Your View on Vista

[Wyrd-Hotd]

Ya no kidding, i dont know im running 3 GB of 667 ram and my machine is wicked fast so i think its perfectly fine, although i am looking forward to using windows 7 when it comes out full.

[DogboyShugo]

I can't stand Vista

[Wyrd-Hotd]

Bah, its like a parasite it will grow on ya

[Tommy]

I'm a graphics programmer and I spend most of my day coding around Vista's peculiarities. It's not totally horrendous. UAC is actually a step in the right direction, as XP's method of security is pretty much to just leave the whole thing open. Though it is definantly a bit overzealous. RAM usage is definantly insane, which is my major complaint. The four gigs of RAM in my PC is rarely used to it's fullest in XP. I could've saved some money on my computer if I weren't forced to use vista. However it is a very well documented OS compared to say Mac OSX. Which is a minefield of bad documentation:P  Very little is left obscure and despite a few stupid decisions on Microsoft's part. (Dropping Managed DirectX) I really can't complain that much from the developer side of things. It tries to make my life easier, and for that, I am honestly grateful:P

[Drewdle]

I've had a number of run-ins with Vista. Not all of them were poor, however. I found the best, most stable installs were done with genuine Microsoft disks, not the pre-bundled crap you get with new PCs, which as already noted, has a number of flaws, not least of which is the sheer amount of trialware.

I actually feel for Microsoft in this case. I mean, here's a company that has to write software to run on 90% of the world's home computing market, and make it run acceptably well on a bazillion different brands and combinations of hardware. That Vista boots at all should be considered a triumph. However, Vista was doomed the moment it got dumped on the market. For spending five years and billions of dollars, the result shows just how inefficient Microsoft has become, where they used to be pretty smart about things. For example: why should we still be seeing DOS based blue screen error messages in 2009? They also didn't offer enough compelling reasons for people to upgrade. I'm sorry, but "Improved Safety & Security" is not a feature, it's an expectation that you're going to keep your customers safe if they trust their electronic lives to your software. And why do you need a four-core, multiple gigabytes of memory system to get merely acceptable performance? Could they not have made it more secure but also more efficient?

I think Microsoft needs to re-evaluate what their market needs. If they put in their collective skill, experience, and considerable cash reserves to developing the first Windows to run on UNIX,  I have faith enough that they could come up with a piece of software not only backwards compatible with old Windows software, but far more stable and secure than the current NT kernel, which still dates back to Windows 2000/NT 5. This is probably a pipe dream, because for one, they're too stubborn to admit defeat to the "Open Source" software world, and for another, I'm sure that lots of "security companies" have a vested interest in continuing to have all of you pay for anti-virus and security software that should, realistically, be a built in feature of the OS.

Anyways, long winded much, but those are my thoughts on Windows. In summary, Microsoft should give more than a passing consideration to moving Windows to the UNIX kernel. Basically do what Apple did, which was start with a UNIX variant (in their case BSD) and install some closed-source code in the system, so as to give reason to make it a commercial software.

[silver-paws]

vista ticks me off! i run it on my laptop and it has tons of resources to throw at it and it runs faily quickly. but all those resources could be used for other things. but it just keeps crashing and having general failures. such as programs randomly failing then trying to push on then just sucks all the resources up. shure it's nice and pretty, super sleek, and is to me easyer to navigate. solution xp Black. i love the Black os's they basicaly mash the best of Mac, And windows.

[DogboyShugo]

I must add a new comment to this topic. I now have laptop that has Vista and it's slightly grown on me. I still prefer XP by far but Vista can be pretty ^^'''

[Matty]

I think that performance topples prettiness every time

[Wyrd-Hotd]

Bah humbug, it works great for me. then again 3 GB if ram......

[Runemist]

I run Mac OSX, and I love it. My mom, who (sadly) can barely get used to anything other than the old Amiga, has now had her office upgraded to Vista and a few other new things. She complains about it rather constantly!
Personally, I'm happy where I am, but I've had to give Vista a shot on occasion when using a friends' computer or whatever. I found it, for my purposes, like a gussied up version of XP. All I really did was surf the net, and it didn't seem to have any issues doing that! No pop-ups (either from the internet or the computer itself) and no crashing.
So, I'd say it's like most things people do/use on a regular basis...it all depends on what you use it for, and the person you are. Everyone has their preference!
However, if you have issues with it...as a person who barely knows what a "kernel" is, or really doesn't want to mess around with their computer, but has issues with Vista, go for Ubuntu. It's easy, customizable, and you don't really have to fiddle with it. If you have a friend who knows it, all the better!

[Nexus]

Hhehe I got rid of the side bar, kept the UAC, and have many things running on my laptop.

Overall, it's good for general use. Playing a few little games, video editing, school, etc. So i really don't have a problem with my laptop/vista. ^_^

Since we're posting specs:

2.0 GHz (2 CPUs)
3 GB RAM
Windows Vista Home Premium
Nvidia GeForce 7150M/640M
360 GB Storage

My graphic card sucks, but it should run so much better provided VISTA DIDNT RAPE IT.

[Drewdle]

My graphic card sucks, but it should run so much better provided VISTA DIDNT RAPE IT.

That's my other issue with Vista. Why the hell should someone need a 256Mb graphics card just to run their OS? Yes, you can run Vista without the pretty Aero interface and such, but then it just looks all the more like a skin for XP. Tranparencies and 3D windows are very cool indeed to look at, but Apple was able to put the exact same effects into their OS years ago and get it to run on the likes of an ATI9200 with 32Mb of memory, which Vista would sneeze at. Not trying to be a Mac fanboy here, as I have to use Windows frequently too and rather liked XP, but you can't turn a blind eye to the inefficiency of Vista. Purchasing a new computer simply masks the problem. Although, one does have to wonder if Microsoft purposely did that, just to stimulate the PC industry and get people to buy new machines.

[silver-paws]

hmmm  theres a point to ponder

[Kesarra]

My graphic card sucks, but it should run so much better provided VISTA DIDNT RAPE IT.

That's my other issue with Vista. Why the hell should someone need a 256Mb graphics card just to run their OS? Yes, you can run Vista without the pretty Aero interface and such, but then it just looks all the more like a skin for XP. Tranparencies and 3D windows are very cool indeed to look at, but Apple was able to put the exact same effects into their OS years ago and get it to run on the likes of an ATI9200 with 32Mb of memory, which Vista would sneeze at. Not trying to be a Mac fanboy here, as I have to use Windows frequently too and rather liked XP, but you can't turn a blind eye to the inefficiency of Vista. Purchasing a new computer simply masks the problem. Although, one does have to wonder if Microsoft purposely did that, just to stimulate the PC industry and get people to buy new machines.

Dell/HP/Lenovo/Acer/etc buy licenses en masse from Microsoft. Microsoft wouldn't dare let that market share go to waste. They do whatever it takes to cater to the pre-builts.

[Pixel]

I like it. I haven't had one problem so far, so I can't complain.

Also, 100th post. W00t.

[Aurifer]

I've seen Vista black out for a second or two, ask for permission, black out for another second or two, and then resume. On another computer, it'll flicker barely and that's it.

I've had the... ('pleasure' is the wrong word) experience of using a couple different computers. My main machine is a desktop with a dual-core and 1GB of RAM, which serves my XP moderately well. I also worked for a bit on a laptop with a single core and what couldn't be more than 512MB RAM (a Toshiba, which was stereotypically software-bloated), and so I know the difference between a good computer and a crappy computer. Personally, I'd never use anything less than 1GB for XP and 2GB for Vista.

I think Vista was never anything more than a stopgap. Windows 7 is very similar, and it's coming out either at the end of this year or, more probably, towards the beginning of next year. They've really improved the performance, such that I wouldn't feel horrible about getting it.
I think I'd like to upgrade from XP, but I really didn't want to touch Vista. My current computer is two years old, though, and I want to get a new one, so I've really been weighing it with myself.
I suppose it would be fine getting Vista, because I'd be getting a system with dual cores and 2GB Ram. I could get an acceptable system for $600.

[mtnlion]

I've seen Vista black out for a second or two, ask for permission, black out for another second or two, and then resume. On another computer, it'll flicker barely and that's it.

I've had the... ('pleasure' is the wrong word) experience of using a couple different computers. My main machine is a desktop with a dual-core and 1GB of RAM, which serves my XP moderately well. I also worked for a bit on a laptop with a single core and what couldn't be more than 512MB RAM (a Toshiba, which was stereotypically software-bloated), and so I know the difference between a good computer and a crappy computer. Personally, I'd never use anything less than 1GB for XP and 2GB for Vista.

I think Vista was never anything more than a stopgap. Windows 7 is very similar, and it's coming out either at the end of this year or, more probably, towards the beginning of next year. They've really improved the performance, such that I wouldn't feel horrible about getting it.
I think I'd like to upgrade from XP, but I really didn't want to touch Vista. My current computer is two years old, though, and I want to get a new one, so I've really been weighing it with myself.
I suppose it would be fine getting Vista, because I'd be getting a system with dual cores and 2GB Ram. I could get an acceptable system for $600.

I actually have my system dual booting Vista Ultimate 64, and Windows 7 Ultimate, albeit the 32bit version, and the performance difference is night and day. Although something's they've changed from Vista will drive you mad (anyone with a dialup connection will understand, click 16 different windows to actually try and dial), it feels almost exactly the same.. but.. peppier..

For people who do not have Vista, just for the performance differences I say wait, and get 7. I honestly believe that with some of the BS disabled, 7 would run as good as XP on your system.

If you're looking for much much better performance, I always found that Server 2003 was the ultimate. My old Athlon 2500/1gb DDR400 system used to boot up in less than 10 seconds from hitting the power button, and shut down in less than 15. The responsiveness was fantastic. It reminded me of 2000, but with DX9 / XP software support and better boot/shutdown.


mtn

[DERP]

First blunt thing first: Microsoft Windows Vista suckz.

I have had it crash and everything while i am trying to do networking and script writing with it

(I write scripts.... and thats all you people should know.. *looks suspicious; then scampers off*)