Microsoft Manager Says Vista Has Issues

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

I guess you do not remember XP, it was the same thing. Software/hardware did not work, drivers where slow. It was generally slower then 98.

I have Vista HP SP1 64 bit and it is as fast as XP on my apps. The Superfetch feature actually DOES make many apps load faster then XP. Being not limited to 4gigs of addressable memory is also a nice touch(for the 64 bit one). I used XP 64 and could not get anything to work, but it was new at the time.

This is no different then any other release of a new OS. Would you believe that Windows XP took allot more memory and cpu power then 98? I waited for SP1 on that too. With proper hardware Vista runs very well.
 
Well Like I said Vista wrks good on my PC granted it is a game PC so it better work good. I do find Vista to be way way faster than XP on the same PC in my dual boot setup I would suspect Vista is able to handle my higher end PC Specs better than XP being that XP is getting so out dated now. I do hate the new Vista menu but just my own hang up maybe everyone else like the Vista menu system. UAC well that was turned off right after the first boot even before the driver install was started. They need to add a option for you to be able to tell Vista the remember that action & maybe people would leave UAC running.

For those that say well you should not have to upgrade your PC EG:add more ram or drive space just to run a new OS. Well it has been what 6 years between Windows releases so if you have not upgraded since you got your Windows XP machine yes it may be time to upgrade anyway because not only should you expect your 6 year old PC to not run the new Windows smoothly but pretty much any other new software as well.

I work in a computer shop & I always shake my head & laugh when I see a Pentium 166 with 128MB memory & 6.4Gb hard drive come in & it has Windows XP Pro installed thats just sad. A PC that came out when windows98 was king of the hill & they want me to get it running fast with XP not gonna happen.
 
I tri-boot with Ubuntu, XP, and Vista... And really, my only complaint with Vista is that it is VERY, VERY, VERY sensative to RAM issues.

I had a compatability issue between my motherboard/RAM, and for about three months while I tried in vain to get it worked out with tech support (I now hate Gigabyte with a passion.) Vista simply would not boot. It would BSOD while loading. Every time. I'd get a different error message, too, (Some relating to memory, some relating to processor, some relating to the pagefile of all things...) which was really confusing. XP and Linux loaded and ran fine, though (Which also threw me for a loop).

I'm about to reformat/reinstall everything on my hard drives, though, and now that my hardware issues are gone, I don't think XP will be part of the reinstall... (Linux stays, though. That's a better standard-use desktop invironment, imho, than any other OS I've used.)
 
I am working with Vista from the beginning, and it was grate out of the box, sure it had some problems, but nothing compering 2 XP when it just got out. And 4 all the "Vista haters" from my experience most of them just lamers that want to look smart by repainting something that they have no understanding about. Btw you must have the right hardware if you want to enjoy Vista, but same go for the rest of Operating systems and software.
 
Vista still has some ways to go before it becomes as stable as XP.

I bought Vista Ultimate 64-bit and had nothing but software crashes and the occasional BSOD. Then I realized that it's DEP and UAC that's causing majority of the problem. I turned them both off and I am now actually enjoying my Vista experience.

Yes, I made my Vista "less" secure but honestly, I was fine without it before.
 
When I finished building my current rig, I decided to try vista ultimate 32-bit (they only had the 32bit version at the college I got it at). I personally felt that having 2gb of ram in my rig wasn't enough for vista...some games didn't run correctly either (battlefield 2142 was giving me soo much trouble and wouldn't run for some reason)...I really did try to give the OS a fair chance, and while it was pretty and I loved the search feature, my system didn't feel like a brand new rig with a clean install...it would stutter from time to time (probably mostly due to the 2gb of ram)...switching back to xp somehow fixed all of those problems...I really wish vista would work for me :'(
 
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom][/citation]

vista uses unallocated memory todo stuff. It frees it up when an app needs it. unused memory is not efficient.
 
