I don't know about Microsoft, but everything you get from Apple is under some NDA, even the free online ADC account. I'd really be curious how that works within a company, where the NDA most likely means you can't even tell some colleagues.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
vista ultimate better- reason for leopard delay
- Thread starter astranovus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know about Microsoft, but everything you get from Apple is under some NDA, even the free online ADC account. I'd really be curious how that works within a company, where the NDA most likely means you can't even tell some colleagues.
Wow. Now heres my backstory so you don't shoot me down-
Windows user since 1995, always upgraded to the latest Windows. Got a Mac in 2004 to compliment (not replace) my PC. I now dual boot with OSX and XP. I use and enjoy both OS's.
-phew-
Anyway. Vista is utter tripe. As an XP user since day 1 (even on it now) I just cannot get used to Vista. The Start Menu, arguably Windows Achilles Heel for speed and usability, has been changed. That threw me off. Plus the new "window fade in" effects are hideous to use. Flip3D is a nightmare.
I can honestly not see a single benefit in upgrading to Vista. MS really have dropped the ball. They went from fluidity and uglyness to slow and further uglyness.
Unless the Enterprise edition I use at work is different to Vista "Ultimate"?
This thread must be a joke. I'm open minded and have found Vista to be worthless and a diseased clone of OSX.
Apple is proactive, not reactive.
It's not in their philosophy to behave that way.
Much of that philosophy comes from the culture at the company and much of that culture comes from leader and founder Steve Jobs.
A lot of the things in Vista are reactive to what the Mac and other OS vendors are doing. This is part of MS's "me too" approach which can be traced back to the days they brought the Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) and repackaged so they had something to sell IBM.
MS has brought Vista to market and have caught up with some things Apple and others have had for many years. It is a decent effort (not without flaws). Well Done MS!
That said the outside world hasn't stood still and have pushed forward with their own innovations. No one looks to MS to lead the way, nor have they ever done.
It's not in their philosophy to behave that way.
Much of that philosophy comes from the culture at the company and much of that culture comes from leader and founder Steve Jobs.
A lot of the things in Vista are reactive to what the Mac and other OS vendors are doing. This is part of MS's "me too" approach which can be traced back to the days they brought the Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) and repackaged so they had something to sell IBM.
MS has brought Vista to market and have caught up with some things Apple and others have had for many years. It is a decent effort (not without flaws). Well Done MS!
That said the outside world hasn't stood still and have pushed forward with their own innovations. No one looks to MS to lead the way, nor have they ever done.
And BootCamp didn't have anything to do with the OnMac project...
Apple always (rightly) react to virus threats...they are greatly affected by others...
They always knew it was technically possible (and probably how to do it).
My guess is BootCamp would have been conceived by Apple before the OnMac project got underway (we will never no the truth as it is difficult to prove either way).
My point is that, whilst not universally true, more often than not Apple often looks internally for new ideas (or new ways to implement existing ideas) whereas MS seems to be constantly playing catch up.
A key example is iPhone. Apple said — what can we do with the cell phone, we don't really like what is out there at present, how can we change it and make users lives better?*
Then, following the unveiling, MS decided they were going to do a ZunePhone, in a me-too response.
I always assumed the delay between the release of the intel macs and bootcamp was for apple to do testing on firmware, drivers and stability to make sure everything worked out of the box as you'd expect from apple. They probably put a lot of man hours into it to make sure everything went right from the start.
You could argue as to why they didn't do all this before the intel macs came out but if you remember they came out early and the guys at apple were probably focused solely on getting OSX working as well as possible on these machines.
Sloppy programming? ROFL. Perhaps on Microsoft's part, because they never released an update. It's running under emulation; Rosetta performs spectacularly, easily three or four times faster than any emulator I've ever encountered.
Office 2008 for Mac will perform at full speed.
I work at a medical IT company; first thing we do when we get a new Vista machine is reimage it to XP. We're not going to talk about Vista for eighteen months.
Then rebut it. Why do you disagree? Can you point out what in the x86 Windows architecture makes it so much more complex to handle than the x86 architecture for Mac? You made the point, so I assume you have some facts and specific examples to back it up.
