I bought my daughter a computer with Vista...
-
When I "upgraded" to Vista I was very happy. It seemed very nice and had some great features. Then after a few days I started experiencing all the problems that numerous other people have also described. I seriously considered "downgrading" to XP, but since I work with IT and am a programmer I kind of felt that I should stick it out see if it didn't improve over time. This day I'm still running Vista and I'm pretty content about it. Not happy, but not unhappy either. I would never go back to XP since I've grown to love a few of the minor Vista features. Pretty much all my problems from the beginning have been fixed now. The only thing that bugs me right now is the ugly UI. I really don't like Aero and I'm astonished that such a large company as MS can't do better graphics wise. I mean KDE4 looks much nicer. But all in all, even though today I like Vista more than XP, it has been a major disappointment considering the promises, hype, long wait, competition etc. I'm a programmer, as I mentioned, and I program in .NET (ASP.NET) and for me it seems that the only product MS has sent out the door the last many many years that was actually worth anything, is precisely the .NET platform which is quite amazing if I do have to say so myself. I would love to be able to do .NET programming on a Mac or Linux - and I mean "real" .NET programming and not the lackluster Mono .Not.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandI'm not an IT guy and I just got frustrated trying to figure out what settings to use to get it to do what I needed. I was wasting my time off fighting with Vista. Plus, I'm more of a real time programmer and while Windows has always been "Fake" time, Vista was really slow fake time.
Joe Q My Blog
-
The first was the printer driver to her photo printer didn't work. Then when I tried to download the Vista printer driver for her printer it took a couple of days to get IE to allow me to download it. (It kept getting a javascript download error that was associated with security) But it would try the download, get the error, get rid of the error message immediately and then try again...over and over. She also has a photo shop knock off program we got through her high school that she used in one of her classes. Also a couple of games. After a week of working with it, it's kind of a blur and not how I wanted to spend the holidays.
Joe Q My Blog
(Not that I want to defend Vista, I really don't care) All of those problems are not caused by Vista itself, but by obsolete software and crappy vendor websites. Of course Microsoft could have improved backwards compatibility, but then Vista would not have been much more secure than XP. Anyway, I always suggest to stick with XP if you don't need Vista for specific reasons, although it is more secure and stable than XP. It's also a little slower, although I feel that somehow the x64 editions are faster. If you have tons of memory (2 or 4 GB), it's way faster than XP with the same configuration. Also, multicore processors are better used in Vista because of the new scheduler. I find it myself quite good, except for some absurd annoyances and small bugs. I wouldn't go back to XP, anyway.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wik
-
I'm not an IT guy and I just got frustrated trying to figure out what settings to use to get it to do what I needed. I was wasting my time off fighting with Vista. Plus, I'm more of a real time programmer and while Windows has always been "Fake" time, Vista was really slow fake time.
Joe Q My Blog
Joe Q wrote:
Plus, I'm more of a real time programmer and while Windows has always been "Fake" time, Vista was really slow fake time.
As am I, and I have managed to keep my work real-time in every issue of Windows since Windows 3.0. To me Vista is no different. If I have it set up wrong, then I have to learn how to set it up for my needs.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
And I took it back yesterday. I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed. Just after Christmas I bought my daughter a new computer to replace her old XP computer (I bought her old one just after XP came out about 5 years ago(?)). It runs well but only had a 60 Gig hard drive, which was full, it only had USB 1.1, and it was old so I thought I would upgrade. I tried for a week to get the programs she uses to work and to get up to speed. The old computer ran faster and did everything she needed so I took the new computer with Vista back, bought a USB 2.0 card and a 120 Gig hard drive as a 2nd drive and everything works great. I now understand why people are frustrated with Vista and it has made me think about becomeing a Mac user.
Joe Q My Blog
Joe Q wrote:
I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed.
Why exactly would you think Vista problems have been fixed unless there was an official RTM'd service pack??? Marc
-
The first was the printer driver to her photo printer didn't work. Then when I tried to download the Vista printer driver for her printer it took a couple of days to get IE to allow me to download it. (It kept getting a javascript download error that was associated with security) But it would try the download, get the error, get rid of the error message immediately and then try again...over and over. She also has a photo shop knock off program we got through her high school that she used in one of her classes. Also a couple of games. After a week of working with it, it's kind of a blur and not how I wanted to spend the holidays.
Joe Q My Blog
Joe Q wrote:
She also has a photo shop knock off program we got through her high school that she used in one of her classes.
virtualization.
