While i’ll admint, i really hate the UAC, and have the batch file to disable it before i do anything else on a computer (through work or home)…i’m not sure it “just recently” became more secure than XP. The “infected” computers that i get into work, 3/4ths, if not more of them are XP. Most of the vista issues i get in are user caused and easily fixed.
Vista also does the complete opposite of ‘requiring it’s users to be intelligent’. Specifically with the networking. That is not something the average user should be able to experiment with, and get working properly. But with Vista, it’s as easy as clicking a button. It will automagically configure your router, set up file sharing, and it ‘works’. With vista, they are allowing the general computer user to use the advanced features that they normally wouldn’t care about, while not taking away functionality from the people who would be more comfortable setting it up themselves.
And again, the time frame Microsoft is taking with vista is eerily similar to XP’s. From the time until SP1 was released, until when they seriously started advertising and pushing it. XP was not as stable, secure, and quick as it is now as it was in 2001 when it came out.
- People that hate Vista are the ones that can use a computer, like I said above. An intelligent XP user has all the same functionality features available to Vista. Name something that is Vista only, that isn’t pure eye candy.
The entire user experience is better. While maybe to the general user the only difference is the eye candy, if you honestly use it, the Vista experience is better. I have not gotten a BSOD since release day (on 32 or 64 bit), error handling is far superior to Xp’s, Parental controls built in are nice if your setting up a multi-user computer, the security of vista, networking is easier to set up, and the remote desktop connection is quicker and more reliable. Re-read my 2nd paragraph, first response. That is going to apply to 99% of these arguments.
- Why should anyone force themselves to use a flawed product for longer than they have the will to? I gave Vista a fair chance, a lot of people did, and then when they were sick of it they went back to XP. Maybe because I got Vista for free and didn’t pay the $200 bill I was able to fairly judge it, and didn’t feel like I had to justify my purchase.
You shouldn’t force yourself to like something, but you should force yourself to try something unfamiliar. When you installed vista, you only did your ‘free’ copy because you have heard it was awful and didn’t want to spend money on it. So, you humored Microsoft, tried it out. You instantly noticed how it differed to xp (note: what ‘flaws’ did you find in 2 weeks?) and were frustrated enough to switch back. If you are a ‘hardcore’ xp user, then going to vista for the first little bit is weird, because even though most things operate the same, the stuff they switched around did make it frustrating. But once you start to use it, and get familiar with it, you realize why they changed it and got used to doing it ‘in vista’. That is not a flaw. That is keeping the product up to date, and making the operating system more ‘basic user’ friendly.
- If I wanted a pretty interface, I’d own a Mac (and probably run XP on it anyway). Or I’d add one of the many Vista themes for XP that make it look the exact same. The eye candy features of Vista just cause slow downs and don’t provide any additional productivity. And before you say it, 4GB RAM on a Vista machine and a XP machine are still vastly different, XP runs great with the maximum amount of RAM. Vista runs adequately.
It’s already been said, vista is more than a GUI. I have computers with 1gb, 2gb, 3gb, 4gb, and 8gb of ram, all running vista (8gb is 64 bit of course)…Vista as a whole is going to operate quicker, smoother, and everything you do will have a ‘flow’ to it. TBH it’s not something that can be explained to the ignorant. Also, Vista runs on 1gb just like xp ran on 128/256 mb of ram. It might not be the greatest experience but it worked(works), for a lot of people. Plus with the price of ddr2 ram lately, upgrading to 2 or 3gb of ram isnt like it was with ddr/pc133.
- 90% of the hardware at the college I work at is brand new or refreshed every summer. It will easily ‘handle’ Vista. We haven’t switched to Vista (even though we have a site license for the university) is because it provides nothing additional over XP. You’re basically suggesting that people should use Vista because Microsoft told them to. If XP runs better on all hardware and operates the same, why Vista?
Regardless of your “there are no new features” argument, the biggest reason places have not migrated over to Vista is because of deployment costs, not licensing costs. The cost to redo every machine, and retrain all employees to use it, is not worth it right now in the economic situation. There are much more economical things they could spend that money on (in their mind). But don’t think they will never upgrade from xp. Again, it was about 2 years after XP came out before most places started switching off of 98. Right now, XP works. I never argued with you on that. What i’m arguing with you about is your simply stating ‘vista sucks’ without ever actually using it.
The continued nod from Microsoft that they will be supporting XP long into the future, past when even Windows 7 comes out, shows how bad the situation is. Windows 7 is slated for 2010, XP will be supported till 2014.
Windows 7 is ‘slated’ for 2010, doesn’t mean it will come out in 2010. Look how long it took vista to hit shelves, and that’s after removing some major features (like the winfs). And XP will be supported until 2014, but only with security updates and paid support. After 2009 there will no longer be any xp warranty, product hotfixes, and unless you want to continue to give MS more money, your not getting the same support. After the 2009 deadline, thats going to be when business’ and universities switch from xp to vista.