My friend is building his own computer and the parts are suppose to come today! Hes not too computer savy, and I have a feeling he may have problems with vista. When I was picking the parts out for him, he wanted vista instead of xp since its newer and he wants a DX10 graphics card soon. I don't think I can really help him since I've only used vista for like 10 minutes at Best Buy.

So what I'm asking is there any common problems people have with vista? He got the basic version. Thanks for reading this!

Vista Home Basic is XP done up to look nicer that's all. I have found with Vista is Windows Explorer crashes and COM crashes too. But once the updates have been installed it's not to bad after that, plus a lot of software you use on XP won't be supported by Vista which is a real pain for example Nero 6, you have to buy Nero 7 to use it in Vista. To be honest I would stick with Windows XP Pro until a Service Pack as been released by Microsoft and more programs are supported in Vista also.

I use Windows Vista Home Basic and it is very stable. I've also found a lot of the programs we commonly use (e.g. Itunes, antivirus/antispyware programs) work with Vista just fine. The only program I know of that doesn't work with Vista is Zone Labs Internet Security/Zone Alarm Pro/Free Zone Alarm firewall.

But their working on that.... so their's hope.

Mind you I drive my operating systems hard sometimes to see where they fault . Vista has around 10 updates already which goes to show that Vista is not fault proof I know no operating systems are but it's Microsoft and I like giving them grief . But Microsoft make good operating systems which is why I like using them and yes people will be saying are you crazy?. It's really personal choice on what you want to use, but I support Jesse Windows Vista is stable enough to use .

Vista works just fine if treated right (I've been using it for 15 months now) - it's picky about it's drivers, so the hardware should be selected with this in mind. Also, the programs that you use may install on Vista - but may crash repeatedly. So look for Vista certified programs also.

Once that's done, Vista is a lot more reliable than XP (to me, at least) - I haven't had a crash (that I haven't caused) since RC1 first came out.

For what it's worth -

my experience with Vista echos what usasma just said.

It works well with things that are designed to work with it.

Thanks everyone for the replies! My friend just got done installing vista and once he gets it up I'll show him this post.

well ive seen this post and im haveing a problem with the sound

the problem with the sound is it dont work idk if thats vista i think it is it works on my old computer

I'm using Vista Ultimate. I Had same problems as usasma says: some driver glitches and uncompatible software products, but in general I'm very pleased with this OS.

I've had Vista Ultimate x64 and my experience echo's what usasma said. Vista is very picky about drivers. Keep in mind you don't get many of the features that make Vista nice if you're using the Basic edition, the Home Premium should really be considered best for newer computers with decent hardware.

Here is my Pros and Cons for Windows Vista i just bought at Best Buy.

~Pros~
[+]Nice graphics

~Cons~
[-]Not many programs use the OS of Windows Vista
[-]Too much security, false security.
[-]Upgrading is confusing.
[-]Many Problems with programs.


Personally i think they need to make Windows Vista much better before they sell it or something.
I really want a Windows XP though

Actually,

that's exactly what some said about Windows XP when it first came out.

Well, except for the "nice graphics" part!

Vista works quite well as is. It's the drastic change from everyone running as an Administrator (which wasn't recommended in XP, BTW) to forcing everyone to run as a Standard User in Vista.

Software writers have ignored the "least privileged" concept for years - so it's gonna take some time for them to get around to fixing it (and that's not Vista's fault - it's the fault of those who write software for it).

The security of Vista is much, much better than the security of XP - even with SP2. But this security doesn't prevent the user from shooting themselves in the foot if they'd like to. If you're determined to get infected, you can infect Vista almost as easily as you can infect XP.

Upgrading is confusing? I don't know about this. But from what I've seen of the upgradability from one version to another within Vista - it's extremely easy.

Upgrading from other OS's to Vista is actually pretty simple. First you've gotta figure out if you need to buy an upgrade or full version. Once you've purchased the version you need - then you'll either be able to do an upgrade if the previous OS or you won't - that's built into the installer so the choice is out of your hands.

Upgrading from a previous OS is fraught with problems - I'd suggest staying away from it because it's just bringing the old stuff into the new OS - and it may not all be compatible. At the very least, the difference in the settings available can cause havoc with the way that your system works. There's no assurance that anything will be compatible - it's just too big a task for Microsoft to handle. They give you their best guess as to the compatibility of apps - but there are no guarantees.

This would probably make a good, separate topic.

I fully agree - Microsoft gets blamed for problems with compatibility in Vista by the people who don't have any understanding of the root cause of the incompatibility - all they want is for the program to work and since they see so many negative comments about Microsoft (many unfounded), they assume the problem is Microsoft's fault.

Meanwhile, the software vendor, fully aware of it's culpability, refuses to correct its "error" (sometimes it isn't simply a programming mistake, it is a deliberate programming decision to not have the software meet the correct specifications). They cheerfully suggest you upgrade to the newest version - at a cost to the consumer, of course. Oh, and they sit back smugly, while people point fingers at Microsoft.

For those of us that understand this, one of the worst parts is that some of this software is requiring a user to run as an Administrator level account (as you've mentioned) - and this is one of the main things we recommend an XP user, especially a casual one, does not do, since it adds to the vulnerability of the OS to various "nasties" - virus, malware, rootkit, etc.

Would people really buy a product, such as Quicken, if they knew it was requiring them to make their system less secure? Would you?

Vista's Administrator account runs as a Standard User until you try to launch a program that requires administrative permisssions. The difference being that an Administrator account doesn't ask for credentials when it prompts you for elevation (while a Standard User account will prompt for those credentials).

This differs from the approach in XP - where the administrator has the permissions all the time and doesn't need to elevate them.

This is the point of UAC. It requires the user to consent to the program running with administrator privileges each and every time that it's launched. That way it's more difficult for malware to masquerade as a program.

Finally, as the software writers start to comply, the programs that don't require elevation prompts will (presumably) become more popular than those that do (given that all other things are equal). This "should" cause software to become more friendly for Standard User accounts - and will get away from the need for Administrative permissions after installing the program.