You know, between my home and office, I work with four different machines.
My office desktop runs XP SP3 (P4 3.0 GHz) - works fine, does everything I need, fairly stable.
At home, I have a PC I built myself (AMD 64 x2) that runs Vista Ultimate SP1 - works fine, does everything I need, more stable than the work PC. And, it's been running Vista since the beta release without a single problem.
My work laptop has Vista SP1, and it sucks. Why? Because it's an outdated piece of crap with a 1.6 GHz P4 processor and a hard drive powered by squirrels in a wheel.
My wife's laptop is a <$500.00 job (AMD 64 x2) from Walmart running Vista - and it runs circles around my work machine (compile time in VStudio about half that of my work box).
Sorry to all you Vista haters out there, but both XP and Vista are good OS's in my book. It's hardware that makes or breaks the experience.
I run XP with the latest SP on my work laptop (w/ 2 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor). I only hibernate it when I go to and from work. I reboot it only about once every month or so. It runs great! I RARELY have anything crash on it. I usually have it loaded up with ColdFusion, IIS, SQL Server 2005 Developer, Eclipse and IE 6 all running at the same time as well. It is solid as a rock.
I have also tried out Vista (Business at work and Ultimate at home). I found that the performance of Vista is HIGHLY dependent on the hardware it is running on. I have no problems or complaints with the new interface but don't see any added value in it. XP works just fine for me and will acceptably with less hardware and so far there is no software that I need that runs on Vista and NOT on XP so I find no reason to upgrade.
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
Hee well I guess the quantifier of 'lost connection for 4 days' may have indicated it wasn't a permanent problem, but then again maybe not...
After trying every possible option I system restored the PC back to when I bought it, then it worked. Was most strange as I had only installed MS software up to that point, oh wait maybe its not that strange
I own a number of PCs and I work for an organization that has about 500 PCs in use. Not one of my computers, and only a half dozen of my employers is able to use Vista. It is just too big, too bloated and too slow to be of use to me or to my employer. Although the cost of hardware has dropped significantly, replacing all those systems with ones capable of reasonable Vista performance is way outside of the budget. Sometimes, I half believe that Microsoft is in collusion with the hardware manufactures and system builders to raise money by forcing hardware replacement just to be able to run a more secure operating system.
Personally, some of the hardware I am running cannot run any version of Windows newer that Windows 98. They work, they do their job (off of the Internet, of course). Upgrading is just a waste of money.
So don't upgrade.
Microsoft designed Vista with new technologies in mind so that they could improve performance. Naturally this actually requires the new technologies to work properly. If your machines are that old, then don't expect Ms to keep supporting them. If Ms held back on the resource consumption, they would lose to their competitors due to the lack of new features. Let's face it, aero, indexing, and readyboost are all designed to provide a better experience by consuming more resources. I agree that some programs are bloated (e.g. IE7 - especially in comparison to Chrome), but overall Vista is better than XP on the computers it was designed for. The only major mistake Ms made with Vista was reducing the minimum requirements - 800 MHz and 512 MB RAM are laughable. I wouldn't consider running Vista with anything less than 1 GB, and would recommend 2 GB, since performance with Vista really seems to scale with RAM. 800 MHz is a joke as well - once again, doubling the recommended 1 GHz provides a decent performance (especially with a dual core). And for the record, don't bother considering an OS without all of the latest SPs - its just incomplete without them. Vista is pretty good on a decent system with SP1.
Firm bought me HP Compaq 8710p, with Vista Ultimate.
I spent 3 days installing VS 2005, SQL Server 2005 & other dominantly MS
System crashed twice during instalations, returning me to the start (recovery).
I have installed XP SP2, and I am happy
I DO have job to do other than installing, reinstalling anf fixing OS,
there are enough problems with our own code , I don't want
to spend time google-ing about fixes, bugs etc...
I'm not using Vista myself right now (XP/SP3 is fine on all my boxes). However my daughter's ThinkPad died so I bought her a new laptop. (A Gateway). Got it for < $500 at Best Buy. Geez - the box was configured stock with 4GB of main. Still ... it was pre-loaded with Vista SP1 (64-bit) and seems to work fine. Connected up with my home LAN right away, runs all the stuff we already have (Office 2003, etc) - she's happy as a clam. Nice little box that Gateway; if I needed a laptop I'd buy one for myself, plenty of power.
I would *not* upgrade an existing XP/SP3 installation to Vista at this point - but on a box designed to run it I see no problem with it now - works very well.
"Vista is crap because our hardware is too far outdated to run it"
Believe me, Microsoft doesn't want you running vista on your outdated machines either. You won't be happy with it. If your business runs fine on old machines then great, keep using it. When you are ready to upgrade, buy the hardware to run it.
Overall I'm very happy with Vista. Enough so that when I go to use my old XP machine at home, I'm underwhelmed.
Yes vista has higher system requirements than XP. It has a lot more stuff happening in the background. You can disable that stuff if you wish your OS to behave more like XP.
One thing I have definitely found is the performance of vista scales with CPU and/or memory pressure MUCH more nicely than XP. With nothing open, everything in xp is instant. In vista things seem a little more leisurely, which no doubt causes some of the vista bashing.
But open a few instances of visual studio, outlook, word, excel and the rest and vista will hardly break out a sweat while XP will struggle.
Pre-SP1 vista was indeed fairly flaky though. I nearly went back to XP before sp1 came out.
I'm not an idiot, so OSX annoys me. I don't like command line 100% of the time, and I'm not too found of the crap Nix calls a GUI (in it's various flavours), so Nix is out. Vista is far better than XP and most of what people say about it is just BS.
Yeah, stuff just working out of the box without people having to meddle with it but still allowing for geeks to customize the tar out of it must really be badgering. Sorry you have to endure such harshness should you choose to use an advanced OS that Microsoft copies off of left and right.