Windows Vista

I have windows vista on my computer. It has some pretty good special features on it, but its also really slow on loading up. And I forgot if it was Microsoft or some computer store, but theyre offering switches from Vista to XP.

Discuss

Generally speaking I believe you have to have purchased a PC/Laptop with a XP-Vista switch (can't for the life of me remember the name of the promotion). As far as I'm aware you can't just switch, sadly for all Genuine XP License Holders we have to pay another £££ for a Vista License. Sadly I purchased my XP Pro license in June 2006, not long before Microsoft brought in their little promo >_<

I've had Vista installed since February, got Home Premium, not had any major trouble with it except for a small driver issue at the start which took 2 days to resolve. Speed wise it can be very fast to be honest, but it's a pain in the neck for burning films to disc in Vista, I have XP Professional installed via Dual Boot and I boot into XP for burning films. Start up speeds are the same as XP for me, no faster no slower. I have all graphics etc enabled.

It's a good sturdy OS but it requires a very new PC to enjoy it fully, which means for a lot of people they simply can't use anything other than Home Basic.

Okay I have Vista and I don't get what everyone says about it being so horrible. I genuinely like it. I don't see that much difference between Vista and XP, to be perfectly honest, but then again I'm not the best when it comes to computer related things. The one thing I know I don't like about Vista, is that in My Pictures, the icons don't have previews, so I have to actually open them up to see the picture. That drives me nuts, and if there's a simple way to change that on a Vista, I'd love to hear how. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with Vista.

Generally speaking I believe you have to have purchased a PC/Laptop with a XP-Vista switch (can't for the life of me remember the name of the promotion). As far as I'm aware you can't just switch, sadly for all Genuine XP License Holders we have to pay another £££ for a Vista License. Sadly I purchased my XP Pro license in June 2006, not long before Microsoft brought in their little promo >_<

I've had Vista installed since February, got Home Premium, not had any major trouble with it except for a small driver issue at the start which took 2 days to resolve. Speed wise it can be very fast to be honest, but it's a pain in the neck for burning films to disc in Vista, I have XP Professional installed via Dual Boot and I boot into XP for burning films. Start up speeds are the same as XP for me, no faster no slower. I have all graphics etc enabled.

It's a good sturdy OS but it requires a very new PC to enjoy it fully, which means for a lot of people they simply can't use anything other than Home Basic.

I do have a Home Premium, but I have a tablet.

Okay I have Vista and I don't get what everyone says about it being so horrible. I genuinely like it. I don't see that much difference between Vista and XP, to be perfectly honest, but then again I'm not the best when it comes to computer related things. The one thing I know I don't like about Vista, is that in My Pictures, the icons don't have previews, so I have to actually open them up to see the picture. That drives me nuts, and if there's a simple way to change that on a Vista, I'd love to hear how. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with Vista.

I like it, but my internet on it is really horrible, and i cant repair it, because on vista, its diagnose and repair instead of just repair. It's also really slow for some odd reason.

Okay I have Vista and I don't get what everyone says about it being so horrible. I genuinely like it. I don't see that much difference between Vista and XP, to be perfectly honest, but then again I'm not the best when it comes to computer related things. The one thing I know I don't like about Vista, is that in My Pictures, the icons don't have previews, so I have to actually open them up to see the picture. That drives me nuts, and if there's a simple way to change that on a Vista, I'd love to hear how. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with Vista.

Viewing previews in folder is pretty much the same as XP. If you right click in the folder, select View and then choose xl, large, or medium icon, you should get a preview.

The problem I have with Vista is that unless you're running it on a powerful system, it runs very slowly. Start-up speed is also going to depend on your system.

Viewing previews in folder is pretty much the same as XP. If you right click in the folder, select View and then choose xl, large, or medium icon, you should get a preview.

The problem I have with Vista is that unless you're running it on a powerful system, it runs very slowly. Start-up speed is also going to depend on your system.

Oh that doesn't sound good. I was thinking of getting Vista on my computer someday, once all of the bugs are out of it. But if it's having this kind of problem, I'm not so sure about it entirely.

I have an hp tablet, and vista is soooooooo slow on it, well, at least startup. I have barely anything on it, since i put most of it on a memory stick, and i have 2 GB on it, but its still slow. And my internet is really bad on it, so its annoying.

I have an hp tablet, and vista is soooooooo slow on it, well, at least startup. I have barely anything on it, since i put most of it on a memory stick, and i have 2 GB on it, but its still slow. And my internet is really bad on it, so its annoying.

If you've got 2GB RAM then I'd suggest it's either something Processor or Graphics related, I'd be surprised if a tablet PC has strong enough graphics to run the aero interface, Home Basic rather than Premium might have suited it better. It's also depends what processor you've got, the speed of the processor etc.

oh, I have home premium, it came with the tablet

The one thing I know I don't like about Vista, is that in My Pictures, the icons don't have previews, so I have to actually open them up to see the picture. That drives me nuts, and if there's a simple way to change that on a Vista, I'd love to hear how. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with Vista.

For me, I open the folder, right click > View > Large icons.

So it'd come out looking like this (http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/32729/2004989641035774371_rs.jpg).

Hope that helps! :)

Unless you have 1.5GB RAM, a decent graphics card and a dual-core processor don't even think of Vista. Anything with integrated graphics will struggle with Vista.

When talking Vista over XP your going down the ethical lines here. For people like me, Vista is a waste of time, money and effort. Also, Microsoft have used "unethical tactics" IMO to get as many people as possible to get it. People then get it only to learn they need to upgrade their PC's just to be able to run it properly.

Also, from a gamers perspective, look at Halo 3. Will only run on Vista... funny that Microsoft own the company that made Halo 3. Personally, unless you have a specific reason for it, look at anything other than Vista. Stick with XP or maybe try Linux.

Unless you have 1.5GB RAM, a decent graphics card and a dual-core processor don't even think of Vista. Anything with integrated graphics will struggle with Vista.

When talking Vista over XP your going down the ethical lines here. For people like me, Vista is a waste of time, money and effort. Also, Microsoft have used "unethical tactics" IMO to get as many people as possible to get it. People then get it only to learn they need to upgrade their PC's just to be able to run it properly.

Also, from a gamers perspective, look at Halo 3. Will only run on Vista... funny that Microsoft own the company that made Halo 3. Personally, unless you have a specific reason for it, look at anything other than Vista. Stick with XP or maybe try Linux.

I am using XP, vista is really bothering me. And what's linux?

Unless you have 1.5GB RAM, a decent graphics card and a dual-core processor don't even think of Vista. Anything with integrated graphics will struggle with Vista.

When talking Vista over XP your going down the ethical lines here. For people like me, Vista is a waste of time, money and effort. Also, Microsoft have used "unethical tactics" IMO to get as many people as possible to get it. People then get it only to learn they need to upgrade their PC's just to be able to run it properly.

Also, from a gamers perspective, look at Halo 3. Will only run on Vista... funny that Microsoft own the company that made Halo 3. Personally, unless you have a specific reason for it, look at anything other than Vista. Stick with XP or maybe try Linux.Microsoft didn't make Vista to delibertely cost people money. They made it to improved their product and not lose ground to other alternatives. If Halo only runs on Vista, it will be because of Vista's superior graphics and audio handling.

It does require some power in the PC, but most graphics intensive environments do. Macs come with extensive horsepower too. It's what contributes to their expense.

There is nothing wrong with it. I rather like it. I haven't even encountered any bugs. But Microsoft does issue frequent patches.

Viewing previews in folder is pretty much the same as XP. If you right click in the folder, select View and then choose xl, large, or medium icon, you should get a preview.

The problem I have with Vista is that unless you're running it on a powerful system, it runs very slowly. Start-up speed is also going to depend on your system.There's also a display option for a preview pane off to the side of the directory.

Microsoft didn't make Vista to delibertely cost people money. They made it to improved their product and not lose ground to other alternatives. If Halo only runs on Vista, it will be because of Vista's superior graphics and audio handling.

It does require some power in the PC, but most graphics intensive environments do.

There is nothing wrong with it. I rather like it. I haven't even encountered any bugs. But Microsoft does issue frequent patches.

There's also a display option for a preview pane off to the side of the directory.

Microsoft exists to make money. That's it's sole purpose. And Vista, superior graphics and audio handling? The only thing Vista has over XP is DX10 and the ability to use 64 bit processing. As for audio, they completely redesigned the way the OS interfaces with the hardware causing a hell of a lot of problems.

Microsoft are the ONLY company to release a DX10 only game, Halo 3. Trust it to be a big franchise too. How many people are they forcing to upgrade to Vista just to play that game. Every other game that has worked on Vista has also worked just fine on XP.

I am using XP, vista is really bothering me. And what's linux?

Linux is another OS (Operating System). Google it. Unlike Windows and Mac, Linux is 100% free. There are many distributions of Linux. I'd recommend Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com). The only thing is Linux requires a bit more technical understanding and the willingness to spend time getting used to it. It is very different from Windows.

Viewing previews in folder is pretty much the same as XP. If you right click in the folder, select View and then choose xl, large, or medium icon, you should get a preview.

The problem I have with Vista is that unless you're running it on a powerful system, it runs very slowly. Start-up speed is also going to depend on your system.

I prefer Vista's folder setup over XP's and i don't like preview panes that much, so it's not an issue for me.
Tip one: hit the alt key when you've got a windows explorer window open, it'll bring up the File menu's (it only appears for a few seconds).

I had Vista RC1 running on a P4 3.0ghz system with 2gb of ram. It ran well enough. You've just got to tweak vista to the get best of out it.
My current system runs Vista well enough (Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4ghz x4, 2gb of DDR2 800mhz ram, 8600GT graphics card etc).
I'm just waiting for 64bit computing to take off a bit more and i'll be switching and maxing out my RAM to 8gb (over a number of months).

I prefer Vista's folder setup over XP's and i don't like preview panes that much, so it's not an issue for me.
Tip one: hit the alt key when you've got a windows explorer window open, it'll bring up the File menu's (it only appears for a few seconds).

I had Vista RC1 running on a P4 3.0ghz system with 2gb of ram. It ran well enough. You've just got to tweak vista to the get best of out it.
My current system runs Vista well enough (Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4ghz x4, 2gb of DDR2 800mhz ram, 8600GT graphics card etc).
I'm just waiting for 64bit computing to take off a bit more and i'll be switching and maxing out my RAM to 8gb (over a number of months).

I'm not surprised that runs Vista fine :lol:. Gaming rig? I'm in the same situation, I could run Vista quite happily on this machine, I just chose not to fork out the £80 for and OEM version.

Microsoft exists to make money.
:huh: So do all corporations.

There are many distributions of Linux. I'd recommend Ubuntu. The only thing is Linux requires a bit more technical understanding and the willingness to spend time getting used to it. It is very different from Windows.
And there will be no technical support, and compatibility with hardware and software will be a big issue.

Viewing previews in folder is pretty much the same as XP. If you right click in the folder, select View and then choose xl, large, or medium icon, you should get a preview.

For me, I open the folder, right click > View > Large icons.

So it'd come out looking like this (http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/32729/2004989641035774371_rs.jpg).

Hope that helps! :)

Hmm well that's the strange thing; I do have it set on Large icons, but it still doesn't show a preview. It looks like this (http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8053/largeiconsoi7.jpg). :/

Btw Anum, I'm loving the icons, haha.

I'm not surprised that runs Vista fine :lol:. Gaming rig? I'm in the same situation, I could run Vista quite happily on this machine, I just chose not to fork out the £80 for and OEM version.

It is a gaming rig, that will be SLi enabled when i get round to buying some better graphics cards. Vista works very well with multicore CPU's, so the more you have the better Vista will run. Personally i think Microsoft went a tad overboard on the hardware requirements for Vista. I've heard that Windows seven won't be as hardware heavy as Vista is.

:huh: So do all corporations.
If it wasn't Microsoft dominating the OS market it would be Apple or IBM.


And there will be no technical support, and compatibility with hardware and software will be a big issue.
Ubuntu do offer technical support via it's website:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
Hardware support for Linux is pretty good, though it's no where near as good as the driver support for windows is (which is not surprising considering Microsoft have a 90%+ market share of the operating system market).
Software support for linux is getting better all the time. Though at the moment you sometimes have to be pretty handy with the command line to get certain pieces of software to work. However WINE is an excellent programme that can make some windows programmes run on Linux.
Linux has a long way to go before it's mature enough for everyday users to use. Probably another 3-5 years, before it becomes more of a mainstream option. Microsoft are taking the threat of Linux seriously by reaching for their lawyers and patent rights.

It is a gaming rig, that will be SLi enabled when i get round to buying some better graphics cards. Vista works very well with multicore CPU's, so the more you have the better Vista will run. Personally i think Microsoft went a tad overboard on the hardware requirements for Vista. I've heard that Windows seven won't be as hardware heavy as Vista is.


If it wasn't Microsoft dominating the OS market it would be Apple or IBM.



Ubuntu do offer technical support via it's website:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
Hardware support for Linux is pretty good, though it's no where near as good as the driver support for windows is (which is not surprising considering Microsoft have a 90%+ market share of the operating system market).
Software support for linux is getting better all the time. Though at the moment you sometimes have to be pretty handy with the command line to get certain pieces of software to work. However WINE is an excellent programme that can make some windows programmes run on Linux.
Linux has a long way to go before it's mature enough for everyday users to use. Probably another 3-5 years, before it becomes more of a mainstream option. Microsoft are taking the threat of Linux seriously by reaching for their lawyers and patent rights.

Vista is far too resource hungry to be a decent OS IMO. What is it doing with all that power it requires?

Not necessarily true... if Windows wasn't dominant there's a much better chance that the market would be more competitive price-wise and software-wise. I game, so I run windows. If the market wasn't dominated by windows then it's my guess games developers would support other OS's more often. Also, Linux would find it much easier to come into the market.

I think for general usage Linux is suitable for most people now. Ubuntu is very easy to install and get working right off the bat. Their forum support is outstanding in that even someone with limited technical skills can get things working. The only thing that's stopping people using it is scepticism's and misinformed views about it being too technical. If you are looking to do complex things with it then yea, give it another 3-5 years. But as a word processor, internet and email, it's the perfect OS.

:huh: So do all corporations.


And there will be no technical support, and compatibility with hardware and software will be a big issue.

Not all corporations monopolise the market. The only reason I run Windows is because games designers don't support Linux. If Windows was less dominant then other people would be willing to support OSF (Open Source Format). OSF is the future, even Windows are starting to acknowledge that by making the latest Office compatible with OSF files.

You can buy technical support with most Linux distro's if you wish. It's still cheaper than Windows if you do. Compatibility with hardware is awesome. 64Bit has been around since a few months after the first 64Bit chips are out so Linux has a much better record with 64Bit compatibility. Almost any software available in Windows you can get in Linux, oh and it's all free and available to download.

And there will be no technical support, and compatibility with hardware and software will be a big issue.

Not my personal experience but a lot of people would say that about Vista!

I've just had to reinstall actually, since February it'd all been okay... Then disaster strikes.

Vista stopped recognising that I have a spare 80GB hard drive installed for music/videos/documents/pictures etc etc and when I tried to use good old System Restore (the big un-mess-up button) I found that Vista hadn't been creating Restore points of late and that according to Vista no restore points existed >_< Anyway after the reinstall (took 10 minutes :rotfl: ) it's happily creating restore points again and my 80GB media drive is alive and kicking again.

Given this messing about with Vista suddenly deciding not to recognise one of my most important drives I had contemplated moving back to XP, this was last night. After a calm down period I did decide this morning I'd give Vista a 2nd chance.

It's pretty bad though that I'm already looking forward to Windows Codename 7, Vista has been since it's Alpha 'Longhorn' an unqualified disaster. It's a lovely looking OS and there's some very handy features in it, but it's nothing that Microsoft couldn't have bolted onto XP via Service Pack 3. From what Microsoft are saying there aren't any major changes in Vista SP1, which IMO is bad.

Not my personal experience but a lot of people would say that about Vista!

I've just had to reinstall actually, since February it'd all been okay... Then disaster strikes.

Vista stopped recognising that I have a spare 80GB hard drive installed for music/videos/documents/pictures etc etc and when I tried to use good old System Restore (the big un-mess-up button) I found that Vista hadn't been creating Restore points of late and that according to Vista no restore points existed >_< Anyway after the reinstall (took 10 minutes :rotfl: ) it's happily creating restore points again and my 80GB media drive is alive and kicking again.

Given this messing about with Vista suddenly deciding not to recognise one of my most important drives I had contemplated moving back to XP, this was last night. After a calm down period I did decide this morning I'd give Vista a 2nd chance.

It's pretty bad though that I'm already looking forward to Windows Codename 7, Vista has been since it's Alpha 'Longhorn' an unqualified disaster. It's a lovely looking OS and there's some very handy features in it, but it's nothing that Microsoft couldn't have bolted onto XP via Service Pack 3. From what Microsoft are saying there aren't any major changes in Vista SP1, which IMO is bad.

Any SP1 won't change much. It's just a release of all major patches. SP2 should make some changes though. If they don't then they're fools, too many unhappy people.

I agree though, Vista should have been an XP SP3, and also XP Pro 64Bit should have had much more support.

Any SP1 won't change much. It's just a release of all major patches. SP2 should make some changes though. If they don't then they're fools, too many unhappy people.

I agree though, Vista should have been an XP SP3, and also XP Pro 64Bit should have had much more support.

It'd be interesting to know the roadmap for Vista; SP1 is expected early 2008 for Public release, SP2? and even SP3?

Depending on whether or not Microsoft have the same level of setbacks that they did with Vista Microsoft could have Windows 7 out in 2010. Which by my way of thinking means Microsoft would need to be knocking out a Vista Service Pack each year til then.

It'd be interesting to know the roadmap for Vista; SP1 is expected early 2008 for Public release, SP2? and even SP3?

Depending on whether or not Microsoft have the same level of setbacks that they did with Vista Microsoft could have Windows 7 out in 2010. Which by my way of thinking means Microsoft would need to be knocking out a Vista Service Pack each year til then.

Sounds about right with the SP roll-out. Windows 7 is only an upgrade rather than a major OS though. But it is their second 64Bit OS so it might be promising. Dunno, all depends on if they can learn from their mistakes.

Hmm well that's the strange thing; I do have it set on Large icons, but it still doesn't show a preview. It looks like this (http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8053/largeiconsoi7.jpg). :/

Btw Anum, I'm loving the icons, haha.

it should work. it takes a while for the previews to come

It's a lovely looking OS and there's some very handy features in it, but it's nothing that Microsoft couldn't have bolted onto XP via Service Pack 3.
It was way too major a system change. The entire underlying directory structure is different. So is the entire security subsystem. The way objects are addressed and presented is entirely different too. You don't apply service packs that completely rewrite and rework the entire platform. Service packs add a few features or tools and fix bugs.

And as for Vista compatibility vs. Linux, you can buy or download updates to make most software work for Vista. That is not true with Linux which has quite limited compatibility. And the only issue with peripherals (and I have one with my printserver) is whether the manufacturer has grandfathered the component or not. My printserver is considered legacy and will run fine with my Vista PCs, but the admin program won't work under Vista and Cisco has no intention of updating it. So I have to rely on an XP machine to do admin on it, which is very infrequent (like when I changed my router address).

