![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
The Top 5 Reasons Why Vista Failed
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,164
Damn, 256 MB of ram is really only just enough for Xp. And then, only if you don't multitask much. Obviously not a candidate for Vista. Hell, you might even want to downgrade to 2k.
SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
If your graphics card can't handle Aero, that's a problem. In late 2006 this was probably a bigger issue than it is now. There are probably not many integrated graphics chipsets on machines today made for running Vista that can't do Aero. As far as dedicated cards, anyone with a dedicated graphics card today that can't do Aero probably isn't in the market for a new OS. That's pretty much legacy hardware right there.Tell me why I should run out and buy a new OS that requires a new graphics card purchase - not to mention buying all new Vista-capable applications and doing a complete system re-install, including apps? What is the compelling reason for all of this expense and hassle? To prove my manhood by "Sucking it up?" Because Microsoft decided I needed it? Is it really that much of an improvement in my computing life over XP?
I need actual reasons why (Vista cost @ $XXX + a video card @ $XXX) = or > (Vista goodness-XP goodness). How is Vista worth the expense and hassle of the upgrade?
Vista-capable applications.. Vista has a high degree of backwards compatibility, which is one thing people whine about incessantly since the mechanisms for this take up so much freakin' disk space. The oldest games I tried, Age of Empires I and Starcraft, both installed and ran. AOE I didn't spend much time with, but I did a fairly brutal overnight LAN party in Starcraft on Vista x64 with no issues whatsoever. As far as more specialty applications, like maybe CAD software or something, research of course is needed, but just as the new OS is a new thing, these apps have been getting updated to better run under Vista. Tho this is pretty much a no-brainer thing; if you know your apps don't run under Vista (and I say "you KNOW they don't run"), you won't be getting Vista. No need to complain about it. Your app vendor doesn't support it, the decision has been made for you, game over.
I like Vista for no other reason than it looks nice. I spend a lot of time in front of a PC and if I'm going to stare at a screen for hours it may as well look nice. The x64 angle is nice, tho I used XP64 before, and some of the stuff Vista comes with is nice, but nothing I couldn't live without. For me also, XP simply got old. As I slowly replaced my laptop and desktop last time around, I simply got Vista for them. It wasn't a matter of re-formatting, so it was painless. For someone with a well-entrenched, not going to upgrade anytime soon machine, it's of course a much bigger question. For older, legacy low-spec machines I don't really recommend it.
Vista isn't for everyone. Simple as that.
Damn, 256 MB of ram is really only just enough for Xp. And then, only if you don't multitask much. Obviously not a candidate for Vista. Hell, you might even want to downgrade to 2k.
lol. We just run quickbooks, firefox, and office 03, so it's all good.
Sabrewulf165
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,978
I've gotten tired of defending Vista to morons. Even the supposedly smart people I work with all parrot anti-MS tripe like they walked right out of a Mac ad. It's frankly pathetic, and I'm fucking tired of it. Is Vista a world-beater? Of course not. Is it so bad/worthless that you should cling to XP like some loser who can't get over a breakup? Jesus no.
I'm a PC, and I like Vista.
I'm a PC, and I like Vista.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Uhmmm... wrong.
bboynitrous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,514
I completely agree. If steam didn't crash on me every 15 minutes, I would have stayed with linux.
Vista offers almost nothing for business.
Almost no one is adopting it because it requires more hardware with no benefit.
Corporate firewalls protect better than Vista does. (Vista doesn't meet ICSA standards)
I have several Vista boxes (x86 and x64) at home and they run fine, but they don't do anything better than my XP systems for work.
100% of our clients downgrade to XP. Not a single one is using Vista. Some could, but why? It's slower and less compatable. Eventually the rest of the software will catch up, but Vista really brings nothing to the table for business. It's an OS looking for a reason to exist....and failing.
I don't dislike Vista. I use it on some of my systems and it's fine, but XP does the same thing faster and better for a business PC.
personally i think vista sucks because too many different versions. vista basic, vista home premium, vista business, vista ultimate, plus the 32bit and 64 bit versions of each.. 8 variations of the same crap!
should be just windows vista 64bit. no need to have home or pro versions like xp. one version with everything and then you can just leave out what you don't want/need. and it should be ~$150. pricing ultimate around $250 is retarded...
should be just windows vista 64bit. no need to have home or pro versions like xp. one version with everything and then you can just leave out what you don't want/need. and it should be ~$150. pricing ultimate around $250 is retarded...
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 35,256
lol at the article
when XP came out it was the same crap, stick with 2K becuase it isn't a resource hog like XP
when XP came out it was the same crap, stick with 2K becuase it isn't a resource hog like XP
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 35,256
lol, no..........Vist X64 with 8GB ram and it hauls butt and appears to be FASTER than Windows XP running on the same hardware with less ram.....
Let me get this straight: You spent $250 on an OS because it isn't "bad/worthless" and people questioning it are the morons? Frankly, I have a lot of things I could spend $250 on, like a new CPU.
What a bad/worthless post. You insult people as morons because they want to know why they should spend hundreds of dollars and do a complete reinstall of their OS? I guess the "smart" people just follow blindly like sheep at anything Microsoft throws their way.
Again, why? To me the dummies are the ones who buy a new OS without question merely because it is new and Microsoft says it's time to upgrade. This is a release for shareholders, not end users.
What a bad/worthless post. You insult people as morons because they want to know why they should spend hundreds of dollars and do a complete reinstall of their OS? I guess the "smart" people just follow blindly like sheep at anything Microsoft throws their way.
Again, why? To me the dummies are the ones who buy a new OS without question merely because it is new and Microsoft says it's time to upgrade. This is a release for shareholders, not end users.
Yeah, screw choice! I love being charged for features I'll never use
Of course, you do realize that if they limit the versions, they aren't going to make them cheaper, right? Fewer choice does not mean a cheaper product. The cost to make the product is fixed. MS won't make Vista cheaper if they eliminate some versions (like Basic)
Also, they have to have 32-bit versions of Vista as the industry hasn't yet transitioned to 64-bit, and doesn't seem to be in any hurry to do so. MS isn't stupid. They aren't going to alienate the largest platform user base.
Care to elaborate? Windows XP x64 wasn't released until 2005. By that time, Vista hype was in the air, and would be released a little over a year later. XP x64 was never sold retail, rather you had to buy a copy of XP Pro and then permanently trade in your 32-bit license for the x64 version (I think an OEM version was also released). XP x64 also runs on the Server 2003 code base, which has no plans for an SP3. XP x64 is dead in the water.
XP x64 is hardly dead in the water. I myself currently use it without ANY hitches on very modern hardware.
No they don't plan to release a SP3 for XP x64 because SP2 is said to be the equivalent of SP3 for Windows XP x32.
XP x64 has had the same treatment that Vista has had; to much bad mouthing and not enough evidence. I was a victim of this, I fell to the thoughts and opinions of XP x64 till I ran it myself and guess what.. its been an absolute dream and nothing but success.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,400
why not make a os that can be updated and changed overtime?
They won't release SP3 for XP64 at the moment because XP64 is based on Windows 2003. XP32 has nothing to do with XP64's upgrade or update plan.
When Windows Server 2003 gets another service pack, you can bet XP64 will get one too.
Most of us who are defending Vista are NOT telling you you should upgrade. We're only dispelling FUD and falsehoods, nothing more. If you're running XP without a hitch, then there's no real reason to upgrade unless you want to or if you're in the market for another operating system, or if you need DirectX10 or the upcoming DirectX11.
Renegade_Azzy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 326
#4 is a huge one (sorry if this has been mentioned, but my short lunch break doesn't let me read 10 pages of comments)
People bugger up Vista all the time by trying to turn it into XP (much like people bugger XP trying to turn it into OSX...) by changing how things work, turning this and that on and off. I really think those people who write the "optimization" guides out there do a disservice to the average user. If you treat vista as vista, and use it as such, it isnt all that bad. I pretty well like it, and can only think of 1 or 2 things I would change.
People bugger up Vista all the time by trying to turn it into XP (much like people bugger XP trying to turn it into OSX...) by changing how things work, turning this and that on and off. I really think those people who write the "optimization" guides out there do a disservice to the average user. If you treat vista as vista, and use it as such, it isnt all that bad. I pretty well like it, and can only think of 1 or 2 things I would change.
What are you running that regularly asks for UAC prompts? I'm not going to say I don't see them for certain things, but it's not an every day occurrence. What games require you to go through UAC every time? Can you avoid it with task scheduler or Vista's Application Compatibility Toolkit?
I have seen some freeware tools that won't work because they're not signed, which is sucks, but I can find other solutions in most cases.
How so? The vast majority of MS's OS's (regardless of which version you refer to) are sold through OEMs like Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony and so on. Most people never install an OS on their PC. And that also is true of businesses. I'm in IT, and I've never had an existing PC's OS upgraded. The change always occurred when they brought in new H/W.
If there was no Vista, then all those PCs would come with XP. Either way MS get's paid.
Bottom line is that Vista has done better than XP did at this stage.
People are just starting to come around to Vista, which isn't all that different from XP, which was also bashed for not being as fast as Win9x, requiring far better hardware, having less compatibility than 9x and running slower than 2000.
Businesses didn't see any thing in XP that they needed and they continued with their already planed Windows 2000 deployments.
The more things change....
YIKES. I think my initial XP build had 512 or 768MB of ram at the end of 2002. In 2005 I went to 2GB and this year I moved to 8. Even at work we have 4.
I can't imagine running XP on 256mb.
Tell me why I should run out and buy a new OS that requires a new graphics card purchase - not to mention buying all new Vista-capable applications and doing a complete system re-install, including apps? What is the compelling reason for all of this expense and hassle? To prove my manhood by "Sucking it up?" Because Microsoft decided I needed it? Is it really that much of an improvement in my computing life over XP?
I need actual reasons why (Vista cost @ $XXX + a video card @ $XXX) = or > (Vista goodness-XP goodness). How is Vista worth the expense and hassle of the upgrade?
Since we don't know what your current rig is, we don't know if you'd need to upgrade anything or not. Vista runs on 1GB. I wouldn't run it on 1GB (though I have), but I haven't run XP on less than 2GB in almost 4 years. Vista runs fine on 2GB, but when ram priced dropped through the floor, I went with 8GB and moved to Vista 64.
If you have any gaming card made in the last 3 or 4 years, vista will have few if any problems. a $20.00 graphics card is more than enough for Vista.
I'm not sure what apps you run that are incompatible with Vista.....though aside from games, most can run in a virtual machine. I use one for accessing my work PC (Cisco won't support x64 for the concentrator we have
)Businesses are adopting Vista at a rate that's at least on par with XP adoption.
People said the exact same thing about XP....and quoted slow adoption to support that claim.....and 3 years later, XP was till on less than 1/2 of the corporate desktops.
As for speed, let's be realistic: most corporate desktops have no need for speed. They're used for Office and web browsers.
OTOH, if I had a machine with Vista x64 and 8GB of ram, I could do a lot more than I can right now....and if I needed XP for some app, I'd just run it in Virtual Box or Virtual PC, along with Linux in another virtual box or 2.
My first XP build had 1GB in it as well. Both computers work (slowly) so I could careless. I've tried to get them to upgrade at least the RAM and nada; so I stopped caring about it, lol.
MaStaFLaSH
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,224
I've run XP on 256mb and it runs just fine, I try for 512mb as a minimum tho. I think XP is just too entrenched, vista offers no real benefits at an enterprise level and also requires a major upgrade in hardware to say nothing of compatability issues. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,164
Aside from the typically slow corporate migrations, (especially considering how entrenched Xp is), I don't see how Vista has failed. It's public image is not ideal, because of, for the most part, FUD. It is still shipping on new machines, people are still buying them, and MS is still making fat bank off it.
I wish I could fail like that.
I wish I could fail like that.
I wish I could fail like that.
I agree. No company has come close to what microsoft accomplished over the years, so if thats a fail, then I aslo want to fail like that.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Well, you've got to look at it this way: Since Windows XP was the most widely adopted OS in history, of course there are going to be countless people/organizations that will be weary of switching. By this point, they've forgotten about the issues that XP had as a new OS, and are quick to attack something that they're not used to.
Whether or not Vista's adoption rate is faster or slower than XP's, here's Vista's problem: It is a new, relatively untested, relatively immature platform going up against an entrenched, mature, well-understood incumbent (XP). There really isn't much (from an end-user's perspective) to entice people away from their beloved XP.
I can agree with this. When XP first came out, it was somewhat in the same position as Vista is today. Honestly, I think MS took way to long to release a new OS which is why XP is so entrenched. It will take some time for Vista to really catch on within the business realm. By that time, Windows 7 will be out anyway (if things go according to schedule
).My biggest gripe about Windows Vista is the fact that browsing my computer is just plain annoying. The way it automatically sets up each directory although I've told it not to do that is so frustrating and irritating. For example if it detects musics or movies, it uses that default template w/ the stars and crap like that. I don't like it. I like seeing the status bar down there, I like seeing the same fixed layout that I made for my browsing habit.
sitheris
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,750
I agree with all of these. Vista is certainly a step back from XP in my opinion.
I thought the same way and was the reason why I didn't upgrade to Vista. When I got XP64, I had a grip of issues with drivers: My license dongles didn't work, or were buggy, my NIC card would shut off, I had to sell a scanner I just bought and some software didn't even run all the features. Only just now it's ironed itself out. Hell, my printer was still acting funky before the upgrade.
I installed Vista64 Ultimate and all my software is running, all my license dongles work, even my printer installed itself with all functionality without hunting down the software. yeah, it has it's quarks to get used to interface wise, but I can get over that as long as the computer runs. When Lightwave/Maya/UnrealED crashed, it didn't take the whole damn comp down with it, and I am still able to move around the system.
So far, I'm liking Vista way more than XP.
That's really my biggest problem my Vista. It does a bunch of crap I didn't ask it to, or don't want it to, and I can't change it. If they want to have auto formatting folders based on content then fine, but give me the ability to change it back without having to go digging through the registry. And for gods sake, give me back the sort by type!
1. Companies buy new computers, not old used ones.
2. Compatability problems will go away as s/w companies decide that now might be a good time to adhere to Windows XP coding standards. It's been 7 years: it's time.
I do agree with the setting up of directories. I have certain things I want in every directory.
I may change my mind for specific directories, but I'd rather change those as needed.