Skip navigation

Embattled Vista set to ride into the sunset

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Microsoft starts to pitch its next Windows offering today - while still pushing current, less-than-loved version ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. louis cyphre from Toronto, Canada writes: "Windows Vista is tremendously successful; it's a rock-solid operating system," said Elliot Katz. Well I was a early adopter of Vista and feel qualified to say, it is the worst OS I have used in a long time. XP Pro is a solid performer, while Vista dosen't live up to its hipe. RIP. As a result I switched to Linux.
  2. J. Douglas from Burlington, Canada writes: Microsoft is "prepping for a bug free launch." Ha, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha... Thanks for the early morning laugh.
  3. Richard Killey from Toronto, Canada writes: I do not understand what people love so much about Vista. I have 2 desktops, and I prefer to use the one with XP on it. So much that I use on XP that works fine was changed on Vista. Why? In some cases I went and got 3rd party tools rather than use Vista's version. Prime example is the File Manager.
  4. Brian Lowry from Fredericton, Canada writes: All commercial software, including operating systems, eventually goes through a Vista-like stage of instability and pointless "improvement". The billions of Windows users should beware... the next stage is a long decline typified by the software company milking customers for every last dollar they can get, eventually followed by the slow, quiet death of the product. Come to think of it, Microsoft has been in the customer-milking business for some time now.
  5. tim spear from London UK, United States writes: re "Windows Vista is tremendously successful" I am amused to see that on todays list of amazon.com's 20 bestselling laptops a grand total of one use vista, number 15 in the list.

    The best seller is xp, then apple and linux.

    Typed using xp which I have to say is not a bad system really.
  6. Dan Knight from Calgary, Canada writes: Richard Killey from Toronto, Canada writes: I do not understand what people love so much about Vista. I have 2 desktops, and I prefer to use the one with XP on it.

    Richard you don't understand what people love so much about Vista, because people DON'T love Vista; This "fact" is myth - spin-doctoring ala MS.

    I too have 2 desktops and the XP one is 8 years old and I still like it better than the Vista box.

    Vista is the primary reason my new laptop is a MacBook: with Fusion, I'm running Windows XP right alongside the Mac OS, beautiful.
  7. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    Vista was the answer to q
  8. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes: Vista is the answer to a question nobody asked.
  9. Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: XP is good only by comparison to Vista. I the past 15 years I have used every MS OS except for Windows 95 and Windows ME. The best was Windows 2000, which was nearly as stable as NT, but more usable.

    My kids got a Vista PC before I knew any better, and it was a disaster. Huge hassle, nothing worked the same, or well.

    I put my Win2K PCs to reset this past year because they were no longer supported on many peripherals, I bought an XP computer (holding my nose all the way) and would rather switch to Linux than use Vista.

    Why don't these people realize that efficient and reliable OSs are more important to most users than hulking klunky sacs of code that have bazillions of useless features that almost no one needs!
  10. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Had Vista. Went back to XP on numerous computers. Nothing in Vista for me and it caused problems. An Edsel in the computer software market. For those that remember.
  11. gary hill from peterborough, Canada writes: I don't own a Vista computer. I don't game and old hardware is quite capable of emailing and word processing. You need a "supercomputer" to run Vista but without gaming you don't need one for anything else (except possibly transcoding video). You can buy entire netbook computers for the price of a copy of Vista. Personally I use Ubuntu and Opensuse and prefer them to XP. Linux is more stable, there is no concern re: spyware viruses and hackers, the file system never needs defragmentation and all your software is free. I can leave Ubuntu running for months without a reboot and it doesn't crash. I don't have to reboot after software or patch installation. I don't have to worry about crapware being installed by third parties and slowing down my system. Whenever I boot Windows I have to fight it for the first 5 minutes, not so with Linux. I have found very few things I can't do on Linux just as well as in XP but I keep a copy of XP for those rare situations. I either dual boot or run windows in virtualbox a free virtualization program. I doubt I will ever buy Vista.
  12. Milburn McLean from Toronto, Canada writes: I have Vista on a 6 month old Dell and it works as well for me as any operating system I've used over the last 20 years. I have had virtually no problems with it.
  13. El Cid from Canada writes: I bought a beast of machine last year with Vista installed and have had problems consistently with slowdowns, crashes, unexplained surges in resource use, freezes, and inexplicable network errors. My wife had a Vista laptop that we replaced less than two weeks ago with a Macbook for the same reasons. The computer that sees the most use in my house is my four yr old laptop with XP.

    RIP Vista...and not soon enough.
  14. Charles Murray from Toronto, Canada writes: The promise of 'jam tomorrow' will not hold people until 2010. Microsoft keeps promising that the next OS will be a major improvement but this lumbering behemoth of a corporation has no innovative soul. Ballmer does not inspire greatness among MS employees. Don't hold your breath that Windows 7 will be anything but a poor copy of Mac OSX.
  15. Chris G from Canada writes: Why do most people prefer XP over vista? Because they've been using XP for years and just by human nature, we don't like change. Don't like learning new things, don't like change, and even though we like new, we all like comfortable new. In the business world, its there are 2 reasons why they don't want to upgrade to Vista, and guess what drivers and bugs aren't even on the top 10. Businesses don't want to pay for new hardware to support the minimum requirements as most offices would literally have to replace every system, and secondly, they don't want to have to train staff on how to use the basics of the new OS. Is Vista so bad, not at all, it does have some redeeming qualities and some great advances that most people don't even realize, but then again, most of the advances it has no one uses anyways (kernel, networking, etC) :) It had a bum rap from the beginning with a horrible launch/rushed launch, and it continues this bum rap to this day even though many of the major issues Vista had where resolved last year... thats right, most of the issues people complain about where resolved 12 months ago. (yes there are still some lingering issues, but are only major to select groups) Windows 7 by the way IS VISTA, just with a new name, some of the annoyances removed, and it will have a 2 year marketing campaign only rivaled by the US Primaries. Don't like Vista but want something new, get Ubuntu. (didn't intend that to rhyme but its catchy)
  16. The Dupes from Ottawa, Canada writes: Vista is crap and there is no other word to describe it. It took me good 1-2 weeks to get use to the new menu and folder structures. It takes over 12 Gigs of space on a hard drive and comes bundled up with tons of useless widgets and software apps. My XP desktop which runs a Celeron 2.4 ghz chip boots up twice as fast as the vista laptop I have. The lap top is a dual 1.83 ghz intel chip with a 800 megahertz front size bus ( and 3 gig memory). So, even after I have taken off all the useless crap loaded with Vista, it still runs slower than my 5 year old XP.

    Yes I admit Vista does look very nice and once it is running it runs fine; mostly. I've never exprerienced a blue screen of death. But seriously, functionality trumps beauty 100% of the time. I hope Bill Gates and company get this message in more ways than one.
  17. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: XP is good only by comparison to Vista. I the past 15 years I have used every MS OS except for Windows 95 and Windows ME. The best was Windows 2000.

    Heck yes. If it weren't for Remote Desktop, I'd be running 2k on everything in the house. Although I think they'll probably all migrate to 2k8 when the next big rebuild comes along.

    Stick with MS enterprise architecture and you're not likely to have many issues.

    That said, the only problem I've had with vista is that the copy I spend the most time with is in a language I only marginally understand. And even then, it's not that hard to use. Just.... not as good as the enterprise side.
  18. AMB @TO from Toronto, Canada writes: The funniest part of this whole saga was when Microsoft came up with the damage control strategy whereby they would market Vista in a value added package with ... XP. They actually announced that you could get "two for one" and that these PCs would be marketed as "pre-downgraded".

    "Pre-downgraded" !!!

    It's like a perfect little 4 syllable haiku describing everything wrong with both the company and the OS ...
  19. Fred Gerbes from Canada writes: Looks like Microsoft maintains the position, that 99% of computer problems are located between the keyboard and the chair?
  20. Karina_I (my art at windstream.ca) from Canada writes: I agree with Blaque Jacque Shallaque who writes: "XP is good only by comparison to Vista. I the past 15 years I have used every MS OS except for Windows 95 and Windows ME. The best was Windows 2000, which was nearly as stable as NT, but more usable."

    I still use Windows2000 and NT on 2 of my machines, which require outmost stability and speed. My main machine uses XP Professional as it is the most compatible OS (for databases, vpn, etc). I only use vista on a small travel computer for basic functions like to access internet and send emails and it still manages to break!
  21. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: MS just doesn't have enough competition in the OS market. Their product is generally poor. I run both, and like most, can vouch that I am much more pleased with XP than with Vista.
  22. Quiet Voice from Canada writes: I fail to see why 99% of users need to upgrade from XP.
    After all, if the box does what the 99% need it to do (basic office apps, basic graphics, email/internet), why upgrade?

    If it wasn't for Microsoft forcing people to upgrade, I would submit that once MS produces a bug-free app, it's reason-to-be would no longer exist as a blue-chip company.
  23. Albin Forone from Canada writes: I just picked up one of the new little netbooks running XP to augment my full-sized laptop, bought last BoxDay with XP to avoid Vista. I take it on expert authority that the service pack fixed Vista's compatibility problems, but there never was any rational reason for it in the first place. Vista was initiated as an ambitious major revision, but nearly all the ambitions were dropped as unworkable, leaving a massive code and resource requirement for nothing but new cosmetics and incremental security fixes that eventually became available in XP. Rather than admit failure of a major project, MS released it cynically pulling strings to force it into retail computers and hoping business would go for it, which it didn't.
  24. The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: Haha, the last time I purchased a PC, it came with Windows ME, and now I've got Vista. I guess I won't need to buy again until the next unpopular and soon-abandoned release of Windows...
  25. BlahBlah Blogger from Canada writes: Microsoft's approach of basically releasing it's OS in beta form and letting the general public finish the testing for them has really come back to bite them in the butt with Vista, particularly with the increasing market share of Mac OSX Leopard and Linux-based OS's. They did the same with XP, which didn't really become a stable, reliable OS until Service Pack 2 was released. No release of this magnitude is ever "bug-free", but hopefully MS will accept the Vista debacle as a lesson learned, start taking their competitors a bit more seriously, and actually put some time into testing Windows 7 thoroughly before it's released.
  26. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: The problem with vista is that its windows upgrades were all decided upon and designed by huge lumbering committees with huge numbers of issues to resolve. The resulting product was a very top heavy system gobbling huge computer resources, anywhere from ram, disc, drivers, cpu, network, and other resources. The worst features of the vista are all of its secret police services which block access to web sites, generate significant numbers of so-called 'security' popups, deny normal use of the file copying capabilities of the included software managers... But then the descent into highly justified infuration begins with vista's arbitrary refusal deal with older devices such as printers and scanners and graphics interfaces ... unless the victims can find and download the 'upgraded' drivers... and finally... for the unfortunate 64-bit machine owners... the refusal of vista to allow any 16-bit application whatever from executing in its sanctimonious holiness. DOSBOX is a very clumsy and inefficient workabout since it does not operate any faster than the fastest of the pentiums... and other programming suites need the next to impossible efforts of being converted into something else that might work on vista... off the top of the head say... anything in Qbasic ... at one time microsoft's darling. so that is the just the tip of the vista users' infuriations with the product.
  27. J M from BCPQON, Canada writes: Can anyone tell me why anyone should use Vista or XP at all.
    Apple OSX (animal) runs everything that a PC requires (possible exception is CAD specific apps)
    Paying a couple hundred bucks for the hardware at initial purchase aside, why waste your time with Windows at all?
  28. Mad Hatter from Canada writes: I bought a home computer with Vista it was an absolute nightmare... Software wouldn't work. I finally had to shut off my vista updates because everytime a new one came in, my computer quit working. When the company I work at decided to upgrade their computers this, I told them I wanted XP for my computer as did a number of of other employees, who had similar experiences. We also had a few go with Macs.

    Vista is crap....
  29. IT Manager from Toronto, Canada writes: Let's say GM only sold one model of car. Then lets say that that car had as many problems as Vista does or is perceived to have. GM would be out od business already. The only thing saving Microsoft now is large corporate IT department's. People usually buy what they use at work. With the current recession large companies may start to force the IT department to look for alternatives. We were forced to do so during the good times. We now have half the support staff that we used to with more users. The big question should be what does it cost to stick with Microsoft VS alternatives. The old software only runs on windows argument does not play anymore.
  30. Mike Littman from Newcastle, ON, Canada writes: Forget about Vista problems for a moment, there are other problems within Mcrosoft, for example the change over to Windows Live. There are several 'glitches' that need addressing before Windows &. Frinstance, Live Search, when one sets up rhe Country there are two options for Canada, French and English; select English and you get French, Select French and you get English. Enter the wrong time zone and you end up in somwhere like Australia. Then to completely repair the programs you have to lose all your carefully retained emails and favourites. And then they want more money to repair their errors!
  31. PROUDCANADIAN2008 B from toronto, Canada writes:
    I run a computer store, and we stopped selling Vista computers
    as customers were begging us for XP machines.
    Vista is a lemon, that is something you can't hide from consumers.
  32. Albin Forone from Canada writes: JM, the best, if not only, reason to choose an OS is that it's compatible with the OS everybody you work with is using. The one thing Mac, etc. have never really done is convert to Windows file formats except for rudimentary information - sophisticated document, spreadsheet or presentation will be locked in Mac-land (<10% of OS market share) while XP users are compatible with most of the world. XP closed enough of the (admitted) stability and interface gap that Windows users don't have to kick themselves, such that Mac users have precious little left to preen themselves for except that they don't have regular jobs.
  33. andy c from Canada writes: I bought a laptop a few weeks ago with Vista preinstalled. I have not had any issues with it besides the usual quirks of learning a slightly new interface. I do have a older computer which i built running XP but i know better then to upgrade to Vista on a 5 year old machine. I would not say it's as bad as some people make it out to be but it's not a perfect OS either (I find installling and uninstalling programs is a collossal pain). i'll probably keep Vista on the laptop for now with the intention to switch to a 64bit OS when it's financially fesiable
  34. Steve Church from Canada writes: Sure hope MS7 isn't a repackaged Vista - another $200 upgrade that doesn't work. Microsoft has turned into a big dog in a small room, wagging its tail and knocking everything over. Time to spend less effort on looks nice, and more effort on runs well.
  35. KC Jones from Canada writes: Vista, in my mind, is a fine operating sysem. Ive had it the past 2 years and I have never once had a problem. All that being said I liked XP as well. Windows 98 on the other hand was terrible. I had to reboot at least several times a week. I have to agree with one of the previous posts that most computer problems occur between the keyboard and chair.
  36. A Calgarian from Canada writes: Vista is a piece of crap, I did not think that even Microsoft could screw things up so badly. I currently work on 6 PCs and the vista PC does not run anything, it's just a expensive internet brower. I am sorry I spent money on Vista and will never do that again.

    My next PC will be a Mac!!
  37. Bad Bob from Montreal, Canada writes: Fred Gerbes from Canada

    They would bee 100% right.
  38. A. Nonymous from DarwinVille, United States writes: Windows is worth the 400 dollar price tag.

    Just think of the shiny new calculator application, and the new and improved wordpad.

    I hear solitaire is getting new decks, and the icons are all nice and shiny.

    You also get to be told what you are "allowed" to do on "your" computer by the RIAA and MPAA.

    Don't worry about driver incompatibility, just purchase new hardware.

