Seems like an interesting read so far, but this quote has me confused, "Back in 1999 you could still buy PCs with Windows NT 4 instead of Windows 2000." Windows 2000 was released in February 2000. The first official version (non-beta, non-RC) released for Windows 2000 was released on December 12, 1999, but the first general public release was that previously mentioned date of Feb '00.

Quote

He also noted that while Vista requires better graphics hardware, so do Apple's Quartz Extreme, Core Image and Core Video.

Yes, but my 2000 model Powerbook, with a mere 8meg of VRAM (but with a brain-transplant G4/550) runs Tiger just fine. Sure, there are some features I miss, but Tiger, itself, runs just fine. Why couldn't Microsoft do this with Vista?

-Jon

Just my 2 cents:

Admittedly, I am a die-hard Mac fan, but I am also a certified MCP for Windows 2000 Pro and server, and have used Windows 2000 and XP extensively, over several years. Also, I do technical support for a company that writes and sells software for both Mac and Windows.

Around here, among both Mac fans and Windows fans, the consensus is that there is no real value in Vista, that merits an upgrade. It may well be more secure than XP, but it is also locks users out of places that they used to be able to go, to do things for themselves, and hides a lot of parts of itself that users may need to get at.

Here is an example I have walked into: Try changing the default application for opening .zip files, to something like WinZip. Then, using 'Open With' or the control panel for file association, try to change it back to the default of 'Compressed (zipped) folders'. Under Windows XP, it's simple. Under Vista, we have not found a way to do it.

User Account Control 'UAC' is another great invention. Some applications and and hardware will only install correctly if UAC is turned off, and others only install correctly if it is turned on!

It seems to me (and virtually everybody to whom I've spoken, that has an opinion), so far, that Vista is just a re-heated version of Windows XP, with a facelift, and wearing a bulky, unwieldy suit of armor. None of the neat-o new features that I would consider even remotely important, even made it to the final release.

Maybe some day I will see something in Vista that convinces me that it has some value over XP, and then I will test its deeper waters. For now, I don't really see the point. For now, I'll continue on my (fairly successful) quest to help convert as many Windows users as possible, into Mac users.

YAA (Yet Another Astroturfer)

Vista sucks worse than XP which in turn offered little to most professional users (including graphics Video and animation, (my field BTW)) over W2K which was marginally better than NT4 (but carried some functional/driver improvements)

Anyone who says Vista is A worth a crap is benefitting from that statement directly or indirectly (for 90% of windows users it is just not true) MS has been coasting for years, unable to really produce much in the way of real improvements in this products (unless you consider useless bloat an improvement)

Next justifying vista bloat by claiming that tiger is bloated is just stupid. We have an original Blue and white powermac that is running tiger, quite well, it has to be 7+ years old.

Vista, the _OW! starts now... and goes on and on and on...

Beta 2 - January??? EH!? The RTM was in November 2006, so i don't know what this "beta 2" in January thing refers to... (unless you're referring to BootCamp, but the guy is running it on an IBM...)


Mozix - Control Panel\Programs\Default Programs - nice new more powerful options than in XP..at least in my humble opinion. You'll think i am an apple basher (im not, own various Apple produts and love them) - I'm not too sure the upcoming OSX revision is much of a compelling upgrade either - the same arguements for xp-vist go for apple.. Backup, "nicer" UI, new browser, gadgets / enhanced widgets etc.. It's kind of nothing ground breaking in either of the Apple or Windows proposals. Still, i love both of them!

everyone i talk to in pc land hates vista. i've had five friends upgrade from xp who have scorched their systems and reverted to xp. i have another friend who's mother bought an hp vista machine, and it was so buggy she sent it back and bought a new imac.

i know without a shadow of a doubt that my personal opinions would be biased towards the mac, but everything i'm hearing from windows fans makes me think vista must really suck.

"He also noted that while Vista requires better graphics hardware, so do Apple's Quartz Extreme, Core Image and Core Video."

Yeah, right. There is no comparison between the two for system requirements; even w/ 10.5 just around the bend.

Leopard: 512mb RAM, 7gb free space, G4 (800mhz or faster), firewire, DVD drive. Apple is vague on GPU, but if I can run 10.4 w/ a 64mb card I'm sure I can do the same w/ 10.5.

Vista: 1gb RAM, 15 (read that again) FIFTEEN gb free space, 1ghz processor, DVD drive. There are extra requirements for their latest graphics drivers.

I took Vista's requirements straight off Microsoft's site. From what I've read, that is the bare minimum of what you need just to turn your PC on; to put it to use you'd need at least twice the RAM, at least 2ghz and realistically a 256mb or better video card. Those are the requirements for an OS that is on the market; Leopard is still a few months away and it ALREADY kicks Vista's ass.

My step father is running Panther on his second generation iMac. Moreover, it is completely usable for most everyday applications like Mail, Safari, and Word. I even have fired up Photoshop occasionally on it.

Moreover, Vista had over five years to copy OSX. You'd hope it would be an improvement over XP.

Enough said.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Mozix - Control Panel\Programs\Default Programs - nice new more powerful options than in XP..at least in my humble opinion. You'll think i am an apple basher...

A) Nice try. However, unlike in the Windows XP equivalent, if you want to use Vista's Default Programs control panel to set .zip files to open with 'Compressed (zipped) Folders', you can't. Vista doesn't offer it as a default choice, and trying to find the service/utility has proven impossible for me and my co-workers, so far.

B) Nah, I don't call most people Mac bashers, for thinking some part of Mac OS X isn't perfect. I have worked in some pretty 'PC Only' companies, with some really big-mouthed, Mac ignorant people.

Also, if you really don't see that much value in Leopard, then don't buy it! Tiger is already great. For me, Time Machine, Spaces, the re-written Finder and better support for 64-bit Macs, along with a host of other new and improved items, definitely make the upgrade worth it!

I'm a consultant and several of my customers have asked me to downgrade their computers from Vista to XP, because they can't get anything done. On a laptop, even a good one, Vista is extremely slow.

I now recommend everyone to avoid Vista as long as possible.

The biggest problem that I personally see with Vista is that you will more than likely need a good size hardware upgrade for your PC, if not buying a new system. The cost of Vista alone is expensive and then you have to tack on better graphics card, more ram and possibly a larger hard drive or CPU upgrade. As others have stated, there is no real reason to upgrade to Vista in the near future.

The funny thing is that I have Windows-using friends and of the one's that intend to buy a new laptop or desktop in the near future, they are praying that they can find a machine with XP on it...

Quote

Guest wrote:

The funny thing is that I have Windows-using friends and of the one's that intend to buy a new laptop or desktop in the near future, they are praying that they can find a machine with XP on it...

If they're resorting to prayer, they might as well visit the Church o' Steve....
Ready-made, slimmed down ISOs of XP prepared specifically for use with Parallels are easily found. If they already own a copy of XP it's even legit.

I just tried to install Vista unsuccessfully on a P3 800 Mhz with 38 GB free space and 512 MB RAM. After asking for all 4 installation disks, then uncompressing 92% of the files, it halts with an NT-4 style blue screen. I tried it again with all BIOS shadowing disabled per the friendly blue screen advice - same result.

Yes, it is older hardware with _only_ 512 MB ram (!). However, in the world in which I live, any machine with 1 GB RAM is still considered server class. This is a workstation, not a server! In any case, why doesn't it tell me up front if I don't have enough RAM or proper video hardware ?? Thanks MicroLimp !

Vista works great when it's configured correctly. Oddly enough, that's true of all operating systems.

Vista is an answer to a problem not yet realized. It's designed to handle 192 GB, that's GigaBytes not MegaBytes, of RAM. There's not a single piece of consumer level software that needs more than 4 GigaBytes of memory. Most bleeding edge enthusiast systems have only 2 GB of RAM on them, because there's no game that uses more than 2 GB of RAM. Quite simply, Vista is the OS of the future that is not yet here.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I just tried to install Vista unsuccessfully on a P3 800 Mhz with 38 GB free space and 512 MB RAM. After asking for all 4 installation disks, then uncompressing 92% of the files, it halts with an NT-4 style blue screen. I tried it again with all BIOS shadowing disabled per the friendly blue screen advice - same result.

Yes, it is older hardware with _only_ 512 MB ram (!). However, in the world in which I live, any machine with 1 GB RAM is still considered server class. This is a workstation, not a server! In any case, why doesn't it tell me up front if I don't have enough RAM or proper video hardware ?? Thanks MicroLimp !

