Vista today = XP 6 years ago. Stop complaining!

[Titoist]

I still don't get it, seriously. What are these people doing to their computers? I have had Vista since RTM and it has run flawlessly for me since then. It recognizes all my hardware and I have NEVER had a lockup, NEVER had any error of any sort. I really, really dont get it. Seriously.

I completely agree!!! WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING TO THEIR COMPS?

[chconline Veteran]

I've been using Vista since March 2007, for my Express Upgrade on my laptop that I purchased Oct 26 (The first day they announced/put on the Express Upgrade). It's very stable for me, and almost absolutely flawless... nothing that hinders smooth daily computing.

[neufuse Veteran]

Very true! ... I would go further and say that Vista works good for me straight out the box!

I've not done any tweaking as such ( logging in as *real* admin is all) ... unlike XP when it first came out ...

Remember the BSOD ... ?

The only BSOD's I've had from XP were nVIDIA's writing bad drivers... the OS itself never crashed like 9x did...

[Neo-Phi]

I dont know why so many people complain about Vista either, not had any problems with it since i bought it around 5 months ago now.

+1......Vista is one of the greatest OS systems nowdays, only stupid people would disagree....it is a lot better than XP, in many ways.....so switch to vista if you want to "feel" the real OS sensation......!!! :D

[curme]

I agree with the OP, Vista sucks as much as XP did when it first came out. If Vista continues to follow XP's pattern, it will be usable in another couple of years.

[raskren]

The bottom line is that Vista is not ready for a company or user to transfer to. Once more applications are built to run on it, improvments are made to its boot time and general speed.

My office is XP-free as of now so I don't think this gross generalization applies to everyone.

You also didn't finish your second sentence. Is there a point?

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

I've used Vista before, it seemed pretty fast and stable. It seemed to run much smoother, where as applications in XP can steal all the resources and lock up the whole operating system. However, Vista isn't enough for me to justify spending $200+ on it.

[ScottKin]

I agree with the OP, Vista sucks as much as XP did when it first came out. If Vista continues to follow XP's pattern, it will be usable in another couple of years.

It's comments like these and my own experience that tells me that I need to rent myself out to people who are having problems with Vista on their computers so I can just stand there so Vista will work for them! :woot:

I've had exactly 1 Vista BSOD-equivalent episode with my system since RTM - and that was totally my own fault and not the OS'es.

To 89% of the people out there who are having problems with Vista I offer a simple path:

1) Save your data & important files

2) NUKE the Hard Drive (i.e. wipe it clean, FDISK or whatever you wish to make the Hard Drive "pristine")

3) Install Vista CLEAN and get all of the current patches, including current drivers. DO NOT USE BETA DRIVERS OR DRIVERS FOR XP!

4) Make sure you have followed Steps 1-3 TO THE LETTER!

5) ONLY AFTER STEPS 1 through 3 have been completed should you start re-installing NON-SHAREWARE / NON-FREEWARE apps. 87% of all system instabilities can be directly traced to poorly written crapware/shareware/freeware.

6) If your system is underpowered, DON'T do silly/stupid things like trying registry hacks to get Aero Glass on your obviously underpowered system.

7) STAY AWAY FROM MOST TWEAKS & TWEAKING ADVICE unless you absolutely know what you are doing and the consequences of such tweaks and are totally willing to blame NO ONE BUT YOURSELF.

8) If the urge to tweak the bejeebus out of your Vista installation is too great, do a COMPLETE HARD DRIVE IMAGE before you tweak. Save yourself from the headache of having to start all over again.

If you follow this path, you will enjoy Vista Enlightenment. The True Path is only has hard as you make it.

I run several resource-hungry applications at once on my very-pedestrian system (AMD X64 4000+ (Sledgehammer), 1GB PC3200 RAM, nVidia GeForce 6800 GT-I on a DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D Motherboard) and this system chugs along just fine. I find that I usually have to ignore the ammount of free RAM indicated, due to Vista's significantly more robust and intelligent memor management. I can run SpacialAudio's SAM3 Broadcaster & push-out a 128kbps / 44.1kHz AND a 32kbps/ 44.1kHz LC Stereo audio stream for running my streaming audio show, mIRC, Outlook 2007, IE7 AND Play Halo Full-screen at 1280x1024 resolution while all of these other programs are running just fine - along with running WLM, Yahoo!Messenger, ICQ, Winamp (to monitor the stream output), Yod'M3D, 15 Sidebar Gadgets, Stardock ObjectDock and Bao Nguyen's Switcher (Expose` clone). I'm not saying this to beat my own chest, but to show that with proper care and feeding, Vista is vastly superior to XP.

On a side note, I am actually breaking Rule #3 above; I missed playing the MechWarrior4 series of games from Microsoft on this system (I dual-boot to XP X64 as well!) because Saitek didn't see fit to make 64-bit drivers for my 2nd-generation X36 Joystick & Throttle system. On a dare to myself, I installed the latest XP drivers for the X36 system...and it worked like a charm!.

--ScottKin

[strotee]

But shouldn't an operating system with 5+ years of development be as good as XP (after 2 SPs) and much, much more? If not, why "upgrade" to Vista? Saying Vista is as good as XP was 6 years ago is quite an insult to Microsoft and their efforts in creating an OS.

[deck]

Good responses... while I'm a bit disappointed that most people missed the point - mainly that XP then is the same as Vista today - I'm glad the dead horse is showing some life. This thread is not to discuss that Vista is bad or buggy, but even with the off-topic 'Vista is bad' posts, the thread can at least justify my point even if it's not being directly discussed.

So thanks to those who hate Vista and are accusing it of being buggy! Now talk about what you thought of XP.

Also, for those who say that moving from 2000 to XP was easy - great! But you are the small minority, given that most end-users and businesses migrated from Win98 to XP. This was a much harder transition, as the requirements of 98 were very different from XP and overall user experience as different. In many cases programs had to be redeveloped for Win2000 and XP. Win98, while not completely stable, was very good compared to Win95 and when it XP came out, with all its bugs, people lauded Win98 for it's established stability, compatibility, and ease of use.

[deck]

But shouldn't an operating system with 5+ years of development be as good as XP (after 2 SPs) and much, much more? If not, why "upgrade" to Vista? Saying Vista is as good as XP was 6 years ago is quite an insult to Microsoft and their efforts in creating an OS.

Vista only had 3 years of actual, hard on, development, since it was rebooted after the first 2 years and the kernel completely scrapped for a whole new one.

Both XP and Vista are good. I have had very little trouble with each of them. But as with any OS, especially ones that revamp how it works inside, will cause trouble. MS knew that drivers and applications would not work. MS knew that it was being released with bugs, which is why bug fixes are regular. And with some as complex of Vista, MS knew it would miss a whole lot of things that could go wrong - just like what happened with XP.

This is why Windows7, at least they are trying for now, is going to be a much smaller system.

[Beastage]

It's comments like these and my own experience that tells me that I need to rent myself out to people who are having problems with Vista on their computers so I can just stand there so Vista will work for them! :woot:

I've had exactly 1 Vista BSOD-equivalent episode with my system since RTM - and that was totally my own fault and not the OS'es.

To 89% of the people out there who are having problems with Vista I offer a simple path:

1) Save your data & important files

2) NUKE the Hard Drive (i.e. wipe it clean, FDISK or whatever you wish to make the Hard Drive "pristine")

3) Install Vista CLEAN and get all of the current patches, including current drivers. DO NOT USE BETA DRIVERS OR DRIVERS FOR XP!

4) Make sure you have followed Steps 1-3 TO THE LETTER!

5) ONLY AFTER STEPS 1 through 3 have been completed should you start re-installing NON-SHAREWARE / NON-FREEWARE apps. 87% of all system instabilities can be directly traced to poorly written crapware/shareware/freeware.

6) If your system is underpowered, DON'T do silly/stupid things like trying registry hacks to get Aero Glass on your obviously underpowered system.

7) STAY AWAY FROM MOST TWEAKS & TWEAKING ADVICE unless you absolutely know what you are doing and the consequences of such tweaks and are totally willing to blame NO ONE BUT YOURSELF.

8) If the urge to tweak the bejeebus out of your Vista installation is too great, do a COMPLETE HARD DRIVE IMAGE before you tweak. Save yourself from the headache of having to start all over again.

If you follow this path, you will enjoy Vista Enlightenment. The True Path is only has hard as you make it.

I run several resource-hungry applications at once on my very-pedestrian system (AMD X64 4000+ (Sledgehammer), 1GB PC3200 RAM, nVidia GeForce 6800 GT-I on a DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D Motherboard) and this system chugs along just fine. I find that I usually have to ignore the ammount of free RAM indicated, due to Vista's significantly more robust and intelligent memor management. I can run SpacialAudio's SAM3 Broadcaster & push-out a 128kbps / 44.1kHz AND a 32kbps/ 44.1kHz LC Stereo audio stream for running my streaming audio show, mIRC, Outlook 2007, IE7 AND Play Halo Full-screen at 1280x1024 resolution while all of these other programs are running just fine - along with running WLM, Yahoo!Messenger, ICQ, Winamp (to monitor the stream output), Yod'M3D, 15 Sidebar Gadgets, Stardock ObjectDock and Bao Nguyen's Switcher (Expose` clone). I'm not saying this to beat my own chest, but to show that with proper care and feeding, Vista is vastly superior to XP.

On a side note, I am actually breaking Rule #3 above; I missed playing the MechWarrior4 series of games from Microsoft on this system (I dual-boot to XP X64 as well!) because Saitek didn't see fit to make 64-bit drivers for my 2nd-generation X36 Joystick & Throttle system. On a dare to myself, I installed the latest XP drivers for the X36 system...and it worked like a charm!.

--ScottKin

All you said is gold

[Acceleration]

I don't complain, I make bug reports. Usually has to do with graphics drivers. NVIDIA responds pretty well to them.

[sundayx Veteran]

If Vista today = XP 6 years ago, no much has progressed has it. I just want to argue that Microsoft should work for the product that is at least on par with XP at SP2, not XP when released. I think that is the main fustration.

But I'm not to argue, cause I have yet to use Vista. But that is my argument from a bystanders point of view.

[Acceleration]

Vista's good I think. It's getting better. Less bugs. It's nice to look at.

[dud]

If there were no complaints and no droves of people switching back to XP, MS would make no progress. Public outcry accomplishes a lot with for-profit businesses.

[argonite]

If Vista today = XP 6 years ago, no much has progressed has it. I just want to argue that Microsoft should work for the product that is at least on par with XP at SP2, not XP when released. I think that is the main fustration.

But I'm not to argue, cause I have yet to use Vista. But that is my argument from a bystanders point of view.

I think you're taking the "Vista = XP 6 years ago" equation by face value. Vista is more developed, and it has progressed significantly. However what he actually means is that the same problems are coming up now that were before, as is typical with any new operating system release. Things break, but they're in fact NEW problems that look like old ones. It's just the start of another cycle of driver problems, patches, complaints that will come back with Windows 7... and so forth.

[Panacik]

My office is XP-free as of now so I don't think this gross generalization applies to everyone.

You also didn't finish your second sentence. Is there a point?

Maybe your office is fine and does not have any software that is not compatiable with Vista, however we found it slow on brand new dell laptops, whereas XP runs far far faster.

What do you mean? My second sentence was just informing you of one reason why it was decided to stick with XP in our offices. Bare in mind when i say office, i mean comany and it is a Multi national company around the whole world...

[:: Lyon ::]

Don't forget to mention that XP is STILL releasing Service Pack 3! Hah..beat that!

[ScottKin]

Vista only had 3 years of actual, hard on, development, since it was rebooted after the first 2 years and the kernel completely scrapped for a whole new one.

Both XP and Vista are good. I have had very little trouble with each of them. But as with any OS, especially ones that revamp how it works inside, will cause trouble. MS knew that drivers and applications would not work. MS knew that it was being released with bugs, which is why bug fixes are regular. And with some as complex of Vista, MS knew it would miss a whole lot of things that could go wrong - just like what happened with XP.

This is why Windows7, at least they are trying for now, is going to be a much smaller system.

AFAICR, Longhorn's development cycle was actually more like 5 years, with the 3 years only being the "visible" part. Remember also, that a bunch of code from Windows Server 2003 R2 replaced some good-sized chunks of Vista, so you can basically add the development time for WS2003R2 into that.

The issue with drivers has always been that way ever since we started down the path with "Chicago" and NT 3.1 - and won't be changing until hardware manufacturers decide that it's a good thing to have working and not just "barely functional / beta" drivers at RTM. nVidia was massively guilty, as well as Creative for not delivering usable drivers.

In regards to "bugs": There has never been a 100% bug-free program for decades. Things happen, folks, and it's impossible for any software company to create bug-free products. Software Testing methods help weed these out, as well as alpha, beta & CTP-type pre-releases - but to expect bug-free software is an impossible dream. My closest involvement with testing software for Microsoft was when I was a contractor working in the Kernel, API & Test team under Ken Gregg & S. Somassegar on NT 3.1. To get a really good insight into how Microsoft handled software development & testing, go check out "Show Stopper" at your local library or on Amazon. Basically, there is a fairly fluid limit as to the number of bugs that are "permissable" when releasing any modern software product, with the exception of "showstopper" bugs. In many cases, Software Test Engineers can have more of an influence on a products design and function than the actuall programmers & developers, since the STE can recommend "Go / No Go" status on a product based on the number and severity of unresolved bugs.

The decision for Windows7 to be more compact is both a critical and needed step; making Win7 more modular (as exampled in Longhorn / Windows 2008 Server Core OS) is an evolutionary step away from having the OS do more than it's really needed to do, and to allow the end-user or ISV to add further functionality. It will be interesting to see how ISVs will handle the bug issues for their particular product modules.

--ScottKin

[kylejn]

I installed Vista after formatting my hard drive and used it for a couple months before downgrading back to XP. There were a few reasons for this:

1. File operations in Vista were slow as molasses. It took forever to copy or unzip items, much longer than in XP.

2. The interface was less intuitive than XP's. It took longer for me to do what I wanted to do because of design changes. For example, breaking the tabbed Display Properties menu in XP into separate menus on Vista was, um, unwise, IMHO.

I hope Vista gets better down the line, but for now, I'm much happier using XP.

EDIT: On a side note, I really wish Microsoft would follow Apple's lead and just release one version of their operating system at a reasonable price.

[zhangm Supervisor]

For the most part, people can whinge about Vista until they're blue in the face, as if they think their griping will make Microsoft un-release Vista. The issue I've seen most often, both in person and on these forums, is that in a simple user support situation where the user is asking, "How do I do this in Vista?", someone will completely out of the blue, say that Vista is bug-ridden and that they should switch to (XP/2000/Linux/OS X). Nevermind that the person has probably just spent 200$ on a Vista license. Nevermind that they were trying to find out where the Run command is in the Start Menu. It is just disgraceful how some people take advantage of a support situation to, instead of addressing the problem, advocate their own distorted bias.

[notuptome2004]

I installed Vista after formatting my hard drive and used it for a couple months before downgrading back to XP. There were a few reasons for this:

1. File operations in Vista were slow as molasses. It took forever to copy or unzip items, much longer than in XP.

2. The interface was less intuitive than XP's. It took longer for me to do what I wanted to do because of design changes. For example, breaking the tabbed Display Properties menu in XP into separate menus on Vista was, um, unwise, IMHO.

I hope Vista gets better down the line, but for now, I'm much happier using XP.

EDIT: On a side note, I really wish Microsoft would follow Apple's lead and just release one version of their operating system at a reasonable price.

1. they released updates to fix issue with just that thing this summer the performance and reliability patches thus why i was able to transfer 7gigs of movies to my 2nd HDD in about 2mins before the update it took same action 6mins so big upgrade just there.

2. they separated out the system for display properties for a reason so it be easier to use for most users and you can more options, the interface for me in vista is far better then in XP the bread-crumb part is nice works great i can access everything faster because of it and built in explorer search .

3. Vista just makes better use of my system that is why i paid for 2GB of ram and a nice dual core and 8600GTS i paid the money i did so it can be used not just sit their and be like ( duaa Tell me about the Rabbit Gorge)

you know the one thing microsoft did with vista that just this alone makes it far better then XP is the fact that it will give you more information ya want to know about your system and if there is some sort of issue your system is havening Vista is damn smart at trying to fix it and will give the user information up front about the issue and with easy steps to try and fix it and 97% of the time it gets fixed. Example being Driver crash in XP if your driver crashed for your ATI or nvidia graphics card you would get 1 of 3 things 1. BSOD 2. slowness to the system requiring a reboot 3. freezed up windows and requiring a possible restart, now in Vista without the user knowledge untill it is OK again if this happens vista will just reboot the driver and it will be ok. and that sceniero alone makes it great havening more information to you about this or that about your system and what the hell windows is doing is so damn great

Edited November 12, 2007 by notuptome2004

[Slimy]

Don't forget to mention that XP is STILL releasing Service Pack 3! Hah..beat that!

Ok, Vista SP1. ;)

What's your point? There were still service packs being released for Windows 2000 long after XP was released.

[whocares78]

i don't think anyones arguing that at all.

What you fail to realise is as it is NOW, XP is better than Vista, yeah in a couple of years everyone will stop complaining about vista, but thats only because everythign they want to use works on it. and yeah i complained about XP when it released didn't even insatll it until SP1 and yeah i luv it now. I LIKE what WORKS. it is that plain and that simple