the more i use vista, the more i get angry

[mugs]

at all the unnecessary bashing that people gave it when it first came out.

i guess when it first came out there were driver issues, but i just did a few installs on some machines and the experience is less cumbersome and annoying than with the last few XP installs i've done.
with vista, system comes up in 30 mins and ready to go.
XP, need to find a floppy for the ahci driver, click through several screens when it's installing, hunt down multiple drivers before connecting to the internet, and then doing countless updates (yes, i know about slipstreaming, then i would have to keep creating new slipstreaming images). if i dont have a floppy guess what, gotta install in standard mode then do the ahci 'hack'.

people seriously need to get off the hate train and give a good product credit where it's due

All of my experiences with Vista have been negative, and none of my issues have been related to drivers.

 

[rh71]

how come ctrl-v to paste files doesn't always work in My Computer (or maybe ctrl-c doesn't always copy). It's completely random whether it will or won't. I hate that I have to go to the "Organize" drop-down --> paste.

 

[guyver01]

how come ctrl-v to paste files doesn't always work in My Computer (or maybe ctrl-c doesn't always copy). It's completely random whether it will or won't. I hate that I have to go to the "Organize" drop-down --> paste.

are you pasting old info? or is nothing being pasted?

could be a full clipboard buffer.

goto Start --> Run --> CLIPBRD

once the clipboard is open (ignore any errors about services not running) .. goto EDIT --> Delete

The clipboard functionality should work fine.

 

[BoomerD]

It's kind of frustrating, but oh well. People love to spread misinformation, not really much you can do about it unless you're Microsoft and have the advertising budget to inform people of the misconceptions. And not to say that Vista was perfect, it had some issues. Fortunately Win 7 seems to have addressed some of them. Even early on, Vista was far more polished than XP, though. Unfortunately it was plagued by poor drivers.

Even today Vista still has the stigma of being slow, unstable, etc.


To be fair, neither of those are really Microsoft issues. Creative didn't bother releasing stable Vista drivers for their older cards to force people to upgrade to newer ones. Then some guy modifies the Creative drivers to support these older cards in Vista, and they threaten legal action. Really, really shady stuff on Creative's part. There was no technical reason the cards wouldn't work in Vista, they just weren't going to bother adding driver support for them before the situation turned into a PR nightmare.

Same deal with older software. If the developers aren't going to bother adding support for newer operating systems, that's on them, not Microsoft.

I agree with that 100%. I never blamed Microsoft for either the hardware issues or the software issues, and I was fully aware of the non-compatiblity BEFORE I installed Vista. Their "Vista upgrade advisor" told me exactly what programs weren't compatible and what hardware wasn't supported.

Fortunately, my motherboard has decent on-board sound and even though ASUS offered no support for Vista for this mobo, I was able to find the drivers I needed for complete compatiblilty for the mobo.

The ONLY hardware/software issue I still have I can completely blame on Microsoft...My Microsoft Laser Mouse 6000 has a built-in magnifyer feature...that works beautifully with my system and XP...but is...funky with Vista. It still works, just not right.

 

[Zebo]

Vista aka Codename "Longhorn" went into production before XP was ever released in 2001. Im assuming they didnt want another NT 5 failure (aka windows 2000).

Windows 2000 was a failure?

 

[RelaxTheMind]

I agree with that 100%. I never blamed Microsoft for either the hardware issues or the software issues, and I was fully aware of the non-compatiblity BEFORE I installed Vista. Their "Vista upgrade advisor" told me exactly what programs weren't compatible and what hardware wasn't supported.

Fortunately, my motherboard has decent on-board sound and even though ASUS offered no support for Vista for this mobo, I was able to find the drivers I needed for complete compatiblilty for the mobo.

The ONLY hardware/software issue I still have I can completely blame on Microsoft...My Microsoft Laser Mouse 6000 has a built-in magnifyer feature...that works beautifully with my system and XP...but is...funky with Vista. It still works, just not right.

If u somewhat read into microsoft's driver signing policies and other hooplathat are presented to the vendors you can kind of see both sides of the table... even more so with the ever so strict 64-bit vista. When u factor in the thousands of different hardware/software engineers around the globe microsoft has done a pretty good job. In comparison to their main competitor whose software/hardware is put together by the same groups of people for the 1 type of MAChine*.

Although it was funny to see actual microsoft branded products not compatible with their new uber-backwards-compatible OS.

*-denotes subliminal reference

 

[RelaxTheMind]

Windows 2000 was a failure?

It was meant to be what XP is today. A unity of the 9x and NT family. I like the OS dont get me wrong but the only time u really saw it out of an office or store bought preinstall was maybe someone who wanted XP but didnt want XP's system requirements.

win2k didnt have a green start button!

 

[ShawnD1]

The only problem i ever had with Vista is it was such a resource hog. Needed at least 4GB RAM and 1GB Video to work nicely.

The way it handles memory is totally fucked. For a while I only had 2gb of ram in my server and it was sloooooooow. It was thrashing the hell out of the swap file even though task manager shows that only 1.5gb of memory is used. Why is it not touching that other memory? Is it just trying to piss me off? I upgraded it to 4gb and now it's fast.

 

[Deeko]

Ran Vista on a few computers, even had it when it was a Beta. Never had a problem with it. Never understood all the hate either. Its not Microsoft's fault of hardware manufactures don't make drivers for it.

People will hate it because its cool to do so.

 

[fleabag]

hate vista, hate windows 7. I have a feeling it's the end of the line for me as I'll just have to transition to Linux I mean after all it's not like there are any good games being made anymore.. Since we're on the subject, I still hate XP and find that Windows 2000 was the best operating system Microsoft has made.

 

[jlee]

hate vista, hate windows 7. I have a feeling it's the end of the line for me as I'll just have to transition to Linux I mean after all it's not like there are any good games being made anymore.. Since we're on the subject, I still hate XP and find that Windows 2000 was the best operating system Microsoft has made.

Dragon Age: Origins

DiRT 2

Left 4 Dead 2

Batman: Arcane Asylum

Borderlands

Burnout Paradise

Grand Theft Auto IV

The Witcher

 

[Bateluer]

A clean install isn't my idea of "fixing" the problem. So I threw my Windows 7 DVD in the trash and will learn how to use Linux.

Wait, you're trying to do an upgrade install? Always do a clean install with moving to a new OS. Back up data, wipe drive, install, best and safest way to do it.

Actually XP was pretty damn good from day 1.

No, it wasn't. People look back with rose colored glasses because they've become so used to XP after 6+ years.

 

[Kelemvor]

The main reason so many people hated Vista is manufacturers were installing it on PCs that had no business running it. Vista is a resource HOG compared to XP. People took machines that met the minimum specs, put on Vista, and said it sucked because it was so slow.

My wife bought a laptop that had 512 megs of memory and a Celeron processor and it came with Vista. That thing sucked. Upgraded it to 2 gigs of memory and it worked much better. Upgraded it to Windows 7 and even better still.

Put Vista on a machine with enough power to run it properly and it works great. My C2D with 4 gigs of ram runs Vista 64 and I have no complaints at all.

 

[rh71]

are you pasting old info? or is nothing being pasted?

could be a full clipboard buffer.

goto Start --> Run --> CLIPBRD

once the clipboard is open (ignore any errors about services not running) .. goto EDIT --> Delete

The clipboard functionality should work fine.

windows cannot find 'clipbrd'... (VISTA64)

It is not pasting anything at all... like it doesn't even like ctrl-v... it's making me use Organize -> paste when throwing files around (again it's random). Text (like pasting into notepad) works all the time.

 

[fleabag]

No, it wasn't. People look back with rose colored glasses because they've become so used to XP after 6+ years.

It's funny that you say that because I'm probably one of the few who actually remembers the launch of XP and what a nightmare it was.. Even better are the people who say that XP only got good after 2 service packs... No it didn't! In fact, it got worse... The only reason why you were happy with your XP experience by the second service pack is because the OS was already 3 years old by the time it was released and drivers had matured, patches were issued and or people stopped using that old software which didn't work with the new OS. Still doesn't change the fact that XP doesn't work with old software and Service Pack 2 made things even worse. You say who cares?! I care! And obviously you don't care because that's why you think so highly of it!

So yeah, you're right, people are happy with it because it works for them, not because it didn't cause problems for people at one point in its lifecycle. To put it simply, if you take all the software & drivers you used back in 2000 or 2001 and tried to use it with the latest version of XP today without updating said software or anything, you'd hear twice as much complaining as there was back when XP was originally launched.

This still doesn't change the fact that Vista is a piece of crap that is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, desperately trying to take back marketshare Apple has already taken from Microsoft..

 

[Elganja]

<== never had a problem with vista or windows 7... have used both since launch

 

[SunSamurai]

<== never had a problem with vista or windows 7... have used both since launch

No one really cares about the critique of people that dont use their computer for more than browsing and printing thanks.

 

[Elganja]

No one really cares about the critique of people that dont use their computer for more than browsing and printing thanks.

you're right, that is all I do

 

[octopus41092]

I've never had issues with it.

 

[ShawnD1]

No, it wasn't. People look back with rose colored glasses because they've become so used to XP after 6+ years.

Let's look at a timeline of events.
Windows 95 - Completely unusable.
Windows 98 - Minimum of 3 crashes per day.
Windows XP - 0 crashes per day

Windows 2000/XP was revolutionary. It had stability that many of us had never seen before. Another very strange thing at the time was that it didn't have a "resource monitor" which was a little bar that went in the system tray of Windows 98. Green meant your system just started. Yellow meant it had been on for a while. Red meant it had run out of "resources" (wtf is that?) and had to be rebooted.

A brief explanation of the resource monitor for those who were too young to remember it:
http://apptools.com/rants/resources.php

Okay, so you've got this fancy 4GHz Pentium IV with 1Gb of RAM and Windows 98. Still, applications seem to be running out of memory. They run slow, or you may receive the dreaded "Unable to create control" message, or worse yet the entire operating system freezes up. What the heck is the problem?

The short answer: resources. Resources? How could that be? You've got gigabyte of RAM! The short answer: that makes no difference. You add another 512Mb of RAM. Now you have 1.5Gb of RAM. Still you have the same problem. The sad truth is, the amount of physical memory has absolutely no impact on system resources. When your system runs low on system resources bad things, like the foregoing, happen.

Note that, while I seem to be picking on Windows 98 here, the memory model is essentially the same in Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me. Later, we'll talk about Windows NT and its successors Windows 2000 and Windows XP, which share a significantly different memory model.

Farther down on the page is what I remember the most. The part where I reset the computer and kick the case as hard as I can. I actually broke my emachines computer by kicking it too hard.

Some applications, however, do not behave correctly. They may not free all the resources they allocate. This is called resource leakage. In this case, a block of memory is marked by the operating system as being in use and it cannot be used by the operating system, or any other application. When this happens, the only way to recover that area of memory is to reboot the computer.

When it says "some applications" it really means "all applications."
You could probably win some kind of award if you can get a Windows 98 computer to run for more than 5 hours without rebooting.

 

[BladeVenom]

Most of the Vista fanboys kept defending Vista, but as soon as Windows 7 came out they dropped Vista and switched to Windows 7. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Elganja]

Most of the Vista fanboys kept defending Vista, but as soon as Windows 7 came out they dropped Vista and switched to Windows 7. Actions speak louder than words.

so just because you upgrade to the next OS means people who used Vista actually hated it?

 

[ShawnD1]

so just because you upgrade to the next OS means people who used Vista actually hated it?

Obviously. Sleeping with a white girl means I hate black people.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Vista is great now, but it was really rough when it first released, especially if you tried to run the 64-bit version.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Vista is pretty much vaporware now that 7 is out. There's no reason to be using it. Either stick to XP, or go to 7.