Time for a Vista Do-Over?

DigitalDame2 writes "'There's nothing wrong with Vista,' PC Mag editor-in-chief Lance Ulanoff tells a Microsoft rep at this year's CES. 'But you guys have a big problem on your hands. Perception is reality, and the perception is that Vista is a dud.' He goes on to confess that the operating system is too complex and burdened by things people don't need. Plus, Vista sometimes seems so slow. Ulanoff gives four suggestions for a complete Vista makeover, like starting with new code and creating a universal interface table. But will Microsoft really listen?"

Comments

Re:Nothing wrong

[CastrTroy]

Are there any numbers that detail the number of vista machines that are due to retail sales, vs. those with vista preinstalled. And of the ones with Vista pre-installed, how many of those had XP as an option.

Re:Nothing wrong

[t1n0m3n]

*shrug* From my personal experience with XP-64 and Vista-64, I don't get the "Vista is a crappy OS" statements. I benchmarked my system with both operating systems using 3DMark06. I turned off the services and other things I do not use (the same thing I do in XP). Vista was about 300 points slower, which equates to about a 4% performance drop on my system. Since everyone is complaining about performance, I would expect Microsoft updates and service packs to increase performance over time. There are a couple of issues that I think will get worked out over time: DX10 performance needs help and network transfers have some sort of bug that makes file transfers slow (which I hear is already addressed in the upcoming SP1). IMO some of these complaints remind me of things said in the Win98 vs WinXP days.

All in all, I would say that Vista is not a better performer. But since when has a new Microsoft OS been faster than the old Microsoft OS that it intended to replace? Sure I am losing 1.5 to 2.5 FPS in games, but I feel that is acceptable given the newness of the OS.