Do I even want to ask...
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
I haven't really used it a lot but main reasons I'm putting it off at the moment are because of the time required to learn the new UI and things i'm not currently aware of biting me in the back such as security features making it difficult to do certain things (heard bad stories of people trying to rename folders, or put a file in the root of C:\ and things like that). I'm not sure much of the bloat in vista is related to XP compatibility. I think a lot is just all the new graphical enhancements etc. Which is fine if the computer is powerful enough to run it all without making other things go noticeably slower. There's no way I'd consider running vista on my last PC because I'd be worried about FPS in games dropping, more HD churn etc, but my new one could probably take it no sweat. imho win 2000 was a great operating system. XP was 2000 but with extra stuff added on top - not really bloat due to bad code but bloat due to simply adding more functionality such as the visual styles / skinning features. So right now for me I'd say its more of an annoyance with having to learn new things repeatedly like with many other MS products. They keep changing the UI with each new version so nothing is ever where you instinctively look, and programs keep needing to be updated to have a consistent look with whatever OS is fashionable at the time. For clients my place of employment develop software for - well there's a lot of legacy software over a decade old which will have compatibility issues - some of this uses 16-bit 3rd party libraries (from places that are no longer around) which I can't see working too well, etc.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
Too much scaremongering and too many sheep listening to bad press. I have had 1 problem when I intalled it over 2 years ago, that was down to a realtek driver. Since then I've had zero, yes zero problems.
Software Kinetics - Moving software
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
Stuart Jeffery wrote:
What is everyones problem with Vista?
I don't have any real problem with Vista. The only thing I don't like is unnecessary changes of things that worked perfectly in XP and previous versions. For example, where is "Add or Remove Programs"? It is like in a grocery store, just when you get used to where everything is, the store manager decides to relocate everything. For what?
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page My Younger Son & His "PET"
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
I am sick and tired of menus, windows, caption, or basically anything with a Windows Handle rendering in all black at random intervals. How hard is it to do a screen refresh? Sometimes I have to restart an application because Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window. I use Vista everyday for development so at least I have the perspective to complain.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
No grudges from me either I love the idea of dropping bad code it's just that customers always get in the way. Customers are lazy and need to be pushed in the right direction I think MS got that will the next windows release. Vista has run fine for me I just run my unsupported apps in a virtual machine. Works great
Take a look at my corner of the net at Code Research Center
-
Stuart Jeffery wrote:
What is everyones problem with Vista?
I don't have any real problem with Vista. The only thing I don't like is unnecessary changes of things that worked perfectly in XP and previous versions. For example, where is "Add or Remove Programs"? It is like in a grocery store, just when you get used to where everything is, the store manager decides to relocate everything. For what?
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page My Younger Son & His "PET"
Xiangyang Liu ??? wrote:
where is "Add or Remove Programs"?
Programs and Features applet in Control Panel
-
Stuart Jeffery wrote:
What is everyones problem with Vista?
I don't have any real problem with Vista. The only thing I don't like is unnecessary changes of things that worked perfectly in XP and previous versions. For example, where is "Add or Remove Programs"? It is like in a grocery store, just when you get used to where everything is, the store manager decides to relocate everything. For what?
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page My Younger Son & His "PET"
Xiangyang Liu ??? wrote:
For what?
I can't remember where, but I read an article a few years back about a survey of Vista's UI and how easy/hard it was to learn. The survey concluded that folks that had already been using Windows adapted to the new UI fairly easily, and folks that had no prior knowledge of a GUI (I'm paraphrasing) said it was very intuitive. I don't dislike Vista but I find the UI very hard to navigate. I had similar difficulties when going from Windows 3.1 to NT4 but going to Vista is at least an order of magnitude harder.
"Old age is like a bank account. You withdraw later in life what you have deposited along the way." - Unknown
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
-
I am sick and tired of menus, windows, caption, or basically anything with a Windows Handle rendering in all black at random intervals. How hard is it to do a screen refresh? Sometimes I have to restart an application because Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window. I use Vista everyday for development so at least I have the perspective to complain.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
I'd accept this from an user, not from a programmer. It's not "Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window", as it's the application that is in charge of drawing a window. If the application, for some reason (bug, bad design, feature) decides to refuse to draw anything on a window, what can Vista or any other OS do? Specifically, if an application refuses to answer a WM_PAINT request, what would you do? Show an outdated bitmap? Black window? Grayed window bitmap? Suggest to kill the application after a few seconds? Well, Vista does it all.
I see dead pixels
-
I'd accept this from an user, not from a programmer. It's not "Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window", as it's the application that is in charge of drawing a window. If the application, for some reason (bug, bad design, feature) decides to refuse to draw anything on a window, what can Vista or any other OS do? Specifically, if an application refuses to answer a WM_PAINT request, what would you do? Show an outdated bitmap? Black window? Grayed window bitmap? Suggest to kill the application after a few seconds? Well, Vista does it all.
I see dead pixels
You must be right, I mean when the Start Menu refused to draw, or Windows Vista Wireless Connection Windows refuse to draw. We are not talking about applications not handling the WM_PAINT event we are talking about the Desktop Window Manager being a POS.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
I think if everyone had started with a 64-bit Vista, there would have been a lot less mud-slinging and complaining. I've had 4 blue-screens in the last year, all due to a VM. My frame rate is great, no bogging down. Trick is to get a machine that is capable, with the proper drivers. I never tried Vista on my old Pc because I knew the hardware wasn't compatible. I also never tried hauling a trailer with my Civic, or attaching wings. At some point MS has to abandon the backwards compatibility for security reasons. Let them use a VM in quarantine mode, but the host should be sacred.
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Xiangyang Liu ??? wrote:
where is "Add or Remove Programs"?
Programs and Features applet in Control Panel
Yes, I found that already. My point is, there doesn't appear to be a need for the change in Vista, this is just one example.
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page My Younger Son & His "PET"
-
I'd accept this from an user, not from a programmer. It's not "Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window", as it's the application that is in charge of drawing a window. If the application, for some reason (bug, bad design, feature) decides to refuse to draw anything on a window, what can Vista or any other OS do? Specifically, if an application refuses to answer a WM_PAINT request, what would you do? Show an outdated bitmap? Black window? Grayed window bitmap? Suggest to kill the application after a few seconds? Well, Vista does it all.
I see dead pixels
You might have this the wrong way around. Re-paint under XP - no problem Re-paint under Vista - no work Same program, so where 'could' the problem be? If the OS isn't asking the app to refresh or assumes that cached iimage doesn't need refreshing then where is the problem?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
You won are one in a million.
Todd Smith
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
Stuart Jeffery wrote:
What is everyones problem with Vista?
I have good experienence with Vista on the home machine. At office, I used it until recently on my laptop, but it started to get a bit slow after a year - maybe it has something to do with all the crapware that our IT installs without ever asking me :) Anyway, I switched to Win 7 and now it works like a charm. On development desktops I use Windows Server 2008 and am very happy with it. I have XP on my personal netbook only and it is OK, except that I really miss Windows Search integration with the Shell.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
Agreed. I've run Vista 64 bit for 2 months, and so far have had exactly 2 issues. Both 3rd party driver related and very quickly fixed by updating to the latest drivers. Vista runs much faster on my new machine then XP did on my old.
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
The wife's laptop has Vista and the only complaint I have is that it will reboot out from under her after an update and she has no way to stop it. At any rate, I see no compelling reason to go to Vista (or Win7); I'll be using XP for a while longer, as long as it meets my needs.
-
I am sick and tired of menus, windows, caption, or basically anything with a Windows Handle rendering in all black at random intervals. How hard is it to do a screen refresh? Sometimes I have to restart an application because Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window. I use Vista everyday for development so at least I have the perspective to complain.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
i'd blame the video driver.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
XP is faster. Vista User UI is a pain in the a$$. (Yes I know if can be dialed back now, but it is still a pain). Vista's hardware requirements kill any upgrades of older hardware. Networking is a pain. Keeps dropping client connections. GF had Vista in a brand new top of the line HP. Constant crashes, hangup, etc. Switched to XP & not a single crash or hang in 6 months. Plus you can see the speed difference when running app's. But more than anything, there is no truely compelling reason to accept a slower, fatter OS.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
