Hey - - -- My wife has it on her laptop. I chose it intentionally, as I still derive a reasonable % of my income from teaching, and more and more of the programs I teach, especially Adobe stuff, requires XP or newer to run. I thought it was reasonable to try Vista and see how it is, rather than simply take this very biased group's consensus.
I don't use it for much, and at least some of my opinion is bound up with having Orifice 2007 on the same machine (and using *it* even less). Overall, it does not <inhale vigorously> as much as people here say. It is stable and some stuff seems better for the typical user (the kind who thinks IE is simply how one does Internet, as someone ). > What are you real problems with Vista? Simple file operations are incredibly, unbelievably slow. Uploading photos from our digital cameras takes at least 2x as long as it does doing the same thing to my 8-year-old W2K laptop. > Requires new hardware? Well, this is just a matter of price/performance. If there were any reasonably compelling improvements to justify the higher overall price (hardware & software), it would be a 'push." But there are none, IMO. I could never recommend it to a client. > Security is over-protective? Naw, any firewall + virus + adware combo bugs you just as much when you first install. Such bugging is the price you pay for any flavor of Winders. > Display is to pretty, It consumes to much CPU? When you turn off (what is it called? - aero?) it isn't much worse. Unfortunately, a real "user" does not know to do this. (Bad Steve: When the F are you going to learn the difference between "to" and "too"????) > My install setups no longer work? Not an issue for me. > There is a different layout in vista and I don't like it? That is a bunch of it for me. Simple stuff no longer works the same way, and there's no way to get to "legacy." Again, this reflects my (and our collective) bias -- we know how to do most stuff, and it is different on Vista. this is also where my impression gets tangled up with Orifice 2007. All of it takes too much new learning (really un- learning and re-learning). Simple stuff that has been the 4th or 5th thing in the "format" menu for 10 years has different terminology and 27 clicks in the stupid "ribbon" to get there. I find the transition to the Ubuntu/Kubuntu flavors of linux and Open Office *much* easier. For example, when we travel we take the Vista laptop, just because it is the newest. When we connect to a wireless network in a hotel, for example, it takes me much longer to remember how, and actually detect and connect, and "NO, dammit, I don't want to remember this one nor make it my Home or Work default network." And no way to say (like many programs) "Stop asking me this ^...@#^% annoying question!" I guess it comes down to this: Compared to its predecessors, it is - slower, - way more expensive, - harder to use (for experienced users), - not enough safer , - and not much better. Ken _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/73fe9f2e-57b8-4ac9-b3c5-6a1ec415f...@information-architecture.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
