I used Vista for a couple years, now using 7. Had troubles with Vista, no matter how many computers I tried it on, and 7 is nothing like Vista, it's wonderful. Fuck Vista.
Yet another idiot who blames Vista for his stupidity. If you can't get Vista working, maybe you should give a Mac a try.
This video is almost 3 years old... about a month after Vista launched. Just wanted to throw that out there to the folks calling him an idiot. Additionally, no one had any idea what Win 7 is gonna be at the time.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
I still don't understand all of the hate Vista gets. Windows7 is the exact same thing with a new taskbar and all of a sudden its teh best OS evar!1!!! Sure, it's better, but its not that much better
in my limited experience with 7 everything was much snappier than in my long experience with vista. my main problem with vista is that i could get a cup of coffee in the time it took for things that should be instant.
i hate that MS has decided to ditch the interface i've been using the last ~14 years.
Mike Gayner
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2007
- 6,175
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
I still don't understand all of the hate Vista gets. Windows7 is the exact same thing with a new taskbar and all of a sudden its teh best OS evar!1!!! Sure, it's better, but its not that much better
in my limited experience with 7 everything was much snappier than in my long experience with vista. my main problem with vista is that i could get a cup of coffee in the time it took for things that should be instant.
i hate that MS has decided to ditch the interface i've been using the last ~14 years.
Yeah I definitely think that tech companies should always just do what they were doing 14 years ago.
Cool.
The only time I boot into Vista is to play Civ4, and it would have been 100% Linux environment if Civ4 were perfected under Wine.
TurtleCrusher
Lifer
- Apr 20, 2008
- 10,067
- 990
- 126
Jesus Christ.
Anyone touting Win7 over Vista is a tool. It's even less of a difference from Windows 2000 pro to XP pro. It uses essentially the same services. Everything was exactly as fast on Vista as Win7.
To the guy who took an hour installing a printer. If it took you an hour to install a fucking printer, you have some ancient ass hardware and/or you weren't doing it right. Installing things such as hardware devices and software on Vista is a breeze.
And to the guy complaining about UAC, you can disable it if you want. Maybe you weren't smart enough to even look it up. This is exactly like saying "I hate how my clothes are dirty", when you have a full closet of clean clothes. It just doesn't make sense. If you don't like it, disable it. Don't just sit there and whine about it. It has saved me countless times (ok, maybe 2 or 3) from getting a trojan from a pop-up.
I think I should call the whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance for you tools.
Anyone touting Win7 over Vista is a tool. It's even less of a difference from Windows 2000 pro to XP pro. It uses essentially the same services. Everything was exactly as fast on Vista as Win7.
To the guy who took an hour installing a printer. If it took you an hour to install a fucking printer, you have some ancient ass hardware and/or you weren't doing it right. Installing things such as hardware devices and software on Vista is a breeze.
And to the guy complaining about UAC, you can disable it if you want. Maybe you weren't smart enough to even look it up. This is exactly like saying "I hate how my clothes are dirty", when you have a full closet of clean clothes. It just doesn't make sense. If you don't like it, disable it. Don't just sit there and whine about it. It has saved me countless times (ok, maybe 2 or 3) from getting a trojan from a pop-up.
I think I should call the whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance for you tools.
I hated Vista at first, but after all the updates it works as well as XP ever did. No complaints here.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,330
- 10,739
- 126
Yea, it amuses me, all the people who are acting like Win7's the second coming. It's Vista with a tweaked gui, and a couple of parlor tricks to /appear/ faster. It's ok. If I bought a computer with Win7, I wouldn't wipe it in favor of Vista, but given the choice, I prefer a couple of things Vista has(mostly gui items), so that's what I'm keeping.
Out of the box, Vista isn't perfect, but it takes maybe 15 minutes to resolve most issues (well more if your install has a bunch of OEM bloatware), after that its pretty hassle free. I'm not sure what the people who have trouble finding things are trying to do. Everything is pretty straightforward, and many things are much easier to get to than in XP.
Win7 is just a much better out of box experience with even less hassle and more refinement. No its not drastically different from Vista, but that's a good thing. It should however be quite a bit better for the average user too though. The people complaining about them changing the interface (OMG they're using squares instead of more tab-like taskbar items?) sound like the people who want to run everything so it looks like Win95. Most of people's problems with Windows since XP are actually things they can adjust but apparently they think that everything should automatically be suited just for them despite it being intended for use by hundreds of millions of people.
