Where did Vista go wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do have a point.
I am sure Vista is not the sole cause of the misery, but the overall experiences with Vista has been crap on laptops compared to Windows XP. I've NEVER had this much trouble with laptops compared to DOS, Win 3.x, Win95/8, NT, 2000, XP, Linux, Ubuntu, and OSX.

There is reason that I've NEVER heard of any business and enterprise system running Vista. No sys admins are masochistic enough to dare dealing with it.

All I can say is I got a laptop recently with Vista(only $399) and it's rock solid. It all depends on how the hardware is supported by the hardware vendors.

the reason businesses don't upgrade is because they don't upgrade to every version. It costs a ton of money. Businesses tend to run a lot of custom software and they'd have to update all that software. They aren't going to invest the time and resources to do that every OS release. Just no point if what they have is working fine.
My company ran windows 2000 on our primary workstations until 4 years after XP was released before they switched to that. We still have computers running windows 95. It works for what their purpose is and no one wants to spend money changing that.
 
You do have a point.
There is reason that I've NEVER heard of any business and enterprise system running Vista. No sys admins are masochistic enough to dare dealing with it.

Oh that was a lovely statement, but in fact completely wrong, quoting wikipedia:
Initially it was thought that the adoption of Vista has been generally low, due to largely poor reviews and harsh criticism, but a later Gartner research report predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually beat that of XP during the same time frame (21.3% vs. 16.9%)

As far as your laptop problems, sounds like bad drivers, bad bios or bad hardware, I've never encountered instability in Vista, except when my PSU was dying in my old system.
 
Lately the credibility of Wikipedia has been pretty bad. Do you seriously think, with XP support ending date keeps being pushed back over and over again, and Windows 7 release date inching closer, that anyone would consider switching to Vista? Most business will either stick with XP or take a chance with WIndows 7, which is getting overwhelmingly positive reviews over Vista. Compared to that, impression on Vista at pre-release and post-release was doubtful at best.

My company and most consulting companies have been using XP since 2003. Many of US government branches switched over to XP at similar times. Nobody is considering Vista since it was released in 2006. Even if Vista has vastly improved, the general public opinion already marked it with a scarlet letter and will not give it a second thought with Win 7 just around the corner.. unless Win7 bombs even worse than Vista.. Then we *might* be able to finally say goodbye to Microsoft!
 
Lately the credibility of Wikipedia has been pretty bad. Do you seriously think, with XP support ending date keeps being pushed back over and over again, and Windows 7 release date inching closer, that anyone would consider switching to Vista? Most business will either stick with XP or take a chance with WIndows 7, which is getting overwhelmingly positive reviews over Vista. Compared to that, impression on Vista at pre-release and post-release was doubtful at best.

My company and most consulting companies have been using XP since 2003. Many of US government branches switched over to XP at similar times. Nobody is considering Vista since it was released in 2006. Even if Vista has vastly improved, the general public opinion already marked it with a scarlet letter and will not give it a second thought with Win 7 just around the corner.. unless Win7 bombs even worse than Vista.. Then we *might* be able to finally say goodbye to Microsoft!

They'll switch to vista because it's had time to mature and prove itself. They always switch years after the OS has come out. 7 will have just come out and as a result businesses will again wait for it to prove itself.
 
Lately the credibility of Wikipedia has been pretty bad. Do you seriously think, with XP support ending date keeps being pushed back over and over again, and Windows 7 release date inching closer, that anyone would consider switching to Vista? Most business will either stick with XP or take a chance with WIndows 7, which is getting overwhelmingly positive reviews over Vista. Compared to that, impression on Vista at pre-release and post-release was doubtful at best.

My company and most consulting companies have been using XP since 2003. Many of US government branches switched over to XP at similar times. Nobody is considering Vista since it was released in 2006. Even if Vista has vastly improved, the general public opinion already marked it with a scarlet letter and will not give it a second thought with Win 7 just around the corner.. unless Win7 bombs even worse than Vista.. Then we *might* be able to finally say goodbye to Microsoft!

