The Vista Death Watch

[LeftEyeBlind]

BAH. Vista.

I installed it when it came out, It felt VERY bloated, and I hate that in an OS, if its going to be bloated atleast let me bloat it with my own junk, a fresh OS should be bare and fast, it should be fresh.. Vista felt like a 15 year old OS with some tacky crap pinned on the surface.

It had some things I liked, Readyboost for example was brilliant. And I know its been said a million times before and argued back and forth, but there is clearly some very specific ideas that were borrowed from OSX, I just which Microsoft would have stolen Apples way of thinking things out, making things make sense.

I'll stick with XP, its clean/mean and fast, I didn't even bother with ME and I doubt I will bother with Vista.

Hopefully they'll get it right next time.

 

[Apokalipse]

C&C i have got working on Vista. Along with DirectSound, ATi Tool, Mplayer, VLCPLayer, FileZilla works.
I am not sure of Dawn of War. I thought there was a patch for that to work.

the 64-bit version won't run ATI Tool, because it won't run unsigned drivers.

And no, Directsound won't work. You will only get programs to convert DirectSound calls to OpenAL.

And how about ProfitSource and OptionGear?

You only see it as XP can do more thing better than Vista. This is YOUR opinion not a proven fact.

XP can run more programs than Vista can. That is a proven fact. Otherwise, you wouldn't get people having to patch some of their programs to work.

then, there are how many DirectX 10 exclusive games? the number is in the single digits.

Becuase PCWorld, Computer Shopper and many other magazine has shown in tests that Vista is our performing XP in their tests. It may only be by a percent or 2 but Vista has outperformed XP in tests.

at best, Vista might run a couple of applications very slightly faster (as you said, by a percent or 2). But overall, XP is faster, and snappier.

I hate file copying/transferring in Vista. It takes ages for it to "prepare to copy" before it actually starts copying. Whereas, XP doesn't waste time with that. It just starts copying right away.
And when Vista does start copying files, it will often only reach a few megabytes/sec. Or if I'm transferring to a USB drive, it will often only reach a few hundred kilobytes per second (and yes, I am using USB 2.0 ports)

Again XP is NOT more compatible.

Uh, yes it is. It runs more programs than Vista does.

Maybe with the outdated software you use.

Just because a piece of software might be old, doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.

I happen to like going back to old games, such as the original Red Alert from time to time.

and DOS is still used by many manufacturing plants. As I said before, you don't need pretty Windows to run a few simple scripts.

But with everything that is being released now there are few to none that are not working on Vista. This again is your thoughts. With EVERY peice of software that i use it works on Vista with no issue what so ever.

doesn't mean all software for Windows works on Vista.

So why is it that you say XP works with more apps when i can run everying on XP or Vista with no problem??

because the apps you run don't happen to include ones that don't work on Vista. Which, by the way, do exist.

As i stated it is your opinion and the software that you are running not ALL software.

It is not an opinion that there are more programs that will work on XP. Whether or not you use certain programs is besides the point.

Just because you have software that doesnt work wtih Vista doesnt mean that ALL software is incomatible with Vista.

yeah, and?

The fact is, there is software that's incompatible with Vista, that XP will run fine. That's my point. Why should I move to an OS that doesn't run all my programs, and is slower, when I already have an OS that's faster and does run all my programs?

Vista doesnt HAVE to use more resources.

You're right, it doesn't have to. And yet, it does use more resources.

Becuase if you turn off the Aero then it doesnt use that much more than XP.

But it's still more.

Granted it is more but by less than 10%.

But it's still more. So, why should I move to Vista?

Considering again the fact that i have a Laptop with only 1GB of RAM and no dedicated GFX card and it run Home Premium jsut fine. How can i run it so easily yet EVERYONE on this site doesnt seem to be able to ??

Oh, I can run it. That's not the question. The question is why should I run it, when I already have an OS that's faster and runs all my programs?

I have Norton for many years. But why run a inferior product?

Are you saying XP is inferior or Norton is inferior?

If you're saying XP is inferior, then I'll disagree.

I was talking about OS speed.

So was I. I just gave an analogy.

Talking about Norton and what it does to your system does nothing to compare OS speeds.

They're both pieces of software (Norton and Vista) that use more resources than they should, when there are alternatives that use less resources.

When there are products out there that are better like Avast! and NOD32 why would a person run Norton?

Exactly.

You are talking about a 3rd party application having a negative affect on your system when i am just comparing a OS from install.

Which runs slower, and there are compatibility problems with existing programs.

And that's not counting the bugs I've run into.

It is not shaky at best.

Why?

This is your opinion.

I happen to be basing my opinion on evidence.

Because it is shown that Vista is raising in sales while XP is falling even with XP being available till June of 08. So why it is a superior OS in your opinion is falling in sales even though it is still available and supported till 2012?

I already covered this.

1. More PC's are being sold today
2. Vista comes preinstalled on just about every PC you'll find
3. Microsoft refuses to make DirectX 10 for XP

If its so shaky sales would not be raising.

Uh, they could be actually.
Take a look at the Pentium 4 vs the AMD K8 CPU's.
Pentium 4's were selling like crazy. That doesn't mean it was better than AMD's K8's. In fact, K8 was significantly better.

I have not had any issue with Vista doing anything that XP couldnt. In fact with my Video conversion Vista was faster as well as working with Photoshop CS3 and Fireworks CS3 Vista was faster than XP. Your opinions are so biased toward XP.

No, my opinions are based on what I've experienced first hand. Before I used Vista, I didn't have an opinion. It was just a new Os that I hadn't used before.
I formed my opinion after having used Vista.

You have not even given Vista a chance.

I have too.

I can see this just by what you are saying.

No, you can see the aftermath of my experience with Vista, as compared with XP first hand.
Before I started using Vista, I was not against it. I only formed my opinion of Vista after I started using it.

The truth about the versions of Vista? There isnt one. M$ jsut wanted to confuse everyone and try and get more $$. That is the only answer that is available.

Yeah, exactly.

So in the end it is people who are the ones who make Vista seem so bad.

If you mean, because it's people that program the OS.

Because for every person here who has a gripe about how bad it is or doesnt work i can direct you to people who use it and have absolutely no issue with it.

Because some programs do work with it. And not every person uses every program available for Windows. Some people are bound to use a combination of programs that happens to work perfectly with it.

But, the list of programs that work perfectly with Vista is still shorter than the list of programs that work perfectly with XP.
Not to mention, XP is faster.

As i have stated several times it seems that only people on this site express a deep dislike for Vista.

I dislike Vista, because of my own experience with it. I didn't make my decision copying other people, or listening to other people gripe about it.
No, I actually installed Vista myself, and I used it.

Many other sites i visit have a rather high regard for it. Why is that? To me that is the most interesting thing i have come across.

See above.

I have stated it before and will say it yet again. Vista is not perfect. But neither is XP.

I know XP isn't perfect. Neither is Linux or OS X. That doesn't mean they're on equal footing.

XP would not be where it is today if it did not have the support of the software developers.

Yeah, and?

So when those developers start working on stuff for Vista instead of XP everyone opinion will change cause everyone will be able to do the stuff on Vista that they WANT to do.

Not necessarily. It'll still probably be slower, more bloated etc.

Not what they have to do.

We don't have to move to Vista.

This vicious cycle never ends. So now i have expressed my opinion jsut like the rest have. But i have swayed from many things. At first i was a big defender of Vista and what it does. I was a person who was taking in by Vista and i did swear by it for so long. But if everyone is so scared to even give it a chance

Hold on there. I did give Vista a chance.

then it isnt the OS that fails it is the user.

No, it actually is the OS.

Becuase for all you who say that Vista uses so much resources you are full of it.

No, actually, I speak from experience. I have actually used Vista.

You have not applied all the patches out there that are available (Bascially the stuff in SP1) because it brings down the resouce usage drasticaly.

Now that's being presumptuous. Yes, I did have Vista updated.

 

[Akubane]

wow. that was the best shut down i've ever seen. in fact I can't even make any attempts to help the guy XD well XD Ill keep using vista because I like it.. but I don't think i'll ever argue it again >.>

 

[Pdawg]

 

[forrestcupp]

which version(s)?

yes, some Linux distributions will use more resources. Some distributions are specifically coded to perform better, however.

That's exactly what I said. The distributions that are coded to perform better are the ones that use desktop environments like XFCE. You end up with something that's no better than Windows 95 because they have to leave out all of the features (bloat) that uses resources. If you want a distro that has features that make it competitive, it will use a lot of resources. That's the evolution of technology. If you want more features, you have to have more resources to run those features. The evolution is always toward bigger, better, stronger, and prettier.

All of this Vista crap is just self fulfilled prophecy anyway. Some people only think that Vista is crap because that's what they hear people say. Then they go into it with negative preconceived ideas and they start saying Vista is crap and it adds to the snowball effect. If the press would have started off saying how great Vista is, that's what everyone would have believed and they would have gone into it expecting to be pleased and people would like Vista.

The people that complain that Vista isn't different are the same ones that complain that Vista is too different to run XP software. Which one is it, folks? If you want a major OS update, you have to expect to have to break away from the past and make some changes.

Basically, I don't see the point in this thread. Is the point to try to talk people out of using Vista? Is the point to convince MS to do something? I doubt if they get their roadmap from what is said here. What are people really trying to achieve in this forum? The bad thing is that all of this negativity is being spearheaded by moderators. I say, if you like XP, you have the choice to keep running it. If you like Vista, use it. If you are using XP and you want some Vista-only features, either upgrade or stop complaining.

