Windows 7

[ExAm]

I just heard about this one. Apparently Microsoft is already hard at work on a new Windows, Windows 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7). This comes as a shock to me, given that they just released Vista a few months ago. Maybe they've seen that Vista isn't exactly what the customers want? I hope something good comes of this.

[jcap]

Or maybe they're working on the next version of Windows because...it's the next version in the Windows family? Development never stops.

You'll probably see everything in the next version of Windows that wasn't included in Vista (all the good stuff). They really need to take a lesson in operating systems from Apple, though, if they don't want it to flop like Vista did.

[343guiltymc]

Or maybe they're working on the next version of Windows because...it's the next version in the Windows family? Development never stops.

You'll probably see everything in the next version of Windows that wasn't included in Vista (all the good stuff). They really need to take a lesson in operating systems from Apple, though, if they don't want it to flop like Vista did.
Hopefully it won't bomb like vista.

[hobojoe]

Wow I guess Microsoft thinks there OS floped. I mean to start working on another OS Right after Vista was released.

[dg]

Wow I guess Microsoft thinks there OS floped. I mean to start working on another OS Right after Vista was released.


Or maybe they're working on the next version of Windows because...it's the next version in the Windows family? Development never stops.


I think they realize Vista wasn't everything they hoped for, but development for a major company is always in progress. Hopefully Windows 7 will have a improved, and less intensive, user interface. Leopard showcased a linear UI throughout the entire system and I hope Microsoft will be looking for inspiration from Apple. I'm not saying that they should take every idea, but consider their options.

[Anton]

I don't see why everyone thinks vista flopped, It hasn't. People didn't really like XP when it first came out, Come on it takes time for an OS to grab hold of the community. It'll be a good 6-7 years before the next OS releases so take shelter and prepare to use vista, the OS you guys claim to have flopped. I think its a Great OS. The problem being most people just don't have the systems to run it, if you don't, get vista home basic. Its stripped down and smaller systems can run it.

[jcap]

Leopard showcased a linear UI throughout the entire system and I hope Microsoft will be looking for inspiration from Apple. I'm not saying that they should take every idea, but consider their options.
I'm not a Mac user. I only use Windows to work on. I cannot even begin to describe how I felt about Windows when I sat down in front of Leopard and saw what it put out. Over 300 groundbreaking new features in the operating system in two (?) years' time, and after five years of Windows development in which they could have learned from Apple and their own mistakes, Microsoft cannot even manage to pull off an operating system that correctly comes out of standby or has no networking issues. This is what blows my mind about Vista. Anyone who says they haven't had a problem with Windows Vista must use it for nothing more than browsing the Internet on and don't do anything that is really "using" the operating system. The list of problems that affect the usability is longer than the eye can see. So far, they've released only a handful of fixes for the operating system. Microsoft is working on Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista which is due sometime in 2008 with the release date TBD, even then I highly doubt that the issues are going to be fixed. When Leopard came out, it had a few problems, but they were and are being fixed in their 10.5.x patches which have been rolling out every few weeks. It shouldn't take 3-4 years for an operating system to become the stable thing it should have been when it first came out.

Also, an operating system should not require the computer of tomorrow to run effectively. Pretty much anything more than a year old is too old to run Vista with all the bells and whistles on. With that said, yes, the operating system runs fine with everything disabled and requires a lot less resources, but the UNIX-based operating systems have been doing the same effects AND MORE for even longer with less system resources.

You can compare Windows Vista to Windows XP with the public's reaction. I remember when everyone was saying to not upgrade since it was nothing more than Windows 2000 with a new GUI. A lot of people are saying that about Vista now, too, with it being Windows XP with a new GUI. It wasn't long before people began using XP fine. When Service Pack 1 came out, it fixed all instability issues. When Service Pack 2 came out, it added functionality to the operating system and made it more secure. They built off of that with Windows Vista and attempted to make it "better", but took several steps back in doing so. Even though it took several years for Windows XP to get to where it is today, what makes it OK for another operating system to follow the same path and take half a decade to get to where it should be?

Oh, and just to throw this in as an afterthought, you never had customers calling in, asking for Windows 98 or 2000 to be reinstalled, either.

[Zeph]

Maybe they've seen that Vista isn't exactly what the customers want? I hope something good comes of this.
Because you just know developers sit around doing nothing until the day before they release something. Since you apparently haven't heard, Microsoft isn't letting another massive time-gap between operating systems occur again, like it did with XP and Vista. We should expect new operating systems every three to four years instead of five to seven.