I assume by "read things up" you mean "do your research." I did. I read the MS documentation. I ran the system evaluator. I downloaded all the purported Vista friendly device drivers I could find and had them on hand before installation. And yet, I still had problems. Most ended up being resolved after a long time, but if I had to do it all over again, I certainly wouldn't.
Okay well, how did you upgrade then? Did you just throw the install disc into the machine and run an upgrade? Did you format and start from scratch? What is the architecture of the workstation?
Also, it would appear that you shining example of a perfectly trouble-free workstation running Vista counters your other point that Wintel architectures are just too complex to run well on. What makes your hardware different from what's coming down the production lines now? I'm sure many PC manufacturers could learn from your configuration.
"Pants?" Whatever that means. But my multi core processor was running much smoother under XP than it is now under Vista. Furthermore, OS X seems perfectly okay with running many of the same effects on intergrated graphics architecture that Microsoft would say was impossible to run Aero on. Why is that?
By the way, I did have my first Blue screen under Vista today. it suddenly decided it had an aversion to Firefox and YouTube, for some reason. *shrug*
There is an upgrade path from Mac OS X to Windows Vista?astranovus said:
I always find it funny to see a thread like this one. It makes me wonder why PC users feel a need to post on Mac forums pretending to be Mac users who have moved to Windows.
In the case of our original poster, at one point he asserts...
"i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate"
Only to later address another posters comments with this..."vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle"
And this totally over looks the fact that this former Mac user is only now finding (and becoming a member) of a Mac forum after his switch to Windows (but somehow instinctively already knows about flaming).At the very least a thread like this one could have been held with the original poster not attempting to impersonate a former Mac user. An honest discussion of the topic is always better than one based on deception.
As for performance issues with Vista, almost all of them seem to stem from Microsoft's draconian DRM subsystems rather than any features designed to enhance the system for users.
hi,
((flame-suit protect-mode on
i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate,
contrary to all rumors i haven't had a single glitch under vista, drivers, kernel panics, system crashes ....
for me personally vista ultimate is faster, more stable and the eye candy is better than tiger,
could it be that leopard was delayed bacause vista is actually a decent system?
any comments welcomed
JESUS LORD! You must have a secret Windows Vista version then!
I installed Vista about 3 weeks ago and I've had more than 5 system crashes, 3 program lock-ups and a nice BSOD. Here's my story:
At first I thought : "yeah, Vista is looking nice with this glass effect and etc" but then the UAC started boinking every god damn minute! Ok, I was tolerant, let's give it a shot, accept that this UAC stuff is for my protection...
Open Windows Media Player, play a song, ok, nothing wrong (a band mate calls, PC user BTW) and I was like "Hey man, I'm trying out Vista" and he says "You replaced XP? you're going to be sorry in about a week" and I go "ok, what is it that you want? need a flyer for the concert on friday, ok, give me the details". I open notepad to type in the details (date, time, price, etc), and in the background Windows Media Player stops responding, ok, I let it go and keep typying what he was saying in Notepad. He says "Ok, you got it all? See you on Friday then", as soon has he hangs up the phone I press CTRL + S to save the text document.. oh no.. Notepad is not responding too!!!!
I press the X to close Windows Media Player and nothing happens, it just won't close, CTRL + ALT + DELETE, Task Manager, End Process, nothing.. the app is still there grinding god knows what.. the same thing with Notepad. I ended up having to turn off the computer in the box because not even pressing Restart would help as it would stall when trying to quit the frozen apps so the OS could reboot.
Windows Vista should be called Windows Vista BETA!
This is a 100% true story, and don't even get me started in the 40 FPS drop I got from Vista while playing Counter Strike:Source, even with Aero and Sidebar OFF.
I never I'd say this but, compared to Vista, XP RULES!!
What a crap OS... /rant off/
There is an upgrade path from Mac OS X to Windows Vista?
In the case of our original poster, at one point he asserts..."i am one of the few converters, away from mac osx to vista ultimate"Only to later address another posters comments with this..."vista is not a usability nightmare, i've moved straight from xp to vista with no hassle"And this totally over looks the fact that this former Mac user is only now finding (and becoming a member) of a Mac forum after his switch to Windows (but somehow instinctively already knows about flaming).
??
i went from xp to macos about 8 months ago,
macos was nice but the macbook hardware let me down big time, 1 broken macbook pro, 4 broken macbooks and a broken acd 20"
funny enough some people keep there windows pcs just in case they don't get on with macs,
hence i decided to upgrade from a former xp installation to vista,
why would that be strange?
by the way i've been registered for while on this board, and it was really helpful whilst i still had a mac
i intend to stay, to source out whether leopard and any new apple hardware are worthy of buying.
I would assume that Microsoft would pay for developer accounts for everyone that needed to know that information thus making the NDA a non issue.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/23/vista_program_naming_oddness/
By John Leyden ? More by this author
Published Monday 23rd April 2007 11:47 GMT
The Legal Risks of Uncontrolled Web Use and Email Content - Free whitepaper
Developers have discovered that the name given to a Vista executable affects whether or not it will require admin rights to run.
Security experts said the feature might seem odd, but helps to catch out spyware.
Reg Reader Mike, a C++ developer, discovered the behaviour after spending days trying to work out why just some of his projects required elevation (admin rights) to be run on his Windows Vista machine. To his disbelief, Mike realised that the different properties were simply due to projects being named differently.
"If Vista sees that you have created a Microsoft Visual C++ project with install in the project name, then that .exe will automatically require Admin Rights to run. Create exactly the same project, but call it, say, Fred, and the problem disappears," he explained. "Vista's security isn't just concerned with what an .exe is doing to your PC, but what it's actually called."
Mr Executable
We put these points to Microsoft, which responded with a statement that explained why installation programs might need admin privileges to run but not why this changes depending on the name given to a project.
"Installation programs are applications designed to deploy software, and most write to system directories and registry keys. These protected system locations are typically writable only by an administrator user, which means that standard users do not have sufficient access to install programs. Windows Vista heuristically detects installation programs and requests administrator credentials or approval from the administrator user in order to run with access privileges. Windows Vista also heuristically detects updater and uninstallation programs. Note that a design goal of UAC [User Account Control] is to prevent installations from being executed without the user's knowledge and consent since they write to protected areas of the file system and registry," it said.
Secure coding specialist Fortify Software said Microsoft's Installer Detection technology acted as a screen against spyware. While imperfect, and odd in the way its behaviour is affected by the names given to project, the feature is better than nothing.
"The Vista feature you've run into is the equivalent of an airport metal detector," explained Dr Brian Chess, chief scientist at Fortify Software
Spyware is a big problem on Windows (yet another reason I have a Mac), and Vista takes steps to make spyware harder to write. By default, programs under Vista don't run with administrator privileges. By requiring administrator privileges to run something that looks like an installer, Vista is making it more difficult for a program to automatically throw some unsavoury gunk on to your machine without your knowledge.
He added that although the feature is imperfect and inconvenient, it's "better than nothing".
Clarification
Changing the name of a compiled executable doesn't change its properties. But different names during the app development process do have an effect, as Mike explains.
If I use Visual C++ to compile a program called, say, "Mikes Installer.exe", then Vista will popup the security message, drag'n'drop won't work (as it requires extra security rights), and if may app asks which version of the OS it's running on, then Vista will tell it that it's Windows XP.
If I recompile the app as "Mike.exe", then these problems all go away, and Vista correctly tells my app that it's running on Windows Vista. Simply renaming the file from "Mikes Installer.exe" to "Mike.exe" isn't enough to solve the problems. Vista still (somehow) knows that the original filename had install in it's name.
I wasn't simply trying to do some simple Microsoft-bashing. This is all simply all about the filename of your .exe's affecting the way they run in Vista. But the solution is to build your .exe files in Visual C++ with a different filename, or to add a Manifest .xml file, as some of your readers did mention.
By John Leyden ? More by this author
Published Monday 23rd April 2007 11:47 GMT
The Legal Risks of Uncontrolled Web Use and Email Content - Free whitepaper
Developers have discovered that the name given to a Vista executable affects whether or not it will require admin rights to run.
