XP or Vista?

[zootm]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
PeerGuardian (except for an extremely buggy development version)

"Useful software" should probably be a condition here. PeerGuardian is the chocolate fireguard of privacy software.

[gaekwad2]

That's not the reason it doesn't run on Vista though.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by zootm


You can install Ubuntu without a separate partition now (see "Wubi") so it's easy to try it out!

Is that like the live version of Ubuntu? Or is it Ubuntu running native in NTFS?

[gaekwad2]

Afaik neither, it installs a disk image as a file in Windows.

[zootm]

Essentially what gaekwad says, although yes, it talks NTFS read/write in order to set up that disk image, and does some boot cleverness so you can boot into it. Plus you can uninstall it through Add/Remove Programs, which is pretty neat.

[zootm]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
That's not the reason it doesn't run on Vista though.

To be fair I imagine that's just because its developer isn't all that great. The network stack in Vista was re-written so it may have been hit harder than most software, though.

But again I don't think it's a great example just because it's a useless bit of software.

[gaekwad2]

Originally posted by zootm
To be fair I imagine that's just because its developer isn't all that great. The network stack in Vista was re-written so it may have been hit harder than most software, though.

It actually registers a driver, which means that even if the bugs eventually do get fixed it'll still be pretty much unusable in Vista 64.
As for the developer, at least he's not using Virtual Basic anymore...

Originally posted by zootm
But again I don't think it's a great example just because it's a useless bit of software.

Well, it was just off the top of my head. After all the challenge was to find anything that doesn't work.

[on topic]One thing that actually affects me is that apparently M-Audio's Vista compatible driver for Delta series cards (which only took them until late December to make) is still buggy as well (and no, I don't care whose fault that is).[/on topic]

[zootm]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
It actually registers a driver, which means that even if the bugs eventually do get fixed it'll still be pretty much unusable in Vista 64.

Very much true. It is silly software, however.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
As for the developer, at least he's not using Virtual Basic anymore...

He may have to move back to it if he can't register stuff in kernel space

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Well, it was just off the top of my head. After all the challenge was to find anything that doesn't work.

I actually have a sterling example in this computer itself. The closest thing I've had to Vista booting is a blue-screen rather than a red-screen. That said it's quite old (by modern standards), quite esoteric hardware.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
[on topic]One thing that actually affects me is that apparently M-Audio's Vista compatible driver for Delta series cards (which only took them until late December to make) is still buggy as well (and no, I don't care whose fault that is).[/on topic]

I don't know what it is about audio companies that none of them seem capable of producing decent drivers

[ScorLibran]

As of April 2008 - mainly with the availability of Vista SP1 - I can safely say that Vista is now what I would call stable. (And I'm a PICKY son-of-a-bitch - stable means STABLE.)

It does, indeed, use more hardware overhead, and it will continue to do so. Windows XP uses more than DOS 4.1, doesn't it? Newer is almost always "fatter" because it can be well within reason.

What you should use depends on your needs, though. If you want a simple, inexpensive PC for basic, non-demanding home computing tasks, then go with XP SP2. And up until recently, serious PC gamers avoided Vista because of the performance hit and it's many compatiblity quirks. But now that the newest gaming systems offer enough hardware overhead that the difference between XP and Vista benchmarks is acceptable for the new features you get, more and more gamers are going Vista.

I don't use anything except Vista x64 with any of the gaming systems I build now, simply because there's no reason go back. With SP1 (and other updates) Vista is practically as stable as XP ever was. And under Vista x64 I can run Crysis DX10 64-bit at 1280x768 with 4xAF and 4xAA and all game details to "high", and still get consistent framerates well over the perceptual threshold of 35fps. And that's even with just a single GPU.

For years I've said that it's so easy to make XP run very reliably that if you can't then you should take some basic PC classes at a community college to learn how to "work a computer". Just now I'm beginning to say the same thing about Vista. If you're not easily able to make it work quite well, then you've got hardware bottlenecks or you are simply being beaten by the learning curve.



P.S. - even one of the greatest banes of Vista x64, a lack of compatible or reliable drivers, has been vastly overcome. Of all the Vista x64 systems I've built so far this year, NONE of them have had any driver issues whatsoever.

