CNet rates Vista one of "worst products in history"


Recommended Posts

Well there are a lot of things bad with Vista but they things they stated arent.

Such as

incompatibility with hardware

What the hell was Microsoft supposed to do? Recode every driver themselves? All they could do is wait for companies do update the software themselves.

abusive use of hated DRM

If you actually pay for the software it isn't a problem.

downgrade-to- previous-edition

This is because the software is ahead of it's time and the only reason it runs slower is because it has more processes and features. If you installed windows 95 on your computer it would run faster than xp does too.

And what kind of people do the reviews on cnet anyway? It always seems like the stuff they rate good is rated bad on other websites and vice-versa

What usability issues have you encountered with Vista? Besides always forgetting where the network settings were moved, I've not noticed anything.

Well you're lucky, but I get constant crashes from even a fresh install. The UI is slow and sluggish feeling. It takes forever to boot.

Before people start saying it is my hardware, I've tried this on multiple systems that are running newer hardware designed for Vista (Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD Athlon 6000+).

UAC is the most annoying "feature" built into any OS ever. I can't think of anything else. Obviously you can turn it off, but that isn't the point here.

If this is one of the worst products in history then I must be the worst product consumer ever because I really like this.

Lol next thing you know cnet will make a worst consumers ever review and you will be in it. :laugh:

Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology.

If those idiots at CNet did any research at all, they would know that Vista did not take 6 years to develop; Microsoft restarted the whole thing like in 2004/5.

And hardware incompatibility? Vista recognized and installed drivers for everything I have on this machine. Vista had out of the box thousands more drivers than XP did when it was released.

What a bunch of morons.

Well you're lucky, but I get constant crashes from even a fresh install. The UI is slow and sluggish feeling. It takes forever to boot.

Before people start saying it is my hardware, I've tried this on multiple systems that are running newer hardware designed for Vista (Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD Athlon 6000+).

UAC is the most annoying "feature" built into any OS ever. I can't think of anything else. Obviously you can turn it off, but that isn't the point here.

Constant crashes? From a fresh install? How constant? Once a day, or more frequently? I'm sorry, but if you have 'constant' crashes on your system from a 'fresh install' it might be a physical hardware problem. Don't bash your OS because of that. As far as the slow and sluggish feeling on an Intel Core 2 Duo or Athlon 6000+, I find that a little hard to believe. I'm running Vista x64 on an Athlon 3000+ and it doesn't feel sluggish at all.

Plus, you can disable some GUI candy to speed up performance (without even disabling Aero).

It takes forever to boot? How long exactly? More than a minute? How much other software are you running on the computers? I've found Vista boots as fast or faster than XP. Yes, XP is more responsive when it's up and running, but the boot time isn't.

I agree, UAC is an annoyance, but Microsoft weren't the ones who started the concept. I've had it in Linux distros for years, although not quite as intrusive as in Vista. Besides, Microsoft basically did it for a more secure system. If you can disable it (like I have) without putting your system at risk, do it. But I think it's smart to have it enabled for most users who do very stupid things with their computer and end up getting malware and viruses and all kinds of other junk on their systems.

But I think it's smart to have it enabled for most users who do very stupid things with their computer and end up getting malware and viruses and all kinds of other junk on their systems.

A dialog box is going to stop users from malware? I could see some people that actually read the warnings before clicking OK, but there are countless people in the world that will just click OK/ALLOW to continue.

I'm all for these security dialogs, don't get me wrong. But the people I'm thinking of will just click ALLOW/OK for everything.

But the people I'm thinking of will just click ALLOW/OK for everything.

Yea if its a program they want to run i can see them clicking OK. If a windows just pops up and they didnt even click on a program I can see people reading what program is trying to execute or they will click the X in the top corner just to close the pop-up and the program wont run.

A dialog box is going to stop users from malware? I could see some people that actually read the warnings before clicking OK, but there are countless people in the world that will just click OK/ALLOW to continue.

