Vista today = XP 6 years ago. Stop complaining!

[MGS4-SS]

In my experience, Vista today = one of my turds 6 years ago. So yeah, its been getting less crappier, but in the end its still a crap?

[Doli]

I take a digital design class in a lab of about 34 computers, and over summer they upgraded to Vista. Just last week we reverted back to XP because the instructers remote control software didn't work with vista. But is this vista's fault? No. It's the companies fault for not having a compatible version available yet.

I remember back when I had WIN98, I burned CD's using Easy CD Creator. The company said they had no plan to develop a version of the software for XP because they felt there was a lack of interest in the OS. That changed in 6 months.

Didnt they test the remote control software first on one machine before upgrading all machines?

I wouldnt blame the company in this case, If they dont have compatible software/drivers then the school took the risk because they didnt test it first.

[Victor V.]

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

They download .exe porn and blame Vista for being hacked.

Stop watching untrusted porn and blaming Vista!

[leojei]

Vista does. And thus I want to run Vista. But its so darn buggy! It's been a year since Vista made Gold Master, Microsoft has so much money and employees.. I wish they would have fixed many of the problems 6 months ago. I know you can't rush development but maybe if they broke the development down in to blocks and brought more people in to work on each of those blocks we could get some of the major bugs fixed. At the moment I'm suffering with ICS, UI lockups, random kernel panics and general application instability (Especially with IE7).

I'm not sure about the ICS, but UI lockups, random bsod, app instability are problems related to the configurations you have on your system, both hardware and software/drivers. UI lockups could due to insufficient RAM since Vista is very demanding on RAMs. Random bsod could due to bad drivers. App instability could also triggered by driver/softwares that rigged the OS. I remember installing a USB WIFI adapter and its driver and it completely killed my Vista's networking functionality.

[someguy03]

Didnt they test the remote control software first on one machine before upgrading all machines?

I wouldnt blame the company in this case, If they dont have compatible software/drivers then the school took the risk because they didnt test it first.

Yes thats true but that isn't really what I am focusing on. I'm looking at it from the standpoint that many people blame the OS when the real problem stems from the software. I would guess that many of the bugs in Vista (that people are always complaining about) stem from their software not being made properly for Vista, not because Vista sucks.

My HP printer didn't work with Vista because HP hasn't developed compatible drivers yet. But thats not Microsofts fault, thats HP's.

Edited November 28, 2007 by someguy03

[Hum]

I have been with Windows Xp since RC1.

I don't recall that many complaints about XP, but then again, I didn't visit many Tech forums then.

The major problem I had with new XP was CD burning, and I finally traced that to the burning speed.

I still have no interest in Vista.

There is simply no sense in buying Vista to get a few pretty graphics.

I do not have stability problems or any Security concerns.

Plus the 24-month life of Vista does not justify the high purchase price.

For those who like to fool with hardware, driver, software Upgrades -- have fun. ;)

[primexx]

vista right now runs better for me than XP ever did...but the triple cryptographic key is a bit worrysome so i'm going to switch to linux when it's feasible for me.

[Noveed]

games run well slow on vista, dual booting vista and xp, crysis runs faster on xp than vista so do lots and lots of other games, got 2GB of memory and a crossfire setup, vista rates graphics at 5.9 yet its still slow. Maybe if vista was TRULY optimised for gaming instead of the vapourware that MS said about Vista Ultimate being the gamers choice etc i would gladly get rid of my dual boot config and go with vista. Its the only thing holding me back. After spending nearly ?1500 on my system under 2 years ago i am not going to shell out another few hundred so an un-optimised os will run games decently.

[notuptome2004]

I have been with Windows Xp since RC1.

I don't recall that many complaints about XP, but then again, I didn't visit many Tech forums then.

The major problem I had with new XP was CD burning, and I finally traced that to the burning speed.

I still have no interest in Vista.

There is simply no sense in buying Vista to get a few pretty graphics.

I do not have stability problems or any Security concerns.

Plus the 24-month life of Vista does not justify the high purchase price.

For those who like to fool with hardware, driver, software Upgrades -- have fun. ;)

WOW another one who seems to not know what he is talking about any Fool who would buy a Os based soly on pretty graphics is just plian stupid, so all i will tell you is before you say another Damn thought in your head about Why you wont go over to Vista how about you get a copy and try running it to start with.

[notuptome2004]

games run well slow on vista, dual booting vista and xp, crysis runs faster on xp than vista so do lots and lots of other games, got 2GB of memory and a crossfire setup, vista rates graphics at 5.9 yet its still slow. Maybe if vista was TRULY optimised for gaming instead of the vapourware that MS said about Vista Ultimate being the gamers choice etc i would gladly get rid of my dual boot config and go with vista. Its the only thing holding me back. After spending nearly ?1500 on my system under 2 years ago i am not going to shell out another few hundred so an un-optimised os will run games decently.

i have a 8600GTS on my system and have no issues running any game and with the exception of crysis being bad optimizations anyways all my other games run faster in vista then in XP now sure a few games are no more faster then XP but the rest seem to run faster , sorry that your gameing on vista is well PooP but maby reinstall Vista and get the latest drivers and all updates agian and then re-try cause it just might be a bad install and so things are not optimizing correct or so it does happen evan with XP a Bad install can cause crappy performance . so sorry for your bad experiance . but mine is the exact opisite

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

I run a GeForce 8600GT and games definately ran slower under Vista for me than they did on XP!

[REM2000]

Im not sure if it's a Anti-Microsoft thing, but they once had the marketing punch which the others (Apple & Linux) now enjoy. Windows 95 wasn't a bug free product, far from it, which again is something that is shared by the others aswell (Apple and Linux).

I think this perhaps could be broken down into two areas of why there is so much negativity (bugs and everything do contribute but as i said above a lot of people see through bugs when they are using something they like). The first is the negative PR Microsoft has surrounding them, this is really their own fault due to some of their practices in the past. However Microsoft is a big company, the management may be a bunch of ###### but the workers are some of the best in the world of IT, who do contribute a lot.

The second area is really the product itself, Windows 95 offered so much more over win 3.11, it was exciting & different. Mac OS X has the same sparkle as does the various Linux distrobutions. It's like your a kid on xmas eve when a new release of ubunutu or Mac OS X is released. Vista suffered from anticlimax. The ultimate extra's failed to appear, there was really no wow. I understand that there has been a lot of changes under the hood, but the end users see's basically Windows XP + different theme + windows desktop search.

It's easy to criticise Vista however suggesting improvements is a little harder. For me i would have like microsoft to have gone the 64bit only option with Vista. I think this makes sense, 4GB is within the realm of any new purchaser, 1GB / 2GB has to be standard anyway to run Vista 32bit. Hardware is not too much of a problem as it was with XP Pro x64 (All of the hardware in my dell was correctly found). Windows 95 done the same thing, it started the 32bit move which i think worked well.

The other thing i would change is really giving the exisiting tools and technology in Windows a make over, we all know about time machine, but only found out about Volume Shadow Copying when time machine was released. Microsoft should have developed a better, more obtainable ui around this excellent technology. It wouldn't have taken microsoft much to extend this to work in the same way as time machine. Backing up data is a problem affecting the entire industry, more people are storing personal information on computers (music, photos, docs etc.) not releasing that they could lose it all in a flash.

As for windows 7.0 the number one thing i would like to see in that version is a leaner version of windows. I don't think it's acceptable anymore for every iteration of windows to require a new computer with masses of computing power. Mac OSX and Linux both are able to run faster or at the same speed between releases.

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

WOW another one who seems to not know what he is talking about any Fool who would buy a Os based soly on pretty graphics is just plian stupid, so all i will tell you is before you say another Damn thought in your head about Why you wont go over to Vista how about you get a copy and try running it to start with.

He didn't say he would buy it solely because of the graphics, actually, he (or is it she?) said the opposite.

If the pretty colours are the only difference people know about, is that not the fault of MS and their poor marketing?

I have yet to see anything from Microsoft in ads telling me about it's great new features that make it so much better than XP that I should switch. And don't tell me I can look the information up, I know that, but I have no reason to when XP works so well. If they want to sell you something then they should make it easy for you to find out about it i.e. advertise it well.

Oh yeah, and some of us don't have ?100s to spend to just try out an OS we might not even like.

[bibutteryboy]

I don't recall that many complaints about XP...

+1

Xp may have had some problems but I don't recall people having such a hate relationship with it as they do with Vista.

I know some people have given links from old news articles but when I read those links non of them seem to be as bad as the reviews for Vista.

I think people are trying to justify Vista's poor quality by comparing it to XP when it first came out but in my opinion, that fails. I've been trying to find articles myself stating just how bad XP was after it's release but I can't find any that really compare it's faults with Vista.

[Keito]

Vista today is XP 6 years ago - well while that may be true, isn't it a sign of Microsoft slacking? Shouldn't Vista, as successor to XP be XP-a-year-ago? Shouldn't they have learned from everything that was wrong with XP 6 years ago, updated, upgraded and fixed that all in Vista so that it would be somewhat on-par when it came out?

At least that's what I'm thinking - I have used Vista for a while (I myself am still using XP at home) and while I haven't really run into any problems, I'm annoyed by some security decisions MS took, but that's not a point of real complaint if you ask me - the above was just in regard to the OP

[seta-san]

the issues with XP were limited because all XP was when it was released was nothing more than a visual update to windows 2000... Windows 2000 = ver5.0; Windows XP = ver5.1; Vista = 6.0

VISTA is a giant update. A normal user won't see all the stuff in the background which is substantually better. That said things are getting better, bugs are being fixed. Drivers are available..

[Meyithi]

The whole DX10 fiasco is unfortunate though, there is obviously collusion with game developers to get us to switch (unnecessarily) to DX10 to enable certain features that can be enabled with DX9 and some conf file editing.

An example Here (Crysis)

And it's happening lots with the "Games for Windows" initiative, Crysis isn't the only guilty party here. With "dirty tricks" like this, MS have brought all of this bad publicity on themselves.

[notuptome2004]

The whole DX10 fiasco is unfortunate though, there is obviously collusion with game developers to get us to switch (unnecessarily) to DX10 to enable certain features that can be enabled with DX9 and some conf file editing.

An example Here (Crysis)

And it's happening lots with the "Games for Windows" initiative, Crysis isn't the only guilty party here. With "dirty tricks" like this, MS have brought all of this bad publicity on themselves.

sorry not DX10 tho they are close

cw: Why is it that 'Very High' features can be enabled in DX9 through a 'hack' of sorts, yet are unavailable normally?

Cevat: The game was in the earliest days before we could ship DX10 hardware obviously developed around DX9. So, during the development process some of the DX10 effects were simulated in DX9. So what some users are seeing is some of the material used to develop the DX10 effects but these are NOT DX10. Only by running the game in Vista and using the DX10 API can you get the true maximum experience and of course we have no guarantees for the game's stability if it's hacked.

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=c...view&id=559

[Celtikmind]

Will anyone even remember Vista in 6 years?

Seriously. Considering the speed of tech development today and the bad product/publicity. Heck, apparently even Microsoft themselves seems not to believe in their own stuff. Why else would they force-lock software to DX10 etc.

MAYBE I'll bother again in six years - nah, just kidding. I'll use it to scare my kids with it - "Go to bed or I am installing Vista on your iMac!" :blink:

Just my 2 cents...