Customer Reviews

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Full Version [DVD] - Old Version

5 star:		(32)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(18)
2 star:		(25)
1 star:		(100)

 

 

BACKGROUND: I have used PCs and Macs on a regular, working basis, for 12 years. I approach each platform as a tool, not a social statement. Except where gaming is concerned, computers are tools and that's all they are. Just like a swiss army knife for the digital age. For some jobs the Windows tool has been more effective for me, for other jobs Mac OS X has been more effective. And it's not a question of "graphics vs. business", which is about the dumbest oversimplification in the history of modern computing. Anyone who tells you that does not use both platforms on a regular basis. If they did, they'd know both are robust in the range of jobs they can accomplish: accounting, charting, office, mainstream database work of all types (Oracle, SQL, Filemaker, etc), photographic and digital post-production, audio production and post-production, 3D modeling and animation, CAD, C/C++ programming, web development, mechanical drawing, presentations, spreadsheets, illustration... the list is ENDLESS. And almost without exception, every big name program is made not only for Mac and Windows, but many times Linux too. In short, if a person can't get a lot of great things done on either platform, the problem is the user, not the operating system. ; )

MY TAKE ON VISTA


XP PRO USERS: IF you have a fully updated, stable install of XP Pro and your apps are running efficiently, I do *not* recommend a Vista upgrade until MS releases the first major service update, which is likely to include some security updates too. Most experienced XP Pro users will not benefit from upgrading to Vista right now unless they love to play with new software and/or are an early adopter types who can trouble-shoot most problems.

WINDOWS 95, 98, ME USERS: 1) If you are not considering the purchase of updated hardware and software soon, YOU SHOULD. : ) If you ARE considering a new computer soon, and are using a much older system this probably means you are just a casual user, dabbling with internet, word processing and other simple tasks. For this group it probably makes sense to order your new computer with Vista, and not XP installed. Vista is a much nicer system than any of the older variants, and is also much more stable and more secure than the older systems. It provides useful information to you more quickly, it's easier on the eyes, is more capable in terms of its features, and in general is less of a PITA than these heavily outdated Windows systems.

Just be prepared to spend a good chunk of money on a fancier system than you're used to, because you're not going to run Vista efficiently without:
A) Lots of RAM (Gigabytes, not Megabytes)
B) Fast Processors (that's plural, as in, more than one - and at more than 2GHz a piece preferably)
C) A very powerful video card and a big hard drive (as in, more than 400GB)

INTERFACE: to be fair, Vista *does* borrow (and I use that term loosely) A LOT from Mac OS X, which is why people say it looks nicer. It *does* look and feel more streamlined and elegant, there's no question. All the new window transparency, sidebar widgets, streamlined glassy buttons... that was all inspired by Apple's OS design. That's a big part of why it took MS so long. Aside from problems making the clunky parts of XP better, MS was watching Apple update its system about every 18 months, in order cherry pick some of the best "bells and whistles" for Vista. Much easier watch Apple innovate every year, see what works, and then every so often... imitate. It's a little shameless, but honestly it's a good business tactic. I don't admire MS for this, but I understand it, and that's enough because as I say... computers are tools. Not "who we are". Yes Mac users (the ones I've known anyway) are creative thinkers, trend setters and take the road less traveled... but it's the quality of their work and their art, not their computer, that defines them IMO.

FEATURES: there *are* some new additions that make it easier to:
A) Get the information you need from online sources, without actually going online
B) Find files more quickly (once the LONG indexing process is completed - think hours, not minutes)
C) Organize files more easily, and in general get around the system more easily.
D) Work on your pictures, music, etc.


Sidebar: It's worth noting Apple is readying a major update as well, which -among several other things- will bring full 64bit support and a feature which lets users run XP Pro or Vista inside the Mac, at full speed, with all your peripherals. In fact, if you're willing to use a beta component, you can do that right now on any Intel-based Mac. There are even 3rd party virtualization products that will let you run Windows XP and Vista apps inside OS X (IOW, you don't have to deal with the MS Explorer, task bar, etc - just the window and tools of your Vista application).


SECURITY: sadly, because some idiots have nothing better to do, there will be attacks on Vista in the near future and some will be successful, that is guaranteed. Because every "digital delinquent" on earth is going to try and break it in some way, shape or form. There will be worms, trojan horses, all that stuff. The hope is that the number of those attacks that are successful will be fewer than with XP, 98, etc. I believe they WILL be fewer with Vista, but they will still be a concern. Vista has some holes that have already been exposed in programming circles. So IF YOU DO UPGRADE, don't relax and think you're safe from people trying to take over your computer, crash it or whatever. You're *not* safe. No Windows system will ever be truly safe unless it isolated from outside attacks (i.e. on a closed network where everything that goes in the machines is tightly controlled).

NEW TO COMPUTERS? For most purposes, you will want to at least consider getting a Mac, as the user experience is still preferable in my opinion to Vista and easier to learn. Apple is also using the fastest Intel processors available, so you're not giving up any speed or performance like in the old days. Things that bug me: Vista still requires a lot more time to drill down through dialog boxes and XP-like preferences, and is still not as intuitive from a user interaction point of view as OS X. Part of improving a computer interface is reducing its complexity, not just making it more attractive. Sadly, in some areas MS borrowed the attractive part of Apple's designs, but not the simplicity.

PS - some may wonder: will I be running Vista on my Mac Pro to get some of my work done? Yes. I will run both Vista and OS X in their latest incarnations, but both from the Mac to save on hardware expenses. Good luck and happy computing, Vista or otherwise!

If you've been living under a rock for the past year or so, perhaps you can be excused for not having heard about Microsoft's new edition to the
Windows canon. For all others, Vista has become a fact of life, whether or not you actually run the operating system yet. Check out a tech website and you'll find a Vista screen shot somewhere, either depicting some impressive overclocking results via CPU-Z, or else simply for no other purpose than to show the world, "Yes, I can run Aero--aren't you jealous?" In fact, it's hard to avoid Vista these days. And, as always seems to be the case, most of what you hear is probably negative.

That's where I come in. I've waited a while before writing this review, both to test the operating system and to wait for the horror stories to fade away. They haven't. And this can only mean one thing: the positive stories aren't getting through because most people who are satisfied with a product generally don't feel the need to comment on it. Now of course you've probably seen quite a few anxious posts (most likely in all capital letters) either bashing Microsoft for everything under the sun, praising Vista indiscriminately, making it seem as though you need a $5000.00 enthusiast-class computer to run the thing, or boasting about Mac's venerable OS X and how Windows Vista is nothing more than a bad copy thereof. Needless to say, none of these sorts of things helps, and all of them create a sense of confusion and negativity that reflects heavily on the product. And, if you analyze them closely, you'll realize that *none of them actually says anything about Windows Vista.* If you don't believe me, then just go visit Apple's discussion area and check out the iPod pages. You'd get the impression that iPods were the worst products ever made and that every single one has problems. Yet, if this were the case, then why have in excess of 100 million units been sold thus far? The answer is obvious: people seem compelled to review products only if something went wrong with their experience. In short, people confuse review sites with complaint forums.

Therefore, as the self-proclaimed Dr. Prog, I feel it my duty to step out of my usual mode of reviewing progressive rock albums and give an honest, no nonsense review of Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

-THE INTERFACE-

Ah, yes. You've heard all about the new Windows Vista Aero interface by now. And virtually every screen shot you'll ever see will feature Aero. But it's much more than just pretty, glass-like window frames. Aero includes many new enhancements to the UI, such as the live thumbnails that appear when you mouse-over minimized windows. As the name suggests, these actually update in real time, so if there is a video or an animation playing in the window, it will appear in the live thumbnail. This is very useful. Perhaps less useful but scoring about an 8 on the 1-10 "coolness factor" scale is the oft-mentioned 3D-Flip, which allows the user to view a three-dimensional representation of all open windows, along with offering the ability to virtually paw through these to bring the desired window to the forefront. These are the things you'll hear the most about.

What you don't hear so much is all the general changes that have been made to the overall interface. The new icons are photo-realistic and size-scalable. They start out a little large, but you can set them to any size within a wide spectrum. The explorer windows have been radically redressed, with a new breadcrumbs backward navigation tool that beats the old address bar hands down (you can retrace your steps in a logical, step-by-step manner, instead of using the cryptic addresses). Also, they're spruced up with decorations that recall the visual aura style of some of the new wallpapers. Speaking of which, these are for the first time actually usable, unlike in previous versions of Windows, where the wallpapers have been small and grainy.

More general changes include the absence of menu bars in most areas of Explorer, including IE. These can be replaced momentarily with a tap of the Alt key, at least until you learn how to navigate without them. Also, the animations are much better than in previous versions of Windows, particularly the one you see when copying a file. In addition, the Start menu has been reworked drastically. It doesn't even say "Start," anymore; instead, it's simply a blue orb with the Windows logo. The first big change is the way programs are accessed: gone is the delicate and finicky ever-expanding hierarchy system, where a slightly overzealous hand could miss the mark and close the entire desired level. Now, the All Programs button leads to an Explorer-like listing of folders, each clearly named, and each of which opens and closes with a single mouse click. Each time the Start menu is opened, the folders reset themselves. Also, they are automatically alphabetized. The Start menu also contains most of the system links usually found on the Desktop (Computer, Documents, etc.), which is why the only thing on the Desktop the first time you boot up is the Recycle Bin. And, in case you have seen screen shots or have tried out Vista already, the search bar at the bottom pulls double duty as a replacement for the Run command utility.

Speaking of search, though I seldom ever find myself wondering where my files are (I suppose I'm unique in this respect), many people have far more data to keep track of than me, and thus they will greatly appreciate the enhanced and pervasive searching facilities of Vista. There are search boxes virtually everywhere in Explorer, including the Start menu. There is even one in IE7, though it is not integrated with the system search.

But, as you've probably noticed, this is but a list of interface changes and additions. I assure you the list could go on and on, and I know I'll receive more than one comment reminding me about some feature or other I've forgotten. I'll read those when they come and add material as necessary. But, aside from this, how does this new interface really impact the end user? To be perfectly honest, though it's certainly pretty and a few parts of it required a little adjustment, it didn't feel much different from previous Windows versions to me. But, to be honest, this is a good thing. Perhaps you've heard that it's a nightmare to learn Vista. That's a load of hogwash. A few things are renamed, a few things have been moved around, and on the whole everything looks prettier. But it's still Windows; it accomplishes the same tasks and it works virtually the same as it always did.

-INCLUDED SOFTWARE BUNDLE-

Taking a hint from Apple, Microsoft has included a compliment of digital media manipulation software. While of course iLife is superior, there is one issue that must be cleared up: iLife is not an integral part of Mac OS X as you may have been led to believe. Older Mac users must purchase it; it only comes with the newer Macs. Therefore, Microsoft Windows Vista, to be purely technical, offers the most comprehensive digital media suite ever offered stock with an OS. However, technicality is seldom practical, and Microsoft's inclusion is no iLife killer. Still, the included calendar (new in Vista), photo viewing and editing application (new), Windows Media Player 11, Windows Movie Maker, and Windows DVD burning program (new) are nothing to scoff at. No, they won't replace dedicated, professional stand-alone programs, but let's be honest: neither will iLife.

The new Internet Explorer 7 is a step forward from the piece of Swiss cheese IE6 was, insofar as security. New features include a phishing filter, tabbed browsing, and improved security. Additionally, IE7 runs in protected mode, also called a "sandbox." The idea is that this one application is cordoned off from the rest of the system, thereby making it more difficult for malicious software to take control of your computer. But that's more for the security section of the review. The new IE7 is certainly more attractive than the older versions, and the version in Vista offers enhanced visual appeal that the XP port of the software lacks. To be perfectly honest, I still use Mozilla Firefox (mostly because I can't stand those blinking ads on Web pages, and there is a Firefox extension that gets rid of that annoyance once and for all), but if I had to, I would have no qualms using IE7.

The new incarnation of Window Media Player is really no different from the XP port. It still doesn't support AAC, and it still doesn't handle gapless playback. As an iPod user and a progressive rock fan, respectively, I can gather only one thing from these shortcomings: it's time to break out iTunes. Don't get me wrong: WMP is not at all a bad tool. It's still the default player on my system for most audio types. However, once an iPod owner and prog rocker, always an iPod owner/progger. I still say iTunes is king, if only because its interface is cleaner, it supports my audio device, and it offers gapless playback.

I haven't extensively tested the Windows Movie Maker application, but I have read that it is updated very slightly from the XP version. The photo editing tool is completely new for Vista, and after a little experimenting I was pleased that, though simple, the controls offer nice results. This application is on par with many of the basic image editing software packages you'll see offered with digital cameras, printers, and the like. The other applications have yet to receive my testing, only because I don't often burn DVD movies, and I haven't entered an event in a calendar in about ten years.

As far as Windows Mail, I cannot be objective because I have never used Outlook or Outlook Express. Reports seem to indicate that Windows Mail is simply a dressed-up Outlook Express, with many of the same features. As I said, I have never used a mail program. Call me old-fashioned, but I just check and write my mail from my Internet browser. Either way, I don't honestly believe Microsoft would offer Outlook-level functionality in the stripped down version of Outlook 2007.

All in all, I was rather impressed at the steps Microsoft has taken to embrace the digital media age. The effort falls short of iLife and proprietary solutions in this regard, but then, that is simply to be expected. I haven't really benefited tremendously from the new additions, but there is certainly nothing wrong with them, and I know many people will be very happy with this digital media suite.

-SECURITY-

This is the big picking point many people (rightfully) have with Windows XP. It seems as though there's at least two critical security updates every week. The Mac commercials definitely have a point, but that's only because Macs make up so small a percentage of the market share (though it is indeed a growing share) that it is not advantageous for malware to be written for OS X users. Even so, XP doesn't get a free pass here. Something had to be done. And that something was the security measures taken in Windows Vista.

The "sandbox" has already been mentioned above, but other features have been added. One of these, Windows Defender (Microsoft's anti-spyware program), is one of those rare pieces of software that is just perfect: It may not be the best at what it does, but it's unobtrusive, it's simple to use, and it's totally and completely free. Leave it on to supplement your already existing spyware solution, and you can only benefit.

Also featured in Vista is the now infamous User Account Control (UAC). Basically, it prompts you every time your computer does basically anything, including installing programs, running some programs, updating settings, etc. And, if you were wondering, the Mac commercials have it right: It really is that annoying. To be fair, you will see far fewer of these alerts once the bulk of your software has been installed, but until then you will be very, very sick of UAC. I don't advise this, but since I was able to get my anti-virus and anti-spyware software up and running on Vista, I finally turned off UAC. Symantic seems to think this was unwise, but Norton Virus Scan doesn't bother me about it other than to recommend, on its information page, that I leave UAC activated. Yeah. Like that's going to happen.

Beyond these broad, tangible aspects of security, there is a lot of new stuff under the hood of Vista that makes it less susceptible to malicious attacks. Mostly, unless you're very savvy, you don't need to understand it all and, to be frank, don't ask me because I haven't the foggiest how it all works. I'm just glad it's there.

Overall, I think Microsoft has made a valiant effort with security. I would still not advise running any Windows operating system without active virus and spyware protection, but at least Vista has taken a step in the right direction. Plus, you likely have anti-virus and anti-spyware software from running Windows XP, which you can then install on Vista.

-THE HARDWARE-

Graphics:

This is the part I have been waiting for. Everything I read up until I finally installed Vista told me I needed a dedicated graphics card with at least 256 MB of memory in order to run Aero. I'll be honest: I fell for it. I had a graphics card *in my hand*, but on the way to the checkout I realized I had left my gift certificate at home. So I decided to wait and see how my hardware would react. This is where I realized the utter bias among the tech community: I had absolutely no trouble running Aero on integrated graphics. And that only makes sense because my setup is rather typical: a 17" flat panel monitor and a modern computer. This will be what the majority of people have at the moment, and at this size, IG should have no trouble running Aero. Now use logic: If you want to run dual 24" widescreen monitors, yeah, you'll need a graphics card. Especially since I don't believe there even exists a dual monitor-capable IG motherboard (if there is such a thing, it's certainly not available on the OEM consumer market). But if you have a fairly typical single monitor scenario on a computer that you bought within the past few years, you should have no trouble at all insofar as graphics. Don't be fooled. If you want to be absolutely sure, however, there is no harm--and plenty of good sense--in downloading Microsoft's free Upgrade Advisor utility to see if your setup is in any way deficient. Plus, if you find you can't run Aero for any reason, you were going to upgrade to Vista anyway, so you can still buy dedicated graphics at that point. You don't need the top-of-the-line card unless you want to make this an excuse to foray into gaming; older technology that will get you up and running can be had for very reasonable prices.

RAM:

There is one area, however, where many computers will be deficient: RAM. Oddly enough, while many sources are pushing the graphics card brigade, an almost equally strong force--the computer manufacturers themselves--seems to think that RAM is no big deal. Trust me: If you've ever tried to run Windows XP on 256 MB of RAM, it's a painful experience. That's what Vista is like on 512 MB--you don't even want to go there. Dell is shockingly honest when they qualify the "minimum" Vista requirement of 512 MB of RAM (as per Microsoft) as "Great for booting the operating system, without running any applications or games." This is where most people will have to upgrade their machines. 1 GB is perfectly acceptable; if you want true multitasking power (and you have the dual-core processor to support it), then go for 2 GB or more. For most people, however, 1 GB will be fine. My first of two Vista machines has 1 GB and it works perfectly. I will warn you, though, that often times memory is installed in pairs, so your 512 MB is most likely two 256 MB modules. The paired method offers better performance, but it will make upgrading a system with only two memory slots somewhat expensive (though not exorbitant by any means). But this is not somewhere you want to skimp, so at least one pair of 512 MB memory modules should be on your list of extra hardware if you have only 512 MB of memory currently installed.

Processor:

This is perhaps the most accurate in terms of the hype. You'll need at least a 1 GHz processor to run Aero. Many computers with such processors don't even support 1 GB of RAM, so if you're in that situation, you will definitely be looking at a new computer with Vista pre-installed. However, these are very old machines by this point, and most of us have something slightly newer. One myth that needs to be dispelled is that dual-core processors will run Vista better than single-core CPUs: Vista is, for the most part, based on the Microsoft Server 2003 code, which is, in turn, based on the XP code, both of which came before the advent of multi-core processing. Therefore, to the effect that the operating system is run, there will be only a marginal difference between a single-core or a dual-core CPU, provided both use identical core architectures. Of course any applications that take advantage of multi-threading will benefit from multiple cores, but this was, is, and will always be the case, independent of the operating system. The question is simply whether you see yourself multitasking more with Vista. If that's the case, then a new computer with a dual-core processor installed is probably your best bet; if you're fine with your current setup, then it will most likely run Vista and Aero without any problems. It is interesting to note, however, that some upgrade aptitude utilities have some small quirks and will give conflicting and non-real results. For example, such a utility offered by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) passed both my A64 X2-based machines without a hitch. However, when on a whim I ran it on my old P4-based desktop, the utility seemed to think that a 2.40B GHz Pentium 4 Northwood (533 FSB) would be insufficient to run Vista. I smell AMD bias, even though I happen to favor AMD over Intel. Just take what such utilities tell you with a grain of salt, and remember that Microsoft's own utility is likely the most reliable. Generally, your processor will not be an issue when upgrading to Vista.

Hard Drive:

Again, this one is pretty straightforward. If you have a 40 GB hard drive or better, you're good to go. And if you don't have that, hard drives are so cheap these days that you could easily at least triple your current capacity for about what it costs to take the family out to dinner one evening (Amazon does not allow price figures, hence my vagueness regarding pricing throughout this review).

Things get interesting when you consider a dual boot scenario. This is when you have two operating systems running on the same system, either on the same or on different hard drives. In my honest opinion, this is the best way to go because you get to keep your current operating system (just in case you run into problems with Vista), and you also get to have Vista. Keep in mind that, in order to run Vista on the same hard drive as your current OS, you'll need to install each OS on a separate partition. You can either purchase a third party partitioning tool, or do what I did, which was use the Ubuntu Linux live boot disc's built-in partitioning utility. Of course there is risk involved with this last solution (but, in my experience, I've used it dozens of times with no problems), so do the latter only at your own risk.

-COMPATIBILITY-

This is where most of the horror stories have come from. Both hardware and software compatibility nightmares are flitting around in denser clusters than fish flies in June. Up until recently, anti-virus and anti-spyware programs have been unable to install on Vista. In addition, many proprietary printer applications are incompatible, yet the printer itself will often times function perfectly. Graphics and sound card drivers still haven't really caught up, despite the fact that they've had a little over two years to do so. I won't deny that, if your system just happens to roll the snake eyes, you're in for some hell.

But it's not half as bad as you hear. I installed Vista without a hitch; there is a separate part of the process where the OS scans the system for hardware, installs the necessary drivers, and then generates a list of anything that doesn't install properly. Every piece of hardware I had was recognized. In addition, my printer was recognized and installed in about five seconds, despite the fact that its own software would not install (and that its maker, HP, still hadn't posted a Vista-compatible version). Even my USB Internet modem, which the Upgrade Advisor flat out said would not work with Vista, installed and ran perfectly when I supplied the drivers from the manufacturer's website. The fact is, Vista has shipped with exponentially more drivers than any edition of XP. Plus, it's possible to supply drivers from manufacturers' websites for the odd, esoteric bit of hardware that isn't immediately detected. Sometimes it will work, sometimes not. But this is only to be expected when upgrading to a new OS. I don't seem to remember everything being rosy when XP came out, either. This is yet another item of strong support for a dual boot scenario.

Software is no different from hardware. All my software titles, with the possible exception of the ancient original Roller Coaster Tycoon, work flawlessly with Vista. And the latter didn't work with Windows XP MCE 2005, either, so I don't blame Vista for this. If your software acts buggy or otherwise just won't work, check the manufacturer's website. If it's a fairly recent title, there will most likely be some compatibility patches or a whole new version of the application, all free of charge. Just be ready to insert your product key, if required, in the latter case. Now of course chances are that if you have some pet application from the mid-nineties, it might kick up a few Dickens. Again, a strong case for dual boot.

The final and perhaps most prolific source of upgrade hell is, ironically, the upgrade itself. This process works by performing an in-place upgrade of an already existing operating system (XP). These sorts of upgrades are notorious for problems, and the Vista crop is no exception. However, since you're currently viewing the full version page, this obviously isn't an issue for you. Just remember, the best ways to install Vista are either as a clean installation (if necessary obliterating an existing OS) or a dual boot scenario. Anything else and you might experience problems. But this has always been the case with in-place upgrades.

-OVERALL-

I thank you for reading this far. Most people won't. I know this was pretty long, but I wanted to get it all out there for people to read. Vista is not a bad operating system. Was I absolutely floored with it? It may require some more time, but it hasn't been the revelation Microsoft promised. This is somewhat disappointing, and yet, somewhat reassuring as well. I didn't suffer any downtime because I couldn't figure out how the operating system works, I didn't have any glaring compatibility issues, and my computer has worked virtually error-free ever since I first installed the OS. In short, the change, while not mind blowing, wasn't drastic or disturbing, either. At the end of the day, just remember: It's Windows. Love it or leave it, it's just Microsoft's operating system. Vista will do the same thing as XP and earlier editions; it's not a source of inspiration or drive. It's only as good as the person who's using it.

Background: I am a computer scientist who makes his living as a software engineer and database administrator. I have significant experience with MS-DOS, Windows, Unix, and Linux. Unlike some geeks, I do not hold any particular bias for or against Microsoft.

My honest, objective opinion for now is that Vista is a waste of time and money. As far as I can tell, MS either released it in an effort to generate revenue or to obsolete its competitors software products. There's nothing wrong with generating revenue, but Vista doesn't bring much to the table that improves computing for users. All those billions of dollars and brilliant minds at MS and this is what they come up with? It smacks of a complacent company that is becoming the IBM they once deposed.

A few months ago I upgraded our family computer, but decided to stick with XP. This turned out to be a wise decision. About a week ago, I purchased a new HP laptop pre-loaded with Vista Home Premium. At first it seemed alright, but as I've worked more with it I've come to be quite frustrated by its quirks. As far as performance goes I don't have any real complaints, but I haven't tried gaming on it. The boot and shutdown times are acceptable and application performance has been good once I removed all the HP bloatware. My laptop has 1GB of RAM and for basic laptop computing it seems okay. I'd like to list some of the problems I've encountered as it may be instructive to someone who reads this:

1) Had trouble copying files from a Windows 2000 machine over the network to my laptop. It simply refused to copy one of my files, giving a cryptic "Destination Folder Access Denied" message. I got around this by copying the file to an external drive and then to my laptop!

2) Annoying confirmations. Vista asks you to confirm everything. I turned that "feature" off. The Apple ads are close to true on this score.

3) Had difficulty getting Linksys QuickVPN client software to work. I foolishly attempted installing the version that came with my RV082 router and it didn't work. Unfortunately, it did do some kind of half-baked install and since Vista couldn't uninstall it, I had to do manual registry hacks to remove it from the installed programs list. I then installed a newer version of QuickVPN and it still didn't work. Never had any such problems on XP.

4) My HP 9300 Deskjet has no Vista driver and HP says they won't be releasing one.

5) Wordperfect 2002 refuses to work with Vista. It seems like it's working, but when I click File>>Open or File>>Save it immediately locks up. Vista's compatibility mode (like XP's) didn't help.

6) Had difficulty getting my computer to find other computers/resources once I did get a VPN client working.

7) Have had encounters with several strange and cryptic error messages when attempting to accomplish what in XP were mundane tasks like installing printers and searching for computers by IP address.

Not only is Vista fairly incompatible with software from the recent past, it also doesn't get along all that well with XP. All these incompatibilities would be tolerable if Vista was a quantum leap forward like XP was over previous consumer-grade Windows (95, 98, Me). But it isn't. It isn't more stable, it isn't faster, and it doesn't allow the user to accomplish new and greater tasks.

Update: 9/8/2007
Three weeks with Vista now, and if usability is the metric, Vista is really bad. I've had way too much trouble with many basic tasks. None of my configuration efforts seem to go easy. In particular networking has been a bear. And I'm not writing about just the fact that things are named different and moved around. I'm writing about the fact that nothing seems to work right, easy, well, or consistently. XP was a great release by MS. Vista makes me want to consider other options as my primary OS. It makes me feel taken by MS.

Update: 9/19/08
Another year now and Vista has been improved since then. I've especially noticed improvements to the wireless networking. Re-reading my original words, I think the line about it being a "waste of time and money" is a bit harsh. It would've been better to state it was "not worth the upgrade." I still wouldn't look to buy Vista if I had a fine computer running XP. If I were looking today for a new PC I suppose I would get Vista. Just don't expect all your old softwares to be compatible.

I guess the title says it all. I had to buy a new computer and ended up getting one with Vista (an HP)--what a mistake. I should have done what my university is doing: all new machines they are buying have Windows XP Pro; they are waiting until Vista gets cleaned up and debugged. What can I say, it's the typical Windows "upgrade" experience: many of the things that used to work flawlessly (i.e. Outlook 2003) now work only half-well, with frequent "the program is not responding" messages and shutdown/restarts needed often. Ditto for Windows Media Player. Even funnier: I can't print out of Windows Explorer but can in Mozilla Firefox. In general, this is a big, clunky, slow to boot and slower to respond platform that will be probably be years in the making to get it right. It's prettier--that it, or at least that's it for how I use my computer. If you have XP, stay with it as long as you can; I'm thinking about uninstalling Vista and putting XP back on my machine until they get this mess sorted out.

I am using vista home premium for about 3 weeks now, and I haven't had any fun yet or any experience that Microsoft have promised.
I keep running system errors just after I clean installed the vista. until now, every time i turn my pc on, I still getting system errors. Not only the system errors, i notice my pc runs slower then when i had xp on the system.
for this much money, not only I get a slower system, but also get a system that only look good but useless.
if you are thinking getting the vista for entertainments, go for others or keep xp, because vista downgraded video quality (you can do the research on that one); if you are a gamer, buy xbox 360 or ps3 for about same price. if you just want to do office work, don't even think about vista, xp is more then enough for your office and web applications.
I don't know why Microsoft took so long to develop something that is not friendly and buggy OS.

First of all, I'm no beginner here. I've been a computer professional specifically in the support of PCs for well over fifteen years now. I've been doing this as a hobby for maybe ten more. I've built over 50 computers from parts and installed and used every MS OS from DOS 3.0 throgh Vista as well as various flavors of Linux, Novell and most others I won't go into.
I built a brand new computer to game on at home in my dwindling spare time and installed XP on it because Vista wasn't out yet. It ran like a champ. Ungodly fast, stable for weeks, smooth and easy. When Vista was released I figured here I go! This is how I make my money, I might as well jump in with both feet!
I have to say after 3 months or so of using at and trying my best to like it... it is THE worst operating system I have ever used. That statement should be adjusted for time of course. It may, in fact, be better than ME, but that's close and this is what? seven years later!??
All I can say for it is that its pretty.
The security is intrusive and annoying. If you turn off the bits that are annoying you're left with XP level security. Driver support is horrible. Stability is questionable. It will run my hard drive for an hour at a time and claim there are no processes running at all. 3 of the 4 games I play on it crash within 10 minutes of starting on anything but the lowest graphics settings. So... to sum up:

Cons: Darn near everything.

Pros: Its pretty and the error tracking system in the control panel is actually pretty slick. Which is a lot of fun since it throws so many errors all the time.

Recommendation: If you're buying it on a NEW computer and you intend to use it for schoolwork, web browsing and email then by all means. Get it and enjoy how pretty it is.
If you're a power user of ANY kind. If you're going to game, edit video, use wireless connections, well... anything but type and check email actually, then STAY AWAY!
Not to say it won't be useable eventually but everyone I work with has removed it from their systems but me for now. Their plan and I'm sure mine as well soon is to try it again in a year.

Good luck to you all and I hope, if you have the misfortune of paying for this OS, you have better luck than... well, just good luck.

etrnldrmr

3/1/2008 Update:
It is still at the bottom of the barrel for systems I have used but after several months of patches and various driver updates the system is stable. Still not as fast as the same system running Windows XP, not even tested with a 2 or 4gig flash drive dedicated to the "Readyboost" function. But it has improved. With the ever increasing speed of the systems coming out the inefficiencies of Vista should become less and less relevant.
Currently, on a very clean system, it is running about as stable as any XP system I've worked on or supported. I was just about expecting Vista to be ready for prime time now when I noticed that Dell still lets you choose Windows XP on their machines and not only that the selector when customizing a machine DEFAULTS to Windows XP.
So, I am getting closer to being able to offer my own recommendation of Vista even if Dell is not.

Good luck to you all once again!

Microsoft released Windows Vista without consideration of its compatibility with existing software and there is a enormous number of programs that have problems running on Windows Vista including some programs Microsoft specifically designed to run on Vista.

I've had Windows Vista for about 6 months and wish I did'nt. My scanners were not compatible and my Sony memory stick was not compatible. I sent Microsoft a note asking what I needed to do to download pictures from my memory stick onto the computer running Vista. Microsoft said "Have Sony fix it."

So far I'm finding more software that is not compatible then is compatible.

My advise is do not buy Vista for about 3 years. Give microsoft time to get the bugs out or at least give software companys time to write programs that are Compatible.

I've recently switched to Microsoft Vista on two of my desktop machines (the others are Ubuntu Linux, Mac OSX and my XP laptop). I have to say the reason I switched was mainly because of the improved visual appearance of the desktop, and also of course in order to stay in touch with the "bleeding edge" of OS technology. I was of course (especially for the retail price) expecting a general improvement in terms of day-to-day usability.

Unfortunately what I've come to discover is that Vista is LESS than a new coat of paint: it is in many ways substantially less usable than XP was at its worst. Many things that worked fine in XP have been broken, and many things that were broken are no better. What follows is my current list of Vista usability problems.

The majority of Vista's usability problems are in Explorer, that is to say its file management application. (This is not to be confused with its web browser, Internet Explorer, which has hosts of problems of its own, and which like most technically literate people do not use at all.) When I use Vista I pretty much "live" in Explorer as I am constantly loading, previewing, moving, and deleting files. What was a relatively pleasurable user experience in XP is completely disastrous in Vista. Let me give some details:

* The default display columns in folders containing media files are almost completely useless (e.g. often no Size or Date column is displayed) and seem to change randomly based on some kind of content-based heuristic that doesn't work. I'd rather see a file's Size than its bloody "Rating", yet the latter is a default and the former is not! Changing the displayed columns is relatively difficult as the useful ones are generally not in the column drop-down menu. Coming back to a folder after leaving it, it appears that any new content added can change the user-specified columns. In general Vista does not appear to do a good job of remembering the mode (list view, details, icons, etc.) that a folder was last displayed, and seems to change it almost randomly, with a particularly annoying habit of adding bizarre "groupings" such as "A-L", "M-Z" to the list, even for a folder with only one or two files in it.

I could probably write an entire article on how problematic this single "feature" is but will instead leave off with an example: I've just opened a folder containing only very large downloaded video files (movie previews) on my PC and the columns are the following: Name, Date Taken (?!), Folder (!?), Tags (?), Size, and Rating (!!!). I guess somehow Vista thinks this is a picture folder, or a folder of videos from my camera, but even then I would want different tags and certainly at least one of them would be the file modification date; in this video folder "Date Taken" is of course blank for every item. And yes, I have already tried "Folder Options/View/Apply to Folders of this Type" for video folders as well as picture folders.

* Remarkably, the file viewer (e.g. "Photo Gallery") shown when double-clicking an image file is now part of Explorer itself, apparently part of the same process. So when you are viewing pictures (or videos), if the viewer crashes (a far too frequent occurence), Explorer itself crashes and restarts, which means you lose all of your open Explorer windows and/or search results. As a result of frequent crashes I've had to switch to viewing pictures in IrfanView (which I recommend) but there goes one of the key "features" of Windows Vista. Why isn't there an option to run the viewer in a separate process?

* There is no longer a total size of files (within the visible folder) shown in the status bar! The new status area reveals only the number of files in the folder. This is a major oversight and something that was extremely useful in XP.

* The Explorer window can only be brought to the front by clicking on the border or client area, not on the Details Pane at the bottom of the window. This is extremely annoying when Explorer is partially behind another window, as it should be possible to click anywhere in a window to bring it to the front, and the Details Pane is a much larger target than the window border. How Microsoft managed to break this time-honored UI convention is beyond me.

* The "instant search" feature Microsoft has heralded as a key Vista benefit is an even bigger disaster than it was in XP (at least there is no more dog character--now the search is itself a dog.) Until a folder has been indexed, you can't do a simple filename search, e.g. "*.jpg", unless you follow the following steps: 1) type "*.jpg" into the search box, 2) select "Search Pane" from the "Search Tools" dropdown, 3) select the "Advanced Search" UI from the menu bar, 4) click on "include non-indexed, hidden, and system files" check box, and 5) click on the Search button. And is it ever slow! The alternative of course is to have every folder full-text-indexed, but how often is a full-text search done in comparison to a filename/extension search? I shudder to think of the performance/disk space penalty for this indexing. I've not had much of a chance to use full text searching yet but I suspect there are big problems lurking here as there were in XP. Microsoft needs to return to something simple that actually works.

* Copy/Move dialogs don't accurately reflect progress with single files, and rarely give a time estimate, even for multiple file or folder copy/move operations. This worked poorly in XP and is even worse in Vista, though you can see they made an attempt to improve it. Sadly this is the kind of basic usability feature that OSX is always able to get right.

* Moving a large file or folder from place to place within a drive can take minutes or hours rather than the second or two it would take in XP. Moving the file itself is a trivial operation for the file system as only a pointer is changed. But the new Move dialog attempts to estimate how long it is going to take and in the process adds potentially thousands of percent of overhead time.

* Explorer menus are less useful, requiring more mouse clicks for e.g. cut/paste. It's true that the old menus are available but this means you need to have the screen cluttered with both the old menus and the new ones.

* One of the most aggravating problems with Vista is that when a folder containing media is open, the cursor frequently flickers and blinks between a wait (spinning) cursor and a normal (arrow) cursor as it attempts to preview the contained files, even if the folder is displayed in "list" view. This seems to be particularly irksome for files such as DivX videos, where Vista can even bring up a UAC prompt just to view a folder.

* The drop down list under the address bar no longer has a list of drives, instead showing a list of recent locations, which is not only less useful but also a potential privacy issue. On the topic of privacy, as has been written about elsewhere, there is no way to remove the "Recently Changed" item from the "Favorite Links" panel (although most others are customisable), making Vista less privacy-enabled than XP.

* Window sizes (e.g. Control Panel) are not preserved. I simply can't believe that every time I open Control Panel, resize and close the window, Vista simply forgets my preferences.

* This is a subtle but very annoying issue: it is not possible to tell if a file is selected or just highlighted due to the cursor hovering over it, as the appearance is the same. Clicking again to find out can result in going into rename mode (if it was in fact selected).

* Hovering the cursor over a folder name no longer gives a sampling of the names of the contained subfolders and files. This was a brilliant usability feature in XP, inexplicably dropped in Vista.

* Here's a major annoyance: Dragging and dropping a list of files still puts the last file into the first position in the target list. So if you select for example a set of music files from a directory and drag/drop them into Media Player, the last file is played first. Remarkably this behaviour persists from XP.

* Search: when you Save a search, which you have already waited to retrieve the results for, Explorer immediately runs the search again. Unforgivable.

On a separate topic, the implementation of UAC, so elegantly handled in Linux and OSX, is a usability fiasco. UAC approval is required for the most absurd changes, such as moving a shortcut in the Start Menu from one place to another. It is also required to move files within the root of non-system drives, e.g. drive D or E.

The worst aspect of UAC however is that it many situations (such as modifying files in the Program Files folder) it entails not one dialog prompt, but two. First it tells you that you are going to have to give Administrator approval for your action, then when you OK this that dialogue goes away and another dialogue comes up asking you for that very approval! This is a terrible implementation, even for Microsoft.

I've installed the free uxtheme.dll on my XP laptop to enable me to "skin" Windows and make it look 99% identical to Vista. Frankly I would recommend this over a Vista purchase; at this time it works with more hardware, has much higher usability, and is probably more secure.

I am usually pretty content with Microsoft products, but I find Vista frustrating to use. Moving 400MB of files will sometimes be quick and sometimes with no explanation take an hour (even with modern SATA drives). The network connection which worked fine with XP, now is unexplainably slow. There is a web site http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ that does a pretty good test of your broadband connection. With another XP machine (and fairly similar in hardware terms) attached to the same router I can see a 6Mbps download speed. My other machine on the same router now upgraded to Vista, starts with a fast download, but is running about 56kbps by the end of the download.

There are serious performance problems that Microsoft needs to fix before I would recommend this OS.

I asked Dell to include XP Professional instead of Vista in my new laptop, but it apparently was not an option. I am extremely disappointed with Vista. I reminds me of the old days with Apple where almost every operation had to be restarted. First of all, Vista is slow, slow. It is so overloaded that it has chronic indigestion. It will randomly rearranges your desktop icons, it updates in the middle of jobs and will not go away until you have sat through the upgrade/restart process. There are constant interruptions as it works its way through corrections and randomly quits programs for " unexpected shutdowns." XP is a great operating system, stay with it.