Vista has caused us much grief at the workplace and we have rolled everything back to XP. Besides compatibility issues, there are permissions issues, poor performance, a plethora of others that really hamstring our business. Yes, security is important, but not at the top of everyones list. The added gadgets, bells and whistles can be fun, but, Vista, at this time, is not worth the hassles.

You didn't test it on your network with your applications prior to rolling it out?

*laughing my a** off*

I bet you're certified, too. That would totally make my day.

I don't know 'bout you guys, but to date, all of our client/server environments still run XP Pro, so we are desperately waiting for, and looking forward to SP 3.0 for XP.

I also think SP 1 for Vista should make a significant impact for Vista's sales & marketing. After all, its the "out-of-box" experience that effects the end user most. People really get annoyed when things don't work right, regardless of whether its been addressed in a Windows Update or not. Everyone (these days especially) expects instant everything. With Vista SP 1 pre-installed, there may be a heck of a lot less XP rollbacks.

There is NO WAY I WANT VISTA!!!!!

I WILL ONLY HAVE "XP PRO" on my home or business (office systems).

I DONT WANT "VISTA" interfaces or security as part of my XP UPDATE SP3.

VISTA SUCKS and I have made a good business removing VISTA and the user purchases XP HOME or PRO.

VISTA = ME and even a bigger DOG.

Good business? Here I thought it was due to your excellent people skills...

Good business, hmm? So in other words, you impose your personal opinions of Vista on your "users" and they are persuaded to purchase XP (from you?) when they most likely do not need to? The fact alone that you say you make a good business removing Vista implies that the PC came with it, is designed for it, and is probably more than capable of running it. However, it seems your own greed is clouding your judgment and your ability to decide what's best for your customers (which is what it's all about, not what's best for your wallet).

Good job of keeping your "valued customers" in the dark. You should offer a free jar of Vaseline with each service call... it's the least you could do. *sigh*

WHEN YOU TYPE IN CAPS IT MAKES YOUR POINT MORE VALID.

simply put there are things i hate about vista, xp and linux. But i use all three at times. the good thing is i like xp for its speed on older machines, i love vista for its speed on machines with atleast 1.5 gigs of mem, and lastly linux because the correct opengl lighting . But i hate linux for having to compile so many programs . for it being a bloated thing and lack of games that i like eg flatout 2, etc.

Carl needs to adjust his false teeth as they're slipping. Poor old fella is scared of Vista. Based on your verbage it's safe to say you're a standard end user who still runs Win98. I guarantee you aren't in the business of hardware/software installs or integration.

Poor old fella.. technology is passing you by.

CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!

It's the equivalent of listening to white noise... extremely annoying. :(

Sorry, that was sarcasm. I keep forgetting to point that out when I think it's obvious.

No, no... I knew what you meant. I know you better than that. :)

Damn. They're catching on. I'll have to change things up again now.

Thanks....jerk.

Why you little... !

Oh, I get it. :)

Why must you constantly defeat my attempts to appear jaded and elitist?

It must be in your upbringing. Did your parents beat you when you were a child?

Did they not beat you enough??

One way or another, I *will* offend you. I have dropped all prior goals and will focus on this one solely until I have accomplished this task.

For what it's worth, I'm honestly trying to be offended, I really am. But your name... it makes me giggle, sir.

I have received regular beatings in the past, as a matter of fact. It has made me the person I am today, and I consider myself a better person because of it. It is one custom that is in dire need of being brought back to the forefront of American society. I have made numerous attempts to contact my Senator to propose legislation to bring back this most effective form of corporal punishment, but to no avail. Perhaps they are still busy mulling over my proposals for abolishing Daylight Savings Time. Alas, my efforts continue...

Oh, what the hell... shove off! Let the records show that you've officially offended me now. Happy??

Happy??

Aside from having to read the corp. punishment gibberish (though I agree on DLS), sure.

Blissful, even.

Sadist. ;)

/Thread officially derailed.
//my work here is done.

Oh nooooo... you're not taking the credit for derailing this thread, mister!

*sigh*

When you're right, you're right.

Carl should get all the credit for that one.

I have banned Vista :P
i stick to XP

I would like Vista if it was actually usable.

On the machines at work we have tested it on, Vista seems to hang accessing network shares(a few good minutes too!), yet on an XP box its instant.

DVD's were just pausing, juddering and hanging a few minutes into play back.

It would just sit there saying "Welcome" on a screen for ages.

This was on PC's that came pre-installed with Vista and PC's we already had upgraded to Vista (clean install).

You would click to open say My Computer and you would have to wait 30 seconds.

How could i roll out such a peice of junk to an end user? I would get non stop complaints.

They are just the things that really matter, never mind all the control panel interfaces they have changed for no reason other than we can. Things just take 10x longer to do in Vista, its not productive. I hope they learn from Vista and make the next Windows better, cause we are not touching Vista anymore.

To be honest, Vista seems fine to me. The only issues I have with it is 1. the UAC (which I don't see anyway unless I'm changing Windows options or moving files outside of the defined user areas) 2. networking options are far more complicated to set and use than in XP.

Otherwise, no problems that you see. Of course, the machine needs to be up to it in the first place and with Vista, you definitely need at least 1GB RAM for it to run smoothly.

Network - try disabling IP6, that can sometimes cause a slowdown when other computers on the network only supports IP4

DVD juddering - try the dvd on windows media player, I know of a few dvd players out there that suffer from this issue and are waiting to be updated for vista. Look at task manager to see if the cpu is maxing out.

Hang on welcome screen - search the net from what I've read vista times how longs things take to load on startup and warn if any take longer than in the past. That information could indicate what causing the hang.

Those issues were taken care of by the recent "Performance" and "Compatibility" updates.

A lot of "Early Adopters' got bit by those.

Sorry, My opinion is the only one that counts.

XP blows.

See below for prime example of f**trolling at its best...lol@testmantool

Another dumba** comment from program86.

Avoid program86 like the plague.

Just ignore testmanf**, he's a known BN troll. Its just one of his aliases and its not his fault he was born slow and has to ride the short bus everyday...

Yeah, everyone just ignores him. His frustrations about life lead him to troll and troll a lot. I get a good laugh at watching the testmanmonkey jump through my hoops though...lol

You keep using that word, 'ignoring'...

I don't think it means what you think it means. :)

lmao

exactly pctool, lmao at testman. You summed it up well.

No, I was laughing at the comment I replied to.

I'm well aware of who the trolls are Program86.

the ONLY thing that worries me about Network Access Protection is Who maintains the list of what is required to be updated on the client side. We all know that MS loves to push out some "Critical" updates that are nothing of the kind... Simply things that MS feels you should download that only goes to serve them not you... IE WGA modules and DRM pushes... As well as some things like .Net SDKs that some people may not want to download to the next version at times for legitimate reasons...

As long as the W2k8 side of this process is fully customizable by the administrator its a good idea, Short of that with a MS provided list, Its a building block to disaster for a mission critical network when MS suddenly decides you absolutely MUST download updates NOW, or we will disconnect you from your network.

Some of the other things in XP SP3 are going to make XP very very attractive again... Which is why it was delayed so long... basically vista stability and features without the Vista bloat and big brother Call home checkins. This is a long long overdue SP, even if the worst happens with NAP... I know I can modify that in the registry if MS does not allow it to be as it should be, End user friendly. Well ok at least End Admin Friendly...

I've got several corporate copies of XP Pro 32/64 bit and Vista Ultimate 32/64 bit and two Alien Ware units each of 32 and 64 bit Intel structure and plenty of ram.

As much as I enjoy playing with new platforms, I will NOT be using any more Vista - at least 'till M-Soft gets its act together on Sp1 and probably SP2!

They know they are screwed with Vista and are working on "7" - hopefully it'll bring REAL relief to users.

"perhaps extending its viable lifetime well into 2009"

Well since everyone with a brain doesn't use Vista because its complete garbage, it makes sense to support XP further.

BTW, unless they make a new OS that actually works, we'll be using XP till 2050!

I actually used Vista for a while (trial) and my co-worker's laptop has it. I don't think it's bad per say, in fact it looked quite good, but I just can't see the point in switching. I tried many of the apps I normally would use and they just would not work at all. I absolutely hate the UAC crap even though I dual boot Fedora and have to 'su' and perform some stuff. What it came down to me in my decision to stay with XP was #1 - Price, #2 - compatibility (hardware and software), and #3 - ease of use .. Vista IS a bit easy to use, but it has quirks (UAC mostly).

Holy moly, spam and trolling everywhere I see! Might as well throw my opinion into the ring.

