My thoughts exactly, I too was skeptical about vista thanks to all the bad press, until i actually tried it and spent a couple of hours getting used to the new interface. Both machines i've been using it on (dual cores, 2gb ram, but nothing special) installed fine, had no driver issues at all, have been stable and quick, and my transfer rates have been better than XP. After turning off UAC and getting used to the interface enhancements I have no desire to go back.
My opinions on Vista SP1, 8 months later..
- Thread starter OzZie
- Start date
What a wierd replyLook, just because it's 'few' doesn't mean it's rubbish.
It is catching up like it has never before, it's a sign of change. My friend who has Mac and PC, he called me over to his PC few times to get rid of the viruses and fixed the infamous 'lower filter' issue once. All of viruses and spywares are because of his grown up kids.
His Macbook Pro which is shared by his family? Not a single call in the 2 years since he first bought it!
Stop making some rubbish 'assumptions'!
What "few"? What "assumptions" have I made? Sorry but they aren't IT professionals then. An IT professional would have been using Vista RTM almost the very week it turned up on MSDN back in November 2006. An IT professional is someone that lives and breathes it. They don't just treat it as a 9-5 day job.
I'd hardly call 6 years of development "rushed". Vista was the most meticulously put together Windows release to date. Everything that was cut was cut for a very good reason. And other than "WinFS" I bet you can't name one other feature that was cut without resorting to Wikipedia. Even then, I bet you couldn't tell me exactly what WinFS was going to do for the user - without resorting to Wikipedia.
Vista is the most polished operating system from Microsoft to date. It is far better polished than XP. You have very wierd views that make me wonder if you have even ever tried Vista first hand.
You were pointing out that 'few' people are using Mac. By saying 'few', you 'assumed' thats because its rubbish.What a wierd reply
No? That's what you were saying... I used the Mac/Linux as an alternative example of your own logic. Because you were assuming that Vista was crap because it's adoption rate is "low" (well ignoring the fact that it actually has much better adoption than XP had at this stage in its life cycle)
So you agree now then that judging an OS based on how well it sells is a useless and largely irrelevant?
^ I expect this is pretty funny to any casual readers of the thread
I think that's a huge assumption on your part, I don't thing NathanE has said anywhere that he considers Apple products rubbish
My point was that the adoption to Vista from XP is low, unlike Win 98/Me to XP because XP is excellent so dumping XP for Vista would be like going from a skinny girl to a bloated, fat girl but with a good looking.
Yep.
Read it the wrong way!Another source as it comes up: Microsoft attempts to placate "Save XP" campaign
Oooh, plenty of sources!
Oooh, plenty of sources!
My point was that the adoption to Vista from XP is low, unlike Win 98/Me to XP because XP is excellent so dumping XP for Vista would be like going from a skinny girl to a bloated, fat girl but with a good looking.
Vista adoption is much higher than XP adoption was at the same time in it's life cycle...
Based on percentage? No. The PC market is much bigger than it was when XP released.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,941
- Location
- West Midlands
My friend i wont even bother debating the issue as you have no knowledge of my background and experience on the subject, ive made my views clear.
For the record ive been in the IT industry for over 5 years and have had a passionate interest for much longer than that, my time has been spent working with Microsoft, Cisco, HP and Citrix Gold/Silver partners, the qualifications i have at the age of 24 surpass many with much lengthier careers. I work 60 hour weeks, i love what i do and have in depth knowledge of a broad range of subjects..so please don't sit there and pretend you know me.
Ive used Vista, run labs with my customers and deployed it into a business all of which have been painful experiences, ones that i shall not be repeating.
Well, lets have some facts and figures.....
Another source as it comes up: Microsoft attempts to placate "Save XP" campaign
Oooh, plenty of sources!
100 million Vista copies sold puts this campaign into perspective.
My point was that the adoption to Vista from XP is low, unlike Win 98/Me to XP because XP is excellent so dumping XP for Vista would be like going from a skinny girl to a bloated, fat girl but with a good looking.
It's funny how XP has suddenly become the lightweight and skinny OS. It doesn't seem long ago that people were slating it for being more bloated than Windows 2000.
Vista really isn't that bloated.
And the graphical prettyness was only a sideaffect of the new way the desktop is rendered. Microsoft didn't explicitly "set out" to make Vista a pretty OS. In fact all the prettyness was added in right at the end of development more or less. You could call them the "finishes touches".
I wasn't pretending to know you at all. And I find it shocking that someone who apparently knows his stuff can so easily write-off an OS as being crap.
I don't care what your customers are using or what you are rolling out to them. That is completely irrelevant.
I don't care how big your CV is. You took issue with my comment that IT professionals use Vista. So I replied. Now you've gone all "high and mighty" on me and aren't willing to explain your reasoning. If you don't want to get involved in the thread then don't post - especially when your contribution consists of a snipe of something from Page 1.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,663
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I remember it well.
Its also funny how barnettgs thinks that XP was wonderful when it came out.
My point was that the adoption to Vista from XP is low, unlike Win 98/Me to XP because XP is excellent
It was well over a year before I decided to take the plunge and go from Win98 to XP after all the bugs had been ironed out.
Adaptec 2940U isn't supported
Blame Adaptec for not providing a driver.
I'm an early adopter, often imposing a lot misery in the process on my day to day tasks until OS is mature. IVista, however, is the only case, where I find myself sitting a long year and a bit after installing OS and still feel bothered by its quirks and shortcomings. OEM and third party involvement plus driver and software development has been particularly slow in case of Vista and for the first time it's not only old devices, some ancient SCSI cards etc but also relatively recent equipment. A year on people still petition deaf on ears Nvidia to provide WMV drivers for ViVo cards, if, for any reason XP is discontinued this summer loads of video capture and audio enhancement stuff is suddenly dead in water and completely worthless. Which, normally, as you progress between OS's - 98 to 2000, for example, would be fair enough - a lot of stuff was changed in Vista and so a lot of third party code and development hours has to be thrown away and projects moved back to square one. It's just - what have we gained this time to justify it - in realistic terms - 98 to 2000 was move from unstable pap to NT stability with full multimedia support. XP was continuation. What have we gained this time? Search box in explorer? Transparent taskbar? Slightly messier interface? What is it that XP won't do and Vista will that could convince software developers to throw away their code and start from scratch - like Creative has to do with EAX for example, you know what I'm talking about. Changes from ground up.
It doesn't affect me that much at home, sorted hardware incompatibilities, learned to live with Vista's shortcomings and annoyances, but if we ever were to move to Vista at work at this point, a year after introduction, it would be massive blow, both financially and in terms of performance. Not only tons of video equipment would land straight in rubbish bins because it suddenly turns out no one knows how to program for Vista properly but also very simple things, like rendering software performing visibly slower, and it seems to be solely because tasks running in the background in Vista get switched to lower priority, something that, quite clearly coders still don't understand and don't prepare their software for. So, as much as SP1 might be solving a lot of problems on my desktop, it's the active refusal, late adoption and consternation of the software developers that for the first time plagues the OS. It's the "why do it at all" question on everyone's meeting board and, in huge part, the fact XP is just so darn good for all those things at this stage after so many years.
It doesn't affect me that much at home, sorted hardware incompatibilities, learned to live with Vista's shortcomings and annoyances, but if we ever were to move to Vista at work at this point, a year after introduction, it would be massive blow, both financially and in terms of performance. Not only tons of video equipment would land straight in rubbish bins because it suddenly turns out no one knows how to program for Vista properly but also very simple things, like rendering software performing visibly slower, and it seems to be solely because tasks running in the background in Vista get switched to lower priority, something that, quite clearly coders still don't understand and don't prepare their software for. So, as much as SP1 might be solving a lot of problems on my desktop, it's the active refusal, late adoption and consternation of the software developers that for the first time plagues the OS. It's the "why do it at all" question on everyone's meeting board and, in huge part, the fact XP is just so darn good for all those things at this stage after so many years.
Last edited: