Whats wrong with vista?

[historyfend13]

I've used Xp Home, Xp Pro, Vista and Windows 7.

That said, Vista technically was a sound OS. It runs, beeps, and does everything an Os is supposed to do, including looking a far cry better than XP. However the problem came with older hardware not being powerful enough or drivers not initially available for the 64 bit versions. After they released SP1, it worked good.

The same can be said for XP. I remember using it and having all sorts of issues when it came out. I prefer XP pro because i am poor and my older notebook doesn't quite have the muscle it should.

I have used Windows 7 and if i had a new computer, come Oct. 22 it would be on my PC!!

So Vista isn't really bad, it just had new features that people weren't used to and some we mouse shattering annoyances ie. UAC.

 

[SplattererRoss]

Vista is ok. I think why there is a lot of hate for vista is because it seems to be expected to hate Microsoft recently. I guess its the Nerd's version of smoking .
Combining it with Norton AntiVirus is like Shark with Lasers. XP is preferable though.

 

[Aegixx]

Vista is definitely better than XP.
I've had NO issues with it, and once you turn off UAC no-one has any reason to dislike Vista.
UAC isn't that bad anyway. It only comes up with a warning when you're messing around in Program Files and the OS files. And even then it comes up with ONE message box. Just one.
Here's a nice slogan: "It isn't Vista, it's you"
That basically means that YOU'RE the one not updating the software or caring for your computer.
It's your loss if you don't like Vista.
Performance wise, it is more efficient. Turn off the awesome 3D interface and it runs better than XP.
Don't make your judgement on Vista right after installation. Vista detects which programs you use the most, and it prepares these files for use. During the first week Vista will index your hard drive allowing INSTANT searches to be made.
After a week Vista will be at full speed and noticeably faster at boots and shutdowns.

 

[Naeo]

Three words: UAC.

I don't recall the specifics, but I was trying to execute a command/program/process that comes automatically installed with Vista and it asked me "Are you sure you want to do that? This might cause harm to your computer". It damn well better not.

Then I noticed it doesn't seem to have a "yes to all" feature like XP did, but I admit I don't do much that lets me run across it. I was copying some pictures I took from a trip onto a flash drive and it was copying without the properties for some reason (which where there when I plugged it into my XP machine). I had to click "yes" for every single photo, of which there were about 75 that didn't get their properties copied. Oh, and the UAC goes apeshit on me and darkens the rest of the screen so if I, say, tell it "Open MSWord" while I'm doing something important in another window- maybe having a chat with a friend or playing a game or working on a paper- it'll stop me while I tell it "Yes, you fuckwit, I want to do what I just told you to do or else I wouldn't have told you to do it."

The window previews are pointless, as they're too small to really see what you're doing that you can't tell by just not having 50 windows open at once and remembering sort of what you were doing in each window. Or just clicking it and finding out without squinting your eyes, I mean, your mouse is already there, just click and save your eyesight, unless you're already a microscope.

It's a system hog, though if you have a good desktop this isn't as much of an issue, I grant. Though, Vista, out of the box, came with what was either five or ten million more lines of code than XP with all of its service packs (I think it was 50 or 55 million, but I don't recall the exact numbers). Though Mac OSX is ultra-guilty of this, coming with 86 million lines out of the box.

The source code was totally redesigned (contributing to the above issue), and so a LOT of stuff that would work on XP, which had the nice little "if it worked on ME (which was pretty bad)/2000/NT/etc it'll work here" for almost everything. Vista has the "Well if I don't ask you to confirm that you told me to open MSWord today, it might work if you're a redhead." Things that were compatible with XP don't work at all on Vista, so a lot of things have an XP and a Vista version- two separate data packs. However this is only a real problem for people who copied the entire contents of a previous hard drive- programs and all- or businesses looking to switch from XP to Vista.

Minimizing has the annoying "fade out" thing that gets piss annoying very fast to someone like me.

Now, I grant that I don't have a ludicrous amount of experience with Vista but I have used it quite a bit, though my XP machine is my main one (it's what I've been using for a while now so it's got most of my data on it).

BUT, on the whole Vista works fine. Most of what I've encountered are either more annoyances than anything else or fairly rare. Vista runs fine, but my user-end experience has just been that XP runs smoother.

 

[Not Good]

UAC (user account control) was annoying as shit but I've disabled that so It's smooth sailing. Visuals are low but I kept the aero desktop as opposed to original for no real reason other than I like it. All and all it's not terrible, it was just subdued by a successful marketing campaign against it and we all bought it.

 

[Doug]

TO EVERYONE HERE
Do NOT tell me that XP had the same problems when it was first released. XP was released FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO. With the progress made it is UN-FUCKING-ACCEPTABLE to release a product after FIVE FUCKING YEARS, rip your FUCKING LIMBS AND TOES for it, and it is unaccpetably FUCKING INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED. So suck it up, and don't try to compare vista with the FIRST version of XP it is FUCKING INSANE to do that.

My, aren't we an angry forum-goer - Enjoy the ban when it comes, btw.

 

[Doug]

UAC (user account control) was annoying as shit but I've disabled that so It's smooth sailing. Visuals are low but I kept the aero desktop as opposed to original for no real reason other than I like it. All and all it's not terrible, it was just subdued by a successful marketing campaign against it and we all bought it.

This, pretty much - I've got Vista and, ok, I've had a few problems with it, but I can honestly say I've had no more problems with it that I did with XP - well, aside from some old games that don't accept the multiple processor cores, but thats not Vista's fault. *curse's broken sword 4*

The primary reason people bemoan Vista is people don't have all the work arounds yet for Vista that they had XP.

 

[Dys]

I'm one of those edgy, crazy people who bought a computer just before vista came out, and installed RC1. Let me be the first to point out that, on hardware released around the same time as vista, it was far less buggy than the going build of XP (Yes, I mean the RC1, let's not forget that XP home did not support dual core processors). That isn't to say it's fine, but XP is disguisting example of an operating system, especially considering it's built off of NT, so really XP was already several years old on release. It is beyond unacceptable that it still runs like shit and has no workable 64 bit system, but it is straight up disguisting that they held off updating dual core support on the cheaper version of the operating system for so long.

That is so wrong.

XP Home doesn't support dual processors (As in dual socket workstation motherboards with two actual CPUs). It supports any number of processor cores though, provided they are contained within the same chip package (Well it supports quad cores and there aren't any octo cores yet so whether it scales up that much is moot).

It doesn't now. When vista RC1 was released, XP home (pro had a proper update) did not have proper dualcore processer support, it would recignize that there were two physical cores, however performance was lower than it was on older, single core units. Pretty piss poor.

 

[Composer]

i dont have a problem with vista. it does what i want when i want how i want it. never freezes(knock on wood).
only thing is its constant updating

 

[Nicky 3 Beaves]

The only problem I see with Vista is that it doesn't use the hardware very efficiently.

 

[PhantomCritic]

I own Vista and the Security is excellent but I have to say the only real problem is that it's very strict about what software you put on and such.

 

[Lexodus]

Really, part of the problem is laziness on the part of the user (and on the part of Microsoft: be honest, vista was absolute shit when it first came out, which is not a good start). The sheer amount of work that you have to do to get it working as it should is way too much for the average computer user, who just wants to play some games and jack off to badly-made porn. Adding to that problem is the fact that to get around all of this stuff, Vista seems to assume that you are some kind of computer genius. A lot of people are lost on what exactly they have to do to sort out the multitude of problems seemingly inherent to the system (read all of the previous posts for an idea. The themes are pretty constant), and, in the end, most of them will figure that it's just not worth the effort... and, of course, UAC is just fucking stupid. And that's all I have to say about that.
The nice thing about the Mac OSes that I've worked with over the years (I use macs at home, and mostly Windows at college, so I've got a pretty even spread of experience) is that all I need to do is put the disc in, install, and suddenly it all works. I had to help the network manager set up the new computers in my school last (academic) year, and the shit that went into that was just unbelievable.

Also, it was overhyped.

 

[Disaster Button]

Vista is love, I have never, ever had a problem with it. Well except now I can't play Dungeon Keeper 2 anymore.. *sigh*

 

[Disaster Button]

*ignore this, fucked up the posting*

 

[Disaster Button]

TO EVERYONE HERE
Do NOT tell me that XP had the same problems when it was first released. XP was released FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO. With the progress made it is UN-FUCKING-ACCEPTABLE to release a product after FIVE FUCKING YEARS, rip your FUCKING LIMBS AND TOES for it, and it is unaccpetably FUCKING INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED. So suck it up, and don't try to compare vista with the FIRST version of XP it is FUCKING INSANE to do that.

Lol you're cute. You're wrong, but you're funny

Edit: Sorreh for the tripple post

 

[Ph33nix]

I see alot of vista sucks on forums around the net and its forced me to ask the question, whats wrong with vista?
Things not to include: It takes up a ton of space on the hard drive, It attempts to be over protected but its security sucks.

[HEADING=1]This is the only thing that's wrong with Vista[/HEADING]

that pic is fake obviously so thats just some more hate spweing which is mostly what i have seen fro mthe anti vistaers

i feel retarded now...

Of course it's a fake! That's the point.

The problem is between the keyboard and the chair... what's between the keyboard and the chair? YOU. The user. The stupid user that doesn't know how to use Vista and then bashes it.

 

[Dys]

I'm one of those edgy, crazy people who bought a computer just before vista came out, and installed RC1. Let me be the first to point out that, on hardware released around the same time as vista, it was far less buggy than the going build of XP (Yes, I mean the RC1, let's not forget that XP home did not support dual core processors). That isn't to say it's fine, but XP is disguisting example of an operating system, especially considering it's built off of NT, so really XP was already several years old on release. It is beyond unacceptable that it still runs like shit and has no workable 64 bit system, but it is straight up disguisting that they held off updating dual core support on the cheaper version of the operating system for so long.

That is so wrong.

XP Home doesn't support dual processors (As in dual socket workstation motherboards with two actual CPUs). It supports any number of processor cores though, provided they are contained within the same chip package (Well it supports quad cores and there aren't any octo cores yet so whether it scales up that much is moot).

It doesn't now. When vista RC1 was released, XP home (pro had a proper update) did not have proper dualcore processer support, it would recignize that there were two physical cores, however performance was lower than it was on older, single core units. Pretty piss poor.

Yeah, wasn't there a fix for that [http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256] pretty quick? (When I got my first dual core, before Vista RC1 BTW, there was this fix.)

That was released in december 2006, that's pretty late. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was october-ish when I installed vista SP. Wikipedia says it came out september, so there it is, Apparently it was RC2 that came out in october, I may have confused the two and been using that, I honestly can't remember.

It still goes with my policy of "XP is nowhere near as great as people claim" and that it really wasn't a serious option for new hardware rigs when vista was first seen. They are both fairly dirty systems, and compared to XP at this point in it's life, vista is far more usable with post-release hardware. It never fails to shock me when people buy new, quad core dual 4870 rigs and endevour to install windows XP because 'vista is shit'. It's all relative to your hardware.

You however, are right about me confusing dual socket with dual core (I read it somewhere at the time), it looks as though dual core support was introduced to both at the same time (on december 19th 2006). My point still stands about XP taking a long time to work properly and smoothly is still relevant though.

 

[TheGhostOfSin]

it takes at least two gigs of ram to run... you can scarcely access the system files... if you get a bug, it takes the best part of twelve hours to repair, because the system keeps telling you you're "not allowed" in those folders...

My old PC ran Vista on less than 512mb of RAM. All bugs I've ever had were fixed by a good ole fashioned reboot that took 10 minutes at most.
System files are easy to access, too easy. I almost deleted some of them 'cause I didn't know what they were at the time...

I could play KOTOR on XP and I can't on Vista,

Quite frankly, it over uses resources, causes my games to run slow, and doesn't allow me to play any games before late 08. That is why I hate it.

Of the 33 games I currently have installed on my PC only four are newer than 07, the only one I had any problems with, C&C Generals, was fixed by 5 seconds of Googling, a 'Copy and Paste', a 'save as' and a second 'Copy and Paste.'

Most people fear change, that's why people hate Vista

 

[Yokai]

I think it's a decent OS. Maybe not as user-friendly as XP, but I've encountered few problems with it. The one thing that really bugs me though is the UAC (User Account Control). Generally you have to verify that YES I REALLY WANT TO RUN THIS PROGRAM twice before it lets you continue. It's an aggravating waste of time, and the most annoying part is that when you turn it off, Windows Security Center counts it as a massive breach in the safety of your system and always nags you to turn it back on. XP did fine without it, so why include it in Vista?

 

[Instant K4rma]

Allow me to answer your question with a question of mine: What isnt wrong with Vista?