Why do people hate Vista?

[legoman666]

Of course I didn't read all 400+ replies. and by "Inaccurate information" am I to assume you're telling me that vista on 512mb will perfrom as well as xp with the same amount of RAM? Or did you mean that vista was necessary? Or maybe you're going to explain to me exactly why Vista needs more memory to do the same things as xp?

I tried installing stepmania on my sisters new laptop (C2D, 1gb ram, toshiba, blah blah) even at 640x480, the game stutters after playing a song for more than 20 seconds in windowed mode. I go back to my room, install stepmania on my p2 350, voodoo 3 2000 running xp and am able to play at 1024x768 no problem.

Of course you're going to tell me its a problem with the game, and not the OS/system. But why on earth should a game that can run great on a p350 fail to run decently on a brand new laptop running vista?

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: legoman666
I didnt read any of the replies but the reason I dislike Vista is because it is unnecessary. Xp works fine. That and Vista is a resource hog, there is no reason each successive operating system release should be slower and use more memory.

Vista is necessary because XP is 6 years old. Try running it in cutting edge hardware; XP just 'feels' old, and it can't necessarily make the best use of new hardware.

On a new computer, Vista is anything but bloated; it's faster than XP on the same hardware (I have XP and Vista on the rig in sig; Vista takes less to boot; takes less to load programs and games run just as fast) and one feels it really makes the best use of it with its smarter memory manager and accelerated desktop.

Not to mention Vista's better security, specially the 64-bit version.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: legoman666
Or maybe you're going to explain to me exactly why Vista needs more memory to do the same things as xp?

Because it's a newer, operating system with lots of new features? Vista uses more RAM just like XP uses more RAM than Win 2000, and just like Mac OS X uses more RAM than OS9. And arguably, Win2000 can 'do the same things' XP can; why don't you use that instead? Heck, I used to run Win95 with 8MB of RAM back in the day; maybe we should all go back to that since it 'does the same thing' as XP.

A full featured, modern Linux distro also uses much more RAM than a distro released in 2001; it must hence suck.

I tried installing stepmania on my sisters new laptop (C2D, 1gb ram, toshiba, blah blah) even at 640x480, the game stutters after playing a song for more than 20 seconds in windowed mode. I go back to my room, install stepmania on my p2 350, voodoo 3 2000 running xp and am able to play at 1024x768 no problem.

So, you used Vista for 5 minutes, saw that one game that ran like crap and promtly decided 'Vista sucks', without further thinking about many of the other variables? What if that game also ran like crap on XP on that same laptop? What if the laptop is not configured properly? Did you even try compatibility modes?

Of course you're going to tell me its a problem with the game, and not the OS/system. But why on earth should a game that can run great on a p350 fail to run decently on a brand new laptop running vista?

For a myriad of reasons, like I explained above...I regularly game on Vista with some of the most demanding games out there like Company of Heroes and Oblivion and frame rates are almost identical to XP.

 

[dmcowen674]

8-13-2007 Microsoft has had to create a new build of Windows XP Professional for computer makers because the six-year-old operating system's continued popularity has nearly exhausted the supply of product activation keys.

"Due to the longevity of Windows XP Professional, it has become necessary to produce more product keys for system builders in order to support the continued availability of Windows XP Professional through the scheduled system builder channel end-of-life (EOL) date, wrote the Microsoft system builder team on its blog Thursday.

Previously, Microsoft has set Windows XP's EOL for retailers and OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) as Jan. 31, 2008, and for small-scale systems builders a year after that.

The move shouldn't come as a surprise; even Microsoft has predicted continuing strong sales of Windows XP. Last month, the company's chief financial officer said that he tweaked the fiscal year 2008 forecast to account for XP's longevity. Rather than count on an 85/15 split in sales between Vista and XP, said Chris Liddell, Microsoft now expects a 78/22 split, an increase of nearly 50% in anticipated XP sales.

Other signs of the not-dead-yet OS's vigour have included retreats by OEMs like Dell from earlier Vista-only policies. In April, for example, Dell again began offering Windows XP as an option to consumers. It had already done the same thing for small business customers.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Noema

Originally posted by: legoman666
I didnt read any of the replies but the reason I dislike Vista is because it is unnecessary. Xp works fine. That and Vista is a resource hog, there is no reason each successive operating system release should be slower and use more memory.

Vista is necessary because XP is 6 years old. Try running it in cutting edge hardware; XP just 'feels' old, and it can't necessarily make the best use of new hardware.

On a new computer, Vista is anything but bloated; it's faster than XP on the same hardware (I have XP and Vista on the rig in sig; Vista takes less to boot; takes less to load programs and games run just as fast) and one feels it really makes the best use of it with its smarter memory manager and accelerated desktop.

Not to mention Vista's better security, specially the 64-bit version.

Hehe, nice objective views......Vista is necessary simply because XP is old? Why? some of the older stuff works better than cheaply made newer stuff, since when is being old the reason for replacement if the older version does everything I need?

And what about new hardwares? Have you seen people selling laptop/PC with 512 memory on it? I have. Will Vista run well on those "new" hardware?

What's vista's better security? You mean all the pop up asking if you allow this or that actions? Or the second rate build in anti-virus and firewall? There is no substitute for actively getting best anti-virus, anit-spyware software and actively update the definition. And there is no substitute for not clicking unknown emails, not going to sites with bunch of activex stuff. all those thing can be accomplish easily with XP, and if you have Vista and think Vista is all you need for security, that would make your PC even less secure.

 

[stash]

Or the second rate build in anti-virus and firewall?

There is no built in AV (thanks DOJ!) and the firewall is the best host based firewall for Windows out there.

all those thing can be accomplish easily with XP, and if you have Vista and think Vista is all you need for security, that would make your PC even less secure.

XP doesn't have anything like Vista's Protected Mode for IE7, service hardening or Integrity Control. XP also doesn't have ASLR or the benefit of having all of its code go through the Security Development Lifecycle. XP has no concept of a split token for users in the administrators group. XP has no ability to virtualize portions of the registry and file system that crappy apps should not be writing to. XP has no easy way to run as a standard user with reduced privileges for the majority of tasks and elevate to an administrative token as needed (and no, runas does not compare).

These are real, tangible security benefits that XP has over Vista, not security theater.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Hehe, nice objective views......Vista is necessary simply because XP is old? Why? some of the older stuff works better than cheaply made newer stuff, since when is being old the reason for replacement if the older version does everything I need?

And you are being objective? Vista is necessary because XP is ancient in it's design and does not fully utilize features of modern hardware/software. XP was never designed to support multiple cores, proper multiuser support, or even with security in mind.

If you are using older hardware, then yes I can see a good reason to stick with XP. In fact I discourage anyone with a single core processor or equipment older than 2 years old to upgrade simply because XP will work better for those people. If the hardware and software you are using fits your needs then by all means do not upgrade and waste your money.

Originally posted by: rchiu
And what about new hardwares? Have you seen people selling laptop/PC with 512 memory on it? I have. Will Vista run well on those "new" hardware?

If the hardware was made for Vista Home Basic and all you do is check email and surf the net, then yes Vista will work fine on that hardware. I know several people running Vista on machines with these specs and are perfectly happy with it.

You also get what you pay for. If you are going to buy only on the cheap then you will get one of these machines. Manufacturers sell these machines simply because there is a demand for them. If consumers demand a minimum of one gig of memory, then that is what they will sell.

Originally posted by: rchiu
What's vista's better security? You mean all the pop up asking if you allow this or that actions? Or the second rate build in anti-virus and firewall?

This part of your post shows you apparent lack of knowledge concerning Vista's new security features.

UAC may be annoying, but it does keep the user informed of what is going on with his/her PC. It also blocks programs and potentially dangerous malware from installing without the users permission. If you are computer savy, turning off UAC is an easy thing to do though I recommend against it.

Vista does not include an anti-virus solution. Vista's firewall is more than capable of doing a excellent job compared to XP's. The built in firewall is a two way firewall unlike XP's. You just have to turn on the two way feature. If you have a hardware firewall there is no point in paying for software you don't need since the combination of Vista's firewall with the router firewall will work just as well as any commercial firewall solution on the market.

Vista also includes Anti-Spyware by default. Windows Defender actually gets very good ratings in detection and removal of malware. It also provides real time monitoring unlike some of the free solutions on the market. Why should people pay hundreds of dollars a year for security solutions when they should have been built into the operating system to begin with?

Vista also has kernel enhancements that improves security. IE7 for Vista also has features and enhancements for security not available in XP's version. There is also improved parental controls for better monitoring and security. Finally, Vista has improved user accounts that are actually usable when not run in administrator mode. Being more usable at normal user mode means there will be less people running with full privileges.

Originally posted by: rchiu
There is no substitute for actively getting best anti-virus, anit-spyware software and actively update the definition. And there is no substitute for not clicking unknown emails, not going to sites with bunch of activex stuff. all those thing can be accomplish easily with XP, and if you have Vista and think Vista is all you need for security, that would make your PC even less secure.

No one is going to disagree with this point. But we are more tech oriented users on a tech site. Most people do not understand that security begins with them. The problem with geeks are that many believe all people are like them and know this stuff already. Most people are not like you. They want their computer to be secure out of the box. They don't want to have to be actively involved in security. I would rather these people be on Vista than a unsecured XP box any day.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: soonerproudNo one is going to disagree with this point. But we are more tech oriented users on a tech site. Most people do not understand that security begins with them. The problem with geeks are that many believe all people are like them and know this stuff already. Most people are not like you. They want their computer to be secure out of the box. They don't want to have to be actively involved in security. I would rather these people be on Vista than a unsecured XP box any day.

Well, you just explained the reason that the majority of the people who frequent the Anand forums dislike Vista. You're typical person is not going to dislike Vista. Take my sister for example (starting junior year in high school), she bought a new laptop from Newegg for school and personal use that came preinstalled with Vista. I was intent on formatting the thing to XP the moment it came out of the box. However, she stopped me and just uses Vista. She never complains or anything and it serves her purposes.

Speaking of the firewalls built into xp and vista, one of the first things I do when I install xp on a machine is disable the damn thing. I'm behind a hardware firewall and am running good antivirus. And as Richu said, none of these "great" security features are better than just having 2 ounces of common sense.

Anyway, every person has their specific needs and wants. I'm quite content with XP and whenever I have to deal with vista at home, school or work, I just find the experience annoying. XP serves my purposes and I will continue to use it exclusivly until new hardware/software no longer supports it or I find some other compelling reason to switch. (And as hard as microsoft tried with the PC version of halo 2 by making it vista only, better luck next time. I got the game installed on xp and uninstalled it in 5 minutes anyway, looks no better than the xbox version. why bother seeing as how I have it for xbox?)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: nerp
AHA! We talked about wakeboarding. Click on the orb. "Wakeboarding." Enter. There's the file. There?s his number and name. Got it. Plus the entire conversation we had....

I don't really see how Vista search improves upon your experience, as compared to say, W2K's search feature. (A lean and mean full-text binary search through any filetype. No archive processing either.) I don't know how well it searches unicode-encoded docs or not, although everything else in W2K is Unicode-capable, so perhaps search is too.

Originally posted by: nerp
Instead of rifling around 10,000 documents for a couple hours and wading through tons of text, I have my info instantly.

Well, any good search should do that, really.

I guess I'm just not a fan of pre-indexing, because I don't do enough searching that such a thing is worthwhile, and when I do perform a search, doing a raw search through all of the files in the filesystem is just fine for me, my system is fast enough that it isn't a problem.

The biggest search problem that I've had (and I've not really used Vista's seach feature much yet), is with XP's search. It only searches certain filetypes (requires registry hacking to enable all filetypes, which is the W2K default), and it searches archives by default, which slow down filesystem searches massively. I much prefer W2K's more raw approach to search.

Ideally, I guess, one would have an efficient indexer (seems hard to do?), and a converter for every filetype in existance, into a text format, to make it searchable. Even something like JPEG attribute metadata, so that you could search for pictures by date or resolution. It is unlikely that one would want to do a raw text search through the actual JPEG picture data.

 

[BD2003]

I don't really see how Vista search improves upon your experience, as compared to say, W2K's search feature.

Milliseconds vs. minutes isnt an improvement?

Ideally, I guess, one would have an efficient indexer (seems hard to do?)

What's inefficient about Vista's indexer?

 

[nerp]

Larry, the w2k search and XP search almost never finds anything when searching contextually. I can't tell you how many times I've searched for the contents of a file and come up nothing even though I knew for a fact the file was there. Hell, I've even searched for a filename that I knew existed and it coughed up nothing time and time again. Also, searching with XP or 2k requires a rifling through the entire HD. With Vista, the search is virtually instantaneous. The terrible contextual searching of 2K and XP was so bad that I resorted to using Google Desktop while I was using XP.

And you're right, the XP and 2K searches are limited to the number of filetypes they support, etc. Vista's supports a lot more as well as tags for images, moves, etc.

 

[swtethan]

I have been on vista ultimate 64 and I've had ZERO problems Pretty happy with this OS. BTW... I game a lot! Lost Planet dx10 runs so damn smooth IT IS SMP capable! woo hoo!

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: legoman666

Anyway, every person has their specific needs and wants. I'm quite content with XP and whenever I have to deal with vista at home, school or work, I just find the experience annoying. XP serves my purposes and I will continue to use it exclusivly until new hardware/software no longer supports it or I find some other compelling reason to switch. (And as hard as microsoft tried with the PC version of halo 2 by making it vista only, better luck next time. I got the game installed on xp and uninstalled it in 5 minutes anyway, looks no better than the xbox version. why bother seeing as how I have it for xbox?)

So you went out and paid 30-some bucks for the pc version of Halo 2 to put on your 350mhz P2 system only to decide after 5 minutes that it wasn't worth it?

By the way I do agree. It's not so much that Vista "sucks." It's more that XP is just fine. I can do everything on XP or Ubuntu that I need and I don't see myself using any of the features of Vista, then why would I waste money buying something I don't need or particularly want.

If I bought a new laptop with a preinstalled OS, then yeah sure I'll probably get Vista. Although first some of my work software will need to be updated to work with Vista, and I have some hardware that will not work with Vista. Is this Vista's fault? Probably not. People can argue how great it is and how all the problems are someone else's fault, but that still doesn't change my situation. I need my software to work, period. I don't care who's fault it is. If my software and hardware get an update to work with Vista, then fine that won't be an issue, but until then I will be shelving that Vista license and installing XP.

 

[integramodder]

Originally posted by: JiveCoolie
The only reason to hate Vista in my eyes is the lack of decent drivers.. and that is already almost no longer an issue.

But still.. everywhere I go I see people knocking Vista. Why? I have YET to read a decent criticism with facts at hand.. Mostly what I see is people stating they don't like it.. they don't know why they don't like it but they are sure they hate it.

Get decent hardware and Vista really shines.

People really need to get facts for themselves and stop taking word of mouth as such.

Also note that I don't mean people on the AnandTech boards.. people here have common sense. (thats why I use these boards)

But mainly when visiting gaming forums and such, when I see people state they will not purchase a game because they will never buy Vista and that specific game is Vista-Only.. that is what really grinds my gears! -peter griffin

Personally, I hate vista at the moment because I do a lot of file management on XP and use FolderSize (http://foldersize.sourceforge.net/) everyday [seamless integration into the OS]. However, Microcrap removed what makes FolderSize work for Vista (read http://foldersize.sourceforge.net/vistasucks.html).

My 12 year old cousin has a Sony Vaio running Vista with about 20 games installed on it. He hasn't found one that doesn't work yet.

 

[dmcowen674]

It's slowly getting better.

At first it would not recognize both my wife and I's Canon Powershot Camera's.

Now it is recognizing my newer A630, the older A40 is still SOL however.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: integramodder

Personally, I hate vista at the moment because I do a lot of file management on XP and use FolderSize (http://foldersize.sourceforge.net/) everyday [seamless integration into the OS]. However, Microcrap removed what makes FolderSize work for Vista (read http://foldersize.sourceforge.net/vistasucks.html).

My 12 year old cousin has a Sony Vaio running Vista with about 20 games installed on it. He hasn't found one that doesn't work yet.[/quote]

Wow, the Dev for Foldersize is pretty whiney. Give sequoiaview a try instead:
http://w3.win.tue.nl/nl/onderz...lization/sequoiaview//

It's not quite the same but if your goal is to figure out where drive space is going it's the best tool I've found.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: integramodder

Originally posted by: JiveCoolie
The only reason to hate Vista in my eyes is the lack of decent drivers.. and that is already almost no longer an issue.

But still.. everywhere I go I see people knocking Vista. Why? I have YET to read a decent criticism with facts at hand.. Mostly what I see is people stating they don't like it.. they don't know why they don't like it but they are sure they hate it.

Get decent hardware and Vista really shines.

People really need to get facts for themselves and stop taking word of mouth as such.

