Microsoft Manager Says Vista Has Issues

[mirzajee]

hi,

to all the geeks and freaks here who think that vista is slow and crappy. please gentlemen if you were old enough in 1992 than you know what microsoft has accomplished, if don't than educate yourself. and all who claim to be software engineers and think vista is slow please learn something about hardware and buy a system with better hardware. its a norm a new OS is always designed according to the best available hardware in the market. MICROSOFT will not design an OS for your grandma's computer.

please educate yourself before wasting precious space for comments

FOR THOSE WHO TAKE ALL THIS FOR GRANTED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x

PC System Requirements:
486DX, 25MHz or higher
Windows 3.1 or Windows 95
6 MB hard disk space, 4 MB RAM
VGA color display required,
256 colors highly recommended
Windows-compatible sound card and
speakers for sound effects recommended
Mouse required

 

[jj463rd]

The funny thing is that I still like using Windows 3.1 and DOS at least they don't have activation.
I think I am going to play Doom now and later will run Microsoft Space Simulator or perhaps Flight Simulator 5.1 on the 486.

 

[V8VENOM]

Run a Defrag on Vista SP1 ... get back to me in 18 hours. The OS is still a joke, it's dog doo. Sure they fix many things in SP1, but UAC is still a BIG end user problem. And then we have Games for Windows?? Yea, so where are all these games?? Any see a 64bit game (other than Crysis)?

Oh you forgot to include that the article talked about how much of a mistake it was for Microsoft to exclude the benefits of DX10 in WinXP -- sorta a key point don't you think??

I realize Tom's editors and writers are very "PRO VISTA" for obvious reasons -- don't trash on the source of much of your revenue. But lets be realistic, early previews of Windows 7 shows much of the same as what went into Vista. So NO, Microsoft have NOT listened, at all. It's yet another take it or leave OS.

Anyone here think Vista Ultimate was worth $400?

How many of you still run WinXP for games?

How many of you have a dual boot for Vista and WinXP?

Vista's security is junk, it has been compromised many times, not as many as WinXP, but that hardly matters considering it still is an OS from Microsoft.

And then there is Vista 32bit -- pointless, completely pointless.

Rob.

 

[V8VENOM]

As for the MAC prompt for security -- it happens ONCE, only when you install a product that requires application privileges. It doesn't keep happening over and over and over again for the same application. MAC's are aware of user context, Vista is not.

What is the point of a security prompt every time in Vista if the end user "turns it off" or always just hits "continue" without reading the message because it has happened WAY too frequently. That's not security.

 

[V8VENOM]

1992??? Errr...I was coding software for Microsoft back in 1982. I have watched Microsoft devolve into what it is today ... bloated junk where it's primary mission is to extract revenue and deliver NOTHING new.

This article blames nVidia for Vista's stability problems??? Hello, what about ATI who had the same issues. What about the many other vendors??? 5+ years and Microsoft can't release a stable OS, so they blame it on the hardware vendors??? Hmmm...odd since Microsoft WHQ the drivers for these vendors??? nVidia, ATI, or anyone can't get a certified driver without going thru Microsoft's certification process....soooooo, who is to blame again??

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]Run a Defrag on Vista SP1 ... get back to me in 18 hours.[/citation] How big is your hard drive? Mine takes under an hour for a pretty badly fragmented 320GB drive.[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]I realize Tom's editors and writers are very "PRO VISTA" for obvious reasons -- don't trash on the source of much of your revenue.[/citation]When you provide some proof you can make accusations. [citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]Anyone here think Vista Ultimate was worth $400?[/citation]No, but I don't think Photoshop or any other software is worth over $100 either.[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom] How many of you still run WinXP for games? [/citation]Once I got WMP and movie maker working on Business N I lost the only incentive to run XP. No dual booting for me, I wouldn't want the hassle no matter how easy it is. [citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]Vista's security is junk, it has been compromised many times, not as many as WinXP, but that hardly matters considering it still is an OS from Microsoft.[/citation]I never get more than a few tracking cookies and never get viruses unless I download obviously dodgy files. [citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]And then there is Vista 32bit -- pointless, completely pointless.Rob.[/citation]
I have to agree there. Still a nice OS though, that's what I run.[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]Hmmm...odd since Microsoft WHQ the drivers for these vendors???[/citation]Surely a developer as well versed as yourself knows that WHQL is a money-making scheme which means absolutely nothing.

 

[martel80]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]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. [/citation]When I turn on my computer and want to launch MS VC++ immediately after boot, how can prefetch make things faster? If I click the icon immediately after the desktop appears, what difference can prefetch make? Perhaps slow down loading of my C++ project while buffering up Word and other stuff that I may not even use? How smart to do a completely useless work!
The 32-bit version of Vista is a complete joke as well! 32-bit only hardware can't even run it properly in most cases. It only serves as an excuse for SW companies to make 64-bit transition slower!

 

[nukemaster]

When I turn on my computer and want to launch MS VC++ immediately after boot, how can prefetch make things faster? If I click the icon immediately after the desktop appears, what difference can prefetch make? Perhaps slow down loading of my C++ project while buffering up Word and other stuff that I may not even use? How smart to do a completely useless work!
The 32-bit version of Vista is a complete joke as well! 32-bit only hardware can't even run it properly in most cases. It only serves as an excuse for SW companies to make 64-bit transition slower!

It will set superfetch with low hard drive priority anyway. It will not get in your way, it only works at idle. This is the same with indexing, it has never slowed me down. If it does bug you, go turn its service off and it will never bug you again.

Superfetch has its place, I love being able to load games that I play often fully or almost fully from memory.

 

[randomizer]

SuperFetch won't help you with the first program you run, but it will help with the others. Also, I sometimes turn my computer on and leave it for a few mins to get a coffee or something. Firefox loads up almost instantly because the prefetching had time to do its work, whereas it usually takes a few seconds. Other programs that I usually run at a later time will always be able to take advantage of the prefetching as long as I don't chew up my RAM with something else in the meantime.

As nukemaster said, SuperFetch runs at a very low priority. Similar idea to Folding@Home, which doesn't make any difference to performance (well, not the CPU clients anyway).

 

[modtech]

OK, so Vista works fine if you have a decent computer (which a lot of XP users do)... and? You can't force someone to require something by telling them over and over again that they need it. There's DX10 which isn't really shining yet and an interface with bright shiny buttons (which XP can also be modified to have). Most games work fine on vista... so what? You mean everyone should lay down a plod of cash to basically do the same thing that they're doing now? Security? Never an issue when you know what you're doing and that applies to all OSes. The future of gaming? Yeah but remember we live in the present.
Please note I'm neither an XP/Vista fanboy nor a hater and will be upgrading when the time is due but some people have to stop being ridiculous.

 

[Guest]

Why would you disable windows firewall and windows defender, I can see the point for uac, but why those other two? Is it that your ol' 386 cant handle it?

 

[martel80]

[citation][nom]layzer[/nom]Why would you disable windows firewall and windows defender, I can see the point for uac, but why those other two? Is it that your ol' 386 cant handle it?[/citation]Because when you have SW like Comodo Firewall Pro (free) installed, you get like 10x the functionality of both and 10x faster?
I don't know if it is the same Defender in Vista but installing Defender for XP caused a ridiculous slowdown the last time I tried.

 

[Antman56]

I just want to make it clear that vista after service pack 1 is a good operating system. I have used vista and xp and I believe that are both fine... I am currently using XP however. I have an Athlon X2 4000+ @ 3.15 Ghz, 2 GB of DDR2 ram running at 1080 Mhz, GeForce 8800 GTX Ultra and a raptor dedicated for running my OS. Both ran strong on this computer, but the day where I have said "Man if I was running Vista... this wouldn't of happened" just hasn't come yet. That being said... I don't think upgrading is really a necessity.

P.S. - The upgraded security of Vista sounds great, but if you still rely on Internet Explorer and you do something stupid... it still tears up the operating system. The user still has be reasonable to have an efficient computer.

 

[ButtonBoy]

I have been using Vista on a number of machines, and they are all stable, The power management on my laptop is much better under Vista than XP, and my kids gaming machines are much easier for them to use and for me to maintain.

 

[Guest]

unfortunately for most of oyu here (especially those who say vista sucks), the reason people whine about oses is because they are too stupid to work stuff out.

 

[NCCReliant]

One thing I love about running Vista 64, I can turn off page filing. And just use my memory, instead of hard drive to do it. Saves my drive a lot of unnecessary random checks, and it runs faster paging stuff onto the memory.

 

[wallishall]

I'm using both Vista and XP right now comparing things.

XP Advantage
1. Built in backup software that was excellent and easy to use. In Vista they DUMBED it down to a wizard only and it's impossible to know what you're getting.
2. Hardware issues are far and few between, can't remember the last oen, Vista: Hardware still acts wonky at times and have to un-install then reinstall... had a DVD drive that would not detect a new disc. Eventually had to uninstall it... then after reinstalling it, it worked!

Vista 64 Advantage
1. Much prettier interface
2. Uses more memory if you have it in your system
3. 64 bit... so far few benefits, but I'm watching (yeah memory is a repeat of this but still)

 

[Guest]

Another thing I hate about vista (and XP) is Defrag...
the Defrag of Win 98 and millennium/2000 was waay better looking!

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]tim851[/nom]I had Vista installed. Can't say I hated it. Had a couple of bugs that are probably fixed with SP1.But once I turned off Aero, because it looked like my 12-year-old brother tried to rip off OSX, I wondered: The biggest IT-company in the world spend 6 years and millions of dollars developing this and that is all?Where is the added value? At least a dozen people here give advice on upgrading PCs to make Vista run as smoothly as XP, but nobody says why. It can't be more secure because XP is already so secure, that you have to be somewhat of nimrod who clicks on everything that promises porn to screw it up. More productive? How? Isn't that more an application based issue?And without added value, isn't it more prudent to not upgrade the PC and let XP run as smoothly as XP?[/citation]

I agree with you!
the experience of a FAST windows is more important to me. Even on XP I still use the grey/blue standard windows theme. No fancyness that'll slow down the OS for me.

The only thing I see benefit of in Vista is DX10, having explorer autocorrect the folderview so one can see the folder better (better then manual scrolling in XP), and the black startbar because I like the looks of vista over the standard blue/silver/green looks of XP (which can easely be gotten by installing a Vista theme).

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]engrpiman[/nom]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.[/citation]
Doing this will make Vista less secure then XP, and beats the purpose of buying Vista.
Unless you want vista for the colors

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom][/citation]
So basically like nearly 60%out there,you're disabling the automatic feats Microsoft has enabled.
Exactly these automatic feats which noone asked for in the first place, take up valuable resources and space.
After an installation of pure VISTA, it becomes obvious to me that you'll need tweaking for at least another hour.

Things like popups whenever you put a CD-ROM in a drive shouldn't even be there! I,like 89% of the people out there who know that autorun can contain virusses, and it's safer to do things manually, prefer to do things like this manually.

Or whatabout MShit's Defender blocking access to the internet from your favorite program? takes one about 30minutes to figure out why and how to correct it. Once known,it takes up 5 minutes of your 1hour lasting 'tweaking time' of Vista.

Honestly? Vista safe = Donkey Piss! Like mentioned above, most people grow weary with the OS, and either always press 'continue', or disable the so called 'safety' of the OS.

I may be a Vista-Anti-freak. Despite all good things it brings, I see the same evolution in bad ways.
For every improvement over the previous OS there generally is a worse somewhere else.
Many things like OS response time, no annoying popups, no background tasks, no autoplay, etc.. found in Windows 95/98 seem to be long lost in the Vista-HOG.

My 2cts.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]SuperFetch won't help you with the first program you run, but it will help with the others.....[/citation]
Sorry,Superfetch places it's prefetch files in the Windows\prefetch folder.
Superfetch will use any tasks pre-fetched in a previous session or time, so saying it doesn't work... First they need to be prefetched,yes, but once it's done, your system should boot the program as fast if not faster as one without superfetch.

 

[arabian15boi]

[citation][nom]mojoman94[/nom]I'm a software engineer who's used every Microsoft OS since Win 3.1 and I have Vista Ultimate w/SP1 on my HP Quad core rig and to be honest Vista isn't worth it. It's a resource hog, the UAC is annoying, file management is slow and sometimes even seems to just hang for a moment. The media center doesn't work as well as commerical applications. I'm going back to XP. Vista is an embarassment.[/citation]
r u realy a software engineer and u dont know how to turn off UAC??

 

[randomizer]

Here we go, spamming the comments with quotes again
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]Sorry,Superfetch places it's prefetch files in the Windows\prefetch folder.
Superfetch will use any tasks pre-fetched in a previous session or time, so saying it doesn't work... First they need to be prefetched,yes, but once it's done, your system should boot the program as fast if not faster as one without superfetch.[/citation]I usually run firefox while all my startup programs are still loading, so SuperFetch hasn't had time to prefetch it. That's why I said what I said. If I left my PC for a minute before starting Firefox it would be noticably faster (I've tried it). It's like running the program for the 2nd or 3rd time in that session with regards to load times.

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]279GB RAID 0 Raptor 10K (2 150GBs), data was 80GB used. After this miserable defrag performance and a message that says "this could take a few minutes to a few hours" and NO progress bar at all, I installed Diskeeper 2008 and the process took less than 1 hour. So eer...yeah Vista SP1 still has problems. So add another $100 to the OS.[/citation]Looks like your PC just sucks then eh?

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]WMP and Movie maker aren't games? So how is your response relevant? Question was "How many still run WinXP for games".[/citation]I thought it would be obvious that saying WMP and Movie Maker were my only incentives for running XP implied that I don't run games on XP. Or was that too hard for you to work out?

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]WHQL isn't a big money maker, it simply certifies the drivers which apparently still can crash the OS -- so who's to blame? Microsoft, they certified them, they accept responsibility for their stability, but now they're blaming those same vendors??[/citation]Mate in case you didn't know, Vista x64 requires signed drivers. You know there are many great free programs out their that are more stable than NVIDIA's drivers which don't have digital signatures and therefore can't run on Vista x64. This is just because the developers can't afford, or refuse to pay, M$'s stupid fees for their holy signature. WHQL is for making money, it serves no other purpose.

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]I've been a Tom's hardware member back when the site hardly had any revenue from ads and was in part asking for donations. I'm actually on my 2nd ID because my first ID got "renewed", that's how long ago I've been reading Tom's. Long enough to see the same patterns. It has become less and less objective and more and more subjective.[/citation]A site needs revenue to run. Donations are always few and far between, you can't run a high traffic website off $20 a year. And please stop referring to Tom's as an "it" as though the writers are a single collective mind. You still haven't shown any proof that M$ paid for this or any other article.


[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]Don't think for a minute Windows 7 is gonna be some brand new way of doing business -- it's the same Microsoft and their revenue and end user experience has and will not change. Only when there is significant pressure from Apple/Goolge, will Microsoft begin to think their fundamental philosophy of computing is wrong.[/citation]I never expect much from M$. I actually expect Windows 7 to be slower than Vista simply because of trends. But I'll still get it, because I don't have to pay for it.

 

[androticus]

Prove this blatant claim that it is now "fast"! Show XP to Vista benchmark comparisons that prove that.

(I won't be holding my breath.)