I pity the fool (Windows XP good, Vista bad)
It saddens me to think of all the ill advised people buying new computers running Windows Vista, when they could have chosen XP. As Mr. T was fond of saying back in the 1980s, I pity the fool.
Let me be clear, my point is only about the choice between XP and Vista and has nothing to do with Macs or Linux, many of whose devotees feel this way about all Windows users. I'm also not here to defend Windows XP, whose faults are many. My point is simply that if you are buying a new computer to run Windows applications, XP is the right choice; Vista is the wrong choice.
I'm not the only one who feels this way. On Wednesday nights I'm privileged to be on The Personal Computer Show on WBAI-FM. The four regular techies on the show (Joe King and Hank Kee are the hosts and Alfred Poor has been on the show for years) share more years of computer experience than you can possibly imagine. We agree about nothing and can offer five opinions amongst the four of us, with two exceptions. One is, if you are buying a new Windows computer, get XP instead of Vista (the other is to backup, backup, backup, but that's another story).
This posting was prompted by the recent stories about the upcoming Service Pack for Vista. Typical was Ina Fried's August 30th News.com article Will update drive Vista use?. Ina writes that "Many analysts have consistently advised companies to hold off on Vista deployments until the first service pack's arrival."
This is bad advice. Perhaps there is a herd mentality at work. In the old days, the common wisdom was that you can't go wrong buying IBM. That was supplanted over time by the feeling that you can't go wrong buying Microsoft (exhibit A being Microsoft Office). Now this.
I completely agree with the concept of waiting for a new operating system to shake out before bothering with it. Most, if not all, techies feel this way. But how long to wait is a matter of opinion and my Defensive Computing opinion is not to consider using Vista until it's 2.5 years old. Mark your calendar for the summer of 2009. And, that's being conservative.
For the most part, a service pack is a collection of bug fixes ("patches" is the more popular term, but "bug fix" is more accurate). How many bug fixes need to be applied to an operating system before it's mature enough to use for work you consider important? 12? 25? 38?
The maturity of an operating system is not measured merely in terms of the number of bug fixes issued. Time is also a huge component. My rule of thumb (2.5 years) not only allows for more bug fixes, it also gives the operating system ecosystem more time to mature.
- Waiting allows time for software companies to adapt to the programming changes necessitated by Vista. After 2.5 years, not only will more software be Vista compatible, but the the Vista compatible software will have matured a bit itself. Defensively speaking, I'm not a big fan of using the first Vista compatible version of an application just after it's released.
- Waiting allows for the development of more Vista drivers for older hardware and, just as importantly, the maturity of the first generation of Vista drivers. If there is one thing you really really want to avoid it's a buggy driver.
- For very old hardware, waiting allows time for early adopters to see which, if any, of the XP drivers work and/or work well with Vista. The NEC SuperScript 870 printer is an excellent case in point. I griped about this printer starting back in 1999 when I first purchased it. Despite its being discontinued years ago, people still use the 870 and want it work with Vista (and Macs too). Needless to say, NEC isn't going to write new Vista drivers for such an old printer. But many people have found their way to my SuperScript 870 gripes page and offered Vista advice on what worked and didn't work for them. Anyone wanting to use this printer with Vista now can easily benefit from this advice--if you Google "NEC SuperScript 870" today, my computergripes.com page for the 870 is the second search result.
- Waiting allows time for bloggers, reporters and early adopters to develop a whole host of workarounds for common Vista problems. Want to turn off UAC? Simply search for "turn off uac vista" to find a wealth of advice. The longer you wait, the more workarounds there will be for common annoyances.
- The books about Vista will have been written based on the shipping version rather than a beta version
History is also on my side.
Any computer nerd would describe running Windows XP with Service Pack 1 as dangerous and archaic. To illustrate how conservative my 2.5 year starting point is, consider XP at age 2.5. It was released in October 2001. Using it now with bug fixes as of February 2004 would be very dangerous indeed. Anyone who thinks the situation with Vista will be different hasn't learned from history.
Vote with your head and your pocketbook. If you're buying a new computer to run Windows applications, get XP instead of Vista. It may not be available on the shelves of retailers, but XP is available on computers purchased at the websites of Lenovo, Dell, HP, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Gateway, Acer and, no doubt, others (you may have to look in the business sections). Even Wal-Mart still has four laptops with Windows XP for sale.
You're in charge, not Microsoft. And it's not like Microsoft loses money if you buy a computer running Windows XP.
Update. September 2, 2007: In the first comment on this posting, reta9 said "Best Buy said XP was not available..." Let's be clear on this. Windows XP may not have been available from Best Buy, but it is available from Microsoft and from the computer manufacturers listed above.
Update. September 10, 2007: According to the Windows Life-Cycle Policy you will be able to buy Windows XP at a retail outlet and from direct OEMs until January 31, 2008. If anyone speaks Microsoft, please leave a comment as to the meaning of "direct OEMs". It also says that "System Builders" will be able to sell computers with XP until January 31, 2009. Again, translation needed...
Update. September 18, 2007: An article in the Wall Street Journal today, Vista Looks to Pioneers by Robert Guth, reports on a recent study of 565 large companies. Only 7% plan to start rolling out Vista this year, and a whopping 38% have no plans to move to Vista.
A thank you to CNET user HANtwister for the comment OEMs and System Builders that explains these terms and offers a suggestion on how to obtain a copy of Windows XP after January 2008.
Update. September 26, 2007: For more on this subject see When to convert from Windows XP to Vista, part 2
%20%7C%20Tech%20news%20blog%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9770230-7.html){kind=small}
I will agree that UAC is annoying at times but it's not that bad. People make it sound as if your getting a pop up every 5 minutes. The only time UAC will bother you, is when it should. This is a security measure that you are telling people to turned off... why?
On the plus side the service guys are great, reinstall everything, update everything and have correction scripts that fix things like hooking up to a wireless network or a printer, which is impossible out of the box.
Well, the installation didn't go 100% smoothly, but during both installs I was presented with a dialog box letting me know there were compatibility issues AND links to the patches. Took most of the day (mostly due to the 400+GB VS2005 SP1 update), but I'm now running my development environment off Vista.
I've heard a lot of people complain about the confirmation popups, and they're about an annoying as having to open the front door to get into your house, i.e. Not very intrusive and there for a good reason.
Understand, it is a different OS. Things are done a litle differently. What might be true in XP won't necessary hold up in Vista. You have to swallow your pride and understand that you need to relearn Windows. I think this is where most of the frustration comes.
Nevertheless, I would only recommend putting Vista on a new system or at least a seperate hard drive with a dual boot. That way you have your old XP system in case Vista doesn't work for you.
I bought XP Pro from Best Buy not 2 weeks ago. It's still overpriced.
If you believe the statistics most home user Windows computers are infected with spyware and/or viruses and are a mess regardless of the version they are running.
We will probably have some vista computers in our company eventually, but its incompatibility with some of our major apps have already made us take steps that have reduced our need to run Windows computers.
"Windows XP OK, Vista Bad"
Most consumers are not technically savvy and aren't comfortable performing a proper system rebuild when they move from one OS to another. The average consumer, when forced to upgrade to Vista sometime next year (due to some app or game that requires Vista) they will simply buy a copy of Vista and perform an OS upgrade which will practically guarantee that they will create a slow performing and/or unstable system.
It works. It's fun to use.
I've been running it for two weeks and it hasn't crashed.
Oh, and all my programs run just fine.
Why all the Vista bashing? I don't know anyone (including small businesses that are early adopters) who is have trouble.
I've got Vista running on all machines and would not switch back to XP if you *paid* me to do it. It is faster, far more stable and has a wealth of features that whilst seemingly innocuous add up to a lot of the "little headaches" vanishing.
As for drivers, I have no problems running both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, though for somethings I've had to use a 32-bit Vista as the 64-bit drivers aren't there. That's not to do with Vista however as they're not there for any other OS either in the majority of cases.
For old hardware it makes sense, but then you'd want to get a new machine with Vista pre-loaded, so the point made here is silly - why would someone want to choose XP over Vista on a new machine? They wouldn't.
Bloggers and books? There are plenty out there already, and great products like TweakVista that do this stuff for you.
It saddens me that so many supposed experts are still empowered to run rampant with poor advice akin to that proffered by the old PC salesmen...
Disappointed to say the least,
Eiren
Ignoring the rain falling doesn't stop you from getting wet. It's better to pull your head out of that hole in the ground, see that it's raining, and get an umbrella.
If people let themselves be guided by these 'experts', then we would still be using Commodore VIC 20's and Apple II's. Come on guys, don't be afraid of the future and progress. Give it a chance and you might find you actually like it.
By the way, how do you think people are finding bugs and requesting drivers? By using the OS, that's how. If everyone waits 2.5 years no one will produce any updates or programs for Vista for 2.5 years. This "expert" advice is as old and tired as Mr T's tagline.
a field who insist that they have more experience and wisdom than
everyone else in the world. "MY WORD IS LAW! IGNORE IT AT YOUR
PERIL!" and we're supposed to kowtow before them and run out and
do exactly as they say. If we don't we're nothing but fools.
What a load of puerile pablum disguised as informed commentary.
I play the latest games, don't have video driver problems. My HP ColorJet has vista drivers now, maybe you should have bought from a vendor that cares more about its customers, like HP does. Any other reason is just a vendor's excuse to make you buy new hardware....
I know you are going to write me off as a Fanboy, but the simple fact is vista does what I need it to do today, and I'm using it. Save the pity for yourself....
There are always those that want tomorrow's tech today. They're the ones that will serve as guinea pigs as Microsoft works out the first few waves of bugs and security holes. We have to be grateful to those guinea pigs. Because without them, the new OS will not mature.
I can't imagine a savvy CTO that is willing to risk productivity, or worse, by jumping on the bandwagon too soon. But, they do exist. I guess it depends on the business situation. Waiting too long could be costly too. It's a delicate balance. But, 2.5 years seems about right.
Come January 2008, Microsoft will force everyone to buy Vista with their new PCs. It won't matter how much *better* XP is from that point. Vista will be Microsoft's OS -- like it or not.
I don't understand the idiot crusade here. I remember when my roommate in college returned his win95 computer to downgrade to Win3.11 because of all the hype.
Again, the problems out there are one of two:
1) old hardware on a new OS = crappy hardware vendors that want to force you to buy new. You're fooling yourself if you think printer and graphics card vendors aren't hoping you'll upgrade.
2) Security... people gripe about the new (incredibly effective) security layer in Vista. Yes, it pops up a big warning any time software wants to "update" itself. It should. I want to know if anything is installing itself. If you don't like it, turn it off (at your own risk). You'll still have the same as XP security.
1. Improved file search engine
2. DX10
3. Improved base standard applications
4. Aero interface* (*if supported by your hardware)
5. Windows Mail (which replace outlook express)
There are more reasons to buy Vista instead of XP. Yes, it has taken a long time for apps and games to apply themselves to write development for Vista but most of that issue is now over.
Someone mentioned win3.1 vs win95; well, win95 was a huge change from 3.1, and had a lot to offer besides a bunch of new bugs. Vista offers an unimpressive "security" feature, an IE sandbox (theoretically useful if I could stand IE), some new underlying display models that might one day make application windows better, etc.
Parental controls are theoretically useful for a family computer, although I've found them equally annoying as useful. Most of the controls also only work with Windows products, apparently. IM, email, etc. reports not surprisingly don't know about the 3rd party programs I set up for my kid.
Performance has been severely degraded over XP, even ignoring discovered design flaws regarding networking and media files. I found the improved search's behavior atrocious enough that I turned off indexing, although I'm glad search can finally adjust on the fly now. Explorer is slightly improved, but retains most of the design limitations. These are minimal and not completely positive changes that leave me baffled as to the supposed appeal of Vista.
Vista was actually annoying enough that I installed an Ubuntu cd for the first time this weekend. It's not perfect either; there's a learning curve for anything beyond application use, although the basic install was amazingly simple. I managed to "crash" it, I think, switching users several times. I still run XP on my main computers. But I'm going to give Linux a shot. There were a ton of configuration options (too many to absorb in truth) that Windows never offered.
Again, to all the Microsoft fans, what's so very compelling about Vista that makes it better? Install popups aren't much added protection, and I'm used to doing all the security work for XP. DX10 is currently irrelevant, and may be usable on XP, from what I've heard. What's so useful that I can't live without it, from a business or personal standpoint?
- XP vs Vista
-
by tcmuench
October 15, 2007 4:59 PM PDT
- I got a new computer 02/28/07 with Vista preinstalled. In August I "upgraded" to XP. Vista crashed at least a dozen times, would not run my printer or zip drive, and generally ran extremely slow.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 26 Comments >>