PDA

View Full Version : Windows Vista - is it a problem?



Fred Voorhees
05-10-2008, 12:24 PM
I am very close to purchasing a new computer, a Dell more than likely and I am hearing some negative reviews of the new Vista program. Is it all that bad or am I just panicking over nothing? This old Dell - about eight years old, is rapidly losing its last legs and I need a new computer very shortly. Will probably use the governments economic stimulus check to "stimulate" the computer market. Should be getting that check this coming week. So how about it.....is the new Windows Vista program a real PITA?

Steve knight
05-10-2008, 12:40 PM
it works ok pre installed. but it has some weird issues and bugs that get annoying. like it will think all the folders in one drive are music folders so it is hard to sort and arrange and thee the attributes of the files in them. thundebird and firefox have more problems running under it. they work perfect on all my xp computers but nto so on the vista machine. it is slower too

Dennis Peacock
05-10-2008, 1:01 PM
I've been running Vista Business Edition for well over a year now. So far, I like it and it's been pretty stable. It was an upgrade to an XP Pro box from Dell, 2GHx Dual core, 4GB of memory and 500GB RAID disk.

I'd run Vista Ultimate if I had a preference.

Cliff Rohrabacher
05-10-2008, 1:19 PM
It is the root cause of anthropogenic climate change.
Kill it now while you have a chance.

Richard Venturelli
05-10-2008, 1:44 PM
Would'nt know, I've been using LINUX since 1999
No use for WinBlows and Bill Gates.

Jim Becker
05-10-2008, 1:48 PM
Fred, I've had zero issues with Vista on both my new Dell machine and the older one I prepared for the girls with a clean install of Vista. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I prefer it over XP which I still have to run on my work machine. That said, 2gb memory minimum (I have 4 in my new machine and 2 in the older one) and a higher-end graphics card are sincerely recommended. Also, don't have Google Desktop running, especially if Windows SideBar is configured. I do use the latter and enjoy it.

JayStPeter
05-10-2008, 2:23 PM
It really depends on what you're currently running and expect to run on the new machine. I had a bunch of old versions of stuff that wouldn't run on Vista without an Upgrade$$. Oddly enough, the MS products were the main ones that didn't run ... imagine that. I also run a few specialized development environments that required me to use beta versions for a couple months until the patches, drivers, or new versions came out. It's been around long enough now that most stuff shouldn't be a problem, but if you run anything strange/old you might want to check first. I wound up unexpectedly having to buy several hundred dollars worth of software to make everything work that I used regularly on the former XP box. More recently I've developed a system hangup on occasion. Could be a hardware problem. But, it started not long after I performed a bug fix for a problem in the updater that was downloading the same patch over and over from MS.:rolleyes:

Paul Hendrickson
05-10-2008, 4:25 PM
I too used my opportunity to "stimulate" the economy with a computer purchase. Here are some facts. Vista IS slower, no matter how much ram no matter what processor, Vista will be slower. There are also a number of hardware and software vendors that have chosen not to support Vista. On the other hand, Vista has some features that XP does not. So Vista will work, will be slower, but have a few things XP does not.

Then there is the side of the equation that Microsoft knowingly pushed an inferior OS, and after a huge outcry from consumers, they continued to support XP and most places actually charge you MORE to choose XP over Vista. No other business on the planet gets to get away with something like that, and they only get to because 90% of the worlds pc's have windows.

There is another viable, and very good option. Linux. Dell is now offering computers preloaded with Ubuntu. You can download a live image, burn it to cd and try it without doing anything to your hard drive. You will be amazed at all it will do, and what it comes with. Open Office is amazing if you have not seen it, (and even if you don't choose Linux, you can download Open Office for windows). I have an 8 year old laptop which only has a 600mHz processor. I was going to throw it away. I installed Linux Mint, and it boots in 90 seconds, does quite well with open office, and runs firefox over our wireless network just fine. Brought an old computer back to life and everything worked out of the box.

As to what I chose. I chose a machine with XP because ultimately I have work software and grad school software that requires windows. However, I will dual boot linux, and use it primarily.

John Newell
05-10-2008, 5:44 PM
I have been running Vista Home Premium for over a year on a very high-spec machine. It's OK. It does not play well with all software, however, and if I had it to do again I would order the 32-bit version due to software incompatibilities.

Eduard Nemirovsky
05-10-2008, 6:50 PM
If you don't have specific widows base program, I would recommend a Mac. yes, it is a little bit more expensive but much better and easy, more fun to use.
I just did the same and really like my new iMac. by the way you can install windows oper.system on it and it's stiil run better then any windows.
Ed.

Richard Venturelli
05-10-2008, 7:01 PM
If you don't have specific widows base program, I would recommend a Mac. yes, it is a little bit more expensive but much better and easy, more fun to use.
I just did the same and really like my new iMac. by the way you can install windows oper.system on it and it's stiil run better then any windows.
Ed.

Why on earth would you run WinBlows on a Mac? Obtw I have a Mac too. So don't think I'm a LINUX zealot.

Eduard Nemirovsky
05-10-2008, 8:06 PM
because some program only for windows, especially professional.
Ed

Pat Germain
05-10-2008, 11:48 PM
I'm hearing Microsoft has given up on Vista and is now focusing on another release. It seem Vista will end up being similar to Windows ME; just an inconvenient blip on the Microsoft OS radar.

Most home users can run Vista without issues. It's the big, enterprise environments where people are screaming. If you're not standing up a server farm, you'll probably be OK running Vista. Of course, as suggested, you can save yourself a lot of headaches by running Linux or going with a Mac.

Ron Dunn
05-11-2008, 12:06 AM
It is always entertaining to watch the zealots parachute into a thread involving Windows. Perhaps if they posted their direct, personal experience the quality of their advice would be more clear.

For example, how long has someone who says "Vista is no good" actually used it? A day? A month? Or did they just get their high-quality, truthful and accurate information from a Linux or Macintosh fan site?

The same for Windows ME. Did they actually buy it? Use it? Or is it just picking up on anecdotal and unreliable hearsay?

I use Vista every day, and have done so for more than 18 months. My sons have Vista on their computers, my wife has XP on hers because she runs some Vietnamese software that hasn't been upgraded for Vista.

There were driver problems in the early days, because lazy and/or incompetent hardware manufacturers (can anyone say CREATIVE, or NVIDIA, for example) hadn't released quality software. For about 9 months, though, I have had drivers for everything we use.

If you have specific concerns I'm happy to answer them for you.

Curt Harms
05-11-2008, 9:31 AM
I'm hearing Microsoft has given up on Vista and is now focusing on another release. It seem Vista will end up being similar to Windows ME; just an inconvenient blip on the Microsoft OS radar.

Most home users can run Vista without issues. It's the big, enterprise environments where people are screaming. If you're not standing up a server farm, you'll probably be OK running Vista. Of course, as suggested, you can save yourself a lot of headaches by running Linux or going with a Mac.

I'm not an IT pro but did read that Vista will "be the last large windows" or something to that effect. I got the impression that subsequent windows releases will not include the kitchen sink, jacuzzi, lawn irrigation system, murphy bed etc. Not including all the crap should help with performance,we'll see. It's tough to built a quality product when for a decade or more the primary goal seems to have been to use their monopoly status screw any competition.

Curt

Pat Germain
05-11-2008, 9:53 AM
It is always entertaining to watch the zealots parachute into a thread involving Windows. Perhaps if they posted their direct, personal experience the quality of their advice would be more clear.

For example, how long has someone who says "Vista is no good" actually used it? A day? A month? Or did they just get their high-quality, truthful and accurate information from a Linux or Macintosh fan site?

The same for Windows ME. Did they actually buy it? Use it? Or is it just picking up on anecdotal and unreliable hearsay?

I use Vista every day, and have done so for more than 18 months. My sons have Vista on their computers, my wife has XP on hers because she runs some Vietnamese software that hasn't been upgraded for Vista.

There were driver problems in the early days, because lazy and/or incompetent hardware manufacturers (can anyone say CREATIVE, or NVIDIA, for example) hadn't released quality software. For about 9 months, though, I have had drivers for everything we use.

If you have specific concerns I'm happy to answer them for you.

Fair enough.

While my computer didn't run Windows ME, my parents' computer did. It had many driver issues, performance issues and setup issues. That's all I recall at the moment, but I do remember that OS was more messed up than a soup sandwich. Microsoft also thought so which is why they abandoned it almost immediately.

