Vist again (again).

[Imakeholesinu]

Awesome. I hope you enjoy it.

When you figure that the OS is your access to your PC, it makes a big difference if you prefer OSX over Vista. I think I would prefer OSX, too, as this point.

XP FOREVER!!!

[Zeus]

Awesome. I hope you enjoy it.

When you figure that the OS is your access to your PC, it makes a big difference if you prefer OSX over Vista. I think I would prefer OSX, too, as this point.

XP FOREVER!!!

Damn right!

Although I do like the new Apple commercial showing "PC" setting aside money to either market Vista or fix it :-)

[Kupek]

I can't recall a complaint on Vista than "I just don't like it," so I'm not sure what Microsoft can fix. I think their problem is that XP was the first consumer version of Windows that was a solid OS. Every other iteration was flawed, but clearly better than its predecessor. Windows 2000 was a solid OS, but it was basically NT 5, and Windows 98/Me was still the consumer side. XP was the first version of Windows that unified the consumer/business split.

While Vista has some under-the-hood improvements, it's not as drastic as from 98 to XP, so people don't care. What they do see is that it looks different. And for most computer users, different is bad. For the first time, a typical Windows user has no obvious benefit to upgrade, so they're not doing it.

I've used Vista a few times, and I don't get the hate. For the simple stuff I did, it seemed like XP with a different theme - which I like.

Anyway, we've had this discussion before. I haven't seen those Apple ads, but I've heard about them, and they sound disingenuous to me.

[Julius Seeker]

I honestly really like Vista.... I do remember a lot of people saying I was an idiot, but didn't actually come up with any reason besides "It uses too many resources"; a problem which I haven't had.

[Louis]

I don't have any issues with Vista either. I actually like it. I'll admit though, I was one of those XP users that really didn't want to change. The only reason I considered Vista was for Direct X 10.

The only issue I had was getting my video set up at the proper resolution. That really wasn't a Vista issue though. It was more of a 64-bit nVidia driver issue.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

I've got the resources to spare, and I do far prefer Vista to XP. I wish Windows' UI designers were as adventurous as Office's, though. There is some archaic stuff still present that could do with a ground-up rethinking: the task bar, for example. There has got to be a better way of managing your running apps than as a flat list of windows, by title only.* (The window thumbnail on taskbar mouseover thing is a good start.)

* I find OS X's combination of the Panel and Exposé to be superior, but still nowhere near perfect.

I can't recall a complaint on Vista than "I just don't like it," so I'm not sure what Microsoft can fix.

I think Apple have picked solid criticisms of Vista in their ads. Just off the top of my head: User Access Control is overzealous by default, it's not better than XP by a wide enough margin to warrant the hassle of upgrading, and there are too many fucking versions of it. Eight! Jesus Christ.

[Lox]

Vista isn't bad. I prefer OSX though. If I didn't know about the under-the-covers improvements to Vista, I'd see absolutely no reason to move to it from XP. I think what Kupek said is right...there isn't enough different from XP to Vista that a regular user sees. And I actually prefer some of the layout in XP to Vista anyways. Too much stuff is hidden by default and a pain to enable. I was really hoping MS would rip-off Apple when they developed Vista.

I've been on Vista doing some development and testing for about 2 1/2 months and it hasn't shown me anything to make me go "wow".

[Kupek]

User Access Control is overzealous by default

Is it more zealous than Linux? (This is a legit question, not a smartass remark.)

[Zeus]

I've used Vista a few times, and I don't get the hate. For the simple stuff I did, it seemed like XP with a different theme - which I like.

The main issue is to the regular user Vista (I'm tryin' Tess) is just XP but with a different GUI. Everything from accessing programs to even shutting down the computer ain't like it used to be. I'm all for change but give me a reason for change, tell me why it's better. I went to a half day class on the changes to Excel 2007 and how the GUI was set up. Things are a little easier to get to if you find out how they're grouped but at the end of the day, other than the increase from 65k to 1M lines (VERY useful for SAP dumps), there's zero difference and you now have to spend time learning how to do the things you've spent the last 10 years doing simply because they just moved it around. Why re-learn when I'm quite efficient at the way it is with the older versions?

It's very similar with Vista. I'm sure if time was spent on it, I would see that there is some usefulness to the changes other than the additions of gadgets (which I like). But it's just different and not "better". That's the problem. And given Microshaft's history, no one is going to make a change until they have to

[Kupek]

That's the same point I made, no?

[Louis]

I should add that with some tweaking, Vista will behave almost identical to XP. After I figured out I could do that it was smooth sailing.

[SineSwiper]

Vista suffers from a similar problem they keep repeating. They act like every new version is going to be marketed to a totally new computer user, who has never used a PC (or at least a Windows PC) before. Usually every other version (if not every version), they completely redo the interface.

This causes quite a bit of headache for the people who use XP every day. Run is replaced by Search. There is no longer a "back" button for Explorer. Vista bitches about every little tiny security "issue". There is even more flashy interfaces that take up more resources.

