Perhaps a bit more of a
balanced view is needed, especially if you bought a laptop from a manufacturer with all the pre-installed software.
Sadly It's easy for people to criticize something when it's not their own work, but it's much harder to offer acknowledgment. You yourself have had a good experience with your previous Vista install and yet now have a bad one. Do not let the one sided opinion some people offer cloud your judgement and come to you own conclusions.
🙂
Originally posted by: C1
Dont waste your time. Ive got a much more capable computer than the one you describe that came with VISTA installed. I gave VISTA a fair shake for two months & just couldnt continue to live with it. (VISTA basically makes a new notebook operate like an old one & an old one with VISTA doesnt operate well at all.) It's not just the lesser performance, but it is also the bugs & poor implementations which are turn-offs.) If you dont believe me, then type "I Hate VISTA" into Google & read about the experience of huge numbers VISTA users (ranging from new notebook purchasers to corporate IT pros with 20+ years experience) & learn what they are saying. VISTA works well for some users, but the fact that so many people are having issues & are dissatisfied with it tells you that it is a too flawed operating system. Ive worked with software development, developers & testing for many many years & there is no excuse for execution times being what they are for many of the routines on going in VISTA (not to even mention the code block sizes). There is no reason to have to have the levels of resources that people on this forum claim are needed (eg, 4GB+ RAM, etc.) to do the standard things that are done by an OS. The issue I have found over & over again, is that when the software code is not done well then it almost doesnt matter what the hardware is. You end up with a poor system.
Working in software development I'm actually interested to find out examples of what portions of code you think is too big, and what routines take too long. Even with a suite of tools and debug symbols there is only so much visibility you have in what a routine may actually do without seeing source code. Vista did borrow a good portion of the XP/2003 server code base and added new features into that trunk so surely you must have a similar complaint with them ?
Whilst not everyone's experience of Vista is good, or bad there are plenty of content users out there. Think about it, users are more likely to post "hey Vista is crap, crashes etc" than "Vista is omg sooooooo good" on the internet because they are looking to find solutions to their problems and as mentioned above it was unfortunate that drivers by other companies have plagued allot of Vista's bad experience.
Do you need 4GB for Vista? No chance, personally I would say 1 minimum but 2 would be the sweet spot with anything better being ok. Personally Vista flies on my system and the only real gripe I have is that the feature set is slightly disappointing compared to what was planned in the beginning. Would I go back to XP? No, and there is no reason for me to either.
Many of the things that get touted have been said before and will be said again, bloated, slow etc. 98 - 2000, 2000 to XP. XP was
awful before SP1 with drivers yet Vista had a better initial set of drivers overall. However the most common (NVidia and Creative) have caused a majority of problems and they still haven't got it right on all systems, with Creative would actually rather you spent more money buying a new card than support an older one.
I think if people had a stable set of drivers which seems to be the big driving factor of whether they like or hate Vista, once they let Vista do the initial indexing, and left SuperFetch populate after logging in they'd find the experience a little better. Unfortunately allot of recommendations tell to turn indexing off and say memory should be left free. If people want to page stuff in from disk that's fine, less they forget the slowest part of the system.