The only thing that bothers me about Vista, and its likely something that I could change, is All Programs under the Start Menu, where you have to click the item in order to see the sub-items, whereas you used to be able to just mouse-over and it'd cascade it over. I haven't even looked though as I very rarely even use that anymore.
Oh, there are some other significant things to Vista that will benefit the average user a lot, they've upped the included codec support so there's much less of a need for codec packs (which was a big annoyance with XP). I believe this is a big help for video acceleration and just inherent usability such as being able to see a quick preview of the content.
Win7 is just a much better out of box experience with even less hassle and more refinement. No its not drastically different from Vista, but that's a good thing. It should however be quite a bit better for the average user too though. The people complaining about them changing the interface (OMG they're using squares instead of more tab-like taskbar items?) sound like the people who want to run everything so it looks like Win95. Most of people's problems with Windows since XP are actually things they can adjust but apparently they think that everything should automatically be suited just for them despite it being intended for use by hundreds of millions of people.
The only thing that bothers me about Vista, and its likely something that I could change, is All Programs under the Start Menu, where you have to click the item in order to see the sub-items, whereas you used to be able to just mouse-over and it'd cascade it over. I haven't even looked though as I very rarely even use that anymore.
Oh, there are some other significant things to Vista that will benefit the average user a lot, they've upped the included codec support so there's much less of a need for codec packs (which was a big annoyance with XP). I believe this is a big help for video acceleration and just inherent usability such as being able to see a quick preview of the content.
oogabooga
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 7,806
- 3
- 81
I think all the vista hate came because people who don't know much heard it on the news and bitched about it. I was working tech support for a credit card processing company and people kept asking 'hearing a lot about how bad that vista is, is that what's causing my problems?" from people who were having trouble with their computers, except they were on windows 2000.
I do like windows 7 better than vista personally and think it is better. But Vista Ultimate was just fine on my machine. The only thing that didn't work was my TV tuner, and that's only cause i was on the 64 bit version of vista, I'd have had the same problems in XP 64bit.
I do like windows 7 better than vista personally and think it is better. But Vista Ultimate was just fine on my machine. The only thing that didn't work was my TV tuner, and that's only cause i was on the 64 bit version of vista, I'd have had the same problems in XP 64bit.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
This.
Fixed (if we're talking about Windows).
I'm a power user. Please though, tell me about all the bumps you run into that I must be missing.
TurtleCrusher
Lifer
- Apr 20, 2008
- 10,067
- 990
- 126
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 857
- 126
Mojave Project my ass. I WISH they would have tried that shit on me.
The detail area off to the right of each file is sometimes NOT clickable to make file selections, which makes NO sense. The blank area underneath often does not allow you to perform an alt-click operation if you click to far away from the last file. Which wouldn't be so bad if I could, say, alt-click and paste in the control box...
THERE IS NO FREAKIN' CONTROL BOX! You can't perform an operation on the currently open object's window without BACKING OUT OF IT and clicking the icon, and yet they had the nerve to remove the "move up one directory" button (Backspace still works). No, the drop-down does not let me do the same thing nor does the "Back" button. For example, in in previous versions of Windows, you could alt-click the My Computer icon to access the Device Manager or Computer Management. If you open it and alt-click an empty area, you only get some of the same options. To simulate alt-clicking the same icon, you would alt-click the control box in the upper left corner. In My Computer, you could access Computer Management. In a folder, you could delete the current folder and it's contents as soon as you are done working with it without moving up a directory level. You may say "but the control box is still there! It is just invisible." You'd be wrong. Yes, you can still double-click an empty area to close the window just like double-clicking the control box, but the same functionality I described is NOT available. It's like MS forgot why it was there and only half-attempted to approximate its function.
Getting rid of the "Start" button only makes installations instructions for software more difficult to follow for users and makes instructions more difficult to give for tech support (ask me how I know). Telling people to click the Windows flag that is usually on the lower left hand corner of the desktop is sometimes so futile that I have to log in with Remote Assistance/Desktop because the user INSISTS that there is no logo/flag/button there.
