Is windows vista a failure?

hi, is windows vista a failure like windows ME?
should i just skip this version and wait for windows 7 instead?
my primary concern is relating to the support microsoft will give to the windows vista.. since they drop the support for windows ME fairly quickly compared to windows 2000/xp.

 

Is this a serious question?

Have you seen MS Sales of late?

I was in the Vista Beta Program and they've come a long way.
I use extensive applications and programs and have not had to resort back to XP in 7-8 months.

 

i wouldn't call vista a failure myself.
but if there is no reason for you to use vista (primary reason being dx10 and dx 10/vista exclusive games) then just stick to xp and see what windows 7 offers.

arguably vista is like using xp but with smooth gui, i've grown to like it, i wouldnt go back to xp.

 

YES! this is a serious question. i have known many people bought it and downgrade to XP because of App incompatibility problem.

i myself think that it is a great OS. its downfall is app incompatibility.

 

Since I got Vista pre-loaded on my computer, I'm sticking with it. It's usable.

However, I am extremely irritated by not being able to access many hidden system files. I make them visible, click on them, and...

...Access is denied. What!!!??? I own the bloody folder!!! I'm talking about my Local Settings folder, Application Data folder, etc. I suppose I need to enable the master administrator account to get at them??? ARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

 

Given that MS stock has risen 50% in the past 12months I'd hardly call any of their recent releases a "failure".

 

Disable UAC, that usually fixes it for me. You might be able to modify it in properties->permission too.

I love Vista too, although I'm Linux addicted right now . You don't have to care about compatibility if you don't use old softwares. Most complains you hear are about people having been brainwashed against it.

To have used vista since Beta2, I can say too that it did a long way. A mystery fact I still haven't discovered why is how RC2 is more stabble than the launch RTM.... When I do a clean install with nov 06 DVD, nothing works but as soon as I run the May 07 autopatcher, everything work wonderfull.

 

I've never had a problem like that. Try unlocker. Maybe that will help you.

 

I did disable UAC. I guess I'll play around with it. Thanks for caring, and yes, I plan to install Ubuntu as well.

 

Works wonderfully. You put XP in a virtual machine for Office 07 & Maple 11 and keep a dual boot to Vista when you feel like playing games.

 

See here.



I have full permissions.

 

But are you using unlocker?

 

What is this unlocker?

\\edit

Oh, I see. I just don't see why a third-party app should be necessary. I'll try in the master admin account. But thanks, Calvin. That's very helpful.

 

I don't ask why it's needed, i just use it. Just try it.

 

Thanks, Calvin. Useful little app. However, it detects no lock on the folder, but I still can't access it. I don't want to move, rename or delete - just access it. Oh, well. I'll play with it.

 

No problem, though i'm sure there is an explore button there somewhere.

 

I think it's a success.

 

Good question.
The same is true for customizing themes, IIRC.
One thing that drove me up the wall was not being able to change the icon associated with a particular file. I didn't find a way or there isn't any?

For example, I create a .tip association with Editpad.
I could associate the program with the *.tip type, but I could not use the icon I wanted.

My ignorance, or simply Vista requires third part apps for that too?

 

That's why I still prefer XP. If I re-installed now, I think it might be XP; however, I might keep Vista, just because that's what most new computers have, so I would be better able to help friends with new computers and problems.

 

Well they have sold over 100 million copies of vista, so its hardly a failure..

 

Everything is working fine here. If you do right click->properties->security, what does it show for the EVERYONE & USERS group?

I can also change everything's picture icons with no problems...

 

Oh, thanks for pointing that out, JCMS, but I just figured out that Everyone was denied read privileges. Hmm. How did that happen? That's pretty lame; but if I need to get into one of those folders, I'll know what to do. Thanks all.

 

I have system access on all my folders for some reason. You're welcome.

 

ME was a failure because it was a bastard child and had all sorts of crap hacked on to a DOS codebase. ME didn't work because it was technically un-sound. That's not at all the same with Vista. Vista appears to be failing because the Internet lets people b*tch about things they don't like, and people don't like change.

 

Here's an article that discusses that number: http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/08/xp.on.more.pcs.than.vista/

I also heard, though I don't know if it's true, that MS counts Vista preloaded on computers in their number. If that's the case, then it's not as surprising that Vista has 100 million sold when it comes with a new computer.

In terms of the actual question, I think it's still a little early to call it a complete failure. However, it certainly looks like it could turn out to be one. Most of the people I know see no reason to switch from XP to Vista. Part of the problem are all the various issues surrounding Vista, such as, incompatibility, UAC, and system resources. Additionally, some of the computers my friends have can't even run Vista. Another problem, and a major one, is that Vista's problems were all over the place when it launched which did not foster good will towards the product. People, both computer literate and illiterate, where bombarded with how bad Vista is (or was depending on your viewpoint) and formed a concrete decision about getting it. Thirdly, why switch to Vista when XP does everything and in some cases more than Vista? Even if you don't agree with that question, I have been hearing it from the people I know. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there's no real reason to switch when a new version of Windows is coming up (about 2 years?). If it takes them a long time to make it, then yes, more people will get Vista whether they want to or not.

So, all in all, I think the major reasons why Vista might be a failure is horrible publicity and a new version of Windows coming out soon.

Something else I have seen pop up from time to time is the argument that Vista is further along in its life cycle compared to XP in it's early stages. The vast majority of people don't care. You tell that to an average consumer and they'll probably say, "But XP is better right now isn't it?" or a flat out, "I don't care." They don't care about Window's history, they just want something that works and they think (whether rightly or wrongly in your opinion) Vista won't get the job done.

 

I've always though that the goal of a new OS was to be integrated on new comps......... not on old one, but still. If they would only count retail, it won't be big, as everyone already buy OEM editions...

 

Really like Vista, the only people who don't like it are those running Pentium M's with 512 MB's of RAM.

 

From Microsoft's Support Lifecycle Policy FAQ:

Since general availability for Vista was January 2007, as I understand it this says they'll support it until January 2012 at a minimum. Of course they may decide to support it for longer than that.

 

i agree.
Most people who complain that Vista doesnt work or whatever dont have them right equipment and end up blaming the software.

 

I like Vista and DON'T think it's a failure.

 

If you are getting a new PC, get Vista Home Premium. If you are thinking about upgrading an existing PC from XP to Vista you think too much.

 

hahaha yeah, just curious of what people think of vista; with windows 7 release being leaked. and i do agree that vista got inflated numbers because of the sale of new pc; especially notebooks which becomes very popular. i think many of us (with owning xp for a long time) have decent collection of our favourite software which breaks/not 100% works under vista, then people started questioning the need of vista and downgrade their new pc to xp, at least that is what is happening to the people i know (not all of them of course)

 

Financially it's not a failure, but no version of Windows ever has been. But it's no success in reputation, either. Having used it for five months (aka four months and twenty-nine days too long), I'd never go back to it, but even some of my not-so-technical friends have mentioned how they either saw no reason to get Vista (and hence got XP instead) or think pretty negatively of it. It's not gaining Windows any converts.

I would put Vista on a similar page as Mistake Edition. It may be a financial success, but just as Win98 was as popular as ME until XP came out, XP is proving as popular as Vista right now (not in sales volume, perhaps, but in goodwill). I'd definitely skip it if possible. XP will be supported until at least 2010, and quite possibly longer than that.

[disclaimer: the official XP support date is currently spring 2009, but the Life Cycle Policy says Windows Service Packs are supported for at least 24 months, so XP's life cycle will certainly be extended]

 

People seem to forget how much they griped about XP for the -same- reasons when it came out.

I'd bet a good deal of the people that gripe about it would like it better if 1) They'd educate themselves about it (yes, RTFM) or 2) Not try to run it on Grandma's old Windows 98-ready machine. A new OS release being leaked for possible release in 2 years would fit the way Microsoft aligned things originally when 95/98/XP was released. Doesn't anyone else remember them getting sued by members of the business community, and slammed by the EU, because their Microsoft Software Assurance agreements had something in them about guaranteeing discounted rates on new software versions, in a 3 year time frame?

 

Windows doesn't come with a flaming manual anymore, at least not the OEM version. Otherwise I might have actually taken the time to read it.

OK, I know what you mean, the help files. The Knowledge Base is actually decently helpful, but even it doesn't solve everything. Some things XP just does better.

True, XP wasn't universally acclaimed when it came out, and I do remember thinking the Windows 98 machine I used at the time would never have to be replaced with an XP one (which, seeing as it was bought just before Pentium III came out, it did, of course). But is it not true that ME is generally remembered as having a worse reception and being less of a success than 2000/98/XP? If so then one can certainly also try to place Vista relative to XP, ME, 95, etc.

 

i actually jump right on to the XP bandwagon when it first came out. because i really hate using windows 98/se. and windows xp is that much more stable... of course, SP2 just makes it THAT much more stable.. i think we're starting to wonder off lol, well.. do you think microsoft will provide support for vista, as long as it did with XP/2000?

 

I could not agree more Upgrading from XP to Vista seems like a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

As mentioned above, Vista is not a failure when considering its gross sales. But since you ask the question from the point of "is Vista a failure as far as an OS is concerned?" - my answer is a resounding "Yes!!" Its single biggest shortcoming is that there is no need to upgrade to it. Ok, sure, if you are a hardcore gamer and need DX10, then you need Vista. But considering that the vast majority of PC users are not hardcore gamers, then there is no single other feature that makes Vista a necessity to upgrade to. Everything the average user wants to do on their PC they can do perfectly adequately on XP - XP is a solid benchmark, workhorse, and still totally capable some 6+ years after being released.

Reviews and public opinion re Vista certainly haven't been glowing, from its speed-lag, its bloat, its irritating problems such as slow file copy, and slow network file transfer, and its restrictions on user interactions (including with UAC turned off) i.e. user unfriendliness. Not that Vista was poorly thought-out - in fact some of the features omitted prior to final release were looking somewhat impressive - but Microsoft ripped most of these out so as to get Vista (finally) out - so the end-result was an OS with really not that much more to offer than its predecessor, which, as pointed out already, was 6 years old. Pretty poor effort for more than 5 years in development.

So as I've been advising all my clients - stick with using XP and buying new PCs with XP until you can't get it any longer - but hopefully by that time "Windows 7" will be around the corner - and if early "7" features being touted, such as "MinWin" and its "Touch" capabilities, survive through to RTM, then indeed there may be a reason to upgrade from good ol' XP.

But, until then, "Hasta la vista, Vista!"

But keep in mind, Vista has sold more than a few units - irrespective of the IMO dodgy ways Microsoft has forced it somewhat onto the market eg. wrapping-up notebook manufacturers etc so as end-users really have no choice other than to adopt Vista. So its sales might be impressive - but then, so is the size of the turd laid by an elephant...

 

You give no good reasons in the slightest as to why Windows Vista will fail. Firstly whilst people see no reason in switching, the majority of people aren't the type of people who switch but rather buy whole new computers. Its sad that this is the way things are but when I was working in computer retail I had one customer upgrade from XP to Vista. Everyone else just bought new hardware that was more prepared for Vista.

Of course some computers won't be able to run Vista. One of my XP based desktops at home (Sempron, 512MB RAM) would struggle with it beautifully but then again my Windows 98 machine thats collecting dust somewhere would struggle with XP. Hardware requirements is no longer an argument especially considering how cheap the hardware (RAM etc) is now.

Finally, opinions are not easily swayed. Regardless of how many journalists bombard with me with "Vista is the spawn of Satan" or "Vista encourages teenage alcoholism" I still think the operating system is fantastic and has been far more enjoyable for me than my time with XP was (random BSODS ftl). The same holds true on the opinions of people who want Vista because its nice and shiny. They see something nice and they'll want it.

 

According to that logic: People still use Ubuntu 6.06 & 7.04 because they don't need 7.10 so Ubuntu 7.10 is a failure

Thee was no need to upgrade its 98 machine to XP either.

 

Of course that's how they count them. No company is ever going to count sales by saying, "except for those 90 million copies over there, which we're not counting for some reason, we've only sold 10 million copies".

 

Only by your inaccurate comparison.

No, of course not. Stability. Uptime. Just 2 big reasons. Still looking for one decent reason for moving from XP > Vista tho.

 

I only found one program that did not run 100% on Vista (Quicken 2001). And the only issue it had was resolved by turning off UAC.

 

Like hardware, for instance? That, BTW, would be capable of running Vista?

 

On the machine I had (P3 733, 128MB SDRAM, Voodoo3), 98 was waiy more stable than XP SP0 and it justr wasn't strong enough to run SP1

 

The truth is that Microsoft has been struggling since the late 80s to make a stable OS. With the release of, let's say XP, they finally made it there. Any other "stability problems" that everyone has problems with are a result of crappy 3rd party software or drivers. Vista DOES have a lot of nice new features, it's just that they are not all stability related because frankly that isn't really a big issue anymore. If you think it is, then you're simply not old enough to remember the "good old days".

I'm guessing you reinstalled that 98 machine every 4-5 months to maintain stability?

 

My 5684WLMi came installed with XP and a "free" Vista upgrade. Still got "Premium Ready" stickers on it. I decided to stick with XP. Not sorry. No issues and stable as only XP is.

I will wait for MS next OS release. Eye candy does not do it for me on a computer. An OS that has no issues does.

So Vista is a waste of time for me.

My 2 cents

Thanks,
Theo

 

How can you say you have no issues if you have not used it with Vista? Yes, XP will work fine, because it was installed and working on your computer when you go it. But because you haven't used Vista, you really aren't qualified to weigh in on the subject. Repeating what other's have said does not count as experience.

PS. Eye candy is only going to get more, not less. It was the same argument when XP came out, that 2000 was the best thing and no one wanted to waste resources using themes on XP. And that new start menu sucks!

 

If my memory serves me right the min. RAM requirements for XP is 128MB of RAM. I don't think anyone on this planet would stand up and say running XP on 128MB of RAM would be a "wow" experience.

Min. specs are just that... The Minimum! Meaning they are the least amount you need to get the OS to run. If you want an enjoyable experience you want to run at least the recommended or better...

But to the original question...

It is an invalid question to be asking... What determines if Vista is a failure? The benefits (or lack thereof depending on your perspective) are all individually ranked. Some people, like me, might enjoy Superfetch and UAC. Some users might not enjoy those features so much.

It is up to the user to determine if the changes in Vista are better for them... The only numbers we can look to that are not perceptually rooted are the sales numbers. And Vista's sales numbers are better than XP's during the same time frame so to MS it is not a failure...

 

You all are way too young to be playing the "back in my day things were better" card