Vista reference in Newsweek's article

In the current article published by Newsweek in the MSN Explorer's
Technology section called "Microsoft After Gates (And Bill After
Microsoft)", one of the sentences in the article says (in part) that Vista
is a disaster and that it is having performance failings.

What people are saying about Vista? Do they agree with Newsweek's verdict?

Don't believe everything negative you read.
Windows Vista, especially with SP1, is an
excellent operating system with nice performance.
Microsoft has sold over 150 million editions
of Windows Vista to very satisfied customers.

If you are considering upgrading to Windows Vista,
then see the following:

Download and run the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...deadvisor.mspx

You should visit the support web site of the manufacturer of
your current software and see if they are supported in Vista.
There may be new software updates available or new versions.

As far as software compatibility, please see:

Windows Vista AppReadiness: http://www.appreadiness.com/default.aspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows Vista Enthusiast

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Octavio" wrote:

In the current article published by Newsweek in the MSN Explorer's
Technology section called "Microsoft After Gates (And Bill After
Microsoft)", one of the sentences in the article says (in part) that Vista
is a disaster and that it is having performance failings.

What people are saying about Vista? Do they agree with Newsweek's verdict?

Calling Vista a "disaster" is journalistic hyperbole.

The fact is that Vista is a more complicated OS than XP because Vista does
more. The learning curve for Vista is steeper than for XP and, initially,
more time has to be spent in learning Vista.

But MS is also to blame for the bad reviews on Vista. They had released
Vista before getting out many unnecessary bugs. Using the consumer as a beta
test group has been going on in the software industry since the early 1980's.
The competition is fierce in the computer and software industry and companies
will release beta stage products in order to beat out the competition. I have
worked in engineering and sales/marketing departments in the microprocessor
industry and there is always a push to get the product out the door to beat
the competition. (This is true in many industries such as the auto industry
where recalls are common.) Then the company relies on service (IT) and the
engineering department to provide proper support to customers who are having
problems with the early software release. This is why I never purchase the
early release of a new software package or OS. Early releases will always
have bugs in it, and the consumer is a beta test group.

Overall, I find Vista to be faster than XP. But I had purchased a computer
that was designed to run with Vista.

oscar


"Octavio" wrote:

> In the current article published by Newsweek in the MSN Explorer's
> Technology section called "Microsoft After Gates (And Bill After
> Microsoft)", one of the sentences in the article says (in part) that Vista
> is a disaster and that it is having performance failings.
>
> What people are saying about Vista? Do they agree with Newsweek's verdict?
>
>
>
>

"oscar" <> wrote in message
news:78C3EB47-2183-4DAC-B50A-...
> Calling Vista a "disaster" is journalistic hyperbole.
>
> The fact is that Vista is a more complicated OS than XP because Vista does
> more. The learning curve for Vista is steeper than for XP and, initially,
> more time has to be spent in learning Vista.
>

The operating system is supposed to be transparent to the user. The whole
purpose behind the developement of Windows was to provide a Point & Click
interface with the installed productivity software. There shouldn't be a
learning curve. And, change for the sake of change, is just pure meanness.

In article <>,
Carey Frisch [MVP] <> wrote:
>
>Windows Vista, especially with SP1, is an
>excellent operating system with nice performance.


Well, as long as you don't need to copy files.

>Microsoft has sold over 150 million editions
>of Windows Vista to very satisfied customers.

Yes. Customers like Dell and Toshiba.

Finally! Someone who gets the point as regards the OS. Many users of this
group seem to feel that Vista is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and
the legions of software packages that won't run properly under Vista are the
culprits.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If an OS won't run the programs
I want to use, it's of no earthly use to me. Vista apologists seem to feel
that programs should be designed to support the OS, instead of the other way
around.

Buddha

"Sinner" <> wrote in message
news:YWx7k.2744$...
>
> "oscar" <> wrote in message
> news:78C3EB47-2183-4DAC-B50A-...
>> Calling Vista a "disaster" is journalistic hyperbole.
>>
>> The fact is that Vista is a more complicated OS than XP because Vista
>> does
>> more. The learning curve for Vista is steeper than for XP and, initially,
>> more time has to be spent in learning Vista.
>>
>
> The operating system is supposed to be transparent to the user. The whole
> purpose behind the developement of Windows was to provide a Point & Click
> interface with the installed productivity software. There shouldn't be a
> learning curve. And, change for the sake of change, is just pure
> meanness.
>
>
>

Buddha wrote:
> Finally! Someone who gets the point as regards the OS. Many users of
> this group seem to feel that Vista is the greatest thing since sliced
> bread, and the legions of software packages that won't run properly
> under Vista are the culprits.

Bullshit! Name the "legions" of software that will not run on Vista!
Well...name them!
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If an OS won't run the
> programs I want to use, it's of no earthly use to me.

Then don't use it!

Vista apologists
> seem to feel that programs should be designed to support the OS,

No asshole, the applications must be designed to run on the OS that they
are written for.

instead
> of the other way around.
>
You're really confused.
Frank

> Vista apologists seem to feel that programs should be designed to support
> the OS, instead of the other way around.

Wonderful! I can see that you don't know much about computing. Ever since
the concept of an operating system was invented, programs have been written
to run on a particular operating system, NOT the other way round.

The OS looks after all the hard work of interfacing with the hardware, and
hides it behind a common library of routines. This means that a program
(let's say, like Word) will run on Dell hardware, IBM hardware, or anything
else that runs Windows. And that hardware might have two, one or no hard
disks, any amount of RAM, vastly different graphics hardware, etc. It
doesn't matter, because the operating system hides all that complication
from the application.

Note that essential phrase: "a common library of routines". Instead of
writing a word processor to target all the different hardware out there,
which would be almost impossible and vastly wasteful of effort, the program
targets a particular operating system instead.

Yes, that's right: the OS necessarily sets the Application Programming
Interface, and applications must be written to comply with that. This is
the rule across the whole computing industry and every type of operating
system.

So no, it is NOT the job of Vista to be compatible with every half-baked
piece of crap software out there. It is the job of the application
programmers to write programs which fully comply with the OS they claim to
target.

XP let programmers get away with breaking various rules. One side effect of
that is that XP is inherently insecure. Vista is much stricter, which is
good for security but prevents some badly written software from running.

One last thing: the rules Vista implements are the same as those for XP. In
other words, if a program was PROPERLY written for XP it will run perfectly
under Vista. If it doesn't run under Vista then IT IS BADLY WRITTEN.

SteveT

I prefer Vista to XP. The only NOTICEABLE difference in performance is when
doing large file copies, especially across networks, where Vista is still
much slower than XP.

Benchmarks show Vista to be slightly slower than XP in general, but I can
honestly say you wouldn't notice it in general use.

SteveT

On Jun 22, 5:13*pm, w...@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote:
> In article <OkfuwTJ1IHA.3...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> Carey Frisch [MVP] <cnfri...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Windows Vista, especially with SP1, is an
> >excellent operating system with nice performance.
>
> * * * * Well, as long as you don't need to copy files. *
>
> >Microsoft has sold over 150 million editions
> >of Windows Vista to very satisfied customers.
>
> * * * * Yes. *Customers like Dell and Toshiba.

You can make numbers show whatever you want. If the 150 million number
is correct, and it is also correct most copies of Vista come
PREINSTALLED (that is true) so buyers have little choice consider the
following. According to the World Bank in 2002 there were roughly 1
billion personal computers. Since that was several years ago lets
update that number to say now there are probably something like 1.2
billion. If Apple has roughly 6% of the market and Linux and others
have another 2% combined then throw in how many are not used just
sitting idle for one reason or another we end up with roughly
800,000,000 personal computers running one version or another of
Windows. If Microsoft's figures are accurate that means 650,000,000
people HAVE NOT upgraded to Vista. That by any measure is a total
flop. Surprise, that number is close the Microsoft's own 84% have NOT
upgraded. Anyone still wondering WHY Microsoft is racing to get the
next version of Windows out?

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/numb...onal_computers