Why do people hate Vista?

[Scooby Doo]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
I'm heading back to XP, spent enough time wasting trying to figure out how to get Vista to behave properly.

User error? You talk like you've been trying to wrestle a kodiak to the ground. Besides the sheer newness of Vista, the transition from 6-years of XPro to MS's latest has been fairly painless. I've got two XP workstations on my desk at work, and dealing with them is like crawling through a cave compared to Vista.

Definetely feels like wrestling a bear. Driver updates didn't help, BIOs updates didn't help. Heck, new SATA drive didn't help.

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

I'll keep a spare partition handy for it. Maybe by next year or SP1 it'll be actually useable.

Why not save yourself more torture and just stay with XP until the bitter end? If Vista is so utterly painful for you to use now you have to know that a SP isn't going to turn it into XP.

[/quote]

Play game, reboot, play game, reboot, repeat ad nausa. Maybe by then Jmicron and ASUS will have their acts together.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Definetely feels like wrestling a bear. Driver updates didn't help, BIOs updates didn't help. Heck, new SATA drive didn't help.

I feel for you dude, really I do. But I really have had a easy time of it. I have 4 SATA drives and no problems with any of them, and that's on the same BIOS that I used for XPro. I'm not saying that you haven't had any issues, only that those difficulties might not be Vista's fault, at least not directly.

Play game, reboot, play game, reboot, repeat ad nausa. Maybe by then Jmicron and ASUS will have their acts together.

Damn dude, you're starting to make me feel like I'm charmed. Of the 15 games I have installed on Vista, only one has given me a lasting problem and that's Dark Messiah. And it's even polite enough not to crash during play, only upon exiting. Consider some new HW, Doo.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Well I'm not blaming Vista directly, I like it, for the most part. It's a nice impovement over XP, and no you won't hear me complaining about slow or bloated. It's just this issue is driving me nuts for the last three weeks. The hardware works perfectly for XP and '03 eval, was hoping the transition went better than this. I don't remember having any major pains when I went to 2k and XP. And I just finished (well nearly) building this rig this spring, I don't want to, nor can afford to basically keep trying different things.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well I'm not blaming Vista directly, I like it, for the most part. It's a nice impovement over XP, and no you won't hear me complaining about slow or bloated. It's just this issue is driving me nuts for the last three weeks. The hardware works perfectly for XP and '03 eval, was hoping the transition went better than this. I don't remember having any major pains when I went to 2k and XP. And I just finished (well nearly) building this rig this spring, I don't want to, nor can afford to basically keep trying different things.

Did you ever say what mb you have? I looked but didn't see it. Maybe I overlooked that part.

 

[HardWarrior]

I'm sorry for your rotten experiences, Doo. I sincerly hope that things shake out for you in the near future.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: soonerproud


Out of the box I can think of several things that Vista can do that XP can't.

1. (Superfetch) Intelligently cache your programs according to your usage patterns.

There is no way it can predict what I am going to use.
Hell, half the time I don't know myself till I click it.

2. Provide better security. Vista comes with a better firewall, a more secure kernel, better security defaults, (IE7 protected mode for example) and it has Windows Defender built into the system.

All useless to me.
I have a linux firewall.
Don't run bit torrent garbage.
And am very careful what I install on my pc and its source.

3. Richer Multimedia experience. Vista has improved multimedia tools compared to XP. DVD Maker, Media Center, Media Player, Movie Maker and Photo Gallery are all improved upon compared to their XP counterparts. Only WMP 11 is ported over to XP. Even then it is missing some of the polish and functionality the Vista version has.

Multimedia garbage is what it has. All those apps are pretty bad compared to commercial alternatives.
Even some of the freeware out there is better by leaps and bounds than the MS defaults.

4. Better desktop search. XP's default desktop search blows compared to Vista's. Sure you can add that functionality to XP at a huge cost to system resources. Vista's is integrated into the OS and does not consume the level of resources the software for XP does.

uhm ok. But I have never lost anything on my pc that I couldn't find.
Maybe I'm just better organized than most.

5. Better maintenance tools. Disk defragmenter now allows you to schedule regular defrags. Task Scheduler is way more robust and much easier to use. Windows Update no longer requires IE to run. Disk Cleanup provides more options than XP does for deleting files. And of course there is Windows Defender again.

Disk defrag in vista is still poor. Try perfect disk for something that works like a defrag should.


The thing I notice over and over from the above is that none of that is really the OS, except maybe superfetch.
Those are all things that are addons to the kernel.
Extra programs installed along with the OS.

All I want is a windows that provides an interface to the hardware.
I don't want my os to decide my email, browser, multimedia apps, etc.
All vista has succeeded in doing is tying the MS bundled applications even more into the system.

Look way back to win95.
Overlooking the problems it had, it did have one thing going for it.
It supported the software development community and freedom of choice.
Win95 was more your basic OS.
People sought out media players, browsers, email, word processors, etc.
Why ? because the os didn't come with any pre-installed, except maybe ie.

MS is just pushing the monopoly further with vista, calling bundled apps, part of the core os.

Why do you think sites like nlite are so popular ?

I still have vista installed as dual boot.
I think it would be a fine OS, provided you could strip out 75% of what MS bundled into it.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well I'm not blaming Vista directly, I like it, for the most part. It's a nice impovement over XP, and no you won't hear me complaining about slow or bloated. It's just this issue is driving me nuts for the last three weeks. The hardware works perfectly for XP and '03 eval, was hoping the transition went better than this. I don't remember having any major pains when I went to 2k and XP. And I just finished (well nearly) building this rig this spring, I don't want to, nor can afford to basically keep trying different things.

Did you ever say what mb you have? I looked but didn't see it. Maybe I overlooked that part.

How about me putting up a profile
I don't remember the memory name nor specifics, I'll have to go hunting for the box.

 

[lxskllr]

I like the fact that it comes bundled with extra apps. An O/S should include basic functionality for just about anything someone may want to do with their computer. I don't feel like searching over the web to find software that defrags, firewalls, CD burns, or whatever. All of that should be included, and if someone doesn't like that particular app, they're free to find another one.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well I'm not blaming Vista directly, I like it, for the most part. It's a nice impovement over XP, and no you won't hear me complaining about slow or bloated. It's just this issue is driving me nuts for the last three weeks. The hardware works perfectly for XP and '03 eval, was hoping the transition went better than this. I don't remember having any major pains when I went to 2k and XP. And I just finished (well nearly) building this rig this spring, I don't want to, nor can afford to basically keep trying different things.

Did you ever say what mb you have? I looked but didn't see it. Maybe I overlooked that part.

How about me putting up a profile
I don't remember the memory name nor specifics, I'll have to go hunting for the box.

You should start a thread and list the problems you're having. You may be able to get a little more focused help that way. I'm not sure what your problem is at this point. I think the HD controllers are basically the same on our boards, and I'm not having any issues. When you said Solitaire stalled out... Do you mean the gfx froze, or the whole computer froze?

 

[Scooby Doo]

Well I just played it again, and this time it worked, that is until I accidently hit maximize instead of close, at which point it tried to zoom up and the system froze, and the hard light went totally busy. After a minute or so I just hit the reset button. This one might be due to video, does solitaire now need 3d video acceleration (aero) to properly work? If so, then I can't complain as this is my fault.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The thing I notice over and over from the above is that none of that is really the OS, except maybe superfetch.

And you don't think that there are a lot more under-the-hood enhancements besides just superfetch?

All I want is a windows that provides an interface to the hardware.

Then you don't want a modern, consumer OS.

I don't want my os to decide my email, browser, multimedia apps, etc.

That's fine. You have a broad and increasingly diverse selection of third party apps to choose from. I suspect, though, that there is a large base of users who are perfectly happy with MS bundling watered-down versions of these apps with their OS offerings. That's why they're there.

All vista has succeeded in doing is tying the MS bundled applications even more into the system.

I use Diskeeper, Acronis, Kaspersky, etc. without any problems. I don't understand what you mean by the above statement.

Win95 was more your basic OS.

Nostalgia over 95? Wow, that's not something you see every day.

People sought out media players, browsers, email, word processors, etc.

As mentioned, not everyone wants to go through the hassle\expense of finding the perfect app. Can't other people use what they think is best for them?

MS is just pushing the monopoly further with vista, calling bundled apps, part of the core os.

I get it now. This posture is a political statement for you. MS should NOT bundle any applications with their OS's because the proletariat should be forced to fend for themselves so as to remain pure? And dude, what's with this idea of yours that apps are somehow bolted right to the kernel?

I think it would be a fine OS, provided you could strip out 75% of what MS bundled into it.

Man, you need to get together with some friends, and some booze, and write your own OS!

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Well I just played it again, and this time it worked, that is until I accidently hit maximize instead of close, at which point it tried to zoom up and the system froze, and the hard light went totally busy. After a minute or so I just hit the reset button. This one might be due to video, does solitaire now need 3d video acceleration (aero) to properly work? If so, then I can't complain as this is my fault.

It does use the Aero interface, although I imagine that gets turned off if you're in basic mode. That card appears to support DX8.1, but not 9. I think that may be some of your trouble. Try setting your display to Windows Classic, and see if that helps your performance some.

 

[KeypoX]

because it randomly locks up for sec. Because if you sleep and come back you lose your network connection. Because sometimes shutting down takes a long time. Because ubun has a cooler gui, because os x has cooler gui. Because vista business doesnt come with media center. Because i cant use omega tools.

But there is stuff i like too ... but the shutting down and losing network is really anoying, the little 1sec glitches are somewhat barable

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Modelworks


There is no way it can predict what I am going to use.
Hell, half the time I don't know myself till I click it.

Where did I say anything about Vista "predicting" what applications you would be using? Even you have usage patterns even if you are not aware of it. Vista logs those patterns and tries to have those applications available in memory for you.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
All useless to me.
I have a linux firewall.
Don't run bit torrent garbage.
And am very careful what I install on my pc and its source.

That is just foolish thinking. Good security practices do not make you immune to malware infections. Even if they did there is value in better security regardless of how savvy you are.

Most people need the better security simply because they are not savvy tech users. Users and companies have been demanding better security out of Windows for ages.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Multimedia garbage is what it has. All those apps are pretty bad compared to commercial alternatives.
Even some of the freeware out there is better by leaps and bounds than the MS defaults.

No one is denying there are better alternatives to many of Vistas default applications. I use Picasa for photo management for example. But most people are happy with the default applications in Vista. These people see no distinction between the operating system and these basic applications.

The computing public demands they be able to do more than install programs and surf the net before installing a single application. Most Linux distros and the MAC also add these same basic functions to a default installation for this very reason.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
uhm ok. But I have never lost anything on my pc that I couldn't find.
Maybe I'm just better organized than most.

You must be because desktop search is extremely popular in all modern operating systems. I don't use it either but I can see the value in it especially if your library is quite extensive.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Disk defrag in vista is still poor. Try perfect disk for something that works like a defrag should.

Most people do not even know what disk defrag is. The fact that Vista automatically does this is a huge improvement over XP. I find Vista's defrag more than adequate since my drive is less than 1% fragmented at all times. There is not a defrag tool out there that can improve on that.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The thing I notice over and over from the above is that none of that is really the OS, except maybe superfetch.
Those are all things that are addons to the kernel.
Extra programs installed along with the OS.

All I want is a windows that provides an interface to the hardware.
I don't want my os to decide my email, browser, multimedia apps, etc.
All vista has succeeded in doing is tying the MS bundled applications even more into the system.

Look way back to win95.
Overlooking the problems it had, it did have one thing going for it.
It supported the software development community and freedom of choice.
Win95 was more your basic OS.
People sought out media players, browsers, email, word processors, etc.
Why ? because the os didn't come with any pre-installed, except maybe ie.

You are the minority. Average joe user want every thing to be included he may ever need when he first fires up the computer. Vista was not made for users like you. Use Windows CE or switch to Puppy Linux or some other light weight distro if all these extras bother you.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
MS is just pushing the monopoly further with vista, calling bundled apps, part of the core os.

Why do you think sites like nlite are so popular ?

I still have vista installed as dual boot.
I think it would be a fine OS, provided you could strip out 75% of what MS bundled into it.

So it is ok for most Linux distros and the MAC to include this stuff and not Windows? Windows includes this stuff simply because users demand it. Microsoft could save a ton of money toward development cost if people were just happy with the core operating system.

Do me a favor. Go to the local Wal-Mart or shopping mall and ask everyone what nlite is. I bet you will find that nlite is not as popular as you think. In fact few people even know or care what it is and does.

Stripping Vista of 75% of the bundled stuff would be seen as a step back from XP to most people.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Maybe they should offer Vista "lean edition" - just the kernel and user shell and a few admin-type CLI apps, and not the huge mass of bundled userspace software.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of an a la cart system, where you buy the core OS, and the DVD includes more user-mode apps that you can "unlock" with your credit card if you want to install/use them. Otherwise, you don't pay for them. That would make me happy.
I don't need Windows Movie Maker, for example.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

I was actually thinking more along the lines of an a la cart system, where you buy the core OS, and the DVD includes more user-mode apps that you can "unlock" with your credit card if you want to install/use them. Otherwise, you don't pay for them. That would make me happy.
I don't need Windows Movie Maker, for example.

I've thought of that myself. I think it's a great idea. I'd price it so the features bought separately cost more than if you bought them all together. That way MS would still get their money, but people who wanted a leaner O/S could save cash. For example, if Vista Ultimate costs $300, I'd price the individual components so it would cost $350-$400 for the Ultimate package if bought individually.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

I was actually thinking more along the lines of an a la cart system, where you buy the core OS, and the DVD includes more user-mode apps that you can "unlock" with your credit card if you want to install/use them. Otherwise, you don't pay for them. That would make me happy.
I don't need Windows Movie Maker, for example.

I've thought of that myself. I think it's a great idea. I'd price it so the features bought separately cost more than if you bought them all together. That way MS would still get their money, but people who wanted a leaner O/S could save cash. For example, if Vista Ultimate costs $300, I'd price the individual components so it would cost $350-$400 for the Ultimate package if bought individually.

As much as we'd all like that, one of the benefits of being a monopoly means they dont have to care about such things. They make more money this way by loading the OS with stuff you may not want, and justifying their pricing that way.

 

[nerp]

People dissing search obviously aren't writers.

There's a LOT more to search than just "finding that mp3" or "where did I put that pr0n torrent I downloadezed?"

CONTEXT.

"I spoke with someone three months ago and wrote their phone number down in a word doc. I have thousands of word docs. I don't even remember his name. All I know is that we talked about wakeboarding."
-----
I'm a reporter. A month ago I had a conversation with a key source on a story I've been working on for months. Crap. My cell phone died. I lost his #.

I have (literally) over 20,000 word documents on my PC stored in a tree hierarchy. I write for a weekly, see? So each week, I create a folder that has one word doc for all my notes for that week and interviews as well as dictations. The stories for that week also stay there. It's critical I break my data up by week. Each week has a folder and the weeks are stored in a folder for that year.. /stories/2007/8-2 for example, of the Aug. 2 publication date in 2007.

So.. This guy I talked to, this key source -- I lost his number. I do recall that sometime in the past year, during a phone conversation he gave me his phone number. I don't remember his name, when I spoke with him or even where he lives.

AHA! We talked about wakeboarding. Click on the orb. "Wakeboarding." Enter. There's the file. There?s his number and name. Got it. Plus the entire conversation we had....

Instead of rifling around 10,000 documents for a couple hours and wading through tons of text, I have my info instantly.

This is what search is all about. Google desktop did a decent job for me before I upgraded to Vista. Vista's search, so far, has been fantastic. I do miss certain aspects of google desktop, such as the "cached" feature (which saves your ass when you accidentally delete an e-mail you didn't think you needed) but my PC is beefy and I have epic amounts of storage space and I'm not deleting anything anymore. Archive folders in outlook take care of that.

So anyway, just because you don't have mountains of raw, independently-gathered data that you frequently call upon for context, background and simply getting your job done, doesn't mean that "search is useless." Useless for people who don't need it, maybe, but essential for someone who is a writer or content producer of any kind.

 

[Cutthroat]

To add on to what nerp said about the search function, you can also launch programs from it. For instance if I click start and type FSX into the search box, FSX will start, if I type reliability, the reliability monitor will start, etc. It's really handy for starting those MS apps that are buried in the Windows directory somewhere and don't have a shortcut.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: nerp
People dissing search obviously aren't writers.

There's a LOT more to search than just "finding that mp3" or "where did I put that pr0n torrent I downloadezed?"

CONTEXT.

"I spoke with someone three months ago and wrote their phone number down in a word doc. I have thousands of word docs. I don't even remember his name. All I know is that we talked about wakeboarding."
-----
I'm a reporter. A month ago I had a conversation with a key source on a story I've been working on for months. Crap. My cell phone died. I lost his #.

I have (literally) over 20,000 word documents on my PC stored in a tree hierarchy. I write for a weekly, see? So each week, I create a folder that has one word doc for all my notes for that week and interviews as well as dictations. The stories for that week also stay there. It's critical I break my data up by week. Each week has a folder and the weeks are stored in a folder for that year.. /stories/2007/8-2 for example, of the Aug. 2 publication date in 2007.

So.. This guy I talked to, this key source -- I lost his number. I do recall that sometime in the past year, during a phone conversation he gave me his phone number. I don't remember his name, when I spoke with him or even where he lives.

AHA! We talked about wakeboarding. Click on the orb. "Wakeboarding." Enter. There's the file. There?s his number and name. Got it. Plus the entire conversation we had....

Instead of rifling around 10,000 documents for a couple hours and wading through tons of text, I have my info instantly.

This is what search is all about. Google desktop did a decent job for me before I upgraded to Vista. Vista's search, so far, has been fantastic. I do miss certain aspects of google desktop, such as the "cached" feature (which saves your ass when you accidentally delete an e-mail you didn't think you needed) but my PC is beefy and I have epic amounts of storage space and I'm not deleting anything anymore. Archive folders in outlook take care of that.

So anyway, just because you don't have mountains of raw, independently-gathered data that you frequently call upon for context, background and simply getting your job done, doesn't mean that "search is useless." Useless for people who don't need it, maybe, but essential for someone who is a writer or content producer of any kind.

So will I miss anything if I use XP and run Google Desktop, which is free? If I do what you do for a living, I'd prefer something design specifically for the job, instead of something packaged in the OS designed for general public. Stuff like Google Desktop gets updated every few month with new functionalities and improved performance. Vista Search probably gonna be the way it is, until MS release the next OS.

 

[nerp]

XP and Google desktop required my computer be bogged down. Vista's search is just as good and my computer runs a LOT faster. Plus, Vista is quicker to index items and it does so without causing any noticable loss in performance because of low priority i/o.

I also didn't like the fact that GD's search required launching a browser. I like it integrated into the start menu MUCH more. Plus, I don't want to give up all the other benefits of running Vista over XP, so the decision is pretty easy at that point.

And...designed for the job? Nobody is writing a specialized tool for reporters to sort through their notes and stories, really. Some news organizations have internalized databases for contacts, etc, but that's never client side. And GD is written for the general public, no? I never saw any sign that they were tailoring their software for people in my profession. It's merely a contextual search tool. I prefer Vista's search. Trust me, I was worried when I upgraded to Vista that I'd end up disabling Vista's search because it stinks and continue to run GD, along with it's performance hit and other weirdness. But Vista proved itself worthy. Trust me, I wasn't ready to let go of GD without a fight. And Vista won that fight.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: nerp
People dissing search obviously aren't writers.

I don't have any statistics, but I imagine writers are a relatively small group of the Vista "population"

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: nerp
People dissing search obviously aren't writers.

I don't have any statistics, but I imagine writers are a relatively small group of the Vista "population"

Hehe true.

 

[n7]

Indexed search absolutely pwns in Vista, & anyone who's used it knows that.

I have a ton of music...i won't start listing totals, but let's just say this: i have the whole music HDD indexed, & wow, is it ever awesome for finding stuff in a hurry.

Not to mention what was mentioned already: typing the first few letters of an app/program in the start menu search to load it = extreme convenient, especially if it's not something you want to have sitting in quicklaunch etc.

 

[VladMM]

I must say that I have followed this thread very closely, since I was hoping that someone will come up with a intellingent and logical argument against Vista.

The only logical argument so far is put forth by the people whose HW doesn't work under Vista (or it doesnt' work propely), and they are intelligent enough to know that this is not the fault of Vista but rather of HW manufacturers who have been caught with their pants down and didn't have mature drivers because "it is going to come out late anyway" (and the people in the know know that this has been the attitude of Nvidia and ATi - so locked into their frames per second war that they let this slip).

Other than that, the people frothing at the mouth about how XP "r0Xorz" etc come across as a bunch of zealots, or even worse, kids regurgitating what they read on some "133t" underground site.

Best so far was definitely the guy reminiscing about Win95 and raving about "bundled" apps, a typical response of what used to be a Linux zealot and the kind of posts which are, thankfully, ebbing away as Linux finds more and more acceptance in the general population.

I have been around this industry long enough to know that this is a trend, almost a fad, to bash every new OS and it's features as "unneccessary, bloat", to more rabid "monopoly, world domination" type of excrement. It is very ironic that these same people posting "XP till I die" kind of rubbish, are the same ones that we're posting 3dMark2001 screencaps to prove once and for all that Win98SE is all we'll ever need and XP is just bloatware, unstable, blah blah blah

Their posts still have huge entertaintment value while I'm on the bog with nothing to read, and have to turn to my wifi cellphone for material