This problem is even more present in MS Office 2007. I installed it a few weeks ago, and opened up a Word document for the first time recently to print something up. I was greeted with a TOTALLY DIFFERENT interface! I mean, for five full minutes I couldn't even figure out how to print a fucking document! I spent a good part of my adult life figuring out all of the different things in Office, and now I'm going to have to relearn all of this fucking shit!

So, back to Vista, that's one major thing. The other problems are minimum resources and a big gap in driver support. Microsoft is so out of touch with what is out there in the real world, in terms of PCs. The minimum memory requirements for Vista is 1GB. I'm typing this message on a XP laptop with 512MB of memory. Do I really need to upgrade my memory, just so that I can type the same message on Vista? (The 1GB is just the minimum, too. You probably need something closer to 4GB of memory.)

I can understand needing to upgrade a PC for gaming, but the upgrade curve for OSs should be a LOT more forgiving. Linux can still be installed on a 386, so why force 80% of your PC audience into upgrading their PC just because of a new OS?

[Tessian]

I think we've beat this dead horse enough times... but since Kup threadjacked his own thread I'll just throw a few things out there:

1) Vista took way too long to come out; Microsoft admits this. People got too comfy with XP and for the majority of users it was their FIRST experience with Microsoft... that's a hard one to shake. Microsoft has wanted to release a new OS every 2-3 years, XP was out for around 5 years before Vista finally staggered onto the stage.

2) In most cases you are not supposed to be upgrading your existing hardware to Vista. The upgrade process (if you can even consider it to have one) is painful and it's got hefty requirements. There's no excuse to not have it on a new PC you buy, but there's no reason to put it on an existing one.

3) Most of the stigma around Vista anymore is just an "I don't like it" attitude. Really I think MS has been shooting themselves in the foot by making such a big deal about upgrading to Vista... it's like the stronger you pull on a horse the harder it'll fight you. I agree with Sine that it seems MS even MARKETS Vista to seem VERY different from XP and that just scares people and makes them cling to XP harder.

Everyone makes too big a fuss...

Oh and about Office 2007-- it's awesome. You do have that sharp learning curve at first, but once you get over that I find the UI much more intuitive and easy to use than prior versions. I've been using it for 2 years now at work and if I have to use Word or Outlook '03 for something it's so painful. Sometimes change is good

[Zeus]

That's the same point I made, no?

Different perspective, though. I'm saying I'm more on the dislike side whereas you're sayin' "I can't complain". I can and am just reinforcing the reasons behind a lot of the hatred people have.

[Zeus]

Oh and about Office 2007-- it's awesome. You do have that sharp learning curve at first, but once you get over that I find the UI much more intuitive and easy to use than prior versions. I've been using it for 2 years now at work and if I have to use Word or Outlook '03 for something it's so painful. Sometimes change is good

I can see that as things are much better organized, but I know where everything is in the menu system that I want to use. I ain't gonna go ahead and relearn where I have to go to access my tools. Also, for me, I'm more of a "type in the function" guy than the wizards or anything, so it don't help me too much

[Imakeholesinu]

Vista suffers from a similar problem they keep repeating. They act like every new version is going to be marketed to a totally new computer user, who has never used a PC (or at least a Windows PC) before. Usually every other version (if not every version), they completely redo the interface.

This causes quite a bit of headache for the people who use XP every day. Run is replaced by Search. There is no longer a "back" button for Explorer. Vista bitches about every little tiny security "issue". There is even more flashy interfaces that take up more resources.

This problem is even more present in MS Office 2007. I installed it a few weeks ago, and opened up a Word document for the first time recently to print something up. I was greeted with a TOTALLY DIFFERENT interface! I mean, for five full minutes I couldn't even figure out how to print a fucking document! I spent a good part of my adult life figuring out all of the different things in Office, and now I'm going to have to relearn all of this fucking shit!

So, back to Vista, that's one major thing. The other problems are minimum resources and a big gap in driver support. Microsoft is so out of touch with what is out there in the real world, in terms of PCs. The minimum memory requirements for Vista is 1GB. I'm typing this message on a XP laptop with 512MB of memory. Do I really need to upgrade my memory, just so that I can type the same message on Vista? (The 1GB is just the minimum, too. You probably need something closer to 4GB of memory.)

I can understand needing to upgrade a PC for gaming, but the upgrade curve for OSs should be a LOT more forgiving. Linux can still be installed on a 386, so why force 80% of your PC audience into upgrading their PC just because of a new OS?

You have to look at it like this though. Microsoft has figured out a way to make money and make administrating a more marketable field because no manager in his right mind is going to want to learn the difference between 2008 and 2003/2000 AD structures. That's what HR people are for, to find the nerdy fuck who gets off on this type of shit and has already gotten their next generation of certs. Oh yes, not only has the operating system changed (for better or worse) but the certifications have also changed. Long gone are the days of the NT, 2000, and 2003 MSCE which stay with you for life. The new MCITP shit is balls to the wall different. It now expires every 3-5 years (every OS incarnation). There are several tracks you can take and each makes Labyrinth look like a cake walk.

