I consider Vista to be adolescent, definitely not mature, and
undergoing too many growing pains for my taste. There's no reason at
all for migration from XP. Nothing in Vista is compelling enough to
justify the pain of migration and subsequent frustrations. I'm on the
leading (not bleeding) edge when it comes to many technologies and
components, but not operating systems or anything that fundamentally
changes the environment in which I work. My preference is to let
other people go through the pain of lack of software, lack of drivers,
networking issues, and incompatibility with other systems. When Vista
offers something compelling _and_ works with the rest of the industry
(including its own predecessors) then I'll reconsider.
BTW Peter - who at RD said anything against Vista? I thought they
were holding their latest release as they were implementing Vista
functionality. And as another testament to Vista issues, I think
they've been working on this a couple months. Not only would we be
working with a new OS but also in this case with a DBMS that just got
prepped and let out the door. That's just way too fragile for me.
T
Brian Speirs wrote:
>Hi Peter,
>
>I think the article is basically right. Vista is the future, not so much
>because it is better than XP (heavily qualified statement), but because
>XP won't be sold for much longer.
>
>I've used Vista for about a year now and it can be incredibly
>frustrating - particularly when you ask it to play nicely with XP. But
>now that we don't have any XP machines here (or such XP machines are
>hosted virtually inside Vista), we don't have (m)any problems.
>
>NZ PC World just released their "Reader's Choice Awards" in the last
>couple of days. 72.5% of readers chose XP as their favourite O/S,
>compared with 27.1% for Vista. [Whether a popularity contest is a good
>basis for comparing O/S's is debatable, but this is the users speaking].
>
>I seem to recall APC also had an article recently comparing XP and Vista
>and ranked Vista slightly ahead. But the detail of the article showed
>Vista's advantage came in the "bundled applications". Most people I know
>already have their applications of choice, and they aren't those bundled
>with the O/S. So, my interpretation of that was that XP was still ahead.
>
>Stepping back from the coalface (user interface), Vista's problems have
>three key sources - networking with XP, speed of copying, and
>virtualisation. I have heard that MS had good security reasons to change
>the way that files got copied - so that may ultimately be a good thing.
>Likewise, the networking model got substantially updated. As the world
>moves to Vista, those networking issues will diminish and presumably we
>will have more secure networking. As for virtualisation - how many
>people here understand what has happened beneath the hood of the O/S? I
>can't say that I do - it is an absolute PITA trying to find files that
>you know should be on the system and they've moved from their XP
>locations, or to edit files only to find that the changes you've made
>aren't reflected in system behaviour because Vista has "virtualised" the
>files it works from.
>
>No doubt we'll work it out in time.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Brian
>
>Peter McMurray wrote:
>> Hi All
>> I have had some interesting comments made to me about Vista over the
last
>> couple of days personally the one I place most faith in is a highly
>> experienced user saying "I like my Vista" after using it for a couple
of
>> weeks.
>> However to the doubters that unfortunately seem to include some senior
RD
>> people may I say"140 million users aint arf bad Mum" and suggest a
quick
>> read at
>>
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9080758
>> Peter McMurray
>>
>>
|
