Dont mean to spoil ir for Vista debunkers but I bought a quad core with 4gb ram Vistax64 system in Aug2007 and its the best computer I have ever had. If you buy the proper compatible parts there isnt any problems from what i have seen. My old XP pc is a lot slower even though its dual core. Wouldnt go back to XP.

I like vista for the basic use BUT
one thing i found buggy is
Data Execution prevention (UAC OFF)
depending on how i set it
off -causes msn messenger live to error
on- works fine
on- for other programs (.EXE)cause them to fail ,not load or error.
I cant see how anyone is able to use UAC enabled to do work on this OS
example: try to edit and save inside of an .AS file (flash) on an external hard drive.

i guess i am saying that why would other's want to upgrade to this OS If they cant do most of the same things they were able do in there last OS ?
forget about todays gaming on it ...lol

i have not tried sp3 for xp
It's good to read what others have experience from both operating systems . thanks to everyone who is posting

Problems with Vista, there are a few. I didn't do the dumb thing like instal vista on a old system or use it with old connected hardware. Most people know this is a big issue. Nevertheless, Vista is pretty good. I got a new high end system and it works well. There are some issues. Like windows media player crashing alot. But XP was never perfect either. Anyone who says it is, is a moron. It was decent but needed a ton of work. SP3 wont do anything to make it better. It's just a poor atempt at a OS. Vista is alot better, believe it or not. But it also needs work.

Vista is irrelevant. XP will be supported at least until the end of 2009, right when 7 will come out.

SP1 has solved no substantial problems.

Memory footprint is the same, old hardware is still unsupported, GUI is terrible.

By cranbers said:

"I am not sure if you're just really young , typed too fast or not very well educated. But that was quite simply the worst post i've ever seen. One suggestion for you, firefox 2.0 with spell check enabled. You stated issues that were evident a year ago. I have no issues with at least recent hardware. If you are using a scanner that is say over 5 years old then perhaps it's time to upgrade."
---------------------------------------------
I am one that got the point of this individuals posting just fine with the spelling errors and I have a hunch others did as well. Remembering that this is the Internet, try not to let errors in spelling and grammar distract from the content.

Been useing xp sp3 beta for couple of weeks now. Cpu load while running xp dropped by 20%+
memory usage has gone faster...been useing vista ultiame also with sp1 beta, crashed 2x while install, sound card got lost after install, and other pseudo problems also. People @ redmod should put alot of effort to get vista stable, the biggest problem of vista is comptability with older hardware like printers and scanner, network devices and stuff that runs from com and LPT ports. Luckaly people @ dell still provide desktops and laptops witch windows xp. the loss of office 11 has also been a problem, users that have been useing office since 95 have had alot of problems with relearing office 12. there have also been alot of emprovement from the GNU side, but othing can still microsoft and there products. Hopeing for relaunch of xp.

I agree with this post. XP SP3 RC results in fantastic performance benefits. I've loaded a few on production equipment with very few problems and that have greatly helped with some issues we've been having...

I am not sure if you're just really young , typed too fast or not very well educated. But that was quite simply the worst post i've ever seen. One suggestion for you, firefox 2.0 with spell check enabled. You stated issues that were evident a year ago. I have no issues with at least recent hardware. If you are using a scanner that is say over 5 years old then perhaps it's time to upgrade.

There is quite simply no reason to upgrade to Vista if you're in love with older hardware. I bet if you buy a new computer with Vista, you will have a better experience then "upgrading" to vista.

As for using vista sp1 beta, not even a release candidate you're asking for trouble. Go ahead and comment on RTM if it gives issues.

As for office 2007, I have had no issues. Learning curve isn't anything like I thought it would be. Using all icons instead of a menu driven design, where features are buried under 10 different sub menus was far more confusing. Unless you were trained on the old office programs I bet there are features to this day I didn't know exist.

I am happy they are still improving xp with a sp3. Good for them. Now if they can just push IE8 in a reasonable amount of time and release it on all platforms, they will be back in my good graces.

Regardless, Microsoft is continually posting greater profit so apparently their software is not as bad as we all think it is. At least not bad enough for people to use linux or mac os in mass.

I guess I'm one of the few that hasn't had any real issues other than driver issues.

Those are real issues. An OS is fairly useless without drivers. In fact, it's most likely what keeps linux from mainstream.

There are several things that keep Linux from mainstream.

1. Its outdated reputation as a hard to use os.
2. It's software available on store shelves, mainly games, you see Windows every where.
3. OEM's pushing linux as a reasonable and viable alternative instead of only offering windows mainstream.
5. Advertising, Linux is not advertised in any way shape or form so it continues to be a geek only os.
6. There is no money in linux like windows, its free so how could it?
7. The developers are going to make programs for platforms that people use in mass, to save costs, make more profit.

So yeah its not drivers, its everything else. Most of the time you can install Linux and have it fully up and running with everything working perfectly. High resolution, printer, scanner, sound card.

1. Walmart and etc are selling it on their cheapest PC's, the people least likely to know wtf a computer is...

2. True. Bu the games market has moved on from the desktop. games on the PC make less than 20% of all sales.

3.Hey they are at least trying.

4. you forgot this.

5. Doesn't have to be. Most people could care less about the OS they run, as long as it gets what they need done.

6. Tell people like IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Google that there's no money in linux.

7. True dat. Catch-22. People using linux don't care one way or another.

8. Without drivers you won't see any mainstream adoption.

I've had no problems with my three Vista setups, one Home Ultimate for Media Centre, and two laptops with Business.

The "driver issue" is, of course, on purpose, because the new drivers don't run in protected mode.

I think Microsoft is going nowhere with Vista anyways. It's no surprise more and more people are turning to Mac. More than ever, if Apple would open Mac to generic Intel PC's we would see a major shift in the OS market...but that will never happen.

If Apple were to make Mac OS available for use on non-Apple hardware, then Microsoft's supposed "monopoly" on "operating systems for x86-based computers" would be gone.* Then Microsoft would be free to bundle to their hearts content (something that every other OS does), and go back to its 90s OEM tactics.

*(Some, including me, argue that the monopoly label should have never been assigned; Linux has always been a viable alternative, and even with Mac OS only available for Macs, it still competes with Windows.)

Too slow Microsoft. Once again the mighty Apple has owned you. Leopard 10.5.2 will be released any day now. Still playing catch up.

But you have to pay for point releases of Mac OS X. How much is this one going to cost?

Mac OS X releases like 10.5.1, for example, are completely free. Just like security patches for Windows Vista.

Any how many systems does Apple need to test it?

I have a MacBook and it has more issues with 10.5.x than my desktop has with Vista64.

Actually, XP runs better on my MacBook than Leopard.

ok so x.x.1 is free, like security patches for vista, but when x.6.1 comes out.. like sp3 for xp or sp1 for vista, how much will it cost you? not to mention repair cost of apple _PCs_ :O yes, mac fanboys mac's are pc's too.

Point releases like x.6.1 in your example are not mere service packs. Leopard includes a lot more than just bug fixes for Tiger. Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Vista Service Pack 1 only include bug fixes. Windows XP Service Pack 3 does not include Aero Glass for example.

Apple only needs to develop and test Mac OS on 5 or 6 models they control end-to-end.

Microsoft needs to make Windows to work in whatever hardware users have purchased or assembled themselves... just imagine the thousands of different combination of hardware that need Windows to be tested with.

Apple doesn't have today the resources to make Mac OS available for any Intel PC (outside its products) available in the market. In the other hand, the main business for Apple is HARDWARE... Haven't you seen that since Apple opened their systems to run Windows their marketshare increased?

As long as you are in a controlled environment, you can claim whatever you want. I can randomly select an technical indicator, put them against history stock charts, and claim it's the holy grail. But when it put to use in real time data, it will fail.

And what are there? Time Machine?? That copied from MS.

Apple's fanboy needs to wake up. You MUST stop putting yourself in denial. All these "new features" suppose to be put into the original release. Steve Jobs just add the bare minimal feature and repackage it as a new product. Just look at the like of iPod.

Did I not just mention 10.5.2 and not 10.5.x? It's important that you read and UNDERSTAND a post before replying. Thanks for your cooperation.

I've never owned a Mac. I've built every computer I've ever owned using off the shelf parts and they all ran Windows. I'm just stating facts about Apple's products.

Hopefully Refresh 2 fixes the bug that caused random BSOD's after installing Intel's Chipset INF Utility version 8.4.0.1016 for an Intel DP35DP motherboard which uses Intel's P35 northbridge and Intel's ICH9R southbridge. I'm sure other motherboards based on Intel's newer chipsets are affected as well.

My problem with the previous release was burning DVD's, AVI's & the like, had to give up on it, not one completed disk. One benefit though I have enough coasters to last me a year of beer drinking!
However, file transfer & copying was a no longer a tedious chore.

For the most part I didn't have any trouble burning CD's or data DVD's. On a few occasions I would get a random BSOD but since I was dealing with rewriteable media in all cases it wasn't too big of a deal.

