Who else is fed up with Vista?

Scrubsy

Scrubsy

CAGiversary!
Feedback
12 (100%)
After going into hibernation last night (I reformatted so it turned itself back on) my motherboard locked up because Vista has this fun problem of going to sleep and never waking up. It takes removing all of the cords from the motherboard to enable it to wake back up. So today I am reverting back to XP, anyone else done this recently?
 
I have Vista on my Toshiba laptop and have never had a single major problem.

Sure, file movement is still painfully slow (even after the SP1 update), and I had some crashes with Nero, but all my other experiences have been fine.
 
I've had Vista for a year now, and I've never had problems with it. I did have one BSoD, but that was me just messing with stuff. It sounds like it's a hardware problem if you have to unplug it.
 
[quote name='Okari']I've had Vista for a year now, and I've never had problems with it. I did have one BSoD, but that was me just messing with stuff. It sounds like it's a hardware problem if you have to unplug it.[/quote]I thought that too, but I took it to the repair shop the first time it happened and the guy said he has seen it happen to lots of laptops and desktops with vista. Something to do with the sleep and hibernation function.
 
I've got Vista Ultimate and I've finally got it tweaked so that it works smoothly. I've had this system for about 8 months and never really looked into some of the issues (fucking searchfilterhost.exe) but there's simple fixes for most stuff.

But I'd still rather have XP because XP is just faster, period, and I don't have to mess with anything. I just don't see any benefit to having Vista over XP besides some visual enhancements like the glass-like transparency and AERO (which can be achieved in XP using software I hear).
 
[quote name='Scrubsy']After going into hibernation last night (I reformatted so it turned itself back on) my motherboard locked up because Vista has this fun problem of going to sleep and never waking up. It takes removing all of the cords from the motherboard to enable it to wake back up. So today I am reverting back to XP, anyone else done this recently?[/quote]

My computer does the same thing, but I just turn off the power supply and then it will reboot after a few seconds. It did it with XP as well, so I'm thinking the on board battery might be to blame here but I'm not sure at all.
 
Have you tried going into your BIOS settings to see if there are any "wake on" settings disabled? There may also be an option to set certain "wake on" settings to be OS controlled.

It sounds to me like it's either that or a configuration setting for the hibernation/power management settings.
 
I don't use Vista myself (still happy with XP Pro), but in the past I have experienced hibernation/standby failures similar to what you describe with many different operating systems. More often than not it turned out to be a hardware issue, such as dumb BIOS or a board's inability to comply with hibernate/standby/resume demands.
 
Yea I have the same problem. It happens with one of my dell computer with vista but not the other.
 
I installed Vista at launch but there were a lot of driver issues and a lot of my programs were not running properly so i went back to XP. I think it's time I give Vista another try since SP1 came out already.
 
I switched back to XP after trying many times to fix the problem of not being able to install SP1. Also because my Virtual PC Console window won't show, and that Internet Explorer fails to open. I also guessed that Vista would suck up more battery power since I'm on a laptop (I dunno if I'm really justified in assuming this, but Vista is known for using a lot of resources...).

I kinda missed some of Vista's features. Like drivers and USB devices will work like 100%. XP you have to install this stuff manually usually
 
I just finished my new build on Friday. So I have only had Vista 64 for a short time. I have run into a few problems, but for the most part I like what I have seen of Vista. I tried installing an old game War! Age of Imperialism and that failed yesterday. Today with a little help from customer service and the compatibility menu I got it installed and it works perfectly. A couple of the games I installed don't show up in the games explorer. I found out somebody had written a program to help fix that.

My only real concern is the LAN connection seems slow. I have DLed the LOTRO client several times at around 170-180 KBS. When I DLed the high res version on Friday and Saturday I rarely broke 125KBS. It's unclear whether Vista is to blame or the LAN port on on my new Abit IP-35E MB is just slower.
 
On topic, I've never really had any problems with Vista at all either, but I've built my machine with pretty much the latest in parts, so there shouldn't really be any problems with it anyways.

[quote name='Vinny']I've got Vista Ultimate and I've finally got it tweaked so that it works smoothly. I've had this system for about 8 months and never really looked into some of the issues (fucking searchfilterhost.exe) but there's simple fixes for most stuff.

But I'd still rather have XP because XP is just faster, period, and I don't have to mess with anything. I just don't see any benefit to having Vista over XP besides some visual enhancements like the glass-like transparency and AERO (which can be achieved in XP using software I hear).[/QUOTE]


OT, where did you find good recommendations for tweaks? i'm about to start doing this as well.
 
I'm not fed up with Vista so much as the Microsoft Way™ of personal computing. I've been dutifully upgrading Windows since 3.1 and each iteration brings more frustrations and bloat. I'm sticking with XP until MS and the gaming industry forces me out of it, much like they did with Windows 2000.
 
For one, the first thing you should do on any computer is disable the sleep function. It has been screwing with me since Windows 98. Just throw that out the window immediately.
 
[quote name='tgk2044']On topic, I've never really had any problems with Vista at all either, but I've built my machine with pretty much the latest in parts, so there shouldn't really be any problems with it anyways.




OT, where did you find good recommendations for tweaks? i'm about to start doing this as well.[/QUOTE]

First, find a problem. Then just Google it. If you find a problem chances are there are others having the same problem. I found other forums where people complain about a problem and someone posts a solution usually on the MS website.

I don't mean to sound like an ass by any means by telling you to Google it but it's just that... that's actually how I found fixes for pretty much any issue.:lol:
 
I was fortunate enough to try Vista out during the public beta. Many of the complaints I attributed to the OS being in Beta actually made it out to the public release. I'm glad I never upgraded and am quite content to keep using XP for the foreseeable future. Vista simply doesn't provide a compelling enough reason to upgrade.
 
No Problem with 64 Bit Vista Ultimate on work PC, home Rig Runs XP, and my school laptop runs vista premium. No problems with any of them.
 
[quote name='Oktoberfest']I switched back to XP after trying many times to fix the problem of not being able to install SP1. Also because my Virtual PC Console window won't show, and that Internet Explorer fails to open. I also guessed that Vista would suck up more battery power since I'm on a laptop (I dunno if I'm really justified in assuming this, but Vista is known for using a lot of resources...).

I kinda missed some of Vista's features. Like drivers and USB devices will work like 100%. XP you have to install this stuff manually usually[/quote]


Vista will use up your battery a bit faster because it uses the video card for everything on the desktop, so it's always in use.
 
Been using Vista since the November launch (before the consumer launch) and I would never go back to XP. As it is, I have a small XP partition on my main computer in case I need to try anything with XP, and at this point XP uses up more ram than Vista does.

At Idle XP uses about 28% of my 2 gig
At Idle Vista uses about 19%

That's with Superfetch and sidebar still running. Vista is a true wonder if you know what you're doing
 
[quote name='n25philly']Been using Vista since the November launch (before the consumer launch) and I would never go back to XP. As it is, I have a small XP partition on my main computer in case I need to try anything with XP, and at this point XP uses up more ram than Vista does.

At Idle XP uses about 28% of my 2 gig
At Idle Vista uses about 19%

That's with Superfetch and sidebar still running. Vista is a true wonder if you know what you're doing[/QUOTE]

Any tips for what I should be doing?

My laptop has 2GB of DDR2 800 memory and roughly 49% of it is in use during idle. I know it's way too much but at the same time, it hardly ever seems to change very much for normal use. To test it, I opened 12 applications at once and it only went up to 71%. So, it's not really an issue I guess.:lol:
 
[quote name='Vinny']Any tips for what I should be doing?

My laptop has 2GB of DDR2 800 memory and roughly 49% of it is in use during idle. I know it's way too much but at the same time, it hardly ever seems to change very much for normal use. To test it, I opened 12 applications at once and it only went up to 71%. So, it's not really an issue I guess.:lol:[/quote]


Just go into services and turn crap off that you don't need. One place where MS f'd up was with what runs at default. Go into services and turn off stuff like:

tablet
readyboost
ip helper
anything windows mobile (unless you actively use windows mobile)
search indexer (unless you use the search function)

there are other, but it depends on what you use. play around with it. The worse case is that if you turn off something you don't need you can turn it on again. I switch things I don't use to manual instead of just shutting them off. Also go into windows defender and then the software explorer and make sure nothing is running on startup that shouldn't be. If you have any questions about specific services just post them here and I'll let you know if they are ok to turn off or not.
 
[quote name='n25philly']Just go into services and turn crap off that you don't need. One place where MS f'd up was with what runs at default. Go into services and turn off stuff like:

tablet
readyboost
ip helper
anything windows mobile (unless you actively use windows mobile)
search indexer (unless you use the search function)

there are other, but it depends on what you use. play around with it. The worse case is that if you turn off something you don't need you can turn it on again. I switch things I don't use to manual instead of just shutting them off. Also go into windows defender and then the software explorer and make sure nothing is running on startup that shouldn't be. If you have any questions about specific services just post them here and I'll let you know if they are ok to turn off or not.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I'll try that. Services is how I tweaked that searchfilterhost.exe crap so I guess there's more stuff in there to do.

And I still have to update to SP1 when I get the chance.:whistle2:k
 
Gateway Desktops + Vista = Perfect :)
I'm using XP + Gateway + Home Edition w sp/2 = Perfect.
So obvious i never tried Vista yet, but i'm pretty sure if you buy a gateway computer with Vista, you wouldn't have any problems. Gateway makes the best stuff period!
 
I had the opportunity to try Vista since we got a new XPS at work. No one likes using it. I took that as the hint to stay with XP when I ordered my new laptop.

I am however damn sick of Ubuntu. It's not only one step backwards, it's 8. For all the shit I have to do in Terminal to get simple commands and tweaks running (which has NEVER worked, I just get a nondescript error and sent back to start for any command I give it), I might as well be using DOS. What the fuck. It took me two days to do something that would've taken me 30 seconds in Windows. And it's a patronizing fucker, too. You thought Vista was bad with all the Allow/Deny alerts...
 
Had Vista installed in Bootcamp without any issues to speak of aside from a sluggishness that simply isn't there with XP or Leopard.

Switched back to XP SP3 for the times I need Windows.
 
I've got problems with my computer, but i don't know if its Vista's fault.

Ex. occasionally mouse clicks don't register, Firefox fails to start half the time, and every steam game crashes when I quit sometimes locking up my computer.

I can say that I never had those problems when using XP, but I also didn't use the same software, so who knows.
 
[quote name='n25philly']Been using Vista since the November launch (before the consumer launch) and I would never go back to XP. As it is, I have a small XP partition on my main computer in case I need to try anything with XP, and at this point XP uses up more ram than Vista does.

At Idle XP uses about 28% of my 2 gig
At Idle Vista uses about 19%

That's with Superfetch and sidebar still running. Vista is a true wonder if you know what you're doing[/QUOTE]
I saw in a later post that you went into Mgmt and turned services off in Vista. Do you have equivalent services running in both versions?

My XP box had a much smaller OS footprint than the Vista Ultimate box I briefly had (and quickly replaced with XP). I had minimal services running in both. All the tweaking I did couldn't overcome the fact that Vista simply has more running in the background than XP--and thus requires more RAM than XP. A lot of the analysis and reviews of both OSs agree with that experience. My guess is you had XP set up to do much more than minimum, whereas you had Vista tweaked to do very little.

I don't believe that Vista is completely worthless, the bitch of it is that it takes SO MUCH work getting it set up (overcoming digital driver problems, etc.) versus the setup time with XP, and once you get Vista going you wonder if all that additional install work was worth the meager benefits over XP.

None of this goes to mention the later problems Vista supposedly has with certain programs, or Office 2007, or any of that. I'm just talking putting a barebones OS on a blank HDD, and in that regard, XP Pro has it in spades over Vista Ultimate.
 
[quote name='dothog']I saw in a later post that you went into Mgmt and turned services off in Vista. Do you have equivalent services running in both versions?

My XP box had a much smaller OS footprint than the Vista Ultimate box I briefly had (and quickly replaced with XP). I had minimal services running in both. All the tweaking I did couldn't overcome the fact that Vista simply has more running in the background than XP--and thus requires more RAM than XP. A lot of the analysis and reviews of both OSs agree with that experience. My guess is you had XP set up to do much more than minimum, whereas you had Vista tweaked to do very little.

I don't believe that Vista is completely worthless, the bitch of it is that it takes SO MUCH work getting it set up (overcoming digital driver problems, etc.) versus the setup time with XP, and once you get Vista going you wonder if all that additional install work was worth the meager benefits over XP.

None of this goes to mention the later problems Vista supposedly has with certain programs, or Office 2007, or any of that. I'm just talking putting a barebones OS on a blank HDD, and in that regard, XP Pro has it in spades over Vista Ultimate.[/quote]

what are you talking about? Yes by default Vista has more services running but like I said you just need to turn the crap off you don't need. On my home computer XP & Vista run basically the same # of services and run the same types of programs.

At this point drivers aren't the big issue they were before. (at least in the 32bit version) If you used XP back a year into it's existence and you think Vista has driver issues, your likely smoking something pretty strong. I set up a lot of computers, and it takes me way longer to properly set up an XP computer than it does for Vista. I'm typically half way through tweaking a vista computer by the time XP finishes installing.

What program issues are you talking about? Some business applications have issues with Vista do to the new file management system, but the vast majority of programs work perfectly. Office 2007 certainly doesn't have issues with Vista.
 
[quote name='n25philly']what are you talking about? Yes by default Vista has more services running but like I said you just need to turn the crap off you don't need. On my home computer XP & Vista run basically the same # of services and run the same types of programs.[/QUOTE]
And Vista uses 18% available memory at idle while XP uses 28%. I dunno, that doesn't agree with what a lot of other people see for performance.

Also, setup goes beyond the install. I can slipstream XP and be done with it. After the Vista install, you've got to do services, check drivers, and play other games. The OP is fed up with Vista, and in my experience and that of many others, there's reason to be.

But then you've discovered that Vista is a wonder, and you know what you're doing, whereas no one else does. I salute you.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']I've got problems with my computer, but i don't know if its Vista's fault.

Ex. occasionally mouse clicks don't register, Firefox fails to start half the time, and every steam game crashes when I quit sometimes locking up my computer.

I can say that I never had those problems when using XP, but I also didn't use the same software, so who knows.[/QUOTE]

I have some of the same issues.

I've noticed the mouse clicks not registering sometimes either. Same thing the keyboard... I don't know exactly when it happens but sometimes I'll be tying and notice that half the letters aren't there. The mouse clicks are harder to pick up but it definitely happens.

I never have Firefox issues during start up but it crashes quite frequently compared to my XP machines (where it even crashes).

I can't speak for Steam though since it's only a non-gaming laptop.
 
[quote name='dothog']And Vista uses 18% available memory at idle while XP uses 28%. I dunno, that doesn't agree with what a lot of other people see for performance.

Also, setup goes beyond the install. I can slipstream XP and be done with it. After the Vista install, you've got to do services, check drivers, and play other games. The OP is fed up with Vista, and in my experience and that of many others, there's reason to be.

But then you've discovered that Vista is a wonder, and you know what you're doing, whereas no one else does. I salute you.[/quote]


You're making yourself sound foolish. If you slipstream XP why not do that for Vista. Afraid that if you try to look at things balanced you might have to give Vista a fair chance? I love how people say that the default Vista doesn't match up to their tweaked XP. It's like saying my bicycle isn't as fast as my sports car. Too many people learned only how to use XP, not computers, that's why so many people sound so ridiculously stupid when they try to explain why they don't like Vista. I know a lot of people who both love Vista and those who hate it. The ones that love it tend to be the ones who know what they are doing and the ones that hate it tend to barely be able to figure out how to turn their computers on. I won't even count all the people who made up their minds without using it.
 
I have had Vista on my laptop for half a year and just installed Vista x64 on my new computer and haven't had a problem with either. They are perfectly stable and everything runs fine on them. I haven't even noticed a decrease in performance for Vista over XP. Vista uses a little more ram but I find things launch more quickly (and when you can get 2 gb of ram for $20 I don't think it matters if Vista uses 100-200 mb more). Sure there aren't really any huge reasons to upgrade but if I had to choose between them I would go with Vista.
 
[quote name='n25philly']and the ones that hate it tend to barely be able to figure out how to turn their computers on.[/quote]

That's probably one of the largest segment of computer users right there.
 
i run vista on my hp laptop, almost a year now, and i love it. never had any troubles with it whatsoever actually. my friend with the exact same laptop (mine came with vista, his came up xp) upgraded to vista, and it took him 2 weeks to get his to work after installing vista. now its great for him as well :lol:
 
[quote name='n25philly']and the ones that hate it tend to barely be able to figure out how to turn their computers on[/quote]

Not to quote advertising I hate, but really your computer should just work out of the box.
 
While I'm still more comfortable with XP than Vista overall (for now at least), Vista certainly doesn't deserve the horrid reputation it has. It's certainly not perfect and there's a few annoying characteristics, but that can be said of any operating system, Windows, OS X, Linux, or otherwise.

Both my new desktop and laptop run off Vista and I haven't had any problems with either of them. My parents' PC runs off Vista as well and they haven't had any issues to report either.

When I hear people complain about all their problems with Vista I can't help but think the majority of the issues are the fault of the user and not the operating system or their computer simply isn't powerful enough to handle Vista. If it were a truly an awful operating system loaded with problems I would tend to think I would have run across some of the problems with it by now but I haven't.
 
I've been running Vista x64 almost exclusively since RC2. Recently I just upgraded my PC and only installed Vista x64.

I haven't had any issues other than Canon's crap RAW support for x64 Vista (they have a 32bit update).

I think it's just cool to hate MS (Or M$ if you're dumb).
 
[quote name='lanleague']Not to quote advertising I hate, but really your computer should just work out of the box.[/quote]


Every Vista computer I've used has worked great right from install. It just works even better when configured right. The most unreliable computer I ever owned was a Mac so that shows you what advertising is worth.
 
[quote name='n25philly']www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2302495,00.asp[/quote]

The people who spread those articles across 8 pages need to be kicked in the balls multiple times.

Edit: and I fail to see how taking 1.5 years to achieve similar performance to XP warrants an upgrade. Call me when DX10 features cease being a marketing gimmick and turn into meaningful gameplay results.
 
[quote name='Serik']Edit: and I fail to see how taking 1.5 years to achieve similar performance to XP warrants an upgrade. Call me when DX10 features cease being a marketing gimmick and turn into meaningful gameplay results.[/QUOTE]

Yea, cause XP totally was amazing right out of the box too! Even SP1 was great!

/sarcasm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top