Vista: I think this says it all....

"'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said."

Then what does this say about Vista? The OS is bad, yes, but Intel not upgrading because there isn't any reason to isn't why Vista is bad.

"'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said."

Then what does this say about Vista? The OS is bad, yes, but Intel not upgrading because there isn't any reason to isn't why Vista is bad.

BladeMaster84

did occur to me that way, vista doesn't actually upgrade much, except that it uses direct x 10... but that's only because microsoft decided to make it vista exclusive, they easily could have let it be both xp and vista. I have vista btw, and still don't see much of an upgrade, it runs slower, it has all the same features, and it looks prettier

only things are really small aesthetic things, like the component raters, and the improved searching function... not exactly groundbreaking stuff

plus I know more about my computer than that component checker can tell me

From the perspective of a business (such as intel) Vista offers no significant advantages over XP, however Vista does have the well known disadvantages. Most notable is the larger footprint and increased usage of system resources. Letting employees use the gimmicky Aero is no compelling reason to undergo the monumental cost of "upgrading".Qixote

From a business stand point I agree. My Dad uses it at home, and so do a few others I've know, but I work in IT and between the headaches of finding drivers (not really MS's fault), upgrading the computers to accomodate the Aero interface (b/c if we didn't, everyone would call and complain that it wasn't there), and the sheer cost associated with all this, there is simply no point. It's a great OS for screwing around at home, assuming you plan ahead, but to upgrade all the computers where I work would cost a tidy sum, and for no real good reason.

They're just showing common sense. If it's not bringing much more to the table, then it's not cost-effective to introduce it.

That's how I view Vista as well. It has nothing that I particularly need, because WinXP still handles everything I want it to. I just don't need Vista, either at work or at home.

XP is still fine in many cases. Can't blame Intel too much here for its common sense.

Vista is a great OS, only problem is that it doesn't offer too much over XP in the short term. In ther long term, Vista could become a winner.

I dont see how its funny.. Its just the logical choice, there is no reason (business wise) to waste 800,000 bucks USD upgrading all their employees to vista if they already have xp.

how does it "Say it all"? "LUL THEY TRIED SAVING MONEY CAUSE THEY DUN WUNT VISTAS LUL"

I don't think Vista is nearly as bad as many make it out to be.

Probably the biggest obstacle it faces is that it's not a substantial improvement over XP, or an essential upgrade.

I don't think Vista is nearly as bad as many make it out to be.

Probably the biggest obstacle it faces is that it's not a substantial improvement over XP, or an essential upgrade.

cmdrmonkey

It might not look like it but it is (almost sunstantial).

Don't get me wrong, Vista has some nice features: DX10, the Aero interface, dreamscene (if you have Ultimate), an improved search function, improved security (although most will probably turn off UAC). But it's more evolutionary in nature than revolutionary.

Moreover, it's a much more resource intensive OS that essentially requires 2GB of ram and a decent GPU, so it's easy to see why businesses aren't exactly eager to upgrade. I've found that it can still be quite slow even on recent hardware. My gf recently bought a Vaio notebook with a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo and 2GB of ram, and 32-bit Vista Home Premium was unbearably slow, which I mostly attribute to the crappy intel integrated video and a 5400rpm HDD. I ended up formatting and installing XP on her computer. It runs well on my desktop, but my Desktop is a monster (Core 2 Duo OC'ed to 3ghz, 4GB ram, 8800GTS), and I'm running 64-bit ultimate.

I wouldn't hold my breath for Windows 7 though. Realistically, that's at least 2 years off, possibly more if we see the usual delays.

business=/=gaming

i think in business, one doesn't need the latest/advanced tech/OS in the market. It's the gaming crowd hence why Vista has DX 10. Usually businessmen/business don't focus on tech. Mostly only convenience and stability. There are still many business/offices that use the ol P4 or old tech if compared to gaming because it's still convenient to use and it's not necessary to upgrade to Core 2 Quad.

business=/=gaming

i think in business, one doesn't need the latest/advanced tech/OS in the market. It's the gaming crowd hence why Vista has DX 10. Usually businessmen/business don't focus on tech. Mostly only convenience and stability. There are still many business/offices that use the ol P4 or old tech if compared to gaming because it's still convenient to use and it's not necessary to upgrade to Core 2 Quad.

lordlors

Bingo! It's great having a killer system at home to play all the latest and greatest games on, but where I work, the machine on my desk doesn't even compare. I don't push it to its limits either, neither in the software we run or in games (which I'm not being payed to play in the first place). The requirements to run Vista are, w/o a doubt, higher than XP and upgrading our systems, upgrading our liscenses, and paying us techs to go through all the work there in would cost the company quite a bit of money. We are in the business to make money, not piss it away. Our P4 machines running XP with between 512MB and 1GB suit our needs just fine, thusly there is no reason to make the jump. Vista, nice as it is, just doesn't bring enough to the table to make it worth all the time and effort (both of which amount to money, money, and money) to make the jump to Vista. There is very little in the way of business necessities to make it worthwhile, even it the stability and security areas. The computers aren't pushed very hard, so they don't die very often. Our network security far surpasses that of my own home. We have more tools in place across multiple different mediums to help with this (such as running Terminal Servers. With those in place, I could feasbily run the whole system from a CD running a free version of Linux and no HDD installed. I know, as I got that to work)

pirated software and games doesnt work on vista it works on xp thats y maybe microsoft made dx10 vista only:|sandeep410

That's not true.

From a business stand point I agree. My Dad uses it at home, and so do a few others I've know, but I work in IT and between the headaches of finding drivers (not really MS's fault), upgrading the computers to accomodate the Aero interface (b/c if we didn't, everyone would call and complain that it wasn't there), and the sheer cost associated with all this, there is simply no point. It's a great OS for screwing around at home, assuming you plan ahead, but to upgrade all the computers where I work would cost a tidy sum, and for no real good reason.elemental_drago

Pretty much.

I have adopted Vista, and while it's a good OS (much better than it has a reputation for if you have decent hardware), there's really no compelling reason to upgrade from XP unless:

A) You're looking for a mature x64 OS (and the primary reason you'd want to do that is if you have >=4GB of RAM)

or

B) Interested in taking advantage of DX10

There's a couple other nice features I like about Vista, like the new window manager and the Start search, but the two reasons above are the primary reasons I'm running Vista x64. Not at all interested in returning to XP.

pirated software and games doesnt work on vista it works on xp thats y maybe microsoft made dx10 vista only:|sandeep410

..Tin foil, much?

A company deciding not to upgrade to an OS is by no means an indication that the OS is of poor quality. Upgrading costs money. 80k licenses of Vista ain't cheap and XP is a pretty solid OS these days as is. Most of the enhanced features of MS's latest gen OSes come with 2008 server, although Bitlocker is pretty cool.

I remember a time when people where levying the same complaints at Windows XP. When it first came out it had bugs and compared to the predominant OS already on systems (Windows 98SE) it was a considerable resource hog. Many users running 98 were running on first generation Pentiums with uner 64 meg of RAM. That'll run 98 just fine, but XP will run like crap on a box like that. Upgrading to a new OS gets -VERY- expensive when you have to replace your hardware in order to do it. Yes, Vista eats more resources but that's true of every new generation of OS.

-Byshop

I've always thought Vista to be an utter waste of time. It's essentially XP with a new paint job, a few different or new features and the ability to use DX10 which i'm guessing could have been implimented into XP had they really tried to. From a personal standpoint i think XP is probably Microsoft's best operating system they have ever created. Sure when it came out it had issues and many people had to upgrade but back then when people were still using Windows98 the quality of PC's weren't exactly amazing, atleast compared to contemporary PC's.

Still i suppose in a few more years everything and everyone will make the big shift to Vista and poor reliable XP will be cast to the side. It's just a matter of money and time before larger companies make the move and when they do those further down the food chain will too. I imagine Intel took a look at the costs and i bet they went white when they saw the cost of the licensing fees for 80,000 of them let alone the hardware and labour costs.

I've always thought Vista to be an utter waste of time. It's essentially XP with a new paint job, a few different or new features and the ability to use DX10 which i'm guessing could have been implimented into XP had they really tried to. From a personal standpoint i think XP is probably Microsoft's best operating system they have ever created. Sure when it came out it had issues and many people had to upgrade but back then when people were still using Windows98 the quality of PC's weren't exactly amazing, atleast compared to contemporary PC's.

Still i suppose in a few more years everything and everyone will make the big shift to Vista and poor reliable XP will be cast to the side. It's just a matter of money and time before larger companies make the move and when they do those further down the food chain will too. I imagine Intel took a look at the costs and i bet they went white when they saw the cost of the licensing fees for 80,000 of them let alone the hardware and labour costs.

1005

deja voo all over again.. Replace the word vista with xp and the word xp with 98 andYou have the same exact thing everyone was saying when xp came out... Maybe you should stop listening to what everyone is saying and have a mind of your own.

Come on Microsoft.... release Direct X10 for XP..... give absolutely no reason for anybody to need Vista what so ever, at all.

Vista bashing is so passe.

The same people who are still decrying Vista are the same ones who did (or would have if they were old enough) the same thing on the switch from 98 to XP. Fear of change.

Companies not switching to Vista says nothing at all about the quality of the OS. When XP was released countless companies kept on running Windows NT or 2000 until they were forced to get new hardware. Companies that buy office computers will always aim for the lowest common denominator to minimize infrastructure costs.

I don't even want to go into the tussling with IT I had to go through just to get a cheap video card so I could dual monitor in the office like I do when working at home.

I really don't care. As long as my Vista runs without a problem (which it does), I am good.Bubblehash

x2

"'This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,' the person said."

Then what does this say about Vista? The OS is bad, yes, but Intel not upgrading because there isn't any reason to isn't why Vista is bad.

BladeMaster84

Vista is not bad though. I think you're just following public opinion. It's actually very good, HOWEVER if there is no reason to upgrade to vista, when xp functions for everything they need, then why upgrade?

I'm not afraid of change: the day someone provides evidence that the majority of existing titles actually run faster on Vista than they do on my XP system, I'll upgrade.

Still waiting for that day....

/endofthread

deja voo all over again.. Replace the word vista with xp and the word xp with 98 andYou have the same exact thing everyone was saying when xp came out... Maybe you should stop listening to what everyone is saying and have a mind of your own. Lilgunney612

First of all its deja vu.

Second of all i do have a mind and i spoke my mind in that post, don't like it then don't read it :)

But as for you're comment about people saying XP sucked when they had to make the big switch from 98 thats perfectly valid and i wont argue that. But XP was a vast improvement over 98 where as Vista really has very little improvement if any over XP. Sure it looks better and has the addition of DX10 but it requires a lot more "power" to run it for very little performance increase. So my point was while yes when a new OS is released there is the whole drama about swapping over but there needs to be a decent reason for swapping over. And in my opinion there really just isn't much reason to switch from XP to Vista, not even DX10 is worth it to be honest with you.

Vista bashing is so passe.

WDT-BlackKat

We're not all bashing Vista. We're just discussing matters of fact.

I upgraded to vista around the new year and found that it generally works very well.

Pro's

• I found it to be a lot more stable than XP. I think the number of times I've had to reset the machine (as opposed to being able to close the program through the task manager) can be counted on one hand. A lot less than what I experienced on XP.
• I actually have had less driver related hassles with vista than XP, but that might very well be random chance and luck on my part.
• With vista 64 you become able to use a full 4 gb of memory (or higher) where as XP and Vista 32 are essentially capped around 3-3.5 GB. I think over the next year or two will be the main reason for switching.
• DX10, to be honest I often opt for DX9, but hey.. having the option is a nice extra

Cons

• Requires more hardware, I certainly don't use 2GB's, right now the machine is using 1.1 GB that's with 2 browser windows open and couple of extra background apps, antivirus, MSN and 4 'side bar' applications. While its more than XP it's in my opinion not that bad.
• It really not all that different from XP, I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle of formatting and reinstalling (I'm sure you could upgrade an XP installation but for the OS I'd rather start off a fresh HD)

You do realize that plenty of corporations still use even older operating systems, right? Hell, on other (specifically tech related) websites I've seen this story on, people have been talking about how many companies still use Windows 95/98. Intel isn't sticking with XP over Vista because it's the superior OS, they're sticking with XP because they don't want to shell out a few million dollars for something that they won't benefit from. Vista is a great OS, I'm using Vista Home Premium x64 right now, and I love it. People who bash it either haven't used it, or aren't intelligent enough to find the right drivers for it.Mediocre_man90

Or they don't have any reason to upgrade to Vista.

They bash it becuse it's not worth the money/hassle (in their cases.)

Or they don't have any reason to upgrade to Vista.

They bash it becuse it's not worth the money/hassle (in their cases.)

FamiBox

So what, exactly, is the point in bashing it? "I have no reason to upgrade to this OS right now, so I'm going to make baseless, ungrounded claims that it's a piece of junk because I have nothing better to do"? If you don't see any reason to upgrade, don't upgrade. it's that simple. Ironically enough, this also fits under the category of "People who haven't used it" in most cases...

I don't hate Vista at all. Vista is fine for me and I love it. It looks great and it works fine. Only thing wrong is the stupid allow/deny thing which gets annoying. bedram793

amen to that. UAC's not too hard to turn off, though. you just have to figure out where to look

I don't hate Vista at all. Vista is fine for me and I love it. It looks great and it works fine. Only thing wrong is the stupid allow/deny thing which gets annoying. bedram793

its the UAC, easily disabled.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

Or they don't have any reason to upgrade to Vista.

They bash it becuse it's not worth the money/hassle (in their cases.)

Mediocre_man90

So what, exactly, is the point in bashing it? "I have no reason to upgrade to this OS right now, so I'm going to make baseless, ungrounded claims that it's a piece of junk because I have nothing better to do"? If you don't see any reason to upgrade, don't upgrade. it's that simple. Ironically enough, this also fits under the category of "People who haven't used it" in most cases...

I like what you said there, I agree. Its like someone bashing a better videocard because they don't need it to play low-demanding games.

From the perspective of a business (such as intel) Vista offers no significant advantages over XP, however Vista does have the well known disadvantages. Most notable is the larger footprint and increased usage of system resources. Letting employees use the gimmicky Aero is no compelling reason to undergo the monumental cost of "upgrading".Qixote

This post just about sums it up. XP is a fine operation system, despite the early bashing it took. With SP3 and a decent knowledge of security setups, it can be an excellent piece of software. Vista, hmm, not worth "upgrading" to in my book either.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

Or they don't have any reason to upgrade to Vista.

They bash it becuse it's not worth the money/hassle (in their cases.)

Mediocre_man90

So what, exactly, is the point in bashing it? "I have no reason to upgrade to this OS right now, so I'm going to make baseless, ungrounded claims that it's a piece of junk because I have nothing better to do"? If you don't see any reason to upgrade, don't upgrade. it's that simple. Ironically enough, this also fits under the category of "People who haven't used it" in most cases...

Why can't Vista be bashed solely on the grounds that it doesn't offer a significant upgrade and is not worth the money for most people? I wouldn't call that a baseless, ungrounded claim.

Most people who have decided not to upgrade to Vista do so beacuse they have read up on it, or heard from other people how (in most cases) pointless it is to do so.

I myself, have in fact tried Vista.... and although it's not the worst thing in the world, I just don't see what is so great about it over XP...... DX10?.... well, that's what Microsoft is using to hold gamers ransom into buying their new over bloated, over priced new OS.

