Is it going to be fondly remembered as just another "Windows M.E.?"

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=204203975


Are you happy with the performance? Do the "Visuals" and security features make up for any degradations?

 

I'm avoiding it like...plutonium.

 

I have Vista Ultimate and like some of the features (power saving, security, built in search function) but most of the other apps are not my cup of tea. I especially hate having to update hardware in order for the system to work and also the performance degradation while gaming and transferring files across my network.

 

<--- Vista Ultimate + XPS 600. I don't have any complaints.

 

I have no plans of upgrading my XP machines. The girl's laptop is running Vista and I tried to get here a laptop with XP but she likes vista so its all good for her.

XP > Vista

Vista does remind me of ME

 

I believe that XP is faster, but Windows 95/98/ME is faster then XP...The point is Vista is better then XP when it comes to features and security....

 

Running it on my brand new IBM T61p fully loaded laptop and on an HP Desktop PC about 2 months old.

No problems for the most part, reboot once every two weeks.

I recommend 3GB + for ram seems to run very smoothly with alot of ram.

 

Around the office we've taken to calling Vista "Microsoft Bob Extreme."

 

You know, I really don't know why Windows ME got such a bad rap....It worked.

 

I absolutely loathe Vista. It's like your typical model, pretty but no brains.



Anyways, my roommate has it and I just use it for my iTunes. Then I get back on my 6 year old P3 XP-Pro box and I feel like I'm going from a Yugo to a Ferrari.

 

Wow you must have been the only one it worked for.

I still fondly remember ME deleting my hardware profiles. Ah the memories...

 

me too. It took me the longest to finally upgrade to XP. I have 0 interest in Vista at this point.

 

Im just smart...

 

Windows ME was known as 'Wintendo' to us IT people.

Vista is fine so far, just turn off the annoying stuff and like anything else microsoft give it another 6 months for tweaks. As PCs get faster it will appear to be better as well.

In respects to the company I run, well, we have it for testing our products but only a handfull of us are using it in production.

 

I have no complaints.
2gb RAM
pentium dual core
It works just fine for me.
I don't do any gaming (360 for that).

 

My parents bought a computer in 2001 that had ME. They were still using it up until about a week ago. I think their biggest complaint would probably be that their new printer wouldn't work with it, even though it said on the box that it was compatible. That was another big issue with ME....it just didn't want to work with peripherals. Anyway, my 'rents decided to use my old PC with XP Home (also bought in 2001) until it dies/MS doesn't support it anymore. They (and I) have no interest in Vista. I'll probably try to milk my current PC until the next OS comes out.

 

I installed the Builder's Edition, no problems here. I like it, but on a broad level, I can't really tell the difference between XP and Vista, except some features are switched around and you do a little more mouse-clicking than usual to get programs to install. Seems it took M$ 6 years to make XP just look real purrty.

 

I ran Vista Ultimate 32-bit for a while to test out. After playing with the configuration to optimize it I still found that it was less responsive than XP, and it didn't really have any features that I would be willing to fork out the cash for. The only geewhiz thing it had that I REALLY liked was the application dependent volume control, instead of the hardware based control in XP (and all previous versions of Windows.) DX10 is cool, but I'm not much of a gamer, although there are a couple that I like to play.

With MS releasing another O/S in the 09 time frame and XP getting a 3rd service pack next year I've decided to skip Vista altogether.

If I were a developer or something along those lines, then yes, but being just a lowly sys admin Vista is just another DOS 4.0 (and Windows ME) to me. Not worth the hassle, I'll wait for the next one.

 

Oh yeah, that's another thing. You STILL can't fully manage Exchange 2003 servers from Windows Vista workstations. At this point I'm assuming it will never be possible.

 

New HP came with it preloaded. I'm OK with it. My only complaint is that there aren't any Vista drivers for my Sony photo printer or for syncing my old Sony Clie.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH thanks

 

knowing that if I load the same computer with Vista it will run twice as slow as the same computer running XP makes it VERY VERY VERY difficult for me to ever feel the need to "upgrade"...

 

That's why I've been telling most people to wait till their next PC purchase to go to it. I would personally never upgrade an OS again especially after all of the headaches doing it with former versions of windows.

 

My roommate does a ton of printing daily and so far Vista has been a pain in the ass. I contstantly have to reboot the computer in order for it to send the data to the printer. It's annoying as hell.


And don't get my started on how well Vista and iTunes play together.

 

Vista blows, it's as unsupported, resource demanding and shoddy as ME was. I just reimaged my Vista boxes back to XP this weekend

 

I've been running Vista x64 Business for a few months now at home. It has its quarks I've found, but nothing that's been a show stopper. The most annoying thing is that when I put my computer in sleep mode and then wake it up, one of the dual cores on my CPU is pegged at 100%. Apparently SP1 will fix this, among many other things. There are sites out there that show you what really needs to be tweaked after you do an install. They are very helpful and make Vista a bit easier to bear.

It wont be going on workstations here at work anytime in the near future. Hopefully future versions of Autodesk Civil 3D and Land Desktop wont ever require it.

 

No problems with Vista HP on my notebook.

 

Running it on one of my machines and as joerockt said, there are things you can turn off to make it faster.

 

 

there's no problems but your shit would be 2x faster on XP :P

 

Yeah and a few years ago the same arguement was posed with XP - VS - Win2000 Pro.

 

I guess with time we'll just forget about it. SWEET

 

Im not missing XP. In fact I felt Vista was faster once everything was tweaked out on it. Running a raid 0 helps immensely.

 

been testing Vista enterprise for a few things at work and it works fine.

I can't see how the average home user could have that many problems with it if you have proper hardware.

 

 

I've had no issues with Vista at all -- so far it's been very stable and fast; however, when I built this system back in the spring I did purchase components I knew would work well with it. The only issue I've had is that the version of VMWare Workstation I have doesn't work under Vista so I've lost my ability to run Red Hat Linux for now and I'm too cheap to fork over $$ for the lastest version.

 

Nobody is saying there is any issue or problem with Vista - it's just 2x slower than XP. XP was slower than 2000. If you've upgraded with RAID or some other hardware(s) then you might not notice it as much.

 

I have vista basic on my laptop with 1 gig of memory. NO issues at all (especially on applications such as photoshop/illustrator/dreamweaver). On my desktop, I have the 64 bit version of vista and 2 gigs of memory. No issues either. Matter of fact, I really have gotten used to Vista and prefer it over XP after using it for around 6 months.

 

^ new computers, right?

 

^ correct. Both are new computers. Desktop is an HP, and the laptop is a $350 acer from wallmart.