What do you hate most about Vista?

Any evidence to back up your claims? Would love to see the proof, links please, not just you pulling random **** out of the air.

 

Evidence of what? Being slow? Read the forums or try a different OS. Insecure? Google vista hacked or something similar. First link I got: http://digg.com/microsoft/Vista_Hacked_Again_This_Time_Even_More_Effectively

second link: http://news.cnet.com/2100-7349_3-6102458.html

 

Oh nice try, try some articles post 2006 and 2007 please, actually don't bother, your evidence has failed to impress me. Nice try though. I had actually already dismissed your comments as XP/Linux fanboi rhetoric after the Vista/ME comparison which made it quite clear you either never tried Vista or don't remember ME. Oh well...

Anyway, here is some real info, from 2008 regarding speed.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp

 

LOL so you are saying that vista is without flaw post SP1? Ok... I do remember ME, I hate XP, and I have used vista. I don't know why I bother trying to tell you diehard vista fanboys the truth when you will rationalize it's many flaws in the same way a needy and insecure girl will rationalize the horrible way her boyfriend treats her. If you look you will find more than enough evidence to support what I said, I'm done with this topic, not worth my time.

 

The worst thing about vista is listening to apple fan boys and commercials. ha ha. I wish it was'nt such a resource hog, but I remember when XP came out it was the same thing, it would not run on older machines. but thats technology anyways. I have my acer 2300 with a p4m running XP Home and vista inspirate 2. it looks just like vista, and has 90 percent of what I love about vista in a fast setup. In my acer asire 7720, I run home premium and its smooth sailing. I love vista.

 

it's kinda funny how many ppl blame M$ for various hardware faults or their own faults...

I'm using Vista for about a year and a half now, and never had any serious problems with it. The only problem I have is Alias StudioTools that performs horribly slow in Vista compared to XP. But again, this is not microsoft's fault since the problem seems to be in graphics drivers from nVidia and GeForce OpenGL support.

 

My biggest annoyance is how long it takes to boot. I have 37 processes and 800 MB RAM used on boot (SuperFetch disabled) and it still takes well over a minute and more than 10 of the scrolling thingies to boot.

 

That I agree at 100%. However, in some situation it is linked to drivers. Fro example on my desktop computer, when everything is installed without my creative X-Fi sound card, it take 7 bars passing, but the second I install the X-fi drivers I get 21 bars.. optimizing Vista boot leads it down to 18. But, in my situation, it is the drivers. It must be noted that when XP was released teh boot time was close as long as Windows 2000 (which is VERY slow, much slower then Vista). But now it's fast because you have about 2-3 times the performance of super computers back in 2000-2001. I mean it's like if you run Windows 95 on your system.. imagine how quick that thing will load... however, back in the days it took time.

One thing, thus, is I seriously think that Microsoft could have optimized Vista boot much better, as we can see that this was done under Win7.

 

Spoken like a true XP fanboy.

Gary

 

This is dedicated to Tetrarch uninformed fanboi extraordinaire, every OS gets hacked, do a little research before you type maybe? The data posted is from various dates, I just grabbed the first articles from any search, but you don't care about the age of your data do you? The trouble with XP fanbois is the need to justify their decision with made up data. If someone states "I don't switch to Vista because I am comfortable and happy with XP" there is no harm in that. Who can argue with a personal choice? Who would? It's when someone states the laughable, and clearly ridiculous statements like Vista and ME are twins so clearly XP is the better choice, that I must speak up.

MAC OSX Hacked in under 30 minutes
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/securi...under-30-minutes/0,130061744,139241748,00.htm

MACbook hacked in Seconds
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2917

OS X 15 year old security flaws
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/securi...OS-X-vulnerable-/0,130061744,139234678,00.htm

Total security flaws as of 2007 XP, Vista and MAC comparison
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

Safari security flaws
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/04/01/security_flaws_in_latest_safari/1

Linux Hacked more often than Windows
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/managing-infosec/linux-hacked-more-often-than-windows-2003-23371
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwa...ten-than-Windows/0,130061733,139116229,00.htm

Linux vulnerabilities
http://netsecurity.about.com/cs/linuxsecurity/a/aa022304.htm

There was a hell of a lot more, but I got bored.

 

Some of problems i face with Vista
1.not every applications work 100% fine on this OS
2.it is bloody too slow for lower CPU's
3.very long startup
4.few modification when compared to XP

 

I hate the name.

I think "Wesayso" or "Resistance is Futile" would have been much more appropriate names.:wink:

 

I agree 100% with you. Well just a thing is that #4, the goal of Vista is to support the latest technology and have a new kernel, not about features.
It seams that this is the trend with Windows... NT #.0 is not about features, and NT#.1 is about optimization and features. In other words, Win95 and Win98, Windows 2000 (NT5.0) and XP (NT5.1), and Vista (NT 6.0) and Win7 (NT 6.1).

 

I think #4 is expected as XP was released almost 8 years ago.

I'm a bit surprised how many mods there are for Vista at this stage of it's life cycle.

And already, Vista 2 err, Windows 7 is close to being released in retail form.

Luckily for W7, almost all the mods that work on Vista are compatible.

 

Actually, compared to how XP was faring at the same stage in it's own life-cycle, _Vista is not doing too badly, even though it's a lame duck OS now, what with the imminent release of Win7.

 

True, kind of. I mean W7 is nothing new. It really is Vista 2.

Vista got much better with sp1, and now that's getting better with being renamed to W7and with more improvements.

 

I really like Vista.

Granted, my old XP machines (circa 2003) are landfill now, and I am running Vista on computers of 2008 vintage, but I happen to really like Vista.

The only issue I might have is sometimes it will not permit me to rename folders.

Otherwise, I love it.

Actually my old XP machines (two Sony Vaio desktops and a Dell laptop) froze very frequently with XP. I do not seem to have the same problems with Vista.

 

Heuumm... Not normal.
When renaming a folder it should always work. At wirst you get a UAC prompt for Admin privileges to allow you to rename a folder (ie: System folders, Program Files, Program Files(x86), AppData, ProgramData, Profile name folder, etc...)

 

Yah, but it took XP Gold, XPSP1, XPSP1a, and XPSP2 until XP became a really solid, reliable, secure OS - I've seen SP1a again recently (I had to do a reinstall using the so-called "recovery" CDs that came with my circa 2003 VAIO), and it wasn't a pretty sight.

 

Yeah,

That's right. I was a XP hold-out until it's sp1 came out and now I like it.

I've played with W7 which has made some nice improvements to Vista.

 

It happens occasionally when I have been ripping a large number of my DVDs (my latest project) to externals. Explorer then restarts, and all is good again.

I'm figuring it has something to do with memory...although this particular machine has 3GB, more than enough normally.

 

I'm really hoping...I'm the eternal optimist...that W7 is sold as a low-priced upgrade for existing Vista users.

A guy can dream, can't he?

 

Dream on XDDD

Ok, vista was pretty poor when it first came out, but SP1 did a lot to fix that.

The problem with Vista is (or so I am told) it had been worked on for a mere 1.5 years before release, compared with 5 years for XP/ME - it's an immature OS, and by the looks of it, W7 will be what Vista should have been from the start.

I think that Vista licenses should be transferable to W7 for a small fee, but it's unlikely to happen, and no amount of whinging wil change it - thems the breaks, and I for one am merely glad to have the option there.

Yes, MS screwed the pooch on this one, but they're fixing it, and as a user (albeit only post-SP1) of vista primarily for games (learning Linux too), I gotta say, once you get past all the misconceptions (like Vista being a RAM hog) I'm very happy with it.

 

At least initially, if W7 is not an inexpensive upgrade, I will probably only add it to my current XP machine, the HP Mini with the 2GB RAM upgrade. It is too difficult, at least for me, to change the RAM on my Acer Aspire One so I am going to leave that with XP.

As for my Vista machines...two Toshiba P305s, one Toshiba U405 and one HP DV5T, I will leave those with Vista. No real complaints here so why spoil a good thing?

As for my Macbook running Windows in virtual machine, I will leave that with Vista indefinitely.

 

From what Ive read, M$ started on Vista before XP was even released...

Also, the price of Windows 7 is supposed to be ridiculous, starting at $199 for the basic version, and going up to around $299 for the Ultimate Edition.

 

If they price it that way, they are going to have a real tough time getting people to switch, I think, especially after the recent changes to Vista that have made it more stable.

 

1- WRONG forum section. This is about Microsoft Vista, NOT about M$ Software Solutions, Inc. Not the same company.

2- Yes, Vista has started way before WinXP with a release date in end-2003. The problem is that, other than it was not really ready, 2003 computers were not powerful enough to run it. If I am not mistaken, there was only Longhorn 64-bit, and the only desktop level 64-bit CPU was the single core AMD Athlon 64-bit which cost 3000$ Canadian. Also, XP did seriously delays on Longhorn due that XP had el had no real security feature)so many security holes (as the kernel, that Microsoft stop development of Longhorn several times for making XP Service packs and critical patches. My guess is that XP code is so filled with patches that it's a big mess to find yourself in, which explains the problem.

Longhorn core components and UI was finished, but then Microsoft decided to change stuff, such as the UI to make it more up-to-date, introduced Aero engine and added new features. Microsoft was basically waiting for people to get more powerful computers (ie: 64-bit CPU's). Then about 1 year before the release of Vista, they decided to make a 32-bit version, which made the release of Vista pushed several times.

 

hi
What do I dislike most about Vista? Networking support, as it was flakey in release, and is the same after SP1.

Sometimes I forced to reboot just to reinitialize my network connection, especially when switching from LAN to WLAN (or vice versa).
XP never had a problem with this.

 

hi friend
It takes two minutes to open the wireless connection window on my laptop (see sig)..
__________________
XPS M1330
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T8300 2.4Ghz
LED Display
4GB RAM
64GB Patriot Warp V2 Solid State Drive
128MB NVIDIA 8400M GS
Arch64/Windows 7 Beta Build 7000

 

I switch networks three times every day, going between LAN and WLAN. I have never once in over two years had to resort to a reboot to establish a connection under Vista. I suspect your issue is not with Vista per se, but with drivers.

