D
duhpastor
Guest
RE: Several reasons not to upgrade to Vista right now
"tairobi" wrote:
> I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad Harris, who
> obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts about
> Microsoft's newest operating system.
>
> First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta 3 to
> the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and comparing to
> the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with Windows
> Vista.
>
> For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and installed
> the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
> installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I popped in
> the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the operating
> system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades from
> Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows XP SP2 to
> Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums, other
> users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was going on for
> 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista typically take
> about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours is slow.
>
" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It upgrades
> fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here internally at
> Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>
>
> Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>
> 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes to go
> from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let me do
> tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer and the OS
> gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it takes
> about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely unresponsive for at
> least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at 100%.
> There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager, so I have
> to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a services
> tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which one is
> hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource monitor and
> get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of your CPU,
> and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become usable as
> opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step backwards from
> what we, the users, wanted.
>
> 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues. After
> loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on Windows XP
> no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was full of
> artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off before it
> calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player or
> PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this problem
> and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>
> 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't run at
> all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are dying
> for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download the Office
> 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect Microsoft to
> take you seriously when you report these errors. For example, several users
> on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8. Jim
> Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system running a
> clean install of Vista RTM." Another user reported that Time.Windows.Com
> (developer) didn't work on Vista and cited the behavior he was seeing. Colin
> Nash with Microsoft replied with "Works for me..."
>
> Translation: We don't believe you.
>
> Other posts for help with applications not running on Vista are going
> largely unreplied to. Nice way to treat your customers, Microsoft.
>
> 4. The added security is more of a pain in the butt than a help. I'm
> constantly plagued with Vista asking me if the application which I double
> clicked on is okay to run or the operation I'm trying to do in Internet
> Explorer is okay to do. You know, this was mildly interesting at first, but
> now I'm really annoyed. I know it's possible to turn these stupid warnings
> off, but you cannot do it from the dialog box.
>
> Pros:
>
> I find Windows Vista "pretty". That's about the ONLY reason I can think of
> to upgrade from Windows XP at this point. The aero interface is nice and
> creative.
>
> Cons:
>
> Takes hours to install or upgrade.
>
> The performance is sluggish at very best because of all the background crap
> that Microsoft crammed into the operating system. For better performance,
> plan on buying a Core 2 duo processor or at least 2 GB of RAM (and there's no
> guarantee that will help much).
>
> Vista eats an additional 2 GB of hard drive space over what Windows XP took.
>
> Media Player 11 is buggy and frustrating to use.
>
> The beefed up security in Vista isn't readily apparent except for annoying
> dialog boxes that constantly ask you for approval. For the end-user, it's not
> easy to disable these dialogs.
>
> Unless you have antivirus software, plan on getting used to that little
> yellow shield with the exclamation on the system tray. There's no way to
> disable it without hacking the registry or buying some antivirus software.
>
> The "improved" user interface for sorting and displaying files seems only
> improved by appearance. The sorting scheme seems to be exactly the same as in
> Windows XP.
>
> Bottom Line:
>
> It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user wanted in an
> operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista to mature for at least
> a couple of years before you decide to abandon Windows XP. The number one
> issue I can see Microsoft getting hit hard with are the home and small
> business users with relatively fast machines and performance issues.
"tairobi" wrote:
> I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad Harris, who
> obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts about
> Microsoft's newest operating system.
>
> First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta 3 to
> the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and comparing to
> the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with Windows
> Vista.
>
> For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and installed
> the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
> installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I popped in
> the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the operating
> system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades from
> Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows XP SP2 to
> Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums, other
> users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was going on for
> 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista typically take
> about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours is slow.
>
" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It upgrades > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here internally at
> Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>
>
> Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>
> 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes to go
> from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let me do
> tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer and the OS
> gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it takes
> about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely unresponsive for at
> least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at 100%.
> There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager, so I have
> to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a services
> tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which one is
> hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource monitor and
> get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of your CPU,
> and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become usable as
> opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step backwards from
> what we, the users, wanted.
>
> 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues. After
> loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on Windows XP
> no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was full of
> artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off before it
> calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player or
> PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this problem
> and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>
> 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't run at
> all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are dying
> for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download the Office
> 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect Microsoft to
> take you seriously when you report these errors. For example, several users
> on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8. Jim
> Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system running a
> clean install of Vista RTM." Another user reported that Time.Windows.Com
> (developer) didn't work on Vista and cited the behavior he was seeing. Colin
> Nash with Microsoft replied with "Works for me..."
>
> Translation: We don't believe you.
>
> Other posts for help with applications not running on Vista are going
> largely unreplied to. Nice way to treat your customers, Microsoft.
>
> 4. The added security is more of a pain in the butt than a help. I'm
> constantly plagued with Vista asking me if the application which I double
> clicked on is okay to run or the operation I'm trying to do in Internet
> Explorer is okay to do. You know, this was mildly interesting at first, but
> now I'm really annoyed. I know it's possible to turn these stupid warnings
> off, but you cannot do it from the dialog box.
>
> Pros:
>
> I find Windows Vista "pretty". That's about the ONLY reason I can think of
> to upgrade from Windows XP at this point. The aero interface is nice and
> creative.
>
> Cons:
>
> Takes hours to install or upgrade.
>
> The performance is sluggish at very best because of all the background crap
> that Microsoft crammed into the operating system. For better performance,
> plan on buying a Core 2 duo processor or at least 2 GB of RAM (and there's no
> guarantee that will help much).
>
> Vista eats an additional 2 GB of hard drive space over what Windows XP took.
>
> Media Player 11 is buggy and frustrating to use.
>
> The beefed up security in Vista isn't readily apparent except for annoying
> dialog boxes that constantly ask you for approval. For the end-user, it's not
> easy to disable these dialogs.
>
> Unless you have antivirus software, plan on getting used to that little
> yellow shield with the exclamation on the system tray. There's no way to
> disable it without hacking the registry or buying some antivirus software.
>
> The "improved" user interface for sorting and displaying files seems only
> improved by appearance. The sorting scheme seems to be exactly the same as in
> Windows XP.
>
> Bottom Line:
>
> It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user wanted in an
> operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista to mature for at least
> a couple of years before you decide to abandon Windows XP. The number one
> issue I can see Microsoft getting hit hard with are the home and small
> business users with relatively fast machines and performance issues.
