This is scary but im starting to think I like vista now

I bought a Asus n80 that came with 64 bit vista. Ive always fought against Vista until the bitter end. Uninstalled it from several pcs. Even touted windows 7 as being the answer to Vista. However I figured out how to do a minimum install without all the bloatware included by Asus using the N80 driver disks and I cant believe it but im actually liking it.

I guess my Vista bashing days are over. they will be missed.

 

Almost all Vista bashing is based on user ignorance and/or user error, so I'm not surprised that once you started using it, you're liking it. I was in a similar sentiment until about a year ago when I built a PC with 4GB of RAM and decided Vista X64 was the most viable solution to utilizing my hardware to its fullest abilities.

 

I've pretty much "liked" Vista since I started playing with it when I got my first laptop that came with it.

 

Love Vista, those who hate it need training, or to stop drinking the Kool Aid.

Windows 7 is still very much beta, DFS issues Media centre needs to be tweeked... loads of hardware issues etc - It's a wonderfull OS and i use it on various PC's in my house. but its not quite there. for now Vista wins.

 

vista has always been better than xp..looks nicer, more features, better management...just had too much clutter and they released it too soon. they better not do the same with windows 7.

 

all the vista bashing is out of pure stupidity or patience with people who don't even use it a week and start believing all the hype themselves about it being bad. i hate gossip

 

A large factor in Vista bashing is jumping on the bandwagon. Also, on the first day of using a Vista machine, many users are annoyed by the relocation of many options, and in short, the differences from XP. Once you get used to it, Vista isn't bad - although I did turn off UAC.

 

Not all of Vista bashing is due to ignorance. I've come across issues with x64 with compatibility problems. I do have to say that when I had my previous laptop with x32 it did well except for the major lack of RAM. However, I find that I dislike the x64 version, which I have found gives me more problems.

 

Based on the fact that you call an x86 platform x32 (it's either x64 and x86 or 64 bit and 32 bit. You can't mix and match) tells me you're not a prime example of a non-ignorant user who has problems with Vista. No offense, just how it is. I have yet to see one of these problems that I keep hearing so much about with Vista x64 that is not present in x86, and I use both on a daily basis.

 

I am with OP, i like vista home prem 64 bit, although I cannot play Everquest, the ONE and only game I want to play on my notebook. But I am now over that.

As for your quote.


1) it is a memory hog
2) it isnt light weight
3) you tend to get better bench results with xp
4) xp is just simple laid back, relaxed.....not so tense as vista
5) DX10 does nothing.....really.....
6) hella lack of driver support for vista, and hella lack of compability/place nice support.

while I do agree, most people just cant stand new stuff, they want to keep with the old!

I like xp, if I had the time to find drivers, I would load it on there myself.....

 

I agree except for one thing. When moving large amounts of files, or deleting large amounts of files in vista it still will hang for a few minutes doing that calculating. At times I notice a delayed response in vista's deep rooted DRM.. Its still there and it shows its ugly face at times. I mean if I am moving a ton of files (not copying) from within the same partition it should take just a few seconds, not minutes. SP1 did help this a bit and especially with my network.. When vista shipped its networking was truly pathetic and justifiably got its bad rep. But I still prefer working with XP's file allocating system that lacks any of the DRM. Its more responsive in certain instances.

As soon as seven is available I'm going to go with that. Vista's fine but I always like software that has lean code. Lets face it, Vista was a rush job inspite of taking 5 years from XP.. MS wasted time on longhorn and then decided to back peddle back and create another OS in Vista. Vista, was done in less then two years. When it launched it had major networking flaws and was not optimized. Seven is of course what vista should have been and MS had 5 freaking years to do that so there is no excuse. But at least MS knows that people do care about how bloated an OS is.. LOUD and clear.

 

I too have always liked it. I think its the manufacturers who install all the crud on it that screw it up. A client bought a x64 vista laptop from HP and the thing was dog slow! Even after removing all the crap it still wasnt great. I know it wasnt the hardware and i knew a clean install would fix it, yet HP does not give you that option like dell does. When you reinstall the OS you reinstall their crud too! I'm sure this is why so many people think its slow. Its really all the extra stuff put in by the manufacturer. If they left it the way microsoft intended it it would be great!

 

I turned UAC off. It actually didnt bother me at first that much since OSX does that by default so im used to it. It is a bit excessive though in Vista. Like mentioned before only downside with the 64 bit version is some software annoyances (like flash).

 

The only reason I refer to it that way is because I've confuse people before referring to it as x86. I've worked with computers long enough to know the difference, especially since I've started using the 64-bit myself. That's why the 64-bit has the Program Files (x86) folder for the 32-bit programs. I was saying it for the sake of simplicity, not ignorance. Plus, not all software will run on 64-bit Vista. One I had a problem with last week was Cisco's VPN client won't run on 64-bit Vista and I don't want to have to use the open version.

 

If you confuse other people by saying x86, educate them. Saying x32 only perpetuates that ignorance.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. However, I always find explaining things to people the right way to be a bit cumbersome. I know how it is in my mind, I just can never find the right words to articulate my ideas.

Oh well....I have noticed another thing I don't like with Vista. File transfers from USB devices always seems really laggy. I've ran Vista (x64), XP(x86 ), Ubuntu(x86_64 & x86), Fedora 9 & 10(x86_64 & x86), OpenSuse(x86_64), Slackware(x86_64), Arch(x86_64 & x86), Debian (x86), and pFsense. Most of these performed well with file transfers; however, Vista was laggy and not only from USB from HDD to HDD as well. I'm running dual drives right now and transferring with Vista always takes about 30% longer.

 

the prime reason of all those vista bashing was lack of drivers.
and that's not MS's fault.

 

Prime reason? You mean the fact that Vista requires three times more memory just to keep up with XP? Look allot of early adopters bought into vista when they were still putting 1 gig or less ram and those machines ran very bad. Those customers are naturally not going to have a good experience. Seven is going to take a huge load off for system requirements and from what I have been reading, enterprises are wanting just that. People have been wanting a lighter footprint since vista's launch and that has been as much if not more of a factor then driver compatibility. Especially with businesses who could give a crap about eye candy etc... And when you start running specialized software you end up having to do reboots for various things and business want those machines to restart quick. Vista was way too heavy for many enterprises.

 

This was what I was saying on my other post. When you do allot of work with large amounts of files vista's file system with it's built in DRM sucks in comparison to XP's. But I don't know if you used Vista before the SP, its was worse. The networking was so broken that I can't believe that MS shipped that to final build.. The networking catastrophe is proof that MS was in a huge rush when they released vista.. That was a very rocky launch. They can't afford anymore of that when seven ships. But yeah, I hate working with vista's explorer when managing my files. XP shines bright over vista in this regard. I just know if they would take the stupid DRM out things would run much smoother and faster. But that will never happen.. And that is also why many people hold onto XP.. because it will most likely be the last DRM free OS that MS will ever put out.

 

Been using Vista since right after it came out. I've never actually had a problem with the OS as a whole, it's just some of the little things like discussed here. And I never had any problems with the 32-bit. And, while not huge, I did notice an improvement after the release of SP1. After I went to the 64-bit, I kept looking for a way to run XP on my machine without resorting to a bunch of hacked drivers, then I discovered Linux. Best thing since sliced bread!

If more programs worked natively with the 64-bit and the file transfer/heavy memory usage were fixed I would rather like Vista. The GUI is much better IMO than any of the previous. And I liked the GUI in Windows 7 too.

 

I like Vista very much, and it works well with my 32bit. Will even use on my next lappy with 64bit!

Cin

 

flash works fine on vista 64 just use a regular browser not a 64 bit browser

 

Vista is nice, but has too much makeup going on (glows, flashiness, etc.) for me and is a little overweight (even though you can make the padding smaller, the corner graphic screws up).

 

+1
I love Vista tpp

 

I like Vista too, I just think it uses up way too much memory.

 

Oh gosh, not another thread that will undoubtedly become a Vista vs. XP and now even vs. W7 thread. Mods, get ready to shut this down around page 15 just like the other thread last week.

 

Hey, it's better than all the negative bashing and everyone getting their feeling's hurt.

 

What would you have been doing with the memory otherwise?

I think most Vista bashing stems from the misinformation ads of Apple showing hate against the PC and anything created for it, including Vista.

I mean, the UAC ad by Mac is just ridiculous. They make it seem that Vista needs permission from the user to do 'everything' where this is very untrue. In fact, its mostly to change settings integral to the system or install new programs. Guess what, OSX asks you to enter your password anytime you are installing something new on the system or changing integral settings.

So, what's the deal? Why poke fun?

 

A lot of the bashing also comes from people not wanting to learn a new OS after using XP for so long. I think that plays a major role.

 

Just another hypocritical thing said by Apple to buy fanboys. I see right though there lies and now I am Apples biggest fanenemy.

 

A lot of Vista bashing has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with it being an expensive operating system that added little of value to XP while causing plenty of headaches.

I was an early adopter - I bought the "Signature Edition" of Ultimate on day one. I was very disturbed to encounter an OS that apparently had reverted in basic areas such as the very ability to copy files! (Heaven forbid you clicked cancel on a large file copy operation before SP1.) The biggest problem is design and philosophy though, not technical.

An operating system isn't supposed to be in your face. It's supposed to provide an API to allow application software to interface with hardware and system services, and it's supposed to provide a user interface that gets out of your way. Up through XP, Microsoft did a pretty darn good job. With Vista, they went in a completely different direction: Vista is all about getting in your face with endless alerts, endless pop-ups, endless branding.

Vista would like your permission to run this application.
Vista detected a problem with the network.
Vista is diagnosing the problem with the network.
Vista is unable to fix the problem with the network.
Vista is uploading a problem report.

Even simple things like plugging in a USB drive would result in all sorts of status messages, like Vista was a needy child constantly begging for the user's attention.

Somewhere midway into the experience I got my first Mac (an experiment) and remember plugging in a USB hard drive and not seeing any messages at all, just a drive icon pop up on the desktop. Suddenly I realized what I liked so much about XP and hated about Vista.

A lot of people like to say that people who dislike Vista are simply ignorant. I don't think so. It's hard to find people who like it. At work, it's sort of a joke--people make demeaning jokes about politicians, terrorists and Vista and hope they never get upgraded from XP. At home, family and friends alike struggle with basic things, from why Vista is hanging when burning a live CD to why wireless goes dead (sometimes even surviving reboots) when you put a laptop in hibernation.

I've used every release of Windows since it was nothing more than a glorified shell for Excel and I know that Microsoft can write good software. XP got there, but Vista, well, it was like ME with a better kernel. A good core, but really misguided design that reflected more than anything else a product with thousands of Microsoft developer fingers in it and very poor project management and design leadership.

Today, things are a bit better. Vista x64 is pretty decent now with SP1. Files actually copy nice and quick. Wireless still dies during hibernate on a number of laptops and IE still can take out the UI but overall, it's gotten better... almost to where XP was, but with better driver support especially for 64-bit. But it feels like too little too late for me. It definitely is for my company and our ~ 300 desktops and laptops--we've seen Windows 7 and we're excited about an upgrade to Windows 7 instead of a sidegrade to Vista.

Windows 7 really excites me because it shows me that Microsoft has figured out where they went wrong with Vista. Windows 7 isn't in my face anymore. It's responsive. It's unobtrusive. It's very careful about how it tries to communicate with the user: it doesn't try to compete with application software. Like XP, it feels like something grown up and in the background: something that gets out of the way, like a phone or the power. I'm really excited about how it plays with Windows Server 2008 R2, also.

I expect people to play the "Vista haters are ignorant!" card for about twelve more months... it's okay, I'm okay tolerating that because I know all of those people are going to go to Windows 7 too, and they'll never look back at Vista. Vista actually reminds me a lot of the housing/financial bubble that has burst--lots of consumption and overhead without any huge improvements to productivity, and increasingly out of place in what I think is going to be a very "back to basics" software/IT/technology environment over the next few years.

 

I'm still not impressed with Vista. Every single older XP system that I've had was always much faster than all the different Vista systems that I have played with, including my own notebook with the latest hardware. Sure, Vista has more features and it looks prettier, but there's just too much going on I think.

 

XP is/was great, and I think Vista is a great OS as well. The problem is that since the public beta's people have blown the problems the beta release out of proportion. I find it funny that pretty much everyone seems to love Win7, even though thats based on the same kernel as Vista

 

The kernel, Gazza, was never the problem.

 

I was on the Vista hating bandwagon too, until I started using Vista Ultimate x64. Very nice OS, and pretty to boot.

Those who scream "Buggy!", "Slow!" and "Crap!" about it must be attempting to run Vista on a 256MB Netbook or something cause I got no problems here.

 

Well, speaking of UAC. . . I like Vista a lot, but my only grip is the UAC and all of the other Nazi regimentation controlling what we can do and what we cannot do on our OWN system. I've already disabled UAC, but there are too many functions that Vista will not give us access to -- and some of them are not even 'hi tech.' My latest frustration was when I was trying to uninstall a corrupted Windows Live Mail application so that I could download a newer version. There was no 'run as administrator' link on right click, and trying to take ownership of the application did nothing. I ended up just installing the new version right over the old version, but that's not the point. Vista should have been designed to advise and caution the user, but to let the user have the final say in the end! After all, it's our computer!

 

I love my Vista 64. I can get to things quicker here than in XP, but there is one *major* annoyance. I absolutely HATE how the folder views keep changing in my folders. Most recently, the folder views have changed in my Uninstall and Control Panel sections. So annoying... I am holding out hope that it will get fixed eventually...

 

I sort of despise having to work with XP nowadays. Vista is much friendlier and stabler.

UAC? I wouldn't think about disabling it. I'm used to it and it does more than people think it does.
Also... even UNIX and Linux have had UAC longer. Sudo, anyone?

 

I use 64 bit ultimate and have since it became available for free from Dell. I upgraded cpu to t9300, and ram to 8 gb. It took some research to find all drivers for all my hardware, but it was all out there. I also run windows 7, on a separate drive, just to play with. i have used every os that has been offered by ms and feel this is by far, the easiest and best os i have used. The only problem i have had is getting broadband to work with any type of server software loaded and running. Some of the live programs install some type of server software installed by default. So I uninstalled these server programs and everything works fine.