Vista hysteria among general public out of control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well what I noticed isn't personal attacks. Its discrediting an users experience with Vista. You know why we haven't used it for very long? Because it crashes. One crash and loosing of data is enough for me. Its like sticking a needle in ones eye and having someone say "It will feel better if you keep doing it." Great you never had problems with Vista and you pour over reports and websites. But I want a stable OS without having to tweak things to make it work. To me that should fall on the laps of Microsoft not the end users.

That right there.

It's like you guys think everyone else is so stupid that they cannot tell a rant from a legitimate complaint and therefore you must step up to defend the honor of Microsoft or something. It's lunacy. Step back once and just look at how fucking silly it is, seriously. Its really getting to the point where you've got to practically write a fucking book just to have your opinion respected in these forums, and it shouldn't be that way.

And that right there.



That's where the real problem lies here.

The first of those is an example of a really, really silly approach to troubleshooting and problem solving. A problem is encountered and the immediate reaction is to assume that it is an OS 'fault' and to engage in criticism of the software. Thing is, though, that the people who've been engaged in troubleshooting problems for Windows users over a long period of time generally understand that 'crashes' almost inevitably result from software issues, device driver issues and/or user errors. Windows itself basically doesn't 'crash'. Something running in Windows causes a crash. Encountering a problem and then bewailing about how Windows "sucks" or some other such serves no useful purpose, and is simply an exercise in promoting misinformation, intentional or otherwise. Windows XP (even with SP2 integrated) needs configuring and tweaking to give a good stable experience for every combination of hardware, software and user activity, so making such claims about Vista specifically is rather silly.


People who post comment in response, effectively saying "No, it's probably not that Windows sucks. There's almost certainly a problem here with something that you've done." are really only trying to get to the heart of the issue at hand. Occasionally - very occasionally - there will be a genuine 'bug' in the Windows code underlying the issue. But most of the time in order to resolve problems there will be need to identify:

  • The device driver which is causing the problem
  • The incompatible or buggy program which is causing the problem or...
  • The incorrect procedure which the end-user has used and which has caused the problem.

All the crying about Microsoft, supposedly 'spyware' inclusions or whatever else hobby-horse in the world is merely an intrusion upon cold, hard fact. Windows is a 'flawed' platform, and always has been, because of its underlying conceptual framework.
Each new version is an improvement, but not an elimination of those fundamental issues. Those factors are a 'given' which nobody really disputes. People saying "No, that's not actually true at all" in response to the wild claims of woe aren't actually claiming that Windows (any version) is a perfect platform. The intial, rather silly comment becomes much more difficult to address when people jump aboard the bandwagon.


The second of those quotes is an example of the response people often receive when they genuinely try to address problems and concerns of others who are running the Windows platform. The approach taken is to belittle people making positive attempts to address operational issues and matters of accurate information dissemination. People who are not actually trying to "defend Microsoft's honour" but who are rather simply seeking to see positive discussion and genuine efforts to assist, free from the intejections of the 'haters' who almost always aren't even interested in the Windows platform.


odoe said:
Everyone in the corner.
You've had your fun.

Here is how things should work.
You guys apparently had some misunderstandings.
Ok.
Move on.
This whole troll and FUD thing is getting out of hand. I don't want to see people being called out as trolls or their statements immediately dismissed as FUD. More like you should inquire further into their issues. What happened here? This whole Vista release has just an ugly line in the sand on this forum and you guys made it. Nothing is perfect, as well as nothing is as bad as it seems. I'm just asking for you guys to stop attacking each other, stop making this whole thing so personal and stop chewing each other out. You guys have all contributed to this forum in a positive way at one time or another and now you are ALL bringing the forum down a notch. All of you. I'm sorry, but it's true. I'm not against some fun and games, but there is some straight mean spiritedness in here and it's saddening to see in this forum. I can see where some people are coming from about being ganged up on for differing opinions. We have had problems with holier than art thou attitudes on this forum before and always come down to your crap stinking as much as the next guys. We've also had a problem with overly defensive attitudes on this forum as well. The two just fuel each other and some of you thrive one it.

Whatever issues you guys have, move past it.

I'm going to leave this open so everyone can kiss and make up.

Get to it.
Fine sentiments, and most of it quite undeniable. Before your post even appeared yesterday I'd made comment touching upon similar concerns. So had duby and perhaps others also.

But there's an inherent 'flaw' in the approach as well, Simple fact is that the entirety of the blame and responsibility for the bickering that's been evident can't and shouldn't be attributed to people participating, irrespective of 'what side of the fence' their soapbox stance originates from. There is a structural issue here which is very much contributing to the creation of the situation we see.

There's a forum section here for Linux/Other free OS's. From what I've seen it's a pretty well-behaved section. I've glanced over it from time to time and not seen evidence of endless bickering about soapbox issues. Sure, there are the inevitable anti-MS/Windows negativity comments posted there, but Windows users don't go there creating a free-for-all. I'm sure they would be discouraged from doing so anyway, and that's as it should be.

But Windows-related problems and concerns must, by necessity, be posted in a more general 'Operating systems' section rather than a Windows-specific section, and thus exist within somewhat of a 'free-for-all right from the outset. They are prone to intrusions by people who really aren't even interested in Windows to begin with. To that extent, it's a structural problem feeding a behavioural problem.

It isn't enough to dismiss it all as 'fun' or 'misunderstandings'. Encouraging people to use more politeness in communicating with one anotheris good and well, but when the stage is set from the outset for a shit-fight the best you can really hope for is that people are going to end up having a shit-fight in honeyed and insincere language.


A Windows-specific section for the Windows-specific topics is warranted, methinks. That'd make it easier to identify and discourage the people jumping into topics for purely mischievous reasons. People ARE doing that. That ain't a 'misunderstanding'.
 
A Windows forum? I can hear both sides now....

"OMG, this is the WINDOWS section!!! Stop trolling, and go talk about how much windows sucks in the linux section!!!!11"

followed by

"You're such a troll!!! this is a legitimate discussion about how Windows Vista sucks more than all other operating systems combined, including Microsoft BOB!!!!! Your post is off topic!!!1"

all in a thread about UAC or something.
 
That's where the real problem lies here.

The first of those is an example of a really, really silly approach to troubleshooting and problem solving. A problem is encountered and the immediate reaction is to assume that it is an OS 'fault' and to engage in criticism of the software. Thing is, though, that the people who've been engaged in troubleshooting problems for Windows users over a long period of time generally understand that 'crashes' almost inevitably result from software issues, device driver issues and/or user errors. Windows itself basically doesn't 'crash'. Something running in Windows causes a crash.

And here lies the real problem: Why can't you understand that if the user has a trouble-free enviroment in his XP box and he gets problems like above in Vista, he really doesn't give a damn what caused it. The box bluescreened it, xp was stable -> he continues to use XP untill the day his Vista stops bluescreening or freezing on him.

Plain and simple. He sees no reason to switch (and the reasons are marginal at best even if it would work 100%).
 
And here lies the real problem: Why can't you understand that if the user has a trouble-free enviroment in his XP box and he gets problems like above in Vista, he really doesn't give a damn what caused it. The box bluescreened it, xp was stable -> he continues to use XP untill the day his Vista stops bluescreening or freezing on him.

Plain and simple. He sees no reason to switch (and the reasons are marginal at best even if it would work 100%).


See's no reason to switch is fine, but dont blame the OS when it is something else's fault.
 
And here lies the real problem: Why can't you understand that if the user has a trouble-free enviroment in his XP box and he gets problems like above in Vista, he really doesn't give a damn what caused it. The box bluescreened it, xp was stable -> he continues to use XP untill the day his Vista stops bluescreening or freezing on him.

Plain and simple. He sees no reason to switch (and the reasons are marginal at best even if it would work 100%).

I would actually agree with that. You are exactly right, this is the general user.

The rest of this is addressed to nobody in particular.

People out giving advice, help, and opinions about Windows aren't generally "average" users. Just by coming to this forum- you are making an attempt to solve your problem (or I sure hope so, and don't come here to just gripe about Windows), which sets you outside of this general users.

That being said- what Catweazle just said still applies to everyone on this forum. Everyone on this forum is above-average, even because they just make an effort.
Posting false comments about Windows, with no given information to back the absurd comment up is sinking yourself down to a user-level, by not giving a darn what caused it. And by sinking yourself down to the general "I don't care" population, you have no business giving the absurd comments in the first place.
See what I'm saying? If you don't- read back over that again before posting, and actually give it some thought.

Now, if you still wan't to argue that point- you are saying you are one of these general users. As a general user who "doesn't give a damn", you have no business throwing these absurd comments out here as fact.
 
'twas genuine and sincere comment, LastOfTheBrunnenG.