Uh, that information has a citation, which leads to informationweek, which got it from gartner, I suppose you're going to tell me their credibility is lacking recently as well?
The only one lacking credability is you, you have no support for your beliefs that 'no one is switching' to vista, gartner feels different, and they actually go through the process of collecting real information to support their claims, so I'll go with them instead of your intuition and gut feelings, hope you don't mind...
 
Personally i've had vista fubar more installs for no reason than xp or 2000 ever did...thats why to this day i run xp pro on all of my systems but my brand new laptop, and the only reason vista is still on it is due to it being pre-installed... i dont 'dislike' how it runs but i dont like it as well either... yes its pretty, yes it has some cool features, but honestly i liked xp better, and in MY experiences both personally and as a tech support manager for a local small(ish) isp ive noticed xp as being a more stable and reliable OS... thats just my 2 cents, if you like vista fine, ill stick with xp for my game rigs and ubuntu for my net browsing boxes till i see if 7 is worth upping to
 
DRM wasn't even on the list of reasons for the driver model change. The old model was unstable and lead to BSODs. The Network stack was a mess with horrible perf. And Video Drivers were the single biggest source of system crashes. Moving them out of Kernel mode was a huge positive.

Do you think MS is going to state that they changed the driver model to enable PVP/PAP (DRM)? Are you serious about XP's display model leading to more BSOD than Vista's display model? Microsoft stated that Nvidia display drivers were the cause of most of Vista's BSODs. XP's network stack is based on BSD's code. Years of tweaking, polishing, etc. Vista's network performance still has issues almost three years later.
 
The only one lacking credability is you, you have no support for your beliefs that 'no one is switching' to vista, gartner feels different, and they actually go through the process of collecting real information to support their claims, so I'll go with them instead of your intuition and gut feelings, hope you don't mind...

According to marketshare, October 2004, three years after XP's release, Windows XP 63.47%, Windows 2000 15.79% and Win9X 10.99%
April 2009, 2 1/2 years after Vista's release, Windows XP 62.21%, Vista 23.9%, Windows 2000 6.16%, Win9X 1%.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-...1&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=45&qpnp=24
 
vista went wrong? not in my book!

though I had a workmate who was having driver problems for his TV tuner and he somehow blames MS which is foolish of course. I told him that its the maker's job to provide the drivers.
 
Vista has a rock solid base, stable and secure, the problem is that its GUI is unnecessarily convoluted. If the MS UI engineers were running a contest as to how far deep in unnecessary submenus and tabs they can bury the pages to change settings, etc, someone there won big. For me the biggest improvement in Windows 7 was how much more it had streamlined over Vista. Things were unnecessarily obfuscated there and it drove me nuts.

Now, things like faster file transfers, no more random thrashing of the hard drives, search that actually works predictably and consistently, these are all big pluses with Windows 7 as well, but its stuff that I could at least deal with in Vista. The UI though pissed me off fierce. The core OS though, I wouldn't have gone back to XP if you paid me.

And the whole "Windows 7 is mainly dressing over Vista" argument that some people are using is one that I don't buy at all. It diminishes the IMHO absolutely crucial work that Microsoft put into Windows 7. You need a solid base but you also need an intuitive and friendly interface running on top of that, the whole point of an OS is to get out of your way and let you do your work with minimal fuss. MS nailed stability and security with Vista, now they are tightening things up like search, file transfer, and HD thrashing, and actually putting good window and workspace management concepts to work (a miracle!).
 
Last edited:
Vista is an excellent OS, and is much more stable and secure than previous Windows OS. I think the only thing that went wrong is how Microsoft handled the release of Vista. as they seem to have underestimated the power of marketing. Take for example:

1. Poor marketing of Vista prior to launch. This is true, especially when you compare it to marketing that Microsoft has done for previous Windows releases. People weren't excited for the release of Vista as they were for 95/98/XP.

2. Poor/shoddy graphic/audio drivers at release of Vista. While not entirely Microsoft's fault, Microsoft should have nonetheless coordinated closely with companies like nVIDIA, ATI, and Creative and made sure that their drivers were ready for Vista's launch. Much of the negative press about driver BSOD and gaming bottlenecks compared to XP could have been reduced or avoided altogether.

3. Lack of response to Apple's "I'm a Mac" commercial campaign. Microsoft failed to respond adequately when Apple initiated these ads. Without a proper response, it just drove the bad image of Vista deeper into consumers. Sure, Microsoft is now countering them, but it's a little too late.

4. "Vista Capable" program. This was a disaster. MS should have enforced stricter guidelines on PC manufacturers on which PCs could be labeled as truly "Vista Capable". Applying a Vista-Capable logo to PCs with inadequate specs (512 MB??) was not wise at all, as reactions by the general public were even more convinced that "Vista is a slow, bloated OS" by how they ran on 512 MB "Vista capable" PCs. :rolleyes:

Microsoft's late reactions really tarnished Vista's image and their mistakes continue to haunt Vista today.

It appears that Microsoft has already learned it's lesson with Vista, as they seem to be making the right moves so far with Windows 7. If they can get the general public to be excited about the release of Windows 7 (like the Windows 95 release), it'll be a massive win for Microsoft.
 
Last edited:
I wish I found this thread earlier.. Oh the troubles I've had with Vista.

Let's start by saying that I have been building computers and programming before most of you were born, so spare me the n00b treatment.

The time was 2007, and I was looking to buy a nice laptop for my wife.. I decide on IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad X61t Tablet PC. It comes from one of the most reputable laptop makers and known for its iron-clad T-series. I also decided to go with Vista Ultimate. Sure I've heard the news about problems and incompatibilities.. but those are for newbies and I should be more than enough to handle this, right? I order it with 2GB RAM just to be sure.

So I get my brand-new laptop, and I reinstall the OS from the scratch to get rid of all those spamwares and useless crap they pre-install. And I install newest BIOS, chipset drivers, 965 GMA video drivers, and whatever and boot.. Damn thing is S..L..O..W! And it crashes almost every 30 minutes doing the most basic stuff (browsing web on Firefox, MS Office, One Note, IDLING!).

After working on it for about two months to get the damn thing to run stable and I disable and uninstall whole bunch of yet more crap programs and services from Microsoft, Intel and Lenovo.. After disabling Trusted Computing services, Turbo Memory crap, Lenovo proprietary wifi client, and all kinds of junk, my laptop finally lasts a day without crashing.

But it still runs slow as hell, very slow at file transfer (especially over LAN), have to click crapload of boxes to give admin permission (thanks UAC!) that locks up the whole OS, and all other kinds of problem that causes long-term instability and usability. Now my wife hates me for giving her this crap.

To be fair, I've recently built an Core i7 system with 6GB RAM and I crossed my finger and installed Vista 64 Ultimate.. This thing runs pretty nice without much problems, but then it'd BETTER RUN SMOOTH at these hardware spec! I'm upgrading it Win7 as soon as I finish downloading RC.

I finally decided to reformat the laptop and decide to install Vista SP1, hoping it would solve most of the problems.. then it fails to install SP1 and other patches and I have to reboot and retry dozens of times with different BIOS/drivers/service options until it finally decide to install the updates. Now my system runs a tad bit faster, Turbo Memory runs (though I don't think it speeds up any) without much problem, and I disabled UAC so it doesn't bug me as much. But now my laptop won't wake up from sleep and reboots all the time.. I've tried just about everything from fiddling with power settings, disabling S3 sleep, and more. I've scoured web for solutions but yet to find one that works.

Sooo.. I think the next time I get a good chunk of free time, I'm gonna install XP on that laptop and throw that laptop in fire. I've had enough with Vista!

Shoulda boughta Dell dude... I have Vista 64 w/SP1 installed and it ROCKS. Extremely fast and hasn't crashed ONCE in 3 months since I formatted it. Either you suck at formatting computers or your laptop(and/or drivers) suck.
 
According to marketshare, October 2004, three years after XP's release, Windows XP 63.47%, Windows 2000 15.79% and Win9X 10.99%
April 2009, 2 1/2 years after Vista's release, Windows XP 62.21%, Vista 23.9%, Windows 2000 6.16%, Win9X 1%.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-...1&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=45&qpnp=24

Of course more people (consumers) switched to XP sooner, I didn't say that didn't happen. After all, they were coming from Windows 98 and Windows ME, which are fundamentally broken OSes, where as with XP->Vista that is not the case. But he claimed 'no one was switching to Vista' and that businesses were not upgrading to it. That is wrong, because there were 75% more Vista users in 24 months than anticipated and businesses upgraded faster to Vista than to XP, which is a more relevent and interesting comparison because businesses were coming from NT/2000 for the most part when they upgraded to XP.
 
Do you think MS is going to state that they changed the driver model to enable PVP/PAP (DRM)? Are you serious about XP's display model leading to more BSOD than Vista's display model? Microsoft stated that Nvidia display drivers were the cause of most of Vista's BSODs. XP's network stack is based on BSD's code. Years of tweaking, polishing, etc. Vista's network performance still has issues almost three years later.

The DRM is necessary to play protected content, it allows you to do more with your PC than you otherwise could. If Mac OS X could play blu-rays and Windows could not, you'd be hammering it for that as well. And MS may have said Nvidia's display drivers caused more of Vista's BSODs, but that doesn't mean that there are more BSODs because of display drivers in Vista than in XP. And Vista's network performance is fine, what happens is there is a setting that throttles the network so that slow computers can play media without skips, but the fundamental core of the networking technology in vista is fine.
 
First comment from the InformationWeek article nailed it:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207600845

I know that was the case with the previous place I worked, every new laptop and PC that was bought with Vista on it was immediately formatted.

A user comment? Is that all you have? Don't be so desperate, it's pitiful.

Anyways, that is not factual, Vista had 350 million users in jan. 2009, according to wikipedia (based on web statistics), 75% more than MS anticipated. How could that be, if everyone downgraded? The anti-vista propaganda is nothing but clueless people quoting each other, as you so aptly demostrated.
 
I like Vista for the most part (post SP1), performance and reliability much improved over XP in my opinion.

It still however annoys me to this day with the random moving of things around (UI)...searching is a step backwards from XP, and I STILL have issues with not being allowed to manage the file system the way I WANT too. (Oh, I'm sorry, your not authorized to go into Program Files, you might break something, stupid user!) UAC I just turned off it annoyed me so much.

I wish MS made a "I am not a compete moron" version of Vista. You manually turn on things you wanted in UAC, and you had complete access to the file system.
 
Care to list a 'few' of those things?
Unlike the prior poster who allegedly "fixed" my post, your question is legitimate. I didn't have time to list those issues, but will do so briefly here.

First, some background info. My "daily driver" is a Win XP Pro computer I build in summer/fall of 2005. In Jan. 2009, I bought a Dell to use as an HTPC. It came w/ Win Vista Home Basic. I've been using both computers for the past 4 months. So far, I still much prefer XP over Vista. Here are some pros and cons of Vista compared to XP based on my exp.

Pros:
- It looks prettier.
- Lot more power saving options (granularity) for standby and hibernate.
- Finding files is slicker

Cons:
- UAC is a PITA! There are times where I literally have to confirm "Yes" 3 times (!!!) to install a file. Once should be enough. I'm surprised it hasn't made me ask for permission yet when I want to sneeze.
- Many apps give weird errors. I realize that's a fault of the app, but still. For example, Nero 6.6 and DVD Shrink give me weird errors, but they do the job (burning and ripping/compressing DVDs, respectively). Snapstream's Beyond TV used to give me errors, but the latest version doesn't.
- It seems like no matter how I position my Windows Explorer with the various columns I want, whenever I reboot, it repositions it. Also, it's a PITA that it doesn't have an address bar that you can copy and paste onto or off of.
- The computer (remember, it's my HTPC) doesn't always wake up reliably, although, that could be a funky HDMI handshaking going on between it and my A/V receiver (Onkyo TX-SR605). Often, I have to put it back into sleep and then wake it up again. Annoying to say the least.
- While watching a TV show w/ Beyond TV, it occasionally loses sound or pauses. I have to lower the window and then remaximize it to get it to work again. It could be a Beyond TV thing or HDMI funkiness again. (BTW, my video card is ATI 4550 low profile.)
- Huge memory hog. My main PC w/ XP barely uses 1 GB of RAM (it has 2, which it has never reached), even after running for a while. But my HTPC w/ Vista is easily over 1 GB (it now has 4).

So, the cons outweigh the pros so far. I thought about reformatting my HTPC and put Windows XP Pro on it. I have an extra hard drive, so I could do that w/o having to touch the Dell's original HDD that has Vista on it.
 
Shoulda boughta Dell dude... I have Vista 64 w/SP1 installed and it ROCKS. Extremely fast and hasn't crashed ONCE in 3 months since I formatted it. Either you suck at formatting computers or your laptop(and/or drivers) suck.

Agreed.

My experiences with IBM Thinkpads has been less than good.

Back in around 2005 or so, the BIOS on them at the time (and perhaps still) had a bug that if you enabled legacy USB support, you couldn't define expanded memory for DOS based applications. LOL.

...we switched vendors.
 
You do have a point.
I am sure Vista is not the sole cause of the misery, but the overall experiences with Vista has been crap on laptops compared to Windows XP. I've NEVER had this much trouble with laptops compared to DOS, Win 3.x, Win95/8, NT, 2000, XP, Linux, Ubuntu, and OSX.

There is reason that I've NEVER heard of any business and enterprise system running Vista. No sys admins are masochistic enough to dare dealing with it.

Oh yeah... I've always worked with latest available drivers. Most of the drivers I'm using are as new as 4/30/2009.
About your 2nd paragraph, I work for a Fortune 100 comp. and we really want to move to Vista, but it still has way too much incompatibility w/ our apps, so we're still deploying brand new PCs and laptops w/ an image containing XP Pro.
 
I also work for the IT department of a large company. To back up the poster above. It's really not Vista but software compatability.

We stilll deploy windows 2000 machines in some areas because some vendors havent updated their software to work in XP or Vista. Otherwise we are on XP because a lot of our applications havent been updated to work in Vista.
 
Unlike the prior poster who allegedly "fixed" my post, your question is legitimate. I didn't have time to list those issues, but will do so briefly here.

First, some background info. My "daily driver" is a Win XP Pro computer I build in summer/fall of 2005. In Jan. 2009, I bought a Dell to use as an HTPC. It came w/ Win Vista Home Basic. I've been using both computers for the past 4 months. So far, I still much prefer XP over Vista. Here are some pros and cons of Vista compared to XP based on my exp.

Pros:
- It looks prettier.
- Lot more power saving options (granularity) for standby and hibernate.
- Finding files is slicker

Cons:
- UAC is a PITA! There are times where I literally have to confirm "Yes" 3 times (!!!) to install a file. Once should be enough. I'm surprised it hasn't made me ask for permission yet when I want to sneeze.
- Many apps give weird errors. I realize that's a fault of the app, but still. For example, Nero 6.6 and DVD Shrink give me weird errors, but they do the job (burning and ripping/compressing DVDs, respectively). Snapstream's Beyond TV used to give me errors, but the latest version doesn't.
- It seems like no matter how I position my Windows Explorer with the various columns I want, whenever I reboot, it repositions it. Also, it's a PITA that it doesn't have an address bar that you can copy and paste onto or off of.
- The computer (remember, it's my HTPC) doesn't always wake up reliably, although, that could be a funky HDMI handshaking going on between it and my A/V receiver (Onkyo TX-SR605). Often, I have to put it back into sleep and then wake it up again. Annoying to say the least.
- While watching a TV show w/ Beyond TV, it occasionally loses sound or pauses. I have to lower the window and then remaximize it to get it to work again. It could be a Beyond TV thing or HDMI funkiness again. (BTW, my video card is ATI 4550 low profile.)
- Huge memory hog. My main PC w/ XP barely uses 1 GB of RAM (it has 2, which it has never reached), even after running for a while. But my HTPC w/ Vista is easily over 1 GB (it now has 4).

So, the cons outweigh the pros so far. I thought about reformatting my HTPC and put Windows XP Pro on it. I have an extra hard drive, so I could do that w/o having to touch the Dell's original HDD that has Vista on it.

- UAC - What program/drivers requires three prompts? Never have I come across any program requiring three prompts to install. I've asked others for details when they have claims like this but they never give examples.

- Weird errors - you realize that's the fault of shoddy code in the program and not Vista right? From what I remember Nero 6.x wasn't even certified to run on Vista thus why I have Nero 7. That also explains why BeyondTV stopped throwing weird errors with newer software. That software had been updated for Vista. What happens if you run these programs in XP Compatibility Mode?

- Agreed - while the new explorer doesn't bother me (in fact I like it quite a bit more) I fully understand it bothers some people due to the differences between XP and Vista.

-Can't really comment as I don't sleep my systems much. My laptop never had an issue coming back from Sleep or Hibernate though with Vista HP x64 but I've always found that YMMV no matter the OS with sleep/hibernate options.

-Memory Hog - I'm not even getting into this dead horse that has been beaten many times over other then saying Superfetch.

About your 2nd paragraph, I work for a Fortune 100 comp. and we really want to move to Vista, but it still has way too much incompatibility w/ our apps, so we're still deploying brand new PCs and laptops w/ an image containing XP Pro.

It's no surprise that some companies won't move to Vista due to application issues. It was no surprise that some companies skipped 2000 Pro for the same reason. Some companies are just too cheap to get their software updated to run with newer operating systems.

Hell I still work with Windows NT daily thanks to the government and their piss poor software which was written for a specific OS and never updated for newer ones until recently (the last 12 months) when it was updated to run on WEPOS (Windows Embedded).
 
beowulf7, you lost all credibility when you called Vista a memory hog. If you don't know why, please, please, do some research.
 
- UAC - What program/drivers requires three prompts? Never have I come across any program requiring three prompts to install. I've asked others for details when they have claims like this but they never give examples.

- Weird errors - you realize that's the fault of shoddy code in the program and not Vista right? From what I remember Nero 6.x wasn't even certified to run on Vista thus why I have Nero 7. That also explains why BeyondTV stopped throwing weird errors with newer software. That software had been updated for Vista. What happens if you run these programs in XP Compatibility Mode?

- Agreed - while the new explorer doesn't bother me (in fact I like it quite a bit more) I fully understand it bothers some people due to the differences between XP and Vista.

-Can't really comment as I don't sleep my systems much. My laptop never had an issue coming back from Sleep or Hibernate though with Vista HP x64 but I've always found that YMMV no matter the OS with sleep/hibernate options.

-Memory Hog - I'm not even getting into this dead horse that has been beaten many times over other then saying Superfetch.



It's no surprise that some companies won't move to Vista due to application issues. It was no surprise that some companies skipped 2000 Pro for the same reason. Some companies are just too cheap to get their software updated to run with newer operating systems.

Hell I still work with Windows NT daily thanks to the government and their piss poor software which was written for a specific OS and never updated for newer ones until recently (the last 12 months) when it was updated to run on WEPOS (Windows Embedded).
If I had a camcorder, I'd video tape the instances where I have to press "Yes" or "OK" 3 times. I'll see if I can do so on my cell phone or give a specific example in detail.

Wow, Windows NT. :eek: I know my company wants to move to Vista. In fact, they've had a pilot program for those who want to run Vista. (I didn't volunteer for this.) According to feedback from them, there are too many apps that still don't have compatibility. That will mean too many phone calls to the help desk, so they're continuing to use XP. Heck, they just recently (finally!) started pushing SP3 to use XP users.

beowulf7, you lost all credibility when you called Vista a memory hog. If you don't know why, please, please, do some research.
It's a fact that Vista uses more memory than XP. You lose all credibility if you say otherwise.
 
It failed cause it needed more of this....

134350347deba05c2fo.gif
 
First comment from the InformationWeek article nailed it:
:rolleyes:
Seriously, can't say it better than Devil did:
The anti-vista propaganda is nothing but clueless people quoting each other, as you so aptly demostrated.

Onward...

It still however annoys me to this day with the random moving of things around (UI)...searching is a step backwards from XP, and I STILL have issues with not being allowed to manage the file system the way I WANT too. (Oh, I'm sorry, your not authorized to go into Program Files, you might break something, stupid user!) UAC I just turned off it annoyed me so much.
Serious question: HOW IN THE HELL is Vista's search a step backwards? I want Photoshop? Four key presses: Win-P-H-Enter. Tons faster than XP.


I wish MS made a "I am not a compete moron" version of Vista. You manually turn on things you wanted in UAC, and you had complete access to the file system.
It's called Linux, man.

- UAC is a PITA! There are times where I literally have to confirm "Yes" 3 times (!!!) to install a file. Once should be enough. I'm surprised it hasn't made me ask for permission yet when I want to sneeze.
Please give me an example of this three-prompt nonsense. Last time someone used this argument was probably six months ago, and when I asked them this THEN, they ran off never to be seen in that thread again :rolleyes:

-
- Many apps give weird errors. I realize that's a fault of the app, but still.
That's a new one to me. Someone acknowledging it isn't a fault of Vista, but still lists it as one :rolleyes:

-
- It seems like no matter how I position my Windows Explorer with the various columns I want, whenever I reboot, it repositions it. Also, it's a PITA that it doesn't have an address bar that you can copy and paste onto or off of.
:rolleyes:
What do you call this???
3532585476_2f66773e01.jpg



It's a fact that Vista uses more memory than XP. You lose all credibility if you say otherwise.
Yes, b/c of its prettiness (Aero), which requires more RAM. :cool:

Bahahahahahahahaa.....

You, sir... Are the most ignorant end-user I've delt with today. Congradulations.

<And since you obviously have no idea what anyone here is talking about with the above quotations... Visit the Microsoft website>
 
Yes, b/c of its prettiness (Aero), which requires more RAM. :cool:

Have you checked ram prices lately? You can buy 24GBs of fast ddr3 Ram for less than $400. I paid $400 for 2GBs of much slower ddr1 ram when I got my P4 3.2, and I was happy with that at the time. And Vista will run much better with 12GB/8GBs of ram than XP did with 2GBs, with money left over for 5-8 expensive meals. So relatively speaking, Vista is not as 'bloated' as XP. Get some basic understanding of economics and the electronics industry, ok?
 
:rolleyes:

Bahahahahahahahaa.....

You, sir... Are the most ignorant end-user I've delt with today. Congradulations.
[/URL]>

lol. Show him whose cowrecked! jk

Flame war
0f84bea19e2375354e9158cef2518ee9.jpg


$400 for RAM? Did it come with a free motherboard and PC?

Isn't this like bragging about parking? "Well I only park in the finest garages, not by meters like n00bs."

XP runs the stuff, $50 of DDR2 runs the stuff (unless you NEED windowed Crysis and Photoshop or something), $100-120 video cards run the stuff.

The difference is that XP was around so long and so different from ME/2000 that it became the default, without really breaking down. Vista tried to move into the... non-absence. Which is a bit weird for 6 years of XP but that's how it is. And it had issues at launch while XP obviously was stabilized by 2007.

But of course Vista wasn't free, and didn't change things dramatically like Windows 95, it just tried to make that appearance. Welcome... crystal sounds, clean and shiny... UAC, a new era of safety... are you sure you want to open Firefox? Or VLC?

It's like the Aperture science lab of Windows. GlaDOS lives.

