Looks like I'll be on VISTA sooner than I'd intended

[trent the thief]

I ran Vista for six months on my new laptop and really liked it. I had none of the problems I heard about, then whammo! Fortunately I run XP at work (XP was officially retired and is no longer an option for new computers for businesses). My poor lappy (I do not run Flare on my laptop) is due for a reformat this weekend and an install of Ubuntu.

I'm running ubuntu on my old laptop. It took forever to install, even from CD. The nice part was that after it kicked off and I answered the initial questions, it needed no more assistance. I initially tried to use WUBI to do the install. At the rate it was going it would have taken a day and a half.

[QBF]

I am running Ubuntu off the CD as I cannot get past the circular-rebooting of Vista. This weekend I end my attempt to get to my files in Windows. Ubuntu is much faster off the CD then Vista is off the hard drive.

[Andrew]

The problems with Vista have been greatly exaggerated. Greatly. I miss it every time I have to go to work and use XP. Were there some issues with it? Yep, pre-SP1 there were some disk copy issues (and network copy issues, I understand, though I never saw them), and anytime you change major Windows versions, hardware support is iffy in the beginning. They also managed to, despite many improvements to Explorer, screw up its ability to remember folder settings.

Most of the "OMG Vista sucks!" silliness appears to be media-perpetuated baloney. I've been using it since near launch, and it's very nice. FYI, most businesses don't avoid Vista because it "sucks" -- they avoid it because it's new. Hell, many businesses only got on board with Windows XP in 2006 or later, 5 years after it released.

By the way, if you need to test WebHelp in multiple browsers, you should consider VM software so that you can host an entire OS install within your current OS; it's MUCH easier than dual-booting. For example, I document installation for server-based products that require SQL Server 2005 and Windows Server. I just run them in a VM (Virtual PC, in my case), rather than dual-booting, or running down to the lab. As long as you have the spare RAM, VMs are simply wonderful!

Edit: Oh, and I have no trouble running Flare on Vista.

[RamonS]

Most of the "OMG Vista sucks!" silliness appears to be media-perpetuated baloney. I've been using it since near launch, and it's very nice. FYI, most businesses don't avoid Vista because it "sucks" -- they avoid it because it's new. Hell, many businesses only got on board with Windows XP in 2006 or later, 5 years after it released.

No! The exact opposite is true. Read the various IT opinion outlets and surveys. Businesses don't upgrade to Vista because doing so would make no economical sense. The demands of Vista are so excessive that the investment in making it run the same way as XP did are enormous. No company in the world shells out willingly ten thousands of dollars just to do the same as before. That little bit extra in security is far easier achieved with a third party tool at a fraction of the cost. If Vista sucks or not is subjective. But does the expense of an upgrade buy enough new features and improve productivity to generate an interesting ROI? Not with the prices Microsoft is asking. And with Windows 7 already announced for release in late 2009 why bother with Vista now? XP will run just fine until then and even beyond that. And that was the same case for Windows 2000. Why should IT buy new licenses for everyone to go to XP if XP brings absolutely nothing of value to the table? Just with Vista it is worse, not only doesn't it bring much in, it takes a lot away and makes people less productive.
Be honest, take the features that you like in Vista and assume that company X would have offered them as tool package for XP. Sure you'd be interested, but shelling out 300$ per user isn't just pennies, especially when the tool prerequisite is that you spend at least the same amount for hardware upgrades.
Most IT departments run a 3 to 4 year hardware refresh cycle (depending on the company of course, game software companies refresh obviously faster). With Windows 7 coming out next year already it is easy enough to jump over Vista and skip all the pain and sorrows that come with an OS switch.

I have an XP / Vista dual-boot and copying the same file from network is a third faster on XP than on Vista. Same applies for database access and other more hefty and longer processes. Vista is just slower on the same hardware. No wonder why the recommendation is to buy faster hardware. I don't expect that Vista is faster on the same hardware, but being noticeably slower is just a bad joke.
And then take into account that the really interesting features promised for Vista got descoped. Especially a new file system is direly needed. Even Windows 7 will use NTFS, which came into use 25 years ago and had over time some features stapled on. Add the billions of investments made by MS and it is quite sad that Vista is the result from all that. I guess all that brain power went into crafting new icons for the Aero interface.

[trent the thief]

Ramon, thank you for injecting sense here.


Another reason, at least in the financial industry, is that no one wants to shell out money to upgrade hardware or to do the mandatory security testing that a changeover to vista would entail. There are also problems with software compatibility using some of the many non-MS tools out there that many use on a day-to-day basis.

If this were truly a fine and necessary upgrade, it would run faster than XP on my existing hardware and would be compatible with all of my software packages and still function with all the current drivers.

IMHO, vista is a failed cash-cow. Not even a cool rock song and flashy commercials can bring it success.

[Andrew]

I'm not interested in a point-for-point debate about the merits or flaws of Vista. I'm posting because I hate seeing people give "factual" accounts which are not factual (but rather, based on anecdotes, which is fine -- but at least couch it that way).

I use Vista every day for:
- Online help development
- Running VMs (XP mostly)
- Gaming

It runs all of those things just as fast as XP did (granted, I have 3GB of RAM and a decent video card -- Vista certainly does like more RAM than XP). My network copies are the same speed or faster than XP. My points are:

1) Many people are basing their view of Vista on Vista's near-launch quality. Things have changed a lot since then, with better driver and application support, and more shims added to Vista.

2) I have had relatively few problems with Vista, and I think it's better than XP in many ways. It falls short in a few as well (the afore-mentioned Explorer issue being the most annoying). Those who say "Vista sucks, avoid Vista" are presenting a fairly one-sided case, and someone else with different hardware, different software, and different drivers will have a different experience.

I am not advocating that everyone (or anyone) should go out and upgrade to Vista. But if you enter a work situation where it's already installed, or your company upgrades to it, you shouldn't think "abandon all hope, and prepare for suck -- fight to stay on XP."

As for Windows 7 vs. Vista: according to Microsoft, 7 will have similar requirements, and substantially the same underlying systems for drivers, network, sound, etc., so you should see far fewer driver and application compat problems moving from Vista to 7. But that's a decision for whatever IT folks face it.

[helen]

Well, I have Vista as of yesterday (I still have my XP set up too) and so far, overall, I like it. It seems fast (2.21GHz AMD + 2GB RAM), it looks nice and I've been able to do everything I want with it (I did the whole installation). In fact - it's been a mostly pleasant surprise. I did get in a muddle with my DNS settings and as a result had a few problems adding to the Domain, but once I'd got those ironed out it's been smooth (although I don't understand why it works!). I am using the help an aweful lot to locate bits and pieces - but that's what it's there for!

The one thing that has driven me potty is the Vista "Administrator" which isn't an administrator account at all - at least it's not an "XP" administrator. It seems that Vista has a hidden administrator account which can be enabled through DOS (or the UI but I prefer DOS) and then, and only then will it let you install MSIs. That and the fact that the "run" command has morphed into "Start Search" and the Command Prompt has been stashed under Accessories. However, certainly for the latter it's a good decision. I was just annoyed that it took me ages to locate it! That said I like the fact that you can right-click on a folder on the left-hand side of Windows Explorer and select open a Comment Prompt (hold down SHIFT to open is as an administrator). Be warned - when it says "Run as Administrator" it actually means "Run as a Vista Administrator" and from what I can gather, this is not the same as an "XP Administrator". Even disabling UAC didn't make me a "real" administrator. I imagine there's a lot more to it than that and my lack of understanding around UAC didn't help, but I got there in the end. If anyone would like to clear the mist a bit - feel free to enlighten me!

I found these links useful:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/libr ... 66343.aspx
http://www.computerperformance.co.uk/vi ... tivate.htm

Of course it's best not to use the god-account as it completely bypasses the UAC stuff, but if you have MSIs that won't play it might be useful! Today I shall be getting Flare on there as a proof of concept for when I move my entire environment over, for now it's just screenshots for my documents that I need.

I have also head a rumour that Windows 7 is actually Vista SP2... guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.

[trent the thief]

I sure hope this all works out well for you. Last I heard was we're skipping vista.

[RamonS]

Same here and we are all happy about that, especially the IT folks. In plain gutter words: Vista sucks! We had about 50 to 60 problems with our software that are Vista related as there is no such issue on other systems. Last thing was an RTF file that reads fine in WordPad on all non-Vista versions. In order to get it to work on Vista I had to copy and paste it from an XP VM running on a Vista host and then save it. Now it works on Vista, but file size went from 48 kB to over 3 MB.
I can only recommend to stay as far away from Vista as humanly possible. Quitting your job and faking your premature death are options to consider.