I cannot speak for Vista, as I have never used it at this point.

As for Windows XP, I have used it for six years, and the only trouble I've ever had with it is trying to install older games on it (C&C Red Alert if you were wondering), and yes, I did use the Program Compatability thing. Other than that, however, it's been the most stable operating system that I've ever used.

EDIT: Probably should've mentioned that a patch from C&C's web site fixed the problem.

As far as I know the only thing compatibility modes do is lie to the program and say XP is actually 98 or whatever. This usually fools the installer checks where a Windows 95 game may say it's not compatible with NT. If the game tries to directly access hardware or something like that though I don't think there is much you can do aside from using an emulator or updated game engine.

I use virtual pc and installed a dos shell for my really old stuff. ;) Virtualization is really really cool. I think you will like it. Give that a try for Red Alert... It was a really sweet installation for me, and it runs in a window that way too...

http://www.microsoft.com.../virtualpc/default.mspx

I'm not a fan of MS at times, but I really like what they did with this... I can run a TRUE compatibility mode this way for any software all the way back to a true dos box if necessary... I have also used VMware, but Its not quite as easy to use as VPC seems to be... However I can run a vista emulation inside of Vmware... go figure ;(

I run Windows XP Pro x64 on my workstation at our shop, and use Virtual PC with a Windows 2000 Pro guest to use an older DOS-based app on our server that keeps track of where employees are. I also use it for Cisco's VPN client, since I have yet to see a 64-bit version of that (which is sad).

I used to use VMware. It may have more features and customization of virtual machines (not to mention official support for more OSes), but I haven't seen a need for it yet. Virtual PC is very nice... simple, adequate, and free! :)

So the new security feature requires Windows Server 2008?

MS is always trying to sell you something you don't want. It's like buying a TV, and the salesman insists you have to pay extra for the extended warranty.

The new features are for businesses.

Bah...

Why do I even bother...

yea if your not using Server 2k8 you basically will see no major difference... NAP is not something you will generally want to mess around with if you do not have a server... What some people worry about is how it will be used against the end user if its sitting in there dormant with no Server addressing it... I'm pretty sure that this will be a optional windows module that can be turned off if not used.

Just like UAC is in Vista, yet most never do it. Course if your turning off UAC then why not just stay with XP?

Why do people think that if you dont like something it means that you haven't tried it? I've tried every M$ OS from 0.97 to 2008, and i've been a M$ beta tester since beta of Windows 98. Personally I run XP on the majority of my computers, except my 2003 server and my testbed running 2008 Server, and I like it better. Runs smoother, less hassle. Sure Vista is flashier, I just love error messages in full 3d :P. Seriously Vista has it's uses and is better in some ways, but personally im my own opinion that in it's current form is not worth the hassle. I can get XP to go from cold boot to everything loaded up fully in 20-25 seconds on my main computer. Try that in Vista. Or you could try 2008, it's looking pretty promising. So far in my use of RC0, it's been fast and stable and of course more secure. Vista has a problem playing World of Warcraft as XP does not, but I can play WOW in 2008 with no problem. I had no problem installing 2008, it installed really fast, faster then it takes me to pick install packages in Linux :). So it's stable like 2000, fast as XP as at least as secure as Vista. I might try Vista again here soon on another testbed, but superflous security prompts is worse, cause it lulls you into a false sense of security while the common person just clicks it off not caring. It's just an annoyance to them. Passive security is friendler. As to the point of malware and virus's, not everything is going to be prompted by Windows. It's always best to have a scanner to make sure, but make sure you have a good one. I got a malware(someone on my network installed a trojan) on my 2003 server and Avast saw and heard no evil, but since I was paying attention I noticed it and switched my antivirus and got rid of it. Pick an OS that you like, secure it best that you can and pay attention and surf safely with it.

Pretty much bull maaan.

I also betatester for OS products, not only offices. Vista boots FASTER that XP (just keep in mind .Net 2,3,3.5 and mutlitple options that by default is turned on). XP is 6 years old system and obviously bugs are fixed (if you being tester of XP alfa or beta you must remember how bad it was). Security popups have nothing with Vista itself - its all about WRONG WORKING SOFTWARE (you as tester must knew that working under Administrator is bad idea (but alsmost ALL XP application work that way)), access HKLM for write is bad idea also, accessing \System32 bad idea..etc...

All that above ARE BLOCKED by Vista security and this is WHY I LOVE VISTA. It much more secure than XP+All aniviruses and antimalware tools together. Companies enerate that anti-Vista thing because they are so much lazy fat cats and prefer to earn money doing nothing instead develop PROPER WORKING Application for VISTA!

And last thing..WS2008 - IS SERVER platform, for general public - VISTA. Accept it and stop blame Bill and Company for God sake.

Granted older version of XP were bad, of course, they all are. Of course it's bad to run Admin for everything, you might as well post a kick me now sticker on ya. Security popups do have something to do with Vista, they obviously weren't in Windows 1.00, but yes "wrong working software", isn't that like all software? All software is crap, esp. if you compare it to sci-fi, which some people set their expectations to. Software really should be self containted, and only effect just itself if it bombs, but when was the last time you saw that happen in any windows? Linux or apple/mac or OS/2, yes.

There is ways around all forms of security, but yes Vista is a little pickier about it, but they haven't done enough in the right way IN MY OPINON. You say it's better then XP with all it's AV and anti mal/spyware, that's debatable, but I still wouldn't run an OS without them unless it was linux.

I agree everyone needs to develop working software and hardware (espcially in a state together).

You can use server platforms for home use, been doing it for years, though not recomended for the casual user, based on the cost alone :P.

Where did I blame Bill Gates and M$?

I am a software developer, I resent that. Anyways, since NT, esp 2k, apps are allocated in their own heaps so when they bomb only their memory space is eliminated by the kernel. for them to access other apps would require them to use an openprocess api call prior to parley. It was much easier making software to run on XP than vista IMO

WOW was the one reason i put XP back on. But I'm lead to believe those issues were solved long ago? I assume so too since several guild members use it.

Yup. WoW works quite well in Vista now. Dunno if Blizzard updated something, The performance and compatibility packs did something, or the drivers have simply matured enough, but it's running hella better than it did when I first installed it.

All software has bugs and shoddy software seems to be the norm.

http://www.networkworld....why-software-sucks.html

Almost all the game developers with current titles are now vista certified... That means they either run in Vista natively (with DX10) or in compatibility mode with the new DX9 Vista emulation... I don't remember its official DX9 designation, but its slightly different from the XP DX9... Thats why some of the games didnt run in Vista at release...

Its also worth noting that Bungie is releasing the DX10 emulation libraries so that Halo 2 PC will run on XP. They are in beta now, and work... I'm betting once this hits mainstream in combo with SP3 for XP... XP will be stronger then ever in the market share...

Vista boots faster? OK so it boots in 6 secs instead of 10, Big whoop. My main machines are NEVER offline so who cares at that point?

XP is unsecure because of access to registry and system files? OK I'll give you that but implementing good policies on your network will prevent a lot of that...

Running as Admin is bad on any network, and just as dumb on VISTA as it was on XP. And Yes Vista will run in Administrator mode with UAC turned off if you tell it to. And god help me I know there are millions doing just that so they are not annoyed by UAC all the time...

Vista runs fine on a NEW machine, but if your are thinking about upgrading to it for the propaganda on your existing machine. Put that thought out of your mind right now... Why MS sells Vista as an Upgrade IDK. its insane. Just as insane as the upgrade from windows 2000 to XP home was...

Worse XP Pro to Vista home??? why would you upgrade to a downgrade? Which is what most people do when they go to Vista cause of the extreme expense of the Vista OS in comparison.

I have issues with Vista for many reasons, Mostly the Big borther factor. I just do not trust MS to be the end all be all of GOD when it comes to things I want control of. If I want to download somethign I want to use it. I don't want to be told NO NO NO you can't use that cause of whatever reason. (ITS NOT FROM MS) or it will effect your system files in some way MS does not like. IE some tools for removing DRM and WGA call backs... Doing such things in Vista Cripples your OS. doing the same things in XP, it works with some tinkering... Doing such things on Windows 2000, it simply works no questions asked... If it was not for sharepoint I would say Windows 2000 is perfect for most businesses as client machine. Now Windows XP pro is the standard for workstations IMHO. On a newer higher end machine (Dual core with 2GB ram min...) Vista business. Typical businesses short of corporations are not going to spend thousands upon thousands to upgrade all their equipment company wide just to run Vista well... I think that is the reason MS is conceding this point and continuing to develop solutions for XP.

Examples of things that often do not function in Vista Business...

1: payroll software packages. (Like Sage)
2: human resource software packages.
3: Tax Audit packages.
4: Time card / management systems.
5: Inventory Control systems.

Of course MS answer is to get their MS product to do this for you, but even some of the MS packages do not run on Vista yet. IE Great Plains. I know some will say well DUh if its not designed for Vista Of course it will not work. Yea but MS does not tell you that when they pitch their spill about how great Vista is for business. they often do not tell them that a good 90% of their added un planned costs will be in upgrading those systems so it works with Vista. This si why many companies just do not go to that... they are waiting for their software vendors to issue a vista compatibility release. which has yet to happen from many of them, Or if they have it costs thousands more to attain. So it just is not done...

A good IT administrator will look into a product carefully before purchasing. In the instance of those software programs that do not work, that would have been investigated.
And yeah it was not designed for Vista :) The developers had plenty of time to get their software working under it, if they indeed wanted to.

Yea how many good IT admins you know? NONE. I am a contractor and I see my fair share of the yes monkeys just doing what they are told without testing beforehand... All too often too afraid to stand up to the boss and tell them something will not work when they are told to upgrade something...

Then I get called in to fix the problem they made for themselves... and 90% of the time is a well known compatibility problem and then they do not like my answer... go back to what you had or upgrade your software across the board... OPPS...

Yea, I wouldn't trust most corporate IT departments to know the difference between NTFS 3.0 and 3.1 or other flavors on the 3.1 standard...

You do not know how many admins I had to teach that too. That is like IT 101 crap. But somehow these guys have 40k a year jobs. What a world...

Well I work in the mining/oil industry so I have yet to come across a admin that isnt good.

If they are silly enough to go ahead and do something critical without looking into it they have noone to blaim but themselves.

Been there, done that. All too familiar.

I have been using Vista Ultimate since March. UAC is no big deal. Some of the UI changes seem to be window dressing rather than updated functionality, which is a minor annoyance. I am, however, STILL afflicted with the slow-file-copy bug. I had both variants--the slow HDD copy issue and the slow network file copy issue. I seem to have the HDD one conquered, but not the network one. (And yes, the machine is fully patched) That bug absolutely must be fully explained, and fully fixed by MS before any rollout of Vista is going to be contemplated at work. We are big users of MS Access. Access 2007 is a disaster, and our experience with Word 2007 is that it is slower, prone to hanging and just generally not smooth running at all. I had been hoping that Vista would be a sweet out of the box as Windows 2000 was--not. We won't be going there for a while.

It seems the words "help" and "security" do mean "help ourselves" and "our security".

I love how certain people fault you for trying two different things and deciding one is better. The fact is that all of you Vista-b****ers have never even tried it or have so much money tied up in a custom built machine that has a bunch of peripherals that wont work with Vista.

It's just like the BD vs HD-DVD debate, I have both and one is cleary better but you can get the people who only own the inferior format to agree.

If XP let's any program install itsef and access the registry with you ever knowing and Vista simply won't allow it, how is XP better?

That single question makes your hardcore XP opinions worthless. I can't stand that stupid O/S, it has been nothing short of disaster on any computer I've ever owned.

You are either angry or have no clue what you ae talking about. Twelve years of s***ty MS O/S's and they finally come up wih something that works, and everybody hates it because it's new and relatively expensive.

You guys remind of the people who buy a particular body style car, and the very next year, an improved, better looking version comes along and all you can do is say how much you hate it without ever driving one because you own the "older" model that is now old news and you feel inferior.

That's your opinion, yours is no better than anyone else's here. Oh and I tried Vista for three weeks before going back to XP. It would be stupid to complain about it without even using it.

Umm... either you've changed, or you're an imposter, bud.

Why the hate spray?

As far as Vista's security model versus XP's, yes, I do prefer Vista... 8 days out of the week. However, Vista simply includes a method of monitoring changes that numerous 3rd-party utilities are able to do for XP. Just because Vista has the ability built-in doesn't mean XP cannot have it at all.

I got Vista for free. If I didn't, I wouldn't have bought it.

I've tried Vista. It's pretty. It has better security. That's about it as far as pros go.

It's slower, the security is annoying and will be ultimately ineffective (just another dialog to click through without reading).

I think I went over the "slower" bit too quickly. My games run from 1/3 to 1/2 the speed I get on XP. I spent $150 on a new graphics card a year ago, and Vista pretty much negates the improvement nicely all by itself.

I'll extend the car analogy for you. The new body is completely transparent, bulletproof glass. Nice. But it's also frickin' heavy, cuts your car's top speed and acceleration (not to mention breaking distance) and halves your car's mpg.

Now let me address some of your other concerns one by one...

"or have so much money tied up in a custom built machine that has a bunch of peripherals that wont work with Vista"

That is a valid reason to complain... although it's not technically Vista's fault if your hardware manufacturer doesn't provide drivers. As a personal example, nVidia doesn't support nForce 2 mobo chipsets on Vista. The included Microsoft drivers give HORRIBLE quality, listening to any sort of audio is impossible. I used to have the same problem to a lesser degree in XP, but with driver updates it disappeared completely. I should also add that Linux has never had a problem with audio for me.. plus I think games run better than in XP (hard to tell, not many native binaries for games I have other than q3a based ones).

As for BR and HD-DVD, I agree that it IS like that debate, but only because it's NOT clear. First we have the bigger format being BR. Ok. But oh wait, Sony's making it, so it'll flop. Ah, and HD-DVD is multilayered now squeezing in 1 more gb than BR... oh wait, now we have dual BR/HD discs hmm interesting OH... now whoever mades HD-DVD bought out this company to put their films on HD-DVD oh now look Sony did the same thing over here...

I'm just going to stick with DVDs for now until the fires die down. Although dual-format discs makes me think we could probably end up stuck with BOTH formats easily enough.

I've found XP to be very stable. The most unstable elements are always third-party in nature.... in short, be careful what you install, especially if it hooks into the OS (it's true for ANY OS). On one install of XP I had such a good uptime that the uptime counter rolled over (42 days, right?). Granted that's nothing near some Linux boxes' uptimes but it's
impressive when you consider it's WINDOWS.

"If XP let's any program install itsef and access the registry with you ever knowing and Vista simply won't allow it, how is XP better?"

Some people simply don't NEED Vista's extra security. I know some guys who turned UAC completely off. UAC also exposes some problems with programs that don't properly support LUA (Least User Access). I would say that XP is better in a circumstance where a user WANTED to install that program... at the very least XP is level with a Vista that has UAC off. If it's malware sure, UAC helps. But like I said, some of us won't even get to the point where we run malware, we're smarter than that.

"You are either angry or have no clue what you ae talking about. Twelve years of s***ty MS O/S's and they finally come up wih something that works, and everybody hates it because it's new and relatively expensive."

My previous comment already addresses most of this, but the expensive bit is a valid complaint. Do you know that all Vista DVDs have the same content, different labels? They basically slap different labels and keys on the SAME discs and sell for different prices, and unless you paid for ULTIMATE you can't get at all the stuff on the disc they sold you. Seems pretty messed up to me. You can verify this yourself... Vista installer includes the option to install without a key for a trial period, and when it does it has to ASK YOU what edition to install (because normally the key provides this information, and all DVD images are the same!).

I don't hate Vista. I just think it was released both too late and too soon. Too late because we've been waiting 6 frickin' years, too early because it needs work. I probably won't seriously use Vista until SP1.

"If XP let's any program install itsef and access the registry with you ever knowing and Vista simply won't allow it, how is XP better?
"

now I have to rewrite a zillion apps so their reg stored paths can be recognized in vista, thats why!

next time write your code correctly and you wont have to go back and edit it again later.

like most UNIX admins know, kernel/system space is for kernel/system stuff only. all user stuff should run in userspace only. Vista is first MS O/S that got that right and also did away with admin rights for normal users by default.

Yep good old DELL Express Upgrade to Windows Vista upgrade kit... I got mine that way too... Home premium, and I upgraded that to ultimate using the OS upgrade system. so I got 2 keys for 1 disc now. Whatever... it sits on a hot swap drive that I rarely use anymore... Why? It runs lousy on the equipment...

I have used it on other machines against the EULA to see if I could get a better Vista installation... has not happened yet even on a Intel Core 2 extreme system with 4GB RAM and a 512mb Video card. So I finally just gave up on it till SP1 is released... XP Pro runs like a dream on these systems and have zero driver problems at install. Lets just hope Vista SP1 will be significantly better at least on this factor.