I understand your gripes about office and vista and moving shit, hiding shit, and just flat out crippling or removing functionality that used to be an Admin's bread and butter, but you have to look at it like this, MS is losing market share to Linux in the server market and apple in the desktop market. They are attempting to innovate when they should just stick to their guns and keep with the shit that got them where they are today but they fell for Job's trap. If I may use a Star Trek analogy, Win95/NT was the Enterprise B, the maiden voyage. 98 was DS9, aging kernel that still had potential and was still a huge platform even with it's flaws. ME was The Bird of Prey in the whale movie...a total fucking disaster lost in space. 2000 was D, ushering in the next era to come and XP was...well...Star Trek hasn't come out with an XP version yet cause Voyager never lived up to it's potential. Vista is Enterprise, short lived and no one really got it. As you can see MS has consistently gone with a 3 OS approach. The first one ushers in a whole new way of looking at computing. The second one builds on the success of the first and is by far the shining example of what everyone wants. The third is like helen keller, you move the furniture around for entertainment purposes. Vista is the Helen Keller stage, so if M$ keeps trending this way, Windows 7 will be pretty much what Win2k was as far as an operating system. Then, we are just 2 years away from another XP, but 6 years away from another Vista. And so goes the circle of life.

I have to say though Server 2008 is no where near Vista. This is what an OS should look like. They have re-arranged a lot of things and they are forcing us to use that stupid "Make A Server" utility to add features and roles (yes they are two different things) but I have to say, it took me 10 minutes to build a 2008 failover cluster, 2003 would have taken 30+. With 2008, it just fucking works! Oh and x64 Enterprise edition should make anyone who is running Citrix 4.5 or SQL 2005 cream their panties. You can throw so much hardware at this OS and it will just keep chugging away.

Anyway, Apple and Linux may still chip away at the old brick Microsoft, but they are still just chips off the cornerstone from the house which Gates built.

[Tessian]

The third is like helen keller, you move the furniture around for entertainment purposes.

LOL diamond in the rough there, very nice

I haven't had the pleasure of trying Windows 2008... I'm not a Windows admin so I really only have my Websense servers running Windows 2003. I haven't heard squat about '08, nice to see it's improved.

[SineSwiper]

I understand your gripes about office and vista and moving shit, hiding shit, and just flat out crippling or removing functionality that used to be an Admin's bread and butter, but you have to look at it like this, MS is losing market share to Linux in the server market and apple in the desktop market. They are attempting to innovate when they should just stick to their guns and keep with the shit that got them where they are today but they fell for Job's trap. If I may use a Star Trek analogy, Win95/NT was the Enterprise B, the maiden voyage. 98 was DS9, aging kernel that still had potential and was still a huge platform even with it's flaws. ME was The Bird of Prey in the whale movie...a total fucking disaster lost in space. 2000 was D, ushering in the next era to come and XP was...well...Star Trek hasn't come out with an XP version yet cause Voyager never lived up to it's potential. Vista is Enterprise, short lived and no one really got it. As you can see MS has consistently gone with a 3 OS approach. The first one ushers in a whole new way of looking at computing. The second one builds on the success of the first and is by far the shining example of what everyone wants. The third is like helen keller, you move the furniture around for entertainment purposes. Vista is the Helen Keller stage, so if M$ keeps trending this way, Windows 7 will be pretty much what Win2k was as far as an operating system. Then, we are just 2 years away from another XP, but 6 years away from another Vista. And so goes the circle of life.

Man, much of that didn't make sense. It's not really a cycle. ME sucked for a reason: it was rushed out the door because they couldn't combine the OSs in time. Vista was basically the OPPOSITE problem: they spend so much time tinkering with it that they ended up with a bloated OS that nobody can recognize from XP. (Pet peeve: If Apple released the exact same thing as "OS XI", people would be praising how "innovative" it would be.)

I have to say though Server 2008 is no where near Vista. This is what an OS should look like. They have re-arranged a lot of things and they are forcing us to use that stupid "Make A Server" utility to add features and roles (yes they are two different things) but I have to say, it took me 10 minutes to build a 2008 failover cluster, 2003 would have taken 30+. With 2008, it just fucking works! Oh and x64 Enterprise edition should make anyone who is running Citrix 4.5 or SQL 2005 cream their panties. You can throw so much hardware at this OS and it will just keep chugging away.

Whatever happened to "we're crossing the code streams" and XP being the single OS for both home and server? It seems like they are really going backwards on that (good) idea. If they designed an OS that was both friendly (home) AND efficient (server), we wouldn't have any gripes about it, really.

Anyway, Apple and Linux may still chip away at the old brick Microsoft, but they are still just chips off the cornerstone from the house which Gates built.

Maybe Apple is chipping away at the home market, but Linux and Solaris are using bulldozers at the Gates house. We're an Oracle/Solaris and Linux shop for our servers, and only use Windows when some application forces us to.