Windows Vista looks destined to go down in history as the latter-day version of Windows ME - an operating system that added some visual fluff to its predecessor’s solid workings, while somehow mucking up its usability.
But I’m not convinced by this. I’ve been using Vista in anger since the day of its release, and have long since given up Windows XP because I found I got most things done much more quickly with Vista in place.
So it came as a bit of a culture shock when, this weekend, I had brief cause to fire up a netbook. And although there are lots of things that Microsoft royally messed up in Vista, this drummed home to me just how basic XP is in comparison.
The most obvious example is launching programs. If you go outside the comfort zone that is the Quick Launch bar in XP, finding a program is a pain - sure, if you know the .exe filename then Windows +R will let you run it quite quickly, but otherwise you’ve got to dig around in the mess that is nested menus. With Vista, you just type in the keyword and a shortlist of likely apps (or documents) appears.
On a laptop, Vista is the obvious choice. Microsoft itself admits that hibernate and standby didn’t work particularly well in XP, while it takes a matter of two or three seconds to have your whole system up and running again when you resume from standby in Vista. If you’re anal enough to delve into the deeper dialog boxes, you can also take an incredible amount of control over battery-saving settings.
These are just examples. Vista’s out-of-the-box security is quantifiably superior to XP’s, the user accounts are easier to manage, the bundled apps like Windows Mail, Calendar and DVD Maker are actually quite pleasant to use, the built-in parental controls are excellent, and of course the interface is prettier.
I’m not pretending for a second that Vista is a stunning success. There are many things Microsoft screwed up: Explorer’s interface is not only fiddly but on occasion actually obtrusive, to the extent that negotiating your way around a network is much, much easier in XP. User Account Control is one of those Good Ideas In A Meeting that unfortunately failed to take into account human behaviour. And Microsoft over-interfered in some areas that were working perfectly well, like making it more difficult to connect to a wireless network.
But there are ways around all of these problems, and in the end they’re annoyances rather than obstacles. So why, exactly, is the press and blog coverage of Vista almost universally negative? Why does every forum post I see slag it off?
Now I don’t have any issue with people highlighting Vista’s faults - they’re numerous, just as they are with most operating systems. What I do take issue with is people dismissing a whole operating system on the basis of broad-brush statements like “it’s rubbish”.
Some bits of it are rubbish, but so are some bits of Ubuntu Linux, Apple OS X, Windows XP. And there are lots more aspects of Vista that have been described as rubbish, when often the criticiser is just more used to the way of doing things the way XP (for example) did them.
At the risk of opening myself up to even more abuse than usual, let me know. What don’t you like about Vista? What do you like? Have you decided not to even give it a try on the basis of comments elsewhere? Perhaps you’ve been pleasantly surprised (or otherwise) after buying a Vista laptop.
Post your thoughts below, while I go and get some sort of protective shield to hide behind…
Tags: operating systems, Vista, Windows, XP
Permalink
October 27th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I use Vista, OS X, XP and Linux. To be honest, XP is my least favourite of the lot, but I’m pretty much lumbered with it at work.
I use Vista most of the time now, when I have a choice, although OS X is a close second.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Thanks for that David - out of interest, is there a particular reason you make Vista your favourite and XP your least favourite?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I’ve been using Vista on a laptop for a good year now and couldn;t go back to XP. The Standby and offline files features are excellent and much improved compared with XP. Speed and performance is on par with XP to be honest particularly since SP1.
I’ve also been testing the x64 version lately which is excellent again. The sheer amount of driver support for hardware is stunning. For example- I was able to install Vista SP1 X64 onto a high spec HP notebook without ever needing to install any drivers and performance was excellent.
The issue for me why Microsoft changed some simple things when there was no benefit gained from it, eg trying to view your networking hardware is now a whole process in itself instead of clicking Start> Network Connection as in XP.
And something else that pains me is the multitude of versions of the OS, 5 in total I think, H basic, H premium, Business, enterprise and Ultimate. What a joke and completely unnecessary.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Vista left me high and dry with too many of my previously paid for applications, plus I still haven’t been able to get driver support for at least 2 printers I own
October 27th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
It’s a difficult one to quantify really. I use Vista both at home and at work, deliberately as I wanted a 64 bit OS. I’ve found numerous annoyances - nothing to really can it but just things I’ve found that get in the way:
Device manager does not remember settings. I turn off the action pane and next time they’ll return.
Explorer - the file manager - is a foul up. So much space used up for nothing, and no easy way to turn these off to go back to “basics”. Even using thumbnail previews the description fields are still present.
Networking is a farce. Some parts, such as wireless networking are much more sensible, but the actual Network and Sharing Centre (apologies, but the american spelling annoys) is a big mess. When I share something I just want to share it, not assign permissions only to find it is blocked and I need a username and password, despite having a passwordless account.
Personalise (again, the correct spelling) is silly. The same dialogs hidden behind a pointless webpage.
Bundled programs. I will use Firefox and or Chrome, my own video viewer, my own mail client. I don’t want Microsoft forcing these on me.
The “default folders”. I know XP had these and hid them up, but a lot of people liked that. I organise how I want to, but how MS think I should. Contacts is useless as I only use Thunderbird and IMAP. Favourites (again, poor spelling!) is useless as I use Scrapbook (Thanks to Mr Pountain) and Firefox.
Vista also seems clumsy. Even after huge patches and updates file copying is still down to below 10mb even disk to disk. Everything is a “zone” from MS explorer, a repugnant concept. Files are blocked for no good reason. Do I want to unblock it? Why on Earth should I have to?
It also installs into 6+gb. Sometimes 13gb. That’s desperately wasteful. 250 services starting on boot up - it’s mess
I know I am getting old, but why can’t an OS just be something to hang apps on? Do the little things really well, and simply. No built in cruft, or at least allow a way to not install it. More power to the installer - no ie, no oexpress, no defender, no UAC, no WMP, no apps, just a coat rack for programmes.
I don’t hate vista at all. I just feel it’s more interested in getting in the way than doing it’s job - to serve me as I expect.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I’m not sure Tim. I’ve used Windows since 2.0, I used a Mac in the late 80s and I got into Linux in 2002.
I was an early adopter of Windows XP, but I never really got on with it. I think the default “Fisher Price” interface put me off. I’ve always used it with the “Classic” view - although my work PC now has the “Zune” theme.
