Why do YOU hate Vista

Personally...i have very little experience with vista cuz im running on an old computer with XP, however...i hear so much about how vista is garbage but when ever i ask why...i never seem to get a good answer...i just get " it just sucks." Ive used vista only a couple times because my friends have it so to me the GUI is a little weird..but i havent used it enough to hate and bash it the way everyone else seems to...so i want to know why you dont like vista because seems as if one person said it sucks...and was followed by the world.

 

Well:
It is slower than XP(loads take longer time)
It has still alot of compatibility issues

Other stuff is personal prefference but i think it is organized worse than Xp.

 

That and,
UAC is annoying
I don't like the fancy animations.
Any other new GUI features can be achieved with free software anyway.

 

As always, you have to unhide file extensions (same with XP), switch the control panel to classic view and get use to Personalize vs XP's desktop settings/properties. And I hate, I hate the UAC (Turnned it off after install every time)!

On the Pro side:
Performance is picking up every patch and is now about on par with XP with little tweaking necessary. SP1 is taking care of alot of the problems I had with Vista, compatibility issues included. Organization is a hell of alot better and is almost intuitive compared to XP (including management tools, device manager and your gonna love the Welcome Center once you realize what all you can do from it). Then you'll love the new personalize vs the classic desktop setting/properties. I re-enabled the RUN... in the start menu for friends, but once you learn you can do that from the start search bar your not gonna miss it at all.

 

Hmm where do i start?

I so far have had no problems with compatibility. Most of the stuff (including games) runs fine on Vista, had a few software issues, but the software company fixed these within a few weeks of Vista's launch.

UAC, well you can turn it off at least.
File permissions, Even though you make yourself an admin, you still have to change the file permissions on your home directory (everyone group has access denied) so it makes for a bit of a pain when trying to manually clean up stuff.

Aside from the long boot times it would be the even longer identifying wireless network times. that totally sucks.

For a laptop i think vista sucks and i hope the first SP fixes some of the issues. For a wired desktop, it is great and i and no problem with mine after i implemented all the tweaks and fixes i needed to make it function like XP.
Come to think about it, i had the same problem when i went from 2000 to XP as well, i had to tweak my system then.

 

Thank you, thank you. I do have to admit, however bad XP was when it came out it was way better then ME (real win streak MS was on back then).

 

Because everyone else does! Of course.

I have a laptop and a desktop and both run XP. I have not seen the need to upgrade yet. I also have not even tried Vista, so once I get the chance I will have a more informed opinion at that time.

It seems like a lot of people hate it because:

1) Its new.
2) Its from Micro$oft.

Maybe in a year we can all stand back a bit and make an objective assesment of how Vista works.

Cory

 

Definately UAC but at least you're allowed to disable it. Also occasional compatibility issues with programs. Hopefully SP1 will resolve many of them.

 

Slow, huge compatibility issue and the damn security thing that ask me twice to validate EVERYTHING I try to do.

 

I don't hate it but I will tell you things that bother me with it:

1) Inconsistent GUI....i.e. using Windows DVD maker it told me to click the back button to go back well I couldn't find it because on the bottom was Next... and Cancel no back....then I realized for whatever reason they had a IE style Back button near the top left hand side.....and other times the back button is back near the Next... button...sooooooo why is it so darn inconsistent?

2) UAC is annoying I keep it enabled just in case so I know what it trying to run....but damn its so much more annoying then the way Linux/Mac's handle it....they could have done a much better job.

3) Super long boot up and shut down times. It drives me nuts. I mean I guess I could pay the extra money to keep my desktop running all the time (but I really don't want to) but the silly sleep mode keeps refusing to goto sleep so I don't use that and hibernate feels like it takes just as long...and for laptops? Forget it I am still worried about keeping my laptop in standby whenever I am not using it which at times can be a whole day at a time.

Those are a few of my beefs with Vista....but in reality I am really liking it all my PC's run it now and I couldn't be happier. I never had a total system crash...its doesn't get so bogged down with spyware...and its sleek. I think its a hit for MS and I think just a lot of people hate it because the media told them too.

All the problems I hear of how its slower then XP and how it needs more hardware then XP and how its more incompatiable them XP....does anyone remember XP's launch? It was the same darn arguments then. XP needed a WHOPPING 256mb of RAM to run decently (which was a lot then) computers that ran Windows 98 and ME smoothly struggled with XP in terms of performance. And I remember everyone upset then too because of all the "incompatiable" printers, and devices that were out there.

 

Just turn it off... THat's the first thing I do on every vista PC

 

i only hate vista because its sluggish. if it booted up and shut down faster, it would be almost perfect....for me.


and stop complaining about UAC, just disable it you big babies.

 

The one thing I've despised about Vista is that every time I reinstall, I always get some kind of software issue. Recently I was getting the Nvidia driver issue playing games and then when I reinstalled I am now getting random crashes with Internet Explorer. Kinda pissing me off. Especially when I'm conducting important business over the internet..

-Mike

 

I don't hate vista.

 

So, for the most part, the biggest issues people have with Vista is UAC, some software/hardware issues, and slow boot times? Is that really it? I guess i was expecting more, i mean, the hardware and software stuff is up there on the list, but like people have said, you can disable UAC. As far as booting, i dont have that problem cuz i almost never shutdown. But really...it seems like people dont really have too much of an opinion and they are all using someone elses opinion in place of their own. Now im gonna go and figure that there are more problems than just the ones listed, but I think there should be more problems with vista for people to hate it so much.

 

I think most people hate Vista mostly because they heard it was bad from other negative people, and then they tried it for themselves just looking for things to complain about. It kinda works the other way for Macs.

 

Oh my god. You're the first person who's actually thought this through and posted such a thread. I repped you big time saying "Thank you for being smart." I already want to be your best friend.

But onto vista: I love it. Better than XP in so many ways. People who crab about slowness and incompatibility are either running it with the wrong hardware/are too cheap to pay $600 to get a good vista pc with good specs. Software incompatibility? Never.

If i ever do run into one, i can just use compatibility settings to get it right. I love the GUI, and it can't be replicated properly in XP. Bottom line: Vista is liquid fast, no problems, and runs like a god if you use your brain.

 

If you can read the 'Tweak Vista' thread there really isnt much else to complain about since most of it you can fix/tweak. I think one of the biggest complaints are from people with very old hardware that are trying to run Vista and when it performs poorly they are very vocal about it. There are also some very computer illiterate people who also whine about Vista because they believe the FUD without forming their own educated opinion.

I've used Vista for almost 4 months now on my dual boot laptop I spend almost all my time in the Vista environment. Its funny that I'm still hearing all these negative remarks about Vista from people who know nothing about computers, and they say nothing other than "it sucks"....ah well such is life.

Cheers!

-Reby

 

I agree with you there buddy. Rep for being smart.

 

i have to agree with calvin, vista is awesome. and anyone that is complaining about compatibility issues ought to get their heads out of their backsides and dowload some updates. practically (99%) everything works perfectly.

 

I like Vista too, but I wish that it would resume from sleep better. Every so often, I have to hold down the power button and restart. But beside that issue, it runs great.

 

Hear Hear!

 

And I give you one for that one (If I can, I think I've given u 1 recently..)

 

I'm pretty sure that most people complain about how their system should run better, but Vista is on it. System performance is the main gripe that I see, most of the time, for me, performance is good even with the system in my signature...
I try to stay away from multi-tasking.

 

It's scary when you look in the Task Manager with a few apps open, and Vista has already used twice the RAM it used to in XP.

I find Vista a bit bulky in some places compared to XP; it's like comparing Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas - but nothing can replicate the awesomeness of Aero Glass!

 

Doesn't it use about 50% of RAM no matter how much of it you have?

 

Awesome, another thread bashing Vista....

Personally, Vista has been a VAST imrpovement over XP for me. Boot up time has gotten significantly faster under Vista.

 

yes, vista allocates it. what is the point of having 2gb of ram and not using 80% of it. when you open up a demanding program, eg a game, vista will allocate most of the ram to the game..

 

Vista rocks! I'll never go back to SP, XZ or whatever that OS was I used to use

 

I love Vista. It is vastly superior to XP in my eyes. I have 2.5GB memory, so I don't have to worry about it really being slow. Get the right hardware, and Vista is good to go. I turned off the UAC and the notification as well. I've never had any compatibility issues either. Not one.

 

In my very honest opinion:

(1)Vista takes ram YES, BUT ram are so cheap nowadays you can get 2gb without your wallet losing too much weight
(2)Long start-up/shut-down? Not for me. Faster than XP
(3)Bad gaming performance: well...ok mayb XP runs a bit better but Vista doesn't lag either....no point arguing over 40fps and 50fps (you can't really see the difference cos nothing's really lagging)
(4)Flashy interface: I like flashy interface lol.
(5)UAC: can be disabled
(6)Compatibility: Download patch.
(7)System performance: My CPU usage is 3~6% with Sidebar, Rainlendar and other startup programmes....so I dun see any lags

Oh well, for me, the Verdict is...when SP1 comes out, there's no real reason to hate Vista anymore...especially with the improved file transfer speed they promised, I have to admit Vista started off annoying... but not anymore.

 

Im not bashing Vista; im asking why people dont like it. Im just trying to find a logical answer as to why I constantly hear people whining about how Vista is so bad.

If Vista is so bad, i want a good reason; I dont want to hear about how Vista is crap because of UAC or because everyone else hates it. So now people talk about how slow it is and how much it taxes system resources. Now while ive had XP running at less that 100Mbs (Right after a clean format) ive noticed that my friend idles at 1.1Gbs. Im sure the was some type of jump like that when XP moved in too (16 or 32megs to 256megs back in 2001? come on now) . I also notice how people say XP is so much better. Now while this is more than likely a user preferance, lets not forgot that XP is 6 years old with a few service packs.

 

Unused RAM is wasted RAM. That's all I'm going to say.

 

^^yes, vista's allocation is a good thing. (if i didn't make that clear)

 

Well, SP1 RC has given negative improvements:
the screen display puzzles up when back from Sleep.. LOT LOT more explorer crashes, Fn buttons for Brightness stopped working, All programs take longer to open, LOT more processes running by default so higher start up time

Some Positive improvements: More battery life, lesser heat emmisions.

 

Is this your experience with it, or are you saying those problems are the norm for everybody using SP1 because this thread will say otherwise.

 

I bought a new and super cheap eMachines desktop a couple of nights ago, which came with Vista installed. After cleaning the crap and bloat from the system (uninstalling at least 16 apps, and then using CCleaner, Glary Utilities and RegSeeker, roughly a half hour's work - I just went through a clean install with XP on a different machine a few days ago and couldn't bear the thought of chasing down correct drivers etc, for everything needed in this cheapo rig - the new machine actually runs fairly well. Haven't even bothered with all the background processes yet. The only other "upgrade" I did was to the video driver, which, I think was many moons too old. The text is now very clear and sharp.

The result has surprised me, and for its intended use as a backup in order to surf the Net, try out new freebie apps and Linux distros before installing on better machines, it seems to work well. So far, so good, anyway. Our last super cheap eMachines XP guinea pig rig took almost 4 years of abuse before blowing up about a week ago; hope this one can hang in there for a couple of years. If not, I won't have lost much, given the price of this thing. LOL

 

TPEBTKATC.

Thank you.

 

I don't understand all the complaints about UAC. I had a lot of messages when initially setting up the machine and installing software (and you can get around a lot of those messages by kicking off an instance of Explorer as admin), but once that was done, I don't see it much anymore.

Now, I only see it when I try to execute something I donwloaded, or that is unsigned, or go into control panel applications that can impact system wide setting - which is the same level of prodding you get from Linux, OSX or any other reasonably secure OS.

I think MS made a mistake in allow users to disable UAC. Maybe they should have options to reduce the number of prompts, but allowing users to disable an intrisic security feature is just asking to have Vista suffer the same adware/malware/virus issues that plagued XP. The same folks that screw up their systems today will read online how to turn it off, disable it, screw up Vista, then blame MS for making crappy products.

 

I have UAC enabled, and isn't annoying for me. I don't know what are you doing in your laptops to make UAC appear and turn it annoying for you guys, but if you disable it, there are more danger to get infected from virus and malware. You are turning off the feature that stops anything to store in the Windows folder and other critical locations of the OS.

 

"Negative improvements"?

 

I don't like Vista because it's worse than what we already have, XP.

 

I tell you what I don't like in Vista and why I turned to XP (I won't mention my other OS...)

1) I don't like the fact that it was forced on me. In my Country if I wanted to buy DELL's hardware not only I had to pay the Microsoft tax but I could not choose the Microsoft OS I would have wanted (XP).
2) It's huge. On my 160 GB hard disk it took some 20 GB and was growing every day.
3) It's slow. My file transfer was still excruciatingly slow even after updating it to the last hour (ordinary updates, no release candidates for SP; I felt already as a paying beta tester by just having vista)
XP has made file transfer a snap, between partitions of the same disk, to and from the usb pen.
4) I hate the fact that you either have all or nothing. IIRC, you can't ask Defender not to touch your files: either it's on and it can do what Microsoft chose for you, or it's off.
5) I hate the fact that despite I did my best to keep Microsoft Media Player and IE7 away from my files, every now and then they showed up again. IE in form of desktop and taskbar icon (no big deal, I just had to select it and delete it), Media player by executing media content that had been associated to Media Player Classic.
6) Customizability: am I mistaked or almost every tweak now need a third party program? Changing the logon screen, changing the shortcut arrow, changing the icon associated with a file! Is this "ease of use"?
7) The EULA: by accepting that you give Microsoft and its associates the power to do what they see fit with your computer and with part of your files.
8) Certain programs won't run on Vista as the would on XP. Other need you to waste a lot of time to find the tweaks to make them run. Example: Code::Blocks on XP runs flawlessly with the MingW gcc compiler; on Vista I had to resort to Voodoo rituals in order to make it run, and I also had to place either MingW and MSys under C, otherwise the linker would not see the libraries.


The good of Vista, from my point of view was:
good stability
nice looking interface
good battery life (better than linux)

 

1) How many times have we been through this? If DELL started selling chicken, are they forcing chicken on you? As a consumer, you have the option to "not buy".

Aside: I believe all OS's should come set up for a normal user, but have options for advanced users (like turning off UAC). I would be very upset if I needed a third-party application to turn off a part of the OS. If I wanted to use DOS prompts only in Vista, I should have the option to do so.

 

I agree with Lithus and Sredni Vashtar, the reason I ditched Vista for XP was because Vista was design with too much emphasis for the "Normal" user. With XP you get more control over your OS, with Vista you don't. For example, the shadow volume feature, like Sredni Vashtar said, you either have it enabled or have it disable; Vista don't offer anything in between and when it is enabled, it eats up large amount of disk space and slows the PC down when it makes backups. The steep requirement but slower performance for game on Vista was also an issue for me, I want to say that most of us had upgraded our dated hardwares just for the OS only to find that it is hindering the performance; so why upgrade in the first place if it is going to take the same amount of time/effort to perform the same tasks. Just my 2 cents.

 

Read again: "In my country if I wanted to but DELL's hardware not only I had to pay the microsoft tax but I could not choose the microsoft OS I would have wanted"

("but" must read "buy")

It's undeniably true that *if one wants to buy DELL's hardware* (to be more specific the hardware I chose- the Vostro1500), they are forced to get Vista as well and to pay for it.

It's clear that we have a different opinion on what a free market is. According to your point of view Microsoft shouldn't have been tried for the antitrust case, either. Well, it has. In the US and in Europe.

But I won't go on discussing this aspect, it would be thread hijacking, so you can add your final consideration after this post and I won't reply to that.

 

If I want to buy a Macbook, I must buy Leopard. If I want to buy my Palm Centro, I must buy Palm OS. If I buy my Nissan, I must buy the Nissan engine. If I want to buy a 100 page book, I must buy pages 10-15. I guess all companies should be sued with anti-trust legislation.

 

What makes it worse than XP?

1)Again...you have to option not to buy it...you couldve not bought it or bought it somewhere else.

2)Disable system restore and youll prolly get half or more of your space back

3)Idk about that, my friends usb seems faster than mine (he has vista, i have xp)

4)I dont know what iirc is

5)Cant you uninstall IE and adjust file type associations? i didnt even install wmp9 cuz i dont like it, and i use firefox as my default browser

6)Idk about that, Check the tweak vista thread as far as that goes. But for me, ive used a couple programs to tweak xp, and im not bothered by it.

7)Im not very well educated on the EULA, but isnt that created so that companies can make money and not have their product stolen?(or something along those lines?)

8)Is that the only C++ editor you can use?

 

I won't reply to that, as I said. Read my last reply to lithus.

True, and that's what I did but it was still huge.

Same exact system? Because that is what I'm talking about.

IIRC means If I Remember Correctly

I wish I could. But I am afraid that would definitely cripple my system.
Same story with Media Player.

That's what I did. In fact IE7 came out in form of icon after every update.
As I said, no big deal since I only had to delete it.

You have vista and don't have WMP?
How could that be?

It goes a little further than that.
Read it, it's educative.

That's the one I chose.
That's the one I used under Win98.
That's the one I have all my projects in.

Talking about freedom of choice...

 

7) Consent for Internet-Based Services. The software features described below and in the Windows Vista Privacy Statement connect to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet. In some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect. You may switch off these features or not use them. For more information about these features, see the Windows Vista Privacy Statement at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=20615. By using these features, you consent to the transmission of this information. Microsoft does not use the information to identify or contact you.

So by using a Microsoft related program, aka Windows Update, Microsoft has the right to collect non-identifying information about your computer. Am I missing the "we own your computer and may do what we see fit" part?