The soapboxing OS comparisons belong in a more general 'Operating systems' section surely, and thus the genuine Windows-specific discussions (even in relation to Vista's UAC) could be conducted free from such intrusion.

Sure, there is validity in discussion which compares Vista's efforts to keep activity in user space with the way that need is addressed within Linux. Fair enough if the comparison is unfavourable to Windows also. I'd agree with anybody making such an assessment. But that discussion belongs amidst other discussions where cross-platform issues are threashed out, not in response to every mention of Vista's UAC measures. When the comparison is trotted out in every thread where UAC gets mention then it simply becomes an exercise in thread-trashing.

I don't see the behaviour you describe there occurring in the Linux section. there's no reason why it should be allowed to occur in a Windows section.
 
...i can't believe this and that other topic are still going...
I can. the issue posed at the outset hasn't been resolved, and all the discussion that has ensued is part of it.

Simple fact? The "hysteria among general public" is fuelled by the nonsense being posted on forums like this, by supposedly knowledgeable and experienced users, and by members of the IT media who are more interested in attention-seeking headlines and the volume of page views than they are in accurate information dissemination.

It's no wonder that we see 'hysteria' amongst the less informed users when the supposedly experienced people can't even open their gobs without engaging in a shit-fight ;)
 
I agree a Windows forum may cut back- but you would still have the parent forum. What would go on in here??? Can the admins disable a parent forum but leave the two subforums open?

I just think it would turn this parent forum into a total mock-fest for the other OS. Just my opinion on it- although I do think you are right about this being ideal grounds left open for the whole Windows-Linux thing.
 
A windows sub-forum is not going to happen. It's been discussed in Forum Help & Suggestions. This is something that goes on every time a new OS comes out, and it will pass.
 
I would like to say that the blame for Vista support should not be placed on Microsoft - the Operating System itself was available to system builders and software developers for a full 2 years before it reached the public and there is NO REASON any major developer shouldn't have drivers and/or updates for Vista ready by now.

Laziness on the behalf of these vendors is the real issue here. Microsoft went out of its way to make this OS the most conforming and developer friendly and held out an open hand to everyone who wanted in - that is, most major hardware makers.

An OS that will be on more than half the world's comps by 2009 should not be on the backburner for any major hardware OEM or software developer.

Let's just set straight who needs to be blamed here.

I am a driver developer, and had my driver ready in time for Vista. But it was a pain getting there. Microsoft was changing the interface I used every few weeks up until a month before ship. Of course there was no announcement of these changes, your shit just broke. Then you spend 15 hours debugging to find that MS changed something without telling anyone... A lot of the blame for the slowness in getting drivers is Microsoft's fault. They drastically changed a lot of interfaces. I especially feel bad for anyone in audio or video, the copyright protection bullshit alone must have been a huge headache. And you cant WHQL it if it doesnt meet every MS whim. And un-whqled drivers cant even be installed on vista 64bit. Vista 32 is the last 32 bit OS, and the last os that will allow unsigned drivers.

There are some lazy oems out there, but MS is a pain to work with while the OSes are beta.
 
I am a driver developer, and had my driver ready in time for Vista. But it was a pain getting there. Microsoft was changing the interface I used every few weeks up until a month before ship. Of course there was no announcement of these changes, your shit just broke. Then you spend 15 hours debugging to find that MS changed something without telling anyone... A lot of the blame for the slowness in getting drivers is Microsoft's fault. They drastically changed a lot of interfaces. I especially feel bad for anyone in audio or video, the copyright protection bullshit alone must have been a huge headache. And you cant WHQL it if it doesnt meet every MS whim. And un-whqled drivers cant even be installed on vista 64bit. Vista 32 is the last 32 bit OS, and the last os that will allow unsigned drivers.

There are some lazy oems out there, but MS is a pain to work with while the OSes are beta.

You mentioned interfaces, so I assume you are talking about the .NET framework. Vista includes the .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 framework so your applications will be fully backward compatible. But then again, you're talking about driver development which would be in C++? I don't doubt that Microsoft was changing publicly accessible functions until the last minute, I'm just surprised that the driver model was changing up until RTM.

Drivers that are not WHQL can be installed in the 64 bit edition of Vista - do a search of the forums - I'm not an expert, but I have read of two methods. (F8 at startup -> install unsigned driver mode.. and another one that I don't recall. But again, talk to someone who is more familiar than I am).

As far as "the copyright protection bullshit alone must have been a huge headache", I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. Windows Media Player is able to play back DRM protected media. If you play a Blu-ray disk, and the content provider does not want you to use S/PDIF output, they can implement that restriction. If you are playing any non-DRM protected content (xvid, divx compressed movies, etc), there are no DRM implications at all...
 
I have tried to install vista 4 times, count that 4 times. 1st time I lost my ability to boot to XP, second, a hard drive failed (not saying it was Vistas fault), the third I tried to install a new DVD reader/ writer and an XFi and it resulted in a Blue screen after blue screen over and over again and would never get past the BSOD, and the final install I wasn't pleased with the X-Fi support so I went back to XP.

It seems the 4 or 5 people are here to defend the honor of Microsoft, to a zealot fervor. "How dare you insult Vista!", like a Spartan holding his spear, and shield. Oh yea its the users fault, we don't know shit and you know all. I have tried and tried to install Vista. I had nothing but problems. I don't have hours to geek out on Vista to figure out what went wrong so I choose not to install it.

You call it hysteria, but you dismiss users problems with their install to be made up and untrue. With off hand, "your just to dumb." rebuttal comes off pompous, ego centered, and puffed up. A good teacher doesn't need to stand up and say "I know it all, listen to me." Their teaching speaks louder than their boasting. I don't care how many installs you have done. I personally had multiples problems with each try. And try I did.

You can say its all because I didn't give Vista a chance but I did. I would love to use Vista for 30 days, but I have run into system stopping problems 3 times. I bought it. Its sitting on my bookcase in its spiffy little package. For now , until the hardware driver support is there (Creative, cough cough) I will use XP.
 
It seems the 4 or 5 people are here to defend the honor of Microsoft, to a zealot fervor. "How dare you insult Vista!", like a Spartan holding his spear, and shield. Oh yea its the users fault, we don't know shit and you know all. I have tried and tried to install Vista. I had nothing but problems. I don't have hours to geek out on Vista to figure out what went wrong so I choose not to install it.

You call it hysteria, but you dismiss users problems with their install to be made up and untrue. With off hand, "your just to dumb." rebuttal comes off pompous, ego centered, and puffed up. A good teacher doesn't need to stand up and say "I know it all, listen to me." Their teaching speaks louder than their boasting. I don't care how many installs you have done. I personally had multiples problems with each try. And try I did.

Sad thing is that there are a handful of people who act like that, some people do experience problems like yours, and it acts against our ability to portray an objective view of the scenario confronting others. Others who make positive comment about Vista get 'branded' with the same zealotry, we lose sight of the fact that most people installing Vista don't experience those issues.
 
I have tried to install vista 4 times, count that 4 times. 1st time I lost my ability to boot to XP, second, a hard drive failed (not saying it was Vistas fault), the third I tried to install a new DVD reader/ writer and an XFi and it resulted in a Blue screen after blue screen over and over again and would never get past the BSOD, and the final install I wasn't pleased with the X-Fi support so I went back to XP.
And yet none of those have anything to do with Vista being at fault.
Perhaps #3, although it sounds more like driver related type issues.

It seems the 4 or 5 people are here to defend the honor of Microsoft, to a zealot fervor. "How dare you insult Vista!", like a Spartan holding his spear, and shield. Oh yea its the users fault, we don't know shit and you know all. I have tried and tried to install Vista. I had nothing but problems. I don't have hours to geek out on Vista to figure out what went wrong so I choose not to install it.
I don't think anyone is strictly pro-Vista. Care to give some examples or something of somebody that is? You won't find any- everyone here has had problems with it.

You still credit your four attempts at Vista (Heck, once it actually installed correctly and you were displeased with something that isn't even related to Vista, so three) as Vista's fault.
Like I said, one of those could have been corrupted files or something (#3), but the first two don't have anything to do with Vista, and #4 actually installed OK.

#1 has actually been talked about here recently. Not Vista's fault, it is a user problem. You gotta know that any time you are installing two OS like that you need to be careful. You never install an OS over another OS if you want to dual-boot, and you need to be sure to keep the boot loader in mind.

I think some people gripe about Vista for the sake of griping about Vista, if you want to take the other end of your argument that we are all pro-Vista around here.

You call it hysteria, but you dismiss users problems with their install to be made up and untrue.
There are users helped around here with Vista problems all the time. Heck, some of them we've even had problems with. Go read some of the threads before making these claims, please.
 
