Windows XP wasn't particularly well received. Really this was just like any Windows release, in that it was followed by a lot of unhappiness at the resource hog that is (was?) XP. A year later, XP wasn't any better liked than when it hit the stands. Two, 3, 4 years later, the market held the same lackluster view of XP.

But now that Vista has been available for what, 2 years, XP is great! People are saying things all the time like XP 64 is the replacement to XP, not Vista. Or that XP is the best OS Microsoft has ever put out. I guess I'm a little guilty of that myself, except that I'd say Windows Server 2003 (literally XP.2) is the best operating system we've seen.

The thing that gets me is that people don't say or think this because XP is inherently good. It's only because Vista is so lousy that it makes XP look good by comparison.

Am I missing something?

I just kind of roll with whatever Microsoft puts out. As long as it goes, and what not I'm happy with it. Though I must admit I like XP a bit more than Vista, mostly because it does not use as much memory, and I just seem to flow better with it.

I'm getting a long with Vista though.

John I think part of the difference between XP then and now is service packs 1 and 2 which helped make XP better than the original release. I assume in a year or two people will be much happier with Vista than they are now.

Who knows though.

I can't speak specifically about Vista since I haven't used it, but one of my thoughts that makes it seem disappointing is that for as long as Microsoft took to work on Vista, it didn't seem to add as much as one would think. I think people expected more and so are disappointed.

And then of course XP is the devil we know and Vista is the unknown for most.

XP SP 2 was no joke! Pop up blocker in the OS, which probably translates into a patch for IE.

Good point about the looooooooong time until Vista was released and the generally heightened expectations.

It's funny though. Was Windows 98 the last version of Windows that launch to a positive review? NT maybe?

I think I've been using XP since shortly after it was released. I bought a laptop that actually came with ME and a coupon for XP. It's always worked well for me. There are things I wish could have been better, but overall it's always seemed to be a pretty decent OS.

Weren't you expecting more from Vista. I know I'm generalizing, but it seems like they just added aero to make them more Mac like and added the various user levels and permissions that no one really likes. I find it odd too that Microsoft gets criticized for the user level stuff. For years everyone wanted them to make the OS more secure and when they do they're criticized for it.

I'm not exactly the biggest Microsoft supporter in the world, but I think they sometimes get too much flak for things. Then again this afternoon I was cursing out IE for an hour because it wouldn't adhere to some simple css standards.

Originally Posted by vangogh

I find it odd too that Microsoft gets criticized for the user level stuff. For years everyone wanted them to make the OS more secure and when they do they're criticized for it.

I agree. But, the problem was most people wanted it to to be more secure silently in the background. They didn't want to have to constantly make those choices every time they wanted to click on something. Basically, they wanted it to be idiot-proof, which of course is impossible.

I think the main problem with the initial acceptance of an OS is that it's usually released a year or two before an affordable machine that can run it effortlessly is out on store shelves. Microsoft and the pc manufacturers are never on the same page...or are they? Hmmm...

True about what people wanted. It's that impossible part why I don't think Microsoft should be criticized. I guess they could have found a better solution than the one they did, but still.

Good point about an OS being released before the hardware has caught up and become affordable. That's another reason Vista will probably be seen in a more positive light in a year or two.

i'm fairly happy with vista - although i can't get php up and running - or scrabble 2003, and sim city 4 keeps crashing - in fact i don't know why i put up with it - looks nice

Funny Andy.

I am very much guilty in comparing Vista to Millennium. Resellers purchased towers and laptops with Vista pre-installed because it was "new", but some quickly sent them back as users were overwhelmingly expressing dissatisfaction. Personally, I preferred 98 and suggested users to continue using it as long as possible. I would suggest the same with the XP vs the Vista situation. Just hang tight. You really do not need the latest, in fact the latest has issues! Look at IE6 to IE7, how long did it take for a majority of users to stop experiencing difficulties continuously after the release. If Microsoft was not the monopoly it is, users would never tolerate software releases that should still be betas. Well, that is my opinion anyway.

The most annoying thing that I've found about running Vista, is that there is a mysterious bug that is connected to communicating with the particular router I use. It is a brand new, Linksys router too, which is what truly irks me. Sometimes I can't connect to a website, and by removing the 'www' from the name (or adding it) sometimes it will connect. If this fails, I turn around, flip on my XP powered laptop, which I use for IE6 testing, and invariably I am able to connect to any website. I really hope they figure out the ghost in the machine that keeps bothering me.

Xp is allot fasther then Vista so yea Xp is great!

Originally Posted by Moxxnixx

I agree. But, the problem was most people wanted it to to be more secure silently in the background. They didn't want to have to constantly make those choices every time they wanted to click on something. Basically, they wanted it to be idiot-proof, which of course is impossible.

Users frankly shouldn't be required or allowed to make technical security decisions with scant evidence.

For example "Do you really want to run this file? It's called SomeProgram.exe". From that you don't have enough information to decide wisely, and it's a cop out for the operating system (which is going to run the code inside the program, so obviously has access to it) to push this choice onto the end user.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Users frankly shouldn't be required or allowed to make technical security decisions with scant evidence.

For example "Do you really want to run this file? It's called SomeProgram.exe". From that you don't have enough information to decide wisely, and it's a cop out for the operating system (which is going to run the code inside the program, so obviously has access to it) to push this choice onto the end user.

I agree! Even with information, too many users are clueless as to what the information means anyway. A warning could state, "Do not push the install button or computer will never work again." People would still push it just to see.
A prime example of lack of user understanding of information lies within the windows updates. People are often advised to use the custom settings rather than the express install, because "some of those updates you do not need." This is terrible advice to give the average user. They do not have a clue what they need even with all the info the update page provides. They may think they do not need something, but it is only because they just do not know.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I liked XP the moment it came out. In my defense: My pc had Windows 98 & the one at work had Windows 95 installed, so it was definitely better! Vista I don't care for yet, maybe when the first SP comes out. I have Vista pre-installed on a laptop and it has already given me the blue screen of death twice and is terribly slow.

Personally I have had no problems with Vista. It looks great and works just like XP but things like driver installations and networking are a lot less painful. As for compatibility I've had more compatibility issues since I started using XP x64.

I use Vista at work, XP at home and my daughter's machine is 2K.

2K irritates me. I've gotten used to a few of the advances of XP and not having them when I'm working on her already slower machine is just aggravating.

Vista is okay at work, but it's a brand new machine with 2 gigs of RAM and constantly at 50% or better resources used. I don't put that machine to nearly the use that my own computer gets. If I had it at home it would probably end up irritating me too.

XP hasn't given me any issues. I didn't install until after SP2 came out and rarely shut my machine down.

Vista is good enough... but the main problem at present with vista- is not compatible with some softwares.... e.g. adobe CS3..

I've only had a fleeting glimpse at Vista over someones shoulder, but from the stories I hear about drivers, hardware trouble and resource hogging from my classmates at college (all of these being highly tech savvy users), I'm not likely to upgrade until I have to (i.e. when I purchase a new machine).

I think there is definitely truth in that people have only really put XP on a pedestal when they saw Vista and all of the trouble that comes with it. Let's hope that we don't do the same with the next version of Windows after Vista (codenamed Vienna/Windows 7) - if Windows operating systems continue going downhill release after release, it'll be bad news for Microsoft but I think a lot of users will continue purchasing the OS anyway. Most home users seem to be under the impression that Microsoft/Windows is the only OS provider out there and look at you strange if you say anything about Mac or Linux. I'd like to add that Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) is the best OS I've seen so far It beats XP hands down!

Dan

I have Vista and have no problem with it whatsoever. I like it much better, actually.