Also note that I don't mean people on the AnandTech boards.. people here have common sense. (thats why I use these boards)

But mainly when visiting gaming forums and such, when I see people state they will not purchase a game because they will never buy Vista and that specific game is Vista-Only.. that is what really grinds my gears! -peter griffin

Personally, I hate vista at the moment because I do a lot of file management on XP and use FolderSize (http://foldersize.sourceforge.net/) everyday [seamless integration into the OS]. However, Microcrap removed what makes FolderSize work for Vista (read http://foldersize.sourceforge.net/vistasucks.html).

My 12 year old cousin has a Sony Vaio running Vista with about 20 games installed on it. He hasn't found one that doesn't work yet.

Vista x64 just gets better for me,my bluetooth LG phone arrived and when I tried to download my MP3s to it from my backup XP PC via USB connection I got I/O error,anyway lucky I had the MP3s on my Vista x64 PC so tried it out on that ,it worked great first time,XP could not even move one simple MP3 track lol....annoying to say the least,I also received my bluetooth USB device today and installed the Vista x64 drivers and that also worked great first try.

As to games well not found one I can't play yet(not including 16 bit games for obvious reasons)),been playing SWG again lastnight since they are offering 21 days free trial to ex-SWG subscribers,I have Bioshock and Two Worlds on the way but don't expect any problems with those either,my last count was 40 plus games I have played in Vista x64.

I guess Vista you either love or hate,but to me it's a good OS that gets the job done.

It's slowly getting better.

At first it would not recognize both my wife and I's Canon Powershot Camera's.

Now it is recognizing my newer A630, the older A40 is still SOL however.

My Olympus C-770 has native support in Vista x64 so I don't have any camera problems or even need drivers,so I'm lucky in that area too.

 

[stash]

Easy solution to any digital camera issues is to get a USB card reader. Much easier than plugging a camera in anyway.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: stash
Easy solution to any digital camera issues is to get a USB card reader. Much easier than plugging a camera in anyway.

Yep I got one of those too and that also works great in my Vista .

 

[piasabird]

Vista takes better hardware to run.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Vista takes better hardware to run.

Of course it does. MSs minimum specs are bs, and I think it's really hurt them in regards to customer trust and satisfaction. If you have the hardware to run it though, there isn't a better Windows out there. Vista uses more resources, but it also does much more with them. It's like buying the latest greatest game. If you want the best experience you'll need to put up some cash. I think the payoff is worth it

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Vista takes better hardware to run.

Just like new games do!

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Vista takes better hardware to run.

So did XP when it first came out.

And so did Win95 when it first came out. Windows 95 ran like crap on the average PC circa 1995.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Noema

Originally posted by: piasabird
Vista takes better hardware to run.

So did XP when it first came out.

And so did Win95 when it first came out. Windows 95 ran like crap on the average PC circa 1995.

Yep. I think 98 was the fastest OS for the hardware at the time of release in comparison to other Windows releases. Win98 + 64MB ram + 200Mhz cpu + the software at the time (Office 97, IE4, Doom 2, etc) was a pretty snappy experience. Of course, 9x wasn't exactly the most stable platform, but I have many great memories of those days in my computing history

XP's aggressive (for the time) hardware requirements for a decent experience made it a challenge to run respectably on the generic PCs released at the time (High-end P3/Low-End P4/Athlon/Duron/Celeron, 128-256MB Ram, 15-30G Hard Drives), but that actually worked out very well for the long haul. XP remains a great and capable choice even after all of these years, even on the most budget system imaginable from new parts (Say 512mb ram, Nforce 430/6100, Sempron 3100, 80GB IDE Drive) it rips along nicely for most tasks.

I imagine that this is how Vista will progress. When 4GB/6GB/8GB and higher memory, and 8, 16, 32-core processors become mainstream, Vista should take excellent advantage of those resources. For the time being, I have had middling/disappointing experiences with my weak 3.2Ghz C2D w/4GB and a 7900GT. Things that are nearly instant on my XP install take many seconds with Vista. Of course, my 32-bit XP only sees 3.25GB of ram, but meh.

 

[Noema]

In about a year and a half, pretty much every new computer will have at least 2GB, with 4GB and more being standard for enthusiasts and power users.

By then no one even remember how much people complained about how Vista 'ran like crap', just like almost no one remembers how everyone complained about how XP 'ran like crap' 6 years ago.