The biggest problems I see with Vista for the average consumer are...
1. Steeper hardware requirements (this always happens but initially it's a shock and relatively speaking the requirements jump from XP to Vista is rather large)
2. Bad driver support (Beat the hardware companies over the head)
3. As a result of 1, more expensive computers

For enthusiasts...
1. Driver issues again
2. Some games take massive framerate hits (see [H] article). If you have frames to spare, you're fine, but if you're barely making 30FPS you don't want to throw Vista on top of what you've got.
 
And yet none of those have anything to do with Vista being at fault.
Perhaps #3, although it sounds more like driver related type issues.


I don't think anyone is strictly pro-Vista. Care to give some examples or something of somebody that is? You won't find any- everyone here has had problems with it.
.

Never said it was Vistas fault, I don't claim to know it all, unlike some. But I never have those problems with XP and I can get less of a fight with XP. I can swap out hardware left and right with XP and never have to worry about BSOD. So whats at fault here? Vista or the user? When you can install the same hardware in the same computer, turn it off and not get a BSOD in XP, but get an BSOD in Vista. Where does the blame lay?

When it comes to wanting to use my computer I want to use my computer not spend my time troubleshooting it. So for now XP is where I will go and I think Vista isn't worth the headache.


 
I think the point people are trying to make is that they expect it to work when they install it. If it doesn't work, who cares whose fault it is, it still doesn't work. It's not like people are trying to install it on a P2 with 128MB RAM or something.

It's the vitriol of some posts around here that has gotten most into trouble.
So keep yourselves in check or someone else might have to.

edit
I changed pompous to vitriol, because I like the word
 
Never said it was Vistas fault, I don't claim to know it all, unlike some. But I never have those problems with XP and I can get less of a fight with XP. I can swap out hardware left and right with XP and never have to worry about BSOD. So whats at fault here? Vista or the user? When you can install the same hardware in the same computer, turn it off and not get a BSOD in XP, but get an BSOD in Vista. Where does the blame lay?

When it comes to wanting to use my computer I want to use my computer not spend my time troubleshooting it. So for now XP is where I will go and I think Vista isn't worth the headache.




the blame lays in whoever wrote crappy drivers for vista that caused it to bsod.
 
I think the point people are trying to make is that they expect it to work when they install it. If it doesn't work, who cares whose fault it is, it still doesn't work. It's not like people are trying to install it on a P2 with 128MB RAM or something.

It's the vitriol of some posts around here that has gotten most into trouble.
So keep yourselves in check or someone else might have to.

edit
I changed pompous to vitriol, because I like the word

Bingo. I'm not saying Vista sucks. I want it to work. Period.
 
I think the point people are trying to make is that they expect it to work when they install it. If it doesn't work, who cares whose fault it is, it still doesn't work. It's not like people are trying to install it on a P2 with 128MB RAM or something.

I care. If someone were to ask me whether he should upgrade to Vista, I wanna give the right answer. If the fault lies with the OS, then I wouldn't recommend it. But if the fault lies with the hardware configuration, then I can warn him of the issues he is going to face if he chooses to install.

Anyway, all this is moot. The thread had degenerated into a typical XP vs Vista thread and all the arguments are being rehashed. The customer in the OP wasn't the one who is going to install Vista. The thread starter is the one doing it and if so I'm sure he's responsible enough to ensure that there is no compatibility or hardware issues and of course no BSOD's. The customer isn't gonna swap "hardware left and right". The thing is, the customer dismissed Vista without even trying it and the reason given wasn't really logical. In this case, it really is hysteria. While there are people who have valid problems with Vista, it doesn't mean the hysteria is non-existent. I have people thinking that I sacrificed compatibility, stability, usability just because I want to run Aero. :rolleyes:

So really, the question should be that if the thread starter had ensured that both OS are stable, which would be the recommended OS for a non-gamer customer, not all this stuff about BSODs and whatnot. It should be more in the lines of speed, software compatibility, security, functionality and ease of use.
 
I love that word moot, It's like neocon, and other buzz words being flashed around. Sort of like concur.

And that customer should know the negative things that could happen. If they choose not to go with Vista then they shouldn't suffer the ridicule of the OP was suggesting. Playing it up like because their choice (the customer has the right to choose) to be "noob-ish." If I choose to install XP over Visa because of problems I have heard about then I have that right.

"After I completely dismantled him in front of her in a very polite fashion (got him to admit hes never used it, hasn't built a computer, etc), she agrees to go Vista. That was yesterday. That night I installed Vista on her machine and it works beautifully. Tonight, I get a call from her, panicking, asking if I had "done Vista" yet. Apparantly she said that it was a peice of crap and it will break her computer."

You shouldn't dismantle a customer, ever. Its not a good customer service tactic If I was that customer that person would have met with several unpleasant words back and then walked out keeping the money I had for myself. . If that is their choice then that is their choice. Sure you can claim knowledge to the later but its that customer that is going to give you your money to keep your business from folding. And what does it matter if she chooses Vista or not? Personal pride? So they made the "ill informed" choice. People make the wrong choices every day.
 
2. Some games take massive framerate hits (see [H] article). If you have frames to spare, you're fine, but if you're barely making 30FPS you don't want to throw Vista on top of what you've got.

The [H] article has two issues:

1. 100.65 drivers and not 158.xx drivers. (incidentally, they restarted the tests a couple times for new 'minor' revisions but it was too late in the game to restart the tests when this major revision came out - the 158.xx drivers are significantly better. Better than XP even lol http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/496/benchmark_chart.gif )

2. They did not test ATi cards. (although they did say they would provide a follow-up review in the future with some additional cards)
 
I got to try Vista for the first time yesterday. Freelancer brought in her laptop for me to work on and I had a brief moment of WTF then I realized "DOH! It's Vista."

I thought I would be more lost than I was. So that was nice, to not be completely disoriented.

But I'm one of those freaks that hated the XP interface and immediately scrubbed it off, switching back to "classic" W2K menus, etc. So I expected a more difficult transition.

The Office 2007 ribbon had me doing some headscratching. I would probably do some customizing on that one. At least the window wasn't filled with those stupid mini-palettes that are constantly in the way.

Unfortunately I will not be able to get a Vista machine of my own any time soon. I won't upgrade my home machine so I will probably have to wait until I replace it next year.
 
I got to try Vista for the first time yesterday. Freelancer brought in her laptop for me to work on and I had a brief moment of WTF then I realized "DOH! It's Vista."

I thought I would be more lost than I was. So that was nice, to not be completely disoriented.

But I'm one of those freaks that hated the XP interface and immediately scrubbed it off, switching back to "classic" W2K menus, etc. So I expected a more difficult transition.

The Office 2007 ribbon had me doing some headscratching. I would probably do some customizing on that one. At least the window wasn't filled with those stupid mini-palettes that are constantly in the way.

Unfortunately I will not be able to get a Vista machine of my own any time soon. I won't upgrade my home machine so I will probably have to wait until I replace it next year.

Make sure you don't disable Aero :) Aero offloads all the GUI processing to your video card. When Aero is disabled, your CPU has to take the burden of drawing windows, geometry calculations, etc...

Classic menus are fine, just leave Aero enabled, IMO...
 
The Office 2007 ribbon had me doing some headscratching. I would probably do some customizing on that one. At least the window wasn't filled with those stupid mini-palettes that are constantly in the way.
It takes a little getting-used to at first, but the ribbon actually makes things easier to find in the long run, because the commands and features or more organized, based on what you're doing in the document.
 
Never said it was Vistas fault,

No??
I don't have hours to geek out on Vista to figure out what went wrong

You didn't say "on driver issues". You placed the blame on Vista.


When you can install the same hardware in the same computer, turn it off and not get a BSOD in XP, but get an BSOD in Vista. Where does the blame lay?
Ummm... forward progress???

If I choose to install XP over Visa because of problems I have heard about then I have that right.
And nobody has seen otherwise. A global trait I have found with those that dislike Vista, is they put words into the mouths of those that do.
Just as with this post. You are sticking words into my mouth like I have said that you have no right to ditch Vista.

I have said it before- Vista isn't for everyone. If your hardware doesn't support it- wait til your PC dies and buy stuff that works with it.

If that is their choice then that is their choice.
It is also their choice to run under Administrator 24/7 to have the "ease of use" and not screw with permissions. That is why you can't sit back and let users run their course- education is key.

The Office 2007 ribbon had me doing some headscratching. I would probably do some customizing on that one. At least the window wasn't filled with those stupid mini-palettes that are constantly in the way.
I'm still getting used to it. I am so used to the "old" way of doing things, that I often go off looking around in vain trying to find a setting or something to insert, when I have one-click access to it and didn't even know it.

It really does make a ton more sense and requires less work. For someone brand new to Office 2007, it's great. For someone used to the "old" methods, it is a pain to learn the stuff brand new.

