I don't hate Vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nogginsaked
  • Start date Start date
N

Nogginsaked

I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot conceive
why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network to Vista.
For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless as an Orange
Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware performance will be
time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to mention the
seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and ongoing deficiencies
in peripheral drivers.
Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing perfectly
functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to perform the exact
same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so in a recession and
doubly less so if you are moving to web based applications. Why replace
boxes just to run a different OS when the hardware demands of your business
software do not require the upgrade?
I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the aero
interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops), allows users
to retain any interface features they like about Vista (if any) and call it
Vista SP2.
 
Nogginsaked said:
I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot conceive
why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network to Vista.
For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless as an
Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware performance will be
time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to mention
the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and ongoing
deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to perform
the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so in a
recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based applications.
Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the hardware demands of
your business software do not require the upgrade?
I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the aero
interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops), allows
users to retain any interface features they like about Vista (if any) and
call it Vista SP2.
Click to expand...


That would be OK id Vista was just XP with Aero, but it isn't..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
Nogginsaked said:
I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot
conceive why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network
to Vista. For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface
and an
arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or
worse but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless
as an Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware
performance will be time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under
Vista/VSP1. If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill
then
re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to
mention the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and
ongoing deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to
perform the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less
so in a recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based
applications. Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the
hardware demands of your business software do not require the upgrade?
I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the
aero interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops),
allows users to retain any interface features they like about Vista
(if any) and call it Vista SP2.
Click to expand...

YOU may not notice an improvement, but WE will in that it's harder for your
machines to get infected with trojans and the like.

Likewise, we WE (the rest of the planet) move to Vista, YOU will reap the
benefits of a safer computing experience.

It's time to be a good steward of the earth's resources: Implement Vista and
encourage others to do the same and don't kill otters for no reason.
 
Nogginsaked said:
I don't hate Vista but except for change for its own sake I cannot
conceive why anyone would change from a stable XP desktop or network to
Vista.
For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
but arbitrarily different. For all users the UAC is as useless as an
Orange Terror Threat Alert and for all users hardware performance will be
time-by-watching-paint-dry slower under Vista/VSP1.
If you are running a large network with users of dubious skill then
re-educating people who can barely use XP is a nightmare, not to mention
the seemingly unsolvable networking oddities of Vista and ongoing
deficiencies in peripheral drivers.
Large companies, and I run a small one, can do the math: replacing
perfectly functional boxes just so they can run a different OS to perform
the exact same software tasks makes no economic sense, less so in a
recession and doubly less so if you are moving to web based applications.
Why replace boxes just to run a different OS when the hardware demands of
your business software do not require the upgrade?
I suggest that Microsoft push out a new version of XP that has the aero
interface if desired (Windows Live on XP has see through tops), allows
users to retain any interface features they like about Vista (if any) and
call it Vista SP2.
Click to expand...


I like Vista. You don't like Vista. You made your choice and I made
mine. The reasons I like and prefer to use Vista as opposed to XP are, quite
frankly, none of your business.

C.B.
 
I like Vista. You don't like Vista. You made your choice and I made
mine. The reasons I like and prefer to use Vista as opposed to XP are, quite
frankly, none of your business.
Click to expand...

Translation: You're just another sheep that has no reason and just
follows the herd.
 
You have opened a can of worms. Beware all who dislike/don't use Vista. I
got Vista with a new machine and it works ok. However, I have another
machine with XP and that is the most stable PC I have ever owned. NEVER (I
kid you not!) crashed yet. New one has a few times ....
Anyway, still like Vista.
Cheers
http://spookpaleis.myminicity.com/ind/
 
C.B. said:
I like Vista. You don't like Vista. You made your choice and I made
mine. The reasons I like and prefer to use Vista as opposed to XP are,
quite frankly, none of your business.

C.B.
Click to expand...

Well... that's kind of an odd response. You like Vista but you're
unwilling to disclose why? That's just... odd.

This coming from a guy happily running Vista on three Dells and one Mac.
So, no, I'm not a Vista fanti-boi. Not at all.

Lang
 
Lang Murphy said:
Well... that's kind of an odd response. You like Vista but you're
unwilling to disclose why? That's just... odd.
Click to expand...


Maybe he's too embarrassed to tell people about his fascination with 3D
Flip!

ss.
 
hitu said:
That is what you thought when you were having Windows 98 on your machine
and Windows XP was released. Don't you like your XP now? :geek:
Click to expand...

I was using Win2000 as soon as it came out, actually. You can see for
yourself by checking my posts on Google Groups in the Win2000 newsgroups. I
remember reading Bill Gates saying how excited he was about NT5 and Windows
Neptune, in 1999, and I thought I had to get it as soon as possible.

