Why hatred of Vista?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SuperCell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
314
I hear a lot of people bashing Vista. I just bought a new laptop, and haven't had any issues.

Why the hatred of vista?
 
This could turn into a locked thread fast if people don't respond in a civil manner.

Having said that, people don't like new things. They like established things that they're comfortable with, that they know and are familiar with.

In Windows terms, Vista is nearly none of that. It's big, it's bold, it's new, and it's the way things will be done from now on. People don't like change either, and that's what Vista represents.

Oh, and the fact that it's a Microsoft product isn't helping it one iota.

"That's all I have to say about that..."
 
I think its more of driver support and the amount of bugs that makes people hate vista. With that said... I don't really hate vista but I do hate the fact that it uses alot of memory and hard disk.
 
There are a myriad of reasons to like or dislike Vista based on a person's computer use. Some are just more vocal one way or the other whether they've used the OS or not.

I'm not a fan of Vista but I do have it installed along with XP and SUSE 10.3. I keep XP around as some software I use either doesn't work or doesn't work well under Vista as well as keeping it around for reference for troubleshooting other systems. I use my SUSE install for the vast majority of my stuff although many games don't have Linux ports or work well enough under Wine for my liking. I have Vista because I need to learn it whether I like it or not.

There is only one MS OS since Win 3.1 that I refused to learn and that was ME. I generally keep most of my hatred for that OS.

You're going to find people that love Vista and people that hate it. It just happens to be the latest MS OS so you're going to hear everything about it all over the place. It's been the same way with every consumer MS OS release since I can remember and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It's nothing new.

After a couple years you'll hear less and less just like previous OS releases. Some of it is due to people just shutting up about it, software comes out that works better with it and MS will get other bugs worked out of it.

 
Because people hate change.

People absolutely hated XP when it came out and complained about all of the exact same things as they now complain about Vista. Mac users did the same thing when OS X came out.

Vista is still running on its original release. SP1 will make things better. XP had lots of problems pre-SP1. I remember just trying to get wireless and USB 2.0 working in it, it was a nightmare. OS X 10.1 and 10.2 also had a lot of bugs. At work until 10.3 came out, macs couldn't use the schools wireless because the settings for WEP were so terrible.


This happens EVERY time a new OS is released. Is just that OS X and XP have been out for 5 years now, so we haven't had to deal with it for a while.

I almost forgot, OEM's have a lot to do with it, when XP came out the cheap computers from places like Dell only came with 128mb of ram. XP ran like shit. They are doing it again. They are selling Vista boxes with not enough ram and video that only meets the minimum specs to run Vista (with areo turned off). Top it off with Norton Internet Security, and the system runs like shit.
 
I'm going to keep this as civilized as possible.

First I agree with as to what has been said above and it is all true.

Now for some more truthiness, straight from the gut.;)

The poster above me was deffinetly right about one thing, vista sure is BIG, very big. Its memory footprint alone is double that of XP.

It's cumbersome to new users, its cumbersome and annoying for windows veterans.

Things that were supposed to have made it great were all stripped out and the race to finsih it caused it to become a poor performer.

I can ramble for days.

But I'm an optimist, just today I read about Vista SP1 RC1 and it looks like Vista might get its act together, but in the meantime I enjoy XP, Debian, and Tiger and other random operating systems while I wait to upgrade my systems to Vista. As a Vista early adopter (pre-beta days) I have seen good and bad things come and go and I'm hopeful Microsoft will get its act together before we have another Windows ME situation.:rolleyes:
 
Because people become outraged over 3rd or 4th hand information they read online when most of the stuff isn't even true. Just keep reading the forum and you'll see many of those "experts" post the usual nonsense.
 
People complaining about Vista is one of the only things I don't like about my job.

What irritates me about it, is that despite my company still offering XP on a variety of systems, these people still have the need to give me the speech about why they don't like it.

I think previous posters have summed it up pretty good though, the pretentious reasons people come up with. In the last year that it has been out, I've only genuinely felt sympathy for two people who have had vista grievances.
 
