What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
283 Comments
- IllBeBack, on 10/22/2009, -14/+140It's NOT too soon. Many people have been running the Beta, RC1, and the RTM for months now. If there was some huge problem, it would have been found already.
Now is the time. - leparsdon, on 10/22/2009, -32/+152Vista got a bad wrap for no real reason. Whenever I ask someone why they didnt like it, they never can give me a reason other than what everyone else in the blogosphere and all that said. Which just goes to show that they will listen to anything and not form their own opinions.
- cheddaro, on 10/22/2009, -1/+70You should always do a clean install in my opinion.
- FredFredrickson, on 10/22/2009, -8/+50Vista does not constantly (or continually, as you put it) crash. It's actually quite stable, as has every version of Windows since the NT / 2000 era. It only starts to have issues when you load it up with malware from unsafe browsing habits or poor choices regarding the software you run.
- FredFredrickson, on 10/22/2009, -4/+45The biggest problem Vista had on launch, which ruined it for early adopters, was the lack of compatible drivers. Win 7 isn't going to have this problem, because all the drivers built for Vista should work fine.
- mzmare, on 10/22/2009, -7/+47This is actually the first time I wanted to upgrade a Win OS. I'm a tad frightened. :)
- WhiskeyLemur, on 10/22/2009, -7/+40What do you do to your Vista to make it crash **at all**, let alone continually? My husband has it on his desktop comp, which he reboots about once every two months - it has NEVER crashed on him. I have it on my laptop, which I periodically abuse with iffy downloads and have *also* left running without a reboot for about a week (I know, I know - bad for a laptop); it has also never crashed on me.
Not once.
I dislike several things about Vista, starting with the fact that it takes way too long to boot up (and I'm way too lazy to wade through optimization recommendations, not being much of a computer buff beyond the end-user level) and ending with all the ***** that came preinstalled and which I subsequently ended up weeding out. But OS stability is not, I repeat NOT, a problem with Vista.
I'd also be curious to find out which games gave you problems - my Vista laptop is a pretty sweet little gaming machine considering its age, and has been since I bought it about 3 years ago.
As for Vista being slow - no, it won't run on 1 gig of ram. But 2G and up it doesn't run any slower than XP (which I use at work on a 4-G machine, for comparison). - cheddaro, on 10/22/2009, -7/+38Guessing you never ran it...
- RevLoki, on 10/22/2009, -4/+33That's the thing. The early adopters adopted MONTHS ago. I have been running 7 for over 6 months with no headaches. They did the release right by releasing the RTM to the general public. Most of the issues that plague most launches don't exist with 7.
You wanna see crazy early adopters? Look at Snow Leopard users. - norman619, on 10/22/2009, -3/+31An early adopter? It's been available for free for months and people have had very few if any complaints.
- DrKnowitall, on 10/22/2009, -0/+26You're not still using Windows 98, are you?
- Phyltre, on 10/22/2009, -8/+32That was not a Vista problem. That was a vendor problem, and it was inexcusable on their part. The vendors had at minimum a year to get their software in line, and they failed horribly.
- Aurabolt, on 10/22/2009, -9/+33It's time to move on from XP. Let it go.
- ThaDRD, on 10/22/2009, -5/+28Reason #7 Not to buy it today: You're sitting through a lame Microsoft event next week for a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate.
- Elranzer, on 10/22/2009, -3/+24Windows ME
- venom8599, on 10/22/2009, -2/+21XP was already hated. Back in 2001 and 2002 when people were clinging to 98 and 2000.
- ravishingluke, on 10/22/2009, -3/+21I have Vista on both pc's and do like its features. Unfortunately, I have seen the blue screen about 50 times over the past two years. However, I blame 90% of those on the impressively unstable Empire:Total War.
- DjOverEZ, on 10/22/2009, -1/+17You realize you can't stick a CD in a floppy drive.
- inactive, on 10/22/2009, -10/+26Ill be glad when xp is crucified and hated in 20 years so i dont have to get my blood pressure up every time some moron thinks xp is better than vista.
Watch out xp, i might just snap and go on a xp killing spree. Destroying every copy of it that i can find. - megamod, on 10/22/2009, -6/+22Heck if you're complaining about windows 7 requiring more resources than windows xp then why did you go from win 2000 to xp?
- acknotSW, on 10/22/2009, -0/+15The same ***** was said when XP first came out. I can't tell you how many IT guys I ran into that swore they would never upgrade to XP because 2000 did everything they would ever need.
- plainOldFool, on 10/22/2009, -2/+16Payton Manning makes me laugh.
No. Seriously. I think he's a funny guy. - KJSatz, on 10/22/2009, -0/+14But you can FORCE a CD in a floppy drive!
- johnomaz, on 10/22/2009, -6/+19Ya, the 6 reasons not to get Win7 are pretty stupid.
- twiztidsinz, on 10/22/2009, -0/+13XP had a HORRIBLE launch.
When XP was released practically NO hardware was supported... because the vendors dragged their feet. They didn't want to go through all the effort of making new drivers that took advantage of the changes and advances in XP.
The difference between XP's launch and Vista's launch?
Vista had better (but still pretty bad) driver support -- Vendor issue.
Not everyone and their mother had a blog to bitch to the world about. - norman619, on 10/22/2009, -6/+19Even your mom?
- rmxz, on 10/22/2009, -0/+12"enterprise-ready once it hits SP1"
That philosophy says more about the historical performance Microsoft's QA group than about software in general.
In the past, Microsoft tended to release alpha-quality-releases as production releases. In other organizations they tended to have much longer beta cycles, and were still in beta long after Microsoft would have called it a production release (Google's notable for having production-quality software still in beta).
In this case it seems save, because IMHO Vista was Win7's beta release - the stuff most broken and annoying in Vista got addressed, and they put a new skin over it - and now it's production ready. - firstrule, on 10/22/2009, -2/+14Too many advertisements in the article itself.
- Zelannii, on 10/22/2009, -5/+16OK, here's some bad ones:
1) Image backup still broken. You need a 3rd party Windows 7 native backup solution. (still can't discover it;s own image backups to restore if you have run more than 1 since install, and worse, now it images daily if you want daily file backups, and they've taken away most granular backup controls completely)
2) No classic mode for control panels (that do not also remove folder customizations from ALL folders).
3) lots of drivers for peripherals wont work, or you'll lose functionality (hope you don't have am MFP over 6 months old...)
4) XP mode is a joke, and you have to have pro even to use that. Apps i have that work fine in XP virtual machines in VMware on Windows 7 do not work (flawlessly) in XP mode under 7. Even office 2003 has issues where you have a text field on top of an image in a document...
5) 64bit support is still hit/miss, and since there's no 32 - 64bit migration, you better look at 64bit unless you plan to completely re-install later... (it will be a VERY short time before you install enough stuff that 4GB is no longer sufficient)
6) Autoupdate feature is completely anoying, and not very clear to the user what its doing when. Can't simply see what updates are pending without several clicks.
7) most AV vendors have not natively integrated yet (if you're going on the net, you better wait!)
8) It should have been $49 to upgrade, and free for ultimate users. Refusal to upgrade will appear as poor initial sales interest and the price will come down faster. You don't need it yet unless you just bought a DX11 vid card anyway (and even then not until a DX11 game comes out next summer!)
9) task bar needs bug fixes. You can resize the icons, but not the spacing, so taskbar use is limited to a max number of pinned icons based on your screen resolution. Also, app switching is somewhat annoying when you want to launch new INSTANCES from the taskbar icons instead of simply switching to it (have to use the start menu to launch 2 seperate Word or Ecel sessions). Finally, no equivalent to quick launch. Only option is pinned icons intermixed with running apps...
10) Start menu is god awful to use, does not operate like a menu anymore, more like explorer, but since it can't be resized, you do a LOT of scrolling to launch apps that are not pinned....
11) still have to manually manage user subfolders to move to an alternate data drive, but now its even worse as the new target folders have to be manually created.
