Vista why is it so bad..

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Maybe there aren't any viruses because there is a 6% user base. That does make sense doesn't it? When you upgrade your RAM you have to use this "special" RAM. I couldn't imagine Apple allowing its customers to use regular RAM. Have you ever considered linux? It introduces a concept called OPEN. It is a complete turn around from your closed system and you'll probably be shocked at first that you don't have to pay Apple for everything.

So, the Corsair DDR2-667 2*1GB SO-DIMMs that I ordered last week and installed yesterday... the sticks that I found in the regular memory section? Those were what? A figment of my imagination? Also, the Security through Obscurity argument doesn't hold up either.
Windows viruses: 114,000 last year
OS X viruses: 0 last year
Linux viruses: 0 last year

There should have been at least 1 or 2 for each of them. Think of the bragging rights... 'I made the first real virus for OS X!'

 

[Mem]

but it lacks the features that make XP so great such as fantastic driver support, system restore, networking, native wifi, much more intuitive nicer GUI, and many more improvements.

Funny you just described some of the features that Vista has over XP,if you can't see the improvements in Vista over XP then obviously you are so biased and ignoring the real facts not to meantion improved Vista features,I think any normal person would agree 2K to XP was not a big step compared to XP to Vista,Windows 7 will refine some of the Vista features with some added new stuff,Windows 8 on the other end is going to be a completely whole new OS and new ball game.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Maybe there aren't any viruses because there is a 6% user base. That does make sense doesn't it? When you upgrade your RAM you have to use this "special" RAM. I couldn't imagine Apple allowing its customers to use regular RAM. Have you ever considered linux? It introduces a concept called OPEN. It is a complete turn around from your closed system and you'll probably be shocked at first that you don't have to pay Apple for everything. The terminal was finally included in 2000 when OSX came out after every other OS had one for almost 10 years. Yeah, they had to steal a BSD to include it, pretty sad. Prior to Intel processors and Apple Bootcamp, you couldn't install another OS besides some Linux distros since it was based on PowerPC. If I really wanted to experience a mac then I could just clone a BSD to look exactly like it since that is all it is: a fancy looking BSD.

When will people like you finally realize that it will not matter what you say, people will continue to use their OS of choice? In a normal week I use various version of Windows and Linux. I use what I need to get the job done, and you know what if it was easiest on an Apple I sure as hell would be using one.

In fact, I would go so far as to say your little tirades are pushing people away from trying Linux. Your tactics are anything but graceful and if you were the first person that tried to convince me to use Linux I would definitely tell you go away.

If you want people to use Linux you need to show them why it's good without making people feel like you are attacking their choice of OS.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: Raduque
What I want to know is why WatingForNehelem has not yet addressed this point:

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Peter Gutmann has never even tested his theories on Vista and refuses to do so. Looks to me like Peter is the one making empty claims.

I'm calling you on it, WatingForNehelem: ADDRESS THIS.

Well with the research I've been doing it seems Peter Gutmann hasn't been using Vista. He says all his information is from slides. Honestly though, I really don't care about this whole arguement because Vista still doesn't offer anything over XP.

Oh, NOW you change your tune

WaitingForNehelem "Vista sucks 'coz Peter Gutmann says so!"

Various"Peter Gutmann hasn't used Vista, how does he know?"

WaitingForNehelem "Oh, well, whatever, I THINK Vista doesn't offer anything over XP"

:roll:

Pick something and stuck to it, Waiting, or GTFO. You've been proven wrong several times in this thread, and instead of ceding the point, you change to your story, or you start attacking somebody elses' choice of OS. Just give it up.


Soonerproud: Forgiven, just as soon as you paypal me $5

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

I think any normal person would agree 2K to XP was not a big step compared to XP to Vista

I completely disagree with that.

If you want people to use Linux you need to show them why it's good without making people feel like you are attacking their choice of OS.

I don't care what people use. Everyone has been on my case just because I prefer XP. The thread title is "Vista why is it so bad..". I see nothing wrong with my posts.

Oh, NOW you change your tune

WaitingForNehelem "Vista sucks 'coz Peter Gutmann says so!"

Various"Peter Gutmann hasn't used Vista, how does he know?"

WaitingForNehelem "Oh, well, whatever, I THINK Vista doesn't offer anything over XP"

Yeah, because it seems I was wrong and I am man enough to admit that. I'm not gonna stick with a point when I know I am wrong. Then I'd be lieing to myself.

