My only real gripe with Vista is the time it takes for it to figure out the time it needs to copy files from one location to the other.

During that calculation, it could have already copied them. I don't really need a down-to-the-millisecond assessment of how long... just do it already.

I'm really hoping SP1 addresses that issue finally.

Taken care of for me by the performance patch they released a month or two ago.

I should have stated that I hope SP1 addresses that issue completely then. :)

I have already installed both performance and reliability patches when they were released. Though it has been improved and is less annoying, the problem still exists for me.

Although I have cussed at Vista a few times, I have gotten used to it and have discovered over time that most of my issues actually have to do with problems in IE7. The more I learn about who Microsoft is feuding with, the more I learn how to work around the problems.

I've been running Vista Ultimate since it came out and have very little to complain about. Other then Roxio having some issues... a 4 year old Laser printer I can't get drivers... all other issues have been worked out...
What I like about Ultimate is the ability to run Video as wall paper (Dreamscene) some real kewl scenes you can pick up or create your own. I am running 2 gigs of ram, X1300 X 256 at 1023 megs of ram on the video. §mooth as pie. :o)

I've tried the USB thumb drive 1 gig and did not see any Real Added gain in performance. The U3 Smart thumb drives can be used as more ram on the fly or simply be used for added storage.

Vista has superfetch, which is a good idea but requires a lot of RAM. Some people are trying to run Vista on 512mb of RAM then complain its slow, the minimum is really about 2gb. Thats where the problem arises, 32-bit operating systems have a max of 2gb of ram, 3gb with PAE. When you go to 4gb of ram on x64 with all the offical updates, those available on Microsoft download/WU plus limited release, then it really shines. If you're on 512mb or 1gb of ram, instead of complaining its time for a RAM upgrade :). You could disable many of the services, including superfetch which with limited ram may actually give you a boost, but with an abundance of ram superfetch enabled is better.
Readyboost is good too, but you need a good USB stick - its random read/writes that matter, a 100x stick may pass whereas some 200x sticks fail because those ratings are sequential read/write only. There is one brand that stands out for readyboost performance, but I won't advertise it on here. I have an Apacer HT203 2GB stick for this purpose, which is one of the fastest but doesn't match the other brand.

* 32-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate: 4GB
* 32-bit Windows Vista Starter: 1GB
* 64-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Basic: 8GB
* 64-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Premium: 16GB
* 64-bit versions of Windows Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate: 128GB

Might want to check your facts regarding 32-bit support for RAM greater than 2GB.

Yeah.... i run 32bit Vista with 4gb(fully patched, tweaked, slimmed down of course) and the performance sucks donkey.

You might want to actually TRY 32-Bit anything with more than 2GB and then you might have a clue. Google is your friend.

"Google is your friend."

Google is also an apparently fickle friend. I'll give you one guess how I located the above bulleted list. :)

Sure you do, sunshine. Sure you do.

on a positive and simple note...
I love MS, XP, Vista and Office! :D
And on a side note, I think MS should include an XP session in Vista, sort of like a built in FULL LEGACY XP emu app...but just a thought ;)

A compatibility mode, like OS9 for Mac.

This would have allowed them to keep "backwards compatibility" for 16/32-bit apps while allowing them to market only the 64bit Vista as well as chopping out support for a lot of the older cruft currently supported by Vista.

Cuts down on the bloat seriously for those who don't need that backasswards compatibility and still gives those who need it an option.

Should be more like a parallels session than the OS9 "mode" on the Mac, though.

Hopefully someday... (though they'd be hollered at by the Mac fanboys for cloning another feature)

works faster than xp but with 3 giga of ram, a raptor and a E6600.

OS X Leopard. 8)

looks good. Smoother run that Vista by miles!

I've got Vista x64. It is the best, rock-solid OS I have used so far. Luckily I had relatively up-to-date hardware, so no driver issues whatsoever.

Same here... Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and loving every minute of it. Started with the 32-bit disc, but eventually couldn't hold out. After experiencing the stability and performance of XP Professional x64, I decided to go for it, and haven't been sorry.