I would not have thought that. It seems like your hardware is more than capable of handling Vista's requirements... admirably, at that.

I know you didn't ask, but on an Athlon 64 X2 3800, 2GB DDR400, 256MB GeForce 7900 GT, the 64-bit version runs like a dream for me.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry you ran into problems with it... unless you simply don't care for it, then congratulations. It all worked out for the best. :)

I am so confused by this. Hardware issues? Driver issues? I only ask because I genuinely believe you.

as not happened yet even on a Intel Core 2 extreme system with 4GB RAM and a 512mb Video card.

Just blows my mind. I have it (ultimate) running at home on an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ with only 2GB of RAM and a cheap-o 256MB PCI-E (7300) vidcard. Damn thing runs great.

Makes me wonder if it isn't a hard disk issue. The only thing I've done that most home users won't do is RAID-0 two SATA3 250GB's.

You had installed the performance and compatibility packs, right?

I'm not trolling here, I am honestly curious as to what might be causing these widely varying reports.

Well, I think this may translate into 2 possible scenarios:

1) Microsoft will make XP worse than Vista with SP3 just to "help" migration (Poisoning).

2) Microsoft understood Vista is a failure and they will continue supporting good old XP.

I think MS is closer to option 1, but I hope I am wrong. Time will tell....

I would say it's a slight variant on 2.

MS realizes Vista needs more work. Hence Vista SP1. But they are also going to continue to support XP. Hence XP SP3.

Also I don't think you can sabotage a large percentage of your userbase and get away without them at least considering moving to other OSs. Plus there's the whole they'll-sue-you bit.

I have a Vista premium upgrade for my XP media ed OS and it's sat in it's cellophane wrapping and will continue to do so cos so far I'm hearing nothing that has me thinking moving over to Vista would be a 'good thing'.

Just as with any other product on the market the majority of the noise you will hear regarding it online is going to be either the fanboys or the flamers, neither of which you can trust.

That said, never install as an upgrade. Period. I don't recall if Vista allows you to do a clean install on an "upgrade" cd or not, but it's worth a shot if, and only if, you have the hardware to support it (2GB RAM, 256MB Discreet Video). Otherwise it will dog your system.

na you can not have a clean install on vista up-grade.

vista dogs your system, in any configuration. same programs you run on xp will need more ram and more mhz.
youd want to wait till you can no longer run programs on xp that you need before moving on to vista. id still go with duel boot even then.

Sure you can.

http://gizmodo.com/gadge...k-hard-drive-232770.php and http://www.google.com/se...h+install+vista+upgrade

It is possible to do that. I think I accually read about it at winsupersite awhile back.

I agree some chatter either way is inevitable but, from compatibility problems to underwhelmed users, for now I'm just not very convinced.

I do have the rig for it tho
(E6700 C2D, 2gb 667MHz, 512mb Nvidia 7950 & 500gb of HDD)
so it's not a performance issue for me.

I really just don't want what appears to be a load of aggravation for little end benefit when my XP is currently so stable & works well with everything I have/use.

I'm sure as time goes by and more and more stuff becomes Vista only it'll push me to move but I'm just not pursuaded yet.

I'm always glad to read these XP/Vista debates tho, besides so silliness there's usually some well informed & interesting comment.

(and yes I do remember when I went to XP 4 years back people giving a lot of similar criticism when XP first appeared)

My comment got moved (what an irony).

Vista will not allow that as other versions of Windows have in the past (boot from upgrade disc, then insert previous Windows disc when prompted to prove eligibility)... at least my copy of Vista Ultimate Upgrade didn't allow that (to be honest, it was the sole reason I chose upgrade versus full).

64-bit version required a clean install, even though it was an upgrade disc, though.

I have to disagree with your statement about Vista upgrade (32-bit... 64-bit upgrade is not an option) dogging the system down. Upon completion, Vista upgrade left virtually no trace of the overwritten previous installation behind (Windows XP Professional).

Yes, you can... and in some cases it's required.

http://www.microsoft.com...grade/upgradepaths.mspx

Did you notice the links I posted that show how to do a fresh install from an upgrade disk?

Yes, I did.

"The bad news? The workaround's almost as much of a pain in the a** as the original problem, requiring multiple installs..."

Have you compared the times required for installation of Windows XP versus Windows Vista? Vista takes more than twice as long, and the workaround is to install it twice. No thanks...

You are correct though. I should have said that it was indeed possible, and is in fact a documented (albeit internally within Microsoft) method of installing the upgrade version on a blank hard drive. However, in my personal experience, I have installed using both methods in the past, and have seen no degradation in performance or stability issues with upgrading from XP.

With 64-bit it's something that I no longer have to worry about, though, as clean install is required.

Thanks guys. Didn't actually know that.

See, some useful information does get posted here on occasion. ;)

The best part about having a clean install of Vista, is that when you install it without performing a hard drive format, it backs up your program files, user data and windows directories. So you don't actually lose anything.

Sorry, XP is a turd that slows down from day one of installing a fesh copy. Every single computer with XP whether it's even hooked up to the internet or not get slow as mollases after a few months.

XP genuinely sucks.

I have has Vista since MArch and not one hint of slow down or a single virus. Also, not one malware program found it's way on to my notebook that has no virus protection or spyware detector.

Vist does it all. Even "Windows Mail", the replacement for Outlook Express has incredible spam filters bult in. Now that my websites server also has spam and phishing detection and deletes mail right at the server, i dont even get a single piece of mail I dont want.

We have two Vist Home Premium machines here, i will never go back to XP for any reason. They can polish this XP turd all they want, Vista rocks in my opinion.

Anyone who bashed Vista has never used it. They just fear change or are pissed off because they don't have the money for a new computer that can handle it.

Don't ever buy a Vista upgrade for an XP machine, you are just asking for trouble.

Also, not one malware program found it's way on to my notebook that has no virus protection or spyware detector.

Bzzt. If you have none installed, you have zero way of knowing this, now do you?

Don't ever buy a Vista upgrade for an XP machine, you are just asking for trouble.

Should be carved in stone somewhere.

XP does not SUCK! You Suck! This article has a lot of supporters to say that XP SP3 Is going to be better than Vista will ever be. I am not trying to debate with you, just showing you my point on it. Well then, Vista is a turd...
Windows XP Rocks! There are two sides to the story...sorry to ruin your reign...Vista is going to loose its spolight and Windows XP SP3 is going to take over...."laugh"

Funny but my installation date was three years ago and it still runs just fine. Just because you install a lot of crap on your computer is no reason to blame XP. I've never had a single virus on XP either. Blame the user, not the machine.

Windows Mail is available for XP too by the way. Doh! I guess you should have looked into that before posting.

Do you work for Microsoft? Are you in the Vista ad campaign... because that's the only way I can see you writing what you've wrote. Windows XP is quite solid, if your copies are slowing down day by day, maybe you should stop downloading porn, adopt spyware cleaning practices and keep your software up to date.

Windows Vista is a lot of bloat with very few improvements, I'm sure you love your Windows Mail and spending s*** tons of money on new hardware, when you've got an updated, usable OS that runs on "old" hardware (you know, 6 months old) and doesn't need a 3d card to run the latest UI. Vista does _NOT_ do "it all" by any distortion of the truth--

and no one here is bashing Vista without using it, nor are they angry because they have an out dated computer.. you're a short sighted Windows fanboy with very little understanding under your belt- but flying the "Vista rocks" flag just ain't going to cut it without some more backing.

I'm excited that there are still devs at Microsoft who understand that WinXP is still a viable solution for a lot of people and has plenty of life left in it.

Actually, Windows Mail is NOT available for XP.

Now, Windows Live Mail Desktop is.

Not you again, didn't you switch to decaf yet?

I hate to break it to you but people who like Vista are not going to necessarily come on a msg board and praise it all over the place, people that hate Vista will.

Your stats are flawed.

"Also, not one malware program found it's way on to my notebook that has no virus protection or spyware detector."

If it cannot detect viruses and spyware, then how do you if they're present or not?

I guarantee you that the majority of the people on here who whine about Vista being slow have outdated computers.

Very true. Never try it. I tried it once, a big mistake.

Nitpicking are we? Ok...

First the name is now Windows Live Mail, they dropped the desktop part. Second it's by the same developers as Windows Mail, and it has everything that Windows Mail has and more. In fact it's meant as a replacement for both Outlook Express on XP and Windows Mail on Vista. So saying that Windows Mail is an advantage Vista has over XP is totally wrong.

Well I think you'll have a hard time proving that. Certainly a lot of them do have older computers, but I doubt it's the majority. Especially being that they post on a tech related site. My computer certainly meets Vista's requirements but I still think it sucks. It IS much slower than XP, I don't care what you run it on. Of course you get so much more with Vista so it's worth it right? Oh wait...

I can do everything I need on XP already, and without the ugly interface, cluttered design, slower performance, etc. Of course being ugly and cluttered is just my opinion, but as far as liking Vista that's really all that counts for me. Same as with the other people that do not like it. Anyway, performance is far from the only complaint people have about Vista.

Ok smart ***, we will just wait and see which operating system will get the spotlight first! We will just wait and see....Not you again-like that is to make me feel like your comments hurt me. I could care less about what you say about XP, get off this board if all you are going to do is hurt other peoples views.....you will regret it!

I dunno Phusion, I personally couldn't go back to XP. Not really for quality reasons (although XP lacked that until SP2 came out) but mainly I've used XP for 6 years and looking at the same GUI and doing the same maintenance has since lulled me into boredom with XP...It's just dead to me.

Secondly it costs less than $100 to put a gig or two of ram in your machine to meet the requirements of Vista, and if you're machine is old, old...it's time to turn the b**** into a server or retire it.

Vista also marks the first time where I dont have to do a fresh install and spend 3 hours downloading all the alternative software to replace the shatty Microsoft built-in software (IE6, Outlook Express, Windows Messenger). Now we have solid entries like IE7, Windows Mail (Live Mail is better though), Windows Live Messenger.

Vista really is a top-notch, solid, secure Operating System that useable out of the box. Just imagine in a few years with Vista SP1, SP2...it will be a powerhouse.

I will commend Microsoft for keeping XP updated and modern. Maybe that will shutup the retards who keep screaming about how Microsoft is shoving Vista down our throats.

I can see what he is saying. I rarely experienced any problems other than a 3rd party program causing some big dramas. It ran well for me on my Toshiba Satellite M100 which is below specs required.
But I can clearly see there are people having problems and it needs to be ironed out more.
It’s just the same stuff being said that was said about XP when it first came out. Win2k was just rock solid then because it was proven over the period of time it was out previously. Now XP to me is rock solid and proven over its years. And yea I removed vista to put XP back on ?. Purely because the only game I play had seriously graphic glitches under vista ?. I believe that issue was fixed very fast but I didn’t wait.

Get off the board if you hurt someone’s views with another view?
I'm sure he's very sorry for hurting your views...
What if you’re hurting his?
A view is a view. It’s designed to be viewed from one side or the other. That’s the idea of discussion

ROFL hurt other people's views?

I didn't realize views had feelings, gosh I am so sorry.

I am going to regret it too, huh?

Since you are incapable of typing coherent thoughts, I'll explain how a msg board works:

You don't need to go crazy with the exclamation point.

No need to get your panties in a twist, discuss rationally.

My point for "not you again" was, you flip out for no reason whatsoever. You communicate as if you are 13 (which you might be and would make a lot of sense.)

Its an Operating System, its not your pet goldfish, Fluffy. Its also not your best friend (god, I hope not then you would be in real trouble) Finally, its an inanimate object that assists in doing your daily work as needed.

Nothing can install itself on a Vista computer by itself, and I mean nothing.

This is why I dont have a single spyware or malware program on my notebook. I get a lot of "So and so program wants to install blah blah blah on your computer, cancel or allow?

My post may have sounded like a Microsoft ad but the fact is I didnt want Vista either. Until I was forced to buy a notabook with it pre-installed.

I read everyone whining like little girls over this and that when it first came out, the fact is, if you actually used it, you would neven go back to XP which lets anything install itself without your knowledge.

I dont know why people have such a hatred for something they have never tried or don't own.

Hey Phusion, we are talking about computers that never went online. XP is garbage.

You are obviously angry about something and don't have a new computer. You guys are all excited because XP is now more like Vista.

Exactly.

I've bought two new Vista machines built specifically for handling the new O/S, I didnt do the "Vista upgrade" which is nothing short of a disaster.

Alex, you are still wrong. You cannot get Windows Mail for XP.

I also use Microsoft Outlook but all my non critical email accounts are tied into Windows Mail. The spam filtering is better than anything you can buy.

PatchGuard and UAC have been bypassed before.

Btw, I use Vista Enterprise 64-bit on my work computer and I've put Vista Business 32-bit on two of my coworkers' computers. There are some things that I like and some that I do not.

Windows Live Mail is basically the same thing, except it's newer and has more features. Funny, I thought I just explained that. My point still stands, Since Live Mail replaces Windows Mail and is available for XP, Vista has no advantage there.

I generally agree with your assessment of Windows XP, but I think the extra-harsh criticism is a tad unfounded... but a respected opinion, as always.

Nevertheless, I use Windows XP Professional x64, and the difference in stability and performance over its 32-bit counterpart is night-and-day (in no small part due to its rock-solid Server 2003 code base).

I also dual-boot to Vista Ultimate 64-bit. I am starting to use both about equally now. The only thing I honestly haven't liked about Vista was the initial learning curve involved with figuring out where certain applications and utilities were moved, and how to access them. Other than that, yes... Vista rocks indeed (except Basic, which is a ripoff barely worthy of its own SKU), with the proper hardware.

As far as the security concerns and performance of XP go... common sense, safe surfing habits, Windows Defender, Spybot S&D, and the recently-added 64-bit support for AVG Free Edition, and I'm good. When you fight malware on a daily basis at work, you know what to look for at home.

It should be noted that the upgrades tend to be a disaster on hardware that cannot support it. My upgrade was smooth. Benchmarks and my performance index were identical between upgrades and clean installs on my particular hardware.

Of course, another factor that could affect performance after the fact is how much use and customization the previous OS had before upgrade. Mine was basically a fresh install of XP Pro before the upgrade to Vista Ultimate, so that could be the difference in my scenario.

I don't have a single piece of malware on my XP box. Why? I browse smart.

I run antivirus and antispyware and a firewall just to be safe, but they've never caught anything more than tracking cookies.

I've tried using Vista regularly (right now I got triple boot: XP, Vista, Linux), but it falls on it's face when I try to game... it's just too slow. My computer isn't the newest thing out there but it runs Valve's Orange Box decently... but only on XP. TF2 runs under Wine on Linux too. Vista? Forget it, my framerates on all Source games are cut in at least half.

And how does that make Vista any more appealing for those of us who don't have $500-$1000 to blow on a new computer?

Vista is the pretty, secure, shiny new OS.

XP is the faster OS which runs on more hardware, and will run new games at higher framerates. I bet if you set up two 3dmark benchmarks on any machine, old or new, with the only variable being XP or Vista, XP would win every time. The only question is how small does the margin get on newer machines to the point where it doesn't matter?

Anyways, my point is both OSs will appeal to different people.

I bought a laptop with Vista and totally hated it. In fact, I was cautiously optimistic before trying and after using it for a few days, completely hated it. Explorer is still buggy as hell. It's slow, bloated, the security features are a complete pain in the butt. (I've run this program a dozen times, why do I have to keep telling Vista to allow it to run?!)

The laptop I bought for my wife was a lower-end machine that came with Vista (and that was _after_ I added memory). It was so slow as to be unusable. I installed Ubuntu and it's as peppy as ever.

I would never willingly run Vista because the things it fixes I never had problems in the first place, and it adds no functionality I care about nor want.

I've never had a problem with viruses or spyware (OK, I got a virus in 1989... I admit it), and I always liked using XP (although I switched to Linux a year ago), but Vista added nothing and took away lots.

XP will never be like Vista, and that is why a lot of people still prefer it, and is why some OEMs still provide XP on certain models of desktop and laptop computers, and is why Microsoft extended support for it.

I understand and respect your personal experience with XP, but in contrast I have a PC in my living room running XP Pro that handles all of my media playback (MP3, AVI, DVD, etc.), PC gaming (NFS series mostly), and emulation needs. It hasn't been reinstalled in almost 3 years, and still runs as well as it did then... and it remains connected to the internet (for regular updates to drivers and Windows itself, AVG, emulators, and periodic codec pack updates).

I could just as easily force it to allow local access only, but I have never seen a need to.

Ok fine, but why does it give you the right to try and "rule" this board. I am trying not to rule on anything, just sharing my view on it all and you are nailing me down when I was just sharing what I thought about it. (Even though I could care less about what you have say about Windows XP, I am willing to hear what you have to say)

Very true, I am sorry if I hurt his...You are a 100% right, I am sorry if I wrote things that many others did not have to read...

Yeah b/c those who hate Vista have guts to say what we think is right, while Vista supporters are out there but in "hiding"......

Well didnt have to read terminalx's post now did we?

Right, you are right..What ever happens with Windows XP and Windows Vista is in the hands of MS....We could not change their view anyways...Ok, I am doine debating about this one and I am going to leave it alone. B/c like terminalx said; this is the same thing that happened between Windows 2000 and XP...I would say that he has some GREAT points too, did not stop and just read them and take the time to think about it...Even though he has good points, it does not mean it is going to change my view...but he did have good points.....

So arguing with you is hiding?

Or could it be that most of those using Vista and not experiencing problems simply have better things to do than argue with a bunch of trolls?

No, I just have not seen a lot of Vista supporters. I have heard a lot about them...What ever, we all have our own views about XP and Vista.

Sometimes there is simply no need to be so vocal about rallying support for something if it works as advertised.

Besides... it's just an operating system, not a football team. :)

Since when have you seen anyone openly support any of Microsoft's products on a wide scale? Most people tend to avoid it due to the inevitable annoyance of dealing with "M$ haters"... it gets old.

I have my own opinion about Microsoft, and while their products are not perfect for everyone (nothing is), they are and have always been perfect for my needs. Vista continues that tradition so far... for me, at least.

Ok, and so does Windows XP Home Edition for me! (I also speak for millions of others) Just "another Vista fan"....nothing that important to see here....Yeah well, honestly what do you think about Windows XP SP3? Or you can just wait and we well see....Ok smarty, give me some supporting aricles about Vista, and some real ones, and not joke ones, I want some real support from your side of this debate....When has Vista's first SP come out? What is included in the SP? What is included in XP SP3, anything similar to Vista's?

so does Windows XP Home Edition for me!

I'm not sure why the exclamation, but okay... fine, you like Windows XP Home Edition. I never suggested that you did not, nor could I really care any less than I do right now whether you do or not.

Just "another Vista fan"

No, simply a fan of products that work for me and do what I want them to do. I'm definitely not a "Vista hater" simply because it has Microsoft's name on it. Windows XP has served it's purpose quite well, and continues to do so in the form of its 64-bit counterpart. However, there is also plenty of room on my system for the 64-bit version of Vista Ultimate, which has given me zero problems so far. That is not to say the experience has been flawless, because it has not been... but in every single instance where problems have cropped up, it was directly related to a driver issue or compatibility issues with a handful of 3rd-party applications, neither of which was Microsoft's fault. On top of that, those problems arose months ago.

honestly what do you think about Windows XP SP3?

Honestly, I'm climbing the walls with anticipation. From what I understand, it looks very promising and exciting, especially the news of enhanced security... much more so than the initial reports of just another "security roll-up". Why call it a service pack if that is all it is? The security roll-ups for Windows 2000 were named accordingly in addition to the service packs already available for that OS. XP should be no different.

To be completely honest, you must be smoking crack, and so must everyone else who is under the delusion that this upcoming service pack for Windows XP will magically turn it into Windows Vista. Where in the world have you read this? In addition to being a collection of patches and updates that are already available, it is merely additional enhancements to security, which can only be a good thing (especially for those who insist that XP blows for that very same reason).

Ok smarty...

Well, you lost my attention from this point forward. You seemed to take my comment as some sort of direct attack towards you, and you're being rude for no reason. Whatever... Why should I waste my time trying to appease someone who is apparently oblivious to the term "google"?

Ok, I am sorry...I just wanted to ask for some supportive online articles that back you up..that was all...I am sorry again, and please if you have time, I would like to read some articles that you agree with and that you think support what you are trying to say....

You're honestly not making much sense to me, sorry to say.

I'm not entirely certain what you are referring to that requires elaboration on my part. What articles could I possibly find to support the fact that I have had no problems with Vista and that it simply works for me? That is all I've said. If I were a journalist, maybe...

Besides, why should the "burden of proof" rest on my shoulders. If you are looking for information, Google is your friend.

Never mind, nice talking with you though...

Windows XP was already better than Vista. Even Windows 2000 is better than Vista. I'd almost say Windows NT 4.0 but since, like Vista, it hardly supports any current hardware I'll call that one a tie.

I have to agree. I was using XP recently until the last cripple..er.. "service" pack made me come to the realization that things were a lot simpler (and better) seven years ago.

"I'd almost say Windows NT 4.0 but since, like Vista, it hardly supports any current hardware I'll call that one a tie."

Huh?! Vista supports a majority of the current hardware out there... Besides, since when does the operating system have to make sure that it supports the hardware... I thought that was the hardware manufacturer's responsibility to write the drivers... Guess I missed that one somewhere along the way...

*shaking my head*

Yah it is the hardware manufacturer's responsibility and unfortunately many of them are too lazy to update their drivers.

Uh, that part was a joke. I started to say Windows 3.1 but I thought that would be too obvious. :P

It doesn't really matter to the end user whose responsibility it is when his hardware won't work.

AHHHHHHHH NT is a bit of a stretch there.. lol Even I will tell you that one. lol

XP is fine, 100% compatibility, security OK if you are not stupid enough to install things you should not, and have adequate policies and user rights setup.

Windows 2000 is fine, If you know what your doing with it. it runs just about everything.

Vista Is Fine IF you have the Equipment for it, and do not plan to use ANYTHING old on it for at least a while yet... As long as 100% of the things going in this OS is New Vista Certified and ready to go. you will be happy... Short of that Vista will cause you a headache.

I really wish Vista would have just kept the new file system in it. That way the upgrade issue on software would be IMPLIED and expected, and indeed required. Then there would not be people out there going to it only to find their old software dos not work on Vista for whatever reason... If its not NTFS that would be expected right? Least it would be by me... But if it is NTFS Some reverse compatibility is implied and that really does not hold true in Vista in many cases... Even Vista networking is a bit fuzzy... Vista to XP works fine, but xp to Vista? just does not happen... And some Domain servers do not like Vista at times as well... especially if there are XP Pro workstations out there connected to the same domain... Workgroup management seems to work better in Vista then in XP as well, but again it can be frustrating when the different OSes try using same resources... Hoping W2k8 will address some of this better then W2k3S or W2k adv server does...

"Vista to XP works fine, but xp to Vista? just does not happen..."

Are you referring to simple file sharing, or are you talking about something a little more involved?

My main PC at home that runs Vista Ultimate (sometimes) also performs file server duties to my other 2 PCs in the house. It shares media, ROMs for emulators, printer... just about everything. I had difficulties at first until I realized the extra effort I had to put in to properly configure file sharing though (password-protected, etc). It was simply initial unfamiliarity with Vista's "improved" (depends on point of view) network options, but nothing I couldn't overcome eventually.

Also, I agree with the domain controller issues with Vista clients on a predominantly XP environment, as I had the same problem at our shop. Then again, our Exchange server has been neglected and a little flaky for some time, so I chalked it up to that. :)

By the way, I enjoyed reading your input on this topic. I haven't seen you post in a while.

The last of our Windows 2000 boxes are leaving production because of the things that XP does, that Windows 2000 doesn't--handle digital cameras and pictures. Everyone has gotten used to the nice wizards that XP has for printing pictures--and Win2K doesn't have them. The networking issues are frustrating. I have the slow-file-copy bug--that's bad. I joined the machine to the domain at work and suddenly FTP was silently blocked. The machine could make a link to an FTP server, it just never could pull any data ro even a directory listing. I disabled the Windows Firewall and STILL couldn't get FTP to work. The 'restore my computer' function DID work exceptionally well though :) It was like my machine had never joined the domain--but all the work files I had created stayed put. Very Nice!

"The principal reason given for the tremendous under-the-hood changes to Windows unveiled early this year in Vista was the need to overhaul the security model."

This sentence made my grammar teacher cry.

It seems that their final goal one way or another is to keep all our comps under their total control. Only they know their own codes.

"Only they know their own codes."

Huh?

He's whining because Windows isn't "Open Sores". :p

hehe, that title is meant to spark the forum!

i dont feel any safer

Just let me know NOW if they are finally going to disable my PCI video capture cards under XP.

Complete lack of support, to appease the businesses that don't want anything worth watching again to be captured, is why I still haven't installed Vista. Pulling the same crap with XP would seriously make me mad...

What are you talking about? I have not heard a single thing about them disabling capture cards in Vista. Do you mean there aren't any drivers for your card yet, because that is hardly Microsoft's fault.

