Vista Sucks

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dighn
Fact: Vista hating doesn't make you cool.

Now Nickleback, on the other hand..


/Linux user..

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: scruffypup

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
it still bogs down on me today on my OCed quad core system, even with SP1 and those few things (indexing, UAC, etc) turned off. i always find myself reverting back to xp pro sp3.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Stop and think: almost all of us are using Vista with no hangups. It's you buddy.

Vista adoption is horrible. Sorry.

Yup, I'm not using it and neither are businesses.

That means nothing as far as whethe Vista is a worthwhile system. Most businesses will not adobt Vista and skip a generation entirely due to cost restraints,.. (most of them skipped ME or 2k from 98 and NT4), this is VERY typical of businesses. If you are not using it means nothing to everyone else.

Vista has a more secure platform to work off of than xp or previous NT versions by default. But like one other poster stated, there will always be haters of the newest MS platform.

I'm not a "vista hater" I am a realist.

Find me a copy of the server admin tools for vista, yeah they arent there. I need to connect via terminal services to do anything with AD etc

Network transfers are slower, this has been proven repeatedly.

Things have been moved to less intuitive places

It takes more resources and provides nothing new. Give me a reason to upgrade to Vista. My XP boxes are secure, reliable and do what I need them to do, vista offers nothing more than a shiny new face and DX10

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser


I recently upgraded my girlfriend's comp from 1GB to 4GB of RAM. With 1GB Vista was slow as molasses, and I just knew it would be much snappier with 4GB. You can imagine my surprise when it didn't make much of a difference. Bootup still takes ~ 4 minutes (was 6), and shutdown still takes anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes (most are closer to 10). I've spent hours troubleshooting Vista and just can't figure out what the problem is. Networking with XP, Ubuntu, and Mandriva has also been a pain since day one.

So I'm anxiously awaiting SP2 (XP was a joke until SP2).

there has to be something else wrong then. how else do you explain the people who have it and it works fine?

Maybe their definition of "works fine" is much more lenient than mine?

Also, gf went from a 2GHz Pentium 4 with XP to an Athlon 64 X2 with Vista and still bitches about Vista and hounds me to upgrade it to XP.

FWIW, we just rebooted the comp and shutdown took less than 30 seconds (a first, seriously). Boot up (to a usable desktop) took 3 minutes.

 

[SunnyD]

Not even bothering to look at the link. Vista is fine. Been running Vista 64 since launch and haven't had a single problem with it.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: Nik
There's no reason for me to upgrade from XP to Vista. None.

pretty much

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Vista is trash. Bought my GF a new laptop with Vista pre-installed. Dual core AMD running at 2ghz with 512mb of ram. Started it up and right out of the box it takes about 6 minutes to start up. Wtf. Ok, go in uninstall useless compaq crap programs for remote control, tech support, etc. Should speed right up. Nope. 6 minutes to boot, lags when you try and do anything in windows. Alright, it's probably all that fancy gui crap they added in that's too much for the stock accelerator card to handle. Go in, turn off all the jazz, set the theme to good old windows classic, no fade in/fade out on the menus, turn off the desktop plugin utilities, set power management settings for high performance, should be quick now. Boot up time shortened to 5 minutes and although response is better, it's still a dog. I've got a p700 Thinkpad T21 that's running XP with better response than this machine.
Maybe I have to start turning off some other things but come on. This is ridiculous. Out of the box a brand new computer should be quick. Vista is supposed to make it even quicker for loading programs with it's fancy ass memory usage. I shouldn't have to tweak the thing to hell and back just to get it to perform at a satisfactory level. The whole thing just pissed me off. So I'm never buying a pc with Vista on it. At least not until I hear some good things about it after they patch it all to hell to fix this stuff.

Try installing more RAM. Anyone who thinks they can use Vista with less than 1GB of RAM is crazy and honestly to really get the speed out of Vista you need 2GB. And honestly RAM is pretty freaking cheap.

Seriously, go get some cheap laptop RAM, add it to your laptop I bet my next paycheck it will be faster.

I recently upgraded my girlfriend's comp from 1GB to 4GB of RAM. With 1GB Vista was slow as molasses, and I just knew it would be much snappier with 4GB. You can imagine my surprise when it didn't make much of a difference. Bootup still takes ~ 4 minutes (was 6), and shutdown still takes anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes (most are closer to 10). I've spent hours troubleshooting Vista and just can't figure out what the problem is. Networking with XP, Ubuntu, and Mandriva has also been a pain since day one.

So I'm anxiously awaiting SP2 (XP was a joke until SP2).

Tell your GF to quit googling for pr0n sites and downloading every little thing for flash games. She obviously has a software issue of some kind, I doubt very much its hardware but either way it has nothing to do with Vista or the 4gb of RAM, which BTW probably wasn't that great of an upgrade since I very much doubt she's running x64 and thus, will only utilize 3gb of the RAM.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
I recently upgraded my girlfriend's comp from 1GB to 4GB of RAM. With 1GB Vista was slow as molasses, and I just knew it would be much snappier with 4GB. You can imagine my surprise when it didn't make much of a difference. Bootup still takes ~ 4 minutes (was 6), and shutdown still takes anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes (most are closer to 10). I've spent hours troubleshooting Vista and just can't figure out what the problem is. Networking with XP, Ubuntu, and Mandriva has also been a pain since day one.

So I'm anxiously awaiting SP2 (XP was a joke until SP2).

then something is wrong with the computer. i have seen computers with 2 gb boot up and shut down far faster.

I've scoured the event log and have found numerous errors. In fact, the amount of information in the event log is impressive, I just wish it was useful. The problem is that there is no noticeable pattern for the errors (it's not a single driver or program).

EDIT > Also, Ubuntu 64 works just fine (and is quite snappy).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I hear people that hate Vista, love Mojave!

 

[Kirby]

I've got a copy of Ultimate on my desk, I'll probably upgrade from XP when I get a DX10 card. No telling when that'll be though.

 

[imported_apocalypse]

I was skeptical, never bothered to try Vista on my old rig. Went to Vista 64 on my new rig to get support for 4GB ram, and it works great. Its been more stable than XP too, though that could have something to do with better hardware..

 

[Crono]

I don't get what the debate is about. Vista works great for some people, and not so great for others. The problem isn't that Vista is an utter pile of crap, it's just a mediocre update to Windows XP, and it didn't meet the expectations of many people when it was released (perhaps because it was over hyped by people the 2 years or more when it was "Longhorn"). Vista Home Basic was a pain for me when I first got it. Too many devices (HP printer, mp3 player, X-Fi card, etc) either didn't have the driver, or had an awful driver that didn't work properly. This isn't entirely Microsoft's fault, and it is something expected when switching to a new OS. Time, SP1, and upgrading to Premium resolved just about all my issues. UAC is still retarded, though (turned it off immediately, don't care about the security hole enough to leave on). Vista's UI is nice, and definitely an improvement over XP's.

As someone who can see both sides, I think Vista is alright, but the features (DX10, ReadyBoost, 4GB RAM support, etc) don't make that compelling an argument for upgrading to it from Windows XP w/SP3. I regularly use both and still prefer a stripped down and modified install of XP, because it's faster and I don't need the eyecandy. For an out-of-the-box, ready-to-use OS, Vista is fine.

I don't get why there is an almost "Mac vs Windows" divide going on between XP users and Vista users. It's sibling rivalry, and there's really no need for it. Both are good at their best, both suck at their worst, and both usually fall somewhere in between.

Besides, we all know that Linux is better than them both Just kidding - though I do like where Ubuntu in particular is going with development.

Tech fanyboyism (is that a word now?) of any stripe is retarded. Consumer technology isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a religion. Tech Pragmatism: Use what works for you, and respect the right of others to do the same. Preach your preferred tech if you want, but be nice about it (Tech Golden Rule).

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Nik
There's no reason for me to upgrade from XP to Vista. None.

DX10? Proper 64bit support? Dreamscape? Search 4.0? A better UI (start menu find is amazing)? Improved audio environment?

Ok that's all I've got off the top of my head. Uninstall program menu in control panel is way better too but that's kind of an odd "pro".

I don't have a DX10 video card and wouldn't spend a fortune on a new card and a new OS just to have DX10.

What applications out there are 64-bit-only? Which of those applications are absolutely essential to have? None. There's no reason to have 64-bit OS right now (and there won't be any time soon either).

Dreamscape? Lawlz.

Search? Upgrading your entire OS because of search? Haha.

Improved UI is your opinion. I use the Windows Classic theme.

I use headphones, too, so improved audio environment doesn't apply.


I've used Vista quite a bit for work. Gotta be able to support those using the company's software on Vista. There's still no reason for me to upgrade from XP.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Nik
There's no reason for me to upgrade from XP to Vista. None.

DX10? Proper 64bit support? Dreamscape? Search 4.0? A better UI (start menu find is amazing)? Improved audio environment?

Ok that's all I've got off the top of my head. Uninstall program menu in control panel is way better too but that's kind of an odd "pro".

I don't have a DX10 video card and wouldn't spend a fortune on a new card and a new OS just to have DX10.

What applications out there are 64-bit-only? Which of those applications are absolutely essential to have? None. There's no reason to have 64-bit OS right now (and there won't be any time soon either).


I use headphones, too, so improved audio environment doesn't apply.


.

yes it does Nik, application independent adio settings, matters not if headphones or speakers

 

[RapidSnail]

You know, I've never had a problem with any Microsoft OS. They run very stable, and do exactly what I want. It's amazing how all you computer geeks can run Linux, but can't figure out how to keep your Windows box secure and peppy.

 

[preslove]

I got a desktop last year with vista and dual booted with ubuntu. I found Vista to be a buggy POS and just ended up using ubuntu most of the time. I then left it in America and went to London for 6 months. When I returned I installed service pack 1 to see if it improved things. It did, & I am using Vista more than ubuntu now.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: shoRunner
whats wrong with windows vista?

What isn't.

 

[Eli]

I hate Vista.

What a CPU hogging, memory eating piece of garbage.

It's pretty though! :roll:

 

[Oyeve]

I prefer XP over Vista but I dont hate Vista. I feel it is just a tad immature and hopefully the next windows version will be better. Sorta like 95 was meh and 98 was good, then Millenium was meh then XP was good then Vista was meh............

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
I prefer XP over Vista but I dont hate Vista. I feel it is just a tad immature and hopefully the next windows version will be better. Sorta like 95 was meh and 98 was good, then Millenium was meh then XP was good then Vista was meh............

whut

Windows 95 was amazing compared to Windows 3.1.

Windows 95 OSR2 > Any version of Windows98.

WinME was absolute garbage though.

Windows 2000 rocked.

Windows XP was good.

Windows Vista would be good if it wasn't so slow and bloated. I just about shit myself when I got my new laptop and it was using 1.2gb of memory and 20% of the processor power just sitting there doing nothing.

 

[cronos]

Originally posted by: Crono
I don't get what the debate is about. Vista works great for some people, and not so great for others. The problem isn't that Vista is an utter pile of crap, it's just a mediocre update to Windows XP, and it didn't meet the expectations of many people when it was released (perhaps because it was over hyped by people the 2 years or more when it was "Longhorn"). Vista Home Basic was a pain for me when I first got it. Too many devices (HP printer, mp3 player, X-Fi card, etc) either didn't have the driver, or had an awful driver that didn't work properly. This isn't entirely Microsoft's fault, and it is something expected when switching to a new OS. Time, SP1, and upgrading to Premium resolved just about all my issues. UAC is still retarded, though (turned it off immediately, don't care about the security hole enough to leave on). Vista's UI is nice, and definitely an improvement over XP's.


As someone who can see both sides, I think Vista is alright, but the features (DX10, ReadyBoost, 4GB RAM support, etc) don't make that compelling an argument for upgrading to it from Windows XP w/SP3. I regularly use both and still prefer a stripped down and modified install of XP, because it's faster and I don't need the eyecandy. For an out-of-the-box, ready-to-use OS, Vista is fine.

I don't get why there is an almost "Mac vs Windows" divide going on between XP users and Vista users. It's sibling rivalry, and there's really no need for it. Both are good at their best, both suck at their worst, and both usually fall somewhere in between.

Besides, we all know that Linux is better than them both Just kidding - though I do like where Ubuntu in particular is going with development.

Tech fanyboyism (is that a word now?) of any stripe is retarded. Consumer technology isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a religion. Tech Pragmatism: Use what works for you, and respect the right of others to do the same. Preach your preferred tech if you want, but be nice about it (Tech Golden Rule).

I completely agree with my 'twin' brother here

Simply put, if you're building a new system with 4GB RAM or more and are going to play games with it, there's no question that Vista x64 is your best choice.

However, if this is for your 1-2 year old system with Windows XP that's been running perfectly fine for you (regardless of the spec), you don't need to bother upgrading.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Eli
I hate Vista.

What a CPU hogging, memory eating piece of garbage.

It's pretty though! :roll:

What are you talking about? Superfetch?

KT

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Eli
I hate Vista.

What a CPU hogging, memory eating piece of garbage.

It's pretty though! :roll:

What are you talking about? Superfetch?

KT

I'm talking about the whole damn OS in general. Even after using a tweak guide and turning all the pretty stuff off, it still uses 1gb of RAM. At least the CPU usage went down to the normal 0-5%...

My new laptop feels about as fast as my old one, and my old one is 3 years old..with the original install of XP..

New: C2D 1.83GHz, 2gb ram

Old: P4/1.73GHz, 1gb ram

I'm very unsatisfied with Vista. I'm open to suggestions on how to make it better, but I hate it. I can't wait to install XP. I wish I would have done it before using the computer for so long, now it's going to be a pain in the ass.

I would be considered a power user. Right now I have 25 tabs in FF open, and 32 windows in my taskbar open. Vista bogs down much more under these conditions than XP did. I don't get it.

 

[MaxDepth]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Yawn.

I agree that Vista wasn't all that it should have been feature-wise. However, there's no doubt that it is better than XP is just about every possible way.

Really? How so? And is it better enough to justify spending $200 on an OS upgrade?

For me, games on a PC amounts to 10% of what I want in total from a PC.

 

[imported_apocalypse]

Originally posted by: Eli
I hate Vista.

What a CPU hogging, memory eating piece of garbage.

It's pretty though! :roll:

Well I need SOMETHING for the 3 idle cores in my CPU to do!

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
it still bogs down on me today on my OCed quad core system, even with SP1 and those few things (indexing, UAC, etc) turned off. i always find myself reverting back to xp pro sp3.

then you're doing something wrong

tell me what then! i completely zero the drive and then install vista but no luck. maybe its just my bad luck. with xp or lower i have no problems. thats just the way it is for me. im going to try installing windows server 2008, and if all goes well, im sticking with that, as it looks to be a much leaner/faster/cleaner vista. and if that doesnt work, back to xp we go!

amdzen - why not? this has been going on not only with my quad core machine, but my old amd opteron 170 machine, and my p4 2.4C machine as well. each system was OCed, had at least 2GB of ram and a 256MB gpu in it. same thing with them.

there is this one annoyance that occurs even still in SP1, and thats with network transfers. they are horribly slow (and i have a gigabit network at home) in vista, but fine in xp or 2000. and i dont know where it went, but where the eff is my firewire in vista? is it always on and it just doesnt show in the network connections anymore? and honestly, aside from the "better security", dx10, and aero, there really isnt much going for vista (although it wouldnt hurt)