[daedalus]

bubba, if you post what the software does, maybe one of us can point you in the direction of a vista compliant equivilent.

As for reading .docx files in word, there is a free converter you can download off of microsofts website that lets the old versions read the new files.

I write code for a living myself, and as such i got vista in early beta, and have had a good long time to test all my code against it before the official release date. Whilst its unrealistic to expect all software to work on the new version at the release date, developers have had opportunities to test against it, and there is little excuse for companies shipping software that doesnt work with it this long after launch. Personally when i find software that doesnt work with vista, i blame the company that wrote the software, not vista, but i appreciate thats not everyones perspective.

[bsharp]

I have had Vista 32 bit up and running for around 4 months now. Navigating at first is a bit of a pain as a lot of the things are not in the same place as they where in XP. But after a short while you get used to it as we all did with XP.
There is a number of security features that Microsoft added that are problematic to unsavy users. These new security features are useless in a corporate environment behind a restrictive firewall but for the home user they are a much needed improvement over XP.
Most of the Programs I used on XP work without a hitch on Vista. Some where a little tricky to install. Vista seems to have different security requirements on the installation programs. Some programs may work perfectly on Vista if you can get past the installation. I have one program that if I boot into safe mode and install it and once it is installed it works flawlessly. I have found that programs that manipulate disk drives "from a low level" CD\DVD burning will have to be updated to current and will not work.
As far as rudimentary productivity enhancements there is none of that I know over XP.
There is a multitude of enhancements in the API So there will be way more powerful programs written on Vista than XP. "especially in graphical applications"
In time most larger applications will only be available for Vista as the more powerful API functions will be utilized by the developers. As these new API calls are not available in XP the software will not be also.
Over all so far I am happy with Vista32 as it seems just as stable as Xp with a lot more potential for growth.
Some day I will try the 64bit version. As to date I have been waiting for it to mature a little.

[bsharp]

Vista is an evolution.
Perhaps that's *nix appeal is that it is not complicated, yet *nix struggles to trying to keep up with Windows (take WINE for instance).
.

I am sure you know this but I would like to just refresh a little history.

April 1988
MSDOS 4.0, UNIX, Windows 2.0?, Mac OS6
In 1988 Unix was the state of the art in comparison to all others in structure. Had true multitasking and always did. Had the best memory handling.

MSDOS at the time "Microsoft's x86 UNIX wanna be" was popular because of the slim hardware of the IBM pc but at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder compared to most others at the time.

Windows 2.0 was what? Never used it or even seen it on a pc at the time?

Mac OS6 was the state of the art GUI. It crashed a lot. But was the best GUI hands down to any opposition. And was truly an innovation.

July 1993
In 1993 Unix was the state of the art in comparison to all others in structure. Had true multitasking and always did. Had the best memory handling.

Windows NT "Microsoft made a x86 NIX clone" compared to unix it was about as reliable as a yugo with a bad head gasket. Servers would need to be rebooted daily if you wanted them to run throughout the day. Had true multitasking.

Windows 3.1 "well you could play solitare by clicking on an icon" This mainly used MSDOS as the kernal.

Mac OS7 was still the state of the art GUI. It still crashed but not as much.


In 1995 Unix was the state of the art in comparison to all others in structure. Had true multitasking and always did. Had the best memory handling.

Windows NT compared to unix was still about as reliable as a yugo with a bad head gasket. Servers would need to be rebooted daily if you wanted them to run throughout the day. Had true multitasking.

Windows 95 Microsoft made a big jump closer to the Mac OS GUI. It crashed a lot had the most viruses than any other OS in history. And quite possibly the worst memory handling structure ever known to computing.

Mac OS7 was still the state of the art GUI. It still crashed but not as much.

In 1998

Unix was the state of the art in comparison to all others in structure. Had true multitasking and always did. Had the best memory handling.

Windows NT still the same

Windows 98 well they added better plug and play technology to 98? It was slower than 95 on the same machine. Was a bit more stable though. Still quite possibly the worst memory handling structure ever known to computing.

Mac OS8 was still the state of the art GUI. It got a lot more stable in version 8 and ran pretty reliable compared to Windows 98.

In 2000

Unix was the state of the art in comparison to all others in structure. Had true multitasking and always did. Had the best memory handling.

Windows 2000 Was slow but a lot more reliable than its NT brethren. Numerous security enhancements and better memory handling. "They where on to something with this one"

Windows millennium Was a lot faster than 98 on the same machine had better plug and play. And was much more stable than 98. Had better memory handling but still poor compared to anything else at the time. "the last of the 9X windows".

Mac OS9 was a good improvement over 8 in reliability. But it was still plagued by its archaic kernel structure.

Mac OSX derived from BSD it has the makings of a real workhorse OS. Still in its infancy had many driver issues.

In 2002

Unix was the state of the art in comparison to all others in structure. Had true multitasking and always did. Had the best memory handling.

Windows 2000 With many updates and services packs. Numerous security enhancements it was getting better but it was still slow.

Windows XP basically is a souped up version of 2000 made for the masses.
With its NT derived kernel it had better security and way better memory handling than any 9x version. More backward compatibility than 2000. Had true multitasking derived from the NT kernel.

Mac OSX 10.2 it fixed many of the driver issues but was slow and buggy.

In 2006

Unix is the state of the art in comparison to all others in structure. Has true multitasking and always did. Has the best memory handling.

Windows Server 2003 well it has many new security features and better memory handling. Almost at par with Unix in server feature's and reliability.

Windows Vista New from the ground up! There is two versions the 32 bit version and the 64 bit. The 32 bit version has a lot less driver and compatibility problems. It is fast and stable with memory handling a lot closer to UNIX. It has a state of the art Hardware accelerated GUI. The 64 bit version still has driver issues and compatibility problems.

OSX 10.4 Has greatly improved in speed and reliability. Got a new hardware accelerated GUI.

So yea you could say that windows has evolved faster. And it has. It is just finally starting to make it up to the likes of UNIX in reliability and MAC in GUI.
it only took them eighteen years to do it!

As far as security goes anything Microsoft has made in the past is terrible. The biggest thing is that you will never know about it. As with open architectures you can see the hole and fix it. And that is only the networking side of it. Disk format and memory structures of a windows box is no ware near as secure as most NIX. Microsoft was going to fix this originally with Vista but the project got bumped. So now we are still stuck with the old NTFs crap. Just for kicks repartition and format your NTFS volume. I guarantee you I can still get most if not all of your files back with a thirty dollar program. Try that with ext3! When is the last time you got spyware on a nix box? Why most web servers ether SUN, LINUX, or BSD.

I have used and programmed all of them "MAC, BSD, LINUX, Windows". And I complain about all of them. It is just when someone spouts stuff that is just bologna I gotta once in a while say something.

[snoopy27]

For those who have been living under a rock, Microsoft has recently released its new operating system to replace XP.
From what I have read in many places, most people are giving it negative reviews. While it does have some advantages, these are heavily out weighed by its negatives.

What do you think ?

Years ago, I used to build CAD/CAM systems for some of my PC customers. I
just recently up-graded my office computer to VISTA Ultimate. Why?

Well after being invovled with Windows operating systems since 3.1 I have seen many problems and upgrades. I have realized that you cannot fight with certain changes, and Microsoft and it's operating systems are one which I believe we are stuck with by the volume of support it has garnered and will continue to gather.

Yes, I had to buy a new printer when I got VISTA and certain programs I have won't run on it and never will. I feel though I will only get further behind a large fast moving express of technology without at least being familiar with VISTA. Also in my opinion most CNC and real time systems should run better on VISTA.

Newer Quad Core processors especially will benefit. The Registry can become a nightmare though. I believe that most of this problem is due to internet usage and spyware that filters in and is getting more troublesome. Most people need to know that alot of the registry problems can come from initial software loading where we as users are forced to register copies of software where we give are permission for companies to install cookies and of pieces of coding that in time slow a VISTA system to a crawl. Broken links and lack of system maintenance are still problems. I thought that VISTA was going to put the end for the need for instance to defrag our hard drives.

WELL, quess again. Yet, I have decided since I can't beat them, I need to employ new technology like VISTA or run the risk of lost productivity.

By the way, I have more than one computer, but have only up-graded one with VISTA.

[peter2uat]

Hi!
Well, from my point of view (we are servicing at least about 15000 PCs) we have decided not to take the step toward Vista for the following reasons:

- you need a powerful processor (having upgraded the whole lot of offices to 1.8, 2.4 and 3.2 GHz machines in the last years is too expensive to do it again - just for fun?)
- you need to upgrade to 4 GB RAM for most of our office applications
- the new MS Office is not compatible with the older versions (try and sent some 20000 people to learn new software....) nor will you be compatible with the rest of the country - as an official you will be in trouble ...
- and last not least - XP will have a longer term of service by MS than Vista - so why take the trouble at all, if in the end you will have to change to a new system either ways.
Everybody likes to keep his money in his pocket.
So to recap - Vista for everybody at home, if you have it and like to tinker with new untried software (customers are ironing out the bugs..) and stay with XP or whatever you think fills your needs.
Peter

[Ranscon]

A wise man once told me " You can take a crap and call it whatever you like but at the end of the day it's still just crap!" I think maybe he was a prophet and referring to Vista.