[cmountford]

Originally posted by AE4713
I prefer XP ...maybe Vista will eventually get all it's kinks worked out but until then I'll stick with nice stable XP

This comment sums it up pretty well. Vista just wasn't ready to be released when Microsoft released it. They changed too much and didn't really deal w/ the huge incompatibility issues they've created. Huge advantage to vista: directx10

My suggestion: Have 2 drives, one bootable in XP & another in vista. Not sure how pissed off vista might be regarding this, but it's what I'm thinking of doing for my 8800 GTX graphics card upgrade to take full advantage of it.

directx10 is amazing...but consider this...creative soundcards...just look up the issues many ppl have been having with migration to vista. There's a good chance (no matter what microsoft says) that many legacy things may NEVER work (despite tweaks/hacks released by users to patch it).

be stuck with ONLY vista...good chance you'll find yourself S.O.L. with legacy stuff

edit: P.S. I refuse to vote on poll because of lack of 3rd option that each OS has benefits & neither one can really be said to be definitely "better" than the other

[ScorLibran]

Even the troublesome Creative driver issues from the past 2 years are essentially resolved now, even for 64-bit Vista implementations, at least with the newer cards. My most recent build uses an Audigy SE under V64, and it's had no driver issues.

But that's a good point regarding some of the legacy components still in use, although more and more of their issues are being resolved by recent driver builds. I should revise my statement... "If you're not easily able to make [Vista] work quite well, then you've got one or more hardware bottlenecks, are stuck using one or more legacy components with questionable Vista compatibility, or you are simply being beaten by the learning curve."

[cmountford]

but what about games that developers have nothing to do with anymore? Like Wheel of Time? Still a badass game but users mostly have to be self-reliant to patch & tweak to work to get it to work with new OS. Vista...I doubt it's even possible. If anyone's played WOT on vista, please let me know.

In response to Scorlibran: " I should revise my statement... "If you're not easily able to make [Vista] work quite well, then you've got one or more hardware bottlenecks, are stuck using one or more legacy components with questionable Vista compatibility, or you are simply being beaten by the learning curve."

Well I happen to have a roughly $1200-$1400 potential legacy bottleneck component...recording studio card i/o rig...kind of a big issue if it doesn't work with vista LOL. It's incredibly complex (it's M-Audio w00t!) I love it. I'd be so pissed if it doesn't work on vista. M-audio probably has patched it for vista...I'm sure. but still...just imagine people with very unusual expensive ass components produced by a company that may not have the manpower to totally revamp something so complicated for vista.

Maybe the SP1 helped a lot, but I still bet a lot of people playing really weird ass old games could very well be SOL on vista. I am seriously thinking of RAIDing another 2 drives to boot on vista. Anyone have any ideas/concerns of conflicts that could arise from this?

I have ASUS P5W DH deluxe mobo, It has ASUS EZ-backup driverless RAID (what my current dual 500 GB HD's are using)

I also believe it has 2 other RAID port options...JMicron something ...JMB36X???

Anyone know how plausible they think it would be to use the JMicron RAID ports to boot from vista while still using EZ-backup for boot from XP & to access files from my dual 500 GB RAID 1 drives (wanted redundancy, so RAID1)

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by cmountford
but what about games that developers have nothing to do with anymore?

That's called being stuck using one or more legacy components with questionable Vista compatibility. And in that context the term "component" includes older games as well, although I've had no problems running old versions of MechWarrior, MechCommander, Diablo, and a few others under Vista U-64, and most of the time compatibility mode is surprisingly not even needed.

Driver development is the responsibility of the product developer, not the operating system developer. The OS developer has a responsibility to provide all the necessary API materials to enable companies to write their product drivers for Vista (or any other OS), but the product developer still has to actually write and test those drivers. The OS manufacturer will even provide driver development support along the way to help them out.

A case in point is Creative - they had terrible problems with their Vista drivers for their Audigy product line up until just a couple of months ago. But since they put proper work into it, those issues have been resolved.

So if you have a component with bad or no Vista drivers, especially if it's something expensive and high-end, then tell the manufacturer to get off their ass and catch up with the rest of the world. Vista's been out for a year-and-a-half, and it's been acceptably stable since the service pack release a couple of months ago. Even Creative is up to date for the most part, and they're usually notoriously slow with their driver development.

[cmountford]

Scor: that's good to know. Hey you have any suggestions/thoughts about my RAID question? I'm pretty sure my stuff will mostly work on vista, but I'd still like to keep XP as a backup plan

The 8800 GTX uses directx10 (not available to win xp), vista has dx10, but I believe the card should work on both platforms...it would just be not utilizing the features of dx 10 & be stuck using dx9.__

[ScorLibran]

I'm sorry, but I haven't tested RAID in a dual-boot setting. I know that Vista (both 32 and 64) work fine with RAID configuration using Jmicron, Marvell and/or Intel Storage Mangagement drivers. But if I do have an opportunity to do a RAID setup on a dual-boot platform, I'll post my test results here.

Traditionally, all of the machines I build have one disk partition and one OS. I provide all the installation discs to my customers so if they want to reinstall and reconfigure anything like that, then they can. But I'm sure I'll build some dual-boot systems at some point in the future.

Also, yes, any graphics card that supports DX10 will work just fine in a DX9-only setting (i.e., XP).

[Phyltre]

Since previous posts in this thread, I have moved up to 6GB of RAM (I'm just trying to capitalize on low DDR2 prices, since given current development prices will only go up as DDR3 is adopted.) I'm having the smoothest computing experience on this machine I've ever had.

One consideration: Vista has been stable for me for a long time. However, I noticed the biggest jump in Vista performance when I moved to a multiple-HDD setup. In fact, I strongly recommend to all system builders that they buy a new HDD when migrating to Vista, to take advantage of increasing cache and general speed.

In its last incarnation on my desk, Vista ran smoothly but had the tendency to totally thrash the HDD at pretty much all times, sometimes creating a small delay when playing multimedia files or multitasking. Of course, this is a "feature", given how Vista handles RAM and loves to cache/index everything. Migrating to two HDDs, one storage and one OS, seems to have solved this completely.

Of course, without careful testing, I can't say for sure how much of the change is due to a newer (better) HDD versus having more than one. But I can say that it all feels like I jumped forward a few years. The moral of the story? Vista (64) will make intelligent use of whatever resources you throw at it. On an older machine, what feels like bloat blossoms out into an unusually rich OS experience. Things "just work" like you see in demo videos (the good ones, anyway.)

I'm sure this will draw scrutiny, but I think Vista is ahead of its time in some ways. It's made to take advantage of a much more powerful machine than is common currently. Which I guess explains why the Windows benchmarking tool still only maxes out at 5.9.

[swingdjted]

I guess you can use fast USB pen drives as RAM on Vista. Haven't tried it yet to see if it's worth doing or not.

[ScorLibran]

It's called "ReadyBoost". For a PC with marginal resources, using a flash drive for ReadyBoost will make a noticable difference (3-5% in performance tests). But for a much more capable machine, it makes no meaningful difference and isn't worth messing with in my experience.

[Smeggle]

Originally posted by Psythik
Vista if you're going 64-bit (because 64-bit drivers for XP are practically non-existent).

XP if you're going 32-bit.

But honestly, if you're build a mid- to high-end rig, the performance difference between the two OSes is negligible.

The difference is negligible? Seriously, you don't know what your talking about if you are saying that...

Your talking an os that has double the amount of processes running at start up as opposed to xp

Vista will have a minimum of around 40[ish] running from a default install - xp around 18-20..

Vista is pure garbage. You can just about run it on 2 gigs of ram and I mean just about! I had to put 4 in my core 2 duo machine to get it to even start responding anywhere near as close as xp did on 1gig!

Plus everything that has been sorted out in the last 18mnths they have more or less gone and broken again with sp1.

Stick with XPsp2 (I still don't trust there latest sp3 yet), decent security software, switch of the garbage and everything will work...

As for 64bit? who needs it - major support for it won't happen for at least another few years so stick with 32bit

[mikm]

# of processes running at startup doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of "performance".

Disclaimer: the last time I tried Vista was on either the first or second release candidate. Then, on my system (2.0GHz Athlon X2, 2 GB RAM), I had absolutely no performance issues (or stability issues for that matter). Unless Vista's performance decreased significantly between release candidates, you're probably doing something wrong.

[ScorLibran]

Sounds like hardware issues - or, more specifically, an issue of limited hardware.

edit: Actually, educational issues are just as likely as hardware issues at this point in time.

Originally posted by ScorLibran
If you're not easily able to make Vista work quite well, then you've got one or more hardware bottlenecks, are stuck using one or more legacy components with questionable Vista compatibility, or you are simply being beaten by the learning curve.

Windows is certainly "heavier" than DOS alone. Once everyone moves up the hardware ladder far enough, they can migrate from DOS to Windows.

Oops, wait.....I mean to say Vista is certainly "heavier" than XP. Once everyone moves up the hardware ladder far enough, they can migrate from XP to Vista.

Originally posted by ScorLibran
As of April 2008 - mainly with the availability of Vista SP1 - I can safely say that Vista is now what I would call stable. (And I'm a PICKY son-of-a-bitch [who tests the hell out of everything] - stable means STABLE.)

It does, indeed, use more hardware overhead, and it will continue to do so. Windows XP uses more than DOS 4.1, doesn't it? Newer is almost always "fatter" because it can be, well within reason [in order to accommodate new capabilities].

Anyone whose hardware isn't ready should certainly stick to XP. Otherwise, nowadays it's just a matter of learning how to use Vista.

[swingdjted]

I still think Vista is the OS to skip. There just aren't enough 'must-have' features for anything I do. I guess this isn't always the case for everyone, but it is for me.

[ScorLibran]

Well I see I'll have to start providing "How To Use Vista Without Mucking It Up" training classes. But I'll warn you guys, my rates are high.

I've never been as technical as quite a few of my friends and business partners, but since I've run Vista 32-bit and 64-bit through a massive gauntlet of function, system and load tests over the past six weeks and watched Vista become the only OS yet to have a perfect passing rate since SP1 GA, there must be some bit of secret knowledge I've acquired that not everyone has.

Seriously folks, if you can't make Vista run practically without fault, then you may want to consider a basic PC class or two at your local community college. You know - how to install it, change the desktop picture thingy, click on words in the Start menu, etc. It shouldn't cost very much, and you can pick up the basics in a day. Seriously.

Here's what it sounds like as an echo of 17-18 years ago: "We don't want to use Windows because it's bigger and slower than DOS, and just too darn complicated!"

[swingdjted]

I said nothing along the lines of bigger or more complicated. All I am saying is that there is absolutely nothing I can find that I personally do on a computer that Vista handles noticeably better than XP.

While I understand that you were joking, keep in mind I'm a full time computer teacher with a master's degree, not someone in need of a community college course. I'm willing to bet that most if not all others posting here are also far more technologically savvy than you make them out to be.

[ScorLibran]

Well Mr. Masters, in that case I hope YOU were joking - you're not really still using DOS, are you? Or is it XP you're stuck on?

OK, not referring to anyone specifically, but I'm hearing a LOT of whining and complaining from many sources here and elsewhere about Vista still being the piece of shit that I agree it was in its first year of service. Don't like the features? That's fine. But when I hear that people I was sure were more technical than me sniffling about all sorts of technical issues they have with it, it's either that people just aren't trying, or they're basing opinions on Vista's history and not on its current (and recent) state. (The latter seems far more likely.)

Seriously you guys, it's just as I've been saying for years: If I can make it work, ANYONE can make it work.

And no, I don't have a stake in Microsoft - I don't give a great goddamn if you're whining about your washing machine; it's the whining at something so simple in the first place by people otherwise technically inclined that's so silly.

OK, I'll begin the course with an outline draft...

Step 1: Open your Vista DVD package.

-- NOTE: If you don't know how to open the package, take it to your mommy.

Step 2: Press the button on the face of your DVD drive.

-- NOTE: If you do not know what a DVD drive is, please refer to Appendix A. If you do not know what a button is, place your tongue in the Vista DVD case and squeeze it closed until you hear it "click".

Step 3: Place the DVD in the open drive tray, LABEL SIDE UP.

Step 4: Either push the drive tray slightly back in towards your computer, or press the same button you used to open it.

-- WARNING: Do not place your tongue, penis or either nipple in any opening in the drive tray while it's in motion!

Step 5: Unless you've changed your computer's default configuration, the Vista DVD install program will start automatically. (Wait, who am I kidding...) - OK, for the definition of "configuration", "default", "start" or "your", please refer to Appendix B.

.......

OK, this is going to take a while. I'll finish it later. That'll be $3600 so far.

JUST KIDDING!



Well everybody, now that your spirits have been upgraded, go upgrade your hardware.



P.S. - I am NOT going to write "just kidding" every time. Here's a clue - when you see a smilie, I'm smiling, and you should too. Be happy. Make a grin shape with your teeth. Or at least with the letter "D".

P.S.S. - This reminds me, I need to get the transcript history on a guy with an MBA I just hired for another business venture.

P.S.S.S. - I was going to alternate Vista and XP with my gaming platforms, but now I will ship EVERY SYSTEM with Vista. It may take years, but I will force all you kids to upgrade! Muahahahaha!!!



Save under file name "WhiningAboutVistaAfterSP1_WhoAreYouMyGrandFather.doc".

[deeder7001]

For me Vista just takes a bit of getting used to. There are some programs I have that won't run(Nero) but I don't use those very often anyway. I'll stick with XP for now.

[ScorLibran]

That's becoming the more frequent reason for not migrating to Vista, and a quite legitimate one, at that. If it's a matter of personal preference, comfort, familiarity, or the increasingly rare issue of critical application compatibility, then it's an understandable reason to hold off. (And, of course, the matter of hardware.)

Those points are even in the migration checklists I provide to clients, titled "Are You Really Ready for Vista?" I had put it through a huge revision after SP1 GA, though, to clear out well over 95% of our reported technical issues.

[Melqui]

I will stick with XP for a few years, until Vista gets fixed

[deeder7001]

SP1 GA? What is GA?


I think I've fallen behind a bit in MS terminology or something.

[mikm]

GA = general availability aka the "gold" release. See this.

[deeder7001]

Oh. This would be the first time I've really heard of "general availability". I know what the gold release is.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by Melqui
I will stick with XP for a few years, until Vista gets fixed

If you still can't make Vista work for you after the release of Service Pack 1 in April 2008, and barring hardware limitations or a particular application compatibility issue, then there are several educational resources available to you. If you prefer in-person instruction and live in at least a modestly populated area, there are usually classes at a nearby technical school or community college you can take on how to use Vista. There are also a multitude of training resources on the internet. Almost all of them you'd have to pay for, although the price for any such course should not be exorbinant.

The best solution though, if you know someone who is familiar with Vista, is to tap their knowledge. This way you can learn one-on-one in a comfortable setting from someone with whom you're familiar.

[deeder7001]

Vista isn't too hard to learn. It's a lot like XP with a few navigation differences and new features. Even services are very similar. Took me a few days to get it going how I wanted. Only reason I stopped using it is I broke some things I didn't know how to fix at the time.

Not really sure why I just didn't re-install it and start again. It's a good OS just a bit awkward.

edit:

Since I have Vista sitting around, I might as well try it again. At least I know how to disable the pop-up(are you sure you want to do that?) thing.

[Namelessv1]

I installed Vista 64 on my rig a couple of weeks ago, and thus far I haven't run into any problems.

Originally, my rig had 2GB of memory and a single Nvidia 8800 GT 512MB video card with XP installed. But, after a while, I decided to add another 1GB stick of memory and SLI my video card with another 8800 GT. The problem was that my memory only showed up as 2.5GB in XP instead of the full 3GB.

Vista 64 got rid of that issue. Compatible drivers for all of my hardware were easy enough to find. The setup for my wireless card was actually much easier on Vista than XP. All of my games run fine. Adjusting to the slightly different navigation/browsing hasn't been a real problem.

[Wolfgang]

I'd go with XP simply because Vista offers nothing new compared to what XP provides for me. I don't care about eye candy.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally posted by swingdjted
I like XP SP2. I have SP3 now at home but I have only had it about a week or two and therefore can't say I know what's different.

in actuality, service pack 3 for XP is nothing more than an "update rollup" which contains all of the updates for XP (yes, ALL of them which only makes sense since service pack 3 is going to be the last significant update for XP) bundled with a little more hand holding for the noobs and grandma's opening the box of their first shitty dell.

Originally posted by cmountford
The 8800 GTX uses directx10 (not available to win xp), vista has dx10, but I believe the card should work on both platforms...it would just be not utilizing the features of dx 10 & be stuck using dx9.__

yes, directx 10 is something you won't want to live without much longer, but honestly with GPU technology as it is currently most computers aren't quite fast enough to use it and provide acceptable (30+ frames a second) performance, unless you're using SLI/Crossfire at least for the most part.

either way, those of you clinging to XP, enjoy it while it lasts, i don't have the link any longer but i found a page about windows OS lifecycles and XP home edition will be off the shelves either the end of may or the end of june, microsoft is ending XP's life pretty soon.

as for performance XP versus Vista, it IS A NEGLIBILE DIFFERENCE if it's not for you, your computer is growing cobwebs.

on the compatibility front i've no real complaints as all of my day to day software works perfectly, however i stream as a DJ weekly and the program i use to do so works fairly well under vista as well as XP, the only problem i've encountered at all with SAM and Vista is the Mp3pro encoder config refuses to open so i boot XP once maybe twice a week to stream and then boot back over to Vista.
while on the issue of compatibility, i might add, any hardware manufacturer *cough* lazy ass creative *cough* who didn't have useable drivers ready for Vista on launch day *cough* lazy creative again *cough* were given more than enough time to prepare drivers beforehand and should be slapped for not putting the Longhorn beta on at least a few developer's boxes and cracking the whip, as that was one of the beta's main intents - to help hardware manufacturers ready themselves for Vista.

all in all, i'm happy with vista and i love some of the things they've added : gadgets on the desktop for instance, i'd miss three fourths of my daily responsibilities if not for the little sticky note gadget on my desktop i use to keep track of them, the crumb bar replacement for the old filepath bar is excellent as well and the views drop down menu is usefull frequently since it's much more acessable than the one in XP so i can set up folders to either show details or thumbnails quickly, etc...

[ScorLibran]

Creative has fixed (at least the bulk of) their drivers, dude. (As of about a month ago, shortly after SP1 GA.) I've tested Audigy and X-Fi drivers on both Vista 32-bit and 64-bit platforms, and they all finally work flawlessly.

Originally posted by deeder7001
Vista isn't too hard to learn.

I agree. But some folks are still having significant troubles (like Melqui and a few others here), which can only be caused by one or more of the following:

1) Hardware Limitation - Vista runs slowly or generates errors because your PC hardware doesn't meet Vista's requirements. Solution: Upgrade your hardware.

2) Component Incompatibility - One or more of your component drivers are not fully compatible with Vista. Solution: It is the responsibility of the component manufacturer to provide updated drivers which are Vista-compatible. After all, the great majority of component makers have already done so, so jump on their ass about it.

3) User Education - If your hardware is sufficient and you don't have a lazy component manufacturer, then the only cause left is YOUR OWN LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE. Solution: Learn.

People usually know right off the bat whether they have enough machine for Vista. And compatibility issues are few and far between nowadays, affecting less than 2% of the PC users I know. So for the past five weeks or so, the vastly most common reason people will claim they can't make Vista work is a user training issue.

And finally, an issue any XP user should be concerned about is that it has an EOL target on the schedule. After that date (and usually implemented in phases): no more sales, no more support and no more updates (except perhaps criticals). Not to mention your friends will laugh at you. "What, are you too stu-stu-stupid to learn how to use Vista?"

(I think I've said that last bit, albeit in a much kinder way, at least four times in this thread so far.)


edit: I'm still convinced a common source of complaints is from kids holding the same assumptions even after a condition change...

Originally posted by ScorLibran
[...] they're basing opinions on Vista's history and not on its current (and recent) state.

[gaekwad2]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
...
I agree. But some folks are still having significant troubles (like Melqui and a few others here), which can only be caused by one or more of the following:

1) Hardware Limitation - Vista runs slowly or generates errors because your PC hardware doesn't meet Vista's requirements. Solution: Upgrade your hardware.

2) Component Incompatibility - One or more of your component drivers are not fully compatible with Vista. Solution: It is the responsibility of the component manufacturer to provide updated drivers which are Vista-compatible. After all, the great majority of component makers have already done so, so jump on their ass about it.

That's no solution. That's just shifting responsibility instead of actually trying to help.

Originally posted by ScorLibran
3) User Education - If your hardware is sufficient and you don't have a lazy component manufacturer, then the only cause left is YOUR OWN LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE. Solution: Learn.

People usually know right off the bat whether they have enough machine for Vista. And compatibility issues are few and far between nowadays, affecting less than 2% of the PC users I know. So for the past five weeks or so, the vastly most common reason people will claim they can't make Vista work is a user training issue.

And finally, an issue any XP user should be concerned about is that it has an EOL target on the schedule. After that date (and usually implemented in phases): no more sales, no more support and no more updates (except perhaps criticals). Not to mention your friends will laugh at you. "What, are you too stu-stu-stupid to learn how to use Vista?"

I think my friends would rather laugh if my computer had just one partition.

[zootm]

I wouldn't recommend people upgrade to Vista on an existing machine, and most machines which come with Vista are made with components that run it fine. Obviously (as always, really) if you're building your own one you need to be careful.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
That's no solution. That's just shifting responsibility instead of actually trying to help.

Microsoft offers tonnes of help to people who are developing drivers. There's no responsibility shift here; it's just the way that Windows drivers have always been done. The fact that hardware companies seem incapable of making compatible drivers for their own hardware given this help can't really be blamed on Microsoft.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
I think my friends would rather laugh if my computer had just one partition.

Just one partition is fine for most people. Unless you're using Linux of course (since you need at least two).

[ScorLibran]

Quite correct on both counts.