Wait, it's not Microsoft's fault that they changed the driver model between XP and Vista to eliminate previous drivers, incurring costs on either the end user (buy new hardware) or the manufacturer (dev drivers) ?

Obviously. I mean, who can write a driver in under 2 years? How could anyone perform with such a tight unyielding deadline?

/sarcasm

Yes, they changed the driver model. It was an improvement, and it's a normal thing for a new OS to need new drivers. It is not Microsoft's responsibility to write drivers for third party hardware. The companies have had plenty of time and notice.

Wait, MS continually delayed Vista, and the beta was significantly different from the final release. so if driver devs made drivers initially, then they might have to revisit for the final product. If they waited until the last minute, as many did, they realized that many products were 5+ years old, so why bother?

You can hardly blame these companies or end-users for griping about this.

*laughs*

If the majority of businesses were run waiting to see what the other guy did or because something might change in the final revision, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.

They can gripe all they want. They still failed it.

How long has Vista been final now? The fact is that some manufacturers simply dump support for their older products. See Creative for a notorious example. In any case it's still not Microsoft's responsibility.

Creative lost *many* customers over that crap.

Do they even support *anything* but the X-Fi on Vista?

Creative doesn't even support the X-Fi yet on Vista. They are still releasing crappy beta drivers that don't even work without yielding loud hisses, hums and/or BSODs under Vista.

Creative Labs isn't bad about supporting antiquated hardware at least where sound cards are concerned. Last I knew, I can use an 8-bit ISA sound card with Win XP.

That's only because Microsoft still includes the old basic driver for those old cards. It is not like Creative actually sat down and wrote XP drivers for their ISA cards. They haven't supported them for a bazillion years. Just like they don't support the SoundBlaster Live!, Audigy and I don't know how many other products anymore.

They dumped the SBLive about the time XP came out, and probably wouldn't have updated the drivers for it if they could have gotten away with it. Not that it was much of an update. They released exactly one driver for XP and it was crap. So much for LiveWare 4 and their promises of always keeping their products up to date. As far as companies supporting their products goes Creative sucks.

Good luck getting that ISA sound card to work on Vista by the way. ;-)

Crap company. Never buying from them again.

Which unfortunately leaves me with the onboard audio (SoundMax) until someone releases a decent Audio card for Vista.

Sure... hell, I think that if some of you people had their way, we would never move forward...

Seriously, do you honestly expect ANY company to use the same model over and over again when newer technologies exist, especially because there are a handful of users out there that like things just the way they are? How are we supposed to move forward when all you can do is complain about having to upgrade this, that or the other?

I suppose that you are still using the same TV from 15 years ago, right? Or the same 40MB hard drive from 1994? No, because technology has gotten better and your standards have gotten higher.

Companies have to innovate; they have to move forward. In the PC market that means driver model changes and operating system changes. Yes, we incur the cost as does the company that produces the hardware. But, this is the cost of moving forward. Plain and simple...

"I suppose that you are still using the same TV from 15 years ago, right?"

Thats not the greatest example.

I, like many other people I know, haven't felt it necessary to 'upgrade' our TVs to the new ones that are offered today.

Why? Because newer isn't always better.

The fact my 15 year old TV works just as good today as it did back then, whereas the TV I bought last year is dead as a doornail...

You cant support the same dang stuff forever! Learn.

Actually i CAN blame those companies because they have almost had a full year now since Vista was released.

I suppose that you are still using the same TV from 15 years ago, right?

I have a Hitachi rear projection TV from 1993 so yeah. I'm sure many people still have TVs that are much older. You can hardly compare that to using a 40mb hard drive.

You need help, soon. You fantasize about people on msg boards having homosexual feelings towards.

I believe in Creative's defense, they're more concerned with getting their newer hardware to work with Vista's completely re-written audio stack and compensate for it's total lack of hardware acceleration (rendering most of the power of their sound cards utterly wasted on Vista).

Heh, no doubt.

For that matter, good luck finding a motherboard that includes an ISA slot that is remotely capable of running Windows Vista. :)

What??

People no speaky english here no more?

A pc_fool(sp?) was posting nasty comments about you and the above was one of the responses. BetaNews staff removed the postings that were out-of-line.

That may be true, but it doesn't explain their behavior before Vista even came along. They've had shoddy support for years now.

Yea. I have to say the Big screen tv I inherited and my uncle got back in the early 90s is perfect... And some TVs I have in another home is well over 30 years old. Nice Zenith Floor models with Wood enclosures (not made anymore) Thing is some of these things are High quality machines that will have 3 or 4 times the life of a HD TV. because they just do not break. where as the new stuff, blubs go out, Shoty Electronics burn out... so on and so on... And when they blow something as common as a fuse or a transistor, its more then likely cheaper to get a new one then get it fixed because its often not user accessible or soldered instead of being replaceable.

Knock on wood I have yet to have a problem on any of my TVs.

Now on to the point. PC Equipment. IF MS has their way you will be required to upgrade your Computer ever year. Imagine that? a new machine Every single year? What a waste is that? Most machines will last a good 10 years, before needing a major upgrade... IE Processor/motherboard/video/RAM.

Yes the technocrat will buy a new machine more often but not an average user. I know people get frustrated at the HUGE Requirements for new games and such at times... BF2 was a bad one... UTIII will be worse... But what developers have to acknowledge at times is that their audiance may have JUST upgraded for a previous game last year. One would expect a machine to stand up for itself at least 3 years... maybe 5 with a video upgrade at 3 years...

See Crysis takes this into account. they are releasing a game that will run on older machines at lower settings, but the dazzle is reserved for the highest quality machines... thats smart... Thats all people are saying, they do not want to be FORCED to buy a new machine every year for this or that. Be reasonable and make OSes compatible for more then just the highest tier computers at release time.

Yea I have been having a time keeping up with reports anymore. There are some real haters out there, that can not converse civilly sometimes. Sorry PC_Tool...

Haha... I believe my parents still have a old Zenith floor model that uses vacuum tubes. It's probably older than I am (I'm 36), and it still worked fine the last time I saw it (though image quality leaves a lot to be desired by today's standards, naturally).

Obviously. I mean, who can write a driver in under 2 years? How could anyone perform with such a tight unyielding deadline?

/sarcasm

That post was legit. :p

This is fun. I'm going to have to start watermarking my posts. No idea how I'll accomplish this, but...

Every time you post, the URL changes to that of the post. So if you copied and pasted that URL into a file (or appropiate(sp?) program), you could try keeping track of your posts that way.

Excellent suggestion.

But couldn't FakeTool simply do the same?

It probably could (I don't have any experience with it). Even Notepad will do the job.

Adding WGA just seems so backwards. MSFT seem insistent that every lesson learned be eschewed for what's best for MSFT. I'm sick of it. I can't wait until they're not the standard anymore.

Bring on OSx86.

They took it out of IE7, seems they may have realized what a PITA it is to legitimate customers. Either that or they are just willing to let the pirates have IE7 too in order to boost it's share.

Or they legitimately believe that having IE6 and below out there does promote more virii, more trojans, more phishing sites, and more chances to destroy legitimate customers' computers. By allowing everyone to upgrade to IE7, they are reducing the risk for everyone... (ok, ok, I know IE7 is far from secure, but it is a little better than IE6 in it's security model).

I don't mind WGA once. but every few days? no...

Its none of MS business what I do with what I have purchased beyond the initial acknowledgment that I am genuine and activated. that should be the end of it. Calling home and saying Yep still Genuine.. is just dumb and what people have issue with in Vista.

Also The DRM issue. If I want to download and view things without DRM then I should not be burndened with the DRM being in there when I have no intention of using it. I simply want it removed by choice. I have that option with firmware on my mp3 players with UMS Firmware, but Removing DRM files in Vista cripples it. Thats another bad thing. XP does not give you this problem, but MS does not make it easy either...

Windows 2000 has NO DRM in it, and has way of removing IE and Media player from the OS if you so choose. Thats why I prefer it for my multimedia functionality. I can record in Windows 2000 in HD and not have to downgrade my signal because of DRM issues when it goes out to my DVD recorder... I am close to being able to do that with XP. but Not yet... I need to do a little more experimentation with my XP MCE before I have a good Tivo emulation with a dvd burner that runs on XP. In Vista, the things I do to XP to accomplish this, literally cripples it... And that is just wrong... If I want to do something I do not want my big brother computer OS provider saying No no no. you are not allowed to do that... It simply is none of their business how or what I do with my equipment.

better yet having any IE at all is a burden and I want a way to remove it entirely...

how much dmca hdmi crap is going to be bundled into this?

