Comments on: Is Windows Vista Really a Failure? http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/ Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:43:08 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Racoon http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-34356 Racoon Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:43:56 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-34356 Computers have today have greater capacity to process in general, XP user are adding RAM to their computers because they run slow with 512mb and XP. If your upgrading why not get a new computer that isn't obsolete and can handle Vista and in that you'll have a great OS. Computers have today have greater capacity to process in general, XP user are adding RAM to their computers because they run slow with 512mb and XP. If your upgrading why not get a new computer that isn’t obsolete and can handle Vista and in that you’ll have a great OS.

]]> By: Sharron Field http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-31463 Sharron Field Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:05:06 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-31463 How can you say for sure that Windows 7 fried your laptop BIOS? I've seen a BIOS failure under Windows XP; but it has nothing to do with XP. I've also seen a chipset fail under XP. Once again it had nothing to do with XP. I built a computer to be able to easily handle Vista; onto which I installed Windows 7 RC 64-bit: It runs like a dream on a 3-core Phenom, and hasn't touched the last gigabyte of the 8GB RAM I installed in it no matter how many programs + file transfers I run simultaneously on it and how hard I push it. Actually it hasn't even blue-screened yet if I recall correctly. <i>"windows 7 runs faster due to an incredible use of systems resources, thats the reason why my laptop fried"</i> Is that right? It's amazing, then, that, since it uses such an incredible amount of system resources, Rich Menga, one of the main authors on PC Mech, got it running without any problem on his netbook with an Atom processor and 1GB RAM. As a matter of interest also; why was your laptop running Windows 7 via the BIOS? How can you say for sure that Windows 7 fried your laptop BIOS? I’ve seen a BIOS failure under Windows XP; but it has nothing to do with XP. I’ve also seen a chipset fail under XP. Once again it had nothing to do with XP.

I built a computer to be able to easily handle Vista; onto which I installed Windows 7 RC 64-bit: It runs like a dream on a 3-core Phenom, and hasn’t touched the last gigabyte of the 8GB RAM I installed in it no matter how many programs + file transfers I run simultaneously on it and how hard I push it. Actually it hasn’t even blue-screened yet if I recall correctly.

“windows 7 runs faster due to an incredible use of systems resources, thats the reason why my laptop fried”

Is that right? It’s amazing, then, that, since it uses such an incredible amount of system resources, Rich Menga, one of the main authors on PC Mech, got it running without any problem on his netbook with an Atom processor and 1GB RAM.

As a matter of interest also; why was your laptop running Windows 7 via the BIOS?

]]> By: Jochystar http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-31069 Jochystar Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:33:15 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-31069 Vista was user friendly for the newbies, horrible trend for the computer wise ones, and finnally after testing Windows 7 for 3 weeks and after an update it fried my laptop bios chip, I personally think that microsoft is out of ideas and in real desperation, i had run my last 3 computers with windows XP-Pro and havent had any of those computers given me a major trouble at all, a yr ago i bought a dell t-3400 workstation and even do windows vista updgrade was free i choosed to have the xp-pro downgrade on it, not a single problem as of today. I had found out that like vista but without the animated cartoons it came with, windows 7 runs faster due to an incredible use of systems resources, thats the reason why my laptop fried ... it was running too hot to begin with and unfortunatelly for me i did not update or flashed my bios prior to updating windows 7 beta RC2 and am so freaking mad that my alsmost brand new laptop it just went dead. thanks microsoft (bill gates) but i wont give you the pleasure to get more of my hard earned cash, next time ill buy a laptop believe me is bot gonna be a PC is goint to be a mac for sure ! damm you ! Vista was user friendly for the newbies, horrible trend for the computer wise ones, and finnally after testing Windows 7 for 3 weeks and after an update it fried my laptop bios chip, I personally think that microsoft is out of ideas and in real desperation, i had run my last 3 computers with windows XP-Pro and havent had any of those computers given me a major trouble at all, a yr ago i bought a dell t-3400 workstation and even do windows vista updgrade was free i choosed to have the xp-pro downgrade on it, not a single problem as of today. I had found out that like vista but without the animated cartoons it came with, windows 7 runs faster due to an incredible use of systems resources, thats the reason why my laptop fried … it was running too hot to begin with and unfortunatelly for me i did not update or flashed my bios prior to updating windows 7 beta RC2 and am so freaking mad that my alsmost brand new laptop it just went dead. thanks microsoft (bill gates) but i wont give you the pleasure to get more of my hard earned cash, next time ill buy a laptop believe me is bot gonna be a PC is goint to be a mac for sure ! damm you !

]]> By: Jagbir http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-27864 Jagbir Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:46:23 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-27864 I have had Vista thrusted upon me for the past 2 years because my work computer is Vista (I am a software engineer by profession). My personal opinion about Vista, which is based solely on my experience as a user, is that it is absolutely a peice of crap OS. I cannot imagine how Microsoft could have even dreamt of unleashing such a horrible OS which from the looks of it looks like half finished and horribly buggy. People talk of security - well, it wont allow you to edit a file in Program Files folder, but you can copy it outside, modify it and copy it back where you wanted to modify it. Its just an example but thats the kind of security it provides. I would never ever want to have Vista on any of my machines. I am shopping for a new laptop right now and the first thing I want to know about any laptop that I am interested in is if I can have Windows XP on it instead of Vista. I see ads from PC manufacturers saying "Powerful enough to run Vista!" That in itself is a pointer about the quality of the OS, if all of my computer's power is going to be used to run the OS then whats the point!!! I have had Vista thrusted upon me for the past 2 years because my work computer is Vista (I am a software engineer by profession). My personal opinion about Vista, which is based solely on my experience as a user, is that it is absolutely a peice of crap OS. I cannot imagine how Microsoft could have even dreamt of unleashing such a horrible OS which from the looks of it looks like half finished and horribly buggy. People talk of security – well, it wont allow you to edit a file in Program Files folder, but you can copy it outside, modify it and copy it back where you wanted to modify it. Its just an example but thats the kind of security it provides.

I would never ever want to have Vista on any of my machines. I am shopping for a new laptop right now and the first thing I want to know about any laptop that I am interested in is if I can have Windows XP on it instead of Vista.

I see ads from PC manufacturers saying “Powerful enough to run Vista!” That in itself is a pointer about the quality of the OS, if all of my computer’s power is going to be used to run the OS then whats the point!!!

]]> By: Beyond » Official 2008 kkomp.com Usage Statistics http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-16306 Beyond » Official 2008 kkomp.com Usage Statistics Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:01:48 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-16306 [...] XP rather than Windows Vista. I read an article on PCMech.com by David Risley entitled "Is Windows Vista Really a Failure?". In answer to that question just look at the statistics. Go [...] [...] XP rather than Windows Vista. I read an article on PCMech.com by David Risley entitled "Is Windows Vista Really a Failure?". In answer to that question just look at the statistics. Go [...]

]]> By: DavidEF http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-16240 DavidEF Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:51:21 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-16240 I think it's so funny to see people write things like "no worse than XP" and "if you get a decent computer" when trying to defend Vista's poor reputation. First of all, if "no worse than XP" is the best it can be described, it IS a failure. And, when compared to linux, "if you get a decent computer" denotes failure as well. There are MANY distributions of linux that are newer (by release date) and far more advanced than Vista, yet have miniscule system requirements comparatively. My favorite comparison is Puppy linux. There are at least two versions of Puppy linux that I know of that have Compiz graphics enabled by default (makes Aero look SICK, for real!), yet run in RAM, booted from a CD. They require a decent amount of RAM (256MB would qualify). They also require a modern GPU (for Compiz). The CPU is not so much an issue. Most computers made in the last 12 years would EASILY suffice for processing power! Yet, with specs this low, applications already installed on the CD, and many features you may never find in ANY Windows version, it speeds along happily. So, what does Vista do with the 15GB of hard drive, 2GB of RAM, and 2-core-or-better processor requirements, just to drag along slowly, lethargically? And that's before you install any applications! I have a laptop that came with Vista pre-installed, but it is destined for Ubuntu greatness, soon. I've had enough of Vista to prove to me that it's a failure. I personally know others who have come to the same conclusion. I helped one man get rid of it on both his desktop and laptop. He upgraded to XP on both. And, as 'marc' said above - "From what I see out here in the real world, Vista is clearly a failure. If people will go to some length to avoid it and others are happy to be rid of it, what else can it be? It’s a colossal failure." I think it’s so funny to see people write things like “no worse than XP” and “if you get a decent computer” when trying to defend Vista’s poor reputation. First of all, if “no worse than XP” is the best it can be described, it IS a failure. And, when compared to linux, “if you get a decent computer” denotes failure as well. There are MANY distributions of linux that are newer (by release date) and far more advanced than Vista, yet have miniscule system requirements comparatively. My favorite comparison is Puppy linux. There are at least two versions of Puppy linux that I know of that have Compiz graphics enabled by default (makes Aero look SICK, for real!), yet run in RAM, booted from a CD. They require a decent amount of RAM (256MB would qualify). They also require a modern GPU (for Compiz). The CPU is not so much an issue. Most computers made in the last 12 years would EASILY suffice for processing power! Yet, with specs this low, applications already installed on the CD, and many features you may never find in ANY Windows version, it speeds along happily. So, what does Vista do with the 15GB of hard drive, 2GB of RAM, and 2-core-or-better processor requirements, just to drag along slowly, lethargically? And that’s before you install any applications! I have a laptop that came with Vista pre-installed, but it is destined for Ubuntu greatness, soon. I’ve had enough of Vista to prove to me that it’s a failure. I personally know others who have come to the same conclusion. I helped one man get rid of it on both his desktop and laptop. He upgraded to XP on both. And, as ‘marc’ said above – “From what I see out here in the real world, Vista is clearly a failure. If people will go to some length to avoid it and others are happy to be rid of it, what else can it be? It’s a colossal failure.”

]]> By: rasmasyean http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-15879 rasmasyean Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:52:47 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-15879 Oh and here's my "opinion". I have Vista 64 and would never go back to XP. If you get a decent computer, Vista 64 with ample RAM is FAST. I have no regrets and did my research and everything. If you knew what Vista is just by starting off with Wikipedia, it's enough to convince you that it is a big step from XP and worth the upgrade (provided you do it correctly). I would say that Vista makes XP seem like using a last-generation computer much more than XP made 2000 feel like it...both user-interface-wise, and technically. You just have to know what to look for. Oh and here’s my “opinion”. I have Vista 64 and would never go back to XP. If you get a decent computer, Vista 64 with ample RAM is FAST. I have no regrets and did my research and everything. If you knew what Vista is just by starting off with Wikipedia, it’s enough to convince you that it is a big step from XP and worth the upgrade (provided you do it correctly). I would say that Vista makes XP seem like using a last-generation computer much more than XP made 2000 feel like it…both user-interface-wise, and technically. You just have to know what to look for.