The difference between Linux hardware and software compatibility and Vista is that all new hardware and software designed to work with Vista. Linux is very hit and miss. It's UNIX, which has never been an end-user system. Only older software and hardware will have issues with Vista. And that is true of all hardware and software, it eventually becomes obsolete.

And as for Vista compatibility vs. Linux, you can buy or download updates to make most software work for Vista. That is not true with Linux which has quite limited compatibility. And the only issue with peripherals (and I have one with my printserver) is whether the manufacturer has grandfathered the component or not. My printserver is considered legacy and will run fine with my Vista PCs, but the admin program won't work under Vista and Cisco has no intention of updating it. So I have to rely on an XP machine to do admin on it, which is very infrequent (like when I changed my router address).

The difference between Linux hardware and software compatibility and Vista is that all new hardware and software designed to work with Vista. Linux is very hit and miss. It's UNIX, which has never been an end-user system. Only older software and hardware will have issues with Vista. And that is true of all hardware and software, it eventually becomes obsolete.

Very commercialised outlook on things. It's views like that which keep Microsoft on top. I have XP/Linux on dual boot and the only thing I haven't ever been able to get support for is my sound card. And that is because Creative refuse to release the architectural plans to those that can create drivers.

Linux is community driven. It's completely free and so it will require time to produce brand new things. But it is FREE. It's open source and even Microsoft are acknowledging that OSF is the way forward by making Office 2007 files compatible with all OSF programs. That corporate outlook is a dying perspective. It's only a matter of time till OSF is the dominant outlook. Look at Russia, all schools are now to use Linux. Even though many places weren't paying for Microsoft products that's still a big blow to Microsoft.In Russia, Microsoft tried to force people to pay for their software that was being used illegally. So what did they do? Instead of paying for it they switched to Linux. That is a huge step forward for Linux and it won't be long till it all changes.

Apart from sound drivers and games, I have yet to find anything I can't get on Linux for free. I don't have to pay for any software or help. As soon as game companies realise that Linux is the next major way forward then I'll be able to ditch Windows completely.

Linux is the way forward. People just aren't willing to pay the extortionate costs these days. People are just scared of the unknown, but once they're willing to learn then they're better off. Bit by bit people are realising this.

But my viewpoint is the realistic viewpoint. It has nothing to do with being commercialized--I'm just pragmatic. Most users are not techies. And I don't know a single non-techie using Linux. And non-techies that I know that have tried have given up in frustration. Even the techies I know only use it as a toy to tinker with, or at best, a small web or database server. They still use Windows for everyday use since there is so much productivity software available.

And there is more than a little delay lag in support. Besides, I've been hearing that Linux will replace Microsoft for at least 10 years now. If anyone had the power to do it, it would have been Apple, and they have never succeeded.

I don't care who provides the desktop platform, but it will need to be easy to use and compatible without having to write your own drivers. Right now that is Microsoft.

Oh and that free software for Linux, it's nowhere as feature rich as commercial programs. The most important feature in a software package isn't whether it's free or not. Is it easy to install and use? Is it stable and compatible with the hardware and other software. And is it feature rich, so the user can get the most from it? There are free programs for Windows too, but people still buy the commercial packages since they get more from them.

People are just scared of the unknown, but once they're willing to learn then they're better off.
Most people aren't willing to learn since the PC is just a tool for them. It's the way they get their work done. Not everyone has the aptitude to be a techie (most don't).

Look, I'm not knocking Linux. It's perfectly fine. I'm just being practical about what the average end-user can manage on their own, and why Vista (or any other Windows version) is more appropriate.

It was way too major a system change. The entire underlying directory structure is different. So is the entire security subsystem. The way objects are addressed and presented is entirely different too. You don't apply service packs that completely rewrite and rework the entire platform. Service packs add a few features or tools and fix bugs.

Yes, things that technically speaking didn't need doing at all. Windows XP has a massive amount of life left in it. A lot of the changes in Vista just make the average PC go slower, and lets face it what's the point in Vista without the pretty UI? Vista is far too hardware reliant, people would much rather stick with XP for familiarity purposes and usability than switch to an OS that turns everything you've learnt with XP on its head, and not necessarily in a good way. Vista takes a lot of getting used to, for a lot of older people I can imagine they'd rather not have the bother of it; my granddad for example is very technology aware, he got a decent PC before I did :lol:, and he downloaded the Vista Beta at the same time as me... He got sick of it after 2 hours, I lasted a little longer but did eventually get sick of it. Unless you're buying a Core 2 Duo with seriously good graphics and RAM then Vista is effectively out of the question, to enjoy it properly anyway and not be sitting there wanting to put your fist through the monitor.

Vista has a LONG way to go before it'll convince me that it is the true successor to XP, and I AM a Vista user since it's public release! It'll be a lot harder for Microsoft to convince most other XP users, so what're they doing? Getting rid of XP in shops, ending XP support earlier than many anticipated. Dirty and underhand to say that Genuine XP License Holders have to PAY to get Vista.

Once upon a time there was DOS, and it worked, and the software worked. Then Windows came along, and a lot of DOS programs and hardware and software no longer worked, although Microsoft did try to provide some backward compatibility. Then there was Windows 98 (followed by Windows 98 SE and ME) and a lot of Windows programs and hardware and software didn't work, although Microsoft did try to provide some backward compatibility. Then, eventually there was Windows XP, and a lot of Windows programs and hardware and software didn't work, although Microsoft did try to provide backward compatibility. The same is true for Vista. A major upgrade around every five years. It's not unreasonable, and it shows a company trying to keep their product competitive.

The simplified directory structure is much better, the user directories are no longer umpteen directories deep. And the user directories are flattened with music and pictures on the same level with documents.The security is much tighter. There was no real facility for security management in XP. It was very simpleminded. There is much finer granular control, and it's easier to manage than the mess in WinNT and Win2K, although you can see it's heritage from NT and 2K.

Now you do have to disable user account control in Vista, or it will drive you crazy asking permission every time you copy a file or run any programs. And you can get Vista basic if your hardware isn't up to snuff.

I rather like Vista, but I did have to wait until I got new laptops to use it. I've had no problems, but I do patch like crazy. I've done that all my life and all my systems all run like clockwork. And I've deployed thousands of systems, large and small. Desktops, servers--PCs on NT and 2K and UNIX--enterprise and workgroup, networks, WANs, LANs, SANs, ATM, routers, gateways. You name it and I've done it--design, migration, deployment, and troubleshooting. And I've done it for small mom and pop shops and huge international corporations. And I've done it for terrified non-technical home users. The way to succeed is to keep to mainstream products, keep it vanilla (no hacking since it comes back to bite you in the end), and patch like crazy. Mainstream products will be better for interoperability, compatibility, and support.

Vista is just Microsoft's effort to keep up with Apple, which is always more sexy. Apple's big mistake has always been keeping it so proprietary. Otherwise they might be the dominant OS now. Microsoft's open hardware platform has made it ubiquitous, but it does lead to some instability that Macintosh can avoid with proprietary hardware.

To go back to a comment that I had a commercialized view--I don't. But I do have the big picture view required for a technical architect.

I like Vista just fine, but I have 1 problem with it; Removing i.e. uninstalling programs. I've looked around on the Control Panel, but can't find any program to remove certain programs. So annoying.

It's in the control panel. It's called uninstall a program. It's about halfway down on the screen, and it has a heading of Programs.

Once upon a time there was DOS, and it worked, and the software worked. Then Windows came along, and a lot of DOS programs and hardware and software no longer worked, although Microsoft did try to provide some backward compatibility. Then there was Windows 98 (followed by Windows 98 SE and ME) and a lot of Windows programs and hardware and software didn't work, although Microsoft did try to provide some backward compatibility. Then, eventually there was Windows XP, and a lot of Windows programs and hardware and software didn't work, although Microsoft did try to provide backward compatibility. The same is true for Vista. A major upgrade around every five years. It's not unreasonable, and it shows a company trying to keep their product competitive.

The simplified directory structure is much better, the user directories are no longer umpteen directories deep. And the user directories are flattened with music and pictures on the same level with documents.The security is much tighter. There was no real facility for security management in XP. It was very simpleminded. There is much finer granular control, and it's easier to manage than the mess in WinNT and Win2K, although you can see it's heritage from NT and 2K.

Now you do have to disable user account control in Vista, or it will drive you crazy asking permission every time you copy a file or run any programs. And you can get Vista basic if your hardware isn't up to snuff.

I rather like Vista, but I did have to wait until I got new laptops to use it. I've had no problems, but I do patch like crazy. I've done that all my life and all my systems all run like clockwork. And I've deployed thousands of systems, large and small. Desktops, servers--PCs on NT and 2K and UNIX--enterprise and workgroup, networks, WANs, LANs, SANs, ATM, routers, gateways. You name it and I've done it--design, migration, deployment, and troubleshooting. And I've done it for small mom and pop shops and huge international corporations. And I've done it for terrified non-technical home users. The way to succeed is to keep to mainstream products, keep it vanilla (no hacking since it comes back to bite you in the end), and patch like crazy. Mainstream products will be better for interoperability, compatibility, and support.

Vista is just Microsoft's effort to keep up with Apple, which is always more sexy. Apple's big mistake has always been keeping it so proprietary. Otherwise they might be the dominant OS now. Microsoft's open hardware platform has made it ubiquitous, but it does lead to some instability that Macintosh can avoid with proprietary hardware.

To go back to a comment that I had a commercialized view--I don't. But I do have the big picture view required for a technical architect.

I love Vista, it's just impractical form anyone without the newest of PCs. Mine was built in the June before Vista was released in the February, it can handle Home Premium with all the pretty things turned on full. I've disabled the sidebar though :p

Oh and I finally figured out how to turn off the annoying security warning that told me I'd turned off UAC.

I've disabled the sidebar though
It can suck power if it connects to anything online, but I have a few static things in that don't really add to the load.

It was way too major a system change. The entire underlying directory structure is different. So is the entire security subsystem. The way objects are addressed and presented is entirely different too. You don't apply service packs that completely rewrite and rework the entire platform. Service packs add a few features or tools and fix bugs.

And as for Vista compatibility vs. Linux, you can buy or download updates to make most software work for Vista. That is not true with Linux which has quite limited compatibility. And the only issue with peripherals (and I have one with my printserver) is whether the manufacturer has grandfathered the component or not. My printserver is considered legacy and will run fine with my Vista PCs, but the admin program won't work under Vista and Cisco has no intention of updating it. So I have to rely on an XP machine to do admin on it, which is very infrequent (like when I changed my router address).

The difference between Linux hardware and software compatibility and Vista is that all new hardware and software designed to work with Vista. Linux is very hit and miss. It's UNIX, which has never been an end-user system. Only older software and hardware will have issues with Vista. And that is true of all hardware and software, it eventually becomes obsolete.

This should illustrate the differences between XP and Vista's security -
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista-security.asp
Vista SP1 is more along the lines of fixing the bugs left over from the final push to get Vista to RTM status (and the search feature within Vista is being changed due to Google kicking up a stink about it). A future Service pack might contain the fabled WinFS/WinFX technologies that were part of Longhorn, but were removed before Microsoft announced Longhorns proper name i.e. Vista (but that technology is probably more likely to appear in Windows Seven).

The beauty of Linux is that is an open source project meaning that if a driver is not around, then somebody may well create one from the ground up (some legacy device drivers are floating around for Linux distro's). And to be frank if something is about 10 years old or more you shouldn't expect a company to continue providing updates for it, especially if the product has been replaced with newer models. That problem won't effect Joe or Jane Computer user, unless they have a really old scanner or printer.

And you are wrong about UNIX. OSX itself is based on a varient of UNIX, BSD. The latest version of OSX is now fully compliant with UNIX standards.
Steve Jobs has shown that you can build a user friendly OS that has it's origins in the UNIX world. Microsoft went down there own path, with standards that pretty much have sown the OS market up for Microsoft.
Steve "I'm hopping mad" Ballmer got a bit tetchy when there were rumours of Apple releasing OSX onto the general PC market, he used the old "The Driver support isn't there, nothing beats windows driver support". While initally there would be a lack of driver support it would improve over time (and faster than Linux driver support). Indeed you can get most PC hardware running under OSX on Intel based PC's. Apple probably won't release OSX for the general PC market as it would eat into their Computer hardware sales. But if they were to do so, it would be a feasible option for people.
Linux has it's strengths and weaknesses like OSX and Windows have.
As my old saying goes "Why Pimp one Operating System when you can Pimp them all".

Vista is far too resource hungry to be a decent OS IMO. What is it doing with all that power it requires?
There have been quite a few under the hood changes to Vista, that requires more computer power than XP does (that is a mature OS that will run faster on newer hardware, indeed when XP was first released it was quite resource hog happy). If you've got a multicore processor, then you won't notice too much of a slowdown in Vista, as long as you have 2gb of Ram or more, and you have Aero switched on. That means the GUI processing is passed onto the Graphics cards GPU, freeing up a processors clock cycles for other tasks.

Not necessarily true... if Windows wasn't dominant there's a much better chance that the market would be more competitive price-wise and software-wise. I game, so I run windows. If the market wasn't dominated by windows then it's my guess games developers would support other OS's more often. Also, Linux would find it much easier to come into the market.

Microsoft's domination of the OS market is well documented. Developers do support OSX and there have been some games released for Linux (but not many).
You can run games in Linux, but you need a bit of skill to get it up and running using WINE. *got Quake running under Linux before it crashed*
The reality is, Microsofts Operating System domination is unlikely to end anytime soon, so what you want is wishful thinking. Linux will have to break into the mainstream the hard way.

I think for general usage Linux is suitable for most people now. Ubuntu is very easy to install and get working right off the bat. Their forum support is outstanding in that even someone with limited technical skills can get things working. The only thing that's stopping people using it is scepticism's and misinformed views about it being too technical. If you are looking to do complex things with it then yea, give it another 3-5 years. But as a word processor, internet and email, it's the perfect OS.

Ubuntu is perfect for everyday tasks, but more complex tasks requires more geek skills to get working properly and that requires patience. I have gotten very frustrated with Linux over the years, but it is improving all the time.
What will make Linux a mainstream OS is when it crosses into Windows and OSX land i.e. installing programmes is as simple as a few short clicks and maybe a password needing to be typed. No need for the command line to be touched at all.

Not all corporations monopolise the market. The only reason I run Windows is because games designers don't support Linux. If Windows was less dominant then other people would be willing to support OSF (Open Source Format). OSF is the future, even Windows are starting to acknowledge that by making the latest Office compatible with OSF files.

Microsoft is a bit more willing to work with other standards these days due to the threat of Anti Trust cases. However i don't doubt that Microsoft will try and undermine OSF, as it's done with other file formats in the past.
Microsoft is quite happy to get the lawyers out and sue Linux programmers for infringing it's patents. It's why Novell settled with Microsoft.

You can buy technical support with most Linux distro's if you wish. It's still cheaper than Windows if you do. Compatibility with hardware is awesome. 64Bit has been around since a few months after the first 64Bit chips are out so Linux has a much better record with 64Bit compatibility. Almost any software available in Windows you can get in Linux, oh and it's all free and available to download.

You don't really need to buy technical support for Windows. I use OEM software, so i have to provide my own support. Which is fine, i've spent years tinkering with windows from version 3.0 and upwards. And you can pretty much find all the support information for Linux you need on the internet.
As for 64 bit computing, that has yet to become a mainstream option.
Vista is slowly getting there with the 64bit support. Though i shall hazard a guess and say that windows seven will be the time when 64 bit computing goes mass market (unless Apple do the unthinkable and enter directly into the fray against Microsoft, that might accerlate it).
I do think Microsoft went overboard with the various editions of Vista and the prices. But most of the stuff i need to do, needs windows. So i am happy to pay for the OS. And there are some Linux distros that you have to pay for.

And you are wrong about UNIX. OSX itself is based on a varient of UNIX, BSD. The latest version of OSX is now fully compliant with UNIX standards. Steve Jobs has shown that you can build a user friendly OS that has it's origins in the UNIX world. Microsoft went down there own path, with standards that pretty much have sown the OS market up for Microsoft.
I'm hardly wrong about UNIX since I've worked as a UNIX admin. I also knew that OSX was based on UNIX. However, no one besides Apple has ever made it a decent end-user platform. And the UNIX is safely hidden from the users, like any Mac OS has done in the past. However, Apple will remain unable to displace Microsoft due to their insistence on a proprietary hardware platform.

And as for Linux, it will not replace Microsoft since there is no large push to make drivers for all hardware, or make it compatible for all software, or even to make it user friendly. And that is due to lack of a coordinated development plan (like commerical companies do have). Oh, and I've had talented UNIX admin friends who gave up on Linux since they couldn't get it to do what they wanted.

I agree that Microsoft dominates the market, and that they have used aggressive practices to do so. But most major companies do the same, limited only by what they can get away with.

I'm hardly wrong about UNIX since I've worked as a UNIX admin. I also knew that OSX was based on UNIX. However, no one besides Apple has ever made it a decent end-user platform. And the UNIX is safely hidden from the users, like any Mac OS has done in the past. However, Apple will remain unable to displace Microsoft due to their insistence on a proprietary hardware platform.

And as for Linux, it will not replace Microsoft since there is no large push to make drivers for all hardware, or make it compatible for all software, or even to make it user friendly. And that is due to lack of a coordinated development plan (like commerical companies do have). Oh, and I've had talented UNIX admin friends who gave up on Linux since they couldn't get it to do what they wanted.

I agree that Microsoft dominates the market, and that they have used aggressive practices to do so. But most major companies do the same, limited only by what they can get away with.

You can run OSX on Intel based PC's (it will make Mr Jobs hopping mad), all Apple have to do is change a few bits of code and it'll be useable on the mass PC Market (AMD support is allegedy in the works).
UNIX is hidden in OSX, but if you have the know how you can unpeel it. But that would be those super Apple Fanboy/girl nerds.
Even if Apple were to ditch it's hardware insistance, i think it would find it tough going up against Microsoft's team of lawyers and PR machine.
As for Linux all it will take is a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs type person to push it into the mainstream. That doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon.
Linux can be quite frustrating, i've been known to kick things after not being able to get hardware to run properly.

The difference between Microsoft and other software companies is quite simple. Bill Gates is a marketing genius, as much as he is a programming whizz kid (also a very ruthless businessman along with the other founders of microsoft). He's not that different from Steve Jobs (though Steve Job's is not as nerdy looking as Gates is).

You can run OSX on Intel based PC's (it will make Mr Jobs hopping mad), all Apple have to do is change a few bits of code and it'll be useable on the mass PC Market (AMD support is allegedy in the works).
UNIX is hidden in OSX, but if you have the know how you can unpeel it. But that would be those super Apple Fanboy/girl nerds.
Even if Apple were to ditch it's hardware insistance, i think it would find it tough going up against Microsoft's team of lawyers and PR machine.
As for Linux all it will take is a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs type person to push it into the mainstream. That doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon.
Linux can be quite frustrating, i've been known to kick things after not being able to get hardware to run properly.

The difference between Microsoft and other software companies is quite simple. Bill Gates is a marketing genius, as much as he is a programming whizz kid (also a very ruthless businessman along with the other founders of microsoft). He's not that different from Steve Jobs (though Steve Job's is not as nerdy looking as Gates is).I agree 100% with all of the above. Microsoft does have a stranglehold on the market. Fortunately, there are still a few challengers like Apple or Linux to at least keep them on their toes. Otherwise they would get complacent.

Apple isn't going to change course about proprietary hardware. They have the same simpleminded approach to iPods and DRM. They could support WMA DRM and make iPods a universal mp3 platform, but they want to keep everyone tied to the iTunes store.

Microsoft just had more luck than Apple and IBM had. In fact if it wasn't for Microsoft, IBM would probably still be dominating the world with IBM PC's.
Microsoft can be an innovative company (the touch screen stuff they are developing is pretty nifty, more so than Apple's iphone and ipod touch's touch screen interface). But it's pretty ruthless about milking every last cent out of a product, which means they keep certain things simple and mundane.

Apple might change it's mind on the hardware, but only after Steve Jobs has walked off into the sunset. As for Apple's itunes and ipod it's not really a simpleminded approach from a business standpoint. It's been the driving force behind Apple's profits for the last couple of years.
DRM is a pretty useless technology, but until the record labels and movie studios learn how to deal with the internet in a better way, then DRM is likely to be going nowhere. Cept for hackers cracking the encryption keys (which has happened to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's various copy protection systems).
HDCP is pretty useless as well, an academic has already cracked it. But won't release his research for fear of being sued by the Movie studios.

The DRM that's in Vista only comes into play when you are playing Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies or other content that is protected by DRM. It's probably one of the biggest reasons why Vista is slow on older hardware.

And getting past iTunes DRM isn't exactly hard, burn the music to a CD then rip it back to the PC using something like Xilisoft Audio Ripper, sorted.

It's not as easy when you are dealing with 15-20 discs in an audiobook. And library downloads don't let you burn to disc at all. I've got tools for getting past DRM, but they all involve playing the item (in my case audiobooks) and then capturing the output. Some tools will run doublefast, but they all suck up system power until they are done a day later. It's no big deal for a single music album on one or two discs. But even short audiobooks are 8-10 discs.

I bought a legitimate copy of Pride and Prejudice, knowing full well that it had DRM and that I would have to burn it to disc. But it was a pain to burn it to 15 discs, and it took a couple of days to get it done.

This is exactly why i dislike DRM. It penalises legit consumers and does nothing at all to combat Piracy (which isn't going away, DRM or no DRM).

Back in the good old days (the late 80s and early 90s), they started putting protection on software. They would make you use a keyed floppy disk that you had to insert when you ran the software on your hard drive. Well, floppies all have a limited life and they would fail constantly, thus inconveniencing the businesses with legitimate licenses for the products. The pirates, of course, would quickly crack the security and share their cracked copies, but the legitimate owners would be the ones to suffer while they fussed at the software companies and waited for replacement key disks.

The honest users are always the one who suffer for ridiculous security protections.

Anti Piracy measures are doomed to failure because there are people out there willing to crack the measures either for profit or because they don't like being crippled with restrictions on things they have bought legally.

Okay I have Vista and I don't get what everyone says about it being so horrible. I genuinely like it. I don't see that much difference between Vista and XP, to be perfectly honest, but then again I'm not the best when it comes to computer related things. The one thing I know I don't like about Vista, is that in My Pictures, the icons don't have previews, so I have to actually open them up to see the picture. That drives me nuts, and if there's a simple way to change that on a Vista, I'd love to hear how. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with Vista.

I just bought a new laptop that happens to have Vista on it and I love it. I have a desktop which has XP on it and by far the Vista out-runs it. As far as I am concerned at least.

I like Vista too. It's much better than XP.

I quite like XP but I'm beginning to like Vista more and more :)

It does take a bit of getting used to to be honest after the "older" Windows version (I still pine oddly for 3.1) but I would recommend Vista.

I like the underlying directory structure better. I enjoy some of the things they've done with folder views.

I'm still finding out things about special tools and utilities they've added. But since I'm retired, I don't find out about them as fast as I would if I were still working in IT. Now I'm just a skilled user.

Okay I have Vista and I don't get what everyone says about it being so horrible. I genuinely like it. I don't see that much difference between Vista and XP, to be perfectly honest, but then again I'm not the best when it comes to computer related things.
I am not the best with computer related things either, but this is an encouraging comment to hear. My hubby just said that I could build a new laptop today and I saw that the ones I want only come with Vista. I was scared because I know a lot of people so I am glad to hear that you like it :).

I like the underlying directory structure better. I enjoy some of the things they've done with folder views.

I'm still finding out things about special tools and utilities they've added. But since I'm retired, I don't find out about them as fast as I would if I were still working in IT. Now I'm just a skilled user.

The best thing about a new Windows release (or any other operating system) is finding out the little quirks.
I took part in the Beta's of Vista. I hope to get in on the action for Windows 7, which might appear in the next year or so.
Hopefully Windows 7 will be less of a hog on resources.

I still hanker after Windows 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 for some reason lol

Ack! I turned on my computer this morning and everything is so HUGE. :argh: This window is huge and the words I'm typing are bigger than usual. I don't know how to change it; I'm so used to Windows XP that I don't know what to do for Vista. Does anyone have any ideas?

I really wish I could say good things about Vista. So far, I really can't. It is such a pain sometimes. On the advise of my friend, I went ahead and bought extra memory for my computer. That has helped a lot, but it still lags when it shouldn't. :shrug:

Ack! I turned on my computer this morning and everything is so HUGE. :argh: This window is huge and the words I'm typing are bigger than usual. I don't know how to change it; I'm so used to Windows XP that I don't know what to do for Vista. Does anyone have any ideas?

Right click your desktop, properties, settings tab, turn up your resolution.

Right click your desktop, properties, settings tab, turn up your resolution.

Thank you! :D :huggles:

Now the only mystery is how it changed when I didn't even look at the settings yesterday. . . .

I really wish I could say good things about Vista. So far, I really can't. It is such a pain sometimes. On the advise of my friend, I went ahead and bought extra memory for my computer. That has helped a lot, but it still lags when it shouldn't. :shrug:

A lot does still come down to processor type, not just processor speed. The Core 2's are much better at handling vista than a P4 or a PD for example, you also need at least 2GB RAM to comfortably handle Vista; 1GB will suffice but can be eaten up if Vista is having a tantrum. My PC was built with Vista in mind, and it handles it nicely most of the time, but it isn't a Core 2 and it only has 2GB RAM; I purchased my Core 2, 2GB RAM laptop in February and it whips Vista into shape without any issues. You also need to bear in mind the graphics that Vista uses, they're ridiculously over inflated (though very pretty) and therefore require a very good graphics card to be able to run Vista and actually use your PC/Laptop to do other things at the same time (why would you want to though?) :no:

As much as I love, and use on both my machines, Windows Vista I really can't wait for Windows 7 & the hope that Microsoft will manage the out of the box usability of their Windows OS vs. the need for upgrades to the end user's machine in order to use the OS to full/half potential. Vista has been a farce for anyone without the latest hardware, after the revolution that was XP Microsoft have obviously tried to have the same impact... And failed.

Apparently Vista was in high demand so Microsoft released it with bugs etc. I'm not sure if its true, but I bought Vista when it first came out and its a little bit "off" with a few things...

Hi, I'm thinking about getting a Windows vista somtime soon, and just wanted to know which type would be the best for me. Here's a link to one, tell me if it's any good or whatever:

http://www.amazon.com/Pavilion-DV6500T-NOTEBOOK-Fingerprint-WIRELESS/dp/B000WGQUUG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1217600780&sr=1-2

But my viewpoint is the realistic viewpoint. It has nothing to do with being commercialized--I'm just pragmatic. Most users are not techies. And I don't know a single non-techie using Linux. And non-techies that I know that have tried have given up in frustration.


Many years ago I as a non-techie could tinker with the the OS of my 386 in order to run 486 games. That was because home PC's (like old cars) were still something for enthusiasts and a working knowledge was helpful.

Now computers are merely another consumer electronic product like fridges. And like fridges people want them to work out of the box.

That is the fact that seems to escape the Linux boosters. I read letters in PC mags where they extol the virtues of the OS but always with a caveat about having to tweak this or fiddle with that.

People don't to do that any more than they want to play with the coolant in their fridge.

People don't to do that any more than they want to play with the coolant in their fridge.
Exactly.

Apparently Vista was in high demand so Microsoft released it with bugs etc. I'm not sure if its true, but I bought Vista when it first came out and its a little bit "off" with a few things...

I had that issue with my PC, had to do a backup & reinstall to get Vista working properly. It basically lost the ability to set restore points or use previous restore points, and it killed my sound card & DVD drive in terms of uninstalling them and refusing to reinstall.

In all fairness to Microsoft I do believe XP was rather buggy at first.

I'm pretty neutral about Vista. My biggest problem is the (cheap, but all I could afford) laptop I'm running it from. I barely have enough memory to properly run Vista. I do like some of the new features Vista has, especially with organizing folders and such. I organized thousands of pictures a few months ago, and it was pretty simple. I'm looking to getting a new laptop soon that will run Vista better than my current one, and then I can finally fullly utilize the features of Vista.

I won't go onto Vista until my current laptop and/or PC go to God. XP does pretty much what is required (as has everything back to DOS 5/Windows 3).

Bugs are an inherent risk for early adopters. I'm quite happy to let them sort the bugs out.

I won't go onto Vista until my current laptop and/or PC go to God. XP does pretty much what is required (as has everything back to DOS 5/Windows 3).

Bugs are an inherent risk for early adopters. I'm quite happy to let them sort the bugs out.

You may be waiting for some time :lol: I thought Microsoft had successfully broken my laptop last night, a Vista update installed on shut down. I booted up about an hour afterwards to check something online and the damn thing wouldn't boot past the windows boot screen, kept rebooting... Happened twice then it decided to boot past that and complete the update installation. Spoke to a friend of mine who had the same thing happen after updating :no:

As for the recent Vista updates, it did download a ton of updates and that required two boots and several moments of reconfiguration. It wasn't a glitch, my screen told me what was going on, except for a few pauses while it did reboot and update the new files. However, if you don't notice the update icon you may shut your machine down before it can update, and that can lead to several reboots while it processes the updates.

BTW, updates are good things. They remove bugs, enhance stability, and improve security.

It told me it was updating, just not that it would need to do a pretty black screen various details on it then restart then another black screen then restart, finally culminating in it taking 10 minutes to boot up. Git of a thing.

I found the black screens disconcerting too. I would have preferred a notice then as well.

Given the problems I have had with Vista in the past I couldn't help but think, oh god I haven't backed up for a week or two...

I tickled my touchpad when the screen was black and it didn't act like the system was frozen, but I was worried it had hung.

I got myself a laptop the other day and that is running Vista. My desktop is running XP. So far Vista seems to be okay. However, I've got no plans at all to upgrade my desktop to Vista. It'll be an XP box until the day it dies. Not because of any problems I've been having with Vista, but because the last time I decided to upgrade an operating system (I upgraded my previous desktop box from Win 98 to Win ME - yes, I was stupid) it seriously messed up my computer and it never worked quite right after that. Also, I figure that if it ain't broke, I don't need to fix it.

I got myself a laptop the other day and that is running Vista. My desktop is running XP. So far Vista seems to be okay. However, I've got no plans at all to upgrade my desktop to Vista. It'll be an XP box until the day it dies. Not because of any problems I've been having with Vista, but because the last time I decided to upgrade an operating system (I upgraded my previous desktop box from Win 98 to Win ME - yes, I was stupid) it seriously messed up my computer and it never worked quite right after that. Also, I figure that if it ain't broke, I don't need to fix it.

What's it like then as an XP user to go on to Vista? I had a 2 hour ZOMG period when I switched but with that said I'd only been using XP for 3 years at that point.

To be honest, from my point of view it's mainly a visual difference. The second biggest difference is a few things like the way file browsing is done (and I'd love to have the option to get a film strip like in XP) and other than that I take it that all is behind the scenes stuff. The real biggest differences for me are actually not OS related. I'm having trouble getting MSN Messenger installed on the laptop, and I want to be able to take advantage of the wi-fi radio for wireless interwebs.

My computer crashed, so we got a laptop. When I bought my laptop, Vista was already installed, so I didn't have to install it. I think it's really better than XP.

As the title say What do you want to see in Vista SP1?
Me I want it to not matter(in gaming) if you have UAC on or off & an easier way to turn off Aero

I have to disagree - I got a new laptop over the weekend - I got a macbook but I've had a vista laptop for over 2 years before that, at first I really liked it, visually it was very attractive but after a short time it became very clear that it was a clunky awkward system that took far too long to do anything. The system hangs constantly when trying to perform the simpliest of tasks. Very frustrating.

Best of luck with it though - I thought XP was a wonderful platform, I think thats why I was so disappointed with vista in the end

I have to disagree - I got a new laptop over the weekend - I got a macbook but I've had a vista laptop for over 2 years before that, at first I really liked it, visually it was very attractive but after a short time it became very clear that it was a clunky awkward system that took far too long to do anything. The system hangs constantly when trying to perform the simpliest of tasks. Very frustrating.

Best of luck with it though - I thought XP was a wonderful platform, I think thats why I was so disappointed with vista in the end