I guess if you buy a new PC with Vista installed, have a ton of RAM and have some time to tweak and fiddle around with it.... I guess, why not. But worth an upgrade over XP?.... Not in the slightest.

I find arguments like this quite stupid

a) Vista is actually safer at the moment. 641 vunerabilities found last month for vista, over a thousand for XP.

b) If you think that a new operating system isn't going to take up more recources, then you are stupider than i thought. So if you had windows 3.1 you would be annoyed that you had to buy a whole new PC to upgrade to 95?

c) MANY corporations run on software that dates back from previous Generations of Windows. So when, just like on mac's upgrade to OSX, most of the software wouldn't run with an upgrade, it proves the sysem is bad? No! It takes a lot of time and effort to upgrade hundreds of machines with a new OS, and THEN install software which may not even be supported! Companies often don't make business software for Vista, so upgrading isn't an option if it isn't!

d) Don't get me wrong, Vista isn't the most stable system ever. But i must say its more stable than ME was! And anyway, many people skip a generation entirely! I skipped both ME & 2000 on my home computer. And Windows 7 has been announced for January 2010, and with XP support staying on til 2014, for many corporations it is wise to leave a few because of the potential cost.

Most people who have decided not to upgrade to Vista do so beacuse they have read up on it, or heard from other people how (in most cases) pointless it is to do so.

Sadly, the people who have read up onit are misinformed by people, who exactly like them have not used vista and decide to bash it.

I myself, have in fact tried Vista.... and although it's not the worst thing in the world, I just don't see what is so great about it over XP...... DX10?.... well, that's what Microsoft is using to hold gamers ransom into buying their new over bloated, over priced new OS.

Wait.. you say that it doesnt have anything over xp, meaning its not better nor worse, yet in the same sentence call it overbloated (even though xp was considered overbloated when it came out) and overpriced (even though xp costs the same as vista)How are they holding gamers "Ransom"? Most gamers want the latest and greatest graphics, nothing wrong with that and vista is the only thing that offers that.. DX10 wasnt implemented in xp because it would have been a stupuid move by microsoft, that would be like if microsoft implemented all of xp's features into windows 98, Microsoft needs a way to make people buy their new OS (common business strategy if you have ever taken economics in high school), thus they add something that would interest 60% of the people who buy their product are into, dx10.If dx10 could have been so easily implemented into xp, dont you think someone would have figured it out by now?

I guess if you buy a new PC with Vista installed, have a ton of RAM and have some time to tweak and fiddle around with it.... I guess, why not. But worth an upgrade over XP?.... Not in the slightest.

a ton? 2gb is fine for gaming and judging from what ive seen, 2gb is pretty much the gaming standard. it takes 10 minutes to turn off the UAC, and tune it... Wow, you could have used those 10 minutes playing WoW couldn't you? such a waist.

There are still companies using Windows 95 LOL

Vista is great!

I find arguments like this quite stupid

a) Vista is actually safer at the moment. 641 vunerabilities found last month for vista, over a thousand for XP.

b) If you think that a new operating system isn't going to take up more recources, then you are stupider than i thought. So if you had windows 3.1 you would be annoyed that you had to buy a whole new PC to upgrade to 95?

c) MANY corporations run on software that dates back from previous Generations of Windows. So when, just like on mac's upgrade to OSX, most of the software wouldn't run with an upgrade, it proves the sysem is bad? No! It takes a lot of time and effort to upgrade hundreds of machines with a new OS, and THEN install software which may not even be supported! Companies often don't make business software for Vista, so upgrading isn't an option if it isn't!

c)d) Don't get me wrong, Vista isn't the most stable system ever. But i must say its more stable than ME was! And anyway, many people skip a generation entirely! I skipped both ME & 2000 on my home computer. And Windows 7 has been announced for January 2010, and with XP support staying on til 2014, for many corporations it is wise to leave a few because of the potential cost.

pepperman33

1) I don't know how many they are and farkly I don't care, Vista is safer and I used it for 10 moths now and it's the first install, I didn't format the HDD, like I did with XP from 3 to 3 months because from even the smalles virus, svchost gets f-ed up and the system is slower and slower. On Vista I had only a virus that I got rid of in a few minutes and 0 malware/spyware/addware.

b) Technology advances, if you don't then so be it. It was the same with every new OS :roll:

c)If you think that reason is stupid you just made your post useless. There is "business" software for Vista, because Vista is Windows and if it works on win 95/98/2000/XP it works on Vista too :roll: and companies don't have the previous generation of Windows (in this case XP)-MAC is crap ;)- just because Vista is crap and people still use 95/98, does that make XP crap? get a life :roll:. On the professional stage (office) what they use is what is less demanding and does the job. You'd be stupid to not agree that Miscrosoft received more than 6 million complaints when they announced they will stop supporting 98 (an OS that most companies use today and as somebody said eralier, it also is used to host servers).

d)Wrong, don't get me wrong Xp is not that stable but hey Vista is the most stable system (maybe Linux is but we are talking about windows)-MAC is crap- (that's how I see things)

If you want to stay with XP then do but don't call the obvious things, stupid.

I give you the award, BS post of the day ;).

[QUOTE="lordlors"]

business=/=gaming

i think in business, one doesn't need the latest/advanced tech/OS in the market. It's the gaming crowd hence why Vista has DX 10. Usually businessmen/business don't focus on tech. Mostly only convenience and stability. There are still many business/offices that use the ol P4 or old tech if compared to gaming because it's still convenient to use and it's not necessary to upgrade to Core 2 Quad.

elemental_drago

Bingo! It's great having a killer system at home to play all the latest and greatest games on, but where I work, the machine on my desk doesn't even compare. I don't push it to its limits either, neither in the software we run or in games (which I'm not being payed to play in the first place). The requirements to run Vista are, w/o a doubt, higher than XP and upgrading our systems, upgrading our liscenses, and paying us techs to go through all the work there in would cost the company quite a bit of money. We are in the business to make money, not piss it away. Our P4 machines running XP with between 512MB and 1GB suit our needs just fine, thusly there is no reason to make the jump. Vista, nice as it is, just doesn't bring enough to the table to make it worth all the time and effort (both of which amount to money, money, and money) to make the jump to Vista. There is very little in the way of business necessities to make it worthwhile, even it the stability and security areas. The computers aren't pushed very hard, so they don't die very often. Our network security far surpasses that of my own home. We have more tools in place across multiple different mediums to help with this (such as running Terminal Servers. With those in place, I could feasbily run the whole system from a CD running a free version of Linux and no HDD installed. I know, as I got that to work)

Good points,

I will however bring up one of the advantages that Vista has over Win XP under a terminal server environment, especially when combined with Server 2008. The one defining feature that makes the change over to Vista worth it, is that it allows you to run Terminal Services over dual monitors. Now depending on the company you support there may be no business case for this, but for my company where we are supporting banks, fortune 500 companies, government and defense. The productivity gained from allowing the users to do this, in pure time measurements, far out weighs the cost of upgrading.

For the companies we support the numbers have been crunched and time and motion studies on individual KPI's in regards to running applications on dual monitors means that the Return On Investment (ROI) makes an incredibly powerful case to make the upgrade. In fact the productivity gains not only pay for the upgrade it also gives those companies a competitive advantage in the market place. A saving of 5 minutes a day times 5 days a week times 48 weeks based on the average wage alone (regardless of the actual income they are producing) means that it is a no brainer to upgrade if your environment has a large amount of TS users.

I realise this has no relevence to the home user, and yes, probably not to Intel as being a science based design company they are more likely to run local sessions than Terminal Services. But to say that there are no real advantages for business to upgrade from XP is basically people talking out their arse with no real investigative knowledge apart from what they have read on "teh uber 1337 game forums" And you do not need the killer system to run Vista if you using it as a Winterm.