It's because Vistaphobes are operating on basically insufficient knowledge. In other words, they seem to give up after the first speed bump from starting gate.
My first computer was the Sinclair zx81, then Spectrum, then Atari 800, then Atari 1040STFM, and then it was PCs running windows 95 all the way to WinXP.
I tried using my sons pc (Vista) and felt so damn frustrated that I had to call a friend over to help on a problem. Sure if you spend time you will eventually learn how to use Vista. Personally I do not have the time to reinvent the wheel.
Since I can make Vista have the Classic look I do not mind so much. What I am afraid of is my new PC slowing down and my software not working properly and having to dish out more money to find solutions.
Unless one owns shares in Microsoft I do not see the reason why one would take offence at critique laid out on Vista.
My hard earned cash cannot be spent on problematic software. Come on guys you can see the reason here.
I expected to hear benefits and what I get is how cool it looks and how nice the windows look etc. The only benefit is memory management! If it is only that then there is not reason to go Vista.
Anyway thank you all for actually taking your time to inform me and answer to my queries.
The basic idea here is that Vista, while definitely requiring better hardware to run (and XP *did* do the same thing when folks first went to it - but Vista will run *better* on old hardware than XP did on old hardware of its generation), will, in fact, make life a lot easier on you.
One of the key features is UAC, and that has been talked about enough to make your head spin. In a recap, though, Vista follows the corporate format of user permissions and ownership a lot better than XP ever did. Vista also realizes that uncontrolled and unlimited access to system files is simply dangerous - Most users of XP are instructed to use a layered approach for protection, involving anywhere from 5-7 applications, with nearly the majority of them running at all times. Vista is much more secure in this respect, and I know of people who get away without running *any* protection other than that offered already in Vista. It's one of the reasons that XP vs Vista in side by side tests are so unfair - OOB, XP includes nothing but a very basic Firewall - Vista has an advanced FW, Windows Defender and UAC OOB - so a truly *fair* test with XP would include, at the bare minimum, Defender for XP activated and running, plus an enhanced FW for XP, all running on Hardware that was prevalent in October 2003 (roughly 2 years after XP's release). Putting them on hte same exact platform is rather wasted, as it is obvious that a program with so much less in terms of program source code lines will almost always run faster than the program with more.
Then there are little things, like support for DirectX 10, sandboxing of executables in the OS (if Windows Explorer Crashes in Vista, getting it back up again is relatively easy. Stopping and restarting the Vista Display manager is a piece of cake - I can switch from non SLI mode to SLI mode with my dual graphics cards without having to restart the OS - Can't do that in XP. Cleartype support has been improved in Vista. Support for larger fonts *natively* in Vista is a lot better, in terms of scalig apps to meet with hte large font use (in XP, by contrast, most apps *don't* scale with the use of larger fonts, making the use of larger fonts very hard to accomplish iwthout sacrificing UI layout and / or aesthetics).
Finally, the search bar built into the start menu - Just that by itself works wonders. I want to open device manager but don't wnat ot navigate through 5 menus? I click the start button and type 'device' - and all references to the word device in terms of programs show up. Add to that that it can be enhanced with the
BrandonTools to do so much more that it is ridiculous makes it a much improved interface over XP's start menu. That alone qualifies it for an *obvious* redesign of the XP OS< as opposed to just being new bloatware.
I suggest that you try using the start bar for a solid week - you'll find some quirks, but for the most part you'll find it a *lot* easier to deal with than the old way of navigating through menus.
There is a lot more but this should give you ideas that it isn't just a prettier, but bloated OS.
That being said, if you don't like Vista, you might wait another year or so and go straight to Windows 7 - in testing it, thus far, it has the best of both worlds - a lot of Vista features (and even several improved ones) as well as XPs zippiness.
What does your son think?
Initially he begged me to install XP. I told him to learn as much as he can on Vista so in the rare case I have to do the same he can help me.
6 months later and he still hates Vista. I asked him today what his classmates think and he told me literally "Vista sucks".
We shall see what the future has in store for us.
Personally I think Vista is what Win ME was; a very bad OS before a Good one.:huh:
Not even - for reasons above, especially those involving Security, Vista is a much better OS than XP ever was - even with SP2 added on as an after thought.
OK...since this thread is no longer open for relevance, let me ask: Why am I a "Senior" member? Was I ever a newbie? Or "Junior"?
.......I have a bad feeling for posting this.
You might try asking this in another forum instead of hijacking this thread
I think ti is based upon # posts though....
