Hate Win Vista.

~~loser~~ · #1 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 02:04 AM

My dad has a business, and he has 6 dell computers that have windows xp professional. Today(1/31/07) he went to Circuit City, Staples, and OfficeMax to look for another computer for his business because he hired another secretary. Every single computer that he saw had Windows Vista. Dad asked an employee at one of the stores if they had any computers that had xp professional, the employee said all of their computers had Vista.
Dad was pretty mad becuase he just bought a piece of equipment for his business, he got three computers with it that had xp pro and now it's hard for him to get a computer that meets the requirments of his new equipment.

He kept saying that all of the business owners are going to have to buy new computers with vista, and that is a big waste of money.

**Speedboxer** · #2 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 02:18 AM

How wold Vista not be compatible with whatever that equipment he bought was? Also, how would it be a big waste of money, computers are no more expensive preloaded with Vista, then when they were preloaded with XP? Well, that is, the computers that could already support Vista, not the ones that didn't meet Vista's minimum requirements.

guyladouche · #3 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 04:56 AM

But why would someone want to buy a "Vista-certified" computer, when all they need is an "XP-certified" computer? Why would I want to spend more money for a store-bought computer with at least 1 GB RAM and a dedicated 128 MB accelerated video card, when all it's needed for is clerical work, and Win XP would work just fine with 512 MB RAM and crappy on-board graphics? That's where the waste comes in--you could spend hundreds less and get a computer that's still overkill for clerical work. While "vista" computers technically aren't more expensive when they come pre-loaded with Vista as compared to computers that come pre-loaded with XP (i.e. you're not paying any more for the OS than before--or so we think), the "vista" computers are inherently more expensive due to the hardware requirements of Vista. I'm sticking with XP--definitely will not "upgrade" to Vista so it can steal half of my system resources and make my rig useless.

And also, Vista sucks and is a complete resource hog. I realize it was just released this week, but there have been so many conflicts with it, particularly relating to games, but also to the typical way that programs are installed. My prediction is that, aside from computer manufacturers selling computers pre-loaded with Vista, a lot of people will continue to use XP. I mean, it's not like comparing win 98 to XP where there's a vast improvement in security and functionality. The basic things that are in XP are present in Vista, and not much more.

Regarding your first question of how Vista wouldn't be compatible with hardware that is compatible with XP--this is not a surprise. There's plenty of stuff that ran on 98 that doesn't run on XP. Lots of proprietary software. At my place of work, the software for the instruments we use will only work on Windows 2000--not on any other OS. It's quite common.

I'm with aspire3000--Vista will likely continue to be a thorn in our side and a waste of time.

**Speedboxer** · #4 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 05:21 AM

You could always just get a PC that just has Vista Home Basic on it. It's system requirements are still a little higher then XPs, but not as demanding as Premium.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. True, Vista does use more Memory, but, I have it on my PC and it actually runs much faster then XP did. Plus, at least it includes much better security features then XP, looks much better (although, you do need a good graphics card for it) and overall, it's much better then previous versions of Windows.

Well, I do understand that, but, mostly all the software I've installed works fine with Vista. So, really, it's more the need for software developers to start releasing Vista-compatible/tested software, then it is for Microsoft to make sure every single program would work with Vista.

guyladouche · #5 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 06:23 AM

But that still doesn't get around the fact that they need XP to run certain things that Vista won't.

Given the choice, I'd rather have a cheaper computer with XP than a more expensive one with eye candy.

I don't doubt that Vista might seem to run more smoothly than XP, but look at the system requirements for it. I have 2 GB RAM, and with the premium release of Vista (can't remember exactly what it's called, but I wouldn't bother with the base Home edition), it'll take 1 GB of my physical memory. I'm not talking 1 GB system requirements, I'm talking about if you open up task manager (or whatever it's called in Vista) and look, you'll only have 1 GB of free RAM to work with--not so great if you're into gaming...

I'm very curious as to the alleged better security of Vista. I've never had a problem with XP--you have to be smart and use a firewall/anti-virus, and not be oblivious to things. I'm just wondering what they could have improved to make it more secure aside from hiring someone to sit and watch your computer when you're not using it. Kidding. Every OS has its problems--which is probably why Vista will have just as many security updates as XP had. My money's still with XP.

**Speedboxer** · #6 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 06:33 AM

Well, I have Vista Home Premium with 1GB of RAM and yes, almost at any given time I'll look over at the CPU Gadget on the Windows Sidebar and I'll see that at least 40-50% of my RAM is being used, even when my computers idle. But, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It could be simply because Vista has some new features on the Prefetcher to try and estimate what program you'll use when, so it could have programs Preloaded into your RAM (although, I'm not sure about that). But, since I don't really use my computer for gaming, it doesn't matter as much. Although, I'll buy some more RAM soon, maybe another GB, and maybe a new graphics card...

Depending on the specs of the computer, if I had to decide between a computer with Vista, or one with XP, I'd go with Vista.

Actually, one of the new security features of Vista is User Account Control. Which, when something is trying to install, make changes to your computer (eg. settings), install an ActiveX control, etc. it'll come up with a Window asking you if you want to continue. It can get a little annoying at time, though.

guyladouche · #7 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 06:56 AM

I guess I wouldn't be so against Vista if hardware were cheaper (I mean, who wouldn't want hardware to be cheaper aside from the retailers?), and cheap computers came with hardware that greatly exceeded Vista requirements. But I like looking at task manager and seeing that only 15% of my physical memory is being used, and I know that if I want to play a game like Battlefield 2142, or FEAR, that use over 1 GB of physical memory, I won't have any problems.

So Vista alerts the user to any changes that are trying to be made to the computer--this is different from XP how? I have a firewall that alerts me when a program wants to access the internet, or that an external IP address is trying to reach my computer. Firefox alerts me when an activeX control wants to be installed. I must click on an exe to initiate installation of a program. I have a virus scanner that alerts me when trojans and malware is attempted to run on my computer, or if a suspicious attachment is downloaded in my email client. I don't really see how any of this is different. What else is there? I have never in my use of XP encountered an exe executing all by itself without the click of a mouse--that's just as good as saying "yes, I want to allow this to run" in a dialog box in Vista to me. I don't really see how it makes my computer any more secure than in XP, though I've never had any problems with security in XP.

robputt796 · #8 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 07:37 AM

Maybe you would be better off buying a lower spec pc with no Operating System, and then buying Windows XP Pro OEM, that should only come to about £400 and no Vista

.

~~loser~~ · #9 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 01:30 PM

Dad has a dell at home that he is going to bring to his business. Then he is going to buy a new computer with windows vista for home.

The equipment that he bought takes a picture of the inside of your eye and then it shows it on a computer so you can see if people have eye diseases.

robputt796 · #10 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 02:57 PM

Well, maybe he should contact the software vendor or makers of the software, and see if it is Vista compatible, nothing worst than having a incompatible set up.

~~loser~~ · #11 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 03:23 PM

The company is making new software that will make the equipment work with windows vista.

I have a picture of bill gates that I edited am I able to put it on the forum for other people to see?

**Ash** · #12 (**permalink**) 02-01-2007, 03:27 PM

Well, as long as it isn't pornographic........

Valandil · #13 (**permalink**) 02-02-2007, 04:41 AM

It wouldn`t really be too hard to have him custom build a PC and throw a copy of XP Pro on it. Or he could buy one of the ones with Vista, format the HDD and buy a copy of XP Pro (or get a cracked one, if you`re like me). The way I see it, Micro$oft has always been a monolopy and always will be, so why should Vista be any different? That`s Micro$oft for ya.

If I was in your dad`s shoes, I`d just throw Linux on all of those computers and leave the Window$ world.

guyladouche · #14 (**permalink**) 02-02-2007, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valandil

buy a copy of XP Pro (or get a cracked one, if you`re like me).

Dude, on a forum that always talks about how you can't post about this and that when it's illegal, I wouldn't brag about having a cracked/illegal copy of XP.

Also, not that it's likely to happen, but it's bad news for a business to get caught using illegal software.

Valandil · #15 (**permalink**) 02-02-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyladouche

Dude, on a forum that always talks about how you can't post about this and that when it's illegal, I wouldn't brag about having a cracked/illegal copy of XP.

Also, not that it's likely to happen, but it's bad news for a business to get caught using illegal software.

100,000 for each copy of illegal copy of Windows. Also, there`s no mention of "mentioning" illegal software; however, it is mentioned that I can`t post links to illegal software. I wasn`t doing this -- was I?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Register Now for FREE!
Username: Password: Confirm Password: E-Mail: Confirm E-Mail: Agree to forum rules