I have Vista Business on one computer and Vista Home Premium on another computer. I am having no problems with Vista on either machine. I am having problems created by third party suppliers of hardware and applications. In spite of having plenty of time to get ready, Zone Labs has not got their act together. Also, highcriteria.com has not got their Total Recorder mp3 recording software ready for DirectSound. My Epsom scanner only works on a generic driver, so I need to launch jobs from the desktop and can not use the buttons. There had been a problem with WMP11 in Firefox, no plugins. But first an extension was written to launch media in WMP11 outside of FF, and now, MSFT has written the pluguns.

BTW, I had two WinME machines and never had a bit of trouble with either of them.

Now I think about it I have vista on my laptop and I hardly notice it anymore. best way to tell them apart if you are a regular pc user is only by turning on the sidebar or open the start menu. I was really excited to use vista at the start but now I am not even thinking about upgrading my other three computers to vista unless I want the media center on it, which i already have. So I am not really surprised that ppl are staying with xp and dell will be going back to xp. I think microsoft wont benefit from vista at all unless start everything everything from floor.

Vista is an mediocre operating system as best. If Windows ME was a 1 out of 10 the Vista is a 2 or 3 out of 10 at best.

I bought a new Acer Aspire 64 bit dual core machine with 1GB or RAM. I saw more blue screens in the first month of owning my new computer than I did for the entire life of my old Windows XP system. Google Earth blue screens regularly. Vista doesn't support my Palm Z22. I don't like the photo management software and the Flickr uploader software doesn't work in the photo gallery. These are all major applications in widespread use, you would expect Microsoft to do a decent job of testing with such major services. I am seriously considering downgrading my system to Windows XP to get a truly functional PC back.

I used Vista on a Dell 9400 Laptop for a little over a month and I was not at all impressed with it. I encountered the dreaded blue-screen of death 4 or 5 times, and I pretty consistently had application hangs. "Well, maybe it was the application." you say, perhaps - it was Office 2007 - specifically Outlook 2007 and Word 2007. On the other hand, I run Office 2007 on my XP box and it runs ok - although a bit of a hog (SSSSSLLLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWW). I have considered getting a laptop, but frankly, I am going to wait for a couple of Vista service packs before I dive back into those frigid waters. Oh, and BTW, I am NOT a Microsoft hater, but when something falls short, they should know about it.

I have been using vista since the early stages in beta versions. I am now using the 64-bit (desktop) and 32-bit (laptop) Vista versions on my laptop and desktop. I have no speed issues, and it is a great improvement over the media center edition of xp. All my programs work flawlessly with Vista. Drivers from NVIDIA have improved a great deal and I have no gaming issues and get the same FPS as I do in XP on my desktop. Should a release like this have taken 5 years no, but Microsoft has done a great job, and I think they are back in the game, and will continue to improve after laying dormant for so long. They have included some innovative features like SideShow, and also delived the new basic OS features that consumers are looking for such as Sidebar and a Photo Gallery, and really important is the Search, as well as much needed improvements from XP such as better recovery from system problems, better ghost images to any system, better copy/paste/move with qutie a bit of speed enhancements there as well. IE 7 has the best RSS reader I've come across. I like how URGE is integrated in to WMP11 (was using rhapsody). Entry level Movie Maker and DVD burner improved a great deal. Tablet PC features no longer a separate OS. So calling Vista MEII isn't really acurate, because ME didnt improve over Windows 98SE to this degree. I also think by the time we get to SP1 things will greatly have improved, and more 3rd party apps and drivers will be vistafiled. I think once we get to Viena, MS will be back on its game, but Vista isn't as bad as the Media is playing out to be.

I have installed Vista Ultimate my DELL desktop PC using Media Center, my HP nw8240 laptop and my sons Toshiba M200 Tablet PC. I've been using Vista since Beta1. It is just GREAT! I would NOT go back to XP.
Media Center compared to XP is a great improvement. More stable and is supporting more hardware.
I really appreciate:
- Integrated search
- IE7
- Thumbnail preview
- The new Explorer
- Aero
- Ability to logon several users at the same time
- New group policies
- Single image deployment
- UAC
- Sidebar
... and much more.

The more that I read on Vista, the more inlined I am to stay with my Windows XP until it is such a dinosaur, that I am forced to make a change, perhaps Microsoft will have an operating system that everyone can live with.

Despite what David said, Vista is comparable to Windows ME, not because of the extent to which the product improves on its predecessor, but because, like Windows ME, Vista has caused many users a lot of grief in terms of installation nightmares, application compatibility problems, missing or buggy drivers, and general usability bugs. Windows ME was a major debacle for Microsoft back in 2001 because the product was ill-conceived and poorly implemented. Today, Vista is proving to be a major disappointment for somewhat different reasons: the product is terribly complicated and Microsoft has failed to adequately manage this complexity.

Here's the bottom line: Microsoft has added many millions of lines of brand new code to the Vista codebase, making it the most complex commercial software project in history. Is it any wonder, then, that more than a few major bugs have eluded their testers?

When a product like Vista is so broadly overhauled with new code, it simply cannot avoid falling victim to the so-called "Version 1.0" syndrome. Even Microsoft is not good enough to ensure a flawless first-time execution.

Look, I'm not saying that Vista is a bad product. I'm saying that upon initial release, this product has to have lots of unavoidable problems. That's why I recommend waiting for Service Pack 1 when I hope Microsoft can get a handle on Vista's stability. Remember, Vista is a very, very complex product.

And one last thing: a few posters here have expressed their satisfaction with Vista. That's not surprising. No one is saying that Vista will give every user in the world conniptions. Most people, in fact, will have a positive experience. However, it's the number of people who go through hell with Vista that determines whether the product is truly comparable to Windows ME.

The overwhelming number of negative reports on the Internet suggest that this comparison is valid. The posters who try to rationalize away these reports are in denial. (And, yes, I recognize that some of these reports may be exaggerations or fabrications.)

Joe Wilcox
How dare you insult people's intelligence with your heading "Windows ME II" !
Sure ME was no good, even I admit that, but Vista is not the same.
In ME the actual OS itself was bad, with Vista it is driver support from the other software companies.
Nero, Roxio, Creative, etc.
That is a big difference.
One other thing no one has said at all about ...The MS "Upgrade Advisor" it is there why has not any of these people who have had trouble not used it ???
With Upgrade Advisor incompatable programs would have been detected and reported.
It seems no one used this tool, I did !!
I found that Powerdvd and Nero would not work with Vista, so I have been looking around to find replacements before I upgrade.
If you use "Vista Compatable" programs Vista will work fine.
Windows ME was just simply a terrible OS, and yet you see fit to put them in the same classification and that is just not right.
I myself tried ME and after 2 weeks went back to 98SE. Windows ME did not fail because of driver issues, it failed because it was an "unstable" OS.
Windows Vista currently is being plagued by driver issues, the OS itself is quite OK !
Shame on you for trying to compare the two !

Joe Wilcox
Previously I stated that I had used Windows ME, the main reason that I switched back was that I used "Internet Banking".
With ME I could not access my account, with Windows 98SE (the same version IE) I could access my Internet account.
When I asked my bank about it, they said that they had had a lot of complaint regarding ME.
As a consequence of this I was very wary upgarding to XP, but it was fine thank god !
So you see Vista has driver and compatabilty issues.
ME was just a bad OS.

Not the same thing and you know it !!

You can't separate the hardware drivers from the "operating system." By definition, an operating system's raison d'etre is to support the hardware on which it runs. So an "operating system" is essentially the collection of drivers for all the hardware that it expects to support.

Microsoft's job is to certify these drivers (through WHQL testing) and integrate them into the operating system. Many users have encountered installation difficulties just from these integrated drivers. So the responsibility does fall on Microsoft.

Even if you put aside the drivers, Vista consists of hundreds of subsytems that present very complex interactions. Since much of this code is new, it is impossible for Microsoft to thoroughly test all of the different execution pathways. So there will be major bugs that slip through their test processes.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that you can't just blame the third-party partners. Microsoft, being the ultimate arbiter of what gets included in the operating system (Released To Manufacturing), has to share in the responsibility. I'll go even further and state that "the buck stops with Microsoft."

The only way you can blame third-parties exclusively is if you refer to drivers that are not included in the Vista release.

Bruce Schneier had an interesting item on his blog last week which I think sheds some light on this issue. The basic problem isn't that Microsoft screwed up, but that, given the way the closed-source software market works, there was nothing else it could do. Vista is simply a reflection of the fact that closed-source software has evolved itself into a dead end, where the race to add features as selling points in the past has given rise to such complexity that it is no longer possible to add further significant new features without the whole house of cards tumbling down.

CNET's editors (among others) have reported that the Upgrade Advisor on occasion makes errors in judgment about hardware and software compatibility. So you can't trust Upgrade Advisor 100 percent.

Richard
I don't know about that.
But a least it is a good guide.
All of these people who have had trouble nver once mentioned that they tried to use it, did they ??
Most of the people who have had little or no problems in updating had a computer that was up to date in software and hardware it seems.
And most of the troubled people had fairly old machines, but most wouldn't say that they had.
They just expected Vista to do what they wanted without checking first.

A lot of improvements were made in the Vista Business that I am running on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ with 2GB Memory, stability is on par or maybe even better than on XP Prof + SP2, speed is definately very good. Some of the usabilty improvements is really good and helpfull, like the new Resource Manager which gives a lot more info than the standard Task Manager. Unfortunateley the degredation in some areas does overshadow the good stuff. Firstly the implementation of the Vista Aero and Basic themes is realy not done very well, the look they went for (that was created by WMP 11 in Windows XP) does not get implement successfully in Vista in either of those two Themes, and then after choosing one of those themes one has to switch over to 'Window Color and Appearance' where one is presented with settings in the advanced section, which either has no effect (like changing the bacground color for the title bar) or which bump you down to the Windows Standard theme. Why can one not have a central place where a theme is selected an customized? The amount of inconsistencies in the look of Vista's own application windows is staggering, e.g. the Explorer window has no control icon top left and no text on the title bar, but the task manager and resource manager do have both, and so on. Also, up to today I have not been able to change the action of the power button displayed on the start menu to actually shut down my pc, it just put the pc into sleep mode and that is that. I read an artical a while back which detail all the amazing changes that was made on a library (API) level for among other things the Graphics, but it seems they were so busy with that that they forgot to really look at these inconsistencies and useability problems. Last thing, I wonder why an XP theme is not offered for those who dont like the way the Vista Themes (Aero and Basic) look and function.

ME II? How about MS BOB II?

Microsoft seems to be pushing Vista with a "resistance if futile" approach.

Many users are responding with, "rebellion is inevitable"

I've said it in my blog, and I'll say it again, if anyone ask me to choose between XP and Vista now, I'll take Vista anytime. No way I'm going back to XP.

I have been using Vista Ultimate since it was launched back in Nov 2006, I was also wary of all the problems I may have, so I dual-boot between Vista and XP. Three months later, I hardly boot back to XP, at which point I realize that I hadn't miss XP at all. From that week, I formatted everything, get rid of XP, and start Vista afresh.

As with all OS, what junk you put inside determines the stability of the OS. My reliability rating stays at 10 for over a week, which means it hadn't had a single crash. I've just checked it a few days ago, the last major crash was from Nero with their useless Nero Scout. Once I get rid of that, the system has been perfect for the past two weeks, no crash. Of course, I'm the kind of person who's very selective of what goes into my OS, I don't anyhow install spyware, crapware, trialware, untrusted driver to my machine. From stability point of view, Vista alone is stable. If you dump junk inside it, patch here, patch there, don't blame it if you see blue screen (frankly, long time I never see that screen hehe...)

From performance point of view, granted, the file operation was rather slow, but other than that, it's okay. In fact, with Superfetch and Readyboost, launching applications are faster in Vista. If you say Vista is slow, help yourself, upgrade your RAM (I got 2GB). 512 MB or even 1GB is not going to cut it. My previous amount of RAM was 768 MB, and yes, the overall performance was slow.

Lastly, when X doesn't work in Vista, is it "Vista doesn't work with X" or "X doesn't work with Vista"? There's a big difference there :)
I got one example with ACDSee 9. For some reason, ACDSee couldn't see "Pictures" folder that has been re-pointed to another folder in another partition. Is that Vista problem? No, the latest update of ACDSee fixes that.

PS. I'm not paid by MS to say all these :p

Is this Microsoft bash or Microsoft watch? Shouldn't we be discussing home server or longhorn beta?

Why are so many tech journalists infatuated with tearing down Microsoft? Do they have security issues? For them it seems that 'sticking it to the man' is more important than honest journalism. This all while cheerleading Apple, the billion-dollar corporate king of DRM 'underdog'.

Such a shame we don't live in a world where every laptop has the same corporate logo (and not a subtle one at that). I sure wish I had no choice when it came to my hardware AND my OS. It would be better if I was forced to have my laptop repaired at the 'genius bar', which means by some prick in a black turtleneck.

I guess I'll just have to keep buying my OS from MS once every 4 years for about the same price as my monthly insurance bill. Oh the horror.

"Windows ME II" was coined by [H]omer from a GNU/Linux forum I participate in. I suspect that's where Charlie borrows the term from. Just for the record...

Speaking of devotees
Here is "Roy Schestowitz" !!
Better known as "Roy loves SuSE" !!
SuSE is a form of (yes you guessed it ladies and gentleman) LINUX.
Who just can't pass up the chance to say about the love of his life ....which is of course Linux.
Another one for record hey Roy !

Ah, yes! Lets talk about the DRM in the kernel of Vista and woven throughout. Lets observe the hardware requirements that imposes on even new PCs.
Apple has DRM but Microsoft has seen the perfect vehicle to user locking to their OS. Vista?

Albert
Please refer to http://windows-now.com for the true story regarding DRM and Vista.
No rumours just the facts.

I was one of the many that stuck with 98SE and jumped all the way to XP. I tested Vista last year and enjoyed it somewhat, but after the 'candy' wore off, I found it to be essentially the same as XP, but with less driver support and more of those darn "Do you really want to do this?" prompts. Many of the devices I use for storage and audio production still are not available with driver support for Vista.
It's for these reasons that when I wanted to upgrade recently, I bought a Dell laptop with XP (good work Dell!). I'm not against Vista, it looks nice, but I'll have to look at things again around SP1. There's just too many unknowns to ruin what at the moment is a perfectly good system.

Hendrik, whether you lay blame on Microsoft or the third-party vendors is beside the point. From the end user perspective, it doesn't matter who's at fault. When an application he wants to run doesn't work properly, is he supposed to wait until the vendor fixes the problem? People have work to do; they can't waste time waiting for either Microsoft or app developers.

You're right, if you are selective about what apps to run, and what hardware to install (making sure the appropriate, stable driver exists), you should have a positive experience. But most users aren't, or can't, be that selective. If they weren't so selective under WinXP, why should they bother to be so careful under Vista? Just stick with XP!

You say you'll take Vista anytime, no way you're going back to XP. You haven't explained why. I guess you were swept away by the pretty Vista interface.

I think Vista is pretty, too. However, when you look at this product objectively, you have to conclude that it's not a major advance over XP. Putting the Aero Glass eye candy aside for a moment, the other much-advertised features such as Search and Sidebar can be added to XP from third-parties. Even the Media Center app is available in XP Media Center Edition, but this app isn't so widely used. (On my XP laptop, I use the third-party TV software that came with my Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-USB2.) So what's the big deal about Vista? Where is the "Wow?"

We have a computer company, and (naturally) providing computer services. 9 pc's out of 10 are coming bundled with Vista, and we are installing XP on them, upon customer request. Most of our customer base don't like it. We don't like it either, because it gives us feel that, everything we managed to learn about the ways of solving problems under previous versions are obsolete, useless crap.

People got used to XP too much, switching to Vista is just like switching to another OS, like Linux, from customer standpoint.

There's nothing wrong with discussing Linux in this forum. Linux is a legitimate alternative to Windows. So is Apple Mac.

Linux may not be for everyone. But for those who have been disabused by Windows (and they are legion), Linux offers the same functionality as Windows for all your daily computing activities.

There will be some people for whom Linux does not cut it. This includes avid videogamers and people who own devices without Linux support (eg, some camcorders and TV tuners). But for everyone else, Linux is just fine.

Moreover, Linux's learning curve is no more onerous than Windows'. It's simply different. For example, most people are needlessly afraid of the Linux command line. But it doesn't take long to get used to it. Generally, however, Linux does offer the same graphical accessibility as Windows, using GNOME or KDE.

Microsoft Watch can be appropriately called PC Market Watch. So much of Microsoft's fate is tied with the success of Linux and Mac in the IT space. Therefore, it is perfectly okay to talk about Linux and Apple here.

Remember, Microsoft is deathly afraid of Open Source and regards Apple as its biggest competitor.

Richard
Why don't you just say that you are devotee of Linux and have done with it ??
As to Linux curve being no bigger than Windows, you have got to be joking ??
And originally Microsoft watch was just that it watched only things to do with Microsoft, it just shows how much "Johnny come lately" you are !
As to Microsoft being "deathly afraid of open source" you just proved my point that you are a "Linux Devotee", as only one would say that !
Linux was originally made for servers and is not a "mainstream" OS at all, it is used by people who are called "PowerUsers", and is not as easy to learn as Windows is !
Richard you have my full blessing to go to "Linux Watch" and be happy mate !

@Neil

You're bashing Richard as a Linux Devotee, but you're acting like a Microsoft Devotee.

As for Linux Watch, anything which may be interest of Linux users and related companies' news are submitted to there, including Microsoft's.

Neil, as I've posted elsewhere here, I am neutral (and objective) when it comes to desktop operating systems. I have 4 computers at home: a Vista box, an XP laptop, an iMac G5, and a Linux machine. I use the Linux computer the least!

(Full disclosure: the iMac is the machine I use mostly for my daily activities.)

I am using the Vista computer as I write this post. I like Vista but I have to be honest--it's not quite ready for wide adoption. Again, as I've posted elsewhere, I recommend waiting till Service Pack 1, or even Service Pack 2, before moving to it.

And, no, I am not joking about the Linux learning curve. Your experience with Linux may have been problematic but you simply cannot speak on behalf of all people. However, I shall concede that Windows is easier than Linux. But that doesn't necessarily imply that Linux is difficult.

And, yes, Neil, Microsoft is deathly afraid of Open Source. If you were to read the general IT press as I do, rather than limiting yourself just to Microsoft-specific news feeds, you'd learn that Microsoft has vociferously gone after Linux in their marketing and PR.

Finally, you are right when you say Linux had its jumpstart in the server market. However, time does not stand still and products do evolve. Today, Linux is emerging as a fine desktop alternative to Windows.

I am an IT Manager at a small NGO with about 200 laptops and desktops. We have installed Vista on a small number of laptops and the results have been mixed. Application compatibility seems to be the biggest issue right now. I don't have the man power or budget to upgrade the two LOB apps that are having issues and this will probably preclude us from a mass vista migration in the near future. As a corporate OS XP is a reasonably secure, robust OS. As much as I like some of the Group policy enhancements in Vista as a corporate OS, XP w/SP2 more than meets our needs.

On a more positive note: I am also a media center enthusiast and I have upgraded my MCE 2005 Home theater PC to Vista and I absolutely love it. There aren't a whole lot of new features in Vista Media Center but the Inteface is awesome. The Fox Sports VMC plugin is amazing. UAC can be a bit of a pain for home but I definitely think it was worth the upgrade.

Mark Galli
IT Manager

Regarding your article "Windows ME II" I'm submitting my thoughts on Vista. I've been using Vista Ultimate x64 since Beta 2 and I'm quite pleased with it overall, but that's not to say it hasn't been a smooth road.

Driver support has been the biggest issue, mostly because manufacturers such as HP and nVidia have been extremely skittish about Vista and others like Creative have dragged their heels in supporting 64-bit operating systems. For example, my Vista was requiring re-activation several times a week, sometimes twice a day until nVidia released a proper set of motherboard drivers.

And Microsoft themselves have been problematic about drivers. Their support for Windows Mobile 2003 devices is nearly non-existent. I have the ubiquitous PPC 6600 PocketPC phone and getting it to sync properly involved a lot of trial and error until Vista decided to play nice. However I still can't sync it with WMP11 because it complains that the driver is outdated. Pretty sad since Microsoft wrote the driver.

Vista's Media Center is much improved over XP's MCE 2005. At least now when the interface hangs I have a 50/50 shot of being able to relaunch Media Center without having to reboot. But the limitations on codecs used by Media Center still make it only marginally useful.

Some other annoyances come from Microsoft's penchant for coming out with brand new whiz-bang gadgets that are largely useless for most people and incompatible with prior versions. Most notably Windows Meeting Space which can't seem to talk to its predecessor, Netmeeting. This is a shame since Remote Assistance (another of these whiz-bang applications that don't always work as advertised) often fails and I would use Netmeeting's Desktop Sharing as a replacement. And the new version of the File and Settings Transfer wizard won't handle data files made by earlier versions for XP. So if you've backed your data up with the wrong version, wiped your computer, and installed Vista you're out of luck.

Though the biggest issues I've found are that User Account Control system is too intrusive and obnoxious, prompting me to turn it off as soon as Vista was installed, and the Search Indexer is a system boat anchor. Even with a zippy dual-core processor it eats up nearly 60% of my CPU time, so I disabled the service altogether.

So while Vista is vastly improved in terms of stability, performance, extensibility, and ease of automation, its still got a lot of rough edges that need to be addressed. But its certainly not the crazy uncle you keep hidden under the stairs that Windows ME was.

I have been running Vista since wide release in January. I have used the Business version and am now running the Ultimate version of the OS. I'm not quite ready to call it ME-II, but it is quite sluggish comparded to XP Pro running the same software on the same system.

Running older games have also been a sticking point, but not a deal breaker.

I think Office 2007 is really slow as well, but that's another story.

Dell Latitude D620
Bios A08
Core Duo T7400 @ 2.16ghz Centrino
2048 MB DDR2 667mhz
NVidia Quadro NVS 110M 256mb TurboCache
160gb 5200rpm HD
TSSTcorp TS-L632D DVD+RW Combo
SIGMATEL STAC 92XX C-Major HD onboard
Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit
Intel Pro/Wireless 3945ABG 802.11a/b/g
TrueMobile 350 Bluetooth
Vista Ultimate 32bit

Joe's been trying too hard to prove that Microsoft is failing and that Vista sales are slow.
His Microsoft downfall theories are ridiculous.

Microsoft's latest earnings announcement indicates that Vista sales are strong.

I'm waiting to see Joe post a negative spin on Microsoft's successful quarter.

Why not? It will attract more readers.
But it also kills his credibility.

Hasan
I suppose that I must be as I use Windows Xp and not Linux or a MAC !
But tell something isn't basically these days if you use neither of the above, wouldn't you be categorised as a Microsoft devotee ??
I have seen the desktop of Ubuntu and didn't like it really and that's as far as I got on my daughters computer (she is doing a Diploma of IT, and learning Ubuntu was part of the course, and she preferred Windows herself).

Richard
Tell me why shouldn't MS go after Linux and MAC they go after us don't they ??
The easy way to tell is how many Linux and MAC devotees actually want people like myself to swap over to their OS.
Why can't microsoft do the same ?? Or is that against someone's rules ?
Overall Richard I do congratualte you for being honest and not being "anti" MS in your writing overall, which is good to see in comparison with some of the other commenters here !

@Neil

What I find confusing is why you defend Vista, and by your own word you are using XP? If Vista is so great Fanboy, why not run out and buy it?
Also, why Troll Joe Willcox's articles, I see you constantly posting and bashing him, with few facts on your side? He has to make a living writting, and seems to have facts to back up what Joe writes about.

Not sure why you seem to have such hatedred towards the Linux community either? Here are many programmers who devote their time to writting free code so that others can befit from their work.

As far as your goofy statement "Tell me why shouldn't MS go after Linux and MAC they go after us don't they". MS will not go after Mac, they own 25% of the Mac stock.

Chips B. Malroy
I hope that you are not a programmer as your code would be terrible if your spelling is anything to go by mate.
befit ... I presume it was meant to be "benefit" ??
As for MS owning 25% of MAC stock ... prove it !
Lastly if you don't like it try "Linux Watch" instead !
I have no hatred toward Linux people, I just feel that you guys should bagging MS ALL THE TIME like you do !
Is it because you have feelings of insecurity or something else that you always attack MS ??

@Neil
Its non-voting stock Mac stock that MS bought way back when Apple was failing. Back during the days of the DOJ suite against MS for being a monolopy. MS felt like it needed to prop up Apple for legal reasons. Perhaps you know how to use google, or for you "windows live," would probably be your choice, you can check it out. I have no need to educate you.

Still I am curious, as to why you still run XP, when you seem to be such a Vista Fanboy? Or are you just another MS paid Shill?

And, I am not attacking MS, but I do believe that Vista is worse than ME2. I actually used ME on a couple of computers that it worked on very nicely. Then there was another, that it would crash on usually just trying to boot it up on.

The point being, that all companies like MS have their share of bad products. Vista is one of them. But you would not know, as you are wisely running XP instead of Vista.

Yes, Neil, in a competitive marketplace, Microsoft should go after Open Source, as Open Source is going after Microsoft. You're just proving my point that Microsoft is very worried about Linux. Hell, they're not even going after Apple with as much vigor. (But, then, Microsoft *does* have a business relationship with Apple.)

I use Ubuntu at home, too. I think the GNOME interface is fine. This is obviously a matter of personal taste, however. But allow me to present a very interesting Linux capability...

I recently installed Beryl, a 3D desktop manager, on top of Ubuntu. Talk about "Wow." It is mightily impressive and goes far, far beyond Aero's Flip 3D feature. Granted, Beryl is largely a cosmetic device, but then, isn't that the main draw of Vista's Aero Glass interface, as well?

Beryl bears a striking resemblance to SphereXP, a 3D desktop replacement for WinXP. Whereas Beryl is based on a 3D cube, SphereXP is based on a, well, sphere. (SphereXP is not free, however.)

Google Beryl and check it out.

Chip B Malroy
I resent that !
I am not a "Shill" !
I looked it up on Wikipedia and... no way mate !
I am just a normal computer user sticking up for MS on a site that just loves to denegrate them.

Richard
If Ubuntu is so good why have you seen fit to add "Beryl", surely this means that you are not happy (in the back of your mind) with the "standard" Ubuntu Desktop !
And I really don't give a damn if MS does have a relationship with Apple, all the time while Vista was in beta and RC Apple was trying to "knock" it really badly.
I saw this from pictures on the (now) windows-now.com website and I was not impressed at all with the attitude of Apple.

It's clear to me that Windows Vista is going to end up like Windows ME.

Anyone remember Windows ME? EXACTLY: It was gone as quickly as it came. Unless you happened to purchase a PC before Windows XP was released and after ME was released, you've probably never even seen it.

There have been several really good technologies that Microsoft has unexplainably removed from Vista: the WinFS file system, the ability to support EFI (which Intel has wanted to replace the BIOS with for years), and so on. It is an inescapable fact that Windows Vista is a warmed over version of Windows XP that looks really pretty but doesn't offer any really new functionality to justify its outrageous cost.

Five years and this is all we get? Come on. Microsoft can do better.

Neil, you're just proving my point. Apple *has* been aggressively going after Windows. And yet, Microsoft clearly demonstrates that they're more concerned about Open Source.

As for Beryl, I like to play with new technology toys. I had heard good things about Beryl and I wanted to check it out. I'm glad I did!

As I stated before, Linux is emerging as a great Windows alternative. There's no need to knock it. There's plenty of room in the IT market for both!

Chris, it's very true that Vista is not the revolutionary product that Microsoft makes it out to be. The Vista improvements make it an evolutionary step from Windows XP. I remember how ambitious the original "Longhorn" project was. It was too ambitious. Microsoft was unable to follow through. At the time, I recall thinking "they've bitten off more than they can chew--their hubris exceeds their capabilities." I have since been proven right.

XP needed a face-lift and Vista did the job. Going forward, Vista sales will be strong because PC sales will be strong. Whether you want Vista or XP, the growth of the PC hardware market continues unabated. In this sense, Vista is not driving PC sales.

I don't think Vista will go away. After Service Pack 1, Vista should be fairly stable. Right now, Vista looks like Windows ME because of all the technical problems (installation/upgrade difficulties, missing or buggy drivers, app compatibility issues, etc.). But that will change.

Windows ME, on the other hand, was just plain ill-conceived.

Oh well media wanted some free vista licences...

The users have bad memory..
I wonder how was when 2000 and xp came out...

Oh wait it was like vista, bad hardware drivers..

Esteemed Neil:
Sometime ago I wrote about vista's commentaries;
OK, I can understand them who are angry about vista (although they were advised not to use it until pack 1-minimum-) they trusted en MS and were disappointed (an expensive disappointment.)
But I can not understand those who defend vista (or MS) the truth (if you are honest) is that it is expensive, with serious problems , and very intrusive (it spies you, and obeys MS more than you) then why you defend Vista ? I think about some fanatics might … but so many?
I want to believe in human intelligence, I want to believe that some who defend vista (Ms really), are MS's workers defending their jobs (as bad as it might sound.)
But Neil, you are not neither (you don’t sleep -apparently), your “commentaries” fight everybody at any time, I somewhat suspect there is a new type of “defenders”
the “Mercenaries” and I think that you -very possibly- are one of them.

I run vista ultimate on an amd 3800+ with 2g ram and a nvidia 7600 with two monitors, a system I purchased 2 years ago. Vista is at least as responsive than XP ever was. I've had no blue screens. The only issue I had was when the OS hibernated my system and the screen looked garbled while it was coming out of hibernation, no big deal. I think vista is worth it just to get rid of the GDI, which was a pig of a graphic system. I also think that most people who blatantly say "vista sucks" or "is vista the next me?" don't really understand what the os is all about. There's much more new and improved than what you see.

BigFuzz,

Thats a sweet system you have there, far above what most users have, including myself. I would expect Vista to perform on a computer such as yours or a powerfull computer with the all the power of a"Clay supercomputer." Sadly there are posts of Vista even slowing down some of these.

Like ME, I think Vista will run at acceptable (depends of what acceptable means to you) speed and stability on some hardware. I got 98ME to run fine on 2 out 5 computers I tried it on. The other three were unusable. Vista probably has the same problem with some computers as ME did on some computers.

I do not believe that it will run faster than XP on the same hardware, and you can check out the benchmarks on several sites that will support that claim.

Marco
I live in Australia so therefore different times zones.
I am honest ! An example if you want Windows ME was bad. OK happy ?
But I will NOT say that Vista is bad ! Because it isn't !
All this doom and gloom regarding Vista is some "teething troubles" and nasty rumours spread by Linux and Apple devotees, not just on this site but others as well, and if "some" people hear these rumours they think "Oh! my friend told me Vista is bad, so therefore it is!".
There was one instance of this written as a comment the other day, I read here. The guy had not checked it out himself, he just went on the rumour, I pity him if he was told something like the stock market was going to crash, sell your stock at any price. He would loose a mint, and just on a rumour !!

Pardon me NEIL but I don't believe you. YOU don't only defend, but you do something worse- you bully. You bully joe, you bully anybody who speaks against MS, you bully anybody who happens to speak in favour of linux or apple, your excuse for this is foolish, you say that this site is MS watch-thus it should not criticise Ms. Excuse me, YOU don't decide that- it is not your right to do so.
Let me suppose something and excuse myself for doing so. why do you “defend “Ms with so much impetus: Is it to mark your point across? unless you got some problem, you know that we all understood your point a long time ago. The others possibilities do not speak well of you: stubbornness, glib high-mindedness, excessive free time, boredom, etc. There are other reasons which are better, intellectually speaking, (and more economic as well) but sadly these are not best when put against ethics. And you know about I am talking about.
Speaking about it. Is it in MS's politics now to contract mercenaries and so silence the bloggers who speak unfavourably of them? You don't need to answer me that.
About the times you sleep at- it was just irony (I was referring to the great amount of time you spend in front of the computer)
Maybe you will be asking yourself why I am writing to you. It's simple: I don't like bullies- be them you, MS or whoever.
And excuse me my lack of quickness at answering. (Obviously if you take the bother of answering me- another irony.) Nobody pays me to fight (or write answers) Also, I have got a life.

My mummy never loved me.

Joe wonderful article and jusdging by a couple of posts slamming your title, they forgot to take in the account of the "?" You are asking a question, or at least raising a question. I own an IT business among other endeavors and I stay up on technology not just because it's my job, but I love computers, always have. I am a man that is in my mid 40's and have seen a good many software operating systems and versions come and go. Windows Me certainly had some serious flaws, I have had machines, most of which the operating system was useless, and on others just fine. I really like XP Professional, that is especially when Service Pack 2 was released. I am running Vista Ultimate now, and on my high end 3.0 Ghz HP with 4 megs of memory. I see that this operating system is taken advantage of my hardware more effeciantly than XP does. I have since nuckled under and upgraded my other three and older HP and I must say they are working a shade better on Vista than XP Professional SP2 without me having to sink in extra cash (other than the ultra-high cost of the operating system) in doing so.

I've been around the block a few times with Microsoft, since Windows 2.0 and understand the evolutionary processes. Know this, embrace this. However, I cannot agree with the over all price of this operating system for the general masses. Gosh, a wee bit expensive I must say.

Vista is an evolutionary step up, yes, step up from the XP operating system and sure their is problems, most I am finding out is that a good many people are not taking advantage of the compatibility evaluation, a free software from Microsoft to check their systems. Secondly, I have found out through a good many service calls on regards to Vista. People buy Vista, intall it without running the compatibility evaluation and find out they have some serious show-stopping issues. Yes, the emmediately gripe on how bad Vista is. Is it Vista's fault -- No sir. All's we have to do is just look back 5 years ago and you will find the same arguments about XP.
Vista is here to stay, and I know that Vista will further take advantage of the fine hardware and future systems in the near future. And, for those folks who want, demand something more stable, stay with XP until Service Pack 1, or even two is released.
I have no performance issues on these new HP highend systems and I for one didn't expect any with Vista. I realize that I may be a minority right now, but that's okay. For the record Joe, I don't work for Microsoft, I do own an Apple, I do know Linux, and I love pluralism. I am also not a "Shill" or a member of the Communist, Neo-Nazi Party and I pay my taxes.
Oh, yes, I also have a life =;o)

Richard M."BTW, I had two WinME machines"

...there is one in every crowd...

Anyway, I have Windows Home Premium and Ultimate and have to say Vista is Son of ME.

Things don't work, driver issue, remember ME? Returning from Hibernate, my sound is n/a and my keyboard reverts back to original setup English Canada with French characters, even though I pick US English as default.

Folders returning to the default retarded huge icon/thumbnails from hibernate, even if one in Folder/Options say List and Apply to all folders.

Tried cleaning up the Start/Program File area where 1/2 the column is taken by Microsoft this and that programs I don't want. That Apple TV ad with the PC guy bloated beyond recognition hits it on the head.

Vista starting in 6 seconds? Plweeeease, give me a break - even from Hibernate. Sure maybe 6-10 seconds to the password login screen, but seriously 30 seconds to the desktop from there including the sidebar.

Turn off the Security Alert, icon shows in System Tray. Right click to Exit and it opens. Have to go into Control Panel and tell it not to bother me at all.

Flight Simulator 9 or even FSX doesn't handle well with a 1.8 Duo core with 2GB of ram and 384MB ram on the video card.

Windows Explorer, where'd the toolbar icons like cut, copy, and paste go? Heck I don't want to burn CD or encrypt every time.

*sigh*

Five+ years of development and we get OSX hack job, and you want $400 for it?

I'm missing something.

"that's why I recommend waiting for Service Pack 1"

...I get a kick every time I hear/read someone saying this.

If the majority of us peons waited, where do the updates and fixes in SP1 come from, thin air?

No, it is from users buying the first version, working with it on a daily basis, and complaining.

I know that ruffles some folks who've had two of this version or two of that version, and never ever had any problems with it...

Life is so grand, tiptoeing through the tulips.

Right.

I don't like the system requirements needed to run Vista. I'm running XP and Debian. I have always played with Linux but now use it as my primary OS. It has matured enough to do so. It's too bad that just when XP was starting to become pretty stable they had to go try to re-invent the wheel with Vista.

Five+ years of development and we get OSX hack job, and you want $400 for it?

I'm missing something.

This pretty much sums it up.

I run Vista, but I can't see shelling out money for it. When it comes with hardware thats fine. But I'm not going to break my neck getting my whole network changed.

At home I have already converted to Linux. xubuntu to be exact. Rock solid, and I can do anything vista has to offer. But if you want the real deal just go out and buy yourself a MAC. I don't think it a small wonder that Apple's computer sales are up 88%.

Vista isnt bad its just not that good, it does very little more than XP and somethings worse. i notice alot of people saying its not slower than XP! how is that true if it requires a higher spec'd pc but that is computer life, you need to upgrade eventually to get better graphics and blah blah blah. Ive been playing with Vista since Beta 2 and now the final release but its not exciting, its certainly not worth the big price tag. I will be someone who will probably wait until after a decent Service pack has been released before spending my hard earned money on it so it cracks me up when people (tomax7) say that we are people who tiptoe through the tulips when i just cant see why i should have to pay to test someone else's multi million\billion dollar piece of software which doesn't work properly.

...let's do some math.

Plus - New OS better and faster than XP.
Minus - Need faster CPU, RAM, and more HD space.
= Revenue neutral.

XP still boots loads faster then Vista. This being at screen/desktop where all hard drive activity has stopped.

Cam, get real.

Laugh at yourself with "when i just cant see why i should have to pay to test someone else's...piece of software which doesn't work properly"

...when you find the perfect operating system - let me know eh.

...well I just got fed up. Installed XP Pro over top of Vista on my Acer Desktop 1.8 Core2 2GB Ram and everything works and fast!

No delay in loading emails, games, or programs. Fight Simulator 9 works great again, same with FX, Sim City4 works and other games.

FrontPage works without crashing. Tried Enhance and it's just a Dreamweaver knock-off.

...just one more word on Vista. Some are saying it's not Vista's fault because of driver isssues.

Here's a gem. A few of my clients use Microsoft FrontPage and are constantly getting lockups and crashes with the program on Vista.

This is a blatant software error, not hardware.

Drivers, what drivers?

Same company Vista, FrontPage.

Also I have a large virtual machine environment and VISTA only runs on VMWare Workstation 6.0.

IE 6 has the lion share of the browser market despite its non-compliance with industry accepted standards.

IE 7 has its birthing problems, but I still have to code around the occasional non-standard thing in the CSS implementation.

Vista does not inter operate with other systems, not even XP in some cases. They have not released the information required to correct this problem.

I am not sure, but doesn't that violate the consent decree that they signed with DOJ?

PS

A statistic:

75% of servers run on apache. A lot of these are running on Windows OS's now.

I am not a graphics artist, but you can try

http://homeboy.crbservices.com

If you can't reach it is probably because my machine is down. Keep trying.

This is running Apache on Linux as a virtual machine under XP professional. It boots automatically every time I turn on the machine.

I am writing this from a WinMe machine. So I know how to get around 'issues'. However, my newest machine is Vista, and it has me stumped. I'm trying to use it as a family system, but I can't get file sharing to work on my family network (seems to lock up all other systems that try accessing folders - they are visible), and I can't tailor to the degree of sophistication of the user. Vista is simply frustrating. I can see why most users simply turn off UAC and the firewall.
Yes it is stable and fast. But it is not user friendly. Windows never fixed any of my pet issues, like opening windows full screen (default), making any open dialogs big enough to see the whole network path, etc. Oh, and Vista is a great advertisement for linux. Microsoft BobII is more appropriate....

Shortly after ME came out, I was given many free computers because people got tired of the constant problems. I put my current flavor of linux on them and went merrily on my way. I still own most of those machines and they still work perfectly, even with the latest software. I can see this situation happening again in the near future.

As for ME. I have a late model 3Ghz machine with a 98micro version of ME. (check out 98lite if you have no idea what I am talking about) It is easily the fastest, desktop equipped, computer that I have ever seen. ME drivers, for newer hardware, are available if you spend more than 5 minutes looking for them. This machine never crashes and performs the task of running my sons games flawlessly.

Basing this machine on ME provided the same networking stack as 2000 and has built in USB support. Its a pretty slick setup when modified properly.

Personally, I never made the switch from DOS to Windows. When 95 came out, I couldn't stand the fact that it restricted me from doing things that I had been easily doing for years. Bad modem support was the final straw.

At that point I made the switch to Linux. Installing Linux in 1995 was an exercise in scaling vertical learning curves. Linux installations now are easier than installing Windows. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

Mac OsX is getting better with every release. Its basically the same as linux under the hood and the desktop is easily conquered. Out of the box, it just works. My only real gripe is the price.

So, all this hubbub about Vista just makes me chuckle. Windows is easily the least advanced and most trouble prone OS out there, but people will fight tooth and nail to defend it.

I'll just continue on, as I always have; doing more with less, enjoying capabilities that Windows users aren't even aware of, not wasting my money on ones and zeros, and smile ear to ear as another Windows user gives me a free computer because they think that a new computer with the latest version of Windows will solve all their problems.

A few more thoughts while I am still here and remember where this site is.

I truly hope that the Reactos project bears fruit. It would be nice to see people using a Windows compatible operating system and fully appreciate what open source software can do for them.

As for people who think that Linux is hard to use; how hard is it to click on an icon? When I was a DOS user, I would laugh at Mac users for their fear of a command line. They made the switch from OS9 to OSX with no problems. If the "run of the mill" Mac user could make the switch to a Unix based system; surely a Windows user, who is accustomed to constant troubles and no documentation, can make the switch to a more stable system with great documentation. They only need to conquer their fear.

I frequently hear the argument "I don't know how to work on a Linux (or Unix) machine. These same people would be totally lost if you open cmd.exe for them in XP. The point I'm trying to make is that they don't know how to work on a Windows machine either; so what is the actual difference and why do they insist on paying money for flawed software?

David, while you may be knowledgeable on Linux and other items, you are a typical tech-head who misses the point everyone is making.

We're not saying Linux is worse or better, but it sucks regarding user interface. It looks Windows 95ish and other little eye candy things that people like in an operating system.

The world would be a nice place if everyone thought Beta was better than VHS. The world would be better if everyone drove a Toyota, that is Post 1980's. The world would be better if everyone used Ubuntu or Kubuntu.

But the world doesn't. And there must be a reason for it. You can say everyone is a drone, but while you may be close to the truth, the fact still remains, Windows is on 85% of the desktops of the world for a reason. Easy to use and looks pleasant to the eyes.

And doesn't have weird names like Knome, Python, and little devil characters. Laugh if you want, but marketing is everything. Ask Microsoft.

Also, ask 100 flipper heads which Linux distro is best and get 101 answers.

Marketing.

We just have to wait a few years and Windows 7 will be out.

Some of our customers have just moved to XP from Win2000. Vista will be 'away' out there yet. We did test our software on Vista and after getting through all the directory 'security' hurdles (and nuisance prompts... Grrrr. Why does the OS have to assume you are an idiot?) all appears to work just fine. FYI, we offer our software on Windoze because most of our customers want it that way (see that 85% above) ....

Have to disagree with Linux looking 95ish.... I think KDE looks darn good and you pick any schema you wish too...

Personally I perfer Linux (writing this on a Fedora 5 box), Thunderbird for E-Mail and Firefox (Windoze and Linux). Oh, and Open Office for productivity suite. No virus checkers to buy, etc. For what I do (a programmer) these applications work great for 'me'. However trying to get co-workers to use them is another story :rolleyes: . I could talk until blue in the face and the users would not change from MS Office... Why? Because it is what they are 'used to' I guess. You could have the 'whiz bang' OS and software and users would not budge (for the most part). Anyway, for my home Windoze boxes (have two) Vista will not go on as XP does what needs to be done (kids games mainly). Eye candy is not a reason to upgrade in my opinion. I personally don't see a reason to buy a MS OS again (for home use anyway).

Summary.. Vista may be bad ... may be good ... but see no reason it's a 'must have' right now. BTW, I go back when CPM-86 and DOS 2.1 was king on my DEC Rainbow personal computer.....

Windows Vista is, hands down, the WORST operating system ever conceived and created. I installed the upgrade Ultimate version on Windows XP and it was an absolute headache. Because of ONE driver (Sonic DLA = SPYWARE), Vista keeps giving me numerous error messages that never go away.

Windows Vista is worse than Windows Millenium Edition (if you remember that POS). If you have Windows XP, stick with it. Do not upgrade to Windows Vista.

Finally, Windows Millennium Edition was ranked #4 on PC World's Top 25 Worst Products Of All Time. Now, Windows Millennium Edition has a successor in Windows Vista. Windows Vista is not just one of the top 25 worst tech products of all time -- it is the WORST tech product of all time.

Hi, I'm an french I.T.
I'm network administrator and also take care of hardware maintenance for about 9 companies. Vista is becoming a Nightmare. This Os is definitely a failure. It is to me one of the slowest and buggiest I've dealt with for quite a while now. Even after a clean install, this system is just slower than others. As an I.T, it's a real nightmare. Especially over professional networks. Is there anyone wondering where is the great and simple "network connections" folder?...Well, it's gone. Vista is a software bundle. Meaning. Slow as hell and expecting us all to be ignorants. Fixes that took me minutes to fix with Xp or 2000 or even 98 can take me up to an hour on Vista(can't do). For example, after a small network issue, try releasing a renewing the ip address. Nop!...you'll get something like "this action requires re-evalution".
What is that???!!!
It freezes over small actions, lots of driver errors. Programs take longer to install. Windows updates are simply painful, I mean especially if you're in a rush.
They've changed it so much from the previous systems that it requires retraining of the basic staff that simply can't get use to it. which is not good at all as a marketing strategy.
And there is lot more to say...but i guess others in my field would agree.
How did it happen? How could they go from such a strong a reliable system as XP to end up with This ?

...neighbour just bought a new Dell 3GB computer with Vista Home Pr.

The very first day it had the stupidest error message I've seen, paraphrased:

Windows Explorer has an unexplained error do you wish to shut down Windows?

Then double click on a normal jpg file. Windows viewer comes on, but try to print with it. Wants to print to some Windows X writer, and doesn't recognize the install HP printer. So try to add it (again) says COPY 1, ok, but then gets a system error.

Installed Irfan and it works like a charm.

Oh, took 3 minutes to shut down.

Come to think of it, I believe Richard is right about third party software makers to soo quickly jump on the bandwagen for Windows Vista. Than again why should they, it's a totally new system and most people who have Vista 32bit won't get to benifit memory being supported over 4 gigs anyway. I think Windows XP by far was a Five-Star system. I barely had problems with it, and it seemed like this was a good answer of what an OS should be. It's time for those third party software makers to jump on the 64bit wagon though, and I think they should. Vista is like a test system used to further develope 64bit. So when Microsoft releases its new operating system, it will support 64bit technology. I can imagine the more wide range support to for DDR3 by the 2009's.