My opinions on Vista SP1, 8 months later..

What The Inquirer really needs to realise is that the reason SP1 "doesn't solve many problems" is because there wasn't realistically that many for it to solve in the first place.

The reason so much press has been made over the file copying improvement is because really that was Vista RTM's biggest and perhaps only "big" bug. Everything else is just small fry, or specific to certain hardware configurations.
 
Just to say that I've been using Vista for about 6 months, and I have found the best feature is the new Start Menu, Thinking about having to browse through a giant list seems incredibly backward to me now, compared to hitting the start key, typing the first couple of letters of whatever app or document i want and pressing enter. It probably takes me less than a second to open anything now.

Also, i think 2GB is fine for more than "light usage", I'd go so far as to say it's fine for doing anything except playing certain high Ram usage games, or having multiple eve/wow clients running at the same time. With Aero turned off (i like the basic look) even with my usual 20 or so different windows open i'm still only at 1.1 GB usage for web browsing, remote desktop sessions, mp3 player and some word/excel docs open, i think that qualifies as light usage and there's plenty of room to grow.
Have there been any 4GB vs 2GB benchmarks done recently for Vista?
 
barnettgs said:
Inquirer is just reporting on the SP1 test results from PC World - http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142233/article.html
Click to expand...

Yes the Inquirer linked to the PC World article and then added their own biased blurb which has almost no relationship with the PC World article. They just added that link to somehow make their outburst appear justified. In fact if you read the PC World article it is trying to be impartial and even comes to an inconclusive conclusion... unlike the Inquirer article which concludes with their misinformed "2 pence" on the subject of Vista.

You're in the minority who think Vista is good, when it isn't.
Click to expand...
Source? Proof? Evidence?
 
NathanE said:
Source? Proof? Evidence?
Click to expand...
Plenty...

Here's one of them:

Criticism of Windows Vista

PC World reports that adoption of Windows Vista is going at a much slower rate compared to the adoption of Windows XP. Within the first year of its release, the percentage of XP users visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame, however, Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users still running XP.[82] Electronista reports that in 2007, Vista sales were outdone by XP sales. At the 2008 Consumer Electronics Show, Bill Gates announced that they had sold 100 million copies of Vista, while InformationWeek notes a Gartner assessment that there have been over 250 million total PC sales (not counting separate license purchases) during Vista's first year.[83][84] Electronista also notes that Vista's growth rate is actually slower than what was with XP, saying that 89 million copies of XP were sold in its first year despite having an overall PC market half the size as in 2007.
Click to expand...

Due to Vista's poor reception and continued demand for Windows XP, Microsoft is allowing continued sales of Windows XP.[85] An unexpectedly high number of Vista users have downgraded their operating systems, with many having reverted their own Vista installs or even installing XP (or other operating systems) onto computers which were preloaded with Vista, and many computer manufacturers have even begun shipping XP restore disks along with new computers,[86] as well as new computers with Linux pre-installed. A study conducted by ChangeWave in January 2008, shows that the percentage of customers who are "very satisfied" with Vista is dramatically lower than other operating systems, with Vista Home Basic at 15% and Vista Home Premium 27%, compared to the approximately 52% who say they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP and the 81% for Mac OS X Leopard.[87] ChangeWave also reported that 83% of those intending to purchase Macs said that they "are choosing Macs because of Leopard and their distaste for Vista"
Click to expand...

Not that Vista is terrible but put it simply: XP is easy to use and does 99% job of Vista. No UAC. :)
 
barnettgs said:
You're in the minority who think Vista is good, when it isn't.
Click to expand...

Baiting comment if ever I've seen one...

barnettgs said:
Not that Vista is terrible but put it simply: XP is easy to use and does 99% job of Vista. No UAC. :)
Click to expand...

I bet you were one of the "cool kids" who slated XP when it first came out too saying how terrible it was, "I'll never upgrade from 98, it does everything XP does. No Fisherprice interface :)"
 
barnettgs said:
You're in the minority who think Vista is good, when it isn't.
Click to expand...

lolquote.

Don't worry, it's cool to hate. :rolleyes:

Have to say, SP1 fixed every bug that made me switch back to XP for a while.. Network transfers are now full gigabit, and HDD transfers are fine. Even the Realtek drivers have been sorted, so it's all dandy.
 
barnettgs said:
Plenty...

Here's one of them:

Criticism of Windows Vista





Not that Vista is terrible but put it simply: XP is easy to use and does 99% job of Vista. No UAC. :)
Click to expand...
Adoption rates have nothing to do with "people who think Vista is good".

I know loads of people that like Vista but just can't afford to upgrade yet...

This is a common problem with the tech media as well. They seem to think that because Vista adoption is going slowly (although about twice as fast as XP's adoption rate... I might add...) that it is a failed OS and that it is crap. Well thankfully adoption rates have no bearing at all on the quality of the OS. Just look at Mac OSX and Linux. Hardly anyone uses those yet they are almost universally praised as being "good operating systems".

Got any real proof to the statement you made?
 
I deal with many inexperienced people who have had Vista for the first time.
As soon as they see it they worry but after a few clicks of removing the Sidebar, removing Welcome Centre and putting the Start Menu to classic view they carry on as though nothing is different.
99.99% of users won't come across any differences except for different looking screens that may come up.
Its only us geeks that get into the nitty gritty.
I also expect that demand for XP machines is because they've heard geeks talk about how bad Vista is when it obviously isn't.
 
are other people still suffering with transfer speeds? i am. not my hard drives though, they are fine. i can only read or with to memory cards at a staggering 1mb/sec in vista. i have no idea why but i've suffered from it with vista 32, vista 64 and 2 different motherboards using clean installs.
 
Steedie said:
I bet you were one of the "cool kids" who slated XP when it first came out too saying how terrible it was.
Click to expand...
Not here...it was such a big leap from Win 98/Me it was worth upgrading for. Even my friends were saying that it was good but rather wait for a year for it to settle down.

Not here in Vista.

I have to say this this forum is the most Vista-biased I have ever come across. Everywhere, even the internet say Vista stinks.
 
barnettgs said:
I have to say this this forum is the most Vista-biased I have ever come across. Everywhere, even the internet say Vista stinks.
Click to expand...

Hello barnettgs, please link me to a half decent article that has reasonable arguments saying that Windows Vista is pants? Once again, what is it that you don't like about Windows Vista and/or what do you think makes it such a bad Operating System? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom