Reasons why VISTA is an EPIC FAIL Operating System
- Thread starter chamgamer
- Start date
You consume too much memory.
Vista is no ME, and therefore not quite epic in its fail.
In my opinion, which counts for absolutely nothing but you asked for it anyway, Vista fails because it emphasizes an illusion of security that doesn't exist, hides all the power options behind curtains of useless option screens and does a poor job of emulating its predecessors when one tries to install an older program. It does crash on occasion for no apparent reason, but then so does any Win OS.
Win 7 isn't much better about the power options, actually, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as bad as Vista about it.
And another thing that Win does (and this includes XP SP3 as well as 7) is turn on that godforsaken firewall after an automatic update. I turned it off for a reason, dammit, so quit screwing things up! </rant>
Vista is no ME, and therefore not quite epic in its fail.
In my opinion, which counts for absolutely nothing but you asked for it anyway, Vista fails because it emphasizes an illusion of security that doesn't exist, hides all the power options behind curtains of useless option screens and does a poor job of emulating its predecessors when one tries to install an older program. It does crash on occasion for no apparent reason, but then so does any Win OS.
Win 7 isn't much better about the power options, actually, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as bad as Vista about it.
And another thing that Win does (and this includes XP SP3 as well as 7) is turn on that godforsaken firewall after an automatic update. I turned it off for a reason, dammit, so quit screwing things up! </rant>
ScOuT
VIP Member
I have used Vista Home 64bit in my desktop and Vista Ultimate 64bit in my laptop since the day it was released. I have had no issues with Vista...it has been a great operating system to me.
I have Windows XP on my Dell XPS 400 desktop and I have far more problems with XP than I ever have with Vista running on 2 machines.
I have Windows XP on my Dell XPS 400 desktop and I have far more problems with XP than I ever have with Vista running on 2 machines.
OverClocker
New Member
when i upgraded to vista, it really slowed down my pc. i had to no choice but to switch back to xp then. when windows 7 came out, i tried and i have been a happy camper since then.
Vista was fail on lower end computers that had Vista Home Premium and only 512MB - 1GB of RAM. The computers simply could not handle it; especially laptops. Unless the laptop had enough power, Vista would run slow.
Now I know a lot of people blasted it at first for driver and other hardware related issues, but you must remember that it has two service packs worth of updates. It runs much better than it did on first release.
Now I know a lot of people blasted it at first for driver and other hardware related issues, but you must remember that it has two service packs worth of updates. It runs much better than it did on first release.
speedyink
VIP Member
+1
go Speedy
Thanks :good:
CrayonMuncher
Active Member
Vista does not consume all your memory it caches all your memory for quicker use, may not be the best way of handling memory but that is how it does it so just because task manager says it is not available like before, it doesnt mean it is all used up, there is another section under memory that says "cached".
I ran vista on my pentium 4 with 2GB of ram and my X800 pro and it ran, for the most part, fine, with all the addons enabled, it was slow at points and slow on startup all of which are annoying but have been sorted in win 7, there are a few good reasons why vista is bad but the sole reason isnt because of the way it handles memory, that never ever caused me any problems.
Heh. Then my ultra-fast Linux machine must really suck-- it uses nearly all its RAM.
Oh, that's right... Linux doesn't page into virtual memory unless it absolutely has to.
It's a good thing Windows and Linux are two completely different operating systems, and as such handle processes differently, each having their own advantage, and could be why Windows is still the most popular OS in the world. Still. And will be for many, many years to come. Like there's never been a mistake in Linux platforming lolz. Windows gets more flack because it is an OS used around the world. But I thought this was a Windows Vista thread?
It's refreshing to see people in this forum backing up Vista. At the time, I remember my teacher talking excitingly about the progressions Windows Vista would be making in the Windows OS, and the computer world. I wasn't dissapointed, was jealous of my friends who acquired it before me, and am still not dissapointed. Though I do thoroughly enjoy Windows 7. I still use XP daily, but I'm sure its use will drop steadily in due time.
Last edited:
Windows has one huge advantage over Linux-- advertising. But your point is valid-- each has its advantages. Vista is awesome for people who know nothing about computers and have absolutely no wish to.
Aastii
VIP Member
And for the fact that it is very easy to use and the most practical option due to the fact that Windows is the most widely used OS, therefore the vast majority of programs are made for Windows as the main OS in mind...
The majority of people on the forum use Windows in one form or another, and I would like to think that a lot of those tend to know what they are on about with regards to computers, so to say "it is awesome for people who know nothing about computers", it clearly isn't true, it is just the whole Linux "I am better than you because I'm different" argument.
I love Linux and I think Linux, when made into a half decent operating system, is an outstanding piece of software, but for the amount of support Windows gets, both from hardware and software manufacturers and the familiarity most people with it, from learning to use computers, using Windows computers at work or school, in your local library or netcafe, it is the absolute best option for nearly every user, not just the "stupid" ones.
OT - I, personally, have had far more issues with XP than I ever have done with Vista or 7.
Compare Windows XP to Windows 95. When you do that, XP is a disgusting excuse for an OS because of the amount of resources it uses. But technology moves on, what is the point in making new, more powerful hardware if users will just complain that the software actually requires it? So what that Vista needs more memory, it handles it better, and as a full system, it is better than XP was, even though it has moved along with the times.
I'm sat using Vista now, my main system used to use it (before I went to 7, because that is better than Vista), my backup laptop uses it, not a single one is running slowly or having issues, and these are cheap systems, not all singing, all dancing ones
Yes, Bill Gates has pretty much achieved his goal of getting Windows on every desktop.
Now, the question is: Is Vista a choice?
Seriously, how many users, of XP, for all its flaws, purposely chose Vista to replace XP and continue to stick by it?
Vista is a stepping stone, much like Win 98 (or ME... Vista will always be compared to ME, I'm afraid) was a stepping stone to XP.
Vista doesn't totally suck, but there are far better alternatives.
Now, the question is: Is Vista a choice?
Seriously, how many users, of XP, for all its flaws, purposely chose Vista to replace XP and continue to stick by it?
Vista is a stepping stone, much like Win 98 (or ME... Vista will always be compared to ME, I'm afraid) was a stepping stone to XP.
Vista doesn't totally suck, but there are far better alternatives.
ScOuT
VIP Member
You are exactly correct...it does not take that memory just to run the operating system, it uses it as a cache. Not really bad in theory, I am sure they may have been able to do it a little better perhaps.
Statement from Intel
"Vista treats system memory like a cache much more aggressively and effectively than any other version of Windows"
speedyink
VIP Member
And I think you achieved your goal in being a dick.
Vista WAS a choice for me, I upgraded as soon as the beta came out. it wasn't massively buggy or sluggish. I ran it on a P4 with 1.5gb of ram and an x700 Pro. It was snappy.
Oh snap, you compared Vista to ME, you are automatically = win, since you know, ME sucked so anything you compare it to must also suck, regardless of whether that argument holds any weight for people who actually used it.
Aastii
VIP Member
I chose to use Vista, on 2 of my systems, I still choose to use Vista. Because I'm a student I can get a copy of Win 7 for very cheap, however I choose not to, not because I don't want to pay, but because Vista works, and because it works very well and it is a great OS.
I chose not to go back to XP because Vista is better than XP, and I choose not to go back to XP from 7, again, because 7 is better.
And that is the first time I have ever heard of Vista being compared to ME. ME was a massive fail because it was so damn unstable. Vista though has amazing driver support, with the release of the SP's is extremely stable, it can be run on basic hardware (by today's standards), it has great program and developer support, so how, exactly, is it comparable to ME?