Vista Sucks

[Vehemence]

Vista FTW. Never had a problem. The only time I've seen a problem with Vista was when someone was running it on a 2002 machine.

 

[effowe]

Vista x64 has been running pretty well for me, and I've only been using it for a couple of months. The biggest gripes I have with it is 64-bit driver compatibility issues. For example, my Hauppauge PVR-350 card has no Vista 64 support. I was trying to install video codecs to properly decode / encode some videos that I had and there were few Vista 64 drivers that helped me. It seems as though whenever I find something that should work, but doesn't, it's always related to 64 bit support.

 

[foghorn67]

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).

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.

The upcoming Adobe CS4 products will have 64 bit versions available.

 

[AmpedSilence]

Just bought a new laptop, came with Vista Home Premium SP1. Super fast boot up. But man are all the icons moved around. It's annoying as hell. I have had to google to see how to do EVERYTHING. I have to google to learn how to UNINSTALL A PROGRAM! I guess my 6 years of being XP help desk makes me a total noob.

 

[sswingle]

I just got Vista 64 a month ago when I got my new system. I wish I had switched sooner.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: 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!

Only the OS uses those. Apps still need to have multi-threading enabled to take advantage of multi-core cpus. Not a whole lot of those out there.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

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.

Your nick is fitting, stop rambling. 512 MB is barely enough for XP with applications, you really want it to work on Vista?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
I like pie.

and I like turtles.

 

[FleshLight]

My vista home premium boots up in 30 seconds and shuts down in 5 seconds.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

Bake quiche?

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

Memory utilization.

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

I think most "problems" vista bashers are having are probably from prebuilt systems with all the bloatware preinstalled. I have a T60 laptop with 2gb of ram and all the shit lenovo put on this thing made it take 5mins to go from boot to usability. Uninstalled all the BS and its much faster now.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

Memory utilization.

You mean how it actually does a much better job of memory management that any windows iteration before it?

KT

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

Memory utilization.

You mean how it actually does a much better job of memory management that any windows iteration before it?

KT

Why the fuck does it use 1gb of RAM on bootup when my XP laptop uses 360mb?

 

[kyzen]

I've been using Vista Ultimate 64 for ages now. Absolutely love it. Got a BSOD and lost a lot of my files on one machine when applying SP1 awhile back, but the same thing happened to me with XP SP2 years ago.

Every machine I own now is running Vista 64 or Server 2008 (aside from my Aspire One, and my work-issued laptop).

My one complaint right now with one of my machines is that the boot time more than doubled after I installed some crappy Kensington bluetooth drivers a few months ago. I've since removed the dongle and uninstalled the drivers, but my boot time hasn't gone back down

Definitely looking forward to Windows 7 though, and if the copy they distribute at PDC is anywhere near usable, I imagine I'll be installing it on one machine or another right away

 

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

Memory utilization.

You mean how it actually does a much better job of memory management that any windows iteration before it?

KT

Why the fuck does it use 1gb of RAM on bootup when my XP laptop uses 360mb?

Why did Windows 95 use 8MB and XP uses 360MB?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: dNor

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just don't understand what problems people are having with Vista. I have yet to run into anyone I personally know who has ever had an issue with this OS. Which leads me to the question... what exactly does Vista not do at least as well as XP?

Memory utilization.

You mean how it actually does a much better job of memory management that any windows iteration before it?

KT

Why the fuck does it use 1gb of RAM on bootup when my XP laptop uses 360mb?

Why did Windows 95 use 8MB and XP uses 360MB?

Win95 didn't use 8mb, but point taken.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

I actually wouldn't care if it didn't just feel bloated... It's the overall feel of the OS. See my previous post. It isn't right that this computer is 3 years newer and has twice as much RAM as my old laptop, and feels just as fast or slower. It isn't right that it takes 30 seconds for the Control Panel menu to pop up because I haven't gone to it in a week.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: dNor


Why did Windows 95 use 8MB and XP uses 360MB?