Security experts said the feature might seem odd, but helps to catch out spyware.
Reg Reader Mike, a C++ developer, discovered the behaviour after spending days trying to work out why just some of his projects required elevation (admin rights) to be run on his Windows Vista machine. To his disbelief, Mike realised that the different properties were simply due to projects being named differently.
"If Vista sees that you have created a Microsoft Visual C++ project with install in the project name, then that .exe will automatically require Admin Rights to run. Create exactly the same project, but call it, say, Fred, and the problem disappears," he explained. "Vista's security isn't just concerned with what an .exe is doing to your PC, but what it's actually called."
Mr Executable
We put these points to Microsoft, which responded with a statement that explained why installation programs might need admin privileges to run but not why this changes depending on the name given to a project.
"Installation programs are applications designed to deploy software, and most write to system directories and registry keys. These protected system locations are typically writable only by an administrator user, which means that standard users do not have sufficient access to install programs. Windows Vista heuristically detects installation programs and requests administrator credentials or approval from the administrator user in order to run with access privileges. Windows Vista also heuristically detects updater and uninstallation programs. Note that a design goal of UAC [User Account Control] is to prevent installations from being executed without the user's knowledge and consent since they write to protected areas of the file system and registry," it said.
Secure coding specialist Fortify Software said Microsoft's Installer Detection technology acted as a screen against spyware. While imperfect, and odd in the way its behaviour is affected by the names given to project, the feature is better than nothing.
"The Vista feature you've run into is the equivalent of an airport metal detector," explained Dr Brian Chess, chief scientist at Fortify Software
Spyware is a big problem on Windows (yet another reason I have a Mac), and Vista takes steps to make spyware harder to write. By default, programs under Vista don't run with administrator privileges. By requiring administrator privileges to run something that looks like an installer, Vista is making it more difficult for a program to automatically throw some unsavoury gunk on to your machine without your knowledge.
He added that although the feature is imperfect and inconvenient, it's "better than nothing".
Clarification
Changing the name of a compiled executable doesn't change its properties. But different names during the app development process do have an effect, as Mike explains.
If I use Visual C++ to compile a program called, say, "Mikes Installer.exe", then Vista will popup the security message, drag'n'drop won't work (as it requires extra security rights), and if may app asks which version of the OS it's running on, then Vista will tell it that it's Windows XP.
If I recompile the app as "Mike.exe", then these problems all go away, and Vista correctly tells my app that it's running on Windows Vista. Simply renaming the file from "Mikes Installer.exe" to "Mike.exe" isn't enough to solve the problems. Vista still (somehow) knows that the original filename had install in it's name.
I wasn't simply trying to do some simple Microsoft-bashing. This is all simply all about the filename of your .exe's affecting the way they run in Vista. But the solution is to build your .exe files in Visual C++ with a different filename, or to add a Manifest .xml file, as some of your readers did mention.
Ahh, Vista, aka Windows ME Pt. 2. The red headed bastard of a stepchild that never should've been.
Vista's a joke. I have unfortunately had the experience of using it. I had it installed on my iMac at one point to see what the hype was about. First of all, UAC. I don't need to say much here, other than f**k UAC to put it bluntly. It shouldn't exist. It serves no purpose. 2 types of people in this world: Those who know what they're doing. We disable UAC because we're not going to do something stupid like open attachments from people we don't know. Those who do not know what they're doing and keep UAC enabled. They'll eventually get desensitized, clicking "Allow" for everything. Oops, they just allowed that mysterious exe that was e-mailed to them to execute.
Second, the UI. What a cluttered mess. I know XP very well, just as well as I know OSX. I work at my university's helpdesk, so I use it every day, and support it every day. So I was rather shocked when I had difficulty finding certain things, such as Network Connections, wallpaper settings, etc, in Vista. Change is good. But Microsoft screwed this one up too. The interface in Explorer, especially the control panel, is cluttered, crap is scattered all over the place, and it's impossible to find anything. The search option in OSX's System Preferences is a nice touch, but I've never found the need to use it because it's intuitive and everything is right where you expect it. In Vista, the search came in quite handy because things that should be right there are hidden somewhere in the depths of operating system hell.
