Microsoft has released an early preview copy of its new operating system, Windows 7.

[liber]

God know that I try to keep it more than a month,my PC config setisfied Vista requairment,simply I don't like it,I install and SP1 for Vista and allways having some trouble with it,or it freez or BSOD,OK that's posible to happend to new OS but I don't want to every few days to make full install to repair it. For me I don't like it and don't have attention to have it again.


-----Posted Added-----

It's just annoying to see that "allow/disallow" thing going off all the time.

You could turn it off in user account.

 

[RisingFury]

Risingfury and liber: have either of you actually used Vista? On your own home machine, for more than a week.

If so, and you still think it sucks: What version of Vista, and what were the computer's specs?

If not, I don't think you're really qualified to comment on its "suckiness."

Yes, in fact I have.

I have because when dad bought his laptop, there were no drivers for XP anymore.
Anyone wanna place bets on why?

And yes, Vista does suck.


P.S.:
Using a MAC to avoid viruses is like driving a bucket to avoid being carjacked.

 

[joeybigO]

P.S.:
Using a MAC to avoid viruses is like driving a bucket to avoid being carjacked.

I don't use it to avoid virus, I use it because it works better for what I do, it works well at work, it works well for home. I Upgrade when I need to upgrade, and not have to pay for it, quite frankly, It's a much better computer, now if you think it's driving a bucket to avoid being carjacked, then the only problem is that I have a car, and well you don't.

 

[tl8]

Everyone should remember there is no perfect OS, just like there is no perfect car.

It is a matter of preference.

 

[RisingFury]

I don't use it to avoid virus, I use it because it works better for what I do, it works well at work, it works well for home. I Upgrade when I need to upgrade, and not have to pay for it, quite frankly, It's a much better computer, now if you think it's driving a bucket to avoid being carjacked, then the only problem is that I have a car, and well you don't.

Sorry, don't take it so seriously. I meant it as a joke.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Vista isn't "slow and crappy" if your computer doesn't suck.

It is probably fine for games and word processing and such if you have a decent machine, but it is *horribly* slow for number crunching applications where you need to crunch through flops as fast as possible. We upgraded to quad cores at work with Vista and attempted to run CFD simulations on them - we rolled back to XP after we started blowing project deadlines.

 

[Bj]

Risingfury and liber: have either of you actually used Vista? On your own home machine, for more than a week.

If so, and you still think it sucks: What version of Vista, and what were the computer's specs?

If not, I don't think you're really qualified to comment on its "suckiness."

I have for more than a year now, and computer specs are;

AMD Athlon 64 X2 duel core 1.7 1 gig ram 68 HD with Nividia Gforce 6100.

I have spent more time on this computer fixing every little problem that comes along, and there seem to be many of them....

 

[DaveS]

No issues here with the following specs:
CPU: Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 ~2.4 GHz
System RAM: 3 GB
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT, 512 MB VRAM
O/S: Windows Vista Home Premium SP1.

No issues at all, even the SP1 install was smooth and uneventful. Vista doesn't bother me anymore than XP SP2 did.

And I have really come to like the new Start Menu as it by default lists all your most recent and actively used programs.

 

[Saturn V]

Since Vista, a single core CPU and 1 GB of RAM is not enough. When Vista came out, you needed at least 2 GB of RAM, a dual core CPU and a powerful graphics card to run it... now please, don't tell me that Vista isn't a complete and total failure.

And if I had to guess, minimum requirements for the new Windows won't be any lower then what they are for Vista... and performance won't really be that much better.

These are essentially the same specs I was quoted this past spring when I was shopping for a new PC.

I use far too much very expensive software that was not likely to run with Vista and since I rely on my PC for about 40% of my income, I couldn't take that chance.

I was furious that XP wasn't even an "off the shelf" option anymore...ie: I had to have a PC built for me and purchase it online.

Ended up having Dell build me what amounts to one of their "gaming" computers because I needed the speed and graphic capability.

Yeah, yeah, I know..."Dell sucks." But I'll tell you this much, you can piss all over their rep all you want, but they were more than happy to hook me up with an XP system running with 4 gb ram, a quad core processor and though I don't remember which graphic card I specified, I'm still blown away by the rendering even after 6 months, runs better and faster than my nephew's Vista Vaio...at 1/4 the price!

XP works reliably at half the processing intensity of Vista. I'm by no means a technophobe, but by the same token, I'll stick with something that's a proven winner over the next "big thing" any day.

No sale on the Vista or "7" OS's here...

 

[James.Denholm]

Hey, let's just cut out the flame war and vista and mac bashing.

Some people prefer XP, some prefer Vista, some prefer Mac, some prefer Linux. Hell, some people probably still use Windows 3 for Workstations, or, if they need it for whatever reason, DOS. It all depends on what they do with their computers, and personal preference. Different needs mean different operating system. Enough said.

Let's not get abusive over who uses what, and who likes what. There's no point to that at all.

 

[Hielor]

Yes, in fact I have.

I have because when dad bought his laptop, there were no drivers for XP anymore.
Anyone wanna place bets on why?

Because the hardware manufacturers didn't make XP drivers? You're blaming the wrong person, dude: Microsoft doesn't make drivers. Hardware manufacturers do.

A lot of the blame that gets thrown at Vista or Microsoft actually belongs elsewhere.

 

[Saturn V]

It's true that the driver issue lies with the manufacturer, but the fact is the decision is driven by incentives from microsoft. That's just business. Nothing inherently wrong with it.

In the "crossover" period where the focus was shifting from XP to Vista, I recall seeing machines preloaded with drivers for both.

Sony did almost the same thing with the PS3. The original machines had PS2 innards in addition to the newer technology. Then they went to virtual software for a short period and finally have dropped backward compatibily altogether in the newest models. Their reasoning? To reduce costs. From a consumer standpoint, it seemed more like being forced to purchase both units if you still wanted to play the older games. The truth? Who knows...

My experience with Vista reminds me of steak tartare...it was served...but it wasn't quite done. There are some decent ideas incorporated in Vista, but after 5 or 6 years using XP and custom software that runs reliably, trouble free and the way I expect it too every time, it just seems that switching over to another OS is asking for trouble. As the old addage goes, "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

What I resented was having all the sales-drones trying to shove Vista down my throat. I might've been more receptive to the idea had it been a choice. On the other hand, I'm still too satisfied with XP to see a need for the change. But that's me.

 

[Pilot7893]

I wanna know when the next version of MSFS will come out!

 

[pete.dakota]

I wanna know when the next version of MSFS will come out!

Hardly pertinent to this topic.

I've no experience with Vista. The home PC came with XP, and I knew that it would choke on Vista if I installed it. Probably wise for me to wait to get Vista until, A) we have a better PC and B) more updates and perhaps a second Service Pack is released.

I've only heard of people complaining about Vista's performance, i.e, it not being able to run on middle-of-the-range rigs. I haven't heard of any major or critical bugs or fundamental problems, though; much unlike ME.

7 looks a lot like Vista, which gives credence to many people's belief that they will both be very similar, perhaps the same but 'made to look better'. 7 is a huge endeavour by MS, and IMO, will be worked on more, and for longer, than Vista.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

I would just like to say...

I heard all the horror stories about Vista before I bought it in Oct 2007.

But having had it a year now, I can honestly say I have had absolutely no trouble whatsoever with it. Sure, it does not like to run some programs, but they are not a big loss, and there is usually a way around them, usually by installing a patch.

But here's a little Vista hint:
Many programs I have had, when you insert the disc, you get the standard setup screen i.e. click here to install, click here to read manual, click here to play etc. On many older programs, when you click install, a message appears saying cannot locate installer, or link is broken etc. This is not because it can't actually install the program, it is simply because it cannot locate the installer on the disc.
But here's the trick: In Computer, right-click on the disc & select "Explore". Then simply find the installation file manually, usually in a seperate folder within the disc, called something like "setup" or "install". Click that and about 75% of the time it has installed fine for me

 

[Hielor]

The single biggest issue I (and many other people) have had with Vista is the read-only "feature" of the Program Files directory. Many, many programs written for XP and before (World of Warcraft among them) took the philosophy that their folder in the Program Files was theirs to do whatever they wanted with, and so they happily wrote settings and configs to their Program Files directory. Well, they can't in Vista. There's a "Compatibility Files" section which is supposed to allow those things to seamlessly work, but it doesn't work right all the time.

When I get back to Redmond in January, I fully intend to start filing bugs on this if it's still a problem in Win7.

 

[thomasantony]

The single biggest issue I (and many other people) have had with Vista is the read-only "feature" of the Program Files directory. Many, many programs written for XP and before (World of Warcraft among them) took the philosophy that their folder in the Program Files was theirs to do whatever they wanted with, and so they happily wrote settings and configs to their Program Files directory. Well, they can't in Vista. There's a "Compatibility Files" section which is supposed to allow those things to seamlessly work, but it doesn't work right all the time.

When I get back to Redmond in January, I fully intend to start filing bugs on this if it's still a problem in Win7.

Actually, I think Vista has some virtualization system in which when a program tries to write to its own program directory, it actually writes to some DataStore folder in your user directory.

 

[Hielor]

Actually, I think Vista has some virtualization system in which when a program tries to write to its own program directory, it actually writes to some DataStore folder in your user directory.

That's how it's *supposed* to work. The problem comes with say, config files. Let's say you have foo.cfg, which is shipped with the program. The user runs the program, changes some configuration, which is then written to foo.cfg. Pre-Vista, this would overwrite the original foo.cfg and all is good. With Vista, the new foo.cfg goes in some random folder somewhere (yes, I know it's not random, but finding it without the "Compatibility Files" function is a pita) and the original one is still around.

In some cases, the original one may still be loaded instead of the new one. Specifically, if the programmer attempted to use the full directory of the program rather than the relative path (ie, we know that the program is installed to C:\Program Files\Foo, therefore we will read C:\Program Files\Foo\foo.cfg ), they will find the original foo.cfg and not the new one.

It was done in the name of security, but it's more frustrating than anything. It seems to me like it would be better off if they did it so that a program has R/W access to it's subfolder of Program Files, and R-only access elsewhere.

 

[Genius]

Why not creating a poll too see who use what. I think that will be interesting.

 

[BHawthorne]

Vista x86 isn't so bad if you know how to strip it naked. All that ungodly bloat that it has is not a good thing. Once stripped it works great for me though.