Blogs3,454 Entries

Windows shocker: 67% would buy XP over Vista

October 21, 2007

Is Windows Vista the biggest PR failure in Microsoft's history? I don't remember the criticism being this bad a year after XP was launched, nor any of its predecessors. Of course, slagging off Microsoft's latest operating system launch is nothing new, but according to over 3,000 people who answered our recent poll, the disapproval has reached new extremes. Twice as many of those who responded would rather have XP installed on their new PC or laptop than Vista.

The long development cycle for the latter has surely had a big hand in the widespread criticism. People hated Windows ME, for example, too, but it was launched at a time when Microsoft was releasing operating systems far more regularly. After the five-year build up to Vista people were expecting something really special, and they just didn't get it.

A number of Vista's biggest selling points have failed to excite users. The flashy 3D interface may have impressed initially, but many have been left wondering whether it's a worthy use of the extra processing grunt required to power it. Microsoft also spent five years telling us that Vista would be its most secure operating system ever, but inclusions such as User Account Control (UAC) have been derided as being too intrusive and, ultimately, a real nuisance.

Microsoft admitted in the summer that Vista sales had failed to match its anticipations, and it increased its projections for XP sales as a result. Later, the company was forced to extend the life of the latter OS, you'll now be able to buy XP on a new machine until at least next June. Furthermore, Microsoft has made it easier for Vista users to downgrade to XP – is that a new low for a new Microsoft operating system?

Take a look at the user comments (at the bottom of the page) here and here for more feedback from users.

But is it really that bad? I can see the argument that upgrading a current PC from XP to Vista isn't really worth the outlay or the bother, but on a new PC?

Coming back to our poll – 2,112 of the 4,208 who had responded to our poll by this morning would actually purchase an XP machine rather than a Vista machine if they needed to buy a new system now – even though Microsoft support would end sooner and they'd be missing out on benefits such as faster startups, resuming from sleep in seconds, ReadyBoost, the integration of Windows Media Center, impressive bundled applications etc.

Just over 1,000 would ignore the anti-Vista movement and pick a computer with Microsoft's latest and greatest OS should they need to buy a new PC or laptop today. (For the record, 724 would buy a Mac, and 337 would go for Linux. We wouldn't normally gloss over the PC versus Mac versus Linux debate, but we are focusing on Vista here, after all).

Let us know what you think – has the Vista-bashing got out of hand?

Posted by: Paul Trotter

What is this?

<<newer entry  |  older entry>>

Comments

Posted by Sao on October 21, 2007 :

I hade vista home premium on my new HP laptop installed and gone back to XP , is faster and more stable,

Posted by Jym on October 21, 2007 :

The survey is the usual anti microsoft thing. At least MS will be pleased they didn't say they'd rather have linux than windows

Posted by John Tsouris on October 21, 2007 :

Vista has faster startups, and resumes from sleep mode in seconds?? What copy of Vista do you have? I bought a brand new 64x2 Compaq laptop with Vista... it takes a full 5 minutes to boot. aA FULL FIVE MINUTES. Shutting down takes up to TEN minutes! After two months of madness, I hunted for XP drivers on-line for three hours (this laptop only came with Vista), and upgraded to XP. The computer now boots in, get this.... 14 seconds, and shuts down in 7!!!! Vista is a slow, bloated pig with zero added benefits. Good riddance, Vista.

Posted by Scott on October 21, 2007 :

I intend to skip Vista and wait for the next OS to see if they get that one right. XP will continue to work fine until then.

Posted by JDE on October 21, 2007 :

I ordered my new laptop six weeks ago and ordered it with XP Pro. When new machines run better and faster on old OS than they do with Vista, the choice is not too difficult.

Posted by Richard Chapman on October 21, 2007 :

I ran into a couple in there late 70's buying a book on XP in a bookstore recently. We struck up a conversation and, as it turned out, they had just purchased a new computer. They had were adamant that Vista was NOT to be install on it, it was to have XP instead.

The geeks may have issued the first warnings about Vista, but the general public have heeded the call.

Posted by Jane on October 21, 2007 :

Things I hate about Vista: It doesn't remember my settings such as default browser and folder view settings even though I've specified my preferences in the appropriate places. Also, yes, it is a resource hog that takes forever to boot up or shut down. UAC is too annoying to leave enabled. Vista has been so troublesome and glitchy that I have done 4 clean installs in the past 8 months! Grrrr! I hope the SP1 addresses these issues.

Posted by davesmall on October 21, 2007 :

Apple's Leopard update will go smoothly and will have close to 100% happy campers. There won't be a one year wait for Service Pack Number 1 to fix things. Most users won't have to buy new equipment to make it work (just those with equipment that 5 or 10 years old). Just plug in the DVD, click the install button, wait about an hour, and you'll be off to the races.


www.apple.com/macosx/guidedtour/large.html

Leopard is far advanced over Vista and years ahead of XP.

Apple has a couple of key andvantages:

1/ They control the hardware which means that they don't have to design and debug for an endless parade of possible hardware configurations. It's only the Mac models that Apple themselves designed. There aren't any third party motherboards or video boards or ??

2/ Leopard has UNIX underpinnings. That means there is a lot to borrow from the university and free software communities. Apple doesn't have to do all the work and has a lot of basic system software to start with.

Posted by Xnu on October 21, 2007 :

17% Macintosh potential market share according to the survey? 724/4208? Wow, it is a great day to be a Mac User! Better hardware, better software.

Posted by Not Bob on October 21, 2007 :

What about "Bob"?

Posted by Neil on October 21, 2007 :

I needed a new laptop, but was rather disappointed with Vista on a machine I borrowed from my friend. I took the leap and got a MacBook. It took a little while to get used to (e.g. menu on top of screen) but I love it now. No need for Norton etc - no viruses! Also, lots of small details delight. Recommended but give it a little time to get used to.

Posted by david on October 21, 2007 :

Tried Vista. Nice eye candy, but I hated it enough to switch back to XP. OSX is much cleaner, faster and more consistent. PS I'm Windows certified.

Posted by Tom B. on October 21, 2007 :

1) Vista is SLOWER even than XP
2) It's not really groundbreaking; it's still not UNIX or anything-- just XP with CPU-sucking eye-candy

Posted by boe on October 21, 2007 :

I upgrade all new machines we get from Vista to XP. XP works far faster on newer machines particularly if you do a great deal of file transfers or even copies onto the same hard drive of that PC. I've tried all the patches - even beta SP and it still is SLOW compared to an XP machine - yes I've tried turning off the Antivirus, firewall all visuals etc, updated drivers - all the crazy lies MS told people were responsible for the abysmal performance - turns out it is some crazy antipirating software for the MPAA responsible for the horrendous performance. So even though the machines are brand new with core 2 processors dedicated 256mb video cards, gigabit ethernet and 8mb cached 160 gig hard drives fresh out of the box, I can blow the performance off the map by just upgrading to XP - not sure why MS calls it downgrading.

Posted by farmers on October 22, 2007 :

I've yet to see a Vista machine that isn't CONSTANTLY 'doing something', with continuous hard drive activity even when idle. When you want it to do something, you have to wait for Vista to find a spare second to fit you in. I consider 1Gb RAM to be an absolute minimum for Vista, but preferrably 2Gb.

Posted by boe on October 22, 2007 :

I don't mind Vista as long as I don't have to buy it, use it or support it.

Posted by Crazy on October 22, 2007 :

You all Need to grow Up First
Compaq is a Buget Brand Now HP is the Model to buy... If you don't get at notebook or a pc with at least a Intel core 2 duo @ 1.8 Gig's and up, I don't want to hear you cry Spend the extra money Vista runs great and anyone that runs vista with out 2 gigs of ram is crazy. Ive seen No one Cry that own's a quad core or better Pc with vista.. And for the Microsft bashers out there Its not Just MS to blame its all the Pc manufactors Still making Crap PC's that can't Run Vista right. Blame them hell I blame all of you that buys cheep Pc's and notebooks Pay the extra money you get what you pay for.....and For linix Its I will never take off every Company thats trys to back it losses tones of money. if you look at the big Picture there's still like 70% pro Microsoft...
Get real and stop bitching Vistas here to stay....

Posted by Todd on October 22, 2007 :

I hate to Bring ths up
but Macs have one of the hights repair rates on the market.. iphone has Battery problems, the ipod has battery Problems both Macbook and Macbook pro Notebooks have battery Problems..
and as for virus LOL your all nuts theres virus just wait once lepord hits give it time and you too will be sorry.... Apple has nice looks but lol its a PC and you all have lost . Apple know's they lost thats why Intel is making its cpus and Motherboards and give it time and you will be able to buy mac os on both pc and mac and when that day happens all you so called mac lovers will realize just how powerfull Pc's really are...

Posted by Chris Corbin on October 22, 2007 :

Especially in the business environment, I would reccommend that you keep to XP Pro for at least another year to that Microsoft can sort this horrible mess out. Fortunately, there are still manufacturers that are selling new PC's with XP Pro, even if at a small premium, but its worth every penny in my view.

Posted by Beryl on October 22, 2007 :

Looked at Vista. Need a bigger PC. Can't afford one. Wouldn't use half of the bells and whistles. Slow to start and stop.
I want to use freeware I choose, not just what Bill Gates approves of. Whose PC is it anyway?
I would get a Mac tomorrow if I had the money. [Widowed Pensioner] Message for Bill Gates. Rework XP to include all patches, and remove the junk which clutters my PC. How many upgrades have there been since I bought this PC in 2003? Reformatting from supplied disk takes a long time. Updating takes forever.

Posted by brj on October 22, 2007 :

I recently bought a laptop with plenty of grunt and Vista Business (the only option available). What I object to is the learning curve - the file structure is quite different and I would rather have spent my time getting used to a Mac or Linux. Ok, I accept that John Tsouris really needed to tweak his Vista settings, but surely that emphasises the point - Vista is extreme bloatware and far from intuitive.

Posted by Dorino on October 22, 2007 :

I failed completely to connect on a dial up connection to Tiscali with a Laptop running on Vista.
I changed the Laptop to one running on XP. Result? No connection problem at all.

Posted by CrazyMocker on October 22, 2007 :

Crazy - could you be any less intelligent? OK - so I buy the fastest hardware on the market. I have a choice run XP or Vista - XP even on the fastest PC will be at least 30% faster - who would take a 30% hit just so they can have a rolodexed app switcher? I'm sure there was some other new feature but somehow I didn't catch any of them as I fell asleep waiting for the PC to be able to do anything before it dawned on me I should switch back to XP.

Posted by TinTin on October 22, 2007 :

I bought a Dell Laptop with Vista home basic on it - big mistake, not only is the home basic really basic but it is extremely slow, especially shutting down. That is when it actually shuts down - sometimes (about 1 in 3) it takes an eternity and then restarts!
Add to that the unfamiliarity - although the look and feel is very similar to XP, it is sufficiently different to be really annoying.
Where did MS spend all that time and money?
Another huge irritation is the lack of software available to run on Vista (unless you are brave enough to go ahead and run XP apps). Incidentally most I have tried have worked.
All in all if MS allowed us poor domestic customers a free downgrade to XP I would bite their hands off.

Posted by Alan Martin on October 22, 2007 :

I really cannot understand the critics; the mind boggles. I used Beta test versions of Vista prior to its official launch and experienced very few problems - only odd niggles. I couldn't wait to upgrade to it. Now I use Ultimate and its absolutely fab. No lockups; no crashes; much faster boot time and seems to run anything I throw at it - what is the problem I ask again?

Posted by Quinlan on October 22, 2007 :

I have bought a new computer with Vista installed. I was so familiar with Win XP and find it difficult to locate things that I regularily use. I will probably get used to Vista but I find it unacceptable that so many popular programmes, such as Quicken, are not compatable with Vista.

Posted by MalcolmF on October 22, 2007 :

If my old Win98 took longer than 40 seconds to boot up and be capable of doing work, something was amiss. XP promised a faster boot up. The desktop appeared faster, but then it was another minute before you could actually do anything. MS mis-selling? It appears that they have extended the deception with Vista. Come the time for my next system, another option than any version of Windows is more than probable.

Posted by Skywaynights on October 22, 2007 :

MSXP is, by far the best OS MS has had out. I will not go to Vista until I am absolutely forced to do so. It works just fine and I'm more than happy with it.

Posted by barbara on October 22, 2007 :

Geez guys. I have vista on my machine at home and at work. The work machine is a test machine to see if we want to move everyone over, the only thing stopping us is the fact that the computers we have now would need a video upgrade and a memory upgrade. But truly except for a quirk here and there Vista works just fine. At home I've had even fewer problems. The only things I dislike is the lack of firewall options and the fact that sometimes Vista will reboot your machine after an update while you are in the middle of something. But I'm learning to live with it. When I had migrated to XP back in circa 2001 I had to replace my cd burner and a scanner because XP couldn't run them. The Vista upgrade I didn't have to spend extra on any of that, the stuff I have worked. Is Vista the best thing ever? No. But neither is ANY operating system. There will always be bugs, quirks and problems in even the most 'stable' of systems.

Posted by James Katt on October 22, 2007 :

I would buy a Mac, with Mac OS X Leopard. Then I would buy Vista to run in a virtual machine - such as Parallels. Then I would have the best of both worlds. When I can't stand Vista, I would keep it in the background and run my application in Mac OS X. What is great about Mac OS X is how quiet it is, how free of distractions it is. I don't have tons of pop-ups to nag me, nor virus programs, nor security programs as I have with Vista. Mac OS X is peaceful and quiet to use.

Posted by David Rodway on October 22, 2007 :

I have not upgraded to Vista yet and from the comments made by new users and those who have upgraded I am very glad I have not. Several friends of mine have reported terrible problems and total unreliability with certain programmes. Not for me, I think so I'll stick to XP.

Posted by David G on October 22, 2007 :

No! I upgraded to Vista on my laptop without too much difficulty but after a couple on months of reasonable if rather slow use it became unstable until it refused to open windows explorer or close down. A repair shop said it had a hard disk fault which Acer were quite happy to replace. However, a restore to XP has returned my laptop to full and fast working. I will not be upgrading again until I have no choice. I believe that Vista is too power hungry for anything except the most powerful laptops, mine has a 2GHz AMD Turion and 1GB of memory

Posted by Joe on October 22, 2007 :

Vista = ME2 (Millennium Edition Version 2)
remember the 3 weeks that bad boy was selling? Vista is in the same way the Beta for Microsoft's next OS.

Posted by Gary on October 22, 2007 :

How long has XP been on the market and MS are still trying to get it right although it has always performed fine for me. I would never consider a new OS from the same company until it has been on the market for at least five years. Those people who have installed it on an old machine must be nuts.

Posted by W A R on October 22, 2007 :

Upgraded to Vista Home Premium. Outrageous price. Ages to boot, quirky, tedious. quite a few programmes are not compatible. Would revert to XP but as support is running out now looking to change to LINUX

Posted by Bill Gates on October 22, 2007 :

You have come unto a sad realization. Cancel or Allow.
Once again MS screws the pooch. How many different types of VISTA are there anyway? Slow, cumbersome, and very annoying. The news is all about Apple and people switchingHardware wise the Macs can run everything the PCs can but can also run OSX as well. The OEM PCs can't do that. More options with a MAC and you get better spec gear with a MAC when comparing prices.
VISTA was unfinished and because they were overdue 5 YEARS in releasing it. Most everyday software is available for the MAC. People are switching. Oh and the NEW MICROSOFT OFFICE with all the new features is only be released on the MAC for now. Go figure. It is a sad day when a consumer thinks that ADWARE, SPYWARE, MALWARE, TROJANS & VIRUSES are part of a normal operating procedure.
MAC = 0 Viruses.
OSX has been out for over 5 years and is up to its 5th revision. How many viruses so far? Still 0. After Leapord releases in a few days the count will still be 0.

Posted by Bill Gates on October 22, 2007 :

You have come unto a sad realization. Cancel or Allow.
Once again MS screws the pooch. How many different types of VISTA are there anyway? Slow, cumbersome, and very annoying. The news is all about Apple and people switchingHardware wise the Macs can run everything the PCs can but can also run OSX as well. The OEM PCs can't do that. More options with a MAC and you get better spec gear with a MAC when comparing prices.
VISTA was unfinished and because they were overdue 5 YEARS in releasing it. Most everyday software is available for the MAC. People are switching. Oh and the NEW MICROSOFT OFFICE with all the new features is only be released on the MAC for now. Go figure. It is a sad day when a consumer thinks that ADWARE, SPYWARE, MALWARE, TROJANS & VIRUSES are part of a normal operating procedure.
MAC = 0 Viruses.
OSX has been out for over 5 years and is up to its 5th revision. How many viruses so far? Still 0. After Leapord releases in a few days the count will still be 0.

