Vista. Not so good?

[JorgeIvan]

What a shame on Bill Gates last OS xD

[TokyoKiller]

Alright well here is my opinion on Windows Vista. I tried it for a good 10 days now (30 day trial, yes I know it is "illegal".) and I personally don't like it. It notice that the same type of installation under Windows XP runs 25 processes unlike Windows Vista which runs 46 for me right after I finish the installation and setup.

That tells me a lot, it is called BLOAT. I personally don't think Windows Vista is a "revolutionary" OS, rather just a re-work of Windows XP under a different name and a couple of things done here and there that were supposed to be done for Windows XP.

Also, I see Windows Vista as the "middle" OS between Windows XP and the NEXT major OS from Microsoft, what I am saying Windows Vista is just a release that was needed to revitalize the Windows brand into the market after some gain by Apple with their Mac OSX.

I would like to think that the NEXT major release of a Windows OS will be a more promising and delivering one, rather than an OS that Microsoft claims to have worked on for 6 years now and nothing but a couple of security features, an improved interface and nothing more. Microsoft cannot justify the $500 people have to pay to move up to the next level when they already can get all these features using a simple Service Pack.

Windows XP is not Windows 2000 where it did not have a proper GUI that can support 3D and 2D colors and such as Luna. Security can be easily added to XP with a service pack and so can the search feature and the improved interface.

Of course I am saying this now but I will eventually move to Windows Vista due to a push by the market and manufacturers of hardware and software, possibly in a year I will look into it unless I purchase a system pre-loaded with Vista.

[Xero]

I really agree with you, Vista is a nice OS, but its not what MS is pretending it is. Personally if they waited another year and made it better I think people would be happy, but people were getting annoied with delays so they just released it. I think it will be good once SP1 hits for it, but for the time being I think they made a major mistake this time around and Leopard's release will only help Apple gain a bigger lead over Vista.

Vista is on the level that Tiger is as they are very similar feature wise (regardless who came up with the ideas first) But Vista isn't competing with Tiger, its competing with Leopard, Microsoft didn't exceed Tiger with Vista they didn't try and blow Tiger out of the water, they just came up with something that puts up a good fight. I think its a bad move on their part, because Leopard will have everything Vista "should" have been. Vienna (or w.e they call it) will be Leopard, and so on, they will always be one step behind until they step up and release something really groundbreaking and really "wow" worthy.

Don't get me wrong, Vista is a great OS, I like it better than XP but it isn't the savior they needed.

[Weasel]

I would have to agree with the thread starter.

I tried vista for a month and ultimately went back to windows XP.

My computer is not too shabby (it had a performance rating of 5.9 in Vista), but it still seemed like things crawled. I install a lot of programs, and usually it takes me a day or so to install and configure everything when I format a new XP machine. In Vista it took me over 3 days...some programs just crawled and took forever to install and startup. I even had all the fancy eye candy and sidebar turned off, which I got tired of in a week. Program compatibility was OK, but I still couldn't get the latest AVG antivirus to work or Retrospect.

The driver situation is still a mess. I tried getting both my Creative Audigy and the sound built onto my ASUS motherboard working and I wasn't very successful at either. Finally I was able to get some sound by installing a beta driver in XP compatibility mode and still there was an annoying 'pop' from my speaker every 2 minutes. I installed the official driver for my Canon scanner and the XP scanning utility says "there are no scanners installed."

Also it seems the explorer crashing errors in XP have been replaced by "COM Surrogate errors". That's what happens whenever I try to view a folder containing a divx or xvid AVI, and it errors while trying to build the thumbnails. Copying in explorer is extremely slow. Sometimes it took over a minute to estimate how long it would take to copy 100 MB from one place on the harddrive to another. Opening the recycle bin sometimes took several minutes. So did opening the "Send To" right click dialog, it seemed to freeze while it queried my floppy drove and memory stick reader.

I think I'll wait until the first service pack and I get a better computer until I try vista again.

[I am Reid]

Well, then what do you want it to do. You are complaing saying its not good enough. Well give us YOUR idea of what it should be like. If you are going to just go on randomly about how much you hate, at least offer a solution to make it better. Until then go cry in a bathroom or something, because you are crying over nothing.

[benplace]

I would have to agree with the thread starter.

I tried vista for a month and ultimately went back to windows XP.

My computer is not too shabby (it had a performance rating of 5.9 in Vista), but it still seemed like things crawled. I install a lot of programs, and usually it takes me a day or so to install and configure everything when I format a new XP machine. In Vista it took me over 3 days...some programs just crawled and took forever to install and startup. I even had all the fancy eye candy and sidebar turned off, which I got tired of in a week. Program compatibility was OK, but I still couldn't get the latest AVG antivirus to work or Retrospect.

The driver situation is still a mess. I tried getting both my Creative Audigy and the sound built onto my ASUS motherboard working and I wasn't very successful at either. Finally I was able to get some sound by installing a beta driver in XP compatibility mode and still there was an annoying 'pop' from my speaker every 2 minutes. I installed the official driver for my Canon scanner and the XP scanning utility says "there are no scanners installed."

Also it seems the explorer crashing errors in XP have been replaced by "COM Surrogate errors". That's what happens whenever I try to view a folder containing a divx or xvid AVI, and it errors while trying to build the thumbnails. Copying in explorer is extremely slow. Sometimes it took over a minute to estimate how long it would take to copy 100 MB from one place on the harddrive to another. Opening the recycle bin sometimes took several minutes. So did opening the "Send To" right click dialog, it seemed to freeze while it queried my floppy drove and memory stick reader.

I think I'll wait until the first service pack and I get a better computer until I try vista again.

First off, you DID NOT have a 5.9 rating. Whats your hardware? I have a 5.7 and Vista is smoking fast. AVG installed fine for me as well. Maybe you did an upgrade instead of a clean install or something.

[»X«]

Well, then what do you want it to do. You are complaing saying its not good enough. Well give us YOUR idea of what it should be like. If you are going to just go on randomly about how much you hate, at least offer a solution to make it better. Until then go cry in a bathroom or something, because you are crying over nothing.

Difference. Im not getting paid more money than sense to make an OS. You want my opinion on improving it? Make it work. XP works.

[notuptome2004]

Alright well here is my opinion on Windows Vista. I tried it for a good 10 days now (30 day trial, yes I know it is "illegal".) and I personally don't like it. It notice that the same type of installation under Windows XP runs 25 processes unlike Windows Vista which runs 46 for me right after I finish the installation and setup.

That tells me a lot, it is called BLOAT. I personally don't think Windows Vista is a "revolutionary" OS, rather just a re-work of Windows XP under a different name and a couple of things done here and there that were supposed to be done for Windows XP.

Also, I see Windows Vista as the "middle" OS between Windows XP and the NEXT major OS from Microsoft, what I am saying Windows Vista is just a release that was needed to revitalize the Windows brand into the market after some gain by Apple with their Mac OSX.

I would like to think that the NEXT major release of a Windows OS will be a more promising and delivering one, rather than an OS that Microsoft claims to have worked on for 6 years now and nothing but a couple of security features, an improved interface and nothing more. Microsoft cannot justify the $500 people have to pay to move up to the next level when they already can get all these features using a simple Service Pack.

Windows XP is not Windows 2000 where it did not have a proper GUI that can support 3D and 2D colors and such as Luna. Security can be easily added to XP with a service pack and so can the search feature and the improved interface.

Of course I am saying this now but I will eventually move to Windows Vista due to a push by the market and manufacturers of hardware and software, possibly in a year I will look into it unless I purchase a system pre-loaded with Vista.

firstly we all know vista is Evolutionary not the other way around. now in this 6 to 7 years time in witch vista was in productions what all has been done? how about

a new display driver model

a New graphics subsystem witch ties in with driver modle

a new networking stack

a new audio subsystem

a reworked windows 2003 kernel with added over a good 50 million new lines of code to windows in just that if i read right

a new search technologies witch are at the core of vista

a newly revamped system restore

a new revamped more robust system backup

how about everything listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista <<<features new to windows vista oh and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista#End-user_features

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista#Core_technologies

anyways dude go read that and read about all the changes and then rethink your statment of ( Microsoft claims to have worked on for 6 years now and nothing but a couple of security features, an improved interface and nothing more.) Rethink that why dont you .

now Vista at a point in time was Revolutionary and well in some ways still is but in 2004 Microsoft had an issue they could ant get the operating system together for real system Launch so they Reset the project and started fresh and so Vista took alot of blood sweat and tears as does the Pearson who built your Home your houser the Roof over your Head to where ever you live

Vista started as a project just about a year before XP was released and just soon after XP was started in Development so in many ways i feel XP was the appetizer until vista arrived. at any rate Vista has a whole slew of under the hood technologies and for the better as Developers can create the programs they have always wanted and allot faster and give users anew expseriance in the same prgramers they are used to with more robust features and advanced UIs to them. vista is tho much more then a new GUI it is a whole entire system filled with possabilties and dreams that XP could never deleavier and allow the Developers to make ya really happy.

[Dashel]

To add something that really surprises me about Vista: MS has left developers out in the cold in a very big way insuring they must stay on XP for quite a bit longer.

[»X«]

All of your amazing features still dont make using Vista any better. All under the hood improvements.

[Slimy]

Difference. Im not getting paid more money than sense to make an OS. You want my opinion on improving it? Make it work. XP works.

Vista works.

Oh it doesn't work for you? Guess what, that's not Microsoft's fault. Blame the companies that can't make proper drivers. If you honestly think that everyone who has Vista running right now is having as many issues as you, then you need to realize noone has the same computer as you do.

Try running XP on a 2001 machine. Now try running XP on tens of thousands of 2001 machines with different hardware configurations. Guess what? XP will not "work".

All of your amazing features still dont make using Vista any better. All under the hood improvements.

First of all, the ones he named are not all "under the hood improvements." Second of all, since when are "under the hood improvements" a bad thing?

[»X«]

Nah im good thanks. Besides driver issues aren't responsible for the shoddy GUI and the lacklustre features. Not to mention the crashes. Sorry

[ZonoBurk]

Vista works a lot better than XP ever did for me.

[Malisk]

Ive been using Vista for a long while now. And here are my opinions.

Condensing your post, you're then saying:

- Flip3D is just a novelty thing and wears off soon enough.

- Start Menu search is useful but unimpressive.

- You don't like Aero.

- Security is nice, but you don't like UAC.

- Software compatibility is good.

- Shutting down apps is sometimes tricky.

- Over 30 second shutdown times.

Here's my thoughts on this:

- I agree about Flip3D and don't use it much. I still prefer Alt-Tab, and is happy to see that feature is improved, by the way.

- I agree the Start Menu search is useful, and useful is exactly what I'm looking for and don't need more from it than that.

- I don't mind Aero, but it's of course a matter of taste, as with all UI's in existance. :)

- Security is indeed nice, and I have to wonder if you appreciate everything security-related but UAC then? There's a ton besides that feature.

- I agree software compatibility is working pretty well after all is said and done, and it's mostly drivers being a problem today.

- I haven't had trouble shutting down apps as efficiently as in XP.

- I haven't heard or seen anyone having 30 second shut down times, so it has to be software or hardware-related, other than Vista, or basically everyone would have that. Not even after having installed applications, my computer takes more than ~5-10 seconds to shut down, and that's like XP to me at least.

Vista works for me. And XP works too. I prefer Vista's added features over XP's, because they're refined on so many levels. There's a number of reasons, and as those involve everything from the new user mode driver system, to the improved system monitoring features, to the DirectX 10 support, and the improved audio stack with per-application settings, to the more fine-grained power settings, to the new Shell and Explorer features, to the smart search indexing using low priority drive access to not interfer with your work much, it's a bit hard to list them all, and I can only give examples like those. Oh and I like that I don't need to use a third party firewall to have decent in/out traffic blocks. It fulfills my needs just fine now, unlike in XP. I like Shadow Copies. :)

But you go ahead and just use the OS you like most. That's all you can do about this really, and there's no reason you who don't like Vista should even touch it if you don't need it or like it. ;)

All of your amazing features still dont make using Vista any better. All under the hood improvements.

Both under the hood improvements and not makes using Vista better, or you need to clarify your definition of "better". :)

Are you saying an OS that don't BSOD as soon as a driver has a problem isn't better?

One that more efficiently makes use of bandwidth isn't better?

One that has better audio controls isn't better?

Edited February 9, 2007 by Jugalator

[ryanmcv]

I stopped at the first paragraph. You're just ranting. - the sidebar does not even add 5 seconds to the booting of Vista and I have 1GB of RAM. There are computers at freaking best buy with 2GB. Vista is meant to last a few years, it is not meant to run amazingly well with today's computers. Can't accept that? Stick with XP. When you get a new computer, you'll end up choosing Vista.

Quoted for Truth.

[Malisk]

I can only disagree on one point with Smily's QFT post above -- and that is that my computer of today shines on Vista. :)

Sure, it's a pretty recent upgrade, but even my 4 year old didn't struggle with much else than the RAM, really.

That would've been just ~$70 away too, but I was planning for a beefier upgrade anyway, so I didn't go that route although I could have..

[ANova]

Nah im good thanks. Besides driver issues aren't responsible for the shoddy GUI and the lacklustre features. Not to mention the crashes. Sorry

There are alot of zealous Microsoft lovers on this site that are quick to blaim and insult no matter what kind of argument you put up. Most just continually link to the same useless "features" list while giving no actual counter-arguments and add in an idiot for good measure.

I would leave it alone.

[dwarhya]

...just wait until you're running next years hardware. At that time, running XP on your PC woukd be like running windows 98 on your current hardware. Pretty nasty...

I don't understand why a lot of people say 'wait until you are running next years hardware'. I have Vista ultimate installed (with office, visual studio pro 2005 etc) and *all* applications run really fast. Multi-tasking is really good in VIsta. You have to wait for a few days for all your drives to be fully indexed. after indexing is complete, manually defrag your OS drive - full defrag not partial and then the HD is very rarely touched. It flies. Bootup takes 10-15 seconds from cold. Shutdown takes a maximum of 5 seconds.

