"In the world of operating systems, Microsoft Windows Vista is just a baby. It's just now toddling along on new systems being sold throughout the U.S. And, like a small child being dropped by the stork to new parents, it's available to older desktop PCs via Microsoft's download-to-buy program. Giving early adopters such easy, unfettered access to the somewhat untested OS was a bold move by Microsoft. The company had to know that people like those who work at PC Magazine would be among the first to test-drive this new installation option."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-12
Member since:2005-11-10
As I said in another comment a while back, I've used every major beta release of Vista (Longhorn). Most of what I've said is my opinion. I feel that it is true given my experience of the five gruelling years of Vista development and the final product compared with as many years as I have managed to gain of overall computer experience on different Operating Systems and other companies and organisation's accomplishments.
Having moved off of Windows, I have come to genuinely know how superior OS X and Linux is to Windows, Vista included.
You can call that trolling, but at the end of the day, it's a) my opinion based on b) solid experience of Vista, and it's alternatives.
Member since:2005-12-28
Boot times/system speed for Linux and Mac OS X have increased. Windows has not.
here are 2 examples (there are plenty more)
http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/article/04/01/30/05FElinux_2.htm...
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/11/1048_boosts_pho.html
Vista is out to make you buy new hardware... Thats it, it offers nothing that justifies the expense or increases user productivity.
Member since:2006-03-18
Member since:2005-09-27
"Ran almost all of my old programs flawlessly. I now have updates for the rest."
When I upgraded my my Mac OS all my programs worked hmmmm...
as for resource useage it is really a matter of what type of system you have. Some systems or bulk of the systems it will run slower then vista on fast systems it will run better. It is like Republicans for computers.
Member since:2005-10-31
Member since:
2005-11-10
The strangest behaviour I've found is that up and down the Internet, people are continually subconciously 'justifying' Vista to themselves. People are trying to build the cheapest system to run it well, people are trying to get the index number to go over 5, most comments I've read about Vista hide underneath a subtlety of people trying to somehow justify in their mind that Vista is a good standard benchmark to go by for everything; and that it's an acceptable product.
The truth is that it isn't. Comaptibility is dire, resource usage is dire, speed is dire. People think it acceptable, or even justifiable that Vista takes longer to start up and shut down that XP. They say "oh it's a bigger more powerful system, of course it'll take longer, and new hardware will reduce that anyway!". Absolute rot. In five years time Apple and [Linux] have managed to double, even triple the speed of their OS running on exactly the same hardware.
This whole using Vista as a good rule of thumb is inherently wrong. Everywhere around me I see people doping up on stupid pills or something. All the harsh press I think is very called for. The people sitting in offices who are going to have to deal with this monster of an OS can see beyond the geek driven hype fog.
Of all the OSes I've ever used, from any era, Vista has to be the worst I've laid hands on; and that is being objective. People would rather throw money and hardware at Vista to justify it then admit that it's a terrible 'upgrade'.
I'm glad I switched to a Mac now, I know this rant can easily label me as a windows basher and Mac fanboi, but I'm glad I've got a level head about the reality of Vista now that I've used the alternatives. Which is more than can be said of the Mac bashers who have never so much as used another operating system.
Edited 2007-02-28 23:19