I'm all for these security dialogs, don't get me wrong. But the people I'm thinking of will just click ALLOW/OK for everything.

Well, you're probably right. A friend of mine who works in IT told me that there are some people who, if they received an email with an attachment that said 'This is a virus - click it' would do so. You cannot save some people from their own stupidity. But you can make them at least try for a brief moment to make them think about the consequences of their actions. I think that's what Microsoft had in mind with UAC.

Even though I have been a big fan of Mac OS X for a couple of years now, I must blatantly disagree with CNet's claim of Vista being the worst product in history. While it does have its issues such as UAC, hefty system requirements, and incompatibility issues; Vista does not even come close to matching the frustration caused by Windows ME (I tried it and it eventually rendered my computer useless after a few months) and by that WGA scam that started around 2004 (or was it 2005?).

If those idiots at CNet did any research at all, they would know that Vista did not take 6 years to develop; Microsoft restarted the whole thing like in 2004/5.

How does "restarting" the whole project not count towards the time frame to develop? I don't think this argument over semantics. Projects have a start date and no matter what happens to the progress this is when the project started.

As I noted in my earlier comment, Vista scored a 7 and XP an 8 on CNet's review site for the initial review of the product. So either XP is so bad a product that it should be behind Vista as among the worst products (which it is not), or CNet has not been honest with its reviews to customers. Afterall, if the product is so bad, why give it a mediocre review on release and then almost a year later warn its readers its one of the worst products? This after a thorough review?

Well, you're probably right. A friend of mine who works in IT told me that there are some people who, if they received an email with an attachment that said 'This is a virus - click it' would do so. You cannot save some people from their own stupidity. But you can make them at least try for a brief moment to make them think about the consequences of their actions. I think that's what Microsoft had in mind with UAC.

What Microsoft had in mind with UAC is making it so that code couldn't just run as an Administrator by itself. Nothing more.

For all the people who trumpet XP over Vista, well I went googling on reviews of XP from 2001 and also on security issues in 2001.

Expert says XP will make internet unstable

In fact the moaning about the security in XP in 2001 was deafening. Then try reading the reviews from the many websites that moaned that XP wasn't all that quick compared to the DOS based versions of Windows in some apps. DOS well what about all the people moaning their DOS software wouldn't work. Finally read all the whining about compatibility issues with hardware in XP.

All this crap about Vista I've heard it all before.

If those idiots at CNet did any research at all, they would know that Vista did not take 6 years to develop; Microsoft restarted the whole thing like in 2004/5.

And hardware incompatibility? Vista recognized and installed drivers for everything I have on this machine. Vista had out of the box thousands more drivers than XP did when it was released.

What a bunch of morons.

I agree. One thing I've noticed anymore when reading ANY of Cnets hardware reviews, is that their biased opinions are almost totally opposite of the user opinions for every single piece of hardware they review.

Obviously the guy/lady writing it is yet another one of those anti-microsoft or anti-Vista people who do nothing but whine about Vista. I use Vista and like it very much. What makes me so angry are all the lies that are being spread about Vista. Just plain blatant outright lies.

This seems to happen with every major OS release from Microsoft.

I for one absolutely hated XP when it was first released, because of the "bloat" and additional "eye candy" that it come with. In the end, however, once the negative and "oh my god, it requires 64mb of ram?!?" had died down, everybody accepted it.

Vista doesn't run THAT greatly on current computers, but neither did XP when it was first released (average system back then was a pentium 4 1.5Ghz with at a maximum 256mb of RAM). Vista will be the same once it has matured and been fully accepted. People just don't like change.

I also don't find the system requirements that high to be honest. XP's recommended RAM was "128mb", when most systems had about 256, these days, Vista's recommended is 1GB, when anything but the extremely budget machines have 2GB. Laptops are an exception, however, but this was the same with XP.

This seems to happen with every major OS release from Microsoft.

