Whats up with all you HATE for Vista. Impatient as hell

Whats up people. I have never tried Vista but i'm getting a Sony Vaio SZ680 this December with Vista. Whats up with all the hate for Vista?

If i remember right, XP when it first came out had the same bugs and unstability as Vista now. Now Xp is the most stable OS in the MICrosoft lineup. Just be a little patient and VISTA will be the same

People who have vista are like babies

 

i love vista. i had the 32 bit version for 3 months never crashed once. i just installed 64 bit and it runs amazing. vista found every single driver for my dv2500 except my fingerprint reader drivers. it was pretty amazing.

 

Thats good, i just hate it when people are impatient as hell abour VISTA.

HELLO, it just came out. People are so resistant to change

 

I love Vista. Great OS!

 

I'm in exactly the same camp.

 

I think that and the fact that hating anything from Microsoft - at least while it's new - seems to be an extremely popular sport , are the main reasons why so many people here, there and everywhere on the Internet are complaining about Vista.

Sure, if applications vital to your work, hobby or whatever won't run on Vista you've got a reason to complain, and obviously the same goes for any other actual conflicts, unsupported hardware and assorted errors.
Well, assuming it wasn't made more or less obvious beforehand that you really shouldn't expect those things to work on Vista. Sounds obvious of course, but I'm sure there are plenty of new Vista owners around the world - even some power users - who never bothered to look into those things.

Complaints about high system requirements also seem to be common - but seriously, that's not exactly something that's been kept a secret from anyone.
Vista might not run particularly well (at all) on a two, three or four year old computer - but dual core CPUs, RAM and mid range graphics card don't exactly cost a fortune these days (especially not if we're talking about desktop systems, but I guess we aren't on this particular forum).
In fact if my memory serves me correctly (no guarantees there), one of those ultra speedy 90 MHz Pentium systems with 64 MB RAM you bought for Windows 95 back in... well, 95... cost significantly more than a high end system does these days.

I've used Windows 2000 for the last six or seven years on a number of desktop systems, and pretty much loved it all along (aside from this year where game support seemed to come to a near complete halt, everything suddenly required XP SP2), but after two weeks with Vista Ultimate 32-bit on this laptop, I'm loving Vista more than I ever did 2000.
Though of course I better wait a year or two before I pass any final judgement on stability and reliability .

 

I don't hate my OS but it is a well known fact that driver immaturity and certain incompatibilities with games are the key reasons behind the anti-Vista drive.

To the OP: Good for you that Vista works but tell that to someone who couldn't play their games or use their favourite applications because of the OS.

 

I used to hate Vista.......it gave me 10 fps in Company of Heroes while XP ran it just fine. The game used to take half an hour to load.
It gave me 8 fps in HL2: Episode One.
XP ran it perfectly at everything high.

All this was sorted out when I upgraded to 2 GB RAM. Now I love my Vista - 64. Everything runs just fine. It never crashes, starts up like a dream.

 

I can't install my old game commandos:behind enemy lines...setup never loads on Vista... Virtual DJ crashes too much that i can't even mix a 5 min track...

Other than that...Graphic driver updates give lot of problems especially integrated graphics...


Okay...

BTW ... I am reading a book called 'The Plot To Get Bill Gates' by Gary Rivlin after reading i realised why Microsoft has such an image unlike Apple..
It all comes down to the leaders charisma..

MAC OSX can't run 90% games & still the mac users dont complain like vista users....why?

Other than that We have the right to complain...we are customers...we dont need to understand

 

With Vista SP1 around the corner, hopefully many of the woes on Vista will be settled, and given a few more months, driver, hardware and application compatibility should be very high. Vista has a great outlook for 2008, IMO.

 

Vista has been great for me. I've been using it for 10 months with no problem. I installed Vista on my HP dv8320us and it found every single driver for my laptop, except my sound card drivers, but I installed the XP ones and problem solved.
BTW, ¿what's a BSOD? I never meet one in my life...

 

Says someone who haven't tried it.

Don't you think, if XP was really as bad when it came out, there would have been a similar outcry back then?
Well? There wasn't. There was a lot of *****ing, yes (mostly about the fisherprice-styled interface), and some bugs, but nowhere near as many technical showstoppers as Vista has had.

However, here's the important bit. XP is no longer like that. Is it so unfair to expect more from a 2007 OS than from a 2001 one?
Time has passed, OS'es have got better. Shouldn't we expect a OS designed for 2007 to be better than one designed for 2001?
Otherwise, why don't we use DOS3.0? It was designed for the 80's, so if that's how it works, DOS should be pretty damn near perfect by now.

What? We shouldn't expect the BEST OS EVER, to actually run our software? I'm sorry, and here I thought the primary goal of an OS was to run my software. Here I thought Vista's key selling point was "It can run your Windows software". It's such an important point that MS has hardly bothered mention it. It's just natural that *of course it runs my software. It's Windows".

And if it doesn't, then there is a serious problem. If it doesn't, I might as well switch to Linux or Mac OS.

Secret or no, the higher requirements just shouldn't be necessary on THE MOST EFFICIENT OS EVER. If that's what we're promised, why shouldn't that be what we're getting?

nocturnal really has a good point:

I don't care what MS does or thinks or believes. If I bought a product that doesn't live up to my expectations, I'm going to complain. I don't need an excuse, I don't need to "understand" or feel sorry for Microsoft. Perhaps if they couldn't live up to my expectations, they should have lowered expectations a bit.

No, I don't think you should. Because it's the stability and reliability *now* that is in question. Not the stability two years from now. Just like the alternative is XP *now* and not XP when it was launched. Of today's OS'es, is Vista a good choice? Not Vista 2 years from now, not "Vista compared to what other OS'es were like when they launched", but Vista now vs XP now vs Mac OS now vs Linux now. That's the only comparison that matters.

 

QFT. I shouldn't have to reinstall Vista twice just because that's what it takes to get my favorite game working after it mysteriously stops working. Once was after applying updates, once was without any. If my games stop working again, it's time for XP - three strikes and you're out.

Agreed. It doesn't do me any good if my programs run in two years if they don't run now.

Windows 95 runs just fine with a 75 MHz Pentium system with 32 MB of RAM...but yes, even that was more expensive than systems that run Vista well today, especially if you wanted a notebook. The problem back then was people trying to run Windows 95 on systems with 4 MB of RAM (the stated minimum) - essentially like trying to run Vista with 256 MB of RAM today.

 

I agree with Jalf on this, I thought the whole idea of OS was to provide a stable platform for your other 3rd party softwares. It is essentially the control panel for your equipment, and it should not be clogged with unless stuff and making it less efficient. The added feature of the new OS is neat and nice but when the OS itself is trying to take over the role of the 3rd party software but forsake it's own role in providing a stable and compatible platform for the others then it has lost it's solo purpose of being an OS. IMO OS should just be OS a platform where it is merely a shell for the other softwares, but be as stable and compatible as possible.

 

To the OP: I might ask the opposite of your question. I.e., What's up with all the unbridle love for Vista in the face of its difficulties for many people? If Vista works great for you, fine. But don't expect people who have major problems with it to gush over it like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Folks have legitimate issues and concerns about Vista. To denigrate these concerns and issues by accusing people of being impatient, whiny babies is neither helpful nor fair.

People have a right to expect that the world's premier OS company will provide products that work for them NOW, not a year from now. I don't spend good money on software to be a beta tester. If scouring the 'net for drivers and tweaks to get something to work floats yer boat, more power to ya. I simply don't have the time.

That being said, I don't yet own Vista. After considered analysis I decided that it wouldn't meet my needs for now. Perhaps in the future. I need stability and consistency. That's why I currently use XP and why most of my machines still run Win2K.

Like I said, if Vista works for you, I'm very pleased for you. But don't expect people who have issues with it to drink the Kool-Aid. Their gripes are legit.

 

And NONE, I repeat NONE, of those are issues caused by Microsoft. I am a certified Microsoft developer, and the development and hardware driver community were told a LONG time ago about the things that would break under Vista. (Many of the things that were known would break were things that programmers had been doing as shortcuts and were outside the spec of how things were SUPPOSED to have been done under XP but were done because XP allowed them to sneak through.) Too many lazy ass developers ignored all of this and just let the "stuff" hit the fan knowing full well that the "experts" would all lay the blame on Microsoft. If your game doesn't work complain to the game company it's THEIR fault it doesn't work. If you have a driver issue complain to the manufacturer. Microsoft does NOT provide the drivers.

<rant mode off>

Gary

 

Then complain to, or about, the RIGHT people! See my message above.

Gary

 

Excellent point ScuderiaConchiglia. Most users expect everything to run right off the bat on Vista but why should this be the case if Microsoft are striving for change of some sort and are attempting to develope a new architecture? Does any other OS manufacturer or developer support backwards compatibility like Microsoft does?

 

Microsoft knew a lot of things would break. They still pressed through and made those changes. So yes, it's Microsoft's fault *as well*.
Microsoft has always put a ton of effort into backwards compatibility, even reproducing the behavior of old bugs just so that old software could run. If they stop doing that, it's their own fault, isn't it?

Apart from that.... What about the half-dozen hotfixes you need to just sort out GPU performance?
Checked NVidia's driver page recently? They have dedicated an entire page to Microsoft's GPU hotfixes! Those are Microsoft bugs, not game developer bugs, and not NVidia bugs.

Microsoft provides the driver model. Microsoft *changes* the driver model (and does so weeks before releasing the OS)
Microsoft provides the support for driver developers. Microsoft has *a lot* to do with drivers.

And of course, finally. If I buy a product from Microsoft, and I have problems with that product.... I complain to Microsoft. As said above, I'm a user, I don't have to understand. If Microsoft, after receiving my complaint, determines that it's really someone elses fault, they can tell me that, and ask that company to fix it.

This isn't about Microsoft, it's about Vista.
So the relevant question is "Does any other OS support backwards compatibility like Vista does".
And the answer is a resounding YES.
The most common example is XP. XP doesn't have the compatibility issues that Vista does. That's all there is to it. It's not whether Microsoft can and should provide backwards compatibility. It's whether they should provide *worse* backwards compatibility for a modern (and according to them, superior, product), than they should on the 6 year old one that they now claim is inferior. And as I said before, I expect a OS released in 2007 to compare favorably to other OS'es in 2007. If it has the same problems as XP did 6 years ago, Microsoft has failed. They've delivered another 2001 OS 6 years too late.
Another popular answer to your question is OSX. Apple has gone to extreme lengths to achieve backwards compatibility, even across CPU architectures. You can't run a Windows program compiled for, say the Alpha CPU's on todays x86 machines. But I can run a Mac PowerPC program on x86 no problem.

Um, because Microsoft already has an OS out that runs everything right off the bat. And now they're trying to tell us "Vista is even better".
That's why.

Why is it that Vista fanboys always resort to the blame game?
"Vista might suck, but it's not Microsoft's fault!!!!"
Perhaps not, but the important point is that it sucks. No one else cares whose *fault* it is. No one except Microsoft fanboys who start crying if anyone criticise *their* company.

 

actually - xp was EXACTLY like vista at launch:
- software didnt run
- lack of driver support
- SERIOUS security leaks (FAR worse than those in vista)

in fact - i think the outcry was WORSE when xp first launched - that entire os didnt even become usable or stable until sp1

its just the way the cookie crumbles - and, unfortunately, all operating systems start this way - you never really know how its going to integrate until its out in the consumers hands - theres just no way ANY manufacturer can fully test and sample every combination of software/hardware to ensure their os is stable across the board - its a physical and logistical impossibility - the configuration possibilities of computers are nearly infinite - how can any manufacturer possibly be expected to predict how any given computer will react to a new os environment?

that being said - i too was reluctant to use vista - in fact, had i been given a choice - i would have stuck to xp - the ONLY reason is that its a tested os and worked exactly how i needed it to work - does that mean im afraid of change? absolutely not - i just know how the game works with operating systems - its usually better to wait it out until the first or second revision (service packs in ms's case) as thats when most of the issues are ironed out

in the end, i purchased a computer with vista installed - it was a computer i liked, at a great price - so i decided i would deal with it - im actually pleasantly surprised - sure, not everything works but ive managed to find my own solutions and "work-arounds" - i wont complain because i understand thats the way things are going to be for the time being - some things will work the same, some things will work better, but theres always the possibility that some things wont work at all

i think a lot of the "outcry" comes from people who arent as technically adept as say, us geeks who hang around on notebook forums and gadget blogs (i mean no offense - i could be a poster child for this group and im proud of it! lol)

but imagine uncle charley who buys a new computer - he used his old computer to use skype, instant message, and email his relatives - now he has a new computer with vista on it - suddenly it looks different, names the features something different, and worse yet - not all of his programs work! whats a guy like that supposed to do? he doesnt have the software or technical know-how to make his own work-arounds - his only resource is to complain to ms and hope they make a fix

its a slow process - but in a few years, vista will be just as stable and operable as xp, it'll have more features than xp had, and most people (again, you cant please all the people...) will be happy again

its the way it was with windows 3.1, windows 95, windows 98, windows 2000, windows xp, and now, windows vista - nothing has changed

EDIT - one good example is this - when i first got my computer, the first thing i did was install the sims 2 - a 4-5 year old game - should have no problems, right?

absolutely nothing was changed with the computer - it was basically open up computer, go through initial vista setup, install the sims 2 - it didnt work - and i tried everything i could think of (if you do a search, im sure youll find my thread - every suggestion that was given, i tried - and everyone was stumped as to why it wouldnt work)

i ended up doing a completely clean install of vista and only installed the software and drivers i wanted - bam - the sims 2 worked fine

theres no way "uncle charley" would be able to figure that out - and 90% of the people who buy new computers nowadays (of course, almost all have vista installed) are "uncle charley" types - thats why theres so much outcry

 

Vista is not without problems... then again anyone trying to install Leopard on their Mac and gettting a blue screen (its not a blue screen of death, even implying that gets you banned from Apple sites...) cannot really claim any current OS is without issues...

XP had it's share of problems and the articles claiming how much better Windows 98 was are numerous... Anyone choosing to not remember that is being awfully one-sided in their arguement.

Much like XP, 98, and 95 before it a great deal of the "problems" with the "OS" are the people trying to use outdated and incompatible programs on it. funny thing is... most of them can and do work with it provided you tweak it...

I have found ONE program that my entire company uses (and our internally-designed software) that cannot run (correctly) in Vista after tweaking...
and it specifically was noted that it would not work.

Vista is not the "best OS for everything"...

Truly if you believe ANY company's rhetoric with words like "everything" and "all the time" and "perfect" then please put your computer back in the box and buy and etch-a-sketch.... you are not bright enough for a computer.

All OS's have downsides and upsides... the point is for the users to keep their wits about them and not make "perfect for everything" assumptions and then choose the best solution for THEM.

No one is forcing anyone to use Vista at the moment.
Microsoft includes a "downgrade" policy if you don't like Vista for one reason or another.

Don't like Vista? XP isn't working for you? Try MacOS... at least the blue screen will make you feel at home. (don't call it a bliue creen of death...)

 

Actually, you forgot to read my post
I don't *care* what XP was like 6 years ago, just like I don't *care* what DOS was like 15 years ago.
In case you hadn't noticed, this is 2007, we're nearing 2008!
I expect an OS released in 2007 to be competitive with other OS'es that exist in 2007. If Vista 2007 isn't as good as XP2007, then Vista2007 has a problem. It's completely irrelevant if Vista2007 is better than XP2001.

Err, no? It wasn't worse. There were lots of people complaining about the toy-like interface, and there were *some* complaining about stability. But nowhere near the amount of people criticising Vista.
But again, it doesn't matter. If Vista2007 isn't competitive with other 2007 OS'es, then Vista is a failure in 2007.
No one (except Microsoft fanboys) are impressed by a 2007 OS beating a 2001 OS. Everyone else would take that for granted, but apparently, Microsoft could only *barely* (if at all) manage it with Vista.

Funny, most of the outcry I've heard comes from people who know exactly how computers and OS'es work.
So I disagree.

So what you're saying is, Vista as it is NOW isn't worth using.
Thank you, that was my point exactly.
It might be better two years from now (although most of *my* problems with it are by design, not bugs, so I doubt they'll ever get fixed)

Documentation please?
I'd like to see some evidence of this "mighty outcry" that occurred at the launch of all these OS'es.
Because I didn't notice it. There was *a bit* at XP, because it didn't provide much that we didn't already have with 2k, and it contained a few bugs. But even at launch, it was mostly compared to 98, which was obviously easy to surpass. So no, I didn't notice the same kind of outcry. As for the others? Well, 2k was smooth sailing from the beginning, wasn't it? 98 was a huge improvement over 95 from day one.
95 was trickier. It was a far bigger change from what we were used to, and that caused a lot of headaches. But again, I don't recall an outcry as such. Just people choosing to wait a year or two before installing it.
I personally can't recall anyone calling XP "ME II" when it was launched. Can you? Wouldn't that indicate that people are more pissed off about Vista than they were about XP?

And if I believe that when they say "best OS yet", that they will at least be able to beat the product they released 6 years ago?
Isn't that a fair assumption?

 

You guys can have your Vista SP1.

I'll be enjoying my Windows XP Professional Service pack 3.

Can I get an Amen?

 

I owned an HP machine from February of 2002, about 3-4 months after XP RTM. That was a very high-end machine in many respects, for the day: 512MB of DDR [email protected], Athlon XP 1800+, 80GB 7200RPM UltraATA HD, Sound Blaster Live! 5.1. The GPU was sub-par (GeForce 2 MX 400) but ran all of the games of the day at near-full settings just fine at 1024x768. The whole system was fast, responsive, and rarely if ever crashed. In fact, it's only had 2 full reformats in nearly 6 years, one of which because we upgraded the hard drive.

Fast-forward to now. I once again bought (though this time I built it myself) a very high-end PC near the beginning of the year. Late January/Early February, to be exact. 3-4 months after Vista RTM. Athlon 64 x2 4200+, 4GB DDR2-667@4-4-4-12, 320GB 7200RPM SATA 3.0Gbps HD with PMR, SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty. And this time there was no skimping on the GPU: I have a GeForce 8800GTS 640MB. In XP x64, the whole system is blazing fast, all games run at high settings at 1680x1050 with gazillions of frames per second. I've yet to see an unrecoverable crash in XP that wasn't very obviously my fault.

Then there's Vista. The most notable thing about Vista x64 is that it blue screened half way through the install. That's right folks, blue screen on the very first reboot. And it did it again on another install. And it does it every time you boot it with 4GB of RAM installed on certain (read: most) combinations of hardware until you install a hotfix, which obviously you can't do if the frickin thing won't ever boot. Why? Well, because despite the fact that one of the features they advertise about 64-bit versions is the ability to use 4GB+ of RAM, they couldn't be arsed to make sure it would work with 4GB of RAM installed, that's why!

Now for the performance. Shall I start with the 60+ second boot time, or the fact that it takes ages for applications to load, or maybe the fact that the CS:S stress test score takes a nearly 40-point nose-dive from XP to Vista? Maybe I should mention the horrible stuttering in games that definitely isn't there in XP. Or perhaps the 50% drop in performance in WiC, or the drop in the F.E.A.R. benchmark results from a 0%/8%/92% spread to an atrocious 32%/68%/0% (below 25/25-40/above 40 FPS). Or maybe the terrible lag when you turn around in WoW. And how about that netcode, so that the 30-40 MB/s download speeds I get normally across my school's network drop to about 4-5 when I listen to music. This is with the latest drivers for everything, with all of the GPU hotfixes applied, too. Part of the problem could be how my $100 sound card is nigh-useless in Vista because MS couldn't even be bothered to continue supporting THEIR OWN INTERFACES! Or maybe it's the fact that the window manager uses more graphics horsepower than most games from 2-3 years ago.

Call it what you will, but my word for Vista is going to be "catastrophe" until someone can point out a damn good reason to upgrade. And fancy minimize effects are hardly it.

 

To be fair, that's just a question of your priorities. Apparently, a lot of people want fancy minimize effects more than anything.
So that part at least, is subjective...

Hang on, do we even need that?
Most people were perfectly happy with XP SP1. I don't exactly see a lot of people having issues with SP2. Sure, SP3 won't hurt, but comparing it to Vista SP1 is just silly. Vista SP1 is supposed to be the savior that makes Vista worth using as an OS.
XP SP3 is nothing like that. It's just a minor bonus that there's no real reason to get excited about. Sure, rumors have it that it'll be 10% faster, but... XP is *already* 10% faster than Vista, so again. Nice bonus, but I wouldn't compare it to Vista Sp1 in importance.

 

the outcry when xp launched was HUGE (the operating system looked and functioned completely differently - people didnt even know how to get around or find things in xp - at least vista looks "relatively" similar - im not going to dig up 10 year old articles because you cant remember this) - and talk about security leaks - you dont remember what a rush there was to release sp1 because of the MAJOR security issues? honestly?

and i did read the rest of your post - and if you had read the rest of mine, you would see that i agreed with a majority of yours (you didnt need to read between the lines to see that i agree that vista as it is now is no good for mass public comsumption)

and again, youre in the same environment i am - i go online and see a lot of technical people complaining about vista too - but the MAJORITY of people dont come to public forums - they pick up their phone and call ms - or they complain to the 16-year old best buy salespeople that their $2000 computer doesnt "do the same things" that their 5-year old computer does

finally it doesnt matter that you dont *care* how past os launches went - im just telling you how it was - whether you care or not is completely irrelevant

i think you need to realize that a MAJORITY of computer users today are NOT technical people - you keep mentioning the year 2007 but seem to think were still stuck in 91 when personal computers were just hitting the mass market and a majority of computer users were engineers and programmers - we are not living in a day and age where MILLIONS of family households have a personal computer (or 2 or 3) - im talking everyday average joe consumers

 

All the Vista haters are the same people who hated on XP, and hated on Windows 98 when it first came out. OS upgrades will never be easy, and it SHOULD NOT be easy. If it was extremely easy, it was because they didn't CHANGE anything.

The next version of Windows is having it's kernel stripped down and overhauled. If you think this launch broke programs, just wait until the next version.

 

Um, you mention a couple of superficial things that yes, people complained about, but didn't really *matter* to anyone.
Yes, XP looked silly with all its soft corners and bright colors. But as a problem, it's hardly at the same level as Vista's driver issues, performance problems or all the other problems that plague it.
And the other issue you mention, security? Even at launch, XP was no less secure than previous OS'es. And of course, back then no one gave a damn about security in the first place. Were there as many complaints about performance loss, lack of stability or incompatibility? There was some talk about that, yes, but at the same scale as Vista? I don't think so.
I'll ask once again. Did people ever call XP "Windows ME II"? Because that's starting to become a common nickname for Vista, and if XP was as badly received, then surely that should have earned the same nickname. Right?

Except that at least I stick on topic. I'm discussing Vista now. You many not care about how I feel about Vista now, but at least you have to admit I'm on topic. I'm just saying that people trying to twist the discussion into "What was XP like 6 years ago are *not* on topic.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I'm not talking about technical people or anything like that. I'm just saying that when people, technical or otherwise, buy a new product, they expect it to be at least as good as older products from the same company.
When people buy cars today, they don't expect to get something that would have been a disgrace a decade ago.
And when people buy new software, they expect it to be on par with other software available *today*.
Everyone does that. I do that, and I'm what you'd call a tech person. My mom does that, and she's not.

Woo, trolling.
Once again, the Microsoft fanboy tries to shift the subject away to some off-topic nonsense. Now I called the conventional blame-game tactic into question, so instead you shift to personal attacks on those who dare to disagree with your personal religion, Microsoft.
Guess what, I'm still not impressed. I know exactly why I dislike Vista, and it's not because "I'm just one of those people who hate on every new OS".
Unlike you, I know why I dislike Vista. You don't know that, so you are in NO position to talk about why I hate Vista.
So do the internet a favor and shut up. Thank you.
If you have nothing better to say than half-baked flames, don't post.

Once again, it's not relevant how you, I or anyone else felt about XP's launch 6 years ago. That was 2001. I don't know about you, but my expectations today are much higher than they were in 2001. That's why I run a 2007 OS (XP SP2). And that's why I expect something at least as good when a new OS launches. It doesn't matter how people felt about the latest OS 5, 10 or 20 years ago. Not unless you're a Microsoft fanboy trying to clear your god's name. Well, I'm not. I don't care about Microsoft, I just don't want to downgrade my OS.

 

I guess someone pointout why vista rocks or stop saying xp also sucked...

I have a friend...she's a complete non technical user...a user who just presses the power on button and starts doing her work.... she said vista is sluggish ..i have enquired SO many of my non technical friends & relatives... no one said vista rocks...but they said their company doesn't recommend vista

My friend from India is a Microsoft beta tester & he says SP1 doesn't solve issues apparently


I guess i dont need to fight to prove I am right


For all the microsoft fanboys: Prove why Vista rocks...don't prove why XP also sucked initially....Was iPod 1st generation like iPod 5th gen initially? thats how committed some companies are..


Its a shame & insult to consumers that all computers come loaded with Vista or else tell me how many will go to store to buy it?

 

What is Vista's USP (unique selling point)? What is it tell me? The most beautiful OS? I would say stolen beauty..they have no right to even claim its most beautiful because we all know the truth (hint:Apple)

Look i am not telling you to shut up or bully...but i am most welcome to discuss...anyone having a sharper & precise argument please come forward

 

There is a "I love vista thread" somewhere in the forum...

Anyway... Love Vista as well.

 

Vista IS better for certain things... it is more resistant to virus infection, uses (mostly) better networking policies and default policies, and is a great deal more secure for the average user out of the box.

Even once both XP and Vista are configured, Vista seems to do a better job of taking care of itself both file-wise and security-wise.

For example:
In the last virus outbreak here at work over 40 windows XP machines were infected out of 80+ implemented XP machines. Out of the 25 implemented Vista machines ZERO were infected. Indeed the bug would work on Vista, but Vista's security system turned the bug away by default and even resisted manual infection.
The only way I could get it to infect the test Vista machine was to manually turn off the antivirus and windows defender, and then manually install the file with admin priviledges and press "YES <insert random name> can run with admin..."
By contrast, an XP machine with the same user rights, antivirus, and all patches and fixes was automatically infected by even just reading an infected file. (used an XP bug to get admin)


That being said, Vista comes with more overhead, a decent supply annoying bugs, and nowhere near the amount of years of community knowledge and real-life testing that has made XP as good as it is now.

No matter how much anyone loves or hates Microsoft, or how much Microsoft tries to deny it, it is the USER BASE which makes any OS what it is...
It is the support of the people in the trenches that makes or breaks ANY OS.

For now, follower-types should use XP if they prefer and leave the more experienced users to figure out Vista and fill in the blanks and do the product testing Vista needs to catch up with XP. Understand that the only reason XP is what it is now is because those same industry-leading people played with XP until they tamed it and XP finally surpassed Windows98.

As for the horror story with Vista and the love story for XP... do you understand that it is the EXACT same thing as the love stories for Vista?

Seriously... some people have not a single user issue with Vista.
Some people have nightmare stories...

I lived quite a few horror stories from the XP days... yes, now it is better than it was... and frankly, if you want to use it, no one is standing in your way.

The thread was started by someone who doesn't understand the sheer hatred.

For professionals like me, Vista is just another hurdle to "fix" for Microsoft so that my life can be better.

(and just an FYI the MacOSX leopard Blue screen is a thing of "majestic" beauty... definitely more beautiful than the PC version)

 

Does that make the interface any less aesthetically pleasing?

Jalf mentioned earlier that in order for Vista to be considered a success, it must be able to compete with other 2007 operating systems. I believe this point to be true; assuming Vista has competition. Of course we know that it does not, which implies that Microsoft's motivation to turn out an much better OS is somewhat diminished. That may change for Windows Seven, since Linux and OS X have gained market share even after Vista's release.

My brief review of Vista (copied from another thread):

I had a negative opinion of Vista as some NBR members know (due to experience), but its actually a pretty good OS. My problems with the OEM Vista that came with my HP were the faults of the stock video driver; I updated it using laptopvideo2go.com to the 169.04 driver and boom: all my games run smoothly at near maximum settings, including AOE3, HL2, HL2 Ep1, CSS, EE2 and Sniper Elite. I have had no issues with the OS since I updated that damn video driver. Some strong points I find:

- the interface of the Explorer has been greatly enhanced. It has more utility than the old explorer of XP.

- Aero interface does consume "unnecessary" resources, but what better things does your GPU have to do? Aero makes the user experience smoother.

- MS has added functionality to the OS, such as the ability to resize partitions. This makes the OS more than just a platform for installing useful programs; its more useful out-of-the-box

- much improved power management features

- parental controls are excellent additions for an OS that is intended to be multi-user (although I have no use for it)

- improved dual-monitor support over XP

Weak points:

- start up times are not faster than XP; they are much slower

- 5 minutes or so after start up, Superfetch thrashes my HDD to accumulate a sizable cache before the OS performance becomes on-par with XP. In doing so it eats up about 7% of my battery life. This OS kills laptop HDDs.

- Control Panel has been reorganized for some unknown reason...

Overall its an OK improvement over XP; I would definitely not buy a retail version of it, but if the license came as OEM, I wouldn't mind. I would give Vista a 7.5/10.

 

Probably because it's not "different" enough from XP, which is kind of funny because people aren't hating on Leopard.

 

Vista is the worst Microsoft OS ever made? You people run ME for a week and then come back to me. What a nightmare it was on my 2000 HP desktop, finally installing XP on it was SOOOOO wonderful, bye bye BSOD forever!!!

 

That's because there are many bugs in this recent OS, and there are also compatible issues in software and some hardware from what I was told. And, for the Leopard OS, it also has bugs, but not as much as Vista does. It's also a friendly user OS with simplicity in it.

 

I'd probably say they aren't used to change...they probably have some theory along the lines of...''Why use a new OS that has some problems(Vista) when you can use an OS that has none(XP)?

 

Vista is OK, looks pretty good.

I wish they would make a simpler more streamlined OS though... (easy to say, probably very hard to do, especially with most people wanting always more in each release).

 

My issues with Vista are as follows:

1. It wasn't what we were promised. MS told everyone they were starting from scratch. They listed a whole bunch of cool new features, like WinFS, that would actually make the OS better, instead of adding a new layer of eye candy. They yanked almost all of these features and kept most of the old code-base.

2. It's a resource hog. Vista burns an obscene amount of resources just idling, so did XP for that matter, but less so than Vista. Lots of these resources are consumed by bad coding and bloat, which is why they were supposed to be starting from scratch.

3. Compatibility sucks. If you are going to keep the old code base you should at least keep compatibility. MS didn't.

4. They failed to fix well known bugs in the code base that they decided to keep. Most notably, they failed to fix the way Windows handles memory, so the 32bit versions of Vista still have trouble properly handling more than 2gig or so of ram (making the resource hogging even more of an issue).

5. They still haven't gotten a 64bit version working that is both stable and generally compatible. This is completely inexcusable.

 

Vista is a good OS. The problem lies with developers who adamantly refuses to write programs/drivers to work "with" it. I do applaud those developers who do.

XP is good too and has matured. This is an example where you can tweak it to the max. Wished MS could tweak it so it can accessed more RAM.

Each camp will go for each others throats about the merits of their choice and at the end confuses even more people in choosing.

 

I tend to use some pretty obscure software, and I haven't had any problems with compatibility. Granted, I only started using vista a few months ago, so I missed out on the early compatibility issues.

 

I think another thing people are forgetting is that there are far more people online in forums like this. So, obviously, there appears to be more *****ing about vista than there was about XP when it was first released.

I am another Vista fanboy because I haven't had a SINGLE issue with vista in the almost three months of use. I am really curious to see what you guys are doing to generate all of these "issues". I abuse the crap out of my OS and haven't had any issues.

 

It doesn't need to be "tweaked" to address more ram. The inability to address more ram is a well known problem that has been plaguing windows for quite some time, articles here:

http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3034

I'm not saying that Vista is necessarily a BAD operating system, only that it's unnecessary and not at all what it could and should have been.

Vista was supposed to finally take the windows code-base back to scratch, so that they could get rid of all the legacy garbage and bloat that slows it down and makes it take up so much space (things like the 2gb limit for example). Instead we got essentially the same guts, only without compatibility, and a fancy new GUI that burns a ton of resources.

Also, the early compatibility problems weren't due so much to developers not being willing to code drivers and programs for Vista, as they were due to MS making serious changes the the OS until they shoved it out the door. It's kind of hard to write drivers for an OS when the programmers are still working on how the OS will handle drivers.

 

Also, at the time of this post:

There are 4 threads on the front page of this subforum about XP problems.

There is 1 about a problem with Vista.

Doesn't take much when you actually look at the facts.

Why is it the XP fanboys out there refuse to acknowledge that there are still problems with XP? Honestly, should you be having to tweak your power settings almost 7 years after the release and after two service packs?

 

First of all, I'm not an XP fanboy. I only switched to XP when MS ended support for 2000, which was the best Windows OS I've seen (did everything I wanted, nothing I didn't, and was rock solid stable).

Second of all, I'm not arguing that XP was/is perfect. I'm explaining why I don't like Vista and won't switch to it until they make some pretty significant improvements.

All the XP problems in the world don't explain why, years after 64bit processors became standard, MS can't make a stable 64bit OS (both Linux and Mac OS have made the switch).

 

Would it have been that hard to include the backwards compatibility? One of Microsoft's strongest points has always been that, in almost every case, what you already had still worked. I've run dozens of 16-bit programs designed for Windows 3.11 in Windows 98 with no problems - only one program didn't make the 3.1 to 95/98 jump (no less difficult than XP to Vista IMO considering it was a change from 16 to 32 bits). I've had two programs not survive the XP to Vista jump, and I've had less software try to make that jump that 3.11 -> 95/98. 98 to XP was just as successful as 3.11 > 95 - only one program failed to make the jump, and that was a 16-bit program designed for Windows 3.11.

So until Vista, the only programs that hadn't worked in a new OS for me were 16-bit ones designed for Windows 3.11. You're trying to tell me it's too hard to put compatibility in for 32-bit ones designed for Windows 98 and Windows 2000? Sure, Vista has a new shell, but XP didn't have any problem with Windows 98 programs. Surely with a 10 GB OS a few hundred megabytes of backwards compatility to make sure programs work isn't too much?

(I realize there surely were some Win 95/98/ME proggies that didn't make the XP jump, but based on my experience, there's been a lot more problems with XP to Vista than 98 to XP)

The issues with new products aren't so much Microsoft's fault, but failing to include backwards compatibility where Microsoft always had before is. My favorite program is built for Windows 98 and worked on the XP kernel fine, what's with it not working on the Vista one?

The fan community is working with the company as much as possible to move development into the community's hands. The company has quit making updates as of 2004 or so, but with the game still selling, it's not so easy. Many of the still-often-used programs that don't work aren't current products as Vista is for Microsoft.

At the very least Microsoft could have given Vista Home Basic and Home Premium owners the option to downgrade to XP Home if their programs didn't work. I'd have been satisfied with that option - and would have taken advantage of it. Instead, Microsoft wants me to spend $130/200 for XP when the only reason I want it is because their product doesn't work. Sounds like a business strategy that's sure to satisfy the customer, doesn't it? So what they get instead is customers who complain about Vista endlessly - and rightly so.

It's convenient to blame it on the other people, but let's face it, if you're touting an OS as the best ever and not even giving people an option to switch if it doesn't work, it better work. And if it doesn't, the customers have a right to be upset and talk up a storm about their problems. I'm not saying you're the cause of any of these problems - chances are quite slim that you had anything to do with the decisions that left Microsoft customers in this quagmire - but Microsoft can't avoid the blame for Vista's problems.

<rant mode off>

Apollo13

 

Well, there are about 8 times as many XP users as Vista users. And it's much closer to a 50-50 split right now.

There are a few problems with XP - it won't run my Chessmaster 4000 Turbo program from 1993! But by and large, it doesn't have problems. Certainly nowhere near as many as Vista.

Power settings? I'm tweaking them all the time with Vista depending on whether I want performance, brightness, long life, a couple minutes more beyond 5%, the lid to cause sleep mode or not (allowing my music to keep playing with no screen usage)...and frankly I'd rather be tweaking it. It's much better than always having 100% power usage.

1. For some reason nearly every program I installed crashed the first time I ran it.

2. Tried to install The Guild, not a very old game. Froze on the autorun screen every time.

3. Install Civilization III; play a bit. Download Windows Updates a few days later. Civilization III stops working. Well, that's a bloody helpful update.

(reinstall Vista)

4. Install Civilization III; play for a few weeks. Don't install any Windows Updates. Civilization III still stops working. Decide to forget about reinstalling Vista to get it to working again; this looks like a cycle.

A couple days later, decide it would be prudent to set a password on my account. Set a password. Put the computer in Sleep mode just to test it. It doesn't accept my password and doesn't let me back in (yes, I'm sure I typed it right, you have to type it twice and it was my most commonly used password). Try to get in for half an hour. Give up. All my data is trapped by the Vista Monster.

Exploit a security hole to extract my data via a command line - inefficient, but better than losing it. Security hole came with Vista - no third-party software used. Nuke Vista for the second time and reinstall it.

5. While still on my second Vista install, it has a tendency to get frozen in shutdown mode. Might've been because I applied the Top Windows Vista Tweak (see this forum) to speed up startup.

6. Downloaded the 169.02 video card drivers, part of the much hailed 169 series from nVIDIA. Occasionally got BSODs on startup while those were running. No overclocking present when BSODs occured. Eventually went back to 156.55. IRQL_NOT_LESS_EQUAL errors with 169.02.

The first four I blame entirely on the OS - I wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary to cause these errors. The last two were pushing it a bit, but they aren't that uncommon of modifications (look at how many people on here have 169.xx drivers and have tried Windows Vista Top Tweak #1). If you abuse your OS as much as you say, I'm sure you've tried stuff like this.

5 & 6 weren't too annoying - if it has to freeze, shutdown is the ideal time, and those are beta drivers, after all - but 1 through 3 are quite vexing, and 4 is an absolute killer. It's almost fortunate I had had to nuke Vista just four weeks prior, so I had less data to recover. I've had enough of Vista problems, and have decided three strikes and it's out - one more problem I have to nuke it for, and it's back to XP.

(would switch to Linux/OSX except my proggies won't run there and Apple doesn't want those dissatisfied with Windows machine to buy their software )

 

Let's just say my computer can't handle vista yet, and i can't get any performance out of gaming from it (with my current spec). And i did tried it with a T5500 and a nvidia 7700. It's still slow to me..

 

Here is a Vista review that I'm really fond of, mainly because it offers constructive criticism (see the end for his recommendations:

http://www.softwareinreview.com/cms/content/view/77/

I especially believe in the reviewer's last recommendation. If MS wants to keep it's monopoly, they should:

- design a 64-bit (and only 64-bit) OS that shares design similarities to Linux such as;
> a root user account control system to replace Vista's really ****ty UAC,
> a modular package management system (and the elimination of the bloated registry that, once corrupted, takes down the whole system)

- MS's next OS should have much more out-of-the-box functionality instead of just serving as a platform for programs. Vista has already started what will hopefully become a trend (ex, partition resize utility). Also what I view as a critical missing component to the OS is a robust, dependable backup utility; for some reason Windows has no such crucial tool that every computer user should have.

- the GUI should be continually improved; too many people complain about how unnecessary Aero is. A human spends hours interacting with a computer through the OS, and the method by which the OS interacts with the human is with its GUI. Obviously the GUI is very important and it is overlooked all too often.

I have tons more to say about Vista (which does so many things right and wrong), but its 1AM here.

 

I want to put in my two cents worth... I happen to love vista, its modern, fresh and very much fits in with 2007/08 OS's. My onlye beef... it was incompatible with 2 programs becuase THEY were old- i just had to upgrade, and the 5 minutes boot up time. Thats it. the actual OS is great no problems while working or anything.