What I find very interesting is that 64-bit Vista STILL allows unsigned drivers even with the KB938194 and KB938979 updates installed. Aren't these updates supposed to close any loopholes in 64-bit Vista that allow the installation of unsigned drivers?

What do you have for hardware? I an thinkin about upgrading my AMD X2 6000, 2 gig I think that should be more than enough.

If you're going to 64bit OS, get over 4GB of RAM. Cheap as dirt now and will give you a reason to upgrade. :)

The driver issue is still a PITA on 64bit though if you use a lot of "connected" devices.

Unless you plan using VMware or some other kind of monster app 2GB is more than enough.

Can you point out where I claimed or implied it "wasn't enough"?

For the price of ram I think I'll go 64 and upgrade to 4. DO you now if there are solid drivers out now for the 8800 series cards? That has been the only thing holding me back on my gaming rig.

Ain't got one, so I haven't looked.

I'm using 32bit Vista with a ATi 2600 Pro (drivers still suck ass, even on 32bit), so you're asking the wrong guy. :p

I have yet to step up to the 8-series GeForce cards yet, but that's coming soon (8800 GT). I'm still using a 7900 GT, but I have not had any issues with nVIDIA's drivers in quite a few months... and I just recently upgraded to the 169.09 64-bit beta drivers yesterday. So far so good.

All in all, nVIDIA's drivers have usually always been rock-solid for me. Currently though, Guild Wars is about the most graphically intense game I've been throwing at it for a while... and that's not saying much. I'm sure that's all about to change with Crysis and NFS Pro Street. :)

By the way, 2 GB DDR400 and 1 GB of ReadyBoost are cooperating quite nicely with Vista Ultimate 64-bit on an Athlon 64 X2 3800. I see no negative impact on performance over Windows XP Pro x64 on the same hardware. Why so many people with hardware much more modern and faster than mine are having performance problems is beyond me...

I wondered the same thing myself when I updated to the latest nVIDIA beta drivers.

I don't need the whole service pack, just the "Make Vista Not Suck" hotfix.

Is that out yet?

Too bad Ballmer's too busy screaming profanities at Google to guide his company in a useful direction.

Vista in general rocks. XP is such a POS.

Don't say that to pit$ingo.

I have 3 machines here... one with XP.. one with Vista 32 on a laptop... and Vista 64 on a desktop.
XP has crashed a few times where I have had to reboot... Vista 32 hasn't... and I had to reboot Vista 64 due to a driver upgrade.
XP was reformated and reinstalled same time I got the two Vista machines... Vista machines have never failed to work whereas the XP machine always needs help, either when it slows down to a crawl... or freezes up. I have had these set up for 3 months. Tis time for an XP reformat but Vistas still going strong and faster than ever.
So I don't understand why all the vista bashing unless its because its Linux or Ubuntu fanboys trying to trash an good OS that works.

Obviously you didn't take the time to read the Vista EULA.

oh? a person can't own 2 separate vista licenses along with a couple XP licenses?
Each one of my computers has its own individual license so what part of the EULA didn't I read?

I must have missed something...

Ignore ZR, he tends to be very fanatical and obsessive when it comes to gaining a chance to insult MS. You should see his bashing at other sites such as www.donationcoder.com, he never misses the opportunity.

Being a "fanboy" has nothing to do with it. As I've stated I've used M$' OSes for around 25 years (DOS to Windows) and I've had by far the most problems with Vista than with ANY other version. So, I've probaby have far more experience with it than you do. It is Vista that drove me to Linux.

Hardware shouldn't be an issue. You shouldn't have to buy a new car every time M$ paves the road. Linux has proven that you don't have to and you can still get ALL of the same features as Vista has WITHOUT all of the issues as well.

BTW, this is about those like you.

http://chris.pirillo.com...rong-with-windows-vista/

So he has no issues and likes Vista so he is a fanboy. I see.

Maybe you are just getting too old for this..?

Hardly. If anything it should be getting easier to use. Just like Linux. Its ironic that a free OS, like Linux, is getting easier and easier to use with more and more features than a commercial OS like Vista which is just getting more bloated and more issues. An OS should be written for a majority of users, not just for a very few.

As I've said, that is irrelevant. For every person who has had no problems there are several more who have had nothing but problems with it. The OS is seriously messed up for a quickly growing number of people.

Yes, but look how long its taken linux to become "easier" to use. It has been in existence for around 2 decades and is only now catching up to what windows 95 was in terms of usability.

I'll agree that it has taken Linux a long time to get it together on the desktop, mostly due to stubborn resistance from the "command line only" geeks. However, to say that it has not advanced beyond Windows 95 is either a gross exaggeration or an indication that you have not tried a newer version. Ubuntu 7.10 is way beyond Windows 95, even Windows 98, in terms of usability. In fact; for everyday computing tasks, excluding gaming, I would have a hard time arguing for XP over Ubuntu 7.10. I'm using both right now and I really can't give one a clear advantage over the other.

*poke*

If it is seriously messed up the machine that I have it would be loaded with issues but it's not so that is a biased statement. I haven't loaded it on my gaming rig yet since my new video card doesn't have vista drivers yet.

Depends in the version you get. Ubuntu easily surpasses XP in many areas and just about equal in regards to security and GUI with Vista, plus it is far more stable and reliable than Vista is as well. The only thing that Windows has over it currently are games, but that is also quickly changing.

For a majority of users it is totally messed up and far from being biased. In fact, those who have had little to no problems with it are in the minority. Remember, I actually bought a copy of Vista and used it for several months and my equipment more than met the requirements.

I'm also one of those who had my Vista deactivated just because I had updated my ATI x1650 Pro video drivers (Which didn't have any problems under Vista for the previous 2 or 3 updates from ATI itself.)

Businesses require long-term support and contracts. Ubuntu cannot provide them.

Consumers tend to use at home what they use at work and are thus familiar with.

Combine the above two facts, and one can see that while Linux could be the greatest operating system known to man it will still be a non entity in the eyes of the general public.

But please do not take this as a request to stop spamming the benefits of Linux. The majority should never be used to quell the desires of the few. :)

I would really have to agree with that assessment. I've been using Ubuntu for quite a few months now (though not exclusively), and I've been thoroughly impressed with 7.10 in terms of usability, reliability, and performance. It simply keeps getting better every day.

I'm not looking for a replacement however, as Windows continues to do everything I want it to do, and Vista continues that tradition. I have no reason (yet) to kick it to the curb. I just like exploring all options. PC-BSD may be next... I've been curious about that one for a while.

I've only had to deal with the de-activation woes once, thankfully. All it took was adding 2 hard drives, doubling the amount of RAM, and flashing the motherboard BIOS.

I was using 32-bit Ultimate at the time... figured that would be a good time to blow it away and switch to 64-bit. :)

"The only thing that Windows has over it currently are games, but that is also quickly changing."

How is it quickly changing... seriously? This is an issue that interests me, and I would like to know your reasoning.

This is hilarious.
I think there are a lot of people who have forgotten what XP really was like out of the gate.
Vista64 rocks.

Excuse the pun, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Most people are using 32bit OSes, not 64bit ones. XP still wasn't as bad as Vista is.

I had more problems with Vista in the first day than I ever had with XP. XP's performance was reasonably close to Windows 2000's. The slowest computer with a harddrive I ever used in 25 years was a low-end (but decent) Gateway laptop that came with Vista. I have to go back to my Amiga 500 to get a slower machine. Literally.

Of course, it runs Ubuntu just fine. I sure wish I could get a refund for big stinking turd of a product I was forced to buy.

Same here, and lots of hardware compatibility problems, too. I lost both a new printer and scanner thanks to Vista, and HP still refuses to write drivers for them until MS releases SP1, 16 months after release, and 20 months after RTM!!

I know it has nothing to do with this article, but I couldn't help but wonder why all the PS3 and Blu-ray fanboys don't hold the same level of contempt towards Sony for the very same reasons you mentioned.

the PS3 and Blu-Ray both have full OSes you can upgrade?

No, but consumers are still waiting for things to happen on both... 1 to 1½ years after both have been released.

Clever response though... not bad.

That looks like an HP problem not a Vista problem.

Isn't that more a matter of them getting to a lower price than of operating?

The problem isn't who to blame. The problem is that the consumer isn't going to like the situation it causes and will try to avoid it.

Thus, they will try and avoid Vista until these problems, regardless of the culprit, are solved.

From what I have seen the consumer can thank companies like HP and Creative Labs for this whole issue of devices not working. If they would have gotten their act together and fixed their drivers they wouldn't have been removed from the kernel in the first place. MS is getting the blame for other companies screw ups. Unstable drivers in the past caused problems with XP and they were given a chance to fix the problem. I guess they decided to call Microsoft's bluff and the end result was they not MS screwed the customer.

???

Did you read my post at all?

You posted the same thing I just replied to. It's nice to see you want to make sure everyone knows whop to blame. Really.

I'll say it again, since you didn't read it the first time:

Consumers don't give a rats a** who's fault it is. If it doesn't work, they don't want it. End of story. Really. Please don't tell us who's to blame again. We know. We just don't care.

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

"I guess they decided to call Microsoft's bluff and the end result was they not MS screwed the customer."

How about the customer screwed the customer. Microsoft didn't hold a gun to their heads and neither did the hardware manufacturers.

Yeah, how soon people forget XP WITHOUT the Service Packs. Pretty much useless!

Running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my desktop.
Vista Ultimate 32-bit on my laptop.
Like them both much better than XP on my older machines.

Yup, I am running Vista Business on my desktop.
Runs very nicely.

yeah after awhile, you get used to the eye candy.

and even in slow machines, taking off sidebar, eye candy, etc, still works fine.

iCandy is fine until it rots out your brain. ;-)

be careful, iCandy is being trademarked by Apple. Expect a letter from their lawers soon.

I have it running just fine with the aero interface. I did disable the sidebar, since I dont have a use for it, but other than that everything else is at default settings minus a few service tweaks (wireless zero config, etc). Its running very nicely. Just as fast, if not faster, than XP on the same system.

Sidebar is one of those love/hate features. There's really no happy medium for that, and it absolutely requires a widescreen monitor 22" or more to not take up asinine screen space.

I use it (24") for the resource meters and such, but haven't really found it useful on a day to day basis for much else.

That must be why every OS out there seems to be adding it to their desktop in giant heaps...

In all fairness to Microsoft and Vista, people must try and remember all the way back to 2001 when XP was released. Oh no, thats right, that was perfect wasn't it?! That must be the reason why large service packs SP1, SP2, and then early next year SP3 with over 1000+ more fixes are/have been released.

Then again, XP was just a rehashed Windows 2000, with Windows 2000 being Windows 5.0, and XP at 5.1

Given time, Vista will shine. Microsoft's biggest mistake is the 32 bit only version of Vista, since it can't run 4gb or RAM. Thats 32 bit limitation, NOT a Microsoft limitation. Vista should have been x64 version only, so more time can be spent on one set of patches instead of two.

I'm using my copy of Vista with all the patches, offical released and offical non-released, around 365 patches in total. I can assure you it runs sweet, admittedly I wouldn't want to be running the RTM. Then again, I didn't run XP RTM either because it sucked.

I have seen SP1 beta in action, its runs very nicely!

I have seen a presentation from Microsoft on Windows 7.0 (next one from Vista) which is in alpha stage. Their aim is to debloat Vista with the next released, not so much in features just much more efficient coding.

Even with its faults XP was no where near as bad as Vista is. Not even close. For evey person who has little to no problem with Vista there are several more who have had nothing but trouble with it.

Blaming the user, or their equipment, is lame because it really shouldn't matter. That is unless you're a firm believer in that every time M$ paves the road you have to buy a new car?

Other OSes can do the exact same tricks that Vista does without having to get the "latest and greatest" hardware to run them either and they also have far fewer real problems than Vista as well.

Here is a video comparison between Vista and Ubuntu Linux.

http://www.youtube.com/w...zNQ&feature=related

In all fairness, why must an OS drop in quality when a new version is released? It should be barely, if at all any worse than XP. I might imagine that the driver issue would have indeed been an issue no matter what, but the stability of the OS should not have been any worse than XPSP2. Sorry; there's no excuse.

I really hope you're right about SP1, because my Vista64 is not better. It simply allows me to use my hardware fully, and that's why I deal with it. Now if it can deliver what XPSP1 did, awesome.

But let's recall 2001 -- XP was better than NT5.0, because it was 5.1. Let's indeed hope that 6.1 gets a ton better. Otherwise "7" may be like the PlayStation 3...

I agree... It's especially bad because the new OS gets forced fed down everyone's throat.

And NO-- Vista does NOT run faster than XP-- no way... not even on the latest system with the max. amt. ram AND fully tweaked w/ all unnecessary OS junk disabled: not only does it carry so much more bloat, it's not sufficiently different to be able to logically explain why it would be so superior... and even if one wanted to disagree with the last point: it's still ironing out kinks while in glorified beta.

Especially when M$ is claiming that they sold 90 million copies of Vista. Its more like 90 million new PCs were sold and Vista tagged along for the ride, just like Windows has always done for the most part.

How are you going to tell someone that is USING it that it runs FASTER on THEIR machine and say there's no possible way?

On new Hardware, with current drivers is what Vista was made for, older hardware not so much.

My Laptop (vista) moves faster then my desktop (xp) with the same specs, but according to you theres NO WAY, others will disagree with you as well, but they must all be wrong too, right?

Seriously how old are you using a $ sign to describe a company?

Here lets get this out of the way Apple O$X, $ony, $amsung etc etc. They ALL do the same thing,. they ALL want to make money, they all screw their customers in one way or another, sorry but no company is perfect.

As usual, mileage may vary. However, many people have found have found that Vista is slower. I've run it on a new laptop and a very well configured desktop and found it slower than XP, especially when viewing and/or copying media files.

There will always be some who have a different opinion/experience. If you are one of them, congratulations. However, your comments sound as much like a denial of another person's experience as his do.

Next year? I already have SP-3 on this Windows XP machine. Look around, and you should find it on one of those torrent sites...

Get a life.

NO, because as you stated mileage may vary, he is flat out saying its not possible on any machine.

Which # does your machine have assigned in the botnet?

I can tell you that my 3.2Ghz(1gig ram) Pentium D Dell takes a Big hit when Vista32bit is installed instead of XP... I like Vista, but it just kills this PC. Now, I have the same Ultimate 32bit on a Dual Core, 1gig ram, and no issues at all. Its just make for dual core/sata300, and not so much Hyperthread/ata100... I think thats the big difference.

Calm down and back away from the keyboard.

He said no such thing. You took it that way and you are now putting words in his mouth.

I had wanted to like Vista as well. I even went out the day after it officially came out and bought a copy and even used it for several months. I have a P4 3.4 GHz CPU with 1 gig of RAM and an ATI x1650 Pro video card. I got a score of around 5.6 under Vista where 3.0 was the minimum required to even run it. So, my hardware wasn't the problem as some on here love to blame and I have more than enough real experience to know what I'm doing as well.

And NO-- Vista does NOT run faster than XP-- no way... not even on the latest system with the max. amt. ram AND fully tweaked w/ all unnecessary OS junk disabled

Seems like he did say it to me. Show me how that means anything but what is implied in that comment.

"I am reading that as"

Doesn't get much more subjective than that.

Actually I agree with him. Using the $ is very immature. Do you think that using the $ makes you look cool when describing Microsoft? Do you think you are hurting them?