12) keeps a TON of crap in cache folders on C:, regardless of where you install apps. Vista was bad about this, 7 is worse. I would NOT reccomend installing on less than a 120GB C: partition. 64GB was fine for Vista for most people. 10GB was fine for XP.
13) it tries to insist on keeping your file rigidly organized. Managing data across mutiple physical volumes is a PITA.
This is only what I've noted in 3 weeks use that I came across. I will say, it's prettier, seems faster, has yet to crash (other than when i loaded a bad driver), and is all around better than Vista, if the issues above don't stop you. I'd give it 3 months, let all the manufacturers come forward with their upodates (or news they're not updating), and see where you stand. I have 100% Vista native software, and to move to 7 cost me over $250 in replacing/upgrading some of that software, and a few peripherals. If your PC is more than 2 years old (or 3 years for a high performance customizable rig) I'd wait and just get a new machine.... - Zelannii, on 10/22/2009, -7/+17It was god awful slow on the same hardware vs XP. File transfers were pathetic. Virtually no devices I had worked. UAC was anoying and useless. Took too long to boot. user management across mutliple drives was a PAIN (can't move home folder, have to move a dozen subfolders manually), restore of image backups does not work (still not fixed in 7).
Honestly, short of DX10 support (which took more than 6 months for a game to actually take advantage of), there was not a single thing I could not get for XP that i could for Vista.
Since PS2, I've been using Vista as my only non-server Micrsoft OS at home. It;s much improved. Running 7 now about 3 weeks (MAPS subscription), and it is an improvement, though it will take getting used to before I claim i like it better than XP of Vista, and there's some things SP1 deperately needs to add back that they took away before that's likely to happen. (Damnit give clasic mode back for the old hats!) - norman619, on 10/22/2009, -1/+10If yo are upgrading from Vista you don't mave much to worry about. The upgrade has been flawless on my systems. If you are upgrading from XP back up your data and do a clean install.
- ell0bo, on 10/22/2009, -0/+9I just pray this will cut down on the number of IE 6 browsers out there... a dream... a dream
- BullBearMS, on 10/22/2009, -3/+12Don't blame the hardware vendors for the changes Microsoft kept making to the Vista video subsystem during development that kept breaking the drivers they were writing. It's hard to hit a moving target.
If you completely change the video subsystem, and don't wait for the two major video chip vendors to create valid drivers to release your product then it IS your fault.
Microsoft rushed things to get Vista on the market in time to make the Christmas shopping season and it bit them in the ass. - anonymous1986, on 10/22/2009, -3/+12Vista has never crashed on me for over a year now, there was a study that showed that 90% of BSODs were due to Nvidia drivers.
- norman619, on 10/22/2009, -14/+23LOL!!! The 6 reasons to no switch:
1. It still costs a lot of money
This is both misleading and open to interpretation. I purchased Windows 7 Home Premium fr $119. That's not a very much. ALso only system builders would be buying and installing a new OS. Your basic user will buy their next computer with W7 already installed.
2. It's not completely upgrade friendly
Again, only system builders will really be buying this so this really doesn't matter.
3. It's not that much different
Hmm I was running Vista Ultimate 64 and saw a HUGE difference when I upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate. Only a fool woudl say there is not much difference. The fact that I can install Windows 7 Ultimate on a 4 year old laptop and have it run faster than XP did on the same laptop implies there are some vry important difference between it and Vista/XP.
4. You don't care about its new features
Very few people every care about "features" of an OS. Your baisc user only wants it to run their favorite software and that's about it. They will never take advantage of most features new or old.
5. You're a gamer
This is hilarous. Windows 7 outperforms both Vista and XP. Better performance is pretty important to gamers. Most games run great under W7. If you are running hella old games then yeah stick with XP.