Funny you just described some of the features that Vista has over XP

That doesn't make sense. If XP already had those features how could Vista have invented them. Now the features could be improved in Vista but XP already had them.

 

[Mem]

That doesn't make sense. If XP already had those features how could Vista have invented them. Now the features could be improved in Vista but XP already had them.

Obviously Vista has both new features and improved features over XP like better GUI,improved indexing,improved security,superior DX10 which XP DOES NOT HAVE, improved memory handling,I could go on but you know Vista was a major redesign of a new OS ,especially when you compare XP to 2K and XP to Vista.

The topic is not about what you prefer,I preferred good old DOS 6.22 at one time as my favourite OS but its time has long gone and I even liked the simple Amiga OS if you want to go back to those very old days ,right now I have no favourite OS,point is you have NOT proven Vista is bad,its all hear say and opinion with no real proof,my real experience with Vista on more then one machine over 20 months or so is its not a bad OS .

As a serious gamer and beta gamer tester I can't afford to have issues that are OS related,frankly Vista has been excellent and not let me down in that department.

I suggest if you can't back your arguments on why Vista is bad you remain quiet,because frankly you are digging a very big hole for yourself.

 

[zod96]

For me the number one reason I hate vista is no vysnc support in older games. If a game doesn't have an option in the game to use vsync your out of luck and have to deal with screen tearing. That is totally unacceptable to me. Xp can use vsync in new or old games but vista which is supposed to be more advanced can't. That is just one of the reason I dislike vista their are many more reason though

 

[Mem]

For me the number one reason I hate vista is no vysnc support in older games.

I always kept V-sync on even in XP,I hated tearing when it was disabled,however that's a very minor issue which everway you look at it from either side.


A lot of gamers have it disabled for speed,there's no right or wrong just what you are happy with.

Due to architectural changes in the new Windows Vista Window Display Driver Model (WDDM), the graphics driver can no longer disable vsync from its own driver or Control Panel.

 

[zod96]

Too me its a very very big issue. Enough so that I won't use vista because of it. If vsync worked in vista I probably would use it...

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: zod96
Too me its a very very big issue. Enough so that I won't use vista because of it. If vsync worked in vista I probably would use it...

I think you are blowing it out of proportion in my experience,I'm a serious gamer and I have yet to see any tearing since by default V-sync is on ,older gamers seem ok too,obviously you can't expect every game to be perfect,I had my fair of issues with Win98 games that would not work in XP etc..end of the day you have to move forward at some point.

98 games so far installed at this time in Vista from oldies like Might and Magic 7,BG,Icewind Dale to new ones.


Btw one reason why I won't go back to XP is DX10 and even DX11 down the road ,Stalker Clear Sky looks nice in DX10 mode .

 

[zod96]

That's another thing. I've tried vista and gaming with DX10. Now besides the big hit you take using DX10 vs. DX9 to me DX10 doesn't look that much different then DX9. In fact if someone told me to guess which version was running, say on COH I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Its also the little things too. Xp for me boots way way faster than vista. Open a window in Xp is alot faster. Unzip a file is faster, deleting files is faster the list goes on and on for me. With xp on a fresh install I have 15 processes running vista is like 40. I'll skip vista and goto windows 7 when that comes out. I've been hearing from people beta testing it, that it is what vista should have been...

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: zod96
That's another thing. I've tried vista and gaming with DX10. Now besides the big hit you take using DX10 vs. DX9 to me DX10 doesn't look that much different then DX9. In fact if someone told me to guess which version was running, say on COH I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Its also the little things too. Xp for me boots way way faster than vista. Open a window in Xp is alot faster. Unzip a file is faster, deleting files is faster the list goes on and on for me. With xp on a fresh install I have 15 processes running vista is like 40. I'll skip vista and goto windows 7 when that comes out. I've been hearing from people beta testing it, that it is what vista should have been...

I know from my experience Vista x64 boots up faster,installs faster then what my XP ever did,zip files/ folders are also nippy,I guess it depends on your hardware and if you give Vista enough time to learn what software you use etc...I know I'm not the only user that'll say Vista is just as fast or faster then XP.

DX10 wise there is a noticable difference in IQ quality over DX9(Obviously depends on game by how much , however you could say thing samething about some games with DX8 to DX9) link , you can mouse over the pic where it says " exclusive screenshot comparison",obviously in gaming you'll see even more IQ difference ,as to DX10 performance hit again depends on game and hardware you use but Clear sky is not that demanding DX10 wise compared to some.