None that I know of. Even in Vista, it's just DRM support. That means it will let you play back the DRM protected media the stupid MPAA puts out. It doesn't slow down your system, it doesn't scan your files and turn you in or stop you from playing your pirated mp3s and xvid movies. I don't like DRM but all the hate towards Microsoft over it is totally unfounded. If they didn't include DRM support in Vista then people would be f***** when they tried to watch their new HD movies. Blame the "entertainment" industry for that.

Now if you were talking about Microsoft's own protection schemes like WGA, yeah those suck but I'm not aware of them adding anything new. In fact they seem to be backpeddling away from it.

I've always loved that one.

Vista supports playback of DRM protected content just like new graphics cards support DX10. Sure, you can screw around with DLLs to get DX10 games to play on DX9 cards, just like you can screw around with protection removing schemes to unprotect the content.

You don't see anyone blaming the graphics industry for DX10, do you?

Not sure where you're going with this. Microsoft obviously came up with DX10. People might not be sure whether Microsoft or another party (or parties) might be responsible for DRM. Part of it could also be that people see DX10 as offering more, while DRM takes options away.

"Where I'm going with this" is pointing out the fallicy in blaming Vista for the DRM on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

Vista just plays them.

As I said, it's like blaming the graphics industry for supporting DX10. Many don't like DX10. But they aren't blaming the graphics companies for supporting it.

How does Vista supporting DRM take options away, please explain that one to me. Having DRM support in the OS means you can play movies in protected formats. No DRM means you cannot.

Now if you mean it takes options away as far as what you can do with your movies and music, then yes but that has NOTHING to do with MS or with Windows. Microsoft doesn't make movies last time I checked. Again, blame the MPAA. All Microsoft does is give you the ability to play them. It's like complaining that your HD DVD or Blu-Ray player has DRM support built in. Well they sure wouldn't be very useful if they didn't, since your movies obviously wouldn't play. I don't like DRM, but if a movie or song is protected, you have to have something that supports DRM in order to play it. Be that your set top player itself or Windows Vista.

Vista doesn't add DRM to anything, it just decodes it for you.

DRM takes away options, period. My comment was not about Vista support for it, but about DRM itself. I wasn't blaming Microsoft, but implying that consumers might, since people like to blame easy targets.

Perhaps but DRM support in Vista does not, just the opposite. I realize that some people may think Microsoft is responsible but that's their mistake. Vista shouldn't be blamed for DRM because of other people's ignorance on the subject.

You're absolutely correct. Fortunately for us, PC_Tool has no relationship to your or your idiocy.

Claiming it takes away options, period (thus ending discussion because you refuse to recognize factual rebuttal), doesn't make you any more intelligent in your position, nor does it make you correct.

Adding support for something doesn't take away options, it ADDS options. 1 + 1 != -2.

Read my comment again. I was talking about DRM itself, which limits what you can do with what it's protecting.

The essence of my original post is that while some people might complain about DX10, it's still seen as providing new features, so it (and MS and video card makers) is given some slack. When it comes to DRM, it's not seen as providing more features but limiting what one can do with the content, so any entity having to do with it gets blamed, a sort of 'guilty by association'.

Fortunately for us, PC_Tool has no relationship to your or your idiocy.

What?

English, man.

Flawed logic. Love it.

Support for DX10 allows you to play DX10 games.

Support for playback of protected content (DRM) alows you to...

...

wait for it...
...

Play back protected content. Sounds like a good feature to me since it's the *only* way you're going to play HD DVD and Blu-Ray content from a computer.

I agree with you. It seems that DRM gets such a bad rap that *anyone* who has anything to do with it is immediately seen in a bad light even if they support viewing DRM-protected content. The only exception being those who claim that they can break the DRM.

What's the public's view seems to be:
Breaking DRM = Good
Allowing DRM protected content = Guilty by assocation

That's my take on the situation. And no, I'm not saying that I consider Microsoft to be guilty by association. I'm stating what I see to be the public's feelings on the subject.

lol I do, cause I hate that DX10 is vista only... Personally I do not want to have to buy a new OS that may well not run well on a machine you get it for just for a game... I think that is why more and more companies are hesitating to release games for ONLY DX10. Most are making DX9 / dx10 titles... with least detail on DX9, or switches that allow it to be played in dx9.

point is I can play bluray or DVD discs in windows 2000 with 0 DRM. And it plays through HDMI no problem... It also will send signal to Component out to a separate DVD recorder unit, and it does just fine. There just is no reason for Vista to have this limitation in there just to annoy their consumers... If people want to use their equipment how they want, and mod their system to do what they want... What business is it of MS to stand in their way? My equipment is MY BUSINESS. Not theirs.

Again post was removed, you didnt see what he was replying too...

And bluray and DVDs play on windows 2000 without the DRM call home issues. so Thats why I never understand what your talking about it being required. It simiply is not... Its none of MS business how or what we do with our machines after we prove to them we bought it and its genuine ONCE. If we want to make modification to OUR machine, its STILL none of their business.

And if I want to play Blurays and DVDs without DRM (which is what is done on windows 2000) its again still NONE of their business if I am doing so.

And bluray and DVDs play on windows 2000 without the DRM call home issues. so T

Requires 3rd party software. :) Just like XP and DVDs. The point was that Vista includes the supprt instead of having to installa 3rd party app (Which itself includes support for the DRM, obviously), so you are still installing support for DRM.

point is I can play bluray or DVD discs in windows 2000 with 0 DRM.

I'm having trouble with the logic here.

The discs are protected, the 3rd party app you installed supports the protection, thus allowing you to play the content. The only difference here is that while Windows 2000 doesn't support playback of that specific protected content out of box, Vista does. No 3rd party app needed.

The methods for supporting playback of the protected content are the same regardless of it being OOB or via a 3rd party app.

XP SP2 is already better than Vista, so why wouldn't the 1000+ fixes in SP3 plus a handful of enhancements continue to be better than Vista?

As for the WGA concern that Avion mentioned, I don't know that to be true. The only reported change in activation is that a slipstreamed SP3 install (meaning a clean Windows install that has SP3 built-in) will not prompt for your product key. It will wait until the initial in-Windows setup prompts (where you would activate it anyway).

I agree 100% with you! You have an awesome point and I back you up all the way!

The SP3 upgrade has Vista's WGA ..........so yer computer will have to call home every so many days

Reason enough not to use it - the more computers that are being forced to call home will mean that much greater chance of breakdown, and false non-genuine messages.

I have a feeling that many people will not be using the upgrade - this one seems destined to be corporate only.

You're assuming that the claim by Avion is true to begin with. I haven't seen that report from any official source, so I have no intention of believing some random poster on a comments forum.

Ditto. To add to that, XP SP2 already dials home randomly (although not as frequently after a few updates). Just install a 3rd party firewall and block the outbound connection.

Proof? Just because the product key doesn't have to be entered until after setup does not mean that it's going to phone home all the time. Once you activate it, you're done. It's the same as before, you just don't need to put in a key to install it.

Reported by Ars Technica - http://arstechnica.com/j...ta-features-back-ported

"New Product Activation module: Just as in Vista, users will be able to install XP without entering a product key at installation."

As I said, that's all it is. So how does one read that and come up with this?

"so yer computer will have to call home every so many days"

lol... creative imagination?

First, I recommend learning to read. Second, I recommend learning to interpret without adding bulls*** to suit your paranoia.

Any idea about the IP(s) that it is calling ? I guess I could find this somewhere on the net. This is because we may want to block all of this on our corporate firewall. I work in IT Security, and by nature I don't trust microsoft.

I have NO Doubt XP will get a new overall on Activation... Anyone would expect that... I am hoping however it will not be as intrusive as the Vista system in that its calling home all the time saying Yep still Genuine. Again ONCE should be more then enough... Stealing resources to ensure their legitimacy is not needed, wanted, or required... Its like walking down the street telling everyone you walk past your name and then calling home and saying you just met so and so... It will not be long before your punched in the mouth for being a pest.

Do that in Vista and the OS will cripple itself... I don't think XP SP3 will be this intrusive. Prob just every few months or better yet 1 time a year... But beyond initial activation and genuine check it just is not necessary...

Use tcpview, the list is kinda big... Thing is they only pop on every once in a while, so just watch and grab them... seems like they change on occasion too for some reason... IDK if the association is with the different updates or what.. but I do know if you block certain ones Vista starts complaining and eventually disables itself until you either release them, or do a manual update. (which then changes the ips it uses.) so IDK what all it is I just know its doing something in the background online that XP just does not do...