Reader Comments

Mark, do you know the differences between all those Vista versions? Home, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, Ultimate and Starter versions. And retail and OEM versions of these Vistas. Then try to explain the differences to end-users. And try to justify the price of the Vista (Ultimate is $450 whereas the XP Pro is only $150). After that you can begin to understand what we, Vista haters, feel.

Mark, I'm a big fan, but.... you're way off on this one. I've used Windows since the 3.1 days, and I've always looked forward to the next version. I've always found the next version ultimately much improved over the previous version, even if the newer version required a slight adjustment. Not so with Vista. Vista is the first iteration of Windows that had me scrambling for Google searches to complete even the most mundane tasks. I defy anyone to explain how removing the menu items from Windows Explorer improves a Windows User's experience. I double defy them to explain how providing a feature that allows you to enable the menu for ONE USE ONLY makes logical sense. Maddening, simply maddening. I spent an hour and a half struggling to copy files from a CD to my new Vista PC. Vista would not allow me to copy the files (backed up config and data files for various apps I was preparing to port over from my XP Pro PC to my brand-new Dell Vista PC) directly to a directory I had created on the HD. It would, however, allow me to copy those same files to the Desktop, and then copy them to the directories I initially intended. I again ask - how does that make any sense? What security enhancement does that provide if it allows me to simply copy files to the HD, but makes me do it in 2 steps rather than one in order to get them to their ultimate destination? At that point, I then realized the multitude of articles and reviews I had read about Vista's ills were more than Open Source and Mac iFan rantings, and were indeed based on valid points. Lastly, my dual core Dell w/ Vista proved no faster than my creaky Dell P4 running XP Pro. How can that be??? Faster bus speeds, faster chips, a clean OS. ??? That all was LAST October, and the Vista PC sits abandoned since. The Vista PC now collects dust, waiting for the weekend I can figure out how to wipe out Vista and install XP Pro on it, and thus bring it back into the world of the productive. Ubuntu... hmm.

I am a DOS 1.0 to Windows Vista user and agree 100% with ejhonda. The GUI just isn't intuitive and what takes 1 or 2 steps in XP, now take 4-6 steps. Probably the worst is Office 2007. I hate that with a passion and after 90 days, am ready to uninstall and put Office 2003 back on. The "Ribbon" menus give too much information and again the icons are not intuitive enough. There should be a study on how the human reacts and adjusts to computer interface changes. After looking at an icon for 6 years, was it necessary to change the icon for "show desktop"???

I run Win95 on a Qemu Virtual PC running on Vista. It is faster than Vista and that is all that it takes to hate the new OS.

The reason Vista is so expensive is MS had to justify the cost of Software Assurance that businesses have been paying since they deployed XP. 6 years X SA cost (1/3 of the purchase price of XP) = Inflated price of Vista.

I hated VIsta until I built a fast machine to run it. Now it's great! Dual-core 3.4 GHz Acer desktop, then added 2GB RAM and converted the single disk to a SATA2 RAID 0 stripe set by adding a cheapie controller and another disk. The memory and disk upgrades cost $200, but that's very little over the 5-6 year lifespan of the machine. Also, I don't run any anti-virus software to slow it down. With UAC, Defender, and normal prudence, I just don't see any need. (I am a Windows IT Pro since '92)

I personally have mixed feelings about Vista. On my laptop (Lenovo T60) it runs pretty good, it does not crash. however here are some annoyances I have experienced... 1-Copying files is extremely slow, apperantly Microsoft fixed it with a patch, still isn't fast, you go to copy and it stalls for 20-30 seconds until it starts the copy process. WHY? 2-It's a resourse hog, the minimum amount of ram to run Vista effeciantly should be 1.5GB, I have 2GB and on idle it's at 1GB acording to task manager 3-on my laptop if I connect an external display (LCD) it runs very fast. run on the laptop display and the HD will swap forever rendering it very slow. 4-From a corporate perspective, we run applications on Windows XP platforms perfectly, enter Vista, now some of these APs have to be rewritten and web applicaitons also have to be rewritten. 5-Direct 3D is crippled on Vista and proven by many hardware/software reviewers, so if you run applications that depends on Direct 3D/heavy graphics and video. It's not he OS for you. At any rate, it's still the beginning, I am waiting on SP1 to see if there is an improvement.

It sucks as is....However, I will defer my comments until I have installed Vista SP 2!!! ;}

Mark: It must be all that Vegas smoke. Hating and loving an OS sounds like more like a soap opera than a technical commentary. Vista is just another piece of Microsoft software, meaning proprietary but not truly original, bloated, expensive, and late to market . But the gap between expectations and reality truly is larger with Vista that with previous versions of Windows. I expected better performance and driver support (particularly for 64 bit), easier deployment, a better interface and improved functionality. I have not seen any of these. So I neither love nor hate Vista, although I understand the feelings it has engendered. I simply will not use until there is a better reason to do so. Cheers M.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Mark. Vista does have its quirks (& some bugs), but I must admit that I am loving this new operating system. I remember when Windows XP was just as derided as Vista is now - when everyone seemed to agree that Windows 2000 was the "best O/S" that Redmond ever made. Most people aren't inclined to adjust the GUI to reflect the hardware they run it on, and most hardware vendors made the mistake of claiming Vista readiness, when it simply wasn't (with the default settings of eye-candy aero). I applaud the difficult decision Microsoft made with regards to security (UAC for one) that seems to annoy people - I feel that it is about time that they are forcing users and vendors to re-consider the ramifications of running as administrator. As a network administrator, I look forward to the day that vendors respect the standard "user" group for running their applications (without having some heinous registry permissions to set or NTFS for the install path – are you listening Intuit?).

More bloat, delivered with almost none of its touted new "features" (when it was still vaporware). Nothing but eye candy.

I do not love my OS (Vista Ultimate x64), I love my wife, my children and my friends; but I like Vista and I like Office 2007. I took some time getting used to it but after 8 month, I am quite comfortable with it. I think what most people ranting about Vista expect is a completely new OS that has better performance, more features, perfect stability from day one, better security, driver support for every hardware on the planet and of course a much better UI than their previous OS but the operation should be exactly the same as the old version. It is a law of physics; objects want to stay where they are.

After several months, I feel comfortable enough with Vista (despite a fair number of quirks) to place my old XP partition in a VMware application running in Vista.

I've just purchased a new laptop purposely with Vista on it. The problem was I didn't have it in the budget to get the system I really wanted, so I settled on a system with dual core and 2gb ram and a 250gb HD with Home Premium installed. I needed to get it upgraded to Ultimate which is my biggest gripe about this so far. I clicked the Windows Upgraded Anytime link and ordered the upgrade and requested a WAU disk as I don't have one, the system only came with 2 recovery disks. Well I figured 4 to 5 days I'd have the disk to finish the upgrade, NOT! It's now been 8 business days and still no disk! I called and they won't reship until 10 business days have passed. They don't and won't upgrade the shipping on this! Why is only ground USPS offered in the first place when I have to pay the shipping anyway? Microsoft is so off base with this upgrade method, I wanted to upgrade last week, not next month! So far the system is doing fine with the Home Premium version, but I don't want to install any software until I finish the upgrade if that day ever comes. There is definitely a learning curve with it, I've found more things I dislike about the interface than I thought I would compared to doing the same tasks in XP, but there are some things I like about it. Meanwhile, why do I have to wait so long to get the damm disk?

