Do NOT buy/install Windows Vista!

[ChromeBallz]

I think i'm finally getting convinced by the fact that Vista sucks. I'm an avid gamer, and after reading up on the ridiculous amount of processes that run on a Vista PC that you don't even need (and can't turn off), i won't be buying/installing Vista. But there are other reasons.

1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use.

2. Vista will run a lot of processes that, by the looks of it, can't be turned off. Which results on drastically decreased performance in all areas. Vista actually requires a lot of resources to insure that nothing happens - Yes, you read that right!

3. Microsoft has gone nuts and has turned a reasonably stable and adjustable OS into a monstrosity that can only be used to play media that don't even exist yet, and even then it runs catastrophically bad.


By buying Vista you will support these things. I don't know about you, but everything can run fine on Windows XP, and there has yet to be a single piece of (useful) programming that *needs* Vista to run. Even CCP still provides a Windows XP version of the new graphics engine, so to speak, so there is no real incentive to upgrade anyway, if you can even call it upgrading.

So, what i'm asking of anyone who reads this is to pass on the word. To everyone, your family, your company, your friends, to simply ignore Vista. Have them ask for XP to be installed on new PC's instead of Vista, if they have to buy ready made PC's. And if you can't do that, help them buy a decent home-built PC that suits their needs.

Just get MS to change Vista to how it should be and have them remove all this nonsense from what could be a good OS. Only way to get them to do that is to simply make Vista a fiasco. They won't try to push a product on people if it won't make money, after all.

 

[Solid Fro]

I've heard that same argument since Windows 95.

 

[skip0110]

I've heard that same argument since Windows 95.

Just what I was thinking...since when has a new version of any company's software required the same or less hardware than the one before it?

Also, it seems that every Microsoft "fiasco" has sold pretty well. Remember Windows Me? That crap just flew off the shelves.

 

[Omnis]

Or you could get OSX.

 

[Wolfe]

I have to hand it to Viper Zero, but at the same time, Vista's DRM crap and convoluted security functions really turn me off.

I was dragged kicking and screaming away from my copy of Windows 98, and only because my current computer's hardware would be a waste if I still used it (98 wouldn't even begin to know what to do with my 1GB of DDR RAM or Athlon 64 3400+). The same thing will have to happen with my copy of XP.

 

[Revolution.]

1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use.

Um, what? I've been running Vista Ultimate on a Radeon 9550 for well over a month, and I'm not compelled to go buy a new GPU.

By buying Vista you will support these things. I don't know about you, but everything can run fine on Windows XP, and there has yet to be a single piece of (useful) programming that *needs* Vista to run. Even CCP still provides a Windows XP version of the new graphics engine, so to speak, so there is no real incentive to upgrade anyway, if you can even call it upgrading.

You're an 'avid gamer', so you should know what I'm talking about when I say DirectX 10, which is Vista-only and for good reason: XP was never designed to handle DX10, and it can't.

 

[G.T]

As everyone said in here, every operating system has always ideally needed a hardware upgrade to get the most from it - and more processes are going to be running, as what greatly happened when XP first came out... I've always known that, thus why I should be upgrading to an all-new mid/top range laptop in a year's time that will be able to take the Operating System. You will need those hardware components anyway, because you will eventually "use them."

And as mentioned above, you don't exactly need the latest hardware to run it. Just slower than if it were running on modern PC.

What I find funny is on the News yesterday they were going on about how Vista is the "easiest and fastest Windows to date", when they never mentioned you ideally need to upgrade your PC first!

 

[Bram Turismo]

I'm not getting Vista anyway, nor do I plan buying it. XP will still be better over Vista for a loooong time...

Mac and XP 👍

 

[Shannon]

1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use.

I think you're forgetting that by the time the majority of users have actually jumped over to Vista, this "new-top-of-the-line hardware" we need to buy to run it, won't actually be top-of-the-line...

2. Vista will run a lot of processes that, by the looks of it, can't be turned off. Which results on drastically decreased performance in all areas. Vista actually requires a lot of resources to insure that nothing happens - Yes, you read that right!

I bet people complained about this when XP first came out and how the technology of the time couldn't handle the amount of processes it has running by default. Technology is constantly upgrading and while Vista might be a resource-hog by today's standards, by the time Vista actually has a larger user base than XP, hardware capable of running it with ease will be much cheaper and more common place.

3. Microsoft has gone nuts and has turned a reasonably stable and adjustable OS into a monstrosity that can only be used to play media that don't even exist yet, and even then it runs catastrophically bad.

What's wrong with a little future-proofing? I know I wouldn't want to buy Vista only to find out I need to download a bunch of codecs and patches to play HD-DVD and all that other crap I haven't been paying much attention to...

Really, I think all of these complaint boil down to — 'I can't afford a Core 2 Duo Extreme, 8GB of RAM and a Geforce 8800 '.

 

[Robin]

The more I hear about Vista the more is sounds rubbish! Like for example it downgrades video and audio quality if its not played the way MS what it to be... I dont know how to explain (like link says it better) but I dont want anything downgraded..... this is ment to be the best windows ever... and all the copy protection stuff is ruining it..... its like becomming a communist style of opperating system... its not about you having freedom anymore it about MS forcing on you what they think is best.... like with auto update in XP constantly bugging me! Oh well will stick with XP for the next few years!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6286245.stm

Oh and forgot..... the price is insane in the UK... its nearly double than the US price at every version..... if I ever buy it (not likely) I wont be buying it here thats for sure!

 

[wfooshee]

This is very much like discussions with EVERY upgrade to Windows. "Why do we need this?" "It won't run on my hardware." "It's a conspiracy." "I'm never upgrading!"

Back in the mid-90's, one of my favorite flight games was Falcon 3.0. I'd seen screen shot of Falcon 4, couldn't believe the difference. When I found out that it would require Windows 95, I was shocked! Somewhere I even posted that Sierra was crazy to bet the farm on a new OS that most people couldn't even run, yet they're crazy enough to REQUIRE it for their new game.

Obviously 95 was a runaway success, and after using it for just a very short while, I couldn't stand using the old DOS/WIN3.1.

 

[Race Idiot]

I bet people complained about this when XP first came out and how the technology of the time couldn't handle the amount of processes it has running by default. Technology is constantly upgrading and while Vista might be a resource-hog by today's standards, by the time Vista actually has a larger user base than XP, hardware capable of running it with ease will be much cheaper and more common place.

I complained about XP being bloated when it was released and i'm sorry but it's still bloated as standard. Thankfully I can trim most of the stuff I don't want out of XP's installer.

 

[ChromeBallz]

The problem with Vista is that you can't actually turn off things you don't want or need. It requires you to run processes that can shut down any piece of hardware if it's found to be doing things the OS doesn't like.

Read this for clarification.

 

[Burnout]

I think i'm finally getting convinced by the fact that Vista sucks. I'm an avid gamer, and after reading up on the ridiculous amount of processes that run on a Vista PC that you don't even need (and can't turn off), i won't be buying/installing Vista. But there are other reasons.

1. Vista will eventually require you to get new hardware, since the 'old' hardware (anything below a GeForce 7xxx/Radeon x1xxx for example) won't be able to pass Vista's 'protection' standards. In other words, you've being forced to buy hardware that some might not even use.

2. Vista will run a lot of processes that, by the looks of it, can't be turned off. Which results on drastically decreased performance in all areas. Vista actually requires a lot of resources to insure that nothing happens - Yes, you read that right!

3. Microsoft has gone nuts and has turned a reasonably stable and adjustable OS into a monstrosity that can only be used to play media that don't even exist yet, and even then it runs catastrophically bad.


By buying Vista you will support these things. I don't know about you, but everything can run fine on Windows XP, and there has yet to be a single piece of (useful) programming that *needs* Vista to run. Even CCP still provides a Windows XP version of the new graphics engine, so to speak, so there is no real incentive to upgrade anyway, if you can even call it upgrading.

So, what i'm asking of anyone who reads this is to pass on the word. To everyone, your family, your company, your friends, to simply ignore Vista. Have them ask for XP to be installed on new PC's instead of Vista, if they have to buy ready made PC's. And if you can't do that, help them buy a decent home-built PC that suits their needs.

Just get MS to change Vista to how it should be and have them remove all this nonsense from what could be a good OS. Only way to get them to do that is to simply make Vista a fiasco. They won't try to push a product on people if it won't make money, after all.

Seriously, have you even used it yet?

It's not bloated, and you can turn off mostly everything you don't need that was added since XP.

Microsoft wasn't the one what wanted to enforce the DRM on HD Video, that was the production studios that wanted that enabled.

 

[Swift]

I have to hand it to Viper Zero, but at the same time, Vista's DRM crap and convoluted security functions really turn me off.

I was dragged kicking and screaming away from my copy of Windows 98, and only because my current computer's hardware would be a waste if I still used it (98 wouldn't even begin to know what to do with my 1GB of DDR RAM or Athlon 64 3400+). The same thing will have to happen with my copy of XP.

Exactly. I didn't go to XP until Service pack 1. Why? Because that's when they actually made it a decent OS.

I think vista has potential. Just that there is NO WAY I'm going to buy it right now.

 

[Danoff]

I was dragged kicking and screaming from windows 3.1 to windows 95. I was then dragged kicking and screaming to windows 98 - which I stayed with for a long time. Finally, I was forced to install windows 2000 (after many fixes for it had come out). That was the first time that I felt microsoft had actually improved their operating system. In my opinion, windows 2000 is superior to windows 98.

Then I started running XP at work. When I realized that I could leave my work machine on for a week at a time I realized that windows XP was a more stable better-built operating system than windows 2000.

But pretty much the only things that have been improved (that matter to me) since win98 have been stability and networking. I don't see that advantage with Vista, because XP is already stable enough and the networking is easy enough.

I think I'll be dragged kicking and screaming to Vista like I was with almost every previous installment of windows.

 

[Silverzone]

When I get my new laptop, it will have vista on it. It seems its the OS of choice now of compaq.

 

[PLmatt91]

I'm buying a Mac and if I do need a PC machine, I'll build my own with XP only.

 

[Jondot]

Some people have tried Vista and loved it. Some have tried it and wished they hadn't. Generally, though, if you have a reasonable PC you'll be fine.

Of course half your software isn't going to work to begin with. That's how Microsoft works, you know. Stuff changes, software moves on. If nobody even tried to move on when the opportunity was available, we'd all still be running on coal.

Vista looks nice, yeah, and it's nicer to use. Yes you can make XP look very close to it, but eventually you'll want to move on. You all say you'll stay with XP forever, but soon enough your software will overtake you and you'll have no choice.

I wanted constantly wanted XP because I was used to 95 and hated it. I was just so glad to get rid of grey taskbars if I'm honest... Vista, though, I'm not so sure about. Sure, seems interesting, but I'd like to know most of my programs will work before I pay out for it. I'm happy with XP for now.

 

[Tornado]

Then I started running XP at work. When I realized that I could leave my work machine on for a week at a time I realized that windows XP was a more stable better-built operating system than windows 2000.

That is the first time I have heard Windows XP being better than Windows 2000. Ever.

 

[Race Idiot]

I was dragged kicking and screaming from windows 3.1 to windows 95. I was then dragged kicking and screaming to windows 98 - which I stayed with for a long time. Finally, I was forced to install windows 2000 (after many fixes for it had come out). That was the first time that I felt microsoft had actually improved their operating system. In my opinion, windows 2000 is superior to windows 98.

Then I started running XP at work. When I realized that I could leave my work machine on for a week at a time I realized that windows XP was a more stable better-built operating system than windows 2000.

But pretty much the only things that have been improved (that matter to me) since win98 have been stability and networking. I don't see that advantage with Vista, because XP is already stable enough and the networking is easy enough.

I think I'll be dragged kicking and screaming to Vista like I was with almost every previous installment of windows.

I don't realy think that XP is all that much more stable, i've had several jobs supporting both XP and 2000 machines on pretty large sites. Also a couple of times migrating from NT to 2000 and then XP. I found that the machines with 2000 on them ran just as well as the ones with xp. The only real problems we'd have would be when a new service pack was released, then we'd install it and see which apps stopped working and then spend ages trying to get them to work with the new service pack.

I had a win2k pc at work that I left on all year once and there were several others, especially the people who had systems to monitor constantly pretty much all year round.

 

[Picc84]

I'm a vista guy i cant wait to get it! mostly because i just use my computer for random stuff...

 

[DuckRacer]

I complained about XP being bloated when it was released and i'm sorry but it's still bloated as standard. Thankfully I can trim most of the stuff I don't want out of XP's installer.

If you think XP is bloated, then you need to upgrade your 128MB of RAM.

 

[Wolfe]

If you think XP is bloated, then you need to upgrade your 128MB of RAM.

I have a Gigabyte of RAM, and I still think XP is bloated. I just don't have to worry about it affecting me much.

I wanted constantly wanted XP because I was used to 95 and hated it. I was just so glad to get rid of grey taskbars if I'm honest...

I was so glad when I found out I could turn off XP's Fisher-Price look and have grey taskbars again.

In fact, I was also glad when I found out I could turn off all of the animations and fade-aways and spiffy things, too. One of my friends didn't realize I had XP until a couple weeks ago, even though I've been using it for months.

 

[Gen.]

You know all of this sounds exactly like when XP came out.

 

[STLbarcelona5]

I'm buying a Mac and if I do need a PC machine, I'll build my own with XP only.

Boot Camp + External Hard Drive?

I've been contemplating this for a while now, then again ever since I've had my Macbook Pro (last August), and until I really need to use Rhino and other non-OS X design programs, I'm going to live without Windows.

 

[Richardrfo]

If there's one reason not to buy vista right now, this is it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6320865.stm

 

[opendriver]

Im running home premium lite with no problems at all, but I hope nothing happens.

I dont see any real changes besides the shinny new interface, but I have yet to use everything to its full extent. I mean, it has a bunch of useful stuff that I want to use, but have to figure out how to use them.

Everything looks good to me!

 

[wfooshee]

If there's one reason not to buy vista right now, this is it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6320865.stm

That wouldn't be limited to Vista, it would affect ANY OS that has had speech recognition built in or added. Not an anti-Vista argument.

 

[Richardrfo]

Then why has it not been discussed before and only been publicised now? Sure it's more vista bashing, but if it's possible on all OS's, then surely everyone deserved the right to know about it earlier.