I'm currently running Windows 98 on an old desktop PC. I'm running Windows XP on a laptop PC. I'm also involved with supporting over 200 PCs running Windows XP at work, but I'm primarily a Solaris guy.

I have few complaints about Windows 98. I think it was the best OS Microsoft ever put out. XP is running pretty well, but it took a lot of patches and service packs to get there. And yet, it's still vulnerable to adware, spyware, viruses and trojans. It's pretty much essential to run third party security programs just to keep it from being infected almost immediately. And those add on security programs are still no guarantee. That doesn't speak well for Windows. It must be continually patched, upgraded and scanned for nefarious programs lurking inside.

The big problem I have with all Windows version is, as I mentioned, is the swiss cheese security. Granted, Microsoft is a big target and every pimple-milking punk with a PC tries to hack it, crack it and infect it. They are able to do so because the security in Windows is an add-on. Underneath, it's just wide open DOS.

No OS is perfect. Having worked with Unix for over 15 years, it's apparent to me how secure an operating system can be. The MAC OS is Unix based. That's why it's inherently more secure. Linux is a flavor of Unix. Therefore, it's also secure. Windows is simply not secure and that really frosts me.

Jason Roehl
05-11-2008, 1:25 PM
The same for Windows ME. Did they actually buy it? Use it? Or is it just picking up on anecdotal and unreliable hearsay?



I had a Gateway computer with ME pre-installed. It crashed more times than than a car in a demolition derby. It was at least weekly, sometimes daily. I suffered through it until about a year after XP was released, then bought the Home Edition upgrade. After that, the operating system on that computer never crashed (a hard drive or two did, but I was always able to recover).

I'm still avoiding Vista, though it looks like if I get another computer, that will be what is on it--could be this summer or next year. I'm hearing more positive things about it (or fewer negative things, anyway) from the "computer geek world", so at this point I'm more or less neutral towards it. But I have not used it at all, yet, either.

Mike Henderson
05-11-2008, 1:46 PM
The same for Windows ME. Did they actually buy it? Use it? Or is it just picking up on anecdotal and unreliable hearsay?

I used ME and it was a miserable operating system. Miserable in that it was not stable - the system would lock up or blue screen on a regular basis (maybe once per week). And I was using it at home, on a Gateway computer, with nothing unusual connected to it.

I upgraded to XP on that same Gateway computer and except for some problems getting one of the service packs installed, it was a MUCH better operating system - very stable.

To me, the problem Microsoft has is that they have to carry along all their old baggage. The OS has to run on previous computers, and it has to run older software. Apple (for example) doesn't always do that.

I now have Vista on my home computer. It's okay - but just okay.

Mike

Greg Peterson
05-11-2008, 2:07 PM
I've no real practical or extended experience with Vista. I suppose were I sit and spend more than a couple of hours with it I would get use to the interface.

Lack of meaningful exposure to this OS, I can only base my opinion on the general buzz I've heard from developers and users. From what I've seen and heard, Vista is somewhere between ME and XP in terms of stability and usability. I run W2k at home and XP Pro at work. Both are extremely solid and will continue to use these OS's until I have no other choice but to 'upgrade'.

Vista would not qualify for an upgrade because of the hardware requirements.I don't give minimum specs any thought as they do not represent what is necessary to provide for a usable PC. The PC may run with minimal hardware specs, but it will not be running in an environment the engineers designed it to run in. Swap file and services are the two main items that come to mind that would likely require an ideal environment in order for the user to fully appreciate the Vista OS.

I'm sure that a name brand PC designed from the ground up to run Vista will perform just fine for the average user, running common apps.

As for security, there is one thing about Mac OS X (Leopard) that I really like, and IMO, makes the system inherently more secure. When any program being installed requires admin privileges, a simple security window opens up and requires the user to enter the admins password. In XP, the user either has to navigate to the Run As option or log off and log back on as Admin. In XP, there are simply some tasks that force you to log off and log on as admin, very clumsy and a very good reason why so many people just give themselves admin privileges. Hopefully Vista fixed this shortcoming.

John Newell
05-11-2008, 2:37 PM
he same for Windows ME. Did they actually buy it? Use it? Or is it just picking up on anecdotal and unreliable hearsay?



Similar to the reports above, I had a machine that ran ME for several years. Not only was it a constant problem, when I eventually gave up and migrated it to XP, it didn't really install XP cleanly.

