# (Opinion) Vista's dead: Microsoft kills an OS and no one cares



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From BetaNews:

*Vista's dead: Microsoft kills an OS and no one cares*


> For anyone still burning a torch for Windows Vista, its time is rapidly approaching. Buy now or forever hold your peace.
> 
> I can't say I'm surprised at how any of this has turned out. After all, Vista's launch was, to be charitable, rocky. When it first arrived just before Christmas 2006, it was late, bloated and, for some, expensive. It may have looked pretty on the outside, but critics quickly pounced on it for driver incompatibility, sluggish performance on mainstream -- and sometimes even high-end -- hardware and enough bugs to fill a family-sized tent on a weekend camping expedition. Microsoft didn't help matters with its ill-fated "Vista Capable" designation -- a public relations debacle that convinced buyers who were too lazy to read the fine print that Vista would run just as well on hardware barely suited for XP.


FULL OPINION HERE


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

Vista had some driver issues when it first came out, but "Today" Vista is a very dependable OS and I would keep using it if W7 would not have come out. 

I really like Vista and think it is a great OS.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Heres my opinion....

I would not be at all surprised. Vista has been called many names, including Me2, Microsoft's ill-fated operating system release in 2000. That release was so bad Microsoft had to allow the continued installation of 98 until XP was released. And even XP had issues initially, but a couple of service packs made it stable.

When I had a system failure in 2006, I elected to keep my feet in both XP and Vista. Using removable hard drives bays, I picked up a license for XP Pro and Vista Ultimate 64-bit. In that time since, my XP drive was used constantly, while my Vista drive ended up collecting dust. Driver incompatibility issues were well known, especially with nVidia video drivers. Applications which worked well under XP had issues with Vista. And, what an annoyance UAC became. Intended to protect the user, UAC became a major annoyance when you wanted to do simple things like change some settings in Control Panel or delete a sub folder. Operations that required two mouse clicks in XP ended up taking six in Vista. That's not what is called "user friendly". Can I turn off UAC? Not really, because it bugs me that UAC is off. Hey, I know what I am doing, GO AWAY!

Another nail in the coffin is the incompatibility with older peripherals. I was extremely lucky: My HP Laserjet 4, purchased in 1993, was one of the most popular laser printers, and many other manufacturers emulated the printer language. Vista compatibility? No problem. But many other people faced issues with lack of compatibility with devices that were just 2-3 years old. True, they were discontinued by the manufacturer, but in manuy peoples eyes, they were working just fine without need for replacement. But, the manufacturer's eyes, it was not worth spending the time coming out with drivers for these "legacy" devices. And, sometimes, these "legacy" devices cost several thousand dollars and were not easily replaced. Oops squared.

Corporate adoption for Vista, in my opinion, was horrible and was the death knell for Vista. Businesses consider corporate IT as yet another expense that needs to be curtailed, especailly in this economy. This is a area where caution is the order of the day, as you do not want to break a business critical application. For some of you, it may be amusing that businesses would end up spending the extra money to downgrade to XP when they already had Vista. That downgrade fee is MUCH MUCH cheaper than the testing, deployment, downtime, and training for Vista. One big stumbling block is IE6-only (and non-Firefox) compatibilty with some old applications. Many of the readers of DBSTalk are extremely technically savvy, and have no problems with adapting to change. However, in technical support, I deal with end users who are especially resistant to change. Make one change to their desktop, and they will give you the deer in headlights look.

For home users, downgrading to XP was not a easily found option. My belief is that Microsoft's strategy was to make people like Vista, and push their corporate IT to upgrade to avoid the differences. Ouch. Since people know that I am the technogeek, they often give their opinion of computers. Often, the words "horrible" and "mistake" got attached to Vista, along with the phrase "XP worked much better". Sometimes, those machines required just a little bump in the memory. Other times, it may have been the user. But, how do you sell people on Vista when you aren't sold in it yourself?

Microsoft made the wise decision in making release candidate and public beta of Windows 7 widely available for people to test out. Based upon feedback, plus plenty of code optimization, Windows 7 seems to be much better, easier to use, and less annoying than Vista. It may end up being a more successful release than Vista. But, Microsoft still will have to continue to offer downgrade rights to XP for the corporate customer for a long while. And, if Windows 7 ends up being a success, Microsoft should prepare for another long product life cycle before introducing Windows 8. We can count on Microsoft quickly burying Vista upon Windows 7 release. And, unlike XP, it won't rise from the dead. Now, if only they give preferential treatment to the 64-bit version of the operating system instead of the 32-bit operating system. 

But, will a future Windows release be relevant? For most people, their current computer configuration will allow them to read their e-mail, browse the Internet, share photos, and play msuic and movies. PC Gaming, in many parts, is dead, replaced with the Wii, PS2/PS3, and the XBox. And, with the Internet, the trend is towards "Software as a Service" when you access you application through a Web browser window instead of a application stored on your hard drive. This leads to longer computer replacement cycles. This will make the next few years in computing interesting.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I always looked at Vista as a Zombie (walking dead) OS since it was first available.

Too code fat, too slow, too incomplete...etc.

At least Microsoft passed the first one of the 12 steps and didn't deny it was lousy, and moved forward to a new replacement.

WIN 7 is leaner, more stable, and more usable to the mainstream PC community - in short - its what Vista should have been but never was.


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

Vista is fine if it is run on a computer having at least a dual core processor. The first computer that I tried to run it on was a 2.4 GHz single core which ran fine with XP. It was a dog with Vista. After upgrading to a 2.66 GHz dual core, Vista has been fine. I strongly believe that Microsoft underestimated the requirements for running Vista.


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

jerry downing said:


> Vista is fine if it is run on a computer having at least a dual core processor. The first computer that I tried to run it on was a 2.4 GHz single core which ran fine with XP. It was a dog with Vista. After upgrading to a 2.66 GHz dual core, Vista has been fine. I strongly believe that Microsoft underestimated the requirements for running Vista.


It shouldn't be the CPU that poses the biggest problem for Vista...it's the RAM.

I usually use a 'twice as much rule' for all of Microsoft's OS's. If it says 512 (like XP) use a gig. if it says a 1GB, use 2GB...

BTW - You can disable UAC and disable the little bubble that states it is not turned on.

As annoying as UAC was (and to a point still is) I can only imagine how many good things its done for people who don't have enough know how or intuition to turn it off...


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

I enjoy reading idiots who bash Vista and tell everyone about Windows 7 when Windows 7 is based on Vista's core.

And btw, Vista was such a big failure it sold over 100 million. And my Vista systems haven't been touched.

Vista protected against trojans with UAC. Trojans and rootkits that used Ring 0 access from Xp were blocked by Vista.

The only people who hated Vista were the idiots who got mad at UAC because they wanted to click yes to everything online and didn't like the fact that something was telling them COMMON SENSE.

You don't believe me? Windows 7 is based on Vista's core, *and UAC is set on default to run without alerting the user unless the user changes something, which is less secure then full UAC.*

The reason people like the exact same OS as Vista is because it's not telling them to stop downloading trojans like an idiot.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10154494-17.html


----------



## satgeek550 (May 30, 2008)

True!
Win 7 is based off of Vista
So what does that tell you, it is just another piece of crap and Microsoft will still have to keep updates for Windows XP or then will be in the hole!


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

First with ME leading into XP and now with Vista leading into 7, MS has a knack for lowering the bar to limbo level just before vaulting over it with ample clearance.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Zellio said:


> I enjoy reading idiots who bash Vista and tell everyone about Windows 7 when Windows 7 is based on Vista's core.


You mean Vista's second core, don't you? :lol:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Zellio said:


> And btw, Vista was such a big failure it sold over 100 million.


That was because most people didn't have a choice. If you wanted a new PC, you got Vista, no option unless you found a vendor who offered the XP downgrade. If Vista was so great, why did the price of XP go up? Could it be due to higher demand so people could avoid Vista longer?

The proliferation of Vista is for the same reason as IE. It was forced on people. If FireFox, SeaMonkey, Opera and a few other browsers were preinstalled on new PCs and you were presented with options on startup, would IE still be the first choice?


