vista really matter to you, which is fine (I know, DRM isn't really a feature for the end-user). But for a lot of people, these features (eyecandy, etc) make a difference and are a selling point.

I can't say whether the memory management is good or bad, since I don't know what they defined as their requirements/constraints nor do I know details about the implementation, but I do know that, in general, more features means higher memory requirements. Perhaps they should have tightened down their constraints more, but I have seen vista machines running fine with 2GB memory and last I checked, you can get two gigs easily for < $40. Perhaps this was a factor in determining/prioritizing their requirements. True, it's no excuse for sloppy code, but do you really know if the code is sloppy?

Bottom-line, I disagree with your "vista sucks" comment, but the user experience and memory management could be refined in several areas.

RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/29/2008 5:36:49 AM , Rating: 1
of your level of expertise.

You don't know my level of expertise. So because you don't like my opinion on a product (which by fact, is a memory & CPU hog) you feel the need to insult me?\

none of the extra features of vista really matter to you

What features are so earth shattering or not available for WindowsXP. The "eyecandy" is easy enough to add to XP without the resource requirements. A 500K program would give me a functional "Vista" Start menu (even transparent)in XP... which is one of the good neat features of Vista.

True, it's no excuse for sloppy code, but do you really know if the code is sloppy?

When a new OS/program comes out that does do anything severely different from a previous version yet requires 4x the CPU & memory resources - yes, its sloppy. Yeah, great $40 for another 2GB is cheap. But its stupid to require 4GB of RAM just to open a web-browser and word-processor at the same time. That is about the most the average person does. A $500 computer nowadays has 4GB of RAM. The only PCs with 2GB come with Vista BASIC and cost $400 with a monitor.

Vista, at its core - its XP/2000. When XP came out, the system requirements didn't change much from Windows2000. Vista is a fixable product... hopefully Windows7 will address those problems.

PS: Its rather stupid to see microsoft employees or vista panty wetters vote me down for voicing my views on a product. I'm not calling it a total POS or cursing.

RE: Unsurprising
By rdeegvainl on 7/29/2008 8:09:18 AM , Rating: 3
You don't know my level of expertise. So because you don't like my opinion on a product (which by fact, is a memory & CPU hog) you feel the need to insult me?\

You really need some reading comprehension. He said there was a point at which a users knowledge of computers would make UAC and annoyance and that you surpassed that point. Way to fly off the handle bud.

A 500K program would give me a functional "Vista" Start menu (even transparent)in XP... which is one of the good neat features of Vista.

That is part of the GUI to make it look better, which the person you replied to already covered. Yeah maybe you could find a program to make it look like vista, but guess what. The MAJORITY of computer users wouldn't know the first thing about that.

Yeah, great $40 for another 2GB is cheap. But its stupid to require 4GB of RAM just to open a web-browser and word-processor at the same time.

Wow, way to overstate requirements. If it took you 4GB Ram to open those at the same time, I'm gonna have to either call bull, or say it's the fault of whoever set that machine up.

A $500 computer nowadays has 4GB of RAM. The only PCs with 2GB come with Vista BASIC and cost $400 with a monitor.

Seriously you just negated any stance you had about the requirements being higher when you showed ENTRY level computers having more than enough power to run Vista smoothly. You would have to search for a computer that couldn't use Vista nowadays. Besides, OEM's are where Microsoft makes the most money. Do you really think they care if you don't upgrade your OS, when upgrades are such a tiny portion of the market? especially this far into the life cycle.

PS: Its rather stupid to see microsoft employees or vista panty wetters vote me down for voicing my views on a product. I'm not calling it a total POS or cursing.

wow complain some more. Your views are not popular here. Instead of complaining that people aren't being nice to you on the internet, and calling people names to either write them off or give yourself some feeling of superiority, get over it.

RE: Unsurprising
By theapparition on 7/29/2008 8:46:51 AM , Rating: 3
So because you don't like my opinion on a product (which by fact, is a memory & CPU hog) you feel the need to insult me?\

I read his original comment. It was a complement. he was trying to say the UAC was annoying for user who had advanced experience. So either you really get offended by compliments, or your so blinded rage, that you can't comprehend a simple sentence. My bet is the latter, and that is truely sad.

What features are so earth shattering or not available for WindowsXP.

DirectX 10 much in XP do ya? How about a completely re-written kernel that's a million times more secure? Guess those don't mean much to you.

A $500 computer nowadays has 4GB of RAM.

You make the argument that Vista requires tons of memory, then go on to say that memory is sooooo cheap, that even the lowest cost PC's come with plenty. Which is it?

If you don't like Vista, fine. I have no problem with that. But don't try and spin it that Vista is XP with higher memory requirements.

RE: Unsurprising
By Icelight on 7/29/2008 9:31:29 AM , Rating: 3
You don't know my level of expertise.

By claiming that "basic users" will require at least 4 - 8GB of memory for a Vista system I think I can get a pretty good idea of your level of "expertise".

RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/29/2008 2:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies if you took that comment as an insult. It was not meant as one.

There are several sections on wikipedia that outline several new/improved features to Vista:

Perhaps the features are not in your opinion, earth shattering, or perhaps they don't justify an increase in memory requirements, but the bottom line is that they do, for whatever reason. These reasons CAN be plentiful and are usually the result of constraints that are set down from product/technical marketing people during requirements gathering.

My point is that use of more memory, while it may be sub-optimal, doesn't necessarily equate to sloppy code. I'm also not saying that there is absolutely no sloppy code in there. With what I imagine is a large codebase, I'm sure there is sloppy code somewhere and it may be legacy code as well. But this will be the case with pretty much ANY large body of code with so many contributors.

You do make the qualification that you feel that the OS does not do anything severely different from a previous version. A think that the new/improved features list looks pretty long and could justify increase memory consumption. 4x consumption? Maybe? Maybe not? But without being there and knowing what decisions had to be made, you can only fault it so much.

Ultimately, I think part of the issue is that Microsoft is in the somewhat unenviable position of building a platform that needs to support almost every piece of third party hardware/software under the sun and the need to generalize the platform incurs overhead in all aspects of the code.

BTW I just did a search on newegg on desktops between $300-400 that come with Home Premium. There are 3 new (not recertified) machines that come with 2GB. On, there are another 2 that come with 2GB+ (one comes with 3GB). It's not uncommon to find a decent machine (2GB, dual core, home premium) for < $400. These all run Vista just fine. In addition, I don't think it's valid to assume the common system configurations these days (3GB+ RAM) nean that these are the minimum system requirements.

Again, I've used Vista and found no need to switch to it because to me, the added features don't justify the cost for an upgrade especially when XP is running just fine and Ubuntu is great. For an average person buying a new machine, I don't see anything wrong with it and I would actually argue that unless they had any special software/hardware requirements that bound them to XP, it would be a better decision to go with Vista.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 5:35:55 PM , Rating: 1
By and large I think your opinion of Vista is fine. After all it's your opinion.

Although I am going to take you to task on the sloppy code argument because there just isn't anything that Vista is doing that any other OS can't do with far less. I believe earlier you listed Ubuntu and Mac OS, both of these OS's can easily do what Vista does and more often times than not do it better with less resources.

From a evaluating software kind of perspective, hypothetically, if you reviewed 3 OS's they all offered more or less the same features but you had this one OS that required double the power as the other two, I would think a siren or something would go off within you to ask "why?"

RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/29/2008 6:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
I actually don't have very much opinion on Vista since I don't despise it nor have I adopted it. I guess overall my personal opinion is "meh".

In any case, I can see what you're saying about other OSes being able to accomplish *similar* things with less resources. But I do feel that these comparisons all need to be more closely scrutinized because...

1) It is difficult to make OS/minimum resource comparison since it's not truly apples:apples as the feature sets are different and the minimum resource comparison is even somewhat subjective. How can this be quantified?

2) The "less" resources numbers are showing up as 2x-4x. Where are these numbers coming from? Who makes this determination that the feeling I get from using XP with 1GB of RAM is about equivalent to the feel of Vista with 4GB of RAM? Or even Hardy with 2GB or MacOS with 4GB?

3) As for the sloppy code thing. I would still argue that increased memory consumption is not necessarily the result of sloppy code. It could be one of the contributing factors, but there are many other things that need to be considered. What were the requirements that were request and how were they prioritized?

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/30/2008 7:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
1) Not really, it's not really an apples and oranges type of thing. Remember we aren't in the server area where things are more stark in comparison on features, we are talking about client side.

2) Maybe in Mac OS, but in Linux they show up as quantifiable numbers, which I will get to in a sec.

3)That's just the point, to see that kind of increase in memory requirements Vista should be doing more, way more. I'm not even getting into "feeling" or smoothness" I'm going to get into applications.

OK I can't talk about Mac OS. I've got OS9 on the floor in an old iMac but I'm not about to use that.... Anyway here goes.

Ok on my Linux box here's what I have running.

PulseAudio + Alsa: Sound Server / HAL (Allows me to play music in one location and pump it throughout my home - also is standard with hardy)
MythTv Server / Backend : Controls my TV Cards which records and distributes movies throughout my home
MYSQL: My database server for my applications which require it.
Xorg: Foundation for Gnome / KDE / sets the groundwork for video/sound/USB/Harddrives, etc
Gnome: OS GUI Frontend + KDE Extensions for my rare KDE apps
Apache: Web Server allows me to test new ideas at home before rolling them out at work.
Java: Some of my web applications require it so it's always running.
Amarok: Music Program
Ktorrent: Torrent Program
Evolution: Mail Program)
AWN: 3d Toolbar
Cups: Print Server
Vino Server : RDP
Firefox: self explanatory
Compiz: Gives me those cool effects that completely blow Vista's away
Screenlets: Gives me Widgets
(This isn't even everything)

With all of this running my memory is at 741 MB, with no swap file. I've got 2 GB on this machine, which means I could basically double this configuration and still be running within memory without a swap file, or play a memory intensive game with all of this running and most likely still be within memory without a bump, skip, or hiccup.

This is what I'm talking about. A basic Vista install without anything running just the OS, maybe some extensions for IE / .Net framework services, you are looking at 1GB. If you open any application outside of IE you will be in swap file land quicker than you can say "Go". This is a problem.

RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/30/2008 2:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think we are talking about two different things here. The examples you bring up are more about the end-result which, arguably, is ultimately the most important number. You're basically saying "I have these features on Linux and a similar set of features on Vista requires much more memory". And I agree with you on this for the most part as it matches my experiences as well. I even mostly agree with the "to see that kind of increase in memory requirements Vista should be doing more, way more". But these are from external eyes who are looking at these things after the fact. If you talk to any developer who reviews existing code, they'll probably come up with ways that they would have done it better.

