There is Nothing Wrong with Vista

[mistervista]

I just installed Vista for the first time a few days ago. I'm a long time XP user who is pleasantly surprised with Vista. Runs very fast on my Intel Core 2 Duo with 3 gigs of ram. I'm very happy.

[Scorbing]

You want to bet? Shutdown freezing, wireless constantly disconnecting, IE going wacko, Auto-Play not working sometimes, Random error messages popping up and windows update freezing are just half the problems I experience on Vista that I NEVER experienced on XP. Oh how I wish I had XP again. If it weren?t because of driver issues and stuff, I would?ve reformatted my HD and installed XP long time ago.

Dude you must either have very crappy hardware and outdated drivers or your machine is full of trojans from porn and warez sites. When I bought my Gateway, the very first thing I did was format the HD and re-install a fresh copy of Windows. No bloatware. No crap.

I suggest you do the same. Format, re-install, make sure you have at least 4GB of memory to play with and a fast enough CPU and also update ALL your drivers, and when I say all, I mean ALL!!!!

[DaDude]

My wife has Vista pre-installed on her Dell laptop. She is satisfied with it, but it is a stretch to say, as the thread started posted, "nothing is wrong" with it. A few complaints, but it works a lot better on her laptop than it does our first Vista purchase (a 3 GHz low-end PC from Compaq).

In my opinion, "nothing wrong" means exactly that: nothing is wrong. If nothing is wrong, that means there are no bugs, no patches are necessary.

If you turn a blind eye to the faults of any OS or application, you no longer are a critical thinker on that topic. Accept that some of the complaints have a very real foundation to them. Accept some are because of user issues, or faulty hardware, but please don't ever think of any OS as "perfect" with nothing wrong.

Exactly. If these pro-Vista people would've said "I have Vista and I don't experience that many problems" or something along those lines, then maybe I would think that I have a faulty hardware or something. But since people here are claiming that Vista is 100% problem-free and I am the only one in the world with problems, then I suspect that something fishy is going on.

Pre-installed generally leads to nothing but headaches.

When I got my new tablet from HP, it was virtually unusable in the state HP left the machine.

Vista Pre-Installed is the worst thing you can have!

I installed Vista x64 myself, and it works like a charm. Not a single BSOD (and I have it installed over a year now), it's still fast and snappy, all my hardware (old and new) works flawlessly, ...

Now why didn't people say that in the beginning? Now, we know why I have issues and you people don't. You people reformatted your HD and I didn't. Now, we're getting someplace.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Yes, my computer was pre-installed with Vista. The "crapware" I have is AVG, Zone Alarm, and Spybot. I refuse to spend money on Norton. I can't remove those because Vista will get attacked if I do. I need some sort of security.

That 'sense of security' is a placebo effect. Vista already has a capable firewall and antispyware, so all you need is an antivirus. But even an antivirus is optional.

For the record, most of these posters in this thread don't claim Vista is 100% flawless.

The sheer amount of Vista bashing topics all over the internet do not even compare to the number of Vista praising topics. So the more Vista topics that praise Vista the better. Maybe it will counteract the false info that Vista is utter crap. Which it isn't.

Then to elaborate on what kouhii00 said.. There is one simple thing that sets Vista apart from XP and that is how Explorer works. If one window crashes in XP, windows crashes. If one window crashes in Vista, ONLY that one window crashes.

That's not true unless you turn on "Launch folder windows in a separate process." That option is also available in XP. What sets both Explorers apart in XP and Vista in single-process mode is Vista's Explorer is multi threaded. If one window is stuck at finding a network share it doesn't freeze the entire shell.

[DaDude]

That 'sense of security' is a placebo effect. Vista already has a capable firewall and antispyware, so all you need is an antivirus. But even an antivirus is optional.

ROFLMAO, ok now I know who I'm talking to here. I won't be posting in this topic now because the replies I'm getting are really out of this world. No need for antispyware or anitvirus?? WTF is going on with the BS here?

[chconline Veteran]

Finally, someone with the sense (Didn't read the whole thread though haha) -- but (Y) I have been using it since March 07 on my laptop and took the plunge and bought Ultimate for my main desktop. Was flawless as ever.

[DigitalE]

Remember, your cellphone's configuration probably equals to the technology on the system boards they used to send man to the moon...

Actually, even a cheap scientific calculator you can get for a few bucks at the dollar store has more power than the Apollo Guidance Computers.

[MasterSasuke]

well, since everyone else put in thier opininions, here is mine.

VISTA IS FINE!!!

I even got it running on 267MB of RAM :p

it,s an upgrade, give them a break(it took them til SP3 to perfect XP), or do it yourself(basicly what I did)

I am runnin Vista Ultimate with 2.5GB DDR PC-3200 RAM and a 2.93Ghz processor.

I used V-Lite, formatted my HDD, and it works great.

[have yet to update my hardware yet, though]

those who can't get vista to work FOR them, should learn how to work a computer properly(damn basic users).

[PT 13]

Vista is much better than XP for everything

I do casual gaming, a lot of photo editing, some movie editing, programing etc... and it does each and everyone of those things better than XP ever did, and besides, it looks better and its much more stable

I have 3 computers with vista ultimate in my house, 2 of them for over 1 year, and haven't had a single BSOD, or a single problem... Vista is great, maybe it needs more resources to run than XP, but as the software needs more hardware to run, so does the hardware become faster, so it's all balanced.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Vista is much better than XP for everything

I do casual gaming, a lot of photo editing, some movie editing, programing etc... and it does each and everyone of those things better than XP ever did, and besides, it looks better and its much more stable

I have 3 computers with vista ultimate in my house, 2 of them for over 1 year, and haven't had a single BSOD, or a single problem... Vista is great, maybe it need more resources to run than XP, but as the software need more hardware, so the hardware becomes faster, so it's all balanced.

Everything? Or many things? I can agree with that latter statement, but not the first.

Vista is a much-improved OS over XP, and is worthy of upgrade, providing your hardware supports it.

I do admit smiling at this statement, though:

Vista is great, maybe it need more resources to run than XP, but as the software need more hardware, so the hardware becomes faster, so it's all balanced.

Ok, software has gotten better and needing more resources. But my hardware at home has not kept up. It is the same PC. When should I expect this "faster" that you talk about? Oh! I need to buy new hardware! I see. ;)

[kiwi89]

Vista is great and I love it, but the only thing I hate about it is that out of the box you have to tweek it to make it run better e.g. by turning off some unessary services

Other then that I absolutely love it.

[Raa]

It's allright, but it's far from perfect. "But nothing's perfect" - okay, using a scale, i'll say XP's perfect, and ME was horrible. Vista's in between IMO ;)

[Denis W. Veteran]

ROFLMAO, ok now I know who I'm talking to here. I won't be posting in this topic now because the replies I'm getting are really out of this world. No need for antispyware or anitvirus?? WTF is going on with the BS here?

Why don't you talk to the many friendly Mac and Linux users in this forum. They'd love to hear your insight. ;)

Seriously though, there's a good deal of users who get by just fine without antivirus suites. Again, unless you're being stupid and downloading all this random crap off the net you'll be okay with Defender. I keep an antivirus handy since occasionally people send crap through WLMessenger.

+warwagon says it best: An Antivirus is like a little guy standing on the side walk with a net, trying to catch you as you jump off the top of a 10 story building.

Some of you have this scared-as-**** attitude towards viruses, as if you were taking off a medical mask in an ER room full of people with colds. Well, simply put, Vista puts an end to stuff silently launching in the background with admin privileges. But hey, people like that are cannon fodder for Symantec, McAfee, etc. :p

[NEVER85]

It's allright, but it's far from perfect. "But nothing's perfect" - okay, using a scale, i'll say XP's perfect, and ME was horrible. Vista's in between IMO ;)

No amount of :rofl: could do this post justice.

[Denis W. Veteran]

^^ Blaster. Messenger service spam. Sasser. Do we need to be reminded of those again. :pinch:

Well okay, maybe XP has reached its prime with SP3. But compare its early problems with Vista's. I'd say dumb security holes are worse than performance problems.

[FredEx]

Except DirectX 10 doesn't run on XP, so Vista is for gamers too.

Google, DirectX 10 for XP

[Ci7]

Google, DirectX 10 for XP

you mean falling leaf thingies

doesnt worth it and it doesnt really work

not even mentioning all the trouble random bsod

to get the DX10 FW to really work in xp it would need it graphic subsystem to be reworked and changes to the Kernel level too

which wont happen

[MMaster23]

Hmm I fail to see why some users keep being so bitter about Vista. I run all my machines with Vista and there are so many more pros than cons.

- My ASUS EEE PC 1000H with an 1.6ghz Atom cpu and 1GB of RAM (now 2GB, but has no effect on performance what so ever) runs Vista just great. XP didn't run any better on this machine. Vista boots just fine and has no standby/shutdown issues. I'm not using any special kind of modifications to the system, vista or the BIOS to run. Only thing I did was to wipe the HDD to get rid of XP, attach an external DVD player and installed Vista from the certificied DVD. No problems what so ever. Only thing that crashes sometimes is the new WLM beta .. but that's just the beta crashing.

- All my workstations, notebooks and media centers run Vista. I did have some issues on one of my two media centers with running Vista MCE on it. I switched back to XP and it seem to work better. However after one week time, the XP install also got broken and even BSOD'd all the time. Vista didn't do that as the architecture is more modulair thus not dragging the whole system down when one little subsystem crashes. In the end I replaced the motherboard, reinstalled Vista and all was fine.

- People seem to forget for runner newer software, you need more hardware. This has been true for ages. Sure one could debate how much newer the hardware should be in order to run the newer software, but just don't expect your age old system to run it perfectly. I often talk to professors who teach at IT uni's and colleges and all they can do it bash the product for needing more than 1GB of RAM to run. I really repect them and when I look at their work, I'm amazed. But they are still bitter old fools when it comes to accepting new software. One should also consider we use our PC's more these days. The average load on a PC is much more now in 2008 then it was in 2003.

- People seem to think Vista only runs on a powerhouse running more than 2GB of RAM. This simply isn't true. Vista runs fine on a 1GB machine. I wouldn't do it on 512MB as that's just pushing it really however as memory prices are at an all time low, I always suggest 2x1GB of memory. This often leaves room to upgrade in the later future. I've seen forum members, IT pros and even developers claim that Vista simply won't run on anything less than 3GB of RAM. Simply not true. One media center ran Vista just fine using 1GB .. even while playing 1080p with 5.1 decoding. Not one hitch. I only suggest >2GB when running extreme memory-heavy application such as graphical editting, 3d designing or virtualization. If you're a gamer and want to be future ready, it may be wise to invest in 3GB or more (considering the new Intel platform runs triple channel, ideally you need 3 sticks of DDR3 ram. As DDR3 is still rather expensive, you're still golden running 3x 1GB of RAM. You can later add on another 3x1GB of RAM if you wish to... you don't NEED 6GB of ram)

Vista is heavier .. yes. But not as extreme as people like to picture it.

- "Vista is the only modern day system that needs more than 1GB of ram". Simply not true. I often quote die-hard Mac OS X users advising people should at least use 2GB of ram when running the latest Leopard OS. Just like Vista, Mac OS doesn't really need all that RAM however most people advice running that much RAM as RAM is deadcheap these days. I also often see people stating Linux is less resource intensive and they are right. However Linux isn't Linux. What I mean by that is that no Linux configuration is the same. Every distro has it's little bits and pieces. Most distros however do run KDE4 or the latest Gnome. Ever tried running that on a low-mem system? It slows down to a snails pase. When running modern distros with all the little do-da's turned on such as 3d effects etc, it almost as resource intensive. The problem is of course as Linux is so flexible, it's unfair to compare them side by side.

I don't mean to bash any OS but I really mind when people mindlessly bash Vista and make statements that simply aren't true. I used to work in the OEM business and these days the company that I work for, directly supports OEMs and system builders. I often analyse performance of systems build by systembuilders that would get send to consumers. There is no to very-little slowdown when using Vista as the OS.

Most of Vista's problems are in the past with buggy/un-optimized software and drivers that were poorly written. XP faced the same problems and in my opinion Microsoft and the ecosystem reacted better with Vista then in 2001/2002/2003.

[markwolfe Veteran]

... The problem is of course as Linux is so flexible, it's unfair to compare them side by side.

So, because Linux is much more flexible in configuring, allowing a user to downsize his or her OS resource footprint, you think it should not even be used to feature compare?

How about the other way? Wouldn't it be nice if Vista allowed users to elect a UI that consumed half the resources? Sort of like a Home Basic, but trimming the UI a bit more without the other limitations Microsoft plants into HB to make it less appealing, feature-wise. This isn't saying that Microsoft should open up its software to third parties or be Open Source. Just an alternative "low resource" option provided by Microsoft at no penalty of removing other features.

Linux leverages good ideas from Microsoft and Apple. Why can't Microsoft leverage this good idea from Linux? Certainly they can (and do) leverage other good ideas from each other already. ;)

[anonymous_user]

- People seem to forget for runner newer software, you need more hardware.

True, but what about efficiency?

Why couldnt Vista's system requirements be half or three quarters of what it is now?

[cork1958]

Nothing wrong with it, but sure as heck ISN'T much right with it either!! :x

Major pain just to install, time wise, absolutely rediculous windows update/install difficulties, the necessity to turn off 75% of anything that was supposed to be new and improved in this crap version of an OS!! That's just what I want!!

IMO,

MS should be sued for releasing such garbage!!

No wonder they extended the time OEM's can install XP still. Guess MS isn't totally ignorant.

[SMELTN]

True, but what about efficiency?

Why couldnt Vista's system requirements be half or three quarters of what it is now?

My real problem is that, not only does it run completely different depending on the speed of the proc, amount of ram, etc.. but it also runs completely different depending on the other hardware to, ie. soundcard, video card, network card, etc.. and it just shouldn't be that way. That's way to many things helping determine (or hender) the overall performance of the system, and that's why Vista gets so many bad reviews.

Microsoft at one time, wanted the computer to be more like consoles (I am talking gaming here but still) where you know this game will run the exact same on almost every single computer.. maybe in the future, but not now.

[norseman]

So, because Linux is much more flexible in configuring, allowing a user to downsize his or her OS resource footprint, you think it should not even be used to feature compare?

How about the other way? Wouldn't it be nice if Vista allowed users to elect a UI that consumed half the resources? Sort of like a Home Basic, but trimming the UI a bit more without the other limitations Microsoft plants into HB to make it less appealing, feature-wise. This isn't saying that Microsoft should open up its software to third parties or be Open Source. Just an alternative "low resource" option provided by Microsoft at no penalty of removing other features.

Linux leverages good ideas from Microsoft and Apple. Why can't Microsoft leverage this good idea from Linux? Certainly they can (and do) leverage other good ideas from each other already. ;)

Sorry Mark, I must disagree to some extent with you here. I do agree that there should be options in OSX to allow it to be dumbed down so that it can run on systems with less than 2GB of RAM and slower CPUs than 866? MHZ.. But Apple is a hardware company and they pretty much want to sell their latest hardware, I can understand their logic.. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Microsoft is introducing new technologies with a more robust GUI. If you have discreet graphics or a decent integrated graphics, dual-core cpu or greater and 2 or more gigs of RAM you should not have any issues running Vista. For people with slower computers they might want to make Windows a little more modular to support their systems.. This also has it's cons as new hardware will not be sold. I am totally surprised how much people believe they deserve to have a new operating system run well on their old and archaic hardware.

Linux, with a GUI being GNOME or KDE (two most common used in most distributions to receive support from vendors or forums) use lots of ram and cpu. We set them up all of the time for our researchers at the hospital I work at. All of these computers that are used for Workstations that run X and are connected to various Diagnostic Imaging devices are high-quality systems with 4-16GB of RAM and range from dualcore Core 2 Duo systems to 8 core Xeon systems.. These are not for servers or anything, these are for workstations. All have discreet graphics.

The linux computers that are "old" and slow run old versions of fedora, redhat enterprise or centos.. Only the new computers with high end processors and memory get the upgrade.. reason being linux is also SLOW.. unless you have the right hardware for the job.

Sure not everyone can afford new hardware but then they should learn to be happy with what they have and not try to over-do it like most people that moan about Vista..

Just my thoughts..

[Scorbing]

ROFLMAO, ok now I know who I'm talking to here. I won't be posting in this topic now because the replies I'm getting are really out of this world. No need for antispyware or anitvirus?? WTF is going on with the BS here?

Yes you do need an antivirus. It doesn't have to be turned on all the time unless you visit "strange" sites. I suggest Kaspersky 2009 or NOD32. Those are the very best out there. I keep mine turned off and use it only when I am downloading something.

[Ci7]

4-16GB of RAM and range from dualcore Core 2 Duo systems to 8 core Xeon systems..

"i love this part" me think . lol