Of course not. It's based on XP, so the general design, beyond the sadly lacking aero interface, is fine.
The problem with making things compatible is you bring back all the problems they're trying to get rid of. Here's a great example: Programs writing user settings right inside program files. This is one of the biggest problems. Everyone is screaming for a multi user environment with compatibility well in this case you cannot have both. The programs are going to need to fix this to be compatible. Lets not forget all the use of functions that have been deprecated since Windows 98. Suddenly they aren't working as intended anymore because they're dangerous and have proven that with countless exploits in the past. Just two things that stick out but lets not forget about the drivers which hardware developers drag their feat on no matter what. This new driver model is much better but in order to be compatible we would need to throw it all away. So to sum it up here Windows problem has always been trying to be backwards compatible with everything. It's created this giant mess of badly coded programs as a result. It's also a big reason why they're #1 in the OS market. Now they're trying to straighten then garbage out at the cost of backwards compatibility. And really it's about time
Personally I do not see the big stink about aero. When Mac uses it its fine. When Windows uses it there is a problem. Quite a valid point.
By the lenght of this thread I see that I am not the only one that has had problems. I have an XP desktop that I have had virtually no problems with, it's microsoft it was bound to have some problems I recently bought a Vista laptop and have had to reinstall Vista 3 times already and have been having trouble with wireless networks. My sister recently got a Vista laptop and see is having trouble with wireless network also. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mikefolan.com - Tech, blogging and Hack Tips. christmastreecollection.blogspot.com - Still dont' ahve a great Christmas tree yet? ipoddock.blogspot.com - iPod, iPhone Docking Station.
Perhaps, but it would be nice to something tangible other than some eye candy and a statement "This is an improvement". Since when did I use a mac?
I never upgraded if that's what it's called.I'm used to XP and it's not like going from 98 to XP. My friend experienced all sorts of problems with Vista and went back to XP. He's not alone. MS has some work to do. We'll see how the service pack goes.
Well most of these changes are not noticeable to the user in most cases unless something bad happens or their programs make use of them. I decided to give a small list of known changes: User Account Control Internet Explorer protected mode Virtualization Address space layout randomization Networking (Next Generation TCP/IP Stack) SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, and ReadyDrive I/O prioritization Search System (Google Desktop like) Missing: WinFS and managed code And to quote one of the many informed things I've found: There are many other smaller improvements made to Vista that will improve the experience of the OS. For example, fewer reboots should be needed when DLLs and drivers are upgraded, NTFS volumes can be shrunk on-the-fly, NTFS can repair corruption automatically in the background (eliminating the need to reboot to run chkdsk), and improved backups based on volume shadow copy can be made, along with many others. Together, these improvements make for an extremely compelling upgrade. Vista is not simply XP with a new skin; core parts of the OS have been radically overhauled, and virtually every area has seen significant refinement. In terms of the magnitude and extent of these changes, Vista represents probably the biggest leap that the NT platform has ever seen. Never before have significant subsystems been gutted and replaced in the way they are in Vista. As such, it's a hugely important release. As monumental as this release is, it's still, remarkably, not as big as it was going to be. Vista is a huge leap from previous generations of the OS, yet it was due to be much bigger and arrive much sooner. The goals Microsoft set for Vista were undoubtedly lofty, and although Vista is a strong and significant release, it's hard not to be a little disappointed.
The biggest hurdle Vista has is its software incompatibility problem (assuming one does not use the compatibility wizard). Sometimes when Microsoft adds new stuff, some things are bound not to work.
Annoying hand-holding. I don't use IE. I already have a copy of VMWare what is the advantage? The only thing I have noticed of the Vista networking is it's painful method of management None of which has proven to be of any use to me. In particularly, ReadyBoast does little except kill the life of your flash drive. And the practical advantage? An improvement, yes, but not "revolutionary" I've had to reboot often enough, anyway. Can it shrink it by the 10GB that you lose by installing Vista? Unnoticable Backing up your hard disk onto itself is hardly a reliable backup method We obviously have different definitions of the word "compelling". I would agree: It's a bloated, restricting, incompatible piece of DRM-riddeled rubbish. Jumping back to a text-based interface would also be considered the biggest leap ever seen, but no one would define that as an improvement. Changes aren't nessecarily good. I don't see the goal of making a superior OS as particularly lofty.
vista makes a poop upgrade for your existing pc you will likely have 1 or several pieces of hardware that will not be vista compatible or have working drivers in vista. This is experience
Address space layout randomization Address space layout randomization (ASLR) is a computer security technique which involves arranging the positions of key data areas, usually including the base of the executable and position of libraries, heap, and stack, randomly in a process' address space. Benefits Address space randomization hinders some types of security attack by preventing an attacker being able to easily predict target addresses. For example attackers trying to execute return-to-libc attacks must locate the code to be executed; while other attackers trying to execute shellcode injected on the stack have to first find the stack. In both cases, the related memory addresses are obscured from the attackers; these values have to be guessed, and a mistaken guess is not usually recoverable due to the application crashing. Now your comment on the network stack? Uh this has nothing to do with management of your network. The claim to fame on the redone network stack is the fact it does improve performance and has been tested as such to do that. It automatically resizes the receive window which can be very helpful with speeds. On top of that compound TCP is another interesting thing added (very few may be using it right now). This of course along with all the other changes. Virtualization I'll give you an example where VMware is not going to help you. I have a user who's running a program that wants to write files to C:\Program Files\My Application\configuration.ini. This is read only in our environment so the program is going to error out or crash. There will be a location created C:\Users\username\AppData\VirtualStore\Program Files\My Application\configuration.ini which the application will write to without knowing anything. It'll think it wrote to program files area. SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, and ReadyDrive Do you know what these are? I don't think you do SuperFetch attempts to make use of free RAM to cache programs so that they load much faster. XP has a thing called prefetch which does some things but not close to as effective as this. Now readyboost I do not use it but I assume you're aware of flash drives have these days can withstand something like 100,000 writes to 0 on each bit. So add on the fact it automatically spreads this around to prevent ware it's tough to be tough killing off a flash drive. I/O prioritization Well lets say you have a virus scanner running you can set it's priority low on the CPU but it'll still eat your computer alive due to the hard drive use. I/O prioritization can make it possible to have the scan run and use the I/O when others are not. So it's usefulness is already seen in indexing service, defragment in the background all without a user knowing. Now the repairing of the NTFS volumes on the fly Great it's unnoticeable and that is the idea here. No one enjoys having to do chkdsks on hard drives it can take quite a while. At this point I'm thinking if the new file system was built you'd say it wasn't a big change either. You're looking for visual things such as a GUI or a new feature. Most improvements on an OS no one ever gets see visually first hand. Oh and I did not write that paragraph I picked it up from a review several others said the same thing.
Luckily VISTA has been pretty smooth for me and i did not face any noticeable error or problem I have been pretty happy with VISTA however I prefer Windows XP
Sounds useful. I am aware of that, but the point I was making was that it was the only noticeable difference in networking. No performance differences, in practical terms, seem to be noticeable. Sounds useful in certain situations, but of little use to me. I know of it, but it has shown to be of little practical use as far as performance is concerned Yes, but at the frequency that you write to RAM I would expect it to significantly decrease the life of the flash drive. Useful if used. Improvement but, to be honest, it's not a task I find exactly frequent. You have got the complete wrong end of the stick there, I most certainly do not want a new pretty GUI but I do want new features and overall improvements. If those improvements were the only things in Vista then, while I would probably say that it was a rather minor improvement, I wouldn't hate it and I would probably upgrade for my next computer and perhaps my current ones. Thank you for being honest.
I'm not saying you use a mac. But those in general who have problems with the interface. I find out that Mac takes a lot more resources to operate than Vista I have used them before and its impossible to do certain things on them.
Ubuntu is good but most people dont use it...although after all the problems with vista im sure more people are switching to it.
I do agree that there does seem to be a convenient sidestepping of the fact that OSX has a rather bloated interface itself. The reason I give it more credit as an OS than Vista is that it also implements some new features whereas Vista is mostly eye-candy.