MS tricks die-hard XP users into liking Vista - Page 3

Splash · 25-07-2008, 09:52 AM

Deerstalker á l'orange?

TheAnimus · 25-07-2008, 10:28 AM

I can't stand when people use almost a religious zeal as the basis for their advocacy.

I graduated from uni 2 years ago now. Whilst i was at uni it was 'cool' to run linux. Whoop-t-do. The problem was this got carried through to many bad things, a friend and I often helped charities with their IT stratergies, I remeber been flamed by a fellow student because we'd advised that charity to buy 2 more machines, complete with windows licenses. Why waste a charities money when there are free alternatives was the cry. Completely ignoring the useage the charity wanted to put the PCs too. I just couldn't stand the fact someone was advocating something they clearly hadn't seen any of the requirements for.

This seams to of carried forward into vista, but with another pet hate of mine, tech journalists who know how to write, but don't know squat about what their writing about. I actually got banned from another tech forum for slagging off an author who had reviewed a beta version of vista, completely ignoring basic bits of commen sense (and i'm fairly sure violating the beta conditions), things like the installer isn't the one thats going to be used in production. He also ignored the new features, instead wanting to talk about look and feel of bits of the shell?! Even before vista made it to the more public beta's the journos had made a nice living out of slating it.

360bhp · 25-07-2008, 11:15 AM

If I wanted Vista on my current XP system.. I'd underclock my cpu, take out a gig of ram and install a new theme.

shaithis · 25-07-2008, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by 360bhp

If I wanted Vista on my current XP system.. I'd underclock my cpu, take out a gig of ram and install a new theme.

Then you would have a bloated, sluggish XP without all the functionality of Vista

I guess it takes all sorts

Lucio · 25-07-2008, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Saracen

Without wishing to seem contrary for the sake of it, by adopting one view then the other, I can see reasons why people would adopt it too.

Perhaps the biggest is that sooner or later, the disadvantages will be outweighed by advantages .... though it might skip a generation straight past Vista.

I think this really emphasises why I don't think they'll be a case for switching will ever been strong enough, by the time the software market has caught up, we'll be onto the next version of Windows that's designed to interface better with things like Server 2008 (since it'll be written afterwards)

Still, nothing is impossible, maybe Vista will stick around for another 5 years and people will end up treating it the same way they've done XP....

**Saracen** · 25-07-2008, 08:20 PM

Yeah, Lucio, though I guess what I was saying is that sooner or later, most systems get upgraded. Of course, there are exceptions. Someone referred to still running W2K, and on a couple of machines, so do I. It's old hardware that would struggle and gasp just to run Vista, if it would even start. And they're machines for specific purposes that work just fine with W2K, so I see no benefit in upgrading. But, of course, they're far from a common case.

Most people, certainly individuals, with a machine or two will, in my view, end up on Vista sooner or later (assuming they're not Penguin fans, of course .... though most non-tech or enthusiast users wouldn't recognise Linux if they tripped over it). But the average home user will go to Vista, even if it's only because when they pop down to PC World for their next PC upgrade, that's what they find it's got on it when they get it home.

rickworden · 25-07-2008, 08:40 PM

LOL - Enjoyed the comments! Seriously - I've used VISTA on my laptop for over a year and it's been a real disappointment. I have never been able to network to it over my LAN (just check Google - I'm not the only one!). My other 4 PC's all work flawlessly with XP. Also it's slower, has had more crashes and uses bags more HD space (just check your WINSXS folder! how big's yours?). Also YOU CANNOT CREATE YOUR OWN HARDWARE PROFILE IN VISTA - PERIOD!. I use hardware profiles to limit the services activated on boot upon depending what I am doing. (I must admit I'm not sure if it makes that much difference - especially if you have a stack of RAM). So for now I'm not converting - it offers absolutely no advantage that I can see! One day I'm sure that will change but for me VISTA looks like a quick attempt to keep the income rolling for MS. (The hat is still in the freezer!)

robots · 25-07-2008, 11:04 PM

I don't think this is fair really. Some of the software I use has issues with Vista, and those issues don't exist with XP. So why should I switch? For the see through windows and analogue clock? You say it's people wanting to be fashionable to not like Vista, but what if they are happy with XP and wary of Vista? Perhaps it's you who is trying to be fashionable by waving the Vista flag when it's largely unpopular. I am trying to learn to use a few bits of specialist software at the moment, and on the forums there are threads about issues with Vista and what to do to try to fix them etc.. I can do without those complications.. It's hard enough learning something new like C++, but having to deal with stuff like that isn't welcome. Not to mention gaming. I've enjoyed the last few years of gaming on XP and it's been great, and games work right out of the box for me. The review of Crysis on this very site shows you what kind of issues it had with Vista. And Crysis is just one example of many.

You also can't say ner ner! to the people in this article, because seeming like a nice OS at first glance, was never Vista's problem anyway. It looks nicer, has more features etc, and nobody ever contested that. The problem is when you make the switch and start using it as your full time OS, and you start coming across problems. These are problems that you just don't get on XP. If XP was holding people back in some ways, then maybe more would stick with Vista and deal with any issues as they come up, but XP isn't holding most people back. There is very little Vista offers that you can't already do on XP.

You shouldn't try to defend Vista like that. It has a bad reputation because it had a crappy first couple of years. You shouldn't blame people and dismiss them as trend followers, you should blame the crappy OS. The list of serious problems with Vista was endless, and it's only more recently that it's becoming more stable. Maybe you would be better off arguing that people are slow to give it a second chance. Although even then I would dispute that. If you want the version without lots missing, it is a major expense. So why would I want to switch now? What am I missing out on? From my point of view, it's expensive, it's still got a way to go stability/compatibility wise, it means me reinstalling everything, and it doesn't really offer me anything I need. So the sensible option for me is to stick with XP. I can always get Vista later in the year.

aidanjt · 25-07-2008, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by rickworden

LOL - Enjoyed the comments! Seriously - I've used VISTA on my laptop for over a year and it's been a real disappointment. I have never been able to network to it over my LAN (just check Google - I'm not the only one!). My other 4 PC's all work flawlessly with XP. Also it's slower, has had more crashes and uses bags more HD space (just check your WINSXS folder! how big's yours?). Also YOU CANNOT CREATE YOUR OWN HARDWARE PROFILE IN VISTA - PERIOD!. I use hardware profiles to limit the services activated on boot upon depending what I am doing. (I must admit I'm not sure if it makes that much difference - especially if you have a stack of RAM). So for now I'm not converting - it offers absolutely no advantage that I can see! One day I'm sure that will change but for me VISTA looks like a quick attempt to keep the income rolling for MS. (The hat is still in the freezer!)

I also got Vista with my laptop, and I've been able to connect to it through ethernet and wireless, hosting a number of protocols to access it, including, but not limited to, http, ftp, sftp, as well as ordinary cifs. Software is not only more responsive, it also loads faster because it's binaries and supporting libraries are already cached in memory (hint, this is where your memory has 'vanished' (another hint, Vista releases pre-cached stuff if programs really need the memory)).

If you want to be taken seriously, try make arguments that are plausibly accurate. lolzn00bzvistasux!!1! type commentary will be promptly ridiculed and summarily ignored. And you need to start munching on your hat, because Dangel explained 'hardware profiles' in Vista, on the previous page.

I'm almost guessing you're one of those zomfgwtfisthat-types, when you first saw the UAC prompt and frantically googled for a way to disable it.

If you don't like Vista, *shrug* that's fine, stick with XP, whatever floats your boat. However, spouting phantom bugs and issues to make yourself appear 100% correct is wrong.

Actually, I'm tired of reexplaining these blatantly obvious things to people who are too lazy to go find out anything about their new operating systems. Go learn things for yourself, or forever be an ignorant puppet to propaganda.

aidanjt · 25-07-2008, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by robots

I don't think this is fair really. Some of the software I use has issues with Vista, and those issues don't exist with XP. So why should I switch? For the see through windows and analogue clock? You say it's people wanting to be fashionable to not like Vista, but what if they are happy with XP and wary of Vista? Perhaps it's you who is trying to be fashionable by waving the Vista flag when it's largely unpopular. I am trying to learn to use a few bits of specialist software at the moment, and on the forums there are threads about issues with Vista and what to do to try to fix them etc.. I can do without those complications.. It's hard enough learning something new like C++, but having to deal with stuff like that isn't welcome. Not to mention gaming. I've enjoyed the last few years of gaming on XP and it's been great, and games work right out of the box for me. The review of Crysis on this very site shows you what kind of issues it had with Vista. And Crysis is just one example of many.

You also can't say ner ner! to the people in this article, because seeming like a nice OS at first glance, was never Vista's problem anyway. It looks nicer, has more features etc, and nobody ever contested that. The problem is when you make the switch and start using it as your full time OS, and you start coming across problems. These are problems that you just don't get on XP. If XP was holding people back in some ways, then maybe more would stick with Vista and deal with any issues as they come up, but XP isn't holding most people back. There is very little Vista offers that you can't already do on XP.

You shouldn't try to defend Vista like that. It has a bad reputation because it had a crappy first couple of years. You shouldn't blame people and dismiss them as trend followers, you should blame the crappy OS. The list of serious problems with Vista was endless, and it's only more recently that it's becoming more stable. Maybe you would be better off arguing that people are slow to give it a second chance. Although even then I would dispute that. If you want the version without lots missing, it is a major expense. So why would I want to switch now? What am I missing out on? From my point of view, it's expensive, it's still got a way to go stability/compatibility wise, it means me reinstalling everything, and it doesn't really offer me anything I need. So the sensible option for me is to stick with XP. I can always get Vista later in the year.

Again, I've already covered this, broken software != broken OS. It's not that the OS doesn't work with your software, is that the broken software finally shows it's bugs with a more sane OS.

And again, further highlighting people's ignorance in such matters, and their trend following.

TheAnimus · 26-07-2008, 07:23 PM

its like blaming the hole for been circular when you've made a square peg.

(this is also why robots dont have sex much).

However, there does come a time when developers should get to say if the OS actually helps in developing the applications. Anyone who's ever programmed for multiple OS's will be able to give a fair few features and failings of that particular environment, thing is vista actually has comparatively few, its on the whole very well documented when compared to the competition. In a standard user mode application (like word) its VERY hard to do anything un-intentionally that can crash the system or even lock it up for long peroids of time. MS by helping in the making of rich UI apps piss easy have helped cement themselfs as the defacto small to enterprise applicaiton hosting platform.

rickworden · 27-07-2008, 09:54 AM

Dangel did not show how to manually create a hardware profile. It cannot be done in vista!

Dreaming · 27-07-2008, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by robots

You shouldn't try to defend Vista like that. It has a bad reputation because it had a crappy first couple of years. You shouldn't blame people and dismiss them as trend followers, you should blame the crappy OS. The list of serious problems with Vista was endless, and it's only more recently that it's becoming more stable. Maybe you would be better off arguing that people are slow to give it a second chance. Although even then I would dispute that. If you want the version without lots missing, it is a major expense. So why would I want to switch now? What am I missing out on? From my point of view, it's expensive, it's still got a way to go stability/compatibility wise, it means me reinstalling everything, and it doesn't really offer me anything I need. So the sensible option for me is to stick with XP. I can always get Vista later in the year.

Just personally, I disagree with the first bit. I've used it for a fair while now (from October-ish 2006 I *think*) and don't agree there are 'endless' problems. For me, no more than XP. Command and Conquer Generals has a fit when you install it, wont run - because of poor coding when it installs, not because of windows. If people hack something to work with XP rather than doing it 'properly', no wonder it has issues with other things. My other issue has been DX10 substandard performance, but that's because Nvidia make ****e drivers because 90% of their customers are DX9.

No doubt there are issues with Vista. Since I as an enthusiast do a lot of mucking about in my system, I found UAC to be an annoyance so turned it off. But I don't think it's completely riddled with problems - and honestly - most of the people who say it is haven't used it for any amount of time. Someone was telling me what an awful operating system it was, they'd used it for 15 minutes. I've been using it for over 18 months.

*some* things I still haven't got used to. Like how the control panel even in classic view has renamed some of the things, so add / remove programs (normally first or second when you tap 'a') is now programs and features.

But with the extra performance I get from Vista and the indexed search and how it copes better with multitasking (for me at least), I think it is a step forward. So when I was building my new PC, I don't regret getting Vista which inevitably will have a longer shelf life than XP, because in seriousness who actually upgrades their operating system? For me it's every time I get a new computer, I get a new OS, because the OEM licences are much much cheaper. (works out at about £20 a year with a 3 year new pc cycle).

I agree that there's no compelling reason to upgrade though, just as if you have an old machine that acts as a print server running windows NT or 95 or something (I honestly dont know, making it up in my head...).

aidanjt · 27-07-2008, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by rickworden

Dangel did not show how to manually create a hardware profile. It cannot be done in vista!

You didn't specify manual creation, nor is it necessary since the OS already does it.

robots · 27-07-2008, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Again, I've already covered this, broken software != broken OS. It's not that the OS doesn't work with your software, is that the broken software finally shows it's bugs with a more sane OS.

And again, further highlighting people's ignorance in such matters, and their trend following.

I'm not following a trend. I may be wrong about something, but that's my logic, not because I'm following a trend. Don't be so presumptuous. If you are going to insult me, at least leave it at the ignorant part, and don't go making up random crap. You're also wrong. The software was released before Vista, so couldn't have been made to be Vista compatible... And the software works great on XP, but it doesn't work on Vista, so no matter how you try to spin it, Vista isn't as backwardly compatible as it should be, and it's not a good choice OS for many people. You also seemed to ignore everything else I said. You're just trolling aren't you?

Originally Posted by Dreaming

Just personally, I disagree with the first bit. I've used it for a fair while now (from October-ish 2006 I *think*) and don't agree there are 'endless' problems.

I said there was an endless list of problems, which was true when it was released. I'm trying to explain why it's not as popular now as it should be.

aidanjt · 27-07-2008, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by robots

I'm not following a trend. I may be wrong about something, but that's my logic, not because I'm following a trend. Don't be so presumptuous. If you are going to insult me, at least leave it at the ignorant part, and don't go making up random crap. You're also wrong. The software was released before Vista, so couldn't have been made to be Vista compatible... And the software works great on XP, but it doesn't work on Vista, so no matter how you try to spin it, Vista isn't as backwardly compatible as it should be, and it's not a good choice OS for many people. You also seemed to ignore everything else I said. You're just trolling aren't you?

You don't make software Windows Foobar compatible, you make it Windows compatible. Find a piece of software that's so broken that it doesn't even work with Vistas compatibility layer?.. MS VirtualPC and VMware Server are free. Another point, jamming compatibility workarounds to accommodate broken software is retarded beyond reason anyway, the software developers should fix it's bugs and release a new version, the OS shouldn't work around it's bugs. Maybe the next iteration of Windows (or the one after that) will use virtualisation to allow broken legacy software to work it, that would be a reasonable compatibility solution. But for now, people need to stop blaming the operating system for broken software and start yelling at the people who make their 3rd party software so broken to begin with. So yes, you are in fact, trend following.