And what is what I thought? What are you asking about anyway?
Anyway, never had any problems with Vista on any of my machines, be it
at work or at home. Everything runs smooth. Installed Vista on a
customized machine, never asked for any drivers, Although I do prefer
using the manufacturer provided drivers.
XP will be extinct in a few months anyway :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Fascinating...

ss.
 
Me neither. I just feel disappointed.
For all users Vista presents an arbitrary change in interface and an
arbitrary change in the way to perform familiar tasks, not better or worse
but arbitrarily different.
Click to expand...

Many people claimed that this is subject to individual's preference, but in
this case, it's more than that.

For enthusiasts, hobbyists, and people who make a living by teaching/helping
other users, this might be a good change, and perhaps, a welcome opportunity
to demonstrate their new skills and knowledge. For those who don't care
much about anything and everything, this change doesn't affect them as any
other things in the world.

For ROI-oriented persons and decision makers, this is one of the largest
cost elements for adoption, and worst of all, it is almost impossible to
accurately estimate the learning cost due to it is on an ongoing basis.
This arbitrary change also helps those IT departments that have not had
enough user complaints (I wonder how many) to have more than they deserved.

An additional benefit is to evoke the user's sleeping consideration sets and
ask, if I have to spend so much efforts on learning the new OS, will it be
better for me to seek for an alternative solution?

In my personal view, this is one of the worst design decisions made for the
product. If it helps to reduce the numbers of clicks, scrolls, eye and hand
movements, and the use of commands, it would be a totally different story.
But it doesn't and based on my own experience and what I have read, it
requires even more use of commands.

The irony is that Linux is moving toward GUI, and at the same time, Windows
is moving toward using more commands.

No, I don't hate Vista nor MS; I just don't believe that this is their
product.
 
Mike said:
That would be OK id Vista was just XP with Aero, but it isn't..
Click to expand...

And that it is too bad for Vista that it ain't just "XP with Aero."

I'd actually like Vista, in that instance.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Lang Murphy said:
Well... that's kind of an odd response. You like Vista but you're
unwilling to disclose why? That's just... odd.

This coming from a guy happily running Vista on three Dells and one Mac.
So, no, I'm not a Vista fanti-boi. Not at all.

Lang
Click to expand...


I've disclosed my reasons in numerous posts over the past 14 months,
and yes, I'm happily running Vista on my newest machine. I've never stated I
was running Vista on four machines because that is not the case. I'm running
XP on the other three machines. I've never stated I am using a Mac.
You need to get your facts straight. Are you new to this newsgroup?
Have you seen any of the previous posts? Your response indicates that you
have not.
As for Nogginsaked, he received the response he deserved. When I
respond to a post my response is directly related to and proportional to the
attitude of the original poster.
I am not a fanboy, or in your words, a fanti-boy of Windows or anything
Microsoft. I have criticized Microsoft and the Windows OS on many occasions.
I also applaud and defend those who choose to use a Mac and any other Linux
based OS. It's their choice to make and I respect their choice, unlike the
Windows bashers and Microsoft haters.

C.B.
 
xfile said:
Me neither. I just feel disappointed.


Many people claimed that this is subject to individual's preference, but
in this case, it's more than that.

For enthusiasts, hobbyists, and people who make a living by
teaching/helping other users, this might be a good change, and perhaps, a
welcome opportunity to demonstrate their new skills and knowledge. For
those who don't care much about anything and everything, this change
doesn't affect them as any other things in the world.

For ROI-oriented persons and decision makers, this is one of the largest
cost elements for adoption, and worst of all, it is almost impossible to
accurately estimate the learning cost due to it is on an ongoing basis.
This arbitrary change also helps those IT departments that have not had
enough user complaints (I wonder how many) to have more than they
deserved.

An additional benefit is to evoke the user's sleeping consideration sets
and ask, if I have to spend so much efforts on learning the new OS, will
it be better for me to seek for an alternative solution?

In my personal view, this is one of the worst design decisions made for
the product. If it helps to reduce the numbers of clicks, scrolls, eye
and hand movements, and the use of commands, it would be a totally
different story. But it doesn't and based on my own experience and what I
have read, it requires even more use of commands.

The irony is that Linux is moving toward GUI, and at the same time,
Windows is moving toward using more commands.

No, I don't hate Vista nor MS; I just don't believe that this is their
product.
Click to expand...


I personally don't see a need for anyone, businesses included, to
migrate to Vista if there is no need to do so. If you're happy with your
current OS, and migrating to Vista will offer you no advantages other than
security, why do so?

C.B.
 
Back
Top