It has been said before (by MS mostly) that Vista learns your work patterns. This takes a few days to do that. I would suggest that people have a little patience as it really does help.

Just my tuppence worth

forgot to add that UAC is (and always has been) enabled. no problems with it either. Once you have your PC fully installed, UAC prompts are *very* rare. I only see them when I try to access system owned directories

[SMELTN]

for me Vista did exactly what I expected. It had no HUGE wow like Microsoft said, but it ran smooth from the start, had no issues, and looks very nice. I could have made XP look the same way as Vista but with a ton of 3rd party programs that make my computer lag like crazy..

I love its features, I deal with the flaws, and I LOVE what the future holds for Vista. Does anyone need to upgrade now? NO Will you need to upgrade in the future? YES without question.

The choice is just up to each person, do you want to be a early user who learns how it works now? Or do you want to wait till the all clear sign is waved and get Vista later? The choice is yours but everyone will need to get it at some point.

[nowimnothing]

I've been using Vista since sometime during the betas... running the release now...

I'm using a relatively old computer (1Gb RAM, some old AMD processor that i don't even remember).

Vista works as well as XP. It does everything XP did, and it does many of those things nicer.

I dislike coming into work and having to use XP.

Most of it is opinion, just like the OP's comments were opinions. But for me, Vista is a net positive change from XP.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Vista works great for me. Devices that didn't work under XP now work flawlessly and did so without intervention (Bluetooth, onboard LAN) and my horizontal mouse wheels now works without installing mouse drivers. Startup and shutdown are both quicker, any drivers that I need are found automatically by connecting to Windows Update, the start search allows me to get to program quicker and the appearance is much better than XP (even though I had customised it). My soundcard doesn't work (drivers are due soon) but onboard sound does, so I'm not completely stuck and it is only a temporary problem. I can play CS-Source as smoothly as before, so my occasional gaming habit is catered to. I don't maintain that it is perfectly but I have found it to be a very smooth experience and vastly superior to XP. I'm only using 1GB of RAM, so I don't have a super computer or anything - it's just a typical system.

So I have been very impressed by Vista and the price, when bought OEM, is a very reasonable and a lot better than I was expecting. If only the retail price matched OEM and you didn't have to choose between 32bit/64bit.

[ANova]

Does anyone need to upgrade now? NO Will you need to upgrade in the future? YES without question.

I disagree, there are plenty of other options.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Microsoft assumed user pattern of using computer. It looks like a lot of things are preload into memory which is just wrong. Windows Index Search is the most demanding feature btw.

No, you are just wrong.

SuperFetch is extremely good at keeping code you run frequently loaded into otherwise unused memory. "Otherwise unused" is an important part of that statement, as it can't have a negative impact because it's using resources that otherwise would have gone to waste.

Same goes for the Windows Search indexer. It isn't "demanding" in the slightest, and the overhead on a modern PC is impossible to notice. It uses low-priority I/O, which means it will never prevent an application from being able to access the disk. It backs off on user activity, so that its CPU and other resource usage is minimal while you're using your computer. And even then, that only applies when there are items to index. Most of the time, your index will be up-to-date, and changes will be processed immediately. Processing a few changes takes a negligible amount of time and resources, and then you're up-to-date again and the indexer isn't doing anything at all except waiting for new changes or queries to come in.

[1759]

Vista works very well on my system, but certain programs like Media Player Classic crash a lot when UAC is invoked and a video is playing, but that will improve with time. I really don't notice that much, if any speed hit between Vista and SP2. For some of the drivers that I didn't have, I could still install XP ones. Even my 6800 is working fine.

[ManMountain]

... Same goes for the Windows Search indexer. It isn't "demanding" in the slightest, and the overhead on a modern PC is impossible to notice. It uses low-priority I/O, which means it will never prevent an application from being able to access the disk. It backs off on user activity, so that its CPU and other resource usage is minimal while you're using your computer. And even then, that only applies when there are items to index. Most of the time, your index will be up-to-date, and changes will be processed immediately. Processing a few changes takes a negligible amount of time and resources, and then you're up-to-date again and the indexer isn't doing anything at all except waiting for new changes or queries to come in.

Having previously installed RTM x86 and x64 editions of Vista and contrary to what you just said, I experienced constant hard drive thrashing that interrupted my computing use and was extremely noticeable (Clean installs, no "rogue" drivers or applications other than Office 2007).

In fact, it was one of the primary reasons why I'm not using Vista and remaining with x64 XP (On which I have Windows Desktop Search 3.0 installed, with no performance impact whatsoever).