Posted by Johnny Bramham on October 22, 2007 :

Having progressed through computing via that W95 / 98 / 2000 route, I eventually went onto XP in February 2006, well after most of the bugs and glitches had been ironed out with SP2 and subsequent patches. Those OS's were different to each other, but in essence not that different; they all used the same file framework and it was easy enough to navigate to where you wanted to be.
Vista , it has to be said is a dreadful disappointment; even running on a dual Xeon rig with 4Gb of DDR3200 it still takes anything up to two minutes to boot, and frequently hangs when shutting down.
Quite apart from the fact that 64-bit usage is still a hit-and-miss exercise because of hardware problems, it is simply too big, bloated and involved to be taken seriously as a day-to-day PC OS.

Posted by desi3026 on October 22, 2007 :

Hi,
Two friends got Vista computers this year,and one of them has downgraded back to XP,the other,although still using it,it quite displeased with it.For these reasons,I have put off getting a new computer,perhaps for a couple of years in the hope that MS will bring out the new "Vienna" OS that is rumoured to be coming.
Regards desi3026

Posted by desi3026 on October 22, 2007 :

Hi,
Two friends got Vista computers this year,and one of them has downgraded back to XP,the other,although still using it,it quite displeased with it.For these reasons,I have put off getting a new computer,perhaps for a couple of years in the hope that MS will bring out the new "Vienna" OS that is rumoured to be coming.
Regards desi3026

Posted by Viking Ken on October 22, 2007 :

I bought an Acer Aspire 6533LMi. I couldn't buy it with XP and had to settle for Vista. After 2 months of having Vista crash for no reason and mounting problems, I installed XP. Now I have a very nice laptop.

Posted by Dafydd Gruffydd on October 23, 2007 :

I approached Vista with an open mind, using a new PC as a test bed. Problem soon started showing up.One of the biggest bugbears with Vista is the incompatibility with some hardware and software. Several programs worked OK with XP but refuse to run under Vista This is a common problem with many users, not just old programs but newer ones, and only now are software companies coming up with Vista patches or versions. Why is this? did MS withold vital inofrmation to rival software companies ahead of Vista release? For me, software compatibility is the biggest issue with Vista and the reason I am NOT going to upgrade (or downgrade) to Vista for quite a long time untill all these issue are resolved. I refuse to pay not only the bloated price to upgrade to Vista but also fork out for upgrades to software just to get it to work on Vista (there are patches available free but in many cases a full upgrade is needed)

Posted by Victor on October 23, 2007 :

I bought an HP laptop one and a half years ago... it broke 6 months ago and the repair service was unable to repair it. HP was nice enough to give me a new laptop... with Vista... HUGE MISTAKE!!!! Twice the processor speed, twice the video and ram... and IT RAN AT HALF THE SPEED OF MY OLD COMPUTER!!!!
I actually sent it back to HP, they bought back my old laptop for $1k and I got to eBay to find the latest HP laptop with XP (it was already discontinued at the HP website).
I love XP... and I won't go back to Vista... ever... I never thought I would say this but I rather look into a Mac than that crappy OS.

Posted by Paul Skinner on October 23, 2007 :

Vista Is BIG BROTHER. I was so fed up with my new notebook purchas(with Vista) that I smashed the machine to the floor rendering the notebook U/S. I am now working on my old Desktop with XP. VISTA= MAMMON.

Posted by John Tsouris on October 23, 2007 :

Heh, heh, heh.... Crazy says he and his friends bought $5K computers, and none of them are crying over Vista. Notice he didn't say they all 'loved' Vista? Notice he didn't say Vista was 'awesome!'? He doesn't like Vista either.... it's just 'here to stay'. So the rest of us should all spend $5K on a machine so we can click through six warnings each time we open an .exe file? No thanks.

Posted by Flying Teddy on October 23, 2007 :

You've made a mistake in your article. You said "...Microsoft has made it easier for Vista users to downgrade to XP...".

Surely you meant to say "...Microsoft has made it easier for Vista users to UPgrade to XP..."?

Posted by Alex on October 24, 2007 :

ive had vista on my new laptop,
at 2,83ghz dual core, 4gb ram, 512 graphics and its fine until a you play a game, then its noticable, im thinking of going back to xp mce but there are somethimgs on vista that are nice..........

Posted by J B on October 24, 2007 :

To answer your question, Yes, the Vista bashing has got out of hand. All that has to be done is for one person to say that it doesn't work like XP and the Pied Piper is created, or in other words follow the leader. That is it in a nutshell. Rant over. J.B.

Posted by John Connor on October 24, 2007 :

XP's a better choice, you can do everything you need, but faster. Vista isn't worth the switch. I've been using Vista for a year now, since the betas, it runs nice on my hardware but I recently installed XP on a different partition and used it a bit, the bad news is that I didn't feel constrained/unable to to what I need, I missed the pretty thumbails, mobility center, windows mobile device center, but nothing else, I'll switch back to XP as soon as I can, and buy a macbook pro even sooner, I'm just tired of microsoft crap.

Posted by Brushy on October 25, 2007 :

My Indian friend here in Goa has just purchased for his two daughters a Lenovo Laptop each.Lenovo Panji would not sell these laptops with XP installed also said it was not possible to run them on XP.The girls were not happy as everything was so slow.Brit on holiday has just installed XP for the girls who are now happy. Vista> Stick It.

Posted by Sporadic V on October 25, 2007 :

I scooped up a Toshiba laptop with the highest spec' I could find that still shipped with XP at the start of February.

I thought I might be being over-cautious and a bit silly avoiding Vista - but all these months on all I know about the new operating system is that ***I DON'T WANT IT***.

It won't handle my favourite legacy software and there are no drivers for basic essential items like my modem and printer.

Getting the Toshiba with XP is the best computer-related decision I have ever made.

I just wish it was an option for the meatier machines they are producing now.

Posted by WAR69 on October 25, 2007 :

So why is it that Vista seems to be getting such a battering. When loaded and running it looks pretty. Security is not bad and you get extras like Windows Media Centre. Well, the tedious setup sorting drivers, existing software that won't run and is not backwards compatible and the existing hardware that is not recognised is a huge problem . So when you have sorted all this out you now have a super OS. NOT SO - its now quirky and the intrusion of security safeguards is annoying to say the least. The cost of upgrading is outragious. So is it worth upgrading from XP "Not really" Stick with the one you know.

Posted by Adrian Bennett on October 25, 2007 :

I have a new Laptop with Vista and have annoying problems with My older Microsoft programs like Outlook 2002. If only WinMe was still supported!

Posted by Migwell on October 25, 2007 :

Vista not worth the money and don't like the look. I am happy with my XP Home and would like any new computer I bought to have XP installed not Vista.

After all, why fix it when it aint broke XP is good enough for me and I get to save some money!!!!!

Posted by A Macrae on October 26, 2007 :

I bought a new HP laptop with Vista Home Premium.Even with Aero turned off and despite 2MB of RAM and a dual core Intel processor, it boots and runs my most used application slower than my old single AMD with 512MB. I'm underwhelmed.
I actually erased the HD and tried to install an OEM XP version, but can't get past the XP / SATA drive install problem. Vista is not a bad OS, but it is no improvement for a single user who never had security problems with XP.

Posted by Tog on October 26, 2007 :

I don't go for the latest shiny toy, I was still using windows 98SE right up until last year, so the chances of me "upgrading" to Vista are ZERO. I've been looking at Linux (Ubuntu), and while they haven't got it quite right yet, I think they will be a serious contender by the time support for XP has been dropped and I have to upgrade again.

Posted by Simovee on October 26, 2007 :

Tried Vista for 3 months, compared to xp it,s rubbish.As for readyboost, resume from sleep,so what!.It needs faster start & reaction time. Marks 4out of 10

Posted by UndeadDevil on October 27, 2007 :

"resuming from sleep in seconds"

Vista has always failed to put my Machines into Sleep mode since Beta2!!! It now causes the machines to BSOD (All are Asus Mobo's)

Vista is a disgrace, soo many bugs after 5 years of Development work, I sware it ran Better in RC1!

Posted by rie3 on October 28, 2007 :

I have a 2 year old desktop running XP Home and a laptop with Vista Ultimate, love both but will probably take years to give up XP as many of my gadgets such as mobile ph. satnav etc are not Vista compatable.

Posted by JC on October 28, 2007 :

Vista works fine. I really can't see the problems.

I really wonder if anyone bothered to get to know the system really - it appears not.

I suppose it is all the semi-computer literate people who have problems

Posted by answerman on October 30, 2007 :

From JC:
"I suppose it is all the semi-computer literate people who have problems."

I don't think I fit into that category, since I'm a MCSE and have been building custom computers for over 10 years.

Last week I bought a Sony Vaio VGN-SZ430N/B laptop. Core Duo T7200 processor, 2GB RAM, and nVidia GeForce 7400 graphics with dedicated video memory. It should be a screamer... except that it came with Vista Business preinstalled.

I stuck it out for a week, trying to convince myself that Vista would work. But, I give up. I just downloaded all the XP compatible drivers from Sony, and later today this computer shall become a screamin' machine running XP Professional.

I don't see why a machine with these specs should take 5 minutes to boot up and 3 minutes to shut down. Heck, a look at Task Manager once startup is complete shows that it's using 990MB of RAM... to do NOTHING! My old cheapy Averatec runnint XP Pro didn't use 990MB of RAM when I was multitasking several programs!

Posted by Bob on October 31, 2007 :

I have an XP machine and a Vista machine.... Vista is more flash than substance.... with ongoing hardware and software incompatibility problems, crashes and bsod.... I'm keeping the other machine XP for as loooonnnggggg as possible!

Posted by Colin on November 1, 2007 :

Old PC AMD Athlon 2600. Win XP, 512 Mb RAM.
New PC Intel Pentium 915 dual core. Vista Home Premium, 1Gb RAM.
Oh gor blimey! What happened? Upgrade 2Gb RAM. barely tolerable even now. Constand hard drive activity whn nothing happening. Download updates without asking, and reboots. Tell it to download on instruction, and it gives you a time limit to respond, then downloads for itself anyway. Guardian nagging for updates, even though I don't use it, and creating restore points every five minutes.
Vista is designed to drive you into working live, on a MS website, with their software.
IT IS A NIGHTMARE. Regret the day I ever upgraded my computer with preinstaled Vista.It's no use ljust reinstalling XP, we have to let Bill Gates know we are Pis*** off with Vista. What do we do? Send the redundant install disc to him? Let's see if we can get him to swap them for a latest edition of XP.
I'm up for it! How about you?

Posted by Colin on November 1, 2007 :

P.S.
As I haven't noticed it before. perhaps I should say something.
IF YOU ARE NOT ON BROADBAND - YOU CAN'T AFFORD VISTA.
Updates as big as 30 Mb a time. You will have put you computer on the phoneline, and go to bed!
It will cost you MONEY!

Posted by Peants68 on November 2, 2007 :

Am installing a new hard drive so why not Vista?

I know my present XP Home is much faster on boot up. This is from a demonstration on an OEM PC which could not even complete Nvidia's diagnostics written for Vista.

There will be issues with various pieces of hardware and software despite the assurances of upgrade advisor.

I replaced Win.3.1.1 with XP and know the pitfalls. It seems from your forum that there are many more issues with Vista than there were with XP.

I am 70 and don't have the time to go through all that frustration again.

If I bought anything in shop for that amount of money I would expect it to work straight away.

Thanks Mr Gates but no!

Posted by Jorge on November 7, 2007 :

When the software developers are gonna learn that the users just want a lean, fast and smooth OS without useless memory hog crap? Just like Windows 2000 and 9x line. They were pretty good. Nice and clean interface that didn't come in the way. Only necessary stuff. Just a few clicks to get a task done (change desktop resolution. Why in the heck they thought that the new method would be better? Geez!). But that's a bit of nitpick. What I can't realize is the resource hog of Windows Vista. There isn't really anything that justify a 400 Mb out of 2 Gb use in the boot. Launch anything and will skyrocket to the ceiling. It's insane. Microsoft should have got Windows XP with the Vista looks back in 2003/4. That would be a lot better. They really screwed bad their development schedule. An OS (or any software) shouldn't take that long to get done. When the Microsoft team scrapped the old Longhorn version that was the hint that it wouldn't work.

Posted by Jofax on November 9, 2007 :

I am not doubting that Vista sucks (right now). But if you guys just do an internet search between Win 2000 versus XP, you'll see the exact same blast against XP some 4-5 years ago (remember those days guys when evryone was raving about Win 2000??). Everytime Microsoft develops a new OS, it is invariably buggy until the third-party software (and hardware) industry eventually catches up and "switches" over-- the usual trend is 3-4 years, (possibly a bit longer with Vista though -- since most corporate sectors still primarily using XP machines). Point is... Wait until the SP for Vista comes out and wait a bit longer for the rest of the world to catch up (where the standard will be 8-core CPU and 8GB Ram-- and lo and behold-- no more buggy OS.) Until then, stick with XP and laugh at this Vista roasting b/c we'll all convert anyways in the end and start a new bash cycle for the next OS.

Posted by Paul Martienssen on November 10, 2007 :

Jofax, I think you've probably got it right.

Posted by Johnny Bramham on November 10, 2007 :

Looking at all the comments that have been made since I last posted on this thread, I'd say that most of them - a good 90% - are not happy bunnies with Windoze Vista.
The one notable exception tells us to 'stop bitchin, 'coz Vista is here to stay' - presumably because he's not objective enough to tell the difference between an OS that is fit for purpose and one that isn't.
In these power-aware times we live in, it doesn't sit nicely when something like 75% of home PC users would have to upgrade all their hardware to run a modern OS, but that's precisely what Gates and mates have done.
Frankly, I think that everyone knows that Vista is a pig-in-the-poke - one OS too far.
JB.

Posted by Jofax on November 11, 2007 :

Bramham- For the record, I am currently using and completely happy with XP with no plans on changing to Vista anytime soon. I agree--Vista is not "fit for purpose," and I second your sentiments regarding the influence of a certain Redmond-based corp has over our need to continually upgrade our hardware to keep up with the latest modern OS. It's disturbing, I know, but isn't that their primary goal after all? But before I digress any further, I think you missed my point: Vista = tremendously bloated and resource-hogging OS that can't even run on most current-day PCs- True.. BUT that's simply just a matter of TIME. I seriously doubt that the industry will simply stop pushing faster and faster machines. And the speed to which technology depreciates, they wouldn't need to push that hard. What is the average length of time to which we begin upgrading something within our computer (or even start seeking a new computer altogether b/c our 5-year-old computer is way to "old" for our needs??

Posted by Jofax on November 13, 2007 :

Bramham -- I just realized that you were referencing someone else in your last post. My apologies for the confusion.

Posted by murphyman on November 15, 2007 :

xp is running well for me, i dont see any reason to change,instead of a new os,microsoft should have given xp a major upgrade, that would have made more sense

Posted by Tony on November 16, 2007 :

I run a network of 160 pcs. We have tried a couple of Vista upgrades. Windows update service reports one as VistaPro and the other as Windows6. After 2 days even administrator login came up as invalid password. I won't go on, but they are now happy back with XP. We have a business to run and have no time for this nonsense!

Paul Trotter
Blogger Paul Trotter has been addicted to online news since ditching newspapers at the dawn of the internet. He's been writing about the IT market for ten years and is editor of PC Advisor.

Latest entries


Entries by month

Nov08  |  Oct08  |  Sep08  |  Aug08
Jul08  |  Jun08  |  May08  |  Apr08
Mar08  |  Feb08  |  Jan08  |  Dec07
Nov07  |  Oct07  |  Sep07  |  Aug07
Jul07  |  Jun07  |  May07  |  Apr07
Mar07  |  Feb07  |  Jan07  |  Dec06
Nov06  |  Oct06  

Google

Search blogs


Other blogs


 Our RSS feeds

Sponsored Content

  • Take the internet to new places with the Nokia N800
    Communicate how you want to, where you want to with instant messaging, email and internet calling. View movies, browse the internet wirelessly and watch TV on the high-resolution screen and listen through high-quality stereo speakers with headphone jack.
    Buy now