Poll: Is/was Vista really that bad?

[Nothinman]

Vista WAS a total POS when it came out. Drivers weren't even close to ready.

Driver issues don't count since that's the fault of the OEMs.

 

[Arkaign]

A few days ago I upgraded from an E5200 on Asus P5KPL-CM @ 3.6ghz to a Phenom X4-805 @ 3Ghz, using the same 4GB DDR2-800 CL4 / 1T Memory and 9600GT.

I've given Vista a few shots before, and decided that I'd go ahead and try Vista w/SP2 now that I have a quad-core. For whatever reason (I have changed no settings in Vista whatsover, total fresh install of Vista Ultimate x64), I just can't seem to get the OS to respond briskly. It's just sluggish and irritating. I don't like the layout, and I'm kind of let down by the lack of delivery of Vista Ultimate features. Seems like I remember (got Vista Ultimate right when SP1 dropped) being told that Ultimate was going to be continually supported with new content / games / etc. There's hardly been anything.

Boots slow, slow to open programs, slow to browse folders, slow to shut down, slow slow slow.

My brother's Win7 install on an old C2D-T2250 notebook, complete with 5400RPM hard drive and 2gb of DDR2-533 .. blows my clean Vista install away. And my XP install on the E5200? Ridiculously fast in comparison.

 

[MBM85]

Arkaign, this may insult your intelligence, but have you tried to turn off things like fading effects? I always found them to give Vista a sluggish feel, so I always turn them off. I've never found a big difference in boot and shutdown times compared to XP. You should find programs opening faster in Vista, due to SuperFetch, so I don't know what's going on there, unless you haven't given it enough time to tune itself.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: MBM85
Arkaign, this may insult your intelligence, but have you tried to turn off things like fading effects? I always found them to give Vista a sluggish feel, so I always turn them off. I've never found a big difference in boot and shutdown times compared to XP. You should find programs opening faster in Vista, due to SuperFetch, so I don't know what's going on there, unless you haven't given it enough time to tune itself.

I like the fading effects, even more so pre SP1. They sped it up a bit for SP1, but I don't like it as well. I just don't work that fast where a .1" window opening is that much more usable than .2".

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
A few days ago I upgraded from an E5200 on Asus P5KPL-CM @ 3.6ghz to a Phenom X4-805 @ 3Ghz, using the same 4GB DDR2-800 CL4 / 1T Memory and 9600GT.

I've given Vista a few shots before, and decided that I'd go ahead and try Vista w/SP2 now that I have a quad-core. For whatever reason (I have changed no settings in Vista whatsover, total fresh install of Vista Ultimate x64), I just can't seem to get the OS to respond briskly. It's just sluggish and irritating. I don't like the layout, and I'm kind of let down by the lack of delivery of Vista Ultimate features. Seems like I remember (got Vista Ultimate right when SP1 dropped) being told that Ultimate was going to be continually supported with new content / games / etc. There's hardly been anything.

Boots slow, slow to open programs, slow to browse folders, slow to shut down, slow slow slow.

My brother's Win7 install on an old C2D-T2250 notebook, complete with 5400RPM hard drive and 2gb of DDR2-533 .. blows my clean Vista install away. And my XP install on the E5200? Ridiculously fast in comparison.

I hate to burst your bubble but on my very humble 3800+ x2 cpu(not overclocked) with 4GB DDR1 ram boots fast and even shutdown is fast too ,only things I have disabled are Windows Defender(real time scan is set to scan once a week),defrag disabled(I use a third party one) and Indexing.My other PC has 2Ghz Conroe2 with 3GB ram ,again no issues with boot speed,shutdown or even browsing etc...btw mine are all Vista Home Premium upgraded to SP2 so don't know if thats a factor .


Maybe driver issue on your PC?..or something else.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: ArkaignBoots slow, slow to open programs, slow to browse folders, slow to shut down, slow slow slow.

My brother's Win7 install on an old C2D-T2250 notebook, complete with 5400RPM hard drive and 2gb of DDR2-533 .. blows my clean Vista install away. And my XP install on the E5200? Ridiculously fast in comparison.

Have you tried disabling services you do not need? Removing programs from start up that you don't need? http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: ArkaignBoots slow, slow to open programs, slow to browse folders, slow to shut down, slow slow slow.

My brother's Win7 install on an old C2D-T2250 notebook, complete with 5400RPM hard drive and 2gb of DDR2-533 .. blows my clean Vista install away. And my XP install on the E5200? Ridiculously fast in comparison.

Have you tried disabling services you do not need? Removing programs from start up that you don't need? http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

Thanks, I'll check that out. I'm actually so annoyed with the Phenom/Vista box that I'm posting this from my new spare E5200/XP box *sigh*. I've got an old 7900GS and 1GB DDR2-667 (2x512) with it, and it still runs circles around my new build in general windows use (boot / open browser / launch nero / browse files w/explorer / shut down).

Do you have any recommendations based on that list that you personally use in Vista? I have heard that Vista isn't that 'tunable' and that changing things can actually make it slower.

Mem, I've got the following loaded, in the order that I installed :

(1)- Set bios on 790X to 'AHCI' for the Sata controller
(2)- Boot from Vista SP1 Disc, format, fresh install onto 1TB WD Black Sata
(3)- Install latest chipset drivers from Gigabyte for my mobo (790XUD4P)
(4)- Install latest Nvidia drivers for the 9600GT
(5)- Install Sound & Network drivers
(6)- Install Vista SP2 (downloaded from microsoft, not using the Windows update feature)
(7)- Run Windows update, get all available security-related updates

The only applications that I've loaded are Nero 7.10 (with 'Scout' disabled) and Firefox 3.5. The only games I've tried so far are Oblivion, GRID, and Fallout 3.

The thing is that apps/games run great once they're going, but the delays in booting/shutting down/opening apps are driving me batty. I'm going to try scouring some more old threads (see you in some offering some nice advice!), and see if I can tweak this sucker into running like it should. Thanks guys!

 

[lxskllr]

I wouldn't use anything from blackviper's site. That guy's a clown.

 

[SandInMyShoes]

Arkaign, you probably need to give it a few days to a week for things to get faster. I've observed several Vista installs that were sluggish out of the box, but as the awesome caching started learning my habits Vista slow sped up, until it was finally faster for my usage pattern than XP ever was.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Do you have any recommendations based on that list that you personally use in Vista? I have heard that Vista isn't that 'tunable' and that changing things can actually make it slower.

It's been a long time since I messed with services, I just read through them and disabled the ones I didn't need that were running. I wouldn't use any of the "premade" tweaks from there, just manually go through them. I've disabled just about everything in startup, except the bare nescessities, things like messengers, or video card control panels, anything that you don't really use, that you can start manually if you need it, there's no reason to have that stuff starting up with Windows.

 

[lxskllr]

Black Viper benched...

http://episteme.arstechnica.co...006475931#314006475931

 

[phantom404]

I honestly never had a problem with vista and loved it alot better then windows xp.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: C1
Worked this week to help a friend fix his HP dv6748us notebook (w/VISTA). What a mess VISTA was in. I was able to clean it up enough to make him happy (he actually believes that it was a repair/restoration). After working on that thing, Im so so very very happy that I diverted all my new notebooks to XP !!!!!

This is not a Vista problem. It's a USER problem.

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Yes, it is that bad. Never had any stability problems with it, however, it's just annoying to use it every day. Mostly it's explorer issues though.

-Taskbar does not autohide for me, don't know why, I had to leave it to "always show"
-Explorer automatically closes if you are browsing CD/DVD and eject the disc (apparently you can turn this behavior off if you disable burning CD/DVD feature in Vista, why is it tied to burning CD/DVD I have on idea)
-No up button in explorer, yes, this is an issue
-Auto scroll in tree view pane is stupid, especially if you are using remote desktop and it's lagging
-Stupid explorer always tries to change my view preferences
-New search dialogue is stupid, tell me, how many people really use search by author textbox
-Search dialogue does not remember column settings I chose last time I used it
-For the longest time Save As dialogue didn't remember last saved location, although this seems to be fixed
-UAC, probably wouldn't be that bad, but why the hell does it have to ask TWICE for every action? I'm not going to change my mind.
-Shenanigans with copying files, I can't copy files from network straight to program files, but I can copy them to D drive, and then to Program Files, makes no sense
-Shenanigans with file access permissions and absolutely unhelpful messages. Was working with xml file I was editing in notepad2, tried to save, got "file does not exist" would you like to save as message. If the file does not exist, what am I editing right now? I pick save as, it points to the working directory with the file I'm editing right there, I click that file to save as, it says the file doesn't exist. Right...

I've bolded the things that seem like actual OS quibbles. The rest just seem like user error. I haven't encountered any of those problems, and I've been running Vista since pre-SP1.

Thought I don't even know what notepad2 is, so that may be a legitimate issue caused by notepad2 itself being incompatible with Vista.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Ever since using Vista, I dont think Ill ever go back to XP.

