15 compelling reasons to move to vista - NOT

[jdhurst]

PC World says there are 15 compelling reasons to move to Vista:

1. It's the interface, stupid.
Mr. Gralla is obviously overwhelmed with "cool" and probably has no idea how to work hard. If he did, the cool factor would have been downplayed.

2. Flip over Windows Flip 3D.
He says Alt-Tab doesn't work. Sorry, Preston. Hold down the Alt key - all the open windows are clearly shown. Mostly easy to select, although text with the icons in XP would have been nice.

3. Live thumbnails.
A feature that will not make my day.

4. Boost performance with readyboost.
This loads everything you think you might need into RAM. Users here are already unloading processes (that only use RAM). Mr. Gralla clearly has not used a fast hard drive.

5. Cool performance tools.
I can already find more than I need to know about performance in XP.

6. Better Security.
Score ONE. This seems to be a given. Good security tools added to XP make it secure as well for those who want to stay put.

7. Find Anything fast.
Score TWO. Now search in XP already finds text in a graphically scanned image (TIF file) so it works fairly well, and not particularly fast. I will look forward to this feature.

8. Nifty software gadgets.
More cool. I don't need a stock ticker or a weather icon in the way on my desktop. Since it has mattered to me (1989), the market has crashed seriously once (2001) and the weather is what it is. I see people wasting company time with these kinds of gadgets.

9. Better wireless networking.
What he really means is Access Connections capabilities built-in. I cringe when meeting up with a non-IBM laptop, because Access Connections works exceedingly well for me coupled with my IBM 11 a/b/g card.

10. Map your network.
More shared folders stuff. People get confused because shared folders are in a specific location and only a small part of a PC's folder structure. Basic authenticated and secure networking has been around since NT4. A bit more complicated to use, but vastly more flexible.

11. Better graphics with photo gallery.
Score TWO and a half. Possibly.

12. Become a director with movie maker.
Still at TWO and a half.

13. Better Notebook support.
Nothing new here - absolutely nothing. Most of it has been around since Windows 2000.

14. File sharing and syncing.
This is mostly a duplicate of number 10. For all of its warts, I continue to use Briefcase because it actually performs very well. If it can be made easier - great. But the attempt with syncing off-line files hid much of what I needed to know about the synchronization, and I have clients who obilitered good files because the automatic sync did the wrong thing.

15. Protect your kids with parental controls.
We are empty-nesters, and our children grew up with computers and learned over time how to take proper care when dealing with public internet content. Still, new families come along.
Score THREE.

So I make it three out of 15 on his list. Not very compelling.

And I think he left out structural underpinnings (modularity, isolation, virtualization, IPv6 and stuff like that) that I am looking forward to.

And he left out the obvious at this early date. Vista does not run key business critical software. It may be the software vendor's fault. Who cares? I still CANNOT use Vista. I would if I could, just to keep up.
... JD Hurst

[warder]

I've used it for a month or so now and have these 3 issues:

1. This is the BIG one.

Right click isn't actually always right-click.

In an Explorer window, (much more noticeable in my favorite 'detail' view) if you right click on an icon you are safe. If you right click in mid air, your right click takes place on whatever Vista wants it to. Typically it is the parent directory. So right-click, delete will very easily delete the wrong thing!

Under ALL previous Windows OS's, you can left click or right click anywhere on a row. In Vista, you can left-click anywhere, but not right click.

This is SOOssss dangerous.

2. Explorers forget their view settings

Under XP, if you set a folder options to be the default view (e.g. detail view) and apply it as the default, all folders from that point on will open in detail view.

In Vista, well let's just say it must be related to the weather or something. Some days it retains the selection of detail view, other days it goes back to boring old massive icon land. And the view is random per a directory.

An annoyance rather than anything else.


3. Program incompatibility

I have had to 'entice' several programs to work on Vista.



That being said, I do really like it, even though it uses more battery, memory and CPU.

It looks nice, has good driver support, better security and somehow feels more professional than XP.

I wouldn't want to go back.

[Temetka]

I run XP (of course) and have played with both Beta's and RC1. Here is why I am looking forward to vista:

New GUI: It's about time. Most of the time the 512MB Radeon X1600PRO in my SFF machine is not being used. It's about time the core os started using it.

