vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle,
From what I've seen, that would make exactly one of you.
For the record, I have moved from XP to Windows Vista Ultimate on my home desktop computer. Is it working now? Yes... mostly. Do I regret the switch? Yes... deeply.
I didn't experience any kernel panics, and thankfully I didn't lose any data. however, it did take over two months to get my desktop anywhere close to the functional level I enjoyed under Windows XP.
Why? Device drivers. Or rather, the lack thereof. The windows world was and still is sorely unprepared for the x64 platform despite the fact that nearly all current desktops are made with 64-bit processors now, and the dearth of 64-bit drivers for simple things like sound cards, printers and scanners is appalling. Equally appalling is Microsoft's inability to get some elvel of backward compatibility with the bevy of 32-bit drivers that are out there for these same devices.
There are still some devices and components for which no drivers exist, and apparently never will exist. Some of those components happen to be embedded onto my motherboard. So for as long as I own this desktop (which is less than six months old, so it'll be awhile before I upgrade), I will forever be greeted with a "I couldn't find this device driver, what do you want to do?" message every time I boot my computer.
As for the Vista "eye candy," yeah, it's all right I suppose, but of no real functional use. I have noticed a performance decrease that comes from using the Aero glass interface on my desktop, even though the Windows Vista readiness tool assured me that it would work just fine on my machine. All in all, the pretty looks have slowed down my desktop somewhat.
Compare this to OS X. Each new version of OS X has added new features and more complex "eye candy," while running cleaner and performing better on older supported hardware. Newer operating systems that don't bog down older machines is unheard of in the windows world, yet it's a fact of life on OS X.
I could go on for pages about the issues I have with Vista. None of the issues are particularly crippling, but they are annoying, and the benefits of running Vista do not outweigh the significant drawbacks.
Frankly, the only reason I continue to use Vista Ultimate is because I was stupid enough to pay for it, and since there are no refunds once the software is opened, I feel as though I should at least try to get my money's worth.
That said, Vista and all of its deficiencies are the main reason I bought a MacBook Pro. It was time for me to upgrade my laptop computer, and after my ordeal getting Vista to work right, I was not about to spend more money on a laptop with the same deficiencies. And when I do finally buy a new desktop, it will probably be a Mac as well. Yes, the hardware is expensive, but so was Vista Ultimate, and frankly, I feel I more than got my money's worth with Apple.
Apple didn't convert me to Apple. Microsoft did.
regarding the new office 2007 ribbon,
all staff have to be trained when programmes have new features,
this is nothing vista specific
This I'll agree with you on. I actually
like Office 2007 greatly, and can't wait for it to show up for the Mac. I thin the reluctance to adopt it is partly because MS associates it so much with Vista, and Vista has left such a bad taste in people's mouths. That and people automatically assume that the ribbon and new interface means it's going to be hard to re-learn. I've used Office since 97, and while I had my reservations with the new interface initially, those concerns disappeared in about 5 minutes. I needed no formal re-training to get comfortable.
to say vista is instabil and a user nightmare, is utter rubbish, with a bit of thoughtful forethinking, vista runs great
It's not utter rubbish at all. I'm not sure what hardware you're running or how you upgraded, but if you say you had absolutely no problems, I'd say you're either a liar or very, very lucky.
apple has an advantage as it only has to cater for a very limited range of computers, so stability should naturally be better,
This argument doesn't hold water. At the base, windows machines are equally narrow in their scope. In fact, often times the same factory that makes Dell hardware will also make HP or Gateway hardware. The only thing changing is the exterior cladding and brand markings.
This also doesn't explain that, after two service packs, XP runs quite stable under nearly all the hardware it runs on, yet the moment people try to run Vista, stability flies out the window.
i moved away from tiger as rosetta got on my nerves under office 2004, my macbook fan was virtually lifting off all the time,
sloppy programming
Yes, Microsoft was very sloppy in how they programmed Office 2004. Shame on them.
Bottom line: Was leopard delayed because Vista is a better OS? I doubt it, considering that I feel even Tiger is a far better OS that Vista is, after having used both. Apple has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, I
am very concerned about what Microsoft is going to do about Vista.
If you ask me, Microsoft's Windows platform is suffering from a severe case of
Second System Syndrome, and that's a very dangerous thing. Apple had this same problem back in the days of 68k processors and OS 7, and the only way they recovered was to buy NEXT, which ultimately resulted in what we now know as OS X. Microsoft seems too proud to do something similar, so I'm not sure how (or if) they will recover.