Windows95 used 8mb? Really. Now thats something. When did windows 95 have services running in the background? Thats not really a fair comparision. Maybe you should compare windows NT with windows xp.
XP on a virgin install uses about 120mb. When its used, it jumps to 360mb or above depending on whats running.
Now tell me what I cannot run on windows xp that I can run on vista. I can tell you a hundred apps that can't run on windows95 that can run on windows xp.

 

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: Eli
Win95 didn't use 8mb, but point taken.

That's all I ever ran it on, and it was fine

Originally posted by: EliI actually wouldn't care if it didn't just feel bloated... It's the overall feel of the OS. See my previous post. It isn't right that this computer is 3 years newer and has twice as much RAM as my old laptop, and feels just as fast or slower. It isn't right that it takes 30 seconds for the Control Panel menu to pop up because I haven't gone to it in a week.

Definitely nor normal, as I've certainly never experienced this on an adequate machine, at least not since out of beta and definitely not since SP1. It's more resource intensive than XP, of course, but that's how Windows releases are; it's just not nearly as "bad" as everyone makes it out to be. At least not in my case, or the case of anyone I know.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler

Originally posted by: pontifex

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.

yeah, i thought ATOTers were smarter than this? 512 mb ram these days is nothing, especially with Vista.

Yeah sure, 512mb is not alot and ram is cheap. But what kind of a bloated pig of an operating system needs a gig of ram to run a friggin web browser efficiently? I mean come on. What the hell is Vista loading into memory that is eating that up? What seems more likely to me is that it's just inefficient as all hell. Now that I've got all the jazz turned off what the hell is it doing that XP isn't that it needs more than 512mb of ram? Is it that indexing thing? If I shut that off will it be like XP?

I guess I should be more pissed at Compaq then MS because they sold a laptop with hardware that was inadequate to run the OS they loaded in its default configuration. I'll buy some ram and see what happens.

Seriously. In terms of basic functionality, Vista does nothing more than win 95OSR2 which was happy as a pig in sh*t with 16 megs of ram. NT code ss more stable, granted so I was willing to give XP the benefit of 512MB but really, 2 f'ing gigs for an OS? Screw that.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: shoRunner
whats wrong with windows vista?

Didnt you read the title :roll: It "sucks".

 

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Windows95 used 8mb? Really. Now thats something. When did windows 95 have services running in the background? Thats not really a fair comparision. Maybe you should compare windows NT with windows xp.

"Fair comparisons" between Windows OSes when pointing out how each one has required a system performance increase is moot; it's a simple point of "Older versions of Windows require less resources than new ones". Eli seemed to understand it. /shrug

Originally posted by: zoiks
Now tell me what I cannot run on windows xp that I can run on vista. I can tell you a hundred apps that can't run on windows95 that can run on windows xp.

I'd rather run 2000 than XP for that. Don't upgrade to a new OS if you don't need to is an easy rule to live by.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: So

Seriously. In terms of basic functionality, Vista does nothing more than win 95OSR2 which was happy as a pig in sh*t with 16 megs of ram. NT code ss more stable, granted so I was willing to give XP the benefit of 512MB but really, 2 f'ing gigs for an OS? Screw that.

That's exactly how I feel.

Man, I almost miss Win95OSR2. That was a nice OS, for its time.

I liked Windows 2000 better though, obviously.

WinXP was barely an upgrade over Win2000.

Vista.. just sucks. Of course, I only have the experience of this one laptop.. Maybe they fubared the install somehow? I don't know. But I have all the garbage turned off, and it still feels slow.

My desktop or other laptop wouldn't choke with 60 windows open. I have terrible uptime with this new laptop, too. Things get unbearable after a few weeks, when my old laptop would happily chug along for almost 2 months before things got wonky.

 

[OCGuy]

Vista users are just beta-testing Windows 7 for us. For that, I thank you.