What do you hate most about Vista?

Another thing I hate about Vista: it does not crash. Crashing was a feature in XP that Microsoft decided to pull out from Vista (after SP1)... many users are disappointed in this decision. Windows 7 seems to also have had this feature pulled out as well.

 

Seriously do people even read. Ram usage is high in vista because when its not being used it puts your ram to work or finds things for it to do rather than letting it lay around and go for waste.

Vista isn't the best, but its strides ahead of XP in my opinion. And im sure Windows 7 will be a stride or two ahead of Vista.

And for the person up there that says Vista has a slow bootup, Id disagree. I experienced one of the fastest boot up on any os with Vista.

 

then, sir, you have some crap machine. vista works great even on slow machines (if you don't believe me, come over and see it beating the hell out of xp on an atom 1.6ghz..). so better check your drivers or your installation, on why it's wrong. if it's not the hw, and not vista, it must be your setting.

vista works _FAST_ here, on tons of different hw. it even works faster than win7. looks like win7 rots quite a bit after some while of use (but it could be the beta..)

 

I'm with you man. People think small. They still live in the old days where they do things like its still 1990.

OMG, Vista is caching my programs into RAM!!!! VISTA = MEMORY HOG

OMG, Indexer is thrashing my computer. I'd rather go through the folder tree to find all my files!!!!

OMG, AERO uses SOO MUCH RAM. I'd rather click each button to get a view of each program.

OMG, I only have 200GB of free space instead of 220GB!!!! VISTA IS USING ALL MY EMPTY SPACES!!!!!!!


Seriously, this is the reason why the interface hasn't changed since the dinosaur ages. By now, we should have an interface that should be built around speech recognition, automatic synchronizations, and friggin laser beams. But since that would mean you can't point and click through your dinosaur unproductive hierarchical file system, you fight the change. Our file systems should be flat like a database. There should be more than one way for files to relate to each other, to interact with each other. But because that means you might be left in the dust, you fight the change.

Ughh. The IT industry should be the vanguard for change and efficiency. But rather we are like everyone else, holding to our old traditional ways. We end up measuring performance not based on forward thinking performance metrics, but rather with theoretical BS.

 

lOl ..

i recall things when XP was launched wayback..i was also one of those who cribbed about XP being not all that great as Windows98.. i switched back n forth so many times..it was hilarious..
people took their own time to fall in love with XP ..

Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds.

 

Vista x(64) came with my new laptop. I like it, except for the indexing. I disabled that.

 

I LOL'd irl

 

This thread is screaming for a lecture from Gary.

 

I hate User Account Control. It just freaks me out.

 

as soon as i got my m1530 i installed Win 7, 7000 build, i was happy for 3 months and then for some reason i decided to switch to vista, bad decision, i had never used Vista before, so at start the laptop started making funny noises, and the bootup time after the fresh install was times X 4 of what Win 7 took, and then i went to black viper and did all tweaks, things are better now. Vista has its flaws but yea it is a step up from XP.

 

I don't know if the trade off was worth it, if there's even a trade-off at all. My idle CPU usage in XP is definitely lower than Vista, but the temperature difference is pretty significant.

Yea, glad someone else agrees with me. They shoulda made the non-aero theme look something like this instead of that.

Don't quite understand you.

I guess it's not that big a deal since most softwares were updated to be compatible with Vista. They never fixed ATITool for Vista though. It's also kinda annoying to have to find a patch for older software for it to work. =/

 

as i said, that's YOUR system config. in my case, there is no such difference. it depends what produces more heat: producing that graphics on a cpu or on a gpu. in my case, those intel onboard cards produce less heat than my cpu doing more stuff.

and yeah, cpu usage may be higher in vista, but it would be EVEN HIGHER BY DOING AERO BY HAND. in the 20% range, even. that would be a battery drain..

they should just make it look the same bare the aero features: transparent glass, previews, 3d flip and such. else, identical, please.

is your gameplay worse on vista? or is it just "i have 353fps on xp and only 316fps on vista, omg vista sucks!!!".

normally, as far as my experience goes, in games which are fully using your system (like new games, farcry2 and such), the os doesn't really matter, as it will be gpu and cpu bound anyways to it's limits (and they are the same, unimportant of os).

but in games which are older (and every system of today runs them with ease), the performance can be a bit lower in vista. but normally, still high above the state where it would affect gameplay. sort of vista thinking "uh, that game runs so well, i can even defrag it still runs well". yeah, fps get down, but not gameplay.

as i said: continuing problems like it never runs? or a simple "i have to fix permissions once and then it works like before?".

stuff that doesn't run anymore on vista: stuff that needs drivers that don't work anymore in vista.

stuff that still runs without any problem on vista, but maybe needs a little tweaking: all apps not following the guidelines on permissions that existed since xp (like not storing configs in c:\program files\yourapp). they may need some tweaking, and then work without any problem.

 

Maybe my English is bad, but I had a REAL hard time understanding this post. It seams like it has a lot of stuff and little substance.

I see a sentence that MAYBE talks about AppCompat. This is mostly a non issue that has little to do with Vista or Microsoft. The OS has been out for a year now. It is now up to the individual developers to pickup the slack.

I saw something about Gamplay and fps. Well one is not the other. And practically every current benchmark says there is little to no loss of FPS when playing said games on Vista.

I saw something about making classic themes look like Aero. If you want it to look like Aero, just USE friggin Aero. The reason they included the classic theme is for people who DON'T want the visual effects. Engineering for a feature that is already there. It sounds like the Godian Knot.

 

I, for one, hate that _Vista will soon be replaced, 'cause I get so much fun out of these I-Hate-Vista threads and the shenanigans the posters get up to!

 

I so looked forward to the Blue Screens of Death and the opportunity to see a hex dump in text mode. But alas, M$ took that joy away with Vista Sp1. Those fun spoilers from Redmond.

 

I guess it's both yours and mine that don't combine together well.

yes. and i still search for real app examples that don't work right now. everyone quotes "uhh ahh there are problems here and there" but none can show one problem that can't be fixed easily. except for old drivers that never got (and never will) ported to vista. apps requiring those won't work. but there aren't much of those.

as you know, i was replying someone. he said he lost performance in a game. what i asked is, have you lost performance that made gameplay worse (like from 30fps down to 5fps), or performance that just made some numbers worse.

older games are worse on vista than on xp. by some 1 - 10%. but they run so fast on any vista machine, that this drop normally never matters (down from 150fps to 140fps f.e.).

so i asked if it actually meant loss in gameplay or just something he once realized "uh, i lost some fps going to vista". in general games work all well on vista.

no. sometimes you can't have the visual effects. maybe you have hw that doesn't support dx9. maybe an app temporarily kills aero (ableton live did for long).
it then drops into that ugly blueish theme, and i don't get why. why doesn't it drop into the identical theme, bare all the aero features. that means, why aren't the buttons on top right still the same? why is my colour of choise not anymore the same (say i have it pink, why do i get blue without aero?), etc etc.
and then, there is vista basic. it does NOT have aero. and still, it looks identical to aero. why can't we have that skin when aero doesn't work?! there is no reason, and it sucks.

while bluerays are running, aero support drops here, f.e. and every window has then the ugly blueish theme. if it would just drop transparency, nobody would think "urgh" what happened.


hope you understand it a bit more, now? (and it was posted to reply cathy, so it all had context. see the quotes, and the post before)

 

See what I mean? Man, I'm really going to miss this sort of intellectual back-and-forth when _Vista goes.

 

No worries Shyster.
I for one, count on huge dissapointments when folks find out that Win7 isn't the (r)evolutionary leap in OS land after Vista.
(It's irony folks, please don't start with 'Win7 iz l33t!').

 

Well, that makes me feel a bit better, thanks Baserk!

 

Why? There are several folks here doing a great job at dispelling the myths from the Vista haters.

But I will chime in with one thing I do hate about Vista, the way that folder settings magically change every once in a while. That bug (which dates from XP days) is just so damned annoying. None of the "fixes" really work. It still creeps back. But hell that's really my ONLY beef so I am sitting back waiting for Win7 and HOPING it is fixed there.

Gary

 

i solved this years ago by not changing the settings ever that way, it is at least consistent but annoying sometimes, yes

this should get fixed, that's true. and sad it still isn't.

 

What I hate most about Vista ?

hmm It doesn't crash as much as XP and it doesn't need many restarts as XP but I love how it uses my RAM well

 

I'm curious, which machine with this Atom processor has the job of running Vista? I have a netbook with one and am now emmensely curious on if this is possible. I like XP on it, but I favor Vista. This will be a cool experiment to try out now.

Has anyone tried Vista on the HP Mini netbooks?

 

23 pages of hating of vista
some times i like vista , it doesn't go down like XP suddenly , it just gets slower and slower, take a lot of effort to make it go down

 

I don't know where all this talk of XP crashes are coming from. I have had maybe 1-2 crashes in the 5 years that I've had XP and they were both related to graphic card issues.

 

Same here except mine were related to bad memory modules.

 

i just wanted to say i miss blue screen of death, 1 thanks to vista lol
also i found this funny image about windows, u must check it out

 

It's true that practically every benchmark says there's little to no loss of FPS when playing games on Vista, but it doesn't mean that it's always true. I installed Vista and XP at least 5 freaking times each on the same notebook and Team Fortress 2 definitely runs noticeably slower. Under XP is averages around 35 - 55 fps, whereas under Vista is averages around 25 - 45 fps. That's a 20 - 30% drop.

I don't freaking want to use Aero all the time due to the following reasons:
- Aero requires the GPU to do more work, decreasing the overall battery life
- Aero lowers the FPS of games when playing in Windowed mode
- Aero makes my GPU hotter

 

Funny thing is that a 20% to 30% drop isn't common. So is Vista to blame or specifically, your configuration to blame?

Sometimes Outlook crashes when I close it. Since this is not common among Outlook installations, is Outlook to blame or my specific configuration to blame?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Edit:

Again, you can use this post to reply to

 

Which just goes to show that reality really is stranger than fiction.

 

To be fair to _Vista, it should be compared to XP Gold edition, or maybe XP SP1/1a, where there were a lot more crashes than folks ever see with the very mature OS that is XP SP3. On that comparison, _Vista probably does crash less than XP used to, although, as you describe, since it probably results in a more graceful slowdown rather than an outright crash, perhaps folks have been ascribing _Vista's graceful slowdowns to normal operating behaviour rather than to better handling of terminal errors??

 

I blame both Vista and my configuration.

Btw, do you have any TF2 Vista vs XP benchmarks to prove that it isn't common?

 

Look at all the benchmarks that use the Source engine, like Left 4 Dead.

 

I didn't take the same hit in CS:Source as I did in TF2, so, no, I wouldn't use just any other Source engine benchmark.

 

Oh nose, Good Bytes join this thread to shed light.
Games runs close in FPS than XP. But XP is a little faster. Why? Is it the OS? Of course not. Shocking I know! Here is the real reason.
Windows XP, is based on Windows 2000, which is based on NT 4 which is based on NT 3. Hardware manufacture such as your GPU knows how to optimize the drivers for XP as nothing really changed since 1993. Yes, XP is a 1993 O.S with patches over patches in reality with few section of rewrites done over the years.

Vista is a new core, a new kernel and Windows which was desperately needed. Because of the new kernel design, such as having the drivers not tied up to the kernel to allow recovery of the driver to reduce BSOD's and also allow any drivers (even SATA) to be updated while the OS is running without a reboot (yea, when you install a driver you don't HAVE TO to restart your computer in reality, under Vista. Usually it's asked to start some startup process or do some clean up).

Because of the new core, optimization needs to be re-engineered all over again, there is a loss in performance. But it has nothing to do with the OS itself. I don't know about you, but not bad result (few fps less) for a new OS core. Either way. No mater which game you play after 60fps, you dont' see any difference, even if you try. Don't say something about FPS games... that all B.S. All console games max fps is on average 60fps, and no one complains.

Aero has issues because your GPU is not powerful enough to run it properly. On my laptop (see signature), I lose 15min out of my 9-cell, ~9 hours of battery life. This is utterly useless (the 15min), I prefer to have it. The thumbnail live preview on the taskbar application items and the live preview on Alt+Tab is totally worth it, no adding all the rest which makes everything nice looking.

Aero uses your GPU instead of your CPU (which sucks at drawing). CPU demanding application benefit from Aero, games in window.. not so much especially when you have slow GPU. But this should not a large issue with an Intel Graphics X4500HD or Geforce 7600 and up. However, even in XP you lose performance when the game runs in a window, as the CPU is used more to draw the UI of the OS.

The nice thing about Aero, is that when you play a game in full screen the UI is unloaded, which is not the case for the CPU (Aero Basic/XP/Windows standard theme/Windows 2000 and older).

 

Hated most? the card reader which can't read a simple rsmmc in vista but reads flawlessly in win7

 

Thank you GB. As I recall Microsoft made it easier for graphics drivers to interface directly with the NT 4 kernel in order to compete in the lucrative graphics market.

 

@GoodBytes,

Nice summary of the new changes.

 

I'm glad all the hating has showed down. No doubt, Vista has its quirks. But ultimately, many of the changes were needed.

I'm curious why they didn't make it more simple to join a wireless network. You gotta rightclick the little icon in the bottom right and then click connect to a wireless network. I ended dragging the "Connect to" menu option from the start menu into my quicklaunch bar. Winkey+1. SOOOOO much easier.

 

Well at least you don't have to type the wireless password 2 times when it's the first time you connect to it, like in XP.

 

This has to do with your drivers not the OS. Contact the card reader manufacture for help. A possibilities which might explain the problem is that the system has a driver conflict somewhere and it's the fault of one of the driver for your hardware. Because you use a new OS, the drivers of other hardware manufacture might have re-designed them which solved the problem. I have no read anything significant changes to Win7 driver side.

On my laptop both of my card readers (contact and conact-less) works fine.

 

We didn't start the flame war. Peeps were hatin' on it before I left a comment.

 

Nope. Tried all the drivers from the past ricoh MMC/sd to another, from windows update, rolling back and tried again.. nothing worked. im just surprised the first time i sticked my card (that ddnt work of vista) on win7, just installed and worked. I haven't even installed the card reader's original driver for christ's sake

 

Did you contact the manufacture? Perhaps they can send you a new revision of the product if you still under warranty, or perhaps they have a solution.

Driver conflict fixes (different solutions):
- Re-install driver by uninstall the current one first (you tried that)
- Removing any USB hub (is it's a USB device)
- Change device from USB port set (if it is a USB device)
- Removal of all hardware except basic (no sound card(s), no physics card, no SLI/crossfire, no TV Tuner) and do some detective work, even changing the hardware PCI/PCI-E slot.
- Re-install OS with latest update and drivers.

My guess is the last one, as it works under Win7. Else, then it could be teh hardware manufacture of the card reader that made crappy Vista drivers, and the Win7 drivers are better. Or you are confusing software tool that comes with the card reader and the drivers, which might explain why it works under Win7.

 

how often do you really have to manually connect to one? all the wlans i use are autoconnecting..

but yes, it could be simpler, something like an msn popup. then, all would cry about the popup

 

Driver model for such components is identical under vista and win7. you could use the one from win7

 

and this with identical settings. well, for most games here this isn't true. i don't have an xp around anymore to test team fortress, but it works great on vista here in different configurations. still, sad for you.

if it's not something in the configs that's messed up.

correction: Aero helps your cpu do to much less work, helping your battery life

not notably here

aero makes your cpu much cooler, even shutting down due to idling.

but, in your case, your gpu looks like it's that crappy that it does alienate all the benefits of vista. in most configs, the benefits of shifting to aero are bigger than the problems you get with the gpu.

still, for your system, that could mean, xp is better suited. yes.

 

Everytime you travel. . . if you want to connect in new places like airports, internet cafes, or other offices or locations.

 

well, most of them are identical anyways so it doesn't really matter.

we have it installed on a Mini Box 300. it's the single-core configuration. but soon i'll test out on the dual core, too. I've 3 miniboxes in use right now. one is a home-server.

they are awesome tiny, in certain cases silent systems, performing well enough for business tasks (inet, office, running low-spec apps, etc). so they're great

 

i hate vista for the ram it uses and how long it takes to load.. i hope 7 isnt like this