Is Vista Any Good?

[t3jem1405241533 0]

Alright, well seeing as my computer doesn't support hardware transformations anyways, i think its safe to say that i'm not going to be playing any games with directx 10; therefor, no reason for me to get vista until i get a new computer. Thanks for the info, helped alot

[Team Destiny 07 0]

I thought that vista was more like an office or gaming computer.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

No, it's an operating system. It works on all x86-based machines, no matter if it's an office machine or a gaming machine or a media centre.xboxrulz

[unimatrix 0]

Company I work for just ordered all new comptuers. What OS? XP Pro. Why? Their medicare billing software might or might not run on Vista. So why take the chance? Especially with a company that is undergoing accreditation in a month for new services. As far as Apple comparisons go, in the last few years, yes Apple's released quite a few OS's, but also it was a major transition away from Mac to Unix. I remember when OS 9.2 was king, most software still supported hardware/software all the way back to OS 8.5 and 7.5 in some cases. But then MS did the same thing between 1995 - 2000 with NT4, 95a, 95b, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 pro. Most people were not forced to upgrade, but most did because of the rapid advance in hardware was too slow and PC's became cheaper. Apple is fairly predictable, a new OS release about every 2 years.What I get asked more about than anything is the different "versions" of Vista and which do they need. It's confusing to a lot of people. XP Home and XP Pro wasn't too hard: home, home | pro, office. Then there was media center edition which a lot of people have and never use all the features of (and don't know why they got it in the first place). And I'm not even including the server releases in here. Personally I run Macs, but I spend most of my time in the video editing world. Considering I spend more time getting work done on my macs rather than working on them is well worth any upgrade prices. However I should note, I never paid for a copy of OS 10.3. My iBook had the logic board and Apple installed it free (even gave me the discs).

[issdiscovery04 0]

For the moment, Vista has many compatibility issues. Generally, video games run without too many problems. More than half of the software that can run on XP don't have too many problems on Vista but some do. However, if your using software designed for windows 2000 or before you might be out of luck.

[TeamEFX 0]

For the moment, Vista has many compatibility issues. Generally, video games run without too many problems. More than half of the software that can run on XP don't have too many problems on Vista but some do. However, if your using software designed for windows 2000 or before you might be out of luck.

I noticed this too. When i look around for games running on vista, there are issues with drivers for the video cards....

bleh.. that sux.

But, IMO...
I like vista and its look and feel.
There's a lot of pros and cons concerning vista as of now.

Here are some of mine:
PROS:
Graphically nice looking.
Minimum requirements are as high as people think... 800MHz.. (!!!)
Memory protection ( or something like that )..similar to a virus scan of some sort where damaging code is not run or something like that. (I read a few articles a few months ago on it)
...

PROS:
Too many versions...it is confusing
COST.. compared to free.. most users don't like forking up 100++ for an OS
Compatiability issues...I THINK this was due to NVIDIA's response for Vista drivers

eFX

[DAC1138 0]

From my experience with the final release of vista....no, it's not any good. The hardware specs are way too high for what it does. Look at linux and OS X. Both run on peanut system specs. Vista? You need a NASA supercomputer to run it. From what I've been reading about it from microsoft's training, it's supposed to boot faster and be more user oriented. By faster, I mean it's supposed to not boot up programs you never use on startup. It's not supposed devote all your memory into one application rather than spreading it out so your system doesnt choke. It's supposed to be able to predict what you want to do based on your most used programs, and open them up faster as it buffers it into idle memory. It's "supposed to." It doesnt do a good job of any of that. It's "supposed to" be based off of totally new code written from scratch. But by digging your nails a little deeper into the desktop, it's not. It looks like a beefed up XP desktop. Microsoft has made a lot of promises for vista and has yet to fulfill them.Let me rant on about the 3D side of things. My friends and I were worried about vista's making use of graphics memory for that aero interface. We run some complex 3D animation software which makes use of the same memory aero would be using. Oh boy, did the **** hit the fan when we tried to model something. Even though there were no windows being accessed, our programs slugged down to a near halt. It was trying to do everything off of the normal system memory rather than graphics memory, which it had been designed to do. Since vista isn't much better at memory management, it had two conflicting apps trying to access the same video memory. What a mess.The boot times? Yeah, those are pretty bad as well. With all this supposid speed increase due to the lack of programs being on the startup list, vista sure does boot very slowly. What's even more surprising, even with the souped up hardware requirements vista needs, every machine boots terribly slow. For needing all that RAM and CPU speed, Vista sure doesnt do a good job of managing it all.All ranting aside, I do like vista's new start menu. :-)

[Alegis 0]

The hardware specs are way too high for what it does. Look at linux and OS X. Both

Not correct implication. You assume they are way too high because there are alternative options that are as well an operating system. That is like comparing the fuel usage of a F1 racecar and a sedan because they're both cars. It would be much more reasonable and logical to state WHY they are too high because of the options in Vista, not because there is an alternative contender in the same category. "For example; Aero can run in Linux on a Pentium 2 computer". Which of course is nonsense but would be better than what was written there.

 

It's certainly acceptable to state your displeasure. But when it's done so exaggerated, credibility takes a hit:

You need a NASA supercomputer to run it.

800 mhz and 512mb ram is vista minimum requirements. And yes it does install and work then. You'll miss some bling bling (aero etc) but if the NASA is onlu using such computers, or mine which runs it without any problems - shuttles are in for a problem. It's still a consumer product and if you're on a pentium 1 it may be time to upgrade.

Also bear in mind that Vista does not gradually slow down after installation the way XP does. It's more efficient.

 

What a mess.

Maybe state which application, and consider it hasnt given proper support yet, but will soon? Try to throw in at least a little bit of data before you bring some 'friend of a friend' tales. It's always easy to badmouth but not so much to do it reasonably. That is the problem, not that it is about vista. More info on this please.

The boot times? Yeah, those are pretty bad as well.

... It's actually noticeable and written about already that install and shutdown/boot times have gotten significant boosts. If you've installed Norton, undo that and watch the boot time decrease.

 

But by digging your nails a little deeper into the desktop, it's not. It looks like a beefed up XP desktop.

So your conclusion is: 'it looks the same=about same code' . I hope you realize now how wrong that is.

 

 

 

---

 

PROS:

Too many versions...it is confusing

COST.. compared to free.. most users don't like forking up 100++ for an OS

Compatiability issues...I THINK this was due to NVIDIA's response for Vista drivers

Too many versions is a pro indeed. It's not rocket science (for your NASA computer! haha!) to understand which version is best for you. But more choice for the consumer is a pro that keeps it cheaper so you don't pay more for extra stuff you won't use. Consider that ultimate were the only version. More options is still a benefit for the user. It does not take much intelligence to distinguish a version. You are a home user? Basic or premium. Real geeks can consider ultimate.

 

It's a cost. And it's certainly worth it. When I ask people what the price should be, they compare it to a game or an application product. It takes either ignorance or blindness to compare them to that in what they do and what the scale of the dev project is. Bear in mind it's an OS over 5 years and there are (oh noes, more versions!) upgrade versions available. Free is always cheaper, but it's not expensive for what it is. I think of the contrary. But it is a big sum of money.

[Chesso 0]

Do you really think they re-wrote the entire operating system from scratch, do you they have done that every single time...... I somehow highly doubt it.Didn't they say it was built off 2000? or one of the more recent NT series, so it's not new, it's an upgrade......

[Alegis 0]

There has been a great deal rewritten which is noticeable in stability and performance. Judging it by looks as was done isn't a bright procedure. What's your point? Give me their statement and why it is false. Else you're resorting to the straw man logical fallacy.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Alegis (see edit history)

[_Dragon_ 0]

Win Vista dont have any software support yet. I love my XP Sp2 in my PenitumD 3.4mhz. In a few year maybe i change to WinVista. Cristian.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

There's definitely software support. Most of my Windows XP software works on Vista.Only Office 2003 crashes on me.xboxrulz

[DAC1138 0]

Not correct implication. You assume they are way too high because there are alternative options that are as well an operating system. That is like comparing the fuel usage of a F1 racecar and a sedan because they're both cars. It would be much more reasonable and logical to state WHY they are too high because of the options in Vista, not because there is an alternative contender in the same category. "For example; Aero can run in Linux on a Pentium 2 computer". Which of course is nonsense but would be better than what was written there.

