The article is biased and clearly weaving a huge flag that writes "I <3 MS" over its head. It completely OMITS the fact that Vista is hated because people cant run it due to hardware reasons, driver compatibility reasons, backwards compatibility reasons or just the plain ol fact that the OS is not thing more than a flashy and BADLY remixed version of windows XP.

A gentleman has posted that "people cannot run it due to hardware" and then mentioning something about RAM.
Common. Lets be serious here.
-Since WHEN does an OS need the system specs that resemble a PC game?
-Since WHEN has common sence taking a leave of absence in the MS collective minds and decided to make Vista such a poor player in backwards compatibilty?
-Since WHEN has the liberty of a user to use the OS that he or she likes was taken away and the company in question has the freedom to force their new program down our throats?

And please. Do not let me get started in the things they "borrowed" from MacOSX.

Regards,
K.A.

If you're on 64bit and do use the memory capabilities, it's a good OS. I use up to 3.8 gigs on some high res model renders and I'm happy with it. It really does use a lot of resources for it's base though, I think a 32 bit system would not be as good as previous OSes (ie XP or Win2K).

Personally I like it, I'm no Microsoft fan, but it's reliable and faster than Win2K (what I upgraded from).

I think it has more to do with people's memory of Windows ME and how closely Vista is to it.

When Win 2K came out ME became instant abandonware and so will Vista when windows 7 appears.

So where does that leave Vista owners in the same boat as ME owners holding the bag.

Why I hate Vista...

- it does nothing (that I've seen) I can't already do in XP (except DirectX10).
- XP runs 10x better. "Get a better system to run Vista"...it's also going to run XP even faster, so that is a silly argument.
- It's change for the sake of change (making more money)...just like most of their "features" and interface design.


----------------------------------------------------
Currently fragging in The Witcher, Burnout Paradise, COmpany of Heroes, Team Fortress 2

Join the "Blues News" Steam Community Group. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

I think it has more to do with people's memory of Windows ME and how closely Vista is to it.

They completely neglected to mention one of the prime reasons - Microsoft is a predatory and usurious monopoly, Vista is just it's latest weapon to exert it's power over the industry.

This comment was edited on Feb 5, 15:51.

The day I need more than 3 gigs on my gaming PC is the day I'll upgrade it to Vista. I still have 2GB with XP and haven't found the need for more. I figure even if I up it to 3GB, it's still better to use XP, just because the .25 gig that XP might not be able to utilize would be eaten by the bloat of Vista anyways. Maybe in another year or two I'll build another PC with Vista 64.

Too many devices out there still don't have Vista driver support. I'm sure the new requirements are part of that reason. That might not be completely the fault of MS, but it also doesn't change the fact that with little reason to upgrade people aren't willing to buy a replacement printer or whatever device that has been abandoned at XP.

And I hope no one is going to compare DOS->Win95 or Win98->WinXP to WinXP->Vista. That's another reason why people stay with XP. It does not have the obvious changes or the stability improvements of past OS jumps.
s{
This comment was edited on Feb 5, 14:03.

I think quite possibly the best reason to upgrade to Vista is for the 64-bit capabilities. Yes, there is XP 64, but it doesn't have the driver support of Vista 64. All Vista certified drivers are required to be available in 64 bit as well as 32 bit versions. XP has no such requirement, so xp 64 driver support tends to be weaker.

For the record, I run Vista Home Premium 64, because with 4gigs of system ram and 2 640mb 8800s in SLI, 32 bit systems can't address all the memory - and I've confirmed this in XP, Vista 32 bit and Knoppix - I show up with about 2.75 gigs usable system memory. Therefore I have to run a 64 bit OS, and it's not going to be XP 64.

I'd love to own an astrolabe and an orrery. I found someone who makes very detailed orreries, but have yet to find a decent astrolabe.

http://www.orrerymaker.com/

This article is right on; we had the same reaction when we went to a new state of art ERP system at work. People freaked, said it sucked, but it wasn't the software.

Vista's biggest problem is that too many people are using it on systems that can't handle it. The computer manufacturer's don't help by selling systems with 512 or even 1GB of RAM. Vista needs at least 2GB to run decent, more to run well. And to further exacerbate the problem, they ship with Aero enabled by default on systems with no decent GPU in them.

I know why I hate Vista. I have both hardware and software that just plain won't work in Vista. I've also found Vista to be much slower than XP at everything. Maybe SP1 will take care of some of these things in Vista, but I'm not holding my breath.

Head Chef & Bottle Washer for LAN Addict - http://www.lanaddict.

If the reason that people hated vista was simply an emotional response or resistance to change, then Vista wouldn't be doing so shitting. The facts are on paper.

When WinXP came out there were fairly similar fears. Things like more data-mining tools and things to find information on your users by Microsoft. But even then, the number of people using WindowsXP by the end of the first year, had grown to out pace Windows98 and it wasn't long after until it almost completely replaced it, with something like 70% of windows sales being XP.

Now in that same time period, 1 year after release, Vista sales were only 8% of the market. EIGHT PERCENT! You cant tell me it's just an emotional response and fear of change when sales are that abysmal compared to XP.