Vista is so unstable! (sarcasm)

Over my university's winter break, I had my Vista laptop on the entire time. It was never restarted, and it was used everyday. It was on for greater than 3 weeks. I only turned it off to transport it back to school.

Hopefully this will help people who think Vista stinks; because in my experience, its awesome.

 

Good for you! Seriously

In my opinion, a lot of the problems Vista has boil down to essentially two issues : poor drivers and application compatibility. I used Vista Ultimate on my desktop for a couple of months and I had very few issues with it, even some of the more common issues people had (such as taking a long time to delete/send to Recycle Bin file) I didn't seem to have.

That being said, however, I also think Vista takes considerably more tweaking and adjusting to get "just right" and a lot of the more casual users may not be able to do this themselves or time to find some "ready to use" tweaks.

I've reverted back to XP for the moment, due to certain issues with the way Microsoft has rearranged the way sounds are managed and how that interfaces with some of the games I play (City of Heroes/Villains, among others).

 

Good stuff!!

I've had Vista since September have have yet to get a BSOD or anyother type of crash.

Been much more stable then XP ever was for me.

 

Marvelous. I'm doing the same with my XP, also without any problems.

I'm glad you like Vista, but so far you're only demonstrating that it can do what XP can also do, which isn't really a reason to upgrade.

It'll have to offer *more* than XP to be worthwhile.

 

Yes but I would expect your using what revision and update of XP? Lets go back and look at XP as it stood in the same time frame as Vista is right now which is right around the period just before the release of SP1.

I don't think there is an XP lover out there who cannot concede that, during that period, there were just as many compatability issues and 10 times as many system crashes.

I read the sig block before writing this but thought it only fair to put both in the same playing field. We are comparing Vista in its first release to XP in all its revisions and, from what I can see, XP still crashes more.

 

From my experience with Vista: yes, it is stable, but not Internet Explorer for me. Firstly, Basically 3 out of 5 times I have a browser with two or more tabs suddenly it stops working and I have to restart that browser.
Secondly, when I open a new browser I have to wait to load all the default page before typing the page I want to see, otherwise it will crash. This has never happened on my XP desktop.

@Jalf: It has better graphics, right?? =P

 

I average 200 hours without restarting, and the only times I do is to install/update software. Not once since I got it have I used 'Shut Down'

 

Hmmmm....

My explorer starts with 7 tabs. I would wonder if your problem may lie in the speed of your connection.

 

I only restart when I need to. I use Standby most of the time. I don't have crashes or any of that. Vista is just fine. People need to open up to Vista. SP1 was a big help too.

 

I know it sounds weird, and there was no change with SP1. How do you think the connection speed has anything to do?

 

I presently use Cable so I know that I could proably run any number of simultaneous connections because of the speed.

I remember, previously, using both DSL and dialup and cant see me opening up the same number of connections in that situation.

 

Currently i am satisfied with xp ... vista for me is just a gaudy version of xp with new features which are not enticing enough for me to upgrade.

i htink there was no need for vista to come out .. things were good with xp hehe ... but sooner or later we will have to upgrade ... if you are buying a new laptop then you dont have any options but if you are going to upgrade i would suggest waiting till vista gets more polished and tweaked.

 

Yeah, i second tht.....Vista hasn't crashed once for me after heavy usage for 4 months....whereas XP still crashes !!

But Vista doesn't provide value for the money it costs.....considering the cost-value ratio XP is better !!

 

This is where it all comes down to. In most cases, the bottom line is the ONLY line. While Vista is great if it comes with your laptop, I do agree it is a waste of money and time ito upgrade existing installations.

 

I upgraded to Vista, mainly because my university gives everyone OS licenses whenever they are students. But, I do actually like the new features in Vista. Live thumbnails are nice. That + alt tab reminds me of expose from OSX (one of the things i miss). Sidebar and integrated search are extremely handy. I know most of these features can be had for XP through third-party, but I like the integration of Vista.

About IE, I don't use it. I use Firefox 2.0 and its been rock solid as well.

 

I agree with you that Vista is a good OS, and not deserving of all the wrath put on it by people who don't know crap about computers, but you can't compare it to "old" XP, you have to compare it to the alternatives available right now.

Between Vista and XP, it's a toss-up. I use Vista because I've gotten used to the interface, but there wouldn't be a problem with going back to XP. I find it true that there isn't anything miraculous that exists in Vista that's not in XP, but I find it ridiculous that people demand to switch to XP when they purchase a new computer - and these aren't tech savvy people either. These are everyday users who surf the web (with IE no less), use Norton, and barely know how to use a mouse.

I don't use Mac OSX or Linux for compatibility (read games) issues, and also because of the differences in operation. I'm used to Windows OS's.

 

We can all concede Vista is alot of candy. We will also agree that, until you are comfortable with taking the time to learn how to set up and tweak Vista, XP may be best for you. We can even go so far as to say that just maybe XP is a better gaming environment presently, this I take solely from what I read as I am not a gamer.

We miss, however, the absolute monstrous effect it has had on the hardware industry which has filtered down to us as consumers. Whether you like or hate Vista, the system you buy today is much better solely because of the 'inception' of Vista. System manufacturers had no choice but to make yesterdays 'powerful gaming system' the norm in what we purchase today.

Simply put, if you couldn't run Vista, you couldnt be sold with the OS which, potentially could and did put many out of business.

This not only affected hardware, but software as well. Without Vista, it would have been ok to rely on yesterdays lesser systems at higher prices.

Buyers now receive the best of both worlds (price and performance) simply because everyones hand was forced by MS.

 

^ How the average vista hater would react. I used to be afraid of vista because of crap people were saying about how bad it was but i use it and it's awesome. Even better than XP IMO.

 

That's great!
It must be completing that 200 MB file transfer any day now!

(sarcasm)

 

No, let's not. In fact, let's read my signature.

I don't see the relevance of how XP ran 7 years ago. Hey, why don't we compared it to MSDOS 4.0 when that was released?

I'll tell you why. Because Vista is judged by its relative merits compared to the alternatives. The alternatives aren't MS DOS 4.0, or unpatched XP from 2001.

The alternatives are Mac OS Leopard, Linux 2.6.x and Windows XP SP2 with the latest hotfixes for late 2007/early 2008. Those are the only OS'es it makes sense to compare Vista to, because they're the ones that are available at the same time.

Or perhaps you think we should also judge new cars by comparing them to the Ford T?

Perhaps you are comparing those, but that comparison makes no sense.
If you want to put them in the same playing field, you have to look at them both in their 2008 incarnations. It's definitely not a level playing field when you compare a 2008 OS to a 2001 one.
I am comparing Vista to other contemporary OS'es, because that's actually meaningful when judging whether Vista is worth using. If Vista was released like this back in 1985, it would have been a kick-ass OS. (assuming, of course, there was hardware capable of running it). Everyone would have loved it. Why? Because everyone had lower standards, because the competition wasn't as advanced.

But this is 2008, and if you want to convince anyone of your OS's superiority, you'll have to show how it competes with other 2008 OS'es.

Vista doesn't become any more competetive because it's able to beat software that was available 7 or 15 years ago. It's competetive the moment it can beat the software that's available at the same time as Vista.

On the other hand, plenty of people have rock solid installations of XP, and... installations of Vista that keep crashing... Perhaps we shouldn't base everything off one single person's subjective experiences then?

Both OS'es are perfectly capable of running for weeks without crashing. Both are also quite adept at crashing when problems occur.
it's hard to argue that one OS is more stable than the other without some solid numbers. "It crashed when I tried to run it" isn't much of an argument, because for someone else, it didn't crash.

When all that is said, I didn't have any noticeable problems with stability when I ran Vista. I ran into other problems, more to do with the way it was designed, and the way it kept getting in my way and preventing me from doing what I wanted. But I didn't personally experience stability problems. (I also didn't have any stability problems with XP when that came out though, so your "drag XP through the mud" line of defense doesn't exactly hold either)
However, some people did, and still do have stability problems with Vista. Just like some people still have stability problems with XP.
But personally, I don't think stability is the main problem with Vista.

What I object to in this thread, is the pathological urge to defend Vista. I mean, why the hell have we got a thread bragging that Vista doesn't crash?
That's the absolute minimum I'd expect of an OS. If it crashes, it's a failure. If you don't have anything better to say about your OS than "I can run my computer without crashing", there really isn't much worth defending.

The fact that it runs a few weeks without crashing doesn't make it a success, it simply means it's passed the first, and most fundamental test for *any* OS.

It's like writing a proud thread announcing that "I was able to drive to work in my new car without the engine exploding". Yes, congratulations. I'm sorry if some of us take that for granted.

Threads like these only make Vista look worse, because they make it look like it's a major achievement that it managed to not crash. Talk about lowered expectations.

 

This whole topic usually gets blown out of proportion. The whole concept of a "best for everyone and everything" OS is mainly the domain of complete idiots. Like most things in this world XP and Vista both have pros and cons.

I think the biggest issue is that most sites like this only compare ONE aspect of OS performance and that is gaming FPS.

Vista IMHO is more secure, more stable, better networking, has better troubleshooting and self-maintenance, more malware resistant, oh and its also (argueably) prettier.

Vista has some nasty bugs as well... (oh and the tranfer rate problem was fixed long ago with a hotfix) but given how far XP had to travel, I'd be willing to bet the community will find a way to fix up Vista as well.

If all you do is game on your machine and all that matters is game performance, then yeah you want XP as even the tiny boost you get from running lower overhead will indeed directly translate to a few more FPS.

Vista is more than functional for all other types of PC users.

That isn't to say Vista is the shining example of a perfect OS either, but the whole "vista sucks" thing is quite frankly a problem between seat and keyboard.

I take nothing away from XP as it remains on my desktop and on the vast majority of our computers of work. When properly maintained, XP is a functional OS with quite a bit going for it. I just don't understand the fanatical following...

 

I've used both Vista and XP so I thought I'd drop a few words in here also.

Upgrading to Vista from XP.. does it make sense? No. I have XP right now; it handles all my programs; I've skinned it to look the way I want it to; it runs relatively fast (it's getting slightly slower as time goes on); and it just works.

There is no true benefit to upgrading. Vista looks nicer, can be more stable, has more features, and is newer. Looking nicer? I wouldn't spend more money on that. I find XP to already be attractive. Stable? My XP hasn't crashed since I reformatted it months ago. Features (Media Center, Integrated Search, etc)? I don't need those actually. I don't watch TV on my computer, I have a media player, and I don't find myself searching for things.

This is not to say I don't like Vista. I built a computer for my friend's mother with a touch screen; it will be used as a multimedia computer in the kitchen as well as a TV. For multimedia purposes, Vista is great. Media Center handles everything we needed it to.. it works especially well with TV. I can't say I've ever had a better experience with software like this; it automatically found a guide off the internet for our area; showed us scores when we needed it; and worked quite well with touch capabilities. The new features are simply adding more icing to the cake.

Vista is a good operating system; though for some more than others. This isn't to say it doesn't have its flaws.. such as price, stability with some people, drivers. But if you get it working, it works wonderfully.

There isn't too much more, at least I don't think with the current technology, we can do with an OS before we start venturing into new ways of computing. You won't see a revolutionary OS, in my opinion, for a while. Vista is just an improvement.. if you are buying a new computer, you may as well stick Vista in there.

I don't think that people should fanatically support it.. but I don't think it should be receiving all the bad press it does. It works, looks good, and functions like it needs to. It has nice new features, and integrates everything well. What else do we want from it? Time will solve most problems people have with.

 

Jalf, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and ongoing help with most things on this forum, but in regards to this topic, who died and made YOU arbiter of what is or what is not a valid comparison?

I have seen you rant and berate anyone who dares to disagree. I and others here obviously think it is a perfectly valid comparison to measure the relative merits of two operating systems at a similar point in their lifecycle. No one is suggesting it is the ONLY measure.

Your suggestion, no INSISTENCE, that anyone who thinks differently than you should shut up, is boorish at best.

Your comparison restrictions would be perfectly valid if both OS were built on the same codebase. But since XP and Vista are built on entirely different codebases, regardless of your bullying, I think it makes perfect sense to compare the two at the same point in their lifecycle.

Gary

 

People need to remember that XP has had a good 7+ years to be perfected, patched, hotfixed, or whatever you want to call it.

Vista has had merely a year or a little more, yet it performs much better and is much more reliable then XP was at the same point in its lifecycle. This comparison is MORE than valid, yet I agree it shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Now, comparing XP in its current state to Vista's current state, the differences will be obvious. It's like comparing the intelligence of a 7 year old kid to a 1 year old baby.

 

Here are also a few things coming up with Vista Sp1, which will (hopefully) improve it:

Reported Size Of System Memory

With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4GB in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change.


User Account Control (UAC) Prompts

SP1 reduces the number of UAC (User Account Control) prompts from 4 to 1 when creating or renaming a folder at a protected location.


For a full list go here

 

It depends on what you want to compare, of course.
I think it's most relevant to compare the quality of Vista, that is, "is it worth using over the competition". The only meaningful way to do that, is to compare it *to* the competition. The competition is XP as it is in 2008, not XP as it was in 2001.

Which comparison are you trying to make?
"Which OS was the most release-worthy when it was released"?
If so, you're right, the quality *at release* of each OS obviously becomes much more relevant.

But here's the kicker: Most *users* of the OS are not interested in that. They're interested in "is it a good choice *now*", which is where the former comparison is relevant. The one that compares it to the competition.

Who cares about the codebase? (besides, they *are* built on the same codebase. Microsoft scrapped the brand new built-from-the-ground-up Vista codebase 3 years ago or so, and switched to using the good old XP/2k3 codebase.)

But the codebase isn't relevant if we're discussing the quality of the OS. The codebase isn't relevant if we're discussing whether Vista is a good OS.

Vista is a good OS if it is good compared to the alternatives.

Or to put it in simpler terms.
I'm a computer user, I want a new computer with an OS on it.
What should I buy?
Well? Should I buy Vista? Why?
Should I buy XP? Why?
What kind of arguments are likely to sway me?
There's only one thing I care about in this situation. I want the best OS I can get. Period.

Now, how do we find the best available OS? Do we do it by comparing each OS in their original, unpatched, incarnations?
Linux 0.0.1 vs XP of 2001 vs Vista of 2007? Really, what does that tell us? While technically those OS'es are available, they're certainly not the *best* I can get. The best I can get are the most updated that exist as of today.

So wouldn't it be a lot more relevant to compare Linux 2.6.x vs Vista 2008 vs XP 2008?
After all those are the ones I'm going to choose between. I'm not very likely to pick Linux 0.0.1, am I? And why on Earth would I run the 2001 version of XP?

The best OS is the OS that is bsst today. Yes, XP was released earlier than Vista, and that's both a blessing and a curse. It means it's based on somewhat old technology, and it means it's had a lot of time to get the bugs ironed out.
Why shouldn't that be taken into consideration when trying to compare the OS'es?

You're free to compare OS'es any way you like, but pretending that "Vista is new, so it must only be compared to other OS'es when they were new" is misleading at best. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the product Vista that I can buy in the shops today.

It might tell us something about the abstract process Vista, the one that employs dozens of programmers at Microsoft. It might tell us something about what's to come with Vista, or whether it'll be a better OS than XP when both are retired and cut from support. That Vista is a gradual process, something that evolves over time, gets bugs fixed, get added functionality and so on. And it's not something you can look at here and now. You can't look at the process Vista as of 2008, because the process spans 5-10 years.

But it doesn't tell us anything about the product Vista, the one that is available in 2008. The one I have the option of installing on my computer.
And that one can be examined at individual times. I can easily test what the product Vista is like as of january 10, 2008. Just like I can test XP as of the same date.

The process Vista may be of interest to Microsoft fanboys, it might be interesting to anyone studying the development process, it's certainly interesting to a lot of Microsoft managers. But it's pretty pointless to look at for anyone who don't have an interest in Microsoft.
Not all of us are Microsoft fanboys, which means not all of us have an interest in proving that each OS Microsoft releases is better than anything that has come before. Some of us are just interested in finding out "what is the best OS available today?"

For someone who just want a good OS, all that matters is the relative quality of each available OS on this date.

If you really want to compare the processes Vista and XP, feel free. But then we also have to take into account that Vista took what, 4 years longer than planned?

So in reality, Vista is now 5 years old, not 1. The Process Vista ran into a lot of trouble in its early life, which meant it wasn't commercially released, but that's ok, because we're not comparing the commercial product Vista. If we were, we'd be comparing it to other contemporary OS'es.
We're apparently discussing the ongoing development project named Vista. And that one has taken 5 years to get to where it is today, from the date when it *should* have been released.

So, what does all this prove? Let's do the comparisons on your terms. We're interested in the abstract projects Vista and XP, rather than the actual OS'es I have the option of installing on my computer today, 10th of january 2008.
Let's for a moment assume that Vista wins this comparison. Now what?
What has this shown us?

If you were to use "my" comparison, it would show us which OS is the best to install on your computer today. Most people I know agree that this is a useful comparison. It gives us information that is relevant. What does your comparison show us?

 

edit: I didn't see Jalf's post while I was typing this, so Jalf, this is not a direct reply to your previous post. I just wanted to add my experience with Vista... I see many interesting and clever observations above. I will not take sides, but I have my opinion too. Damn.

The resistance is futile.

I got it (vista) for free. This is the best OS today. For me. It does what I want from it. Every day. There are things I don't like. It is not revolutionary. But I have it anyway. And I still like it.

An interesting thing - my father has exactly the same notebook like I do (long story) and he has XP PRO on it. Runs great, but I still have this feeling that Vista is a bit better/stable/faster in everyday work. I cannot measure it, it is just my feeling. Is it subjective? AM I ON THE DARK SIDE OR SOMETHING?

It is huge on disk (I have ultimate), I lacks some basic silly things like choice of volumes in defragmenter (fixed in sp1), it uses 3d accelerated graphics and makes my (underclocked to 140/110) card working hard to show everything. It is slower in games (people say so - I cannot confirm - I play crysis at 1024x600 or some other crazy ratio res on medium at 30 fps). Other games like fear, tf2 and hl2 engine series work great on high 1280x800 or more. I don't use indexing or search a lot. I don't use Windows mail or Calendar or Contacts. Help is so so (like network is down and it wants to go to Internet for help! - silly at least ). It has some issues with file copy over network or even on disk for some people. It has UAC (this is bad for me, but maybe teaches some other people what is important and what is not, maybe...). I hate stupid CD/DVD burning from OS that is actually the same like in XP. Caching tons of stuff for burning on C: temp? Hey Internet is full of programs that are lightyears from anything Microsoft/Roxio or whatever ever produced for burning DVDs!

But I do use superfast Gallery with 8GB of pictures (Picasa had more issues with it on XP). I do use super fast media center for hundreds of gigs of my media stuff + perfect accelerated DVD playback (better than WMP). I do like Movie maker and especially dvd creator (very fast indeed). I enjoy Networking center and it connects to my WPA APs much faster and more reliable than XP. Gaming works better over wireless now. I find restore points much more reliable than in XP (xp used to delete my ntuser.dat for god's sake! damn XP!). I like superfetch! I like better cache for disks. I like 3d task manager . I really like performance tool reports and great event tracking. I like IIS 7.0 and multiple web servers (ultimate I guess). My mobile devices are more happy with Vista and viceversa (I can even see the pictures/icons of my MDA PRO when connected! Yahoo!). I like icon scaling. edit: I like hybrid sleep a lot! I don't even shut down my comp. Ever.

I want WinFS as I tried that demo/trial thingie and I liked it's features. I want it to be faster. I want it to be more advanced in a way. I want it to be free for everybody!

Many PC magazines said Vista is the worst failure (disappointment) of 2007. Well I kinda like it anyway.

 

I've had this notebook for 2 years with XP on it and it has never crashed. I even went so far as to put that BSOD screensaver on it so I could remember what it looked like.

 

Jalf, I appreciate your page long posts, but jesus christ what is your arguement?

Mine is that I'm tired of Grandpa and Grandma coming into the store saying "well I heard about this new-fangled Vista thing, and I hear it's crap", and that is really getting annoying. I'm fine if you're a business and have incompatibility issues with Vista and need to stick with XP, but when clueless people come in and ***** about Vista to me, esp. the Mac boys (one of which claimed Microsoft was too proprietary), it gets darn annoying.

Vista is a good OS, capable of doing anything you would reasonably expect a consumer level OS to do. Granted saying that it "doesn't crash" may be lowering standards, but how do you beat "doesn't crash"? Should a better operating system "super crash"? In any manner, Vista has crashed as many times as any other operating system has on me (very few times), and most of the "likes and dislikes" tell much more about the end user than the operating system itself.

Edit: Post like this are exactly what I'm talking about:

 

Man...lets all take a deep breath and relax here. Jalf, wow... You have a bone to pick obviously but its not with any OS. You just like to jump up and chew at the opinion of anyone who cares to differ from your own.

You can compare any version of Vista/XP that you want and the answer is still the same. XP is retiring and Vista is here. You cannot change that. Yes there will be those who hang on as long as possible because, well, thats what they do and you cannot sway them.

Quite frankly this WAS only a discussion where each was explaining the merits of each side. Im sorry but, I still havent seen that many merits brought forward by you except that you like it.

The end result is fairly simple no matter how you divide the pie. Vista...as it is right now....has done more to force the advance of technology and performance systems becoming reasonable for the consumer to purchase than any other OS.

Will there be MS haters? Absolutely. Was this an argument about whos OS is the best? Not at all....just an honest exchange of opinion with people validating their point with reasoning other than "cause I said so...so there"

Hope your ok big guy. I really don't want to see anyone have a coronary over XP/Vista.

 

Jalf,

You TOTALLY missed my point. I never said it was not a useful comparison. Nor did I suggest the the comparison I was defending was the ONLY one.

My point was that YOU are telling anyone who suggests that there are ADDITIONAL comparisons that can be made to "SHUT UP"... your words not mine.

I still think the lifecycle based comparison has a valid use, I'll tell you why. I look at Vista and realize I am an early adopter. I then have to decide if the additional features outweigh the risks of being an early adopter. So then how do I assess those risks? The only way I know of would be to compare the stability of Vista against the stability of lets say XP as it was at the same point in its lifecycle. If it appears to be as stable or more stable, and if I can reasonably expect Microsoft to make similar efforts and results in improving it, then I would consider the early adopter risks as better than they were when I was ready to make the jump to XP some years ago.

Now, is that comparison useful to everyone. No. Should it be the only one, no. And I am not telling anyone who disagrees to shut up, either. Nor am I calling anyone who disagrees some XP or Apple fanboy.

Gary

 

BSOD with XP or 2K = "Never seen that before".
BSOD with VISTA = "Oh well, it happens but I know how to recover from it".

Enough said.

 

Why do you guys spend so much time writing out these arguments and responses? Why not keep it to yourself?

 

Because this is a forum.

 

Teejay 44...

Xp or 2K = Crash. You cannot come out of it.
Vista = Crash which in most cases you can still walk out of without having lost total system control

BSOD is a process within Vista because something is not right.

For example, in XP it used to be common to get a system crash because there were too many resources running at once and the system wasn't equipped for it.

In Vista, if this occurred, you would not get a BSOD that I am aware of. The main occurrence of BSOD for the most part relates to AHCI which, yes I will admit, requires a thorough understanding and then some.

EDIT: Written as a learning response and enquiry if I am wrong...not a rebuttal to a court argument lol

 

I know, but you're not convincing the other your way, so why bother?

 

Waiting for BSOD using XP or 2K....

 

Because the alternative is to go outside and play. And the sun is too damn bright.

 

As stated you will not see BSOD with XP, it just crashes. Similarly, I could understand why you would remain with XP with your system specs (1024Gb). Vista would run very poorly on that system, always forcing HD access through the pagefile.

This is a point I had been trying to make, this being that each user will be the only to offer an effective opinion pertaining to their own situation.

 

Though XP may not BSOD, you may see an error like this:

 

lol... I'm kind of referring to the super long argument Jalf made... since that probably took as long as a college thesis essay.

 

That reminded me of "Keyboard error, please press F1 to resume" BIOS message when I didn't connect a keyboard to the desktop comp.

Ivan

 

That was a great pic. And I am still waiting for BSOD or a "crash".