Print 104 comment(s) - last by XPguy.. on Jan 17 at 9:46 AM

PC World calls out Microsoft on Windows Vista

The hatred for Windows Vista has been well documented on DailyTech and by millions of Vista users around the web. From the very beginning, many consumers took issue with Microsoft's multi-tiered approach to Vista.

Microsoft currently has four versions of Windows Vista aimed at the consumer market: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate. Vista Home Basic is the cheapest and has the least features, while Vista Ultimate is the most expensive and most feature-filled version.

Many felt that Microsoft should simply take Apple's approach with OS X and just include a single SKU for everyone and charge everyone the same price. Many also championed Apple's 5-user license policy with OS X versus Microsoft's "reduced" pricing efforts with Windows Vista Family Discount -- a program that ended on June 30.

In addition to pricing, licensing and marketing, many people consumers simply are disappointed with Vista's performance. Many users have claimed that Vista simply is slower than Windows XP for many operations with pesky trouble spots including networking and gaming.

Microsoft plans to address many performance-related problems/bugs with Service Pack 1, but Windows XP is getting a speed boost of its own with Service Pack 3.

All of the controversies and disappointments related to Vista were enough for PC World to label Windows Vista the #1 Biggest Tech Disappointment of 2007.

"The user account controls that were supposed to make users feel safer just made them feel irritated. And at $399 ($299 upgrade) for Windows Ultimate, we couldn't help feeling more than a little gouged," remarked PC World's Dan Tynan.

"No wonder so many users are clinging to XP like shipwrecked sailors to a life raft, while others who made the upgrade are switching back. And when the fastest Vista notebook PC World has ever tested is an Apple MacBook Pro, there's something deeply wrong with the universe."

For me personally, I'm rather indifferent to Vista -- I don't hate it, but I also don't love it. I currently own two PCs: a HP desktop with Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 RC1 installed and an Eee PC 4G with Windows XP Home SP2 (nLite’d of course). I don't game on either machine and I mainly use both for Internet, email and productivity (Office 2007 on the desktop, OpenOffice Portable on the Eee PC).

I routinely go back and forth between both machines during the day and don't miss anything in particular from either machine (feature wise) with regards to the operating system. In other words, given my usage model, I could use my Eee PC all day and not really long to be on my Vista-equipped desktop.

Comments     Threshold

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

I wish
By blackseed on 12/17/2007 12:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I wish MS would make their OS smaller not bigger. Like knoppix, or tinylinux with little gui in them.

Back in the days, MS Windows 3.1 used to be like 5 HD floppies. Linux was like 3 HD floppies.

I don't know what the size of IE7 is but Firefox 2.11 that I downloaded 2 days ago was close to 5.5 Megs. It does everything I wanted to do.

RE: I wish
By Xerio on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: I wish
By 16nm on 12/17/2007 8:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
At least the retail boxes are pretty. Microsoft really nailed the packaging perfectly.

RE: I wish
By MrTeal on 12/17/2007 10:40:53 PM , Rating: 5
That's funny, I was cursing them today for the lack of legacy support. Not including winhlp32.exe and basically rendering every application help program of the last 10 years unuseable is a pretty crappy move, IMO.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/18/2007 9:35:09 AM , Rating: 3
It's easy to add back in:

But WinHelp is an ancient help file format, and I think Microsoft wanted to create a little pain for application developers that are still using it even though there are much better alternatives around. Otherwise Microsoft would have to support it for another couple of decades.

RE: I wish
By 16nm on 12/19/2007 12:53:23 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry to hear that. I must confess, I'm learning to like Vista. I do like the more refined interface. It's pretty. The best thing about Vista is that you can load Virtual PC and run Windows XP and Windows 2000 right on your Vista install. This way you can get the Vista A.E.R.O. eye candy without losing the productivity of earlier Windows. Flip3D is nice. I wish it was activated with the more familiar Alt-Tab key combination instead. Alt-Tab are always the most worn keys on my keyboards.

RE: I wish
By bdewong on 12/17/2007 12:56:13 PM , Rating: 5
Well the next OS Microsoft builds should be quite a bit smaller as it is based off of the min-win kernel. The code name right now is Windows 7.

I think that, as with most OS's, they are trying to add more features rather than keep the size down.

My wish is for the next version to have a lot of install options so you can get the small size with less features ranging to large size and lots of features. But i still believe it should default to the latter options to keep everything there for people who don't know better. That way supporting such users would be easier.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: I wish
By Spivonious on 12/17/2007 1:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
According to Thurrot, Windows 7 is based on the Min-Win kernel.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 1:56:58 PM , Rating: 1
Yes and no. If you define MinWin = NTOS kernel, then of course Windows 7 will be based off that, just like Vista and previous versions of Windows were. But when most people talk about MinWin, they are alluding to some highly minimal text-mode core OS that people could use separately, as Eric Traut described in his talk. I don't see any information anywhere (including from Thurrot) that indicates this will be a separable part of Windows 7. It's all about semantics really.

And a lot of ignorant tech websites have extrapolated that Microsoft is working on a super-lean OS based on MinWin, which is completely incorrect.


RE: I wish
By SoCalBoomer on 12/17/2007 6:00:06 PM , Rating: 4
Which, strangely, is exactly what Thurrott said.

3. Its all semantics. People use the word "kernel" to mean different things, which confuses matters. "When I say kernel/MinWin, what I'm saying is that the kernel is NTOS kernel, the core of Windows that runs in kernel mode,"

So, you use Thurrott to debunk something that Thurrott, in that same article, is saying is likely to happen.

Or are you calling Thurrott's site "an ignorant tech website" - because I don't see why you'd do that or what cred you have in order to do that.

RE: I wish
By BMFPitt on 12/17/2007 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
My wish is for the next version to have a lot of install options so you can get the small size with less features ranging to large size and lots of features.
What ever happened to that, anyway? I shouldn't need a 3rd party app (nLite/vLite) to get rid of useless (to me) features in my OS.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 3:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
I personally prefer to, for an OS or an app, just install everything up-front, so that (a) I don't have to learn about all the possible optional features at install time, and (b) so that I don't have to hassle with updating the installation later to add features that I didn't know I needed.

In the meantime, features I don't need just sit dormant on the HDD until I need them. The benefit of this simplicity far exceeds the value of the HDD savings, since HDD space typically costs $0.25-0.50/GB at the moment.

RE: I wish
By BMFPitt on 12/17/2007 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 5
It's not about the hard drive space, it's about the waste of (CPU/RAM) resources and the sheer annoyance of some features. Though each successive Windows release since Win95 has gotten better with the random junk (remember that stupid Disney sidebar?) that they installed on your desktop by default.

I'd be fine keeping these features sitting on the drive as long as Windows didn't run them.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 3:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
What things in Vista are wasting CPU/RAM resources, specifically?

I can recognize that Vista runs better with more RAM than XP, however, RAM is probably 1/4 the cost it was when XP came out, so I don't see that as a big issue.

RE: I wish
By StevoLincolnite on 12/17/2007 3:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
The price of ram never really fluctuates much its basically the Price per Mb that fluctuates. - Except back in 2001 when Memory prices increased dramatically, which was one of the reasons 3dfx went out of business.
For Instance a 64mb stick years ago could cost as much as a 1gb stick these days.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: I wish
By kamel5547 on 12/17/2007 4:07:53 PM , Rating: 1
Ok... that makes no sense IMO.

The price of soda never really fluctuates much its basically the Price per fluid oz. that fluctuates.

Plus, if you were to compare the price of 1GB of ram to the price years ago the price would have 'fluctuated'.

RE: I wish
By StevoLincolnite on 12/18/2007 5:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it would have, but 1gb is relatively small these days and for the price back then you would have gotten a 256mb stick for the "same price" the price really never changes much, just sizes and features increase.

RE: I wish
By glitchc on 12/18/2007 10:25:09 PM , Rating: 2

Yes it would have, but 1gb is relatively small these days and for the price back then you would have gotten a 256mb stick for the "same price" the price really never changes much, just sizes and features increase.

I think what you are trying to say is that the minimum required for each new OS generation costs the same as it did for the previous generation. As in 256 MB was minimum for XP, and it cost just as much then as 1GB, being the minimum for Vista, does today.

Now that the point is clarified, it can be properly debunked since 1) 256MB of RAM was more expensive back then than 1GB is now, by at least twice as much actually 2) the dollar's purchasing power has not been adjusted for inflation, so the dollar is actually worth less now than it was 5 years ago.

Phrasing it better helps, doesn't it?

RE: I wish
By StevoLincolnite on 12/19/2007 3:28:24 AM , Rating: 3
Minimum for XP was 64mb, Vista 512mb. (Although double/Quad-druple that for best results).

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/19/2007 8:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
XP doesn't run well on 64MB - never did. While theoretically possible, performance would be so terrible that it is not practical.

RE: I wish
By StevoLincolnite on 12/21/2007 1:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on how much tweaking you did to you're XP install, And you just proved my point, it does run on 64mb systems and the minimum is not 512mb.

RE: I wish
By bangmal on 12/23/2007 3:14:40 PM , Rating: 1
I throw you a bone. The min ram requirement for xp is 640KB, and vista is 32GB.

RE: I wish
By Xerio on 12/17/2007 3:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Amen. It is a sad thing that I have to use an nLite CD now for all my Windows installations.

RE: I wish
By The0ne on 12/21/2007 6:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
It happened because many users including some magazines editors (PC Magizne) wanted a more simple non-interactive install process. You click install and walk away type of requirement. Granted Win95 didn't have much to select/deselect during installation but could have been expanded on.

As for legacy drivers well, what would you do if you were in MS position and had millions of users with various configurations. And they you have companies that refuse to support the products with drivers and updated drivers and so forth. Yes, it's bloated and all but it does solve the issue of compatibility to some extent.

I'm like the author. I don't hate Vista but I don't like it any better than XP. So given the choice when I do want to play games, work with audio and video, and work on long documents I end up going back to Vista for stability, compatability and most importantly ease of mind that I know XP isn't going to do strange things to me. Vista is still a learning curve.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 1:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I wish MS would make their OS smaller not bigger.

I disagree, I don't understand, nor do I share your desire for minimalism in the OS. These days it is easy to afford lots of memory, huge HDDs, and fast processors - I'd like the OS to take advantage of those resources by providing richer APIs for applications, better self-diagnosis, a richer GUI experience, support for more types of hardware devices, etc.

RE: I wish
By arazok on 12/17/2007 2:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The time for making the OS more efficient will be when Moore's law runs out in ~10 years. Until then, recourses are better spent adding capabilities to the OS.

This isn't to say that MS shouldn't attempt to do things efficiently, just that they don't need to bend over backwards trying.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 2:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, and so far, I have seen no evidence that Vista does anything inefficiently.

RE: I wish
By arazok on 12/17/2007 4:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. One of MS recent hot fixes (I can find out which one if you like), which will be in SP1 is something that will extend the battery life on laptops. They did this by improving the way graphics are drawn to the screen. In a nutshell, unless something changes on a given pixel, they don't tell the graphics card to redraw it, causing less power draw.

There are certanly thousands of areas where MS could reinvent the wheel to do the same things better. It's such a complex system that it's impossible for there not to be.

RE: I wish
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 4:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Vista is doing more work with Aero enabled, compared to XP, so it is not surprising that it is consuming a little more power to do so. And just because Microsoft is optimizing the code to reduce power consumption doesn't mean the original implementation was "inefficient."

Here's a little background on this issue:,1000000091,3928...

RE: I wish
By OblivionMage on 12/17/2007 3:57:50 PM , Rating: 5
People have this odd desire for smaller OS's that run faster and faster with more and more features.

RE: I wish
By ThePooBurner on 12/21/2007 8:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
If i may put a small spin on a popular phrase on these forums to demonstrate why people have this desire

"New Computer, New OS, Food. Choose any 2."

In this example, no matter which 2 choices are made there should be an improvement gained. If you cannot gain improvement from a choice then there is no reason to make it and you should stick to what you have. Currently selecting options 2 and 3 give no improvement. In some cases 1 and 2 give no impovement :) (and might cause death to boot!)

A more efficient OS is better for everyone. Something with as little bloatware as possible is better because it allows for better, faster testing and fewer holes. When you have as much crap as is put into windows as part of the core OS instead of being an addon/modular type deal it the list of things that can go wrong increases greatly. Kind of like adding more drives to a RAID0 setup without redundancy. Plus when all those things are loaded from boot, whether being used or not, it just adds to the chance of things messing up, not working right, or steals preformance from the things you actually want to do. This is why I'll be sticking to XP pro for quite a while. And as soon as i can i'll be making myself a CD with nlite.

RE: I wish
By mindless1 on 12/21/2007 9:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
You choose not to understand. You have to pay for a new OS, huge HDD, and faster processor just to compensate.

Hundreds of dollars later all you can say is then "it seems to do as well as XP now". What a waste of resources, money, time.

The hardware should be put towards the application, not merely the OS to run the app. If/when someone has an app that needs Vista, by all means then they have a requirement to make these concessions. Otherwise by conceding you need all this hardware changed you have already made the point you were trying to argue against.

PC World
By ajfink on 12/17/2007 1:12:49 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree Vista is one of the biggest bombs of the year (and perhaps Microsoft's second-worst OS release, behind ME), PC World gets next to no respect from me as a hardware enthusiast and someone who keeps up on the tech world. They trash Office 2007? The new Zune? Office '07 may actually be the BEST software release of the year, and is widely regarded as a great package. Not to mention the discount students have gotten.

I realize it's an opinion piece, but does anyone take PC World seriously anymore when there are sites with so much more "street cred" out there?

RE: PC World
By AlexWade on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: PC World
By Master Kenobi on 12/17/2007 3:10:39 PM , Rating: 5
Vista does not deserve to be trashed. I notice the editor at PC World gave no specifics and made FUD statements like "Vista is slower than XP" without stating what they were comparing (Probably minimum requirements). I think Tynan just needs a reality check, and needs to jump off the band wagon. In general, Vista has been well received, with the usual group of naysayers complaining simply because it's a change from that which they have been used to for the past 5+ years. In general PC World seems to base their rant on features they wanted to see in Vista that were cut during development.

The sweeping complaint I see from most Vista haters is baseless, or relies on expectations the user's had that far exceeded what even Microsoft promised. Because most users migrated from 98SE or ME to XP, I'm sure it was a "massive" difference and change. Realistically though the 9X kernel development tree was completely shut down and XP came out of the NT -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista tree line. From 2000 to XP there was few changes. Compare 2000 SP4 to XP fresh off the line and short of the graphical overhaul and the lame wireless implementation, it was no different. There were software, driver, and other problems similiar to the XP to Vista migration, because most of it was designed around the 98SE operating system and XP was on the NT Kernel and used the NTFS file system and folder structure.

Office 2007? Yea that's gold. I've found whiners who don't like it though, relatively baseless accusations, much like Vista haters have mostly baseless accusations.

RE: PC World
By Haven Bartton on 12/17/2007 3:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well said Master Kenobi.

(I'd rate you up, but I'm not given the option for some reason).

RE: PC World
By ChronoReverse on 12/17/2007 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 3
Not only that, many times the "expectations" are only spouted to give an opportunity to bash Vista.

For instance, WinFS. So many people claim "OMG MS didn't deliver!" when they clearly have no idea what WinFS entailed, what it was supposed to be or even what WinFS would do for them. (Most of the functionality were either implemented in Vista separately or else was merged into SQL Server).

RE: PC World
By JakLee on 12/17/2007 6:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
I have very limited experience with Vista of any flavor, but most of the people I know who have tried it have not liked it. When comparing these same people to the ones who did not like XP when it was first released I do notice a trend. I think more than anything it is the change that people don't like. So often when things are moved/modified/rearrainged they tend irritate people who know little to none about computers & just want it to "work" how "it always did". I will not replace XP on the systems I own but I will likely upgrade to Vista when I build my next gaming machine as that is the wave of the future.

I am puzzled why so many people are interested in having a bloated OS though. I really don't understand why MS can't create 3 different versions (or more depending on how specific they would like to be)
There is no reason an OS has to EVERYTHING out of the box everytime. Why not have an OS version with no media player, no DX gaming support, no file encryption, no extras - basically linux with a window's installer, LOL.

I think its fine to have an all ecompassing version that includes many things but as someone who uses many things (media player classic for video, or firefox for internet) its annoying to be bogged down with things I don't want and won't use. As a gamer as well it would be nice to have an os that has a very small footprint so I can continue to push the FPS envelope on hardware longer before upgrading.

RE: PC World
By Master Kenobi on 12/17/2007 7:27:33 PM , Rating: 5
I am puzzled why so many people are interested in having a bloated OS though. I really don't understand why MS can't create 3 different versions (or more depending on how specific they would like to be)

That's why there is Vista Basic, Premium, Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise. Vista Basic is very much XP with minor graphical overhaul and of course all the Vista features under the hood. Good for your FPS gaming as you call it.

There is no reason an OS has to EVERYTHING out of the box everytime. Why not have an OS version with no media player, no DX gaming support, no file encryption, no extras - basically linux with a window's installer, LOL.

Welcome to being a minority. Most people want everything installed so they can use it as they need it and not have to worry about "oh shit I need to pull out my old Vista DVD and load up Windows Firewall, or IE, etc...". Frankly, by wanting to strip down your install to a bare minimum to squeak by on hardware you are a minority and shall be treated as such. Microsoft isn't going to cater to you, they are catering to the majority, the masses, and the masses are computer illiterate.

I think its fine to have an all ecompassing version that includes many things but as someone who uses many things (media player classic for video, or firefox for internet) its annoying to be bogged down with things I don't want and won't use. As a gamer as well it would be nice to have an os that has a very small footprint so I can continue to push the FPS envelope on hardware longer before upgrading.

If your that hard core about stretching your hardware your well aware of how to turn off services, subsystems, and overclock your hardware. Do it yourself. I think the primary fallacy you fall into is that you look at it from your point of view. You need to look at it from the market point of view, and again that is most people want it to "just work" and "have most of what they need out of the box". Apple recognizes this, that's why they bundle iLife, iTunes, Safari, and more with their operating system.

RE: PC World
By RedStar on 12/17/2007 11:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
everytime i tried to raise kenobi's score... it subtracted one instead. Sees someone is after ya.

RE: PC World
By AlexWade on 12/18/2007 8:48:12 AM , Rating: 1
Baseless? BASELESS! I am using Vista right now, and I weep everytime.

Why does Vista suck? Let me count the ways:

1) It is a memory hog. My 64-bit version uses 50% of my 2GB of memory not including other programs that are running.

2) It assumes too much and remembers too little. When I open My Documents (or just Documents in Vista), the default view is list view. If you restart, any customization to that folder is lost. I set my view to large icons. Without fail, after a restart, it goes back to list view. XP would remember. Vista also does a lot stuff in the background without telling you nor making it easy to turn off.

3) The SuperFetch speed tweak doesn't work. In my experience, it actually SLOWS down your system. In fact, since I've turned it off, my system is faster.

4) UAC is overzealous. Sometimes I started to wonder if I had to click a box to pee. Every little action required confirmation. This goes back to remembering too little.

5) The boot loader is confusing and difficult to use. Microsoft stated the BCD replaced boot.ini because boot.ini didn't support EFI. Fine, but why replace the simple boot.ini with an ultra-mega-super-complex BCD? The BCD is so difficult I'm not even sure a Microsoft engineer could figure it out. And documentation on it is scant. Couldn't Microsoft make an EFI compatible bootloader that was simple?

6) Ever experience the green ribbon of death? I have quite often.

7) Copying files is faster in the command prompt than in the GUI. That is because the GUI is always trying to "calculate time remaining" even if it has to sacrifice some speed to do so.

Shall I go on? The point is, I am not spreading FUD, I am spreading truth. Vista sucks, period. Vista is slower than XP, period. And I backed up this fact with proof. My only complaint with XP was the start menu, other than that I liked it. But I learned to like the start menu. There is no learning to like Vista's failure. There is a difference between a failure and a new design.

While Vista has some good qualities, these cannot compensate for its failures. I listed 7 above but I have more.

RE: PC World
By TomZ on 12/18/2007 9:31:00 AM , Rating: 5
The point is, I am not spreading FUD, I am spreading truth.

Sounds like mostly FUD to me. Maybe you should downgrade back to XP.

1. As I'm sure you know, Vista uses free memory for additional caching. What's the problem with that? Would you rather have the memory unused or used?

2a. You might want to check whether you have it set to remember your views - basically the same settings as XP. Mine remembers my views just fine. Maybe you messed with a setting?

2b. What background stuff? Vista does a lot of the same background stuff as XP. Don't you want your OS to maintain itself in the background when the CPU is otherwise idle? I do.

3. SuperFetch slows down your system? Huh?

4. Just turn it off. That option is there for a reason.

6. No, never heard of it, and I couldn't find anything about it doing some Internet searches.

7. No, that's not true. I've done a lot of testing of file copies, and the GUI is not slower. It is just perceived by some to be slower because it doesn't appear to be copying when it shows that it is calculating the time remaining. If you click to show details, you can clearly see that it is copying away.

RE: PC World
By wien on 12/18/2007 1:42:54 PM , Rating: 1
SuperFetch slows down your system? Huh?

For desktop applications it's a good thing and generally does a fine job, but for gaming it's quite likely the most annoying thing I've ever experienced.

I've been playing Crysis lately (Q6600 @3.1GHz - 2GB memory - Vista64) and I can barely move around because Superfetch is "intelligently" trying to swap pages I might need in and out from disk, apparently completely ignoring the pages Crysis actually needs. All I have to do is turn around and I get a > 1 sec stutter with disk thrashing. Turn back and the same thing happens. It does fine the 3rd or 4th time you play a level of course, because then it has learned, but for a single player linear game that just doesn't help as you progress through the game. It completely ruins the experience.

In constrast Crysis on XP (same rig) is silky smooth no matter what I do. Vista with superfetch disabled is very close to XP performance but I still get more disk thrashing than in XP. (FPS is also a good 20% lower, but I'll put that down to drivers for now)

Now I'm sure I could upgrade to 4 or 8 gigs of RAM to keep superfetch happy, but you know what? I'd rather just use XP and get better performance. Progress indeed.

RE: PC World
By Murst on 12/18/2007 2:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you can come up with many situations where any feature of an OS becomes problematic.

However, for 99.9% of users out there, superfetch is a great boost.

If you fall into that <1% category, turn it off. It is pretty easy.

RE: PC World
By wien on 12/18/2007 3:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy for me because I know what is causing it (after some investigation) and I know where I can turn it off. Most people would only conclude that "Vista is slow".

But that's not really the point. Superfetch is a splendid idea and, as I said, for desktop applications it works just fine (Though the endless HDD grinding drives me up the wall). The problem is that the damage it does to memory hungry applications like games by far outweigh the benefits you get in normal desktop applications, unless that's all you use.

I just don't think the OS should render some applications completely unusable just to speed up applications "most people" use. Superfetch really has to get better at getting out of the way of applications that really need the memory.

RE: PC World
By Murst on 12/18/2007 6:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
If superfetch cripples a certain application, there should be an API call that the developers of the application can make to disable superfetch while the application is running.

RE: PC World
By AlexWade on 12/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: PC World
By JustTom on 12/19/2007 11:30:06 AM , Rating: 2
What is your search engine?
Very first link off google...

For example, there's a problem a lot of people have with Vista and that's what's affectionately been coined the "green ribbon of death." It's the little green progress bar that goes across the top of Windows Explorer and sometimes it just seems to linger there and everything stops working.

I like Visa, but this is something I have experienced and it is annoying.

RE: PC World
By crystal clear on 12/18/2007 10:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
"All human power is a compound of time and patience."

Be patient is the sensible thing to do ! Give it time is the wise thing to do.

By the way-did you bother reporting these problems to Microsoft ?

If you did-What response did you get ?

Ever tried using virtualizations software ?

The past cannot be changed, the future is still in your power."

RE: PC World
By Master Kenobi on 12/18/2007 4:09:08 PM , Rating: 5
1) It is a memory hog. My 64-bit version uses 50% of my 2GB of memory not including other programs that are running.

I've seen the "problem" you speak of, and your likely using the sidebar tool "multimeter". Mine swears its using 36% of my 4Gigs of ram all the time. What I also notice is that the number never really goes up. I can load up TeamFortress2 and the memory gets reallocated since dreamscene turns itself off when any graphical application is running (I have 2 monitors, I get to watch all this in real time). Yes, at idle Vista uses more memory and your meter shows it, but what it doesn't show is that the memory usage rarely spikes (Unless you run 5 games at once, which I have done.... don't ask) I can rip and burn a DVD while playing TeamFortress2 and have WoW running in the background while surfing DailyTech in IE on the other monitor... my Ram usage spikes from 36% to a whopping 50%. I can tell you that WoW and TF2 combined suck up most of that, as windows systems cut back on how much they eat because of demand.

So, to state the point of this, your looking at the right information, however your accusation is baseless because your not watching what it does over time. If you have some skills and want to see what I mean, build your own event performance template and have it record memory usage and memory usage per process, then go ahead and play some games, and check it. You will see that the game is allocated most of the memory that was previously used by the OS (with usually a little extra since games these days chew memory down like it's going out of style.... thankfully its cheap right now).

RE: PC World
By DeafMute on 12/19/2007 4:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
To my understanding, and I get this from anand's readup on vista from some time ago, in contrast to XP Vista attempts to cache everything it can (based on what you're most likely to use - which is determined by what means I'm not sure) in physical memory so that when load an app that happens to be cached it is faster. Whereas XP tried to keep your memory as empty as possible.

Sounds counter-intuitive huh? Making a great case for XP being more efficient.

What you forget is that clearing memory is instant, loading data from your hard drive into memory is considerably longer (oh let's say 60 MB/s if you have a run-of-the-mill sata drive [and that's SEQUENTIAL, whereas in the real-world it'll often be much slower since data is sometimes fragmented]).
Many seem to think that if xx% of your memory is in use when vista is idle that means that xx% of your memory is actually being used by apps currently running and therefore only the remaining % is available.
In the case of XP where idle usage corresponded more or less to what the OS needed to run then maybe yes but in Vista once you load up an app (let's say a memory intensive one like a game) whatever useful data in memory remains there, then the game uses what is left and/or clears whatever else it needs.

RE: PC World
By 306maxi on 12/20/2007 10:42:32 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I tried saying the same thing the other week and got downrated for it. People are stuck in the old "Memory that not being used is good" trap that XP and everything before it taught us. As I explained sometimes Vista will sit using 50% or so of 2gb and suddenly when I start TF2 (awesome game btw) it suddenly drops to about 30% and then uses more and more RAM as TF2 loads up. As has been said clearing the ram is instant but loading from the HDD is slow so better to load frequently used programs into RAM than to have RAM sitting there doing nothing. Vista for me is far more responsive once it gets going than XP ever was and considering that I'm the type that leaves my PC on 24/7 that's more important to me than startup times and how responsive the PC is when it loads the desktop.

RE: PC World
By Sazar on 12/19/2007 7:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
I know this has been answered but I have to respond just because of the ludicrous nature of the "grievance"

1. Vista uses un-used memory as available to run things in the background, such as indexing. The FREE memory you have is there to be used for various tasks. I'd rather my OS work to keep my system snappy than not. You can turn off a number of the services if you want, instead of crying about it.

2. There are settings to help you with this. Just select the right ones and you should be good to go.

And what background stuff? You can turn off most indexing and other options if you are so inclined. Naturally this simply increases the amount of time you spend searching for items otherwise, but apparently speed is not important to you.

3. Eh? Super-fetch slows your system down? I read your comment about screen-savers and what not, I guess I'll have to check it out since I don't use screen-savers (powering down your display manually or with power settings is FAR more efficient).

4. Turn off UAC if it vexes you so. It's not like it cannot be turned off :)

5. It works fine for me. I guess it depends on the expectations of the user. Can't please everyone

6. If you have an issue with an application (i.e. this ribbon of death) simply go through your reliability tool and see what the issue is and resolve. It really is that simple.

7. Not in my experience and since I am doing a lot of video editing and copy/pasting files, I have to use the copy feature a fair amount... for LARGE files

I won't go so far as to say you are spreading FUD as to suggest that you don't seem to know what you are doing in Vista to the degree you did in, say, XP.

Vista is much faster for me than XP was and I can do more with it. Granted there are issues with some drivers but that is a 3'rd party issue more so than a Vista issue.

Overall, the reliability, speed and functionality of Vista is leaps and bounds better than any other OS I have used inlcuding 7.04 and 7.10 Ubuntu builds.

Having used Vista for over a year now, I simply cannot see what you are claiming to see as issues.

My usage == 100% vista usage in a large corporate environment for business work on my laptop + 100% vista usage at home on a gaming and HTPC desktop system.

I personally LOVE the operating system and I am on a Vista platform typically 12hr of every work day + about 2-10 hrs on weekends. I have plenty of time to love or loathe it and I LOVE it :)

RE: PC World
By vcespon on 12/25/2007 7:27:11 AM , Rating: 3
Vista is designed to cache stuff in RAM, and usually it uses up to 50%. If you load an application that needs a lot of RAM, it will reuse cache pages for the application. Once you close that, you'll see how the RAM usage is below 50%. I have reached 99% RAM used while using Google Earth and Photoshop at the same time, and after closing them I saw RAM usage at 30%.

UAC can be turned off and it's there for the unexperienced users.

I do not intened to mess with the Vista boot loader. If I need to fire up another OS, I use a virtual machine.

Having said that, I would like to know if someone else has seen these:

- When you delete a folder (pressing Supr), it deletes the PARENT folder of that one. Happened to me 5 times, and yes, I have reinstalled Windows.
- When you delete a folder, it fails with a message that it cannot delete certain file because it's not there. But that file exists. Indeed, if you delete the folder again, it does it.
- Copying files from a CD is still following a STUPID algorithm. If you cannot read a file, just say so, and give options to skip it, DO NOT hang the whole operating system.
- Sleep/Resume does not work well, sometimes the screen goes black but it does not go to sleep and does not wake up either, the only time I had to hard-reset the computer in years.
- You cannot select multiple files on a folder in any way. This is documented on the KB, but the workaround suggested do not work. Real solution is to delete 'bags' folder on registry.
- If I create a folder and download 2 EXE and a PDF to it, why the default view is "pictures"?
- Vista always selects whatever default view for a folder it feels like, that part of the OS is completly messed up. No matter what options you select anywhere.

I do no do gaming nor HD DVD on my computer, nor I have any intention to do so. If an OS cannot handle file manaagement properly (something that Windows 3.11 did 100% of the time right), I'm not willing to spend money on a DVD / graphics card / 1080p TV that I'm not SURE it's going to work right out of the box, without having to argue for 6 months with Microsoft and search Internet forums.

RE: PC World
By DeepBlue1975 on 12/18/2007 3:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
I actually don't like office 2007's default interface, it is not straight forward enough for me as on the previous versions.

Anyway I set it up to behave like it did on the previous versions and I get the job done almost the same as I did with those versions.
I'm not a heavy office user, though, just get basic things done their like small excel worksheets and word documents, and because of that maybe I can't see the same advantages over office XP that many others can see.

RE: PC World
By Sazar on 12/19/2007 7:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Spend about an hour with Office 2007 and maybe buy or borrow a book on how to use it. You will probably slap your forehead in dumbfounded disbelief at how simple/easy and intuitive the interface is and how you lived without it before.

The ribbons have a longer learning curve than needed perhaps, I agree, but Office 2007 has an amazing design and it works really well. There are innumerable advantages over the archaic interfaces of every other application like it. Anyone who claims otherwise has simply not invested the hour or so it takes to ramp up

RE: PC World
By DeafMute on 12/19/2007 4:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
My god, THANK YOU Kenobi...

Simply put every windows release has its problems - having said that with all the major changes made to the OS (DX10, improved memory handling, totally revamped windows audio, improved tcp/ip stack (ipv6), 'enhanced' security (ala bitdef/uac)... just to name a few) as well as the interface I'd have to say that this release has gone pretty smoothly.

As for drivers, I can only speculate that manufacturers simply didn't think vista adoption would be so fast. It was rocky at first but in general I think performance is now about equal (if not equal) to XP - except where creative is concerned but that is another issue altogether (see revamped windows audio - arguably superior but not without its problems).

I love the claim that vista performance is poorer than XP's. Sure, on your 1ghz athlon w/512 of ram I'm sure it sucks noodles, but when my colleague at work can buy an 700CDN$ laptop that runs home basic LIKE A CHARM even with all the bloatware installed by the oem then I think one can argue that the difference in performance is negligible. Which goes without saying that my A64 3200+ with 2GB + x1600 runs ultimate perfectly with aero.
And as far as UAC, bitdefender, Windows FW...etc... is concerned (which for the record I have all disabled) - MS HAS FINALLY made a whole-hearted effort to deliver ALL THOSE SECURITY FEATURES many have criticized them for not having in the first place! 3rd party AVs even see the end coming and are fighting tooth and nail to stop it

My only complaint is that there are so many useless services.
Just makes me wish they had like a more intuitive interface for disabling (maybe even a wizard too so I could click cancel and do it manually) instead of that damn mmc snapin.

All in all it seems to me that of the people who S*** on vista claiming it is the #1 tech disaster of 2007 there are two sorts: 1)Ignorant elitists who probably dual boot 98SE [not even sure that is possible] and have the linux penguin as they're boot screen though they have never used linux 2) People who know nothing about Vista and mistakenly turn to those ignorant elitists for advice.

Having said that Office 2007 made a bad impression when it took me 5 minutes - that is a 300 whole seconds - to find the print button. But it's growing on me. And zune, well it looks promising and I've read luke-warm reviews but I fear this is a domain that MS will have to throw many a dollar at before it ever gets close to holding that 1% of the market reserved for mp3 players that arent ipods. But that's the tactic they used for the XB and look how far that's come.

RE: PC World
By clovell on 12/17/2007 3:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
> The Zune is worthy of being trashed.

They trashed it for 1) Keeping DRM - which the iPod did as well and 2) allowing you to listen to a song that a friend shares with you wirelessly only three times (a song you did not pay for) - a feature the iPod doesn't have.

The Zune may be worthy of being trashed, but this guy did a poor job of it.

(nLite’d of course)
By Haven Bartton on 12/17/2007 3:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
This program is a Godsend for XP users looking for complete tweakability and custom installs. If you frequently reformat your XP machine, this is a must to try out.

There's also a Vista version at which allows you to get rid of plenty of Vista annoyances *before* they're installed (including UAC).

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 3:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
I hate UAC b/c every damn time I try to do something, that damn things pops up another damn nag screen.

Delete a file, **BOOP**
Install a new program, **BOOP**
Go to Control Panal, **BOOP**

I turned that crap off as soon as I installed Vista.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 5:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good solution maybe for people who don't know any better. But for most people that are well-honed on Windows operating systems, it's a damn annoyance.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 6:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh, I do the same thing I did when I had XP on my desktop and what I do with my Windows XP machine.

AVG Free antivirus plus SpyBot.

How hard is that? I guess XP must be some POS operating system without the Yoda that is UAC :)

That being said, I can't recall when the last time I had a virus or spyware loaded onto my system. It was probably way back in my Windows 98 (pre SE) days.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By aos007 on 12/17/2007 7:22:42 PM , Rating: 3
While I'm somehow managing to survive its incessant complaining, and while I can see good intentions in preventing a program from writing into Program Files (as some seem to want to do, for live updates or config changes) - I cannot fathom the idiocy of asking me to approve EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME I double click on say cpu-z. For God's sake why does it not remember that I allowed the program to run once already, for the remainder of the session at least? Especially since it's a VERY DIRECT USER INITIATED ACTION (yes, I'm yelling) - not some behind-the-scenes background launch. This is kind of stuff that does far more damage - it's a proven fact that stress it causes can shorten my life. In that light, the increased likelihood of PC getting infected by a virus suddenly doesn't look all that big of a problem.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By AlexWade on 12/18/2007 8:29:21 AM , Rating: 3
Another thing: since UAC bugs you so much, a user is likely to start ignoring it and approve everything without checking. Just like ads, they are everywhere so people tuned them out. Then UAC just becomes a pure annoyance and not a safety.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By rdeegvainl on 12/18/2007 6:38:51 AM , Rating: 3
Why would I want to disable UAC every time I defragment, delete files I no longer use, play games(yes it does pop up for games I play) or try new programs, new drivers, updates to any program I use, and then re-enable UAC? This is my day to day use of my computer. It popped up all the time when I used my computer. I really have no problem with Vista, cause I disabled the UAC after it got too annoying, but you seem to have a problem with other peoples legitimate issues.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/18/2007 7:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed 100%

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By SoCalBoomer on 12/17/2007 5:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Strangely, people laud OSX's 'version' of UAC as better - but with it, you have to input the admin password rather than just clicking on a button saying, yes, this is what I intend to do.

wow - complain about Windows when it has a minimalistic version, but applaud Apple when it makes you type a password.


RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Murst on 12/18/2007 2:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need to enter the password if the user you're running under is an admin. However, if you are not running as an admin, you will be prompted for a password.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By killerroach on 12/20/2007 11:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
And if you run as admin on any Unix-based OS, you deserve what you have coming. UAC is basically Microsoft's way of forcing admin accounts (and all others, for that matter) to sub-admin status to both protect users from themselves and to encourage developers to create code that doesn't run afoul of UAC for no good reason.

That being said, UAC is still incredibly annoying to those who play a bit more fast and loose with their machines.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By ChronoReverse on 12/17/2007 6:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you're deleting a file from Program Files, UAC BETTER let me know. For known safe locations, it's just a matter of security settings... if I own the folder or have read/write access, guess what, UAC doesn't kick in!

Opening the Control Panel does not trigger UAC. In fact, looking at my Control Panel right now, there's only 5 items inside the Control Panel that would activate UAC (you can tell from the shield icon overlay):
1. Add Hardware
2. Bitlocker Drive Encryption
3. Device Manager
4. iSCSI Initiator
5. Parental Controls

As for program installation. Turn off UAC during your install phase. Then turn it back on. That wasn't so hard after all.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 7:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but many of us seasoned Windows users don't do stuff don't go around deleting files from Program Folders or from within the Windows directory. That's for the people that don't know any better.

It's been a while since I've used UAC, but I do recall it going **BOOP** when I tried to go to Device Manager.

That being said, I hate UAC and that's why I have it disabled. I don't care if it **BOOPS** at me three times during week -- that's three times too many.

For my usage model, it's just an annoyance. I can do the same operations on my Windows XP-based Eee PC and not have to worry about being interrupted. That's the way I like it.

Sure, you have the right to say that I'm being picky for singling out UAC and that it actually serves a purpose. And I have the equal right to say that I hate it with a passion :)

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By DanaGoyette on 12/21/2007 10:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of Device Manager, that reminds me of another thing I hate about UAC: It's all or nothing. There's no "run as non-admin anyway" button.

How to find out what hardware a computer in a store has:

XP: Run device manager. Say "ok" to "can't change anything."

Vista: Run device manager. Be prompted for admin password. Don't have one? Sorry, no device manager for you!

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 3:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
THANK YOU!! Didn't know about VLite and was looking for something similar for Vista.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By amanojaku on 12/17/2007 4:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
There's a link for it at the top right of the nLite homepage.

Didn't you get the memo?
By clovell on 12/17/2007 1:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
> "And when the fastest Vista notebook PC World has ever tested is an Apple MacBook Pro, there's something deeply wrong with the universe."

That's because Macs are using PC parts now. I know that flies in the face of everything you've seen on the commercials, but it's true.

Or... maybe that's just a cover - maybe GeorgeOrwell is right and this has been Bill Gates plan all along - to destabilize the universe.

RE: Didn't you get the memo?
By Haven Bartton on 12/17/2007 3:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the only thing left about Macs that are actually "Macs" are the motherboard/chipset and the OS. And I think the chipset might not even be proprietary anymore. Intel maybe?

RE: Didn't you get the memo?
By Donkeyshins on 12/17/2007 6:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
At best, the only thing that are still 'Macs' are:

1) BIOS (or, more specifically, EFI)
2) Lack of high-end video card support

Other than that, it's an Intel-based PC with a shiny Apple wrapper.

RE: Didn't you get the memo?
By XPguy on 1/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Didn't you get the memo?
By Donkeyshins on 12/17/2007 6:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
The chipset are standard Intel parts. Hell, even EFI (Apple's touted replacement for the BIOS) predates Apple's adoption of Intel hardware.

RE: Didn't you get the memo?
By Master Kenobi on 12/18/2007 9:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. The only thing you get with Apple is lack of high end video card support. :P

By crystal clear on 12/18/2007 9:58:53 AM , Rating: 3
All of the controversies and disappointments related to Vista were enough for PC World to label Windows Vista the" #1 Biggest Tech Disappointment of 2007."

I think P.C. World is wrong in its assesments of #1 Biggest Tech Disappointment of 2007.

AMD+Barcelona+Phenoms are the biggest TECH disaappointments of 2007.

Vista with all its strengths & weakness is a product that has undergone development/refinement/corrections through out 2007,via updates & to be released SP1.

M.S. has & still doing its best to get Vista acceptable as the O.S. worth switching over(through updates).

I think buyers/users should be patient & not give up on the Vista.
In 2008 YOU should see a much better Vista,getting better by the day.

M.S. on its part should be patient & continue investing time & efforts in its refinements of the Vista.

Just remember "No O.S. is perfect-name your brand/choice they have their strengths & weaknesses-just like human beings."

If you play the blame game-then I think M.S. is not be blamed for >All of the controversies and disappointments related to Vista there are OTHERS who equally share the blame & are responsible for the lack of mass acceptance of the O.S.

To name a few-

The OEMs/vendors/resellers who promoted the Vista as package of software & hardware,without ensuring that the systems they were selling were problem free.

All they saw was the Vista/M.S. promotional fundings & dumping their own hardware on the buyers for hardcore profitmaking & generate revenues.

The customer support they provide or provided was below acceptable standards & convieniently blamed Vista for all the problems faced/encountered by the buyer.

All they did was to use VISTA to promote their own sales of hardware-in simple words Dumping their hardware on you.
All they saw was PROFITS-Revenues-Marketshare thats all.

The DRIVER support for Vista(earlier in the year) was shamefull & very substandard,
Either there were NO drivers available or drivers that were not compatible or simple problematic,etc.

Blame AMD,NVIDIA,HP, & MANY many more like them who also FAILED horribly in their deliveries of compatible drivers in time for the VISTA.

So blaming M.S. for Vista's "controversies and disappointments" is a totally wrong assessment by all those criticizing it.

M.S. marketing had also it flaws & drawbacks & equally share the blame.
The marketing dept failed horribly in its efforts to promote Vista-their information campaign for the ordinary buyer/user was a FAILURE/neglegent/sometimes incorrect.

M.S. marketing preferred to TRUST OEMs/dealers/resellers etc in managing/handling M.S. marketing/information campaigns etc.
All M.S. did was to provide them with money for their promotional/marketing campaigns.

M.S failed to realize that these OEMs were misusing these funds,not in the interest of M.S.

As for the corporate world/business sector-they were/are traditionally slow to change over to a new O.S.-dont expect them to change over fast-simple.

Sorry P.C. World is itself a disappointment in its assesments.

By crystal clear on 12/18/2007 10:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
"All human power is a compound of time and patience."

Thats the attitude.

By TomZ on 12/18/2007 12:32:37 PM , Rating: 3
Good point, but I think Microsoft is an easier target for PC World, as opposed to AMD.

Vista really disappoints.
By mxnerd on 12/19/2007 8:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't see anything good about Vista. It's slow as hell. The user interface is confusing at best. Security? Microsoft is not making a better safe, but wrap a safe inside another safe, yet another safe. It's a joke.

It's really a disease instead a cure.

RE: Vista really disappoints.
By 306maxi on 12/20/2007 10:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
How is it "slow as hell?" evidence?

RE: Vista really disappoints.
By Tewt on 12/21/2007 3:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure I will get it eventually but am in no hurry to spend the $400 for Ultimate(also I would like to see if they add any more 'extras' to that version).

RE: Vista really disappoints.
By 306maxi on 12/21/2007 12:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
A quick search on froogle shows that an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate can be had for $170 or so. Who buys retail? :-/

Vista? Ugh... Maybe tomorrow
By amanojaku on 12/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: Vista? Ugh... Maybe tomorrow
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 5:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're justifying your views on FUD instead of facts.
Architecturally, Windows needs a lot of improvement.
Like what, specifically?
Why can't I leave my machine running for five months, let alone five years?
What keeps you from running Vista for five months/years?
Where is there an open source development environment like Linux?
Here are some off the top of my head: Eclipse, Java, and Visual Studio Express. There are tons more, but you get my point.
Why is Windows so closed to enhancements when Apple loves widgets like we do?
Huh, how is Windows closed to enhancements? Heck, if anything Microsoft makes it easy to add "widgets." For example, it is super-easy to develop new widgets for the Sidebar in Vista. Not to mention writing apps, services, etc.

By ChronoReverse on 12/17/2007 6:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
I still remember fondly of my 3 month (or was that 6 months? Can't remember anymore) Windows 98 uptime personal record. I was young and foolish back then (not rebooting after updates).

By Kishkumen on 12/19/2007 7:29:22 PM , Rating: 1
Whatever. Windows users have always preferred to whine and complain about how crappy the Microsoft operating systems are rather than explore and demand alternatives. Windows users have no business complaining to Microsoft. What else is an illegal monopoly supposed to do but deliver substandard products at inflated prices? The article should probably read "Windows Customers: YOU'RE The Biggest Tech Disappointment of 2007".

RE: Meh
By Stark1 on 12/21/2007 3:08:01 AM , Rating: 3

I just wanted Ultimate because of the cool packaging. While I have not tried it, I see no reason to upgrade. Until I'm hacked(never have been) or there is an application that is Vista only(I'm not counting DX10 games) then I have no need to place cash on the table. It is a poor investment. XP still has suppport, it works, it's stable and allows me to do all I want/need at the moment such as email, surfing, playing games and editing video. I don't understand the people that say "fine, stay with a 5 year dead horse" as if something truly horrible would happen if I didn't upgrade.

By OblivionMage on 12/17/2007 3:56:44 PM , Rating: 3
Looks like PCWorld has figured out how to get hits on the internet, too.

PC World ?
By chick0n on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: PC World ?
By chick0n on 12/21/2007 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 1
Oh 1 more thing.

Some people wish MS do what Apple does ? of what? Ripping people off ?

Move the icons around and put some eye candy to existing features is called not ripping people off ? OSX is a freaking joke. 129 for some eye candy make over ? No thanks my friend.

RE: PC World ?
By Tewt on 1/14/2008 10:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
If I could purchase just the Vista Ultimate box for $10, I would be happy and my XP disk would have a great storage case. That's the only reason I would want to upgrade because Vista offers nothing that XP cannot do now and I've yet to hear a single convincing argument why I NEED to upgrade.

Always the SAME
By intelcpu on 12/21/2007 4:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think Vista is like XP in his early days. As i remember many costumers were disappointed in XPs early days because of some security issues and the high hardware requirements. So just give Vista some time Service Pack will come soon. And please stop flaming around.

By rushfan2006 on 12/24/2007 8:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
There next OS would be called:

Windows Cash Cow

And the headline/main quote from MS marketing would be featured on sites like this and PC magazines as "Well really WCC offers nothing new, but we enjoy raking in tons of money on our popular product releases so we felt it was about time to give the public some more crap to buy and tell them they need it."

XP and waiting
By ICE1966 on 12/26/2007 8:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
being a gamer and system builder, I have to keep up with the latest things, but vista is one thing I have not done this for. I have built systems using Vista ultimate and it seems to run fine until I get a call about a problem with one of the computers that I have built. Some of my customers have issues with some of thier apps not running or running very unstable. most of my customers have switched to the 32bit versions of vista and it seems to have eliminated most problems. I, for one, am still running XP pro sp2. I have no problems with this os and it runs very fast and stable for me. I will probably try Vista once the service pack comes out but until then, its XP for me. I remember when XP came out and everybody complained about it, but it did turn out to be a very good OS. give vista time and hopefully it will too. I tend to agree, somewhat, with a few of the posters here that vista needs to be leaner. I would much rather see the resources go to run the apps faster than I would to just get the OS running decent. I spend alot of cash on my personal system and would much rather all the hardware go to running the heck out of my apps rather than just make to OS run fast.

Anyway, I hope all had a wonderful Christmas, and a happy new year coming up.

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

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