What do you hate most about Vista?

So much ignorance and so many false statements in this topic. Maybe I should create one of these topics in some other board "What do you hate the most about Linux/MacOS?", normally that would be considered trolling...

And hate? Not dislike? But HATE?

Anyhow, so, anything I dislike about Vista? The fact that UAC pops up even when you want to basic things like defrag your HD, the first time is fine, but it doesn't have to pop up every time.

 

This was hilarious, especially the part about the unicorn.

By the way, Rooney is one of my favorite players. Messi and E'to are my absolute favorites.

 

There is nothing that I hate about Vista. That said, there are some aspects of Vista that raise my eyebrows.

- Slow boot times
- Massive number of applets in Control Panel; the number of applets in the CP have been increasing since CP was invented. With Vista, I have trouble finding specific applets because there are so many.
- UAC is very annoying, but it can be turned off easily. I don't see why people list it as a major complaint. For me it is annoying, but trivially easy to solve.
- Vista's lack of scalability; yes, people upgrading to the OS should make sure their computers are capable of running it first. But, Microsoft should have designed the OS to strip some of its features when running on low-end machines. No other OS has this shortcoming. In other words, it shouldn't be incredibly slow on machines that are a little low-end.

 

i can;t stand vista, mostly because i am an xp fanboy. but i hate all the security crap that it has, and it is worse for gaming.

 

I don't see why it's necessary to insult every person who has problems with Vista...

The poster asked for reasons kindly, and many of us have been trying to give honest legitimate responses.

I haven't been counting but there must be around 10 posts here that are just pointless argumentative statements...

 

I don't think anyone is bothered by those that have a good reason to not use it. But some things are far from legitimate, and every discussion I've seen on the net about Vista has had at least 2-3 'haters'.

 

Hey Greg, I feel the same, but I've learned that that's just the way it is in the online community. You can have the best of intentions when you start a thread like this but, inevitably, there will be those who trash other peoples' opinions and suggestions. That's why I don't even bother to comment on it anymore. I simply post my opinion and I let the chips fall where they may.

I will concede that there is definitely truth to too many people trash-talking about Vista, however. I have found through many personal experiences that most of the people trash-talking the OS have either a) never used it before and are going by what they "heard" or b) used it when it first came out and was buggy as he** and have never gone back to it. Now, I do understand that there is a small group of people who have legitimate problems with the OS, but I believe that it is a very small community of people.

By and large, Vista has become a very stable, useful OS that is capable of doing everything that XP can do. There just comes a time when you have to do away with old technology, no matter how comfortable you are with it, and step into the next generation. XP was great for many years and, if there is ever a Hall of Fame for operating systems, it should get in on the first ballot. However, its time is passing. Soon, it will be completely obsolete. I'll always keep it for nostalgia, but it is less useful to me with each passing day. To those who love it and it still serves a purpose, then please continue to use it for as long as you can. For the rest, put all of your preconceived ideas aside and give Vista a legitimate shot. You just might find yourself liking it.

 

I'd hate to burst your bubble and all..but Vista is just as fast or faster when gaming.

 

I hate first and most UAC. It gives the same warning when I install an innocent software like 7zip and a software like Norton which screws up every small detail of the OS. No detailed feedback at all. I install, for example, Quicktime from Apple. It installs a startup program, puts a tray icon, adds an update service, a desktop icon, and a quick start icon; and, all these are allowed with one click in UAC. UAC should have levels for merely installing an application in its own directory and for modifying system/startup settings. When I click to allow a process I have no idea what will be the consequence. It is just an annoying feature to put the blame on the user for security. Another example: When I get the wireless drivers from Dell, after everytime I install it, I have to go back and remove the startup utilities, proprietary wireless services, tray icons, etc. just to update only the drivers and continue using default Windows wireless services. The same for sound drivers, deleting automatic startup of ATI CCC and tray icon, Nvidia's unnecessary services (there are at least three of them) .... Maintaining a clean and lean Windows system is a full time job.