I for one absolutely hated XP when it was first released, because of the "bloat" and additional "eye candy" that it come with. In the end, however, once the negative and "oh my god, it requires 64mb of ram?!?" had died down, everybody accepted it.

Vista doesn't run THAT greatly on current computers, but neither did XP when it was first released (average system back then was a pentium 4 1.5Ghz with at a maximum 256mb of RAM). Vista will be the same once it has matured and been fully accepted. People just don't like change.

I also don't find the system requirements that high to be honest. XP's recommended RAM was "128mb", when most systems had about 256, these days, Vista's recommended is 1GB, when anything but the extremely budget machines have 2GB. Laptops are an exception, however, but this was the same with XP.

I don't get it. Other contemporary OS options OS X and Ubuntu , they have similar hardware requirements. OS X with integrated graphics will be "sluggish" on 1GB or lower RAM. Ubuntu is probably the same (haven't used it long enough to be honest). I don't get it why people pick on Vista so much.

I'm using Vista and haven't had any problems that a quick search on the internet couldn't fix. Most of the people I've talked to who have converted back to XP have done so after about a week or two of experimentation with Vista. I really don't think that is enough time. All in all I like it and will continue to use it.

Jeez. When will people stop bashing a well designed and highly awaited OS. XP recieved excatly the same treatment from the industry but look at now. It's fully accepted as a mainstream OS. History will repeat itself that Vista is under the same treatment as XP was and will be accepted into the industry in general time. Many people are just looking for something to bash.

I accept any new technologies introduced. When Vista was released to the general public, I've found an oppontity to pick up a copy. Since February 2007, I am still using the excat same installation. I have never even formatted my main drive. Windows Update shows update installed on 9 February 2007. This and the fact I don't have any security software installed as I felt that the bundled security features was more than adequate to protect me. The only disabled feature is UAC. Common sense is my other weapon in fighting for my system's health.

I did experience BSOD's on Vista but remember BSODs are generally hardware-related problems rather than software. In my cases they was just overheating issues. In the event of a driver fail, Vista can recover it and I am back in business instead of BSODing on me. This occured twice on me when I played Half Life 2. Hardware recongisation and installation is a breeze. It recongisex everything I own, even my MS sidewinder racing wheel/panel set from 2000. Vista runs perfect on my system: http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/jnrobo/mypc.htm.

So cut Vista some slack will ya!

Jeez. When will people stop bashing a well designed and highly awaited OS. XP recieved excatly the same treatment from the industry but look at now. It's fully accepted as a mainstream OS. History will repeat itself that Vista is under the same treatment as XP was and will be accepted into the industry in general time. Many people are just looking for something to bash.

I accept any new technologies introduced. When Vista was released to the general public, I've found an oppontity to pick up a copy. Since February 2007, I am still using the excat same installation. I have never even formatted my main drive. Windows Update shows update installed on 9 February 2007. The only installations I've done was a windows xp and ubunto into virtual machines on this installation of Vista. Vista does have it's problems but Vista have powerful "insinits" that can repair itself, can log it's doings, etc.

I did experience BSOD's on Vista but remember BSODs are generally hardware-related problems rather than software. In my cases they was just overheating issues. In the event of a driver fail, Vista can recover it and I am back in business instead of BSODing on me. This occured twice on me when I played Half Life 2. Hardware recongisation and installation is a breeze. It recongisex everything I own, even my MS sidewinder racing wheel/panel set from 2000. Vista runs perfect on my system: http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/jnrobo/mypc.htm.

So cut Vista some slack will ya!

That's the reality for me on all the machines I run vista on as well and I'm very happy with it...

Like you said, people are looking for something to bash. Microsoft is the industry punching bag because of their size and since there hasn't been another Windows release besides Vista since 2001 they haven't had anything from Microsoft to bash for headlines... Vista is their little stocking stuffer this and last Christmas...

Judging by the Gamespot (a C|Net Subsidiary) story just recently aired here on Neowin... Maybe this is a sign that MS didn't give any advertising dollars to C|Net :p

I think a lot of the problems people experience with Vista are simply because their computers are to old/slow to really run it. I found that it made my computer slow than I would like so I went back to XP, but next time I upgrade my system I am going to give it another try.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The very fact that a TPM (v2.0 specifically which is part of the issue I suspect) is now a baseline for any supported Windows installation will naturally mean other vendors will start to leverage it as they know it'll be there. It's called progress, and it's always been the way. A TPM isn't a windows thing, it's just a module designed to securely store keys. Secure boot isn't a Windows thing (although MS are the TCA as I recall hence the upheaval this year as the 2011 certs expire), it's just a way to verify a bootloader is signed. Windows simply leverages them.
    • It's a local account with the ability to reset a password at a very base level. I really don't get the issue that gets whipped up around it But you do you
    • Save 74% on this Complete 2026 CompTIA Certification Training Bundle by Steven Parker Today on offer via our Online Courses section of the Neowin Deals store, you can save 74% on the Complete 2026 CompTIA Certification Training Bundle. This comprehensive 2026 CompTIA training bundle is created for aspiring IT professionals who want a faster, clearer way to earn multiple industry-recognized certifications while building practical, job-ready skills. Designed around real-world expectations, the curriculum guides you from foundational IT concepts to hands-on technical mastery across A+, Network+, Security+, Cloud+, Server+, and Pentest+ domains. You'll develop the confidence to troubleshoot systems, secure networks, manage cloud and on-prem environments, and tackle complex technical challenges with a methodical approach that employers value. By focusing on practical application and exam-aligned content, this bundle helps you stand out in the job market, prove your capabilities, and prepare for roles such as IT technician, network specialist, cybersecurity analyst, and system administrator with clarity and confidence. Certificate of Completion only. You will not receive official CompTIA certificates upon completion of each course. It's only designed to help you prepare for the covered certification exams. You need to take and pass the exams to get certified. Courses included in this bundle A Plus Certification - CompTIA A+ 220-1202 Training Master hardware, software, networking, and security essentials Covers the full Core 1 & Core 2 scope with inclusive materials that reflect real-world IT work CompTIA Cloud+ (CV0-004) Comprehensive pathway to mastering essential cloud concepts & acing the certification exam Practical skills in cloud architecture, security, and DevOps CompTIA Network+ (N10-009) Training Course Design, configure, manage & secure modern networks Covers OSI & DoD models, IP addressing, subnetting, routing technologies, VLANs, wireless networking, structured cabling, and robust disaster recovery planning CompTIA Server+ (SK0-005) Master server management, administration, and security Practical skills for server hardware installation, disaster recovery & enhancing data security CompTIA Pentest+ Course (PT0-003) Gain demonstrable capabilities in penetration testing, security testing & risk assessment Hands-on pentest labs online and real-world deliverables CompTIA Security+ Certification Course (SY0-071) Essential skills in security concepts, threats & risk management Compliance considerations & authentication mechanisms, with a practical lens to implement them in real-world networks CompTIA Cybersecurity Analyst CySA+ (CS0-004) Hands-on experience in threat modeling, vulnerability assessment & incident response Effective security measures that protect networks & data Tangible outcomes you'll achieve Validated hands-on skills across operating systems, networks, cloud, and security Confidence to pass multiple certification exams on or before your target dates A versatile toolkit for diagnosing, securing, and optimizing IT environments Ability to communicate technical concepts clearly to both technical and non-technical stakeholders Who is this course for Aspiring IT