I’d always been disappointed with Windows implementations of security, multi-user and multi-tasking.
Around 2002 I started using Linux on a test machine and by the middle of the year, it was my main desktop operating system of choice. XP was kept for playing Anarchy Online, and that was about it. I switched pretty much to OpenOffice at the same time.
In 2006, I needed to switch back to MS Office, to work with customers - key features (and formatting) were missing or messed up when switching - which meant a grudging move back to XP. Around the same time I also got a 24″ iMac. That was brilliant, and became my main workhorse.
I am a Microsoft Partner and when Vista came along on the Action Pack, I upgraded my machines, then pretty quickly went back to XP, with OS X being my main OS. In 2007 I killed my test machine (managed to short out the Athlon XP processor whilst upgrading the cooler), and in December, I finally got around to replacing it with a quad core Vista machine. Vista seemed to have improved beyond all recognition. That, plus SP1 a little later, got me to try it again on my older kit. I dug out the dusty “Vista” hard drive for my Athlon 64 machine and the improvement in performance was very noticeable.
Since then, I’ve used Vista as my preferred Windows platform, whilst OS X remained my main OS of choice until June/July this year, since then, I’ve been using Vista more and more. It feels more complete and is much easier to use than XP - I find myself much more productive.
XP just felt old and toy-like, in comparison to OS X and Linux. It never felt like a “real” operating system. Vista is still lacking in some areas - especially in the command line (try using UTF-8 command line tools!!), but generally it feels like Windows is finally starting to “come of age”, whilst XP just feels like “my first computer”.
The poor default user security - and poorly written applications - which meant that it was next to impossible to use the computer properly (keeping the Admin account locked up, unless you were doing admin tasks and logging in as a normal user) drove me crazy, it just felt noddy.
UAE is a little over-zealous, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. “Real” computers have been doing this since the year dot, but it has taken Microsoft a long time to cotton on… Now we just need the application developers to start writing “proper” code…
October 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I’ve been using Vista on my laptop and I prefer usins it now to XP. Sure, a few things take a while to get the hang of, but it’s certainly no worse than XP. It seems more a rewrite of that OS than a successor, but that’s no bad thing when people (now, anyway) say they love XP.
I think a lot of it is bandwagon jumping: it’s ‘kewl’ to slag off Vista in the same way that people think it is to love OS X or (insert obscure distro of) Linux.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Good things about Vista:
1) Search is great and a lot faster than on XP
2) Ability to type in the first few letters of something in the windows box and have relevant apps, docs etc. appear
3) Side bar is very useful
4) Interface has a nice look and feel
5) Some of the new features in Windows Explorer are very useful (e.g. favourite links, breadcrumb trail).
Bad things about Vista:
1) It is so slow. I am certain my current Vista machines (work and home) are both slower than my previous XP machines even though the hardware in both cases is significantly better. It still amazes me how speed considerations just seem to go out of the window for OS and application developers. I don’t want to have sit there for 5 minutes waiting for a load of unnecessary services to load up. I also don’t want to see a spinning blue circle for 20 seconds after I invoke Windows Explorer. I just want Windows Explorer! The worst example of this is clicking CTRL-ALT-DEL. Even this can take 15 – 30 seconds to bring up the low level menu. This is supposed to be a shortcut to the low level of the OS!
2) Windows Explorer seems to choose the style and fields available for my view all by itself. Sometimes it will go for thumbnails, sometimes lists. I have tried forcing it to always be “details” with the fields most useful to me (filename, size, attributes, date modified) for all folders but this does not work. I have lost count of the number of times I have to turn off “Artists”, “Album”, “Genre”, “Rating” and “#”. It seems to assume every folder is to be used by a 13 year old child cataloguing their mp3 collection. Even folders that do not contain any mp3s. Beyond frustrating.
3) UAC is just intrusive and as far as I can tell in my case pointless. However I have been warned it is a bad idea to turn it off so I put up with it.
4) I have reminders of things like “Div X update” every time I want to run Windows Media Player but when I say “OK” there is no update available and I am unable to turn this off.
5) The “All Programs” section of the windows menu is worse than in XP.
6) Silly things like changing the name of “Add/Remove Programs” to “Programs and Features”. Why!!? It just confuses long time users of Windows. I still have to think every time I need to do this now, “what is it called again?”. Unnecessary cognitive overhead.
7) Loss of up arrow in Windows Explorer. This is such a stupid omission.
There are lots more but I have work to do and could be here all day!
October 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I prefer Vista over XP. I had used XP since it first came out and I can remember the problems with it, especially around security. I found that XP would run fine when first installed but would eventually run slow after a few months and only a re-install would fix it.
I moved to the 64bit Vista as soon as it came out. I was annoyed with some of the hardware incompatibilities particularly with sound. It was a shame that Microsoft decided to change this area so drastically.
The only two things I do not like about Vista now are:
1. It ocasionally forgets my folder setting
2. It can sometimes take a long time to view a folder just after starting up (particulalry the GAMES folder).
October 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I don’t hate it. I quite like it. When I try and do something, it just works. Intstalling new software, running new apps, switching to wireless broadband, playing games.
It still has its annoyances, since this is in the nature of all computers and operating systems. The main two I come up against, after 6 months of faultless operation, are 1) the agonisingly long startup time and 2) some of my favourite old games are not compatible.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Apart from startup time (where XP wins, I’m pretty sure) I use Vista and Ubuntu on my main computer, with Vista taking preference by a fairly narrow margin. I love the “type and it gets” in the start menu, but dislike the startup time (what annoys me the most is the way it will log me in, present everything, then wait 20 seconds before I can actually use it!). I’ve been converted to indexing by it, but honestly, apart from MS Office, I’d find very little to pick between Vista and Ubuntu. The user folders structure is sensible, if only old software could use it. I’ve had a little bit of an issue recently with IO operations and foobar2000, and wish I could set IO priorities, but aside from that, all is good!
October 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
i enjoy vista alot.
it has evolved into an everyday OS in fact i recomend it to alot of people since it pretty much guides it self in the aspect of security i find i less have to work on vista pc’s then i do with XP wich ive worked on since 2002.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’ve been using Vista on various laptops for nearly 2 years now. Many of the early problems in Vista have now been ironed out (such as incredibly slow file copying). I do also sometimes have to use other systems that have XP installed, and I have to say, within seconds I find myself missing Vista. This usually occurs as soon as I try to find a program that is completely hidden away in XP’s start menu. I have now gotten so used to the excellent search feature in Vista’s start menu, that I now routinely just type the first few letters of the program I wish to use in the search box to bring it up rather than scanning through menus for it.
Vista’s not perfect though - for example, it still will not allow simultaneous digital & analog audio output (most annoying), something which XP took in its stride.
Problems aside, if I were looking to choose a new OS, it would be Vista every time.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Quote
:If you go outside the comfort zone that is the Quick Launch bar in XP, finding a program is a pain - sure, if you know the .exe filename then Windows +R
End quote.
Thats just plain nonsense, I don’t know many people that launch most of their applications from the Quick Launch tray, most people would use an icon on the desktop or from the All Programs menu, if not then it will be in the Programs folder, you could even search for *.exe, so get your facts right, OK.
Why not use Vista, well why do I have to dive through layers of menus to find My Computer, My Documents etc?
Why when I tried it would my Win Me computers transfer data over a network about 10x faster than Vista?
Why is it so slow on similar hardware to XP?
Why is stuff in different places from where I am used to finding them, to what purpose?
Why is UAC (the increased security aspect of Vista) so intrusive as to make it unusable?
Why is security not based around the Linux system of file permissions, seems to be robust and works fine?
Sorry I could go on but basically I want my Operating System to be reasonably invisible because I don’t use the Operating System for anything more than installing programs and file storage/ management, what I actually use is applications.
Tip to Microsoft, next time don’t release an Operating System until you have finished it and thoroughly tested it.
XP may not be perfect but it worked OK on hardware 7 years ago, and it just flies on modern hardware.
So the current situation is I can’t buy a PC with the same Operating System that is used by far the majority of businesses around the world and in all UK schools. How sensible is that?
October 27th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I hated Vista until I spent an entire weekend tweaking it back to XP performance, which involved:
- Disabling Superfetch which hogs all your RAM and does a lousy job releasing it for other apps that need it. Photoshop running out of 4 Gb RAM should be a crime.
- Disabling Search Indexing which constantly consumes CPU cycles and has your hard disk working overtime. The genius (or is it guru) who came up with the idea to have a full fledged search engine running constantly in case I need to find the occasional file on my computer should be shot.
- Disabling UAC which leaves no doubt as to how horribly implemented it is.
- Disabling Aero in favor of the Vista basic theme.
There are many more tweaks I did, but those are the main causes of grief with Vista.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I upgraded to Vista on my dual core laptop, going from 1GB to 4GB of RAM at the same time, I also used a 2GB memory stick duo for “Readyboost”. I thought this should provide the perfect setup, but I was disappointed to find that I had problems when coming out of hibernation with Vista often crashing. I found I had to re-boot the machine more often than not - this got mildly better after installing SP1 but not much. I also experienced problems with “Readyboost”, with the hard disk often spending the first 5-10 minutes after bootup thrashing away copying data to the memory stick duo. Whilst this was happening the machine was almost unusable - not good for a £1200 Toshiba laptop!! I also agree with some of the other posts here regarding the “new” explorer - I really hate it. Why fix something whch wasn’t broken in the first place?
A few months ago I went back to XP. I miss the nice gadgets I had on my dekstop, but this is a minor annoyance compared to the issues I experienced. My laptop has returned to it’s usual self, and I can use CorelDraw again…
October 27th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I completely agree with everything you’ve said here. You only need to do a YouTube search for anything Microsoft/Apple related to see hoards of fan boys arguing over the pros and cons of each OS. Personally, I had vista shipped with my laptop and it worked wonderfully straight out of the box- connecting to my wireless network, browsing, everyday tasks- all done with ease. However with time and new software, the one gig of ram was unable to cope. Moving back to XP after over half a year on Vista was a tough transition for me and I’m just a casual user. Using XP for a few months got me fed up to the point where I went ahead and built myself a semi supercomputer to run Vista and some games! I suppose for me, the aesthetics and ergonomics play a vital role. The search function and the suave aero effects made up for an occasional 3 second lag in Vista.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:34 am
I tried Vista when first released. I found it slower and incompatible with a number of applications I used regularly (e.g. Microsoft Money). I persevered as I have two PCs but over a week or two gradually more problems occurred. I eventually formatted my hard drive and re-installed XP.
I don’t have time to waste on sorting out problem after problem, the OS should just work and Vista was too immature. You might suggest that I try again with Vista now but it should have been ‘more’ right at release. XP has its faults (the worst IMO is file search feature which is a mess) but I have paid Dell £40 extra to ensure the new PC at our works had XP on it - I don’t have time of inclination to experiment or debug MS code in a busy day.
Do MS have to keep changing the OS so often its just a gravy train for upgrade costs.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:10 am
in very short…
Ever heard about DRM ?
Vista is fine for your PC (Public Computer)
Think free,think open but please…….. please…..think !! instead of swallowing M$ Spyware
October 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I never moved to Vista for the same reasons I never moved to ME. No need.
The truth is, Microsoft have only produced wonky Operating Systems over all these years. Why should I expect the latest effort to be an improvement and a culture switch from their previous System Life Cycle model ? I see it as just another moving stuff around ruse intended to re-stimulate my need to purchase more hardware, training manuals and support package ?
Everything I’ve read since it’s release has done nothing to change my view. I certainly don’t have time to play OS scrabble, just because everyone else appears to be at it.
As far as I am aware, it brings no Business Advantage to me over any previous malincarnation. Just more varied administration woes for the home, office, network, or small business user. Since I once was a house decorator, I can confidently say that watching paint dry is more interesting than dicking about with Microsoft’s ever changing interfaces.
If you think about anything like DRM, Windows Update, etc, there is all that reporting back to base going on behind the scenes, you could be seen as a volunteer lab rat for Microsoft, especially if YOU are paying for the bandwidth Microsoft uses daily, in a perpetually futile attempt to fix something that was broke when they released it ?
Maybe you think I am mad ?