I dare you to show me one company who isnt out there to make a profit.

It might be subjective, but you go ahead and tell me how you read it. Show me how it can mean anything but. Sure makes it sound like its not possible on any system with the "Even with the latest hardware and maxed ram" comment.

And NO-- Vista does NOT run faster than XP-- no way... not even on the latest system with the max. amt. ram AND fully tweaked w/ all unnecessary OS junk disabled : not only does it carry so much more bloat

Maybe you can't read or don't know the meaning of certain words and or phrases?

It's a major revision change.

As he stated, 2000->XP was 5.0 to 5.1.

XP to Vista 5.1->6.0.

New core, new ways of doing things, new security model, in essence, a LOT of changes.

"but the stability of the OS should not have been any worse than XPSP2. Sorry; there's no excuse."

Different core (kernel for you Linux folks) tied to pieces of an earlier core and completely different security handling aren't an excuse?

No, seriously, I do see your point. The whole network thing, the USB and wireless...all should have been fixed prior to RTM. But saying there's no reason for the stability? Meh...

6.1 (Vienna?) will be better obviously, as it will hopefully not include a huge number of new features.

5.0->5.1
5.1->6.0

The video was amusing though. Bookmarked.

Good song!

"on any machine"

The only place I see that phrase is in your comment.

However, your use of clever insults, bold emphasis, and allcap insistance has convinced me that...well...any further discussion may result in your having a heart attack, so I'll let it go. ;o)

Really, my original comment was only intended to point out that you were using a remarkably similar argumentative technique to his and I thought you could probably do better. My experience with Vista more closely matches horsecharles'. I am certainly not using older or less powerful hardware, so I can see how he would make the claim he did, and I would still not be denying that you could experience Vista in a different way.

Well said.

The Xp Sp3's floating around are beta releases, such as v.3205 which is probably one of the more common sp3 beta's around the place.

Likewise, you can download Sp1 beta's for Vista, builds 6001.16659.070916-1443 for both 32 and x64.

Irrelevant. It should just work. As I've stated Linux has proven that you can get the exact same features as Vista without having to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware or even all of Vista's issues.

My, so many on here need to get a life. Time to move out of your parent's basement.

"As I've stated Linux has proven that you can get the exact same features as Vista"

Quoted for the sheer hilarity of the statement. I won't point out to you why, as you'll simply call me a retard or some such.

Thanks for the entertainment.

all the patches, fixes, service packs in creation won't redeem this utterly pathetic excuse for a modern operating system. i hear more references to the ill fated windows "me" every day... one clever spot refers to the company that gave us Windows CE and Windows ME and Windows NT, now giving us Windows CeMeNT !

You couldn't wait to bust that one out, huh?

So, that's it, your crowning achievement, and not even original.

NT didn't fail and is currently at NT 6.0 - Vista

CE also didnt fail it was pulled apart and reorganized to give us windows mobile

ME was a disaster though

1 out of 3 ain't bad, kind of kills your played out joke though.

Speaking of a "played out joke".... [rolleyes]

thank you for proving my point :)

The one on top of your head with the pea brain?

This is about retards like you.

http://chris.pirillo.com...rong-with-windows-vista/

*poke*

For someone who is supposed to be an adult you really do act like a child. So, if someone hasn't had any problems they are a retard, if they believe Vista to be better over XP, they are a retard?

What kind of logic is that?

It just made a half dozen people in my office laugh and we are all primarily Windows users. Clever is clever, even if it does poke fun at a company you like.

There is a user here who has been here for years called wincement. It's an old joke. You guys need to get out more. :p

"You guys need to get out more."

I'll pass that on to the boss and hope he takes your recommendation. ;o)

We can dream, right?

This is how I treat retards like you who don't have a clue. I don't suffer fools well. Like the video shows you are blaming the user for something that it is M$' fault for making an OS that is worse than the last one. That is what makes you a retard.

They are when a majority are having nothing but problems with it.

Rattle chain....