Just when you thought it was safe to convert to Windows Vista, Microsoft changes its mind, again. This soap opera is getting to be a little old.
Will Microsoft ever get it right :'( ?
Nope,that's why I switched to Apple;No windows,No problems.
Quoted from the article: "Vista is slower and less compatible than XP" should read: "Vista ON OLD HARDWARE is slower" Also, hardware loses its compatibility NOT because of Microsoft but because hardware manufacturers don't care to support their products through driver updates. That's what forces people to buy newer devices to get the functionality they were getting before. But, hey that's how they get you to buy the new hardware IN THE FIRST PLACE! Yes, it sucks to have to buy new things just because someone says UPGRADE and you gotta do it. But that's got nothing to do with Vista. It's just how hardware MFGs make you buy their new line of products, all baring that new Works with Vista sticker.
I guess when I bought a $1600 computer that came with XP, I wrongly assumed that it would be able to handle whatever operating system that was thrown at it 4 years down the line. But alas, I need to spend another $1500 for a new computer if I expect to run Vista at its very basic, and another $500 in upgrades if I want it to run optimally. Yes, it's our faults as consumers that Microsoft made an OS that runs slower AND uses far more Memory/CPU/GPU resources. Thank you. Thank you for reminding us our stupidity.
Yet I have run into the issues that this article is talking about... I have an Acer Aspire 5672 Wlmi laptop (Core Duo 1.6Ghz, 2GB RAM, 100GB 7200RPM SATA HDD, and an ATI Radeon Mobility x1400 128MB) that has one of those "Made for XP, Vista Ready" stickers on it. When Vista released, I picked up a copy of Vista Ultimate through the company store, and installed it on my Acer. HUGE drop in performance compared to XP. I went ahead and restored the Norton Ghost image I had made of XP before the install, and just shelved my copy of Vista Ultimate. Later on, I got an iMac (Core2Duo 2.4Ghz, 4GB RAM, 320GB 5400 RPM SATA HDD, and an ATI RadeonHD x2400), and decided to check out Boot Camp. I installed that copy of Vista, and it ran GREAT. The thing I don't understand is that my Acer isn't that much slower than my iMac, yet the difference between them running Vista is night and day. Vista on BRAND NEW hardware isn't that bad... As far as any PC that didn't ship with Vista, I would not recommend the upgrade. And honestly, after using Vista Ultimate for a while, I can say that I GREATLY prefer XP. Vista just gets in your way too much. With all of the security prompts, and the fact that it doesn't run all of the software I use (try running Steinberg Cubase SX 2 on Vista... :-P), I'm personally sticking with XP if I have to use Windows... ;-) I just can't believe that after all the development time that Vista had, THIS is what we get? Bleh...
Quite frankly in PC terms 4 years is a long way down the line. I would dream of my laptop being able to run the newest software. As it stands I have a desktop PC that runs Vista flawlessly! For those complaing about the security alerts, tone them down and tweak it to your own system, or perhaps your dad doesn't allow you to mess with the admin functions. Macs are good, but I'd rather not pay top of the line trendy prices to "look" cool, I'd rather have function throughout my whole network.
Adobe Suite CS3 and Lightwave 9.5 both run faster than previous versions, despite my computer being 4 years old. And constant fiddling with the OS should not be required. It should Just Work, and not get in my way all the time.
I can build one for $600 that plays Crysis on high
It's not just that Vista makes things slow. It makes every small thing harder to do than XP. The only good thing about Vista is the Open File Location thing.
You guys disagreed with me because I'm wrong, or because you hate Vista? Because the logic I applied there believe it or not applies to EVERYTHING in life. From the proposed increase in MacDonald's Dollar Menu to 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 and 2010 models of a single vehicle! This is how companies ensure that there will be a reason to sit at the table at next month's meeting! They don't sit idle once they've released some new product. They get right to work on the next one, and then the next, and then the next! Otherwise what to do they get paid for?! You can't accuse Microsoft alone when this is something done by all companies. And Apple is no cleaner - ask them about what to do with your Power Mac G5 you purchased in 2003-2004! They switched to Intel in 2005 which obsoleted anything with an IBM processor prior to their switch. At least Microsoft isn't in a position like that that they would push out newer hardware and force people to upgrade just to keep their iPods synched.