Gary

 

I saw this laptop in action with similar hardware configuration, and there is no problem. Make sure that you don't have Dell network manager installed or Intel /Broadcom (which ever you have) network manager software install. Just have the drivers for your wireless card. If that does not help. Tell Vista to scan and fix any HDD errors. Then uninstall the drivers, restart your computer and install the latest drivers from Dell website.
If this does not help, contact Dell as it might be a faulty wireless card, or they know a fix. This is 100% not normal.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but M$ = Microsoft.

And that's Windows Vista, or at the very least Microsoft Windows Vista

 

Vista opeating system is similar to Mac operating system. so it offers almost same feature.
Vista uses more cache memory in useage of Wallpapers

 

Well yea, Apple copied Longhorn feature list released in end-2002. If I am not mistaken, the wallpaper is rendered (is Aero is turn on) by the GPU. But I agree with you when Aero is disabled, that is something that Microsoft needs to work on. But again it depends on your screen resolution and wallpaper size.

 

My as friend neelia said
vista is not almost same it provide some features similar to Mac operating system and wallpapers uses more space in every operating system which depends on pixels.

 

Microsoft's Windows Vista has been a highly-anticipated operating system. Despite the impressive Aero Glass interface, the plethora of new features, and improved load times through ReadyBoost,
Windows Vista has many disadvantages such as
it requires minimum hardware configuration like
A modern processor (at least 800MHz)
512 MB of system memory
A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable

and to run Vista Premium (including the Aero Glass interface):

1 GHz 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver
40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space
DVD-ROM Drive

 

Once configured properly Vista runs pretty well. The thing I hate most about vista is having to spend an hour or more after the install getting everything optimized and working properly. (only took me about 10 minutes after a clean install of the windows 7 beta to get everything just the way I like it)

 

Uh, where are the "disadvantages"? What you described is pretty much every computer produced in the past two or three years. As an aside those quoted numbers are woefully inadequate, when it comes to the memory requirements. 512k is IMPOSSIBLE, 1 gig is underpowered, 2 gig is the BARE minimum.

Gary

 

Actually he is correct. Vista runs with 512MB of RAM, not smoothly, but it runs. I personally tested that with my old PIII 800MHz 512MB of RAM. 2GB will allow you to have a smooth experience and multitask just fine. 1GB can do teh same thing, but you have to disable Superfetch, which means that application will startup as fast as they did under XP.

 

Hmmm... ok... I don't know what you do that takes an hours. My guess is that you were not used to Vista new feature placement (which is the same as under Win7, pretty much), so you were searching for them. When you installed Win7, you had a feel on Vista already and were able to setup Win7 faster.
I know this, because it was the same for me. The difference is that I tend to screw up my Vista, for making tools like you have on my signature (ie: playing too much under the registry without any backups), so when I comes to my second install of Vista, I was able to do everything in about 10min as well.

 

My Vista x64 ultimate experience has been far more pleasant and nice then Windows Xp ever was.

 

The only major thing I hate about Vista is the constant changes of "Details" for the folders. I know Vista is trying to be helpful by changing them relating the contents of the folder but it is really annoying when the Program Files folder has Photos and Videos Details.

 

Yea, that comes from XP. XP and Vista (hopefully not Win7) can't remember folder view settings. In XP it's not bad because you have few view settings, but in Vista you have so many that you really the impact. Some lazy programmer did a copy and paste of XP code and put it in Vista.

 

I really hate this part also. You would think there is some way to save the columns I have open, the order they are in and auto-width them. Heck, Microsoft does that already in Access........

 

Oh, those programming deadlines. They should have fixed it in SP1. Anyone know if this has been fixed in Win 7?

 

I don't remember it being bad at all in XP. In XP, when I chose specific columns, XP remembered them but in Vista, sometimes it forgets them or reverts back to some other template. I hope that this was fixed in 7 too. It's not a huge deal, just a nuisance and slows down productivity.

 

hi friends
The only thing that I don't like about vista is that when I have an explorer window with files with really long names open and in list view and I press the down arrow to scroll down, the cursor scrolls down one but the window for some reason also scrolls one column over to the right so I can't read the file names; if I press down again, the cursor scrolls down one and the window scrolls one column back again..

 

lol what.. but lol you're stealing the things I hate about Vista from me...

 

LOVE VISTA..

far more secure platform than XP.. recently my xp machines had been attacked by autorun.inf (worm,probably) via my flash drive.. my avast went mad showing the warning window, deleting after i press so, showing the warning window again and the loop goes on..

but in vista.. it just not happening. flash drive works like as usual..

one more thumbs up for loving vista

 

WHY I DISLIKE VISTA
Windows Vista was less compatible then the previous release of Windows, Windows XP. With more and more developers supporting the operating system, it has proven to be more stable and less likely to crash.

Windows Vista is more visually appealling, with most versions of the operating system supporting Windows Vista's Aero theme, which makes most program windows tranparent. Although this does improve the users experience, it does provide strain to system resources and requires a graphics card, greater then integrated to run this feature.