What do you rate Vista?

[vertigo]

i tried it for a month and to be honest i didn't find it all that much better than xp, infact slightly worse in my opinion. sure it is a little easier to use, and has some usability improvements like the task switcher, network connection "viewer" (forgot what it was actually called) and per application volume settings. but not enough innovation or stability (although this can be blamed partially on bad driver support by manufacturers) to justify that price tag, just bloat. not to mention poor performance in games and consumed lots of my 1GB ram whilst doing nothing

what do you think?

 

[madmatt]

I know where this thread is going to go. But for reasons I've already stated I think it is a huge improvement over XP, and I've been using it since it became available in the beta phase.

Pricing (Business vs. Pro and Home Basic vs. Home) is in line with previous releases.

Keep in mind that XP MCE was only available through the OEM outlet so you can't compare Home Premium to anything (which includes MCE).

Business includes Tablet.

Sure, you may have to buy new hardware to make it run like it should, but isn't that what evolution is all about? It's not like XP ran on a Windows 98 machine. How soon people forget.

 

[American Zombie]

Vista runs well enough for me that I have stopped dual booting Vista/XP and run only Vista now.

 

[ray_gillespie]

Yeah I like Vista, it runs pretty well and has loads of cool features. A few bugs still to iron out though, which is why I gave it 4 not 5.

 

[muzikool]

If I were rating Vista without comparing it to XP then I would give it a 4, but I can't help but compare so I decided on a 3. I'm disappointed with the evolution of the operating system -- that there isn't as much innovation and very little "wow factor." I do think it's an upgrade, not comparable to an SP3 like I've read elsewhere, but coming 5 years after XP I was hoping for more. This seems more like a release that might have come 2 years after XP.

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

I run Vista on one of my computers but my main rig runs XP, I like Vista but as stated above me there is not enough of a WOW factor after all these years its just an OS and thats all , I think we have hit a plateau and we will linger here for a while.

Vista 3.5

XP ran on a 333mhz with 128ram ... = Win98 machine

 

[epk]

i give it a 3...

it's stable, responsive, up to date and eventually it's gonna get better (with newer hardware and better driver support)

but it's not revolutionary (as i've read in several places) and it's really expensive... i also don't like that some features have been over simplified (good for beginners but sucks for experienced users)

 

[Sazar]

4. It's not perfect but it gets the job done.

 

[Not Bman]

i give it a 3...

it's stable, responsive, up to date and eventually it's gonna get better (with newer hardware and better driver support)

but it's not revolutionary (as i've read in several places) and it's really expensive... i also don't like that some features have been over simplified (good for beginners but sucks for experienced users)

gave it a 3 too, and that's basically my reasoning too.

 

[zeke_mo]

It feels very solid on my laptop and has wayyy more control over power management and mobility features.

Like mentioned before I was hoping for some sort of revolutionary OS but didnt find that with vista

 

[madmatt]

XP ran on a 333mhz with 128ram ... = Win98 machine

Not very well once you loaded AV, firewall, IE, Outlook, etc.

I installed Vista on a 1.8GHz P4, 512MB RAM, etc. as a test box and it worked very well for me (no Aero though).

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Granted it was a dog but thats what people will do with Vista load it on all kinds of old crapped out rigs and it will be slow as a turtle.

 

[madmatt]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I consider it the evolution of an OS and it is normal.

 

[LeeJend]

It's not like XP ran on a Windows 98 machine. How soon people forget.

XP (and 2000) ran on all three '98 machines I owned and produced a 25% performance improvement in CPU benchmarks and 15-20% in FPS. The preformance improvement was the reason I upgraded to XP. XP also made installation a snap since it was truly plug and play.

2000 suffered from a lack of drivers (just like Vista) which is why I tried but never really liked it that much. Still 2000 produced a 25% improvement in performance.

So based on that comparison Vista is a flop compared to XP and even 2000. Only 2 of my 3 computers will support Vista's hardware requriements.

I still run XP on one of those '98 machines to checkout defective hardware.

I had a chance to buy a new Presario really cheap but the Vista Home on it made the thring crawl like a slug. I would have bought that Laptop in a second if it had XP Home on it.

 

[madmatt]

As my initial post said, I knew where this thread was going to go. Everyone's opinion is going to be different but I stand by my statement. Computer evolution. Deal with it.

XP was a huge improvement over previous operating systems. I don't think Vista was as big, but it would have been if Microsoft didn't remove all the features that were supposed to be included. With that said, SP1 (which should include these features) should make Vista as big of an improvement. Only time will tell.

 

[vertigo]

not my intention to bash vista or microsoft, just to have others voice their opinions.

it is not just the product that really bugs me, it is the ridiculous pricing, just not worth it. not to mention how much more expensive it is outisde of the us

in australia it is priced at $750 AUD, when we SHOULD be paying $480. looks like the same pattern in other countries

 

[Electronic Punk]

Hey England gets screwed the most 🙂

 

[ray_gillespie]

Unless you get the academic version 🙂 (For a student relative, of course!)

 

[ming]

I'm sure you can send someone over to the US or yourself and purchase one since the currency is GBP1.99:USD1. lol 😛

 

[Electronic Punk]

Yeah, quite nuts 🙂