Businesses are already reporting a ton of savings switching to Office 2007. The simple fact is that they don't have to train their employees near as long, because it is so much easier to use.
 
Funny, I was in an enthusiast computer shop the other day and I asked which they would install, VISTA or XP Pro? They said XP Pro because VISTA is causing too many (small) problems. And they build the damned things, so who am I to argue.
 
No??

I have said it before- Vista isn't for everyone. If your hardware doesn't support it- wait til your PC dies and buy stuff that works with it.

So your saying that X-Fi doesn't work with Visa (In which it does just has wreak drivers)? Or that a Samsung SE-S184M DVD writer doesn't work with it? Or a 8800 GTX, or a E6600, or Kingston Hyper X 85000 DDR doesn't work with it? Or a Asus P5B Deluxe doesn't work with it? Oh yea its my fault cause I didn't stick my tongue out while installing the parts.

Those lack of drivers are on the back board of Vista. Without those Vista wouldn't work. Visa should work with anything that is out there right now. I'm not blaming Microsoft for the Vista problems I have had. Driver support is lacking and that takes away from the Vista experience. An experience that had lead to several crashes that where unavoidable. And thats my reasoning to stay away from Vista.

I put together my machine, (See sig) for Vista back oh 3 months ago. I install Vista the day it came out. I could never get back into XP. It did work at one time but for some odd reason it quit.

I changed out my older hardware for new hardware and Vista crashed even before I got to the install driver phase. My computer would boot and then wham Blue Screen. I never had the chance to update drivers. New things installed: X-Fi and a Samsung SE-S184M and both claim to work with Vista. Only thing is Vista didn't like em on boot and crashed.

Yea Vista is lacking in driver support. The Vista experience is lacking. And XP isn't. Dismissive comments like "Vista isn't for everyone" is where I have a problem. It's like saying those that never have problems are the better computer user. They know how to install their hardware, they know everything. Like your poll with the option on the negative to be I have no experience's with Vista and there thread crapping.

Every piece of hardware I have is new. None of it is old. However I have no problems out of XP with crashing on boot. I never had troubles of of the drive that crashed with XP. Driver support? Lack of Vista knowledge? I tried to use it. I refuse to use an OS when theres something better out there. I'm sure some dude with vast amount of "experience" will come along to try to prove me wrong.
 
Funny, I was in an enthusiast computer shop the other day and I asked which they would install, VISTA or XP Pro? They said XP Pro because VISTA is causing too many (small) problems. And they build the damned things, so who am I to argue.
Most people here built/build computers as well. When you are designing something for Vista, you should know what works and what does not work.
Sounds to me like they haven't done their homework, and just sell Vista to say that they offer it.

So your saying that X-Fi doesn't work with Visa (In which it does just has wreak drivers)? Or that a Samsung SE-S184M DVD writer doesn't work with it? Or a 8800 GTX, or a E6600, or Kingston Hyper X 85000 DDR doesn't work with it? Or a Asus P5B Deluxe doesn't work with it? Oh yea its my fault cause I didn't stick my tongue out while installing the parts.
I never said that. You said you had hardware compatibility problems, not I. Once more- sticking words in my mouth.


I guess what I should ask now- is do you want help getting Vista to work with your stuff? Or are you just expressing why you dislike it and aren't seeking help?

I really won't quote the rest of your article, because you contradict yourself several times. In one instance you say you realize Vista is not to blame for drivers, but in the next you say that Vista is to blame because the drivers should work.
 
Funny, I was in an enthusiast computer shop the other day and I asked which they would install, VISTA or XP Pro? They said XP Pro because VISTA is causing too many (small) problems. And they build the damned things, so who am I to argue.

All I can say is... if you have the desire, try it - you will be amazed and you won't look back ;)
 
I really won't quote the rest of your article, because you contradict yourself several times. In one instance you say you realize Vista is not to blame for drivers, but in the next you
say that Vista is to blame because the drivers should work.

Dismissive. Gotta love it. I said the Vista Experience. Et all. That experience dictates what people are saying about it. I mean people where wrong before. After all ME was great, it just lacked driver support...

I know how to fix the problems. Install XP. My machine has been running without a hitch since I didn't like the 4th install because I purchased an X-Fi to use it fully not have minimal support. Therefore I chose not to use Vista. I merely stated my experience with Vista. Sue me if I don't write a Nobel Prize winning piece. I'm not a pompous know it all.

I have no faith in what someone offers advice over the internet. Anyone could be some 7/11 clerk with an A+ book passing off their advice as the authoritative viewpoint. Thumps up for not attacking grammar or spelling. Circular arguments the meat of the internet.
 
Dismissive. Gotta love it. I said the Vista Experience. Et all. That experience dictates what people are saying about it. I mean people where wrong before. After all ME was great, it just lacked driver support...

I know how to fix the problems. Install XP. My machine has been running without a hitch since I didn't like the 4th install because I purchased an X-Fi to use it fully not have minimal support. Therefore I chose not to use Vista. I merely stated my experience with Vista. Sue me if I don't write a Nobel Prize winning piece. I'm not a pompous know it all.

I have no faith in what someone offers advice over the internet. Anyone could be some 7/11 clerk with an A+ book passing off their advice as the authoritative viewpoint. Thumps up for not attacking grammar or spelling. Circular arguments the meat of the internet.


You obviously had some problems with Vista. Nobody is dismissing your concerns as invalid - just that they are the exception, not the rule.
 
Dismissive. Gotta love it. I said the Vista Experience. Et all. That experience dictates what people are saying about it. I mean people where wrong before. After all ME was great, it just lacked driver support...
ME's problems had nothing to do with drivers. Well, the driver subsystem may have had bugs, but they weren't fixed by more mature drivers, that's for sure.
 
ME's problems had nothing to do with drivers. Well, the driver subsystem may have had bugs, but they weren't fixed by more mature drivers, that's for sure.

I forgot the tongue smiley. What I was getting at was that I'm sure there where folks that said oh just give ME a chance. I had NO problems with it. It was the best OS ever.
 
Funny, I was in an enthusiast computer shop the other day and I asked which they would install, VISTA or XP Pro? They said XP Pro because VISTA is causing too many (small) problems. And they build the damned things, so who am I to argue.
I'm sure a lot of people will take exception to this, but don't believe everything a person working in retail tells you. I'm sure there are quality, knowledgeable people working on some mom and pop shops, but there are also many working there because they can't get hired anywhere better. Unless you've given it a shot yourself, don't listen to a word anyone else says.
 
I'm sure a lot of people will take exception to this, but don't believe everything a person working in retail tells you. I'm sure there are quality, knowledgeable people working on some mom and pop shops, but there are also many working there because they can't get hired anywhere better. Unless you've given it a shot yourself, don't listen to a word anyone else says.
Well, it was the owner of the shop that said it. But your point is taken. I have both and I may yet try VISTA, but if it ain't broke...
 
So your saying that X-Fi doesn't work with Visa (In which it does just has wreak drivers)? Or that a Samsung SE-S184M DVD writer doesn't work with it? Or a 8800 GTX, or a E6600, or Kingston Hyper X 85000 DDR doesn't work with it? Or a Asus P5B Deluxe doesn't work with it? Oh yea its my fault cause I didn't stick my tongue out while installing the parts.

.....


I put together my machine, (See sig) for Vista back oh 3 months ago. I install Vista the day it came out. I could never get back into XP. It did work at one time but for some odd reason it quit.

I changed out my older hardware for new hardware and Vista crashed even before I got to the install driver phase. My computer would boot and then wham Blue Screen. I never had the chance to update drivers. New things installed: X-Fi and a Samsung SE-S184M and both claim to work with Vista. Only thing is Vista didn't like em on boot and crashed.

.....

Every piece of hardware I have is new. None of it is old. However I have no problems out of XP with crashing on boot. I never had troubles of of the drive that crashed with XP. Driver support? Lack of Vista knowledge? I tried to use it. I refuse to use an OS when theres something better out there. I'm sure some dude with vast amount of "experience" will come along to try to prove me wrong.

Some unusual behaviours reported there, which you don't usually see reported for Vista/XP dual-boots, but they are ones which would be easily explainable if you've installed Vista without first setting back the overclock reported in your sig.

XP was less tolerant of mis-matched RAM modules, overclocked settings and the like than its predecessors. Vista is less tolerant again. Install on an overclocked rig and you're inviting troubles which could well prove to be cumulative. That was a 'problem' under XP and it looks to be even more so under Vista. Simple approach is to install first, overclock later, irrespective of which OS version you're using. "House built upon rock" and all that!

Dunno if that's really the explanation for your misadventures, of course, but it'd certainly explain them if it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top