• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

Release for Vista SP1....

NathanE said:
That's FUD. Vista is selling great. Far better than XP was at this time after its launch.
Click to expand...

Here's a good analysis http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/stacking_vista_licenses_too_high.html, presumably (you'd hope) written by someone more knowledgeable than me or you.

article said:
The company used the 20 million in-one-month figure compared to 17 million Windows XP licenses in two-and-a-half months to bolster its Vista gangbusters sales claim.

Just like vulnerability alerts aren't a good measure of Vista security, number of licenses sold is no way to reckon the operating system's sales success.

The number's meaning collapses for three simple reasons:

* Microsoft's sales period for the license sales is significantly longer than 30 days—more like four months.

* License sales into the channel do not correspond to actual Vista PC sales out of the channel.

* The numbers don't match up with real world PC sales volumes.

By my accounting, Vista is actually off to a slower start than Windows XP, using real world comparisons.
Click to expand...

modo77 said:
Can you list us some of these many bugs?
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily all about bugs... but about things that just haven't been improved and seem less user-friendly or unintuitive than XP. It was in development for over 5 years for gods sake and what have they produced... a truly innovative and spiritual successor to XP? No, clearly not. Hence why they're rushing the next OS out.
 
Last edited:
Final8y said:
But your talking about hardware sales not vista.
I would not buy a new computer to get vista.
I would buy vista, hardware guys lose out.
And to be frank allot of people simply just don't need a new computer for what they do.
Click to expand...

Many manufacturers were expecting a large increase in hardware sales due to the requirements of Vista. Personally it ran fine on my own desktop just that driver support from Nvidia for my chipset (Nforce3) meant that I couldn't run it on my SATA drive, though I could boot from DVD so that I could try it.

You're right that a lot of people don't need a new computer for what they do, in fact it's the same reason why I suspect people aren't upgrading to Vista yet, they just don't need to.

modo77 said:
Can you list us some of these many bugs?
Click to expand...

Just do a Google or forum search for Vista bugs, I'm not going to start listing them here when many have already been discussed in the forum.
 
afraser2k said:
Just do a Google or forum search for Vista bugs, I'm not going to start listing them here when many have already been discussed in the forum.
Click to expand...

but IF they are bugs, everybody would get them....

personly i haven't seen any bugs...
 
gareth170 said:
but IF they are bugs, everybody would get them....

personly i haven't seen any bugs...
Click to expand...

Thats the problem with people who don't understand a bug from a problem with drivers hardware compatibility.
 
Richdog said:
Here's a good analysis http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/stacking_vista_licenses_too_high.html, presumably (you'd hope) written by someone more knowledgeable than me or you.





It's not necessarily all about bugs... but about things that just haven't been improved and seem less user-friendly or unintuitive than XP. It was in development for over 5 years for gods sake and what have they produced... a truly innovative and spiritual successor to XP? No, clearly not. Hence why they're rushing the next OS out.
Click to expand...
Shrug. I think I'll believe the horse's mouth. Microsoft has stated on numerous occasions that Vista is selling better than XP was.

Who cares that its halo effect on the PC market was not as big as some hardware companies had hoped. That's their loss and misfortune, not Microsoft's. Maybe if they hadn't based their business forecasts on FUD-ridden crap posted on technology media websites ("OMFG Vista will need 8GB of RAM and a 1GB DX10 graphics card" springs to mind) in the first place they wouldn't be slashing prices on their dusty stock.
 
Richdog said:
Tell that to the thousands and thousands of informed users who haven't bought it yet as they're waiting for the service pack. :)
Click to expand...
Hopefully you aren't implying that everyone who hasn't bought Vista yet is foolish and that there is no compelling reason to stay with XP :)
 
NathanE said:
I turned the animation off as its useless and a waste of cycles anyway.
Click to expand...
That doesn't quite answer the question :D Although I agree that in its current broken state, it is indeed absolutely useless.
 
Personally I didn't notice a problem with it before disabling the animation. It's probably your network drivers feeding it false information if its not working correctly.

Edit: Just tested and it works fine.
 
NathanE said:
Personally I didn't notice a problem with it before disabling the animation. It's probably your network drivers feeding it false information if its not working correctly.

Edit: Just tested and it works fine.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it works just the same as it does in XP? Or are you saying that it does flash on and off occasionally but the flashing bears no relation to actual network activity.
 
Random google result...

http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?p=2635912
(He refers to dial-up but it is exactly the same icon and the same problem.)

I am using ADSL via ethernet btw.

The icon would be virtually useless even if the lights did flash correctly, because the colours used are so close to each other :eek: Whoever is responsible for this incredible oversight really is a moron I'm afraid.

Quite honestly it is a show-stopper for me - that alone puts me off using Vista even if the rest of it was perfect.
 
Last edited:
Remember unlike 2000/XP, Vista just has one system tray icon for all network adapters. So the single icon reports activity for any and all of them.

Even on XP the icon was completely useless. It had a refresh rate of about 2 seconds which made it completely useless. But then, it was never intended to be an exact copy of a Ethernet port's green LED light.
 
I only have one network adapter. In XP the lights flashing on the icon are near as dammit instantaneous. In Vista it isn't that it is slow, it just doesn't work properly at all. There are people all over the net complaining about this issue which I find baffling as it is so basic.

More...

http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vista/538055-network-icon-animation.html
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1712432&SiteID=17

In XP you can see at a glance if your internet connection is being utilised. I shouldn't need to explain why this is very useful indeed to know. In Vista you need to use a third party app to achieve this - like in Mac OSX :rolleyes: It's worked ever since Windows 95, but in Vista, the new and improved version of Windows, it's knackered.
 
Don't need a third party utility at all...

Windows Task Manager->Networking tab. There's also the new Resource Monitor that shows exactly which applications are using what amount of bandwidth.
 
Those are hardly as convenient as a permanent icon in the system tray which does the job.

Do you know why they changed it from how it worked for 11 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom