Why do people hate Vista?

[Techno Monster]

Personally, I like it, but most people don`t like Vista. Why do people hate it? What are your thought on it??

[Brandon639]

The main reason people dont like Vista is because of
1. The price - I think vista is like $300 and Mac OS X is $129.
2. The major glitches it brought
3. The incompatibility
4. There are so many different versions to choose from, were as Mac OS X has only one, with all feature. You could say the same about XP too.
5. It just plain out sucks :P Sure it looks cool but thats about it :rolleyes:

[Mzor203]

Many people don't like it because it is harder to use, has some problems, is more restrictive and lets the user do less with the comp., and microsoft has gone and created an OS costing around $250 that everyone who wants to keep using windows is going to have to buy, basically causing everyone a lot of grief. Microsoft is greedy.

[Brandon639]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention they are dropping support for XP in I think May. (may be 2009) Making everyone go for Vista if they want support.

[Mzor203]

Yeah, it's stupid because there was nothing wrong with xp and vista isn't any better, it's worse and has more limitations, yet Microsoft thinks it's gonna go and force everyone to buy it.

[Trampster]

I used to hate Vista, only because I've heard a lot of negative feedback about it. Then, at Christmas, my Mum got me a laptop with Vista installed, and if you read up, people only have problems when they try to install Vista themselves.

It took me about a day to learn my way around Vista, I find it easier, especially with Start > "type what programme you want" whereas XP, I had to go through a massive list to find what I wanted, and it took ages.

I also must say, I haven't had any problems with it, either. :)

[Blahages]

...and if you read up, people only have problems when they try to install Vista themselves.

There are so many things wrong with that statement.

[Aηdy]

There are so many things wrong with that statement.

Yeah, I had a computer come with Vista pre-installed, slow as hell, just as buggy and CRAP!

I've got vista on my laptop, giving SP1 a trial, no fucking better at all.

Microsoft are already working on Windows Se7en, they know that Vista is a failure!

[theOperaGhost]

Most tech people at my school say Vista turns a computer into a paperweight. I personally don't know much about it since I have XP. I've only used Vista at school and I think its OK.

[The Batman]

You can't expect to get new software and already know everything about it. Vista comes with different versions of it just like xp did so brandon thats not really an argument. If you have an illegal version of vista then maybe that could be what's causing the glitches. Going from XP to Vista is like going from PC to Mac you have to keep working with it till you understand it. Vista is perfect for me it has everything I want so I won't complain but why use a pc if your going to complain about the upgrade just suck it up and deal with the glitches till they get fixed. Don't thrash the whole program because of a few problems. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Aηdy]

It's slowed down every computer I've ever put it on lol. I mean, on a computer with 2GB ram, on a fresh install it's using at least 700mb of it. With XP it can use below 100mb sometimes on a fresh install.

[The Batman]

Vista has a lot more features and updates than XP so of course its gonna use a lot more memory just get some more memory.

[Aηdy]

A lot more useless features that I'll never use because they're crap, slow, and useless!

[The Batman]

Thats why vista has choices of what you want get the basic one it has barely any features

[Aηdy]

The basic one has all the same features as ultimate, it simply doesn't let you access them. And the ones you can't access still take um memory.

[The Batman]

Are you sure about that I've never heard anything about it

[Aηdy]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a102/muckingfuppet/8808e443.jpg

That's running 8 tabs in Avant, 3 MSN conversations and iTunes.

[Techno Monster]

Are you sure about that I've never heard anything about itAgreed me neither. I really like Vista and my laptop (everybody knows Victor the VIAO) Is one of VIAO`s newer models, so there is no issues with speed and computability. And as far as price goes, I agree Vista is expensive.

[The Batman]

Microsoft has always been expensive why is it all of a sudden a problem?

[Blahages]

Thats why vista has choices of what you want get the basic one it has barely any features

The Vista Kernel, by itself, is still drastically larger and uses a LOT more resources than XP's. And, overall, doesn't provide enough to compensate for that.

They had 6 years to get ready for Vista. And, they've had over a year since Vista was released to make some drastic improvements. They have made some, but not enough in a lot of people's minds.

XP is great. It's also had 2 Services Packs, and wasn't that great until SP2. It's a mature OS, and has had time to become stable.

There's no question in my mind that XP is the most stable OS (At least the Most stable in Practical Public/General Use, Ignoring Server Editions).

Vista made some notable improvements to some things, that are worthy of being kept. There are a few (Very Few, but still a few) that I'd love to have in XP, but nothing I can't live without.

Vista, for my use, provides no benefit to me over XP. It provides far too many complications that are simply unneeded.

I've tested Vista since the Build 4074 Alpha (Final is Build 6000). Although I can say there was definitely large improvements made to it during that time, I still expected more. People expected more.

Microsoft Delayed it a lot. They supposedly started over at one point, and abandoned the code base, for another one.

I've tested Vista many times since the RTM. I even have it running on a test machine, that runs 24/7. It surprisingly made 50-60 days uptime a few times, before BSODing. All of them were due to a bug in Vista, not bad drivers, or bad configuration, or the fault of the user. A lot of them were due to the annoying bug that caused BSOD's while copying files over a network that SP1 supposedly has addressed.

The resources it takes are simply too much for what it realistically does. What do I see that justifies the massive increase in resource usage over XP? Really, nothing.

I understand that Vista manages memory differently than XP. It caches RAM "better" than XP does, so it may show more RAM being consistently used, whereas XP may not.

I'm wondering how easy it would be to make an AutoHotKey Script that just overrides the UAC Prompting in Vista. I'm going to try it out...

One thing I have to mention about Vista that has been an ultimate, and complete failure. Their updating.

There has been multiple updates that have caused MANY Vista Machines to just die.

The most known is a prerequisite to SP1, that was installed many times via Automatic Updates, and the update would fail, for no apparent, and obvious reason. Then, the machine would be stuck in a constant reboot cycle saying "Stage 3/3 0%."

There is a work around, posted by a few people online. I don't think there ever was an official one by MS.

But, I did encounter this problem on someone's computer. The suggestions all failed, and System Restore wouldn't function, kept throwing "Catastrophic Failure" and not restoring the system.

I was able to fix everything, except Windows Update after a day or two of fooling around, and selectively editing and replacing files, in an attempt to not have to redo everything. Everything seemed fine, except Windows Updates kept throwing random Error messages that didn't yield any results on Google, or MS.

Eventually, And after several Hardware/Driver Incompatibilities, and these Software issues, The computer was downgraded to XP, as it was just too much of an inconvenience for things to randomly break. The machine was used in an environment where it just needed to "Work" all the time. Downtime wasn't really an option.

Is Vista Usable? Yes. Could I make it fairly stable for use in a production environment or for personal use? Yes. Would I? No.

XP is just to much better for every use I've seen.

DirectX 10 is about the main thing that people want Vista for, that I've noticed. That's about the only thing that can be done in Vista that can't be done just as well, or better in XP.

Personally, I don't game. Not an issue.

I also can't see what the hype was over Vista's Aero Interface. It fails in comparison to the graphical abilities of Compiz and other similar things on Linux. It's not even a comparison. Vista is like 0.0000001% as sophisticated as it.

After you've used VLite to Slim down the Vista install Media, it may be sort of usable, but I still refuse to let it replace my main systems. XP may be almost 8 years old, but it's still alive, and strong, and simply the best choice when it comes to a Windows OS, as far as I'm concerned.

I had a large say in the OS that was installed on 350 new computers where I work last summer. Nobody wanted Vista. We had a chance to go to Vista, and didn't. It would have been a bad idea.

We're replacing the other 350 or so in 2009, and although the Support and Selling of XP Licenses will end June 30th of this year, we can still transfer our Volume Licenses of XP from the old machines to the new ones, so I don't see the new ones then getting Vista, either.

I've also worked to customize over a few hundred aspects of the XP Systems they use, which improve the usability of XP.

I can admit that one thing I dislike about Vista was the change in how it is laid out. That's not the main issue though. It's just an aggravation.

Many things were moved for no apparent reason. It's like they just were like "Let's randomly move these things just to annoy people."

Many of which make it harder to find things, or add 2-3 more needless steps over the prior layout.

[iJack]

^ and the site you got that from is....

[Blahages]

The basic one has all the same features as ultimate, it simply doesn't let you access them. And the ones you can't access still take um memory.

Some of the things may still be around, but many of them simply aren't installed, period.

The Aero Style isn't included with Basic, it's not even on the OS.

The Movie Maker program also isn't installed. I know, I've looked. The files and Registry entries don't exist. I did manage migrate the install of that program from a Vista Ultimate computer onto a Home Basic Machine. It's possible, it's just tedious, and complicated, and annoying. And, Not legal.

I also don't have it installed anymore. It was done as a test to see if it was possible.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a102/muckingfuppet/8808e443.jpg

That's running 8 tabs in Avant, 3 MSN conversations and iTunes.

Take a screenshot of the processes tab, with all the processes listed. Sort them by Memory Usage.

You've also got 500 MB of RAM Cached.

It's still ridiculous that it's using 1.4GB anyway. The list of Processes and their usages will help explain things, though.

[Blahages]

^ and the site you got that from is....

Got what from? I typed that all myself.

All either facts, my opinion, or my experiences with it.

[iJack]

Got what from? I typed that all myself.

All either facts, my opinion, or my experiences with it.

aah, ok

Dont double post

[Blahages]

aah, ok

Don't just assume because it's fairly long, and extensive, or whatever, that it's been taken from somewhere else. ;)

I tend to write a lot, and go on for ages.

I guarantee you that you will not find what I wrote anywhere online, or anywhere else for that matter, besides here.

I spent about 15-20 minutes typing it up. :)

Dont double post

There's nothing wrong with double posting, if there's a purpose.

I was replying to separate things, and separate times, that were posted while I was posting other things.

Also, If I just edited the reply, it would be unnoticed by you, likely, because you were already looking at the thread, and would thus be counterproductive. I would have to repost them again, because they would go unseen.

Like this. I've edited this, and you've already left, and more likely than not, you won't notice the additions.

[iJack]

Sorry, gosh,

[Mzor203]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a102/muckingfuppet/8808e443.jpg

That's running 8 tabs in Avant, 3 MSN conversations and iTunes.

Holy S**t! On xp I've been able to run like 8 different prorams at once including like a whole ton of firefox things and Msn and it didn't use half of that!

Oh yeah, and did I mention that before my system recovery there was a crapload of random applications I'd picked up in places that were always running in the background?

[iJack]

Same here, i have a mac^^

[Blahages]

One thing to remember, is that if it's an OEM System (You bought the Computer, Preloaded with Vista From a Store), it will generally come preloaded with a LOT of junk that is useless.

A lot of times, there are 10-15 processes running in the background that are not needed.

It looks like you have an Acer Computer, by the little "e" bar at the top of the screenshot. That's one process you likely never use.

I always go through and either clean up the OEM install on computers, or Do a full Format, and Reinstall of the OS myself, and set everything up. OEM Preinstalls are so ridiculously messy.

Browsers will also use a lot of RAM many times if you have multiple Tabs open. Especially if they have a lot of Images, or Flash, or similar things on the pages.

You may only be aware of a few things running, but there's likely MANY things running that you're unaware of.

EDIT: Also, Under normal circumstances, your processor usage should NOT be running at a consistent 100% like it was under 99% of what it shows there.

[Prince Jellyfish]

I don't hate it, I just liked it better when it was called MAC OSX.
lol

[Bryan B]

Vista looks cool but i heat Vista Because:
The Incompatibility
It is much more slower than XP
Exaggerated Security
and some other reasons

[Techno Monster]

Keep in mind that Microsoft may release more updates this summer.

[Bryan B]

Keep in mind that Microsoft may release more updates this summer.

yes but the SP1 and some other but only is going to make the PC slower

[Blahages]

yes but the SP1 and some other but only is going to make the PC slower

Updates don't always make computers slower.

SP1 fixes a lot of Bugs with the Release of Vista.

Even if it did make it slower (Which it shouldn't), the things it fixes may be worth it.

This is why I always integrate Service Packs into my Install CDs/DVDs. Less change of problem.

Although, MS has decided to make it quite difficult to integrate SP1 into Vista's install Media. I haven't gotten around to trying a few ways that supposedly work.

[Unionjackboy]

Maybe because somepeople can't afford it so they are jellous of it ? :S

[Techno Monster]

Prices are going up in certain parts of the world.

[Whisper]

fuck it
i can look at porn
i can listen to music
i can do school

good enough

[Brandon639]

I don't hate it, I just liked it better when it was called MAC OSX.
lol

HAHA! Its funny because its true.

[Bryan B]

Updates don't always make computers slower.

SP1 fixes a lot of Bugs with the Release of Vista.

Even if it did make it slower (Which it shouldn't), the things it fixes may be worth it.

This is why I always integrate Service Packs into my Install CDs/DVDs. Less change of problem.

Although, MS has decided to make it quite difficult to integrate SP1 into Vista's install Media. I haven't gotten around to trying a few ways that supposedly work.

Yes that true not always but the majority of the Updates yes.

And yes it fixes bugs but it put more
lol


(For no Complications Buy a Mac and if you wish to install windows Install Windows XP)

[Aηdy]

It looks like you have an Acer Computer, by the little "e" bar at the top of the screenshot. That's one process you likely never use.

I do use it.. and it uses next to nothing.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a102/muckingfuppet/64048db7.jpg

[Blahages]

Yes that true not always but the majority of the Updates yes.

And yes it fixes bugs but it put more
lol


(For no Complications Buy a Mac and if you wish to install windows Install Windows XP)

I'd rather use Linux over OSx any day.

Besides, I wouldn't use a Mac anyway. There's little upgradability to it, and they are ridiculously overpriced. I also don't like the design.

Besides, if I truly wanted OSx, I'd install it on a normal computer.

From what I've seen with it (OSx), it's more for the users that don't want a lot of control over their computing environment.

I will admit that MS has been pretty good at causing more problems with their Vista updates than usual recently. But, I've found SP1 to be an improvement either way over the RTM.

Hence, my refusal to use it as a main OS.

XP has worked wondrous for me, though, for the most part. I've also used various flavors of Linux off and on.

I do use it.. and it uses next to nothing.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a102/muckingfuppet/64048db7.jpg

I wasn't really specifically talking about that program. I just used it as an example.

I was talking about looking at the processes that were using the most resources. It shouldn't be using 100% of the processor consistently, and if you only had a few programs running, it shouldn't have been using that much RAM or Page File, even with Vista.

[Aηdy]

I was talking about looking at the processes that were using the most resources. It shouldn't be using 100% of the processor consistently, and if you only had a few programs running, it shouldn't have been using that much RAM or Page File, even with Vista.

It's up and down every day lol. Fuck knows, down to 900mb today. some days it uses all 2.00Gb.

Oh well, XP going back on next week, along with linux.

[Bryan B]

I'd rather use Linux over OSx any day.

Besides, I wouldn't use a Mac anyway. There's little upgradability to it, and they are ridiculously overpriced. I also don't like the design.

Besides, if I truly wanted OSx, I'd install it on a normal computer.

From what I've seen with it (OSx), it's more for the users that don't want a lot of control over their computing environment.

I will admit that MS has been pretty good at causing more problems with their Vista updates than usual recently. But, I've found SP1 to be an improvement either way over the RTM.

Hence, my refusal to use it as a main OS.

XP has worked wondrous for me, though, for the most part. I've also used various flavors of Linux off and on.



I wasn't really specifically talking about that program. I just used it as an example.

I was talking about looking at the processes that were using the most resources. It shouldn't be using 100% of the processor consistently, and if you only had a few programs running, it shouldn't have been using that much RAM or Page File, even with Vista.

lol
I love the Mac Design
And I use Windwos XP and Vista and in other Computer Mac and linux

And I like more XP for my normal work and Vista I only use it to give tutorials and Mac to make some animations photos logos or videos

[Blahages]

It's up and down every day lol. Fuck knows, down to 900mb today. some days it uses all 2.00Gb.

Oh well, XP going back on next week, along with linux.

Haha. Yay for going back to XP and Linux.

Hopefully SP3 for XP will only add to the stability that XP currently has.

And, hopefully, in a few years, Vista will be a lot more stable. XP definitely wasn't the stablest when it came out. It also had a lot of compatibility problems when it was first released, like Vista has right now.

Most of them have been ironed out with SP1 and SP2.

I didn't actually like XP that much until SP2. I had more than my fair share of problems with XP prior to SP2.

I've actually just downloaded the Release Candidate of Ubuntu 8.04 a few hours ago, and plan on messing around with it in a little while. I've tried the betas before it, and they were fairly good.

I have a few Ubuntu installs laying around, that I've taken time to set up how I want them, and customize the appearance for the most part, but then I just lose interest, and the install sits unused for a few months.

The only Linux install that is active all the time that I use is on a Computer that acts as a server that I put together. It runs Ubuntu Server 7.10 currently, and hosts DNS, Squid, NTP (Time Syncronization), Apache, PHP, Mysql, SSH, a Jabber server, samba, and some other nonsense that I felt like messing around with.

The MAIN use it functions as right now is DNS. It handles the DNS Queries for the machines in the house. I don't like my ISP's DNS servers, and the time it takes to go from here to their servers is too long for my tastes. :P

I'll probably waste no time in upgrading it to 8.04 when it comes out. I may actually do it this weekend. I'm too impatient to wait for the Final. RC is close enough, I can always run an update later on.

[Aηdy]

Haha yeah I had SP3 on this a little while ago, seems alright!

I've got ubuntu on my PS3, I'd use that more if I could work out how to change the resolution lol.

[Blahages]

Haha yeah I had SP3 on this a little while ago, seems alright!

I've got ubuntu on my PS3, I'd use that more if I could work out how to change the resolution lol.

I've had the RC of SP3 for XP on my Laptop (Which is used a LOT) since Mid-Late November. And, it's been pretty much flawless stability-wise.

No issues.

As for changing the resolution on Ubuntu on your PS3, I'm not sure. I don't have a PS3, so I can't tell you for sure, but it probably depends on a few things.

1.) The type of TV you're using. Most normal TVs only allow a Max of 800x600 or 1024x768 for a Resolution. More likely the latter resolution for how it's hooked up.

If it's a newer TV, like an HDTV, or an LCD TV, then it should be able to support higher resolutions, but I'm not very familiar with those either, as all I have are older, crappy CRT TVs. :P

My guess, would be that IF you could change it, you might have to read up on changing the /etc/X11/xorg.conf file, and how to add resolutions to the configuration.

It may or may not work.

Actually, now that I think about it, you may be able to add a resolution by opening up a terminal, and typing:

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorgAnd pressing ENTER and typing your password.

It'll give you a few configuration questions. If you don't know the answers, you probably should take the defaults. But, at a point, it should give you an option to check [X] the resolutions you want. You could try that. You'd have to reboot the PS3 afterward.

Then again, you may need some special Kernel Modules, or special "Video Drivers" for it. I'm not sure.

Did you follow a guide for installing Ubuntu on a PS3, or did you just "do it?" If you didn't follow a guide, you might try one, it might make it work.

Maybe you can find something here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=PS3+Ubuntu+Resolution

:)

[Aηdy]

Yeah I tired doing all that, there are guides on the interweb but i've not had the time really lol.

[Close102]

people hate Vista because it has bad security and it has had a lot of problems. also windows for the most part hasnt changed a lot so people are more comfortable with it

[Bryan B]

people hate Vista because it has bad security and it has had a lot of problems. also windows for the most part hasnt changed a lot so people are more comfortable with it

Is not a Bad security is an Exaggerated Security.

The only thing I like from Vista is the Design.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

I couldn't tell you if I tried. People complain about it slowing computers down, but I've head from a lot of places that is speeds them up. I dunno, it's preference, I guess.

[Bryan B]

I couldn't tell you if I tried. People complain about it slowing computers down, but I've head from a lot of places that is speeds them up. I dunno, it's preference, I guess.

Yes other thing is that Vista is Really slow like a 40% more than XP.

And in that Places that you day maybe they only delate some things that affect memory and do other stuff.

[Hyper]

Anyone I know with a brain including my techie & ''hacker'' friends don't like Vista..

Theres of course a difference between a common user and a techie but that already proves that its flawed.. I wouldn't ever use it, bloody m$

[The Batman]

Vista has been out for alittle over a year now so of course it's going to be flawed. Give it some time to grow and for microsoft to come out with the necessary updates and improvements until then if you like xp use xp but if you prefer vista use vista. Xp wasn't perfect when it first came out and its been out for at least 5 years so it going to have to almost all of the bugs removed from it.

[0=]

But they had five years. It's inexcusable that they released such a flawed operating system after such a long development period.

[Bryan B]

But they had five years. It's inexcusable that they released such a flawed operating system after such a long development period.

l totally agree with you

[The Batman]

Think about all the other things that microsoft put out in the last five years, including gaming gear, software, and other things with that windows logo. They didn't invest all of their time and money into vista so if you add up the time spent on it then it would be less than 5 years and also what about the OS they started on and ended up trashing that took away time too.

[Blahages]

I do agree that an OS will have bugs in it when it's first released. You're not going to catch everything.

XP had a lot of problems the first year or two that it was out. I didn't actually like it until SP2.

But, like was said, MS had 5 years to work on it. They focused on things they shouldn't have. They should have worked on concentrating on stability and the amount of resources it used, and things like that, versus trying to make it pretty and whatnot.

I'm pretty sure Windows Seven (Codename for the next Windows OS) was supposed to be completely different, but now it appears that they're working on stabilizing Vista, and turning it into Windows Seven, instead of a whole new OS. MS knows they failed, and appear to be running away from Vista, to go to Windows Seven instead.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=664

I'm not so sure if rushing Windows Seven out is the best idea. The good thing about it, is they're working on a codebase that exists, not trying to rewrite the entire OS like they supposedly did with Vista.

Think about all the other things that microsoft put out in the last five years, including gaming gear, software, and other things with that windows logo. They didn't invest all of their time and money into vista so if you add up the time spent on it then it would be less than 5 years and also what about the OS they started on and ended up trashing that took away time too.

Microsoft has separate teams to work on separate projects. I'm pretty sure that the Windows Vista team works only on Vista, and not on other projects.

[The Batman]

I like Vista and I prefer it over xp but it might end up just like Windows 2000