Joe Q wrote:
Also a couple of games.
depending on the technology used, maybe virtualization, maybe settings on the app properties or patches to the games themselves. Older technology works worst with Vista, in which case virtualization helps a great deal. It was probably not worth your time trying to fight it, but it sounds like you shorted the machine too. Unfortunately a lot of non-vista ready machines are marketed as vista ready. Salesmen lie.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
And I took it back yesterday. I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed. Just after Christmas I bought my daughter a new computer to replace her old XP computer (I bought her old one just after XP came out about 5 years ago(?)). It runs well but only had a 60 Gig hard drive, which was full, it only had USB 1.1, and it was old so I thought I would upgrade. I tried for a week to get the programs she uses to work and to get up to speed. The old computer ran faster and did everything she needed so I took the new computer with Vista back, bought a USB 2.0 card and a 120 Gig hard drive as a 2nd drive and everything works great. I now understand why people are frustrated with Vista and it has made me think about becomeing a Mac user.
Joe Q My Blog
i thought you were going to say "and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"
-
Joe Q wrote:
I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed.
Why exactly would you think Vista problems have been fixed unless there was an official RTM'd service pack??? Marc
Because most other OS providers fix problems on an ongoing basis with regular updates. Leopard has many bugs in it but they are being fixed regularly and updates sent out as they come, not in one big Service Pack that I have to wait months for. But yes. Windows works differently and so we shouldn't expect Vista to be fixed until SP1 arrives.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
-
(Not that I want to defend Vista, I really don't care) All of those problems are not caused by Vista itself, but by obsolete software and crappy vendor websites. Of course Microsoft could have improved backwards compatibility, but then Vista would not have been much more secure than XP. Anyway, I always suggest to stick with XP if you don't need Vista for specific reasons, although it is more secure and stable than XP. It's also a little slower, although I feel that somehow the x64 editions are faster. If you have tons of memory (2 or 4 GB), it's way faster than XP with the same configuration. Also, multicore processors are better used in Vista because of the new scheduler. I find it myself quite good, except for some absurd annoyances and small bugs. I wouldn't go back to XP, anyway.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wik
I'm not really blaming Vista, I just don't want to spend all my time on the computer. I do that all day and have some home development projects and feel I shouldn't have to mess with a new OS as much as I had to. It was really my frustration.
Joe Q My Blog
-
(Not that I want to defend Vista, I really don't care) All of those problems are not caused by Vista itself, but by obsolete software and crappy vendor websites. Of course Microsoft could have improved backwards compatibility, but then Vista would not have been much more secure than XP. Anyway, I always suggest to stick with XP if you don't need Vista for specific reasons, although it is more secure and stable than XP. It's also a little slower, although I feel that somehow the x64 editions are faster. If you have tons of memory (2 or 4 GB), it's way faster than XP with the same configuration. Also, multicore processors are better used in Vista because of the new scheduler. I find it myself quite good, except for some absurd annoyances and small bugs. I wouldn't go back to XP, anyway.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wik
Dario Solera wrote:
although it is more secure and stable than XP. It's also a little slower, although I feel that somehow the x64 editions are faster. If you have tons of memory (2 or 4 GB), it's way faster than XP with the same configuration. Also, multicore processors are better used in Vista because of the new scheduler.
Whooo hoo, someone with the same thoughts exactly as me...
Dario Solera wrote:
except for some absurd annoyances and small bugs
Only thing that really annoys me so far is when copying files the progress bar doesn't update very quickly, until it's almost done then zips through it. I've got to say that I really love the new start menu, saves having to look for things or write my own programs to do it...
-
And I took it back yesterday. I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed. Just after Christmas I bought my daughter a new computer to replace her old XP computer (I bought her old one just after XP came out about 5 years ago(?)). It runs well but only had a 60 Gig hard drive, which was full, it only had USB 1.1, and it was old so I thought I would upgrade. I tried for a week to get the programs she uses to work and to get up to speed. The old computer ran faster and did everything she needed so I took the new computer with Vista back, bought a USB 2.0 card and a 120 Gig hard drive as a 2nd drive and everything works great. I now understand why people are frustrated with Vista and it has made me think about becomeing a Mac user.
Joe Q My Blog
Just out of curiosity, why is it necessarily the fault of the new computer that it cannot run older applications? If the applications were not made to be scalable, or for future hardware/OS, wouldn't the blame lie elsewhere? When I bought a new Dell a few months back, several games I had would not work. That really came as no surprise since those games were developed before even Windows 2000 was being planned.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
And I took it back yesterday. I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed. Just after Christmas I bought my daughter a new computer to replace her old XP computer (I bought her old one just after XP came out about 5 years ago(?)). It runs well but only had a 60 Gig hard drive, which was full, it only had USB 1.1, and it was old so I thought I would upgrade. I tried for a week to get the programs she uses to work and to get up to speed. The old computer ran faster and did everything she needed so I took the new computer with Vista back, bought a USB 2.0 card and a 120 Gig hard drive as a 2nd drive and everything works great. I now understand why people are frustrated with Vista and it has made me think about becomeing a Mac user.
