Why All The Vista Hate?
- Thread starter Malik112099
- Start date
bubbafett4hire
CAGiversary!
depends what you do with vista , keep the norm and use it for movies , games, and Internet one thing , coding out side MS , and debugging programs or reverse engineering something else
Puffoluffagus
CAGiversary!
[quote name='evanft']Yeah, and it's impossible to change Vista's appearance. Also, there is no way to disable services or reduce startup programs to improve performance.
64 bit Vista on my Gateway 6862 is the
ing shit.[/QUOTE]
Really? I've used msconfig command and it allows me to reduce the number of startup programs/services.
64 bit Vista on my Gateway 6862 is the
ing shit.[/QUOTE]Really? I've used msconfig command and it allows me to reduce the number of startup programs/services.
Indeed. And there's always the Services list; stop/start/disable stuff there as needed. And you can customize the shit out of Windows with programs like Samurize. Or if you get some hacked .dlls you can use custom styles with no third party software; not uncommon to find some at DeviantArt, though I use the default UI. Check out lifehacker.com, they're a great resource for customization stuff like this.
http://www.samurize.com/modules/news/
http://www.samurize.com/modules/news/
Last edited by a moderator:
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Sarcasm detectors failed.
Puffoluffagus
CAGiversary!
[quote name='crystalklear64']Sarcasm detectors failed.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I didn't find it that funny, which is probably why detector didn't sound.
Eh, I didn't find it that funny, which is probably why detector didn't sound.
[quote name='Malik112099']I got a Dell Inspiron 1525 for Xmas with Vista loaded on it. I've been using it for a couple of days now and overall think that it is pretty good. Kinda like XP Plus or something. This is the first time I've really used Vista for anything and my first real impression is a good one. It makes me wonder about the generalized Vista hate I always read about.[/QUOTE]
People love to advertise how stupid they are. Why do you think so many of the haters never even used the os or base they complaints on crap that isn't anywhere close to being true. I've used Vista since before it was released commercially, just like I am already using 7, and it has been a great os from day 1
People love to advertise how stupid they are. Why do you think so many of the haters never even used the os or base they complaints on crap that isn't anywhere close to being true. I've used Vista since before it was released commercially, just like I am already using 7, and it has been a great os from day 1
HeadRusch
CAGiversary!
I love it when people come in here, call everyone else stupid, and then go "ITS A GREAT OS".....ok, define "great".
What makes it great?
More importantly, what makes it better than XP?
And as for you folks suggesting "Dual Boot'.....assuming you're doing this legally, thats a $200 to $500 dual OS install...and what do you gain by running both?
What makes it great?
More importantly, what makes it better than XP?
And as for you folks suggesting "Dual Boot'.....assuming you're doing this legally, thats a $200 to $500 dual OS install...and what do you gain by running both?
For me XP works great. I've never used Vista, but to me there is one problem with it. I (and most businesses) went from Win 98SE to XP and skipped ME/2000. Since XP was sold for such a long time (and is still being sold), I do believe most people will skip Vista and go directly to Windows 7. This is probably what I'm going to do since my gaming PC is "only" 2 1/2 years old and still plays the newest games pretty well. Hell, I only built it because my first XP machine couldn't be inexpensively upgraded anymore (it's a crappy HP). Most people have only one PC and tend to keep it for four or more years. This alone will make Vista seem like a new version of ME.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']I'm using Vista at the moment, but I ING hate it, because:
- The search ised. You can't search for contents inside a specific filetype the way I like to.
- It's too media-centric, and Explorer constantly add all these column I don't want, in folders I don't want them. Instead of the classic Name, Size, Type, and Modified, it keeps trying to add all these goddamn "Album" and "Artist" and "Tags" and "Rating" columns that I would never use and it never remembers my view settings and arrrggggg soing annoying.