    Never mind your DRM songs won't play, purchase them again.
  39. Harper can't be trusted from Canada writes: If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time that my Windows computer crashed and had to be rebooted...oh wait a minute, I think he does!
  40. JA M from Our Town, Canada writes: Sounds like Apple Corp might give the Microsoft Vista developers their employee of the year award
  41. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: Sadly, of the four computers at my house the XP is by far the best but Vista is way better than my two Macs. I wanna love Mac but my iMac and MacBook are lousy. My XP machine hasn't failed once in four and half years.
  42. Brian Marto from Toronto, Canada writes: I use Vista on my laptop and PC both are up to date with hardware and software. I have never had one problem with Vista for me it is people that continue to use old legacy software and hardware.
    I do not feel Vista is bad but the problem as always was the end user's trying to get old hardware and software to work on a new OS.
  43. Alexis Quill from Canada writes: Windows Vista has been awful. Returned one computer to the manufacturer because Vista would randomly freeze. A few months later got another computer with Vista which has application errors every time Word or Powerpoint is run.

    Unfortunately I don't see Windows 7 being better. They will probably just re-arrange the buttons and icons to be even more inconvenient and then change us $150 to upgrade.
  44. Wascally Wabbit from Manitoulin Island, Canada writes: I've used dozens of operating systems in the 40 years I've been in the I/T business - this is the most unstable - by a country mile.
    I got this Vista pre-installed on a Dell Laptop...
    Set the M/C up - linked to the network - and MS wanted to download half a gig of upgrades to me...Duh!!!
    The system constantly loses its way - corrupts itself - and drivers
    and worst of all - has this habit of spinning out dozens of instances of Internet Explorer - until it runs out of memory - or I hit CTRL ALT DEL...I guess this is Vista's equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death!!
  45. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I never buy a namebrand PC with their modified versions of an Operating system. I ran a huge corporate and industrial NC system that the parent company's consultant loaded us with pre-loaded machines that were nothing but trouble. 1,500 PCs - all one brand, 4,000 Unix terminals. Never again.

    I check Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility lists and pick my PC's components and then I build it. I also go for the Pro versions and get the Developer Add-on CD's for the OS and the Office progs. Never had a crash on any of my PC's since Windows 1.04. Just not worth going cheap in this 'connected world'.

    Sure wanna start seeing some BETA HCLs and Vendor Hardware Op-eds.

    XP-Pro Rules! I'll upgrade my current PC with 4-gigs of DDRAM and build a new machine for Win7!

    Never seen a Vista machine, but I don't think that Brand companies ever do it right, combining their proprietary hardware drivers into Windows OS.
  46. Lefty Lou from Canada writes: Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: Why don't these people realize that efficient and reliable OSs are more important to most users than hulking klunky sacs of code that have bazillions of useless features that almost no one needs! Exactly Blaque! Ever since the atrociously bad W3.1 I have wanted to dump windows. I wanted to switch to linux, but couldn't get a computer with it installed.(I've a feeling there's something sinister about that) I didn't want to switch to Mac because it would be incompatible & would work differently from what I was used to. But that's exactly what I got with Wxp. My 2 XP machines could not read the CDs from my windows 98 machine, I had to email the files to myself so I could continue working on them. I'm finished with MS now. In the future Mac will become my new standard. I sure hope they maintain compatibility. In the meantime I've got a linux CD.
  47. Tom Paine from HarperCons offered Cadman a financial inducement for his vote -- see Crim Code s119, writes: I guess I'm a contraraian on this. I found XP to be a uninspired interface, and for the most part find Vista to be stable, pleasant and easy to use.

    Mind you, I got it with a new machine, not as an upgrade for an existing box.

  48. R OBryan from ottawa, Canada writes: Vista is crap. Even in this article they are saying that consumers don't know what they are talking about. Vista is a good system with a bad reputation.

    Well, being one of the many who bought a computer with Vista and quickly got rid of it... i say.. the consumer know junk when they see it and use it. Microsoft, get off your high horse and admit you created a dud!
  49. Bill H from North Bay, Canada writes: Further to this discussion and right on the mark, as usual, is this Onion article, "Microsoft Ad Campaign Crashing Nation's Televisions."
    www.theonion.com/content/news/microsoftadcampaign_crashing
  50. Reality Check from Victoria, Canada writes: And yes, XP has been more reliable and less gluttonous than Vistake.
    My employer gave me a laptop with Vista pre-installed. It hung on day 1 and got replaced with a dual-boot of Linux and XP.
  51. John Ayre from Guelph, Canada writes: I am no computer nerd but I took to XP immediately and have had no problems for years with it on my old laptop. I unfortunately bought a new laptop early in the year with Vista and have had no end of problems with it. I have yet to hear of anyone who has not had trouble with it. So how do these analysts keep on claiming that Vista is so terrific?

    The proof is in the pudding. I am interested in the new generation of the teeny-weeny mini-notebooks and I've noticed that the models of different manufacturers have them loaded with either XP or Linux.
  52. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes: It`s about perception rather than product?

    Riiiiight. The latest update, loaded onto my computer yesterday, regarranged the location of a bunch of my files, leading my to think I lost everything. Fortunately, the `handy` search function that I can`t turn off and eats up computer resources, made easier to fix the probem that should never have happened in the first place.

    The system then proceeded to crash 3 times in the following 15 minutes.

    John, I do recall meeting one person who had no significant problems with Vista. In case of doubt, there is at least one out there.

    If it works, it works. I don`t care about the packaging or perception or anything. I`m just tired of all the problems I`ve had with Vista.
  53. Reality Check from Victoria, Canada writes: If you want to run your business on a gaming platform, think Windows.
    Otherwise, think again.

    And, do you really think that Windows 7 will be available in 2010? It's just marketing-speak to keep you on the hook tolerating Vista and not moving to a better alternative. Look at the long history of delayed releases and move now!
  54. Rain Couver from Canada writes: I installed Vista on my computer and I never had a problem with one exception, my computer is a Mac and I much prefer to use OS X. I thought I might need the operating system to accomplish things I thought would be Windows specific. It turns out OS X did everything but better.

    I read the comments and have to giggle because I remember when I was the big badass PC only guy. Now I reminisce about the times I got so frustrated because now that I am 97% productive, instead of the 50-60% productive due to Windows issues, I have the time to reminisce.
  55. Boris G from United States writes: Sounds crazy to me, that they would name their next OS "Windows 7", when their IE7 is liked even less than Vista, and beta IE8 is already available.
  56. Paul Rainsberry from Toronto, Canada writes: Okay --at the risk of being laughed off the internet the following comments. Vista is great!. A huge improvement over XP which had many problems. I have 3 PC's all running Vista and Office 2007 and have had absolutely no problems. The interface took no time to learn and was very intuitive. There is no way I would run anything Apple creates. Their machines are over priced by way more than just a couple of hundred dollars and the reason for their stable OS is that they refuse to allow others to manufacture software or hardware to run on it. A total joke. Let them open it up to the world and see how stable it would be then. Except for the geeks, Linux is also a total joke from a usability perspective. So good on Bill Gates and I will continue happily to run Vista until 2010 or whenever Microsoft upgrades. I am so tired of the bashing. Get on with life people.
  57. Frank The Tank from Argentina writes: Vista is the worst OS ever.

    I wonder how much MSFT has cost the economy through its costs and lost productivity. Given their near monopoly, regulators should force the company to pull it off the shelves and offer free XP.

    Can any techies advise me on whether or not it's a good idea to get rid of Vista on my new notebook and install XP?
  58. Joe Lai from Canada writes: I've had a good experience with Vista. Yes, it's crashed a few times but I've been conditioned to expect crashes using Microsoft's O/S just like I've been conditioned to expect losses when I invest in the stock market. It's all about expectations and if we could just all see the glass as half empty, the world would be a less unsatisfactory place to live in... ouch oops, I ran into some sarcasm on my way out.
  59. Mister Fartleberry from Canada writes: "Windows Vista is tremendously successful; it's a rock-solid operating system," said .. senior product manager for Windows at Microsoft Canada" hahahahahah tell me another you paid mouthpiece. I guess your salary is part of the 300 million dollar panic money being spent.

    "and Apple Inc. - remain bit players in the operating system game" - But APPL also sell a computer to every wintel defector.

    These days every Gates/Balmer/MS story is hilarious. At least for those of us that run OS-X. Crash? Not this decade.
  60. Mister Fartleberry from Toronto, Canada writes: Like the perpetual goof-up weather"persons" let's not talk about yesterday, let's talk about tomorrow.
  61. Reality Check from Victoria, Canada writes: Hey Paul
    1) The reason for the stable Apple OS is that it starts with a stable core OS. Hardware compatibility is a separate issue from core OS reliability and inherent kernel security. And, since Linux is reliable over a myriad of hardware configurations from embedded systems to blade server farms, the "proprietary hardware = reliability" argument is obviously invalid.
    2) Apple hardware is actually not too bad if you compare it to a reliable, lightweight PC with premium hardware (including a good keyboard). Apple did open its hardware years ago (CHRP) but it didn't result in a better final product so they went back to the old business model.
    3) The Apple OS is very open to developers. They can even write apps that use the underlying UNIX.
    4) If you take someone without preconceptions and put them in front of a Desktop-oriented Linux vs. Windows, it's about the same learning curve.
    But, I've only got 25 years of experience as a software, hardware, and systems designer/developer, researcher, and lecturer.
  62. Nicolai Volkoff from Etobicoke, Russian Federation writes: I run an 8 year old (yes, eight!) desktop that still runs XP really well. I've had to drop in more RAM, faster CPU, larger HDD from when it ran Windows 98 that it came with, but it still does all I need it to do.

    I expect that future OSs like Vista will have h/w requirements well above what my mobo will support, so to get me off of XP, the reasons will have to be EXTREMELY compelling to in order to get me to buy a whole new PC.
  63. RS IslandReader from Canada writes: Only a monopoly like Microsoft would get away with it. Vista is fine, if computers are your hobby and you like to tinker with them, but I shudder with fear, if I had to use this operating system for my work, favorite software and hardware which is not supported. Rolled back to XP on couple of machines. Only thing learned from Microsoft arrogance, is to expect more of the same in the future. Annoyance. Just like the Big Three, use customers for Guinea pigs. The American way. Fortunately in auto industry there is competition, and look where they are heading.
  64. ss dd from Vancouver, Canada writes: Always distrust an OS that takes about three times the space of the replaced one (6 GB of Vista as opposed to 2 GB of XP)... :-))
  65. Thernan Riekal from Tar Valon, Canada writes: I have Vista on a Dell machine and a while back my internet simply stopped working. Turns out, it had erased or corrupted the drivers to my cable modem. The problem was easily resolved but the major issue with it was that the computer support from Dell and my ISP had no idea how to deal with Vista. So I spent three weeks and hundreds of dollars to fix something that was a simple as sticking in the driver CD to overwrite the corrupted drivers.

    I think a large reason Vista has such a bad rep is because the people who are supposed to be able to fix the problem were never properly trained to do so.
  66. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: Microsoft can learn another thing from Apple: it's not too late to start fresh. I recall how incredibly horrible OS 9 (and previous) was. They went back to fundamentals (and the solid core of FreeBSD) and produced OSX, the best consumer OS ever released. Like Apple, MS could look to the open source world for inspiration (and to steal a lot the hard work).

    RS IslandReader from Canada writes: "Vista is fine, if computers are your hobby and you like to tinker with them,"

    If you like to tinker with them, there is no reason at all to choose Vista over Linux, so it fails on that score too.
  67. Lefty Lou from Canada writes: I don't want a system that makes all my accessories obsolete. If they're working fine, why would I want that? I don't want to throw money away on new equipment just because MS designs obsolescence into their OSs.
  68. Cland Destine from Canada writes: The problem with windows, and I've always said this...is that you have to play with it and your computer to make it run smoothly!

    It's like owning a vintage sports car to get to work every day, I don't want that, I need a reliable but quick system.

    Then on top of it, windows has always undercut "min requirements", giving you settings that will run, but hardly anywhere within reason.

    Yes, a car "Can" run on three cylinders when it could run 6, but what do you think will happen?

    I don't want to have to tinker tinker tinker like a watchmaker to send an email, or play a game....just make it work and get the hell out of my way.
  69. Cland Destine from Canada writes: Just commenting on Paul Rainsberry,

    well I understand, but why is it total joke to keep control on the hardware?

    I guess you didn't get Vista when it was new then? There were thousands left without drivers on NEW machines!?

    The hodge podge of parts every p.c. Is made from is the problem.

    When they run out of wifi from K-98 Machine Shop in Shanghi, they just use the next bin with k998234 Wifi's and then leave it up to you to find the driver.

    Wh da fu?

    Again, p.c's are great if you like to work....so you can work.

    I prefer to work, and go home at some point, not having had to constantly tinker and play with the writing material.

    My god, p.c's (and I used to have them before doing apple) are like pencils that break all the time, and you have to march over to the cabinet and get another one.
  70. K Kal from Canada writes:
    XP is good
    Vista is ok once you get it setup correctly

    i mean really for joe average who just browses the net and does some office apps, you can get by with any OS that does the basics and vista does that

    maybe if joe stop surfing all the pr0n and what not then his windows installation wouldnt freeze up all the time :/
  71. K Kal from Canada writes: @ Cland Destine, the joke is that for the same price you pay for a mac, you can make yourself a pc that will perform better. And for the record, my PC with XP is on 24/7 and only requires a restart about once a month, so dont know wat the "broken pencil" comment is about, maybe it's the pencil's user causing a problem?

    and as for mac os' stability, save yourself some cash, get a regular PC and download FreeBSD and you are good to go
  72. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: Paul Rainsberry from Toronto, Canada writes: "I am so tired of the bashing. Get on with life people. "

    But so much of my life revolves around bashing. What do you want me to do with all my spare time???
  73. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: K Kal from Canada writes:"...and as for mac os' stability, save yourself some cash, get a regular PC and download FreeBSD and you are good to go"

    Are you aware of the irony in your comment? OSX is based on FreeBSD. Shares much of it's kernel code in fact.
  74. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Richard Killey from Toronto, Canada writes: "I do not understand what people love so much about Vista."

    Here are a few of the things I personally love about Vista:

    - Nicer, cleaner UI
    - Proper 64-bit support
    - Greatly improved Start menu
    - Ability to just type the first 3 or 4 letters of any program and run it, tiny feature but WAY faster that searching through menus
    - User and security done RIGHT thanks to UAC. Admittedly UAC is basically an exact copy of how Linux and Apple do things, but it's the right way to go
    - Protected mode software for when browsing 'risky' sites is required
    - DX10 support for games

    Yeah, that's a reasonable start. Personally I think it was WELL worth the $100 or so I spent on it. I still use WinXP on my work laptop, but for home I'm very happy with Vista.
  75. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Boris G from United States writes: "Sounds crazy to me, that they would name their next OS "Windows 7"

    Windows 7 is not the official marketing name that will be used, just the code version they are on. After WinNT 4 Microsoft continued the numbering scheme for their core OS but adopted new marketing names. Windows 5.0 became Windows 2000, Windows 5.1 was sold as Windows XP (it was mostly the same core as Win2K, just tweaked slightly and with a heavily modified front-end). Vista is version 6.0 of Windows.

    Version 7 of Windows is next up, it just hasn't received a marketing name yet.

    Note that Windows 95, 98 and Me don't really factor into this numbering scheme as they are based off an entirely separate code base. Windows NT 3.1 was the first release of the brand new code base, numbered as 3.1 rather than 1.0 because it came (chronologically) after Windows 3.0 (old code base) was released.
  76. K Kal from Canada writes: Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: K Kal from Canada writes:"...and as for mac os' stability, save yourself some cash, get a regular PC and download FreeBSD and you are good to go"

    Are you aware of the irony in your comment? OSX is based on FreeBSD. Shares much of it's kernel code in fact.

    yes that is why i said to get freebsd since that's all i hear mac users spout all the time "my mac is stable blah blah never crashes blah blah"

    the unix part of MAC OS (which is called DARWIN) is what makes it stable, you can even download DARWIN for free and load KDE or Gnome onto it, basically apple developed (ripped off) off of freebsd and other open source projects (same like microsoft, bill and steve are good friends u know)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin(operatingsystem)

    i've used mac os, nothing special, does the same thing as windows, some things it does better, some things worse, the only problem i have is the price tag of the hardware (more so nowadays since it's all x86/x64). and yes the fanatic apple fan boys are annoying too.
  77. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: "...Windows 7 is not the official marketing name that will be used, just the code version they are on."

    Actually, it was announced about two weeks ago that "Windows 7" will be the official release name as well.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10064971-56.html

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/10/14/tech-windows.html
  78. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: K Kal from Canada writes: "...yes that is why i said to get freebsd since that's all i hear mac users spout all the time "my mac is stable blah blah never crashes blah blah" "

    Ya, ok. I guess I didn't read your comment very carefully. Seems obvious now.
  79. Mitch Sprague from Ottawa, Canada writes: I've got Vista on four machines and XP on two others and I can't see a problem with it. I've had no problems with drivers or compatibility or anything else. I've found getting used to the menus and where stuff is located is no biggie either. I'm not exactly sure what all the fuss is about though, if you really must have XPPro then have it, that's the beauty in all this, no one is forced to use that which they don't like. XPPro is an easy install and it makes Vista go away. Those voicing such anger at how bad Vista is must have arrived on the scene post-ME. Now there was a POS operating system.
  80. M Trimble from Saskatoon, Canada writes: This may come as a surprise, but Microsoft is in business to make money! They put out new products whether you ask for them or not. Windows is their big cash cow and until Mac lets other companies put Mac OS on their hardware Microsoft will rule the roost. Linux is not a serious competitor and I can't see that changing in the near term. It is too difficult for the average user (without a propeller-head) to install and use. After Linux and its many flavours there are no serious challengers!

    Keep complaining about Windows, most of you will still be using it in 5-10 years. But keep complaining if it makes you feel better :-)
  81. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: "Actually, it was announced about two weeks ago that "Windows 7" will be the official release name as well."

    Hmm, interesting, I had missed that one. Thanks for the update, I stand corrected.
  82. Ziad Fazel from Calgary, Canada writes: Windows 7 will just be Vista warmed over. The marketing name is 7, but the code is version 6.1:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10066913-56.html?tag=mncol

    Read carefully, Maximilian and Tony.

    I doubt it will be much different than Vista Service Pack 2, which is not fixing much either. Microsoft damaged its cash flow and reputation by trying to develop new things in Vista. Expect more marketing and less innovation to try to sell you something already tested on others.
  83. Mister G. from Halifax, Canada writes: Vista works perfectly on my laptop and home PCs. There are NO crashes unlike the XP machines at work. Even my old 7 years old Athlon XP2500 desktop runs Vista flawlessly.
    Beside, Apple computers are more expensive and not upgradable.
    A happy Vista user.
  84. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Right now I am burning a CD and installing software to my harddrive on Windows XP using less ram and cpu resources than it takes for my Vista box to sit there and do nothing but look pretty.

    Does that mean nothing to MSFT? Vista sucks, its way to resource hungry, and it crashes for no apparent reason. Not to mention boot time, app load time, etc.

    Sell me an OS that's about speed, not stupid fade-in-fade-out menus and you'll have my attention. I don't give a d4mn that the menus are transparent if it takes 2 minutes to boot, while my tweaked XP box is at 29 seconds.
  85. David N from Toronto, Canada writes: "Today, Microsoft Corp. kicks off its marathon pitch about life after Vista, and even though the next evolution of Windows won't be ready until 2010, at the earliest, the company doesn't think it's too soon to start prepping for a bug-free launch."

    I strongly doubt that Microsoft has EVER had a bug-free launch in its history. Many software people believe they launch buggy products anyway just to keep the revenues coming in and the stock price up. And the quality of their products? Every successive version of Windows is bigger and slower than the previous one. Microsoft has been lucky due to significant improvements in hardware speed, otherwise Vista would make your PC run like an old XT!
  86. Ryan L from Canada writes: Using Vista and have been for the last year, I've honestly have had very little problems. I honestly think a lot of people blame vista when they put a whole lot of crap on their computer, I've honestly never had a crash, and enjoy my vista experience.
  87. Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I have a few years before I'll need a new computer, when I do it will be a Mac. I am running XP and it is sufficient, but still crashes way too often and is prone to mysterious slow downs, where the CPU is tied up doing God only knows what..
  88. Skeptical Observer from Canada writes: Mac is actually not that great. I've used windows vista for a while now and I can honestly say I have had absolutely no problems with it.
    For those who do it may just be because of a lack of basic computer knowledge, such as not having the necessary ram for smooth operation. 1gb is not that much these days. I just dont understand all of the negativity about vista. It has been a solid operating system for me. May just be because you like overpaying for a mac product so you could be in the "in" crowd, and a hater of the big evil "microsoft".
  89. Kevin G from Cochrane, AB, Canada writes: All those Mac commercials had me convinced that Vista was a buggy disaster, until I actually installed it on a modern computer with adequate memory and hard drive space.

    I then spent a day or two learning about it and headed to Google to learn how to fix it up. I turned off UAC and some other questionable features so I'm no longer bombarded with pop up messages that nag you every time you try to do something simple.

    I was very happy with XP but after one day I was just as happy with Vista and after a week, I wouldn't recommend XP over Vista to anybody.

    The problem with Vista is not the operating system but the hardware it ends up on. The shiny box you buy at the corner big box computer store is typically full of sub-standard parts at the lowest possible price point and the end result is an unreliable computer no matter what operating system you put on it.

    I'm a computer enthusiast (geek) that has both XP and Vista installed on the same computer so I can boot up into either operating system for a fair comparison. On the same hardware, Vista boots up faster from a cold boot, resumes from Stand By quicker, applications start much quicker and the file search feature is way faster even though I have the Vista indexing feature turned off. I could care a less how it looks but the truth is, it also looks much better.

    I approached Vista with an extremely negative opinion of it but I find it hard to think of anything negative to say now. If you are gaming or running benchmark programs then Vista is slightly slower than XP but when properly set up, in day to day use, it feels and is much faster.
  90. Common Voter from Toronto, Canada writes: May I recommend:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historyofoperating_systems

    Perhaps it'll give us a bit of perspective. Vista is and soon enough, won't be. Reminds me of yesterday's seeds that just weren't pest resistant & now those plants no longer grow - an ancient reminder of change.
  91. The Wight from Canada writes: Tony:

    "- User and security done RIGHT thanks to UAC. Admittedly UAC is basically an exact copy of how Linux and Apple do things, but it's the right way to go"

    It's not even remotely done the way Apple and Linux do it, especially when you compare default installs. Every single major configuration change on either Mac of Linux requires actual human intervention to enter an administrator password.

    UAC requires human intervention for a few extra clicks.

    That's fine if what you are preventing is some automated attack vector because just requiring input from someone in the chair stops that cold, but that doesn't stop someone from sitting at your chair and doing the very same thing.

    As an example, my son installed a game from the 'net on my Vista machine without my knowledge, just by clicking, when I stepped away from the machine to use the bathroom. It was my fault for not locking the machine, but had that install required my Administrator password like it does on my Linux partition, he wouldn't have gotten past my desktop.
  92. Job of the book from Canada writes: I've been bashing my head against Vista for a few months now... I'm about ready to downgrade back to XP myself. Vista's "improvements" aren't worth the price tag. The best of its latest features are DIRECT rip offs from Apple (I have a mac book pro and it continues to astound me with how easy it is to use. It seemed very complicated at first because it was just too easy. The damn thing actually did what I asked it to... I wasn't used to that). The rest of these supposed upgrades are terrible. My video files don't work as well as they did on XP. For some reason VLC has problems on Vista. The only thing worthwhile was Direct X 10 which got released for XP anyhow!

    Oh, by the by, the Microsoft word for Mac's is better than the one for PC. The Excel isn't, but for some reason the Word is WAY better. Though MSN is terrible.

    I think Microsoft needs to stop being the bully of the software industry and just try to make their stuff easier for the consumer to use. We're getting more and more choices with free downloadable software and new competitors. As I said, the latest Apple OX is GREAT. I use VLC and iTunes rather than windows media player, and I use Firefox instead of windows explorer. If Microsoft doesn't smarten up, they're going to get to know what the short end of the stick feels like.
  93. The Wight from Canada writes: Usability.

    This is the single biggest advantage for OS X. Vista and XP lag considerably behind OS X in this regard and I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of Mac switchers stayed on Mac because of this benefit.

    Example - find your IP address.

    On a Mac, it's two clicks and you never need to go to the command line. It's System Configuration -> Network and you are done.

    On XP, you have to drop to the command line and use ipconfig or use the system utility.

    On Vista, you can stay in the GUI like an Apple, but you have to use six clicks: Start -> Control Panel -> Network and Internet -> Network and Sharing Center -> click Connection -> click Status

    A ton of simple differences like this are what make an Apple considerably easier for a normal user to use on a day in, day out basis.
  94. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring Island, Canada writes: I use XP and Vista in a couple of my client's offices, but Mac OS at home. I work with this machine and am more productive with OS X. In my experience XP has been stable enough, but managing large numbers of files and finding information in them is slower and more of a hassle. Vista seems like an improvement over XP, but all of the security they've built into seems to get in the way - though you can turn it off - and a lot of peripheral devices haven't worked very well. OS X isn't perfect, but it is rock solid, the find functions are way better, the consistency of the interface across applications make it quicker to hack your way through stuff you don't know.

    If I was just using my home machines for email and the internet and didn't already have a couple of Macintoshes, I'd probably buy a cheap Intel machine and install Ubuntu Linux - I've played with it a bit, it's very robust, getting very smooth and its absolutely FREE.
  95. O Canada from Canada writes: "Windows Vista is tremendously successful; it's a rock-solid operating system," said Elliot Katz, senior product manager for Windows at Microsoft Canada. "But perceptions in the marketplace are much worse than what the product actually is."

    I can't believe this quote. They don't give people an option to buy XP anymore so of course people are buying Vista.

    I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE Vista. I HATE Microsoft for giving us Vista (and I wasn't a hater before). It's awful. Ugh!
  96. Roy White from Canada writes: I have now installed Vista in over 100 computers and not one has has a problem. The security that so many people hate takes 30sec and a reboot to fix. Vista biggest plus is the clarity on the screen versus XP. The only real downside that keeps me having only Vista on my computer is formatting a drive inside of Vista. Vista security hides all the files on anyone wishing to view them in XP. Like all complaint I hear about Vista comes from advanced user who want more control and less security that Vista offers. Vista is a great operating system for those who want a no hassle install without having to find new drivers. It amazes me how soon people have forgotten all the problem with XP until Microsoft came up with SP2 update. As long as people want to make computers with any hardware config MS OS will be your only choice. It is very easy in the world of MAC to control what hardware can be installed plus the very high prices of Macs that keeps most people using PC's. It you want a perfect PC Microsoft would have to build your computer to hardware only approved to work best in there OS's.
  97. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: The Wight from Canada writes: "Every single major configuration change on either Mac of Linux requires actual human intervention to enter an administrator password."

    It's exactly the same if you take an extra 2 minutes and do what Vista repeatedly reminds you to do and create a non-admin account for actual use.

    You CAN run everything as superuser/root in both Linux and OS X as well, but it's just as dumb of an idea there as it is in Windows.
  98. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: The Wight from Canada writes: "On Vista, you can stay in the GUI like an Apple, but you have to use six clicks: Start -> Control Panel -> Network and Internet -> Network and Sharing Center -> click Connection -> click Status"

    Or just double-click on the icon in your system tray, click on status and then details.

    Or in XP you can right-click on the same icon, click properties and details.

    Ohh, both three clicks here, guess Mac has a 1-click edge.

    I suppose you could have those icons disabled though, it's an option in Windows. You could then click Start, right-click on Network, properties and Status.

    Or you can drop into the command line and use ipconfig.

    What's the point of all this? Options. There's more than one way to skin a cat in all operating systems. And just because one way might seem 'easier' or more 'intuitive' to either you or I doesn't necessarily mean that they ARE easier, it's just how we know how to do things.
  99. The Wight from Canada writes: Tony

    "You CAN run everything as superuser/root in both Linux and OS X as well, but it's just as dumb of an idea there as it is in Windows"

    I'm a business analyst. I deal with stats all day long, mostly, but I also design UI prototypes for any new software our company makes.

    Short, simple, repeatable. That's the mantra. Every extra click loses some of your users, every extra option confuses some of your users - guaranteed.

    And Apples are the epitome of short, simple and repeatable. Want to find something? One click and you are in the Finder, which lists every possible thing you might search for, from network shares to applications and down to files. Another single click takes you to System Configuration and every last configurable option on the machine, all in one place. Those two things alone cover 90% of what someone is going to do with the machine in two measly clicks.

    And that's why default settings are so important. Make a user create a user-level account and you can predict who percentage aren't going to take that extra step, guaranteed (most won't). Ask MS how successful their strategy to make the firewall off by default in XP, pre-SP2, requiring the user to turn it on. Hint: it wasn't, which is why SP2 had it ON by default.
  100. Kevin D from Canada writes: I haven't bought a Vista machine yet but would be happy to keep using XP on the 5 computers in my house. More stability would be nice as would ongoing support for new hardware etc. I expect more service pack releases could achieve this. What I don't want to is have to relearn my O/S screens and procedures unless the the new O/S delivers outstanding advantages. VISTA doesn't sound like it does the latter so why would I want to change if I don't have to?
  101. Writes With Pen from Canada writes: All that I want to say is [CRASH] ...

    Vista: REBOOT...

    All that I want to say is [CRASH] ...
    All that I want to say is [CRASH] ...
    All that I want to say is [CRASH] ...
    .....
    Oh! Just forget it!
  102. In a Fog from Toronto, Canada writes: The underlying problem with Windows from 95 to Vista, is the user friendliness of Microsoft design that allows applications to automatically bounce data from one app to another. This was supported by the hideous design of the Visual Basic and Visual C languages which begat most of Microsoft's security problems. That appeared to be the main logic behind the release of Vista.
    I won a copy of Vista at a raffle and it still sits on the shelf in the shrink wrap. I needed a new computer and bought a small laptop with Linux and Openoffice all loaded at a major office supplies store. It runs great and cost under $500. I really don't miss the security headaches and garbage picked up surfing the web.
    If I had to have Microsoft office as my major application then I probably would have bought a MAC. My kids use them and they are very happy.
  103. Double Speak from Canada writes: Vista is crap ..I used Vista and nothing worked properly (ie printer,video games) !!!!! so I switched backed to XP (which I feel is more stable ) but my next computer will be a Mac or might use Linux instead ..Thanks for the shoddy programming work from Mircrosoft

    I dislike Mircosoft products so much now that I don't use MS Office anymore and now I use openoffice which is free from Sun.
  104. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .

    Does the WOW Start Now?
  105. Mr. Coffee from Victoria, Canada writes: Stick a fork into Vista. It's done. Maybe Microsoft won't rush onto the market these sub-standard operating systems full of security flaws and crash way too often.

    I'm buying a Mac.

    Goodbye.
  106. Michael S from Toronto, Canada writes: "...rock-solid...." - Katz.

    Wow! Where has he been? I hate Vista. I have had nothing but problems with it. My computere freezes frequently. It is slow. My emails delete contents unexpectedly or keep replicating. I have spent hours problem solving, (and have not solved all the problems!) I did not have these problems with XP. My next computer will be an Apple.
  107. Lyn Glottz from Canada writes: I had XP loaded on my six month old Dell XPS .. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Seems Dell is now forcing people to use Vista on newer systems. Very poor marketing !
  108. King Fisher from Canada writes: Vista is a joke, xp was/is fine. Like my macbook the best though.
  109. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Serious, what is everyone talking about?
    Vista came with my computer, and it replaced an XP computer. I like it! It's stable, it doesn't crash, run's fast, and looks nice. To me it's almost the exact same as XP, but looks nicer, and that little continue or not continue message pops up whenever I'm about to get virused. I think Vista is only truly annoying when you first start using it because those windows pop up so much more often in the beginning when you are setting stuff up, and because you still need to find your way around. After that, it's good. The only major unresolvable problem I've had with it is making my printer work right.
  110. The Natrix from Toronto, Canada writes: Always helps to have a friend in IT get rid of that useless thing known as VISTA and reinstall XP for a laptop.

    Even with a duo-core, the laptop was clocking like my old 386. Once remedied, literally within seconds-1 min I have the laptop running and ready.
  111. D. Clearwater from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: J M from BCPQON, Canada writes: "Can anyone tell me why anyone should use Vista or XP at all. Apple OSX (animal) runs everything that a PC requires (possible exception is CAD specific apps)."

    Well, there are many other programs that are not compatible with Apple OS either and for some that means they simply cannot go that route. (And why anyone would pay for two OSs is beyond me.) I think that one of the problems with Vista was that many people upgraded slightly older machines without doing any research as to driver compatibility or if their machine had enough resources to run it. I am actually considering buying two new computers in the next little while and one will probably run Linux (the other I will use an old copy of XP). More and more the whole idea of open source software is appealing to me and I am interested in learning Linux.
  112. Voice of Reason from bugtussle, Canada writes: your next OS will be from elsewhere
    ...Asia..it will cost $25 and it will essentially
    be a unix build

    the reality is that the software is what matters and once an
    OS works you dont want to know ant more about it than
    you do about your your fridge

    quote from 2020 ...who was Bill Gates ?
  113. SL S from Saskatchewan, Canada writes: Maybe Microsoft should consider releasing one operating system and spending the next 10 years fixing it til it works right rather than developing a new $400 operating system every 4 years and then forcing it down the publics throat. Personnaly, that's what I got sick of and that's why Microsoft lost me as a consumer of their crappy products. I'm sick of having to fork out huge amounts of cash every 3 to 4 years for another piece of junk operating system because they decided to cut off support for the one I had been using for the last 3 to 4 years now that they had all the bugs worked out of it. Microsoft is like a band of pirates repeatedly putting out a terrible product. I went Mac and I never looked back.
  114. Lefty Lou from Canada writes: The last 2 computers, laptop & desktop, I bought came with windows XP. I didn't want windows ever again after the lost productivity & utter frustration of W3.1 , I wanted Linux but nobody sold machines with Linux installed. Can anybody tell me where to buy a computer with Linux?
  115. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: VISTA, is the best thing that ever happened to Apple. Macs are flying out the doors of dealers, and the response is. "I never knew that using a computer could be so easy."

    MS Office is the standard for most businesses. MS produce the same product specifically to run on Macs, and they exchange files seamlessly when on a pc/mac network. They look the same and operate the same, although there are some extra bells and whistles in the Mac version, that aren't available on the pc version. This, according to the manager of the software division of MS.

    Use two macs, neither has ever crashed and I use them constantly.
  116. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Far too much fanboyism.
    First, Linux crashes too. A lot. I tried Ubuntu, that stupid thing crashed WAY more often than my Vista does (Vista used to crash a lot, since then the regular updates seems to have fixed many of those issues). Maybe it's because those geniuses who made Ubuntu included a BETA version of Firefox with it that perpetually screwed up every 30 minutes - I'll never understand why they didn't include a release version. Who the heck wants BETA software? Also, I put on that Compiz stuff so I can spin that cube and ever since then I had a random crash every couple hours. One good thing was it seems even if something crashed, in Linux it wouldn't bring down the entire system (I still wouldn't restart) but Vista is pretty much like that too. In the end, I decided all this talk about linux being SOOO Much more stable than windows was just a bunch of lies, so I ditched it and went back to Vista. As for Apple, I have Tiger, that thing doesn't crash a whole lot, but now and then applications for it (ITUNES!) just tend to die, which is a real annoyance. Vista, about that same.

    Conclusion: They all crash now and then. Deal with it. Maybe if all you want is a Linux Command line as your OS, that is probably 100% stable.
  117. Ricky Bobbie from Canada writes: Easy solution. Buy a Mac, install a free (today only) copy of Crossover Pro from Codeweavers (http://down.codeweavers.com/) and you can run a bunch of Windows programs (and games) without installing Windows. Or run Parallels or Fusion and run multiple virtual machines natively.

    You have all of your options open and great hardware to boot.

    Vista is not so bad but after all of the features that were stripped out due to problems with compatibility, it is simply not a compelling upgrade over XP. Microsoft has become so bloated that it no longer can see its toes, never mind its dangly bits.
  118. Commander Adama from caprica, Canada writes: My IT tell me that open source will be fully office ready in about 5 years; the government of France and Belgium have mandated that all govt departments use open source.

    Linux is ready now, but the support does not exist, bu that will change.

    BTW I have never had a crash with Ubuntu, I left the PC on for 4 weeks without a problem.
  119. The Carolina Hurricane from Canada writes: Vista does suck. However, I use Windows Server 2008; I have to say this is definitely one of the best operating systems I have ever used. It's incredibly stable, and after "converting" it to a workstation (by installing DirectX 10, video card drivers, etc.), I've been running it non-stop for months now for development and gaming purposes and it was only down once -- because the power was off due to a storm. It loads applications extremely fast due to the way memory is managed in this server OS.

    I got my copy for free (legally for school I might add), but it does cost close to $1,000 retail. I have to say it's definitely worth it if you had that kind of money to waste.

    If not, there's always Linux (I'm more of a BSD fan, but I'll take Linux any day).
  120. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: "Far too much fanboyism.
    First, Linux crashes too."


    Definitely, almost all the complaints about Vista are equally true, if not more so, for other OSes. I have crashed Linux systems on more than one occasion, they are most certainly not crash-proof.

    It's also funny that so many people complain about hardware incompatibilities with Vista, Linux is definitely worse here. The common stuff works great but when you get obscure components that aren't designed for Linux, they fail miserably. As for Macs, my entire computer is incompatible with OS X, though here it's intentional incompatibility on the part of Apple.

    Memory hog? Try running OS X 10.5 with 512MB of memory. Or Linux with KDE 4, they are not quick. New OSes like memory, and Vista is no exception. Fortunately 4GB of memory costs $75 these days. I picked up 2GB a year ago on sale for $25.

    Support for old hardware? Sure Vista doesn't work on most computers that are more than 6 or 7 years old, but OS X 10.5 also doesn't work on 6 year old iMac or eMacs either (G4 chips slower than 800MHz or so).

    All OSes have their flaws, and a lot of the whining about Vista is ignoring identical flaws in other operating systems.
  121. Jeff S from Canada writes: Vista has actually has me considering buying a Mac for my next computer. I still have USB port issues, processing speed issues.
  122. Asian Canadian from Calgary, Canada writes: As a company making tens of billions of dollar a year, you think Microsoft should be responsible in its quality, backward compatibility, user friendly etc. right? No, it isn't. MS really sucks!
  123. strider 643 from Canada writes: XP Pro has been a solid OS for me. Thanks to MS. My only wish would be for a much tighter security defence. I sometimes feel under seige by worms, trojans, & hijackers.

    The computer & internet are vitally important tools to me. I couldn't imagine my life without them now.
  124. RRR JJJ from Canada writes: vista has worked well for me for the past 18 months. not a single compatibility issue.... i never looked back, but on my second laptop, i will be trying linux at some point just to evaluate it....
  125. Ruth E HiLL from Canada writes: ANOTHER!! O.S. MS made a mistake placing Vista in the market before it was ready.I for one liked it.Granted,I did spend many hrs.learning it.
    Now,MS is making another mistake by offering another OS.Money would have been better spent if it was used to correct some of the flaws in the present system.For this reason,I will not buy another computer if it contains a MS
    OS. In its decision,the powers have forgotten those who did purchase the software.Yn return,I will forget MS and
    Bill? Bill who??
  126. J L from Canada writes: Vista is not crap. Most problems lie between the keyboard and the chair. Too many of you know too few ways in which to tweak and customize Vista to optimize it on your particular systems. Laziness and/or ignorance are not excuses. Each and every version of Windows must be customized by the user to make it run as well as the user wants and needs it to run. Too many of you cannot seem to fathom that the box sitting on your desk is comprised of systems many times over more complex than those in the car in your garage. You cannot just turn it on and assume that it'll run smoothly every time with no type of maintenance whatsoever. The true problem lies in software companies like Microsoft assuming that consumers will blindly accept whatever useless features they choose to shove down their throats. Rightfully so, given all the ignorance-ridden posts above. Case in point: Vista's indexer, superfetch, and UAC. All three gobble up the bulk of your computer resources and all three can easily be turned off. Ironically, the geniuses at Microsoft designed all three of these to make your Vista experience better even though they take away much more than they give back. Mind you, you don't have to be a geek to know how to change all manner of features in Vista or any other operating system. There are many websites and books that describe everything in plain language. What's worse: laziness, ignorance, or a combination of the two? Oh well, buyer beware. In the meantime, Microsoft will keep reaping huge profits off you un- or misinformed people and those of us who know how to make use of our computers to the fullest will spend less time complaining. Just don't think you can say anything intelligent about Vista if you've never used it.
  127. David Stevens from MONTREAL, Canada writes: Everyone should know the following. While Microsoft owned operating systems have 90% of the market Vista has ONLY 18%. Mac OS has 8%.

    Windows XP has 69% of the market.

    Now MSoft is releasing ANOTHER operating system. They can't seem to get it right or they got it right with XP and saw no profit in staying put.

    Apple on the other hand started with a fully mature OS called Linux (FreeBSD to be exact) and created an interface based on the old Mac OS and refined it more.

    That is why it just works. And it keeps getting better. No one is ever in shock with a new Mac OS X release. In contrast to MSoft efforts, Mac owners look forward to the goodies in each update like kids at Christmas. What will Santa Jobs bring us this year.

    I have had a Mac since 1991 and have never lost a single file or had a virus. I bet you can't find a single Mac user that doesn't think that computers are reliable and fun. I bet you can't find a single Windows user who can't share a slew of horror stories of viruses and complete reinstalls.

    Don't take my word for it. Ask around. Rent one for a month and check it out.
  128. Neil Thomson from Ottawa, Canada writes: To set the tone for my comment - NONE of our corporate customers (we’re a custom application development shop) have moved off XP/Win 2003 server. For all the Mac users - get a life - you pay a premium for an ultimately more cosmetically glitzier interface, but less supported OS, something the rest of the real-world can't afford. While I can use the UI, it's just too much eye candy for me and in many cases limits usability, and up until recently, lack of true multi-tasking capability. As a graphics artist tool or laptop for "office" style applications (ironically best supported by Microsoft) and internet apps - great - for core (non browser) business apps - not good enough. I used to be able to crash a Mac at will, and got REALLY tired of having to crawl under the desk to unplug it to re-boot. For Microsoft - what the HE/double hockey sticks were you thinking. Those who commented on the Mac/OS upgrade path - they have the ultimate computer user criteria - first do no harm! A corollary should be that any upgrade must simplify/improve common operations in a familiar and obviously extensive manner with minimal impact. Solving security issues by constantly being in the user's face with "can I do this, we don't recommend it" questions on essential/basic operations is absolute nonsense. While I've not used Vista, the feedback (echoed here) is that the UI is unnecessarily different/unstable and doesn't support a sufficient back log of older machines. In short; it doesn't provide sufficient additional value to justify the upgrade.
  129. Dave LeBlanc from Canada writes: Windows ME was the worst one, by far. People who say it's Windows Vista have no clue what they're talking about.
  130. Harper can't be trusted from Canada writes: Vista is almost as bad as ME.

    ME was unstable, Vista has far too many compatibility and usability issues.

    Interesting that MS brought out ME when they did. From my perspective it looks like all they did was introduce an OS in order to take advantage of marketing it under the "Millenium" brand in 1999/2000
  131. Amguada Kickboote from The Sewage Treatment Plant, Canada writes: .
    It's true that the last stable Microsoft operating system was Windows 2000. Many large corporations and smaller savvy businesses are still running that system today. It borders on criminal that Microsoft recently refused to support it anymore.

    I seriously doubt that they can fix Vista. Far too many defects in it. I have 10 copies in shrink wrap in a box that we bought a year ago. Our two Vista test systems each slowed down in a month or two and we had 7 complete lock ups requiring complete reformat/reinstall over a 9 month period. So we said forget it. Life is too short.

    It is also kind of peculiar that they are marketing the new product as "Windows 7" when the beta version now available shows in the source code that is internally referred to as "Windows 6.1". Windows Vista was known internally as "Windows 6.0". So I guess even Microsoft knows that there will never be a real "Windows 7.0", do they expect to be out of business by then?

    I suggest people shopping for new computers try Linux for business and Apple OS X for home. They will provide you with basic system stability and will allow you to get things done.
  132. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: If Microsoft were an honest organization, it would concentrate on improving XP and bug fixes while allowing Vista to die. It would also replace customers' Vista for free. However, Microsoft's goal is to force its customers to change their operating systems on a regular basis, taking advantage of their near-monopoly situation. The virus protection companies are just as bad. Microsoft releases buggy software that is attacked by everything on the Internet and these companies then force you to upgrade your virus protection software on a regular basis too - it's a kind of symbiosis. I gave up on PCs about three years ago and bought an iBook, life is good. I no longer have to reload an operating system every five minutes because one of my kids picked up yet more viruses, Spyware or Malware that the virus protection and firewall software doesn't prevent or can't fix.
  133. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: I should have mentioned in my last post that Microsoft should seriously consider becoming a manufacturer of quality goods rather than just a slick marketing organization. Otherwise, they will be going in the same direction as the big three automakers. There's only so long you can scam your customers before they start using a better product. It's not like they're cheap either :-(
  134. The Wight from Canada writes: Neil Thomson:

    "While I can use the UI, it's just too much eye candy for me and in many cases limits usability, and up until recently, lack of true multi-tasking capability."

    LOL. Your opinions are just TAD out of date.

    The last OS Apple made that didn't feature multitasking was OS 9, released in 1999, a few months after Windows 98 was released. Things have changed just a bit since then. But, of course, if you want to bring data that old into the discussion, I'd be perfectly willing to discuss the "security model" for Win98, or lack thereof.

    As for limited usability ...

    With virtual machines now available for both platforms, the question of getting access to any business app you may need is easy to solve. On my old Powerbook, I ran OS X apps natively, Windows XP apps in a virtual machine (which ran my copy of WinXP in a window on my OS X desktop) and a healthy selection of Unix/Linux applications via a software tool called Fink. They ran, side by side, all on the same desktop. I needed more RAM, sure, because I was running OS X and WinXP at the same time, but I didn't lack for applications, that's for sure. It's not for guys who want to play Crysis, of course, but standard business apps up to Adobe CS 3 ran more or less without a hitch for me.
  135. Steve Chau from Canada writes: I bought a new computer with Vista two weeks ago. Now it has XP instead. I rest my case
  136. Michael Soft from Demokratic People's Republik of Kanada (aka North Kanada), Canada writes: Why is everyone talking about me? Thank you very much for your appreciation! I will definitely release my next reincarnation soon for you to enjoy! You will love it as much as you love me now!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top