ReadyBoost: From my experiences it works wonders. I am running a 140GB (roughly after formatting and stuff) Raptor. Even with a 10K RPM drive, ReadyBoost works. Oh, I have 2GB of RAM and a Pentium D 930 (Dual Core, 3GHz 2MB L2 Cache per core).


Speed: Vista on my hardware feels just as fast XP. Which means that XP with all it's stability and refinement has reached a performance plateau. Vista is only going to get faster.

Security: I don't hold much here. I give 6 months before Vista is just as spyware ridden as XP is. Otherwise I look forward to some of the proposed enhancements. Except for the stupid asinine warning boxes on nearly every action (unless that's just a Beta 2 / RC 1 thing.)

That's pretty much it. Otherwise I basically expect it to be XP 2.0. Bigger, better and badder.

[Gart]

I'm getting a chuckle hearing everyone's expert opinions on why Vista sucks or why there's no reason to upgrade.

I heard the same things with Windows98, WindowsME (it was very true that time), and even WindowsXP. I even remember my boss wondering why he'd even load windows when his DOS interface suited him just fine (back in 1994).

Suffice it to say, the cycle is repeating itself yet again. A new version comes out, everyone bashes it because it's microsoft, or because it's more bloated than the last version, or because you're sad that your computer won't run it.

Then...

2 years later everyone is on it and complaining about the latest service pack release, or complaining about the new version that's late yet again. I can hear it now, in 2012 when Windows Horizon comes out everyone's going to be saying "Heck Vista is fine, there's no need to upgrade."

So get off the soapbox, spend the $$$ and upgrade to Vista. I did it 3 months ago and it's been great. Sure there's been some glitches, some missing drivers, but I'd never go back....I would miss the important stuff, like playing minesweeper without aero!!

[pianowizard]

I heard the same things with Windows98, WindowsME (it was very true that time), and even WindowsXP. I even remember my boss wondering why he'd even load windows when his DOS interface suited him just fine (back in 1994).

I think the biggest difference between Vista and these previous transitions is that Vista would require most average users to invest in major hardware upgrades, so a lot more money is involved. The debate boils down to whether Vista's improvements over XP are big enough to justify spending so much money. Previous Windows upgrades required cheaper and/or no hardware modifications. For instance, XP is just slightly more demanding than Win2K.

[Gart]

I beg to differ on that. I remember when XP came out and we were floored that you needed at least a 400 MHz machine with 256 mb ram. That was a MAJOR hardware upgrade for most of the machines that were 166MHz with 64mb ram (because most of the companies I consulted for were still on Windows98, not an NT-kernel desktop like Win2k).

This upgrade is no different....just proportionate in the hardware upgrade needed. Back then, going from a PII to a P4 was huge.

Everyone forgets history....or at least plays it down.

[pianowizard]

I beg to differ on that. I remember when XP came out and we were floored that you needed at least a 400 MHz machine with 256 mb ram.

Where did you get these numbers from? I am running XP on a machine with only 233MHz Pentium MMX and 128MB of RAM. Back in 2001 and even 2002, many new laptops preloaded with XP were sold with only 128MB RAM -- you can check the Tawbook to confirm that. The Vista DVD won't even let you start the installation process if you don't have at least 512MB RAM.

Everyone forgets history....or at least plays it down.

Not me!

[warder]

For me, the biggest difference between 2000->XP and XP->Vista is that the increased security (i.e. user runs as non-admin by default), and other core changes actually break quite a few programs.

There has been no other MS OS upgrade to date that has been this incompatible. This time users will not be shouting about how rubbish the new user interface is (because it's better), but they'll be shouting 'why doesn't X run?'. That is slightly more major.

I still love it, but it's a pain in the [censored] if you use tools that just won't run.

But I agree with Garts general statement that give a few years and we'll all be using it. That doesn't preclude healthy conversation in the meantime.

[pianowizard]

But I agree with Garts general statement that give a few years and we'll all be using it.

I agree too, because eventually there will be lots of software that require Vista to run. But many of us will try to postpone upgrading to Vista as much as possible. By the time Vista becomes unavoidable, computers with 2GB or more RAM and 256MB or more graphics memory will be very affordable, but they are currently beyond many people's budgets.