I've installed Vista on a similar system without any problems. Perhaps your RAM is buggy, try a different stick.

All in all, it seemed a fairly reasonable review. I have not worked with Vista much. The only real exposure I have had with it is with a UMPC. IMHO, that hardware was underpowered for Vista, although it was the only OS option available for it. That did not leave a good impression. We ended up getting a different model with XP just to make it usable for our purposes.

Yes, there is a lot of FUD being spread about it, just like there is about OS X. I don't think the uptake is quite what MS wishes it would be, but eventually it will supplant the previous versions of Windows, just like XP did.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
I just tried to install Vista unsuccessfully on a P3 800 Mhz with 38 GB free space and 512 MB RAM. After asking for all 4 installation disks, then uncompressing 92% of the files, it halts with an NT-4 style blue screen. I tried it again with all BIOS shadowing disabled per the friendly blue screen advice - same result.

Yes, it is older hardware with _only_ 512 MB ram (!). However, in the world in which I live, any machine with 1 GB RAM is still considered server class. This is a workstation, not a server! In any case, why doesn't it tell me up front if I don't have enough RAM or proper video hardware ?? Thanks MicroLimp !

I've installed Vista on a similar system without any problems. Perhaps your RAM is buggy, try a different stick.

Actually, the machine and RAM worked fine with Linux, just won't install Vista. This machine was in production for months without a reboot handling many thousands of web transactions.

My best guess is that the somewhat unusual Matrox dual-analog video adapter may be causing Vista to choke. But then why should I care? The machine works fine with a real operating system.

My bad for trying out the latest toy O/S before its first service pack release...

You installed Vista on a Pentium III machine at 800Mhz? Or at least something similar? Why? It took 2-3 hours for me to install XP (and by install I'm including the time to patch up to the latest version and install AVG) on an 800mhz P3 laptop last week, I can't imagine the same process in Vista.

I'm also a "longtime mac user" who has had Vista installed since launch and the only reason its still installed is because I would feel like I'm wasting the $200 I spent on it if I just wiped the HD and went out and bought a copy of XP (Built this machine myself so it didn't come with an OS). Its usable, and I'd agree it has features that XP doesn't, but I Would recommend XP to almost all PC users for the forseeable future, there are more things that just work more easily for most people.

Apple summarized it pretty well with the "allow or deny" mac ads, I get really tired of the OS treating me like I don't know how to wipe my own ass. I'd almost prefer being marginally less safe if it wasn't so damn annoying. With the exception of a kernel panic, how often does OS X dim the screen and force you to click on a dialog box before going forward? I've had Vista do that more than a dozen times in the space of 5 minutes before, and not during software installation or something else taxing of that nature. Not to mention how it has completely hosed several games by doing that in the middle of a FRAKKING GAME! So much for being a great OS for gaming.

Man, Vista doesn't hold a candle to Mac OS X Tiger. It's still Winblows! Who wants Windblows!? I love OS X Tiger! Screw Windblows! I use to own Windblows. Then a little friend told me the facts. He was right. Apple makes the best OS. You just can't beat the fluid action of OS X. You just can't beat it's solid performance. You just can't beat it's taste and vision. You just can't beat Apple when it comes to producing quality form factor and a quality operating system. MIcrosoft will NEVER pull it off! Apple will always be one step ahead. And now, Apple computers run Winblows. So, what's the use? Really? Wake up PC users.

Mac rocks! Windblows knows! Mac rocks!

Yep! And, what about that security Vista has? Still hiding something in the code of Windows so all the Winblows users can be victims of conspiracy. Pathetic! Don't tell me Microsoft doesn't give information out on all Winblows PC users at home. What you like. What you don't like. Check out the bundles of software you get on a PC you don't need. I never have found a single program on my Macbook Pro I didn't need sometime or another. Everything I need is right here and everything I don't need isn't on here. So there. So, go ahead. Pay for that bundle of BLOATWARE you get. I'll still ride with Mac.

No, it's not true for MAC OS X Tiger. I just booted mine up and it worked just fine. Didn't have to configure a thing, and then I deleted the whole thing and reinstalled it by sticking in the System OS X Tiger disks? And, guess what? Didn't have to configure a thing. So, might want to correct yourself and say: "Most every OS needs to be configured properly to work, but OS X Tiger is an exception. It runs perfectly out of the box."

Dude, why are you replying to yourself?

4 posts from the same IP in 6 minutes.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
I just tried to install Vista unsuccessfully on a P3 800 Mhz with 38 GB free space and 512 MB RAM. After asking for all 4 installation disks, then uncompressing 92% of the files, it halts with an NT-4 style blue screen. I tried it again with all BIOS shadowing disabled per the friendly blue screen advice - same result.

Yes, it is older hardware with _only_ 512 MB ram (!). However, in the world in which I live, any machine with 1 GB RAM is still considered server class. This is a workstation, not a server! In any case, why doesn't it tell me up front if I don't have enough RAM or proper video hardware ?? Thanks MicroLimp !

I've installed Vista on a similar system without any problems. Perhaps your RAM is buggy, try a different stick.

Actually, the machine and RAM worked fine with Linux, just won't install Vista. This machine was in production for months without a reboot handling many thousands of web transactions.

My best guess is that the somewhat unusual Matrox dual-analog video adapter may be causing Vista to choke. But then why should I care? The machine works fine with a real operating system.

My bad for trying out the latest toy O/S before its first service pack release...

Yes, because it's Microsoft's job to write the drivers for your video card.

BTW, you never mentioned what version of Linux your running.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
I just tried to install Vista unsuccessfully on a P3 800 Mhz with 38 GB free space and 512 MB RAM. After asking for all 4 installation disks, then uncompressing 92% of the files, it halts with an NT-4 style blue screen. I tried it again with all BIOS shadowing disabled per the friendly blue screen advice - same result.

Yes, it is older hardware with _only_ 512 MB ram (!). However, in the world in which I live, any machine with 1 GB RAM is still considered server class. This is a workstation, not a server! In any case, why doesn't it tell me up front if I don't have enough RAM or proper video hardware ?? Thanks MicroLimp !

I've installed Vista on a similar system without any problems. Perhaps your RAM is buggy, try a different stick.

Actually, the machine and RAM worked fine with Linux, just won't install Vista. This machine was in production for months without a reboot handling many thousands of web transactions.

My best guess is that the somewhat unusual Matrox dual-analog video adapter may be causing Vista to choke. But then why should I care? The machine works fine with a real operating system.

My bad for trying out the latest toy O/S before its first service pack release...

Yes, because it's Microsoft's job to write the drivers for your video card.

BTW, you never mentioned what version of Linux your running.

Hard to tell, but you're laying on the sarcasm, right? Many (most?) drivers, especially for less common hardware, are written by third parties.

I find Vista much nicer than XP, now that it's tuned itself to me. I found Mr Fishkin's opinion pretty much reflects mine, his obvservations were spot on.

I'm running a $600 computer with 2GB of RAM, called a Powerspec B600. I've bought 8 of these systems for work, and found (except for certain low-volume software) that there's no compatibility issues.

Several months ago drivers could be an issue, but that's worked itself out now. UAC only activates when you expect it should, for example:

1) Installing hardware drivers, why *shouldn't* it?
2) Installing software (also a good idea)
3) Changing system wide settings, like the graphics DPI or firewall settings.

One further comment, UAC operates in *two* modes. First, it asks only for a confirmation for the first user account you set up in Vista, which it treats as an Administrator account. For all others (including the (by default disabled) Administrator account, it asks for both a log in ID and a password.

As an administrator I like Vista MUCH better, since now I don't have to log in as Administrator to install stuff on a user's machine, the UAC prompt lets me raise the privilege level while still in the user's account. That's *very* nice! And yes, I know this is how OS X does it.

The other thing I like about Vista is the search. Not only does it search the disk, but also emails, including the contents of attachments. And it does so as quickly as you can type. Now I see what the hurrah about Spotlight was all about.

Vista search is light-years better than XP's Find. There's simply no comparison.

Oh, and one final comment. Someone asked why Vista can't turn off the fancy graphics for low-end systems. It *can*, in any version, in fact if you don't want aero, and don't want to attach to a domain, get Vista Home Basic. It's cheaper.

Over all, on a newly purchased system there is NO reason to choose XP over Vista, especially considering MS is stopping XP OEM sales as of January 2008.