As both my best friend and I reformat our 500 gig drives and go back to xp... am betting things will run better after all the odball wonky things vista 32 started doing (already reloaded the damn thing once myself when system files went crazy) and now her's is too... truth is apparently our "old" 32 bit programs just really do run often in emulation and vista does not like it..whatever... I want my steady (don't think about it, just use it) XP back!!! The drivers I had to get for my one year old printer, my mouse etc. are like faked out vista drivers and do not work right... so took away some functionality... so the bloom is off the rose... lot of backing up and then will be "gone" till we get all set back up and happy as clams!! My poor friend has a hot machine (not as much as mine) but never could get her poser open at the same time as photoshop!?? and Poser 6.3 would not ever look or work right.... I think our programs have "hit the wall" and are happiest on XP... and ya.... you can say "told ya".... live and learn.... good thing I have reformatted and reinstalled a few times... as she has not so we shall go step by step together...

mainly if you do not hear a peep out of me, that is why...

Hugs,

Lyne

Windows XP Pro SP2? :)

Either way, best o' luck getting back to normal (XP that is)!

I got a new PC and bought XP 32 bit - even though it's an AMD 64X2. I did not want the headaches of Vista, and I see I was right. Sorry you had problems.

If you have a 64-bit cpu, it wouldn't hurt having a 64-bit OS.  But not Vista 64 anything.  Despite Microsofts' distancing the second cousin twice removed airs, Windows XP Pro x64 is the only 64-bit OS worth having (outside of Unix OSs).  MacOS X Leopard has not completely filled this gap for 64-bit Mac support.  It can still be purchased sans OEM computer equipment (wink wink) and one suspects that M$ isn't complaining too much realizing the predicament they have created with the premature ejaculation of Vista. ;P

Ok.. I can't believe I'm doing this.. I really can't.  But I'm actually going to find myself in the bizarre position of defending a Windows operating system.. lol..

First, a bit of background.. I'm not windows fan.  I haven't been since version 3.1 - in fact I was tossed off the widespread beta team along with a dozen other folks because we kept annoying microsoft by reporting bugs.  That of course is what we thought our job as beta testers should be, apparently Microsoft had other ideas.

So believe me I'm not one who would normally come to the defense of Windows, in fact the only reason I still run Windows at all is for two main reasons, I do runs some Windows apps that Linux Wine simply cannot handle, and my wife and children are unaccustomed to Linux and have no desire to switch over.

So I run a small network here at home, with both Linux and Windows machines.   I had not intention of upgrading to Vista myself, in fact I generally wait quite some time before upgrading any version of Windows simply because Microsoft is notorious for releasing new versions that should have been considered beta code rather than finshed production code.

So I wasn't planning on switching to Vista, but two things happened within days of one another to change my mind.  First a buddy of mine who's a longtime linux geek bought a brand new system that came bundled with a Windows Vista DVD.  Naturally he had no use for it and didn't want anything to do with it, he's a Linux only kinda guy.  So he gave it to me, knowing that I work in the IT field and am always looking for stuff like this to experiment with.

The second event was my daughter downloading a file off the internet and installing it, turns out it was actually a particularly nasty virus/trojan called wintems.exe.   Well at any rate sine I already had a full backup and was curious,  I installed Vista on my machine.

I was impressed by the fact that it found all of my hardware and made use of it, something XP could not do without a lot of external drivers being downloaded and installed.  The new visual effects I must admit are a bit much for my tastes, but on the whole the OS has been very solid and very stable on my system.

Unlike most of Microsoft's previous releases, one thing you cannot call Vista is "premature', it is in fact an update they've been working on for nearly 5 years now and is based off there 2003 server code.  Now, that having been said, Vista is not for all machines or for all people.  It does not run well on anything that doesn't meet or in fact exceed there minimum system requirements and if you have some very oddball hardware this might give Vista the fits.

However in my case it seemed to work well with my hardware and actually Poser has been a lot more stable and a lot faster under it than it was under Windows XP.

Now, in reponse to the Windows XP 64, I do have a machine with a 64 bit processor, however truth be told I haven't really been to concerned about upgrading to a 64 bit OS, not yet at any rate.  The reason is that most of the apps I run, in fact pretty much all of them, are still 32 bit apps, and as such a 64 bit OS really wouldn't give me too many advantages.  

Some of the newer apps out there are being coded for 64 - and when it becomes necessary I will probably upgrade my OS to accomodate them, but for the time being paying extra for a 64 bit OS really didn't make much sense for my application, since none of the apps I have could take advantage of it anyway.

So take it for what it's worth folks, I'm no microsoft fan nor am I a Vista cheerleader by any stretch of the imagination, but thus far I must admit Vista has been more stable and more usable on my machine than XP.  In the final analysis though I suppose everyone has to decide for themselves what the best OS is for there application.

Stepdad

I won't chide your argument for Vista.  There are both pluses and minuses.  The problem is that many people are encountering the latter - which is why it is being dissed so much.  For all of its advantages and modern support, it does not play well with all older hardware and software (unfortunately, we can't all be at the cutting edge all of the time).  And older here can be as little as a couple of years.

Basically, for every success story (like yours), I've heard at least two horror stories (like the OP).  That does not bode well for Vista.  I won't touch it.  As a developer, I absolutely require 'status quo'.  If I can't build projects because some inherent feature or flaw of the OS kicks in to prevent it, my livelyhood is in peril.  Mr. Gates needs to provide the evidence of this before I jump in the boat - which appears to be slowly sinking.  No business that I know of will touch it either.  Rumors of Microsoft's own departments going back to XP abound (though unverified).

And there's the rub, aye.  Any user worth their salt has more experience actually USING computers than Bill Gates has neurons.  Vista is a 'user' OS - not a power, experienced user OS.  It infuriates so many real computer users that I fear a revolt.  Actually, the revolt is evident - noone with any real computer needs uses Vista - we all use Windows XP Pro SP2 or Windows XP Pro x64.  Who are you going to trust?  Microsoft pandering or users with 10/20 years experience?  (I have 20 years experience).

Unfortunately, an SP for Vista may not help.  Many experienced users are just going to keep chugging along until the next OS is released.  I hope it hurts M$ down to the core - they will see that short-changing people for control is a criminal offense.

I agree. I do not need 64 bit OS at this time nor do I have any use for Vista in any flavour. I hate when software designers assume the user is stupid like IE blocking my downloads and even Flash on sites and then asking stupid questions like "Are you sure you want to download this?" I also could care less about the fancy effects of the Vista GUI. I want my system resources to run my progs, not some fancy graphic effects on my desktop.

Quote - Unfortunately, an SP for Vista may not help.  Many experienced users are just going to keep chugging along until the next OS is released.

And to add even more fuel to the fire, XP32 just came out with SP3, which adds a healthy amount of performance to good old XP. Compare this to Vista SP1, which barely even fixes some of the more serious problems that Vista has. So yes, Vista may indeed become a great OS but by the time it does become so, we may all have moved on to Windows 7 or dropped Windows OS altogether.

Quote - Unlike most of Microsoft's previous releases, one thing you cannot call Vista is "premature', it is in fact an update they've been working on for nearly 5 years now and is based off there 2003 server code.

You may not be aware that xp64 is also based off the 2003 server code, so you get all the benefits of 64 bit and XP without a resource hog UI like aero or horrible DRM. Even the much hyped DX 10 games are all falling flat on their face with poor performance and lots of bugginess when run in Vista.

Don't forget that all the real technical improvements due in Vista were stripped out one by one as the time slipped; what Vista truly boils down to is a dummies OS with draconian DRM to pander to the movie and record industy (and proof of that is the reventing of Vista from running in a virtual machine; it was found that when ran that way, all the DRM crap failed to even initialize), and nore dancing doggies & MS Bobs to eat your resources. ANY OS that can gobble a gigabyte of system RAM just to support the funky eye candy is poorly designed. Most of the sales numbers M$ quotes ignore the fact that the corporate customers almost one and all paid a premium to not have Vista placed on their ordered machines, and chose XP Pro instead. So take that so-called 100 millions units sold number and strip out all the corporate purchases, and you are closer to how many actual units people have bought....and if you strip out those who bought pre-installed, then the actual number of upgrades sold is downright bleak. Particularly for what was supposed to be the OS to end all OS's. Vista is the NT version of WinME....but Redmond didn't have anything to shift people over to. Windows 7 had better be as vast an improvement over Vista as XP was over WinME, or M$ might not survive in the style they expect.

Quote -
And to add even more fuel to the fire, XP32 just came out with SP3,

psst it's not out yet.. it's still being tested.

Well RC is out for download and that's almost as good as the real thing, but i'll admit technically you're right :p So:

Quote - to add even more fuel to the fire, XP32 is soon coming out with SP3

EDIT: And i hope the nice devs at MS would hurry up with getting the 64 bit version done as well.

I ended up with Vista 32 on my new machine, and it's worked pretty good for me. It runs Max, ZBrush, Carrara, Silo, Hex, Poser, Photoshop, or any of my other software fine.

Personally, I didn't care for Aero, but it's easy to shut off. Same with the "are you sure" nags, though (to be fair) I did end up shutting off 20 or 25 unnecessary services.
4 gig of ram and a 2 gig readyboost brought it to life. It'll open Poser with a 35 gig internal runtime in 12 seconds, which is fast enough for me.
It's been as solid as anything else I've used, so I really can't complain. I would have preferred to wait for a service pack or two, but my new machine had it on it so I just thought I would see how it worked for me.
It does a few things different from XP, but the way I have it set up I can't tell much difference.

well as i replied in one of my other forums... that was a bit more strongly "for and against"..but that is okay... 

have not converted yet, and never meant to start a "discussion".... for ME and for my friend (two brand new computers built more for gaming than the OLD software that will NO WAY TAKE A 64 BIT version... and who really KNOWS why the glitches IN THE OS are happening to us other than what I stated.... but the old addage... "if it aint broke, why fix it".... both our old hardware was too old - that started the whole thing... and we both have very fast NEW type ram so 2 gigs of THAT will be much faster on a new machine with xp, plus other good stuff such as the best video cards bought FOR our software (she does not use vue, I do) - she and I want to stick to poser 6.3 and an OLD mail program for our comfort zone...and some older other software....keep in mind we are both disabled in some ways and have certain needs... it's all so individual...but why? well... ask MS??  My son GAMES on his vista and loves it... but then he is a techie and can FIX things on the fly... she and I cannot. We have to have reliable... :)

But it's fun to start discussions, Lyne. BTW, how are you feeling? I noticed someone needs your baby chicks but didn't realize you had them until your store was closed. Can't you sell some things privately or here in the RMP? It's a shame they are lost forever (hint, hint)

Yes Lyne can't you still sell them through another store like Renderosity and just let them deal with the money and send you a check? I probably would have bought your items if I could download it, and did buy your items at Daz. I too have fibro and it kicks me down to the nubs so I understand not wanting to deal with it yourself.
Marque

Quote - I won't chide your argument for Vista.  There are both pluses and minuses.  The problem is that many people are encountering the latter - which is why it is being dissed so much.  For all of its advantages and modern support, it does not play well with all older hardware and software (unfortunately, we can't all be at the cutting edge all of the time).  And older here can be as little as a couple of years.

Basically, for every success story (like yours), I've heard at least two horror stories (like the OP).  That does not bode well for Vista.  I won't touch it.  As a developer, I absolutely require 'status quo'.  If I can't build projects because some inherent feature or flaw of the OS kicks in to prevent it, my livelyhood is in peril.  Mr. Gates needs to provide the evidence of this before I jump in the boat - which appears to be slowly sinking.  No business that I know of will touch it either.  Rumors of Microsoft's own departments going back to XP abound (though unverified).

And there's the rub, aye.  Any user worth their salt has more experience actually USING computers than Bill Gates has neurons.  Vista is a 'user' OS - not a power, experienced user OS.  It infuriates so many real computer users that I fear a revolt.  Actually, the revolt is evident - noone with any real computer needs uses Vista - we all use Windows XP Pro SP2 or Windows XP Pro x64.  Who are you going to trust?  Microsoft pandering or users with 10/20 years experience?  (I have 20 years experience).

Unfortunately, an SP for Vista may not help.  Many experienced users are just going to keep chugging along until the next OS is released.  I hope it hurts M$ down to the core - they will see that short-changing people for control is a criminal offense.

Well, in all honesty, windows is a user's OS, plain and simple.  Always has been,  probably always will be.  The fact that Vista doesn't run will on older hardware is to be expected, after all it is based primarly off there 2003 server code, which was pretty heavy on system requirements to run properly too.

Granted I like the power and flexibility of Linux, but when it comes for the average Joe linux distros are still too complicated and cryptic to be able to manage sufficiently.  That and Windows monster market share makes it difficult to consider running strictly Linux - wine is great, don't get me wrong, but until the day comes when you can install a Windows app under Linux as easily as you can under Windows then Linux will remain primarly for power users and those who really need a little extra oomph from the OS.  While I must give all kudo's to some of the newer distro's out there who have made major strides in making Linux desktop's easier to install and configure, they still don't come close to Windows in this regard.

As to who I "trust", I trust myself and my own experiences, which date all the way back to my very first PC.  A 2001 series Pet, with 16k of internal memory and a tape drive.  No harddrive, all programs were in the basic programming language and had to be loaded from tape into memory to be run.  It was state of the art, top of the line hardware when my father purchased it, one of the very first PC's to be commercially available to the public.

I've seen OS's come and go, and I'll probably see quite a few more before my time is up.  I've worked with everything from VAX/VMS to CPM to Tandem at one time or another.  I've been a computer user, computer programmer, website designer and mainframe operator in the many years I've been working as an IT professional.

And in all those years I've found it all boils down to one thing, you have to find what works for you and your application.  Windows XP is great, for certain applications, but it can't hold a candle to even the most out of date Linux distro when ti comes to something like serving web pages or being an internet gateway.  Sure you can get apps that will allow you to use XP fo thoese purposes, but they don't come close to what your average Linux can do out of the box as far as featurs and security.

So does that make Linux a superior OS to XP?  Well, for those who want to run a webserver Linux probably is the better choice - but not everyone is setting up a webserver.  I have 3 daughters, all of whom use the main computer for a variety of reasons.  My youngest just got an mp3 player for her birthday.  She setup the softwware herself, by putting in the CD and plugging the mp3 player into the USB port.  My middle daughter got a camecorder, again she was able to install everything herself and integrate it into the computer easily and quickly because both of these items (and many, many more) are designed to work with a Windows OS rather than a LInux distro.

So for there application Windows is obviously the superior choice.  They want somthing that is "plug it in and it works", not something that is "find the proper text file in the cryptic subdirectory and edit it with cryptic phrases to get this to work".  They could care less if it's more stable or more secure or uses less memory, they want to be able to plug in their camera and see the pictures they took or download music to there mp3 player without having to jump through a lot of hoops.

So no one OS is the absolute best choice for all applications.  I'm glad XP woks for you and many others, it did not work that well for me.  XP is a fine operating system, don't get me wrong, but it just didn't suit my application or my hardware as well as Vista seems too.

Your situation might be different, in fact I'm sure it probably is, but I would'nt dream of telling you that XP is "inferior" or that you should never chose XP under any circumstances.  If your hardware and your application support it and you like it then more power too you.

So the final word on Vista?  If you have the hardware to support it I really think it's worth a look, depending on your application.  It's drive management and caching features are based on there 2003 server code, which means it is far better at accessing the drive than XP is when it comes to reading and writing large chunks of data, something I do fairly regularly here.

However for those with older hardware I wouldnt' recommend Vista, it just wouldn't be a good choice for them overall.  Also if XP is working for you and doing what you want I wouldn't consider switching to Vista unless you actually have a need for some of it's features.  If your needs are already being met by your current OS, why change?

Just my 2 cents worth.

Stepdad

This isn't about which OS is superior.  It's about whether Vista is a truly usable OS.  For some, yes.  For too many others (and I spent last night reading hundreds of horror stories), a big definite no.

For instance, you mention the superior disk read/write.  I've read just the exact opposite - that something in Vista is making it slower for disk reads/writes compared to XP.  It could be drivers, but either way that doesn't help.  Tons of gamers are dropping it because games don't work (se above for validation).  There are problems with Outlook.  Vista is just as vulnerable as XP - but you do get that nice DRM and lock-down feature if you change your hardware too much.

Unfortunately, the entire planet isn't going to go out and upgrade their computer hardware just to use Vista.  If Vista requires 2005 or later hardware, M$ isn't going to sell many (and the real sales figures agree here - they aren't selling!).  Since Vista was released, I've actually seen Windows XP restocked on the shelves.  That must mean that Vista is that great - big sarcasm.

C64, Amiga, Sun, Apple, Windows PC, various Linux OSs.  I've done them all.  I program in about 10 languages and run my own web and ftp server.  I build my own PCs.  I'm not an IT person - nor would I want to be one. ;)

YMMV, but I can't risk hoping that upgrading my OS won't introduce problems.  Yeeks - when I tried to upgrade to Windows ME from Win95, I immediately decided that I could live with whatever limitations were present in WindowsNT and went that direction.  The OS was unbootable - and when it could (in Safe Mode), it was disaster after disaster.  Some people still swear by Windows ME.  But I think that you'll agree that history falls completely on the side of - it was crap!  And Vista is pretty much the same - not as bad, but close enough.  Maybe SP2 will rectify all of this - but I doubt it.

And, to be fair, this isn't just about Vista.  MacOS X Leopard isn't fairing extremely well either (and why I haven't upgraded to that either).  Both of these OSs need a truckload of TLC (i.e.: updates) before they work as advertised.  And it is better to be late to the party after Uncle Schtook has left than to be early and suffer the lampshade over the head.  Good Ole' Uncle Schtook hasn't left yet.

I've found Vista does have 2 usefull functions.

My other half likes the new cake making game and as you can't run most of your apps your machine does tend to make a nice footwarmer. :)

Just got an average speced Laptop 2GHz 2MB RAM. 

Does vista work with the Scanner supplied at the same time? Not properly. 
Do most of the legacy apps I've tried so far? Nope. 2 in 3 failure rate.
Do apps and kit certifed for vista work - only if they feel like it. Mostly they don't. 
Do you get a disc for when your HDD packs up? Nope.

Also watch out some smaller suppliers will state that removing vista and installing XP will invalidate the whole warranty - because thats what MS have told them to say.

Quote - This isn't about which OS is superior.  It's about whether Vista is a truly usable OS.  For some, yes.  For too many others (and I spent last night reading hundreds of horror stories), a big definite no.

For instance, you mention the superior disk read/write.  I've read just the exact opposite - that something in Vista is making it slower for disk reads/writes compared to XP.  It could be drivers, but either way that doesn't help.  Tons of gamers are dropping it because games don't work (se above for validation).  There are problems with Outlook.  Vista is just as vulnerable as XP - but you do get that nice DRM and lock-down feature if you change your hardware too much.

Unfortunately, the entire planet isn't going to go out and upgrade their computer hardware just to use Vista.  If Vista requires 2005 or later hardware, M$ isn't going to sell many (and the real sales figures agree here - they aren't selling!).  Since Vista was released, I've actually seen Windows XP restocked on the shelves.  That must mean that Vista is that great - big sarcasm.

C64, Amiga, Sun, Apple, Windows PC, various Linux OSs.  I've done them all.  I program in about 10 languages and run my own web and ftp server.  I build my own PCs.  I'm not an IT person - nor would I want to be one. ;)

YMMV, but I can't risk hoping that upgrading my OS won't introduce problems.  Yeeks - when I tried to upgrade to Windows ME from Win95, I immediately decided that I could live with whatever limitations were present in WindowsNT and went that direction.  The OS was unbootable - and when it could (in Safe Mode), it was disaster after disaster.  Some people still swear by Windows ME.  But I think that you'll agree that history falls completely on the side of - it was crap!  And Vista is pretty much the same - not as bad, but close enough.  Maybe SP2 will rectify all of this - but I doubt it.

And, to be fair, this isn't just about Vista.  MacOS X Leopard isn't fairing extremely well either (and why I haven't upgraded to that either).  Both of these OSs need a truckload of TLC (i.e.: updates) before they work as advertised.  And it is better to be late to the party after Uncle Schtook has left than to be early and suffer the lampshade over the head.  Good Ole' Uncle Schtook hasn't left yet.

I agree with you that ME was not a good OS.. for a variety of reasons, however I think it is far to early in the game to make any such pronoucnements about Vista, the data just isn't all in yet.  Anecdotal evidence doesn't sway me much.. I heard a lot of the same complaints about XP when it first came out, and as it turns out a lot of it was user issues rather than OS issues.  People generally do not like upgrades on the whole because they prefer the "old" way of doing things, naturally, that's what there used to.

XP is a pretty good OS overall, but in my initial testing Vista has it beat in several categories, most notably in disk read and write.  Under XP when I'm moving or working with a large batch process that involes a lot of files I notice a very, very distinct slow down in my foreground tasks.  Not so with Vista.  I can setup a large batch process in background and still even render in foreground, something that would crash my older XP system in a heartbeat.

This of course are just personal observations, and I've only had Vista installed for a very short period of time so I'm not certain what else I might run into as far as "setteling in" issues, but so far so good.  It has recognized all of my hardware and used it admirably, and it has run all of my applications with no issues whatsoever, and none of my apps were coded specifically for "Vista", there the same apps I was running under XP.

As to problems that "gamers" have experienced that really doesn't surprise me much, game programs often take advantages of "holes" in the operating system to exploit certain areas or capabilities of the hardware to improve game performance and speed.  When you change OS's often those "holes" are plugged or rerouted for security reasons and what not, so it doesn't really surprise me much that there would be some issues there.  But I'm not a big gamer so I haven't had any such problems personally.

I guess my point here is that to proclaim Vista to be worthless is quite frankly premature at best.  While my own intiial reaction to Vista was that I had no intention of upgrading anytime soon, circumstances put me in a position where looking it over was actually an option, and when I did I was impressed enough to leave it installed on my machine.  That is all I was attempting to relay.

As to the rest, obviously many of the folks in this thread support there particular favorite OS with an almost religious like devotioin that I simply cannot fathom, I run 3 seperate OS's on various machines here in my network and take advantage of all of there strengths while using the other machines to compensate for there weaknesses.  I don't have a religious attachment to Vista or any other OS, I was simply pointing out that people might want to be a little less knee jerk about there reactions to Vista and a little more open to experimentation, that's all.

But for me that's enough, I've spoken my peace and have no wish to debate further with folks who've already made up there minds regardless of anything that I might post.  If you hafe Vista then by all means don't use it, your perogative.  Me I installed it and it works well for my application. I'd encourage others to give it a look and not to take all the badmouthing it gets at face value, but in the end that's there decision, not mine.

So you folks enjoy the rest of the "debate", or "holy war" which is really what this appears to be shaping up to be, me personally I'll just head off to enjoy doing a bit more rendring and getting the rest of my system setup while I'm doing so - oh, and FYI, the only reason I mentioned my background was because you stated that "experience" was important to you, so I relayed my own so that you could better judge where I'm coming from, that is all.  

Hope that clarifies my position.  Now I'll just get out of the way and let the crusades begin.. lol..

Stepdad