Wow I guess Microsoft thinks there OS floped. I mean to start working on another OS Right after Vista was released.
Once again, I'll say it. You dont pay people to sit around and do nothing. As Windows 95 was out the door, MS was hard at work on Windows 95. Even before XP was out the door, there were teams working on Vista.


Anyone who says they haven't had a problem with Windows Vista must use it for nothing more than browsing the Internet on and don't do anything that is really "using" the operating system.
I haven't had a problem with Vista and I'm using it in my notebook and I'm using it for much more than browsing the internet. I've never had a problem with the computer coming out of sleet mode except for one time. Even then, it wasn't Vista's fault as the battery was dead and I didn't notice the blinking battery indicator.


Also, an operating system should not require the computer of tomorrow to run effectively. Pretty much anything more than a year old is too old to run Vista with all the bells and whistles on. With that said, yes, the operating system runs fine with everything disabled and requires a lot less resources, but the UNIX-based operating systems have been doing the same effects AND MORE for even longer with less system resources.
If your computer cant run Aero properly, then dont run it. It's a bonus, nothing more. It's like complaining that H2V cant run on your integrated graphics card. If it's not above minimum requirements, dont expect it to run. If it barely meets recommended requirements, dont expect it to run amazingly.


You can compare Windows Vista to Windows XP with the public's reaction. I remember when everyone was saying to not upgrade since it was nothing more than Windows 2000 with a new GUI. A lot of people are saying that about Vista now, too, with it being Windows XP with a new GUI. It wasn't long before people began using XP fine. When Service Pack 1 came out, it fixed all instability issues. When Service Pack 2 came out, it added functionality to the operating system and made it more secure. They built off of that with Windows Vista and attempted to make it "better", but took several steps back in doing so. Even though it took several years for Windows XP to get to where it is today, what makes it OK for another operating system to follow the same path and take half a decade to get to where it should be?
A lot of this comes from modern media. Media outlets focus soo heavily on the bad nowadays, it's just sad.

[jcap]

You never started up your computer and had networking shit all over you?

Never had any issues copying a large file (or a lot of files)?

Never had your mouse not come back to life after standby?

Ever run out of diskspace because you can't alter the amount the shadow copy feature uses up your HDD?

How about defragmenting your hard drive?

Oh, and what about the horrid experiences with file ownership?

What about file sharing?

...to name a few that affect everyday usage.





If your computer cant run Aero properly, then dont run it. It's a bonus, nothing more. It's like complaining that H2V cant run on your integrated graphics card. If it's not above minimum requirements, dont expect it to run. If it barely meets recommended requirements, dont expect it to run amazingly.

A lot of this comes from modern media. Media outlets focus soo heavily on the bad nowadays, it's just sad.
You are completely missing the point of everything I was saying (last few sentences of the paragraphs.) I'm not complaining about the hardware. I am stating and comparing the two operating systems and drawing the conclusion that Vista is horribly thrown together. There is NO reason in the universe that the minimum requirements should be as high as they are because some people decided to be lazy asses and make a piss-poor product. Five years...FIVE FUCKING YEARS to do it right, but they didn't, even after their beta testers expressing their complaints about the resources it uses because it was all done wrong.

The reason the media outlets are focusing on the bad news is because that is all that is going for the operating system. It's almost impossible to talk about something good without something going wrong. It's also a huge thing to talk about because the bad things are what affect your work, NOT THE GOOD THINGS. I don't want a review of software that tells all the good things it does and not the bad. I want to know the truth about it.


My question still stands:

What makes it OK for another operating system to follow the same path as everything else and take half a decade to get to where it should be?

And "we've done it before" is not a valid reason.

[Zeph]

Had to drop out of my wifi spot and travel to the next town. I still want to talk a bit more about this so heah!


I'm not a Mac user. I only use Windows to work on. I cannot even begin to describe how I felt about Windows when I sat down in front of Leopard and saw what it put out. Over 300 groundbreaking new features in the operating system in two (?) years' time, and after five years of Windows development in which they could have learned from Apple and their own mistakes, Microsoft cannot even manage to pull off an operating system that correctly comes out of standby or has no networking issues. This is what blows my mind about Vista. Anyone who says they haven't had a problem with Windows Vista must use it for nothing more than browsing the Internet on and don't do anything that is really "using" the operating system. The list of problems that affect the usability is longer than the eye can see. So far, they've released only a handful of fixes for the operating system. Microsoft is working on Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista which is due sometime in 2008 with the release date TBD, even then I highly doubt that the issues are going to be fixed. When Leopard came out, it had a few problems, but they were and are being fixed in their 10.5.x patches which have been rolling out every few weeks. It shouldn't take 3-4 years for an operating system to become the stable thing it should have been when it first came out.

Also, an operating system should not require the computer of tomorrow to run effectively. Pretty much anything more than a year old is too old to run Vista with all the bells and whistles on. With that said, yes, the operating system runs fine with everything disabled and requires a lot less resources, but the UNIX-based operating systems have been doing the same effects AND MORE for even longer with less system resources.

You can compare Windows Vista to Windows XP with the public's reaction. I remember when everyone was saying to not upgrade since it was nothing more than Windows 2000 with a new GUI. A lot of people are saying that about Vista now, too, with it being Windows XP with a new GUI. It wasn't long before people began using XP fine. When Service Pack 1 came out, it fixed all instability issues. When Service Pack 2 came out, it added functionality to the operating system and made it more secure. They built off of that with Windows Vista and attempted to make it "better", but took several steps back in doing so. Even though it took several years for Windows XP to get to where it is today, what makes it OK for another operating system to follow the same path and take half a decade to get to where it should be?

Oh, and just to throw this in as an afterthought, you never had customers calling in, asking for Windows 98 or 2000 to be reinstalled, either.

On the typical school day, I drop in and out of at least six networks and up to nine when using my notebook. Each of these networks consist of computers using operating systems ranging from windows 2000, XP, Vista, OSX, the some UNIX OS. When in these networks, I have access to shared folders and networked drives across all of these machines. The only problem I have ever encountered when networking in Vista is trying to find where new things are. The options to manually set up a network connection is in a different location in Vista than it is in XP.

I use these networks mainly on wireless connections, but I have a wired connection every now and then. When working wirelessly, I can move throughout the building I'm in without putting my notebook into standby and rarely be disconnected from the network. If I do I just go to start>connect to>, click refresh, double click the network, wait a few seconds, and I'm back in the network. I dont understand how anyone can say Vista has networking problems when I can do this. Would you care to list what kind of networking problems you get?

As for standby and hibernation, I've not had a single problem with it. Back in October and November, my notebook went 38 days without restarting. It went in and out of sleep at least 10 times a day and occasionally went into hibernation when i was low on battery power and didn't want to risk losing data. During these 38 days I was connected to multiple networks a day, worked with files across those networks with multiple computers along with my notebook (moving models/textures back and forth to render, archive, modify, etc.) and even played games in a LAN setting. Knowing Vista can do this in a first hand account, I can only guess the network problems you've encountered are either hardware-based or stem from the network being configured improperly.

As for the negative reputation Vista has received, most of it is from people who haven't even tried using the OS. Back from this summer, I played a lot of games with VOIP options like Source, 2142, etc. Every single person I heard complain about Vista when gaming admitted they had never even tried to use it. More people used Beta and Release Candidate versions to base their claims on the OS's fallacies. There are a couple of under-the-hood things that indeed warrant these complaints, but I haven't heard of one that hasn't already been patched.

All the other complaints I've heard have been hardware-based and visual palette-based. Some people complain that the operating system runs stupidly slow. I have never seen this happen and have run benchmarks on my old Shuttle just to be sure. Vista loaded much faster than XP and all programs opened either the same speed in both OS or faster in Vista. This was a 2.8GHz Northwood Pentium 4, 512MB of DDR800 RAM, an AIW 9800 Pro, and an IDE hard drive. It all came out at least four years before Vista and was considered mid-range for the time.

The visual aesthetic and uses of Vista has been highly critiqued when compared to OSX. All those things you hear that OSX had first likely is a lie. That search bar in the start menu? Vista had it first. There are builds of Longhorn that date well before OSX to prove it. Apple picked up on the idea, implemented it, and released it before Microsoft did. Now while people are arguing back and forth about this, I have to ask why it matters. Shouldn't you care more about what sort of programs you're going to use with your OS? Are you going to game, video edit, etc? Stop getting caught up in the little things and focus on the big picture.

