Microsoft Manager Says Vista Has Issues

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]predator100000[/nom]lots of vista fanbois here [/citation]

No, theres a lot of gamers here.

 

[2GooDrumr]

It's too abd really. i love my vista install, and its not even on a brand new machine. Ive got it running very nicely on an older Athalon 64 at 2.67ghz, with my 8800gt, and its terrific. After installing 64-bit its terrific, dx10 games, everything I could want to do. When people complian about things like UAC it's rediculous, it's for your protection. My friend swears by his Mac, he doesnt get viruses, It's faster, and it doesnt have UAC. Well, its a mac, not enough people use them to have anything like that happening (no viruses made so no UAC). Is till think it was the anti-MS bloggers who destroyed vista. Sure I ahd to add more ram when I moved from XP, but besides that my machine has had few problems I didn't cause. And yes, Service Pack made this OS evenbetter, It beats XP machines with about equal components in Benchmarks and games. This amchine flys, and its not that new besides video, which only affects the GUI, and on my old 7600gs, Aero was fine. Theres actually very little anyone can complain about if they have actually taken the time to maintain and perfect their machine.

 

[harrycat88]

I can't use Vista. I have 7 programs and 3 pieces of hardware that run just fine in XP but under Vista they won't work. I've tried Vista's backward compatibly program with no luck. The only way I can run Vista is to spend over $1500 dollars in hardware and software and it's just no worth it. I think I'll stick with XP and linux.

 

[azides]

Noticing a lot of 'thumbs down' on posts. Could it be that the mere mention of Vista sets a tone of ire on the board?

I am happy with Vista 64 SP1. I also use a lot of proprietary scientific software (made for 2000 or XP) with no problem.

I had, with the exception of my P5Q death (not Vista related!), only one problem with drivers and that was with a Belkin wireless NIC that Belchin openly says is not yet supported under 64 bit, burp.

 

[iLLmexican]

People wine to much, I run Vista Business on my corporate laptop, and Vista Ultimate at home and they both run great. If you don't like certain features like UAC then turn them off. If its running slow, then upgrade your outdated hardware. If you want to buy a Mac to look cool, then buy your over priced pos cookie cutout Mac, I'll stick to my custom quad core SLI'd PC thank you very much.

 

[descendency]

My problem with vista is the bloatware. anyone who denies that Vista has more "features" than any operating system should ever have is insane. If you have an operating system where the bloat is removed, it runs very fast. XP boots in half the time.

 

[elbert]

The wasting of time on vista 32bit was a downfall. The low amount of RAM computability on the home versions was a downfall. Microsoft wanting to sale a new OS to home users in 3 years IE current versions only supporting 8 and 16GB was a downfall. By the time its working good the home versions will have reached their memory limits. Currently you can buy a 4GB kit for $60 and a HD4870X2 2GB version and you have little to no upgrade room left with the home basic version. The only option left is to pay upwards of $200 for their OEM high end versions. Another downfall was 6 versions half of which was pure crap no better than ME during its time.

Performance nor stability is vista's problem its price. XP had its virus's and the fix made it very slow at the time. Its trying to sale vista 32bit, home basic, and home premium is microsoft's downfall.

Simply put sale ultimate edition for home users at a reasonable $100 OEM and stop the greed. Microsoft you can do this or watch more go to apple. Price not quality was on the side of the PC up till Microsoft Vista.

 

[Guest]

i love vista! it works great on a t5550 and 4 gb of ram and ati mobility radeon 2600 512mb gddr3. sp 1 too. it also runs fine on a e4300 and 1 gb of ram with a intel gma 950 or something. i think vista is a lot faster than xp and is easier to do everything!

 

[chaohsiangchen]

Vista is no way near as bad as the Mistake Edition. Vista is now fixed, and the Mistake Edition never got fixed. I remember that XP wasn't that great back then in 2003. There were compatibility issue, system-hog issue, licensing issue etc. XP got fixed with SP1 and became a success, even though there are people still running 2000 machine to this day and don't plan to upgrade. Windows 2000 is the first Microsoft OS that I can't find any joke on it. The failure of the Mistake accelerated the adoption of pure 32bit environment and people finally ditched DOS all together. 2000 was so successful that Apple was losing customers to Microsoft back then. Many people hang on with 2000 and refused upgrade to XP initially, until SP1 came out and proved that transfer to XP was good.

There are only two versions of OS that people went directly without making much noise: Windows 98 OSR2 and Windows 2000. Many people were still sticking to text mode when Windows 3.1 came out, and games were universally on DOS, because Win16 and Win32 API support for games didn't exist. The transition to Windows 95 wasn't so smooth, as many people stick to Windows 3.1 interface and didn't like the new Start button and new task bar. Early adoption of Plug&Play suck balls that many, including me, preferred user adjust IRQ and DMA over P&P that seldom work right. Eventually, these problems got fixed, and people migrated to newer version.

For people who are too young to know or too oblivious to remember, this is a good forum to read:
http://news.deviantart.com/article/40849/

 

[chechak]

i thing vista without DX10 is nothing ,it need not average computer (need a lot of $$$)

 

[sarwar_r87]

[citation][nom]predator100000[/nom]lots of vista fanbois here vista is excellent choice.i feel that[/citation]

u dont really need a fanboy to realize if vista is good or not. the only annoying thing is vista is the UAC, which can can be turned off.
otherwise, vista is stable and more secure.i like the fact that system restore actually works very good.
but i must say, vista has lot of flaws but b4 blaming vista, you should realize that vista isnt the worst OS we have seen from MS. think bout windows Me.......and as for RAM issue......think about it this way: vista takes up more RAM but it uses the RAM to make sure that ur system runs MORE swiftly. also win98 use to run smooth as silk on 64MB RAM. but u need 256MB ram to get XP run at the same speed.....its the law of nature....more advanced the software gets, more powerful system you will be needing. back in 2000, 32MB VGA could run every game back then at max details.now 512MB is needed to play any mordern game at max details....my point: more advanced the software gets, more powerful system you will be needing.

 

[nirvana21]

[citation][nom]franks[/nom]I'm so surprised that so many people complain about UAC but in the mean time praising Mac/Linux (Ubuntu). The reality is Mac and Linux also UAC and they also prompt the dialog box for admin tasks. And even worse, on Mac and Linux it requires to enter your password everytime and it cannot be turned off. Apparently those people have never used a Mac or Linux[/citation]

When I use Ubuntu, the UAC does not bother me all the time. The only times I have to enter my password is for installing, some updates (such as kernel updates), and sudo commands in the terminal. I find it alot easier just to type a few letters and hit enter it isn't a problem. If I enter my password it keeps the system at that admin level for a while too. That means that if I were to install 2 programs back to back I would only need to enter the password once.

All in all, Ubuntu's UAC seems easier and makes sense. I may be bias though...

 

[neodude007]

Vista is good for gaming. With a decent rig you get same or more FPS and performance as XP. If your hardware sucks then don't get Vista, case closed. If you have weird apps from 1960 you want to run, don't get Vista. If you're a business, there is simply no need to change an OS that works for you... sooo.... don't get Vista.

All I know is I play lots of my games like WoW, Age of Conan, Team Fortress 2, Call of Duty 4, CS:S at 2560 x 1600 at 60 FPS locked with Vsync, and my PC is probably worth just over a $1,000.

 

[Guest]

Vista is the victim of Greedy Microsoft. Which are their real problem?:

1. They forced laptops makers to launch their already XP supporting laptops, with Vista. So, million of customers, bought a 512MB RAM PC with Vista which booted in 2 minutes or so.

2. Microsoft lost the big bet to make a difference, by making 2 versions of Vista, a 32bit and a 64bit. The reason was that they (MS) didn't wanted to loose customers from the iNTEL side. Huge drawback!

3. Let's face it: There's nothing currently, Vista can't do better than XP. I really don't see a reason to change my OS. All current technologies are fully supported by XP.

4. Stupidest of all: Vista forced people to downgrade their PCs. People with Ti4800i VGAs had to buy a... FX5200 card in order to use Aero. wtf?

5. Vista is slower on every aspect of computing. See Tom's Hardware comparing for Dual and Quad Core CPUs and you'll understand. Sad sad sad.

6. Nothing new to offer. No Rexx language, no clustering support, not even the file system extension they promised. Just an impressive but slooooooooow aero enviroment.

So why Vista are getting so bad opinions? Well, because, they deserve it!

 

[Guest]

The high ram usage is the Prefetch you can just disable it. It "pre" loads the applications that are most used. When you run a big application like a game, windows free up all the ram that is needed. Thats why after playing a game if you run immediately the task manager yo will see less than 500mb used for vista. saying you need 6gb of ram to run it smooth its STUPID because vista will never use them all. Please read before throwing shit.

 

[Guest]

If you want a fast loading and opening files just install windows 95. Its obvious that newer OSes will be heavier than older ones. Its like pretending crysis to have less system requirements than Minesweeper.

 

[Guest]

Vista - The operating system that convinced me to switch to Linux.

 

[spleendamage]

Ripping on Vista is the new black.

I like my 64 bit Ultimate install on a 2 year old rig I use for gaming.
The only issues I have come from my crappy 680i mobo otherwise it's solid.

 

[mikeynavy1976]

While Vista isn't perfect...nor do I think any OS will ever be, I haven't encountered the issues that so many people complain about. It is faster than XP on my machine, looks better, is 64-bit, and is stable. I don't have OS-related crashes, it boots fast, and my name-brand hardware runs fine with it. I think a lot of the problem is people's apprehension about upgrading anything. It is the same argument as the digital TV whining. Technology progresses. It was inevitable you'd have to upgrade your RAM or eventually buy a new video card. Geez. I read all the complaints about TV...if we didn't shut them up TV would've never overtaken radio, color TV would've never taken over black and white, cable and satellite would've never taken over over the air, etc. This seems like the same people whining again. I love Vista and definitely see it as an improvement in almost all ways to XP. Gamers also need to stop thinking their OS is only for games, preventing the rest of users from enjoying a step up. If you want a machine strictly for games get a PS3 or XBox 360. I could care less if Vista is a few fps slower than XP at playing Crysis.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

Vista's a lot like Crysis.

If you have a machine that can handle it, it's beautiful and completely worth it. If your machine cannot handle it (and not many machines can), then it's dogshit.

Same old story. Software outpaces hardware.

 

[Milleman]

I don't understand why some saying: -I'll wait for Windows 7!

Windows 7 will be a new version of Vista. Microsoft won't redesign the whole O/S just to release an uphotted version of the previous one. Windows 7 will be as much resource hog as Vista, if not more. But by then, Microsoft calculates that the users hardware will carry more RAM and faster CPUs. MS have already claimed that by the release of Windows 7, the "standard" size of RAM in an average desktop computer will to 4 GB. So don't expect Win 7 to be a less black hole than Vista.

For me personally, I don't see any benefits on all the O/S hysteria lately. Vista / Win7 may be beneficial for gamers that will use all the fancy stuff on the latest graphic cards etc. But for me, all that is useless because I don't need it. My PS isn't a Gaming station or a Game console. To me, it's just a machine for reading mail, surfing the net and chat with my friends. I don't need a supercomputer just for doing that! My friend is using Linux in the same way I use Windows XP today. Looks interresting. His computer is even older than mine, and still he can do all that I can do, at the same speed. Maybe I'll consider Linux later on. But for now, I stay with XP. Works great!

 

[techguy911]

Vista is useless i can't even give it away all my customers are having me remove vista from there system after giving it to them free of charge with a full system sale.

I even have customers bringing in machines from big box stores and buying xp pro oem and removing vista.

The laptops we sell are dual vista/xp pro 99.99% of our customers have us load xp.

Windows 7 hopefully will not be such a memory hog and run games faster than vista.

 

[Milleman]

I don't understand why some saying: -I'll wait for Windows 7!

Windows 7 will be a new version of Vista. Microsoft won't redesign the whole O/S just to release an uphotted version of the previous one. Windows 7 will be as much resource hog as Vista, if not more. But by then, Microsoft calculates that the users hardware will carry more RAM and faster CPUs. MS have already claimed that by the release of Windows 7, the "standard" size of RAM in an average desktop computer will to 4 GB. So don't expect Win 7 to be a less black hole than Vista.

For me personally, I don't see any benefits on all the O/S hysteria lately. Vista / Win7 may be beneficial for gamers that will use all the fancy stuff on the latest graphic cards etc. But for me, all that is useless because I don't need it. My PC isn't a Gaming station nor a Game console. To me, it's just a machine for reading mail, surfing the net, download files and chat with my friends. I don't need a supercomputer just for doing that! My friend is using Linux in the same way I use Windows XP today. Looks interresting. His computer is even older than mine and still he can do all that I can do, at the same speed. Maybe I'll consider Linux later on. But for now, I stay with XP. Works great!

And if like to watch movies? -I'll use my TIVO!
If I like to listen to music? -I'll turn on my stereo!
If feel like gaming? -I'll use a game console!
(a game console is much cheaper and more powerful than my PC anyway)

Right now my life is great and I don't care about the O/S hysteria.
Motto: Sleep well, eat good and have sex!

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Vista is useless i can't even give it away all my customers are having me remove vista from there system after giving it to them free of charge with a full system sale.[/citation]
That's because they've read about all the problems that Vista apparently has, which are valid as long as you are still living in H1 07.

 

[fletchoid]

The biggest complaint I hear about Vista is exactly that it makes you run out and buy new hardware, and/or new software, and games that worked just fine on XP now give problems. The operating system is just one component of a computer system, and if it trashes your printer/scanner, won't work with your 3 year old video camera, buggers up your favorite game, screws your favorite antivirus program, then surprise surprise, people will be extremely upset. And, to top it off, some vendors (and you all know who got sued) sold "Vista Ready" computers that didn't work well with Vista. Talk about totally botching a software release....