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.
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
-
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 like Vista just fine. i like it much better than XP, even.
-
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 don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
-
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.
In my experience it is slower and fatter on anything but gold-plated hardware. XP uses about a third of the RAM and this make a big difference when you've only got 1GB to play with. This is my experience with two different mid-range laptops. YMMV so no flame wars. All UAC did was teach people to click OK without reading the message displayed - almost as dangerous as asking them in the first place IMHO. Christopher nailed it - I have downgraded two laptops back to XP and have lost ZERO functionality and the machines seem quicker, boot faster and aren't consuming the same amount of system resources. And the myriad different versions was a stupid idea (same goes for all the Visual Studio versions). Talk about letting the Marketing dept. take over the company! And yes, XP was bloated compared to W2K - maybe 10% more bloat in my experience (we still have a lot of W2K machines out there) but both my laptops that had Vista were using 600MB or more RAM once booted and XP uses less than 200MB. Yeh, memory is cheap yadda-yadda but using that much RAM? Pre-caching you say? Why not leave this off by default and let advanced users decide these sort of things? And don't get me started on the low-end laptops out there that just cannot handle Vista but ship with it anyway.
-
I don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
Christopher Duncan wrote:
n short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP.
This is what I've always said about vista. Regardless of my personal likes and dislikes there is no value proposition.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
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 have zero problems with vista. I just don't need it.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
I don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
Christopher Duncan wrote:
but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine.
Well actually, it doesn't matter if you are (were?) the single user, UAC is still useful. You can be an administrator and still have UAC prompt you when applications attempt to do system level stuff. I personally find UAC very useful. To each his own I guess. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Christopher Duncan wrote:</div>And what did I get in return?</blockquote> Transactional file system[^]? Vista Resource Monitor[^]? Deadlock Detection[^]?
Regards Senthil [MVP - Visual C#] _____________________________ My Home Page |My Blog | My Articles | My Flickr | WinMacro
-
I don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
Christopher Duncan wrote:
I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me.
Amen. Couldn't have put it better.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Oh
-
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.
For the most part I've not had too many problems with it, but two things do stand out in my mind. The first is that even when logged in as an admin I couldn't modify some files in my user folder without monkeying around with it a bit. That was pretty simple to fix so it was only a minor annoyance. The second is that I am a gamer. I have a wide range of games that I like to play from DOS based games to games made within the past few months. I've had several games (new and old) crash on me regularly in Vista in which I had no problems with in XP. I know that it is not entirely a Vista issue, but when it does happen I think longingly of my XP machine which unfortunately needs to be fixed right now. Aside from those I've been content with Vista. I don't always like having to find stuff again, but my Vista experience hasn't been too bad.
Some people sail through life on a bed of roses like a knife slicing through butter.
-
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 have been using Vista 64 since the RC and this does not seem to happen on my system. Could it have soemthing to do with the video drivers or something else? Are they old aaplications?
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
I have been using Vista 64 since the RC and this does not seem to happen on my system. Could it have soemthing to do with the video drivers or something else? Are they old aaplications?
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
All of my Vista popups and menus do it, and some screens. It is intermittent but if MS Vista only software does it then I doubt it is old software. As for hardware I have an ASUS laptop with nVidia graphics card build for Vista with latest updates I really doubt it is hardware :p
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
-
All of my Vista popups and menus do it, and some screens. It is intermittent but if MS Vista only software does it then I doubt it is old software. As for hardware I have an ASUS laptop with nVidia graphics card build for Vista with latest updates I really doubt it is hardware :p
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
It could be the quality of the built in graphics. I have a 6100 (or there abouts) compatible built in graphics on my MB, but it was doggy slow at dragging windows and it would have some issues, the experience was subpar. Thankfully, that was only during my testing, I have a decent nVidia card and it works great. Since Vista is putting a lot on graphics power, it would, of course, show issues with lower grade hardware.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
It could be the quality of the built in graphics. I have a 6100 (or there abouts) compatible built in graphics on my MB, but it was doggy slow at dragging windows and it would have some issues, the experience was subpar. Thankfully, that was only during my testing, I have a decent nVidia card and it works great. Since Vista is putting a lot on graphics power, it would, of course, show issues with lower grade hardware.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT With a Vista Experience Index of 5.9 for the Graphics card and 5.1 for the system.
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
-
NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT With a Vista Experience Index of 5.9 for the Graphics card and 5.1 for the system.
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 am not talking about performance but rather there may be differences with on MB graphics (or drivers for such) that would not be present in an on-card video. In other words, it may be with the implemenation of the built in graphics that hinder a given video feature. If an issue with all GeForce 8700's then everyone with them would be having the same problem. What I am getting at is that if it were a problem with Vista itself, then everyone would have the issue and I am running nVidia graphics and have never experienced your issues. So to me that would mean it is either driver related or something without your specific system. The possiblity of a quirk in the built in graphics is only one possible issue.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
I am not talking about performance but rather there may be differences with on MB graphics (or drivers for such) that would not be present in an on-card video. In other words, it may be with the implemenation of the built in graphics that hinder a given video feature. If an issue with all GeForce 8700's then everyone with them would be having the same problem. What I am getting at is that if it were a problem with Vista itself, then everyone would have the issue and I am running nVidia graphics and have never experienced your issues. So to me that would mean it is either driver related or something without your specific system. The possiblity of a quirk in the built in graphics is only one possible issue.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
My motherboard doesn't have on board graphics.
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