I have yet to see a single good reason to change from XP. All I read about is trouble, and I have spent far too much time getting each version I have used to work properly that the prospect of going through it all again, with a vengeance, simply fills me with horror. And as a mere user, I am talking about days and days of struggling, when I get nothing else done.at all. If I were to be out of the woods after a year I would count myself lucky. As it is, it has taken 2 or 3. Productivity? Don't make me laugh.

i think vista is great. i think its the best os yet and like so many here, ive been using the pc since DOS. i do see a gap between expectations and delivery-- especially when you have an os that took longer to develop than the nuclear bomb. i just get annoyed and the ******** however. so many of these people who whine about vista will be saying how much they loved it when the vista2 comes out. people annoy me. the ui is just fine! it's not anymore confusing than when xp came out and you have the still-so-stupid category view for control panel and another few clicks to find the IP properties. you will always have stupid. as for the bugs, driver support, slow file copy- these are minor issues to me b/c they'll certainly be fixed. and when they are, all you who sound like the hebrews after the exodus (send me back to Egypt!) will be sliding into the promise land as if unnoticed but ive doing this long enough to know you still annoy me. sometimes i wish the whiners would go to europe or texas or make their own os and name it mesocooku.

Vista is slow, and there are still a lot of "old" programs that won't run on it. I've had any security-problems with 2000/XP so what's in it for me now? My wife bought a new laptop with Vista 1/2 year ago, and she still hates is. Did I remeber to say she's a techno-freak who always wants the latest stuff? Only reason for running Vista is that we couldn't find any XP-drivers for the video. I'm sure things will change within a few years when new programs require it and most old will run on it, but until that.....

Folks -- May I ask a favor? I'm trying to organize your responses and email's easier. If you'd like to offer your Vista stories, PLEASE email 'em to me rather than posting. Thanks! Mark

Mark, IMHO the reason the hate Vista remarks are getting so much media attention is because of the impersonal culture of the internet itself. People feel they can say anything because they don't have to look anyone in the face and experience a physical reaction. As soon as a human being realizes that there are no repercussions to what they say, they'll say anthing and with unabashed exuberance (to put it mildly). There is no more respect for anyone's opinion or feelings. The media latches onto this because it's sensational. Blather and bluster sells, period.

People hate Vista because it doesn't address what customers really want. They want a system that just works. They want an operating system that doesn't crash ALL THE TIME. They want it to look and act the way they want it to without having to become computer geeks to do that.

I've been around the block with all the various operating system upgrades. It is a cost/benefit thing. Are the costs of upgrading (I don't care about $$, but time) worth the benefits. Windows 3.0 to 3.1 - some real features, bug fixes, small performance improvements. Windows 3.1 to 3.11 - networking. Windows 95 - Win 32 - huge - performance hit, but big wins. Windows 95-> 98 - better all the way around Windows 98 -> ME - what a disaster! Windows 95/98 -> Windows NT 3.1 - three steps forward, 1 step back. architecture, etc. Windows NT 3.1 / 3.5 -> 4.0 - huge UI win. Windows 4.0 -> 2000. Hey, PCMCIA works! Windows 2000->XP - cool! Windows XP->Vista -> some UI coolness, but bloatware, performance issues, UAC half baked. I've tried to have my people go to Vista, but its been a big wait. UAC was too much of a bolt-on (and evidently may get ripped out in the successor). Network issues are legion (can't open an Access db on the network, can't seem to copy files, wake up drops network, Explorer turned idiot. So... Maybe SP1? Maybe SP2?

The problems we face with VIsta are degrading performance issues. My gut feeling is that Visual Studio 2005 and Vista are not compatible. It continuously gets to the point that applications (any application!) can't open a single additional window - even message boxes stop displaying.

I think that part of the problem is that Vista placed more emphasis on security than new features, so there are less obvious features. However I do feel that many of the new security measures create the illusion of security without making the computer more secure. For example, the way it demands confirms for EVERYTHING is just going to make users get fed up of being asked for confirmations and click "Yes" without thinking. Personally I'm using an XP/Ubuntu dual boot, and finding I can do more of what I want to in Ubuntu. For the next release, Microsoft need to look at what Ubuntu is doing right that they are not.

