johnmeyer wrote on 4/26/2007, 7:47 AM
Compatibility problems remain the #1 issue.

Yeah, and the fact that there is absolutely no benefit to using the turkey. None!
pjrey wrote on 4/26/2007, 8:03 AM
this anti-vista crap is driving me nuts... remember when the MS haters were giving microsoft crap because vista was going to be delayed? isnt the new OS for MAC delayed now? leopard?... or how about the iphone? such hypocrites .
im so sick of hearing people talk about how macs are better, dont have viruses etc.... i think i will die... its one thing if you like it, thats great.. just shut up about it, doesn't mean you have to take down MS... thats great if you like it.. it will match your cute little ipod. i remember everyone and their grandpa was scared to death of XP... saying it was just flashy cuteness... us humans are funny creatures...
johnmeyer wrote on 4/26/2007, 9:16 AM
this anti-vista crap is driving me nuts...

Nice rant, but help me out ... why the heck should I upgrade? I'm not trying to be nasty or a wise guy. I really want to know. Last month, I spent several days, going out of my way, to AVOID buying a computer with Vista. Finally got a wonderful Fujitsu laptop for my daughter with XP installed. Couldn't be happier.

So, other than security "improvements" (which I put in quotes because I doubt how much better they might be) what the heck can I do with Vista that I can't do with XP? Most benchmarks seem to offer conflicting information on whether I can expect any performance improvements, and most seem to suggest that my computer will actually run programs more slowly. Certainly not significantly faster.

So, as I've asked almost a dozen times in this forum -- without getting an answer:

riredale wrote on 4/26/2007, 9:18 AM

I don't want a Mac, either.

I want Vegas to run on Linux.

Until then I'll be happy with my XP setup, and will transfer it from this PC to a newer one someday. I've already transferred it several times over the years.
jwcarney wrote on 4/26/2007, 9:26 AM
For me it's simple. Until the 64bit version of Vista is stable and has the apps I need, then I'm staying with XP. Why move to another 32bit OS, then pay for yet another upgrade to the 64bit one?

V32bit Vista just isn't worth it.

Joe C.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/26/2007, 9:28 AM
i remember everyone and their grandpa was scared to death of XP... saying it was just flashy cuteness... us humans are funny creatures...

I still say it is. XP is a slow old dog that's a bunch of goat dung. 2K was faster, easier and just as capable (until HD came out).

I still hate XP even though I own it. But it was eighter that or Vista for newer apps/hardware, so I chose XP even though it's life is most likely over in the next few years.
Coursedesign wrote on 4/26/2007, 9:50 AM
i remember everyone and their grandpa was scared to death of XP... saying it was just flashy cuteness...


I don't remember that ever. Grandpa probably came from some flavor of Windows 98 and how would he see much difference?

Start button? Check.
My Documents? Check.
AOL in the same place on the Desktop? Check.

Pros were more likely to have come from Windows 2000, and they had some warranted concerns about stability in the beginning, but they got some evolutionary improvements under the hood.

I think nobody outside Microsoft (and Wall Street) really cares that Vista was delayed, because Windows XP is so stable at this point (although it is tiring with the very frequent security updates).

The big disappointment is with the experience of using it: it's more "OW!" than "WOW!," and in the cases when it does work with compatible programs, it's more of a "so-what" experience.

Find files faster? Yes, but not any faster than with the free Google Desktop on Windows XP.

Glossy Desktop? Yes, but not any glossier than you can get with any number of free third party add-ons for Windows XP.

All the "special" features in Vista (the new file system and other goodies) had to be removed to get a release out at all.

Instead we have an OS designed by committee, featuring, what, 38 ways to turn off a laptop.

Jim Allchin, the brain behind all the New Technology versions of Windows (NT, 2000, XP, Vista) who also led their development, left in disgust over not getting the backing he needed from Ballmer to make Windows Vista the product it deserved to be. It wasn't about money or the number of engineers, but about keeping things manageable rather than a bureaucrat's dream come true.

[Jim Allchin actually said in an internal presentation about a year ago that if he had to buy a new OS, it would not be Vista. For the sake of pjrey's heart, I won't mention his choice.]

JJKizak wrote on 4/26/2007, 10:05 AM
Why waste time and money to upgrade to a new 32 bit OS when all the processors, motherboards, memory, drivers, and future applications are 64 bit? It's a no brainer.
Cliff Etzel wrote on 4/26/2007, 10:11 AM
hence why I opted for 64bit XP Pro.
rmack350 wrote on 4/26/2007, 11:22 AM
Well, that's not really true. Most of the core hardware supports 32-bit and 64-bit. Some of the non-core hardware supports 64-bit. Most applications will still be 32-bit but a 64-bit OS should run them.

Upgrading to Vista just seems like a bad idea unless you have a clear reason. However, new purchases are a problem if you're forced to buy Vista.

Eventually the clear reason to buy Vista will be that you need to test your work under Vista. So you may need to buy a test system, but not a work system.

I think Dell's move to continue selling systems with XP is a good thing and will put pressure on MS for the rest of the year. If Dell sells more units, HP may follow suit.

Pressure to do what? Maybe clean house in their marketing departments.

Friar's opinions aside, I find XP to be fast and stable and I see no reason to use win2k. But people held his opinion for a couple of years. I'm sure it'll be the same for Vista. All new systems will have it and we'll eventually adopt it, grumbling all the way. In Friar's case, he'll adopt it sometime around 2012 or so.

Rob Mack
johnmeyer wrote on 4/26/2007, 11:38 AM
So, so far in this thread, the only reasons cited to upgrade to Vista are:

Find Files Faster
Glossy Desktop

Got to be more. Doesn't ANYONE have a GOOD reason?
Cliff Etzel wrote on 4/26/2007, 11:45 AM
"So, so far in this thread, the only reasons cited to upgrade to Vista are:

Not that I'm aware of...
munkee wrote on 4/26/2007, 11:48 AM
This is like the "glass is half empty" saying. So 30% won't use Vista? What about the 70% that will?
johnmeyer wrote on 4/26/2007, 11:58 AM
What about the 70% that will?

But are they making the switch because they WANT to, or because they are no longer offered a choice?
pjrey wrote on 4/26/2007, 12:41 PM
im just tired of everyone complaining.. dont upgrade then!! everyone is jumping on this anit-microsoft bandwagon... have they tried it out themselves? most likely not.. i havent yet! (my new system is coming with vista, and im glad, should be here today/tomorrow).
the reason i am getting so worked up, is because eveywhere i go, people i meet are under the misconception that vista is bad and tiger is good... after all, if you want to do REAL graphic work/video work, you have to use a MAC... better resolution.. whatever the hell that means! these people dont even know what they are talking about.. they read it somewhere, and barffed it up somewhere else,,, usually on my lap.. lets talk about viruses.. ohhhhh, pcs have tons.. dirty little pc's! macs have none... hmmm, maybe because macs have 5% of the computer market you fools! just wait... if it does become 50-50.. you will soon see that MACs, can in fact, become infected with these little buggers too!!! oh i wait for that day...
it started with ipods.. made people aware of macs... now the commercials that i see daily at engadget (and are on tv i guess, dont own one, so i dont know) witht eh slick MAC dude, and the goofy fat/nerd pc dude...
these mac people are suckers... computers are computers.. whatever gets the job done... im not anti-macs.. im just anti-people that are anti-PC's.
my XP pro runs oh so smooth! i never have problems with it... it is fast, stable, and does what i tell it to. (95, and ME was a whole different story..)
people are so resistant to change.. its kinda funny.... KINDA...
(i understand how you all dont see the need to upgrade... yes, then by all means DONT!! i wouldnt either... im buying a new system, it comes with it, and frankly.. im excited to use it)

i think i just need to stop reading slashdot/engadget and i will feel much better!
rmack350 wrote on 4/26/2007, 12:57 PM
Why does anyone need a good reason for you to use Vista. Really, why should anyone care what version of Windows someone else uses?

rmack350 wrote on 4/26/2007, 1:19 PM
The Mac ads are obnoxious, that's for sure, but I like the comedian who plays the PC. John Hodgeman, frequently on the Daily Show and author of a book called "The Areas of My Expertise".

Remember, we're talking about 30% of businesses surveyed. Not home users and probably not small businesses (We make a game out of taunting telemarketers here at our business, I'll bet they didn't get many respondents in our profile).

Many businesses don't make a point of upgrading right away. It's expensive and disruptive so you have to show a need. My guess is that Dell and HP will do it in some divisions because the employees will need familiarity with what they're selling. Boeing, GM, Ford, etc probably won't.

The thing to be watching for as an early Vista adopter is sites describing how to make it run better. Turning off Aero would be my fist step, just as I turn off all the XP widgets whenever I set up a system. It's very usable after that.

Rob Mack
Steve Mann wrote on 4/26/2007, 3:33 PM
"everyone is jumping on this anit-microsoft bandwagon... "

You must be a Republican because you are unable to grok what everyone is saying about Vista: "Why?"

Every release of the Windows OS has had some compelling workflow-enhancing features (OK, they blew it with 98). While XP had the smallest delta of new features, Vista has none. As John Meyer said - can someone name ONE reason that I should upgrade? If I can render 1% faster, I'll upgrade. If I can edit M2T files with less stuttering from a slow processor, I'll upgrade.

The point is, most people running Vista do so because they didn't have much choice.

And then there's the price. Upgrading all of the computers in my shop and at home would approach $2,000. With a zero-dollar ROI, I am simply not in a hurry to use Vista.

How does that make me a "Microsoft Hater"?

richard-courtney wrote on 4/26/2007, 3:44 PM
When an OS requires a powerful computer to operate......
what is left over for the application?
Make it 31%.
Chienworks wrote on 4/26/2007, 3:51 PM
There will be a compelling reason to use Vista ... when all the software you want/need to use requires it. That day is probably a long way off yet though.

As far as XP vs. 2K, i'm definitely in the XP camp. Windows 2000 was nothing but trouble for us. We actually downgraded a few 2K machines to 98SE just so we could get some work done. XP was like a breath of fresh air after that. It was everything 2K was supposed to be ... and in addition it just worked. 2K never did.
ddm wrote on 4/26/2007, 8:15 PM
I really don't want to defend Micorsoft here, they just released their quarterly earnings and they certainly don't need my help... But... I too, get tired of all the bashing, it seems so knee jerk to me. I actually love the look and feel of Vista. I still can't boot up to it on a regular basis, but I want to. I would agree with most everyone here that for us, there aren't any compelling reasons to upgrade, more than that, though, there are many reasons for us not to upgrade. I can't imagine how many of my plugins for all of my applications won't work with Vista. End of story, as far as that goes, but.. I still would rather be in Vista. Go figure.

Did anyone see the sidenote in Mix magazine last month with some guy from Cakewalk software? He really made it sound like there were many compelling reasons to use Vista. The driver model being vastly improved, stuff along those lines, stuff that I've never heard anyone else mention before. That sounded promising to me. Eventually, we will all probably be moving to Vista (64 bit, I hope), not now, it's not really ready for us, but for my daughter? or wife? Oh yes, they're ready for Vista and Vista is ready for them, too.
johnmeyer wrote on 4/26/2007, 8:49 PM
To each of you that think I am bashing Microsoft, I am not. Re-read my posts. I am not bashing anything. Instead of rehashing the bashing, PLEASE answer my question:

In what way will my computing experience be enhanced by upgrading my computer to Vista?
rmack350 wrote on 4/26/2007, 10:34 PM
I can't even think of one reason to answer that question. Who here could possibly have the slightest reason to convince someone one way or the other? It's like insisting there should be just one season.

kdm wrote on 4/26/2007, 10:57 PM
For some there may be no reason. The positives I've heard, and considered: 64bit for additional memory (and some application advantages) - why not XP64? It will go the way of W2k with developers, so to some degree, while XP64 may be completely viable for some, it may be a dead end for others.

A developer I know was extolling the advanced .NET implementation in Vista, and since Vegas uses .NET (why/where, I don't know), I would assume there could be some advantage, but that's a big assumption - it might have no impact on Vegas in reality.

I do like the look of Vista better than XP (which looks archaic), but that's hardly a reason to switch when XP is working just fine.

There is always linux... Ubuntu looks pretty nice, albeit a bit lean in the application and 3rd party support department. ;-)