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: (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.

"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

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