ZORON: There's the caveat... old computer. I've always stated that if your computer is a year or more older than Vista, you're better off sticking with XP. However, if you're building a brand new computer, then why do you want an OS that is starting to show it's age? It makes little sense to build a new computer with the choicest components and stick an OS on it that is 7 or 8 years old now. Even you have to admit that the performance difference on new hardware is negligible.
Er... but if an OS (Win7) is able to run better on an older computer, makes sense it'll run even better on good new hardware. Age of the PC doesn't always determine its performance. You can buy a new PC (desktop) that is slower than a 3 year old computer. XP age? Vista has different eye-candy, but its not earth shattering. Personally, I think active windows should not be transparent - that would be nicer (an option would be good). But yeah, XP is 8 years old - so what? Want vista/Win7 like eye-candy, download about 2mb of gadgets and boom, Vista-eyecandy. And yes, for most people a $350 dual core AMD PC isn't much slower than a $1000 computer. Add a better video card will help, of course.
This (Speedboost) was implemented for computers that didn't have enough RAM. If you have 2GB+ of RAM, then you're not going to notice a difference.
That is a flaw... When a computer goes from 512mb > 2GB for basic computer operations. When vista was new, Memory wasn't $30 for 4GB of RAM. It was closer to $150 for 2GB. Having a thumb-driving sticking out of a computer is rather... stupid (both in looks and in function). Speedboost is as useless today as it was 2 years ago. It was one of the exciting "features" of Vista. Win7 works very well with 1GB, which is proof of the problems of Vista.
Blame corporations and custom software vendors. Every time a new version of an OS came out, they demanded that it be backwards compatible with their old software. I know you'd love to do it, but you cannot blame MS for that one. Besides, here you are complaining that old stuff that runs on XP won't run on Vista...
Yep... but also the users THAT demand compatibility (including myself). Had that problem with Amigas. I had a high end model unit, but had to revert to an OLD-SLOW emulation mode to play games. The company that made Amigas should have put their foot down for the game companies to be more flexible. Desktop software pretty much worked across the board from 1.2~3.x. 3.0 was so good, it ran on the first computer just fine... actually better than its original 1.2 OS. So I gauge the quality of the product by HOW WELL it performs to previous versions.
But the compatibility issue is what allowed MS-DOS to be the dominate OS. In 1990, using a PC meant MS-DOS/CLI. The business world could have gone Amiga. It was A- Cheaper, B- Faster, C-Multitasking which is more productive, D- Has a GUI & CLU, E- real file names not the 8.3 70's OS junk. But because it didn't run PC WordPerfect & Lotus123 (well it ran Amiga versions), the Amiga didn't gain market share. There are business clients who have software not working on Vista, that is a problem. I think its worse because XP stuck around a long time. I'm having problems with some games working in Win7.
I'm not blaming MS for Vista being incompatible with XP (not completely MS fault), but I blame MS for how they designed Vista.
You can't have it both ways. You either want a completely new OS that isn't bloated to hell or you want an OS that is completely backwards compatible. Make your choice.
Many people made a choice, they stuck with XP. And yes, you can have a new OS that isn't bloated... I don't have that much of an issue with compatibility. Win7 proved those points.
The fact is I haven't personally experience any of these so-called "flaws" you keep going on about.
Thats fine. I've recommended people try/use Vista since SP1, rather than just my opinion. Many either don't like it or just live with it. The "flaws" are shown in the computer industry... even on this website. The reports, the reviews, sales & market share, etc. I've stated before, TWO notebooks, side by side... Win7 & Vista... still didn't like the Vista "experience". Whenever some stupid thing or performance issue came up on the Vista, I'd replicate it on Win7 and most of the time - didn't have the issue. Hmmmmmm.
MS goal was to make Win7 better than Vista, and better as an OS in general that its worth it for XP users to upgrade. They did that. Why can't you see that? Thats considered a good thing.
Vista works just the way it's supposed to on both my computers... no problems whatsoever. That's not to say it's going to work 100% for everyone...
Thats fine... but its not acceptable to me. Its performance is sub-standard to XP. I have a Core2Quad @ 3Ghz and generally a mid/high end system. Win7 runs excellent on my much slower ThinkPad. I've gotten ThinkPads from Lenovo pre-loaded with Vista that I played with before wiping them out before installing XP. Lenovo used to include an XP disc back then, now they pre-load their notebooks with XP and include a Vista disc (thanks). So well after SP1, on the same hardware with a core2duo/2GB RAM - Vista wasn't good enough.
A client/buddy was complaining to me "I going to buy a Mac" - He's been using a fairly powerful notebook (better than mine in CPU / GPU / RAM & HD) with Vista for over 6 months now. He hates it. I told him to hold off for a few months and give Win7 a try... he may or may not. Its not my choice.
I say this to every happy Vista user. Good for you. Really. I mean it too. Why should I wish you or anyone else a horrible time with their computers? (other than bad guys)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram