Vista vs. XP

[stealthc]

Oh yes indeed you will be-able to downgrade, and that is so awesome should you point that out. HOWEVER:
There will no longer be support for direct x. We've been stuck and stagnant with dx 9.1c (is that right, I can't remember because it's been 3 almost 4 years since we've all gotten an upgrade which usually gave us a noticeable speed increase).
Then there's the fact that when you perform a search you don't get the option of searching for video files easily.
The list goes on with vista and this is the first time we've been offered the option to downgrade, though with downgrading comes several problems.

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has decided not to offer any further support or development for windows XP beyond service pack 3. Since everybody is downgrading I think Microsoft should offer us support and improvements to XP beyond SP3.

That is what the petition is for. We don't want Vista to be improved. We want XP to be improved, that's why we downgrade our computers in the first place.

But then it would seem to me that the forum admin here actually likes Vista. Do you like the notion of paying $300 for an operating system? Vista is the biggest crock there ever was. The only people that really wish to use Vista are those that are uninformed, and those that have noticed their future hardware will be crippled because Microsoft has abandoned XP and is forcing everybody to upgrade to Vista. They've even went so far as to cease embracing solid backwards compatibility.

Just because we are given downgrade rights doesn't mean that Microsoft has done enough. It means that Microsoft has listened to us a little, but is still busy trying to bully us into buying overpriced Vista. Isn't it clear already that we don't want Vista? Isn't it clear that we aren't flocking to upgrade our XP to Vista? Vista is a failure. So much so it calls for more than mere downgrade rights.

I don't have to review all of the issues, fact of the matter is, the general public does not like this product, period, and this site, as a news reporting site shouldn't have any bias towards newer Microsoft products though I'm guessing my thread seems like trolling, spam, etc because it's likely Microsoft is one of your sponsors.

The press should be reporting to US, the general public, not filtering things because they are in bed with corporate america.

 

[AnnonUSA]

I have been a consultant for many years, I have worked with PC's since the 80's. I even lived through Windows ME.

I have never seen a product so shunned by users as Vista. The only Vista I have touched for clients, are those that bought systems that could not be purchased with XP. I deal mostly with small and Medium companies running Windows Networks. I can count on less than one hand how many Vista machines or requests have come from my clients. It is slow, and quirky, and annoying at almost every level.

Add the fact that Microsofts marketing (7 Versions) is flawed, I mean really there was always one too many versions of XP, and the OS is way, way overpriced.

I have seen no overwhelming evidence that Vista is better than Windows XP, just different. I will close with that because I have already been warned by an admin here when I chose to comment in another thread on how over priced Vista was.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: stealthc
Oh yes indeed you will be-able to downgrade, and that is so awesome should you point that out. HOWEVER:
There will no longer be support for direct x. We've been stuck and stagnant with dx 9.1c (is that right, I can't remember because it's been 3 almost 4 years since we've all gotten an upgrade which usually gave us a noticeable speed increase).
Then there's the fact that when you perform a search you don't get the option of searching for video files easily.
The list goes on with vista and this is the first time we've been offered the option to downgrade, though with downgrading comes several problems.

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has decided not to offer any further support or development for windows XP beyond service pack 3. Since everybody is downgrading I think Microsoft should offer us support and improvements to XP beyond SP3.

That is what the petition is for. We don't want Vista to be improved. We want XP to be improved, that's why we downgrade our computers in the first place.

But then it would seem to me that the forum admin here actually likes Vista. Do you like the notion of paying $300 for an operating system? Vista is the biggest crock there ever was. The only people that really wish to use Vista are those that are uninformed, and those that have noticed their future hardware will be crippled because Microsoft has abandoned XP and is forcing everybody to upgrade to Vista. They've even went so far as to cease embracing solid backwards compatibility.

Just because we are given downgrade rights doesn't mean that Microsoft has done enough. It means that Microsoft has listened to us a little, but is still busy trying to bully us into buying overpriced Vista. Isn't it clear already that we don't want Vista? Isn't it clear that we aren't flocking to upgrade our XP to Vista? Vista is a failure. So much so it calls for more than mere downgrade rights.

I don't have to review all of the issues, fact of the matter is, the general public does not like this product, period, and this site, as a news reporting site shouldn't have any bias towards newer Microsoft products though I'm guessing my thread seems like trolling, spam, etc because it's likely Microsoft is one of your sponsors.

The press should be reporting to US, the general public, not filtering things because they are in bed with corporate america.

A lot of people like Vista including myself,fact is there comes a time where XP will be phased out, just like one day it'll happen to Vista and even Vienna,you can't blame Microsoft for that since its their OS and they call the shots,personally I've stopped using my XP PC and really like every minute of my Vista x64 PC (as I type this for example)but that's besides the point,end of the day every OS as a limited life span and you know sooner or later the time comes when you got to make the decision to change to their newer version or jump ship and go over to the competition,sure you can stay with XP when its no longer supported and get left behind but not many people do.

Personally I feel some people overrate XP and also some are afraid of change etc..,sooner its phased out the better in my opinion,I'm not saying its a bad OS but in my opinion it has a had a good run and time to move forward.

Vista is the biggest crock there ever was.

When somebody posts that and more ,how can we take what they say serious,oh well don't start another flame thread we have too many of those as it is,but then Vista v XP is a flame thread right .

 

[AnnonUSA]

Originally posted by: Mem

A lot of people like Vista including myself,fact is there comes a time where XP will be phased out, just like one day it'll happen to Vista and even Vienna,you can't blame Microsoft for that since its their OS and they call the shots,personally I've stopped using my XP PC and really like every minute of my Vista x64 PC (as I type this for example)but that's besides the point,end of the day every OS as a limited life span and you know sooner or later the time comes when you got to make the decision to change to their newer version or jump ship and go over to the competition,sure you can stay with XP when its no longer supported and get left behind but not many people do.

Personally I feel some people overrate XP and also some are afraid of change etc..,sooner its phased out the better in my opinion,I'm not saying its a bad OS but in my opinion it has a had a good run and time to move forward.

Well you are in the minority right now. And not to "flame" but just to discuss. I will agree that there becomes a time to move on.

Vista is change for the sake of change. Most of the best features never made the final release. Vistas biggest changes are visual, and the fact that most of the best known features have been moved around.

Add to that the gimmicks like the "System Score" and other foolishness and it becomes apparent that UAC is the biggest change, and the biggest pain in the ass. UAC is Microsofts answer to security, meaning we can't make it secure enough, so we need to totally lock it down. (I am reminded of clients that get viruses and spyware and spam in spite of protective measures taken, and ask how it can be stopped. I tell them to disconnect from the internet, and stop using e-mail.)

I have a friend that works for a government agency, who tells me everyone there hates Vista too.

Humans are creatures of habit. How many times will it take the "average" computer user to stop reading the Vista UAC warnings and just click "Allow" every time the annoying window pops up? Or as most users will eventually do, disable UAC altogether?

In my opinion this is Microsofts plan, when and if users and reviewers complain that their systems are still getting attacked and infected, it will be easy for them to say, hey, we gave you the tools to protect yourself and you turned them off.

And to top it all off, I still maintain that 7 versions of OS, and the high cost of purchase or of choosing wrong and having to upgrade, makes the Vista experience even more of a pain in the butt.

 

[Mem]

I have a friend that works for a government agency, who tells me everyone there hates Vista too.

My brother is an IT manager and likes Vista,his friend just got a new laptop with Vista and guess what he likes it too,end of the day you'll get users that both like and hate Vista just like XP as well,remember all the 2K users that said XP was not a big enough upgrade I do,personally I feel Vista is more of a upgrade to XP then XP was to 2K.

And to top it all off, I still maintain that 7 versions of OS, and the high cost of purchase or of choosing wrong and having to upgrade, makes the Vista experience even more of a pain in the butt.

Video cards have been doing this for years so why should software be any different,personally having more choices is always better then not having enough ,as to the 7 versions its easy to break them down since for home user Home Premium is probably best choice(unless you need any features that other versions have),business user business version and you want all in one package then Ultimate version.

Humans are creatures of habit. How many times will it take the "average" computer user to stop reading the Vista UAC warnings and just click "Allow" every time the annoying window pops up? Or as most users will eventually do, disable UAC altogether?

I leave it enabled since only took me 2 weeks to get use to it,does not always pop up,besides you got the choice to leave it enabled or disabled,your call and also your call on the consequences.

Vista is change for the sake of change. Most of the best features never made the final release. Vistas biggest changes are visual, and the fact that most of the best known features have been moved around.

A lot of new features were included,better security(always good thing in my books) ,better memory handling (l like super prefetch etc..),I like the indexing , redesigned sound system( to improve sound driver stability which I'll take over performance hit anytime),DX10 etc..price wise same as XP so nothing to complain about there.

 

[lxskllr]

I like Vista fine. It's my favorite MS O/S so far. I don't expect M/S to continuously make improvements to an obsolete operating system. I guess you expect Ford to send you electric windows, cruise control, airbags, and a turbo charger for your 74 Maverick also eh?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: stealthc
That is what the petition is for. We don't want Vista to be improved. We want XP to be improved, that's why we downgrade our computers in the first place.

When it comes down to it, thats all Vista really is - an improved XP. Anyone who doesnt realize that hasnt actually used it enough to realize its 99% the same. You go on and on about how evil Vista is, and not once do you mention what your actual problem is.

Got a problem with UAC? Turn it off.

And regarding DX10 - it requires a whole mess of under the hood changes to the video architecture. The kind of changes that are reserved for an entire OS upgrade.

You cant have your cake and eat it too. You're happy with XP? Good for you, keep using it for the next decade or so. But youre living in a fantasy world if you think that continally patching an older operating system is better in the long run than the growing pains from a larger update.

 

[loup garou]

Lock this crap up.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: stealthc
There will no longer be support for direct x. We've been stuck and stagnant with dx 9.1c (is that right, I can't remember because it's been 3 almost 4 years since we've all gotten an upgrade which usually gave us a noticeable speed increase).

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know why I am bothering to reply. Direct X 10 will NOT speed up video processing. It is a new API that in every benchmark runs SLOWER than DX 9.1c. DX 10 adds new eye candy to games and different ways of processing graphics that are incompatible with XP's driver model. If Microsoft were to update the driver model on XP to support DX10, then you would have the exact same compatibility issues Vista has. In fact you would be essentially turning XP into Vista.

DX 9 has been updated numerous times in the last few years which is why you have the 9.0 a-b-c, 9.1 a,b,c monikers. It has only been in the last couple of years that games have completely switched to DX 9 from earlier versions of the DX API. It will be a couple more years before games completely switch to DX 10. Since over 75% of the worlds computers still run XP, games will be supporting DX9 for many years to come. All DX 10 will do for these games is add more eye candy for those with systems that support it. Right now it is hard to tell the difference between DX9 and DX 10 mode while playing games. It usually takes a screenshot to be able to tell the difference. Also as I have previously mentioned, DX 10 gives a performance hit that leads to lower frames.

Then there's the fact that when you perform a search you don't get the option of searching for video files easily.
The list goes on with vista and this is the first time we've been offered the option to downgrade, though with downgrading comes several problems.

And XP's search is better how? Search in XP is so bad that all tweaking guides recommend that users turn off indexing with XP. This is not so with Vista. Would I like search in Vista to be as intuitive as OSX? You bet I would! The fact remains that search in Vista is half way usable now. I can launch any program install in a few keystrokes because of search in Vista. Try doing that in XP. Searching is many times faster in Vista than XP. I also like the fact that I have control on what folders and file extensions are indexed by going into the Control Panel and selecting Indexing. That allows me to streamline search to make it even better.

Downgrade rights were also offered to customers of XP when it was new. This is not something new and unique to Vista. These rights for Vista have been in place since the OS shipped. The fact you are unwilling to research this stuff is your fault.

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has decided not to offer any further support or development for windows XP beyond service pack 3. Since everybody is downgrading I think Microsoft should offer us support and improvements to XP beyond SP3.

Everybody is not downgrading. In fact few are downgrading. The majority of people that buy Vista stick with it. Vista already has 10% of the total market share world wide according to several web usage tracking companies. The people that are downgrading are mainly geeks and some companies. Unless you have data that proves EVERYONE is downgrading, no one is going to take your claim seriously. The fact you even use the word "everyone" is proof you don't know what you are talking about. The fact is that SOME are downgrading from Vista to XP, just as some downgraded from XP to 98 when it came out six years ago.

How long do you expect Microsoft to support development of XP? It makes no sense to develop XP any further after SP3. XP will be supported for many years to come for security updates. In fact, XP will have a longer life span that any other version of Windows ever released. Eventually, Vista will overtake XP on the desktop and developers won't even develop for it any more. You will have to move on eventually if you want to run the latest and greatest software.

That is what the petition is for. We don't want Vista to be improved. We want XP to be improved, that's why we downgrade our computers in the first place.

So how is a petition of a few thousand users going to change Microsoft's mind when there are over a billion Windows users world wide? If you downgrade to try to force Microsoft to continue to improve XP, you are fighting a loosing battle. Microsoft is not going to drop Vista for XP over a few thousand people's wishes. I have never seen a web driven petition even work on any issue. What makes you think it will work this time?

But then it would seem to me that the forum admin here actually likes Vista. Do you like the notion of paying $300 for an operating system? Vista is the biggest crock there ever was. The only people that really wish to use Vista are those that are uninformed, and those that have noticed their future hardware will be crippled because Microsoft has abandoned XP and is forcing everybody to upgrade to Vista. They've even went so far as to cease embracing solid backwards compatibility.

The admin here is tired of the trolling that some anti-Vista people are doing. I have seen the staff here criticize Vista on many occasions. I paid $115 USD for my copy of Vista Home Premium. I ran both the beta and rc of Vista on this computer and I waited six months after the release to purchase Vista. Before I purchased it, I researched that there were drivers for all my hardware and watched to see what issues people were having on similar set-ups to mine. Does that sound uninformed? None of my hardware is crippled. I can do everything in Vista I can do in XP. I was not forced by Microsoft to buy Vista. Dell, HP and every other OEM still offers XP so how are people being forced to upgrade?

Microsoft made necessary changes under the hood of Vista that is causing some minor backwards compatibility issues. Most software written for XP works just fine on Vista. Some trouble software will run when you launch it in compatibility mode. The fact is that Microsoft worked hard to keep backwards compatibility.

It is my opinion and many others it is time for Microsoft to stop embracing backwards compatibility, going all the way back to win 3.1. They need to get rid of all that old code and make Windows lean and mean again. Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons Vista is so bloated to begin with. With Virtual Machine technology, there is no reason for Microsoft to keep developing for backwards compatibility. All they have to do is simulate older versions of Windows using virtualization while keeping the os code itself clean.

Just because we are given downgrade rights doesn't mean that Microsoft has done enough. It means that Microsoft has listened to us a little, but is still busy trying to bully us into buying overpriced Vista. Isn't it clear already that we don't want Vista? Isn't it clear that we aren't flocking to upgrade our XP to Vista? Vista is a failure. So much so it calls for more than mere downgrade rights.

Vista cost no more than XP.

Home Basic - XP Home - $99 OEM, $199 Retail, Dell, HP and others pay far less.

Home Premium - XP MCE - $119 OEM, $239 Retail, Same as above

Business - XP Pro - $179 OEM, $299 Retail, Same as above

Ultimate (Superset of Business and Home Premium. No XP version exist, but would be the equivalent of XP MCE and XP pro combined.) $199 OEM, $399 Retail, Same as above. (Very few people even need this. Home users will see very little benefit by running this vs Home Premium.

So how is $99 overpriced? If you buy it with a new computer, you probably paid only $50 for it because Microsoft gives huge volume discounts to OEM's.

100,000,000 copies of Vista sold to date. Web tracking shows Vista to be 10% of the installed base world wide. This means Vista is not a failure. You and others making that claim are just plain wrong and the facts do not back you up.

I don't have to review all of the issues, fact of the matter is, the general public does not like this product, period, and this site, as a news reporting site shouldn't have any bias towards newer Microsoft products though I'm guessing my thread seems like trolling, spam, etc because it's likely Microsoft is one of your sponsors.

And you are not biased and are totally fair and accurate in every thing you posted here? I have news for you, this is a tech site and not a news reporting site. News is only a small part of what goes on here. As I stated earlier, the staff here at Anadtech have criticized Vista in certain areas. In fact, they were accurate in their criticism of Vista. They don't have to make stuff up or blow things out of proportion. This is one of the most unbiased tech sites you will go to. Anandtech has a reputation for being fair in their reviews of products. They were the only site that refused to go to AMD's little pony show in lake Tahoe and forced AMD to send the Phenom to them to review in their own labs, under their own conditions.

The press should be reporting to US, the general public, not filtering things because they are in bed with corporate america.

The press IS corporate America.

 

[rbV5]

My son just got a new laptop loaded with Vista Premium. First Vista experience for me, so I carefully watched while he booted up for the first time.

I was expecting infected monkeys to fly out and light my genitals on fire, but to my surprise, it booted into a familiar looking desktop instead. Noted a few new graphic features, but otherwise looked much the same as XP. The Media Center interface looks improved quite a bit, but I didn't have time to play around much.

I also noted that it seemed to boot up pretty quickly and his laptop is definately snappier than any of my desktops. Its been a few weeks now, and I'm not hearing complaints from him, but I'm thinking about finally upgrading to core duo Intel systems...

I'm guessing my thread seems like trolling, spam, etc

Thats what I was thinking.

 

[alpha88]

Didn't read the replies, but...

Vista is by far my favorite Microsoft OS.

I downloaded Business for my laptop with my Academic license, and was so impressed I went out and bought Vista Ultimate for my desktop.

I'm running the 64bit versions and absolutely love it.

 

[buckwheat12n]

Originally posted by: Mem

I have a friend that works for a government agency, who tells me everyone there hates Vista too.

My brother is an IT manager and likes Vista,his friend just got a new laptop with Vista and guess what he likes it too,end of the day you'll get users that both like and hate Vista just like XP as well,remember all the 2K users that said XP was not a big enough upgrade I do,personally I feel Vista is more of a upgrade to XP then XP was to 2K.

And to top it all off, I still maintain that 7 versions of OS, and the high cost of purchase or of choosing wrong and having to upgrade, makes the Vista experience even more of a pain in the butt.

Video cards have been doing this for years so why should software be any different,personally having more choices is always better then not having enough ,as to the 7 versions its easy to break them down since for home user Home Premium is probably best choice(unless you need any features that other versions have),business user business version and you want all in one package then Ultimate version.

Humans are creatures of habit. How many times will it take the "average" computer user to stop reading the Vista UAC warnings and just click "Allow" every time the annoying window pops up? Or as most users will eventually do, disable UAC altogether?

I leave it enabled since only took me 2 weeks to get use to it,does not always pop up,besides you got the choice to leave it enabled or disabled,your call and also your call on the consequences.

Vista is change for the sake of change. Most of the best features never made the final release. Vistas biggest changes are visual, and the fact that most of the best known features have been moved around.

A lot of new features were included,better security(always good thing in my books) ,better memory handling (l like super prefetch etc..),I like the indexing , redesigned sound system( to improve sound driver stability which I'll take over performance hit anytime),DX10 etc..price wise same as XP so nothing to complain about there.

I've been an IT admin for 13 years. At first I was luke warm on Vista. However, the more I use it the more I like it.

 

[SickBeast]

IMO Vista is a more legitimate OS than XP ever was.

It runs on a new kernel and can run 64-bit apps.

What did XP have over Windows 2000 aside from a facelift (and an ugly one at that)?

Windows 2000 is my favorite all-time OS (NT4 comes close). Vista is bloated but pretty good. XP runs quicker for me, but I prefer the Vista interface.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: loup garou
Lock this crap up.

:thumbsup:

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
IMO Vista is a more legitimate OS than XP ever was.

It runs on a new kernel and can run 64-bit apps.

What did XP have over Windows 2000 aside from a facelift (and an ugly one at that)?

Windows 2000 is my favorite all-time OS (NT4 comes close). Vista is bloated but pretty good. XP runs quicker for me, but I prefer the Vista interface.

It's not a new kernel. Windows 7 is going to be a new kernel.

 

[stealthc]

God I'm not gunna fiddle with this too much other than to say there is a project for making XP operate with direct X 10 games, and it's not Microsoft that's doing it. Every release of direct X has sped things up, so how on earth can you turn around and argue that if there was a new release for XP it would slow things down? Direct x 9 cards cannot run these enhanced effects period, if they did it would slow them down (obviously), but if it were to operate with a Direct X 10 game and not attempt to emulate these so-called advanced features, it would be faster than if it were to run direct x 9.0c. Or are you saying that they just added to direct x and performed no optimizations to the core direct X library which they built it off of? Mind you there are drastic changes to the video rendering architecture, HOWEVER, it is still based off of it's predecessor.

LOL vista does cost more, since when did any XP operating system cost over $200? Honestly those prices you are paying are way too high, I got my licensed copy of XP pro over a year ago for $119. LMAO.
$99 is overpriced for basic crap.

I just installed Ubuntu Linux today and given how it performs vs. XP, I am so tempted to not install my copy of xp on here. It has better eye candy than Aero and it runs on a Direct X 9 intel GMA 950, So tell me, what exactly does Vista do that needs such a monsterous video card considering pretty much anything made in the past year should be-able to run the premium edition? Furthermore I find windows to be a disgusting resource pig. Think XP is bad, Vista is a hell of alot worse.

Home users want the eye candy. It sure as heck does enhance the useability of the product. It's great that I can pay $0 for something that works just as well but takes a computer guy like me a tinsy bit of extra effort to install and get running well.

Yeah don't forget my copy of Vista Basic (does that figure of yours include the free upgrade?). I was thinking since I got the key I can transfer my license to someone else, and keep my copy of XP and use Ubuntu instead. There's no benefit to using Vista home.

And actually no I am not biased, I've used nothing but microsoft operating systems for years. Last year I dabbled a little using backtrack 2 on wireless.....this is my first installed distro on my hard drive, and from now on it'll be standard.

I can see Ubuntu surpassing vista with just a handful of bugs fixed, Why on earth would someone wanna pay $99 to $300 when they can get something that'll be just as good over the next year for $0?

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: stealthc
There will no longer be support for direct x. We've been stuck and stagnant with dx 9.1c (is that right, I can't remember because it's been 3 almost 4 years since we've all gotten an upgrade which usually gave us a noticeable speed increase).

There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know why I am bothering to reply. Direct X 10 will NOT speed up video processing. It is a new API that in every benchmark runs SLOWER than DX 9.1c. DX 10 adds new eye candy to games and different ways of processing graphics that are incompatible with XP's driver model. If Microsoft were to update the driver model on XP to support DX10, then you would have the exact same compatibility issues Vista has. In fact you would be essentially turning XP into Vista.

DX 9 has been updated numerous times in the last few years which is why you have the 9.0 a-b-c, 9.1 a,b,c monikers. It has only been in the last couple of years that games have completely switched to DX 9 from earlier versions of the DX API. It will be a couple more years before games completely switch to DX 10. Since over 75% of the worlds computers still run XP, games will be supporting DX9 for many years to come. All DX 10 will do for these games is add more eye candy for those with systems that support it. Right now it is hard to tell the difference between DX9 and DX 10 mode while playing games. It usually takes a screenshot to be able to tell the difference. Also as I have previously mentioned, DX 10 gives a performance hit that leads to lower frames.

Then there's the fact that when you perform a search you don't get the option of searching for video files easily.
The list goes on with vista and this is the first time we've been offered the option to downgrade, though with downgrading comes several problems.

And XP's search is better how? Search in XP is so bad that all tweaking guides recommend that users turn off indexing with XP. This is not so with Vista. Would I like search in Vista to be as intuitive as OSX? You bet I would! The fact remains that search in Vista is half way usable now. I can launch any program install in a few keystrokes because of search in Vista. Try doing that in XP. Searching is many times faster in Vista than XP. I also like the fact that I have control on what folders and file extensions are indexed by going into the Control Panel and selecting Indexing. That allows me to streamline search to make it even better.

Downgrade rights were also offered to customers of XP when it was new. This is not something new and unique to Vista. These rights for Vista have been in place since the OS shipped. The fact you are unwilling to research this stuff is your fault.

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has decided not to offer any further support or development for windows XP beyond service pack 3. Since everybody is downgrading I think Microsoft should offer us support and improvements to XP beyond SP3.

Everybody is not downgrading. In fact few are downgrading. The majority of people that buy Vista stick with it. Vista already has 10% of the total market share world wide according to several web usage tracking companies. The people that are downgrading are mainly geeks and some companies. Unless you have data that proves EVERYONE is downgrading, no one is going to take your claim seriously. The fact you even use the word "everyone" is proof you don't know what you are talking about. The fact is that SOME are downgrading from Vista to XP, just as some downgraded from XP to 98 when it came out six years ago.

How long do you expect Microsoft to support development of XP? It makes no sense to develop XP any further after SP3. XP will be supported for many years to come for security updates. In fact, XP will have a longer life span that any other version of Windows ever released. Eventually, Vista will overtake XP on the desktop and developers won't even develop for it any more. You will have to move on eventually if you want to run the latest and greatest software.

That is what the petition is for. We don't want Vista to be improved. We want XP to be improved, that's why we downgrade our computers in the first place.

So how is a petition of a few thousand users going to change Microsoft's mind when there are over a billion Windows users world wide? If you downgrade to try to force Microsoft to continue to improve XP, you are fighting a loosing battle. Microsoft is not going to drop Vista for XP over a few thousand people's wishes. I have never seen a web driven petition even work on any issue. What makes you think it will work this time?

But then it would seem to me that the forum admin here actually likes Vista. Do you like the notion of paying $300 for an operating system? Vista is the biggest crock there ever was. The only people that really wish to use Vista are those that are uninformed, and those that have noticed their future hardware will be crippled because Microsoft has abandoned XP and is forcing everybody to upgrade to Vista. They've even went so far as to cease embracing solid backwards compatibility.

The admin here is tired of the trolling that some anti-Vista people are doing. I have seen the staff here criticize Vista on many occasions. I paid $115 USD for my copy of Vista Home Premium. I ran both the beta and rc of Vista on this computer and I waited six months after the release to purchase Vista. Before I purchased it, I researched that there were drivers for all my hardware and watched to see what issues people were having on similar set-ups to mine. Does that sound uninformed? None of my hardware is crippled. I can do everything in Vista I can do in XP. I was not forced by Microsoft to buy Vista. Dell, HP and every other OEM still offers XP so how are people being forced to upgrade?

Microsoft made necessary changes under the hood of Vista that is causing some minor backwards compatibility issues. Most software written for XP works just fine on Vista. Some trouble software will run when you launch it in compatibility mode. The fact is that Microsoft worked hard to keep backwards compatibility.

It is my opinion and many others it is time for Microsoft to stop embracing backwards compatibility, going all the way back to win 3.1. They need to get rid of all that old code and make Windows lean and mean again. Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons Vista is so bloated to begin with. With Virtual Machine technology, there is no reason for Microsoft to keep developing for backwards compatibility. All they have to do is simulate older versions of Windows using virtualization while keeping the os code itself clean.

Just because we are given downgrade rights doesn't mean that Microsoft has done enough. It means that Microsoft has listened to us a little, but is still busy trying to bully us into buying overpriced Vista. Isn't it clear already that we don't want Vista? Isn't it clear that we aren't flocking to upgrade our XP to Vista? Vista is a failure. So much so it calls for more than mere downgrade rights.

Vista cost no more than XP.

Home Basic - XP Home - $99 OEM, $199 Retail, Dell, HP and others pay far less.

Home Premium - XP MCE - $119 OEM, $239 Retail, Same as above

Business - XP Pro - $179 OEM, $299 Retail, Same as above

Ultimate (Superset of Business and Home Premium. No XP version exist, but would be the equivalent of XP MCE and XP pro combined.) $199 OEM, $399 Retail, Same as above. (Very few people even need this. Home users will see very little benefit by running this vs Home Premium.

So how is $99 overpriced? If you buy it with a new computer, you probably paid only $50 for it because Microsoft gives huge volume discounts to OEM's.

100,000,000 copies of Vista sold to date. Web tracking shows Vista to be 10% of the installed base world wide. This means Vista is not a failure. You and others making that claim are just plain wrong and the facts do not back you up.

I don't have to review all of the issues, fact of the matter is, the general public does not like this product, period, and this site, as a news reporting site shouldn't have any bias towards newer Microsoft products though I'm guessing my thread seems like trolling, spam, etc because it's likely Microsoft is one of your sponsors.

And you are not biased and are totally fair and accurate in every thing you posted here? I have news for you, this is a tech site and not a news reporting site. News is only a small part of what goes on here. As I stated earlier, the staff here at Anadtech have criticized Vista in certain areas. In fact, they were accurate in their criticism of Vista. They don't have to make stuff up or blow things out of proportion. This is one of the most unbiased tech sites you will go to. Anandtech has a reputation for being fair in their reviews of products. They were the only site that refused to go to AMD's little pony show in lake Tahoe and forced AMD to send the Phenom to them to review in their own labs, under their own conditions.

The press should be reporting to US, the general public, not filtering things because they are in bed with corporate america.

The press IS corporate America.

 

[stealthc]

that sure the heck was a long repost.... ummm let's just say Ubuntu is more legitimate of an Operating system than Vista. It has all of it's features and eye candy, perhaps only needing a few volunteers to work out a handful more bugs in an upcoming distro. Linux usage has doubled over the past year. Expect it to double over the next 6 months again. Think Vista is *that* great? It's what is going to kill Microsoft's operating system monopoly. Microsoft sure did pick a bad time to make Vista, right when Ubuntu is so close to making something cohesive enough to kill M$. People have been touting for years that Linux is going to win eventually, and thanks to Vista, that day will come much sooner now. I got one of those "Vista Capable" laptops too, looks like I'll be more than happy to wait for that class action suit, I'll save my receipt and send it in so I can join because their marketing is a bait and switch and there's no fighting it (they forgot the * next to the word capable, or rather had they not intended on being deceptive it would be Vista Basic Capable). Either way they seriously shot themselves in the foot, and I'll be more than happy to join in to see them out of the operating system market.
The only reason why I'd keep XP is because I like doing some things in it, such as working with photoshop and audio software, which I don't think I'll do in Linux due to POOR 3rd party app support; but don't kid yourself software makers are going to be taking further heed to Linux's furtherly increasing user-base.
And I'll be doing my part as well. It is Linux users that are inducting angry Vista users, and I'll be inducting a whole slew of people to the world of Linux myself. WInning me over will get another couple dozen people using Linux, and both of my computers. I happen to have 6 people I'm planning to upgrade to Linux over the next week I think that's a good start. Once I bring my laptop over and show them all the cool things I got loaded and working perfectly on it they will be begging me to switch them over. And yes I'm going to be taking advantage of using my laptop in public places so that people can have a look and judge for themselves. The biggest problem with linux is marketing, how many linux units you see sitting around best buy? Microsoft has done nothing good for us but tell manufacturers to release models exclusively with their operating system on it. Just try and buy a laptop nowadays without a copy of windows XP or Vista on it.....let me know if you see any out there (LOL).... I'd imagine the percentage that there are, is quite significantly smaller of a ratio than actual install-base.

P.S. I've heard through the grapevine, that Acer is still doing 10 copies of XP for every 1 of Vista for their box's and laptops.

 

[toadeater]

Vista could use a couple of service packs.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: stealthc
God I'm not gunna fiddle with this too much other than to say there is a project for making XP operate with direct X 10 games, and it's not Microsoft that's doing it.

The project to port DX10 is insecure and illegal. It is also having a lot of technical problems due to the requirement of DX10 needing Vista's new driver model. Even if they get some DX 10 features to work, it will be nothing more than a hack. Are you going to trust your computers security to a half-assed hack by a third party?.

Every release of direct X has sped things up, so how on earth can you turn around and argue that if there was a new release for XP it would slow things down?

Anandtech DX 10 Performance

FiringSquad DX10 performance

Do you really need more links to prove DX10 is slower than DX9? There are a ton available if you take the time to use google.

Direct x 9 cards cannot run these enhanced effects period, if they did it would slow them down (obviously), but if it were to operate with a Direct X 10 game and not attempt to emulate these so-called advanced features, it would be faster than if it were to run direct x 9.0c. Or are you saying that they just added to direct x and performed no optimizations to the core direct X library which they built it off of? Mind you there are drastic changes to the video rendering architecture, HOWEVER, it is still based off of it's predecessor.

Who said any thing about DX9 cards? All the Benchmarks show DX10 is slower than DX9 on DX 10 cards! DX 10 cards perform DX9 rendering equal or faster than DX9 cards. This information is all over the net. The fact you choose to ignore those benchmarks is your problem. DX 10 is even slower than DX9 even when you turn down the features in DX 10 and leave the features fully enabled in DX 9.

Video rendering in Vista is not based off of XP. Xp uses GDI to render the desktop where Vista uses DX to do all the rendering. Vista has a completely new graphics engine for video rendering. This is what makes Aero possible on Vista, but not XP. Because DX9 and DX 10 are incompatible, both are installed in Vista by default.

LOL vista does cost more, since when did any XP operating system cost over $200? Honestly those prices you are paying are way too high, I got my licensed copy of XP pro over a year ago for $119. LMAO.
$99 is overpriced for basic crap.

No it does not. Microsoft set the prices the same to the comparable versions of XP. Just because you found a deal of XP Pro for less than the suggested retail or OEM price does not mean you can not find deals on Vista Business at the same price you paid for XP Pro. XP Pro was a hell of a lot more expensive when it came out. The OEM version was $199.

The majority of people buy Vista with a new computer. That means that people are paying less than $99 for both Vista Basic and Home Premium. Depending on the OEM, it could be as little as $25 or as high as $60. While I agree that Home Basic is crap, it is no more crappy than XP Home feature wise and is even preferred by some people because it does not have as many features as the other versions. Home Premium is only $20 more if you buy your own OEM copy and has all the features the home user wants. The difference is even lees when buying from an OEM like Dell or HP. Your "overpriced" rant does not hold water when compared to the facts.

I just installed Ubuntu Linux today and given how it performs vs. XP, I am so tempted to not install my copy of xp on here. It has better eye candy than Aero and it runs on a Direct X 9 intel GMA 950, So tell me, what exactly does Vista do that needs such a monsterous video card considering pretty much anything made in the past year should be-able to run the premium edition? Furthermore I find windows to be a disgusting resource pig. Think XP is bad, Vista is a hell of alot worse.

You are talking to a long term Ubuntu user here. Ubuntu does not perform better than XP. Try playing all your Windows games on Ubuntu and come back and tell me how much better it is. Compiz Fusion Does have better eye candy, but is also buggier than Aero and crashes quite often. Aero is perfectly capable of running on Intel GMA 950 graphics. Vista does not need a monstrous video card to use Aero as it works fine on onboard graphics from Intel, ATI, and Nvidia.

Home users want the eye candy. It sure as heck does enhance the useability of the product. It's great that I can pay $0 for something that works just as well but takes a computer guy like me a tinsy bit of extra effort to install and get running well.

Average people do not have the desire nor the ability to install Ubuntu. Ubuntu may cost you $0, but it does require quite a bit of time to install and configure properly. That is why people will continue to buy computer with Vista pre-installed and pre-configured. If they want an alternative, they will buy the Mac. Ubuntu is still a geeks operating system.

And actually no I am not biased, I've used nothing but microsoft operating systems for years.

Since everybody is downgrading I think Microsoft should offer us support and improvements to XP beyond SP3.

We don't want Vista to be improved. We want XP to be improved, that's why we downgrade our computers in the first place.

Do you like the notion of paying $300 for an operating system? Vista is the biggest crock there ever was.

Microsoft has abandoned XP and is forcing everybody to upgrade to Vista. They've even went so far as to cease embracing solid backwards compatibility.

It means that Microsoft has listened to us a little, but is still busy trying to bully us into buying overpriced Vista.

Vista is a failure.

I'm guessing my thread seems like trolling, spam, etc because it's likely Microsoft is one of your sponsors.

Furthermore I find windows to be a disgusting resource pig. Think XP is bad, Vista is a hell of alot worse.

There's no benefit to using Vista home.

You are absolutely right! How could I ever have determined you were biased against Vista from any thing you previously said? All those quotes above this are so fair and balanced and not anti-Vista in the slightest bit.

I can see Ubuntu surpassing vista with just a handful of bugs fixed, Why on earth would someone wanna pay $99 to $300 when they can get something that'll be just as good over the next year for $0?

Not going to happen until most commercial software and games are available for Ubuntu and it is pre-installed and pre-configured to the same level as Windows.

 

[wordsworm]

Vista 64 - I have been using it since last July. My initial impression of it is better than 95, 98, ME, and XP. Every single one of those OSes gave me headaches. The only two OSes I didn't have problems with, so far, are 3.1 and Vista. I'll admit that the reason I didn't take to 95 was because I had 4MB of RAM, and that was just too bloody slow. I tried 98, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out what the difference was between 95 and 98. They looked and seemed exactly the same. ME was the only OS to date that felt like it was infected with a trojan and/or virus even before it went online. I couldn't even play a song without it getting buggy. XP took a lot of time to get used to for me. I had to learn not to use IE, to disable the firewall and install something better, to block popups and run anti-adware scanners.

I had no problems with viruses with Win 3.1 (am I the only one who misses BBS?). I have had no problems with Vista. I have used Windows 2000 on someone else's machine, and I found it to work quite well. Solid as a rock, no problems.

I have 1 Vista complaint though - the calendar. When I open the calendar on XP, it stays open so I can do other things with that information still on the screen. With Vista, as soon as I click on something else, say a chat window to tell someone what day I will be available, it disappears. I consider that to be such a small problem that I hesitate to mention it. However, I didn't want anyone thinking that I had nothing bad to say about Vista.

A lot of people talk about bloat. I must admit I don't really care that much for or against it. I have enough computing power to take care of the bloat. If that bloat is there to make my life easier, then so be it. Bring it on, as long as it doesn't bog me down perceptibly.

Vista 64 is the best OS MS has released that I've seen. Ultimate looks even better with its multilingual options: you can dual boot in French or English, or whatever other language you want. As far as I know, XP never offered that. For someone who lives and works in a multilingual environment, it's really a 'god send.' I am quite upset, though, that MS doesn't warn in the literature that the multilingual interface is only available in Ultimate and Corporate (or is it Business? I forget...) After I discovered this, I was quite angry, and in MS style, their customer service really doesn't lower itself to give me an explanation for this.

My other big complaint is that they created Vista 32. It would have been better if they'd just left 32 bit computing behind for good. It would have made it easier for companies to create just one single driver rather than 2 for everything. They should have simply stuck to 64 bit. I think they wanted people to upgrade, and they feared losing revenue. The reality is that if you don't have a 64 bit CPU, then the rest of your rig is probably not going to run it very well. It seems to me their worst decision in developing the software. This leads me to this question: how much more money was spent in developing both a 32 bit and 64 bit OS? How much would the company have saved just going 64?

So, while I guess I'm not 100% with Vista or MS, if I was given a scale of 1-10, I'd rate Vista 64 a 10.

 

[Rebel44]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
My other big complaint is that they created Vista 32. It would have been better if they'd just left 32 bit computing behind for good. It would have made it easier for companies to create just one single driver rather than 2 for everything. They should have simply stuck to 64 bit. I think they wanted people to upgrade, and they feared losing revenue. The reality is that if you don't have a 64 bit CPU, then the rest of your rig is probably not going to run it very well. It seems to me their worst decision in developing the software. This leads me to this question: how much more money was spent in developing both a 32 bit and 64 bit OS? How much would the company have saved just going 64?

So, while I guess I'm not 100% with Vista or MS, if I was given a scale of 1-10, I'd rate Vista 64 a 10.

+1 It would be much better to have only 64bit version.

 

[Amaroque]

I prefer XP-64 over Vista. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Tarrant64]

Apparently nobody remembers how bad it was when Windows XP first came out. And how much of a pain Service Pack 2 was. Vista is no different.

Vista isn't a failure, and never was. Swallow that. 1000 reviews on the 'Internets' won't change the fact that many manufacturers have switched to it and were in full swing when it was released. Businesses are on the top of the list of those that haven't adapted to Windows Vista. If you remember, the same thing happened with Windows XP. Nothing has changed, it's a rough start everytime.


This thread should be locked up. These complaints are a bit too redundant. Show sup maybe once a day, and should be locked out of habit.

+1 on the realization that there should have only been a 64-bit version if Vista. The new generation thrives off of more than just 3.5GB of RAM.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
Vista 64 - I have been using it since last July. My initial impression of it is better than 95, 98, ME, and XP. Every single one of those OSes gave me headaches. The only two OSes I didn't have problems with, so far, are 3.1 and Vista. I'll admit that the reason I didn't take to 95 was because I had 4MB of RAM, and that was just too bloody slow. I tried 98, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out what the difference was between 95 and 98. They looked and seemed exactly the same. ME was the only OS to date that felt like it was infected with a trojan and/or virus even before it went online. I couldn't even play a song without it getting buggy. XP took a lot of time to get used to for me. I had to learn not to use IE, to disable the firewall and install something better, to block popups and run anti-adware scanners.

I had no problems with viruses with Win 3.1 (am I the only one who misses BBS?). I have had no problems with Vista. I have used Windows 2000 on someone else's machine, and I found it to work quite well. Solid as a rock, no problems.

I have 1 Vista complaint though - the calendar. When I open the calendar on XP, it stays open so I can do other things with that information still on the screen. With Vista, as soon as I click on something else, say a chat window to tell someone what day I will be available, it disappears. I consider that to be such a small problem that I hesitate to mention it. However, I didn't want anyone thinking that I had nothing bad to say about Vista.

A lot of people talk about bloat. I must admit I don't really care that much for or against it. I have enough computing power to take care of the bloat. If that bloat is there to make my life easier, then so be it. Bring it on, as long as it doesn't bog me down perceptibly.

Vista 64 is the best OS MS has released that I've seen. Ultimate looks even better with its multilingual options: you can dual boot in French or English, or whatever other language you want. As far as I know, XP never offered that. For someone who lives and works in a multilingual environment, it's really a 'god send.' I am quite upset, though, that MS doesn't warn in the literature that the multilingual interface is only available in Ultimate and Corporate (or is it Business? I forget...) After I discovered this, I was quite angry, and in MS style, their customer service really doesn't lower itself to give me an explanation for this.

My other big complaint is that they created Vista 32. It would have been better if they'd just left 32 bit computing behind for good. It would have made it easier for companies to create just one single driver rather than 2 for everything. They should have simply stuck to 64 bit. I think they wanted people to upgrade, and they feared losing revenue. The reality is that if you don't have a 64 bit CPU, then the rest of your rig is probably not going to run it very well. It seems to me their worst decision in developing the software. This leads me to this question: how much more money was spent in developing both a 32 bit and 64 bit OS? How much would the company have saved just going 64?

So, while I guess I'm not 100% with Vista or MS, if I was given a scale of 1-10, I'd rate Vista 64 a 10.

+1.

Me too

 

[mechBgon]

soonerproud, excellent rebuttal :thumbsup:

There's no benefit to using Vista home.

I disagree. Vista's security is clearly superior to Windows XP, both in out-of-the-box configuration and in absolute terms. And that's important going forward, particularly for the average folks with no security training, who'll just plug in their new computer and use it as-is, as soon as they figure out where all the cables go.

Interesting report: F-Secure's Data Security Summary - July to December 2007 As much malware in 2007 alone, as in the 20 previous years combined. See a trend? Still want to use an 8-year-old OS? If you do, that's your call, and I even have a security gameplan for you. But don't delude yourself that there's no benefit to using Vista, even the most basic version of it. Security is one area where Vista offers significant improvements, and if Microsoft did try to provide WinXP users with the full security enhancements of Vista, they'd probably freak out about that.

Further reading:

Symantec on current threat survivability on Vista

Out of the seventy percent [of ~2000 tested malware samples] that were able to execute [on Windows Vista], only about six percent of the samples were able to accomplish a full compromise and an even smaller number (four percent) were able to survive a reboot. The rest did not execute properly due to incompatibility, unhandled exceptions, or security restrictions.

SANS on "malvertising"

Malvertising (malicious advertising) is a reasonably fresh take on an online criminal methodology that appears focused on the installation of unwanted or outright malicious software through the use of internet advertising media networks, exchanges and other user supplied content publishing services common to the Social Networking space.
...
In light of a growing problem that has the potential to effectively place every internet user at risk, even when only visiting sites they would otherwise fully trust, there is at least a new tool available to assist the security researcher community with a means to better identify malicious SWF files.

SecurityFocus on Windows Integrity Control in Windows Vista (two pages)

In Windows XP or older systems, whether or not the malware succeeds is more or less a function of the rights and privileges of the logged in user and whether or not the system and Registry have been hardened or protected in any way to block such attempts. With Vista, because everything related to the Internet runs at a Low integrity level, the malware will be unable to modify, delete or interact with virtually anything else on the system.

I suggest that you (1) recognize that the members of this Forum are not noObs who will mindlessly accept every dramatic, unsubstantiated claim you can dream up, and (2) your quest to make Microsoft carry on WinXP development ad infinitum will ultimately be in vain, so you might as well drop it and move on with life.