Vista.....not so bad?

[pilotError]

I recently built a new machine for one of the Simulators I use. Similar setup, Asus p5q deluxe, q9550, gtx 260, 4GB ram...

I installed Vista 64 and it has been OK. Just OK. It works, it has crashed on me on a handful of occassions. It tends to annoy the crap out of you unless you start turning off all sorts of options mentioned above.

My issues are mainly around trying to find things. It seems they tried to make it simple, but in the process, dumbed it down and made things harder to find. When I say find things, I mean like trying to map a network drive, or attaching to my NAS.

They did some things different, hid the menus so that you have to press ALT for them to appear. I wish they would do away with the 400 tool bars and keep the menus around. As polished as the UI is in Vista, I'm not sure the useability factor is there.

I haven't had the compatibility issues with software that others have had. It's been fairly reliable in that instance.

In the end, it really has reaffirmed my decision to go to OS X. I'm a little sorry I didn't just buy a 24" iMac and dual boot it, but then again, this thing runs blu-ray without issue. Something we are all still waiting for.

 

[Stridder44]

I think you are the one who forgot how it was.
When it first went on sale XP was bloated, nobody knew exactly why it was so much bigger if it wasn't doing anything new... after a while, it became "good enough" for most people, ie: all retailers got rid of Win 98 and sold XP only.

As more and more people got broadband internet and started to get their PCs Pwnd, that's when XP stopped being good enough and turned into a crap product. Now Vista is ending that stage where people aren't sure what's so good about it to justify the upgrade and XP is now elegant and lightweight.

Did you even read what I wrote? XP is "lightweight" because it's 8 years old and made for computes built back in 2001. XP wasn't accepted up until SP2 was released for it, then it became good and acceptable. Vista is actually gaining acceptance more quickly that XP was. And elegant? If XP is elegant then Steve Jobs is a body builder.

 

[Melrose]

I like Vista.

Let's face it people: Windows is still the shiznit for networking. Macs are a royal pain in the you-know-what when it comes to dual-platform networking.

Weird. I had a network set up back when my parents had a PC, and my Macintosh hooked up and handled the network fine. It was Windows that I had so much trouble with.. In the end it never worked right; we just got used to not having the nice network features on the PC.

 

[Cromulent]

Vista x64 is pretty good if you ask me. Fast, stable and easy to use.

Turn Aero off as soon as you get it though and use the Windows 2000 theme (best Windows UI Microsoft ever came up with) and it will be fine.

 

[sangosimo]

vista 64bit. My rig is smokin fast and cost less than a macbook.

 

[gilkisson]

Vista x64 is pretty good if you ask me. Fast, stable and easy to use.

Turn Aero off as soon as you get it though and use the Windows 2000 theme (best Windows UI Microsoft ever came up with) and it will be fine.

What's left? If turn off the vista-ness, what does it have left to recommend it? Why bother to pay Bill? I mean, what's the point?

 

[chewietobbacca]

What's left? If turn off the vista-ness, what does it have left to recommend it? Why bother to pay Bill? I mean, what's the point?

Stability and speed? 64-bit is damn good too

Granted, I have a top of the line PC with vista ultimate x64 (and a Raptor X to boot), but the thing runs smooth as silk and never crashes (okay, so when it does its usually due to drivers from the video card, which accounts for the highest chunk of crashes)

Yes, you do have to disable things like UAC if you don't want to be annoyed, but if you understand anything about computers (and don't go clicking random links), you won't need it anyways

 

[Stridder44]

What's left? If turn off the vista-ness, what does it have left to recommend it? Why bother to pay Bill? I mean, what's the point?

Yeah, there's no other changes in Vista at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Check out that bar on the right that lists all the different sections, as the link I posted only covers one section of changes.

 

[gilkisson]

Yeah, there's no other changes in Vista at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Check out that bar on the right that lists all the different sections, as the link I posted only covers one section of changes.

Oh, I admit and agree there are indeed changes in Vista, versus XP, versus Vista SP1.. Let me clear up where I'm coming from. I'm looking at 300+ PCs to upgrade at several properties. I see no driving need to shell out the money, go thru the pain/suffering/downtime. It will not benefit the business, nor will it allow me to save money elsewhere. For example, I'd still need my corporate antivirus, right? Of course.

There is nothing that sells me on the "upgrade".

 

[gilkisson]

Yeah, there's no other changes in Vista at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Check out that bar on the right that lists all the different sections, as the link I posted only covers one section of changes.

Oh, and the link you included?

 

[Cromulent]

Oh, I admit and agree there are indeed changes in Vista, versus XP, versus Vista SP1.. Let me clear up where I'm coming from. I'm looking at 300+ PCs to upgrade at several properties. I see no driving need to shell out the money, go thru the pain/suffering/downtime. It will not benefit the business, nor will it allow me to save money elsewhere. For example, I'd still need my corporate antivirus, right? Of course.

There is nothing that sells me on the "upgrade".

Fine. Don't upgrade then. Seems like you have made your own mind up.

Personally I find Vista much, much more stable than XP ever was for me. If I were in charge of a business stability would be pretty high up on my list of priorities.

But hey that's just me.

 

[gilkisson]

Fine. Don't upgrade then. Seems like you have made your own mind up.

Personally I find Vista much, much more stable than XP ever was for me. If I were in charge of a business stability would be pretty high up on my list of priorities.

But hey that's just me.

Yep. I have made up my mind. Had to. Sorry, that seems to be upsetting to you for some reason...

What do you mean when you say "more stable"? Going x number of days between reboots or BSODs? I have my users shutdown at night, or whenever the PC will be inactive for more than two hours. Saves electricity, and as a security measure. Therefore, they reboot almost daily anyways, making that a moot point.

And I've yet to see any studies that show me a dollar amount in productivity savings that justifies the expense of Vista. Managing a network means more than just installing the latest "cool" things, it also means staying within budget and looking after the bottom line.

 

[northy124]

Congrats on installing 64bit Vista you made the right choice as it actually works, I'm seriously considering going back to Windows as this OS is seriously doing my head in (Lost 11GB of space (Items disappeared so I can't delete) that I need so I can partition).

 

[Cromulent]

Yep. I have made up my mind. Had to. Sorry, that seems to be upsetting to you for some reason...

Not at all. As I said that's just me. Hell, you could go back to running DOS if you really wanted too.

 

[FX120]

Oh, I admit and agree there are indeed changes in Vista, versus XP, versus Vista SP1.. Let me clear up where I'm coming from. I'm looking at 300+ PCs to upgrade at several properties. I see no driving need to shell out the money, go thru the pain/suffering/downtime. It will not benefit the business, nor will it allow me to save money elsewhere. For example, I'd still need my corporate antivirus, right? Of course.

There is nothing that sells me on the "upgrade".

The biggest thing for me as a (albeit smaller) network administrator is that Vista is inherrently more secure than XP.

The improved group policy controls were much welcomed too. And taking device drivers out of kernel space improving stability and the systems ability to recover from crash without shutting down the entire machine.

Sure there are some bling factors included in Vista, but under the skin the core OS is really worlds ahead of XP in pretty much every way.

 

[Stridder44]

Oh, and the link you included?

Now you're just being ignorant. Check it out for yourself on a Vista machine, or a simple Google search will tell you that it's all true anyway.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I have Windows Vista Home Premium (SP1) running on my HP Pavilion a6400f and I've never had any serious problems with my PC. I like it over Windows XP because in Vista if you have a program crash you can recover much more gracefully than in Windows XP.

 

[gilkisson]

Not at all. As I said that's just me. Hell, you could go back to running DOS if you really wanted too.

Heh. And I would, too. Actually, Win2K desktops attaching to Netware servers... ah, those were the days.

 

[gilkisson]

Now you're just being ignorant. Check it out for yourself on a Vista machine, or a simple Google search will tell you that it's all true anyway.

Jeez, dude, lighten up. I assure you, I've done the due diligence I felt was needed. I admit, this was when Vista was new and fresh, before the service pack that made it (reportedly) tolerable. And yes, XP was once in that same condition.

But we are where we are. When Windows 7 comes out, I will look at it as well. From what I have read, 7 is to Windows 2000 as Vista is to ME.

Upgrading to Vista now is, in my opinion, the very epitome of ignorance. If you are happy paying for your OS twice, well, enjoy it.

 

[me_94501]

Also, does anyone have anything good to say about Vista? I realize this is a Mac forum but I 1) feel I can learn as much or more about things from looking at the cons and 2) really like the Aero interface (glass windows are really neat). I read somewhere aero is Microsoft's take on Aqua which is an OSX thing, but I've never seen the glass look in OSX.

Any comments or answers would be really appreciated

I use Vista at work; aside from lack of polish endemic to Windows (e.g. I can't move a file if it's open--frustrating as all-get-out), I can't say it's all that bad.

 

[twoodcc]

well, i had to use windows last semester for school, and i decided to try vista (since i got it free from school). i put it on all my macs, and i must say that i like it. granted, i still use leopard as my main OS, but it has tempted me to maybe go back to windows.

i mean, i have 3 macs, and for me to really give Vista a real go, i'd have to run it on all my machines at once to give it my full attention. in my experience, leopard and vista don't mix all that well.

 

[sangosimo]

why can't cut and paste in finder and why doesn't osx mimic alt tab.

 

[angelneo]

Fine. Don't upgrade then. Seems like you have made your own mind up.

Personally I find Vista much, much more stable than XP ever was for me. If I were in charge of a business stability would be pretty high up on my list of priorities.

But hey that's just me.

Stability is not a singular equation in businesses, you need to take into account your hardware/software setup and compatibility for each station, you need to consider whether the users are trained, sufficient procedures to maintain the stability etc. It's not a simple answer of "Oh, this OS is stable so we should upgrade".

 

[yojitani]

I haven't used Vista extensively. The university here recently made all their windows machines Vista so I've had a chance to use it a bit and I've seen friends' computers with it on. Here's what I see:

- Organization is a problem. I was used to XP and had a hard time finding things on Vista. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not. It's more likely to do with me not taking time with the computer.

- It only works well on recent hardware. They have it running on pentium D machines and it is slow as molasses. When I use it on a C2D machine and it is smooth.

- It looks nice overall, but I think apple has better attention to aesthetic detail.

- I like the Windows spaces equivalent. In fact, it looks to be better. I haven't used this feature myself, but I've seen it in action on my friend's computer and it seems to be much easier to navigate.

- My dad, who doesn't fully understand the different OS concept but utilizes more computer power than most users for imaging software, refuses to use Vista. He had it on a Dell machine and had more problems with it than with XP (to which he was an early user).

Overall, I don't think I'd mind having a modern machine with Vista on it to tinker around with, but it's not something I'd want to rely on.