[hafa]

The linked article about the Vista Boycott mentioned on the Front Page had some absolutely hilarious replies; quite enjoyable reading.

As for the article itself, it seems to me that the primary issue is not so much that Vista has problems inasmuch that the vendors/shops selling it in the Netherlands may have poor customer service and inadequate internal training and development programs.

If, for instance, a customer comes to us and wants to buy Vista for their XP2400+ machine with 256MB of RAM, or even their A64 3000+ with 1GB, we do our level best to persuade them NOT to buy Vista, as their machines will simply not perform well with it. Likewise if they want to hook up a legacy all-in-one printer/scanner/fax; we'll advise against Vista.

If, on the other hand, they are buying a new dual core with at least 2GB of RAM and an Nvidia 7600 or its ATI equivalent, and have no legacy hardware we'll ENCOURAGE them to buy Vista IF they don't need to run legacy software.

It's all about customer service: Before doing any implementation of a new OS, we consult with our customers extensively. We find out what software they're using, what hardware they're using and then make recommendations based on THEIR needs.

Internally, we've been doing extensive hardware and software testing with Vista since the first beta version came out. Our technicians are very familiar with the OS and can provide instant assistance via phone or email 24/7.

So far, out of the 63 Vista machines we have in the field, we've received 0 complaints. Our customers know what they're getting into ahead of time, and any issues that crop up are handled quickly, efficiently and effectively.

IMHO, there is not that much more inherently wrong with Vista than with any other current OS, and considerably less than some. While MS deserves a certain amount of flak, the shops who say "sure, it will run GREAT on your P2" that need to be taken to task as well.

[joshz]

I hope I'm not the only one who refuses to upgrade to Vista?

[aja]

Originally Posted by joshz

I hope I'm not the only one who refuses to upgrade to Vista?

Not at all!

I have met several people who bought a Dell or similar, like Acer or HP, and thrown away the vista copy and bought XP instead.

[thideras]

Yay, my turn.

I've been using Vista on the "backend" (on a spare computer) to train myself for supporting Vista. On the three different computers that I've used/using it on, I have yet to have a problem with any drivers or peripherals.

I also like how that "report" blames Microsoft for bad drivers. I hope everyone understands that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer who makes the hardware to write, test and fix drivers.

I'm not saying no one is having problems, far from that. I am saying it is NOT Microsoft's fault.

I have been running Vista on my laptop and my desktop for some time now with no issues at all, I game/code/encode, you name it, I've probably done it.

Originally Posted by hafa

As for the article itself, it seems to me that the primary issue is not so much that Vista has problems inasmuch that the vendors/shops selling it in the Netherlands may have poor customer service and inadequate internal training and development programs.

If, for instance, a customer comes to us and wants to buy Vista for their XP2400+ machine with 256MB of RAM, or even their A64 3000+ with 1GB, we do our level best to persuade them NOT to buy Vista, as their machines will simply not perform well with it. Likewise if they want to hook up a legacy all-in-one printer/scanner/fax; we'll advise against Vista.

If, on the other hand, they are buying a new dual core with at least 2GB of RAM and an Nvidia 7600 or its ATI equivalent, and have no legacy hardware we'll ENCOURAGE them to buy Vista IF they don't need to run legacy software.

It's all about customer service: Before doing any implementation of a new OS, we consult with our customers extensively. We find out what software they're using, what hardware they're using and then make recommendations based on THEIR needs.

IMHO, there is not that much more inherently wrong with Vista than with any other current OS, and considerably less than some. While MS deserves a certain amount of flak, the shops who say "sure, it will run GREAT on your P2" that need to be taken to task as well.

You nailed it

[aja]

Originally Posted by thideras

Yay, my turn.

I've been using Vista on the "backend" (on a spare computer) to train myself for supporting Vista. On the three different computers that I've used/using it on, I have yet to have a problem with any drivers or peripherals.

I also like how that "report" blames Microsoft for bad drivers. I hope everyone understands that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer who makes the hardware to write, test and fix drivers.

I'm not saying no one is having problems, far from that. I am saying it is NOT Microsoft's fault.

I have been running Vista on my laptop and my desktop for some time now with no issues at all, I game/code/encode, you name it, I've probably done it.

My turn again

For me it is two issues

1 - sluggish on not so fast machines, and somewhat unresponsive on fast ones...

2 - my Version of Solidworks CAD software does not run on Vista, so that is pretty much a deciding factor for me...

But you are correct, the manufacturers are fully responsible for drivers and such.

[hafa]

Originally Posted by thideras

You nailed it

Thanks, thideras

Originally Posted by aja

My turn again

For me it is two issues

1 - sluggish on not so fast machines, and somewhat unresponsive on fast ones...

2 - my Version of Solidworks CAD software does not run on Vista, so that is pretty much a deciding factor for me...

But you are correct, the manufacturers are fully responsible for drivers and such.

I'd debate part two of point number one. I've found Vista to be extremely responsive on new dual core or more machines. Certain software, such as the Adobe CS3 suite and Office 2007 (no surprise there) actually feels much faster on Vista than it does on XP. I'm in the beginning stages of moving our main workstation/server to Vista from XP-64 due to this.

As for point two, that's a perfectly legitimate reason NOT to buy Vista. We recently built 9 new high-end CAD workstations for a local architectural firm and spent many hours going over the benefits VS costs of moving to Vista. For them, one of the telling factors was moving to a 64-bit OS to be able to use 4GB+ of RAM. They ended up upgrading everyone to the newest Autodesk software (I'm sure you know about the costs and upgrade hassles from Autodesk, by far the worst software company in existence in terms of customer service) to accommodate not only Vista, but 64-bit.

[oakstave]

I use Vista on my main rig, XP on my HTPC/folder. I wouldn't describe vista as sluggish at all if it's on a "modern" system. (Core2Duo-class, 2Gigs DDR2, 7900, 1950 or better VC.)

I think the real problem is that XP is a great OS. Mature and stable... And Vista doesn't offer anything but a little eye candy to make up for it's growing pains. It's hard to make a reasonable argument for upgrade based on need. XP still does it all and does it well.

[GunnerMan]

I have Vista on my main machine and I don't eally hit any serious problems. A few annoyances here and there but nothing a quick google search dosen't fix. I might get beaten into a hole and buried alive for saying this but i think it operates better than XP. My spyware problem is non-existant, it auto defrags so my computer dosen't slow down to a standstill because I forget, everything seems more snappy, when it does freeze or something id say I have a 50% better chance getting it responsive again over XP, the old spyware problem is non-existant(can't really explain why) but I don't have any problems.

I don't know why people call Windows a maker of an unstable OS because I havent had a crash (that i didn't cause) in at least a year. The alterantive; Linux is a great OS mainly because it is open source, imho if it was not it would just be another OS.

[thideras]

Originally Posted by GunnerMan

I have Vista on my main machine and I don't eally hit any serious problems. A few annoyances here and there but nothing a quick google search dosen't fix. I might get beaten into a hole and buried alive for saying this but i think it operates better than XP.

Well, that is a pretty roomy hole, I'm in there too

[Deanzo]

Make room in there, another one coming in!
I know lots of guys here in NZ that hate Vista and they all have one thing in common, they dont own a copy!
I've been using Vista retail with in a week of it coming out and have had all most no problems with it (thats not to say other haven't), I'm very happy with this OS, more so than I ever was with XP.

But if you think Bill is the devil or DRM is going to bring about the end of the world, just say no! its only an OS and there are others to use.

And when I say No! I mean go to a real pc store, get them to build one for you and have them install XP or what ever on it.

[SeasonalEclipse]

Im running Vista just fine on my main system (in sig). Its running better then XP actually... Iv had no issues with vista. My web cam isnt supported by vista (no vista drivers) but I actually installed the XP ones..and it runs fine! I enjoy vista right now more then XP and it does seem to be smoother as well. I also believe that Vista doesnt "decay" as fast as XP as well.

[EchoTheDolphin]

Running Vista fine here too.

I currently work in a major consumer electronics retailer to pay for school and the top thing we hate is people with computer guys who come in with 'brilliant advice.'

Typically along the lines of "Vista doesn't work with Windows Server", "Vista won't work on any network with an xp machine on it." It's depressing to be a lowly sales rep who's supposed to be the least knowledgeable in a field know more than most of the local IT guys we have around here.

[Meathead]

My sister bought a pretty nice dell that had vista. I was on it only for maybe 30 minutes or so. In that 30 minutes I thought that vista was actually kind of cool. The 3d windows looks pretty cool. There was one big issue I did run into though that really made me angry. I was trying to download some programs and set them up for her and I spent 15 minutes on trying to figure out how to create a new folder when you click save for downloading the program. I never really figured it out so I just had to click open instead of save for the file.

[mepis]

I've been using vista for some time now. I actually switched to vista for family reasons. I had to break down my other personal system due to room in the house and now the family is on one system. I switched to vista soley for the fact it's harder for the rest of my family to break. It's also more stable from what I say and I have longer up times. When I had a separate machine running XP for the family I spent more time fixing it then using it. Xp is a great OS but at the same time it takes some technical know how to keep it running smoothly. In the hands of average Joe it can show a lot of problems with up keep and maintenance. It is true though that vista feels a little mroe sluggish for me. But I am also using an older system that consists of of a x1300 pro, sempron 3100+ 64 and 1 gig of ram. But on the same note with one computer in the house it does EVERYTHING. I mean it acts as my htpc server for my xbox and other HTPC's, file server, DHCP and internet gateway, encoding box, and general use. That's all always running so it eats some resources on a dated system. All in all it balances well and uptime is fantastic without problems. It still hasnt beaten my linux experience but my family is linux compliant.

[Trottel]

Originally Posted by oakstave

I think the real problem is that XP is a great OS. Mature and stable... And Vista doesn't offer anything but a little eye candy to make up for it's growing pains. It's hard to make a reasonable argument for upgrade based on need. XP still does it all and does it well.

Just because it doesn't provide any real benefits is not a reason to boycott it.

[aja]

Originally Posted by Trottel

Just because it doesn't provide any real benefits is not a reason to boycott it.

But no real benefits coupled with false promises is enough reason IMO

[jivetrky]

I have been running Vista for a few months now and I would not go back to XP (unless I was seriously benching or something I guess).

Yes, there is a slight performance hit, but I think it's worth the conveniences. If not just for the small things like having an accurate timer on the file move/copy dialogs or lightning fast searches, or yes I'll dare say, just the pretty interface. Early on when I got my copy of Vista I installed it a couple of times and then went back to XP. This was because the driver support for my X-fi card wasn't where I needed it (I use my machine for occasional DJing). But this wasn't the fault of Vista, but rather Creative.

I don't understand why people complain that it runs slow on older machines. It was the same way with XP. It ran like a dog on my machine when I switched to XP. Back when 128MB of RAM still wasn't considered ludicrously small. It's like the people complaining that Crysis doesn't run at full settings on their 3 year old computer. It's built with the future in mind, it's on a several year cycle and wants to allow for that.

And heck, how many people stayed away from XP until it was service packed?
The only major difference between then and now was that MS wasn't trying to force people to buy XP by limiting DirectX to it, otherwise it's just basically the same old story.

I will point out, however that I got my copy for free. If I had to pay for it, I wouldn't have. But that is simply because I don't have any spare cash and I really didn't have a need for it. XP was serving me just fine, but I'm glad I've changed over.

[hafa]

Originally Posted by aja

But no real benefits coupled with false promises is enough reason IMO

While Microsoft's marketing is not exactly the height of veracity, I think I'd stop short of calling it "false promises." Gross exaggeration perhaps, ludicrous cheer leading, certainly, but the basic gist is essentially correct.

As I stated in the original post, the "false promises" aren't coming from MS, they're coming from the vendors, techs and shops that mis-sell the OS.

Benefits are subjective to a certain extent, but those who have used the OS for a time, with few exceptions, find the benefits manifest.

[vanibanez]

There are many views on Vista. At first I was very skeptical about Vista since XP ran so well. Now some of the newer games are coming out as "Vista only" or DirectX10 compatible. So now I dual boot XP and Vista. The only major issue I see is not being able to run older games and software. But a dual boot to XP fixes that. After using Vista for a while now (on my Athlon 64 +3000) I have changed my opinion. I tried DOOM 3 on max settings on both OS' and I don't see any great difference in performance. IMHO I think Doom 3 actually looks a little better on Vista. Overall performance change has been negligible. Some programs even install faster on Vista then they do on XP. So there is something to be said for Vista.

Vista has a learning curve but I think the majority out there will go for it eventually.

[masakabassist]

I'm running XP on my main rig, and Vista on my laptop with a C2D, 7300 and 2GB of RAM. I've been running it for around two months now. I don't think its a [I]bad[I] OS, just in my opinion I really don't see the need apart from DX10 to move to Vista when XP is a wonderful OS (or atleast I think it is). I suppose all in all, its up to personal preference. My $0.02