Saying that the engineers wrote sloppy code is a different problem, which may be related, but it is entirely different. It sounds like you're in software development so you should know what I mean. There are SO many factors that are considered when designing/implementing/releasing an actual product in the field. There a almost an infinite amount of design choices that an engineer or a team can make based on a set of requirements they are given. Perhaps these design choices are based on requirements that get cut close to completion. Perhaps the actual requirements are poorly written. The whole product can't be rewritten every single time these requirements change and thus you end up getting code, which may be extremely well written, that was designed for a larger set of features that never ended up making it into the product. This is just one of the many scenarios that occur.

I'm not necessarily saying this is the reason why Vista may be "bloated". I'm just saying that sloppy code is not the only factor that affects "bloat".

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/30/2008 7:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are making a distinction between sloppy and bloated. In this area I can agree with you. There is a difference. However, if we go with that distinction the problem then would fall on the project manager to find out what the reason could be for the machine specification increase.

If we go for the bloated distinction then someone stills has to figure out what kind of checks or subroutines are being run that would cause that kind of increase. What's going on?? It doesn't matter that we as end-users don't get to see the code in action when you have UNIX, LINUX, Mac OS, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 2003 Server, and on and on and on as a reference. Writing code to get a particular job done, once it's been done a thousand times over is the same no matter when you do it. Over time you either become more efficient or you don't.

Vista has done the opposite. You can make the case that the default install is working with more integrated services than any OS before it. That is totally possible, and highly likely, but at the end of the day time is money and so is memory. So the justification has to be made if you are buying two machines one requires more memory / CPU time and thusly more power to do the same work and the other doesn't. So the question for the CEO is the same that we are debating here .... What is Vista doing that another OS that costs less and requires less resources isn't doing that can directly benefit my business??

RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/30/2008 10:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
My main assertions were:

1) We can't assume it's sloppy code, though it may use more memory than is acceptable to some people. It sounds like you agree that part of the fault for this bloat falls on all aspects of the process (the people who gather/set/prioritize requirements, the project managers/leads, the testers, developers). At some point in the cycle, someone made the decision that the memory usage was acceptable for most of the consumers and decided to move forward with the the release.

2) Vista does not suck. Vista is fine for the average user who's buying a new machine and isn't bound to XP by either software or hardware requirements. Sure, the other options (Linux, MacOS) are fine, too.

Finally, your last question is a question that I asked myself and my personal answer was "nothing" and as a result, I chose not to "upgrade", but that doesn't mean that I'll tell everyone that Vista sucks or that they should wipe their Vista install and install something else. Every business/person will have a different answer.

P.S. I was just reading more about Vista memory management, the SuperFetch feature and it's impact on reported free memory. It's definitely something to consider if you are using TaskManager as a gauge of baseline memory consumption. It seems like you would need to disable this feature to actually get a good baseline. I'd actually be very interested to see where a comparison of where memory is going with it enabled/disabled. Unfortunately, I don't have a Vista system to try it out... :/ Anyone?

RE: Unsurprising
By elgoliath on 7/31/2008 4:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
My Vista Business install with multiple programs open (Firefox, IE, Groupwise, Virtual PC etc.), I am running at just over 600 megs. With my XP virtual PC running in the background nd a few admin programs running on the virtual PC and the aforementioned programs still open, it hits 1.1 GB over all.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 8/5/2008 4:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
What's the size of your swap?

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 5:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sheesh I was going to try and jump in there and help you out but you shot yourself in the foot. First what machine can you buy with monitor (since I really can't see the family not getting a new monitor with the machine) and 4GB of RAM that's $500? At that price it's a stripper or an E Machine.

Trust me if you don't want to be attacked don't exaggerate and make sure you actually check your facts before posting. Even if you get attacked at least you won't look bad.

RE: Unsurprising
By OCedHrt on 7/28/2008 6:24:40 PM , Rating: 3
Most of those UAC popups have been removed since SP1.

But it is true that it is very annoying to have to click on multiple UACs per action, and some of those situations still exist.

But the checkbox that says "remember this action/program" is just as bad is disabling UAC. Because once you accept an action, it can be exploited.

Additionally, the average user does NOT go into Hardware Device manager, Control Panel, have more than 1 drive or even move files. They live within My Documents and that is their universe.

UAC is a pain for the average geek, and when they get infected, they wish they never turned it off in the first place.

RE: Unsurprising
By johnsonx on 7/28/2008 7:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Most of those UAC popups have been removed since SP1

True that. I haven't seen nearly so many since SP1. I didn't turn UAC off because I advise my customers to leave it on; if I'm helping them on the phone I like to know where they're going to see UAC prompts.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/28/2008 7:54:00 PM , Rating: 5
I've seen a reponse someone on Dailytech saying "the UAC only shows up because software developer didn't make their program right and Vista is protecting the end-user" -er, uh no. Because UAC pops up with the most basic computer functions such as :

I made the comment about UAC, and I'm going to call you on it.

1) Yep, hardware device manager is a SYSTEM TOOL and therefore requires you to accept a UAC prompt. Why? Because you can uninstall/disable/change drivers. I can see several avenues to screw with an unsuspecting user in there.

2) Wrong on both counts. I can copy, paste, rename, delete, restore files and shortcuts to those locations without any prompt other than "Are you sure you want to delete this?".

3) Wrong here, unless your trying to copy a file or folder in a SYSTEM directory, in which case you had better get a UAC prompt. Nice try though.

4) Yes, opening something like WINDOWS FIREWALL will generate a UAC prompt, imagine that? The panel that procects your computer will want a UAC authorization before it will let someone in. What a concept there....

It gets old very quickly and killing the UAC is the easist way to make vista USABLE.

Short of opening a sytem tool or other panel that most users don't regularly open, UAC will likely only trigger on an Autorun from an older piece of software, or if you try to install a piece of software that does not adhere to the rules and requires writing to places it probably shouldn't (System32, etc..)

There is a simple solution to this (And MacOS has its own "UAC" like tool), its called a check-box. A checkbox that says "remember this action/program" - OMG, that is SOOOO hard!

Kind of defeats the purpose of UAC if you can make it remember your action and away it goes. Then any EXE per se would run without a prompt, yea thats fun when a virus comes through.

Stupid stuff like this is why vista sucks. Its a thrown together skin-job loaded with DRM and bad memory management. Explain how we go from a 512/1GB OS to a 4-8GB OS for basic users?

Hrm, we have a few hundred laptops at work running on 2GB of ram, with our bloated corporate image on it and its more responsive than our XP image. Mainly due to the fact that 1 system process won't cause the rest to sit and wait for the first one to finish. As for memory management, Vista is far better than XP could ever hope to be. XP was a joke in regards to memory management, especially giving memory back when it was done with it. Not sure where you pulled the DRM argument from though. I have heard DRM and Vista thrown together a few times, but have yet to find anyone that can prove to me that there is any more DRM in Vista than there was in XP. Your welcome to give specific examples that can be independently verified though.

I can prove that the BASE Vista computer is 4GB now because you can WALK INTO BEST BUY and buy a 4GB PC for $500~550! 2GB is the new 256mb! 3GB is new 1GB.

Hrm, perhaps because DDR2 prices are so low that it makes sense from a marketing standpoint at these big box stores to say hey you get twice as much memory for your computing needs. It's not like its costing you anything over a 2GB system. Not to mention that most Vista installs are 32-Bit so you would be wasting about 800MB from each system anyways.

This is NOT impressive... to more sloppy code and DRM control of a persons computer. And if Windows7 is more of the same - then why bother with that OS as well?

No real details have been given yet your already criticizing and trashing it. I'm still waiting on your examples of DRM control of a persons computer though.

RE: Unsurprising
By GreenEnvt on 7/28/2008 8:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the sensible post.
I'm certainly not a vista fanboy, i won't put it on our work machines yet (mostly 512mb of ram), but I do use it at home and it's fine.

I agree on the ram point too. Ram is so cheap that manufacturers are loading it in to be seen as offering extra value.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/28/2008 9:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I wouldn't stick even XP on a 512mb machine. We set it at 1GB minimum during the XP rollout, and moved it to 2GB shortly thereafter. This was mostly due to the fact that the extra 1GB could be had for almost nothing, so it made sense to make them all 2GB.

RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 7/28/2008 10:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%. I have a partition open for Windows XP. I had it there because I was unsure when I installed Vista64 ultimate and figured if I ever needed it I had a image that I could install quickly..

But so far all the stuff I've heard about vista is BS and its a great OS. I've only had moderate problems with a very small number of programs, Gears of War, and Nvidia's Profile manager( I have to dissable UAC make the changes then reenable it).

So 2 problems, and other then that 99% gravy. Oh and the fact that it can handle the 4 gigs of ram I have is great, you'll never get XP 32 to use more then 2 gigs properly.

Its more stable, and a better OS then XP so far, with a small penalty in gaming performence. However It seems that has went away to.

RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 3:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
I have Vista Home Premium on my laptop. Disabled themes, cause a crap onboard vidcard and 1 gig of memory just doesn't work to well with Aero. It'll run Aero, just that anything I do on the laptop would double in time.

Disabled UAC also. I hated it prompting me whenever I deleted items out of my start menu. Course I only delete items out when I first install the system and programs. After that don't do it anymore, but had no real reason to bother turning UAC back on.

With themes, UAC, and Windows firewall off, it works no different than my XP box.

RE: Unsurprising
By Iger on 7/29/2008 3:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
With themes, UAC, and Windows firewall off, it works no different than my XP box.

Kind of defeats the purpose of upgrading, eh? :)

RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 5:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, as Vista still has many improvements over XP.

I really don't see much need in upgrading to Vista. If you're on XP, might as well stay on it. If your new machine came with Vista, no need to go back to XP.

I'd still be on Win2k, if it weren't for the few games (mostly Microsoft games) requiring XP or higher. Higher performance computer make up for the lack of improvements, even though being on the new OS's will make that performance increase more.

RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/29/2008 6:09:51 AM , Rating: 2
You're an end-user... so you're not having the problems that those in IT or business have with Vista. Sp1 has fixed many reliability problems with Vista. But it's still a skin-job. Come-on, even Intel isn't wasting their time with Vista... and I think they can afford to add a few sticks of RAM per computer.

The BS about Vista are true. I've talk with IT and others in the tech and business field refuse to bother with Vista.

Trust me... When I upgraded my computer, I would have prefered to install the newest OS. But I saved about $50 on memory and have a solid running system.

So 2 problems, and other then that 99% gravy. Oh and the fact that it can handle the 4 gigs of ram I have is great, you'll never get XP 32 to use more then 2 gigs properly.