And XP isn't a wild west saloon of freedom but it's a known entity and there are reasons it wasn't replaced but rather accompanied, even with Vista going out on so many OEMs. Now there's Win7 but they changed and charge so little that the risk is low for both sides and they need those business upgrades so they aren't trying to make a new mold, just fill in some holes and add some parts.
 
Last edited:
- UAC is a PITA! There are times where I literally have to confirm "Yes" 3 times (!!!) to install a file.

You know you can disable UAC right? (it's under "User Accounts" in the control panel) I did it the instant I noticed it on Vista.
 
You know you can disable UAC right? (it's under "User Accounts" in the control panel) I did it the instant I noticed it on Vista.

Thanks. I didn't see it in Control Panel, but did a search for "UAC" from there and saw it. I'm keeping it on (enabled) so that I can give evidence to the 3-click UAC I've encountered in the past. I'm actually on my HTPC (w/ Vista) right now, so let me list a couple other annoyances (not necessarily reasons why Vista failed) while I'm on this box.

- Disk Defragmenter sucks. No more graphics that shows you the disk being defragged. For an OS that's so "pretty", that's a perplexing omission. It annoyed me, so I wound up using a 3rd party freeware app, Defraggler, that I like so much that I use it on my Win XP PC.

- Start > All Programs no longer goes as tall as the monitor, which means more vertical scrolling to go through list of programs.

- By default, new folders with MP3s (such as a USB thumb drive connecting to the PC) have useless columns, such as Ratings field. I never rate my music (it's all perfect, that's why it's on my hard drive), so this is annoying.

- By default, Vista hides Toolbar and Status Bar. Even after selecting them both, the status bar doesn't show the folder's size like the way XP does. It just shows the # of items.

One Pro of Vista is that it has the Search button everywhere (all windows). That would be nice to have in XP.
 
Last edited:
Have you checked ram prices lately? You can buy 24GBs of fast ddr3 Ram for less than $400. I paid $400 for 2GBs of much slower ddr1 ram when I got my P4 3.2, and I was happy with that at the time. And Vista will run much better with 12GB/8GBs of ram than XP did with 2GBs, with money left over for 5-8 expensive meals. So relatively speaking, Vista is not as 'bloated' as XP. Get some basic understanding of economics and the electronics industry, ok?

Yes, I know RAM is cheaper than a dinner at TGIF these days. My HTPC came w/ 2 GB out of the box. I ripped that off and got 2x2 GB of Corsair RAM when I saw a slick deal on them. I'm not short on RAM, but just making the correct observation that Vista uses significantly more RAM than XP.
 
:rolleyes:
Seriously, can't say it better than Devil did:


Onward...


Serious question: HOW IN THE HELL is Vista's search a step backwards? I want Photoshop? Four key presses: Win-P-H-Enter. Tons faster than XP.



It's called Linux, man.


Please give me an example of this three-prompt nonsense. Last time someone used this argument was probably six months ago, and when I asked them this THEN, they ran off never to be seen in that thread again :rolleyes:


That's a new one to me. Someone acknowledging it isn't a fault of Vista, but still lists it as one :rolleyes:


:rolleyes:
What do you call this???
3532585476_2f66773e01.jpg






Bahahahahahahahaa.....

You, sir... Are the most ignorant end-user I've delt with today. Congradulations.

<And since you obviously have no idea what anyone here is talking about with the above quotations... Visit the Microsoft website>

Nice of you to go on the personal attack. I'll respond briefly since I'm about to watch a movie on my Vista HTPC. If you weren't so ignorant yourself, you'd know how to spell "dealt". :p
 
Yes, I know RAM is cheaper than a dinner at TGIF these days. My HTPC came w/ 2 GB out of the box. I ripped that off and got 2x2 GB of Corsair RAM when I saw a slick deal on them. I'm not short on RAM, but just making the correct observation that Vista uses significantly more RAM than XP.
Unused RAM is wasted performance. Plain and simple. Every single byte of empty RAM? Wasted money. Vista takes advantage of it. And if programs need that memory? It's freed instantly at no penalty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top