Vista

Yes, not something I foresee a need for at ALL as it's overbloated and sucks up computer resources. I'm a fairly intensive user (photographer/graphics user) and not interested in the upgrade.

As expected from a MS product, it forces a person to upgrade their computer (add faster CPU, more memory, etc.) and for what end? So you can view a 3D, high resolution BSOD (blue screen of death)?! no thanks

Have you seen it yet?

0 Replies

Vista
Well, that's what I thought, but I'd like to hear from people who've tried it. Maybe some will find usefulness or entertainment in the bloat...

0 Replies

not when it costs you to buy a whole new computer or reduces your current computer to a crawl. What tasks do you use your computer to do? Also, do you need , for example, 3D graphics?

0 Replies

Vista
I have absolutely no reason to invest in Vista; my current computer handles everything I want very nicely, thanks. But I am curious what other people think about it.

I assume that some day support for XP Home will be phased out, most software will require more power than my machine has and so on. By then I'll probably be dead of old age, so I won't have to worry about replacing stuff.

0 Replies

i find it amuzing someone would spurt out all that hate, having not used it himself. i've been using vista since the betas. it now runs on my desktop and laptop. i love it. it has drivers for damn near everything. i haven't noticed any decreased performance. actually, it boots faster than XP. there are some irritations, comignn from the security settings. but you can disable all that stuff. i haven't upgraded my computer (it's nearly 4 years old) and it works just great.

go for it.

0 Replies

Interesting

I just got a new computer last weekend, and it automatically came with the Vista upgrade.

I read the Vista information, but to be honest, I have absolutely no idea what it does.

Is it mostly about graphics or something?

Please use small words, I haven't been in this country long.

0 Replies

Vista is better than XP
I've been an XP user for years. I upgrade my hardware much more often than my OS. I've been running vista for a few months and I have to say it's the most stable OS microsoft has put out yet.

I run photoshop, dreamweaver, games, media center ... all the cool stuff and usually at the same time. Never a blue screen.

I'd get lock ups and blue screens ocasionaly on xp.

The features I like the best are stability, security and enhancements.

I've got lots of files and move them around a bunch. with xp I had to spend a ton of time figuring out which were the most current versions of documents and things. The search function works 1000 times better. It even incorporates emails. xp used to freeze doing searches. vista indexes the files and the search results are blazing fast. I have multiple hard drives and a bunch of files. It really saves me time.

The only draw back I've found is no support for faxing unless you buy the business or ultimate edition.

I've run Home deluxe 32 and 64. the 32 runs alot faster but i'm only using 2 gigs of ram. 64 lets you usably address much more ram than the 32 bit version.

I'm back to the 32 bit version and love it.

The 3D aero windows or what ever is cool. media player is great and the built in picture album and photo tools are sweet.

It does tons of cool stuff and for me well worth the upgrade price.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

As expected from a MS product, it forces a person to upgrade their computer (add faster CPU, more memory, etc.) and for what end? So you can view a 3D, high resolution BSOD (blue screen of death)?!

Lol! I realize many people swore a blood oath against Microsoft back in the 12th century, but seriously, that's just trolling. Vista is a nice operating system, and Microsoft seems to have put a ton of work in making things more self-explanatory and user-friendly. Vista's no quantum leap from Windows XP, but it looks and works great, although with all its bells and whistles it does seem to be much more hungry for system resources.

0 Replies

Here are Vista's main draws IMO:

1) New graphics engine. This doesn't just mean Windows finally is trying to be as "pretty" as Mac OSes but it has functional benefits as well relating to performance and productivity. The new graphics engine has graphics card requirements and is pretty much the only part that would require a system upgrade (if you don't have a graphics card or have a very weak one).

2) Search and navigation. Central parts of navigation in windows (the old "start menu" and windows explorer) have been upgraded to be much more user friendly. But most importantly, the built-in indexing for desktop search is a useful improvement.

3) You can do all sorts of new things with RAM and flash memory (like plugging in a USB drive to help speed up your computer).

I personally still do not use Vista on any of my main computers but this has more to do with the fact that I'm not in the US and can't easily buy computers/upgrades as I have no place to ship them right now.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

i find it amuzing someone would spurt out all that hate, having not used it himself.

I consider myself (as do my peers) a sophisticated user. I use Win XP Pro (NEVER had a blue screen) and many other MS applications . I would be cutting my nose off to spite my face to intensely dislike MS products. Also, as a computer professional, I would not be responsible if I made a comment on something I haven't used.

You are quite mistaken and have made 2 wrong assumptions. I've used Vista. FYI, a friend has let me use his Vista in his new system. To further qualify my comment, I feel that it's not worth investing in as an upgrade on an existing Win XP machine on systems from 1-4 years old. If someone is buying a new system, Vista is already on it -- no big deal-- I wouldn't remove it or discourage someone from buying it solely because it's Vista.

You seem to have mistaken my humor and sarcasm for hate. I did exaggerate a bit about Vista slowing an (exisiting older) machine to a crawl. I stand by the comments about needing to upgrade (older graphics cards and/or some CPUs).

There is no hate in my heart or contained in my comments for MS. I tend to be sarcastic, especially when it comes to upgrades. Many people besides me have commented (in technical circles) about Vista's excessive bloat. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, to make such a comment. That's not opinion -- that is fact, and it always has been the knock...on MS OS in general, as well as this one in specific.

I repeat my comment...Vista is a bloated OS and, as also commented on by another A2K-er, it is NOT a quantum leap over Win XP. The money for enhancing an existing system is better spent on other areas.

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

Many people besides me have commented (in technical circles) about Vista's excessive bloat. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, to make such a comment. That's not opinion -- that is fact

That is quite a subjective "fact" (which puts it well into the realm of opinion) and certainly depends on what you consider bloat, as well as what you are comparing Vista to, if anything.

Ragman wrote:

as also commented on by another A2K-er, it is NOT a quantum leap over Win XP. The money for enhancing an existing system is better spent on other areas.

You are taking my quote out of context, and in any case, your claim depends on the user's needs and their existing software and hardware. If you already have a relatively beefy system, Vista may actually give you better performance from your existing components. E.g., Vista handles memory better than XP (of course, it also needs more, but if you have a lot of RAM Vista will likely make better use of it), allows you to optimize performance with external storage (as Craven noted), includes DirectX 10 (which offers *huge* graphics enhancements for compatible graphics cards and games), etc.

0 Replies

Monger wrote:

Ragman wrote:
Many people besides me have commented (in technical circles) about Vista's excessive bloat. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, to make such a comment. That's not opinion -- that is fact

That is quite a subjective "fact" (which puts it well into the realm of opinion) and certainly depends on what you consider bloat, as well as what you are comparing Vista to, if anything.

Ragman wrote:
as also commented on by another A2K-er, it is NOT a quantum leap over Win XP. The money for enhancing an existing system is better spent on other areas.

You are taking my quote out of context, and in any case, your claim depends on the user's needs and their existing software and hardware. If you already have a relatively beefy system, Vista may actually give you better performance from your existing components. E.g., Vista handles memory better than XP (of course, it also needs more, but if you have a lot of RAM Vista will likely make better use of it), allows you to optimize performance with external storage (as Craven noted), includes DirectX 10 (which offers *huge* graphics enhancements for compatible graphics cards and games), etc.

MONGER LIVES!!!!!!!

Very Happy

0 Replies

thanks for sharing opinions.

0 Replies

Hi there, I have been using Microsoft XP for 2 years, then I running XP and Vista Ultimate together for few months, due to software compatible issue, I had to keep XP running. Well, now I had remove XP from my hard drive and mainly running Vista alone.

Is true that to enjoy the full performace of Vista, we need to upgrade our PC's hardware, like myself, had to add in extra RAM, and the OS itself very costly. When I first had my hand on it, the thing that came across my mind is, Vista just have eye candy, I don't feel I to switch over it anyway.

Well, after the RTM had been released for a month, more and more software had updated version, and I had switched over Vista forever. I had never had blue screen on Vista or XP. Recently, most of my friends' PC were infected by some malware where it spread through thumb drive, when the infected thumb drive hook up on my Vista, it actually didn't launch the malware on auto run, it let me choose, and I clean the malware before it launch. Yes, Vista still have a lots of vulnerable holes that needed to be patch, as long as you update your OS well.

From the point of productivity, I couldn't give much on it, just I'm not a productive person. One thing that help me much is the search on the start menu, i launch my application faster than I am in XP, I can simply type paint to launch MS Paint, rather than mspaint in the RUN box.

Well, if you confidence with Microsoft and confortable with Windows, is not a bad choice to try Vista. There always many choices out there.

0 Replies

This idea that you need to upgrade your graphics card to use vista is false. If you have a good graphics card (at least one with a dedicated GPU), you can take advantage of the Aero theme. However, if your graphics card is not powerful enough, windows will still run just fine on its Basic Theme. Actually, that's the only difference between Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium. Anyway, let me say it again - you do *not* have to upgrade to use Vista.

For the record, I am also a "sophisticated user." It kinda goes along with being a software engineer @ cerner. :-) My work laptop has Vista on it as well.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Actually, [the Aero theme is] the only difference between Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium.

False.

Here's a basic comparison between several editions of Vista.

0 Replies

Monger wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Actually, [the Aero theme is] the only difference between Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium.

False.

Here's a basic comparison between several editions of Vista.

Ok... so maybe "only" was not exactly correct. The point of the post still stands nevertheless.

0 Replies

Well, we can run Vista on low requirement, such as 800MHz processor with 512MB of RAM, upgrade is to experience the full performance and enjoy the Aero, as I will not run my XP on 256MB of RAM as well as 512MB, probably just personal preferences. :wink:

0 Replies

I don't understand the 'pretty as MacOses' statement. My best friends have got a Mac. I don't think it looks particularly pretty at all. On the few occasions I've used it, I've found it very cumbersome. Finally, when I upgraded a few months ago, I used my existing hard disk, DVD writer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and as a result got into a 3.2G/Hz dual core for $540. The latest Mac would cost $3000 here.

On the Vista question. I won't be moving up due to the hefty price. In Australia, almost as much as my PC cost, and with XP mine's running smooth as silk and so fast it screams.

0 Replies

Vista

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know