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> That was because most people didn't have a choice. If you wanted a new PC, you got Vista, no option unless you found a vendor who offered the XP downgrade. If Vista was so great, why did the price of XP go up? Could it be due to higher demand so people could avoid Vista longer?
> 
> The proliferation of Vista is for the same reason as IE. It was forced on people. If FireFox, SeaMonkey, Opera and a few other browsers were preinstalled on new PCs and you were presented with options on startup, would IE still be the first choice?


And again, what proof can you provide me that Xp was better then Vista? Because again, Vista was highly stable (after 6 months), highly secure, and better in every way.

What can you prove beyond the fact that UAC annoyed you?

http://cybernetnews.com/vistas-uac-blocks-rootkits/


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

And if people feel the need to avoid Vista, why buy Windows 7, which major change is it runs on slower pcs better then Vista, and doesn't annoy you with UAC?


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Btw, I forgot to comment directly to the sensationalist article.

I enjoy how idiots love to jump on the Vista-Windows 7 timeline. If you did any study of history (Instead of just be ignorant), you'd find that every version of windows had a 2-3 life cycle.

Also, if you did any study of history, you'd find that Xp wasn't the rousing success you make it out to be. How would I know? I bought it at launch, same with ME, same with Vista. (I've used Windows all the way back to Windows 2.0)

Xp wasn't a success of any large amount until Sp2. At the point Microsoft was about to release Vista, but they decided to add some things that would've gone into Vista, such as a software firewall, into service pack 2. When service pack 2 took off, Microsoft delayed Vista.

It's hilarious that ignorant people bash Vista and praise Xp when Xp only works due to things that were part of Vista.

And lets get something straight: Vista works even with extremely old software (I have even been able to install such games as Rainbow Six, Starcraft, on 64 bit Vista). Vista works well when you actually know more about a pc then turning it on.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zellio said:


> And btw, Vista was such a big failure it sold over 100 million. And my Vista systems haven't been touched.


I find issue with your claim. 100 million sold doesn't mean 100 million installed. If you bought a PC with downgrade rights, you still purchased a copy of Vista along with a copy of XP.

And, yes, I have Vista x64. I used Vista x64. I thought I was purchasing for the future with Vista x64. Instead, I had issues with the nVidia drivers (now fixed), Quicktime (now fixed), Adobe (now fixed), and so on. Even the software company that I work for did NOT work with Vista came out, and it took a while to ensure compatibility. The way software interacted with the operating system broke and manufacturers had to come out with fixes, and those fixes only applied to the newest version. Windows 95 did not break Windows 3.1 software as badly as Windows Vista broke Windows XP applications. And still, while the upgrade from 3.1 to 95 was cheap, there was also the added cost of purchasing upgrades to the associated software as well.

You say Windows 7 is just like Vista. In my opinion, Windows 7 should be called subtitled "The Apology" for all the blank that it caused users and tech support. While UAC is necessary for most users, it is an annoyance for those of us who know what it is they are doing and end up fixing other computer problems. While I have never claimed to be a super-expert, I will claim that I do know more than the typical average user. What's you computer experience?

At least XP had the benefit of working from the Windows 2000, and it took a while to get it right.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

My computer experience?

I used a commodore 64 as a 6 year old (and apple 2s at school), a tandy 1000 286 from 8-12 (I accessed bbs's while my friends played basketball). I can do pretty much anything from use linux os's (I've personally used Ubuntu, red hat, and slackware, and I know how to do most code in terminal), OSX, windows (as far back as ms-dos). I know html, java and basic, visual basic, and some c++. My expertise is actually networking.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_The name-calling is getting old. Let's please stop that and just discuss the topic._


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Zellio said:


> And btw, Vista was such a big failure it sold over 100 million. And my Vista systems haven't been touched.


As another example of the difference between licenses sold vs software installed.

Our company purchased approximately 2800 laptops last year...they all came with Vista licenses....none of them are running Vista.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

It is fairly clear that Vista both sucks and blows. The problem is change for the sake of change (for the sake of cash flow in Redmond).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

elaclair said:


> Our company purchased approximately 2800 laptops last year...they all came with Vista licenses....none of them are running Vista.


A recent excursion into evaluating business class computers lead me to the recognition that many are opting for the XP "downgrade" that is now very prominent in Microsoft licensing.

Many applications publishers are still recommending XP Pro and Server 2003 with SQL 2005.

For my part, Microsoft is making a mistake in allowing downgrades because if I'm installed with Server 2003, I'm probably not going to upgrade back. I faced this situation last time when a new version of Server was available but the application wasn't "certified" and I'm still running NT4 SP6.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> It is fairly clear that Vista both sucks and blows. The problem is change for the sake of change (for the sake of cash flow in Redmond).


I've been running Vista for almost two years without a problem (two different laptops).

What are you running Vista on and what are your issues?

To the OP, I don't think Vista's long for this world. It wasn't implemented correctly (IMO) and so much bad press that Microsoft can't wait to drop it like a bad habit.

Mike


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Vista is a great OS, it fixes a lot of the things that were REALLY showing their age in XP since XP has been around for too long IMO. Vista just got bad press in the beginning and now most are jaded and using that against it when in reality there are no problems. It has a bit of a learning curve as somethings are in different places (guess what, Win7 REALLY changes around some things), but besides that it is a solid OS that is a huge improvement over XP in many ways.

You guys saying ME -> XP are forgetting windows 2000...and you are also forgetting all the people that HATED XP and stuck with 2000 for years, most corporations worked like this. Heck, my college was running 2k up until 2yrs ago. Corporations dont like to change, that is why they still continue to recommend XP and want to use XP...it is easier for them. Whenever a new OS comes out some change is needed, and Microsoft OSes have always required the least amount of change as they have very good backwards compatibility. Still they dontl ike changing and since XP was given such a long lifespan people got to comfortable IMO.

Overall Vista will always have a bad name because of people jumping on the Vista hate bandwagon, but in my mind it was a big improvement over XP and is closer to Win7 than most like to admit.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

The more you Vista bashers talk about Windows 7, the more it's obvious you don't have much in the way of experience with Vista.

I've tested Windows 7 for a while as a beta in Technet, and if anything, Windows 7 isn't worth the money. It's simply put, Vista that runs faster and makes whiney noobs happy (UAC).

Personally, I find it hilarious that bandwagon kiddies can find ways to bash and love the same damn thing, all from sheer ignorance.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

If Win7 is based upon the VISTA core, why is everyone reporting Win7 runs faster on lesser hardware? Wouldn't design of the 'core' be the basis of performance?

--- CHAS


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Vista has a bad adoption rate because it's frankly just not needed. XP is just fine. There is nothing out there that *requires* Vista to run, it all still runs on XP. (At least anything that I'll run).

And that's the thing, it's just the OS. I barely use the OS. It's the *programs* I run that matter.

I still use XP and will continue to do so even with Win 7 out. Why do I need Win 7? I don't. Heck, the only reason I no longer use Win 2000 is that games and programs started coming out that only supported XP. So until the day comes where games and programs I want to run will only run on Win 7, XP will still be used on all my computers.

Besides, Win 7 is basically just Vista with an extra 2 years of polish on it. Vista as it should have been so to speak.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HIPAR said:


> If Win7 is based upon the VISTA core, why is everyone reporting Win7 runs faster on lesser hardware? Wouldn't design of the 'core' be the basis of performance?
> 
> --- CHAS


The "core" is very similar, but only a fraction of the Operating System itself.

Based on the info I got directly from the MicroSoft lead at the Consumer Electronics Show in January...WIN 7's code is about 40% lighter than Vista, which would result in today's processors running WIN7 much more efficiently (faster) than Vista. This might be the first time MicroSoft has actually released a new operating system that is leaner than its previous 1 or 2 versions.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MicroBeta said:


> What are you running Vista on and what are your issues?


My problems aren't with the machine that Vista _was_ running on but the design of Vista itself.

Chief among the problems is that I'm a command line kinda person and I expect to find files where I put them. Vista is not at all accommodating in this regard. Then there is that nagging security feature, the UAC, that so many "power users" feel compelled to disable. Follow this up with Microsoft's insane recommendation to set a registry value to automatically accept all UAC pop-ups.

Like the previous version of Me, there were numerous driver issues and lots of broken application software (especially software from Microsoft).

The only real gripe I have with the HP desktop computer is that it seems to like to come out of sleep mode too easily.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Grentz said:


> You guys saying ME -> XP are forgetting windows 2000...and you are also forgetting all the people that HATED XP and stuck with 2000 for years, most corporations worked like this.


I don't think anyone ever advocated Me. Legions have likened Vista to Me but not in any meaningful way have they recommended it.

Businesses stuck with 2000 because it ran on everything and didn't have several levels of can and can't do things based on the features you paid extra for. The ability to interact with servers and remember passwords is high on the list. Another reason some stuck is because many secure government agencies must commit to a seven year cycle. This doesn't play well into Microsoft's cash flow scheme but that's the way things are.

The purpose of an operating system is to support applications software. The purpose of updating the operating system should be to add more tools to support new applications. Microsoft has made it a mission to sell new operating systems on the idea that the old ones were slow and insecure. While they were insecure, we found ways around that part and the slow part is a blatant lie by the time Microsoft has fixed most of the bugs.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

Vista is what drove me to Mac. I won't go back no matter what they call it and I continue to avoid anything Microsoft whenever possible.


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

So much hate against Vista...it's not that bad of an operating system. And for me, it hasn't been nearly the 'hassle' from the beginning as others have had. I've been using Vista since it came out (free from Microsoft too! All i did was 'watch' 3 IT videos about it ) and I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

I like Windows 7 even more because it is faster and it doesn't drain my laptop battery nearly as quickly. I may get another 30-45 minutes of time off the battery which is nice.

Vista is nice, Win7 is better. I still won't ever buy a Mac even though I like their OS...just too expensive.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> That was because most people didn't have a choice. If you wanted a new PC, you got Vista, no option unless you found a vendor who offered the XP downgrade. If Vista was so great, why did the price of XP go up? Could it be due to higher demand so people could avoid Vista longer?
> 
> The proliferation of Vista is for the same reason as IE. It was forced on people. If FireFox, SeaMonkey, Opera and a few other browsers were preinstalled on new PCs and you were presented with options on startup, would IE still be the first choice?


They may not come preinstalled but no one is forcing IE on them.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> The only real gripe I have with the HP desktop computer is that it seems to like to come out of sleep mode too easily.


I have a friend that has an HP and he also talks about how easy it is for it to come out of sleep mode. My dell for some reason is the same way but not always.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zellio said:


> I've tested Windows 7 for a while as a beta in Technet, and if anything, Windows 7 isn't worth the money. It's simply put, Vista that runs faster and makes whiney noobs happy (UAC).


from BetaNews (published in May):
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #10: Homegroup networking
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #9: Native PowerShell 2.0
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #8: Automated third-party troubleshooting
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #7: 'Play To' streaming media, courtesy of DLNA
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #6: DirectX 11
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #5: Multitouch
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #4: A worthwhile Windows Explorer
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #3: XP Mode
Top 10 Windows 7 Features #2: Device Stage
Top 10 Windows 7 features #1: Action Center
Of course, anything that makes computing go faster (rather than slower) is always appreciated.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I think in a world where everyone was truly honest... that Vista would be said to neither be as good or as horrible as we often read.

I have little Vista experience, in part because I'd need a brand new PC to run it... so for my purposes it would be "horrible" but that's not all Vista's fault so it's a measured thumbs down for me.

If I was buying a brand new PC, Vista might very well be just fine for all I know.

From some of the reviews, it sounds like the slimming down in Windows 7 might also result in compatibility with some PCs that Vista didn't run well on... so there might be a few folks with "older" hardware that can more easily go to Windows 7 than they could Vista. That has to be a good thing.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Vista was the first version of an OS on a new kernel. It was the next step from XP and like any new OS suffered from some early problems...many of which occurred because XP had become such a stable and reliable system. Vista had little to do with ME...as ME brought little new to the table.

What rev is OSX on now? I remember 10.0 being greeted with quite a bit of problems and incompatibilities with its predecessor. I also remember a number of software publishers taking their time in doing revisions for the system.

Anyway, we've been running on Windows 7 for several months now and both the 32 and 64 bit systems have been extremely solid and also brought about some nice changes and features.

I'd say Microsoft made a nice change with Vista and then made it truly solid and friendly in Windows 7 much as they did when the moved from NT to XP. We're also about to see the final death throes of 32-bit computing.

Now, it's time for the app guys to come out with some truly outstanding software to take advantage of the expanded memory and speed capabilities.

From a sales perspective Windows 7 will be a big hit on the consumer side. Businesses (where I spent the bulk of my career) are tougher...many were still using Windows 3.1 in the year 1999. I expect their conversion to Windows 7 will be slower as XP meets their needs and the economy is rather tough right now on IT budgets. The XP compat mode will make it easier on corporations though and since more and more of them are getting auto upgraded on their Select program the conversions will start to pickup momentum.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Vista has a bad adoption rate because it's frankly just not needed. XP is just fine. There is nothing out there that *requires* Vista to run, it all still runs on XP. (At least anything that I'll run).
> 
> And that's the thing, it's just the OS. I barely use the OS. It's the *programs* I run that matter.
> 
> ...


Some of that polish is quite nice...built-in imaging, much nicer and secure home networking/file sharing, better media integration...in general consumers don't upgrade their OS all that much...they buy new computers and it comes with the new OS.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> The only real gripe I have with the HP desktop computer is that it seems to like to come out of sleep mode too easily.


Saving the Vista debate for later, I think it is an excellent OS BTW once UAC is fully disabled, this could be a setting issue. Yeah I do the big no-no, the thing I've been doing for years. Logging on not as an Administrator, but as Administrator. I went to secpol.msc, enabled the Administrator account and log on that way

Anyhow, in your NIC properties, Select 'Configure' then select the 'Power Management' tab and make sure 'Allow this device to wake the computer' is UNCHECKED. On just about every system I've ever seen it is checked by default. With this enabled whenever your computer is in stanby mode, if there is any network activity directed toward that computer it will wake up.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I won't be upgrading the OS on any of my PCs. They're all at least 4-5 years old without much RAM so I don't think they'll even support 7, no sense in trying.

I might consider getting a new PC or two once they hit the stores with 7 installed, but the question is, will 7 be stable initially, or should I wait a few months for any bugs to be discovered and worked out?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

My soon to be 6 year old Compaq has no problems with Vista Ultimate, my 10 year old Compaq has no problem with XP Professional. I've found age to be irrelevant to some degree. Vista was a huge improvement over XP, Windows 7 appears just be a more polished version of Vista, not sure what all the fuss is about, but I'll probably give it a try depending on how much the OEM non boxed version of 7 Ultimate costs. 

Last year when I ordered this computer, I kicked myself for not ordering a laptop, as I've never had a laptop before. Once Windows 7 SP1 is released, and depending on my car payment situation, I may get myself a laptop. I purposely held off on this computer until SP1 for Vista come out (that and the new crop of Intel Quad core processors).


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> I won't be upgrading the OS on any of my PCs. They're all at least 4-5 years old without much RAM so I don't think they'll even support 7, no sense in trying.
> 
> I might consider getting a new PC or two once they hit the stores with 7 installed, but the question is, will 7 be stable initially, or should I wait a few months for any bugs to be discovered and worked out?


7 has been 100 percent stable for me, have it running in production on all 4 of my machines with little or no issues except for some very old programs that my kids love - and they have problems running under XP. I run a VMWare PC install with windows 98 for those.

If you have older hardware you may have issues, but basicly any hardware that would run under Vista will run under 7, anything older and you will have driver availablity/stability issues


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I won't be upgrading the OS on any of my PCs. They're all at least 4-5 years old without much RAM so I don't think they'll even support 7, no sense in trying.
> 
> I might consider getting a new PC or two once they hit the stores with 7 installed, but the question is, will 7 be stable initially, or should I wait a few months for any bugs to be discovered and worked out?


It's very stable right now...best thing I can say for it is my 4-year-old hasn't caused an error yet on his computer...testing doesn't get any rougher than that.


----------

