Your opinion of Vista ? ( New Microsoft OS )

[ynneb]

For those who have been living under a rock, Microsoft has recently released its new operating system to replace XP.
From what I have read in many places, most people are giving it negative reviews. While it does have some advantages, these are heavily out weighed by its negatives.

What do you think ?

[Nono]

I will upgrade after there service pack two comes out..

[CNCRob]

I have read alot of bad reviews about it also.

[Aksess]

If it were not for needing to run certain programs, I would still be using windows 98.

[cncbasher]

i am keeping as far away from it as possible , it's a nightmare

[oneyaker]

Vista is nothing but garbage. I just got a used Dell GX270 2.8Mhz and 1G ram with new vista install and it is SLOWER on this relatively fast machine than win95 so I REFORMATTED the drive and put in win xp pro sp2 and win2000pro for mulitboot setup.
Vista is a total and complete rip off of the Mac look (my brother in law uses Mac) and lots of useless eye candy. The ONLY thing I liked about it is the visual preview of images and scaling of the file icons in the Windows Explorer.
Otherwise, I imagine that most of us engineering types run windows optimized for performance so Vista is a complete waste of time.
If I could run my CAD CAMs in Linux, Microshaft would be gone from all of my computers. I hope that for the next 10 or so years I can stick to win xp and 2000 and then bye MS.

MadVac CNC
http://oneoceankayaks.com/madvac/madvac_index.htm

[PaulH]

Here's my background: I write computer software for a living. I can set up networks and firewalls in my sleep. I have written software for most of the major Unix variants, every version of Windows since Win95, and just recently, OS X 10.4.

My response to Vista has been a simple one: I bought a 15" MacBook Pro for my wife about six weeks ago to replace her WinXP system (2.53 GHz P4, 2 GB memory, 160 GB SATA hard drive, DVD+-RW). A week ago I bought a Mac Mini and a KVM for myself.

Now I just need to learn how to better program for the Mac so I can write some CNC software.

[Newby2]

Has anyone tracked the progress of windows? First was windows, windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, and now Vista. Each "new" version required one to upgrade to a newer computer with more memory, a larger hard drive, a faster processor and so on. My belief is that it just gets more and more confusing to those that just want to have a computer to run specific programs and to he77 with all the other BS.
Why is it that most CNC machines run a dedicated OS? CNC is a number crunching system that doesn't need a bunch of garbage running in the background to slow things down! How many of you play solitare on the mill that is machining an extreemly intricate and expensive part?
This is my opinion.
Steve

[HayTay]

Originally Posted by Newby2 Has anyone tracked the progress of windows? First was windows, windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, and now Vista.

Don't forget about Windows NT. All of the Windows releases had multiple versions to boot (pun intended); Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, at least 4 versions of Windows 95, at least 2 versions of Windows 98, Multiple version of Windows NT which was updated to Windows 2000 Pro & Server (which had 4 major Service Packs), which was updated again to several versions of Windows XP (Home, Pro, Media Center) which required 2 major Service Packs. And then there's the other two OS's that were too sickly for even Microsoft to keep alive... MS BOB and MS Windows Me. Both should have been aborted before they were allowed to even see the light from a video display. And I'm sure I've missed some other MS OS releases in there somewhere, like Windows Server 2003 and others?

[The Inventor]

IMHO Windows 2000 Pro sp4 was the best os that ever came out.
Fast and very stable!

[Bubba]

If Billy Bob wants to put out an OS that I really would like, consider this:
1. Dump the registry-It gets bloated, fragmented etc.
2. ONLY the OS files should be in the windows directory. This way, when (not if) it bombs, I could simply replace it with a "ghosted" copy. If xyz wants to put a dll or whatever on the drive, then it belongs in THEIR folder.
3. Give me an OS ONLY, I don't want or use most all the "cute addins" that he now provides (eg. cd burner, zip capability, and the list goes on add nasium), I want to use the products that I want to use and this crap takes up space and resources. Now I can only get rid of a lot of them by doing a lot of research and some I can't "really" get rid of!
4. In other words, get rid of BLOAT!

I read somewhere, that our computers today run just as slow now as then did in the "old days" because of all the "features" that are installed in the new software just take up space and resources. Think about the latest greatest gee whiz program that you just upgraded to. HOW MANY of these "features" do you really use? Take your word processor, other than "maybe" changing fonts, underlineing and a very few other things do you use? 90% of the rest just sit there and never get used. I also disagree with the software manufacturers that change file formats every year to "force" you to upgrade when you are interchanging information with others and last years software won't open the files.
Oh and last but not least, the price for something that I can "use", but not "own" is outlandish especially when I don't really have a choice in the junk that is added in.

Bubba

(soap box off)

[yohudi]

Originally Posted by The Inventor IMHO Windows 2000 Pro sp4 was the best os that ever came out. Fast and very stable!

And so say all of us.....

Vista is the old microsoft /intel arm twist yet again... a bloated and poorly coded OS (what on earth needs 15GB just for the OS) which then needs upgrades to run it... this is what drives the industry and don't we all know it. XP was really the beginning of this.. I still have to run a range of OS to perform the various tasks I require... even have an old 486 here and there running valued ISA hardware that never got developed to more modern PCI interfaces....

If MS was interested in better OS they would get the bugs out of the existing operating systems instead of firing bloatware down your throat... oh and if these "upgrades" are that good how come MS force the title developers to switch off compatibility with the older OS' to get certification for the new. They've been at that since win 95 replaced win 3.11.... don't believe the hype and keep your pennies for buying the bit's you do need.

Personally I rate NT4 (SP6) as probably the most stable and usable microsoft OS to date.. It's one of the longest serving and "ran the world" at one point. Win 2K is just a version of that with a win 95 or win 98 look to it..