My Vista Rant

That's why I've stopped commenting in these threads. The only thing worse than an Apple fanboy is a Windows fanboy.

 

I'll stick with Vista, period.

 

The point of the matter is atleast for me it does everything that I use it for and thats what counts, and thats what it was made for. Sorry to all the uber dorks that cant geek out on the os, thats why there are choices, use your wallet to determine whats best for you next time.

 

Really? I don't find everything wrong with Vista. But what is wrong is more than enough to make me not use it. I have too much self-respect to be treated as a criminal by my own possessions. The security benefits they tout so loudly have been available on other systems for over 20 years and just now is Microsoft finally getting around to doing some meaningful permissions and system protection. They have finally added a decent command line, which still isn't anything special. So that basically leaves "It's new, it has to be better!" and "Oohhh, shiny!" as reasons to use Vista. New doesn't mean better, especially when Microsoft is involved, so that's out, and "Oohhh, shiny!" can be taken care of easily with a Mac or Beryl. So basically, there's no good reason whatsoever to "upgrade", and plenty of reasons not to.

FYI, I complain for the same reason that I complain about the water department raising rates because people are using less water. It's just not right to be treated as a captive source of capital rather than as a person. The sooner we all realize that, the better.

 

Wow calm down there, I think your taking this issue a little too far. If you feel your being a criminal which Im not sure how that works by using an insignificant product, then maybe you need to step away from your reality and take a vacation, bask in the natural things in life. I mean you do realize we are talking about a material product that nobody has to buy right, or is in know way forcing you to use, right? I mean really who cares when they came out with x feature, it's a fricking os for christ sakes. It allows you to do what you are currently spending your time doing now, which is complaining on a forum, looks like it works.

Anyways, for the average home user which is the majority of users, it works fine. I cant comment on the complexities of the software and how it runs for the extreme techie, because frankly I dont give a **** and thats not why I use it, and for the average joe that doesnt want to get extreme with it, it does the job well plain and simple. And to reiterate what every other level headed user has said, if you dont like it use something else.

 

My university just started offering Vista Ultimate to students for free, so I'm going to pick that up when I get back to school. I haven't used it since the RC2 days, so I'm looking forward to seeing how things have progressed. I've been hard on Vista since it released, especially after finding out many software, game, and disk transfer issues weren't resolved, but I figure I should give it a shot before I pass judgment so quickly, so I'll give my opinions then.

In all honesty, I fully expect my experiences to be mixed; I think that if I look at it like an average user, I'll be both annoyed and pleasantly surprised by things (as I was when I beta tested it), but knowing what I know now about the inner workings of the OS after a lot of reading, I still find it hard to believe my verdict will change. That is, it's too intrusive, too slow, and assumes too much about its honest users to really consider using instead of XP (because, let's face it, not a lot of people can really survive in the business world these days without Windows in some form).

 

His point is that Microsoft has gone way too far with their DRM and activation parts of their operating systems, to the point where it is detrimental to the end user. And for those who work with their PCs, they have every right to complain about Vista because it isn't just some geeky hobby for them, it's their job.

And to reiterate what ever realistic person here has said, if you want to survive in 90% of the business world today, you need Windows. It's not as easy as just saying, "I don't like Windows, so I can just start using Linux." If it were, I would have switched completely a year ago. And in 6-12 months when you can't find XP on store shelves or (in the case of the OP) pre-loaded on your new computer, Vista is forced down your throat and you have every right to complain about it.

 

I'm still missing the detrimental part, sorry if it's my ignorance that is showing now, but what is detrimental to the end user? You start your comp, you log in, you complete your task, then you log out. Atleast thats what I do, what am I missing here?

Fortunately for me nothing is being forced down my throat. The mojority of peoples lives in a business setting that invloves computers is to work, not pick apart the flaws of the operating system. If it is running the software correctly thus allowing you to get your work done then whats the difference of what os your using? Your there to work, not play. And if you are having problems, then thats what IT is for.

 

Try running an HDCP encrypted video through VGA to an external monitor and tell me that it`s not detrimental. A Microsoft update just tried to resolve an issue of poor playback of non-HDCP encrypted videos on external displays. This happens because Windows eats up a ton of processor power polling drivers to make sure media isn`t pirated, which slows things down.

Also, S/PDIF audio jacks don`t work correctly with Vista last I checked because it isn`t considered secure enough (ie it`s not digital so Vista can`t spy on it). This makes it a little hard for audio professionals to do their work on a Vista machine.

Oh, btw, IT is by and large a joke at most places, and the professional equal of Geek Squad.

 

Well, I'm not 'searching for' things to bash. I sit down to use the computer, and I spent a lot more time sorting out issues (not all of which are sorted out even now) than doing productive work that I can BILL FOR.

That's affecting my bottom line. My notebook isn't a toy. It's a tool. I bought it for a specific set of tasks and requirements, and VISTA has been one hell of a weak link in all of that.

Sure, some of this was so-called 'Badly written software', but it was software that worked like that for a decade with no problem. Now I have command line build tools that don't work and no new versions in sight. If I had received XP with my new notwbook, there would have been no issues. I'd have had the computer installed and configured in the expected 12 hours of tedium, instead of over a week of 'exciting discoveries'.

 

Sony Phillips Digital Interface Format

SPDIF is in fact a professional digital audio format. It's the consumer version of AES/EBU. The only difference is connector and cable differences, so I'm not following your logic here.

 

looks to me like there are two issues.. not just the Vista is crap one.. which I don't subscribe to personally, I just think it's a new OS with teething troubles.. the main issue IMO is that laptop manufacturers and suppliers are not giving options when it comes to the OS.
XP is still supported by Microsoft and probably will be for some time to come so it should be offered as a choice if you want it.
I'm happy with Vista but then I made the decision to get it, and I don't mind the (very) rare hiccups that I've been getting with it. If I had no choice over getting Vista on a laptop and it effected my business by it not working properly that would be unacceptable.

You've got to be tolerant of the errors caused by the keyboard to chair interface tho! Users have teething problems too! Vista is a new tool you've got to allow some learning time. People expect to be able to do everything without reading the manual (or pdf/help file/readme/online equivalent) these days.

 

Since when was this an excuse? If people can use XP that easily, why shouldn't we expect Vista to be as easy to learn and use?
Why should I switch to a tool that has "learning" time, when another exists that doesn't?
Sorry, I don't buy your logic. I'd link to CAD's Vista comic again because it's pretty much the same school of thought you're displaying, but I'm afraid I already did once in this thread.

 

you aren't expected to switch.. if you want to get Vista then fine.. if you don't want Vista then don't get it! It's up to you..

If you don't want to learn how to use a new tool then fair enough.. XP was different and did have a learning curve.. Just as you don't buy my logic, I'm sorry too, but I don't buy it that everyone just got XP and miraculously knew how to use it. I know I didn't.

 

Right click computer…properties…Advanced system settings on the left….click the settings button under the performance section…uncheck cartoon settings you don’t like. I know that was tuff, but hey you’re an expert now.

Don’t like those popups….turn off UAC or better yet use this.. http://www.tweak-uac.com/

Vista does have a massive problem with copying files via explorer, XP was never fast but Vista is worse.

Every OS needs to be tweaked.

If you go back to XP now, the initial install won’t find hardly any of your hardware (especially compared to Vista) you will need to tweak it unless you love it as it installs….thing like turning off system restore, uninstalling MSN explorer and messenger, page file settings, simple sharing, showing file extensions, unlocking the tool bar, installing lots of utilities, tweak UI/powertoys, folder size…….etc. Then you can go get it 200-300megs worth of updates (if you start with XP SP2, more if not). More updates if you install Office….and hey they finally fixed Microsoft updates so it does not KILL your CPU anymore….only took 4 months for them to do this.

I good XP rebuild will cost you 3-4 hours of your life to get the box back to where you wanted it. So will Vista, Linux or OS X.

People hate change…..they do. Vista is the future like it or not. If you don’t join the 5% that move to OS X or Linux which is perfectly fine. There is so much hype and FUD….like drivers. Vista shipped with more drivers than any previous version of Windows, including XP….4000+ more than XP. Vista has some really nice features, not enough to buy an upgrade but enough NOT to remove it from a new PC.


Adapt and move on…or get out of the way.

 

actually, the latest performance and reliability updates from MS resolve the file transfer bug in explorer. woo hoo!

 

My bad, I had a brain fart there. Anyway, here is a thread where you can see the problems people are having with S/PDIF on Vista. As I recall, this stems from Vista not being able to recognize S/PDIF as a secure output for some reason, but I think Creative recently updated their drivers to help this. Not sure though.

 

Ummmm, your wrong on that one. You ARE expected to switch, and MS will even let manufactures sell PCs that have Vista Pre-installed with only 512MB RAM(which is dead wrong IMO) just so they can force Vista on ALL new PC sales .

And the large amount of resources it uses on any giving time is unnecessary. Superfetch? Who cares.

 

The fixe the GUI part as in the "calculating" dialog box goes away faster. The network copy speed is still horrible.

 

yes, because hundreds or gigs of free RAM that's unused really make sense. superfetch immediately releases the RAM when applications need it, and reloads silently when that RAM is freed up. it works silently in the background and makes my laptop (with 2gigs of ram) feel much snappier.

btw, it's 'at any given time'.

 

But I sure don't notice much differ in the Performance from Vista compared to Vista(actually a bit less). So Superfetch does not make up for Vista's huge resource needs IMO.

 

At first I was content with Vista, but my first positive impression has turned into strong dislike. For one, and this plagued me today, Vista sometimes chooses to not allow you to delete a file or group of files. It claims you need to be an admin when in fact Im running under admin capabilities. This is extremely frustrating. Also, this OS sucks at least 10% performance form your machine. I didnt pay for a nice laptop just for Vista to cut my hardware in half. I even am running a Windows 95 theme to get rid of, in theory, some of the GUI lag. Is MS marketing to teenage girls now? I dont give a crap how pretty my OS looks, make it efficient and an improvement over XP. And yes, I know it was just released and blah blah blah it needs to be fixed and drivers will be updated, but it shouldnt come to this. I want, out of the box, a better solution.

 

I believe that's called Windows XP Professional. It's an OS that won't treat you like a child when you decide to delete a file.

 

Everybody keeps going back and forth on the whole SuperFetch thing. The problem isn't with Vista caching things; that's a great use of memory. The issue is Vista's out of the box footprint, which is well over 400MB conservatively. As others have pointed out, Linux also caches to memory for faster access, but pretty much any current Linux distro runs fine on 512MB or 256MB of memory. Vista's minimum is 512MB, and that's absolutely horrid to attempt, so at that point, the whole argument of "Superfetch is what's happening" becomes really unimportant. Basically, the issue isn't necessarily what Vista is doing with free memory, but how much free memory you have for it to cache with in the first place.

Also, Superfetch is little excuse for ridiculous CPU usage. In XP I would get 0-2% usage most of the time; in Vista, it was close to 20-30% most of the time. This is just for the system overhead, which means less CPU to spread around when you actually start running programs that need the CPU power. It also severely cuts down on mult-tasking ability. And at the end of the day, people are just left wondering where all the resources are going.

 

I believe Linux and Mac OS X are also alternatives.

 

If you're talking about "at idle" then you have a serious problem! I have Outlook 2007, Firefox, Dreamweaver, and Photoshop open and I'm running 4-6% cpu and and 1.03GB of 2GB free RAM.

Vista isn't a bad OS. It has issues with legacy programs, which is understandable. Is that Microsoft's fault? No, it's the author of the program. It will be a bigger problem when the OS goes completely 64bit.

If a particular program is a deal breaker for you, then you should research which OS you choose carefully. If the program isn't compatible then you have the choice of running a different OS, or using virtualization. Remember the switch from 98/ME to XP? Lot's of compatibility issues. It's not a new phenomena.

Someone will pipe up and say they should sell XP on new computers... It's not possible. At some point a manufacturer has to move on. It's just business and XP has had a great 7 year run. They can't support every thing they've ever done forever. Go to your local Chevrolet dealer and try to buy a transmission for your 1992 Camaro. Won't happen. A business in the technology sector has an even tougher job because technology changes so quickly.

 

Well, I haven't run Vista since RC2 (i.e. pre-RTM), so maybe things changed.

Also, I'm really tired of everybody saying that program compatibility isn't Microsoft's fault. OS X has managed to go through a platform change (PowerPC to Intel) and will soon be going through a base change (32bit to full 64 bit with Leopard in October), and are keeping/have kept full backwards compatibility. Why? Personally, I think it's that the UNIX-style base offers more expandability and flexibility, which would also explain why Linux has decent success with 64 bit as well. But either way, Microsoft has been sitting on x86 platform and base since Windows 98 and yet they somehow manage to screw up some software with every release. At least 98/ME to XP had some excuse; they were switching over from the Win9k kernel to the NT kernel. What do they have to blame it on now?

 

Microsoft doesn't have ANYONE to blame. MS provides many resources to programmers long before an OS ships. If the author of the program is concerned with their customers they make changes. It's not Microsoft's responsibility to ensure a program is compatible, it's the program's author.

Let's say you buy a portable music player that only supports mp3. Seven years later mp3 falls out of favor for some reason. The new format is SDA(super digital audio), but your player won't play it. Is that the fault of the creator of the mp3 format? No, it's the fault of the player's manufacturer. Will the manufacturer issue a firmware update to enable SDA playback? Probably not, they've moved on.

 

Seriously. I have firefox, aim, speedfan, rivatuner, and winamp running and I'm using 5-12%cpu on average with 907mb of 2gig displaying as being used.

I've had no complaints about Vista. Everything worked on my G1 right out of the box. Had to do some tweaking to remove a few annoyances in vista, but it seems to be running just as well (maybe even better) than my 3+ year old pentium m, 512mb of ram, XP equipped HP laptop.

 

It's not up to Microsoft, if manufacturers put Vista on underpowered machines then that's the manufacturers fault not Microsoft. If Microsoft started enforcing what hardware they would allow Vista to be installed on there would be an outcry and they would probably get taken to court (again). I totally agree though, it is dead wrong.. any new computer sold with Vista on should have the resources to run it sensibly. They do say the minimum spec for Home Basic is 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, 512 MB of system memory, 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space, Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory.. but I'd seriously hate to try and use it with that setup. I can't believe for a minute that it works well with that spec.

In all honesty I really dislike Microsoft, can't stand their monopoly and bully tactics and buck passing. But unfortunately I'm in no position to switch OS. Linux doesn't work well with my build (ATI graphics card + 64bit dual core AMD) and I've not managed to get Photoshop CS3, Dreamweaver, Illustrator CS3 and InDesign CS3 to work on it either. Also I can't afford to switch hardware and get a Mac and then crossgrade my software. So I'm stuck with Microsoft for all their faults.

 

Everyone has a valid point but realistically Vista is here to stay and it's not going to go away. Deal with it already!

 

Or if you are already running XP and love it skip Vista and see if MS next offering is a real improvement over XP in all areas. That is what I am going to do.

 

I understand your pain.

I've given a lot of thought about installing ubuntu on my computer, but I'd still need Vista or XP for gaming.

If linux ever evolves into a good gaming OS, I will run from microsoft. Even then, like you said, you're still stuck with some software issues.

I sure hope this is the case. Who knows, a few years from now we could all be singing the same song all over again.

 

Eventually you'll use it ... you can delay the process... or start now and not worry about it later, its inevitable!

And it's not THAT bad... (I used to go back to windows 2000, because xp always felt a bit less responsive)

SUPERFETCH alone maybe worth it. Its just that need premium hardware for vista to perform. Anyone less than 2GB is probably better off with XP

 

sorry I know I've just posted a few sections up on this but this really does remind me of ... "The dark side is strong. You will turn to the dark side..."

Just imagine Bill Gates saying "I am your father" eeeekkk!!!

hmm now where did I put my Linux powered X-wing? ...

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917607

Here's a LOVELY one. Apparently WinHlp32.exe is no longer supported. So any program that used the 'old' help format - WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE HELP!

The put a winhlp32.exe in there just to tell you why there is no help. And they slapped a 'permissions' lock on it with the OS so you can't touch it.

So I'm spending a few minutes to fix that.

 

Skipping Vista and wait for the next OS.. there's no guarantee that it'll be better and will hear the same old rhetoric. I sometimes believe Microsoft released Vista to quiet down those people who clamour for a new OS but in actuality the next OS is the actual new one!