That's odd. I have an Abit IP35 Pro and I haven't had a single BSOD using Vista32 or 64bit.

the only BSOD I've gotten in my vista is once when I tried to install a sound card I bought in 1994 on my machine plug-n-play wise, it crashed.

Yeah, it is sort of my fault, no, really my fault but the rest has been fine.

slower than XP SP3, I think that's a fact no one can disagree.

RC1 wont install on my Vista Business X64. Hopefully RTM will...

On the off chance that you might have "V-lited" (a Vista reduction tool) your install disc, SP1 won't install.

The final insult for me is that SP1 cannot be slipstreamed, unless your willing to follow a convoluted, backwards scheme to do it.

Windows 3.0 was awful, 3.11 sold billions, 95 wasn't great but 98SE was, NT was never there until it became 2000, XP was poor until SP2. Microsoft have a real history here...

I'm more weirded out by the next version of Windows being "Windows 7". The whole idea of year-named product was to make old versions seem outdated...

Why didn't you mention what you though about Vista? Do you consider it awful or good?

I think it's implied...

I was suprised ME was not mentioned, if your going to slate MS Os's then I think its manditory.

NT was never there untill it became 2000? Apparently you didn't see all the millions of NT 4.0 boxes out there in the 1996-2001 era...it wasn't until late 2001 that Win2k outnumbered NT 4.0, and there's still some NT boxes out there today.

BTW, the final name is not going to be Windows 7...Windows Vista was not named until just months before it's release. Windows 7 will likely have a better name.

Also Windows 3.11 did not sell billions--not even close.

lol shhh!!! MS told you not to say that name around them anymore. Although it's rather funny that until vista came out, you could do a google search for 'worst os ever' and ME was on the top of the list. just try it down and it's close tie between vista and me

Well you have to take it all into context. So, 10000 out of 3.x million people think ME/XP/Vista, and infact, all MS OSes are the worst os ever.
Then you flip it and check out best OS ever and 100 out of all 10000 (probably the ones who think MS oses are the worst ever) Linux users think it's the best OS ever, then....well, what's the point? The mere fact that MS has saturated the market and has millions using their OS which many actually pay for, vs. linux that can barely even give it away makes the best os/worst os scenerio google searches moot...

As you can see in those results as well, people had hell with XP when it came...there's a theme.

NT = Not There/Nearly There/Never There, long running joke (better than New Technology!) "billions" is called exageration, used for comparitive effect!

ME was so awful. I tried to install it several times on machines that ran 98SE just fine. 100% failure, never went back.

Let's hope the following -
The beta testers aren't the same groups who didn't notice how slow Vista is at file transfers, copies, moves, network performance, video performance and how annoying UAC is even if you turn it off it still annoys you every time you boot.

Let's hope the beta researches who compile the results aren't the same group that was afraid to inform management last time how slow Vista is.

Let's hope management has been replaced because they created an environment where they either didn't want to know that Vista was slow or they approved Vista's release even though it is incredibly slow.

http://gizmodo.com/33776...1-rc1-vs-shipping-vista

http://www.news.com/Wind...100-1016_3-6220201.html

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html

I'm not against MS nor am I a fanboy. I run XP on almost all the PCs I support and Windows Server on most of the servers I support. But Vista is crap. I'll be happy to move from XP when I find one that runs faster than XP - faster file copies and moves on the hard drive, faster network transfers and throughput, faster gaming with all the standard software I have - pretty much everything Vista isn't is what I want.

So mote it be! Amen.

Get a faster PC and it will run as fast if not faster than XP.

You need to add "lets hope the beta testers are using machines from 2003 and under so they can see how badly a new OS runs on old, 5 year old technology"

You couldn't have convinced me of that a month ago. Then I bought a modest 939 board with an Manchester 3600+ dual core, with 2gigs DDR and 7800GS OC AGP. Point being, not exactly state of the art, but my $100.00 board and processor upgrade yielded huge dividends in Vista. I would dare say it is significantly more responsive than XP. Yet, the hardware upgrade did not yield a similar improvement in performance under XP.

My reliability monitor went down to below 8 due to a BSOD yesterday.

I was going to reply posting where my reliability monitor was, but it hasn't updated since January 8, apparently, when it was at 2.5.

I will admit, MS is honest enough in that ANY crashes, app or OS, will seriously affect the reliability monitor. Until it stops updating as mine has... hmm..

I think around the 8th, I tried the SP 1 release candidate, had problems with my sound card, and uninstalled it. Must be why the reliability monitor stopped.

Awesome cant wait to upgrade mah vista! :D