As for people wanting to revert back to XP, it's ridiculous to try and compare that to Win 95/98. Neither used the GPU as Vista. Instead of reverting back to XP, turning off Aero or getting Vista Basic would solve their problem. Tired of UAC? Turn it off. If you complain about UAC you should have been complaining about those messages about entering/leaving secure/unsecure websites as well.

[Amit]

I switched back to XP for the completely stupid reason of not being able to change ownership on files to delete them. I've only been 50% successful with removing installation files, even using command prompt barely works.

[Zeph]

You never started up your computer and had networking shit all over you?
No


Never had any issues copying a large file (or a lot of files)?
No. You are the first person I've heard of with this problem. I copied a 14.7GB video from a network drive, across a wireless network connection, and there were no problems.


Never had your mouse not come back to life after standby?
You are the first person I've heard of with this problem.


Ever run out of diskspace because you can't alter the amount the shadow copy feature uses up your HDD?
I've run out of diskspace before, but it was because H2V was hogging up 14GB of disk space. Other than that, no.


How about defragmenting your hard drive?
Worked perfectly fine.


Oh, and what about the horrid experiences with file ownership?
Never had a problem with file ownership.


What about file sharing?

...to name a few that affect everyday usage.
I set my notebook to not go into standby when I closed the lid once as I transferred a 1.6GB archive once. I forgot about it, packed up my notebook, and left the range of the wireless network. Opened up my notebook, clicked cancel on the stalled transfer, Vista removed all the file that transferred over, and no problems came up.





You are completely missing the point of everything I was saying (last few sentences of the paragraphs.) I'm not complaining about the hardware. I am stating and comparing the two operating systems and drawing the conclusion that Vista is horribly thrown together. There is NO reason in the universe that the minimum requirements should be as high as they are because some people decided to be lazy asses and make a piss-poor product. Five years...FIVE FUCKING YEARS to do it right, but they didn't, even after their beta testers expressing their complaints about the resources it uses because it was all done wrong.
Vista uses more resources than XP. That's a given. Have you ever tried to use the remaining resources and even more? If you do, you'll notice that Vista will stop using some of its resources and dedicate those to the one needing more. Beta testers always complain about resource usage. There were Crysis betas that needed more than 2GBs of memory for high settings. As it moved out of beta, memory management improved and it takes up less space now. Same thing with Vista.

I dont agree that it was half assed or piss poor. I've found it to be a tremendous upgrade, even if it took five years. Most of those five years came from abandoning features. Longhord had eyes bigger than its stomach. It's simple as that. There might be a few sharp edges from where the parts of the OS that made it to RTM might have been cut off from things that didn't make it, but it works and it does its job if told to properly.


The reason the media outlets are focusing on the bad news is because that is all that is going for the operating system. It's almost impossible to talk about something good without something going wrong. It's also a huge thing to talk about because the bad things are what affect your work, NOT THE GOOD THINGS. I don't want a review of software that tells all the good things it does and not the bad. I want to know the truth about it.
Does the truth include benchmarks when comparing statistics about run-times/etc between Vista/XP/etc? How about the benefits of using Vista instead of XP? All I heard on the news was how Vista looks like it ripped OSX off and if you have and old computer it might not run Vista. I didn't hear a single thing about Vista's security enhancements.



My question still stands:

What makes it OK for another operating system to follow the same path as everything else and take half a decade to get to where it should be?

And "we've done it before" is not a valid reason.
I dont believe Vista has followed the same path as any other OS that came before it. Yes, it has continued the security measures introduced with XPSP2, but Vista has taken it to the very core of the OS. I really dont see why time is such an issue. You've used the 'five year' claim multiple times before. The work in those five years that didn't make it into Vista didn't just disappear. It will find its way into future builds. Even then, I dont mind the wait. XP worked perfectly fine for what I wanted to do. Vista is out now and it does it better.

[StankBacon]

jcap is starting to sound like jahrain...

zeph, im on the same level as you, ive never had ANY of the problems these guys are complaining about.

my Vista experience has been nothing but good.

[kenney001]

I am half and half.

NEGATIVE:

the fact that you need a password on both machines to share between them on a LAN workgroup
getting XP computers to show up in vista's network is a big pain in the ass.
the fact that my desktop and laptop freeze, cannot find audio driver, cannot find wireless networks, or make the mouse dissapear after they come out of hibernate or sleep.
do not allow even the system admin to modify things in the windows folder.
My ping is 200ms higher in BF2 and Halo on vista than on XP
No back arrow in explorer
Frequent " * has stopped working" messages and program crashes (Ex: 3ds max, firefox, WMplayer)
much much lower FPS on games (probably due to driver development)POSITIVES:

much faster startup/shutdown time.
love the new start menu
Speech recognition

explorer starts up much faster/seems to have a higher priority in OS
goodby to "documents and settings"
new search
faster performance with apps (not games)

[Syuusuke]

There is a way around that ownership crap. Sort of. The first step is being the admin.

Also, Windows 7? Wonder what its market name will be.

And here we go:



the fact that you need a password on both machines to share between them on a LAN workgroup
You can disable that password on Vista.
getting XP computers to show up in vista's network is a big pain in the ass.
It sure is. But I just put the files from Vista to the shared folders on the XP machine and get them like that.
the fact that my desktop and laptop freeze, cannot find audio driver, cannot find wireless networks, or make the mouse dissapear after they come out of hibernate or sleep.
That may be your problem...I've never used hibernate...but Sleep, sure. And after sleep, it's off the Internet so I just disable and enable my NIC to get it working again.
do not allow even the system admin to modify things in the windows folder.
Did you check permissions?

[jcap]

I've had all of those problems on several computers. And it's not just one problem per computer; it's multiple. There's a file copy issue that affects every single installation of Windows out there. The issue is one where it takes longer to estimate the time it takes to copy the file takes longer than the actual copying. Microsoft has issued a patch for this which fixes the estimating time a little and increases the file copy speed by 40% (or so), but it is only available by searching on their website. It will be distributed at large with SP1.

At least I'm not talking out of my ass about this and it is completely based on my experiences. I still like Vista, don't get me wrong. I'm not the only one with the issues, though. If you look at MSDN forums, you would notice that many people have the exact same problems. You probably just don't hear about these problems in any "reviews" because they focus on all the shit where they complain it runs slow on their 10 year old machine with everything enabled and mention that Microsoft sucks because developers can't get their acts together and write drivers for the operating system.

Zeph, have you even bothered with any of the things I mentioned such as the file sharing and permissions, or are you just saying that you've never had a problem because you never confronted it? I ask because that's the issue with 99% of the people who say, "Oh, I never had that problem, so you're wrong."

The standby issue is something that doesn't affect everyone. My primary computer comes and goes from standby fine, despite it BSOD-ing on me once before. A newer computer that is right next to be can go into standby, but the mouse won't move at all after that, making it impossible to click on your user account. The networking issues I am mentioning are those when you start up your PC and it cannot connect to ANY network even though it is no different than before it was restarted and was working fine. The networking problem happens once in a blue moon, but when it does, it's a pain in the ass to fix. There's also some other networking issues that result in your network being flooded or your connection speed being less than half utilized.

There was plenty of talk about Vista's security enhancements. At first, it was mostly positive. Now, they are turning into negative. The problem is that they took a good idea that Linux and OS X use, but completely screwed it up. UAC is sounded great on paper. When they made it completely dictate everything the user did, it headed south. Why not disable it? Well, why even have it, then? They also seem to have tried to get more involved with file ownership when it came to security. They tried to emulate CHMOD permissions on UNIX operating systems. They succeeded in making it secure since they're a pain in the ass to alter, but they failed in making it practical.

Get around to different computers running the operating system and mess with them. A lot of things I don't know how to force to happen, but they do. I do not know where the line is drawn between the operating system and hardware with these issues, but if they aren't happening on XP with a clean install, they shouldn't happen on Vista either (especially if they are getting all worked up about their wide range of hardware support in out of the box.)

[klange]

Vista was the reason I stopped using Windows.

[TPE]

My laptop has the no mouse issue only when people are logged on. So I use my arrow keys (amazing invention huh?) to select "Switch User" and enter my user account. Then my mouse is back.

My digital photography class uses imacs. At first I was pretty happy. Soon after I realized that these computers are fucking jokes. They never connect to our network hard drive at our school so I was forced to bring my own flash drive to save my pictures on. Can't really do anything in photoshop because the mice are such shit. So I brought my own mouse (G7) just so I could edit some damn photos. The OS is clunky. Just exploring applications and trying to get there is like a fight with your self. Lets say I want to open photoshop. Search light is a pain in the ass it does not feel integrated like the search feature in vista. Its like its hard to get to. So I open Macintosh HD go to applications then open photoshop. While in Vista all I do is press my windows key type in photoshop and hit enter without thinking. Actually I don't even have to look.