Just quite old and pretty bored with pressing buttons on duff gadgets.
regards ALF
October 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I don’t hate vista. Quite like it actually. Been using it on all my computers & laptops for nearly 2 years without incident. It just works.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Many useful features have been removed compared to Windows XP. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_Vista.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I read online that people with MSN Subscriptions are trying Windows 2008 Server x64 for their Desktop/Laptop every day use machine. I tried on an HP notebook - one that HP hasn’t released drivers for Vista. I like the way that on a vanilla install of 2008, most extras are switched off. And even without specific drivers the machine seems very quick. I managed to install Vista 64 drivers for the video card. There was some fiddling with services to get Wireless enabled and a few other things like Internet Explorer security locked down settings. The only thing I haven’t worked out yet is how to yet the AC ‘97 Audio drivers downloaded - I need the previous one not the latest. I hope the PC Pro will do an article on the subject of using 2008 as a desktop o/s as I believe it will be of interest to many readers.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I hated XP when it came out. It was without doubt the worst release they had done. Nothing worked for a good 9 months. Now everyone uses it. Well Vista was a pretty good release. It had issues but it was in a good state from day 1. The SP1 fixed a lot of speed issues and nVidia sorting itself out and releasing drivers has improved the graphics speed to XP standards. ‘Many useful features have been removed’? In fairness many unused features were removed. Go through that list and count how many you actually used. And what about the features gained!. It’s a lot of whinging from people that used Vista over a year ago or another bunch that have never tried it and just jumped on the bandwagon. Change and evolution is what computers have been about since day 1 and I’m sick of hearing that it’s not the same as XP. Move on!
October 28th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Actually, having avoided Vista assiduously (being a business user), my business laptop recently blew up and I replaced it with a mind-bogglingly cheap HP 17″ Compaq running Vista Home Premium. And I have to say I like it. It’s great for the many web apps we now use as a business: Google Chrome runs very quickly, I like using Explorer (love the nifty little drop-down menus in the breadcrumb trail, but for any multi-drive copying/moving use the brilliant open-source FreeCommander). My only major criticism is the networking: copying or opening files across the network is ridiculously slow. I’ve heard from mates running Vista Business Edition and Vista Ultimate Edition that their networking is actually very quick, which suggests that MS deliberately crippled the networking on the Home Editions (an extraordinarily annoying thing to do, if it’s true). But then, by far the best Windows networking stack was in Win2000, which I run on an eeePC and is fantastically speedy. As far as the interface itself goes, I’d compare Vista favourably with OS X at the present time.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I have actually not used Vista yet, but after reading this forum I am feeling more comfortable about my new laptop that I am currently waiting on. Last week, I ordered an Inspiron 1525 with Vista Ultimate; I should have it before next Friday. I waited this long because I had hoped that any bugs and quirks would have been worked out by now. Rightfully, I cannot say whether or not I like one over the other not having the personal experience to give an accurate opinon. I can say that from being a frequent XP user, I am very excited about a new OS.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
With the inevitable hardware upgrades I’ve been forced to adopt Vista both at work and at home with the exception of my W2k3 Server and one remaining XP box. The XP box is pretty universally available (as I remote desktop to it and use it as my primary email and business application machine when I work from home).
I’ve also implemented 2.5 TB of NAS on my home network, and run XP and W2k3 Server in VM Images for various development environment configurations. So I bounce a good bit between the main Windows OS (and probably need to start with W2k8 Server images soon).
I’m obviously not the target Vista user. The simple fact that when I buy a laptop and get Vista Home Premium and I cannot upgrade that just to Vista Business but have to go to Vista Ultimate - something which adds loads of user interface overhead garbage just so I can get proper remote desktop handling - illustrates Microsoft wasn’t thinking about small businesses and consultants. It gives the feeling that we’re back to the point in time where my choices are Windows 9x for the users and Windows NT for the developers.
Except there is no Windows NT/2000 option any more because even Vista Ultimate doesn’t provide that. Hence why I need to have multiple XP virtual machines to do my development, and why Microsoft acknowledges that for many business applications you will have to provide a virtual machine for users to do their work. This is a terrible workaround from Microsoft.
When I do Vista development I still find I need Vista in a Virtual Machine because the platform corrupts so easily using Visual Studio .NET that I very quickly lose control over what code libraries are provided and what code libraries are coming from the development tools. This problem has been around with Windows for over a decade, but while Vista aimed to provide some application independence, Visual Studio .NET and the regular set of Microsoft patches seems to grossly violate that independence intentionally.
Setting aside these, admittedly developer specific concerns, there are regular operations I do in Vista that demonstrate deep weaknesses in the OS. For example, I snapshot a replica of my full MP3 collection up to NAS and down to my travel USB drive once a month. Right now I’ve got audio books, a few thousand CDs, and a bunch of miscellaneous content in that collection amounting to 36k files, 4k folders, and 220GB.
Snapshotting that up to NAS from XP can take two to three hours on my gigabit home network. Snapshotting the same to NAS from Vista… well that’s ten to eleven hours. Why does it take an extra eight hours? Well I cannot blame the network because doing the same snapshot to the USB drive plugged into XP vs Vista shows the same problem - it can actually take up to day to push to the USB drive from Vista whereas it takes three to four hours with XP.
My guess is that Vista ‘thinks’ about folders and files - thus the more folders and files in a copy or move operation, the slower it is. I’ve noticed with large file sizes but fewer files that I still do not get parity - Vista will never be as fast as XP apparently. So my very new hardware and very fancy operating system is poor at copying files - especially large volumes of files - in an era when only my laptop has less than 750 GB of disk.
Next we get to networking itself. I’m used to dealing with XP having the usual WiFi disconnects. I’m used to having to nudge things a bit with an ipconfig /release and ipconfig /renew when dealing with airport and hotel WiFi connections so I can browse to that annoying “pay me now” URL. So how is it that with Vista Microsoft managed to spend so much money visualizing the network connections and yet the behaviour and performance of the WiFi access is worse than XP? I get connected to a network, but now there are two parts - local network and internet - to fail. Sometimes on my home network I even get in situations where the internet routing is fine but I have no globe on my network icon to indicate this and the network connection shows limited access. Other times I have internet access but all my NAS mapped drives are disconnected. And still other times I seem to be in an endless battle with the repair connection application that never actually repairs anything or fixes everything in a few seconds but hangs on spinning round and round for ten minutes.
Then we get into things both within and outside Microsoft’s control with Vista. UAC is absolute garbage (I can write a UAC friendly program that can delete every file on a machine without ever raising a warning flag so I would suggest people think strongly about what the heck UAC is supposed to be protecting them from) - so you disable that. For any of you with HP equipment you’ve probably noticed that disabling UAC seems to cripple some of the HP bundled applications that HP has configured to start up.
Next we have to deal with the Windows Firewall, which isn’t really a firewall implementation at all. So you have your bundled Symantec software which is rubbish and slows the machine down considerably when it doesn’t just create crashes. Don’t uninstall all of it though - because some hardware won’t boot without Symantec LiveUpdate in place because the fancy automated restore to original manufacturer configuration uses an OEM version of Ghost that checks for LiveUpdate on boot or some other very odd dependency chain.
So you have to find a decent firewall software - Zonelabs may have finally made ZoneAlarm friendly for Vista but I had to ditch it early on due to CPU spiking and memory issues. It took about six months of twinkering to just settle with Comodo because that doesn’t seem to cause problems. That’s the goal of the Vista experience really - finding software and ways of using Vista that doesn’t introduce blue screens, crashes, memory leaks, etc. If you really needed to use Vista then hope that Microsoft bundled an application or you can turn off whatever gets in your way.
Even if that means trying to find an nVidia driver knockoff that has been hacked so you don’t get blue screens.
Then you have to deal with antivirus software - triggering not just slow response times, high memory usage, but in some causes preventing Vista from shutting down. I’ve sat and stared for hours at Vista shutdown screens spinning endlessly wondering how badly I’ll screw something up by just unplugging the machine (or popping the battery on my laptops).
It’s ok though. Following a blue screen and some forced power outages you get this wonderful Windows recovery application. My suggestion - just tell it to start Windows like normal. The 30 minutes to an hour spent as the Windows recovery app does absolutely nothing could be spent instead on actually fixing the source of the blue screen or doing a manual drive check. It’s a nice little application to be sure - scares the heck out of everyone the first dozen times - but I’ve yet to see it fix a darn thing.
On the plus side Vista handles blue screen crashes in a cool way by actually looking up the cause at Microsoft’s web site when next you are able to boot up. That has pinpointed driver problems much faster than I could have ever done in XP. Of course when you find out the driver is a Microsoft distributed and signed off driver, and there is no more currently available one, remember my comment above about searching for hacked drivers that might make your fancy video card actually work with Vista (and thus align with the Vista logo on the product packaging).
Applications. Just wow. So many games and applications will not run on Vista it seems. I’ve found a handful of equivalents and for games there is always the XP virtual machine. But after all this time I still run into applications that I used to have under XP and cannot find a Vista equivalent. Maybe their developers have the same problem developing for Vista that I run in to and have decided to retool with a Java based solution that could run on any Microsoft platform.
That’s pretty much my baseline of issues with Vista. I’m sure you’ve had articles touching on any one or many of these. I deal with them all and more regularly, and if Windows 7 doesn’t correct some of this stuff I may well have to look at forming a company to implement a better operating system for laptops and desktops. I’m concerned because I see serious mistakes in Windows 7 already - an emphasis on the fancy screens, on how gadgets work, on where icons should go. Windows 7 needs a fast I/O file system recognizing the fact that many removable drives will support 500 GB very soon. Windows 7 needs a strong networking stack acknowledging the quality and routing of the networks you connect to (sometimes simultaneously) should be leveraged smartly and not generically. Windows 7 needs excellent admin tools for both managing devices and monitoring application behaviour. Windows 7 needs, in short, the stability we were promised in Vista but instead got lots of flashy nonsense.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
The only thing that drives me nuts is the refusal of Vista to let me have control over which programmes I trust and want to run. There’s a lot of executables which I simply cannot run. And the boot time is larger as in XP.
Otherwise, the interface looks great, there’s a lot of little improvements all over and the OS is quite stable.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:30 am
I am in the wine industry in South Africa. Fro me a computer (laptop) is like a taxi for a taxi driver - it mist work for me. I must be able to understand it and make running repairs, but I have no aspirations to being a motor mac so do not want to understand the innards … I do not have the time.
So … I have a Core 2 Duo Fujitso Laptop 1mb. It is slow. I need to install Dragon 10 Voice Recognition Software. The local computer mac here in Darling where I live say simply, downgrade to XP Business and you will have a much better machine.
This is some step … but if it will improve the situation, I will go for it. What would you boffins suggest … there might be a bottle of wine in the wings here !
October 30th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I bought a system that had a free u[grade to Vista, when it was first released, and got it in the mail a few weeks after it was released. I immediately upgraded it to Ultimate because I thought it was the way to go. After I had it all installed it ran about a week on my system, before I said to heck with this, and reformatted my drive and went back to XP. Since then, I have never looked back. Oh, there has been a few times when I really wanted a reason to go back to Vista, and try it again, I was teasingly tempted after SP1 for Vista came out, but everyone I talked to, who was using Vista was still unhappy with it, so I just blew it off.
Now I am waiting for SP2 to be released. Still I wonder if I will ever go to Vista or just wait for the new new Windows OP to come out. Vista has a pretty face, and a few things that XP don’t, but a lot of the things that XP does have Vista decided to drop, and some of those I really missed when I had installed it. Ed Clarke’s link to the Wikipedia article on what Vista took out, and replaced said it all for me.
I have to be honest though, over the years, I have found that the whole computer fad has began to wear on me. Having been around the computer field since DOS days, I have spent years on a computer, both for work and pleasure, but as I get older, there seems to be something about it that doesn’t have the appeal that it once did. Oh sure, there are somethings that the internet offers that I couldn’t get without it, and all of the information that is on it, was once a great excitement to me, but something about it all has drained a lot of that excitement over the years. Looking back on it, and considering all of the money (think thousands of dollars) I have spent on computers, upgrades, and new systems to keep up with the latest and greatest, I could have bought a second vacation home, and probably have enjoyed the money I spent more. Back when I was really into all of the bells and whistles I really thought I was making the right choses, but now as I have gotten older, and am nearing retirement age, I really wonder if the second vacation home won’t have been a better investment. Of course had I done that, I wouldn’t be having this conversation, and the whole issue of Vista vs XP would be a mute issue to me.
Who knows by the time the new Microsoft OP comes out, I may be so bored with it all that I won’t even care, but then again, here I am up at 3:00 am debating the issue, and if I was at my second vacation home now, I might just be sitting on the dock wetting a line hoping for a big fish to take my bait. Instead, I have been the big fish, and Microsoft, and all of the other computer companies have keep me on the hook all of these years. Whether it was a good decision or not, I like so many of you, took the bait and ran with it, now I am in the frying pan, and like so many big fish that I have caught, I really wish I had never took the bait.
Oh well, we live with the choices we make, and one I made some time ago was to stay with XP and that is one I really don’t regret. Happy computing to you, and happing fishing, if you have time to wet a line.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:56 am
The problem is the difference because, in fact, a series of (very beneficial) logical evolutionary steps from XP to Vista are dressed up as a whole new step-change OS and THIS is the crux of the whole mess Microsoft now owns. Who cares whether it’s a new OS or not? We just want the damn thing to work! I don’t care what it’s called, if it works people will buy it. The marketing department at Microsoft would do well to remember that whilst they are wondering whether the whole of human history screwed up and that in fact wheels might be better if they were octagonal in shape, diamond studded with a pink fluffy rim and made from cheese.
People knew how to use a Microsoft OS so why screw them up and change the names of basic programs? If you have to change Windows explorer because there are benefits to be had, don’t neglect the effort existing users have already put into learning the OS and don’t leave a user standing in the dark whilst they try and figure out where the light switch is.
It’s as daft as a car maker launching a new model, deciding to change the clutch and throttle positions over (hey, it’s a whole new OS, right?) and whilst they are at it putting the indicator switch inside the ashtray just because the marketing department can argue it’s tidier (hey, it really is a whole new OS, we’ve got even more evidence now, look!).
Being marketing-lead is fine if the focus is on end-user usability. If the focus flows from a marketing department desperate to ram something new down everyone’s throat every so often they can hardly be surprised if people say “I liked sandwiches the way they were thanks, I don’t like the filling on the outside. Yes, the taste does hit you quicker BUT I waste time cleaning up the mess.” Revenue flows from users making decisions in their own interest, it does not flow from telling users what you think they want and forcing them to use it.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Hi Tim. I bought a Vista laptop with some trepidation after reading all the whining about the OS, but I needed an new laptop and so bit the bullet. I’m pleasantly surprised by Vista. I don’t have to reboot my computer twice a day, as I did with XP (or four times a day with ME on a desktop). Start-up and shutdown are MUCH faster. The system doesn’t hang at random moments. I prefer the file directory - I can find folders more quickly. I can’t really think of any negatives.
Most of my friends and colleagues who have had problems with Vista have installed it on existing XP systems, and some have given up and gone back to XP.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Why do I hate Vista?
1: “most things done more quickly” - no; most of the things I want to do are not enhanced by Vista, in fact some of the software I run simply does not work on this platform.
2: “how basic XP is in comparison” - yes, isn’t it nice to be able to run an operating system that requires only 512meg RAM and isn’t trying to be an all-singing, all-dancing bid to take over the world (again)
3: finding programmes (”keyword”) - you seem to have forgotten the lowly ’search’ facility in XP, a perfectly good way to locate any type of file or any file or folder that contains a partial string
4: (”hibernate and standby”) - two unecessary options that result in your laptop or PC using more electricity than if you had saved your files and shut it down. My own experience of laptops also shows that closing the lid has exactly the same effect so I have to poo poo your comment
5: “If you are anal enough” … you can reduce Vista to a state where it works great … ironically this is also indistinguishable from XP
6: “out of the box security” - fair comment, but then if XP was delivered in a fit state in the first place there would be no room for improvement and this is the crux because by diverting resources into producing this white elephant we call vista, microsoft effectively prevented those same resources from being used to adequately strengthen XP. So what’s wrong with an effective firewalled router?
7: “negotiating around a network” is, with vista, a seriously backwards step requiring that all XP (and 98SE etc) computers be altered with a patch in order to communicate. Further, with vista on a network the great mass of customers (who are not particularly gifted when it comes to computers but just wish to stream movies and send emails etc) are now required to mess about with their network settings so that they have a password where none was required.
8: “ways round the problem”. Yes, indeed, by avoiding vista and sticking with ‘old and inferior’ XP which, despite its faults, has the virtue of being an effective way for people to access their hardware, install new drivers, hardware, software and applications and which doesn’t require RAM and graphics upgrades.
So, whatever happened to “reverse compatibility”?
Why should I have to learn a whole new way to find my control panel?
Why can’t I run many of my games and why is it, even with the full 4gig of RAM at my disposal does vista make a top class gaming rig act like an “out of the box” basic entry model?
There are things that vista outdoes XP at, but for those tasks, Linux does a perfectly good operating system, complete with all the extra tools and applications that you could posibly want. I have a vista install disk - maybe I’ll use it but recent experiences with vista computers of those around me keeps it sealed. I use XP for playing games, 2gig of RAM is plenty, directX9 runs everything, even on my directx10 cards. All vista has done is to make me switch to ubuntu on my laptop.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Tim,
I guess you won’t agree, but the answer to your assertion that people shouldn’t dismiss a whole operating system on the basis of broad-brush statements like “it’s rubbish” is very, very simple. If the elements within the system that they need to get on with regularly are “rubbish” in comparison to the preceeding OS then the whole package is compromised. Vista is just damaged goods. Too much hype, too little attention to detail (usability) across the whole of the OS. Some bits are better, but that’s just not good enough when you’re promising users the earth.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Tim
What a wonderfully intelligent set of comments you have ellicited! I enjoyed reading most of them. I have been in the computer business for over forty years so I get bored with having to find out how to do things when Vista changes things that already work.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:31 am
The diversity of views on Vista is amazing. I too have been puzzled about the vitriol directed at this OS. After an initial learning curve - which was annoying - I’ve come to view it as far superior to XP. My ThinkPad recently crashed and I had to use an old laptop running XP. Of course having been a Vista user for 2 years, I had to relearn XP and this too was annoying. The underlying explanation may simply be that we humans don’t respond well to change, particularly that which is forced upon us. Perhaps this means that Microsoft will have a win on every other release. Since Windows Me was “so awful” we were mentally positioned to respond well to XP; now we’re positioned to respond well to Windows 7.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Vista is (in my opinion) terrific, I have been developing software since 1982 for many formats and the company which I currently own uses PCs and Macs. I think Vista is very underrated and is superior to any previous Microsoft OS and in many respects better that Apple’s OS X.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I bought a Sony Vaio TZ21 in January. I’m amazed by, and pleased for, the folks on here that have had a good experience with Vista. I’ve never joined in with the many people who express hatred of Microsoft as a reflex - but I’m no longer so willing to jump to the company’s defence these days. I’ve put my money where my mouth is and just this week taken the usual two days out of my life to switch operating systems - I’m now back on XP and very happy indeed.
Vista looked to me like a whizzy new interface on top of the usual underpinnings, which is not what was really promised during all the Longhorn hype. Nonetheless, I did like the new interface (apart from the loss of Up in explorer!). I honestly don’t have time to list all the things that made life hell while running Vista but here are a few:
* numerous applications that either wouldn’t run, or weren’t supported or ran with problems
* any time it was necessary to restart, it was up to 20 mins for the shutdown and another 20 for the restart. Cycling the power speeded it up, but settings changed since the last restart obviously wouldn’t be saved
* lots of hotel broadband systems have issues with Vista, and some of their helplines explicitly say that they don’t support Vista
* I password protect my .pst files and ensure that Outlook is closed before leaving my laptop unattended - I had to download a plug-in to ensure that the outlook.exe process terminated because under Vista it often doesn’t do so (the clue was when Outlook started up without asking for the password)
* Every time I switched from one docking station to another I had to manually delve down into TCP/IPv4 properties to force a DNS server address to be obtained automatically
* My HP iPAQ used to use ActiveSync happily under XP. Under Vista I was forced to use Windows Mobile Data Centre and this had, let’s say, issues (it seemed as undercooked as Vista itself)
* The TZ21 has a 2GB limit on memory - you can’t install more. I’m delighted by how quick the machine is now I’m back on XP (even allowing for the fact that OS performance is always better when the installation is new)
* We have a network of four machines at home, but putting a Vista machine on there while every other machine was on XP threw that into disarray
Enough - that’s just off the top of my head. If it were possible to change operating systems in a couple of hours instead of a couple of days, I would have done it months ago. I just hope that when W7 comes out it’s not another Vista. I have to believe that inside Microsoft, at a level where it counts, they actually know what a disaster this has been and they can stop it happening again. Agreed, there are plenty of people on here that thing Vista is great, but if you’re lucky enough to have it work for you in your circumstances please don’t knock or belittle those for whom it’s caused a lot of genuine problems.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I’ve read some comments about Vista and DRM above and from reading PC Pro since #138, I am familiar with the speed of file copying issue in Vista compared to XP and how much RAM Vista chews through. Has MS sorted this in Vista SP1? Are the DRM measures still in place? I don’t like the idea of an OS being deliberately badly engineered from the users’ point of view. I’ve been flicking through my old issues to find the comments of Jon Honeyball, who if I recall equated Vista with an attempt by MS to do for video with what apple has done for audio on the distribution of digital content (with measures in place to prevent copying to other users [page and issue number greatly appreciated anyone?]). At the time, DRM was being hotly debated but most people are moving away from it now.
Speed issues of Vista aside, I should point out that my laptop (HP Compaq NX6110) seems to zip along nicely when running openSuSE linux with the KDE desktop, yet is noticeably slower when running XP. If I were to upgrade to Vista, it is likely to be worse and I’ll need more than the 512 MB of RAM I have…
October 30th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Vista is extremely difficult to turn off. Good eyesight is needed, and fine control of a mouse. For many with a disability - a stroke victim, for example - it is impossible. Microsoft could easily solve this - surely a minor problem? Also, many minor driver providers have not done their homework, which is not Microsoft’s problem. A problem that computer manufacturers create is that a new computer often has four programs loaded that all do the same thing - and that is before loading internet service provider’s software. No wonder those who don’t feel confident with computers buy a mac! Can Microsoft do anything to limit this complexity?
Vista itself is pleasant to use, and likeable. It also has many tools that XP does not provide.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am
I use both, every single day….both are absolutely fine. I also use OSX which is fine & I use that locked down Linpus on my netbook…….XP only crashes when my VPN software takes it out, Vista never crashes, OSX never seems to crash but the apps do, LInpus is great for what I use it for.
Why do you all get so heated about it?
October 31st, 2008 at 11:24 am
I suspect there is a perceptional difference here - those of us who paid good money for an upgrade expected Vista to be noticeably better than XP while those who get it with a new PC are quite happy if it is not noticeably worse. For the latter, the improved hardware masks the poor performance of the new OS.
Microsoft have a unique talent for hitting the “sour spot” - they change just enough to cause significant migration pain but not enough to wow us with the gain once we’re through the pain. The audio changes in Vista are a perfect example of this - they recognised the need (with USB ’sound cards’ available at less than £10 people are going to want switchable audio outputs, if only for headphones and speakers). In Vista you can change the output for an individual app, but with a clumsy UI and you have to shut-down and restart the app (even the built in ones like Media Centre that ship with Vista). This change was necessary and was inevitably going to cause pain with app incompatibility, but the half-assed implementation makes us feel we went through the pain for nothing!
November 1st, 2008 at 3:55 am
Vista is slow. Slow, slow, slow. In fact, on my new laptop XP runs faster in a virtual machine inside Linux than Vista does in a direct install. File copying is glacial. I don’t want my computer to look cuter, I want it to run better, and faster is a significant part of the “better” equation.
Maybe in Windows 7 …….
November 1st, 2008 at 11:38 am
Vista is for sure the slowest OP ive ever been using. Even ME / 2000 is better than this crap.
1. why do u say vist runs smooth with 2gb ram? it dosent, since it uses about 1gbram just to run. and if u are a GAMER like me, u need ATLEAST 2gb of ram for u game.. so 2gbram is ok for vista??? NOT! 4gb of ram and u are fine, OHHH NOOOOOOOOO then u need vista 64bit, since the CRAPPY vista 32 shit dont support more than 3,3gb of ram. FAILURE!!
2. Why the hell cant u just turn off all the crap vista is running without being a major nerd?? well for me its no problem, but it still took me some time to figure how to set it up for gaming usage. And this would NEVER be done by a “normal” user.
3. Why do we pay for a program thats worse than a virus? Its easier to get rid of a virus than vista , again a clearly faliure from windows. They give us a product thats not working as intended and still we have to PAY for it?? so who is the developers of vista?? the users or windows?? i for sure wont buy anything from windows again. Open solaris / Linus / Unix FTW! Windows say farewell.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Received my (Dell Inspiron 1525) laptop Friday, 10/31, (with Windows Vista Ultimate) and had time to explore it over the weekend. It actually runs better than my XP, start up time is fractionally slower, but I usually put it in sleep mode so that is not a problem. It definately is more user friendly to me, I love they way the control panel is laid out. The parental account settings are super easy to use. The dock is really nice, I hate icons on my desktop. Still getting use to the folders, and navigating b/w them. The graphics are awesome… I am not a gamer, but I still went for the 4 gb of ram. My graphics that are displayed are very fine tuned and I have had to tweak the brightness and contrast to get them to match my XP. UCA is a bit annoying, but as much time as I was on it this weekend it does not bother me anymore. I agree it is very similar to XP, but also different. Personally there are only a few things that I would tweak to make it more user friendly to ME, but I can live with it the way it is.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Did I see someone say they compared Vista performance to their ME machine? Ah… em… umm…. what?!? Next you’ll tell me they’re running on identical hardware, right?
The problem with VIista: BLOAT!!!!
It’s been a Windows peave for years. The one-size-doesn’t quite-fit… installation that dumps 3gigs of crap onboard that NO ONE ever uses. And its a gift that keeps giving– I have to patch security holes in integrated apps NO ONE ever uses, so every round of updates and services packs is just as bloated.
Ask yourself, why does the average user get nearly the same user experience from a handheld version of Windows–tipping the scales at 2mb–as they do from a corporate desktop? So why does every corporation in America have to spend millions updating hardware to support Vista?? Aha! They don’t, and they’re not!
And would someone please find the twit at MS who thinks all people do all day is search for files–find this twit, stuff him in a bottle and throw him in the ocean!! I don’t need my PC continuously burning 30% of system resources exhaustively cataloging all those files that NO ONE ever uses!! If you use the product out the box, all your files get stored in easy to use default locations. If you modify the defaults, you’re probably also quite capable of find a file for yourself in a reasonable amount of time. DUMP THE INDEXING CRAP YOU IDIOTS.
As a net admin, if I get my hands on the twit who suggsted standard desktop users should have the option to index mapped NETWORK DRIVES…. that guy would be safer in a bottle in the ocean.
Sorry if I rehashed a couple points. I needed to vent.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
BrianL “downgraded” his TZ21 from Vista to XP. I did this on an older Sony ltraportable, when Sony supported this kind of activity, but now they won’t for the TZ21 which is impossibly slow on Vista - why do these companies release machines equipped witih components (eg 1GB std memory) that is wholly incompatible with the supplied OS? Trade descriptions? Fit for purpose?
Anyway, if Brian should read this, could you be persuaded to publish instructions for the downgrade? I fear if I try “unguided”, I will end up with what another contributor described as a paperweight!
December 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I really don’t understand how any perceived benefit of Vista can outweigh its obvious faults. It is a bloated piece of software which annoys professional and home users equally - a quite remarkable feat. Try administering a Vista PC - quite often the Administrator account isn’t sufficient for doing what YOU want to do. Try using Windows Explorer and navigate around that - sheer nightmare which gets thrown at you everytime you want to find your own folders - no I DON’T want everything thrown in the “User” folder, I want the right to be able to control my own hard disk without the OS obstructing or lecturing me every time I click a button. UAC - we all know what that stands for (U Are C***). I could go on but I’m curious to know what benefits these extreme annoyances are compensated by. A pretty interface which eats resources, a non stop search which is similarly useless, I’m expected to pay £100 for this?? I think not - I’m moving on to Ubuntu at the first opportunity.When Microsoft learn that the computer belongs to me and not their operating system I might return but until then nothing, but nothing is going to convince me that Vista is anything but a bloated turkey.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
OK lets quote the author of this article…
“What I do take issue with is people dismissing a whole operating system on the basis of broad-brush statements like “it’s rubbish”.”
So you dont like broad brush statements?
Vista is/has
Badly programmed
Badly compiled
Badly implemented
Has Poor Networking Support
Has security CRATERS (you MUST use 3rd party s/w to have even the most basic of security)
Slow
Resource Hogging
Has no code sharing capabilities
Anchored down with horrific DRM technologies
Poor memory management
Even worse process management
Doesnt do what its told
Riddled with architechtural ineptitude (ie the windows registry –> quite possibly the most absurd blunder in the history of operating system design)
No adequate separation between kernel and user code
No adequate separation between different types of code
Planned obsolescense from day one
The only operating system that can break if an application is installed by a guest user
The only operating system that can break when you download one of their own updates
The only operating system that crashes when connected to the internet
Stuffed full of bugs and glitches
In constant need of maintenance and repair
Microsoft’s achievements are impressive.
They have single handedly educated an entire generation of pc users into thinking that 4 crashes a week is NORMAL
Well, is that THIN enough for you?
June 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I have perused many of the comments on this website and I guess there is an even split between those who favour Vista and those who do not. I have 2 Vista machines (don’t ask) and have just purchased a new Toshiba laptop and as a result of my frustrations downgraded it to XP. In the past I have recommended Vista to friends etc, my argument being that MS are not going to turn the clock back and say ‘hands up we made a mistake’ but honestly at times I just find it so infuriating, and I don’t want infuriating. I sometimes ask did someone really test this and then did someone sanction it?
I guess most people writing here have grown up through the various incarnations of computing, and have discovered products and methods of working that they liked and then Vista comes along. I have described the situation to other like this - I think that since Windows 95 the product has become softer and less angular on each incarnation, it is in my view more visually appealing. I also think that for the average user it’s trying to make life easier, but for anybody doing anything remotely beyond the norm it has made life so much harder, it is so complex and in my view cumbersome.
The tings that have driven me back to XP as an everyday work machine are these and they are only simple but they matter to me.
Outlook Express – it takes ages for Windows Mail to load. I don’t want to use Outlook as I had bad experiences many years ago.
The Organised Structure of the Address book in Outlook Express. I have searched and searched but can find away of either importing the addresses in a meaningful structure, or subsequently structuring the contacts
“Windows Explorer” (I guess this is really a Vista installer issue) particularly putting files in locations other than those that I specify.
Collapsing folder structures – I guess there is a way around this if I went for Classic menus?
Forever confirming I want to copy and replace a file
I also agree that Office 2007 is the work of the devil.
To me Vista is a bit like the Nanny State, it tries to look after the average guy but in doing so infuriates those capable of looking after themselves.