Personally after purchasing a new all in one printer, dealing with numerous programs that no longer work, my cell phone not being recognized for transferring media, and buying Bobcad v23 which runs great on my obsolete shop computer with XP, but has more bugs than Africa (the entire country) on my office computer with Vista, I don't like it at all, no sir not one bit. Next time, I guess I'll try a Mac.

Jeff

[alexccmeister]

I don't get why MS go and revamp the Vista into something that doesn't work with most of the softwares I am currently using. I practically have to go out and buy new softwares that are compatible with Vista. My Autocad 2004 doesn't work. Worst part is my structural software (which I need to use with a dongle for it to work) can't run in Vista and the software company isn't goign to do any patch or upgrade for my version to work with Vista. Hence I have to pay another few grands just to get it to work with Vista. Even if I want to spend the few grands, the company hasn't even come up with any upgrade software close enough to work with Vista.

My question is, what is the point of Vista? Sure its a nice software and the interface is really nice to look at. But at the end of the day, its just an OS, nothing else. Why can't MS make Vista work with the older softwares? I know, its all about $$. But I will stick with XP for now. Vista will be just for fun.

[fizzissist]

Vista wants to load 33,000 files to start-up????

Microsoft is getting ready to release 7 soon, and Vista is only how old???

Bought my girlfriend an iMac........I'm next on the list of Mac converts.

She got a pop-up that said "updates are available for your computer". I told her to go ahead and click on the ok.

I timed the cycle, and get this.....actual time to approve, download, install, reboot, and prompt for password for the OS was.....drum roll......LESS THAN 45 SECONDS!!

Conversely, to do the very same routine on my XP Pro box, which btw, is fairly quick by any standard, was over an hour.

It took an hour and a half on my desktop at work,,,,because it locked up and I had to start from scratch.

Screw Windows. The only, and I mean the ONLY reason I'm running Windows anymore is because of Mastercam. But since discovering that it'll run on the Mac under a program that mimics Windows....there's a Mac in my future!!

[jhudler]

.....drum roll......LESS THAN 45 SECONDS!!

Well it's fast because there isn't much there to update.

[RICHARD ZASTROW]

I just took out Vista and installed Windows XP Pro sp3. Hasn't locked-up once in the 5 days since installation. Vista was good for at least 3 every day.

Dick Z

[fizzissist]

Well it's fast because there isn't much there to update.

Just one more reason to not need Vista.....

Whether or not there's much to update doesn't excuse Windows taking 2-5 minutes to evaluate your system to see what, if any, updates are needed or available.....and that's BEFORE you even say ok and do the typical "express" install, which starts a whole 'nuther reason to go get a cup of coffee, or go have lunch.

[jhudler]

Just one more reason to not need Vista.....

Whether or not there's much to update doesn't excuse Windows taking 2-5 minutes to evaluate your system to see what, if any, updates are needed or available.....and that's BEFORE you even say ok and do the typical "express" install, which starts a whole 'nuther reason to go get a cup of coffee, or go have lunch.

Consider for a moment, the magnitude of components that make up an operating system.
Windows is order of magnitude greater compared to a dinky *nix based systems.
When Windows updates the computer it asks the update server for a list of updates that pertain to your OS. It then compares that list with what’s on the machine and downloads those updates.
This is in keeping with not sending any identifiable information to Microsoft, other than the OS.
Perhaps Apple feels different and sends a list of everything that’s installed on your computer.
Perhaps not, though I do consider *nix users to be somewhat of a luddite in nature, so your response is predictable
Last time I wrote software for Unix was 30 years ago… still that same old timeless issues that plagued it back then are still with us today.

[jhudler]

Everybody likes to keep his money in his pocket.

Well if everybody did that, then everyone would be out of a job, and money would be worthless; just like all the other comments you made.

[fizzissist]

Consider for a moment, the magnitude of components that make up an operating system.
Windows is order of magnitude greater compared to a dinky *nix based systems.
When Windows updates the computer it asks the update server for a list of updates that pertain to your OS. It then compares that list with what’s on the machine and downloads those updates.
This is in keeping with not sending any identifiable information to Microsoft, other than the OS.
Perhaps Apple feels different and sends a list of everything that’s installed on your computer.
Perhaps not, though I do consider *nix users to be somewhat of a luddite in nature, so your response is predictable
Last time I wrote software for Unix was 30 years ago… still that same old timeless issues that plagued it back then are still with us today.

I'm a luddite? For simply comparing the time that it takes two machines to perform the same relative task?

I'm not the one that asks the OS to take a week to load, and I'm not the one who designed anything being discussed here. You've chosen to insult me, and that's fine, but by doing so you've put yourself in the crosshairs of those who recognize Vista for what it is.....
BLOATWARE.

Last night, just out of curiousity, I had my girlfriend fire up her XP Pro shiney new laptop, alongside her iMac. Both booted, Internet Exploder up with www.google.com loaded on the laptop, Safari up with www.google.com up on the iMac. Then....at the same time.....with a link to our local newspaper ready in the URL window.....
.....we pushed the button.

Time to fully display the same front page of the newspaper....
Laptop=16 seconds.
iMac=2 seconds.

I may be a luddite, but you prefer riding your horse to work??

....and don't bother trying to tell me it's the front side buss, the dif between a 2.0 and a 2.66gHz CPU, 512 vs. 1Gb ram......

Similar casual tests here at work between Linux and XP on a dual-boot machine show very similar ratios of time lost wandering in the Windows desert.

Why not Vista??? We dumped it and reverted to XP because of compatibility issues. Duh. And I'M the luddite??

[cyclestart]

I'm a luddite?

Don't feel down . By using a *nix based system you've joined other notable luddites such as Google, NASA, and the Hollywood studios. The stone age ain't so bad

[fizzissist]

Don't feel down . By using a *nix based system you've joined other notable luddites such as Google, NASA, and the Hollywood studios. The stone age ain't so bad

......Along with other notable luddites that I work with who use it for theoretical & empirical physics research....

[TOTALLYRC]

I have Vista on 3 of the 4 computers in the house and it will be running my mill shortly. I have xp on the other computer in the house and I have win2k and xp pro on the other shop computers.
I hands down like Vista the best. It looks better and runs better on the three machines I currently have it on. My wife is running it box stock the way it came on her compaq laptop, and while it does have its share of preinstalled crap, for her it works very well.

On my acer laptop, I got smart after the first 2 days and did a fresh install using a disc from my son's computer and then using the Number from the laptop. The fresh install made all the difference in the world. On top of that, service pack 1 came out, which is were the OS should have been on release day.
It doesn't lock up or do the horrible things people complain about. The only real problem that I have is that when waking up from sleep it will not start the wireless connection about 1 out of ten times. Since I am trying to save electricity anyway, I just shut it down if I will not be using it for more than 1hr.

I have used linux in the past, and although I liked it very much, there were several must have programs that I couldn't get to work under crossover office. I really needed a cad program that I liked, but there isn't any "I" like for linux.
The other program was Mach3. At the time I tried EMC, it did nothing for me and then my motion control card was only for Mach3, so I was stuck with windows.
This is also not to mention cam software, as I use deskcnc for my cam software and it is a windows program.

I am also an Opera user and don't care for IE at all, but that is a different story.

[PCcruncher]

I am dual booting Xp & windows 7 Beta on my tablet Pc, And I like 7 A LOT better than Vista, Some are saying it should be a free upgrade from Vista after release

If you don't have the 7 beta, you will have to wait until later as the downloads are closed.

[TOTALLYRC]

I am dual booting Xp & windows 7 Beta on my tablet Pc, And I like 7 A LOT better than Vista, Some are saying it should be a free upgrade from Vista after release

If you don't have the 7 beta, you will have to wait until later as the downloads are closed.

If it is as good as you say, then microsoft has done its home work and should sell a million copies. I will wait until I really need it before getting it as I am happy with Vista right now.

Thanks for the update, Mike

[cyclestart]

I have used linux in the past, and although I liked it very much, there were several must have programs that I couldn't get to work under crossover office. I really needed a cad program that I liked, but there isn't any "I" like for linux.

For most people they just want their chosen software to work, OS be dam#ed ? My guess anyway, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's where *nix (and Mac's OSX is also *nix folks) falls short for most. Vista also fails here for some judging by this thread.