I got the very 1st batch of the flat screen iMac power PC, a month later they switched it to Intel, I thought I'm toast, but it never got in my way and my computer is working fine, also my ipod works perfectly, the only thing I hate is that I can't use Boot Camp.
I actually kind of like Vista but I totally disagree with your argument that Vista is faster or even fast on newer hardware. I have used the fastest Core Duo chip there is with one of the best video cards and it is still........ SLOW! Word (applications) doesn't open any faster then on my old AMD 3000 GHZ computer with a Geforce 6600 card. If I have a top of the line computer I expect that I will barely if at all see loading screens. I guess my comment is a negative about most operating systems today but... Microsoft should focus their efforts on speed... not features. We have enough features... we've had enough features since almost the year 2000. The ONLY feature I can really say we should get in the long run is a touch screen feature (which some HP's and other computers do already anyway). So... how about speed...? Efficiency? When will Microsoft (and other OS makers) realize we want a quality OS... not one with an extra ____________ feature. Hell... I'm even testing their new PC Advisor for them and all I can ask is why do we need it? It tells me the same things 5 other programs tell me. How many programs do I need warning me UAC is off? The people who know computers don't need the program and the people who have no clue... won't bother with or know about the feature.
I haven't made the jump just yet, but from some people with mainstream computers (at least 2gb ram, a decent processor, etc.) aren't having any problems. They all seem to like it. Vista from my own personal experience playing with it at friends' house that use it, etc. seems to be fine so long as you don't have a budget computer and that's because it's definitely a memory hog. If you have a good computer though, no one is having any problems with it. In fact, all of my friends say it works really well, especially with drivers as they have plugged in old stuff and it grabbed it immediately where XP didn't. I haven't made the jump mostly cause I'm cheap and just didn't want to buy it, but I'm probably going to in the near future. If I had to complain about anything is that it's expensive. Home premium is nice, but everyone agrees that Ultimate is where it's at and Ultimate is expensive as hell.
I just got a new laptop and it is running vista, really it isn't as bad as I had heard, that being said it is a very high end notebook. For the most part the compatibility can be fixed with workarounds but it is definitely the weal point of vista. Also I do not think the issue should be blamed on manufactures, if it all worked on XP then MS could have had it all running on Vista if they really tried to. It'll be really annoying if they release a new Windows too soon, in the end I like Windows but it is far from perfect. Google, MAKE AN OS, PLEASE!
Seriously, just download a Live Evaluation copy of Ubuntu Linux (I would recommend the Kbuntu version for those used to Windows) and check it out. You don't even have to install it. Just burn the disc image to a CD/DVD, and boot off of it. There are alternatives, and thanks to Ubuntu even Linux novices can get around with ease... Now if you're more of a tech-head like me, check out the Live Evaluation copy of OpenSuSE. Not quite as N00b friendly as Ubuntu, but has more of the cutting-edge advances in Linux (Compiz-Fusion, etc). I loves my wiggly windows and desktop cube... ;-)
Poor Microsoft,still trailing behind Apple,Sony,Google,and Nintendo.
Of the options presented at the end of the article, this is my vote: ..Go interview the Mac guy. Because Windoze blows, and Micro$oft sucks. The empire is starting to crumble, and some year in the not too distant future, it will fall and be sold off in parcels to rival companies. You heard it here first, and you can quote me.
Vista is slower, but yes you can boost it up with boosting up your computer, but the question is why? Vista clearly doesnt offer us anything new and revolutionary compared to XP. The look is touched up but it still looses to the open and customizeable desktops of Linux, which run great with even 7 year old PC:s. Its stupid to even argue with the "your PC just cant handle vista" since a good operating system should work well with nearly any computer with minium bossible requariments. If you look at Ubuntu and Mac os x leopard how much do they actualy need from your computer to work nicely, and the features and stability seem to be hell of a lot better if you look at the OS alone. Vista is a bad operating system that clearly runs with the waves of the hardware and software support by abusing the monopoly. But thanks to this ppl seem to be more and more converting to mac users which is a good thing. We really need some competition to get microsoft work a lot harder to provide us with better us in near future. How to make a perfect OS: Make it light, easy to use, easily and heavily customizeable, safe, pretty and ofcourse joy to use. This combined with great hardware and software support is something I would almost kill for. Sadly microsoft has failed to deliver even half of those with vista.
if you ask me but does bill gates look a little green lol
Or move to Mac. There's no in between. I refuse to let something as measly as an Operating System eat up half my system resources.
I'm telling ya... The Intel Mac's are the best of both worlds... A bit on the pricy side, but Apple has always been about solid hardware. If you do any kind of graphics or audio/video work on your computer, you will absolutely fall in love with MacOS X. It just works, it isn't a resource hog, and it doesn't get in your way. And if you want to run Windows (or Linux), you can do it either through Boot Camp (dual-boot your Mac), or through virtualization (like Parallels or VMware Fusion) and have both OS'es at your fingertips.
But I haven't been able to find an 8-core solution anywhere else. Right now i've got about $2000 saved up. I could get a quad-core PC right now, but if I can speed up my render times by 2~3x then the Intel Mac is definitely worth it. The only thing that irks me is the Graphics Card, as I want a computer that can eventually Burn and Play Blu-ray movies. Any word on when Apple will integrate Blu-ray drives into their Mac Pros?
DJ...you know better than to judge an OS by its resource consumption. Memory technologies evolve and then programs put it to good use. Memory sizes increase and then programs put it to good use. Graphics chips get more sophisticated and then programs put them to good use. Processors gain more versatility and then are put to good use. Nothing idle gets you anywhere. If you want a system that runs less processes and starts up fewer programs, you can do that. You'll have the leanest build on the block, good for you. You run at 90% free memory and your CPU idles at 2%. Great. Then you load up a game and then it jumps to 20% memory free and CPU usage spreads out to all four cores. It's all just resources. Your PC was meant to be busy! Just because you can all of a sudden load up 2GB of programs at any time without paging to the HDD doesn't mean that your system is really working for you. Eventually we all feel the pinch when system resources get tight. But there is no such thing as a PC running with 100% memory free and 0% processor usage. Maybe that's what you want out of it, but I personally don't mind Vista.
And about 75~90% of my memory, and that's with me holding back on the memory side. It's why quad-core is the bare minimum i can upgrade to, with 8-core being the ideal choice. In my business, render times and system resources are very important. If people have trouble running basic apps like Word and Excel with Vista, what the hell am I supposed to do with 1080p renders and Radiosity? Just wait longer and longer? No. I won't put up with it, and most people will agree that Operating Systems should be powerful, but lean. Not bloated and slow.
WHAT THE F*CK! I just got windows vista a month or two ago and now they plan on releasing windows 7 in 2010?!
That's microsoft for you :)
Its been known a thew months now.
I guess it makes sense. Microsoft lost so much money on Vista. Its a virus free system remember everyone! So much for Vista being virus free. It has over 1000 or more viruses.
windows 7 already but it tells you they know vista wasnt as good as they thought. It windows 7 turn out to be better they will get hated on but hwey thats life.
1. Microsoft pushed out a new OS 2. Microsoft assumed that people would say "Oh! A new Windows OS! ME WANT BUY!" 3. Consumers saw the astronomical (for the time) hardware requirements and stuck with XP 4. Most of the consumers who upgraded to Vista hated it 5. Microsoft says "Daaang! People didn't buy our buggy software as usual! What do we do?" and they've been playing damage control ever since. This behavior is very typical of Microsoft, only in the case of Vista they weren't able to get away with it like they usually do. Consumers were smart for once, and now Microsoft actually has to deliver a good product. For the elite PC gamers and technophiles, I'm sure Vista is great, but for the average consumer Vista requires too many upgrades, too many patches, too much tweaking, and too much upgraded PC hardware to appeal to the masses. That's just a fact. (and sadly this must be said, because my comments will be dismissed unless I clarify: I am a PC user. I use XP. I do not own a Mac. I do not use Linux.)
Hear, hear GWAVE. I have a pretty decent PC with a fast Core 2 Duo and I also run Windows XP. I can play Crysis on high settings at 1680x1050 with 2xAA and the game will run at 40FPS. I know Vista would run well on my PC but I have no plans to change to it. I'm not even sure if I'll change out to Windows 7 since I have the "wait and see" attitude. I also, will not buy a mac. I don't like Apple's products, as decent as they are I don't feel I'd get my money's worth. I prefer control over my hardware and as a PC builder, that's important to me.
Shame shame shame,,can you say another M.E. 2010 screw ignorant MS buyers year!!,, New Xbox new MS OS. Talk about short term Models.. We cant wait to spend our money and keep spending!!On MS for them to get thing right!!! Wouldn't it be funny if Sony Made its Own OS and realeased it on a PS3 with more ram and a Genral Purpose Processor??That was made to last 10 years??? Hmm lets see is that why MS is in the game bussines??
There isn't any way to build an OS with the robustness of a Windows bred product AND the coolness factor of Vista/OS X without having it consume quite a bit of resources. There are only two ends to work with. You either upgrade the hardware or you tune the software. If you say build it leaner from the start, it will only get bigger from then on. The number one problem is that a great majority of people don't really perform any sort of maintenance on their PCs. When they feel it's too slow, they start getting frustrated. That's when they're most vulnerable to salesmen. They'll all ask you right away "What do you have right now?" And then you conjure up images of your supposedly old system being barely navigable just on your desktop. When in truth all it takes is some work and a little bit of digging. You could say build an OS that doesn't need to be maintained. So now now you have the most restricted Operating System possible, since the only way to make sure nothing ever goes wrong with it is to secure the ENTIRE environment. You have secure log in prompts for ANY file access, and programs install according to a central database of approved software on some remote server somewhere. Your browser refuses to load any site that may contain active x or java or even flash. Pictures don't up by default, since they could contain viruses. Vista does a decent job of keeping the system pretty secure and reliable. But the possibilities of making something totally secure, totally reliable, and totally easy to maintain are very limited. It wasn't too long ago that everything was proprietary and often times people would take advantage of that and be like the expert on the block. At work, you could see a whole building be on hold while the technician decides to grab his coffee on the way to respond to their problems. And NOBODY knew what he did to make it work, and NOBODY knew HOW to go on without him.
"There isn't any way to build an OS with the robustness of a Windows bred product AND the coolness factor of Vista/OS X without having it consume quite a bit of resources." Here's the output from 'top' on my OpenSuSE 10.3 based Dell Latitude D830 top - 14:55:22 up 4:55, 4 users, load average: 2.76, 2.20, 2.15 Tasks: 151 total, 2 running, 149 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu0 : 15.9%us, 16.1%sy, 0.0%ni, 54.5%id, 11.5%wa, 0.4%hi, 1.6%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 8.3%us, 16.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 11.2%id, 61.9%wa, 0.3%hi, 1.9%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074812k total, 2019028k used, 55784k free, 6692k buffers Swap: 6291448k total, 13540k used, 6277908k free, 1508304k cached Even with Compiz and VMware Server running (along with FireFox, Amarok, Kopete, OpenOffice Writer, and gKrellm), I still get nice snappy performance. All with BETTER eye-candy than either Vista or MacOS X (I'm a Mac fan, but Linux is currently prettier. =) Now before you say that I only have 53MB of RAM free, keep in mind that Linux uses quite a bit of the free ram as system cache... The important thing to notice is that I'm only using 12MB of virtual memory (on a system that only has 2GB of RAM, with 1GB dedicated to my Windows XP virtual machine running in VMware). And Windows = Robust???? LOL... Maybe if you're talking about the bare OS without any applications installed... ;-)
Cost 680...HP DV 6810us, although it did come with 3 gb of ram...I have ubuntu as well, I have to say Mac's look good, can't wait to see the update tomorrow.
MS did this with windows 98 aswell, i believe it was supported till 2003(?)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.