Dropping "My" from the Documents and Computer objects fixes one of my pet peeves, but it also makes installation instructions more difficult to write (can't treat customers of both OSes the same regardless of the software's compatibility), as does removing the default Run menu option. It is MUCH more difficult to explain to the user what the windows key looks like to get them to press WIN+R and you can't solve that with Remote Assistance when they steadfastly insist that they don't have one. If they really don't, I can no longer tell them to press CTRL+ESC then R.
Despite the long overdue change (the "My" prefix should have been dropped with WinXP), document folder names STILL aren't corrected. Pictures should be Images because not all images are photos. Music should be audio because not all audio is music. At least they didn't call Videos "Movies" (iTunes is guilty of that) but, then again, neither did XP.
Now, when Win95 starts, there is an animation that is supposed to continue animating unless the system is hard-locked. Same for 98, 98SE, 2K, ME, and XP. Vista can sit on a blank screen for well over 30 seconds, as it did on my first Vista system (nothing was wrong, it was just a slow Athlon X2 3800+). Did they forget what the animation was for? On the initial boot, I gave it SEVERAL minutes before determining that it was hard locked (unresponsive to anything else) and forcing it off repeatedly until I gave up for the night and found it booted in the morning. Of course, I gave it a fresh install again after that and it took an eternity on the first boot again, only i finally knew to just give it 30 *MINUTES* before checking back. Black screen when booting normally = UI FAIL.
You know what else is a UI FAIL? Conditioning the user to agree and approve every pop up dialog to accomplish any minor thing they want to do in the name of increased security. UAC is good and I wouldn't disable it myself, but the average user is conditioned enough as it is already and this only makes them even more likely to go "Yes, yes, yes, OK, yes, continue, OK DAMMIT" until they've loaded the system with spyware and trojans. STUPID. Someone should be fired over such an oversight.
Now, the hardware accelerated UI (Aero) needs the equivalent of CTRL+ALT+DEL for falling back to 2D compatibility mode. Inarguable. *NEEDS* It also needs to be well known and ubiquitous. I've encountered the need hundreds and hundreds of times on multiple systems due to sleep issues, driver issues, other stability issues, etc. Often times the PC is not locked up and I can log in remotely to save my work and shut it down properly. Sometimes, I can't log in remotely and yet the system is still not locked up. If I could navigate blindly, I could shut it down. It responds to the power button and will sleep/Hibernate/Shut Down/etc, but you will be forced to shut down and lose all your work regardless. If Aero ends up causing data loss that would not have occurred without it, it is a weak link. If Vista were truly designed for stability, it would have popularized recovery methods for this Vista-specific scenario, especially if they want to promote its stability against XP's. Instead, I find crash after crash that I can unequivocally say would not have happened on XP. FAIL.
Don't get me started on Vista's Games thing that doesn't enforce any standards (installation directories, save data, etc) and also doesn't create corresponding program groups/Start Menu entries, has the WRONG ratings for EXTREMELY common games and more complicating/aggravating factors and problems than I can list here.
Microsoft failed at every turn. Even just USING Vista is a chore.
Nope. The problem is that it is less security for the average user because it conditions them to approve everything. Myself, I'm OK with it, but it's academic UI design that you don't condition the user to approve everything in the name of security. They won't differentiate between renaming a file or viewing system specs and executing a downloaded file or approving a browser plugin. It's the same dialog they had to click through and approve/dismiss to do what they wanted to do on their system before and they will see no difference when it truly matters.
Let's start with folder views then. Making selections in detail view while holding CTRL is an exercise in frustration with the default theme and selection color. You can't easily differentiate between selected lines and deselected ones, especially on an LCD and doubly so when viewing at an angle. SUBTLETY IS BAD. CONTRAST IS GOOD.
The detail area off to the right of each file is sometimes NOT clickable to make file selections, which makes NO sense. The blank area underneath often does not allow you to perform an alt-click operation if you click to far away from the last file. Which wouldn't be so bad if I could, say, alt-click and paste in the control box...
THERE IS NO FREAKIN' CONTROL BOX! You can't perform an operation on the currently open object's window without BACKING OUT OF IT and clicking the icon, and yet they had the nerve to remove the "move up one directory" button (Backspace still works). No, the drop-down does not let me do the same thing nor does the "Back" button. For example, in in previous versions of Windows, you could alt-click the My Computer icon to access the Device Manager or Computer Management. If you open it and alt-click an empty area, you only get some of the same options. To simulate alt-clicking the same icon, you would alt-click the control box in the upper left corner. In My Computer, you could access Computer Management. In a folder, you could delete the current folder and it's contents as soon as you are done working with it without moving up a directory level. You may say "but the control box is still there! It is just invisible." You'd be wrong. Yes, you can still double-click an empty area to close the window just like double-clicking the control box, but the same functionality I described is NOT available. It's like MS forgot why it was there and only half-attempted to approximate its function.
Getting rid of the "Start" button only makes installations instructions for software more difficult to follow for users and makes instructions more difficult to give for tech support (ask me how I know). Telling people to click the Windows flag that is usually on the lower left hand corner of the desktop is sometimes so futile that I have to log in with Remote Assistance/Desktop because the user INSISTS that there is no logo/flag/button there.
Dropping "My" from the Documents and Computer objects fixes one of my pet peeves, but it also makes installation instructions more difficult to write (can't treat customers of both OSes the same regardless of the software's compatibility), as does removing the default Run menu option. It is MUCH more difficult to explain to the user what the windows key looks like to get them to press WIN+R and you can't solve that with Remote Assistance when they steadfastly insist that they don't have one. If they really don't, I can no longer tell them to press CTRL+ESC then R.
Despite the long overdue change (the "My" prefix should have been dropped with WinXP), document folder names STILL aren't corrected. Pictures should be Images because not all images are photos. Music should be audio because not all audio is music. At least they didn't call Videos "Movies" (iTunes is guilty of that) but, then again, neither did XP.
Now, when Win95 starts, there is an animation that is supposed to continue animating unless the system is hard-locked. Same for 98, 98SE, 2K, ME, and XP. Vista can sit on a blank screen for well over 30 seconds, as it did on my first Vista system (nothing was wrong, it was just a slow Athlon X2 3800+). Did they forget what the animation was for? On the initial boot, I gave it SEVERAL minutes before determining that it was hard locked (unresponsive to anything else) and forcing it off repeatedly until I gave up for the night and found it booted in the morning. Of course, I gave it a fresh install again after that and it took an eternity on the first boot again, only i finally knew to just give it 30 *MINUTES* before checking back. Black screen when booting normally = UI FAIL.
You know what else is a UI FAIL? Conditioning the user to agree and approve every pop up dialog to accomplish any minor thing they want to do in the name of increased security. UAC is good and I wouldn't disable it myself, but the average user is conditioned enough as it is already and this only makes them even more likely to go "Yes, yes, yes, OK, yes, continue, OK DAMMIT" until they've loaded the system with spyware and trojans. STUPID. Someone should be fired over such an oversight.
Now, the hardware accelerated UI (Aero) needs the equivalent of CTRL+ALT+DEL for falling back to 2D compatibility mode. Inarguable. *NEEDS* It also needs to be well known and ubiquitous. I've encountered the need hundreds and hundreds of times on multiple systems due to sleep issues, driver issues, other stability issues, etc. Often times the PC is not locked up and I can log in remotely to save my work and shut it down properly. Sometimes, I can't log in remotely and yet the system is still not locked up. If I could navigate blindly, I could shut it down. It responds to the power button and will sleep/Hibernate/Shut Down/etc, but you will be forced to shut down and lose all your work regardless. If Aero ends up causing data loss that would not have occurred without it, it is a weak link. If Vista were truly designed for stability, it would have popularized recovery methods for this Vista-specific scenario, especially if they want to promote its stability against XP's. Instead, I find crash after crash that I can unequivocally say would not have happened on XP. FAIL.
Don't get me started on Vista's Games thing that doesn't enforce any standards (installation directories, save data, etc) and also doesn't create corresponding program groups/Start Menu entries, has the WRONG ratings for EXTREMELY common games and more complicating/aggravating factors and problems than I can list here.
Microsoft failed at every turn. Even just USING Vista is a chore.
Nope. The problem is that it is less security for the average user because it conditions them to approve everything. Myself, I'm OK with it, but it's academic UI design that you don't condition the user to approve everything in the name of security. They won't differentiate between renaming a file or viewing system specs and executing a downloaded file or approving a browser plugin. It's the same dialog they had to click through and approve/dismiss to do what they wanted to do on their system before and they will see no difference when it truly matters.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter