People forgot that Microsoft had to bundle 256MB of RAM to entice people to switch. XP was such a memory hog then. LOL.
I agree with many of you that Vista can be a little resource intensive at times. However, if you look at scalability verses that consumption it is still a good product. I for one have always tried to be a little ahead of the curve when it comes to technology and since I have a system that exceeds the minimum requirements needed to run vista I have no problems with system stability or bottle necking at all. Remember there was a day when everyone said using a graphic user interface or (GUI) for short was a waste cause it was to resource intensive and you could do it all in Command Line, I know you ole 3.1 users remember that. Remember in Vista to have a strong processor dual core at a minimum and at least 2GB of RAM. This will make Vista run like the wind and to upgrade your current PC shouldn't cost you more than a couple hundred dollars. FLtrader
I agree with pretty much everything you said. It's cool to bash microsoft, and especially vista, so everyone does it. I remember when windows 95 came out, people said to avoid it like the plauge, eventually we all used it.... (or at least all windows users moved on to it). Similarily when windows xp came out people called it a resource hog, it takes up too much disk space etc etc etc. I used XP from day one, it was vastly superior to windows 98 in every way, (of course I was moving from win2k, which was also vastly superior to windows 9X/Me) I've used both XP, and vista for the last several months and if your system can handle it vista is fine for the most part... The only problem is getting some apps to work with it can be major hassle... I had to tweak simply accounting to get it to work, a patch I had for dreamweaver refused to install etc. But once I got everything up and running vista has given me zero problems. To be fair I should also mention that I found vista to add little or nothing to my user experience, other than looking nicer, hence why most people bash it. However, I don't think you earn the right to bash something unless you've tried it out... Reading what others think of a product in a review or forum then repeating what they say about it is pretty lame. I suspect most people who bash Vista, haven't used it. my .02$ - mnx
I would agree to this with the addition of the following: "or used it long enough to realise they had to learn some new tricks and gave up." I've always said that microsoft went a bit overboard with the "change for the sake of change" mentality when it came to Vista. They changed a lot of stuff that simply didn't need it (For example: changing the add/remove programs control panel to be programs and features). However, Vista isn't crap. Microsoft's marketing is crap, but the OS is solid.
It is a business. If everybody run their cars for 20 yrs, the auto manufacturing will go bankrupt. Microsoft is in survival mode... if it is not Vista, it is Windows 7. They got you either way. LOL.
I dare anyone to name (seriously) 3 things Vista does, that you really, really need, that XP doesn't provide. Vista was Microsoft's lame attempt to (again) capture the look and feel of Apple's latest OS. Unfortunately, they not only got the functionality wrong, they didn't even get the appearance too close. Microsoft is truly as unimaginative a company as any I've ever seen. Linux.
1) Vista introduced the requirement that all hardware vendors must create 64-bit Vista drivers in addition to the 32-bit Vista drivers in order to get Logo Certification. HW vendors can no longer Logo on Windows XP. That means, for the first time, I can run a 64-bit Windows operating system with confidence that new hardware will have 64-bit drivers. 2) Vista has full native PCI-Express support. That means full ASPM support through L0s/L1 to help save power whenever a device is even momentarily idle. 3) The combination of full native PCI-Express support and 64-bit support gives us 64-bit prefetchable BARs (Base Address Registers). This means moving the hardware's registers up and out of the way of system RAM. No longer will you have to worry about address holes or missing system RAM due to address space concerns. ... I could go on... -Raystonn
Those things may be true, but 99.59% of people neither need nor care about those features/functions. C'mon Microsoft, if you're going to try and force vendors to shove a new (highly bloated) OS down our throats, and abandon support for a perfectly stable and usable OS such as XP, give us something we can use. They could have just come out with a 64 bit version of XP and called it a day.