[citation][nom]deminicus[/nom]People need to clarify what they mean by "resource hog". If they mean the memory footprint then I think there is a lack of understanding. Vista uses free memory and does useful stuff with it. It also throttles it, so when you load a large app/game it will shrink its footprint. Granted vista isn't the most amazing thing ever....ever but it is better than xp in many areas. I personally don't need or want to go back to xp, I am surprised to say that. I was weary before I switched but after some extensive research I found it was time to move on.[/citation]
Same man, I have vista on my comp and truefully I haven't noticed much if any issues. Alot of issues people name are user error. I even switched back to XP media center to see if the performance was that much faster. It wasn't for me, still same speed but then again I have 4gb and x2 5200+. Windows XP had alot of issues when it 1st came out and I think we all remember windows ME.
 
You all are ridiculous... vista is great, vista suks...wa wa wa. I look at it this way. my time is worth a lot of money. and im not being paid to beta test for MS or nVidia or anyone. if they want to flod the market with a glitch ridden OS that doesn't work worth a shit the day its released, thats up to them to ruin their own reputation. My XP systems work flawlessly. so what should i want to waste my time trying to figure out where MS decided to hide the task im looking for. when i buy a new car i don't want to go hunting for the ignition switch just to find it in the glove box. Sorry vista fanboys if i had bought into all the hoopla on the initial launch do you have any idea how much productivity i would have lost? How many hours / days did you loose or waste trying to get a glitch ridden OS it to work, regardless of who's fault it was?

Blaming it on nVidia or any other hardware Mfg is just lame as well, that would be like GM building all of its cars to run on 100% hydrogen only and to discontinue all gas engines. Then blaming the oil company's for not being ready. Just because MS feels their crap is ready, if it relies on other companies to run stable, and their not ready, then it wont run will it? so who's fault was it...MS for pushing it to market. last note if it was that great then they wouldn't have had to pull all the XP machines from the stores and try and force vista down our throats.
 
dear microsoft,
I am sorry , but we here are discontinuing vista. We have not received any payments for being your test dummies.. Your other programs are not working with your new system and we see no reason to up grade these proven programs. We see no reason to pay these inflated prices just to have to pay again for replacements for other parts of the systems. We guess the new reduced pricing is your realization that you have to get rid of excess inventory or pay for storage.[like used cars]
Our network guy thanks you . With his overtime money he bought ,configured , and demo'd a working system. With our old system and new server/firewall we are rolling back to your working system s and being introduced to Linux . Our IT guy got reimbursed , and a bonus $$$$ and we are happy again .
We wish you better luck with win7 and hope you continue testing it. when you release it , we suggest you call it "win 10.7 " 10 for the year of release and .7 for when you thought it would be out.[or .[whenever you started development]
Also we thought you might like to buy some of our developing products We can over price them and get them to work sometime in the next two years and offer your thirty day guarantee with similar ,unless opened, wording
 
If all the fanboys from both sides would stop giving thumbs down to anyone who has a different opinion maybe we could have a "proper" discussion?
 
I'm sick of hearing this "Vista sucks" bs. If you don't like UAC turn it off... durrr..

I game on Vista and have no problems with it at all.

Nvidia is to blame for making bad drivers, not MS.

People hate Vista because it molests older computers.... good then don't upgrade or stfu and don't complain. People just don't like the name Vista because it has some bs "bad rep". You've seen the ads on tv and its true, i sell laptops and desktops with Vista and anytime anyone says that Vista sucks I ask them why and I can easily defeat any argument anyone has.

Vista runs faster, smoother, more stable, more intuitive, more features and an all around better os then XP.

As I tell people all the time... only computer noobs like XP over Vista.
 
oh and so far ive only had Vista BSOD on me once in 9 months and that was because of Sims 2 which is the worst piece of coded game in the world.
 
It's not the memory hog problem. the problem is that your HDD and Mine also dont give 500Mb/s to fill the ram before you start to get bored off waiting... it's an hdd hog... if you have a 4 disk raid 0 you will love vista... otherwise it's just a paint to load up. and i believe that is a big question. my system in Xp is extremely responsive just after booting and vista doesnt let you do anything because the I/O off the HDD/MEM subsystem is too worried at uploading things to RAm. that cannot be good. File system is also...humm... how would i like to call it... Bull$#%#. how come my external hdd USB 2.0 with vista gives 18-20/mb and with XP is 28-30Mb... just plain crap.
 
I like XP over Vista!!!

On my Athlon64 3200+ PVR system that I built for XP years ago😛

I like Vista better then XP!!!!

