VIVA VISTA...Yeah right.....Read this.
 

If Tens of thousands of federal workers are prohibited from upgrading to Vista then that's good enough reason why I probably never will upgrade. Maybe someone will get the message to Mr. Bill as to where the sun doesn't shine.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=197700789

That article is nearly six months old :cry:

So I'm six months late, nothing new here. :lol:
Even if it's a year old, thousands do not know about it yet and they should, whether it may bore you or not.

I read about this when Vista hit the market. Problem is, when XP is not supported anymore then Vista is forced upon anyone wanting to us MS. This will probably be a year or two before it starts to become evident XP is on the way out. I hung to to Windows 98 as long as possible. I found XP to be better. Time will tell........

As I've said countless times, Vista is not the OS of choice if you play to run something from the Redmond Giant. It works like this - old vs. new:

Windows 95 -> Equivalent is Windows 2000
Windows 98 -> Windows XP Pro
Windows 98 SE (The most desirable rev) -> Windows MCE 2005
Windows ME -> Vista

As you all know, Vista has aquired the nickname MEII, and for good reason.

I have 7 machines sitting next to me as I type this, and 2 of them are Linux servers, 1 is MCE 2005, 3 are Xp Pro, 1 is Vista Biz Ed, and 1 is actually Win 98 SE (For legacy garbage - mainly to program some robots with logic). I also work on a Vista box all day, and still long for my MCE 2005 at home!!!

A lot of my video editing work will not run on the Vista boxes either. Did i mention that Vista is pure bloat? Equivelent machines do 2x the work as one Vista box.

I could go on all night, but take it from someone that works on both platforms - MCE 2005 is still the OS to have.

-S

when I read I need to upgrade graphicscard to see Vista in all it's beauty, and need hardware that usually would be needed to run the newest games, I understood that the design philosophy of Vista was crap from the very beginning on. An OS should not demand as much of the latest hardware possible, but should be running with as smallest ressources as possible, leaving the hardware free to run the stuff you are really interested in: business software, work software, gaming. Instead they tried to make Vista the star performer of the pack, where it only should have been the reliable, solid stage for other actors to dance and sing on and run the real important show. I mean you don't buy a ticket for theatre just to hear the director of the ensemble talking about how how long it took him to recruit all the dancers, and how the finances are, and who wrote the script: you want the girls, the singers and dancers instead, right? It does not matter if the director is wearing a red or a blue hat.

Totally flawed design philosophy. I will not get Vista later. I simply will never get it, period. I refuse to spend money on extremely bad planning and bad decision-making. I cannot comment on the technical aspects, but concerning the design it probably is by far the most stupid Windows there ever was. Totally wrong decisions being made. I couldn't have messed it up any better myself even when wanting to. Eyecandy - pffft... Saw the screenshots, I was not impressed. What is this nonsens in an OS good for? i was running XP in win98SE mode in the beginning, and just after some reinstallations I became too lazy to switch to that mode again, and thus stayed with the default XP layout. XP had problems in the beginning, and many of them, and it took them long until SP2, but now it is good. They should have focussed on increasing security levels - and leave it to that.

Microsoft are like the police. They'll get you eventually.

Police arround my area must really suck then:rotfl:

Actually, I've read that Vista was crap, and actually it has some cool technologies (regardless that I hate it), so I cannot say it is complete crap. I won't endorse it though, but I can't say it is all bad.

Why?

Simple. Vista is not what it was supposed to be. MS got sick of waiting, and released a product that is is unfinished for the simple fact of gaining revenue when none was being generated by XP. That is the short answer.

Vista in its current state is not what Vista was intended to be. Period. Windows 11 (boring name, eh?) is what Vista was supposed to be. All the features that Vista is lacking that are supposed to be in Vista, are not there - that is the problem. What we have all be waiting for has not been released yet. For all of you that have not put your claws into Vista yet - Don't! Windows 11 should be released in 2009, so skip Vista alltogether, just like you did with Windows ME.

That is my advice and that is what I would do if I didn't have 10 free copies of Vista on my desk as I write this.

-S

Vista is how XP should of been:D

*puts on helmet and waits for the incoming*

Don't make me come over there! :D :p

Maybe i should post a vid on all the features Vista is lacking that should be in it?

With due respect, your all entirely wrong. Vista is the first MS OS to go through the new MS secure development lifecycle which is one reason alone not to use xp sp2 aymore.

As too, when patched it has the same technology as windows server 2008 with its kernel so memory management and process scheduling is improved.

In the over 50 million lines of code in Vista is countless other enhancements...service hardening, superfecth and on and on.

The concern that US department has over cost is valid cos Vista costs more. Its a far better product and I think its worth it.

The compatability concern is valid too but the extent to which applications wont work on Vista is highly dependant on what applications you use. Its certainly not the case that everything breaks. And whats more, 99% of packaged software that did have problems has been patched now. For most people its not a problem that ever occurs anymore.

MacOS is too limited by the hardware you can run and BSD/Linux is a nightmare for general desktop use. Yes dos/win95 did suck, but MS has a very good knack for eventually releasing products that stand on their own two feet and Vista is the best desktop operating system ever made. My partner has a Mac and I think the soon to be released Mac OS is good but the problem is you simply cant run the hardware like you can on Vista. Case in point : No 8800 GTX on Mac cos Apple hasnt written a supporting EFI bootsrap for it yet.

I'm a balanced and reasoned person so present me a proper technical argument as to why any other desktop OS is better and I will fairly consider it. In the decades Ive been in ICT I have tried many many desktop OS's and Vista beats all Ive tried.

I'll be sticking to Vista till I upgrade my computer. It would drag the performance down on my current system and give no real advantages.

MY laptop is a mac and I still love it to bits!:D

I've got Vista Ultra 64 here. I don't mind it tbh.

I've come accross a few problems, most recent is the networking/file sharing but i'm sure i'll figure it out.

It starts quick, shuts down quick. Task manager is a pos to start but in time I think Vista will be fine.

I only really use my Vista PC for entertainment though...

Been running on a new Dell notebook with Vista Business Edition since March, I think. No problems at all.

Had I not needed a new notebook, I would most likely stuck with XP, since I had no problems with that as well.

One thing's for certain. That old article about the US DOT doesn't influence me of anything one way or the other.