> > At 09:10 PM 05/09/2007, Greg Sevart wrote: > >Stability? This machine is probably among the top 2 or 3 most stable > systems > >I've ever used as a primary workstation. That speaks volumes. > > If XP basically never crashes (and it doesn't, if you infect it, > screw it up, or run it on failing hardware) then how can Vista be > more stable than that? No, I've never seen Vista crash - but I've > never seen XP crash except when I forced it to or in one of the above > situations.
I guess I consider stability as more than just crashing--no, I haven't seen Vista crash either when it wasn't a hardware issue--but also just general system interaction, especially when heavily utilized and after long periods of uptime, as well as general quirkiness. I use my machines very hard though, so not all may be able to relate to those two conditions. > As for IE being more secure - who in their right mind uses that POS > anyway? It's more proof that MS hates its customer base. I'd use something else if it weren't for the fact that everything else just feels slow to me. > > >Speed? I find Vista is as fast--if not faster--on very good hardware > >relative to XP. > > Really? I've never seen that. > Yep--but again, only on very good hardware. Even on decent-to-good hardware though, it isn't that terrible. > >Driver issues? All my devices work--and I'm running x64. I did have to > dump > >a 5-year old $60 scanner. Darn. I haven't seen any driver issues that > are > > So you had driver issues, but you decided a new scanner was worth > it. I agree that people can't complain when an old piece of hardware > didn't work, but the driver issue thing does exist. If you don't > want to buy new hardware, then don't get Vista. But it's no worse (and in my experience, quite a bit better) than any other operating system version going through a major architectural update. The driver situation is very overblown IMO. > > I don't know enough about the DRM stuff to comment, but the issues > I've seen are: > > 1)Graphics are harder to read (colours aren't different enough in many > cases.) I'll have to grant you that one--the icons are all high-color, but sometimes it is a bit hard to differentiate. > 2)Vista is noticably slower - I've seen UAC (wasn't that the name of > the company in DOOM?) take five seconds to bring up the continue or > cancel box. That's pathetic. Indeed, but that sounds like either a slow system, a memory constrained system, or a system with some sort of issue...on the Vista builds I've done on good hardware, I've found it rather responsive. Early video drivers (anything before May, really) did introduce a significant delay in bringing up UAC prompts, though. But again, that is mainly due to immature video drivers. > 3)The 3D interface does zero for usability. Same for the silly > translucent windows. Yes, but it is worth something to me to have an interface just doesn't feel dated. There are a number of more minor UI tweaks that I like too, but none that absolutely require Aero Glass mode. > 4)I do like the ALT-Tab interface - about time we can ALT-Tab to the > desktop. I never use it. I generally have way too many windows open to make any app-switching functionality usable. > 5)Older hardware doesn't work, but current hardware appears to be > fine, provided you go get the recent drivers. Yes, it's fair that > old hardware doesn't work, but it is an added cost when you have to > replace your perfectly good printer/scanner/whatever. Granted. Most of the peripheral driver issues, though, are due to the manufacturers of said devices choosing not to update drivers for any non-current hardware to force you to upgrade. In the case of my scanner, Epson hasn't released -any- x64 driver for it, let alone Vista-specific drivers. I guess that I mainly blame hardware manufacturers for the driver problems. Vista wasn't exactly this giant surprise upon the computing industry--they had access to functional Vista builds for approximately 2 years before GA. Their performance is pathetic. > 6)Stupid stuff - when running defrag, Windows is completely unable to > tell you how much time it will take or the percentage remaining. It > actually says "this may take minutes or hours." Moronic. > Vista's SP1 reportedly overhauls the built-in defrag, but I don't use built-in defrag utilities anyway. Greg
