I have no doubt that Microsoft could turn Vista around if it wanted to. The company seems to have forgotten its roots. Of all companies, Microsoft should know that end-user desire for an OS has a huge effect on how rapidly it's adopted. Enterprises aren't buying Vista because it offers very little advantage for them, and end users aren't clamoring for it. And it needs to rethink the user experience with respect to functionalities like UAC and SPP.
It needs to unload some of the crap it padded Vista with. Microsoft needs to release a new version of Vista that doesn't stratify the features (why does CD and DVD burning happen only on the Home versions of the OS, for example?). As it is packaged today, Windows Vista is not that OS. Until they build something better than Windows XP, I see no reason to switch. I've been using XP for more than six years, and I'd be perfectly happy to continue using it for another six if Microsoft continued to support it properly. Devil Mountain's report of XP SP3 being faster than SP2 is very intriguing, though.
WHAT IS WINDOWS XP CODE
I hope to test a later release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1, but based on my hands-on use of the first widely distributed beta code and performance testing also conducted by Devil Mountain Software, Vista SP1 is no faster than the original shipping version of the OS. There's no "reduced functionality mode" that will inadvertently trip when Microsoft's WGA/SPP servers have an outage again.
The user experience is better than Vista's. Windows XP is a mature operating system that's not trying to be something that it's not. The rest of my Windows hardware will shortly revert to pristine Windows XP installations. If I need other Vista boxes for testing, I'll set them up as I need them. The other Vista machine I'm keeping stays in the office, where I don't use it frequently. That's why it's getting fresh dual-boot clean installs.
WHAT IS WINDOWS XP UPGRADE
The Windows Vista installation I have on my main Windows machine was a Vista upgrade install, and it's the least stable. I'm reducing that number to two, one of which will be in a dual-boot with XP. And it doesn't have an onboard antivirus product. I don't trust its anti-malware protection or its firewall.
WHAT IS WINDOWS XP SOFTWARE
It's probably more secure, but it still needs a raft of third-party security software and hardware. Vista is a lot more complex than Windows XP. While the architecture of Vista is a little better, Vista adds a lot of overhead to support quite a bit of new and sometimes questionable functionality. I'm not saying everyone is having these problems, but I see no real improvement over Windows XP. I've personally seen instabilities with the shipping version of the Vista code: applications freezing, Windows services slowing to a crawl, even OS crashes. Pentium 4 desktop hardware runs it better, but usually that class of hardware needs a video upgrade. Pentium M/Centrino single-core notebook hardware just doesn't run it well. For example, no matter what Vista advocates say, Vista requires Vista-level hardware. I honestly find no advantage to Windows Vista, and there are some downsides. Which kind are you: Windows XP or Windows Vista? The recent news that testers at Devil Mountain Software found Microsoft's beta of Windows XP Service Pack 3 to be 10% faster than XP SP2 has pushed me over the edge. There are two main types of Windows users in the world.
0 kommentar(er)