]]> By: rasmasyean http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-15878 rasmasyean Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:42:45 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-15878 Forget all these "opinions" from people. Just look at some statistics. It doesn't look like a "failure" to me. You'll have to decide for yourself. OK here’s some rough calculations: 18.33% of internet users are Vista http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11 1.46 billion internet users http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm Assuming the usage rate is consistent around the world… 1.46 billion * 18.33% = 268 million Vista internet users The actually user base would be significantly less than the above number only if for some reason, Vista users surf the internet WAY MORE than all other OS's to skew the percentage up to 18.33%. It’s probably more likely that that some Vista users don’t use the internet much because it’s for work mostly. Hence there is likely more than 268 million Vista users. Hitslink logs statistics in the “rich” (and more regulated) demographics. Here Vista adoption is probably held back a little by expense. So that could mean that Vista adoption in other “poorer” (Gov’t don’t give a crap) nations is much greater than 18.33% since you can like buy it at the local fruit shop for like $1, etc. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate Hey, if you include ALL of Asia? 500 million Vista users??? ;) Also, check this out... Vista - a $6 Billion Dollars Operating System http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-a-6-Billion-Dollars-Operating-System-44096.shtml I don't really know what the markup of it is but for simplicity let's assume that they make $100 off each license on average (which is a conservative estimate wouldn't you say?). If my math is correct, that's $18 billion dollars as of the last public claim of 180 million copies sold. Microsoft: 180 million Vista licenses now sold http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/07/18/three-months-later-180-million-vista-licenses-sold-in-total If my math is correct again...that's TRIPLE the initial costs! Of course they likely spent a little more after-market like for Jerry Seinfeld and stuff like that but I don't think it’s anywhere near $12 billion dollars. Forget all these “opinions” from people. Just look at some statistics. It doesn’t look like a “failure” to me. You’ll have to decide for yourself.

OK here’s some rough calculations:

18.33% of internet users are Vista
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11

1.46 billion internet users
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Assuming the usage rate is consistent around the world…
1.46 billion * 18.33% = 268 million Vista internet users

The actually user base would be significantly less than the above number only if for some reason, Vista users surf the internet WAY MORE than all other OS’s to skew the percentage up to 18.33%. It’s probably more likely that that some Vista users don’t use the internet much because it’s for work mostly. Hence there is likely more than 268 million Vista users.

Hitslink logs statistics in the “rich” (and more regulated) demographics. Here Vista adoption is probably held back a little by expense. So that could mean that Vista adoption in other “poorer” (Gov’t don’t give a crap) nations is much greater than 18.33% since you can like buy it at the local fruit shop for like $1, etc.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate

Hey, if you include ALL of Asia? 500 million Vista users??? ;)

Also, check this out…

Vista – a $6 Billion Dollars Operating System
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-a-6-Billion-Dollars-Operating-System-44096.shtml

I don’t really know what the markup of it is but for simplicity let’s assume that they make $100 off each license on average (which is a conservative estimate wouldn’t you say?).

If my math is correct, that’s $18 billion dollars as of the last public claim of 180 million copies sold.

Microsoft: 180 million Vista licenses now sold
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/07/18/three-months-later-180-million-vista-licenses-sold-in-total
If my math is correct again…that’s TRIPLE the initial costs!

Of course they likely spent a little more after-market like for Jerry Seinfeld and stuff like that but I don’t think it’s anywhere near $12 billion dollars.

]]> By: alex http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-15674 alex Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:57:49 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-15674 Well I`d say not a total failure, but I removed it since I first installed it on my quad core, it`s annoying and the biggest time waster. Not as friendly as XP SP3 either. Well I`d say not a total failure, but I removed it since I first installed it on my quad core, it`s annoying and the biggest time waster. Not as friendly as XP SP3 either.

]]> By: Sharron Field http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-windows-vista-really-a-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-15599 Sharron Field Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:57:10 +0000 http://www.pcmech.com/?p=8124#comment-15599 Wow: All of a sudden it looks even worse for Vista in the light of the fact that I just stumbled across a blog post I made in August 2008 in which I compiled blog visitor statistics as above over a period of six days...The figure I arrived at showing how many times more people were using XP than Vista was rather more than 7 times. One of my conclusions, as stated in my blog post mentioned herein, months before this article on PC Mech, was "Vista is a failure." :- http://kkomp.com/archives/1466 Wow: All of a sudden it looks even worse for Vista in the light of the fact that I just stumbled across a blog post I made in August 2008 in which I compiled blog visitor statistics as above over a period of six days…The figure I arrived at showing how many times more people were using XP than Vista was rather more than 7 times.

One of my conclusions, as stated in my blog post mentioned herein, months before this article on PC Mech, was “Vista is a failure.” :-

http://kkomp.com/archives/1466

]]>