I'm also a long-time user of Microsoft OS's. I want to like Vista. I really do. But I find myself on the verge of installing XP on my new laptop because Vista is in my way. I'm a developer, and need my machine to work properly in order to do my job. Various programs (Visual Studio, Firefox, the display driver) crash frequently. I've had to turn off UAC because Microsoft's own tools (eg. Visual Studio, SQL Server Management Studio) won't work with it on. I've had to turn off the indexing service because it thrashes my hard drive so badly that it's actually distracting. Vista still thrashes my drive a lot, but not quite so much. It seems like Vista was designed to insulate the user from the inner workings of the computer. That drives me crazy. I didn't buy a Mac. Don't make me hunt for things that should be easy to access. Vista tells me my "Windows Experience Index" on this machine is 4.0. I disagree. I can't sync my smartphone. I'm furious about that. There's a lot to like in Vista - Resource Monitor, Snipping Tool, Aero. But the bad outweighs the good - no SMTP server, changing network connection settings, finding things that aren't where they used to be... I just don't know if I can wait for SP1.

Vista is very different OS. Get it guys! If you copy files from CD to you boot drive root Vista will tell you that is not possible - its risky. Which is true. Copy to My documents or drive D, E.... or flash or external drive. Why to collect garbage on boot drive? Security wise Vista much more superior than XP. That's the fact. If you feel losted on Vista go downgrade to Gameboy! I love Vista, stable predictable and fast platform (if you have right hardware of course).

Also you guys blaming Vista for all the faults with you smarphoes, and programs. Blame them - not Vista. As I tell before VISTA IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM XP (insides and GUI). Very lazy programmers don't support Vista much, because it required some study...time...effort. Better blame....its easier

I've gone back and forth with Vista. Installing and uninstalling, weighing the pros and cons. Have done this as nausem since Vista was in beta. Conclusion? XP Pro works at work, XP Home works at home. Vista Home Premium and Basic work at home. Vista Business is out of reach for work because it is just too much for our old apps to handle. Period.

I think Windows Vista is allowing the real IT professionals to shine through, and the ones who are just stumbling about to loose their footing. For example, a previous comment: "I again ask - how does that make any sense? What security enhancement does that provide if it allows me to simply copy files to the HD, but makes me do it in 2 steps rather than one in order to get them to their ultimate destination?" Do you not know of the security threats removable media presents? It makes perfect sense for the system to not allow something to be directly copied into a protected directory (such as a directory for program configurations?) from a CD. "Lastly, my dual core Dell w/ Vista proved no faster than my creaky Dell P4 running XP Pro. How can that be??? Faster bus speeds, faster chips, a clean OS. ???" Quite the accusation there, can you even back that up? Or do you just try and prove things with "gut feelings"? "2-It's a resourse hog, the minimum amount of ram to run Vista effeciantly should be 1.5GB, I have 2GB and on idle it's at 1GB acording to task manager" An example of the someone who doesn't not know how to control the operating system they're using. Learn about Windows services, features, and prefetching. You can customize them to minimize memory usage. You're saying Vista is too hard to learn how to use? Windows XP is easier? It has been out six years, of course you're going to know how to use it -- it wasn't any easier of a transition. I could go on but I have other things to do...

I love Vista it has alot of security features the other didn't. It updates it's self. It did have glitches in the beginning but after i worked through them it was great. I think what people want is a made to order OS. Which is never going to happen. People have different programs and needs and wants they can't make a OS that is going to work just perfect for everyone. Every time a new OS comes out everyone complains. Everyone says it's horrible it doesn't have the drivers they want, it's slow. I remember when we upgraded to XP on my sisters computer it couldn't handle it. After a few yrs they made the computer to fit the OS. Now it fits XP and soon they will fit Vista. People just have to be patient... Good luck with that though.