33 replies to this topic

[chriscannon]

I hear a lot of people talk about how bad Vista is, and how its gltichy and buggy and programs dont work... But can somebody please go into detail? Ive been using Vista for almost a year and I havent had any problems of the sort. In fact, I prefer it over my xp.

Could it be that those who havent tried it personally, don't like it? They have just heard horror stories? Or is it that somebody had a bad experience and then spreads those stories until it gets to the point where some people think vista doesnt even run properly?

Vista came built on my laptop, then I swapped for a bigger hd and reinstalled with the OS disk provided with the computer. Could it be that all the problems come from people who upgrade from xp to vista? Not just vista in general? And even then, that stuff was probably fixed relitavely quickly.

(On a side note my laptop is a tablet convertable and vista's integrated tablet/touchscreen features are great, apposed to having to get a different version of xp, or Mac's lack of any full sized tablets. [Hello, just make a bigger iPhone])

What are your thought's/experiences? Somebody please enlighten me unto these apparent extremely common glitches I seem to be missing out on.

Of course it could always just be a "beat up the other guy" marketing strategy by Mac...

Discuss.

[ckcomputerstallahassee]

I think it is a mac strategy with all of these commercials, and most of the public hears "vista sucks" and assumes that it is true. I don't think that there are many that have actually used it. And there might be a few, but they went into it saying "vista sucks , I can't use this thing" and never give it a chance. Maybe it does have something to do with upgrading leading to some problems.

I did a fresh install of vista ultimate on my desktop back in 2006 and i still use it and it has never given me any problems. I am running stardock and aero and it is incredible. As long as you do regular maintenance, you shouldn't have a problem. Now many programs support vista, whereas last year there were some issues. You can always just run an older program and compatibility mode and it usually worked anyways.

Enough of my talking, but bottom line is vista (ultimate at least) is a solid, secure os when compared to some others out there. Sure, the UAC is annoying, but the os is more secure than XP believe it or not. I saw an article where they had hackers trying to get into os's as fast as they can. They had Vista, OS X, and some form of linux. Guess what; they got into the OS X system first.......think about that ppl

[electriic ink]

It's because people think it's "cool" and "popular" to jump on the we-hate-Microsoft bandwagon. Sure, there are a few bugs and bad experiences but no product's perfect. The irony of it all is is that most people who complain about how terrible Vista, continue to use it at home anyway!

[rvalkass]

I'll be clear from the start: I'm a Linux user and my experiences of Vista are just in setting up my sister's laptop, showing her how to use it and some very basic usage on it occasionally. I don't use it every day, and haven't had a comprehensive experience of it. This is just first impressions I suppose.

chriscannon, on May 22 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

I hear a lot of people talk about how bad Vista is, and how its gltichy and buggy and programs dont work... But can somebody please go into detail? Ive been using Vista for almost a year and I havent had any problems of the sort. In fact, I prefer it over my xp.

In the times I've used it, I've found it to be considerably slower than a comparable XP system, the UAC is incredibly annoying, and there are a few issues with applications which worked fine in XP that now either have annoying bugs or fail to run completely (or at least did when I tried to set them up. This may have been fixed now).

chriscannon, on May 22 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

Could it be that those who havent tried it personally, don't like it? They have just heard horror stories? Or is it that somebody had a bad experience and then spreads those stories until it gets to the point where some people think vista doesnt even run properly?

I think the problem is that people read about all the issues that could occur, and assume they will all happen to them. That is not strictly true, but it is likely that some issues will occur, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to pay £320.08 for an operating system that I highly suspect will not work correctly, 100%. It is that element of risk that scares a lot of people away.

chriscannon, on May 22 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

Vista came built on my laptop, then I swapped for a bigger hd and reinstalled with the OS disk provided with the computer. Could it be that all the problems come from people who upgrade from xp to vista? Not just vista in general? And even then, that stuff was probably fixed relitavely quickly.

Vista was preinstalled on my sister's laptop and still had issues. I think Microsoft released it way before it was ready, despite the colossal amount of time it took them anyway.

ckcomputerstallahassee, on May 22 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

I think it is a mac strategy with all of these commercials, and most of the public hears "vista sucks" and assumes that it is true. I don't think that there are many that have actually used it. And there might be a few, but they went into it saying "vista sucks , I can't use this thing" and never give it a chance. Maybe it does have something to do with upgrading leading to some problems.

I went in to setting up my sister's laptop with as open a mind as possible, and I still ran into a load of issues and certainly wouldn't have been able to stick with Vista over my Linux install.

chriscannon, on May 22 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

Enough of my talking, but bottom line is vista (ultimate at least) is a solid, secure os when compared to some others out there. Sure, the UAC is annoying, but the os is more secure than XP believe it or not. I saw an article where they had hackers trying to get into os's as fast as they can. They had Vista, OS X, and some form of linux. Guess what; they got into the OS X system first.......think about that ppl

And think about the fact that they didn't get into the Linux system at all

[chriscannon]

Yeah, linux is very interesting... My main problem with it though, is that I couldnt figure out how to work a lot of things. I think I just needed somebody to walk me through it.

As for setting up your sister's laptop, and having things run slower, it could be the hardware. I am somebody who is going to get the best hardware I can, just incase, even if I dont hardly play those hardcore games often or at all even.

But naturally 2 computers with the same exact specs, 1 on xp 1 on vista, the xp will run faster because the OS is less advanced. But I think at a certain point (for ex. dual core 2gig processor in each) they will run at the same speed... And honestly I like the UAC because I know that no intruding program is going to run on my computer unless I click accept.

But I will say that I dont have an open mind to mac at all... Sure its got some cool features, but (from what ive seen, correct me if im wrong) its not very open. For one I love the right click. For two, it seems too simple. I like to be able to edit things and have control over my computer, and from what ive seen mac is pretty straight forward. To me it seems like mac is for little kids or something who just need to use the programs and nothing more.

And as far as flames go, please politely explain how im wrong... Im sure alot of the vista sucks talk is from people who feel the same as I about mac but visa versa.

On a side note, I love my iPhone to death. But if they made an iPhone with windows... Id be all over it like a pack of wolves on a three legged cat.

Edited by chriscannon, 22 May 2008 - 08:09 PM.

[rvalkass]

chriscannon, on May 22 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

And honestly I like the UAC because I know that no intruding program is going to run on my computer unless I click accept.

There is a large problem with that system however. Many users get accustomed to having to type their password in so often that they just don't think about it. When users stop reading the box, its just like it not being there, but with a lot more annoyance. That instantly removes any extra security that was introduced. Linux has the balance right. I know that when I enter my password, something major will be happening, and I therefore need to think about why I'm being asked.

[Ddraiggoch06]

I think it just has a bad rep from a few people, you know how things work on computers, a few bad experiences and bang, apparently the product is terrible. It is just different peoples opinions, for example someone who is anti-Microsoft would always campaign against Vista, while somebody who uses Windows every day might praise it. It does use more RAM, more disk space and more processing power, but it's common sense that the more features there is, the harder it is going to be to run. Most of the bugs that are in Vista have been ironed out in SP1 anyway, but the bad rep for Vista will always continue, just like some people hate the iPod and others hate the PS3.

[t3jem]

rvalkass, on May 22 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

There is a large problem with that system however. Many users get accustomed to having to type their password in so often that they just don't think about it. When users stop reading the box, its just like it not being there, but with a lot more annoyance. That instantly removes any extra security that was introduced. Linux has the balance right. I know that when I enter my password, something major will be happening, and I therefore need to think about why I'm being asked.

You definitely put it right. I know with my vista (which I only use on certain occasions, I have xp, vista, and ubuntu 8.04 on my laptop) it's annoying to run anything I have to install from the internet on there. When I first reinstalled vista on my machine and was setting up my programs everytime I ran something I had to click accept 2-3 times. Once to let it know I know it was downloaded, once for UAC, and then once to let it connect to the internet for an update. It was unbelievably annoying and if I knew I was going to be exclusive to vista I would have turned off UAC. In linux, it's really nice, it only asks once and only on occasions where the action could damage your computer.