I'm switching back to XP. Pity that Vista has these few crippling problems, because otherwise, I would like to use it. Normally, I don't care for operating system flare, but I've completely fallen for Aero. For the first time, I've started to feel that maybe it is time for a more "modern," or even, "futuristic" look than the old basic Windows 95 look that I've been using for 13 years now. And yes, I know you can make XP look like Vista with third-party stuff, but that impacts performance to a degree that you might as well not be using XP...[/QUOTE]
If you're still having the folder issue it's actually a very easy fix. Go to the following site and follow the directions on the page and it will be fixed in about a minute
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/choosetemplate
ING hate it, because:- The search is
ed. You can't search for contents inside a specific filetype the way I like to.- It's too media-centric, and Explorer constantly add all these column I don't want, in folders I don't want them. Instead of the classic Name, Size, Type, and Modified, it keeps trying to add all these goddamn "Album" and "Artist" and "Tags" and "Rating" columns that I would never use and it never remembers my view settings and arrrggggg so
ing annoying.I'm switching back to XP. Pity that Vista has these few crippling problems, because otherwise, I would like to use it. Normally, I don't care for operating system flare, but I've completely fallen for Aero. For the first time, I've started to feel that maybe it is time for a more "modern," or even, "futuristic" look than the old basic Windows 95 look that I've been using for 13 years now. And yes, I know you can make XP look like Vista with third-party stuff, but that impacts performance to a degree that you might as well not be using XP...[/QUOTE]
If you're still having the folder issue it's actually a very easy fix. Go to the following site and follow the directions on the page and it will be fixed in about a minute
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/choosetemplate
I dislike having to fix the OS, like with the above post regarding search, or my own personal hatred for the stupid are you sure you want to do anything popups that pop up whenever you want to do anything, sometimes twice.
I also dislike the 32-bit/64-bit divide which increases the chances for software incompatibility- it was there in xp, just a smaller population.
it's also unfortunate that a large number of games compatible from previous systems are no longer playable. Is this the fault of MS and Vista? I don't know, but it's not a plus for the OS.
I also dislike the 32-bit/64-bit divide which increases the chances for software incompatibility- it was there in xp, just a smaller population.
it's also unfortunate that a large number of games compatible from previous systems are no longer playable. Is this the fault of MS and Vista? I don't know, but it's not a plus for the OS.
[quote name='vihit']Vista has been rock solid for me. I've only had BSODs when I overclock or use beta drivers. I used to get BSODs much more often on XP. I also agree that many people that complain about Vista are using outdated hardware, haven't actually used it, or used it when it first came out when it had many more bugs.
Funny how some people have said they'll wait for Windows 7. I've been playing around with the beta for the past couple days on my laptop. There's nothing dramatically different from Vista that I can tell so far. Windows 7 seems to be Vista SE, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Are you using the actual beta or the alpha? The alpha is a lot like Vista, the first beta feels way different
Funny how some people have said they'll wait for Windows 7. I've been playing around with the beta for the past couple days on my laptop. There's nothing dramatically different from Vista that I can tell so far. Windows 7 seems to be Vista SE, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Are you using the actual beta or the alpha? The alpha is a lot like Vista, the first beta feels way different
[quote name='vherub']I dislike having to fix the OS, like with the above post regarding search, or my own personal hatred for the stupid are you sure you want to do anything popups that pop up whenever you want to do anything, sometimes twice.
I also dislike the 32-bit/64-bit divide which increases the chances for software incompatibility- it was there in xp, just a smaller population.
it's also unfortunate that a large number of games compatible from previous systems are no longer playable. Is this the fault of MS and Vista? I don't know, but it's not a plus for the OS.[/QUOTE]
The only game that I haven't been able to get running on Vista is Manhunt, and I didn't really try very hard, because I kind of regretted the purchase anyway. Got a refund. The gross incompatibility is a fallacy that has been propagated to seemingly no end.
I also dislike the 32-bit/64-bit divide which increases the chances for software incompatibility- it was there in xp, just a smaller population.
it's also unfortunate that a large number of games compatible from previous systems are no longer playable. Is this the fault of MS and Vista? I don't know, but it's not a plus for the OS.[/QUOTE]
The only game that I haven't been able to get running on Vista is Manhunt, and I didn't really try very hard, because I kind of regretted the purchase anyway. Got a refund. The gross incompatibility is a fallacy that has been propagated to seemingly no end.
[quote name='HeadRusch']
And as for you folks suggesting "Dual Boot'.....assuming you're doing this legally, thats a $200 to $500 dual OS install...and what do you gain by running both?[/QUOTE]
Definitely legal. My old machine had XP Pro on it. I turned my old machine into a file server using FreeNAS. I bought a copy of Vista Ultimate for my new machine, set it up for dual boot with my XP Pro license and my new Vista Ultimate license.
You gain compatibility by running both basically. Some older games just don't work well at all on Vista. Oblivion is a good example, from what I've read it's very buggy on Vista (or may not even work). On my new hardware it runs buttery smooth compared to my old PC. That's a pretty nice gain right there for older games that aren't Vista compatible.
So like I said... dual boot XP/Vista is the way to go. Run your old DX9 games on XP and your DX10 games on Vista.
And as for you folks suggesting "Dual Boot'.....assuming you're doing this legally, thats a $200 to $500 dual OS install...and what do you gain by running both?[/QUOTE]
Definitely legal. My old machine had XP Pro on it. I turned my old machine into a file server using FreeNAS. I bought a copy of Vista Ultimate for my new machine, set it up for dual boot with my XP Pro license and my new Vista Ultimate license.
You gain compatibility by running both basically. Some older games just don't work well at all on Vista. Oblivion is a good example, from what I've read it's very buggy on Vista (or may not even work). On my new hardware it runs buttery smooth compared to my old PC. That's a pretty nice gain right there for older games that aren't Vista compatible.
So like I said... dual boot XP/Vista is the way to go. Run your old DX9 games on XP and your DX10 games on Vista.
HeadRusch
CAGiversary!
Or, save $300 on a Vista Ultimate license and just run XP.....I think thats the kicker, there is no reason to run Vista unless there is some game or app that you need to use that performs dramatically better on Vista, either due to more addressable RAM or by running a 64bit codepath.
Thats going to be a pretty small minority.......hell DX10 is such a performance hog that only modern GPU's are really up to the task of running it, and the visual benefits you get range from "ok" to almost non-existant....
Thats going to be a pretty small minority.......hell DX10 is such a performance hog that only modern GPU's are really up to the task of running it, and the visual benefits you get range from "ok" to almost non-existant....
[quote name='HeadRusch']Or, save $300 on a Vista Ultimate license and just run XP.....I think thats the kicker, there is no reason to run Vista unless there is some game or app that you need to use that performs dramatically better on Vista, either due to more addressable RAM or by running a 64bit codepath.
Thats going to be a pretty small minority.......hell DX10 is such a performance hog that only modern GPU's are really up to the task of running it, and the visual benefits you get range from "ok" to almost non-existant....[/QUOTE]
and what's with multicore applications, only multi-core applications are up to the task.
isn't that how new technology usually works. Imagine if they actually but dx10 for xp and had to shove in all the legacy code of the previous DX versions that would be a hog. My guess is that you never played a game with DX10 effects on, you're pissed because they dared top not make it a complete mess by putting in in xp, or you just have no clue what you are talking about.
Thats going to be a pretty small minority.......hell DX10 is such a performance hog that only modern GPU's are really up to the task of running it, and the visual benefits you get range from "ok" to almost non-existant....[/QUOTE]
and what's with multicore applications, only multi-core applications are up to the task.
isn't that how new technology usually works. Imagine if they actually but dx10 for xp and had to shove in all the legacy code of the previous DX versions that would be a hog. My guess is that you never played a game with DX10 effects on, you're pissed because they dared top not make it a complete mess by putting in in xp, or you just have no clue what you are talking about.
HeadRusch
CAGiversary!
DX10 effects range from "barely noticible" to "a mild improvement". There hasn't been anything like the screenshots Microsoft released in 2006 or early 07 to pimp the API where the graphical differences were night and day....and only now are GPU's coming out that don't crush under the weight of the DX10 codepath.
Couldn't possibly care less that its not part of XP, and wouldn't run it if I could regardless, I'll take the extra frames in most cases.
But that doesn't change the fact that the title of this tread is: WHy All The Vista Hate? And the answer remains, too expensive and too little improvement over XP.
Couldn't possibly care less that its not part of XP, and wouldn't run it if I could regardless, I'll take the extra frames in most cases.
But that doesn't change the fact that the title of this tread is: WHy All The Vista Hate? And the answer remains, too expensive and too little improvement over XP.
[quote name='Sokkratez']The only game that I haven't been able to get running on Vista is Manhunt, and I didn't really try very hard, because I kind of regretted the purchase anyway. Got a refund. The gross incompatibility is a fallacy that has been propagated to seemingly no end.[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to Vista 32 bit? Because, as I mentioned, the 64 is a different beast, with it's own compatibility problems. Some of these have been solved by diligent modders, such as Vampire Masquerade or System Shock 2. Bioshock, also, seems to pick and choose which systems it wishes to grace with it presence based on unknowable factors.
Is MS responsible for all software or should they be gatekeepers of backwards compatibility? maybe, maybe not.
Again, my point is the problems are solvable, either through one's own diligence or the aid of others. but being able to fix something isn't a plus for an OS, at the very least it's a wash.
I don't hate vista, it's just not good enough and MS can do a better job.
Are you referring to Vista 32 bit? Because, as I mentioned, the 64 is a different beast, with it's own compatibility problems. Some of these have been solved by diligent modders, such as Vampire Masquerade or System Shock 2. Bioshock, also, seems to pick and choose which systems it wishes to grace with it presence based on unknowable factors.
Is MS responsible for all software or should they be gatekeepers of backwards compatibility? maybe, maybe not.
Again, my point is the problems are solvable, either through one's own diligence or the aid of others. but being able to fix something isn't a plus for an OS, at the very least it's a wash.
I don't hate vista, it's just not good enough and MS can do a better job.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='GaveUpTomorrow']Clearly someone that hasn't used Vista, as all of those statements are just 100% wrong.
.[/quote]
I have vista 64 bit I can't install unsigned drivers it says so when i try to, look it up.
As for the second claim I havn't seen it first hand but with all the time M$ put into palladium I not surprised if part of it are in vista. Here's a link to stuff about vista's secuirty http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6319845.stm.
.[/quote]
I have vista 64 bit I can't install unsigned drivers it says so when i try to, look it up.
As for the second claim I havn't seen it first hand but with all the time M$ put into palladium I not surprised if part of it are in vista. Here's a link to stuff about vista's secuirty http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6319845.stm.
[quote name='HeadRusch']Or, save $300 on a Vista Ultimate license and just run XP.....I think thats the kicker, there is no reason to run Vista unless there is some game or app that you need to use that performs dramatically better on Vista, either due to more addressable RAM or by running a 64bit codepath.
Thats going to be a pretty small minority.......hell DX10 is such a performance hog that only modern GPU's are really up to the task of running it, and the visual benefits you get range from "ok" to almost non-existant....[/QUOTE]
Heh, got hooked up and paid $45 for Vista Ultimate through the MS employee store. It was pretty much a no-brainer to go the dual boot XP/Vista route for the new PC I built.
Thats going to be a pretty small minority.......hell DX10 is such a performance hog that only modern GPU's are really up to the task of running it, and the visual benefits you get range from "ok" to almost non-existant....[/QUOTE]
Heh, got hooked up and paid $45 for Vista Ultimate through the MS employee store. It was pretty much a no-brainer to go the dual boot XP/Vista route for the new PC I built.
[quote name='vherub']Are you referring to Vista 32 bit? Because, as I mentioned, the 64 is a different beast, with it's own compatibility problems. Some of these have been solved by diligent modders, such as Vampire Masquerade or System Shock 2. Bioshock, also, seems to pick and choose which systems it wishes to grace with it presence based on unknowable factors.
Is MS responsible for all software or should they be gatekeepers of backwards compatibility? maybe, maybe not.
Again, my point is the problems are solvable, either through one's own diligence or the aid of others. but being able to fix something isn't a plus for an OS, at the very least it's a wash.
I don't hate vista, it's just not good enough and MS can do a better job.[/QUOTE]
Yes, 32bit. I've still seen no compelling reason to use 64bit. Compatibility issues are to be expected. Microsoft can hardly be held responsible for them.
Is MS responsible for all software or should they be gatekeepers of backwards compatibility? maybe, maybe not.
Again, my point is the problems are solvable, either through one's own diligence or the aid of others. but being able to fix something isn't a plus for an OS, at the very least it's a wash.
I don't hate vista, it's just not good enough and MS can do a better job.[/QUOTE]
Yes, 32bit. I've still seen no compelling reason to use 64bit. Compatibility issues are to be expected. Microsoft can hardly be held responsible for them.
Speaking for myself, I was apt to give Vista a chance and did / do, simply because I am a PC guy (cannot seem to figure out Macs) and Microsoft and I have a relationship that goes back to the 3.x days
I currently use Vista at work and as far as I can figure out HeadRusch said it best in post 3. My complaint with it is resource hogging. I work at a small newspaper (I do design and layout) using InDesign. I know my work computer has several gigs of ram, as well as at least a duo-core processor. More than EVER now (even on computers we used in the past with XP, lower specs and the same programs) the Vista compy locks up, closes programs at random (sometimes losing hours of work) and is just plain slow to respond sometimes, even with very low resource intensive programs running.
I'm at home right now, using a Sony Vaio (4 years old) with a gig of ram and a duo core processor, running XP and it runs much quicker with the same programs (InDesign and Photoshop) running than our less than a year old Vista compatible system.
Again, HeadRusch was right - Vista is an OS that nobody asked for, that Microsoft tried to make mandatory, and did very little better than XP. Now that Windows 7 is out for beta testing (I haven't tried it) hopefully they go back to the simplicity that XP brought to the table, taking the best of Window 95 and 98, stripping away the unessentials and giving us an OS that:
a) isn't resource intensive
b) has an option to go back to our old one if we dont' like it
c) is simplified. not "vista" simplified, but "at the touch of your fingertips" simplified
I currently use Vista at work and as far as I can figure out HeadRusch said it best in post 3. My complaint with it is resource hogging. I work at a small newspaper (I do design and layout) using InDesign. I know my work computer has several gigs of ram, as well as at least a duo-core processor. More than EVER now (even on computers we used in the past with XP, lower specs and the same programs) the Vista compy locks up, closes programs at random (sometimes losing hours of work) and is just plain slow to respond sometimes, even with very low resource intensive programs running.
I'm at home right now, using a Sony Vaio (4 years old) with a gig of ram and a duo core processor, running XP and it runs much quicker with the same programs (InDesign and Photoshop) running than our less than a year old Vista compatible system.
Again, HeadRusch was right - Vista is an OS that nobody asked for, that Microsoft tried to make mandatory, and did very little better than XP. Now that Windows 7 is out for beta testing (I haven't tried it) hopefully they go back to the simplicity that XP brought to the table, taking the best of Window 95 and 98, stripping away the unessentials and giving us an OS that:
a) isn't resource intensive
b) has an option to go back to our old one if we dont' like it
c) is simplified. not "vista" simplified, but "at the touch of your fingertips" simplified
[quote name='LinkTGF']Speaking for myself, I was apt to give Vista a chance and did / do, simply because I am a PC guy (cannot seem to figure out Macs) and Microsoft and I have a relationship that goes back to the 3.x days
I currently use Vista at work and as far as I can figure out HeadRusch said it best in post 3. My complaint with it is resource hogging. I work at a small newspaper (I do design and layout) using InDesign. I know my work computer has several gigs of ram, as well as at least a duo-core processor. More than EVER now (even on computers we used in the past with XP, lower specs and the same programs) the Vista compy locks up, closes programs at random (sometimes losing hours of work) and is just plain slow to respond sometimes, even with very low resource intensive programs running.
I'm at home right now, using a Sony Vaio (4 years old) with a gig of ram and a duo core processor, running XP and it runs much quicker with the same programs (InDesign and Photoshop) running than our less than a year old Vista compatible system.
Again, HeadRusch was right - Vista is an OS that nobody asked for, that Microsoft tried to make mandatory, and did very little better than XP. Now that Windows 7 is out for beta testing (I haven't tried it) hopefully they go back to the simplicity that XP brought to the table, taking the best of Window 95 and 98, stripping away the unessentials and giving us an OS that:
a) isn't resource intensive
b) has an option to go back to our old one if we dont' like it
c) is simplified. not "vista" simplified, but "at the touch of your fingertips" simplified[/QUOTE]
It always amazes me how everything has to be the OS now matter what. I've had so many people say to the same thing to me, and I take the computer for five minutes and have it running faster than any XP machine. Not saying you yourself is doing anything wrong, but if Microsoft made any mistake it's that they assumes users have a clue what they are doing. If I had a dollar for every person I dealt with that bitched about thier OS being slow and yet had 3-5 different IM clients, multiple redundant security programs, all kinds of speed loaders and other assorted crap running, but pissed off as hell because Microsoft apparently forced them to load all that crap and not bother to shut some of it off, and to turn off services they don't use, defrag, or any other simple maintenance every user should do.
I'm always shocked because even with people that supposedly know what they are doing think it's normal to be in triple digits while idle in running services running Vista. If you are in IT and think that, quickly rush out and get a new job. I have literally over 50 things open on my desktop and yet only 72 processes running. I know the way of the world right now is that everything must be someone elses fault, but seriously, if you don't know how to run and optimize your computer, it's yours (or if you are at work blame your IT department) The information is out there and use it.
The only way Microsoft is going to make everyone truely happy is to design an OS that is geared towards the severly retarted. The more people can just shut off their minds the happierly they seem to be. Vista's been out how long now and people still can't get it through their heads that unused ram is inefficient and a waste of the money they spent on it. That's sad.
Oh and I know I quoted your post but it wasn't really directed at you, it just got me going.
I currently use Vista at work and as far as I can figure out HeadRusch said it best in post 3. My complaint with it is resource hogging. I work at a small newspaper (I do design and layout) using InDesign. I know my work computer has several gigs of ram, as well as at least a duo-core processor. More than EVER now (even on computers we used in the past with XP, lower specs and the same programs) the Vista compy locks up, closes programs at random (sometimes losing hours of work) and is just plain slow to respond sometimes, even with very low resource intensive programs running.
I'm at home right now, using a Sony Vaio (4 years old) with a gig of ram and a duo core processor, running XP and it runs much quicker with the same programs (InDesign and Photoshop) running than our less than a year old Vista compatible system.
Again, HeadRusch was right - Vista is an OS that nobody asked for, that Microsoft tried to make mandatory, and did very little better than XP. Now that Windows 7 is out for beta testing (I haven't tried it) hopefully they go back to the simplicity that XP brought to the table, taking the best of Window 95 and 98, stripping away the unessentials and giving us an OS that:
a) isn't resource intensive
b) has an option to go back to our old one if we dont' like it
c) is simplified. not "vista" simplified, but "at the touch of your fingertips" simplified[/QUOTE]
It always amazes me how everything has to be the OS now matter what. I've had so many people say to the same thing to me, and I take the computer for five minutes and have it running faster than any XP machine. Not saying you yourself is doing anything wrong, but if Microsoft made any mistake it's that they assumes users have a clue what they are doing. If I had a dollar for every person I dealt with that bitched about thier OS being slow and yet had 3-5 different IM clients, multiple redundant security programs, all kinds of speed loaders and other assorted crap running, but pissed off as hell because Microsoft apparently forced them to load all that crap and not bother to shut some of it off, and to turn off services they don't use, defrag, or any other simple maintenance every user should do.
I'm always shocked because even with people that supposedly know what they are doing think it's normal to be in triple digits while idle in running services running Vista. If you are in IT and think that, quickly rush out and get a new job. I have literally over 50 things open on my desktop and yet only 72 processes running. I know the way of the world right now is that everything must be someone elses fault, but seriously, if you don't know how to run and optimize your computer, it's yours (or if you are at work blame your IT department) The information is out there and use it.
The only way Microsoft is going to make everyone truely happy is to design an OS that is geared towards the severly retarted. The more people can just shut off their minds the happierly they seem to be. Vista's been out how long now and people still can't get it through their heads that unused ram is inefficient and a waste of the money they spent on it. That's sad.
Oh and I know I quoted your post but it wasn't really directed at you, it just got me going.
it's no problem, but to answer your post, my work system doesn't idle in triple digits and I try to keep any extraneous programs from running, but it still will lock up, especially when I use InDesign CS3.
Here's a typical example of what I have open:
InDesign CS3 (2 documents open)
Photoshop CS3 (documents only open when editing - program stays open, but docs closed when not used)
Windows Mail (necessity for our work to get emails on the spot)
1-3 windows folders to access files
Not a terrible setup, normally, but this just seems to max out Vista's capacities and often I'll be working on an issue of the newspaper and go to save it and windows will tell me that the program has stopped responding and will have to shut down. It seems to happen for no reason, and it's something that never happened to me in XP.
Here's a typical example of what I have open:
InDesign CS3 (2 documents open)
Photoshop CS3 (documents only open when editing - program stays open, but docs closed when not used)
Windows Mail (necessity for our work to get emails on the spot)
1-3 windows folders to access files
Not a terrible setup, normally, but this just seems to max out Vista's capacities and often I'll be working on an issue of the newspaper and go to save it and windows will tell me that the program has stopped responding and will have to shut down. It seems to happen for no reason, and it's something that never happened to me in XP.
[quote name='SirMikael']I have Vista on both of my machines at home, and I have seriously never had any issues with the OS at all. I wonder how many people base their distaste of the OS from the opinions of others...[/QUOTE]
Far too many. And I also see things blamed on Vista simply because it's present. Things that sound just as asinine as "My power supply died! STUPID VISTA POS!".
Far too many. And I also see things blamed on Vista simply because it's present. Things that sound just as asinine as "My power supply died! STUPID VISTA POS!".
Well, after spending some more time switching back and forth between xp and vista, I have to say that I like vista more. I'm pretty shocked by this revelation. My computer just runs quicker and smoother with vista.
I do have a question for those of you who have been running vista longer, though.
How do I adjust the spacing between the desktop icons? They're spread out more than I'd like right now, but I can't seem to find where to change this setting. Thanks for any help.
I do have a question for those of you who have been running vista longer, though.
How do I adjust the spacing between the desktop icons? They're spread out more than I'd like right now, but I can't seem to find where to change this setting. Thanks for any help.
Access_Denied
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 89 (100%)
Reasons to hate Vista:
1. Hogs RAM
2. Hogs RAM
3. Hogs RAM
4. Runs Slow
5. Hogs RAM
6. Runs Slow
7. Runs Slow
An XP machine with 512MB RAM, 3GHz runs quicker than a Vista machine with 2GB RAM and a Dual-Core 1.9Ghz.
1. Hogs RAM
2. Hogs RAM
3. Hogs RAM
4. Runs Slow
5. Hogs RAM
6. Runs Slow
7. Runs Slow
An XP machine with 512MB RAM, 3GHz runs quicker than a Vista machine with 2GB RAM and a Dual-Core 1.9Ghz.
That's stupid. Benchmark them on the same system and they're about even: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2
Vista actually performs better on the first system he tests with (more than 1GB of RAM is likely why).
Vista actually performs better on the first system he tests with (more than 1GB of RAM is likely why).
I dig Vista for the most part. I got a Dell AMD Athlon X2 4400 with it on. I'm only running 32x since it's got 2 gigs of RAM. I've had it for over a year now and hadone problem like a month or two ago where it wouldn't load Windows (right after uninstalling a few progs). I dug out the restoration disc that came with it and fixed it in like two minutes without losing anything.
DarkNessBear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']I'm using Vista at the moment, but I ING hate it, because:
- The search ised. You can't search for contents inside a specific filetype the way I like to.
- It's too media-centric, and Explorer constantly add all these column I don't want, in folders I don't want them. Instead of the classic Name, Size, Type, and Modified, it keeps trying to add all these goddamn "Album" and "Artist" and "Tags" and "Rating" columns that I would never use and it never remembers my view settings and arrrggggg soing annoying.
[/quote]
Ugh, hate that you can't search by type... but that's not making me switch back to XP.
I love Vista... it's great. People (especially computer people) just like to bitch at everything that isn't "PERFECT"
ING hate it, because:- The search is
ed. You can't search for contents inside a specific filetype the way I like to.- It's too media-centric, and Explorer constantly add all these column I don't want, in folders I don't want them. Instead of the classic Name, Size, Type, and Modified, it keeps trying to add all these goddamn "Album" and "Artist" and "Tags" and "Rating" columns that I would never use and it never remembers my view settings and arrrggggg so
ing annoying.[/quote]
Ugh, hate that you can't search by type... but that's not making me switch back to XP.
I love Vista... it's great. People (especially computer people) just like to bitch at everything that isn't "PERFECT"
bread's done