 

[Apokalipse]

That's exactly what I said. The distributions that are coded to perform better are the ones that use desktop environments like XFCE. You end up with something that's no better than Windows 95 because they have to leave out all of the features (bloat) that uses resources.

There are ways of making an operating system faster without reducing functionality.

You could, for example, improve the way instructions are prioritised, improve the way RAM is addressed and assigned to specific programs, or write your code more efficiently.

If you want a distro that has features that make it competitive, it will use a lot of resources.

Not necessarily. See above.

That's the evolution of technology.

No, it's just Microsoft's way of trying to make money. Cram your OS full of pretty GUI features, and placebo's, and then try to force people into buying it.

If you want more features, you have to have more resources to run those features.

Then why does XP do the same jobs that Vista does, but faster?

All of this Vista crap is just self fulfilled prophecy anyway. Some people only think that Vista is crap because that's what they hear people say. Then they go into it with negative preconceived ideas and they start saying Vista is crap and it adds to the snowball effect. If the press would have started off saying how great Vista is, that's what everyone would have believed and they would have gone into it expecting to be pleased and people would like Vista.

FYI, I made my decision about what I think of Vista independently. I installed Vista, I used it, and then I formed my own opinion about it.

I'm not complaining because I want Vista to be slow, buggy or lack compatibility. I'm complaining because, as it turns out, Vista is slower, buggy, and has less compatibility than XP. I would have liked Vista to be faster, more stable, not buggy, and more compatible than XP. But it isn't.

The people that complain that Vista isn't different are the same ones that complain that Vista is too different to run XP software.

And the problem with this is what?

I sure don't like not being able to use some programs, just because Microsoft decided to change their OS.

Which one is it, folks? If you want a major OS update, you have to expect to have to break away from the past and make some changes.

Even if what you have right now works perfectly fine?
even if the "upgrade" only does the same things, but slower?

Basically, I don't see the point in this thread.

I don't see the point of "upgrading" to Vista, when I have an OS that's faster and runs all my programs fine.

Is the point to convince MS to do something?

I wish they could be convinced.

What are people really trying to achieve in this forum?

If enough people are showing dislike in what Microsoft is doing, maybe they'll actually get the hint?

The bad thing is that all of this negativity is being spearheaded by moderators.

What's being a moderator got to do with it?

I'm here to express my dislike of Vista, and state my reasons why.

I say, if you like XP, you have the choice to keep running it.

Unless Microsoft intentionally cuts off compatibility for XP, despite the fact that XP is more than capable of running, for example, DirectX 10.

If you like Vista, use it. If you are using XP and you want some Vista-only features, either upgrade or stop complaining.

I'll stop complaining if Microsoft makes Vista work like it should. Or if they just make DirectX 10 for XP, so that I won't be forced onto their new OS just to play a new game.

 

[forrestcupp]

There are ways of making an operating system faster without reducing functionality.

You could, for example, improve the way instructions are prioritised, improve the way RAM is addressed and assigned to specific programs, or write your code more efficiently.

Well, I've used the distros that are supposed to be made like what you are saying, such as Gentoo-based distros, and there wasn't any noticeable performance increase from Ubuntu; also it used just as many resources. The only way to have a huge cut in needed resources is to leave things out.

If enough people are showing dislike in what Microsoft is doing, maybe they'll actually get the hint?

Well, I'm pretty pleased and satisfied with Vista. I'll be even more pleased when SP1 comes out and gives me a new kernel and speed boosts.

What's being a moderator got to do with it?

Well, I thought moderators are the ones who are supposed to control endless rants.

I'm not bashing XP at all. I just think that Vista isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people make it seem.

 

[Apokalipse]

The only way to have a huge cut in needed resources is to leave things out.

Like a resource-hogging GUI and animations? useless and annoying services?

I don't know about you, but I notice significant changes in performance from a simple thing like video card drivers.

I installed a new driver for my 8800, and my framerate dropped from 70 to 40. So I installed the previous drivers.

Well, I thought moderators are the ones who are supposed to control endless rants.

A mod is not here to stop people from ranting. We're here to stop people posting illegal material, or flaming.

this thread isn't about flaming. It's a discussion on people not liking a piece of software, and why.

 

[Ste]

this thread isn't about flaming. It's a discussion on people not liking a piece of software, and why.

And its surprising that there hasn't been any flamming, or infractions given in this thread... Yet...

 

[murdocsvan]

i didnt like vista when it came out, because it was slow, but thats because i was on a P4 processor and 1GB of ram. i havent used it since ive upgraded, but now that im getting an 8800GT in a few days, id like it for the DX10. the comparrisons between DX10 and DX9 look rather superb