What I don't get is that using Aero might be a core part of the Vista experience, but by no means is it essential to running Vista. Isn't it reasonable that users who do not meet the WDDM requirements were given the alternative non-Aero interface and thus life goes on? If you want Aero, add a video card.

yeah your right. but you have to remember that, at least some, users' decision to get vista was as technical as "it looks pretty". Many people equate the interface and the overall look of an OS to it being better.

kinda like putting a body kit on geo metro and thinking it's now a fast car. lol

It also dramatically changes your advertising. You can't show an aero screenshot without a disclaimer each time.

What's weird is that the Vista Capable machines did not necessarily come with Vista itself (some came with XP loaded with the intention of later upgrading to Vista). Instead, they came with a sticker claiming they were capable of running Vista. But it gets worse: neither Microsoft nor the sticker specified which version of Vista it was capable of running. As a result, this sticker meant one thing to Microsoft marketers and something completely different to consumers who found the stickers misleading at the least, fraudulent at worst; hence the lawsuit.

The funny thing was, it also fooled Microsoft employees. One of the most damning emails was from a Microsoft VP who bought a Vista Capable laptop and then was incredulous that it couldn't really run Vista in any reasonably useful way (much like XP on netbooks right now that take 4 minutes just to boot, whereas the Linux versions take 12 seconds!).

"vista has an image problem....period.
Saying it's bad or sux is more of an emotional response than anything rational."

No, ironically it speaks directly to "image"!

Ironically, YOU are the one who has bought into the nonsense that MS believes - that Vista's only problem is one of publicity...of 'image'.

Heck, just watch their ludicrous 'Mojave experiment' ad where you can listen to someone discover that 'you can take a computer with you'! Now THERE'S a breakthrough! LOL! ...As if discovering that laptops exist is a breakthrough for Vista! (rolls eyes)

But hey, Seinfeld solved the Vista 'image' problem. Didn't he? ...Talk about TV "about nothing'!!!

Issues that folks have encountered such as drivers, and the 'oh so small' issue of it being misrepresented in order to try to increase sales of both software and hardware by intentioanlly mistating the hardware requirements, are unfortuntely NOT simply a matter of image - but rather of more substantial issues of negligence and Fraud.

And that does contribute to a rather unsavory "image".

This entire issue reminds me of a quote from the Watergate hearings by David Hungate, who stated that "if someone brought an elephant through that door and I said 'That's an elephant,' someone would say, 'That's an inference. It could be a mouse with a glandular condition.'

"Glandular condition", indeed.
One wonders whether that is a hormonal issue or one of basic intelligence.

Like it if you choose. But there are plenty of legitimate reasons why others do not.

And we haven't even begun to address the problem with enterprise adoption. which is a MUCH more substantial problem.

guess you forgot to click reply lol

let me clarify, the image problem is in regard to the perception that it is a bad OS. It works fine these days. Many of gripes people state are based on old or bad info. The reason most people say it sux is based due to a lot of mishaps that you mentioned.

I am not touching the enterprise segment since i don't think it's synonymous with what regular users think. I would assume architects approach vista adoption from a purely analytical perspective. Any os upgrade on a large enterprise is a big deal and it is no surprise to me that with vista it's even more challenging.

I think we can dedicate an entire thread to discussing all the challenges enterprise migration would incur.

IF only my post was solely in response to only your opinion but an amplification of others...

"Regular users"...hmmm. Oh, you must mean those for whom Vista "works fine these days". Like those with legacy software that is not Vista compatible, or have a printer with driver issues, or have hardware that is perfectly adequate for XP but does not support 'purty' transparency that adds no real functionality - not to mention those who 'fell for' "Vista compatible" hardware that amazingly enough is not "Vista compatible".

Yup, it works great.

Unfortunately, such issues were, and are, real. And because MS has released bug fixes for amsll aggravating issues, these undamental issues, for the most part, remain.

And the real benefit is? Moderately better security built on top of a fundamentally insecure infrastructure? And whizbang graphics...

Not to mention that many may have such specific issues for not wanting to upgrade for such reasons such as data acquisition hardware that utilizes the parallel port on a laptop, which is lost by moving to a new laptop sans parallel port required to support Vista. And the increase in functionality is what? Well, you lose the functionality, but it sure is 'purty'! Even if you can't print what you can't acquire in an even larger foorprint... No thanks.

And as much as you want to ignore the much larger world of IT, Vista is an abysmal failure in terms of enterprise adoption, which has now been rendered almost superfluous by the announced changes coming within 2 years (whatever that really means in MS years). Why even go through the required testing and modifications if only to begin repeating them almost immediately. Again, no thanks.

There are plenty of reasons many are not impressed. If you like it, fine. But there are many substantial reasons that many knowledgeable folks and enterprises have not moved to the wonderful world of Vista.
And "image" is simply a secondary source of jokes compared to the remaining issues.

"But there are many substantial reasons that many knowledgeable folks and enterprises have not moved to the wonderful world of Vista."

As i tried to say, the enterprise adoption issue should be separate since IT folk should have better reasons of why they don't want it. btw I agree with you on the enterprise issue if you haven't realized. At the same time I don't think it's the same think for other users.

In a nutshell I think public perception of vista is skewed for the wrong reasons.

Some people have legitimate reasons why they don't like it but that different than saying that it sux. Compared to xp it's still an advanced.

Also, backwards compatibility and progress sometimes come into conflict. MS has to please both and sometimes has to sacrifice on for the other (not saying it always gets it right).

Let me restate again, I'm not saying vista is perfect, but the opinion the public has (not the IT world) of it is skewed.

btw where's tool?? would expect him to be all over this. lol

Tool is done playing with idiots like Foxfyre (What's the definition of "free" again?) and iTard7.

Tool has better things to do than slam his head against the brick wall of their stupendous ignorance, whether real or an act/game.

I agree with your statements, but will let you play with foxfyre as he turns it into a complete circus of idiocy yet again...

Your opinion is fascinating.

You acknowledge almost every problem folks have listed.

And yet you claim that the very things that form public opinion should be ignored as Vista is wonderful.

Its not wonderful for those ho have real issues with it.

Yet you also claim that for others who don't and are only starting out with new Vista compatible software on a Verified Vista ready computer (certainly not using Intel or MS's standards!) think its fine.

OK. Its fine for them. To ignore the real problems is to have a skewed opinion. So is to think that Vista cannot work in a purely Vista compatible world of hardware and software.

Unfortunately, the majority of the world is dealing with upgrading at least part of their hardware of software in order to use it. Most are not simply buying a PC for the first time and buying all new compatible software.

That market niche is a small percentage of the marketplace that has already been running Windows and already has software that they do not necessarily want to replace.

And I would suggest that it is the majority who have reason to question Visat based upon their own situtaion of having XP compatible software and legacy hardware.

But opinion is based upon experience. And whether each person has actually experienced problems, or simply listened to the cries of too many others, they are still able to ascertain their own circumstances and determine if they have a compliant software and hardware.

And your preference for ignoring the real issues of many (which STILL exist), only to focus on a pristine environment of new compliant hardwre and software is eveb more skewed.

But it is interesting that you would foist your impression on others, just as you complain that others do not accurately assess Vista. To see only the improvements and to fail to see the substantiate compatibility issues is to have a skewed POV; just as to see only the problems is skewed.

But bottomline, both worlds exist. And to the degree that the compatibility issues exist for so many, to ignore them would be worse than simply exhibiting a skewed POV. It would be negligent.

Whereas the issue of MS and Intel intentionally misrepresenting the requirements of the software to function on the hardware matters not if its skewed - as that is a simple case of fraud.

And poor Tool. Just how free is "free" when it costs $14.95, and still $14.95 per month for all of their songs in their libary. We wouldn't want to confuse you further with the price of the "free" $14.95 a month service.

Just how free is "free" when it costs $14.95, and still $14.95 per month for all of their songs in their libary. We wouldn't want to confuse you further with the price of the "free" $14.95 a month service.

Still on that, I see? Fun. BTW: It's $14.99. Just in case you actually wanted anyone to think you had a clue.

It's amazing how my first post here, asking the simplest of questions, turned you into a complete gibbering idiot. Well... Noted. I'll be sure to ignore any and all future responses from you. I doubt I'll even read them, as they contain nothing relevant to the actual questions posed (just pseudo-intellectual tirades from someone who obviously thinks way to highly of themselves).

why does this always turn into people bashing vista in favor of xp, mac, linux, scrabble, ,captain planet?

vista has an image problem....period.

Saying it's bad or sux is more of an emotional response than anything rational.

regardless of how complex the issues are in regards of how it's release was poorly done and all the mess that followed.

the big point is that vista runs quite well now, regardless if you think it sucked before and regardless if it was really vista's fault and not crappy hardware and drivers.

What everyone knows already. Vista really stinks. And how clueless Microsoft is.

Sounds like you're the clueless one.

So, in other words, MS is run by Colonel Schultz...

A while ago this might have surprised me, but not now. Vista was a f up from the start, unfortunately.

That's because the project was so 'rushed'... ;-)

After the many years lead time, one gets the feeling that releasing Vista was like watching a kid who waits until late Sunday night to do a project due Monday that was assigned 3 months prior.

Its a shame that it came to this, it really is. I remember thinking how I'd love for Vista to be everything that XP should have been all along. Not only did we not get that, we got something inferior to what we already had. Long, long ago in an economy far, far away their was an ambitious software start-up ran by a visionary entrepreneur. It got too big, too fast and the rest is history in the making. The story isn't over, that's for certain, and I'd still like to have a happy ending for all of us..even Microsoft.

Nah. Vista just blows. XP = Win

They should have kept and supported Windows 2000 Professional for business and released a single version of XP for home users and not even bothered with Vista. :)

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Microsoft would have actually been better off had they just slapped a shiny new interface on XP than with the whole Vista fiasco.

"somehow we people on main street care little about the bickering between wealthy ceo's."

It's more than just bickering. M$ gave a pass to one of Intel's weak embedded video chipsets and relaxed capability requirements to run Vista. All the other Vendors felt cheated because they had to specify more expensive chipsets to gain the coveted logo. Worse, since the certification process was borked, customers who expected their stuff to work found out that it didn't. It may also have something to do with those missing HP printer drivers for Vista. Vista was compromized with massive DRM requirements, so it was already garbage. But this little SNAFU doesn't help things, and it makes many computer makes suspicious of M$.

somehow we people on main street care little about the bickering between wealthy ceo's.

when is microsoft or hp going to provide vista driver updates for the winxp printers!!!!