Why All The Vista Hate?

Malik112099

Malik112099

CAGiversary!
Feedback
13 (100%)
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.
 
Because Vista sucked when it first came out.

Now that SP1 came out and computer standards are getting higher, Vista works like a champ. Alot of people still hating on Vista either A) haven't tried it, B) haven't tried it since the beta/launch, or C) haven't tried it since the beta/launch which they were trying to run on a crappy PC with little RAM.
 
Reasons to Hate Vista:

1) Does nothing better than XP

2) Performance decreases over previous operating system and incompatibilities with applications

Reasons to like Vista:

1) Allows addressing more physical RAM in 64bit flavor which may or may not be useful


In other words, Vista is an OS that nobody asked for and didn't do anything better than the one it was replacing.
 
After optimizing Vista, I have grown to tolerate it. Vista is a bit more secure. However, it is a resource hog and menu navigation can be a pain. That, and it takes quite a bit of time to start-up, restart, or shutdown; which can be bothersome.
 
well one thing I particularly like about Vista is that you can pretty much just plug in any device (especially USB ones) and it'll start working pretty much automatically. Under XP, I'd probably have to find and install drivers and applications to get things to work
 
i really like vista 64 bit ultimate edition i have had it for a couple months now and was a little worried about getting program compatibility but i had no issues except for some old burning software. but i really like that i can have more than 3 gigs of ram now.
 
[quote name='HeadRusch']Reasons to Hate Vista:

1) Does nothing better than XP

2) Performance decreases over previous operating system and incompatibilities with applications

Reasons to like Vista:

1) Allows addressing more physical RAM in 64bit flavor which may or may not be useful


In other words, Vista is an OS that nobody asked for and didn't do anything better than the one it was replacing.[/QUOTE]

^^^

[quote name='Sporadic']Alot of people still hating on Vista either A) haven't tried it, B) haven't tried it since the beta/launch, or C) haven't tried it since the beta/launch which they were trying to run on a crappy PC with little RAM.[/QUOTE]
 
I'm using Vista at the moment, but I fuckING hate it, because:
- The search is fucked. 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 fucking 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...
 
For power users XP is definitely better. For everyone else, Vista is good (except slow boot). You have more control over your system in XP... Vista just hides everything from you.

We've discussed this quite a bit in previous threads. I'll just state again, to me the absolute worst aspect of Vista is networking. They tried too hard to make a user-friendly, now it's just a crippled mess. Put Vista on a HTPC and try to set it up as a local server, then try to tell me Vista's a step up from XP...

Oh, while we're complaining, wtf is up with Vista's defrag? They didn't change the actual defrag, they just gimped the UI so you have no idea what it's doing. Now you have to run it from a command line just to know what it did or how long it's gonna take. I don't understand it.
 
Vista is faster than XP, both in boot times and overall performance. Most applications will run on Vista under compatibility mode (if it's needed that is) but thankfully many programs have been updated to run under Vista now.
 
I don't think there's as much Vista hate now as there used to be. I've personally been doing just fine with Vista (64 bit), and it has been running much more stable than XP for me.
 
Been using Vista 64 bit for about 6 months now. After tweaking a few things (ie, turning off SuperFetch, which was *killing* my HDD), I have that I like it a lot more than XP. Things like Windows Shell (the new file manager), graphical task switching, thumbnails for the taskbar, the find box in the Start menu are all nice than the XP UI. All in all, it seems more like what you'd find in a modern Linux desktop, and less of a throwback to '95 the way XP does... you no longer need to replace the basic shell any more. Also, Windows Shell no longer crashes constantly the way Explorer does under XP.

If you like Vista, who cares what other people think? I bought my PC with Vista, and I dual boot into it for games, and I'm fairly impressed. I still mostly use Debian, though. As for power users... I'm a Windows C++ developer for a living... and I like Vista more :3
 
Its fine. It was just different and not as helpful as it could have been. There's tons of little problems with it that may or may not matter to you.

Try using EAX sound effects in a game for example.

Shit don't work without 3rd party stuff like ALchemy.

You can't scale your desktop across monitors without 3rd party support. (ie. use two 1680x1050 monitors and combine them to form a single 3360x1050 monitor) You can extend the desktop to have 2 desktops and you know.. do the draggy thing across your screen, but that isn't the same thing.
 
[quote name='Koggit']For power users XP is definitely better. For everyone else, Vista is good (except slow boot). You have more control over your system in XP... Vista just hides everything from you.

We've discussed this quite a bit in previous threads. I'll just state again, to me the absolute worst aspect of Vista is networking. They tried too hard to make a user-friendly, now it's just a crippled mess. Put Vista on a HTPC and try to set it up as a local server, then try to tell me Vista's a step up from XP...

Oh, while we're complaining, wtf is up with Vista's defrag? They didn't change the actual defrag, they just gimped the UI so you have no idea what it's doing. Now you have to run it from a command line just to know what it did or how long it's gonna take. I don't understand it.[/quote]

Right on the money with networking issues... I've been setting up networks since I can remember, but it took me a few hours just to initially get simple file sharing to work between Vista and some XP machines... the interface for setup is a jumbled mess that tries to abstract the complexity from end users but just ends up with way too many vague settings....

.... the people who designed Vista's networking should be fired...
 
Using Vista right now on a relative's PC and hate it. I see no benefits over XP and the boot time is SLLOOOWWWWW. No OS should need 2 GB of RAM just to run snappy while web browsing and booting.

I only boot into Windows to play games. Otherwise I use Linux.
 
Cuz it's iffy trash if you want to play your older games, or use older business software. Why I get pissed at it, any way. And I like it more than most people I know, yet still want to bash the shit out of it on a somewhat regular basis.

If all you're gonna use is modern this or that, sure it's great. Otherwise? GAH WHY'D THEY HAVETA MESS WITH XP, BEST VERSION OF WINDOWS THEY EVER MADE! And I've been using it since Windows 3.11 in 1994.

... and CoffeeEdge, YES YES AND OH HELL YES THATS fuckING ANNOYING. The ass-backwards way Vista sorts files, compared to all previous versions of windows. And how it seems damned near impossible to set a new default setting in how files are viewed. And File Groups. FILE GROUPS!! AUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
 
[quote name='Aleryn']... and CoffeeEdge, YES YES AND OH HELL YES THATS fuckING ANNOYING. The ass-backwards way Vista sorts files, compared to all previous versions of windows. And how it seems damned near impossible to set a new default setting in how files are viewed. And File Groups. FILE GROUPS!! AUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!![/QUOTE]

Yeah, and what's even worse, is that in my experience, it always seems to add these "Album" and "Artist" and blah blah blah columns, in folders that are mostly full of pictures and shit. Ugh. Maddening.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']I'm using Vista at the moment, but I fuckING hate it, because:
- The search is fucked. 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 fucking 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]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/technicalresources/advquery.mspx

Learn to use the query syntax. It can do all sorts of things the primitive wildcard commands in XP's search couldn't dream of trying. XP search is essentially the same structure from the DOS days and doesn't know about anything beyond filenames. Search that understands metadata is far more powerful.

You can still search for filetypes, using EXT but that barely scratches the surface.

Note: this applies to the Windows Search download for XP, too.
 
[quote name='Serik']Using Vista right now on a relative's PC and hate it. I see no benefits over XP and the boot time is SLLOOOWWWWW. No OS should need 2 GB of RAM just to run snappy while web browsing and booting.

I only boot into Windows to play games. Otherwise I use Linux.[/QUOTE]

This is the classic 'I can't deal with change' response. When I bought my first computer, memory was sold by the kilobyte. Get over it.

Ten years ago, if I'd told anyone the Linux distro I use requires a minimum of a gig of RAM to work effectively with its feature set, they'd have thought me insane. Until I told them that the cost for that much RAM, which operates at over ten times the speed of what was going in machines in 1998, sold for about $15. Less if purchased in larger quantities.

I just picked up a 4 GB kit (2x2GB) of PC6400 for less than $20 after shipping, tax, and rebate. Loading up a 32-bit system to maximum is a trivial cost compared to the benefits. Yesterday, Fry's had an Acer desktop with a Core 2 Quad and 4 GB for $499. The transition to 64-bit isn't happening from any immediate need for the mainstream. Most consumers don't know enough to make the choice. The driver is the retailers' continuing need to offer bigger numbers every year. Once they start selling systems with at least 4 GB the need for running a 64-bit OS comes up.

The transition had to happen sometime but like so many it is driven more by marketing needs than that of applications run in the mainstream. Everybody wins in the long run, just the same.

In late January, I have a project to build a Core i7 workstation with at least 12 GB of RAM. (6x2GB) The primary application will make full use of it but the the estimated cost for the hardware is going to come in substantially less than the previously planned dual socket C2Q station with less RAM. The tests from numerous sites indicate the new design will substantially outperform the superseded plan workstation.

The high-end boards for Core i7 will actually support up to 48 GB of RAM (6x8GB) but there isn't any easy way to test that with real-world parts thus far. When the day comes that I can build such a machine for under $1,000, I will happily do so.

Things just get better and better for less money. 64-bit Vista is a big enabler here, while 64-bit XP had constant issues.

As for the boot time, that is a typical OEM problem and is nothing new to Vista. The same thing was endemic on XP due to the volume of crapware preinstalled on the machines. I've seen plenty of machines from big brands that took 3-4 minutes to produce a usable desktop using the factory image. The situation in Vista is just the status quo for the consumer market. Fixing it is largely the same process as it was in XP. My Vista desktop and laptop boot to usability just as fast or faster than their XP predecessors. But then, I built the desktop myself, so no crapware there. And the laptop went through a series of tweaks to correct the OEM choices, just like its XP predecessor.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Learn to use the query syntax. It can do all sorts of things the primitive wildcard commands in XP's search couldn't dream of trying. XP search is essentially the same structure from the DOS days and doesn't know about anything beyond filenames. Search that understands metadata is far more powerful.

You can still search for filetypes, using EXT but that barely scratches the surface.

Note: this applies to the Windows Search download for XP, too.[/QUOTE]

No u. Metadata is fucking stupid. I WANT to only search for file names, and plain-text file contents. I LIKE wildcards. Searches in XP work ten thousand times better, for the way I like to use them.

Kthxgtfo.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']No u. Metadata is fucking stupid. I WANT to only search for file names, and plain-text file contents. I LIKE wildcards. Searches in XP work ten thousand times better, for the way I like to use them.

Kthxgtfo.[/QUOTE]

Dude, you can. The syntax is just different.

Don't let your old habits keep you in the stone age.

BTW, ' *.jpg ' and ' ext:.jpg ' both produce a listing of JPEG files on my Vista systems. So the wildcards are still there, as a legacy holdover. But being able to use ' by:Niven ' to immediately narrow down a search of Word documents to just those from a particular person is a huge improvement. Looking for ' *.doc ' gets me several thousand items, only a few of which are going to possibly be what I'm trying to find.
 
I don't like how the drivers have to be digitaly signed(64bit edition), How it has the capability to delete anything it thinks to be pirated, and how over half my programs just plain dont work on it.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']I don't like how the drivers have to be digitaly signed(64bit edition), How it has the capability to delete anything it thinks to be pirated, and how over half my programs just plain dont work on it.[/QUOTE]

Who told you that nonsense?

Idiotic claims about copy protection are some of the stupidest lies told about Vista.
 
My girlfriend uses Vista on her laptop. Her laptop only has a gig of ram.

I don't hate Vista, but I find it not necessary. All it does is slow down her system and that's about it. She does nothing that uses vista, and she is not the average dumbass and is smart enough to not get a virus on her machine. When I use it sometimes, I find these problems, but it isn't that horrible. Although it is annoying when vista finds some files as a virus when they are really not.
 
[quote name='Sir_Fragalot']My girlfriend uses Vista on her laptop. Her laptop only has a gig of ram.

I don't hate Vista, but I find it not necessary. All it does is slow down her system and that's about it. She does nothing that uses vista, and she is not the average dumbass and is smart enough to not get a virus on her machine. When I use it sometimes, I find these problems, but it isn't that horrible. Although it is annoying when vista finds some files as a virus when they are really not.[/QUOTE]

Vista doesn't have anti-virus built-in. Do you mean a third party app is misidentifying stuff or do you mean the anti-spyware functionality, which is built-in? This is a problem with virtually every anti-spyware product because the identification is often more a matter of opinion than easily defined malware. Some people are freaked out over the very idea of tracking cookies, for instance, while most couldn't care less.
 
Oh I just got to experience another lovely "feature" of Vista. The damn EDID monitor shit being read incorrectly or the eprom itself being bad, so it thinks my monitor's max resolution is 1900x1200 even though its 1680x1050.

This means when I install new drivers/mess with my video card, it defaults to the highest resolution it thinks is supported, ie, my monitor turns black and says frequency is out of range. I have to plug it a separate monitor via vga or s-video that doesn't broadcast the EDID so I can set my main monitor to the right resolution.

A lot of people falsely think their video card is junk or something when its really just Vista+Monitor drivers/data not playing nice.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']I don't like how the drivers have to be digitaly signed(64bit edition), How it has the capability to delete anything it thinks to be pirated, and how over half my programs just plain dont work on it.[/quote]

Clearly someone that hasn't used Vista, as all of those statements are just 100% wrong.

I've been using vista for over a year now and it is by far my favorite OS. It boots faster than XP, and runs a lot smoother than XP too. I can play all of my games maxed out, including recent games like Crysis Warhead and COD5. Older games and programs all work as well...I've yet to come accross a game/program that doesn't work for Vista.

People nagging on Vista just haven't used it yet, or they haven't used it since it first came out (which yes, it was bad then). The sad thing is, these losers still complain and condemn the OS two years after they last tried it...so much hate for no reason. I recently intalled Vista over my XP laptop because I like everything about Vista more.
 
I like it so far...had very little problems with it. You have to kill the UAC almost immediately or else it becomes a frustrating mother fucker for EVERYTHING YOU DO in Vista.

I like the smart updating it does when a new device is plugged in. It's like it fetches for the drives almost immediately. Boot and Shut down times are really quick...but I expect to drop as my machine gets older since I have only had this new machine for 3 months now.

I can't scale my desktop image to fit the screen size like I did with XP :(

Seems to have no problems working in dual boot mode with XP Pro.

Direct X 10 games look AMAZING (world in conflict. bioshock :drool:)

I hate the new search engine. It's like it can't find it,but if I manually search for it, I can find it myself. :bomb:

As I reported awhile back, I think VISTA throttles my drives Read/Write speed for noise reduction instead of speed. So installing games are painfully slow :bomb: I have yet to figure out how to remove this slow down cap manually. There should be no way that Red Alert 3 should take an hour to install.
 
The "problems" with Vista are no greater than the problems with XP at launch. Like with any operating system, you're going to have people who try to do specific things and run into problems. But in my experience there are far fewer issues with Vista than with XP, and keeps getting more stable.

I've had Vista since around launch (2 GB RAM, dual core) and I find it to be far more stable than XP, and in fact sort of enjoyable as a gaming rig.

However (although you can turn it off), the fact that part of Vista's "security layer" involves asking the user a million times "are you sure you want to run this program, huh, huh?" is kind of laughable. I don't really mind it that much, but it makes me aware of how insecure and unstable Windows is at its core. It's like a piece of legislation that has been amended so many times that it begins eating itself.

I don't want to provoke flames, because inexplicably some peoples' passions are aroused on the subject of computer operating systems, but in my experience you really have to be computer literate to make the best use of Linux-related systems. I have to shake my head a little when (the more technically-minded) Linux advocates seriously propose it as some kind of viable populist alternative to Vista. Having tutored computer-illiterate people for years, I can tell you that Linux would make these peoples' heads spin.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Dude, you can. The syntax is just different.

Don't let your old habits keep you in the stone age.

BTW, ' *.jpg ' and ' ext:.jpg ' both produce a listing of JPEG files on my Vista systems. So the wildcards are still there, as a legacy holdover. But being able to use ' by:Niven ' to immediately narrow down a search of Word documents to just those from a particular person is a huge improvement. Looking for ' *.doc ' gets me several thousand items, only a few of which are going to possibly be what I'm trying to find.[/QUOTE]

Good for you, I don't care. Vista search sucks dick.

[quote name='WhipSmartBanky']Meh. I'll wait for Mojave.[/QUOTE]
I see what you did there.

[quote name='itachiitachi']How it has the capability to delete anything it thinks to be pirated,[/QUOTE]
What the balls are you talking about?
 
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 name='CoffeeEdge']
What the balls are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
I think I remember hearing something about that when Vista launched. Some people thought MS controlled what you do on Vista and wouldn't let you download anything that has been pirated or let you rip cds or anything like that. I didn't know anybody still believed that, though.
 
[quote name='vihit']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.
[/QUOTE]
If you ever actually had one of the issues the Vista inherently has and tried to search for a solution to said issue, you'd see that that is not the case. There are just some things that Vista does differently from XP no matter your knowledge/hardware that seems like a step backwards. Why remove support for certain "legacy" things when they are still in common use? Sure, don't offer support for those features, but leave them in there so I don't have to dual boot my brand new build just to force stuff to work.
 
[quote name='DrFoo']I think I remember hearing something about that when Vista launched. Some people thought MS controlled what you do on Vista and wouldn't let you download anything that has been pirated or let you rip cds or anything like that. I didn't know anybody still believed that, though.[/quote]
MSN Messenger deletes any MP3s that my friends send me if I click on them on the window itself, and I do mean deletes - they vanish from the computer, don't go to the recycle bin, and can't even be undeleted using third party tools! I have to browse the computer to actually open them instead. Maybe that's what they meant?
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']I really hate Aero. It makes me want to vomit. I like the look of XP with the color set to black more than Aero.[/quote]

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 fucking shit.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Vista doesn't have anti-virus built-in. Do you mean a third party app is misidentifying stuff or do you mean the anti-spyware functionality, which is built-in? This is a problem with virtually every anti-spyware product because the identification is often more a matter of opinion than easily defined malware. Some people are freaked out over the very idea of tracking cookies, for instance, while most couldn't care less.[/quote]

I don't know if it was Vista or Windows Live messenger but I sent her a zipped file and one of the files in there got deleted when unzipped. Might I add that I was not sending a virus or anything, but the file might of had something to it that is triggered by some virus scanners as a false positive.
 
Hopefully Windows 7 won't have the same driver and software incompatibilities that plagued Vista's initial release. Some people like to point and laugh at MS and the vendors when SNAFUS like that happen, but they're not good for anyone involved (especially the users who just want to surf the web and play some damn games)
 
Vista is fine. If you want it to operate faster turn off the Aero theme and other things like thumbnail previews on the taskbar.
 
I hate to say it ,but Microsoft has stated that vista runs like crap compared to its XP older sibling , which is yes true for almost all operating systems. With windows 7 around the corner set for release in the later part of 09 i can only come to the conclusion that Vista is as Windows ME was , a gateway and test for 2000/XP. Don't get me wrong Vista has a lot of nice features that make it a wonderful user friendly OS esiplay when useing a tablet PC make aero so much better, but when it's maker has already planned the next step to relpace it and has admited "they fucked up" is it all worth it?

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/shattered_dreams_and_broken_promises_vistas_failure_launch
 
When i turn off the aero theme, to windows classic or something, it gets all weird. Like when I open something it scrolls open, its hard to explain. But usually the program/browser should open right away, but its all slow and sluggish. Anyone know why?
 
I enjoy Vista ... I personally think it blows XP out of the water. My XP runs slow and clunky from the start on this computer. While Vista runs like a champ
 
I've been running Vista for a year and I am very happy with it. No reason to even consider XP. Very much looking forward to Windows 7.
 
Well, I had to buy a new notebook because the one I'm currently using seems to be on its last legs. The notebook I bought will come with Vista. I'll use it for a while and see how it goes, but I already have a copy of Windows XP ready to go if I need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top