Yeah, but unlike Vista - over 95% XP users don't need more than 2GB of RAM! Those few workstations and servers are using XP64 or Server2003. Vista needs 4GB for basic operations and that is sad.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 8:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
You're an end-user... so you're not having the problems that those in IT or business have with Vista.

I haven't come across any show stopping problems to prevent the rollout of Vista at my company. I've already rolled out several hundred Vista based systems, with more on the way as hardware is refreshed.

Sp1 has fixed many reliability problems with Vista.

Compatibility problems yes. Reliability was never a problem with Vista.

But it's still a skin-job.

Only if your looking at the cosmetic changes and not the real changes. A prime example of nice changes would be IE7 Protected Mode, Firewall (Outbound and Inbound control settings), Group Policy, and more....

Come-on, even Intel isn't wasting their time with Vista... and I think they can afford to add a few sticks of RAM per computer.

I see the FUD is strong with you. Intel has stated they have no current plan to upgrade to Vista right now, which is normal, most companies I know are still removing 2000 from their environment (Intel included). Vista rollouts won't start until they are gone. No sysadmin wants to deal with the headache of 3 MS operating systems in the environment at the same time.

Trust me... When I upgraded my computer, I would have prefered to install the newest OS. But I saved about $50 on memory and have a solid running system.

For $50 you could have had a better solid running system, your loss.

Yeah, but unlike Vista - over 95% XP users don't need more than 2GB of RAM!

2GB is the standard minimum for XP with modern games and applications. Running it on less will produce performance problems in several areas.

Those few workstations and servers are using XP64 or Server2003.

If your server is using anything less than 2GB of ram you need to be shot, infact shot twice. Most people with workstations are using XP-32, or Vista-64. Few people are bold enough to try XP-64 as it was quite unstable the last time I saw it in action, vendor support was also pretty miserable.

Vista needs 4GB for basic operations and that is sad.

No it doesn't. I have 4GB in my home desktop and it barely makes it past 2GB of memory range when I'm running 2 games and visual studio 2008 (Dual 24" Monitors). To think the average user would be stupid enough to try that is wrong. With just 1 game running, and the standard suite of background applications and services, you will still have memory to spare.

RE: Unsurprising
By DASQ on 7/29/2008 10:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
Removing 2000 from their systems? Until about a year ago the company I was with still had some monochrome greenscreens!

It was probably a Tandy. And was likely older than I was.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 10:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
Hah, this one takes the cake. Last year I got a call from the VP that oversees our records division, they were referred to me for a "less than standard fix" for a "completely bizzare problem" they were faced with. Turns out they had old 5 1/4" Floppy disks stored in file folders from the late 80's and early 90's. They wanted me to rig up a system to read them, and software that could interpret them. It was saved in Lotus 1-2-3. We pieced together a semi-modern system using parts from an old Compaq Desktop and an IBM Telex box. My jaw almost dropped when they told me what the problem was.

RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/31/2008 6:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
For $50 you could have had a better solid running system, your loss.

How is it my loss? I don't have crashes, I don't need to reboot. I my start up fast, shuts down in about 10seconds. All my apps work FINE. I don't have some many hidden folders and don't have a nagging system.

All games work, all software work. Er, okay Halo2 doesn't work with XP native, but thats a crappy game anyway.

RE: Unsurprising
By GreenEnvt on 7/29/2008 8:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
As a network admin, I'd love to roll Vista out to my office. Combined with all the new group policy upgrades to server 2008, it would make my job easier.

However, as I said above, we still have half the office with 512MB machines. We also have some oracle programs that don't like Vista at all.

Vista is reliable, and given 2gigs of ram or more it is every bit as quick as XP. For business, where people use the same programs over and over, superfetch will be good too.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 10:52:14 AM , Rating: 3
As a network admin, I'd love to roll Vista out to my office. Combined with all the new group policy upgrades to server 2008, it would make my job easier.

Yea, group policy improvements, and the ability to save off settings from panels like Windows Firewall, and distribute them via GPC to the domain is handy. We were drooling over the ability to flip off Removeable storage devices via domain policy.

RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/31/2008 6:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Er... okay.

ThinkPad T61 with Core2Dup 2.4Ghz / 2GB of 667Mhz memory / 7200 RPM 100GB HD. Vista with SP1, no junkware. Then XP with SP2, no junkware - but fully loaded with Office, Acrobat, Firewall, AntiVirus, etc.

Boot up:
Vista = 1m 40s
XP = 1m 10s

Vista = 1m 05s
XP = 0m 20s

Unpack a 450mb ZIP file:
Vista = 1m 20s
XP = 0m 42s

Processess running on bootup: Vista = 92, XP = 45

RE: Unsurprising
By JKflipflop98 on 7/31/2008 8:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Um, if you didn't just pull those numbers straight from your ass - which you probably did - then you're setting something up wrong.

There's no way it takes 1m 20s to unpack a 450mb zip file.

RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 8:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
Point is, you said it was a failure of software programmers not doing correct code. Not the UAC being a PC cop.

It is both depending on which prompt you get. If your getting the yellow UAC popup, thats bad programming. If your getting the regular grey one, that's PC cop. Understand the difference.

So what? Its not right there on the desktop. And if you were to REMOVE a piece of hardware - it XP/Vista would only re-detect it.

I can make the same argument for Regedit, but I think you will see that Regedit can cause some significant damage as well.

Er... why should that require a UAC to stick its nose in the air to move a jpg file? Not everyone lives in the "MY DOCUMENTS" folder. So to resolve this issue, Disable one of the most important features of Vista turns your PC into XP, again.

You failed to provide specifics, just generalizations. Come now, if you are legitimately correct, and can produce a UAC popup give specific details that can be verified.

Wrong-O. New notebook computer, Vista SP1 installed. Wanted to copy some JPG files from one folder to the next. UAC UAC

And which directory path was this in, the ROOT by chance? You failed to provide the exact path your attempting to copy something into, and as such have no evidence to support your claim.

Oh come on! I didn't say any such thing and YOU KNOW better than that. Even XP has a POP up with certain programs like Space Monger that'll ask for permission to run. And guess what - it has a CHECK BOX to remember that program.

That is between you and the development team that produced Space Monger. UAC is between you and Microsoft. There is a difference.

So yeah, since when has renaming a desktop item been a OMG security threat? If something so simple as that is a danger - then you shouldn't even be using a computer.

Never. I challenge any Vista user in here to attempt to rename a desktop icon/file. You will recieve no UAC popup. If you want to make an argument about UAC, atleast come up with some legitimate complaints.

RE: Unsurprising
By GreenEnvt on 7/29/2008 9:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
About renaming desktop icons, you are both right.
If the shortcut is to somewhere in program files, it will prompt you. If it's to most other places it won't. items saved right on the desktop (not shortcuts) do not prompt.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/29/2008 11:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
Are you using SP1 or no SP? I was unable to reproduce the UAC prompt on the desktop using Vista Enterprise-32 SP1. I was however able to get UAC to prompt me when renaming an entry in the start menu that was added by an application installer(EasyBCD). I'm not sure why some do and some don't behave like this though. I noticed the Windows WAIK entry in the start menu can be changed (folder or file name) and it doesn't trigger a UAC prompt at all. EasyBCD from NeoSmart does however. Both reside in the Program Files folder.

RE: Unsurprising
By GreenEnvt on 7/30/2008 7:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
In on Vista Ult 64, Sp1.

Doing some testing, some icons on the desktop have my user listed as having full rights to the shortcut. These do not cause a UAC prompt. Some have only "special permissions" checked for my name. They also have an "interactive" user listed, which has read, and read/excecute allowed.
Those ones do trigger a UAC prompt.

This is most likely caused by the programs installer during install. Doing a quick check, it looks like programs installed for "All users", will cause the UAC prompt. Programs installed just for "me", do not.

This makes sense, because modifying those icons will modify them for other users.

RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi on 7/31/2008 11:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
Good point, thats probably dead on. I hadn't considered them being linked to all users but it makes perfect sense. Well done.

RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/31/2008 6:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, I'm sold. Vista is the gold standard of operating systems.

Those people with Aircards and vista are not having problems.

In the end soon, it doesn't matter. People will only have vista as their PC option.

RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/30/2008 9:05:18 AM , Rating: 2
DRM differences between Vista and XP are minor except one nightmare that really isn't even active right now and that's HDCP. It's not suppose to be active until 2010. So most people will not stumble onto it until then. Basically HDCP works like this every component within playing back HD content is suppose to be HDCP ready. If it is not quality in the output will be reduced. As of right now only Blue Ray videos activate this stuff.

RE: Unsurprising
By jvillaro on 7/28/2008 10:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Stupid stuff like this is why vista sucks. Its a thrown together skin-job loaded with DRM and bad memory management. Explain how we go from a 512/1GB OS to a 4-8GB OS for basic users?
I can prove that the BASE Vista computer is 4GB now because you can WALK INTO BEST BUY and buy a 4GB PC for $500~550! 2GB is the new 256mb! 3GB is new 1GB.

Are you kidding me? Bad memory management? Yes Vista does require more RAM, but does that mean It does bad management? NO... Never in my dear life could I switch in XP from programing in Visual Studio to a game like Gears of War for a while and then return to Visual to keep working. In XP I would have to reboot to work normally.

4-8gb for a base user? Damn that base user must be launching a rocket to space! Thats another example of bad mouthing, Vistas sweet spot for base users is 2gb. Of course for me a base user is somebody who uses Office, web browsing, emailing, casual gaming, watches some movies etc.

Dude I USE vista 64bit with 4gb and as I commented before, I use my laptop as my main computer for work with Visual Studio 2008, for gaming and everything else. No problem here.

You can prove the base computer for vista has 4gb??? If you use 32bit vista you can't "use" 4gb. You need 64bit for that and above. RAM is dirt cheap now a days (thats not an excuse to make high requirements of RAM) but thats why you can see some much RAM in pc's in bestbuy.

AND IF YOU GET SO MUCH RAM FOR YOUR MONEY WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING? Are you going to complain that CPU's nowadays are too fast?

RE: Unsurprising
By foolsgambit11 on 7/29/2008 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
And so here is the choices of the user: (A) Live with it and get used to clicking YES, no matter what it says - which defeats the purpose or (B) Disable UAC which defeats the purpose of a "more secure" OS...

Actually, I've gone with option (C), I know what that little bell means, and I don't have to read the warning prompt, it just reminds me that I could do damage to my computer, and to weigh the risks and benefits. If I'm installing something from a trusted source, it's a simple click. If it's some web site that said it was going to show me naked pictures of Lindsay Lohan, but I suddenly get the UAC, I know I'm not getting any pics from this fraud.

I will admit that it can be a little annoying when it pops up when I'm copying things to the Program Files folder, or going into Device Manager. But how often do I need to go into Device Manager? For 95% of computer users, the answer will be less than once a year. I'll admit, I had to open Device Manager to try it out, and was surprised that it was identical to XP in layout and function. Because in more than a year with Vista, I've never had to manually install a driver, or troubleshoot a piece of hardware.

Renaming files on the desktop or the start menu does not trigger a single prompt on my computer. Nor do moving or copying files between non-system folders (even on different drives). But it could be because I'm on an admin account (I know, bad boy!)

Also, it's deceptive to put going into the Device Manager and opening certain Control Panel items as two separate items on your list, since the Device Manager is a Control Panel item.

So your list of times the UAC pops up (excluding installing and uninstalling programs) has been reduced from four to one. That one is, "Opening certain Control Panel items."

Aaaah! Run for the hills! The next time I want to change drivers for my video card, Windows will double check that I know what I'm doing. Compared to... say... dealing with one mouse button on a Mac, the time savings go to Vista, in my book. Yes, XP is even faster, but just think how fast Windows 3.11 would run on a Core 2!

RE: Unsurprising
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 5:08:41 PM , Rating: 1
Great Man Show reference. :)

One of the better moments of the Man Show.

RE: Unsurprising
By Teancum on 7/28/2008 6:05:46 PM , Rating: 5
Penn & Teller did an episode of Bull$h!t about Environmentalists and sent a girl to a rally in Washington DC and got a bunch of people including the coordinator of the rally to sign a petition to ban Di-hydrogen monoxide(H2O)saying how evil corporations used Di-hydrogen monoxide to make pesticides and chemicals etc etc. Person after person signed the petition on camera. Such idiocy.

Signing a petition to Ban Water.

RE: Unsurprising
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 6:23:49 PM , Rating: 1

That's great.

RE: Unsurprising
By mixpix on 7/28/2008 9:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
I loved that episode!

RE: Unsurprising
By Fusible on 7/28/2008 6:38:19 PM , Rating: 3
by masher2 on July 28, 2008 at 4:34 PM Show 100 people anything you call "new and revolutionary" and 90% of them will say they love it. Show 100 random people a petition and at least half will sign it, even if its a request to remove womens suffrage or something equally silly.
LOL I heard that on Howard Stern the other day about women signing the petition to remove womens suffrage, I was at first before they played people can't really be that stupid. But I guess some people are, funniest part is that they had some women chanting this after they signed until one woman showed up telling these women are you guys stupid don't you know what you just signed. All of these women were in shock in what they just experienced and were pissed off. LOL...some people are so gullible.

RE: Unsurprising
By eye smite on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Unsurprising
By tdawg on 7/28/2008 9:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
What?! It's the same as a Pepsi vs. Coke blind taste test. Is that unethical?! What exactly is unethical about Microsoft's experiment?

RE: Unsurprising
By ImSpartacus on 7/28/2008 8:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Women's suffrage! I wouldn't want anything to do with women suffering!

RE: Unsurprising
By Anonymous Freak on 7/28/2008 10:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Show 100 random people a petition and at least half will sign it, even if its a request to remove womens suffrage or something equally silly.

heh. As long as the subject of the petition for a ballot initiative is legitimate, I'll sign it, even if I completely disagree with what it is trying to do. The way I see it, if it's important enough, it deserves a vote of the people.

Obviously, if it was something obviously meant as bogus, like removing women's suffrage, I wouldn't sign. But for something like gay marriage (either banning or legalizing,) I'll sign it. Yes, I have a personal opinion hoping that one way wins, but I'd sign both petitions.

(Although I wonder what they would do if two initiatives, with diametrically opposed, and self-canceling, goals both passed?)

RE: Unsurprising
By Calin on 7/29/2008 2:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
"positive feedback of the 10 minute demo of the system"

Yes, I remember a site reviewing and evaluating the first hour of video games. Let's say that there are a many good games (good as in industry-leading sale numbers) with terrible reviews and grades:

RE: Unsurprising
By anonymo on 7/29/2008 7:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad these were in now way random people.

RE: Unsurprising
By Steve Guilliot on 7/29/2008 2:53:56 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, and that's entirely the point. The same sloppiness that the group showed in rushing to praise Mohave can be attributed to their criticism of Vista.

Also, as someone else noted, this group was not random. They should have known better, but didn't.

RE: Unsurprising
By foolsgambit11 on 7/29/2008 3:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."

- Homer Simpson

RE: Unsurprising
By jay401 on 7/30/2008 12:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, such desperation by Microsoft just lends credence to the weakness of Vista's uptake.

RE: Unsurprising
By Quiescent on 8/1/2008 8:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly wouldn't be tricked into believing something that is old is new and innovative.

If they did this to me, I would check everything out. I do this anyway. I would go to msconfig, dxdiag, My Computer, Control Panel, download CPUZ, install CPUZ, check out the new features, open Task manager, see what is taking up how much RAM, how much CPU.

See, by me doing all of this, I wouldn't be fooled. I would then say: "Are you kidding me? This looks like the same sh** that Vista is made out of."

One of the things I will say about Vista is that SURE it has GREAT memory management, but this doesn't matter when things like Aero are taking up so much RAM and CPU load that could be used for more useful things like ReFX Nexus VSTi plugins in Fruity Loops Studio. I use Royale Noir for my EeePC's skinning and Windowsblinds skinning for my desktop.

I haven't intimately used Vista since last year, but my use of it for a little bit on computers I had to fix have left me frustrated. Of course I will admit it is because I was under pressure to fix a computer with an OS that I don't wish to associate with and do not use on any of my computers (Why make my EeePC suffer?!) but that wasn't the only issue. I found it very slow even after a fresh install on a quad core with 4GB of RAM. I'm slightly sensitive to slowness on a computer, so I know when something is going slow, and this was the slowness that I experienced with a 400mhz PII with 384mb of RAM, 32mb VRAM videocard, and 20GB of space with Windows 98 SE on it. And I mean SLOOOOOW. But then when you pull up Task Manager, you soon realize why. Things are taking up CPU load that shouldn't be actively doing so, and they are also taking up more RAM than they should!

To be honest, I feel sorry for the poor idiots who were tricked into this. I don't remember the name of Windows 7, but I do remember it wasn't "mojave". I bet most of these idiots were people who switched to Apple products, because they are too brainwashed to learn how to use Windows (Which is as easy, if not, more easier, to use as OS/X)

RE: Unsurprising
By z3R0C00L on 8/4/2008 6:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Vista is great. I love it. I use it, and I cry when I have to go back to XP.

It runs very well, no issues. In fact the main game I play (Age of Conan) runs much better on Vista Ultimate x64 than any other O/S.

It's just a solid O/S. The best O/S I have ever used.

By mendocinosummit on 7/28/2008 4:31:01 PM , Rating: 5
My 80 year old grandma who has windows 2000 still was telling me that she was going to get a new computer and that she was going to get XP on it. I said why are you going to pay the same price for an obsolete OS? Her answer was that all her friends from the bank who talk to the all knowing IT guys for the bank say that Vista is junk. Just thought that was relative.

RE: Grandma
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 4:41:55 PM , Rating: 5
Every time I hear someone say "Oh Vista is worthless" I ask "have you ever used it?", and the answer I always get is "Well uhh.. no, but my [INSERT RELATIONSHIP]'s [INSERT SECONDARY RELATIONSHIP] told me that Vista was too [VERB] and is [NOUN]."

RE: Grandma
By adiposity on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By DASQ on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By twhittet on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By SlyNine on 7/29/2008 12:06:16 AM , Rating: 3
Problem is "everyone" doesnt say vista is crap. Plus, if its not your hardware, then its your drivers. Bad drivers can make any OS crash, however I have had no problems with mine.

I have a LAN/WAN setup here on my property, yet no problems. In fact this vista system is by far the most responsive i've ever seen when connecting to across a network.

I wasnt sure at first, but now I'm going to build all computers ( I build and sell) with Vista. Vista 64bit Ultimate is rock solid, fast, and ALOT more secure.

RE: Grandma
By Hakuryu on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 5:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
You would only buy Ultimate? What do you feel you actually NEED in Ultimate?

I agree that XP works perfectly fine. But I disagree when people say there is no reason to go with Vista. Honestly, if someone were to reinstall XP Pro on my home machine and reinstall all my apps/games, I wouldn't really care.

RE: Grandma
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 5:07:21 PM , Rating: 3
I'm quite happy with Vista Business x64. The built in backup tool is quite nice. Its $20 more than XP Pro.

My parents have been using computers since they were only in universities. Doesn't mean they know jack sh*t.

Building a PC for Vista on a budget is just as cheap as building one for XP. A dual core processor can be had for $50. 2GB of RAM can be had for under $50. A decent motherboard with integrated graphics can be had for $60-70. A nice case with quality power supply can be had for < $100. A DVD burner can be had for $25.

I wouldn't put any less than that on an XP computer today either.

RE: Grandma
By cubby1223 on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By DASQ on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By Ksyder on 7/28/2008 6:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
What is the problem with cleartype? I've been very happy with it no matter whether its on a LCD or a CRT.

RE: Grandma
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 7:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
It makes the text all fuzzy. I like my text clear and sharp.

RE: Grandma
By sld on 7/29/2008 1:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
Erm, Cleartype makes fonts fuzzy on CRTs and ultra-sharp on LCDs. Do you use a CRT?

RE: Grandma
By DASQ on 7/29/2008 3:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, I haven't used a CRT in about 6 years.

And no, ClearType does NOT make text sharper on LCD's unless you're at non-native resolution (which is blurry as hell anyway). I just tested ClearType again, XP Pro, 17" LCD, and yes, ClearType is still fuzzing up the lettering. I can show you a zoomed picture side by side comparison of cleartype vs. standard, if you like.

RE: Grandma
By akugami on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Grandma
By SeeManRun on 7/28/2008 6:20:39 PM , Rating: 1
That is a good point. Yet people use that point to direct people towards OS X, where everything is much different than between XP and Vista.


RE: Grandma
By afkrotch on 7/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Grandma
By larson0699 on 7/28/2008 6:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
told me that Vista was too
and is

Use adjectives instead.

RE: Grandma
By TSS on 7/28/2008 7:13:46 PM , Rating: 5
same shit different day.

it's not like this all hasn't happened before. i mean, i remember all the times in the past decade when we had a killer OS and a sucky one. let me just name the best (not counting '95 as i skipped that one :P):

windows 3.*11*
windows 98 *Second edition*
windows 2000 service pack *4*
windows XP *SP2*

starting to see an connection here? it's not like i'm not guily of it myself. i remember when XP came out and my mother wanted to buy a new pc. i told her specifically "XP sucks big time. you'll want windows 2000. XP eats up way more resources, who needs the new fancy interface anyway and it's loaded with bugs". i still stand by that statement for XP pre-SP1. but i'd reccomend XP SP2 (3 even now) any day.

it's the same with every windows. the release sucks, SP1 makes it an acceptable OS to work with and SP2 makes it worth upgrading to. when windows 7 comes out, everybody will hate it and love vista, not xp.

RE: Grandma
By jconan on 7/29/2008 12:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
if Microsoft can convince everyone that Windows 7 is like Windows 95 back then when droves moved from Windows 3.1/DOS to Windows 95... The success of Windows 7 will depend on the PR and hype if it's any good. 1 of the rumors of Vista other then hefty requirements is the DRM requirement that broke the OS. Can't watch DRM videos in high def on a non HDCP compliant monitor on Vista, hmmm that doesn't sound good but you definitely can on XP?

RE: Grandma
By piroroadkill on 7/29/2008 1:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, I used Windows XP 2 weeks before it was released and never went back to anything else. Maybe you didn't have enough RAM, or something

RE: Grandma
By Locutus465 on 7/28/2008 5:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I think this is a great idea... My vista complaints for the most part aren't all that huge, the OS works very well... I'd rate it very highly, way better than XP IMHO.

RE: Grandma
By silversound on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 6:02:40 PM , Rating: 3
How long have you used it? Or are you another loser who hates Microsoft?

And it was reviewed. The biggest complaints were drivers (not Microsoft's fault or responsibility) and a lack of software written for Vista (duh). Vista has shown itself to be better than XP in security which was one of the main goals. It's usability is the same. It crashes less and recovers from errors better. I've had Vista mess up twice, both due to Nvidia's shitty drivers.

RE: Grandma
By AlexWade on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Grandma
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 6:04:42 PM , Rating: 3
My parents PC has an X2, 2GB of RAM, integrated video, and a regular 500GB hard drive. No problems with Vista. Whole system was under $500. And its not like I "tweaked" it either. It's running Aero as well.

RE: Grandma
By fibreoptik on 8/4/2008 2:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
good for you.

I'm putting my copy of Vista on Ebay. Happy bidding!

RE: Grandma
By sprockkets on 7/28/2008 6:31:28 PM , Rating: 4
My Shuttle SG31G2S can boot Vista up FASTER than it can XP. It took 26 seconds for XP, but only 24 for Vista. And XP was on the beginning part of the hard drive.

Dude, I stuck a simple $70 2ghz Pentium Dual Core CPU and one stick of 2GB of RAM. XP is on SP3 and Vista on SP1.
Nothing special either. No added in video card. Typical drivers. And XP needed extra drivers for sound and Ethernet while Vista didn't.

I'm only using 1GB of the 2GB of RAM too. Guess who is taking up the most memory right now? Firefox, at 128MB.

Bottom line: You build yourself a new computer, build it with Vista. Have older stuff? Stick with XP.

Sorry, used to hate Vista. Now XP sucks balls and is for EEE pcs.

RE: Grandma
By hcahwk19 on 7/28/2008 6:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to have the latest hardware to run Vista. I have an Athlon64 3000+ Venice (S754), 2GB of DDR400, a Geforce 6800GS, and various 2 year or so old hardware, and Vista runs very well. I have been using it about 5 months now and I am liking it more every day. Granted, for several older games, XP runs better, but for the vast majority of software, Vista is better.

RE: Grandma
By nitrous9200 on 7/28/2008 11:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
You don't even need that much - last weekend I installed Vista on my 5-year old 700MHz Athlon desktop w/ 384MB RAM, GF4 Ti4200 and slow (and dying, which I know thanks to Vista's built in diagnostics!) 20GB 5400RPM Maxtor. It certainly doesn't fly, but it's very useable. And everything except the sound and network card had drivers built in; XP drivers worked perfectly with those devices. I even installed it on my 7 year old Compaq Evo N600c laptop that shipped with Windows 2000 - 1.06GHz Pentium III-M, 256MB (!) RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon (the first one!) and slow old 4200RPM HD. Guess what? Once it boots up, it runs fine. Found drivers for everything as well. More RAM would certainly help it. Moral of the story - you don't really need a high end computer to run Vista, and the more RAM, the better!
PS. UAC won't interfere with a normal person's computer usage. I do think it's a little obsessive having a prompt to change the time, but really only behind-the-scenes tasks have prompts.

RE: Grandma
By polaromonas on 7/30/2008 2:27:10 AM , Rating: 1
No, you're wrong!
My laptop has only 1.8GHz Turion, 1.2GB 333MHz ram, radeon IGP x200 with shard 64MB vram and 4200rpm 80GB harddrive and I can say I love my vista business machine. XP is faster at boot up and shut down but other than that there's nothing different. Plus vista has more stability and security than xp does, my system has never crashed for so long since I switched to vista with this old rig.

Negative headline?
By meewok on 7/28/2008 5:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
Rhetorical question:

Why is it that of all the articles I've already read about this since last week, this is pretty much the only one where the headline has a editorially negative tone?

RE: Negative headline?
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 5:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
I never noticed the tone before you mentioned it, but when you did I automatically knew who the author was.

RE: Negative headline?
By SavagePotato on 7/28/2008 7:13:49 PM , Rating: 5
Ill give you a few clues.

J a s

ok got it yet? heres a few more

o n M

Still not getting it?

i c k

How bout now?

RE: Negative headline?
By jonmcc33 on 7/28/2008 7:23:53 PM , Rating: 4
Oh no! Microsoft play trick on Windows XP, Linux and Mac fanatics! That make Mick angry! Mick smash Microsoft!

RE: Negative headline?
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 4:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's right. Why should writers actually have an opinion in their blogs? That's just down-right terrible. Why is it that whenever Mick writes an article, you have to say negative things about it?

RE: Negative headline?
By jonmcc33 on 7/29/2008 7:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe because nobody likes a "Negative Nancy". I'm honestly so sick of his blogs here that I don't even read them. I just see the subject line and know that he's full of FUD about Microsoft.

A blog about Microsoft doing the Mojave experiment could have been very positive. It's good that so many Windows XP, Linux and Mac users finally see the positive of Vista instead of all the FUD about it.

Face it, Jason Mick is probably the most disliked person on the internet right now.

RE: Negative headline?
By rdeegvainl on 7/29/2008 8:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't even read them.

A blog about Microsoft doing the Mojave experiment could have been very positive.

Since you don't read them how do you know it wasn't?

RE: Negative headline?
By jonmcc33 on 7/29/2008 11:18:06 AM , Rating: 2
It was from Jason Mick. It's a given to be negative about Microsoft.

RE: Negative headline?
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 9:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said in some other posts - I'm 100% certain that Mojave was Windows Ultimate paired up with competent hardware, rather than Windows Basic paired up with par performing hardware.

The bad press over Vista is well deserved. Not because Vista sucks, but because Vista Basic basically sucks. It's kind of like getting trial software. (If you don't like the underperforming version, just pay $150 more for something that's worth using!) Unfortunately, for MS, most people get upset by that crap. I think they really shot themselves in the foot because of Basic.

RE: Negative headline?
By jonmcc33 on 7/29/2008 11:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said in some other posts - I'm 100% certain that Mojave was Windows Ultimate paired up with competent hardware, rather than Windows Basic paired up with par performing hardware.

It was on a HP Pavilion DV2500 with 2GB RAM, 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo and Vista Ultimate. Nothing special or expensive. You can get one far cheaper than any Apple MacBook.

The bad press over Vista is well deserved. Not because Vista sucks, but because Vista Basic basically sucks. It's kind of like getting trial software. (If you don't like the underperforming version, just pay $150 more for something that's worth using!) Unfortunately, for MS, most people get upset by that crap. I think they really shot themselves in the foot because of Basic.

Hopefully you can research and see which version is best for you:

Not sure what you mean by $150 more as Home Premium has nearly everything you need and is only $30 more MSRP. But, thanks for trying to spread the FUD!

RE: Negative headline?
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 10:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
I regret getting premium. There's a lot more in ultimate than what those stupid charts suggest. Those charts are what I called misleading. It's very superficial and it doesn't give you a good idea of what level of control you get over your file system. When I tried to contact MS to get information, they referred me to S. Korea's office, which never replied to any of my information requests, probably because they were in English.

In any case, you proved my point. Those were competent laptops fed Vista Ultimate. If those had been running just the minimum hardware with Vista Basic, I can't help but think that the results would've been different. What Apple should do now is take their minimal configuration and pair it up with MS's minimal configuration to see which one is better. I'm willing to bet that Apple would walk away laughing while the Vistas were chucked in the trash can.

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
* 512 MB of system memory
* 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
* DVD-ROM drive
* Audio Output
* Internet access (fees may apply)

Note that if you don't have Internet access, then your system doesn't meet the minimum requirement. Further, try running it on the recommended specs (1GB of memory) and tell me how everything feels like it's going in slow motion.

When Apple sells a computer, that computer will do what it's supposed to smoothly. There is no need to upgrade it out of the box or curse it. Hey, I'm not trying to tell you to buy a Mac. If I had to choose between Linux and Mac, I'll go Linux all the way. I hate that crap. But that's just me, not the average consumer. I know that Vista needs a minimum of 2GB with a minimum of Vista Premium. I know that Vista Basic will only recognize 1 GB of memory and 1 core (even though almost all CPUs these days are dual core). But I'm not the average consumer. It's the average consumer that is growing to hate Vista, and by proxy MS.

MS is digging its own grave with its boneheaded executive decisions. Steve Jobs is probably head-over-heels, laughing his guts out all over the floor, knowing how MS is screwing itself, not just in the short term, but in the long term as well on Vista. Mac is growing at the same rate as MS discontent. MS could turn it around, but they're too full of BS to care about the average user. They're only concerned about billionaires making billions more.

RE: Negative headline?
By meewok on 7/31/2008 1:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
What Apple should do now is take their minimal configuration and pair it up with MS's minimal configuration to see which one is better.

I don't really see the point in comparing minimum configurations. When a consumer purchases a machine, they're presented a price. Usually they compare what's approximately the same price in their budget. Now if you took a machine from each hardware vendor (Dell, HP, Apple) that fall into the same price category and did the comparison, then all bets are off.

Additionally, Microsoft (for the purpose of this discussion) is only a horizontal software vendor where Apple controls the whole vertical. This alone makes a huge difference in terms of what Microsoft can actually control in terms of the end-user experience and it leaves it up to the manufacturers to provide the hardware to support the experience. It is also part of the raison d'etre of Vista Basic and its stripped experience with a lower set of requirements.