 

[j0j081]

I think Vista is great. Of course I will move to Win 7 but that is only because I am really into computers. For a the typical home user I don't see much reason to upgrade to 7 to be honest. I think most of the big complaints about Vista from the general public came because when Vista was released the pcs it was preloaded on were hardly powerful enough to run it in any kind of glory, not to mention all the junk from the oems was barely compatible.

 

[MBM85]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: ArkaignBoots slow, slow to open programs, slow to browse folders, slow to shut down, slow slow slow.

My brother's Win7 install on an old C2D-T2250 notebook, complete with 5400RPM hard drive and 2gb of DDR2-533 .. blows my clean Vista install away. And my XP install on the E5200? Ridiculously fast in comparison.

Have you tried disabling services you do not need? Removing programs from start up that you don't need? http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

Thanks, I'll check that out. I'm actually so annoyed with the Phenom/Vista box that I'm posting this from my new spare E5200/XP box *sigh*. I've got an old 7900GS and 1GB DDR2-667 (2x512) with it, and it still runs circles around my new build in general windows use (boot / open browser / launch nero / browse files w/explorer / shut down).

Do you have any recommendations based on that list that you personally use in Vista? I have heard that Vista isn't that 'tunable' and that changing things can actually make it slower.

Mem, I've got the following loaded, in the order that I installed :

(1)- Set bios on 790X to 'AHCI' for the Sata controller
(2)- Boot from Vista SP1 Disc, format, fresh install onto 1TB WD Black Sata
(3)- Install latest chipset drivers from Gigabyte for my mobo (790XUD4P)
(4)- Install latest Nvidia drivers for the 9600GT
(5)- Install Sound & Network drivers
(6)- Install Vista SP2 (downloaded from microsoft, not using the Windows update feature)
(7)- Run Windows update, get all available security-related updates

The only applications that I've loaded are Nero 7.10 (with 'Scout' disabled) and Firefox 3.5. The only games I've tried so far are Oblivion, GRID, and Fallout 3.

The thing is that apps/games run great once they're going, but the delays in booting/shutting down/opening apps are driving me batty. I'm going to try scouring some more old threads (see you in some offering some nice advice!), and see if I can tweak this sucker into running like it should. Thanks guys!

The bottom line is you shouldn't have to disable any services to try to get that machine to run smoothly. It should be more than capable of doing that already, so there's an issue somewhere else.

 

[techmanc]

Windows Vista was first OS built on a different kernel and as such when it first came out the OS was flaky and the drivers were mostly bad esp graphice drivers from ATI and NVIDIA. As time went on they got thing patched up it the OS and drivers and it became much better at about SP1 service pack. Now Windows 7 is a continution and refinement of Vista where they removed a lot of the bloat and tweaked it so it now seem to be a faster leaner OS so it should work great as theirs virtually no driver changes needed. Also with Vista when it was fist released if you had hardware vista could run on you were fine, if not it had serious problems.

 

[nerp]

I actually prefer Vista to 7 in many ways. I was so done and tired of XP when Vista came out. It was a blessing to me. And I've never understood the performance complaints. It has always run faster for me than XP. No chugging. Crap just pops open and always has. Superfetch is kickass. Maybe I just don't run crapware and bloaty junk. I'm pretty minimalist with my stuff.

The ONE thing about Vista that was borked for me was the very slow network file transfer speeds in the beginning. But that got fixed pretty quickly.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Mem, I've got the following loaded, in the order that I installed :

(1)- Set bios on 790X to 'AHCI' for the Sata controller

You don't want to use the AMD AHCI driver because it is broken and harms performance. Uninstall that driver and use the Vista native AHCI driver as it performs much better than AMD's driver.

Also, Don't get your drivers from Gigabyte unless they are the latest version drivers from each company that provides components for the mobo. Instead go to the individual component manufactures web site and get them there. I'm betting your issues are from broken or outdated drivers being used.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Mem, I've got the following loaded, in the order that I installed :

(1)- Set bios on 790X to 'AHCI' for the Sata controller

You don't want to use the AMD AHCI driver because it is broken and harms performance. Uninstall that driver and use the Vista native AHCI driver as it performs much better than AMD's driver.

Also, Don't get your drivers from Gigabyte unless they are the latest version drivers from each company that provides components for the mobo. Instead go to the individual component manufactures web site and get them there. I'm betting your issues are from broken or outdated drivers being used.

I am using the Vista SP2 AHCI driver, but I had to enable AHCI in bios (was set to compatible/PATA)

Only drivers from Gigabyte are for audio and network, which are both current.

System is fast when things are opened, just takes time for the animations to take place. I'm spoiled by virtually instant response.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Mem, I've got the following loaded, in the order that I installed :

(1)- Set bios on 790X to 'AHCI' for the Sata controller

You don't want to use the AMD AHCI driver because it is broken and harms performance. Uninstall that driver and use the Vista native AHCI driver as it performs much better than AMD's driver.

Also, Don't get your drivers from Gigabyte unless they are the latest version drivers from each company that provides components for the mobo. Instead go to the individual component manufactures web site and get them there. I'm betting your issues are from broken or outdated drivers being used.

I am using the Vista SP2 AHCI driver, but I had to enable AHCI in bios (was set to compatible/PATA)

Only drivers from Gigabyte are for audio and network, which are both current.

System is fast when things are opened, just takes time for the animations to take place. I'm spoiled by virtually instant response.

Arkaign did you check in Reliability and Performance monitor chart?...it gives you a graph of any issues (little red circle with white x) maybe a clue there to the issue you have,also don't forget to update your DX9.0C to latest version ie from here (March 2009) for all versions of Windows.

I would run CCleaner as well and give Superfetch a week at least to learn your PC user habbits,if you are overclocked try running at default speed for now and see if things improve.I presume you installed latest board chipset drivers?

The only applications that I've loaded are Nero 7.10

I used Nero in the past but found it became too bloated over the years, anyway I'm very happy with Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 it does all I need without any bloat.

 

[MBM85]

Originally posted by: Mem


I used Nero in the past but found it became too bloated over the years, anyway I'm very happy with Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 it does all I need without any bloat.

I always find it funny when people will reject Nero or some other piece of software because it's become bloated, yet continue to use and praise Vista. Well, um, VISTA IS BLOATED SOFTWARE. There's just no denying the fact it is more bloated than it needed to be, and Windows 7 proves that point further.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: MBM85

Originally posted by: Mem


I used Nero in the past but found it became too bloated over the years, anyway I'm very happy with Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 it does all I need without any bloat.

I always find it funny when people will reject Nero or some other piece of software because it's become bloated, yet continue to use and praise Vista. Well, um, VISTA IS BLOATED SOFTWARE. There's just no denying the fact it is more bloated than it needed to be, and Windows 7 proves that point further.

You do the maths trial version of Nero 9 is over 300mb,Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 (51.9mb) as to Vista Bloated well Win7,Vista,XP,2K is bloated compared to Win95 , Dos 6.22 etc how far you want to go back?

Your post offers nothing constructive,I was trying to help a fellow member.

 

[MBM85]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: MBM85

Originally posted by: Mem


I used Nero in the past but found it became too bloated over the years, anyway I'm very happy with Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 it does all I need without any bloat.

I always find it funny when people will reject Nero or some other piece of software because it's become bloated, yet continue to use and praise Vista. Well, um, VISTA IS BLOATED SOFTWARE. There's just no denying the fact it is more bloated than it needed to be, and Windows 7 proves that point further.

You do the maths trial version of Nero 9 is over 300mb,Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 (51.9mb) as to Vista Bloated well Win7,Vista,XP,2K is bloated compared to Win95 , Dos 6.22 etc how far you want to go back?

Your post offers nothing constructive,I was trying to help a fellow member.

My point was that if you have accepted Vista, then why would you complain about software like Nero taking up 300MB? As far as your other point, well that's being a bit too easy on Microsoft. I have higher expectations, so I simply believe Vista could have been a whole lot lighter than it was. The system requirements to run it smoothly were just too high.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: MBM85

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: MBM85

Originally posted by: Mem


I used Nero in the past but found it became too bloated over the years, anyway I'm very happy with Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 it does all I need without any bloat.

I always find it funny when people will reject Nero or some other piece of software because it's become bloated, yet continue to use and praise Vista. Well, um, VISTA IS BLOATED SOFTWARE. There's just no denying the fact it is more bloated than it needed to be, and Windows 7 proves that point further.

You do the maths trial version of Nero 9 is over 300mb,Ashampoo Burning Studio 9 (51.9mb) as to Vista Bloated well Win7,Vista,XP,2K is bloated compared to Win95 , Dos 6.22 etc how far you want to go back?

Your post offers nothing constructive,I was trying to help a fellow member.

My point was that if you have accepted Vista, then why would you complain about software like Nero taking up 300MB? As far as your other point, well that's being a bit too easy on Microsoft. I have higher expectations, so I simply believe Vista could have been a whole lot lighter than it was. The system requirements to run it smoothly were just too high.

I found Nero bloated even in XP not to meantion the registry files it leaves behind on uninstall so Vista is irrevellant to my post,besides if you read my posts you would find I have no issues with Vista and I was trying to track down the cause Arkaign has.