technicians and support professionals who want a clear, practical pathway to multiple industry‑recognized CompTIA certifications IT learners looking to build real‑world skills in hardware, networking, cloud, security, servers, and penetration testing Those aiming to qualify for roles like help desk technician, junior network engineer, system administrator, security analyst, or cloud administrator by earning key certificates efficiently About Vision Training Systems Since 2012 and more than 100,000 students, Vision Training Systems has been delivering expertly crafted online IT training courses to help you earn industry-recognized certifications like CompTIA A+, Network+, Security+, Cisco CCNA, Project Management, CEH V13, Microsoft Azure, AWS, and more. Plus dive into the world of AI, IT Leadership, and core soft skills needed to excel in an IT Career. Whether you’re launching your IT career or looking to grow into a senior role, our flexible, on-demand platform empowers you with the skills and certifications employers demand. Good to know Length of access: lifetime Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Access options: desktop or mobile Maximum number of device(s): 1 Available to BOTH new and existing users Certificate of Completion ONLY Experience level required: all levels Closed captioning NOT available NOT downloadable for offline viewing Here's the deal The Complete 2026 CompTIA Certification Training Bundle normally costs $199, but you can pick it up for just $40, that's a saving of $159. For terms, specs and license info, click the link below. Deal Price $40.00 with code SAVE20 (was $199) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. Why we post these deals We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. So for those that keep moaning and complaining, be thankful we're still online for you to even do that. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
    • AMD RX 9070 GRE AI, Blender benchmarks vs 9070 XT, 7800XT, Nvidia RTX 5070, 4070 by Sayan Sen Earlier this week, we shared the first part of our review of AMD's new RX 9070 GRE. It was about the gaming performance of the GPU, and we gave it an 8 out of 10. As a follow-up, similar to how we did with the 9070 XT and non-XT, we are doing a dedicated productivity review for the RX 9070 GRE as well, where we compare it against the 9070 XT, 9070, 7800 XT, as well as Nvidia's 5070 and 4070. This will include AI, rendering, compute, and more benchmarks. AI performance, especially, is a very important metric in today's world, and AMD also promised big improvements thanks to its underlying architectural improvements. We will be pitching it against the data we already have for the RX 9070, and RX 9070 XT, but also the Nvidia 5070 FE, MSI GeForce RTX 4070 VENTUS 2X 12G, and Gigabyte Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G as they are in a similar price class, but also because we do not have a comparable 5060 Ti card lying around here that we can compare it against. Before we get underway, this is a collaboration between Sayan Sen and Steven Parker, who lent me his test bed. Also, there was no editorial input from AMD. First up, the specs of the RX 9070, 9070 XT, and 9070 GRE, which were given to us by AMD: Radeon RX 9070 GRE Radeon RX 9070 Radeon RX 9070 XT Boost Clock: Game Clock: up to 2.79GHz up to 2.20GHz up to 2.52GHz up to 2.07GHz up to 2.97GHz up to 2.40GHz Stream Processors 3,072 (48 CU) 3,584 (56 CU) 4,096 (64 CU) Ray Accelerator 48 56 64 AI Accelerator 96 112 128 ROPs 96 128 Texture Mapping Units 192 224 256 Memory 12 GB GDDR6, 18Gbps Clock, 192-bit Bus 432 GB/s 16 GB GDDR6, 20Gbps Clock, 256-bit Bus Effective Memory Bandwidth: 640 GB/s Infinity Cache 48 MB (3rd Gen) 64 MB (3rd Gen) Card Bus PCI-E 5.0 X16 Output 2x HDMI 2.1b 2x DisplayPort 2.1a Power consumption 220W 304W Recommended PSU 650W 750W Slot width 2x 3x Price (SEP) $549 $599 As you can see from the specs above, it is less than the standard RX 9070 in every way that counts, except for slightly higher Boost and Game clock speed. Design Moving on, the RX 9070 GRE we were given is an XFX Swift triple-fan, dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors. At 30cm (self-measured), it will fit in most systems easily. There is no RGB either. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE by XFX from all angles. Test system Our test system consists of the following: Lian Li O11 Dynamic Mini V2 Flow (Amazon|Newegg) ASUS Z890 ProArt Creator WiFi (Amazon|Newegg) Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (Amazon|Newegg) Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet - 44x37 (Amazon|Newegg) 2x 16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB (7200 MT/s in XMP) (Amazon|Newegg) Sabrent Rocket4 Plus 2TB SSD (Amazon) Windows 11 25H2 (Build 26200.8246) AMD shared a press driver based on the recently released Adrenaline 26.5.2 that we were required to use. We now move on to our benchmarks. First up, we have Geekbench AI running on ONNX. For some reason, the 9070 GRE does exceptionally well here in both half-precision (FP16) and single-precision (FP32). It manages to beat the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 non-XT, and is only behind the 9070 XT. Since Geekbench runs in short bursts instead of continuously hammering the graphics card, it seems the GRE's faster boost clocks are helping here. Next up, we move to the UL Procyon AI test suite, starting with the image generation benchmark. We chose the Stable Diffusion XL FP16 test since it is the most intense workload available on Procyon. The Nvidia cards do very well here, as even the 4070 out-muscles AMD's best fairy easily. The positive thing about the GRE is that it gets quite close to the 9070 non-XT in this test; this indicates that the VRAM does not play a very big role here, as SD XL relies on float16 (FP16). So this is something to keep in mind again. If you wish to work with float32 AI workloads, graphics cards with larger than 12 GB buffers would likely emerge as victors. Regardless, the gains are still massive on AMD's 9000 series compared to the 7000 series. Following image generation, we move to the text generation benchmark. This is one test where the 9070 GRE struggled, quite a lot. It seems that the 12 GB VRAM and lower memory bandwidth of the new Radeon 9070 GRE are hurting it quite a bit; the split is massive, especially in a test like Llama2, which packs 13 billion parameters. As such, in all the tests, the 9070 GRE is the slowest of the lot. Next, we tried Blender, and here the AMD GPUs were beaten by Nvidia. Rendering is something the Green team has always had a lead over the Red side, and it has not changed so far. On the positive side, though, the 9070 GRE shows significantly better results than the 7800 XT, which means AMD is on the right path. Catching up to Nvidia, though, will require a lot more effort. And we hope HIP and ROCm can keep improving. Wrapping up AI testing, we measured OpenCL throughput in the Geekbench compute benchmark. The RX 9070 GRE alongside the 9070 did not fare well here at all, even falling behind the 7800 XT. Interestingly, even the RTX 5070 could not beat the 4070 on OpenCL, so perhaps this suggests that OpenCL optimization may not have been a priority for either AMD or Nvidia in the modern era. Conclusion We reached the end of our productivity performance review of the 9070 GRE, and we have to say it's a mixed bag. Unlike the 9070 and 9070 XT, the GRE excels in some areas while losing ground fairly easily in others. Similar to how it happened in gaming, any time the card's memory subsystem gets hammered, it tends to fall behind the others. This was the case with text generation, wherein we saw the VRAM sometimes hit its maximum available 12 GB of usage with larger model sizes. So what do we make of the RX 9070 as a productivity hardware? It can certainly be used, but you have to know it has its limitations. For those looking for a GPU that can deal with more, AMD recently unveiled the Radeon AI PRO R9700, which is essentially a 32 GB refresh of the 9070 XT with some additional workstation-based optimizations. On a similar note, the new Ryzen AI Halo platform is something you can consider if you want to set up a local AI processing station. Considering everything, we rate AMD's Radeon RX 9070 GRE a 7.5 out of 10 for its productivity performance. Price is less of a factor for those looking at productivity cases compared to those considering the GPU for gaming, and as such, we felt it did quite decently on many occasions and can be handy if you need a 12 GB GPU and, for some reason, don't want to get Nvidia. Purchase links: RX 9070 / XT / GRE (Amazon US) As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      244
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      66
    5. 5
      Skyfrog
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!