meg
New Member
Thanks.. I had just gotten over the Post-Vista fever, I really needed to put it down.
What's so bad about Windows Vista?
- Thread starter Oddler
- Start date
Thanks.. I had just gotten over the Post-Vista fever, I really needed to put it down.
I have a lot of Vista haters come into work. I had one guy come in and just go "Vista sucks."
I'm not a vista hater. I find it a perfectly fine OS, so when I hear that I grind my teeth.
I feel like doing a "Mojave Experiment" for a day or two at work.
meg
New Member
There's a reason there is a bandwagon. Generally, with every trend, though it might be trendy (lol) there is a damn good reason. Because of lots of complaints. So if people don't have to experience it to hate it and save money not upgrading, so what?
And I don't know where the hell you work, man, but basically every techie (including myself) thinks Vista is just a disaster - maybe not in itself, but in its complexity for the average user. It's not bad necessarily but it takes a lot of pampering if you do more than send e-mail, download viruses (err I mean Limewire) and talk on AIM.
meg
New Member
I posted an entire rant if you check back a page it's linked. And up until all those problems (which were actually always there but easily ignored until I really, genuinely needed them to stop) I was a Vista user for ~8 months. Now I'm guessing you don't want to take the time to read that since it's a few paragraphs. But don't ask me that question when I've backed up my opinion with a lot of professional and fair information.
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
It is simply a resource hog. My new rig does not run Vista as fast as I would thought it would and my specs are pretty high. I got a 5.9 Vista rating, and it still is sluggish at times, and I experience memory leaks from crappy programs, and sometimes my RAM will spike up to 1.5 gigs idle.
I use it for DX 10, not sure if it is totally worth the trade off just yet. I would say when SP 2 comes out hopefully it will be less bloated and sluggish.
I use it for DX 10, not sure if it is totally worth the trade off just yet. I would say when SP 2 comes out hopefully it will be less bloated and sluggish.
Droogie
New Member
Ok I read it, and just because YOU have had problems with it, doesn't mean that everybody is going to have similar problems or any problems at all. You had a bad experience with it, but you saying that the entire OS was a disaster doesn't hold any weight. Right now I can say I have had far more problems with XP than I have had with Vista. It's not going to be the same case for everybody.
meg
New Member
I didn't say my problems were anything but unique to me, alTHOUGH most of those problems are known ones. Honestly. Not to pull the 'job' card but I work at Geek Squad and sooooooooo many people come in with the same usb and hibernation issues I had and end up dishing out so much cash to fix it. Most of the Vista customers are repeats... in and out every other week or two with some Vista specific issue. Everyone with XP mostly comes in for a hardware upgrade, not at all due to XP being a problem, just because they want something faster.
meg
New Member
Everybody?
and
if your best friend told you not to eat at a restaurant because the waiters were slow, and the food wasn't as good as he'd hoped, and that he wished he'd just gone to his favorite restaurant instead of wasting time and money there... would you go to that restaurant?
When people hear things about computers from trusted sources (friends, or a magazine) they can't really help it. And like I said, more often than not it's based off of truly bad experiences. Now with 9/10 customers coming to my counter with a legitimate Vista complaint (not just OH I HATE VISTA! but something tangible, something they can show me)... wouldn't it be blind of me to not come to the conclusion about the OS being pushed out a bit too early? About it being a bit sloppy?
Anyway I'm not so much defending Vista as I am people and how we communicate.
Yeah well when I told my friend (he's a gamer) that I was going to put Vista on my machine, he wouldn't leave me alone about how bad it was, and for the next week he kept nagging me, then when I got it on my machine and told him I liked it and he came over he thought it was pretty nice too. I haven't had problems with it, I am personally on Windows XP Pro SP2 because I don't game (yet) and I like the look of AlienGUIse themes on my computer, plus I am getting 4GBs of RAM soon 
meg
New Member
Now that's just silly.
tlarkin
VIP Member
Key word being prone, not always. I think it has to do with the shoddy 64bit library files. I don't see why MS just didn't include both 32bit and 64 native, but I guess it is another way to make money.
I literally do nothing with this rig except surf, maybe office production work, a dash of web development and gaming.
I literally do nothing with this rig except surf, maybe office production work, a dash of web development and gaming.
meg
New Member
I'm not knocking your method of parental control. It's kind of interesting. No need to get defensive... and your answer is right there! : )
tlarkin
VIP Member
I don't have any kids and live alone, hahaha so it isn't a form of parental control. I just feel guilty if I play games all day and don't stop to like read a few pages out of book or something, or clean my apartment.
To be fair, it is not 100% MS's fault why Vista sucks in my opinion, it is partly due to the developers who are lazy that develop this stuff. However, I think that MS enables them to be lazy, so it kind of all goes full circle, several times over.
To be fair, it is not 100% MS's fault why Vista sucks in my opinion, it is partly due to the developers who are lazy that develop this stuff. However, I think that MS enables them to be lazy, so it kind of all goes full circle, several times over.
meg
New Member
The parental control thing was kind of a joke, not literal. Because you use the eventual game crash as a form of control... ah, nevermind.
It's not MS' fault that Vista sucks, followed by it is the lazy developers' faults? Well they're a part of MS, if you hadn't noticed, lol. They're not lazy, quite the opposite really (people hellbent on profit are stupid maybe but not lazy). It was a marketing drive - frankly Microsoft had to do something because other OS' like linux-based ones and OSX get constant updates, so they rushed it. Several places Microsoft spokesmen are found admitting that Vista had/has some serious issues that needed attention. It just wasn't really polished off as well as XP was at release.
tlarkin
VIP Member
I'm just going to stop you right there. I used to manage thousands of Windows machines in an AD/ED environment for a few years, now I manage mostly thousands of Macs in a OD environment. Apple is not bullet proof nor are they immune to making mistakes. OS X 10.5.4 was a pile of dog excrement and I had so many problems with it the beginning of this school year (as I am a sys admin for a school district). I know you didn't mean that they were better, but I just wanted to point that out.
The problem is with Windows is many many things. Mainly running every user as root and not abiding by any standard POSIX set of permissions allows for the developer to use "sloppy" as in not secure code. Which is prone for memory leaks and crashes. When you build an OS off a strong foundation of permissions and ownerships you gain a lot of control and more stability. A process goes crazy and wants to eat up resources but it can't because it isn't running as root (unless it is actually a root level process). The down side to this is that it sets the learning curve higher than Windows. People can't simply point, double click, and let a wizard magically do everything for them.
Then you have developers like AutoDesk and Symantec which are so huge they just buy out any competition, and they have such a large market share and companies are already so much invested into them a new product will likely never actually make it. There are many reasons for this, one being that a lot of products don't use or follow any open source standards. That is slowly changing though. I would say the first largely used open source standard in most enterprise networks has to be LDAP. LDAP is LDAP, plain and simple. I can export LDAP from AD and suck it right into OD. Things like passwords may not transfers but groups and users will for sure.
Now imagine you have some large back end SQL based SAP system like Crystal Reports. Now, you want to change to a better product, but the current product you use doesn't follow any open source standards. Nor does it support them. So, you have no ability to migrate your data bases and other data into a new product. It would cost you millions of dollars to migrate when you take into account the labor it would take to migrate the actual technology. The time it would take your company to train every person on the new technology, and the loss of productivity while they are switching over to a new system. The actual benefit never out weighs the cost of changing platforms or migrating.
Unless you migrate it in to integrate it keeping your current technologies in place. Which is why Exchange supports open source calendar standards now. MS wants you to keep your exchange servers and email/calendar system if you decide to toss some Linux or Unix boxes in. Smart move on their part.
This was not meant to dis the developers, the people who develop for MS and those giant companies are smart, but there are so many problems and they have to develop for a plethora of hardware configurations that it is nearly impossible to make a solid OS with Windows. There will always be a higher rate of failure with Windows boxes because of that.
I guess the upside is that you get a lot more choices with PC hardware, but it does come at a cost.
meg
New Member
You genuinely went off on a tangent that ought to be another topic. I didn't say OSX, or linux were better, or worse, but they are competitors for Microsoft, lets face that at least. Maybe entirely different, reaching (mostly) a different target audience. I wasn't asking for the breakdown of what's wrong with whose code. Simply stating that XP did better than Vista in the benchmarking for a very long time, in every process. It still does better overall, despite Microsoft's attempts at fixing their bloated operating system with a SP.
Now I honestly don't know the reason for all the... stuff... that you said, other than to maybe try to back up the fact that you're knowledgeable, but you really lost the relevancy to my previous statement, which you quoted. So I'm kind of lost as to where this went. The only reason *I* mentioned OSX and Linux was because, regardless of how good their recent releases were (which I was not at all discussing... at all) they were making Microsoft sweat because they had been doing nothing since 2001, at least as far as the public could tell, since that's when XP was released. And aesthetically, it's outdated.
Now I honestly don't know the reason for all the... stuff... that you said, other than to maybe try to back up the fact that you're knowledgeable, but you really lost the relevancy to my previous statement, which you quoted. So I'm kind of lost as to where this went. The only reason *I* mentioned OSX and Linux was because, regardless of how good their recent releases were (which I was not at all discussing... at all) they were making Microsoft sweat because they had been doing nothing since 2001, at least as far as the public could tell, since that's when XP was released. And aesthetically, it's outdated.
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
I forgot to add the last part.....it's late
MS is trying to migrate their product into a more POSIX-esque product, and in Vista you see the first fundamental steps. Running apps as admin, the home folders of each user are now just under \Users (no more documents and settings), amongst other things. Windows 7 should be an entirely new OS under the hood.
So, to transition the change they left all the backwards compatible code for XP which causes issues and creates bloat.
That is why Vista is maybe marginally better than XP as far as benchmarking goes, and in some cases not as good. That is also just my opinion
MS is trying to migrate their product into a more POSIX-esque product, and in Vista you see the first fundamental steps. Running apps as admin, the home folders of each user are now just under \Users (no more documents and settings), amongst other things. Windows 7 should be an entirely new OS under the hood.
So, to transition the change they left all the backwards compatible code for XP which causes issues and creates bloat.
That is why Vista is maybe marginally better than XP as far as benchmarking goes, and in some cases not as good. That is also just my opinion