Due to the enhanced lighting of objects in Direct X 10, Clear Sky looks more realistic but compared to DX9 the performance doesn't differ very much in our benchmarks. The only option to deliver some noticeable visual differences is the wet surfaces - but they don't cause a real loss of performance either

Video cards are getting faster so this is not really an issue IMHO,besides I would say having shadows on in most games gives a bigger performance hit then any DX9,DX10 visuals etc so again you can tweak your performance,some games are better optimized for DX10 then others.

I'll skip vista and goto windows 7 when that comes out. I've been hearing from people beta testing it, that it is what vista should have been...

[/quote]

Its based off Vista so its more or less a sort of tweaked version with added features so its going to be another fine OS just like Vista IMHO,personally I'm looking forward to Windows 8( ETA 2012/2013) more then W7 since thats going to be a whole new OS not a minor upgrade like Vista to W7 ,also its supposed to be 64 bit only,hopefully no more 32 bit OS if Microsoft sticks with their plans.

Anyway each to their own ,all I can say is I happy with my Vista which is solid in gaming and more then fast enough for my needs (after using XP for 7 years).

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

I think any normal person would agree 2K to XP was not a big step compared to XP to Vista

I completely disagree with that.

If you want people to use Linux you need to show them why it's good without making people feel like you are attacking their choice of OS.

I don't care what people use. Everyone has been on my case just because I prefer XP. The thread title is "Vista why is it so bad..". I see nothing wrong with my posts.

Oh, NOW you change your tune

WaitingForNehelem "Vista sucks 'coz Peter Gutmann says so!"

Various"Peter Gutmann hasn't used Vista, how does he know?"

WaitingForNehelem "Oh, well, whatever, I THINK Vista doesn't offer anything over XP"

Yeah, because it seems I was wrong and I am man enough to admit that. I'm not gonna stick with a point when I know I am wrong. Then I'd be lieing to myself.

Funny you just described some of the features that Vista has over XP

That doesn't make sense. If XP already had those features how could Vista have invented them. Now the features could be improved in Vista but XP already had them.

Maybe the point here is not to open your mouth when you don't actually know what you are talking about? You have made some very ignorant statements in this thread. Some about Vista and some about OSX. Get informed, then speak.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: zod96
That's another thing. I've tried vista and gaming with DX10. Now besides the big hit you take using DX10 vs. DX9 to me DX10 doesn't look that much different then DX9. In fact if someone told me to guess which version was running, say on COH I would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

The problem with DX10 games, and COH was definately guilty of this, they didn't just simply switch to DX10 calls. They added new DX10 features not available under DX9 in addition to what the game normally does. The upshot is that the game ran slower since it was trying to do more. Other games like Bioshock, there were definite visual improvements over DX9, but again there were no FPS gains since they were doing more.

Interestingly enough, Far Cry 2, which doesn't seem to do that gets better performance under both DX9 and especially DX10 under Vista than it does XP.

Its also the little things too. Xp for me boots way way faster than vista. Open a window in Xp is alot faster. Unzip a file is faster, deleting files is faster the list goes on and on for me.

A lot of these are things that adjust over time of using Vista. Your experience doesn't reflect my own. Vista64 boots in about 45 seconds for me. XP on the same machine took just under a minute. The built in unzip utility does suck though. There is a massive difference when using the built in app vs something like 7zip (which is what I use). I'm not sure what your speed issues on deleting files may be though. It's near instantaneous on for me, including massive files. I'm constantly deleting 3 to 13GB files off my Vista Media Center.

With xp on a fresh install I have 15 processes running vista is like 40. I'll skip vista and goto windows 7 when that comes out. I've been hearing from people beta testing it, that it is what vista should have been...

"like 40" isn't quite right. But, you really can't compare the amount of processes running under Vista vs XP as they are significantly different under the hood. I guarantee you that Windows 7 Is going to use many more processes than XP as well.

The things I've been hearing about Win7 look promising. Under the hood, it represents 3 years of streamlining plus a UI refresh but it's still basically Vista where it counts. Win 7 is really going to be more of a Vista SE than anything else.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

I think any normal person would agree 2K to XP was not a big step compared to XP to Vista

I completely disagree with that.

Actually he's right. 2k and XP were both Windows 5.x and shared a great deal in common. One of the pain points of Vista is an improved driver model that is in some cases drastically different. The difference between XP and Vista is akin to the difference between NT and 2000 (4.x to 5.x).

Trying to use existing apps and drivers on 2k when it came out was often quite painful because of that difference.

2k apps and drivers on XP isn't so bad.

With XP to Vista the difference has returned again.


I'm late to the thread but I'm going to reiterate what others have said: The OP problems appear to be related to an uninformed user tyring to do things they shouldn't.

However, I'm a big fan of troubleshooting down to root cause before stating things as fact. I can't say for a fact it's pbkac but I can say as a fact that the OP doesn't have enough evidence to conclude it's Vista.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Well with the research I've been doing it seems Peter Gutmann hasn't been using Vista. He says all his information is from slides. Honestly though, I really don't care about this whole arguement because Vista still doesn't offer anything over XP.

I have to applaud you for coming back and admitting that the example's you used were bogus and bad sources of information concerning Vista and DRM. It takes a mature person admit when they are wrong, so you have earned my respect.

Just to clarify, I was not out to pawn you, but was hoping to educate you on that particular subject. There have been many times I used bad information in a debate and have been educated by others. Learning to be wrong sometimes and to willingly admit to it is a strength and not a weakness.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

so you have earned my respect

It's about time someone acutally looks to what I said instead of instantly flaming me.

Maybe the point here is not to open your mouth when you don't actually know what you are talking about? You have made some very ignorant statements in this thread. Some about Vista and some about OSX. Get informed, then speak.

You sir are very rude and your statement would make sense if I was actually talking. Why don't you control your temper and handle this thread like an adult? Please tell me why I am so unimformed. Other than DRM which I've already admitted to being wrong, what else have I said wrong about Vista? As for OSX, I REFUSE to use an OS that tells me which brand of computer to use. I have a strong hate for macs and I always will. It is my opinion and if anyone doesn't like it they can get over it. I could make a mac clone and no one could tell the difference. Best of all, it'd be free in price, and free to install on whatever pc you want. I like competition. It brings innovation and price cuts as shown by Nvidia and ATI.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

so you have earned my respect

It's about time someone acutally looks to what I said instead of instantly flaming me.

Maybe the point here is not to open your mouth when you don't actually know what you are talking about? You have made some very ignorant statements in this thread. Some about Vista and some about OSX. Get informed, then speak.

You sir are very rude and your statement would make sense if I was actually talking. Why don't you control your temper and handle this thread like an adult? Please tell me why I am so unimformed. Other than DRM which I've already admitted to being wrong, what else have I said wrong about Vista? As for OSX, I REFUSE to use an OS that tells me which brand of computer to use. I have a strong hate for macs and I always will. It is my opinion and if anyone doesn't like it they can get over it. I could make a mac clone and no one could tell the difference. Best of all, it'd be free in price, and free to install on whatever pc you want. I like competition. It brings innovation and price cuts as shown by Nvidia and ATI.

:laugh:

Yes, OSX isn't entirely written by Apple but you honestly think you can design an OS as good as Apple has?

Now, if you're talking about building an Intel based PC that runs OSX then you totally defeated your argument about not using an Apple because they lock you into their hardware.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

so you have earned my respect

It's about time someone acutally looks to what I said instead of instantly flaming me.

Maybe the point here is not to open your mouth when you don't actually know what you are talking about? You have made some very ignorant statements in this thread. Some about Vista and some about OSX. Get informed, then speak.

You sir are very rude and your statement would make sense if I was actually talking. Why don't you control your temper and handle this thread like an adult? Please tell me why I am so unimformed. Other than DRM which I've already admitted to being wrong, what else have I said wrong about Vista? As for OSX, I REFUSE to use an OS that tells me which brand of computer to use. I have a strong hate for macs and I always will. It is my opinion and if anyone doesn't like it they can get over it. I could make a mac clone and no one could tell the difference. Best of all, it'd be free in price, and free to install on whatever pc you want. I like competition. It brings innovation and price cuts as shown by Nvidia and ATI.

:laugh:

Yes, OSX isn't entirely written by Apple but you honestly think you can design an OS as good as Apple has?

Now, if you're talking about building an Intel based PC that runs OSX then you totally defeated your argument about not using an Apple because they lock you into their hardware.

I meant I could clone Linux or BSD to look and behave exactly like a mac. I did it before and I can do it again.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

so you have earned my respect

It's about time someone acutally looks to what I said instead of instantly flaming me.

Maybe the point here is not to open your mouth when you don't actually know what you are talking about? You have made some very ignorant statements in this thread. Some about Vista and some about OSX. Get informed, then speak.

You sir are very rude and your statement would make sense if I was actually talking. Why don't you control your temper and handle this thread like an adult? Please tell me why I am so unimformed. Other than DRM which I've already admitted to being wrong, what else have I said wrong about Vista? As for OSX, I REFUSE to use an OS that tells me which brand of computer to use. I have a strong hate for macs and I always will. It is my opinion and if anyone doesn't like it they can get over it. I could make a mac clone and no one could tell the difference. Best of all, it'd be free in price, and free to install on whatever pc you want. I like competition. It brings innovation and price cuts as shown by Nvidia and ATI.

:laugh:

Yes, OSX isn't entirely written by Apple but you honestly think you can design an OS as good as Apple has?

Now, if you're talking about building an Intel based PC that runs OSX then you totally defeated your argument about not using an Apple because they lock you into their hardware.

I meant I could clone Linux or BSD to look and behave exactly like a mac. I did it before and I can do it again.

I can do that on a Windows PC too, it's totally pointless. You are not doing anything other then changing the look of the UI. Do you have replicas of all the software that Apple includes with OSX?

There's a lot more to an OS then how it looks or feels..

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Someone ban WaitingForNehalem, he's a troll.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

I can do that on a Windows PC too, it's totally pointless. You are not doing anything other then changing the look of the UI. Do you have replicas of all the software that Apple includes with OSX?

There's a lot more to an OS then how it looks or feels..

I'd be using BSD as the base which is the base of OSX. The only thing left would be the GUI. Yes, I cloned Firefox to look like Safari.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

I can do that on a Windows PC too, it's totally pointless. You are not doing anything other then changing the look of the UI. Do you have replicas of all the software that Apple includes with OSX?

There's a lot more to an OS then how it looks or feels..

I'd be using BSD as the base which is the base of OSX. The only thing left would be the GUI. Yes, I cloned Firefox to look like Safari.

Lol, please just stop. Cloning firefox to look like safari doesn't make it safari... it's still firefox!

I meant I could clone Linux or BSD to look and behave exactly like a mac.

I'd be using BSD as the base which is the base of OSX.

Which one is it?

I will say it again, there's a lot more to an OS then how it looks or feels.

Oh, and BSD isn't an OS. There are tons of BSD based operating systems like freebsd, openbsd, Darwin(see what I did there?), Dragonfly, and even monowall(the security appliance).

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

I can do that on a Windows PC too, it's totally pointless. You are not doing anything other then changing the look of the UI. Do you have replicas of all the software that Apple includes with OSX?

There's a lot more to an OS then how it looks or feels..

I'd be using BSD as the base which is the base of OSX. The only thing left would be the GUI. Yes, I cloned Firefox to look like Safari.

But it isn't just a GUI. Sure, OS X uses BSD as its base, but that is then wrapped in OpenDarwin which really is the true core of OS. And you can't just slap a GUI on BSD and call it OS X. You have to take into account all the other things that make OS X, OS X. The included apps, the ease of install (the OS and new apps) the way the different apps work together, all kinds of little things.

I could slap a new GUI on Windows that made it look like OS X, but it wasn't OS X. I can do the same thing for Linux... still not the OS that it is dressed up as. You can put a pig in a silk dress... guess what, still a pig and not Marilyn Monroe.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

I can do that on a Windows PC too, it's totally pointless. You are not doing anything other then changing the look of the UI. Do you have replicas of all the software that Apple includes with OSX?

There's a lot more to an OS then how it looks or feels..

I'd be using BSD as the base which is the base of OSX. The only thing left would be the GUI. Yes, I cloned Firefox to look like Safari.

Lol, please just stop. Cloning firefox to look like safari doesn't make it safari... it's still firefox!

I meant I could clone Linux or BSD to look and behave exactly like a mac.

I'd be using BSD as the base which is the base of OSX.

Which one is it?

I will say it again, there's a lot more to an OS then how it looks or feels.

Oh, and BSD isn't an OS. There are tons of BSD based operating systems like freebsd, openbsd, Darwin(see what I did there?), Dragonfly, and even monowall(the security appliance).

Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD, sometimes called Berkeley Unix) is theUnix operating system derivative developed and distributed by the Computer Systems Research Group of the University of California, Berkeley, from 1977 to 1995.

replica-A replica is a copy that is relatively indistinguishable from the original.