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

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...

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

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