candle_86you cant have an OS with a blank name that wont work

So, they would have to know it was Vista to begin with. :)

32-bit Vista Home Premium (damn OEM machines - never gonna buy them again) works like a charm for me. Windows boots quickly and shutdowns in 15 seconds (how can it be so fast) compared to XP that took almost a minute. Only two bad freezes is a whole lotta better compared to old Dell XP machine that bugged once or twice a week. I prefer Vista to XP, atleast in new machines. My friend on the other hand hates Vista, so IMO it's a matter of opinion.

Did they test extremely ADHD children for this?

I'm sure many people object to vista for silly reasons, and they don't really care about what's under the hood and such, but that won't negate the objections of informed people, and saying something is 'great' because others are saying so because they repeat stuff is no better than saying something suck based on no information.
The truth is that there are actually people that don't ever come across bugs or missing features or badly implemented stuff, be it in vista or xp or linux, that drive others rightfully mad.
In regards to vista I'd like to point out that many experts and businesses dislike big parts of it, and these aren't cases of people just imitating discontent but people who deal with the nitty-gritty, and not just a flashy media-center interface, and find it lacking.

zitheDid they test extremely ADHD children for this?

Thats what I was thinking, in MOST surveys they tell you more than just the people came from San Francisco, they tell you sex, ethnicity, age, etc but all they tell you except the locations are that we have videos and don't show them.

I actually tried to install vista on the main computer back home and guess what, my (programmer)mother hated it, my (lawyer)father hated it and my sister didn't really care:laugh:

KainXSThats what I was thinking, in MOST surveys they tell you more than just the people came from San Francisco, they tell you sex, ethnicity, age, etc but all they tell you except the locations are that we have videos and don't show them.

I actually tried to install vista on the main computer back home and guess what, my (programmer)mother hated it, my (lawyer)father hated it and my sister didn't really care:laugh:

I made every pc in the house upgrade to vista :laugh: They didn't complain and if they do they will get linux and be told to f off.

In regards to people that say vista is great and xp gave them lots of bluescreens: you are typically the kind of person vista is designed for, people who manage to bluescreen xp massively should have taken control away from them like vista does and magically things improve, it's true yes, for you vista is better, but that is not an absolute.

WshlistI'm sure many people object to vista for silly reasons, and they don't really care about what's under the hood and such, but that won't negate the objections of informed people, and saying something is 'great' because others are saying so because they repeat stuff is no better than saying something suck based on no information.
The truth is that there are actually people that don't ever come across bugs or missing features or badly implemented stuff, be it in vista or xp or linux, that drive others rightfully mad.
In regards to vista I'd like to point out that many experts and businesses dislike big parts of it, and these aren't cases of people just imitating discontent but people who deal with the nitty-gritty, and not just a flashy media-center interface, and find it lacking.

Majority of big businesses that dont want to switch to vista are concerned with cost and comapatibility. Our company uses 8 yr. old computers and servers and it will take tons of $$$$ (we're talking couple of hundred thousands) to switch to vista. As far as compatibility. It will take time to get that right and thats with evrey software thats new and being released.

also, if im the owner of our business right now, i wouldnt switch either eventhough are servers and computers are almost 10 yrs. old. Its running perfect right now and why waste hundreds of thousands just to switch. Even if vista or another OS was running perfectly. Just doesnt make sense business wise to spend all that money for a new OS

narniaMajority of big businesses that dont want to switch to vista are concerned with cost and comapatibility. Our company uses 8 yrs. old computers and servers and it will take tons of $$$$ (we're talking couple of hundred thousands) to switch to vista. As far as compatibility. It will take time to get that right and thats with evrey software thats new and being released.

Jesus 8 year old computers? Is the IT department asleep at the wheel or is management have a coke habit. :laugh:

Upgrade cycles should atleast be no larger than 4 years and thats really pushing it.

DaedalusHeliosJesus 8 year old computers? Is the IT department asleep at the wheel or is management have a coke habit. :laugh:

Upgrade cycles should atleast be no larger than 4 years and thats really pushing it.

yeah, im not exaggerating. i was checking it out about a week ago and they are super old but it gets the job done :) no need for those fancy cards or multiple cpu cores ;)

WshlistIn regards to people that say vista is great and xp gave them lots of bluescreens: you are typically the kind of person vista is designed for, people who manage to bluescreen xp massively should have taken control away from them like vista does and magically things improve, it's true yes, for you vista is better, but that is not an absolute.

XP bluescreened me alot and I wouldn't say it was my fault, because of its age its more prone to virus' etc and the likes and that comment might be offensive to some, I found it rather insulting :(
On a bit of an unrelated note I think windows 7 should have 64bit only support anyone agree ?

DrPepperXP bluescreened me alot and I wouldn't say it was my fault, because of its age its more prone to virus' etc and the likes and that comment might be offensive to some, I found it rather insulting :(
On a bit of an unrelated note I think windows 7 should have 64bit only support anyone agree ?

yeah, we need to move on to 64 bit only. forget the 32 bit...im really serious about this people. We really need to just move on

narniayeah, im not exaggerating. i was checking it out about a week ago and they are super old but it gets the job done :) no need for those fancy cards or multiple cpu cores ;)

Is it even pentium!?

lol i love how the people who hate vista are arguing over the way the tests were conducted, while all the vista non-haters are saying they've seen this exact trend.

I had a vista hater too, got him on my PC. told him it was XP with a vista theme. he started ranting about how vista runs so slow compared to XP, and even with my 'theme pack' how much faster my rig was...

seriously. the vista haters have never even bothered. i'm surprised they ever got onto XP... unless that was the first OS they ever used as well.


90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.

Mussels90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.

I agree, when it first came out my advice to my customers was to wait till vista sp1. I just finished putting vista 32 on my lappy and Vista 64 on my desktop, with an image backup of my fav xpsp3. So far so good tweaked the heck out of it for speed as I did with xp, so far I like the improvements.:respect:
Only complaint so far is Crysis crashes when I try to play maultiplayer, single player works fine. Event viewer says an atiXXX32 file is the problem and I know I loaded up the 64 bit ati drivers. Also Crysis won't save my setting for Fullscreen within the game, I can assume that there is a tweek in a config file that I can change manually. Any takers for my complaints so I can say to my customers that my experience with Vista is Fantastic.:toast:

alot of the vista bugs where immature drivers to be honest, as drivers got better so did the OS. Its people like me that where offical beta testers that sent in reports on what happened when it crashed and why ect ect that Vista is like it is. If you want to talk about Vista bugs let me tell you what you'd have if they shipped huild 5012 to you.

candle_86If you want to talk about Vista bugs let me tell you what you'd have if they shipped huild 5012 to you.

Enlighten me :D As far as I'm aware the only reason vista was buggy was because of drivers and not the actual OS. I think the WHQL is a good idea and concept and works well now.

ok heres a few of the early bugs of Vista from the Beta Stages

DX8 games could crash the computer and i lost the OS a few times playing MOH:AA.

.net framework for Vista Beta casued issues with a few programs that relied on the framework built by 3rd parties.

The OS had issues at times with the LDDM drivers where it would mistake them for windows 98 drivers and not Vista.

those are a few of them

Musselslol i love how the people who hate vista are arguing over the way the tests were conducted, while all the vista non-haters are saying they've seen this exact trend.

I had a vista hater too, got him on my PC. told him it was XP with a vista theme. he started ranting about how vista runs so slow compared to XP, and even with my 'theme pack' how much faster my rig was...

seriously. the vista haters have never even bothered. i'm surprised they ever got onto XP... unless that was the first OS they ever used as well.


90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.

I logged back in just to thank your post. It's amazing how people take this as some scientific study that needs background checks, control groups, and blind testing. This is just clever marketing, and that's it. If anything this shows how ignorant people are willing to be. Most people that have a beef on Vista hate it just because a friend or a commercial told them to, not because they actually tried it or looked up any information about it.

Of course, that can be said about a ton of things, not just Vista in particular. Marketing has more power than people think.

Let's look at your complaints one at a time ...

EastCoasthandle-independent survey from a neutral party

It wasn't a survey, it was an experiment, just like the original post states. Why would they pay someone else to run an experiment?

-how these results were obtained

"User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken.", just like the orginal post states.

-environment in which the results were taken

Probably at a mall. It doesn't really matter. They were trying to determine peoples' perceptions of Vista, not perform an empirical study.

-what the OS's desktop looked like

Just like Vista, because they were using Vista. They were trying to see what people thought of Vista after they used it. Why would they use something else?

-how they determined someone is Pro XP or otherwise

They asked them? That is how I would find out.

Where is the video?

They are using it to make commercials and other advertisements?
It would be kind of foolish to release the video if you are going to use it in ads.

I am not a MS fanboi, and it is true that there are some issues with Vista, but it is not a steaming pile of crap like many people would have you believe.
It's responsive, stable, super easy to install and had run every app I have installed on it.

I started using Vista Ult. about 7-8 months ago I guess.. I started with both XP and Vista, but quickly found myself not using XP.. Had I listened to all the negative reviews I never would have installed Vista.. Glad I can make up my own mind..

As far as if these "tests" were performed in a manner that is acceptable to the most 'anal' of opinions, NO.. Nothing is.. It is, however, a catalyst for people to reconsider their opinion.. I've always known that anti Vista users are mostly users who never even tried it..

I think the point of this is to show plain and simple that Online reviews hold a ton of weight in most peoples choices.. Problem is not all reviews are sound reviews.. And not all users understand what they are using..

I've installed HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of OS's.. Mostly XP and Vista.. My view is that Vista is a much smoother and stable install.. I was also really pleased that even Upgrade packages of Vista were far better than XP upgrades..

This reminds me a little of XP's early days.. A lot said to go back to windows 98.. '98 was faster b/c it was simple compared to XP.. Just like XP is simple compared to Vista.. If we want new, and nicer OS's we have to be willing to accept that it will take more CPU resources to make that happen..

well there is nothing actually wrong with vista it has no glaring faults

2 things keep people away

1. people who just hate it because yes it is like a trend
2. the enthusiasts hate how it uses up a whole gig or more of ram

myself i prefer it to xp on my main pc but for my older pc nothing wrong with it but it seems a little slower when loading

i think most people who only use pcs for internet and office should be using linux

users who want direct x 10 or have powerful pcs should run vista 64x

there are hardly any users who would need xp maybe laptop users because vista is a resource hog but most people should use vista 64 or linux

KreijLet's look at your complaints one at a time ...
It wasn't a survey, it was an experiment, just like the original post states. Why would they pay someone else to run an experiment?

It doesn't matter if it's a survey or an experiment. It's simply a marketing gimmick to bring a better image to Vista. Therefore, draws question to it's validity.

Kreij"User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken.", just like the orginal post states.
Probably at a mall. It doesn't really matter. They were trying to determine peoples' perceptions of Vista, not perform an empirical study.

Again, this is from an email with no valid source other then the marketing department. I've already explained why I take this with a grain of salt.

KreijJust like Vista, because they were using Vista. They were trying to see what people thought of Vista after they used it. Why would they use something else?

You cannot have a survey unless you have some sort of bases or comparison to start from. Subjects were told the OS was under a different name, creating an illusion. The subjects (if they exist) should have been presented with just the OS without any internal or external influences of the name, manufacture or type of the OS used. Then let them formulate an opinion on it, that didn't happen.

KreijThey asked them? That is how I would find out.

No proof of that either. For example, just because someone hasn't used Vista doesn't make them pro XP. Or if they rarely use the PC doesn't make them Pro XP. There are many examples that don't make someone more biased toward XP. Therefore, it stand to reason to ask how were these individuals classified as XP Pro users? Furthermore, the responses in this thread draw question as to how people think when someone has an opinion different from their own. For example, some here believe a person is a Vista hater because one can formulate a none biased, peerless, constructive opinion.

KreijThey are using it to make commercials and other advertisements?
It would be kind of foolish to release the video if you are going to use it in ads.

I am not a MS fanboi, and it is true that there are some issues with Vista, but it is not a steaming pile of crap like many people would have you believe.
It's responsive, stable, super easy to install and had run every app I have installed on it.

This is the whole reason to take it with a grain of salt (regardless if the video is presented or not). If you can do this with the Mac ads this is no different. It only shows bias if one is weighed greater then the other. According to some posts so far, it is.
Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will. If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone). So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.

OnionManI started using Vista Ult. about 7-8 months ago I guess.. I started with both XP and Vista, but quickly found myself not using XP.. Had I listened to all the negative reviews I never would have installed Vista.. Glad I can make up my own mind..

As far as if these "tests" were performed in a manner that is acceptable to the most 'anal' of opinions, NO.. Nothing is.. It is, however, a catalyst for people to reconsider their opinion.. I've always known that anti Vista users are mostly users who never even tried it..

I think the point of this is to show plain and simple that Online reviews hold a ton of weight in most peoples choices.. Problem is not all reviews are sound reviews.. And not all users understand what they are using..

I've installed HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of OS's.. Mostly XP and Vista.. My view is that Vista is a much smoother and stable install.. I was also really pleased that even Upgrade packages of Vista were far better than XP upgrades..

This reminds me a little of XP's early days.. A lot said to go back to windows 98.. '98 was faster b/c it was simple compared to XP.. Just like XP is simple compared to Vista.. If we want new, and nicer OS's we have to be willing to accept that it will take more CPU resources to make that happen..

I was in that windows 98 group, glad i switched over, i decleared XP as the worst OS up to 2004 when I got a 64bit Athlon 3200 and 98 wouldnt work properly on it and no Nforce3 drivers where out for it i had to use XP, and well after i got used to it i liked it, and won't go back to windows 98. Though for anyone that says they want a responsive, fast OS that doesnt hog resources, ill give you a copy of Windows 3.1 its fast, responsive, and uses under 1mb of ram.

I love how people that don't like Vista have instantly become Vista Haters according to some people in this thread. I would even say EastCoastHandle is been regarded as such, even when he is only questioning the validity of "the study". I do question that study too, not because it is imposible for something like that to happen, but because of how they have brought it to light, period. What would people here say if something similar came from Nvidia, Intel or AMD? Wait, we know, because everytime they have released their own benchmarks, those have been instantly catalogued as BS.

But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that.

TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...