[jdhurst]

I'm getting a chuckle hearing everyone's expert opinions on why Vista sucks or why there's no reason to upgrade.
<snip>
Suffice it to say, the cycle is repeating itself yet again. A new version comes out, everyone bashes it because it's microsoft, or because it's more bloated than the last version, or because you're sad that your computer won't run it.
<snip>

I am not bashing Vista, and I am not saying it sucks. And I pretty much agree with you that in a year or two, all will be well. It took a year before I could run XP because it took that long for vendors to keep up, and the same is happening now.

Vista runs (I have said that). But I have critical software that runs in XP but will not run in Vista. I don't care who's fault - I'll just wait a bit for everything to normalize and then I will move.

And now in 2007, much differently than in prior years, if you are running XP and wish to stay there, you can be a happy camper for a couple of years yet. Even when Vista is running fine with all the software I need, there isn't yet a compelling case to move. I think in 2009 there might be, but I am not a soothsayer.
... JD Hurst

... JD Hurst

[rvacha]

PC World says there are 15 compelling reasons to move to Vista:

1. It's the interface, stupid.
Mr. Gralla is obviously overwhelmed with "cool" and probably has no idea how to work hard. If he did, the cool factor would have been downplayed.

There's more to the interface than aero. Overall the interface IS much better, and more efficient

3. Live thumbnails.
A feature that will not make my day.

It will someday. I thought it was a joke at first but I've come to like it. Once vendors start optimizing apps to utilize it, it will get more useful

4. Boost performance with readyboost.
This loads everything you think you might need into RAM. Users here are already unloading processes (that only use RAM). Mr. Gralla clearly has not used a fast hard drive.

7200RPM is fast in the notebook world, and ReadyBoost still helps. Non-volatile memory will always be faster than the fastest HDD at random accesses such as the pagefile. Again, most of what passes as "fast" right now isn't. Vendors will soon ship truly fast storage that will better leverage ReadyBoost

5. Cool performance tools.
I can already find more than I need to know about performance in XP.

Better organized and more powerful, but I agree overall

6. Better Security.
Score ONE. This seems to be a given. Good security tools added to XP make it secure as well for those who want to stay put.

XP will never have the advantage of ASLR, I think that's a big one.

7. Find Anything fast.
Score TWO. Now search in XP already finds text in a graphically scanned image (TIF file) so it works fairly well, and not particularly fast. I will look forward to this feature.

This is one of the best features of Vista, once you get in the habit of leveraging it. The context sensitive searches (based on where you are in the directory tree) and plain language features add to the power.

8. Nifty software gadgets.
More cool. I don't need a stock ticker or a weather icon in the way on my desktop. Since it has mattered to me (1989), the market has crashed seriously once (2001) and the weather is what it is. I see people wasting company time with these kinds of gadgets.

This is IMHO nifty the same way that RSS feeds are nifty. Sure, you can always get the info a different way, but having it one place automatically updated is nice. And some of us DO have to worry about the weather - hourly! Having a current radar image on the sidebar is nice. Like most of the new Vista features it will take a while for people to figure out how to best leverage it.

9. Better wireless networking.
What he really means is Access Connections capabilities built-in. I cringe when meeting up with a non-IBM laptop, because Access Connections works exceedingly well for me coupled with my IBM 11 a/b/g card.

More like AC built-in that WORKS. Never been a big AC fan, most of the world does know what it is or care. For them, this is a big deal

10. Map your network.
More shared folders stuff. People get confused because shared folders are in a specific location and only a small part of a PC's folder structure. Basic authenticated and secure networking has been around since NT4. A bit more complicated to use, but vastly more flexible.

I agree.

11. Better graphics with photo gallery.
Score TWO and a half. Possibly.

Nice feature, I don't have much use for it, but I suspect most people WILL use it and like it. T60s are made for watching movies, aren't they? (tongue in cheek)

12. Become a director with movie maker.
Still at TWO and a half.

Ditto

13. Better Notebook support.
Nothing new here - absolutely nothing. Most of it has been around since Windows 2000.

Not entirely true. You can turn on hybrid sleep on notebooks. This writes the hibernation file to disk as soon as you sleep instead of the OS waking the machine back up after the sleep timeout and then writing the hibernation file. IBM hates the delayed hibernate function so much that by default it is turned off in BIOS.

14. File sharing and syncing.
This is mostly a duplicate of number 10. For all of its warts, I continue to use Briefcase because it actually performs very well. If it can be made easier - great. But the attempt with syncing off-line files hid much of what I needed to know about the synchronization, and I have clients who obilitered good files because the automatic sync did the wrong thing.

Haven't tried it yet, don't know

15. Protect your kids with parental controls.
We are empty-nesters, and our children grew up with computers and learned over time how to take proper care when dealing with public internet content. Still, new families come along.
Score THREE.

And I think he left out structural underpinnings (modularity, isolation, virtualization, IPv6 and stuff like that) that I am looking forward to.

And a lot of other things such as SideShow and support for hybrid HDDs, both of which we won't see the full benefit of until the end of the year. And a HUGE improvement was made to Backup, which is now worth using. Right click context restore previous version is also very nice.

And he left out the obvious at this early date. Vista does not run key business critical software. It may be the software vendor's fault. Who cares? I still CANNOT use Vista. I would if I could, just to keep up.

MS just announced a new product free for volume license holders called Vista Enterprise which adds more legacy support and can even run UNIX apps. Can't find the download yet, so I haven't tried it. Also adds BitLocker. Overall I've not had any issues except for Cingular Communication Manager and Cisco VPN Client. All my other company and personal software runs just fine, most without resorting to compatibility mode. I think in general MS did a nice job trying to maintain compatibility. IMHO shame on the vendors who appear "surprised" that there is a new OS on the market, as if 5 years warning and a mess of public and private betas wasn't enough. For me a good opportunity to switch to a more competent vendor(s)

[Gart]

As of this morning there were only 3 pieces of software I can't run. As of late this morning there is now only one.

My all important Hardwood Euchre would not load....now it does.
The OCS (open source) computer audit tool would not audit Vista Machines (release 1.0 says it can...have not tested.)
Client Access for my AS/400 5250 sessions will not run unless I've got the latest V5R4 release.

And of course the integrated Verizon wireless which I don't use anyway.

But that's it!

Oh the looks of envy I got last week in Orlando at the Lotusphere convention (yes, I'm a certified Lotus bigot). I even had one guy tell me I was stupid to load software that would expire in a week.
He didn't believe me when I told him I had been running the final version for 2 months.

And for the record, my wife's desktop is still XP. Don't feel like trying to deal with THOSE issues any time soon.

[jdhurst]

<snip>
1. My all important Hardwood Euchre would not load....now it does.
2. The OCS (open source) computer audit tool would not audit Vista Machines (release 1.0 says it can...have not tested.)
3. Client Access for my AS/400 5250 sessions will not run unless I've got the latest V5R4 release.
4. And of course the integrated Verizon wireless which I don't use anyway.
<snip>

This is what I am talking about. 1 and 2 I don't see as business-critical, whereas 3 and 4 could easily be knockout factors. For me, no Juniper Netscreen Remote Client (as of last week) is a knockout factor. All this stuff will come along in due course.
... JD Hurst

[Muse]

The director and movie maker thing is just for Ultimate or Premium, not Business, if I read the information correctly. Also, if I read it right, there's no clear upgrade path from my XP Pro on my new T60 to Ultimate (or Premium, obviously).

[rvacha]

Movie Maker is in Business as well

[Muse]

Movie Maker is in Business as well

Is it any good? I was frustrated in my attempts to reduce ~25 GB AVI's to 1 or 2 DVD-R's. The two hours of video suffered too much loss of video quality in the process. I can buy 2 hour movies on DVD, even single layer movies, that have much better quality.

[rvacha]

As best as I can tell, it adds support for HD and doesn't auto cut the orignal movie into segments (which was erratic but time saving overall), not much else. It doesn't appear to have any new ground breaking codec that shrinks files more than before. The Windows Media codecs have supported dual processors for some time now, but Vista is way better optimized for dual core and the encoding is significantly faster than it was in XP

[Muse]

Maybe I'll try it out. I hate to waste another 1/2 day trying to author DVD's I won't be satisfied with. I write to DVD-RW disks unless I know I'll be happy with the results. Or, I might be able to view the result before writing to disk.