Windows VISTA .... really that bad?

Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.

Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
suggestions?

Thank You in advance

NJA

wrote:
Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.

Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
suggestions?

Thank You in advance

NJA

Why would you have to spend extra?

Bob

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:33:01 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.

Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
suggestions?

Thank You in advance

NJA


I guess it depends on what you consider bad. It's stable and runs
well but requires newer systems (cpu/ram) and may require 3rd party
software upgrades to make them compatible to Vista. Also Vista may
require updated drivers for your peripherals to work properly. I
don't run Vista yet but others said they really don't see any reason
to run Vista over XP so I guess it's a judgement call.

wrote:
Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.

Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
suggestions?

Thank You in advance

NJA

Make sure that you get sufficient hardware to run it OK. For example,
you should have at least 2GB of RAM and a decent 3D video card.

Also, make sure that the programs you use will run on Vista. Many need
updates or new versions. You need to be sure that there are drivers for
any hardware that you plan to add to the system (pritner, scanner, etc.).

If you do your homework and get a decent system, Vista will run fine.

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

Its not that I'm against progress, I just don't like change
-Mark Twain

I think vista is slower than XP on the same hardware.

Part of the problem is that XP is really quite good. So the question I have
(because my Vista knowledge is incomplete) -is do the new features features
justify the hardware penalty at this time?

For those who are using Vista -what do you think?

"Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.

Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
suggestions?

Thank You in advance

NJA

Make sure that you get sufficient hardware to run it OK. For example, you
should have at least 2GB of RAM and a decent 3D video card.

Also, make sure that the programs you use will run on Vista. Many need
updates or new versions. You need to be sure that there are drivers for
any hardware that you plan to add to the system (pritner, scanner, etc.).

If you do your homework and get a decent system, Vista will run fine.

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

Keith wrote:
Its not that I'm against progress, I just don't like change
-Mark Twain

I think vista is slower than XP on the same hardware.

Part of the problem is that XP is really quite good. So the question I have
(because my Vista knowledge is incomplete) -is do the new features features
justify the hardware penalty at this time?

For those who are using Vista -what do you think?

The only reason I went to Vista was because XP 64 simply didn't have the
drivers or support I needed. Vista 64 does. Simple as that.

Bob

Hi!

On the surface, Vista is fine. It runs well on a lot of hardware,
although I have run into some things that don't work and others that
surprised me when they did work.

That said...I don't like the shell at all. I set most everything as
far back to "classic" Windows as I possibly could, but I still can't
get everything, including the ability to adjust and control Explorer
toolbars.

I'm also not sure who thought User Account Control (UAC) was a good
idea. I could see the "good" side of this feature, where a UAC prompt
saves someone from a hassle that could be caused by malicious software
or websites that try to install malicious software. But the average
user generally won't know any better when Vista asks for permission to
continue, they'll want it to work, they won't care and they'll give
permission for anything. Frankly, I found it annoying and shut it off
almost immediately.

William

I think vista is slower than XP on the same hardware.

For some things such as file copying, it is slower. For other things such
as downloading
files off the Internet, Vista is much faster on our machines. Video
response
is about the same. Other machines may show different results.

Tom Lake

wrote in message
...
Someone mentioned to me recently that if I got another computer to
make sure NOT to get one with Windows VISTA/. Is this newer OS really
that bad? I notice most if not all newer PCs come with it.

Should I spend extra to get XP put in one of these newer units? Any
suggestions?

Thank You in advance

NJA



1) Yes Vista is that bad at the moment.

2) Any system purchase should be configured to handle Vista if you decide to
upgrade in the future.

3) XP shouldn't cost more.

Do you remember Windows 95? How about 3.1? There has
always been a certain trauma as PC users transitioned
into a new OS. It's no different now, though XP has
become such a good OS after all these years that the
market had unrealistic expectations of Vista. It takes
time in the marketplace - as it always has - for a new
OS to evolve into a fully satisfying solution. In
today's malware-ridden world, Vista is more stable and
much safer than XP.

A small percentage of advanced users who want more
control over what "works" and what "happens" run into
problems. Also, some who wish to convert an older
computer to Vista may have difficulty with compatibility
of drivers, etc. These troubled groups comprise a very
small part of the total Vista user community, but
sometimes become very loud.

The high percentage of users who are pleased by the
enhanced safety, stability, and satisfaction of Vista
are too busy working comfortably on their computers to
raise their voices, and their voices are rarely heard.

Here are some suggested Vista guidelines:

If XP works on your current computer, don't change it.
Wait till you need a new computer.

If you MUST use certain custom or older
non-Vista-certified applications, don't buy a new
computer with Vista on it and expect those apps to work.

If you are buying a new Vista computer, pick a major
brand to ensure hardware and driver compatibility and
lots of testing (don't have a local shop "build" your
Vista computer).

Get at least 2GB of RAM.

Get a nice display, since Vista has a lot of eye candy -
you might as well enjoy it!

Get Vista Home Premium as a minimum.

Do not try to add apps or hardware - especially older
ones - unless they've been Vista certified or someone
credible has reported reliable operation in Vista.

Once your Vista computer is set up with your
Vista-certified applications, do not make a hobby of
installing and trying random junk. If some game or
utility is not Vista-certified, and you install it
anyway, why would you be surprised at problems?

And never, never, EVER use a "registry cleaner" or
"registry defragmenter" (this applies to every OS).

Ike