Vista Named Year's Most Disappointing Product

Shadow7789 writes "No surprise here, but to complete its humiliation, PC World has declared that Windows Vista is the most disappointing product of 2007. Quoting: 'Five years in the making and this is the best Microsoft could do?... No wonder so many users are clinging to XP like shipwrecked sailors to a life raft, while others who made the upgrade are switching back. And when the fastest Vista notebook PC World has ever tested is an Apple MacBook Pro, there's something deeply wrong with the universe.'"

Comments

disappointing, it is relative!

[Fengpost]

Sure it can, you score can go into the negative area since Vista is slower than XP. By my count, it is -5 because of the worse benchmark score and compatibility issues.

http://www.mobilecomputermag.co.uk/20071128181/windows-xp-faster-than-vista.html

Going somewhat against the slashdot 'groupthink'

[cashman73]

Probably going to get modded "-1 Troll" for this, but having seen and used the product, I don't think Vista is all that bad. Granted, I still wouldn't want to try and run it on a system that only meets the "minimum specifications",... but seriously, who's going to recommend such a system anyway? True, the extra "confirmations" are a bit of a pain, but they're really not THAT bad. I honestly can't say I've seen a Windows Vista system crash any more or less than a Windows XP system (or a Mac, for that matter). Compared to Linux, on the other hand, well,... there's still no comparison,... ;-)

As for all the extra "eye candy" ... yeah, it's probably a little over the top. But on that same coin, Linux and MacOS have been getting their fair share of extra processor-eating-eye-candy, too, so what's the big deal here?

Still, if you have Windows XP, there's still no reason to rush out and replace it with Vista (just not worth the hassle, really). But if you're buying a new PC, I wouldn't freak out if it has Vista,...

Re:What about the iPhone?

[UnknowingFool]

Once there are more drivers the 64 bit Vista may be a good option but the 32 bit version is a step backwards for Microsoft in my opinion.

If I understand the whole 32/64 bit situation with Microsoft correctly, the 64bit model that MS chose (LLP64) may cause some issues beyond simple driver replacement. LLP64 creates a new integer type called long long which is 64bit and keeps long as 32bit. LP64 (Unix version) redefines long as 64bit. The advantage of LLP64 is that overflow will not occur since there are two distinct types but casting a pointer to a long will not work. The opposite would be true for LP64.

The end result is that software for LP64 software needs to be ported by being recompiled to either 32bit or 64bit systems but for LLP64, the software needs to be specifically written for either 32 or 64bit. I'm not an expert here. Can someone else comment?