Finally, I think you have some of your facts regarding Vista Home Basic wrong:

I know that Vista Basic will only recognize 1 GB of memory and 1 core (even though almost all CPUs these days are dual core).

All versions of Vista support dual core and quad core chips (one physical processor). See this:

I'm also fairly certain all versions on Vista can support AT LEAST 4GB RAM ( and can address up to 3.2GB of that 4GB, with the 64-bit versions able to address more (Yes, they actually have a 64-bit Home Basic:

RE: Negative headline?
By wordsworm on 8/1/2008 8:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yup... I don't know why I'd had it in my head that Basic was severely handicapped. Thanks for the correction.

RE: Negative headline?
By meewok on 7/29/2008 2:39:30 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I've never said negative things about Mick. You're right, everyone has their right to an opinion in their blogs.

The problem is that when editorial views are expressed as "news", which is supposed to be free of opinions.

If this article showed up under the "Blogs" moniker, it wouldn't be an issue, but this is under "Headlines" which alludes to the fact that it's news. The interesting thing is that this "news" article is pretty free of opinions, just that the headline is not.

RE: Negative headline?
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 10:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I've always looked at the sum of DT as a bunch of bloggers blogging their thoughts and feelings about technology. Usually I read the news, and a couple of days to a year later there's a blog here about it for everyone to discuss.

Probably a better title would have been, "In blind taste tests, most folks prefer Vista!" But that too would have expressed a positive opinion (as opposed to the negative). Hmmm... how about just "Unwittingly, people like Vista." I don't know. Your turn.

RE: Negative headline?
By meewok on 7/30/2008 2:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
If DT is just a bunch of bloggers spouting their opinions about news, then I guess I'm looking at the wrong site for real tech news and it's my fault. Additionally on Anandtech, these blogs are incorrectly labeled as "Latest News". Then on DT, the "Blogs" section is somewhat redundant.

Oh well, perhaps I have the wrong expectations when visiting this site and I need to change my expectations.

BTW, of all the headlines listed in the "Latest Headlines" listing, this is the only one that clearly exhibits bias.

RE: Negative headline?
By wordsworm on 8/1/2008 8:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
I kind of see AnandTech as 'investigative reporting' on some matters. Sometimes, though, their reports seem more like commercials. I'm only thinking of their digital camera stuff though. Though, I've gotten that feeling a lot less since their first major article.

I think what makes DT different than a lot of the other sites are the people who actually read these articles and then debate them. Sometimes it's just troll vs. troll, but at other times it can be an interesting learning environment.

But seriously, can you think of a news source that doesn't exhibit bias? CNN, CBC, NBC, ABC, BBC, Aljazeera, and every other news source I can identify are mostly made up of propaganda, sensationalism, and news about celebs which shouldn't be news. So, seriously meewok, how does DT really differ in the fact that its authors exhibit biases?

RE: Negative headline?
By meewok on 8/1/2008 9:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
I kind of see AnandTech as 'investigative reporting' on some matters. Sometimes, though, their reports seem more like commercials. I'm only thinking of their digital camera stuff though. Though, I've gotten that feeling a lot less since their first major article.

Agreed. I do read Anandtech's actual articles/reviews with some reservation. As for DailyTech, I really don't have a problem with the debates in the comments section as I agree they can be informative and entertaining to read as well. I just have a problem with "news" that's biased.

But seriously, can you think of a news source that doesn't exhibit bias? CNN, CBC, NBC, ABC, BBC...

I think this is an extremely good point and that everyone needs to take in the "news" and actually think about it and try to understand any story beyond the story.

how does DT really differ in the fact that its authors exhibit biases?

Good question. Maybe? There's this blog I read about news versus editorial that has an interesting comment (yes, I understand it's this guy's opinion but he had an interesting take):

Perhaps that is the difference between bloggers and journalists. Journalists may try to avoid bias yet fail to do so, but at least they tried. Bloggers are driven by their passion to report information, and their reports are colored by that passion. The difference is the passion that drives them.

From this blog:

I guess this is an entirely different discussion. :)

RE: Negative headline?
By wordsworm on 8/2/2008 12:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is an extremely good point and that everyone needs to take in the "news" and actually think about it and try to understand any story beyond the story.

Unfortunately, most people don't want to know the story beyond the story. In fact, they distance themselves from it, as usually the media reports what they want to believe. Issues related to Iran are likely the best example I can think of. Can I exclusively blame the media organizations? It's hard to say. Does it give the people strictly what it wants as an act of self preservation, or does it tell people what they want and the people follow? Do they follow the propaganda of a given politician, such as Condaleezza Rice, and believe it themselves, or do they simply support it out of a political agenda, or do they themselves want the people to believe? When I start pondering the curious nature of the 'real news', I can't help but think it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. All of these things exist at DT as well, although to a much lesser extent. As you may have noticed, while Mick is a quasi-environmentalist, Michael is an anti-environmentalist. So, at the least there is something of a balance here, which is usually so lacking in the regular media. So, do the likes of Michael Asher and Jason Mick balance carry their own agenda? In terms of the environment they seem to contradict each other, even if I think Jason could do much better to cover more pro-environmentalist tech news. Will Michael ever report on how nuclear facilities are now costing record amounts of taxpayer dollars per new facility? Of course not. He is pro nuclear. Will he ever post a story about the great strides in solar energy? No, of course not. Sometimes, though, I'll see it come out of Jason.

In some ways, the media can be objective. In other ways it's not. It's as much a reflection of regular Americans as it is a leader of American opinion.

In any case, to say that DT is any different from any other news source is simply smoke and mirrors - or ego elitism on behalf of the journalist that you mentioned.

I like to read a lot. I also love conspiracy theories and have a few of my own (ie, George Bush only pretends to be stupid so as to avoid criminal prosecution for his war crimes - like sometimes mentally handicapped people can escape a murder conviction because they didn't really know what they were doing.) Aljazeera news is every bit as interesting as Fox news or any other western version of events. I like DT because of the interesting discussions that can arise, very much like the one we're having right now. It's the readership of DT and the formula or design for how these blogs/news stories are set up for discussion that makes it distinctively enjoyable from some of the others. After all, it'll never compete with Scientific American or even Wired for its content. But, those services' user posts, usually, just aren't as interesting.

What hardware?
By rupaniii on 7/28/2008 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
The big question is what hardware?
How can you deny all of the people who bought Vista and after a few weeks were forced to install XP to get work done?
Was it a single core with 1gb ram or a dual or quad core with 4-8gb of ram and Vista 64bit?

RE: What hardware?
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 4:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Single core with a 1GB of RAM runs Vista pretty well actually. There's a Celeron D over there in the office with 1GB of memory (some budget Acer system) and has Vista Business. Seems snappy when I try it.

RE: What hardware?
By Solandri on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: What hardware?
By GaryJohnson on 7/28/2008 5:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
Is that comparing the XP gui to Aero, or did you try turning off all the fancy visual improvements in Vista to make it look just like XP?

RE: What hardware?
By meewok on 7/28/2008 5:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair here, I think you also need to specify whether you disabled some of the added "features" of Vista when making your comparison (Aero, VMC, etc).

The bottom line is that if you want extra features, you'll need better hardware, no matter what you're talking about. For example, I'm sure Windows 3.1 was REALLY zippy on a 80386, but people who wanted added features of the memory hogging Windows 95 most likely would need to upgrade their hardware. And then at some point, Windows 95 was really zippy, but people who wanted the extra features of Windows 98 would need to upgrade their hardware, etc. Downgrading to older software on newer hardware will almost always give you a performance improvement.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that comparing older OS performance on older hardware against newer OS performance on older hardware is probably not an apples/apples comparison.

RE: What hardware?
By GaryJohnson on 7/28/2008 6:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of XP users I have helped with 'slow computer' problems are amazed at how much 'faster' their machines are when you disable the fading/sliding visual effects.

RE: What hardware?
By wordsworm on 8/1/2008 8:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
I surprise most XP users by the speed increase just by getting rid of the desktop icon clutter and Norton while adding Firefox. Consistently I hear people complain about how old and slow their computers are. Usually within 20 minutes they remark, "Hey, it's not so slow!" But seriously, the end all in slow computers is Norton.

RE: What hardware?
By GaryJohnson on 8/2/2008 7:27:00 AM , Rating: 2
I think Norton and McAfee think that if they slow down a computer, they're making it less usable, and thereby less used. This reduces the computer's exposure to the only real computer security flaw: the user.

I'd like to sell an antivurs that makes it so the computer it's installed on can't be turned on, thus protecting it from 100% of all malicious software.

RE: What hardware?
By Solandri on 7/28/2008 10:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
It was a vanilla XP install and a vanilla Vista install. Normally I turn off the eye candy in XP, but didn't this time since I'd be installing Vista a few weeks after I got it. Now that I think about it, XP was on the original 80 GB hard drive, so it was slower hardware than Vista.

Once I got Vista installed, I tried all sorts of things to get its performance up to something I'd grown used to with XP. Turning off Aero actually didn't help much - the 3D card seems to take most of the load. Though I suspect it would make a difference if I opened tons of windows. This was Vista Business Premium so no VMC. And yes I have SP1. The memory upgrade was the last thing I tried since it cost money and took about a week to get here.

I don't have a big problem with Vista on a relatively fast 2+ GB machine (even a 1.5 GB machine would probably do). But it's a serious drag in 1 GB. I brought it up because I think too many pro-Vista folks say it runs OK in that configuration without realizing how much of a performance hit it takes relative to XP on that hardware.

RE: What hardware?
By Sulphademus on 7/28/2008 5:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
We've upgraded nearly all our Dell GX280s to Vista without issue (P4 2.8Ghz). It runs fine for word processing with 1 gig of ram but we've jacked em all up to 2. Maybe not the dogcrap systems people seem to be complaining about running Vista on but they are ~4yr old. If youre trying to load Vista on something older, you enjoy punishing yourself.

(Like the time I got Return to Castle Wolfenstein running under XPsp2 on a P2 266MHz with 256MB RAM. Only to say that I had.)

Networking and installation huh?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 5:02:01 PM , Rating: 3
While it has been pointed out that the experience neglects to consider installation and networking setup,

Installation: Vista's install is easier than that of XPs. Put in disc, hit install now, enter product key, choose drive if you have to (can also format), Vista installs.

Wired Networking setup: Plug in network cable. Wait for IP address. Open internet browser. If needed, join the proper workgroup same as XP.

Wireless Networking setup: Search for wireless network, connect to wireless network. Enter encryption key(hopefully). Wait for IP address. Open internet browser. If needed, join the proper workgroup same as XP.

A coworker had problems connecting to our company wireless network which doesn't have its SSID broadcast. Merely needed to check the box that says to allow Windows to connect to networks that don't broadcast their ID.

Yes this is mind blowing difficulty here.

RE: Networking and installation huh?
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 2:46:32 AM , Rating: 1
One thing that XP is good at that I was unable to achieve with Vista: A few years back I transferred my harddrive from my old PC to my then new PC. The OS migrated wonderfully, and it felt like I was on the same PC as before, only faster. You can't do that with Vista. I tried migrating the hard drive from an AMD platform to an Intel platform, and I had to reinstall it. It took a little bit of trickery just to get rid of the other install. Also, there is some other stuff you have to know. You can't install even Vista 64 on 4 GB of RAM. It just won't boot. You've got to knock of 2 GB, do your updates, and then install the other 2. It's not too big of a hassle if you understand the problem. But if you don't understand the problem, it can frustrate. I know XP has a similar issue with large hard drives prior to the SPs. That problem I discovered well before I had a hard drive large enough to make it a problem. Vista Basic is not as good as XP Basic. This is the heart of the issue for most consumers since Vista Basic is what comes with the machines for the most part. Vista Premium ought to be relabeled 'Vista Basic' and Vista Basic ought to be relabeled 'Vista Millennium' and go by way of the dodo bird, include an apology by MS, and a free copy of the new Vista Basic. Vista Ultimate should be renamed "Vista Professional." Finally, they should make everything crystal clear in their sales brochures - show exactly what each version of Vista can do. When I went through the phase of choosing between XP Basic and Professional, the choice was relatively simple and the features were pretty clearly listed allowing me to make an educated decision.

Vista is not quite as easy as XP in many ways. But - Vista Ultimate is considerably better than any variant of XP. I haven't tried Apple's stuff, having been permanently put off of them since I was forced to use an Apple lab in high school - and that was when they really did have a superior product in many ways.

RE: Networking and installation huh?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/29/2008 3:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
Most things in Vista Basic like Aero can be enabled with a registry tweak.

RE: Networking and installation huh?
By wordsworm on 7/29/2008 3:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
Aero is ok I guess, but I disabled it. To be frank You said most things can be enabled. What about serious things? Do you have a link to a good page that tutors on how to turn on the the advanced features?

By StevoLincolnite on 7/30/2008 12:05:13 PM , Rating: 2

Think about it, all the Different "Versions" of Vista is essentially the same thing, it would be far more economical to include the software packages but disable the features, instead of actually removing them altogether.

By FITCamaro on 7/29/2008 6:35:14 AM , Rating: 3
Personally I wouldn't move an OS install between platforms without a reinstall anyway. Just asking for driver conflicts.

so what?
By Gul Westfale on 7/28/2008 4:36:14 PM , Rating: 1
the average person won't upgrade because of the price, and maybe because it isn't really necessary. i won't upgrade because games don't really support DX10 yet, and windows 7 will be along sooner rather than later... calling it mojave doesn't change that.

all MS have done here is proving that people fall for marketing tricks, and that they tend to criticise things which they know nothing about... like the pope telling people about the evils of sex, or GWB talking about democracy.

idiots have always been around, it seems MS just wanted to have some fun with them. now if apple actually does the same thing and shows their users that in reality their machines are overpriced and underequipped and run only 55 of available software... :)

RE: so what?
By Gul Westfale on 7/28/2008 4:37:41 PM , Rating: 1
55=5%... thank you, edit button, thank you.

RE: so what?
By jonmcc33 on 7/29/2008 7:43:11 AM , Rating: 4
Preview Button: You are welcome!

RE: so what?
By walk2k on 7/28/2008 7:11:54 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed, I just can't justify spending $250+ on Vista when I don't need it and it really offers me nothing I don't already have or want.

I tried it in beta and it was "OK". UAC was annoying but I guess they improved it after beta, and there was another bug that made the HDD spin 100% all the time, again I assume they fixed that too.

I'll get Vista when I get my free copy from MS for that survey thing, should be soon now...

RE: so what?
By jonmcc33 on 7/29/2008 8:05:01 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed, I just can't justify spending $250+ on Vista...

Correction, it's $109:

I tried it in beta and it was "OK". UAC was annoying but I guess they improved it after beta, and there was another bug that made the HDD spin 100% all the time, again I assume they fixed that too.

How is beta going to show you anything meaningful but the bugs that need to be worked out? That's not even release candidate level.

UAC has been improved after SP1 but it's there to protect you. That way hidden programs don't install behind the scene like they would in Windows XP. Similar prompt for installation exists in Linux and Mac OS X. It's going to be permanent so get used to it.

Last time I checked, the HDD spinds 100% of the time in every computer unless you have power settings to turn it off after a certain period of inactivity.

Thanks for verifying that most people that don't like Vista have no experience at all with it and don't really know what they are talking about.

RE: so what?
By fibreoptik on 8/4/2008 9:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... NOW it's 1/3 the price because otherwise it WILL NOT SELL. Because it sucks! :p

My experience
By pauldovi on 7/28/2008 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
My cousin is a Mac fan and I built a computer for him and he agreed to use Vista (because the software he needed forced him too). I heard a bunch of "oohhs" and "awwws" as he played around with Vista for the first time. He was quite critical of it before.

I have been using Vista Ultimate 64 bit happily since March 2007.

RE: My experience
By LorKha on 7/28/2008 4:44:18 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly. Sometimes I wonder if these critics even give the chance to use and understand Vista. I've used Windows Vista as my personal OS since it came out and all I have to say is goodbye to XP.

It's kind of like having a new girlfriend. Sure she hard to get to and to get into the pants... Get through with UAC. But once you turn that off, she's all yours. Every girl is different, just gotta get use to how they work things out. At the end, we all do the same thing to them... :D

RE: My experience
By noxipoo on 7/28/2008 4:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm about to go back to Vista Ultimate 32bit from 64bit. All kinds of driver issues and my games crashing. I like some of the stuff in Vista but it isn't that great either. Worth the cost of the upgrade? Kind of...

RE: My experience
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 6:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, a workmate is having probs with Vista Ultimate 64. It's mostly just driver issues. He wanted to move to it for more memory support, even though he doesn't have a single 64 bit program or use enough programs to break the 4 gb barrier.

Used it
By nowayout99 on 7/28/2008 6:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Used it, didn't like it.

I don't know how many others fall into my category, but I simply don't like the Vista UI. Even if you switch Vista to use the Classic Windows skin, the UI still retains Vista UI properties that you cannot get rid of... extra toolbars and dead spaces on menus that just don't go away. So the skin is actually rather fugly. I am perfectly fine sticking with XP, because Vista does a crappy job replicating its appearance, and I haven't figured out any other value proposition.

When they have a real XP skin without the Vista UI leftovers, I'll give it a shot. In the meantime, there's no substitute for the real XP.

RE: Used it
By MScrip on 7/28/2008 7:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just curious... will you ever stop using XP? I've seen screenshots of Windows 7, and it looks a lot like Vista... so you're gonna be outta luck. Will you use XP forever?

RE: Used it
By SavagePotato on 7/28/2008 8:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
Thats cause Windows 7 is just another evolution of Vista.

All the people that harped on and on about how Windows 7 was going to be this lean linux like os based on the minwin kernel because Microsoft has seen the light basicaly have their heads where they have always been, up their arse.

Yep Windows 7, just another evolution of Windows, shocker. Keep waiting for that holy grail and living in the past.

RE: Used it
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 5:36:09 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't say Windows 7 will be an evolution. More like the "real" Vista will come out. Maybe we'll get WinFS too.

RE: Used it
By nowayout99 on 7/28/2008 10:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Forever is a long time. I'll upgrade when I find value in doing so that overrides my dislike for the UI.

Show me the value
By djc208 on 7/28/2008 4:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
My issue with Vista was never if it was better or worse than XP. My biggest hold back is WHY?

Why do I need to go spend $$$ on Vista? What do I get that I can't live without now, and why is it worth over $100 to have? DX10 hasn't spawned any games I can't live without. Aero is just a shiny wrapper. The increased security can't hurt but I've been good on my XP system for many years, and I still have to have some sort of anti-virus program anyway. The desktop gadgets can be duplicated with a couple of different programs and it doesn't always play nice with certain programs.

The only real benefits I see right now are the better memory management and 64-bit support, neither of which is so wonderful and polished that I want to shell out money to gain their limited benefits.

If I purchased off-the-shelf computers I wouldn't complain about getting Vista with it, might even grow to like it enough to upgrade my other machines. But I have three computers running XP an all of them are stable, fast, and work with all the hardware and software I ask them to run. Why spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade software that works?

RE: Show me the value
By Hlafordlaes on 7/28/2008 6:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto. XP got me off DOS gaming & Win98SE only with SP2 and a plethora of good new Dx9 games.

Am guessing my next OS upgrade will be when Dx10.x or 11.x, physics processing on GPU, and mebbe ray tracing advances, together or singly, make for a truly new gaming and/or media experience. Til then, I'll stay on XP (MCE2005SP3).

It's also nice that XP runs well on my Tualatin, dual P-III and Core2 boards, installed from a single slipstreamed CD with all text-mode raid etc. I am SO comfortable right now, mainly.

RE: Show me the value
By MMilitia on 7/28/2008 6:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
Meh then don't upgrade - no one is forcing you to. Why do you feel the need to justify NOT purchasing an OS?

Many people enjoy keeping their computers up-to-date - be it hardware or software. Vista represents a big step forwards in terms of user experience and that is what people re paying for. Sure XP does many of the same things as Vista but Vista is just nicer to use on a day-to-day basis.

RE: Show me the value
By djc208 on 7/28/2008 7:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
Then they need to market that.

Vista was poorly marketed, and failed to show why its needed IMO. I've used Vista and it is slick, but if they want to get these XP-haters to upgrade they need to do a better job of explaining why you want to be up-to-date when it could mean debugging a system that currently runs great.

I keep my hardware and software up to date, but I try not to blindly upgrade every time it says "new". Vista could install and work flawlessly, or it could hate some part of my system and then I get to spend days trying to make everything work properly again, possibly at the additional cost of replacing/ugrading the offending component. I don't have a problem taking that chance, if the benefits are worth it. MS needs to do a better job of showing off those benefits if it want's to get better acceptance of Vista.

By das mod on 7/28/2008 4:57:12 PM , Rating: 5
wouldn't it be more proper to say
Microsoft Rick' Rolled XP users onto Vista ?