6. It's too soon
I love this one. XP is going to be dropped by MS yet it's too soon to upgrade to a modern OS. Vista was a sluggish beast meant to be run on highend systems with loads of resources. W7 is Vista 2.0 and runs better than XP on existing hardware. Let's also not forget people have been running the betas and the RC for months w/o any serious issues. MS allowed W7 to be tested in the wild for months w/o many reports of serious issues. Given this is simply Vista with a few upgrades and properly optomized this should be viewed as a major service pack or upgrade since it really isn't a brand new OS. This is the first MS OS release where people don't need to wait for the first SP to come out before trusting it. - mkriss5681, on 10/22/2009, -0/+9At least you're not like me and have been in community college for 9 years.
- DCJoeDogv2, on 10/22/2009, -1/+9I already sat through one a few weeks back in Miami and am using it now. LOL First upgrade since XP that is worth getting.
- mkriss5681, on 10/22/2009, -4/+12Win 7 Student Discount from Microsoft $30
http://windows7.digitalriver.com/store/mswpus/en_U ...
You just need a ".edu" e-mail address. I just bought mine today! - dig1x, on 10/22/2009, -2/+10The apple & linux crowd sunk vista with FUD. That's clear.
MS shut their ***** mouths by having an open Beta for people to try it. Reality will trump their fiction this time. - gizmo12688, on 10/22/2009, -0/+7Perhaps, but don't call me Shirley.
- schnikies79, on 10/22/2009, -5/+12I haven't seen windows crash since '98. 2000, XP and Vista are rock solid with no crashes what-so-ever on everything I've run. If Vista crashed for you, it's you, not Vista.
I'm not a gamer so I can't comment on that area. - Frazzlet, on 10/22/2009, -4/+11Totally depends on your hardware. Runs better on my PC than XP without a doubt (start up time is super quick for example).
You don't know until you try to be honest. - wolfing, on 10/22/2009, -2/+9not really applicable in this case. Windows 7 has been out for like 6 months already.
- mzmare, on 10/22/2009, -1/+7No... but the other upgrades felt more forced for one reason or another.
- screwkevin, on 10/22/2009, -2/+8There is only ONE reason to get Windows 7:
* You are getting a new computer.
"1. Your computer can probably run it."
??? Do you know what else it can run? Whatever it runs right now.
"2. It costs less than Vista did."
??? Do you know what costs even less? Not upgrading to anything.
"4. Moving your stuff shouldn't be too much of a pain."
??? Do you know what's even less pain? Not moving your stuff.
"5. You don't have to give up Windows XP."
??? Do you know how else you can keep your XP? By not upgrading it to anything. - eviljolly, on 10/22/2009, -4/+10Sorry, Microsoft paid me to bury you.
- ThaDRD, on 10/22/2009, -0/+6They are held in large cities across the nation and geared toward IT professionals/developers. I heard about it from a buddy whose company has a volume license with Microsoft.
http://www.microsoft.com/business/thenewefficiency ...
It seems to be open to anyone, but space is limited. I got on a waiting list and then a space opened up. - petard, on 10/22/2009, -2/+7How can ONE person have so much hardware without drivers for 7 and Vista drivers that don't work? This guy probably hasn't tried 7 or even Vista, look at his profile, he is just bashing 7.
- Samueul, on 10/22/2009, -4/+9*****. I've been in enterprise for 16+ years now and 7 is ready now.... It's actually the first MS OS I have said that about.
- lobotomize, on 10/22/2009, -0/+5The upgrade option is a joke.
First of all, it's been confirmed that there is one version of the install disc, which contains all versions on Win7. Even further, most components will be installed, but will be disabled by the winlogon process depending on your license. A Home Premium install may very well have many of the Ultimate features installed, but disabled. To upgrade, you use the upgrade application, and it unlocks features for you.
Now for the pricing (new):
Professional $299.99
Ultimate $319.99
Ultimate is $20 more than professional. Let's say you buy Professional, and find out the day of installation that you need features from Ultimate. You then pay an additional $130, insert the disc you used to install Professional with, and finish the upgrade. You just spent $430 for a $320 product, and you already had everything you needed to do the upgrade.
Why isn't the upgrade price just the difference between what you had and what you got? -
Show 51 - 100 of 288 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is