• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Vista Sucks. (Again).

Recommended Posts

DrCheese    103
Sadly that button is going away in SP1. Don't blame us though.

I know thats such rubbish. I went to run a search the other day and I've got used to using the start menu.

Surely tho, MS could just change that search button to launch whatever search app the user has as his/her peference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottKin    11

jebus197 - Welcome to something called "progress".

Now, before you go off and tag my post as being hostile, just hear me out...ok?

Microsoft spends hundreds of millions of greenbacks in Software Development. Not all of that money is spent on coding - a fair ammount of dollars are spent in Usage Research, Focus Groups, End-User testing...not Beta, but actuall "Hey, come to Microsoft for a day of trying-out different software and tasks - give us some input and you can get a voucher to go shopping at the Employee Store" testing.

There have been dozens of changes in the Explorer Shell since Win95 and in File Manager before that - do you see people pining for the return to the EXPLORER.EXE we used in Win9x? I hear dead silence

I sympathize with your angst over the changes from XP to Vista, but there comes a time to put away old habits (be they good or bad) and embrace new ones.

--ScottKin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    14
"But anyway" what?

You were clearly misinformed or just too lazy to look for this feature in Vista. You were corrected, and now you're complaining that the feature you were looking for all along wasn't thought out properly.

Just go away.

What the @*$!* are you talking about pal?

If it was so obvious then why isn't it included in the default search options from anywhere in explorer as it was in XP?

The point isn't that it isn't there, or I don't know how to use it - it is simply the obfuscation of everything. The taking of features that were simple and clearly laid out previously and then making it difficult for even someone like me (who has probably been using computers for longer than you have been on this earth) to understand.

It may have powerful features, it may on the face of things look prettier - but I defy anyone to describe it as being 'easier to use' than XP.

Besides which I am hardly the only person who has concerns like this. Even just today there was a story on Digg about a Dutch consumers organisation who had received 5000 complaints about Vista in the last 3 months alone. The internet is cramed full of similar stories.

Anyway the question for me is not why I might have issues with it (not so much however as I said that I won't use it, or that I want to go to the hassle of installing another OS), rather it is why someone like you is so clearly and completely in love with it to such an extent that you will not even bare even very mild (and often valid) criticisms like this of it?

Do you love your computer? Do you want to marry it? When no one else is looking do you find yourself spending long durations of time licking the screen and whispering sweet tender promises to it? Otherwise I'm sorry, because I just don't get it.

I am plenty critical of Vista, it just seems like a very 'top heavy' and overbloated OS to me - and things are not always set out in as clear and logical a way as they could be. But you know what, I am plenty critical of other operating systems too - Linux included. So if you think that this was some kind of covert operation in Linux fanyboyism you are wrong. Dead wrong. Why else have I said I will keep this OS installed and that although there is plenty I don't like, it is still not enough to make me want to use an alternative?

And say there are things that I don't like, say I do find things awkward and not always very logically laid out, say I have preferences and likes and dislikes that are different from yours? What the hell kind of business is that of someone like you anyway? You don't like to live in a world where people have different likes and dislikes, where people prefer different things and have different points of view than you? Well why not go live on a different world, as I'm sure that you would be extremely welcome there.

Oh and don't start with this internet flaming nonsense. I warn you that I am an old school pro - and have been posting on forums probably since you dropped your first meaningful statement to the world as a baby wearing diapers.

If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head when replying and can't accept that people will occasionally have different points of view from you, then I respectfully suggest that you considered simply saying nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxxxxx.xxxxxx    46

Really, is there any need whatsoever to start threads like these. They are simply bait for flamers and trollers.

Vista, in Jebus' opinion, "sucks". Whether it be for a lack of a feature or perhaps a different way to do a perfectly simple operation which may not seem the most natural way of achieving something, (s)he doesn't like it. I can't be bothered with seeing threads like these appear with posts upon posts of ridiculus arguing. Its petty.

I am a Vista 64-bit user, I bought it the minute it was available and personally have had no major issues or problems with it on my system I have just learned to do things a little differently than I would have in XP. However many other people do, software issues, usability issues and the fact that things are done a little differently from what they were done on XP. This give no reason for flames. Please just try to accept people may have a difference of opinion and embrace that with effective critism rather than arguments... :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottKin    11
<snip>

Chances are that nearly 80% of those Dutch users you mentioned got weirded-out by the same things that are generating this angst. The change of an option here, a difference in a menu there, a feature dropped due to either depreciated use or an even better feature, etc, etc, etc. It's the same where ever I go, and I've helped quite a few people here in the Technology Capital of the World (Seattle) with Vista...and when I take a few minutes and sit down with them to explain the changes and why, and even show them a BETTER way to do what they're trying to do they usually say "Wow - I didn't think of doing it THAT way!"

Now, more on this report of Dutch users - perhapse you are referring to the "Ja & Nee" Survey reported at this article reported by Softpedia.

Based on the info in that article, most of the reported problems are software compatability - more than likely from software that was running fine on XP because it was first used by the complaintants since Windows 98. 80% of those people who in the past have reported slow-downs in Windows were also installing crapware as if their life depended on it, never defraged their hard drive nor did simple "housekeeping" on their system and ended up with 10MB of a 20GB Hard Drive because they saved EVERYTHING.

It's interesting to note that "...Mike Sievert, Corporate Vice President, Windows Product Marketing during the Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference 2007 in July, acknowledged that Windows Vista was released into a world that was not 100% ready for it." That is sooo true - people got too used to doing things in XP over the last 6 years. I would put hard-money down on the line to say that most of the people who have had problems with Vista had upgraded over an already messed-up XP system to begin with.

It's a phenomenom I call "User Head Space"

--ScottKin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    14

Well as I said, I've been using computers for upwards of 20 years - and even I find myself of having to ask how to do things on it. How ordinary Joe Blow is meant to cope I can only guess.

Anyway I still by my assertion. Different isn't always better, there are a number of issues I pointed to in my original post and also that I have discussed subsequently that are real.

It's not just about 'doing things differently'. I am not one of those fools who argue that 95 was better than 98, or 98 was better than ME (well anything was better than ME really) or 2k better than XP - or that XP is somehow better than Vista. I'm sure there are many ways that it isn't. However the overall impression is, despite it having a number of advanced features over XP, that somehow it all just doesn't gel together very well. It seems like an almost hodgepodge of (probably really good) ideas that haven't really been so well integrated into a single cohesive whole operating system.

That and the fact I guess that (to my eyes) it does often feel as though it is somewhat overweight. I don't see why better code always has to be more complex code. What was it for Vista? Five million lines of code? So will the next be, 10 million and the next after that be 20 million? What about 20 years from now, will the OS then consist of 20 billion or more lines of code? I just don't get the impression that more complex is necessarily always better - or that it is always the most efficient approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phantom Limb    0
Well as I said, I've been using computers for upwards of 20 years - and even I find myself of having to ask how to do things on it. How ordinary Joe Blow is meant to cope I can only guess.

Anyway I still by my assertion. Different isn't always better, there are a number of issues I pointed to in my original post and also that I have discussed subsequently that are real.

It's not just about 'doing things differently'. I am not one of those fools who argue that 95 was better than 98, or 98 was better than ME (well anything was better than ME really) or 2k better than XP - or that XP is somehow better than Vista. I'm sure there are many ways that it isn't. However the overall impression is, despite it having a number of advanced features over XP, that somehow it all just doesn't gel together very well. It seems like an almost hodgepodge of (probably really good) ideas that haven't really been so well integrated into a single cohesive whole operating system.

That and the fact I guess that (to my eyes) it does often feel as though it is somewhat overweight. I don't see why better code always has to be more complex code. What was it for Vista? Five million lines of code? So will the next be, 10 million and the next after that be 20 million? What about 20 years from now, will the OS then consist of 20 billion or more lines of code? I just don't get the impression that more complex is necessarily always better - or that it is always the most efficient approach.

Then switch back to XP? Or better yet, switch to Macintosh, I've never owned one, but from what I can tell they only make subtle changes to the UI. Or hell, even Linux. Then you wont have to make anti-Vista threads anymore, even if the original point was proven wrong.

Advancement of technology requires more coding, and lord knows if Microsoft put out an OS that was anymore behind in everyones theory of how fast technology was advancing we'd have 20+ more anti-Vista threads per day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    14

Perhaps you are hard of reading? I already said I have no intention of switching back.

