Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Should licensed Vista users get free upgrade to Windows 7?

<< < (3/15) > >>

zridling:
Vista-SP1 is actually quite fine, if you have the hardware to make it sing. After Win 7 comes out, just once I want John Hodgman to kick the Apple schmuck in the onions; commercial ends with him writhing and crying on the ground!  :P

Josh:
Honestly, I feel that users should NOT get a free copy. Ever since it's inception, I have enjoyed Vista. The problem is not so much the OS itself, it's the fact that no one wants to update their software to work the RIGHT way and not store information to the program files folder. This is the way *nix has done it for years. No program, minus developer and a few other niche tools, should require administrator rights to run. 95% of software which is on 90% of user computers can run just fine in a reduced privilege mode. That is what is wrong with Vista. The hardware compatibility hasn't been an issue for me either. I use parts whose manufacturers actually release vista compliant drivers. Microsoft increased requirements for WHQL drivers because that is what causes a good majority of crashes (Poorly written drivers).

In the end, I am perfectly happy with my 3 copies of Vista (1x Ultimate, 2x Home premium for $49 each). I find that a majority of people who complain about vista either A. Never used it, B. Used it for 5 minutes, saw a UAC prompt and quit or C. Simply like to tinker and end up breaking something and then blame vista for it.

biox:
I find that a majority of people who complain about vista either A. Never used it, B. Used it for 5 minutes, saw a UAC prompt and quit or C. Simply like to tinker and end up breaking something and then blame vista for it.-Josh (November 06, 2008, 11:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
I haven't really got a problem with Vista, just taking the pee a little :-[

I'd fall into category C-, tinker->yes!!! but blame->myself  >:(, actually 'scorn' would be the better word.

justice:
I have to agree with Josh, I've never had a good running system longer than my current vista installations. It's more robust, the interface is more responsive, and the best OS i've used. Especially if you install a lot of software, there's definately less breakage over time than any XP install I used. It's just got a bad image. I wouldn't consider putting XP on a machine.

It even runs fine on MSI Wind netbooks, - with a longer battery life and better performance than a XP install (in this case).

f0dder:
I wouldn't say Vista is more robust than XP, it does have it's quirks... and it certainly is heavier resource-wise. On the other hand, I seriously doubt my laptop would "run faster" if I switched it over to XP; programs would probably load slower due to the lack of the enhanced prefetcher. I'm even almost tempted to give it a whirl on my workstation, to see if it can utilize the resources better than trusty old XP64.

Josh is pretty spot on the sugar, most of the problems you'll see with Vista (heck, with any windows version, but Vistas defaults make it more obvious) are due to retarded 3rd-party programmers, be it applications or drivers. A lot of the changes in the OS are for the better, too bad this wasn't done back in 2000 though - we'd have a better situation now, then.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't see why Vista users should get a free upgrade to Windows 7. Cheaper upgrades, sure, and a reduced number of windows versions (split it into workstation and server editions and let that be it). But free upgrade? Why?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page