 

It's certainly acceptable to state your displeasure. But when it's done so exaggerated, credibility takes a hit:

 

800 mhz and 512mb ram is vista minimum requirements. And yes it does install and work then. You'll miss some bling bling (aero etc) but if the NASA is onlu using such computers, or mine which runs it without any problems - shuttles are in for a problem. It's still a consumer product and if you're on a pentium 1 it may be time to upgrade.

Also bear in mind that Vista does not gradually slow down after installation the way XP does. It's more efficient.

 

Maybe state which application, and consider it hasnt given proper support yet, but will soon? Try to throw in at least a little bit of data before you bring some 'friend of a friend' tales. It's always easy to badmouth but not so much to do it reasonably. That is the problem, not that it is about vista. More info on this please.

 

... It's actually noticeable and written about already that install and shutdown/boot times have gotten significant boosts. If you've installed Norton, undo that and watch the boot time decrease.

 

So your conclusion is: 'it looks the same=about same code' . I hope you realize now how wrong that is.

---

Too many versions is a pro indeed. It's not rocket science (for your NASA computer! haha!) to understand which version is best for you. But more choice for the consumer is a pro that keeps it cheaper so you don't pay more for extra stuff you won't use. Consider that ultimate were the only version. More options is still a benefit for the user. It does not take much intelligence to distinguish a version. You are a home user? Basic or premium. Real geeks can consider ultimate.

 

It's a cost. And it's certainly worth it. When I ask people what the price should be, they compare it to a game or an application product. It takes either ignorance or blindness to compare them to that in what they do and what the scale of the dev project is. Bear in mind it's an OS over 5 years and there are (oh noes, more versions!) upgrade versions available. Free is always cheaper, but it's not expensive for what it is. I think of the contrary. But it is a big sum of money.

My point with the hardware requirements is that people dont want to use their operating system; they want to use their applications on top of their operating system. When you have 800mhz and 512 Mb ram, and then you're trying to run an office suite on top of that, maybe have a few spreadsheets open, vista can be bogged down quite a bit. Sure, I've seen people run Windows XP on a 200Mhz processor and 128 MB ram. I even installed XP myself on a 266 Mhz machine and 128 Mb ram. Did it run? Yes. Did it run ad an acceptable speed? If you like waiting 20 minutes for a web page stored on your hard drive to load, sure. Make sure you keep a few magazines handy.

 

And my conclusion was not 'it looks the same=about same code'. There was an article a long while back that I'll see if I can dig up about Mircosoft trying to speed up the development process by just copying and pasting old code from XP into the new (at the time it was called Longhorn) operating system. My example again would be the device manager. Why would you recode something completely so it looks and operates the same? It's just stupid. Yeah, they might have cleaned up the code and fixed a few bugs here and there, but it's not completely from scratch. I'll say that most of vista's new stuff is new, and probably coded from scratch, but not all of it.

 

I've been booting and rebooting vista computers for the past week, and they are slow. For brand new top-of-the-line machines with vista, you'd think it's abnormal for an operating system (running on 1.5 Gb ram and a dual core processor) to take more than 2 minutes to get to a useable desktop. I spend a lot of time with older machines running XP that boot faster than that running on slower hardware. Since I have first hand experience with both machines and have put both of them to the test, I can say all this with confidence.

[Chesso 0]

He has a point, and even if he does exagerate a little, I think it's mostly to give one the idea of just how bad it is (and certainly shouldn't be).It doesn't matter what Microsoft say it does and doesn't do, it matters what it does and how it behaves to a consumer.