So I'm done with photoshop and I want to close it. In vista I just hit X and its gone. If I try to do that in OSX the program is still running in the background. So if you really want to close it you have to go to the tool bar, go to the menu that says "Photoshop" and hit quit. Pain in the ass in my opinion. Also the tool bar being at the top really makes me want to commit suicide. The bottom is where its at. Its much easier to bring down my mouse then it is to go up.

Its like apple is determined to keep using a 1 button mouse too. They have it crammed into there faces thinking that a 1 button mouse>2 button mouse. Even though they support a 2 button mouse. Their use of key combinations sickens me too, but I'm not going to get into that.

Lets say I want to rename a file. In vista I click on the file once and it selects the file name and I can rename it. In mac you can do that. But its a pain in the ass to get it to. Its like playing a game, and when I'm trying to do something important the last thing I want to do is play a fucking game with my computer. So logically I think I can control click the folder and select rename. NOPE not an option. Fucking retarded.

I think thats pretty much why I don't like OS X. Windows vista just works for me. I can't comprehend why a computer user like me can actually like OS X over windows. I'm sorry, I can't.

As for the people saying "They just released vista WTF." I'm pretty sure that development for windows vista started soon after windows XP was released. Look at it now. XP lived a great life. The start was rough and bumpy (familiar eh?) but it lasted a good 6 years. I think Vista will be the same. If you really look at it Windows XP and Vistas first year was almost the same.

[Reaper Man]

My laptop has the no mouse issue only when people are logged on. So I use my arrow keys (amazing invention huh?) to select "Switch User" and enter my user account. Then my mouse is back.

My digital photography class uses imacs. At first I was pretty happy. Soon after I realized that these computers are fucking jokes. They never connect to our network hard drive at our school so I was forced to bring my own flash drive to save my pictures on. Can't really do anything in photoshop because the mice are such shit. So I brought my own mouse (G7) just so I could edit some damn photos. The OS is clunky. Just exploring applications and trying to get there is like a fight with your self. Lets say I want to open photoshop. Search light is a pain in the ass it does not feel integrated like the search feature in vista. Its like its hard to get to. So I open Macintosh HD go to applications then open photoshop. While in Vista all I do is press my windows key type in photoshop and hit enter without thinking. Actually I don't even have to look.

...To get to Photoshop in Mac OS is simple. If it's not in the dock, you go to finder>applications>adobe>photoshop. Just like you would do with a Windows start menu.


So I'm done with photoshop and I want to close it. In vista I just hit X and its gone. If I try to do that in OSX the program is still running in the background. So if you really want to close it you have to go to the tool bar, go to the menu that says "Photoshop" and hit quit. Pain in the ass in my opinion. Also the tool bar being at the top really makes me want to commit suicide. The bottom is where its at. Its much easier to bring down my mouse then it is to go up.
To close an application, simply hit apple+q.

Its like apple is determined to keep using a 1 button mouse too. They have it crammed into there faces thinking that a 1 button mouse>2 button mouse. Even though they support a 2 button mouse. Their use of key combinations sickens me too, but I'm not going to get into that.
The mouse you were using was probably the old one. The Mighty Mouse has two mouse buttons, though sometimes on older macs it's set to one button by default. Go to System Preferences and click on the mouse. It's pretty damn simple.

Lets say I want to rename a file. In vista I click on the file once and it selects the file name and I can rename it. In mac you can do that. But its a pain in the ass to get it to. Its like playing a game, and when I'm trying to do something important the last thing I want to do is play a fucking game with my computer. So logically I think I can control click the folder and select rename. NOPE not an option. Fucking retarded. Click on the file and hit the enter button.


I think thats pretty much why I don't like OS X. Windows vista just works for me. I can't comprehend why a computer user like me can actually like OS X over windows. I'm sorry, I can't.

As for the people saying "They just released vista WTF." I'm pretty sure that development for windows vista started soon after windows XP was released. Look at it now. XP lived a great life. The start was rough and bumpy (familiar eh?) but it lasted a good 6 years. I think Vista will be the same. If you really look at it Windows XP and Vistas first year was almost the same.Don't expect two OS's to be alike. Don't whine about stuff that you don't understand.

Personally, I use XP on my desktop, as I am in no mood to reinstall all my software again (When upgrading between Mac OS X versions, you retain all your applications). I use Vista on my laptop, simply because it came with it. In the first week, I had so many problems with Vista drivers, I had to reformat it three times that week.

At home I can connect to my network, but I can't seem to find any of the other computers on the network. Nobody else has this problem as their laptops were running XP or OS X. For some reason, when running flash games on my Vista laptop, they jitter and freeze up at random - unless I have an app running in the backround. For some reason I found that by playing a song in iTunes while playing that flash game, it runs perfectly smooth - what the fuck?

The whole new menu system just pisses me off. Things I could do in a matter of seconds on XP can take several minutes on Vista.

I'd be using a mac right now if my parents would've let me. But all the expensive software I use is all licensed for Windows (besides Maya, which I can switch).

[Xetsuei]

Vista, currently, is horrible.

[hobojoe]

One thing I hate about vista. I don't know if anyone has this problem or not but. When ever I shut off my computer it almost always shuts off the operating system but not the computer. Like there whould be a black screen and the computer was still on, even though the Vista was off. Now I really Hope when Windows 7 comes out. They fix this problem.

[Limited]

Vista sucks. Done...

Why? Ive been saying even before release it would screw us, and be totally shit. Ok its a good improvement on XP, but it isnt a big enough improvement to release as a new fucking OS. Maybe update XP. They should fix vista instead of starting a new OS. "Blahblah they start on new OS's way before others are done/released/old" so? doesnt mean they shouldnt fix the previous one first.

Vista is known as the "gamer" friendly operating system, helps gamers play games etc. Alot of games run like SHIT on vista when compared to XP. WoW lags up like a bitch in some areas (populated areas) when on XP it runs fine. I see NO improvement to gamers from vista. (part from dx10 which COULD have been integrated to xp ffs)

[Timo]

My mouse occasionally isn't operable when I come out of standby, and I sometimes BSOD when I try to standby, too. But those are the only problems i've had. It's not good, but I don't mind considering 95% of the time I can get my computer running out of standby quicker than my LCD screen takes to turn on.

[Masterz1337]

I have problems with Vista, but everything but my Consoles give me problems. :X.

[beele]

Vista is just fine. I have some beta DVD's lying around somewhere, that date back to 2005, and I even have an original longhorn build. In those beta's It took more then Five minutes to boot the OS (until all programs where loaded), and now my computer is fully booted at 1/1.5 minutes. It used all my memory back then, now when I run very demanding games (crysis) vista only uses around 400 MB of ram and the rest is made available for the game.

Even xp had bad things: I once blew up two different computers that where running windows xp fine, until I installed service pack 2, it booted, then gave a bosd and then the processor died, and this on two different computers (they where Pentium III).
XP gave me lots of programs that where not responding when I wanted to shut my computer down, I haven't seen those in vista. In xp explorer crashes every five minutes, In more than one year of use of vista I haven't seen this once.

I never had any problems with vista. Last week something messed up my vista installation, and it wouldn't boot anymore. within five minutes vista had started some boot repair program and the problem was fixed.

[Zeph]

Zeph, have you even bothered with any of the things I mentioned such as the file sharing and permissions, or are you just saying that you've never had a problem because you never confronted it? I ask because that's the issue with 99% of the people who say, "Oh, I never had that problem, so you're wrong."
I'm not flat out saying you're wrong. I'm saying I, and hundreds of other people, use the things you're talking about with any problems daily. The OS is the same across the board (minus updates), so any problems would have to be either incompatible hardware or user-error. When we talked on AIM, you said something about using a wizard. I have a feeling that your problems come from an incompatibility between your hardware and the way the wizard tries to run it. I've never run into being unable to change one of my files from user ownership problems. I've been unable to mess with other people's files on a network, but that was done by design.


Get around to different computers running the operating system and mess with them. A lot of things I don't know how to force to happen, but they do. I do not know where the line is drawn between the operating system and hardware with these issues, but if they aren't happening on XP with a clean install, they shouldn't happen on Vista either (especially if they are getting all worked up about their wide range of hardware support in out of the box.)
I'm sorry, I personally already use four computers that run Vista and interact with about 15 others who use computers with Vista. Not a single one of those 15ish people I know who use Vista on campus have problems either. The age of the computers is between one and five years old. How many more do I have to use and what type? In return, how much do you use Vista on? Is it just your home computer(s)?


My digital photography class uses imacs. At first I was pretty happy. Soon after I realized that these computers are fucking jokes. They never connect to our network hard drive at our school so I was forced to bring my own flash drive to save my pictures
My campus doesn't connect the macs to any of the network drives. It's because they dont want to mess with them. The macs in the digital media center on my campus are connected to a private network that can only be accessed from computers in the building itself.


One thing I hate about vista. I don't know if anyone has this problem or not but. When ever I shut off my computer it almost always shuts off the operating system but not the computer. Like there whould be a black screen and the computer was still on, even though the Vista was off. Now I really Hope when Windows 7 comes out. They fix this problem.
It's a motherboard/BIOS problem.


Vista sucks. Done...

Why? Ive been saying even before release it would screw us, and be totally shit. Ok its a good improvement on XP, but it isnt a big enough improvement to release as a new fucking OS. Maybe update XP. They should fix vista instead of starting a new OS. "Blahblah they start on new OS's way before others are done/released/old" so? doesnt mean they shouldnt fix the previous one first.

Vista is known as the "gamer" friendly operating system, helps gamers play games etc. Alot of games run like SHIT on vista when compared to XP. WoW lags up like a bitch in some areas (populated areas) when on XP it runs fine. I see NO improvement to gamers from vista. (part from dx10 which COULD have been integrated to xp ffs)
Did you even read about the engineering differences between XP and Vista?
And it is very gamer friendly, if it's coded properly. In Vista, games dont have to muddle through shit to get good preformance. A lot of the problems were from the two big GPU producers not getting their asses in line and preparing for Vista's release. They knew it was comming, but they didn't prepare adequately. Blaming it on Vista is like blaming Ferrari for not having the leather seats on their cars finished in time when the people who send them the cow hide haven't even slaughtered the animals yet.


I have problems with Vista, but everything but my Consoles give me problems. :X.
You have problems with computers in general. Didn't you also have a similar problem in XP where nothing would open?

[CN3089]

You never started up your computer and had networking shit all over you?

Never had any issues copying a large file (or a lot of files)?

Never had your mouse not come back to life after standby?

Ever run out of diskspace because you can't alter the amount the shadow copy feature uses up your HDD?

How about defragmenting your hard drive?

Oh, and what about the horrid experiences with file ownership?

What about file sharing?

No, no, no, no, no, no and no?


Maybe it's user error? http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/confused.gif


I haven't had a problem with Vista yet, and I use it pretty heavily. I prefer it by far over XP.

[alby]

Never had your mouse not come back to life after standby?

I don't use standby but that happens to me when I have the 360 receiver plugged into the usb.

[DaneO'Roo]

Just for the record

Bill Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates), in an interview with Newsweek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek), also suggested that the next version of Windows would "be more user-centric."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#_note-0) When asked to clarify what he meant, Gates said:
“ That means that right now when you move from one PC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Computer) to another, you've got to install apps on each one, do upgrades on each one. Moving information between them is very painful. We can use Live Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live) to know what you're interested in. So even if you drop by a [public] kiosk or somebody else's PC, we can bring down your home page, your files, your fonts, your favorites and those things. So that's kind of the user-centric thing that Live Services can enable. [Also,] in Vista, things got a lot better with [digital] ink and speech, but by the next release there will be a much bigger bet. Students won't need textbooks; they can just use these tablet devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_PC). Parallel computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing) is pretty important for the next release. We'll make it so that a lot of the high-level graphics will be just built into the operating system. So we've got a pretty good outline.


Oh fuck, internet reliant operating system. Just when we thought MS controlled us enough allready...

Looks like I'm sticking with XP for life.

[klange]

"A lot of high-level graphics will be just built into the operating system"
Hmm, sounds familiar (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ku-WVmuXGlE)...

[Limited]

Did you even read about the engineering differences between XP and Vista?
And it is very gamer friendly, if it's coded properly. In Vista, games dont have to muddle through shit to get good preformance. A lot of the problems were from the two big GPU producers not getting their asses in line and preparing for Vista's release. They knew it was comming, but they didn't prepare adequately. Blaming it on Vista is like blaming Ferrari for not having the leather seats on their cars finished in time when the people who send them the cow hide haven't even slaughtered the animals yet.Firstly, it still would be Ferrari's fault, they should have ordered the cow hide sooner rather than later. Same with vista, there were alot of driver issues yes, not because of the makers though, vista should have wasted for stable drivers to be out THEN release it.