As for other issues with vista, I have 4GB (3.5GB since it's 32-bit) of ram with a 128mb nvidia 6800 and 2.5ghz dual core and I can still see a noticeable difference in my games between XP and vista. I'll get a 10-20 frame boost in XP while playing a half life game. And for openGL games such as frets on fire, I had to get a special version of it, the latest version wouldn't even run because the opengl support in vista is almost as good as directx support in linux.

Now, for the average user who checks their mail and chats online, vista may be fine may be even great with UAC to keep them safe, but usually, if a user is going to get a virus it happens from infected attachments or downloads that they aren't paying attention to, so they will get infected no matter how much security there is.

[chriscannon]

rvalkass, on May 22 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

There is a large problem with that system however. Many users get accustomed to having to type their password in so often that they just don't think about it. When users stop reading the box, its just like it not being there, but with a lot more annoyance. That instantly removes any extra security that was introduced. Linux has the balance right. I know that when I enter my password, something major will be happening, and I therefore need to think about why I'm being asked.

I dont have to type in ym password everytime. I guess i turned off the UAC and just use Mcaffee instead. But I do like how before exe files or system files are run, it asks me first. Then i click on and im on with my life.

[tricky77puzzle]

rvalkass, on May 22 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

In the times I've used it, I've found it to be considerably slower than a comparable XP system, the UAC is incredibly annoying, and there are a few issues with applications which worked fine in XP that now either have annoying bugs or fail to run completely (or at least did when I tried to set them up. This may have been fixed now).

...and that's why I turned UAC off. Sure, I might be more susceptible to viruses, and Microsoft nagged me about it a few times, but that was it. There weren't even any viruses on the programs that I was registering.

Linux does really have the balance right. You only need to type the password once when you're going to install a whole bunch of programs on Adept or apt-get. And most of the time, you'd install those programs using the terminal anyway, so the graphical box isn't a problem.

[Csshih]

I don't like Vista because it uses massive system resources, and, as a gamer, programmer, photoshopper (), video editor, cd/dvd burner/copier, file downloader, this slows down everything I do, and decreases productivity.

As a gamer, isn't there still problems with the video card drivers? As t2jem said, xp has a considerate performance boost over vista.

I'll have to say as a plus, I like vista for its looks, and maybe security for the average user.

By the way, I never use any antivirus, only a firewall,
antiviruss' always slow my computer down to a crawl. If you're sensible, and download "smartly", the probability of an infection is pretty low.

[thecolorchangingfedora]

I hate it because it's pretty and shiny and I don't have it.
And it's slow.
*cough*

[A200]

I don't like vista for many reasons:

1. You need a fast computer for it... I know a couple of people got it and it slowed down their computer.
2. A large variety of programs don't work on it
3. I find it difficult to use, not really that user friendly.

I like XP better

[dhruv]

The only problem i had with it was that it wasn't compatible with most software such as games, programs, and such free were virus and spy ware removers.
Software is a big part of computers and if compatibility isn't there, then i find it hard to change until everything is compatible
But vita user interface is great i love it and the editions microsoft have done to it is far better than XP it's just the software compatibility as i said that effects my opinion.

[rayzoredge]

I am guilty of hating on Vista moreso on hearsay than on actual experience.

The only Vista machines that I've dealt with are one of my friend's laptops and desktops. The interface is sleek, smooth, and attractive... and as much as I love eye candy, I hated working with the OS. Some things were moved around from XP, which is probably understandable, and I guess you have to be out of the XP mindset to truly be able to work with Vista smoothly. Some of my retarded experiences included trying to network a Vista machine with XP machines for a LAN game, accidentally shutting down the computer because I thought that the power button icon on the Start menu would bring up a dialog (which it didn't), sluggish performance on a decent laptop, and compatibility with existing programs.

It might be biased, but I was turned off from Vista even before actually working with them thanks to plenty of hearsay on the Internet on forums, articles, and whatnot.

Vista is great for the average person that is out for basic productivity: word processing, Internet usage... the works. Anything that involves any sophistication out of that, however, and you're in for a world of pain that almost makes you wonder why a geek would upgrade to Vista. There are constant annoying pop-ups which, however well-intended they are, are... annoying. Users with administrative privileges are still bothered with Vista's infamous way of making sure you want to proceed with ANYTHING you want to do, and even being an "administrator" doesn't grant you certain administrative privileges. I've read articles with benchmarks that show XP performance trumping Vista by a considerable margin, and this doesn't even have to be peer-reviewed... just go into your local Wally World and look at the system requirements for a piece of software. You'll see that if you are running Vista, you have your OWN system requirements off to the side, which are notably higher than what they are if you were to run it on an XP machine. Why is it that a successor to an OS should perform WORSE?

Think of program and driver compatibility. It's a pain in the butt when you can't run the same programs you did once before on XP on Vista... which XP also had a problem with for older Windows 95-98 programs. However, XP offers compatibility modes that actually work for the most part. There are some programs for Vista that won't even install in the first place. Drivers are a pain to snag, especially if you need it for an Ethernet card that grants you Internet access to try to find those very drivers... you'd have to have a second computer to find the drivers and play trial-and-error, restart, boot, etc. It's a wicked pain, and I hope that things smooth out in the future. It should, anyway... I haven't had any incentive to check out what SP1 brought for Vista.

Performance is a big issue. Why spend $300 on an OS that doesn't make use of your hardware efficiently? It's like forcing your hardware to work at 75% of what it can really put out simply because Vista taxes available resources that heavily, and I don't have the slightest clue as to why. (It might be because they didn't work off of an existing platform of code... and actually did everything from scratch, if I remember correctly.) No one should have to figure that out... it should just work, but then again, with more new features and gimmicks, I understand why Vista and even Leopard are having problems.

And I haven't even bothered to touch on security and other IT issues that I've read.

This is why I recommend everyone I know to stick to XP, just because Vista, although pretty, is too much of a pain to bother. You shouldn't be fighting with your operating system. It should work FOR you. I'm not saying that Linux is the answer or XP is the godsend, but by far they are better alternatives. I'm sure even Mac OS X is a better alternative, unless Leopard is actually more successful than I realize. If I had the money to burn, I would be using Mac OS X, and if I could find a real, working answer as to why my wireless laser keyboard and mouse combo doesn't work under Ubuntu, I would be using that too. Unfortunately enough, XP is the most-polished turd (in my opinion) that I have available to me that I can use with most, if not all, of what I want to do.

Edited by rayzoredge, 23 May 2008 - 02:33 PM.

[humble]

there is many reasons
i still waiting for VINA Windows wil lcome out in 2009

[Ethandrule]

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is obviously the best choice by far. Why don't you people ever listen? Few people have ever even tried a Mac.

[rvalkass]

Ethandrule, on May 23 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is obviously the best choice by far.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? What are your reasons for liking the Mac OS over Linux or Windows, for example? What does the Mac OS do better?

Ethandrule, on May 23 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

Why don't you people ever listen?

When people present me with an argument I will listen to it. The problem I have with the vast majority of Mac users, when making their arguments, is that they never come up with much that is done better than in another operating system. It might be done just as well, but then it just comes down to personal preference.

Ethandrule, on May 23 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

Few people have ever even tried a Mac.

I have. There are things I like, things I don't. There are things that are very clever, and things that smack of incredible stupidity. I personally decided not to get a Mac when I bought my computer, not least because of the price, and that is where Apple really needs to do some work. At the moment you pay for the name, that little plastic Apple logo on the case. To me, that isn't worth the £500.

[Live-Dimension]

Woah, this thread seems slightly off-topic? Lets continue it, for a short while!
I read a write up about the three major OS's - Mac OSX, Windows, Linux. Kinda wish I knew where the article is now, but basically these OS's compliment each other - as such there'll never be a "Holy Grail" among the OS world. Why?

You've got three levels
Mac OSX - Plain, simple, and actually works right out of the box. Unfortunately, you've got to pay extra for apply-only hardware that's really re-branded from windows-compatible hardware.
Windows - Sort of the middle ground that's only really popular because of high app and hardware compatibility, as well as a high recognition value. It's currently the gamers system of choice, but only because they are forced to.
Linux - Most customisable, but also the most "complex" system. It can install on anything (including "apple" hardware I assume, which is only really re branded hardware that windows uses). App and hardware support is improving all the time, but lets face it - gimp is still no substitute for Photoshop

Let's say your going to buy a new PC. Which would you go for? There's no "Holy Grail" any more like there used to be, so most people would try based on their needs.

As for the famous "XP vs Vista" thing - people should get their heads into gear and realise that these are two totally different yet similar OS's. True, the price sucks, but Vista *IS* far ahead then XP - in some areas. Others - it totally fails in.

Roughly 8 years ago, there was the same thing going on. a Win9x platform, or Windows XP with its "High system requirements, sluggish performance and poor app/hardware support". Sound familiar? Yet, look at it now. People keep going on about Vista's sluggish perfomance and complaining that Vista needs higher requirements then XP. What did you expect? Here's there minimum system requirements for Win98.

66mhz
16mb ram (24mb recommended)
(roughly) 250MB drive
VGA (16-bit or 24-bit SVGA recommended)
internet - 14.4 bps modem

Are you trying to tell me today's OS's should run on a 15mhz processor, with 2mb ram, 15mb hard drive, and a 2-bit display? How about a 5 bps modem? I'm sure your favourite websites would load soooo fast on that. How about youtube? Moves in a second me ol' lad

My graphics card alone could run an entire win98 setup if you could use the GPU as a cpu, and memory as a hard drive. Seriously, stop complaining Vista is slow and UPGRADE or stick with XP. Sure, Vista used to be bad on some things, but after a year of updates, games run just as fast as XP, and a lot of the other problems have been fixed. I consider Vista a nice stable platform, just like XP was, but not for a while after it's release.

Ugh, I want to clean that up but I have work >_> So consider it a slight rant, but full of truth.

Edited by Live-Dimension, 25 May 2008 - 11:36 PM.

[Galahad]

My "hate" of Vista comes from some moderate experience, that extends only to install it and maintain it for a few friends of mine...

Thing that people must realize is that OS is supposed to run invisibly, and allow you to use applications to to the work... Vista consumes so much resources, that working with anything complex becomes pain... I have a friend that uses 3D Studio Max for modelling, who wanted to try Vista... He has fairly new computer, 2.5 GHz CPU, 3 Gigs RAM, some fancy GFX card... And whe he installed Vista, and managed to get 3D Max to run on it, it was so slow, that he wanted to cry... Has has very decent knowledge of computers, but at that point he called me, and I tried to make things run smoother... Ofcourse, with no success...

Whatever professional application you want to run, Vista will choke it, or you'll need to spend a ton of money, just to upgrade your hardware... This is how I see current OS/Platform distribution:
- Mac is best when used for video editing applications, and that's where 90% of people in that field agree... There is just no comparison of Mac and PC in this field
- Linux is (for now) best in programming and scientific stuff, mainly because of it's intermediate complexity
- Windows is a home/gaming platform... Yes, it has wide application support, but let's face it, I don't need an OS that requires 2GB of RAM just to run, and I have to pay for it...

This is just how I see things with OS/platform deployment at the moment... I happily run Ubuntu 7.10 for few months, and previously I used XP... I thought I'd never get used to Linux, and I would switch back to XP, so I made a dual boot... I booted only once into Wintendo, and that's to consult a forum when I accidentaly screwed up my Ubuntu's network...

I only miss Photoshop from Wintendo, but it too runs under Wine in Linux, but I just want to try and make it with GIMP...

So, my choice is Linux, and from few months back, it will always be so... As for others well... Whatever their choice be, I hope they are happy with it...

I would just recommend people to keep their mind open, and not exclude others without trying... I tried Wintendo, used it for years, then tried Linux, and I love it more than wintendo, and I even find ton of stuff easier to do under Linux, in console, than finding stuff in a bunch of Wintendo windows and menus...

My choice is Linux... What is yours

[audiovia]

Vista just tries too hard to be like a Mac OS X and fail to do so. Now Microsoft annouced that Vista user go back to XP for now until they fix all the bugs in Vista.

[Live-Dimension]

Galahad, on May 27 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

I have a friend that uses 3D Studio Max for modelling, who wanted to try Vista... He has fairly new computer, 2.5 GHz CPU, 3 Gigs RAM, some fancy GFX card... And whe he installed Vista, and managed to get 3D Max to run on it, it was so slow, that he wanted to cry... Has has very decent knowledge of computers, but at that point he called me, and I tried to make things run smoother... Ofcourse, with no success...

That has nothing to do with vista, but rather having the wrong drivers for his video card. Basically, you have your normal gaming cards, and the work-station cards (FireGL and nvida's equivilent - Quadro). I don't know about ati's side, but all nvidia's are is normal gaming cards with slightly different hardware (more memory, etc usually) running a different Device ID hence different drivers. There's a software hack which you can use to turn your GeForce into a Quadro. So, my Geforce is now a Quadro. Install the Quadro drivers, and suddenly, 3DS Max performs a whole lot better.

You see, there's some hidden rendering code inside the Quadro drivers that is enabled when you install them. So, why pay alot more for a quado when a Geforce does the same? If your just a student, or your friend, it should be ok (though I don't know how legal it is). For a company, paying that little bit extra for proper support when things go wrong is well worth it.

audiovia, on May 27 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

Vista just tries too hard to be like a Mac OS X and fail to do so. Now Microsoft annouced that Vista user go back to XP for now until they fix all the bugs in Vista.

Where did they announce this, I wonder?

Edited by Live-Dimension, 26 May 2008 - 11:33 PM.

[saitunes]

I've only used vista a few times, and its not bad. it's just in my opinion, too many pretty bells and whistles i prefer the look and feel of XP (over vista) but not to say that I wouldn't grow into vista if I had to. I prefer Mac OS X, I've got tiger, haven't got leopard, I have used it and there's not a whole lot of difference other than a new cool looking interface. and a few really good new features. I haven't upgraded yet because some of my software i use is not leopard compatible.

But to me XP vs. Vista: Vista's got too many fancy bells and whistles, and there's not too much difference underneath.


P.S OS X tiger and OS X leopard: Leopard is kinda like a new service pack for OS X (to explain to windows users) it's not a whole new operating system.

[chriscannon]

audiovia, on May 26 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

Vista just tries too hard to be like a Mac OS X and fail to do so. Now Microsoft annouced that Vista user go back to XP for now until they fix all the bugs in Vista.

Honestly, where do you get this information? It's just... wrong.

A lot of these things you guys are saying are bad qualities, I find to be good. I like the bells and whistles to be honest, and I dont care if it takes a little bit more RAM or CPU... whats the point of having higher resolutions if you dont use them (aka fancy bells and whistles)? You try reading this forum in 600x400 resolution and see how far you get.

So it requires better hardware, just means it will do that much more.


I dont think anyone has actually said why any one, is better than another. I have almost no experience in mac because I can't even go 10 minutes in best buy without getting anoyed. I also have little experience in linux, though more than mac os', and wasnt using it long enough to tell. I just had trouble installing things, it could have been a technical issue but it was probobly my lac of knowledge as to how it runs.

Is there anybody out there who uses windows, mac, and linux regularly and can tell us what would be better in one than another.

It is common knowlege that windows is the way to go for games, so enough of that now... And I dont care about the differences between vista and xp, I have both. And i use them at the same time, just like now, with no problems.

Edited by chriscannon, 27 May 2008 - 08:40 AM.

[Live-Dimension]

It comes down to personal choice chriscannon. Some users love Linux and don't need applications that are on Windows/Mac OSX only. Others love the simplicity of Mac OSX, and others like the familiarity of Windows, plus it's huge application+hardware support. There's no reason to use all three, unless your forced to (work, for example). I would of stayed on Linux, tried out ones other then Ubuntu, but I'm a semi-gamer and not being able to run PS CS3 was a pain, especially after shelling out for it. Also, I found ubuntu full of little annoyances, aka bugs which for some reason just didn't seemed to be as ironed out as I expected. I've played with the idea of MacOSX and using a virtual machine of WinXP for my games... But Directx9/shader support is still iffy (Sins of a Solar Empire apparently refuses to run, which I love) and I'm still using windows anyway.