Joe Q My Blog
I on the other hand have had a lot of luck w/ Vista. I have a Dell XPS 410 and an Dell XPS M1530 both with Vista home Premium and I couldn't be happier with it. I have visual studio 2005 on both machines, with network printers setup etc etc. I previously had a dell xps m1210 and w/ XP (Core 2 2.0Ghz) and I have to say both my new machines are much faster. I do have 2 gig in the 410 and 3 gig in the m1530 (RAM). I wouldn't go back to XP at this point.
-
And I took it back yesterday. I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed. Just after Christmas I bought my daughter a new computer to replace her old XP computer (I bought her old one just after XP came out about 5 years ago(?)). It runs well but only had a 60 Gig hard drive, which was full, it only had USB 1.1, and it was old so I thought I would upgrade. I tried for a week to get the programs she uses to work and to get up to speed. The old computer ran faster and did everything she needed so I took the new computer with Vista back, bought a USB 2.0 card and a 120 Gig hard drive as a 2nd drive and everything works great. I now understand why people are frustrated with Vista and it has made me think about becomeing a Mac user.
Joe Q My Blog
Joe Q wrote:
made me think about becomeing a Mac user
Why? I've heard that Leopard isn't a whole lot better according to some Mac fanboys I know.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Joe Q wrote:
made me think about becomeing a Mac user
Why? I've heard that Leopard isn't a whole lot better according to some Mac fanboys I know.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
From people trying to be objective it seems to have most of the same issues that are plauging MS with vista. The old version was good enough that there's not a compelling reason to upgrade and learn how the changed features actually work, with the result that noone is interested in upgrading before their next hardware purchase.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
From people trying to be objective it seems to have most of the same issues that are plauging MS with vista. The old version was good enough that there's not a compelling reason to upgrade and learn how the changed features actually work, with the result that noone is interested in upgrading before their next hardware purchase.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
dan neely wrote:
the result that noone is interested in upgrading before their next hardware purchase
Even if I do a hardware upgrade in the next several months, I may stick to XP Pro anyways. I understand that XP Pro will work with up to 4 cores ( if I was going to go 8 core, then Vista or Windows 2003 is only choice ), and to use the full 4 gigs of RAM, there is arm-twisting involved with the registry to get XP Pro to utilize above 3 gigs.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
-
And I took it back yesterday. I had been holding off buying a computer with Vista on it in the hopes the Vista problems would be fixed. Just after Christmas I bought my daughter a new computer to replace her old XP computer (I bought her old one just after XP came out about 5 years ago(?)). It runs well but only had a 60 Gig hard drive, which was full, it only had USB 1.1, and it was old so I thought I would upgrade. I tried for a week to get the programs she uses to work and to get up to speed. The old computer ran faster and did everything she needed so I took the new computer with Vista back, bought a USB 2.0 card and a 120 Gig hard drive as a 2nd drive and everything works great. I now understand why people are frustrated with Vista and it has made me think about becomeing a Mac user.
Joe Q My Blog
I've been using Vista at work for some time now, and am satisfied with it, I'm not blown away by anything though. My biggest issue is with Windows Explorer not remembering my folder view settings, and trying to guess which view I should see, and getting it completely wrong 99% of the time.
"Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen."
- Edward V. Berard -
dan neely wrote:
the result that noone is interested in upgrading before their next hardware purchase
Even if I do a hardware upgrade in the next several months, I may stick to XP Pro anyways. I understand that XP Pro will work with up to 4 cores ( if I was going to go 8 core, then Vista or Windows 2003 is only choice ), and to use the full 4 gigs of RAM, there is arm-twisting involved with the registry to get XP Pro to utilize above 3 gigs.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
XP doesn't care how many cores you have. It cares about physical processors. XP Pro can use 2 physical processors. If each has Quad Cores, then that's 8 usable cores in XP. When people were saying it can only do 4 Cores, they meant 2 Dual Core CPU's, cause Quad Cores weren't out yet.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
XP doesn't care how many cores you have. It cares about physical processors. XP Pro can use 2 physical processors. If each has Quad Cores, then that's 8 usable cores in XP. When people were saying it can only do 4 Cores, they meant 2 Dual Core CPU's, cause Quad Cores weren't out yet.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Thanks, Eric, for the clarity. For some reason I misread it being cores, but it is the actual number of processors. I've been wanting to put an 8-core machine together. Something like two 4-core Xeons, but it's a little out of the price range right now.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon