Reference FYI:

WWW Link

Vista is far from "ME2" WinME was a horrible OS that didn't actually function properly even without any apps running. Vista is a suitable addition to the Windows line, but right now there still isn't a compelling reason to move over.

Best response so far, zoomba. I agree the ME2 name wasn't fair, which is why I compared it to New Coke. Nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't live up to the hype.

I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that release.

True, ID. I'm counting more on late 2010. MS has never had an OS release ship on time, why start now? Still, if it makes it by late '10, there will be time to pick the bugs out.

I've been running Vista permanently on all my home systems since the first Release Candidate. I'm not sure what the problem is out there with so many users. I had no issues when upgrading my 5 systems. No hardware needed to be upgraded. Vista drivers were available as of it's official release for all my devices.

Now I did find UAC a bit tiresome so I elected to shut it off. But that was no more difficult to shut off than say, shutting off Messenger was in XP. I also shut off the Security Centre alerts as they became annoying too  . I find a good internet security/antivirus software keeps the systems protected and give me peace of mind. (I use Kaspersky 6).

I confess, that while I was in the beta program I did find a number of problems but they have all been worked out. I now find the system more stable than XP and have had no real issues since permanently upgrading all systems at the end of January.
Maybe part of the reason for having very few issues is that when I was in the beta program I built all of my present systems, (which at the time of building were installed with XP SP2), with Vista's hardware requirements in mind.

All in all I like the OS. I don't find it to be a step back from XP, quite the contrary. It's technically better, more stable and visually more pleasing. I have no intentions of taking a step back to XP.  

The hardware for me isn't the issue. My money's in software. With good software getting increasingly expensive, many times the upgrades are cost prohibitive.

As I have mentioned before, ironically, one of the conflicts was with a MICROSOFT game. You would think they would at least make their own software compatible.

I really hope Microsoft isn't showing a trend back to the 90's where a PC was obsolete as soon as you pulled it out of the box. There will be people who will keep on top of it, but when you're talking about large scale solutions, it could mean that businesses get disgusted with the excessive cost and stay with solutions that are less secure simply because of the cost of trying to keep ahead of the game. I know businesses that are still running on NT4 platforms for that very reason, and it's hard to sell them on newer solutions, even though the result of their decision is a swiss cheese network that hackers would drool over when/if they discover it.

In February, I purchased a new computer with Vista on it. I immediately noticed that Vista had a lot of eye candy. Since I'm not interested in that, I disabled everything I could. Then I loaded all of my software and started working. Then, every ten minutes, Window's Defender (sounds like a superhero or something) kept telling me that someone was trying to access my computer. I spoke with some other people about this and they were experiencing the same problem. The closest we could figure, the wireless router was causing it. So, I disabled Window's Defender. Then, I noticed that my graphics card was having major issues, not able to play DVD's in Windows Media Player, visualizations not working, etc. Then, I noticed that Quicken wasn't working properly. Then I noticed that Norton System Works 2007 wasn't working...I ended up having to downgrade to just Antivirus. Then I noticed that my 120 gig hard drive only had 90 gig listed due to Vista. Problem after problem, day after day. I spoke with my brother who upgraded his Alienware supercomputer. He said that after upgrading he had problems running games on his system. With 4 gig of memory, 500 gig hard drive, 1 GIg graphics card ...his system was choppy and crashing. I ended up returning the computer and purchasing one that had XP...no problems since then. I agree that someone, somewhere probably can use Vista sometime, but I'll just stick with something that was made to run. Besides, I don't really care about saying "WOW" every time I look at my computer.

The advantages Vista offers over XP are not compelling enough to an enterprise environment to justify buying all new systems. I bet you won't see Vista in large, non-tech, companies for another 5 years. XP still suits their needs.

I say 3.  That is because the rotation of desktops is being set to 3 years, and while the new systems will come in with Vista, most will downgrade to XP (it was just a year ago this agency went to XP).  ONce all the systems have been cycled out, then I am sure there will be a killer app that requires Vista (in our case it was Exchange via HTTP).

And a question for wriker - who is "you people"?

Gideon,
the Win16 -> XP path was even worse. No drivers for MONTHS, old software stalled, and for the first few months before SP1 came it was just as avoidable. We're seeing the same patterns here. XP was a polished version of 2000, Vista applies too. System Admins won't need AERO for sure.

Vista to most people who appreciate it, was like a out of box dream. It was instantly usable, although definitely not for prime performance. But for the first time in Windows history, has an OS been that polished, bugfree (no, I wonder why stupid FUD implies more bugs) and a boon to configure and set up.

Oh well, besides UAC.

The only people making Vista look really bad are the really annoying reason-less "tech blogs" out there- no, not you. To them, Vista probably sucks because they got a beta version with a key, installed and became frustrated, and won't give it a second chance. (Which, compared to Apple's OSX RC's reception, was pretty much hypocritical- they PAID for it. Euch.)

All I've seen is baseless banter against DRM, DRM, DRM, the occasional Directsound removal (that was a little pissing to my new Sound Blaster), DRM, DRM. Never mentioning a proactive solution- XP drivers COULD be installed for performance restoration, but the UI jumps back to basic (but it's still much better than XP.)

Just like hype for some band that got great reviews on Pitchfork, it'll settle.
Give it a year before jumping on the real bashwagon.

I've been a tech for 15 years. Also a Microsoft Certified Professional along with many other certifications there is no need to bore you all with.

Vista in itself is the best Operating System, Microsoft has ever released. (Of course that's in my own humble opinion. For whatever that is worth)

Regular End-Users and Techies alike both complain the MOST about Vista being harder to use. WRONG!. Vista is a heck of a lot easier to use! And what's funny is, no one seems to ever pick on switching everything over to Classic view. I've had some Techies say, "There's a classic view!?" Yup.. How about that? Lol

The worst part about Vista is it's obvious compatibility issues with pretty much anything 3+ years old. Software and Hardware alike. I use that as a very general statement, of couse.

In aspect, whenever an Operating System or anything for that matter changes.. A majority of people hate it. That's a fact that's just always going to exist. But, to those people I say deal with it, and evolve. I hear on a day to day basis the dumbest things being a tech myself.. One of the major ones I hear (believe it or not) Is people don't NEED ringtones, text messages, the web on their phone, etc... Where some people find these things necessary for there every day lives.. Again, it's all their opinion to say those things.

I'll end this rather length reply about nothing with this. Whether you like it or not, changes that are happening are going to stick. Better to just go with those changes and not complain about them. Whether many people think the changes make everything harder or they simply aren't need.. Is just a shallow statement in itself. Learn to evolve, and learn to embrace these seemingly stupid, but necessary "changes".

Also realize that many business critical applications will not run on Vista. And probably will not for at least a year or more. So, there's DEFINITELY no way those users can/should upgrade.


Technically, that's all well and good. But there's no reason that the new OS should cost 2+ times as much as the prior one (XP)! Can you say "bloatware"? I knew you could.


Possibly true. However, due to increased product activation/stricter licensing, one can no longer reformat, reinstall, swap hardware, etc. which the tech enthusiast does quite often. MS is just getting more greedy, and including more crap into their OS than they need to.


It's not an "Me2" from a functional standpoint... unless you take into account backwards compatibility (which as both a business user and a tech enthusiast you SHOULD). It's a "Me2" from a sales/marketing/etc. standpoint.

Overall review: Vista is an extremely overbloated, DRM-infested, horribly overpriced PIG.

Sorry for the double-post

Who cares what large corporations want to do? How does that effect the decision of an every day PC user looking to upgrade to Vista? IT DOESNT.
And of course large businesses will not upgrade immediatly, such is the case with EVERY OS!


If you are trying to run Vista on a PC over 3 years old you deserve every second of trouble you have gotten, plain and simple. Blaming Microsoft for troubles on old computers is like blaming McDonalds because your a fat ass - it makes no sence.



There is an unlimited amount of times you can activate Vista. If you change something like your motherboard then a simple 5 minute call gets you reactivated. I know this because i've done it. But yes in the early beta they had planed to restrict the amount of times you could activate your copy but after very bad feedback they immediatly backed down from doing so.

however, I'm not going to replace a perfectly good, functioning PC simply to use Vista. I'm not getting the sense that the advantages of Vista justify that kind of outlay.

All I'm trying to point out is that there are a LOT of us users who work for a large corporation, and therefore have our OS's dictated to us. I'm just offering a point of view here.


Gee, I guess it must be nice to have all that money and nothing better to spend it on than a brand new PC, huh? I'm an Engineer and Developer... but I also have a family. I have 4 desktop systems and 3 laptops. The newest purchased between 2 and 4 years ago. I cannot afford new hardware - my wife wants to eat instead (some nerve, huh?).


MS has COMPLETELY changed the licensing terms in regards to what an Upgrade version means vs. a Full version. They have changed what can be run in a virtual machine, and restriced the Home versions from being a host for virtual machines. All of this is completely unacceptable to ANYONE in the industry.

geez, Vista is a hotly debated topic. as it should be. Gid, you are completley correct.
i am a gamer, and a media enthusiast. Vista will be a necessary upgrade for me, but not until games come out that need DX10. My XP Pro install is fine, and i sure as hell arent going to give up the programs that i've spent hundreds of dollars for, or go thru the hassle of update patches for vista. i use dozens of media apps, and to me, it's not neccesarily the cost as is it the inconvienience. and now, since i read that XP Pro will be supported till 2011, what motivation do i have to upgrade other than DX10? for the home user, vista is fine. not so for enterprise, gaming, media(yet), or power users. with 64-bit and DX10, ill probably jump soon, but i've already had to war with business once, and im in no hurry to try again.
a topic that has been undiscussed is piracy. Vista is "much" harder to steal than XP was. i appreciate that. but the thing to wonder is software piracy. with XP, piracy was easy, assuming you had a legit XP. with vista, it's probably just as easy, but there will be more inclination to do so, even for people that have legit software. say somebody has a legal copy of Adobe Photoshop 7. they've just purchased it for their brand new Vista machine, and it's not compatible. most would try to return it. but with retailers refusing opened software, thats a no go. the user has to choose between stealing a new copy of photoshop(Free), buying a new copy of photoshop($600), or going back to XP, which means a tedious reinstall cycle.(really annoying) as good as most people are, there are some who would gladly steal from Adobe. it's not right, but its the truth. sorry, but thats it. i know the good people of wincustomize wouldn't steal, but the entire world aren't wincustomize users(although they should be!). there are people that have no remorse, no indication of guilt, and no cares about software piracy. these are the people that need to be stopped.

for the record, i own fully licensed copies of XP Pro, Vista Business and Vista Home Premium. I do not pirate software, and own a legit copy of CS2 Photoshop. please dont think i am a pirate, i simply know of many people that do steal. while i cant make them change, i certainly tell them of the dangers of piracy. i just hope im there when the FBI breaks down their door and hauls their thieving asses away...

btw, for those wondering, there is an update for Vista to make Photoshop 7 compatible.i just used it as an example.

wow, my fingers hurt