 

Pretty clear that you haven't gamed on Vista SP1. I prefer to rely on benchmarks and first-hand experience with both OS's rather than spewing false statements. Must've been another 'I heard Vista was slow at gaming' occurence...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp

I also get more frames in COD4 and TF2 in Vista than I do in XP

 

Nothing. I have UAC turned off.

 

Actually, it's a good thing. No matter who made the software, all go through the same process. No exceptions. For example Sony is a highly reputed comany, but they used to put rootkits with their softwares, remember?

Windows Defender, which comes with Windows Vista, does all that. It lets you review the new services made, and the new start-up entries added, and lets you allow or reject them. And it's not MS's fault that a software doesn't have a Custom install feature like most do, like where to install, whether I want it to update automatically, whether I want a Desktop icon, is it?

Those people are easily identified. Their posts are like this - "I don't use Windows Vista because it does not let me use SoftwareX, I've tried all possible solutions, but I'm made aware that it's not possible." Or - "I don't use Windows Vista because it takes up a lot of space on my hard-disk and is very demanding." They'll never use the word dislike or hate, because they know it's a two way street. On the other hand you have - "My Internet is not working, it was working in Windows XP, Vista sucks".

 

Hey are you using 32 bit or 64?

 

Yeah, was the same scenario as you about a week ago. I installed the driver of the mouse and everything was fine. But a few days ago, time most of the time when I plug that mouse in, I would get a blue screen error.

As swarmer suggested, I uninstalled the deathadder's driver and now everything works perfectly. It's just sad I can't use the dpi adjustment on the fly

 

Gaming on 32-bit at the moment, but I may upgrade to 64 in the near future...

Did you try installing them again? That's the only complaint I've had about the Deathadder, is that Razer's drivers & software don't seem to be the most stable thing ever..

 

It takes two minutes to open the wireless connection window on my laptop (see sig)... WTF is all I have to say about that.

 

Yeah, reinstalled and got the same result

exiled from the Alienware forums has also experienced the dreaded blue screen with his Deathadder

 

I installed Vista x64 the day it became available. I used it as my main OS most of the time since then. It has absolutely never, ever crashed. It has never, ever done anything I would consider instability. It has never blue screen'd, it has never gone off into lala land, it never randomly "app stopped responding", it never interrupted my normal activities. I currently use Vista x64 on five different computers, and it has no 'stability' problems on any of them.

The problems with remembering folder views bothers me, and the odd extra width of the Aero title bars confuses me (I read it was due to an early design decision that got piled on to the point that they could not reasonably fix it), but there's not much about Vista that I "hate". I even keep UAC on and it doesn't pop up very much. You guys with these rampant UAC problems needs to talk to the people that write your apps. Or you need to do more with your computers than just click Control Panel icons all day.

 

After SP1, there is nothing I hate about Vista. It takes advantage of newer hardware better than XP can. I admit I actually really like Vista a lot. I guess my only gripe would be better support for x64 since I use Vista x64, but that's not really Vista's fault.

 

Hmmm... have you checked their website (or Google) to see if there's a newer version of their driver than what you were using?

 

I'll try and check to see what comes up. Thanks a lot for the help swarmer

 

the fact that you can't get UAC to remember an action <.<

 

It's exactly the same thing with me. Except, I installed it a little later than you (I installed it when I got my notebook, which was 1 year back). It has never, and I mean never, crashed on me in any shape or form (for example BSOD, hang etc). I just rebooted my notebook after 14-15 days, that too because I had to install new Intel SATA and WiFi drivers. It was working great. I played games 2-3 times a day, watched movies, surfed the Internet, listened to music, chatted using two different IM messengers, used MS Office, uninstalled and reinstalled a lot of apps with their updated versions, with uTorrent running constantly in the back-ground. There were no problems what so ever, and it was as if it was just booted an hour ago. So ****ing stable!

This is the only thing that bothers me a bit as well.

Are you Tytler Durden?

 

Vista is a poor implementation of the Mac OS. Why oh why doesn't Microsoft make thier own designs rather than trying to mimic someone else's work? Lame.

 

It's the other way round. Vista's been so long in development, Al Gore was inveting the Internet back then.

 

I use the DeathAdder as well (Macbook Pro, Bootcamp Vista Ultimate).

I just plugged in the mouse and installed the drivers and it works. You MAY want to upgrade your firmware if it isn't up to date. Check Razer's DeathAdder driver/firmware page for more information.

That said, the only bluescreens I have EVER seen using Vista were related to USB devices, primarily when I hotplug my DeathAdder mouse. I think it has happened 2 or 3 times in the last year.

OH RIGHT. Vista complaint...

iTunes has been working for over a year just fine, and now with iTunes 7.7 all of the music shares in my household (I don't have a library here, I use the shared libraries from their computers) will disappear if I turn iTunes off and turn it back on. I have to have them manually restart iTunes to fix it! *pulls hair out*

 

Please name three things in Vista that are clear, obvious attempts to replicate Mac OS.

 

I can name one, widgets vs gadgets. And to be fair Apple copied System Restore with Time Machine.

 

didnt vista come out before leopard?

to be fair also i dont see aero in mac either whats with all the silver gradient/color anyway?

 

Apple calls it Quartz. The difference between the two is style whereby Microsoft went with the glass look. Both GUI are in 3D and to be fair Quartz is a lot less resource heavy than Aero.

 

Most competition is based on a little imitation. You want to outdo your competition, but you're always aware of what they're doing and sometimes you take an idea and try to make it better. Apple wins with the widgets and, though more memory intensive, Vista wins with Aero. I personally like both operating systems, but remember guys, this is a Vista thread.

 

A little research would show Apple got the idea from someone else as there was a claim as to who had the idea first.

Since Apple has more money and better attorneys the issue was dropped by the accused party. Not sure if there was some settlement behind the scenes though.

http://kottke.org/04/06/konfabulator-developer-pissed-at-apple-says-os

 

:laugh: You can't be serious...

 

Yeah, I just hate the way Apple copies a Microsoft idea before Microsoft even thinks of it.

 

Silly me it's Apple we're talking about, they're perfect what was I thinking. They would never use any ideas from Windoze.

 

I use both Mac OS X and Vista (see my sig). I hate the ridiculous Finder and lousy dock in Mac OS X. There is no better file manager than Windows Explorer in any other OS, period. I feel so much more comfortable using Windows Explorer, taskbar, start menu, tray in Windows.

I can't believe I am defending Windows here but it is true

 

So where exactly are you seeing the resemblance?



vs



All Windows System Restore does is remember settings and registry values. Time machines actually clones your disk and gives you the flexibility of grabbing a file to completely restoring your disk if it gets fubar'd. System restore does neither. They have completely different goals. Apple is trying to get people to back up their data that normally wouldn't while Microsoft included System Restore as a simple utility to fix minor problems, NOT to back up data.

 

I could give you more than three but here's at least 3. Vista's gadgets. Widgets on the Mac OS have existed long before.
Transparency. Mac OS X was released 8 years ago and even the public beta 9 years ago had transparent window borders.
That useless Windows flip 3D crap. Nothing in Vista beats Apple's Expose'.

LOL, someone mentioned that Vista came out before Leopard? The above things I mentioned were already in Mac OS X years before Leopard's release.

Another laughable one, someone mentioned that Time Machine was copied from Windows System Restore? Does System Restore allow you to choose any file on any day of the month, retrieve it from history and bring it back to the desktop? NO. System Restore only allows you to restore your system settings and removes certain programs from select previous days. That's not how Time Machine works, sorry.

 

You're right, Time Machine isn't a copy of System Restore... I agree.

It's Volume Shadow Copy that provides this functionality in Windows.

 

The Vista Backup/Restore feature is just as advanced as the leopard one as shown in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpR6jwQXc3Y

Also, vista was in development from about 2004 i believe.

Edit: It was 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Development

 

Right.

 

Go to 6:50 in the video, and the windows "cascading back in time could be easily done by opening all versions of the folder then flip 3d.

 

I haven't read through the first 10 pages of things people hate most about Vista (lol) but mine would have to be the 30-60 second lockups that frequently occur when I go to save a file to my computer. The little twirly circle is maddening.

I will say though, programs that are "Not Responding" almost always come "back to life" with Vista. I've rarely had to do a hard reboot due to a permament lockup.

 

The only thing I ever didn't like about Vista is UAC, but that was solved in a few clicks.

 

Oh yeah Shadow Copy. Forgot about that one. That's just another reason to hate Vista. Not only is it really NOT like Time Machine, it's very confusing to a new user or even an experienced user. It's not even labeled Shadow Copy anywhere in the UI, it's labeled System Restore and you create shadow copies from it. A first time user can easily set up and use Time Machine with one button. Sorry, no contest.

 

nothing

 

The only thing I hate about Vista is the occasional shutdown hangs that last practically forever, which usually results in forced shut down. :/

 

No, that's not accurate.

Shadow Copy is an underlying OS service. You're right that nothing in the UI is labeled "Shadow Copy".

"Previous Versions" is how this feature is labeled in the UI. Just right-click any drive, folder, or file, then click Properties and then the "Previous Versions" tab. It lists every version available with the date the snapshot was taken. It doesn't have the cute visuals of Apple's time machine, but it's perfectly straightforward to use. One nice thing is it creates the copies automatically, on the same disk -- you don't need another drive to use it, as you do with Apple's Time Machine.

However, there are obvious advantages to backing up to external media, and in Vista, Complete PC Backup uses Shadow Copy to do just that.

But maybe the best thing about Shadow Copy is that, having been around since Windows Server 2003, it's stable and robust. This is unlike Time Machine, which I've heard a lot of complaints about, with it causing crashes and interfering with other programs.

Still, I'm not knocking Apple entirely. They did a good job of bringing a cute GUI and a catchy name to their utility.

 

I don't believe I ever said Apple was the first, I just said they win. You don't necessarily have to be the first at something to be better at it. Whatever though. I still think that all's fair in competition except cheating. If you can take someone's idea and expand on it, then why not? That makes things better for us, the consumers.

By the way, how in the he** did this become a Vista vs. OS X thread all of a sudden?

 

You are viewing this "issue" in a completely ridiculous way; anybody who tries to start a dispute along the lines of Mac vs. PC is clearly someone who demonstrates their lack of understanding among computers.

Firstly, people use operating systems based on how much work they can get done on them and based on their personal preference. I personally couldn't care less whether my preferred operating system "stole" design elements from this or that OS. Most other people on this forum would probably agree.

Secondly, the sharing of design ideas at the application level and OS level is perfectly normal; every software company out there does it. If the industry worked by your logic, every software developer would have to reinvent the wheel to accomplish the same task.

The reason why common design elements among applications and operating systems exist is for the same reason that we have different operating systems entirely. Both Windows and Mac OS aim to achieve the same goals; that is, being ideal operating systems. However they both have different ways of doing it. Sometimes their ideas converge and become similar; other times they diverge and you find two completely different ways of doing a given task. The fact that they are similar by no means proves any theft of intellectual property; it can be as simple as the software developers recognizing that their competitor's idea is the most suitable for their own application or OS. This isn't art; its a competitive business; look at all the major three operating systems and you will successfully compile a list of design elements that each one has borrowed from opposing or previous development.

Arguing about who stole what from who is bull****; a total waste of time. Whether MS copied Apple or vice versa is irrelevant. The question is, which OS wins more votes in terms of A) productivity and B) personal preference. Dropping by and trolling with these dumb points about MS stealing design concepts from Apple is pretty useless when most sensible users on this forum couldn't care less about whether their OS of choice, be it Windows, Mac, or Linux, has "stolen" design ideas from other operating systems; what really matters is A) how well they work with the OS and B) whether they have a personal preference for it.