O
oscar
Guest
RE: Windows Vista is pure horror
Sorry to her that you're having problems with Vista.
The way to approach Vista is to treat it as an entirely new OS. Vista is not
an enhanced version of XP. It is a powerful step up from XP and has powerful
features that are more suited for business applications. UAC, sharing
permissions and Search are confusing to the average user who first approaches
Vista, but once understood these features will give the user more control,
protection and increase productivity. To master Vista it takes time and
patience and experience. If I had the money I'd replace all of my XP's for
Vista machines.
FTR: I am not an employee of MS nor do I have any economic connection with
them. Vista is simply superior to XP.
--
oscar
....Right click is your very good friend...
"Pekka Numminen" wrote:
> Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
> Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
> to develop the OS in the right direction.
>
> Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
> than three times more popular than Vista (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems
> ).
>
> I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
> fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
> whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
> modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
> definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
> and animations that eat up your system resources.
>
> Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
> about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
> programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
> even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
> waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
>
> Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
> appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
> the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
> Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
>
> Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
> demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
> administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
> command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
>
> Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
> marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
> Vista is inferior to XP.
>
Sorry to her that you're having problems with Vista.
The way to approach Vista is to treat it as an entirely new OS. Vista is not
an enhanced version of XP. It is a powerful step up from XP and has powerful
features that are more suited for business applications. UAC, sharing
permissions and Search are confusing to the average user who first approaches
Vista, but once understood these features will give the user more control,
protection and increase productivity. To master Vista it takes time and
patience and experience. If I had the money I'd replace all of my XP's for
Vista machines.
FTR: I am not an employee of MS nor do I have any economic connection with
them. Vista is simply superior to XP.
--
oscar
....Right click is your very good friend...
"Pekka Numminen" wrote:
> Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
> Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
> to develop the OS in the right direction.
>
> Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
> than three times more popular than Vista (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems
> ).
>
> I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
> fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
> whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
> modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
> definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
> and animations that eat up your system resources.
>
> Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
> about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
> programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
> even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
> waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.
>
> Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
> appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
> the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
> Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?
>
> Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
> demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
> administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
> command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.
>
> Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
> marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
> Vista is inferior to XP.
>