4 Hating on Vista

[Volatile]

I have randomly supported Vista and being an IT administrator have shuned the idea of introducing Vista to our users due to problems it could face. I took the plunge a few days ago and decided to install the 32 bit version on a latitude laptop 2.5 6M Cache with 4Gigs of Ram. I am quite sure the specs are what give me the experience I have now. I am actually enjoying myself with the OS since continuously shouting negativities. Not to say that my users would have the same experience that I do, but I find that some of the applications we use actually work smoother.

This cold also be because Vista has been out for quite a while and I am running on SP1 which may have fixed many issues. :p

So I take back any of the negative comments I may have made against Vista in the past. Within the next few weeks I am going to try out x64 on an Eseries...

[nmesisca]

Holy **** !

I think its snowing frogs here !! :woot:

[Rob Veteran]

Good to hear your experience has been good so far, I hope it'll continue that way :)

[POWER2112]

Vista sure ain't the ugly monster people make it out to be. I've been using the x64 flavor for over a year with no complaints - everything I use is compatible, so you should be trouble-free. :)

[Olemus]

Ive been using vista since it came out and been using the x64 version for a few months after getting my new system up and running, the only issues i have are that some of my really old software runs either slowly or not at all, but its a none issue for most as they no longer use the old software i do.

[MrChainsaw]

Em... I think he saw that Mojave Experiment, but for me Vista was terrible. I like working with Flash CS3 Pro, but it crashes and hangs ALOT on vista. That's only one out of about 10 problems that I had, now I use xp again.

[what]

Em... I think he saw that Mojave Experiment, but for me Vista was terrible. I like working with Flash CS3 Pro, but it crashes and hangs ALOT on vista. That's only one out of about 10 problems that I had, now I use xp again.

Isn't that Adobe's fault?

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

Isn't that Adobe's fault?

I would have thought so, but it doesn't change the fact that he needs XP for that specific software version.

[tsupersonic]

Isn't that Adobe's fault?

Exactly one of Vista's downfall. If average Joe/Jane notices their older peripherals or software doesn't work with Vista, they first blame Microsoft.

[EduardValencia]

Exactly one of Vista's downfall. If average Joe/Jane notices their older peripherals or software doesn't work with Vista, they first blame Microsoft.

Microsoft is the " always " to blame unfortunately

They like it though :p

[Lindkvist]

Only problem i have with vista (32 bit and 64 bit (current)) is the random atikmdag.sys BSOD's when watching full screen movies.

But the question is, who is to blame?

people say they don't get them in XP, but i cba to try it out.

Overall Vista have only surprised me in a positive way tho.

[Buu]

I used to hate vista, mainly pre SP1 but now i actually really like it.

[tsupersonic]

Only problem i have with vista (32 bit and 64 bit (current)) is the random atikmdag.sys BSOD's when watching full screen movies.

But the question is, who is to blame?

people say they don't get them in XP, but i cba to try it out.

Overall Vista have only surprised me in a positive way tho.

The reason I stopped using Vista is that my USB devices just stop working on my laptop, just randomly out of nowhere. I've tried so many OS's on this laptop including XP, OS/2, various Linux distro's and never experience anything wrong with USB. So I have to blame Vista for this. It's also "Vista ready" so there should be no reason why this is happening, but eh.

[afusion]

Eventually all this negativity on Vista will pass.

Everyone sooner or later will use it and migrate to it.

[HSoft]

Everyone sooner or later will use it and migrate to it.

Nope, not true. Was in the early beta for Vista and for SP1 so have used it extensively and don't like. Sticking with XP SP3 and will probably just wait on Win7 (yes I know it's based on the vista kernal but there will be changes).

[NEVER85]

IMO people who work in the computer industry who still recommend XP to their customers have no business being there. Vista is now a fine operating system to use, and soon enough the XP fanboys will migrate to it.

[Scorbing]

I have randomly supported Vista and being an IT administrator have shuned the idea of introducing Vista to our users due to problems it could face. I took the plunge a few days ago and decided to install the 32 bit version on a latitude laptop 2.5 6M Cache with 4Gigs of Ram. I am quite sure the specs are what give me the experience I have now. I am actually enjoying myself with the OS since continuously shouting negativities. Not to say that my users would have the same experience that I do, but I find that some of the applications we use actually work smoother.

This cold also be because Vista has been out for quite a while and I am running on SP1 which may have fixed many issues. :p

So I take back any of the negative comments I may have made against Vista in the past. Within the next few weeks I am going to try out x64 on an Eseries...

You think Vista is smooth and fast? Try Server 2008...Its awesome. Better than Vista even though some say its the same core. I find the GUI in Server responds faster than in Vista. Maybe its just me seeing things, but try it for yourself and tell us what U think. You can get a trial version from Microsoft.

[Volatile]

You think Vista is smooth and fast? Try Server 2008...Its awesome. Better than Vista even though some say its the same core. I find the GUI in Server responds faster than in Vista. Maybe its just me seeing things, but try it for yourself and tell us what U think. You can get a trial version from Microsoft.

I actually have.. and used it before Vista. It could be what made me plunge. I would say that IIS scared me a bit! =)

[Scorbing]

I actually have.. and used it before Vista. It could be what made me plunge. I would say that IIS scared me a bit! =)

Well some people here claim Vista and Server are the same. I say no. Vista - Build 6000. Server 2008- Build 6001. Server has less services running than Vista. It responds much quicker, connects to the internet in a flash. When you tell it to close an application after the application crashes, it closes it. Vista thinks about it. It boots faster too. Server 2008 is not Vista. There is something internally different in it. It's designed better than Vista (internally). There are just so many things better on Server 2008 is not funny. I hate Vista. I tried it, twiked it to the max and I still found it slow and annoying. I am quite happy with Server 2008. It simply works.

[Matrix XII]

It's good to hear people actually giving objective views of Vista. Soon, others will too.

[Sam]

Well some people here claim Vista and Server are the same. I say no. Vista - Build 6000. Server 2008- Build 6001. Server has less services running than Vista. It responds much quicker, connects to the internet in a flash. When you tell it to close an application after the application crashes, it closes it. Vista thinks about it. It boots faster too. Server 2008 is not Vista. There is something internally different in it. It's designed better than Vista (internally). There are just so many things better on Server 2008 is not funny. I hate Vista. I tried it, twiked it to the max and I still found it slow and annoying. I am quite happy with Server 2008. It simply works.

Vista RTM was build 6000, Windows Vista SP1 is build 6001, the same as Windows Server 2008.

[raskren]

Well some people here claim Vista and Server are the same. I say no. Vista - Build 6000. Server 2008- Build 6001. Server has less services running than Vista. It responds much quicker, connects to the internet in a flash. When you tell it to close an application after the application crashes, it closes it. Vista thinks about it. It boots faster too. Server 2008 is not Vista. There is something internally different in it. It's designed better than Vista (internally). There are just so many things better on Server 2008 is not funny. I hate Vista. I tried it, twiked it to the max and I still found it slow and annoying. I am quite happy with Server 2008. It simply works.

Windows Vista SP1 also happens to be build 6001.

Can list the things in Server 08 that are designed better than Vista? Please be specific as possible. What else is "better on Server 2008"? Again, please list specific items.

P.S. Your bold key is broken.

[_BeanZ_]

Well some people here claim Vista and Server are the same. I say no. Vista - Build 6000. Server 2008- Build 6001.

Vista SP1 - Build 6001 - sorry, what were you saying about different?

edit - Too slow :happy:

[HSoft]

IMO people who work in the computer industry who still recommend XP to their customers have no business being there. Vista is now a fine operating system to use, and soon enough the XP fanboys will migrate to it.

I like you're spirited if misguided approach to Vista. I've been in the computer industry for over 18 years, have a network of over 40,000 computers to attend to and there is no way currently that we will be upgrading to Vista.

Just because I don't like Vista does not mean that I shouldn't be in the computer industry. Try telling that to all the Linux/Unix people out there.

Not every "XP fanboy" as you call them will migrate to Vista. A lot will probably just wait on Win7.

I agree that Vista isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, but it is still bad enough that I personally won't upgrade to it and the network that I help run won't be upgrading either.

[Scorbing]

Vista RTM was build 6000, Windows Vista SP1 is build 6001, the same as Windows Server 2008.

Server 2008 is still different. There is something about it that works better. MS hurried Vista out the door. They took their time with Server.