Vista is not like ME at all. I have a few caveats based on somewhere between a year and a year and a half of use, but they're annoyances, not really problems. Ironically, my biggest beef is that the machine won't run MS Outlook in either the 2003 or 2007 flavor. That is not what's you'd expect...well, maybe it is...;)

Lee DeRaud
05-11-2008, 2:51 PM
Of course, as suggested, you can save yourself a lot of headaches by running Linux or going with a Mac.Or at least qualify for a better grade of headache, the kind that can only be cured by a heavy dose of Unix sysadmin training. DAMHIKT

Lee DeRaud
05-11-2008, 2:56 PM
Ironically, my biggest beef is that the machine won't run MS Outlook in either the 2003 or 2007 flavor.Random data point: dunno about Outlook2007, but the 2003 flavor works fine.

JayStPeter
05-11-2008, 3:32 PM
Ironically, my biggest beef is that the machine won't run MS Outlook in either the 2003 or 2007 flavor. That is not what's you'd expect...well, maybe it is...;)

Patches are necessary for almost all MS software. Office takes a little effort for both '03 and '07. But both work and I think they've narrowed it to a single patch update now for each. Anything earlier and you're probably out of luck. I run all of Office '07, including Outlook, with no issues. It is pretty funny that most of the effort I spent getting things working on my Vista machine were spent on the latest versions of MS Office and Visual Studio (a 3-4 hour patching session required for studio). That was probably about 90% of the time spent getting my machine up. Another 20 apps or so by other vendors took less time to install and get working than just the patches for the two MS products. I think I had to research and load about a dozen MS patches for Office and Studio (I think office is easier now). Most of the other stuff I loaded took no effort. There were a couple of microcontroller development environments that I had to download some drivers for the in-circuit emulators. But even then I was up in about 5 minutes after visiting the vendor website.

Jay

Jim Knight
05-11-2008, 3:35 PM
May I suggest going over to the Mac. If you have to upgrade software anyway and spend still more doing it to go to Microsloth Vista then why not switch over entirely. The sticker price is higher for a mac but not one person I know has ever had to worry about viruses or the blue screen of death on the cute little box with the glowing apple on the side.

Software isn't a problem either. Neo Office, just as stable and functional as MS Office for most of us, is free and opensource. I wrote a big chunk of my thesis in it limited only by the fact that my laptop is older than anyone else's that I know.

If you go this route, or think about it, go to opensourcemac.org and see what they have in the way of software that does a really good job. That way you needn't worry about a lot of expensive upgrades and you get a more stable machine with, in my experience, a longer shelf life.

Hope my biases help.

Jim

Irvin Cooper
05-11-2008, 5:53 PM
Good afternoon. At my day job with CNET, our conclusions are the same. This will likely be remembered as an incremental OS release for Microsoft. Our head to head comparisons show no real added value re Vista over XP, and then there are the performance issues with Vista......

Just my .02



I'm hearing Microsoft has given up on Vista and is now focusing on another release. It seem Vista will end up being similar to Windows ME; just an inconvenient blip on the Microsoft OS radar.

Most home users can run Vista without issues. It's the big, enterprise environments where people are screaming. If you're not standing up a server farm, you'll probably be OK running Vista. Of course, as suggested, you can save yourself a lot of headaches by running Linux or going with a Mac.

Ron Dunn
05-11-2008, 7:12 PM
John Newell, what problem are you having with Outlook on Vista? It certainly runs - both 2003 and 2007 - so if you give me some details I'll see what can be done to fix the problem.

Feel free to PM :)

Ron.

Scott Donley
05-11-2008, 8:11 PM
not one person I know has ever had to worry about viruses or the blue screen of death on the cute little box with the glowing apple on the side.

It appears you have never visited a Mac users forum :( Not to say a Mac is not a nice computer,but............never crash !
As far as ME, I loved it, no problems on up to 4 machines all networked. Only upgraded to XP when there was a program I needed that only ran on XP. That will be the case for Vista.:D

John Newell
05-11-2008, 8:21 PM
Random data point: dunno about Outlook2007, but the 2003 flavor works fine.

Works fine on your machine, maybe. Does not work on mine. Returns a "file was not closed properly" message every time it starts.


Patches are necessary for almost all MS software.

I doubt you'll find anyone more religious about running updates and applying patches. Hasn't helped.