Besides which not all of the points I raised are wrong at all. The point is obfuscation - making things that were simple to do more complex. That doesn't mean that you can't ever do things differently - I just feel that the different choices that were made in many cases with Vista weren't always the best choice of 'different' that could have been selected.

In any case I disagree. Advancement in coding needn't always equate to more complex coding. I know of many cases where code has *changed* but has remained fundamentally simple - but has nonetheless increased efficiency for the purpose for which it was designed.

Anyway the thing that annoys me most about these discussions is exactly people like you.

There is enough in Vista to not make me have any burning desire to change it. But it is people like you who will not bare any criticism of it that really get on my nerves.

You seem fanatical - almost as though someone was criticising your wife or someone you love.

I am pleased to say that at least I love no kind of technology that much - and that I am always open to accepting criticism where it is valid - even if I do not always agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli    547
why they took the desktop properties, where everything in XP (themes, display settings, wallpaper, screensaver etc.) was accessible under one convenient location and split it up into multiple different locations/dialogues for no other apparently good reason than to obfuscate the OS unnecessarily, in the same way they have obfuscated just about everything else.

Vista

post-78314-1192298463_thumb.jpg

vs.

XP

67365-change-theme.gif

Vista version is easy for kids all the way to grandparents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    14

Nonsense. I see no advantage to this at all.

As I said, my bar for 'better' is to achieve something in a shorter period of time - which involves less mouse clicks.

The only thing this does is make it look slightly prettier - but that does not mean that it is 'easier.'

How easy does it need to be? MS appear to have set the bar at a mental retard level of easy. Somehow I can't help but find that vaguely insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    174

i have had no issues running vista ultimate on my PC and i feel that anyone trying to make excuses not to switch from XP to vista is at a almost dead end and by that i mean well why not switch now since drivers for the most part are on the same performance level if not better in some cases then that of XP on the same system . so what if maby by some chance game A: on windows XP is 6FPS faster then the same Game A: on vista should that stop you from going to vista if the over all system performance in windows in general is overall Faster the answer is no why should that stop you just cause ya lost 6FPS . i have been testing vista since Pre-beta 2 and i have had issues in the betas but in the finale version witch i have used since april i have had nothing but greatness out of vista with no issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli    547
Nonsense. I see no advantage to this at all.

As I said, my bar for 'better' is to achieve something in a shorter period of time - which involves less mouse clicks.

The only thing this does is make it look slightly prettier - but that does not mean that it is 'easier.'

How easy does it need to be? MS appear to have set the bar at a mental retard level of easy. Somehow I can't help but find that vaguely insulting.

How can vista version not be easier? read and click to do what you want. Sounds easy.

Your to damn picky, the OS wasnt made just for you. Its better to serve people with diffrent kinds of computer experience than just a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197    14

Different needs I'm fine with. It's the 'special needs' part of the deal I'm not so keen on.

Anyway why are you people still bothering to reply to this thread? Some of you are obviously fanatically in love with this operating system - which is fair enough, that's your choice.

I on the other hand still have my doubts and reservations about it. Why I wonder should that seem so personally threatening to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vraev    6

clearly as agreed by winsupersite.com, vista is the BEST windows release to date. With all the patches so far....vista runs perfect on my computers and no one I know has problems with it. In-fact after getting used to vista we can't go back to xp anymore.

Yes! there is old hardware out there for which old versions of windows are needed ( A microscope in my lab which has no updated software..so that pc has windows 98 on it). But, for the most part....if you have a recent system....vista is the way to go. UNLESS u have less than a gig of ram which is absolute minimum now...there should be no reason to say vista has bad performance.

Well...functionally....vista is just a refined xp. But, you can say the same for leopard over tiger. Only a couple new things added....and u don't know the change in perf as apple have their own say at the hardware used for the mac. So nearly all macs run nice and smooth. Get a wicked PC with dual core cpu, 2 gigs ram and a 8 series geforce card..u will have agreat go at vista too.

The only people I would also see having trouble with vista are the "COMMON" "computer use only for email" people. They might find the breadcrumbs...the additional nicities of explorer that I LOVE to be annoying to RE-learn from xp and other older OS. Apart from that "Vista is wicked."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.