Posted on 01/23/2009 12:24:39 PM PST by ETL
For an operating system that took five years to create, Windows Vista’s reputation went down in flames amazingly quickly. Not since Microsoft Bob has anything from the software giant drawn so much contempt and derision. Not every company lives to see the day when its customers beg, plead and sign petitions to bring back the previous version of its flagship product.
One thing’s for sure: it won’t take Microsoft five years to produce the next Windows. The company wants to put Vista behind it as soon as possible. In fact, the next version of Windows is almost here already. It’s called Windows 7, and it’s available as a free download, in surprisingly smooth, stable test form, from microsoft.com/springboard (until Saturday).
It looks and works a lot like Vista. In fact, what Microsoft seems to be going for in Windows 7 is “Vista, fixed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The release date can be a lot earlier if you scrimp on validation...
Ok I hate all versions of Internet Explorer. I think it’s inferior to FF or Safari.
But Vista IS NOT THAT BAD if you have a decent comp. Like of course it’s going to be slow if you have a crappy computer get over it.
AKA Windows Ebola
win 7 is Vista SP 2. The only difference is this time MSFT didn’t rush it out like they did with Vista which WASN’T READY. Vista was just a huge cluster f**k because of how it was written. You can blame Gates and the guy, whose name escapes me, who headed up Vista at msft.
“Like of course it’s going to be slow if you have a crappy computer get over it.”
Actually even some people with screaming fast machines have complained about it’s speed. But it’s hit or miss, really. Vista has not been consistently stable. But then again, no initial release of Windows really ever was. The problem is, the user base has gotten a lot bigger over the years so the complaints are more pronounced.
I still won’t switch to it if it’s as full of Nazi DRM crap as Vista was. It’s my digital information, I’ll do with it as I please.
I’m posting from Vista right now using FF for a browser. It is not nearly as bad as its reputation. You do have to shut off the annoying, “are you sure” questions every time you open anything but that was my only gripe.
I turn off all the special effects so I have no idea if the new interface (was it called Aero??) is that great but I do the same thing for XP.
Honestly, I think Vista is just fine -- I use the Home version on my laptop and Business at work. But Windows 7 definitely does seem like a step up.
What if they were to make an operating system that works? One that never crashes? One than never downloads updates that prevent booting?
What if they would forget the fancy stuff and just make it work?
Microsoft made Windows XP too well. I use Windows XP (Service Pack 3) with Firefox 3.0.5. Both work excellently and so I see no need to pay in order to “upgrade” to either Windows Vista or Windows 7. Aero glass is not even close to being enough of an incentive.
I have an XP and a VISTA.
I had no problem with VISTA until recently.
I was on “automatic update”, and it crashed last week, after the Jan. 14th update.
I had it fixed and off and running I am again.
But, seems as if there are a lot of updates. I spend a lot of time researching those things and actually don’t have the time for that.
I sure do like XP though.
And, I was a lot happier without a computer. Hummmmmm, I think....and better off financially.
Welllllll, maybe not!!!
At least the stress wasn’t as bad. ;-)
I have a P3/600/512mb machine with w2k that runs every bit as fast as my AMD64 4gb ram monster w/Vista ... it’s not the hardware ,, it’s the crapware MS sells ... it looks like they finally re-wrote Vista and streamlined it back to XP level bloat... YAWN...
Vista 32 bit is a clunker.
Vista 64 bit is smooth as silk.
Vista 64 is the way Vista SHOULD have been released.
Not everyone can have, or wants, the latest, fastest, most powerful PC on the market. My PC is 3 years old, running XP Pro excellently and considered a dinosaur (939 socket AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core 4200+ - two 2.2GHz processors, 2 gig of PC3200 DDR RAM in four 512meg DIMMs).
Even my GPU is considered old - 256meg DDR3 PCIe 8600GT, but it runs TDU very well, and that's all I care about.
I want to see the shakeout of the 45 nm quad-processors and nvidia quad-SLI price drops before I invest in a new machine.
BTW, they're dropping Vista into PC's that shouldn't be running it. My wife bought a PC for herself without me there to stop her (she said she couldn't resist the price, and she needed a new PC!); it's a Compaq 1.6GHz dual-core with 1 gig (two DIMMs), running Vista HP! There are only two RAM slots, and the max the BIOS can handle is two gig! I replaced her RAM with 2 gig, and it still has trouble running all of her SIMS 2 add-on packs (takes forever to load!).
I run Spybot, Ccleaner and Defraggler on it religiously, but it's still slower than drying paint.
I’ve been running Vista for over a year — seems fine to me.
This may just be more knee-jerk snobbishness (just like the anti-Wal-Mart people). People just hear a bunch of complaints about Vista, and jump on board ...
SnakeDoc
LINUX
Get a Mac
Run OSX
Run XP
Run Vista
Run Windows 7
Run Linux
Best of all worlds
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.