By Ratinator on 7/28/2008 6:12:28 PM , Rating: 5
Creating Windows Mojave - $0
Gathering a bunch of Vista haters in a room to test Mojave - $10000
Getting 90% positive feedback on Mojave - Several thousand dollars in future earnings
Seeing the look on their face when they find out Mojave is Vista - Priceless

By Lanister on 7/28/2008 11:33:49 PM , Rating: 1
Let me say first off that I am no where near as knowledgable about computers as the average person is on this site. I know enough to be dangerous, thats about it.

I went out and bought a PC with an Intel quad core with 4 gigs of ram and didnt have an option to get XP so Vista 64bit it was.

I booted up the PC anxious to turn on Aero and have a million apps open at the same time and life was going to be great. As I said Vista SUCKS! Everything was slow, I am not kidding, it would take 3-4 times longer to do anything in Vista that I did in XP. Three applications that I use wouldn't even install, not supported in Vista.

I immediatley called my friends, "Whatever you do DO NOT get Vista it is beyond slow" was said by me to just about every friend I have. One of my friends came to the Rescue and brought me a copy of XP Pro. We formated the machine and installed XP, life was going to be ok.

I forget now exactly what went wrong but the install failed, I had a nice shiney paper weight. I couldnt wait a couple weeks to use my machine until i could buy a copy of XP so I decided to reinstall Vista and just deal with the slowness.

Luckily my machine came with an actual copy of Vista not an image with all the bloatware crap installed. I installed vista and booted up my machine. I dreaded logging in, its going to be soo slow and painful I thought to myself but it must be done. To my surprise everything was ok, not very fast for what I had bought but not bad.

I then found the power settings and for some reason it defaults to not using the full processing power, I maxed it out and then it was smoking fast. AHH, life was good again. But wait, I got all this free software with my PC I would be silly not to install and use it.

I went through the Extras CD and installed everything and rebooted the machine. I was right back to square 1, everything was beyond slow again. I knew the issue now so formatted and installed fresh again.

For about six months now Vista has been amazing. In the end I had to upgrade those three apps to the latest versions. I cant really blaim Vista for that they were all a few versions behind and not even supported by the companies that wrote them anymore. The new versions work great.

This is how I believe Vista gets a bad name, I never called back any of those friends and told them it wasnt Vista it was the bloatware. I am the friend of a friend who said vista sucks.

The only bad thing I can now say about Vista is whatever they changed with how it does Audio I can no longer play songs at 4x speed. Its not a huge deal but doesnt make sense to me why, seems like a backwards step.

Anyways thats my 2 cents, I believe my experience is common among many basic computer users which has lead to a lot of people thinking Vista sucks. I was lucky that I tried to install XP, I am sure most users like me have never formatted their machines to get the extra crap off so still think Vista is slow and terrible.

By jconan on 7/29/2008 12:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's computer 101 for basic buyers use the uninstall function. I do that even on XP, there are loads of junk even on any new PC. It wasn't too long ago that there was an article out saying that users had to pay companies to get a clean operating system without the trialware. It's true a lot of users do not uninstall stuff even after it's been expired and the program still continues to load itself on start-up by default unless disabled. That's how bad some of these trialware programs are...

By BikeDude on 7/29/2008 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
I went through the Extras CD and installed everything and rebooted the machine. I was right back to square 1, everything was beyond slow again.

I bet one of those extras was an antivirus product. It is my firm belief that AV software has created far more problems than the things they supposedly protect against.

That said, Vista comes with a new Resource Monitor (easily accessible from Task Manager) which can help you track down processes that waste resources on a regular basis.

What really annoys me is that e.g. installing Adobe Reader installs some sort of "fast start" thingy that always run after logging in. I rarely use Adobe Reader, so for me it makes absolutely no sense to have that junk load every time I reboot.

Avoiding software junk can soon become a full time job. (I regularly use SysInternals' Autoruns utility)

I recently had a discussion with a fellow software developer who felt really strongly about Vista's virtualisation feature. He really hated not being able to write to \Program Files anymore. His software ended up writing stuff to the user's homedir instead (virtualstore). Eventually I asked him "so... regular users no longer run as local admins, which is a good thing. What is your recommendation for a solution that would allow most Windows apps to continue to run?". I still haven't received a reply to that question. It seems most people complain because they are afraid of change; Any change (beneficial or not).

Just wait
By AlvinCool on 7/28/2008 4:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Visa isn't a problem on selected hardware, now is it? So by now whatever you buy new, is probably gonna work stellar with Vista. I didn't think it was the OS so much as it was the existing hardware. My company simply won't fork over the hardware costs of the upgrade. We have an enterprise license and can run Vista anytime we want, we just don't see the business upside of the switch at this time.

RE: Just wait
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 4:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, these days you can use your Visa just about anywhere MC is accepted :p

To fix Vista
By wordsworm on 7/28/2008 6:15:39 PM , Rating: 4
To 'fix' Vista would be relatively easy. Combine all the features into one flavour of Vista and sell it. Most of the features that make it worth buying are only available in the Ultimate version. Those stupid graphs which supposedly give you a good idea of what is supported and what isn't is completely misinformative when given alongside with features that Vista has (that is to say, the feature sets lead one to believe that they're supported on all versions of Vista, and nothing indicates otherwise). Let me give an example: controls over who can access what files - ie, you don't want Jr. wandering into those porn files. Well, that's great, because according to Vista, you can block his access to them. It's only after you buy the OS that you discover it's a feature only available on Ultimate. Another instance is languages. I was able to find literature that stated Vista allows users to dual boot in different languages. Again, a feature only available in Vista Ultimate that I discover only after I try to use it. There're a lot of features that they sell for Vista. But it's the unknown restrictions per variety that drives me wacky. The upgrade costs are irksome as well.

With that said, there are a few features I really appreciate, though minor. I really think it's cool that I can adjust volume levels per application. You can't do that in XP, and it's really nice to be able to target, say, Avast's really annoying and loud 'Virus database updated' that pops up in the middle of a movie so that at least it's silent. Vista 64 has some compatibility issues, but it's much better than XP 64 ever was. On occasion there have been compatibility issues. However, they've been resolved. Even the videocard issues have been resolved. Also, Vista is now really crash resistant. Even when the videocard wants to crash and burn the system, Vista finds a way to recover without having to restart the system.

Another good thing about Vista compared to XP is the security. Years ago, when I took XP to Shields Up to test its included firewall, XP failed miserably. I felt like an elf walking through a prison with Christmas lights on my @ss. I immediately disabled the included firewall and installed ZoneAlarm's firewall, which immediately relieved all the security woes that had been making me an online hacking invitation. Vista 64 passed their tests even better than I had with ZA's firewall protecting XP. I was impressed.

If MS really wants to kill the Vista hate, then they need to kill Vista Basic and become a little bit more honest. I'm sure those guys who were tricked into trying Vista were given Vista Ultimate, and not Vista Basic. Sometimes I've seen Vista Basic loaded on computers at chain stores that have 2 GB of RAM. I mean think about it, Vista Basic only supports 1 GB of RAM. It really is a piece of junk compared to XP. So, I think that there is really the key to the Vista hate, which MS fully deserves.

In conclusion, for Vista to reverse its reputation amongst consumers, they need to make their documentation and sales tactics a little clearer than they are. Heck, their sales people were just plain misleading. I know that's normal for businesses these days, but it doesn't make the burn feel any better. Furthermore, they need to get rid of Basic, which is basically a way to make customers pay twice for the OS when they discover that Vista Basic basically sucks. It's a dirty trick, and for that MS is paying.

By esSJae on 7/28/2008 6:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
You mean a "power user" like you.

By jonmcc33 on 7/29/2008 8:19:08 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Ctrl+C works fine for me but who uses Ctrl+Tab or Ctrl+Insert? Is that what defines a "power user" or just someone's inept ability to use a mouse properly?

I know people at my work in the Retail department that can keyboard shortcut their way around the OS, in and out of applications like crazy. Ask them to do anything like resolving an error in an application? Not going to happen even with the help of Google.

Sorry, but to the OP using keyboard shortcuts doesn't make you a "power user" one bit at all.

Bad Science
By kelmon on 7/30/2008 5:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
I've stayed out of this one since this "experiment" is clearly marketing and therefore the only result was going to be that these people liked Vista. If this had been done by a neutral party, such as a university, then I'd be more more inclined to believe it.

Anyway, I thought I'd post a link to a blog entry on the subject that highlights the flaws in this nicely (disclaimer: this is not my blog but the author is a Mac developer so bias is likely):

The summary is that the experiment is flawed for the following reasons:

1. The Placebo Effect - Tell someone that something is new and cool and they'll probably believe it.

2. The Pepsi Challenge Effect - Things that seem nice in small doses aren't necessarily nice over a longer period.

3. The Perfectly Controlled Environment Effect - Anything can be made to look good if you can control the environment (note: I can appreciate this because I've "rigged" a demonstration to avoid aspects of a software application that I know weren't working yet, to my shame).

4. The Personal Tutor Effect - Be shown how things work by an expert and you're bound to think everything is whizzy.

Basically, this was not a usability study and its worth in the real world is limited at best. That said, it's about as believable as the Mac vs. PC adverts and perhaps that was the intention anyway.

RE: Bad Science
By DASQ on 8/1/2008 1:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this exactly what Mac does for everything they make though?

By Goty on 7/28/2008 5:18:27 PM , Rating: 3
Turns out some of Vista's strongest critics may not even know what they're criticizing.

This was news?

Vista's just dandy
By ZachDontScare on 7/28/2008 5:21:05 PM , Rating: 3
I've been using Vista for about a year now, and have had only minor problems with it. XP SP2 was good, and if you're currently running that there's no major reason to upgrade. But if you're getting a new machine, there's no reason not to upgrade.

As someone else mentioned, I've also talked to non-techie types who were convinced that Vista was awful, even though they never actually used it. Part of that, I think, is the snideness you get in among techies who reflexively attack anything microsoft. The non techies dont understand that the people who they are getting their advice from are often attacking microsoft for fashion reasons (ie, its trendy to hate Microsoft) and not substantive reasons.

The other problem is all the crapware that makers like HP put on their systems. A lot of people have problems with their new computers due to all this garbage that comes with their new machine, and just assume its vista causing the problem. I talked to one guy who was convinced Vista machines couldnt connect to the internet because some piece of crapware that came with an HP machine had mucked up his system. Obviously thats not vista doing it... but to someone who can barely use a mouse, the 'subtle' difference between the OS and the 3rd party programs that ship with a new PC is lost.

This just proves
By L33tMasta on 7/28/2008 5:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
That all the Vista hate is nothing more than people who jumped on the bandwagon. This also proves anyone who hates Vista is hating it simply because everyone says it's bad. I'm going to reference this test as often as I can.