On my quad core system with its 8 gigabytes of memory vista flies thanks to its pre-caching(this and a hardware accelerated desktop are the big extra features for me) of apps and games.

I would hate to have Vista on my A64 system as it would run slowly, but then again i would hate to have XP on my Celeron 466 with 128 megabytes of ram too(hell even the modem/sound card does not work on XP anyway).

I can not agree more with modtech. Its a discussion not a flamefest.
 
[citation][nom]Ramaddict[/nom]Bag Vista all you like, But I must say after service pack 1 and adding more ram(6gb total) to system, It is now as fast if not faster than xp.2gb doesn't cut it, 4gb or more is the sweet spot.[/citation]That's exactly the point. I use a computer to run applications - the OS is entirely overhead. I don't spend all day staring at wallpapers, a big-assed analog clock, and visual effects while moving windows. I need to get real work done and those "features" don't help me at all. 2GB to run an OS? That's crazy. You must be working for the memory manufacturers or distributors.
 
[citation][nom]deminicus[/nom]vista uses unallocated memory todo stuff. It frees it up when an app needs it. unused memory is not efficient. [/citation]
I know, but the OS doesn't need that memory to run as was being suggested. Disable SuperFetch and your RAM is magically free, but your programs take longer to load. Ironic almost.
 
simple, honestly what dose vista have xp don't there are things but nothing that warrants buying a new os. XP WORKS its not bad, it had teething problems to but compare the original specs to what vista rolled out with and they cut a LOT out. Its just a new os nothing special nothing tweaked, they say its more secure, sorry "allow or Deny" to me is just not secure. nothing I see says it may be more secure but not by much at all.So most eople I know ask the simple question why should they upgrade, and my answer is there is no amazing WOW reason to upgrade. Hell the windows look and feel I can't stand, sorry looks like a kid with a crayon had a field fay. that being said it came with my sisters laptop, I did not format I left it, it DOSe work, I have no issues with it except the fact it doe chew resorcess more then xp would, and the dirextX10 system is well its also a hog, and gives minimal graphical effects improvements to directx 9. I admit its new people learning to code with it so may be part of the hog reason but in my opinion M$ has a lot to do with the bad drivers and such as company deal directly with M$ to get there software including drivers approved. So M$ most likely approved the drivers to some degree so they are particially to blame.
 
[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]

Yes, Mac and Linux has it, but even so its still very difficult to gain root privileges in both (especially Linux) that an infection can't do much. The fact that it has a password prompt makes it better so that if you accidentally leave admin logged on your 5 year old kid won't allow his way into deleting the D: partition. (example)
 
why crib about max memory usage when good explanation is given in vista tweak guide in tweak guides.com. it explains how to restrict constant hard disk writes when indexing
 
I've had Vista since I bought my Acer Aspire 5630 laptop. It runs great. I actually am impressed and stood corrected from my initial thought of a crappy Vista. If you have a dual core rig with at least 2GB of RAM, Vista is worth the try. I have read an article about Vista balancing responsiveness and performance - this might be the answer why Vista is slow or shall I say, average when copying files BUT is still responsive (compared to XP, which pours down most resources just for the copy operation). In addition, I like the aero interface. I give Vista a thumb up. Go on and improve further..
 
Yeah, I hate the Vista haters. The plain truth is that when XP first came out people whined about how it was slower than 98. Honestly, 98 would probably blaze XP and Vista with the proper support, but it wouldn't be as pretty. I've never once had Vista crash or run into a real problem with it. I think the issues people have are due to sub-par hardware. When I had a system with 256mb of RAM and XP I always thought it was horribly slow, but at 512mb (or 1gb) I loved it. In fact I remember the transition to XP being the most painful I've ever made from one OS to the next (and I've been using since 3.1). The bottom line is that you can change all the things in Vista that annoy you, and that it's a stable and secure OS.
 
Vista is a nice OS. All you have to do is tweak it.

1. Disable UAC
2. Disable windows firewall
3. Disable windows defender

then your system will run nice.

I have experienced a few bugs but I have also found easy solutions to them. The only bug I have at the moment is a NVIDIA bug and I can't blame MS for it.

Just to comment on the memory footprint: Vista used about 50% sidebar and everything. so as long as I can play my games it does not bug me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom