Windows Vista price is to be shrunk


#21

Man, Vista absolutely blows...

I am just setting up a laptop here which came with Vista pre-installed, its got 2GB RAM and a dual core 1.6ghz intel processor, everything is as slow as molasses....people it says it looks pretty, but I think it's the aesthetic equivalent of gold teeth... *bling bling*...

I used Vista for a total of 1 hour, and I was already completely sick of it - don't even get me started on the idiocy of the User Account Control *feature*....Windows XP is light years ahead in usability from where Vista is right now....it is a *relief* to use Windows XP and a pleasure to use Mac OS X.

If people say Vista tried to emulate the eye candy of Mac OS X, I don't see it anywhere. Yes there is a little bit of translucency here and there in Mac OS X, but its not *everywhere*...the geniuses at Microsoft have just gone buck wild in dummy proofing the operating system and adding pixy dust all over the system...it is just so bleh...I would even say, gaudy.

I now fully understand why every one was complaining and why Microsoft is so worried.

Windows XP Media Center (power of xp pro + front-row equivalent) > any version of Vista

edit: Just wanted to add, what the hell did they do to the start menu? If they wanted key-tap / search access to applications they should have implemented it in the style of "Quicksilver" which is light years ahead of where Vista is right now...


#22

The more I use vista, the more I find it useful. The "previous version" snapshots of all my folders is so useful. Few days back, by mistake I over-wrote some useful files, but I was able to restore it using the "previous version" feature which had a copy of few hours back.

As far as usability is concerned, I find vista to be more user friendly. There are massive improvements if we compare it with XP. Few of my favorites:

* Previous version/Shadow Copy - automatic backups of modified content

* Search - it's way faster than XP, thanks to indexing

* Very quick boot up and shut down

* Programs loading speed - it's upto 25%+ faster as the most frequently used programs are loaded in memory

* Explorer changes with the views

* New start menu - It's easier, faster and better

* Window Switching via ALT+Tab (i.e. without using the 3d one)

Vista is awesome if you have the hardware to support it. You can disable the eye candy if you want, but you still do need a fast hard drive and lots of memory.

Anyway, I'm not going to write a very long post. I did write one back in December 2006 outlining many of the positive factors of using Vista (yes, I'm using Vista since then).


#23

I second that.Vista is awesome but you should only install it if you have good hardware.I am using it on my new pc and i have not noticed any slowdown.Vista is made for high end pcs.It's laptop companies fault to ship it with low end laptops.


#24

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

The more I use vista, the more I find it useful. The “previous version” snapshots of all my folders is so useful. Few days back, by mistake I over-wrote some useful files, but I was able to restore it using the “previous version” feature which had a copy of few hours back.

As far as usability is concerned, I find vista to be more user friendly. There are massive improvements if we compare it with XP. Few of my favorites:

* Previous version/Shadow Copy - automatic backups of modified content

* Search - it’s way faster than XP, thanks to indexing

* Very quick boot up and shut down

* Programs loading speed - it’s upto 25%+ faster as the most frequently used programs are loaded in memory

* Explorer changes with the views

* New start menu - It’s easier, faster and better

* Window Switching via ALT+Tab (i.e. without using the 3d one)

Vista is awesome if you have the hardware to support it. You can disable the eye candy if you want, but you still do need a fast hard drive and lots of memory.

Anyway, I’m not going to write a very long post. I did write one back in December 2006 outlining many of the positive factors of using Vista (yes, I’m using Vista since then).

[/quote]

@Asad_N and SECC: Sure Vista would have a few improvements over XP, but from a consumer point of view, does it have enough to justify upgrading your hardware or buying a new system and the cost to buy the new OS (assuming you actually pay for it)? And from a developer point of view (if you’re interested in that perspective), did Microsoft actually deliver a product equal to the time (6 yrs?), money and resources it spent on developing and promoting it?

You have the right to have your own opinion, but I, and a lot of people I personally know (all who’ve used Vista) say ‘no’ to both those questions. I personally found Vista to be bloated and unnecessarily heavy on system resources, and the layout seemed unintuitive. Also Microsoft is a laughing stock in the developer community considering it took yrs to put out a product which half the people out there don’t even seem to want after trying it. If consumers prefer the old product over your new product, you know you went seriously wrong somewhere along the line!

On the other hand, if you remember back to when XP was launched, it was definitely a huge improvement over its predecessor and it was very well received. You didn’t hear people say ‘no I’d rather stick to Win 98/2000’!


#25

XP was better, faster and much more user friendly then its previous versions. The thing is that it didnt really required a hefty upgrade. The difference here is that with Windows Vista, You actually need to have a good computer in order to utilize Vista properly. That is the most important reason why people are rather sticking to Windows XP.


#26

I just think Vista look ugly, gaudy and ungainly.

It really does seem like the Toys R Us version of Windows...

If there was a version of Vista which maintained the UI of Windows XP and had Vista's technical improvements we would be fine...

That being said, obviously Microsoft has given up on Vista, because they announced Windows 7 is coming next year...

So that means they will be concurrently supporting Windows Server (2000), Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 next year....talk about a train wreck.


#27

@ Raza & Almode . WTF you saying. Vista is much better than XP & ... I remember that you have'nt use the Vista just you are a moron, so you blame the Vista.


#28

Windows Vista Rocks.


#29

It is creepy and scary to even think about upgrade for Microsoft OS's. I had heard issues where the upgrade was not reliable and the users lost valuable client data. I can't afford to corrupt my work environment I.E corrupting photoshop, eclipse (programming IDE), illustrator, regular expression software or my client files.


#30

I'm sure it rocks so much, that you bought a legitimate copy right? Yeah, didn't think so. ::rolleyes::


#31

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

@Asad_N and SECC: Sure Vista would have a few improvements over XP, but from a consumer point of view, does it have enough to justify upgrading your hardware or buying a new system and the cost to buy the new OS (assuming you actually pay for it)?
[/quote]

Actually, if we consider the general consumers, I have seen more people who’re Vista admirers than not.

[quote=", post:, topic:"]
And from a developer point of view (if you’re interested in that perspective), did Microsoft actually deliver a product equal to the time (6 yrs?), money and resources it spent on developing and promoting it?
[/quote]

From a developer’s perspective I can say that the time spent doesn’t really correlate to visible changes. Sometimes you have to revamp the whole system to add certain functionality efficiently.

In the end, all that matters is what you find more suitable for yourself. I find Vista better suited to me than all the other Operating Systems I have tried, so it’s fine. And I agree that the cost of the OS is too high, and they should reduce the price to make it more worthy.


#32

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

@Asad_N and SECC: Sure Vista would have a few improvements over XP, but from a consumer point of view, does it have enough to justify upgrading your hardware or buying a new system and the cost to buy the new OS (assuming you actually pay for it)? And from a developer point of view (if you’re interested in that perspective), did Microsoft actually deliver a product equal to the time (6 yrs?), money and resources it spent on developing and promoting it?

You have the right to have your own opinion, but I, and a lot of people I personally know (all who’ve used Vista) say ‘no’ to both those questions. I personally found Vista to be bloated and unnecessarily heavy on system resources, and the layout seemed unintuitive. Also Microsoft is a laughing stock in the developer community considering it took yrs to put out a product which half the people out there don’t even seem to want after trying it. If consumers prefer the old product over your new product, you know you went seriously wrong somewhere along the line!

On the other hand, if you remember back to when XP was launched, it was definitely a huge improvement over its predecessor and it was very well received. You didn’t hear people say ‘no I’d rather stick to Win 98/2000’!

[/quote]

With due regards but I did hear a lot of people sticking to Win98 when XP was launched, its the same story when ever a new OS is launched for example Win 3.1, 95, 98, xp and now Vista but along with time everyone catches up, I have been noticing this phenomena since last 20 years, right at this point of time everyone is comfortable in XP but down the road Vista will take over XP’s place as XP did to its predecessors.

One the other hand Linux/Unix/*nix systems don’t change in a radical fashion as windows, everything there is more like modules rather than a complete OS change.

Not concluding which is better or worse, every platform has its pro/cons and everyone has his own set of preferences.


#33

#34

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

@ Raza & Almode . WTF you saying. Vista is much better than XP & … I remember that you have’nt use the Vista just you are a moron, so you blame the Vista.
[/quote]

Err, Okey. Im using Vista for more then an year now. The only complain that i really really have is that its slower then XP because my Computer Specifications arent high enough for Vista. But this same computer used to run XP at lightning speed.


#35

XP was slow on old hardware.When i upgraded from Win 98 to Winxp on my P3.XP was slow so i upgraded to P4 and now it's working fine.If you have the hardware to run Vista then install it.There is no point of installing on a low end pc.


#36

No one is arguing that Vista is slow on older, or less spectacular hardware. What I am saying however is that even on newer hardware, Vista's bloat, makes it run much slower than Windows XP on frankly, two year old hardware. You are absolutely right in that no one has the right to complain about Windows Vista if they did not read the fine print or minimum system requirements. That being said, even with hardware a few notches above (Experience rating 4.1), Vista still feels, and is, slow and cumbersome for some reason.


#37

Vista is way better than XP IMHO (i'e used xp for 3,4 years, using vista for like the past 7 months)

As i've said earlier in many of the vista-related threads, Vista has got so many features, that you cant just resist once you start getting used to Vista. Of course you need a fast machine, nobody said you could run it fast enough on a <2GHz CPU ,<1 Gig Memory. if you've got a fast machine, i dont see any reason why you should stick to a 6,7yr old OS when you've got a good alternative now.


#38

[quote=", post:, topic:"]

These rates are latest from IOP

1. Home Basic: Rs 3200

2. Home Premium: Rs. 9000

3. Business: Rs. 11000

4. Ultimate: Rs. 13900

these are all 32-bit

[/quote]

theres also

Windows Vista - Starter Kit, Urdu Language Support: Rs. 2,500/- http://www.galaxy.pk/price.htm

more info:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/starter/default.mspx