just lost 400 gigs worth of data b/c of vista.......lame

I prefer Vista over any other OS. Even Macs overrated X.

 

Vista is the best OS Microsoft has ever put out, imo. It's about time they stop worrying about backward compatibility with ancient hardware and put something awesome out for the people who are willing to buy a brand new machine built for the new OS.

See, Apple puts out brand new machines for each OS. People who attempt to put a new Mac OS on an old Mac know better. But people in the Windows world think they should be able to put the new OS on any crappy machine they own. I don't know why people upgrade OSs onto old machines. It's never made sense to me.

 

Vista 64 rocks.

 

*E-HIGH-FIVE*

 

I only upgraded to Vista because it came with the new computers I bought, and even with that, there have been a few strange problems with my main machine (my laptop doesn't share these problems. I've not had any Vista-related problems on it). Interestingly, I went cheap on the laptop and bought the cheapest Dell there was, but with my main machine, I bought a midrange HP machine.

For example, when I upgraded to Firefox 3, it crashed Windows Explorer repeatedly - as in, it would crash, restart, crash, restart, crash, restart, etc. Hundreds of times in a row.

I also have something called COM SURROGATE stop working all the time. I don't know what it is or what it does, but I get the message from Vista all the time and have since the day I got the computer (I called Tech Support with the manufacturer, but they couldn't diagnose the problem and passed the buck to Microsoft).

Also, if I leave my browser open for more than a day, they stop playing any embedded videos (YouTube, Vimeo, any Flash-based video, really. Quicktime continues to work, though). I have to restart the browser to get it to work again (and this happens with both Firefox and Internet Explorer). This is also something it has done since I got it.

Granted, these are minor annoyances, but buying new doesn't mean the thing is going to work the way it's supposed to (and even the parts that do work correctly, I'm not sure I see what's significantly better than XP about it).

 

This is a Mozilla issue. Delete any and all forms of Mozilla from your PC immedeatly and never use it again.

Download the Opera browser and live happily ever after.

 

It's a Mozilla with Vista on my particular machine issue.

Firefox 3 works fine on my Macs.

ETA: I tried to download the Opera browser, and I got a message saying their download server was down.

 

It is a fallacy to blame something you don't understand. It is also a fallacy to believe ALL SOFTWARE could work well with all OS's.

Never had this issue and I run VISTA on my laptop. You dudes aren't using your software correctly, or aren't updating your VISTA patches tidily. This is the way to make everything run smoothly. Updates. Suckers.

 

I check for updates and update regularly.

So, essentially, Vista is great and if it doesn't work as well as XP did, it's because the person using the computer not any flaws in the various software itself?

I can't explain why my machine had the problems, especially the Firefox 3 one. Clearly it wasn't a widespread problem or there would've been talk about it (I looked at the Firefox support forums, bug reports, etc. and couldn't find anyone else with the same problem. But keeping Windows updated hasn't made any difference), but it still happened (and I blame Firefox for not working well with my set-up).

I didn't even try Firefox 3 on my Vista laptop after the trouble with my desktop machine, but I've not had the COM SURROGATE problem or the Flash playback problem on that machine, either. Those two problems were out-of-the-box on my main machine, though, and that should never happen (though I would as much blame HP for their configuration not being properly tested, etc. as Microsoft. But I guess they don't UNDERSTAND, either, or they share your whole "these things shouldn't be expected to work all the time" philosophy).

All I know is all my XP machines were more durable and didn't have out-of-the-box problems like these, and the purported benefits of Vista don't seem to be all that wonderful.

If I'm buying a new machine, it should work the way it's supposed to work. If Vista is too complicated for the product people at HP to understand, then that could be considered a problem with Vista, too.

ETA: I did eventually find a bunch of sites referencing the COM SURROGATE problem (with various attempted solutions), so that's not limited to my machine or how I'm using it.

 

This very same thing was said of Windows 95 and Windows 2000/XP. All the big OS upgrades will have differences from previous versions that make a certain % of people hate the change, and blame the change.

imo, if you don't understand the benefits of 64-bit computing and the ability to finally run > 3.2 Gigs of RAM, and you don't think much of the ease of use of the multimedia/internet features, then don't change...and certainly don't blame the OS for your problems, when you can't even verify that the OS is at fault.

 

The thought that Vista is horrible is really overrated. It tries too hard to be a Mac, but I guess that's a good thing. I'm dual running Vista and OSX and it's all been fine...thanks free Virtual Box!

Also, remember folks. BACKUP BACKUP BACKUP

 

I agree...but part of the problem is Windows is just too widely used for them to rock the boat. In general Windows users are not tolerant to change. And that's because everyone, from grandparents to large scale enterprises are running it. Hell, on the surface Vista is just a minor difference from XP and look at the crazy backlash. I would like to see them bite the bullet and just go off on a major tangent, like you said. It looks like Windows 7 will be a little more divergent than the XP -> Vista jump.

As for putting Vista on crappy machines, I also agree. I think part of the problem is vendors selling entry level/low priced laptops and desktop preinstalled w/ Vista when they are barely capable of running it.

 

One thing I don't care for about Vista is that I bought this new computer with a modem because I wanted to be able to fax from within Word, but they don't give you the drivers!!! What's up with that??? I think Dell could have warned me that just because I bought a data/fax modem, doesn't mean that I would be able to use it (without purchasing additional software or the Vista Small Business version).

 

You're going to get a lot of Apple-hating Windows folk to argue with you there.

Windows only users aren't going to like the idea of having to buy a new system.

 

You left off Windows ME - which wasn't that great and happens to be a direct comparison to Vista.

 

The point is that Microsoft attempted to put out a 64-bit version of XP. They failed miserably because they couldn't control the hardware environment. They were ahead of the technology. The hardware world wasn't ready to my 64-bit devices/drivers, et al.

Vista came with plenty of warning.

So, don't blame Vista when you expect to get 4GBs of RAM on an old motherboard that doesn't support 64-bit processing.

Don't blame Vista when some cheap-ass hardware manufacturer defuncts your pre-Vista machine by never putting out a new driver and their proprietary crap doesn't obey standard protocols.

Those same scenarios happen to Macs (an OS defuncting hardware), but Apple has the luxury of telling customers exactly what machines work and don't with new OSs. That's why you do not put very important, significant OS upgrades on old machines in the Microsoft world, unless you know what you are doing. Microsoft cannot warn you about every machine out there like Apple can.

 

I agree with you. But, this is the environment that the Windows world has created. It is the downside of *not* doing things like Apple (which is a point of pride for some Windows-only users). All these years of squeezing use out of crap machines is the norm, and now that with Vista that is sort of changing.

Not too mention, you are going to get a lot of people who are used to/only know the one way of doing things, and identify that with using Windows (previous versions, of course).

So the question is - what benefits Microsoft more? Changing things up and putting out something like Vista when a large chunk of your userbase doesn't know/believe in the idea of 'new OS, new machine'? Or finding some sort of middle ground?

It almost seems like we are seeing the backlash of choosing a new path.

I agree with you that the hate over Vista is overblown (though I'm not as dismissive of some issues as some folks are - there are/were some problems) but you are right that a lot of that comes with having the hardware you need.

But in a world of trying to go the cheapest route PC (hey, a 200 dollar PC! What's the worst that could happen?), it should be expected.

 

don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft with the best of them. The first version of Vista could not even run SQL-Server 2005, and was very flakey with Visual Studio 2003. I had to wait basically a year before I felt I could buy it.

But man, I'm so glad to finally have a solid 64-bit machine and OS.

 

As an aside, I got to work with a 64-bit HP machine with 4 gig of RAM today. Was a beautifully running system. (Even though it had some issues with the USB wireless adapter that was plugged into it).

I plan on building a new gaming PC this year and intend to stick Vista 64 on it (provided the driver support is still up to snuff). I'm looking forward to it.

 

After having run Vista for a long time, the only complaint I had with it was the networking was flakey in the initial release. I also have a MacBook running the latest OS X. I like both OS's. I still haven't figured out the hate for Vista (I'm sure some of it is fueled by the dorky Apple commercials). It ain't perfect, but it's a damn good OS.