Vista, or waiting for Windows 7

[dema]

I am planning on getting a laptop soon, it took a few weeks to decide on the model. I am an XP user and I heard a lot of negative things about Vista. My cousin who used to work for MS, tells me it's not that bad.

Bottom line, would waiting 11 months now for Windows 7 be a worth it? Are the problems with Vista really that bad?

I use the PC for song writing using some low processor intensive programs. I do not really play computer video games. I rarely render video, graphics or anything else that may be a system hog. Now it's mostly about e-mail, web browsing, video chats and leisure (and school again.)

I'm planning on getting a HP G60T which has all the specs (after customization) I am looking for in a machine. I gave up on my ideas of getting a touch screen PC.

 

[Mercule]

I run Vista on my desktop and XP on my (four-year-old) tablet. I tried Vista on my tablet when Vista came out and found it to be much better with a few things like handwriting recognition, but it's a bit of a resource hog and seems to drain the battery much faster than XP (4.5 hrs vs 2 hrs). The former shouldn't be an issue for a new machine, and I've been told SP1 fixed the power consumption -- which is exactly what happened with XP.

Overall, I've been pretty happy with Vista, and I don't think you have any reason to be afraid of it. All the negative hype is just smoke being blown. If I were getting a new machine, I wouldn't think twice about getting Vista.

I'm glad you asked, though. Word is that Win7 is much more streamlined and runs fine on a Pentium 4. You reminded me to go download the Beta and put it on my tablet to test it out.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Vista, pre SP1, was almost as bad as you heard. (And that's pretty bad).

Vista, post SP1, is a pretty rockin' OS and I'm very happy with it. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I have become a genuine FAN of Vista 32 Home Premium.

I have Vista 32 Home Premium installed on all my desktops and laptops now. (5x desktops, 2x laptops).

Yes, I bought a unique copy for every one of those machines (admittedly, an OEM system builder version for my desktops, but...whatever). Microsoft's automatic Windows Updater and the confidence and peace of mind that service provides to me has finally won the battle for them. (Bill and Steve? I surrender - you win; here's my money for seven copies).

Mind you, I have some pretty serious hardware and I am not trying to run Vista on XP era hardware.

If you are getting a new laptop? Get 4 gig o ram on it (well - THREE at least, and the 4th depending on your video RAM pool) and get Vista 32.

If you are a game player - I would not bother with Vista 64. It's not worth the hassle, especially when it comes to drivers.

Vista Ultimate - any flavor - is pretty much a waste of money unless Remote Access features are critical for you (or unless you need it for some other specific reason that may also be a good one on top of RA that I'm not aware of).

If history is any guide in these matters, Windows 7 will improve on some perceived deficiencies with Vista - and add a whole host of bugs and a few other NEW pet peeves which will render it unsatisfactory until SP1 of Windows 7 is ultimately released. That's a pretty standard pattern for Microsoft's OS's stretching back to Windows 3 >> WFWG 3.11 Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, WinXP, Vista, .... Hell, it applies in the DOS era too, though the line in the sand with DOS was never as bright a line.

Anyways - no, don't wait for Win 7 for a machine you are buying now.

 

[Scotley]

I think it is safe to go ahead and buy a Vista machine. Everything I'm reading about Windows 7 is that it is a minor upgrade of Vista. It will continue the Vista driver model and a lot of the interface. Might as well start learning the new interface now. Pundits are already calling W7 Fixta. It is really more of a service pack than a whole new version. Microsoft only seems to be going to 7 because Vista has such a bad rap. It has some problems and they seem to me at least to have changed some things for no good reason. The changes in user interface in the latest version of Office really have as much to do with dislike of Vista than anything else. That and legacy support. If you are running a whole new machine and not planning to use a lot of old hardware with it, you should find Vista better than the rumors.

 

[Thanee]

I am planning on getting a laptop soon, it took a few weeks to decide on the model. I am an XP user and I heard a lot of negative things about Vista. My cousin who used to work for MS, tells me it's not that bad.

Bottom line, would waiting 11 months now for Windows 7 be a worth it? Are the problems with Vista really that bad?

I have my Vista PC since last year's summer now and had very, very few problems, really. It mostly runs very smooth and I like it better than XP.

It does use more system resources, however, so it's not suitable for a fairly low-powered machine (like those netbooks; eee-pc and the likes).

I use the PC for song writing using some low processor intensive programs. I do not really play computer video games. I rarely render video, graphics or anything else that may be a system hog. Now it's mostly about e-mail, web browsing, video chats and leisure (and school again.)

That should be absolutely no problem with Vista.

Bye
Thanee

 

[XCorvis]

Make sure your song writing programs actually work with Vista. Some niche programs are still way behind the times.

Other than that, I'd agree with the other folks. Vista SP1 is pretty solid and pretty reasonable, if a bit piggy. I have every hope that Win7 will be better, and it looks like there is an upgrade path between Vista and Win7 to make future upgrades easier.

 

[Felon]

Dema, I'm a tech in an IT department. I can tell you that it's not very good compared to the version of XP it replaced, but it's not so terrible that I would refuse to buy a new computer just because it had Vista on it, and more to the point it's simply not worth waiting a year in expectation of a new OS that will likely have its share of initial bugs.

 

[drothgery]

With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.

Win7 is looking like it's a small step removed from being Vista Service Pack 2 (the server version is Windows Server 2008 R2, not Windows Server 2010); it'll get a better reception mostly because 90% of the hardware that didn't have Vista drivers in Jan 2007 does now (and Vista drivers work for Win 7), and 90% of the rest is old enough that it's worn out.

 

[Steel_Wind]

With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.

The OP said he was not much of a game player. Others reading this may well be.

If they are, stay away from Vista 64. Ths issue is QA on the game itself (most shops will not test extensively on Vista 64 (and some not at all)) and drivers.

What frequently happens on a game's release is some driver issue that requires an update or patch somewhere to deal with the problem. If it's the game itself? Fine. But if it's the driver that needs revision - this will lead to trouble.

New 32bit drivers can be released fairly quickly. 64? Not so. That is because you cannot use an unsigned driver under Vista 64. There is a whole layer of testing and bureacracy that is added on to a 64 bit driver that will result in a significant delay befroe it is approved for release. This means that new driver versions are released more slowly for 64 than 32 - and not by just a little.

If you buy and play new PC games, the downside of the driver delay hangtime that is inherent to Vista 64 may well result in grief you do not need. I would strongly recommend against it. There are no 64 bit specific triple A PC titles, and there are not going to BE any 64 bit specific Triple A PC titles for many years to come.

The minuses easily outweight the plusses, imo. If you are going to use your PC to play PC games, stay away from Vista 64.

 

[drothgery]

New 32bit drivers can be released fairly quickly. 64? Not so. That is because you cannot use an unsigned driver under Vista 64. There is a whole layer of testing and bureaucracy that is added on to a 64 bit driver that will result in a significant delay before it is approved for release. This means that new driver versions are released more slowly for 64 than 32 - and not by just a little.

Since using unsigned drivers is a very, very bad idea, this doesn't persuade me at all.

Moreover, Vista x64 will take advantage of huge amounts of memory if you've got it (for caching if nothing else), and it's too cheap not to get 4GB+ for a desktop (unless you're getting an i7 with DDR3 -- and even though it's twice as expensive as DDR2, DDR3 is still cheaper per GB than DDR2 was a few years ago), in which you've got plenty of money, and so are going to get at least 6GB). Vista x64 is the current enthusiast platform of choice; the idea that games won't get tested extensively there is bizarre.

32-bit Win7 will almost certainly be relegated to the third world, huge corporations, and netbooks. And it will be the last 32-bit desktop Windows. It's a 64-bit world now.