I think it's obvious even in this thread that people think Vista takes up a huge amount of ram, which isn't the case. It's superfetch at work. Vista itself doesn't use much more ram than XP to actually run but most people don't realize what is really going on with the ram. And microsoft should have probably made this more clear.
What is happening is it uses your idle ram to cache to, which is a good thing. Otherwise the ram is simply wasted. When that ram is needed by a game or app it is instantly released to it.

I have Vista 64ibt on my main desktop and 32bit on my HTPC. I don't encounter very many bugs at all. I'd say it's on par with xp SP2 in that regard. And for me it's very stable. Even more so than XP on the same system. It's so far been able to recover from many things that would have crashed XP in my experience. Overall it's very fast. But I also have fast computers. I do find that 64bit is more stable and snappier than 32bit. But that's just my experience.
 
Archer75 said:
I think it's obvious even in this thread that people think Vista takes up a huge amount of ram, which isn't the case. It's superfetch at work. Vista itself doesn't use much more ram than XP to actually run but most people don't realize what is really going on with the ram. And microsoft should have probably made this more clear.
What is happening is it uses your idle ram to cache to, which is a good thing. Otherwise the ram is simply wasted. When that ram is needed by a game or app it is instantly released to it.
Click to expand...

No, it's true that Vista takes more ram, and it's not just Superfetch that's taking that ram.
I started out with 1 GB with Vista, and it simply isn't enough for me. I run reasonably heavy applications on my system, such as Visual Studio 2005 or Netbeans, and I multitask a lot.
With XP and XP x64, I could manage with 1 GB, but Vista would often start swapping things in and out.
So I placed an additional 2 GB in my box, and now it runs as smoothly as XP x64... actually better, because Superfetch does wonders with the 3 GB for some apps.

So yes, I fully agree with the people claiming that Vista takes up more ram, it just does. However, unlike most people just whining about it, I would suggest you get some extra ram. It will drastically improve your Vista experience (and at today's prices, what excuse do you have for not having at least 2 GB in your box, really? Just get some Kingston ValueRam at 667 MHz or so, it works fine. It's more about the amount than about the speed anyway...even so, I run mine at 833 MHz and 4-4-4-12 settings, not too shabby).
I bought a new laptop about a week ago, and one of the main features I looked for was a minimum of 2 GB. And Vista runs fine on that aswell, even though the processor is only a modest 1.5 GHz Core2 Duo. I guess it's all about having enough ram.
Then again, I had the same with NT4 and 2000. Everytime I needed to upgrade my ram, because the OSes didn't run very well with my current amount.
With XP I had the 'luck' that I bought a lot of ram for 2000. I had 768 mb in my box at the time. For XP this was still fine, even after SP2.

So yes, I'm starting to actually like Vista. Originally I only bought it because I need it for my DirectX 10 development. Have to keep up-to-date with technology and all. My main OS was still XP x64... But the past few months I've rarely used any OS but Vista x64.
 
Because it's shiny.

(also because of uac, inconsistancies in the gui, and third party driver support)
 
LOCO LAPTOP said:
I think its more of driver support and the amount of bugs that makes people hate vista. With that said... I don't really hate vista but I do hate the fact that it uses alot of memory and hard disk.
Click to expand...

the fact that it uses alot of memory is a bonus. Its constantly indexing. I don't know about you guys but i use that start search feature all the time.

ntba said:
...
It's cumbersome to new users, its cumbersome and annoying for windows veterans.
...
Click to expand...

now this I don't understand. Please elaborate.

I can't remember where it was, but in one of the "zomg vista sucks" threads someone linked us to a ol 2000 discussion of the swap to windows 2000 from 98, and how it was crappy since they needed to upgrade their 32mb systems to 64mb for this memory hogging operating system... or something along those lines. It really is just more of the same.

People say "the security warnings are the problem". But if you put 5 mins into it, you realize the security warnings are brilliant. Microsoft has given programs far too much freedom for too long, giving them acess to critical system files without warning the user. So, of course, I'm betting microsoft tried just refusing acess to these files. The result? Broke. Everything, broke. Not a chance. GG. so Microsoft decides, well, we just gotta alert users to whenever someones trying to acess these files. So what those warnings do, when you click accept, is temporarily allows an ap acess to this information, to edit it in whatever way it pleases. To do so in XP, you would have to log on to the administrator (which alot of people are running normally (bad idea FYI)). I wanna see disable-bit and no-exicute-bit both realized. Attack malicious software at its most fundimental kernel level: processing.... but thats for a different rant.
 
It's more of diminishing returns IMO. In the past, each new OS offered a lot of improvement, but although Vista does has some pluses over XP, they're not all that significant to a lot of people. Vista is expensive and people probably feel like it's being forced on to them by Microsoft since it will eventually take over no matter what.

This is interesting and something I've thought might happen if MS actually sticks with the current schedule.

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/17/1959214
 
Imagine buying a new car and find out that all the controls are either hidden or turned upside down because Cadillac surveyed 200 000 people who didn't have drivers licenses.

So enjoy driving your car with the brake pedal positioned behind your seat and the steering wheel shrunk to 2 inches and located where your shifter used to be. All this in the name of increased productivity.

Oh, and you couldn't get spare parts for your car that would actually fit since Caddy chose to use new kinds of threads for bolts, making all existing parts useless.
 
Easily defined: bad/strong

Security
xp- bad
*nix-strong
osx-strong
vista-strong

Gaming
xp-strong
*nix-bad
osx-bad
vista-strong

so in otherwords vista is the osx for gamers :p

Sersiously, its been too long for windows to not have the same level of security as osx/*nix.. The biggest reason why windows machines are targets of virus still remain because its the largest share of the market Vista needed to at least bring the security and run levels into the mix... As far as memory usage.. ya its higher .. superfetch owns.. and its bad with low memory.. but the cost of the improvement it can give has a minimum level of effectiveness.. i can handle that.. time to upgrade... if you dont have more than 2 g's of ram i would recommend sticking with xp till that next upgrade
But being as i use just bout every thing.. vista simply owns..my xp machine is basically for a few legacy things that i cant be bothered with accepting the compatibility issues.. ie photoshop minor bugs atm...


That being said anyone using graphical anything on any *nix distro and doesnt work as a programmer, is just a wannabe... use windows thats where the games are... keep it simple...(also why i love my macbook pro... very coder friendly)
 
darkar said:
Sersiously, its been too long for windows to not have the same level of security as osx/*nix..
Click to expand...

The level of security has been there for ages. Virtually nothing major has changed in the technology between XP SP2 and Vista.
The main difference is that Vista users don't get an administrator account by default.
Any half-decent corporation with a Windows network would have been doing this since the early NT3/4 days. They rarely have the weird security problems that home users have.
The problem was not Windows, the problem was that most people aren't qualified to configure an OS. An OS like linux has the advantage that most people who aren't qualified to configure an OS would never bother touching linux in the first place. Not exactly a technical achievement.
Personally I'm not using linux but FreeBSD... have been doing so for a number of years. And the first few versions I've used, had all services wide open aswell, no firewall etc. So it's not like *nix is more secure by default. It was just easier for them to get away with demanding more knowledge from their users than Windows. So they made the move to security-by-default a few years before Windows did. Most companies where I've worked had qualified Windows administrators that set up the Windows workstations in their networks in a very secure way aswell, with everything off, except for the things you actually need. Windows was never the problem, the technology was there.
 
Windows 95 was a big change from Win 3.x with memory protection, and XP was a big change from Windows 9x because of true 32-bitness and removal of DOS resulting in vivid increases in stability. But it just isn't possible to achieve such a technological change again, at least not until technology is totally unrecognizable to us today (nanobots and AI). About the closest you can get is the transition to x64, but most people aren't going to notice that for years and the transition will be much more gradual. The inability to effect a major technological change combined with general jealousy of MS' success by the alt-OS types results in general in just about all flames for the OS. And Windows/Vista users typically have tripple A Games and Apps to keep them too busy to engage in OS debates which makes the debate seem one-sided. How are you going to get masses of young male windows users to rail against OS X and Linux all day on window's equivalents of slashdot and digg, when they are too busy playing crysis, half-life 2, call of duty 4, counter-strike, WoW, etc.. ;)
 
devil22 said:
And Windows/Vista users typically have tripple A Games and Apps to keep them too busy to engage in OS debates which makes the debate seem one-sided. How are you going to get masses of teenage windows users to rail against OS X and Linux all day on window's equivalents of slashdot and digg, when they are too busy playing crysis, half-life 2, call of duty 4, counter-strike, etc.. ;)
Click to expand...

Why would they fight anyway?
They don't have to be jealous of the other OSes, they have all the marketshare, the games, the apps etc anyway.
They don't have a cause to fight for, 95% of all computer users are already on their side.
 
its not because people don't like change, its just there are people out there that want to use their Hardware to run applications NOT to just keep the OS ticking over.

Vista has been great for me, it has driven higher-spec hardware down in price so I can custom build for linux and XP (and 2000) very nicely
 
Scali2 said:
Why would they fight anyway?
They don't have to be jealous of the other OSes, they have all the marketshare, the games, the apps etc anyway.
They don't have a cause to fight for, 95% of all computer users are already on their side.
Click to expand...

That is a good point as well, which I was going for but didn't quite reach.
 
darkar said:
The biggest reason why windows machines are targets of virus still remain because its the largest share of the market

if you dont have more than 2 g's of ram i would recommend sticking with xp till that next upgrade
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
eeyrjmr said:
its not because people don't like change, its just there are people out there that want to use their Hardware to run applications NOT to just keep the OS ticking over.

Vista has been great for me, it has driven higher-spec hardware down in price so I can custom build for linux and XP (and 2000) very nicely
Click to expand...

This is like the opposite of beating a dead horse. Bringing up old tired dead arguments over and over, instead of beating them down. Don't know what they call that but...
Quad Cores go for as little as $266, 2GBs of ram can be had for 50 bucks, DX9 video cards can be had for 50 bucks as well. Putting a system like that together would be a killer platform for Vista and any app/game out there.
 
devil22 said:
This is like the opposite of beating a dead horse. Bringing up old tired dead arguments over and over, instead of beating them down. Don't know what they call that but...
Quad Cores go for as little as $266, 2GBs of ram can be had for 50 bucks, DX9 video cards can be had for 50 bucks as well. Putting a system like that together would be a killer platform for Vista and any app/game out there.
Click to expand...

Then I challenge you to go build said machine and put: Win2000,XP,Vista and linux on said machine and run some FEA on it

THIS is what the results will be:

Linux > 2000 >> XP >>>> Vista

How do I know... Cause I recently did this with a quad-CPU (Xeon) mobo with 8gig of RAM to prove a point to IT so we could get better machines
 
eeyrjmr said:
Then I challenge you to go build said machine and put: Win2000,XP,Vista and linux on said machine and run some FEA on it

THIS is what the results will be:

Linux > 2000 >> XP >>>> Vista

How do I know... Cause I recently did this with a quad-CPU (Xeon) mobo with 8gig of RAM to prove a point to IT so we could get better machines
Click to expand...

Depends on how you choose to rig your 'proof', if you ask me.
 
eeyrjmr said:
Then I challenge you to go build said machine and put: Win2000,XP,Vista and linux on said machine and run some FEA on it

THIS is what the results will be:

Linux > 2000 >> XP >>>> Vista

How do I know... Cause I recently did this with a quad-CPU (Xeon) mobo with 8gig of RAM to prove a point to IT so we could get better machines
Click to expand...

This proves a whole lot. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. It only proves which is the best platform for whatever FEA you were running. Linux is not an option for the vast majority of people, and of those, Vista offers many things for it's near equal performance to XP in most things that matter to most people ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista ). Of course not everyone is going to need/want Vista, we know this, but feel free to tell us again if you have nothing better to do.
 
SuperCell said:
I hear a lot of people bashing Vista. I just bought a new laptop, and haven't had any issues.

Why the hatred of vista?
Click to expand...

From reading this forum, it seems that people are falling into four categories:

1- Those who hate Vista and all other things Microsoft. Their posts usually start with an article detailing a Vista/Microsoft bug or security flaw and they then proceed with their bashing.

2- Those who blindly support Microsoft no matter how badly they've screwed up a security issue or an operating system feature.

3- Those who use Vista, find some of the new features useful, but acknowledge that there are still some rough edges.

4- Those who have tried Vista, but have found it lacking and prefer to stick with XP for the time being, usually for reasons of compatibility and performance.

Most people here fall into groups 3 and 4; you just learn to ignore the zealots from groups 1 and 2
 
eeyrjmr said:
How do I know... Cause I recently did this with a quad-CPU (Xeon) mobo with 8gig of RAM to prove a point to IT so we could get better machines
Click to expand...

How did the 2000 and XP machines do with 8gb or ram? It seems to me that any comparison where half the test systems can't even use the full amount of RAM is pretty pointless.
 
pigster said:
How did the 2000 and XP machines do with 8gb or ram? It seems to me that any comparison where half the test systems can't even use the full amount of RAM is pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

PAE. Of course that'll take a huge hit, but it'll work with that amount of RAM.
 
pigster said:
2- Those who blindly support Microsoft no matter how badly they've screwed up a security issue or an operating system feature.
Click to expand...

Hah, those people actually exist? :)
I guess I went from group 4 to group 3 myself.
 
duby229 said:
PAE. Of course that'll take a huge hit, but it'll work with that amount of RAM.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, the performance hit makes the comparison worthless. I'm just surprised that the comparison didn't include 64 bit versions of XP and Vista
 
I got vista ultimate when It came out. It looked good, and I loved it for the first day or so. The a lot of little stuff came started to bug me..

The "do you want to allow this" pop ups and such. It hammered my network. Front usb panel wouldn't work. So after about 3 weeks. I went back to my XP.

About 2weeks ago I came back to Vista, and my god I love it. Still getting the do you want to allow this pop up, and some viewmanger crap every now and then.. But damn does it have the sexies.
 
I've had few to little problems with Vista.. most of them have already been solved with driver updates and windows updates.

The only lingering problem I have is with printing. There is around a 5 minute hang when I want to print ANYTHING. It just says "connecting to printer." If I press the escape key, the hang quits and it doesn't print. My printer is hooked up to my file server which is running XP Pro. It is a laser printer. I've read numerous other stories with people running laser printers hooked up to an XP machine trying to print from a Vista machine, and it does the same thing. It is all different various printers, so it leads me to believe it is a Vista networking/printer problem.
 
pigster said:
How did the 2000 and XP machines do with 8gb or ram? It seems to me that any comparison where half the test systems can't even use the full amount of RAM is pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

FEA is more CPU-bound then RAM-bound
I passed the /3G switch so windows didn't have a heart attack I was barly using over a gig or RAM at any rate
 
w1retap said:
The only lingering problem I have is with printing. There is around a 5 minute hang when I want to print ANYTHING. It just says "connecting to printer." If I press the escape key, the hang quits and it doesn't print. My printer is hooked up to my file server which is running XP Pro. It is a laser printer. I've read numerous other stories with people running laser printers hooked up to an XP machine trying to print from a Vista machine, and it does the same thing. It is all different various printers, so it leads me to believe it is a Vista networking/printer problem.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a configuration issue between Vista and XP.
I have a HP 4500 connected directly to the network, and I have no issues printing to it via Vista. Not even when using the wireless connection from my laptop.
I didn't have to configure anything either. Just let Windows scan for network printers, and automatically installed the driver.
 
Scali2 said:
Sounds more like a configuration issue between Vista and XP.
I have a HP 4500 connected directly to the network, and I have no issues printing to it via Vista. Not even when using the wireless connection from my laptop.
I didn't have to configure anything either. Just let Windows scan for network printers, and automatically installed the driver.
Click to expand...
I've tried everything.. trust me. I'm very well versed at problem solving skills when it comes to computers and networking. :p
 
pigster said:
...3- Those who use Vista, find some of the new features useful, but acknowledge that there are still some rough edges.
Click to expand...

*Raises Hand*

Group 3 reporting in! Yeah Vista has rough edges (RAM footprint, not including SuperFetch, drivers), but the backup features have saved my ass several times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top