John
... Did I post yesterday?

John

daveny5
Wrong. Vista was crap. X2 was Windows 7 compared to Vista. X2A is a fine product.

No that is not accurate. I found it to a much better OS then XP. So did others. What was wrong was many tried to run it on an XP machine and not on a machine meant for Vista.
 
If your experience differs it is due to not having the right hardware to run it. Its likely you never ran Vista on good hardware and thus are only repeating what a few have said. I doubt you did any real research on the subject but if did I am open to any evidence you can provide. On the other hand if this is what you believe you may find that its time to reconsider. 

Anderton
I think a major Vista problem for end users was the updating. I need to re-install Vista just before I transitioned over to Windows 7, and it took forever. I'd do an update and Windows would say it was updated. But if I tried immediately to find new software, it almost always did and then did another update. You had to do this serial updating thing, without a clue as to when it was going to be over, until it just wouldn't update any more. So then you'd reboot and try one last time, just to make sure :)

John
I don't think any of that is true. I do recall that MS was blind sided by hardware makers that touted their XP machines for Vista even after MS had developed a Vista logo to show Vista compatibility. The problem was MS didn't insist that those using that logo prove that Vista would even run on their machines. MS had to change the logo so they would have some control over those that didn't measure up.
 
Unlike Windows 7 Vista had no preview or general release before the retail version was offered. No one except a few beta testers had any idea what Longhorn was going to be like. Longhorn was the code for what became Vista. Something that was years in the making.
 
Another thing was that 64 bits became more popular and Vista was offered as both a 32 bit OS and a 64 bit OS. This complicated things because even though XP also had both they were not sold together. Also developers were extremely slow in providing 64 bit drivers for XP and were not too fast with Vista either. Cakewalk was one of the very first to adopt 64 bits but it was Vista that made the users think about using a 64 bit OS in large numbers. It was a sort of critical mass situation.
 
What really happened to Vista was multiple things 1st was the need to upgrade the hardware 2nd was the exploitation of Apple with ads that were great marketing but totally untrue implying that Vista was a bad OS. (Those that spout this line seem very gullible to me and have bought into the propaganda) 3rd a real lack of good drivers for both the 32 bit version and almost none for the 64 bit version.
 
With all that its a wonder that anyone used Vista but a few did and found it a great OS that was new in many ways. First and foremost was its new Aero graphics engine. A huge step in speeding up the over all feel of the OS.  Then there were a lot of things we now take for granted and so many that a run down would take too long. 
 
It really bugs me when some one carelessly throws out the popular belief that Vista was a dog of an OS. When in fact it was the beginning of a whole new way to work with a computer as well as being a very solid one. We now have Windows 8 another mile stone in computing that those in a position to appreciate it will benefit greatly from.  
 
We are seeing some of the same nay sayers popping up saying the vague things that are meant to make us have second thoughts. This is not only true of our choice of OS but also our choice in a DAW.
 
The same old tired lines are used and the message is the same MS sucks and so does CW.
 
I reject that and I hope others are able to think for themselves too. 
 

MakeShift

but with the cake folks saying they were dropping support for vista and MS offering a upgrade to win8 for under $40 for a time. I jumped on it

 
I did the same, but I have left it sitting on a shelf for now.