PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with Vista?


Hammer67
11-03-2008, 09:16 AM
Warning…geeky stuff ahead…

Let me preface by saying, I work in IT, have a degree in it and have been building and working on computers since the early DOS days (20+ years).

One thing you run across in the computer world, if you live it everyday, is an anti-Microsoft state of mind from a lot of people. For whatever reason, people who are fans of either Linux or Mac OS have some crazy emotional attachment to their platform of choice and spend their time just denouncing Microsoft. It is borderline hysteria and I have to say, totally biased.

I installed Vista when it first came out. I usually am an early adopter. I never had a problem. There is so much vitriol out there over Vista that it is sometimes funny. Is it worth the upgrade from XP?? Probably not to most people. Is it a terrible OS?? Absolutely not. I happen to like it a lot. It is a much more aesthetically pleasing OS then XP which manages RAM better, has more built in security (although that is an annoyance for IT smart peeps).

I currently have a dual boot system with the latest Ubuntu Linux distro and Vista 64bit. Let me just bust the Linux bubble right now. Ubuntu is touted as the most “user friendly” and “dumbed down” version of Linux. Ok, fine. Only problem is that Ubuntu did not find my wireless networking card, my sound card, and installed a generic graphics driver for my video card…

Vista, found all three and installed the latest drivers for each….it installed with very little tweaking in about 30 minutes.

I spent an entire weekend trying to get my wireless adapter working in Ubuntu. You end up having to use a Windows driver for it and “wrapping” it into Linux!!!! What??!!!

Moral of story, Linux has a long way to go before it becomes a home user platform that overtakes Microsoft market share.

For the Mac users? The commercials are cute, but very misleading. Vista has no issues that I saw…sure your 20 year old Epson printer may not work, but jees, is that Epson’s fault, vista’s fault or your own cheap fault for not buying a printer made in this century? Plus, if Mac’s are so great, why have they morphed to Intel architecture that you find in PC’s? Why are they so much more expensive? Why are they so custom builder unfriendly?

I am not a paid supporter of Microsoft…just an end user. I actually have no emotional interest in my OS as it is just a tool for me to get stuff done. I just hear a ton of stuff from people about how Vista is so terrible and then you find out they never used it. Talk about drinking the koolaid.

Sorry, I had to rant.

xfl2001fan
11-03-2008, 09:32 AM
If you've got XP, I think going to Vista is a poor investment. That's just from experience from my friends. I've managed to avoid it because XP with an Office 2007 upgrade has run about as smoothly for me as possible.

I agree that the commercials are great for Mac. I'm not a big Mac user, but that's just personal preference. Then again, like you stated, it's very easy to custom build my PC (i.e. cheaper) with a Windows system than it is with my buddy's Mac.

Then again, I don't care for a lot of change.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 10:03 AM
True...it is not as big of an upgrade as XP was over ME. But it does some things better, like manage media and it does have DirectX 10 support if you are a gamer and that is important to you.

Leftoverhard
11-03-2008, 10:23 AM
I just have XP. I've hear a lot of anti-vista stuff too and as far as those mac commercials go, they bug me. I actually like the PC comeback commercials, I'm a PC, I'm a PC, I'm a Joe The Plumber, I'm a PC - kind of funny how those commercials all intersect.

revefsreleets
11-03-2008, 10:39 AM
I'm hanging on to XP until at least 2012 (which is when, I believe, they will stop supporting it). It's stable as hell and I know it like the back of my hand...

The Duke
11-03-2008, 10:44 AM
Most problems with Vista have always come from software compatibility

this seems to not be a a big problem anymore , but it's still easily fixed . And it's not like Mac hasn't had it's compatibility issues

Upgrading from XP to Vista has been called a pain is the ass. It is if you're not good at it

If you buy a brand new PC with Vista there should be no problem

I've had my laptop with XP for almost 3 years. My next one will be a Mac, but it's not because I have anything against Vista, in face I always recommend it

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 10:44 AM
I'm hanging on to XP until at least 2012 (which is when, I believe, they will stop supporting it). It's stable as hell and I know it like the back of my hand...

Which is a perfectly legit reason...exactly why I am not upgrading my parent's PC with Vista...XP is still very relevant.

Polamalu Princess
11-03-2008, 10:46 AM
I hate Vista. I bought a new computer last November and I have Vista in it and will NEVER again get a computer with the program.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 10:47 AM
Most problems with Vista have always come from software compatibility

this seems to not be a a big problem anymore , but it's still easily fixed . And it's not like Mac hasn't had it's compatibility issues

Upgrading from XP to Vista has been called a pain is the ass. It is if you're not good at it

If you buy a brand new PC with Vista there should be no problem

I've had my laptop with XP for almost 3 years. My next one will be a Mac, but it's not because I have anything against Vista, in face I always recommend it

I heard rumors of software incompatibilities when I first installed it in 2006, but nothing ever surfaced. The only issues were some drivers for certain pieces of hardware not being readily available at release. This was more the fault of the various hardware manufacturers then Microsoft. But, it was very much the same when XP was released, if people remember. There will always be growing pains with any OS release early on.

I didn't see any software incompatibilites save for an archaic 16 bit dos based program which would no longer run. At some point, you have to move forward, though.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 10:48 AM
I hate Vista. I bought a new computer last November and I have Vista in it and will NEVER again get a computer with the program.

Why's that?

Not that I want to convince you other wise, I am more curious as to what troubles you are having?

Polamalu Princess
11-03-2008, 10:59 AM
The business I am in has certain legal documents that the program is not compatible with and it makes my job a lot harder. Half of the time if I need something downloaded I have to get my husband to do it for me. I also was not able to convert my MO to the new computer and had to manually enter all of my contact information, which took me days.

X-Terminator
11-03-2008, 10:59 AM
Working for the computer science department here at CMU, I encounter this mentality all the time. Most of the Linux lovers are usually programmers or sysadmins who work primarily with UNIX/Linux servers and make heavy use of the command-line interface. And the Mac users are usually people who do desktop publishing or graphic design. The biggest problem that Linux users have with Microsoft is that it is not open-source, therefore it isn't customizable the way that Linux is. That's part of the reason why Microsoft puts so many patches out, because hackers deliberately go after them to prove that Windows, in their minds, is a substandard OS. And Mac users' primary problem is with Bill Gates making mega-billions using Steve Jobs' Apple GUI interface, and dominating the market share as a result. Don't get me wrong - I think Macs are great. But the expense will always keep it on the fringe. Why spend $1500-$2000 on a Mac when you can buy a Windows PC that does everything it does for 1/3 of the cost? It doesn't make much sense.

As for Vista, I am running Home Premium on my laptop, and there are some things I like about it and some I don't. It's much easier to set up a home network (wired or wireless) than any previous Windows OS; it isn't as big a memory hog as XP was; it is much more user-friendly and makes things easy to find; I love the crash-prevention feature that allows you to shut down a program without freezing your laptop and even lets you restart it from the same GUI; Windows Update is more robust and it's more aesthetically pleasing than XP ever was. What I don't like is the User Account Control - yes it was built in as an extra layer of protection so that a user doesn't accidentally install something harmful on their computer - but it doesn't allow you to make modifications to your Program Files or Windows folders without disabling the feature. It's just a big pain in the ass, but at the same time, I keep it enabled just to have the extra security. The expense is also a killer - if you're running an older computer with XP, you pretty much have to either buy a new computer or upgrade your current one in order to run Vista. That is why I am not running it at home. Not only that, the Vista Premium upgrade (the one you really need if you're going to do everyday tasks) version is nearly double the cost of its predecessors. There are also many programs that still aren't compatible with Vista, and Vista itself has a number of compatibility issues with programs that can be run on it. So while I do agree it is the best OS Windows has ever developed, it isn't without its problems.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 11:08 AM
Working for the computer science department here at CMU, I encounter this mentality all the time. Most of the Linux lovers are usually programmers or sysadmins who work primarily with UNIX/Linux servers and make heavy use of the command-line interface. And the Mac users are usually people who do desktop publishing or graphic design. The biggest problem that Linux users have with Microsoft is that it is not open-source, therefore it isn't customizable the way that Linux is. That's part of the reason why Microsoft puts so many patches out, because hackers deliberately go after them to prove that Windows, in their minds, is a substandard OS. And Mac users' primary problem is with Bill Gates making mega-billions using Steve Jobs' Apple GUI interface, and dominating the market share as a result. Don't get me wrong - I think Macs are great. But the expense will always keep it on the fringe. Why spend $1500-$2000 on a Mac when you can buy a Windows PC that does everything it does for 1/3 of the cost? It doesn't make much sense.

As for Vista, I am running Home Premium on my laptop, and there are some things I like about it and some I don't. It's much easier to set up a home network (wired or wireless) than any previous Windows OS; it isn't as big a memory hog as XP was; it is much more user-friendly and makes things easy to find; I love the crash-prevention feature that allows you to shut down a program without freezing your laptop and even lets you restart it from the same GUI; Windows Update is more robust and it's more aesthetically pleasing than XP ever was. What I don't like is the User Account Control - yes it was built in as an extra layer of protection so that a user doesn't accidentally install something harmful on their computer - but it doesn't allow you to make modifications to your Program Files or Windows folders without disabling the feature. It's just a big pain in the ass, but at the same time, I keep it enabled just to have the extra security. The expense is also a killer - if you're running an older computer with XP, you pretty much have to either buy a new computer or upgrade your current one in order to run Vista. That is why I am not running it at home. Not only that, the Vista Premium upgrade (the one you really need if you're going to do everyday tasks) version is nearly double the cost of its predecessors. There are also many programs that still aren't compatible with Vista, and Vista itself has a number of compatibility issues with programs that can be run on it. So while I do agree it is the best OS Windows has ever developed, it isn't without its problems.

All good points...except I haven't run across the compatibilty issues you mention at the end. The whole Open Source movement bothers me, as well. What the hell is wrong with a company trying to make a buck? I say, if they don't like it, make their OS more user friendly so that more people will want to use it aside from command line geeks. And, I get a hell of a lot of patches and updates with Red Hat...so Microsoft OS's are not the only ones with updatitis.

I must say, though, that from a pure usability stance, Vista does not add much over XP other then the few things you mentioned and some aesthetic improvements (Aero, Dreamscape, etc.)

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 11:10 AM
The business I am in has certain legal documents that the program is not compatible with and it makes my job a lot harder. Half of the time if I need something downloaded I have to get my husband to do it for me. I also was not able to convert my MO to the new computer and had to manually enter all of my contact information, which took me days.

Really? Based on that, it sounds like more of a program issue then a Vista issue. I can't think of any technical reason that VIsta would not support a file type that XP would....they are built upon the same file system. Now, you may have a software program that is supposed to read those files that may not like Vista...that would be a legit issue, but I bet the company that made it has a Vista patch of some sort to make it work.....

Just some thoughts. Problems like these usually aren't the problem of the OS as much as they are an issue with the software you are trying to run on it.

X-Terminator
11-03-2008, 11:19 AM
All good points...except I haven't run across the compatibilty issues you mention at the end. The whole Open Source movement bothers me, as well. What the hell is wrong with a company trying to make a buck? I say, if they don't like it, make their OS more user friendly so that more people will want to use it aside from command line geeks. And, I get a hell of a lot of patches and updates with Red Hat...so Microsoft OS's are not the only ones with updatitis.

I must say, though, that from a pure usability stance, Vista does not add much over XP other then the few things you mentioned and some aesthetic improvements (Aero, Dreamscape, etc.)

Microsoft releases an update every month that addresses some compatibility issues with Vista, so while I haven't run across them myself either, there apparently still are some problems with it. I don't understand the whole Open Source movement myself, but I'm not going to bash it because a lot of nice programs and tools have come from it, Firefox and all of its add-ons being a big one. As for Red Hat, one of the machines on my desk runs Fedora Core 7, and I do get quite a few updates with it as well. I just wish that these OSes would install updates while you are booting up rather than having to restart all the time. I really hate having to do that.

And I definitely agree that from a usability standpoint, there isn't much difference between XP and Vista, and that upgrading isn't necessary unless you really want to or have to.

MACH1
11-03-2008, 11:57 AM
I run Vista Ultimate 64bit and haven't had an problems with it. Took a little getting use too at first, but I like it.

I read somewhere that Windows 7 will be coming out in the near future.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 12:08 PM
I run Vista Ultimate 64bit and haven't had an problems with it. Took a little getting use too at first, but I like it.

I read somewhere that Windows 7 will be coming out in the near future.

Yes, and from what I have heard, it isn't a big jump from Vista. It's based on the Windows Server 2008 kernal which is already out. And, that isn't all that different from Vista.

Polamalu Princess
11-03-2008, 12:21 PM
Also, I cannot run Spark.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 12:26 PM
Also, I cannot run Spark.

If you mean Ignite's Spark IM program, then it does indeed run on Vista. Try version 2.5.8 if you are having problems...

MasterOfPuppets
11-03-2008, 01:41 PM
i bought a new pc that came with vista home premium. the freakin thing took about 3 minutes to boot up !!! had it for two months and the damn thing crashed and wouldn't boot up anymore. i went back to xp pro. i certainly didn't see vista as an upgrade.the security features were more of a pain in the ass than anything.

X-Terminator
11-03-2008, 01:53 PM
i bought a new pc that came with vista home premium. the freakin thing took about 3 minutes to boot up !!! had it for two months and the damn thing crashed and wouldn't boot up anymore. i went back to xp pro. i certainly didn't see vista as an upgrade.the security features were more of a pain in the ass than anything.

As with any OS, there are going to be situations like yours that pop up. I had similar problems with XP Home before upgrading to Pro. The only major problem I've had with Vista was caused by Symantec Anti-Virus causing my Ethernet connection to freeze up when it came out of hibernation or sleep mode and I had to reboot my computer to get it to work again. After I uninstalled Symantec, the problem went away. Other than that, it's run pretty smoothly.

The Duke
11-03-2008, 01:58 PM
i bought a new pc that came with vista home premium. the freakin thing took about 3 minutes to boot up !!! had it for two months and the damn thing crashed and wouldn't boot up anymore. i went back to xp pro. i certainly didn't see vista as an upgrade.the security features were more of a pain in the ass than anything.

Well, if it took 3 minutes that has to be a problem with that PC more than anything

don't take it as if every Vista takes that long, because most don't

I think the average is 1-2 minutes. I know that for Windows 7 they plan for it to be around 30 secs

My XP takes more than 5 minutes to boot up at times :flap:

X-Terminator
11-03-2008, 02:05 PM
Well, if it took 3 minutes that has to be a problem with that PC more than anything

don't take it as if every Vista takes that long, because most don't

I think the average is 1-2 minutes. I know that for Windows 7 they plan for it to be around 30 secs

My XP takes more than 5 minutes to boot up at times :flap:

I was going to suggest it was his PC, but I didn't because I'm assuming he's running XP Pro on the same machine without any problems. So in that case it could have been Vista having some kind of conflict with drivers or other software that caused his problem.

BTW, my Vista install takes on the average of 2 minutes to boot up - that's from the time I turn it on until the time my startup programs are loading up.

MasterOfPuppets
11-03-2008, 02:48 PM
I was going to suggest it was his PC, but I didn't because I'm assuming he's running XP Pro on the same machine without any problems. So in that case it could have been Vista having some kind of conflict with drivers or other software that caused his problem.

BTW, my Vista install takes on the average of 2 minutes to boot up - that's from the time I turn it on until the time my startup programs are loading up.and you would be correct....the xp pro boots up in half the time vista did , and i've got more start up programs now then i did when the vista was on it.

Polamalu Princess
11-03-2008, 02:53 PM
If you mean Ignite's Spark IM program, then it does indeed run on Vista. Try version 2.5.8 if you are having problems...

I will give that a try - thanks!

MasterOfPuppets
11-03-2008, 03:01 PM
here's a good article on the subject of vista vs pro.....

Death match: Windows Vista versus XP
Does Vista have what it takes to knock XP off the enterprise desktop? Not by our scorecard. Point by point and blow by blow, we offer 10 reasons enterprises can skip Windows Vista and stick with XP

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/17/12TC-vista-versus-xp_1.html

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 03:14 PM
i bought a new pc that came with vista home premium. the freakin thing took about 3 minutes to boot up !!! had it for two months and the damn thing crashed and wouldn't boot up anymore. i went back to xp pro. i certainly didn't see vista as an upgrade.the security features were more of a pain in the ass than anything.


Couple issues here:

1) Store bought PC's (Dells, HP's Sony's, eMachines, etc.) always come preloaded with a bunch of junk software when you get them. It's part of the marketing deal these companies make to keep costs down...they are basically preinstalled commercials. My parent's bought a Sony Viao that I had to spend a day deleting and uninstalling all the programs and crap that Sony dumped on it...they bogged their system to a crawl and everything was set to auto load on startup. This caused their system to boot forever. A quick tuneup later and they were flying along, though.

2) You can easily disable the UAC security system (the thing that always pops up and asks you if you are sure everytime you want to do something). It is a simple uncheck of a box and reboot and your system behaves like XP.

3) You may have bought a "Vista Ready" pc which could be misleading marketing term from a PC manufacturer...they may sell a PC with a smaller amount then the recommened amount of RAM for Vista and call it "Vista Ready" on the front....but the small print says you need to upgrade the RAM.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 03:15 PM
here's a good article on the subject of vista vs pro.....



http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/17/12TC-vista-versus-xp_1.html

That study was geared towards enterprise use. I personally wouldn't upgrade in that environment...but home users have different benchmarks.

X-Terminator
11-03-2008, 03:28 PM
Couple issues here:

1) Store bought PC's (Dells, HP's Sony's, eMachines, etc.) always come preloaded with a bunch of junk software when you get them. It's part of the marketing deal these companies make to keep costs down...they are basically preinstalled commercials. My parent's bought a Sony Viao that I had to spend a day deleting and uninstalling all the programs and crap that Sony dumped on it...they bogged their system to a crawl and everything was set to auto load on startup. This caused their system to boot forever. A quick tuneup later and they were flying along, though.

This was the problem with my Toshiba laptop - got it pre-loaded with a bunch of crap that I'll never use, and promptly dumped about 80% of it and upgraded to 2.5 GB of RAM (it came with 1 GB). That's why I prefer building my own desktops - I can put exactly what I want in it, and for way less than the big PC companies. Sure the software adds cost, but other than the OS, you can find pretty much any app on the Internet that does everything you want/need for free if you take the time to look.

fansince'76
11-03-2008, 03:33 PM
I also work in IT as a systems admin, and I have to admit, I haven't seen any reason to upgrade to Vista, personally. For me, it simply doesn't represent enough of a jump in functionality or performance over XP to warrant making the switch. If I wanted to, my old desktop (which has basically been relegated to being a file and print server for my laptop) would have to be replaced before making the jump, and I am satisfied enough with XP on my laptop not to make the switch there either. I don't need all the bells and whistles with the newer OS anyway.

xfl2001fan
11-03-2008, 03:59 PM
If the Military switches to Vista, I'd consider switching to it myself. At this time, they're still running XP (Office 2003) and (as stated in the post above me) the gain isn't worth the price of the upgrade.

Hammer67
11-03-2008, 05:15 PM
I also work in IT as a systems admin, and I have to admit, I haven't seen any reason to upgrade to Vista, personally. For me, it simply doesn't represent enough of a jump in functionality or performance over XP to warrant making the switch. If I wanted to, my old desktop (which has basically been relegated to being a file and print server for my laptop) would have to be replaced before making the jump, and I am satisfied enough with XP on my laptop not to make the switch there either. I don't need all the bells and whistles with the newer OS anyway.

Absolutely valid reason not to upgrade. Let me just restate that I am not making a case for people to upgrade, just pointing out that there is a lot of BS flying around, whether it's cute Mac commercials or Linux Nazis (as I call them), about Vista being this horrible disaster. It's not.

It just simply isn't a huge upgrade over XP.