And where's Start->Run? That's a power user's best friend. In XP, I can do Start->Run->cmd->ipconfig /all with my eyes closed. Real handy when troubleshooting network problems. But now, I either have to wade through a million menus, or use the little search thing in the Start menu which takes a few seconds to find cmd and dump it in the search results. The new start menu sucks anyways. I preferred the separate menus. It made it extremely easy to just quickly go through and find what you're looking for. Now if you navigate to the wrong folder, you have to go down and click Back rather than just move the mouse.
I could go on and on and on, but I won't. However, no Vista rant would be complete without saying the UI is a bunch of useless eye candy and that it sucks. But since that's already been done, I'll end that there.
And to whoever said that Rosetta is sloppy programming? Perhaps you need a lesson in how computers work. Translating an executable from one architecture to another, completely different architecture is no easy feat, and the fact that Apple could do it seamlessly and transparently to the end user is just nothing short of amazing. It's not Apple's fault that programmers are lazy and taking their time releasing UB versions. Developers had a little over 6 months to convert their stuff to UB (And it wouldn't surprise me if the big companies like Adobe and M$ knew long before the switch was announced and had developer x86 machines), and now we're almost 2 years past the announcement and M$ still hasn't released a UB version of Office. And this is Apple's fault how? And FWIW, Office 2004 runs fine under Rosetta on my iMac.
Vista's a joke. I have unfortunately had the experience of using it. I had it installed on my iMac at one point to see what the hype was about. First of all, UAC. I don't need to say much here, other than f**k UAC to put it bluntly. It shouldn't exist. It serves no purpose. 2 types of people in this world: Those who know what they're doing. We disable UAC because we're not going to do something stupid like open attachments from people we don't know. Those who do not know what they're doing and keep UAC enabled. They'll eventually get desensitized, clicking "Allow" for everything. Oops, they just allowed that mysterious exe that was e-mailed to them to execute.
Second, the UI. What a cluttered mess. I know XP very well, just as well as I know OSX. I work at my university's helpdesk, so I use it every day, and support it every day. So I was rather shocked when I had difficulty finding certain things, such as Network Connections, wallpaper settings, etc, in Vista. Change is good. But Microsoft screwed this one up too. The interface in Explorer, especially the control panel, is cluttered, crap is scattered all over the place, and it's impossible to find anything. The search option in OSX's System Preferences is a nice touch, but I've never found the need to use it because it's intuitive and everything is right where you expect it. In Vista, the search came in quite handy because things that should be right there are hidden somewhere in the depths of operating system hell.
And where's Start->Run? That's a power user's best friend. In XP, I can do Start->Run->cmd->ipconfig /all with my eyes closed. Real handy when troubleshooting network problems. But now, I either have to wade through a million menus, or use the little search thing in the Start menu which takes a few seconds to find cmd and dump it in the search results. The new start menu sucks anyways. I preferred the separate menus. It made it extremely easy to just quickly go through and find what you're looking for. Now if you navigate to the wrong folder, you have to go down and click Back rather than just move the mouse.
I could go on and on and on, but I won't. However, no Vista rant would be complete without saying the UI is a bunch of useless eye candy and that it sucks. But since that's already been done, I'll end that there.
And to whoever said that Rosetta is sloppy programming? Perhaps you need a lesson in how computers work. Translating an executable from one architecture to another, completely different architecture is no easy feat, and the fact that Apple could do it seamlessly and transparently to the end user is just nothing short of amazing. It's not Apple's fault that programmers are lazy and taking their time releasing UB versions. Developers had a little over 6 months to convert their stuff to UB (And it wouldn't surprise me if the big companies like Adobe and M$ knew long before the switch was announced and had developer x86 machines), and now we're almost 2 years past the announcement and M$ still hasn't released a UB version of Office. And this is Apple's fault how? And FWIW, Office 2004 runs fine under Rosetta on my iMac.
I forget that my copy of Office 2k4 even runs with Rosetta sometimes.
I can run Mac Word, Mac Excel, and Parallels running Windows XP with Visual Studio in it and all applications run smoothly. Thats 2 emulated programs, 2 operating systems, and 1 full development environment. All this on a consumer computer.
I do that all the time.
So how is Rosetta inefficient?
I can run Mac Word, Mac Excel, and Parallels running Windows XP with Visual Studio in it and all applications run smoothly. Thats 2 emulated programs, 2 operating systems, and 1 full development environment. All this on a consumer computer.
I do that all the time.
So how is Rosetta inefficient?
Slightly off topic, but did Microsoft ever implement an auto-hide feature for the ribbon? I used the 2007 beta (or maybe it was a trial) and I liked the ribbon a lot, but the "Hide the ribbon" feature would never stick. I'd hide the ribbon, and after clicking on another command, the ribbon wouldn't hide again. A frustrating thing.
In any case, I may just go with iWork '07/'08 (assuming they implement a spreadsheet program). 100% MS office compatibility is no longer a concern of mine, and I don't even use an office suite that often. And I'd rather do iWork than OOo or NeoOffice.
I have a G4 iBook running Tiger, as well as a 3GHz Athlon PC running Vista.
They both work great for what I use them for.
iBook is my internet & productivity machine, while the Vista box is my gaming/rendering machine.
To be fair: there were no Vista drivers for my aging SoundBlaster Live! card, but that's Creative's fault, not Microsoft's. (Creative is intentionally balking at driver support for a vast number of their legacy products in order to improve sales of their latest gear) I was able to get it working, but it took a bit of scrounging.
According to Apple, Leopard was postponed due to iPhone.. no more.. no less.
To wholeheartedly believe that may be a naive move, but even if there is a hidden agenda I sincerely doubt it has *anything* to do with Vista.
They both work great for what I use them for.
iBook is my internet & productivity machine, while the Vista box is my gaming/rendering machine.
To be fair: there were no Vista drivers for my aging SoundBlaster Live! card, but that's Creative's fault, not Microsoft's. (Creative is intentionally balking at driver support for a vast number of their legacy products in order to improve sales of their latest gear) I was able to get it working, but it took a bit of scrounging.
According to Apple, Leopard was postponed due to iPhone.. no more.. no less.
To wholeheartedly believe that may be a naive move, but even if there is a hidden agenda I sincerely doubt it has *anything* to do with Vista.
Anyone who knows SDLC(Software Developement Life Cycle) will know that 4 months is not enough time to change major portions of a software, let alone an operating system and test it to make sure that it runs properly. That Vista runs perfectly for the OP is nice to hear after all the horror stories I have heard. Though personally I won't touch Vista till at least SP1. Touch in a sense of do any work on it. OSX is and for the considerable future be my main OS.
Since when was the ribbon a feature? It's a useless change to the UI and only complicates things for users.
But, I have to give M$ some credit. If it wasn't for dumb things like this and software that's buggy, insecure and likes to break on its own, us IT guys wouldn't have jobs. Thank you Microsoft for providing job security.
Hrmm sounds like the ribbon must have been built on their existing docking technology. I fight with the dockable windows in VS.NET 2005 daily, most of the time the only way to get the buggers to go away is to pin and then unpin them.
Vista has nothing to do with the Leopard delay, other than to show by example that Microsoft releases unfinished software and Apple does not.
I've reformatted and installed XP over Vista on two new computers that friends have bought, and tried several builds of Vista (including the release candidate) on several machines and had the same end result which is that (IMO) Vista is trash.
It's a cutesy gloss coating on a pile of crap.
If a program requires Administrator priviledges? Whoops. Won't run under Vista.
Working with font software? Can't do it. As a graphic designer, this is a requirement. Ergo, Vista is unusable for graphic designers.
Does it outperform XP? No. This has been proven many times over by reputable tech sites out there. The only instance when Vista outperforms XP is with 4+ gigs of ram (and who has that much ram on a Windows machine?). Otherwise, XP is as fast or faster than XP on weaker hardware.
The UI changes are absurd. Networking used to be so easy to navigate; now I wonder where the floating string with cheese at the end is whenever I try to do something as simple as changing an IP address for a network adapter. That rudimentary task used to require...2 steps? Now there's about 6 or 7 and 4 or 5 windows to go through. Ridiculous.
If you enjoy Vista, continue enjoying it. I won't touch it with a ten foot pole until a) they release SP1 and b) they rework the annoyances.
I've reformatted and installed XP over Vista on two new computers that friends have bought, and tried several builds of Vista (including the release candidate) on several machines and had the same end result which is that (IMO) Vista is trash.
It's a cutesy gloss coating on a pile of crap.
If a program requires Administrator priviledges? Whoops. Won't run under Vista.
Working with font software? Can't do it. As a graphic designer, this is a requirement. Ergo, Vista is unusable for graphic designers.
Does it outperform XP? No. This has been proven many times over by reputable tech sites out there. The only instance when Vista outperforms XP is with 4+ gigs of ram (and who has that much ram on a Windows machine?). Otherwise, XP is as fast or faster than XP on weaker hardware.
The UI changes are absurd. Networking used to be so easy to navigate; now I wonder where the floating string with cheese at the end is whenever I try to do something as simple as changing an IP address for a network adapter. That rudimentary task used to require...2 steps? Now there's about 6 or 7 and 4 or 5 windows to go through. Ridiculous.
If you enjoy Vista, continue enjoying it. I won't touch it with a ten foot pole until a) they release SP1 and b) they rework the annoyances.
Which is why I'll strongly suggest that the next computer my parents purchase for home use will be a Mac (either mini or iMac). I'm to the point where I'm sick and tired of troubleshooting Windows crap for them. Heck, I get enough of it at the office and I'm not even really the IT guy. (And I totally understand where you're coming from, zero2dash, about the totally unnecessary changes to networking in Vista. String with cheese indeed).
Actually, Apple spent 5 years making it and it *is* one hell of an OS.
Considering pre-Jaguar systems "beta" (compare to XP if you like) and counting from official "death of classic Mac OS" in 2002 Apple has now had 5 years making OSX the way they want to. In that regard, Leopard is directly comparable to Vista and I'm sure it will rock.
The difference being Microsoft has not put out anything but a service pack during these years, while Apple has managed to release two systems in between. Many share the opinion that Microsoft didn't have to, because its system has already matured whereas Apple has a fairly new system with OSX. Surely it was long in development under NeXT and even the 10.1 system was "usable". Nonetheless, according to Steve Jobs, it was "Jaguar" that was good enough to let OS9 die (and IMO it was Panther that made it complete). And just the same way, Tiger was just a preview to Leopard and once released, 10.5 will be around for at least 2 years, perhaps more.
I'd take Tiger over Vista any day, not to mention Leopard.
I am an IT director and I felt it was my responsibility to become as familar with Vista as I am with XP, 2000, Me, 98, 95, NT. I figured the best way to do this is to install Vista Business on my laptop. I have had enough problems that I have been forced to install XP on a seperate partition when I actually need to get work done.
The biggest problems I have all have to do with networking. I have had a few problems with drivers but most of those have now been resolved. We have a few older apps that we use but you can choose to run them using "Windows XP SP2 Compatibility" mode. But right now, the networking issues kill the deal for me. I try to spend most of my time in Vista but it is getting harder and harder
The same thing happened when XP came out. I wiped my drive clean in frustration 5+ times and went back to Windows 98. Eventually, MS fixed their issues and XP turned out to be a pretty solid OS. I have no doubt that give 6-12 months, Vista will also be a solid useable OS that will be preferred over XP by all but a handful of people.
The biggest problems I have all have to do with networking. I have had a few problems with drivers but most of those have now been resolved. We have a few older apps that we use but you can choose to run them using "Windows XP SP2 Compatibility" mode. But right now, the networking issues kill the deal for me. I try to spend most of my time in Vista but it is getting harder and harder
The same thing happened when XP came out. I wiped my drive clean in frustration 5+ times and went back to Windows 98. Eventually, MS fixed their issues and XP turned out to be a pretty solid OS. I have no doubt that give 6-12 months, Vista will also be a solid useable OS that will be preferred over XP by all but a handful of people.