I gave Vista a one-month try. I am back to XP and soooo happy. I feel like
I have left a very dark place. Vista needs a lot of work. It was a constant
problem/worry. It is slow and quirky and not ready for prime time. I still
have my software and I will put it away for possible future use once
Microsoft develops an update to cure all the bugs.
It almost seems like with Vista, Microsoft was trying to imitate the Mac
operating system but they didnt do it nearly as well and frankly I don't like
the Mac operating system so much either. Microsoft should do its own thing
and do it well. Certainly they have the resources. Anyway thats just my
opinion and I am happy to be reuninted with XP. I didnt appreciate it till
it was gone. :-)
and thats why I warn people not to trust vista so easily....
I would suggest you dual boot if you can... and see the difference in speed
and performance... You will see that XP is better in all aspects.
As for the people in here who worship vista blindly... what can I say?
I pitty them
"Jim" <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:699C28FE-6907-49C5-816A-F02D732A473B@microsoft.com...
>I gave Vista a one-month try. I am back to XP and soooo happy. I feel
>like
> I have left a very dark place. Vista needs a lot of work. It was a
> constant
> problem/worry. It is slow and quirky and not ready for prime time. I
> still
> have my software and I will put it away for possible future use once
> Microsoft develops an update to cure all the bugs.
>
> It almost seems like with Vista, Microsoft was trying to imitate the Mac
> operating system but they didnt do it nearly as well and frankly I don't
> like
> the Mac operating system so much either. Microsoft should do its own
> thing
> and do it well. Certainly they have the resources. Anyway thats just my
> opinion and I am happy to be reuninted with XP. I didnt appreciate it
> till
> it was gone. :-)
>
> Jim
Not everyone likes a Ferrari either. In your case, you did the right thing -
for the time being.
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)
Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
"Jim" <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:699C28FE-6907-49C5-816A-F02D732A473B@microsoft.com...
>I gave Vista a one-month try. I am back to XP and soooo happy. I feel
>like
> I have left a very dark place. Vista needs a lot of work. It was a
> constant
> problem/worry. It is slow and quirky and not ready for prime time. I
> still
> have my software and I will put it away for possible future use once
> Microsoft develops an update to cure all the bugs.
>
> It almost seems like with Vista, Microsoft was trying to imitate the Mac
> operating system but they didnt do it nearly as well and frankly I don't
> like
> the Mac operating system so much either. Microsoft should do its own
> thing
> and do it well. Certainly they have the resources. Anyway thats just my
> opinion and I am happy to be reuninted with XP. I didnt appreciate it
> till
> it was gone. :-)
>
> Jim
I have Vista in dual boot and try to use it every once in a while, also so
that upgrades and patches get applied.
Vista is just slow for many if not most tasks. Not a deal breaker but an
annoyance.
Hardware incompatibility is improving but some recent peripherals will never
get Vista drivers.
Many games do not run on Vista or run too slowly. While this only affects
gamers it reflects the significant problems in the structure of Vista.
Microsoft has no reason to get Direct X ten working since Vista cannot run
Direct X 9 games anyway.
In my experience Vista cannot stream audio/video from the internet without
constant interruptions to rebuffer. The same computer and others running XP
from the same internet source have no such problems. I know many people who
have tried Vista and abandoned it over this one issue.
Vista is dubious for critical graphics work as color management is
reportedly unstable due to a bug that deprofiles your monitor every time one
of those useless triple warning boxes comes up.
Did I mention those useless triple warning boxes?
And Apple recently uncovered another bug and, I presume, purposely exploited
that bug in its new "Vista compatible" Itunes download just to aggravate
Vista users. Vista apparently does not "register" the Visual Basic script
engine that is used by many installation programs. As such the new Vista
compatible Itunes will not install on many if not most Vista systems! Prior
Itunes versions will install (but may not run properly) on Vista so clearly
Apple did this on purpose.
What a hoot.
I use XP for most real work too: I have no choice.
"babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M_W7i.5198$u56.2613@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...
>I have Vista in dual boot and try to use it every once in a while, also so
>that upgrades and patches get applied.
> Vista is just slow for many if not most tasks. Not a deal breaker but an
> annoyance.
> Hardware incompatibility is improving but some recent peripherals will
> never get Vista drivers.
> Many games do not run on Vista or run too slowly. While this only affects
> gamers it reflects the significant problems in the structure of Vista.
> Microsoft has no reason to get Direct X ten working since Vista cannot run
> Direct X 9 games anyway.
> In my experience Vista cannot stream audio/video from the internet without
> constant interruptions to rebuffer. The same computer and others running
> XP from the same internet source have no such problems. I know many people
> who have tried Vista and abandoned it over this one issue.
> Vista is dubious for critical graphics work as color management is
> reportedly unstable due to a bug that deprofiles your monitor every time
> one of those useless triple warning boxes comes up.
> Did I mention those useless triple warning boxes?
> And Apple recently uncovered another bug and, I presume, purposely
> exploited that bug in its new "Vista compatible" Itunes download just to
> aggravate Vista users. Vista apparently does not "register" the Visual
> Basic script engine that is used by many installation programs. As such
> the new Vista compatible Itunes will not install on many if not most Vista
> systems! Prior Itunes versions will install (but may not run properly) on
> Vista so clearly Apple did this on purpose.
> What a hoot.
> I use XP for most real work too: I have no choice.
>
>
"babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M_W7i.5198$u56.2613@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...
>I have Vista in dual boot and try to use it every once in a while, also so
>that upgrades and patches get applied.
> Vista is just slow for many if not most tasks. Not a deal breaker but an
> annoyance.
> Hardware incompatibility is improving but some recent peripherals will
> never get Vista drivers.
> Many games do not run on Vista or run too slowly. While this only affects
> gamers it reflects the significant problems in the structure of Vista.
No, it doesn't. What it does reflect is the fact that Vista spends a lot
more CPU cycles on security than XP did.
> Microsoft has no reason to get Direct X ten working since Vista cannot run
> Direct X 9 games anyway.
Vista can certainly run DirectX9 games. And DirectX10 works - it's just the
ATI and nVidia implementations aren't yet perfect. nVidia seems to be
leading on this one - ATI's boards just came out and are somewhat
underwhelming...
> In my experience Vista cannot stream audio/video from the internet without
> constant interruptions to rebuffer. The same computer and others running
> XP from the same internet source have no such problems. I know many people
> who have tried Vista and abandoned it over this one issue.
I haven't seen this issue. Do you have a specific url you could point me to
that would show this?
> Vista is dubious for critical graphics work as color management is
> reportedly unstable due to a bug that deprofiles your monitor every time
> one of those useless triple warning boxes comes up.
> Did I mention those useless triple warning boxes?
What exactly do you mean by triple warning boxes?
> And Apple recently uncovered another bug and, I presume, purposely
> exploited that bug in its new "Vista compatible" Itunes download just to
> aggravate Vista users. Vista apparently does not "register" the Visual
> Basic script engine that is used by many installation programs. As such
> the new Vista compatible Itunes will not install on many if not most Vista
> systems! Prior Itunes versions will install (but may not run properly) on
> Vista so clearly Apple did this on purpose.
Why would Apple want to **** off their iTunes users? That's just stupid. On
the other hand, maybe Apple programmers can't handle Vista
programming...(Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by incompetence)
> What a hoot.
> I use XP for most real work too: I have no choice.
What real work, exactly, can you do on XP but not on Vista?
Jim wrote:
> I gave Vista a one-month try. I am back to XP and soooo happy. I feel like
> I have left a very dark place. Vista needs a lot of work. It was a constant
> problem/worry. It is slow and quirky and not ready for prime time. I still
> have my software and I will put it away for possible future use once
> Microsoft develops an update to cure all the bugs.
>
> It almost seems like with Vista, Microsoft was trying to imitate the Mac
> operating system but they didnt do it nearly as well and frankly I don't like
> the Mac operating system so much either. Microsoft should do its own thing
> and do it well. Certainly they have the resources. Anyway thats just my
> opinion and I am happy to be reuninted with XP. I didnt appreciate it till
> it was gone. :-)
>
> Jim
I'm going to make a few wild guesses here:
1) you installed Vista on old hardware.
2) you were "lost" when trying to navigate in Vista cause you actually
thought it was simply XP + eye candy.
3) you couldn't/wouldn't take the time to learn your way around Vista in
order to customize it to your liking.
4) you failed to realize that Vista is a completely new operating system
from Microsoft.
5) remember when apple completely changed mac's a few years ago and
****ed off their loyal following?
> I have Vista in dual boot and try to use it every once in a while, also so
> that upgrades and patches get applied.
> Vista is just slow for many if not most tasks. Not a deal breaker but an
> annoyance.
Especially if you don't upgrade your hardware.
> Hardware incompatibility is improving but some recent peripherals will never
> get Vista drivers.
I wonder why?
> Many games do not run on Vista or run too slowly. While this only affects
> gamers it reflects the significant problems in the structure of Vista.
> Microsoft has no reason to get Direct X ten working since Vista cannot run
> Direct X 9 games anyway.
Gamers (serious gamers) are bleeding edge computer users and will have
the latest hardware/software. DX10 vc's, etc.
> In my experience Vista cannot stream audio/video from the internet without
> constant interruptions to rebuffer. The same computer and others running XP
> from the same internet source have no such problems. I know many people who
> have tried Vista and abandoned it over this one issue.
No ****! How about updating your hardware, hint...video card and this
"problem" easily goes away.
> Vista is dubious for critical graphics work as color management is
> reportedly unstable due to a bug that deprofiles your monitor every time one
> of those useless triple warning boxes comes up.
Our solution (we run color managed boxes as color is critical in our
line of work) was to get rid of the "warning boxes"
> Did I mention those useless triple warning boxes?
Did I mention getting rid of the "warning boxes"?
> And Apple recently uncovered another bug and, I presume, purposely exploited
> that bug in its new "Vista compatible" Itunes download just to aggravate
> Vista users. Vista apparently does not "register" the Visual Basic script
> engine that is used by many installation programs. As such the new Vista
> compatible Itunes will not install on many if not most Vista systems! Prior
> Itunes versions will install (but may not run properly) on Vista so clearly
> Apple did this on purpose.
> What a hoot.
I'm glad business is not considered "war" aren't you?
> I use XP for most real work too: I have no choice.
We are switching all of our boxes from dual boot XP/Vista to strictly
Vista this weekend after months of on-line testing.
We too have choices.
Frank
4) you failed to realize that Vista is a completely new operating system
from Microsoft.
No it is not. At best, it could be described as XP R2
or XP SE.
WinXP in relation to Win98 was a completely new OS.
-Michael
* Frank:
> Jim wrote:
>> I gave Vista a one-month try. I am back to XP and soooo happy. I feel like
>> I have left a very dark place. Vista needs a lot of work. It was a constant
>> problem/worry. It is slow and quirky and not ready for prime time. I still
>> have my software and I will put it away for possible future use once
>> Microsoft develops an update to cure all the bugs.
>>
>> It almost seems like with Vista, Microsoft was trying to imitate the Mac
>> operating system but they didnt do it nearly as well and frankly I don't like
>> the Mac operating system so much either. Microsoft should do its own thing
>> and do it well. Certainly they have the resources. Anyway thats just my
>> opinion and I am happy to be reuninted with XP. I didnt appreciate it till
>> it was gone. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> I'm going to make a few wild guesses here:
>
> 1) you installed Vista on old hardware.
> 2) you were "lost" when trying to navigate in Vista cause you actually
> thought it was simply XP + eye candy.
> 3) you couldn't/wouldn't take the time to learn your way around Vista in
> order to customize it to your liking.
> 4) you failed to realize that Vista is a completely new operating system
> from Microsoft.
> 5) remember when apple completely changed mac's a few years ago and
> ****ed off their loyal following?
>
> Time heals all wounds.
> Frank
gesh... you are wong on so many things.. but you also bore me so much that I
don't even have the will to find the info...
You should start research a bit by yourself MVP.. you cant expect me to keep
teaching you guys things...
what you are doing is called an uneducated guess
"Dana Cline - MVP" <dcline@scriptpro.com> wrote in message
news:eQAfxXGpHHA.3644@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Replies inline below...
>
> "babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M_W7i.5198$u56.2613@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...
>>I have Vista in dual boot and try to use it every once in a while, also so
>>that upgrades and patches get applied.
>> Vista is just slow for many if not most tasks. Not a deal breaker but an
>> annoyance.
>> Hardware incompatibility is improving but some recent peripherals will
>> never get Vista drivers.
>> Many games do not run on Vista or run too slowly. While this only affects
>> gamers it reflects the significant problems in the structure of Vista.
>
> No, it doesn't. What it does reflect is the fact that Vista spends a lot
> more CPU cycles on security than XP did.
>
>> Microsoft has no reason to get Direct X ten working since Vista cannot
>> run Direct X 9 games anyway.
>
> Vista can certainly run DirectX9 games. And DirectX10 works - it's just
> the ATI and nVidia implementations aren't yet perfect. nVidia seems to be
> leading on this one - ATI's boards just came out and are somewhat
> underwhelming...
>
>> In my experience Vista cannot stream audio/video from the internet
>> without constant interruptions to rebuffer. The same computer and others
>> running XP from the same internet source have no such problems. I know
>> many people who have tried Vista and abandoned it over this one issue.
>
> I haven't seen this issue. Do you have a specific url you could point me
> to that would show this?
>
>> Vista is dubious for critical graphics work as color management is
>> reportedly unstable due to a bug that deprofiles your monitor every time
>> one of those useless triple warning boxes comes up.
>> Did I mention those useless triple warning boxes?
>
> What exactly do you mean by triple warning boxes?
>
>> And Apple recently uncovered another bug and, I presume, purposely
>> exploited that bug in its new "Vista compatible" Itunes download just to
>> aggravate Vista users. Vista apparently does not "register" the Visual
>> Basic script engine that is used by many installation programs. As such
>> the new Vista compatible Itunes will not install on many if not most
>> Vista systems! Prior Itunes versions will install (but may not run
>> properly) on Vista so clearly Apple did this on purpose.
>
> Why would Apple want to **** off their iTunes users? That's just stupid.
> On the other hand, maybe Apple programmers can't handle Vista
> programming...(Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
> explained by incompetence)
>
>> What a hoot.
>> I use XP for most real work too: I have no choice.
>
> What real work, exactly, can you do on XP but not on Vista?
>
> Dana Cline - MCE MVP
>
>
Quite an Experience 
Linear Mode
