I. Preface
Vista has been released for more than a year. I don’t know how much I have seen about Vista and XP. I have never been convinced that I can’t help but talk about my opinion. Vista and XP who are good and bad, it is hard to say, the key is the user's subjective choice. Good or bad, you can judge for yourself. What I want to say here is that I don’t want to be fooled by others.
First of all, my point of view: Since the official launch of Vista, my home machine is all Vista. XP? I only use it when doing some tests, so it only exists in the virtual machine. However, some of the printers in the company can't be installed and run under Vista. This is because our server is still NT 4 system. They don't want to upgrade me. There is no way, so I have to have an XP system. Despite this, most of my working hours are still done in Vista.
So, I like Vista, XP has been eliminated by me.
Second, the problem analysis
The use of computers can be roughly divided into three categories:
1, home users: can be divided into primary, advanced and game three categories;
2, office users: can be divided For ordinary and advanced categories;
3, IT professionals;
Generally speaking about Vista's first impression is its beautiful interface, translucent window effect, 3D Flip and so on. However, these are relatively superficial, and people have little understanding of the inside. There are many reasons why they don't choose Vista. In general, they can be summarized as follows:
1. The hardware requirements are high, so the system resources are occupied more, and many machines are not running smoothly.
Relative to XP, Vista has high hardware requirements, such as CPU, memory and graphics. However, this should not be a problem for machines after 2007. Generally speaking, even for commercial machines (except for a few machines that are only for general civilian personnel), the CPU is quite good, and the memory is not cheap enough. So what about graphics cards? People who really need Vista don't have to care about Aero. If you are coming to Aero, it's not too much to invest in a comparable graphics card. My most popular notebook graphics card can not open Aero, I do not care about its interface, like the new features of Vista, of course, the new machine will naturally meet Aero's operational requirements. As for the memory, 1GB should be enough. My home and company machines are 1GB, and they can run smoothly. Of course, I don't play large 3D games, otherwise 2GB of memory can run smoothly, and a good graphics card is naturally essential.
So, to sum up, for the average user, as long as your machine meets P4 2.0+1GB memory, the graphics card is not limited, you can run Vista smoothly.
2, the operation is much larger than XP, not used, many common functions can not find where.
I think having this problem are generally the primary user, mainly to home and office users, including some professionals. No matter what new system, for people with certain computer experience, it is not a problem to get started quickly. They have a general understanding of the operating system and setting mode of the operating system. Even if it is a leap from Windows to Linux, it can be quickly introduced through a short time of exploration and network assistance, not just a slightly revolutionary Windows upgrade? They are different. Most of their understanding comes from the guidance of others and their own exploration. Once they change the new environment, they often don’t know how to start, and they are not used to it.
Speaking of this habit, I dare not preach, just say one thing: old habits are not broken, how to accept new things, how to improve work efficiency? For example: in my work environment, earlier, many seniors used to Use AutoCAD (Engineering Drawing Software) R14, because that's the tool they've been living for for years, and they're very familiar with it. However, they have gradually moved to AutoCAD 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 under my influence. Why? Because I can use many new features that they can't use, which brings more efficiency to our work and largely liberates the nerves of fatigue. Undoubtedly, in the process, they need to get rid of the habits they have and adapt to the new features brought about by the new environment. Some people may say that as long as they can meet the needs of the work, there is no need to upgrade. Well, since I like it, continue to stick to the old habits. This is your freedom, and others have nothing to say.
3, support for the game is not as good as XP, most games can not run very well in Vista.
Indeed, the previous games were developed for Windows XP, and naturally there is no guarantee that it will work well under Vista. So follow-up development of Vista games that support DirectX 10? I don't play such games, I don't have the right to say more.
4, enterprise applications are difficult to deploy under Vista, employees have become accustomed to XP, if the change, the migration cost is also a problem.
Yes, user habits in the corporate environment are very problematic, and it is costly to train employees to adapt to the new system. My views on habits are as described in 2 above. In addition, the important reason for restricting enterprises to embrace Vista is the software and hardware deployment of the entire office environment. Incompatibility issues must exist. Old and new compatibility can't be completely eliminated. For example, if each product is guaranteed to be backward compatible, I think developers should be mad, even if they are not crazy, users will be mad because the complicated code is not Generally, media can be accommodated, and too complicated to bring is too fragile.
So, why should companies upgrade their operating systems? Performance and security should be the primary considerations. How Microsoft persuaded enterprise upgrades is a big problem, because in addition to security is better than XP, performance improvement is not obvious, perhaps after SP1, SP2 companies will accept Vista.
5, software and hardware compatibility is poor, older software and hardware can not run under Vista.
For home users, it is completely unnecessary to care about this issue. This is already a problem with Vista during the test. Now Vista has a lot of drivers built in, and the drivers can be updated online. Under the efforts of various software vendors, the compatibility of general software and drivers is no longer a problem.
6, Vista operation is cumbersome, UAC, file operations are complicated, boring.
About UAC, there is too much debate. I am used to Windows to give ordinary users super administrator privileges. No one is accustomed to seeing UAC. It is undeniable that the setting of UAC is really annoying. Every time there will be endless questions and answers, and so on. However, technologists have advised us not to disable UAC, or some important security features will go away. Therefore, we can only expect Microsoft to make some improvements to UAC. By the way, my UAC is turned off, I don't usually use the Administrator account, and I don't have firewalls and anti-virus software, because the websites I visit often are relatively safe.
7, Vista operating efficiency is low, not as good as XP, a variety of tests have also proved this conclusion.
It is undeniable that on the same low-profile hardware platform, Vista does not perform as well as XP. This is a natural thing, and Windows is like that. However, it is therefore inappropriate to say that Vista is not as efficient as XP. As a new and innovative operating system, many aspects of functionality and ease of use exceed XP. Don't look at the evaluation, it's better to see it, try it out for yourself. There is a question: Who are these test tool development targets? Is Vista or XP? Running on different operating systems, is the comparability really reliable?
8. The task manager has a high memory footprint.
look at a joke:
"2GB of physical memory for Vista is simply not enough evidence:! because the 3GB of physical memory installed, spent a very easy thing 2.1GB, 2GB of People saw that only 1.5GB was used. In fact, 600MB has been squeezed into virtual memory! What I want to say is that 2GB is equivalent to Vista, but it is equivalent to 512MB to XP, which can only satisfy the streaking. To be really smooth, no need Frequent use of virtual memory to make room, I am afraid that 3, 4GB of physical memory is a must."
We know that Windows' memory usage is not a fixed value, the larger your memory, the more you use. For example, XP memory usage comparison between 1GB and 256MB. I think that 256MB running XP is very smooth, but now? 1GB is not too much. Vista's memory management mechanism is different from XP. Vista treats most of the physical memory as a super-pre-access block, SuperFetch. Vista uses the SuperFetch memory cache device to dynamically extract the background programs and disk data that the system often needs from the cache to accelerate the application at any time. So, don't look at Vista's available memory with the old idea, thinking must keep up with the times.
Third, the conclusion
In fact, a considerable number of people have some impressions about Vista from some outdated and irresponsible remarks on the Internet. They resist the lack of understanding and experience of Vista. To put it bluntly, it will not be used. They don't know how to use Vista efficiently, and their experience stays on the surface, so they can't understand and give up in a short time. The reason for using Vista is that I don't need to express one by one. Users who use XP and Vista must read and experience 100 reasons why Microsoft provides Windows Vista:
microsoft.com.
I just give an example. The most commonly used resource manager, the "my computer" in XP, is absolutely revolutionary, especially for search, sidebar, filtered view, and mobile. , copying, and deleting the visual experience of files, these are definitely not comparable to XP or third-party programs. The productivity of the resource manager is very important for our daily file operations, so it can bring a lot of convenience to our work.
According to my experience in the past 1 year, as a home user, Vista is definitely worth recommending.