What do you NOT like about Vista?

[wolfman140]

Hey guys and gals,
Just interested in knowing what features you dis-like about Vista? I know there are some features most of us won't USE or aren't that beneficial, but are there features that you REALLY DON'T LIKE? Besides the price I mean.
I personally would've liked to experiment with Vista more, but it messed up my Windows XP OS a bit (they were on separate hdds and I was dual-booting), and soundcard drivers weren't out for it so I couldn't stand doing anything on it without sound .
I personally didn't like how the Windows Explorer folder system was laid out. It looked like a Mac. I like the way it is now, where folders branch out like a tree so you can see the heirarchy of the folders you're in. I felt the new version was confusing.
I know a lot of us are anti-Vista because of: Price, features we don't need, excessive cpu/ram requirements, etc. But are there any OS features you specifically DON'T like? Just want some opinions.

 

[slicessoul]

1. Windows Vista is just like a 5 year old kid who always ask "Mama, Mama, can i do this" ?
It's always asking your permission when you run softwares or services. Sometimes it's so annoying.

2. It's still too slow for 3D application such as Games and benchmarking if comparing with XP. I've got 4.5 score though for my rig.

I personally didn't like how the Windows Explorer folder system was laid out. It looked like a Mac. I like the way it is now, where folders branch out like a tree so you can see the heirarchy of the folders you're in. I felt the new version was confusing.

Yes i agree with you, it doesn't give any options much like in XP. I just feel browsing on Internet while in Windows Explorer.

 

[wolfman140]

I agree with you, it feels like you're on the net or something stupid.

 

[excentric_13073]

I think those are the biggest complaints I could make, the constant nagging if an action is ok, and the gaming performance. Now, I have not done any tests yet, but I think Vista is less tolerant of overclocking as well. I can't get my processor close to what I got in XP.

 

[chuckshissle]

err....it's not free like linux!

 

[niz]

Three letters:
DRM

Its also a resource hog and the GUI just sorta feels like it responds slower. XP feels snappy by comparison.

 

[engrpiman]

i like vista .. i think that the GUI and the way windows explorer works is great. my only problem is the there is a bug in the vista Nvidia drivers that prevents my second display from working with vista..

I use a digital and a analog display. when i try and set up a dual screen config my primary (digital) display goes out of range. blah

all in all i look forward to vista. it seem to combine the improved gui , like the one in OS X with out the instability of a mac. i know that people are going to flame me over that statement so let me explain.

I have been using a PC all my life 286(12.53Mh) + dos to 3.4GHz + xp .. i have also been using Macs off and on my entire life. It could be bad luck but every time i use a mac (from os2 to os x) i experience a problem, and it will crash.

on the other hand i have used Linux OS that have worked just fine and that i have not been able to crash. so i have concluded thet the mac os (all of them)is buggy and unstable

back to vista. i have not got much time with visa but what i have done with has impressed me.

 

[brainysmurf]

My main complaint is that Vista in its entirety seems to indicate that Microsoft has lost its focus about what an operating system is, and what it is supposed to be.
I want one thing from my OS: a stable work environment. The OS needs to get my computer up and running, and allow me to use the programs that I want to use to for play or work.
I don't need or want pretty pictures. I want my OS to be almost invisible.
Maybe it's time for me to go whole-heartedly to Linux (except for games!)

 

[mitch074]

-it costs a lot of money to actually get something not present in XP
-everything in it ahas been seen in a better working shape elsewhere
-all the exciting stuff has been removed during development
-it uses 400 Mb of RAM just to stay idle
-it's so bloated it needs solid state caching of your hard disk to actually not hit your hard disk constantly
-it's slow
-transluscency is eye-candy only: pure transparency allows one to type a document while reading the web page underneath it. Vista can't do that.
-although admin/user rights management systems have existed for years, Vista doesn't implement them correctly
-you need 7 clicks just to move a file
-it's still drive-letter based (which is a pain) but does as if it weren't (which is even more painful on a drive-based system)
-code is so obfuscated and slow that systems running under Linux using hardware 3 years older actually work better with the same eye candy and features (personally tested)
-it doesn't allow OpenGL over version 1.4 to run, while XP can run OpenGL 2.1 without trouble
-IE 7 is still unable to process XHTML pages as anything other than tag soup (while it actually is XML-based), considering XHTML is almost 5 years old
-it's so locked down with DRM you can't tinker with it at all - even if one of the bugs lays waste of the media you bought, it's lost
-it absolutely requires Internet access to work, and then nags you with stuff it thinks you should buy

As such, I define Vista as bloat/annoy/spy/vapour/demoware. Yes, I tried it. I cried after the wasted DVD and 3 hours time wasted on it.

 

[wolfman140]

Oh I know what else sucked...I was hoping the fancy sidebar thing (to mimikc mac's Widgets) was going to be just like the Mac's. I wanted to hit a key and toggle it on or off. But no, you can hotkey to turn it on, but then you have to manually close it. It runs like a program over there on the side of the screen, you can't just hit a hotkey to have it fly in and out like Mac's widgets. I thought that ridiculous. "Yes lets have a sidebar like Mac..except, we'll make it more annoying and harder to access!" Oh yeah, I know its new, but the apps they DID have for it were absolutely useless.

 

[Avalanche]

Now, I have not done any tests yet, but I think Vista is less tolerant of overclocking as well. I can't get my processor close to what I got in XP.

That is wierd I am able to get a better (Stable 12 hours SP2004) overclock in Vista than i can in XP. 2.9 in XP and 3.0 in Vista. Currently set at 2.9 for XP due to the fact I still game in XP... I have problems gaming in Vista with older games like Spearhead and PK kicks me in BF2 for unknown OS. Running BF2 Demo at the moment.

1. Windows Vista is just like a 5 year old kid who always ask "Mama, Mama, can i do this" ?
It's always asking your permission when you run softwares or services. Sometimes it's so annoying.

I like the fact it does this... Makes me feel better that my wife can not screw up my computer.

All and all I am looking forward to purchase Vista when it is released.

PS Running dual boot XP Pro and Vista RC2...

 

[JayBourne]

Don't be a Player Hater!! I hate the fact that there are 10 different versions of Vista.

 

[Wombat2]

(1) Loss of control over my own PC which I paid for. MS can remotely lock me out of my own machine. WGA has a significant percentage of false positives. Some Russian cracker uses a keygen which happens to generate my key ... bang ... I'm locked out. Screw that.
(2) DRM, Vista is primarily written as a platform for content provides to sell you content. Its utility as a OS is a secondary concern to MS e.g. continual security flaws exposing me and my data.
(3) It offers nothing usefull over XP. Aside from sucking up hardware resources.

Vista makes me a controlable commodity that MS is going to sell to the highest bidder.

 

[1Tanker]

Three letters:
DRM

Its also a resource hog and the GUI just sorta feels like it responds slower. XP feels snappy by comparison.

I agree. DRM, and UAC... It's a PITA. I like IE for once, but still tend to use Firefox when using Vista. I don't like the different folder icons. The folder with pages that look like they're gonna fall out are hard on my eyes. It is easier to bring up the task manager in XP. I dislike the heavy resource usage, and i've got it pared down to ~330MB idle at desktop. Lastly, from what i've heard, OEM versions are going to be harder to get/and harder to reactivate after, say, a mobo change...and more expensive than XP. I think it's going to make it harder for us private system builders to sell systems to people, due to higher windows cost, and higher HW requirements. So it will be that much harder to compete with DELL/FutureShop, etc. :x

 

[dasickninja]

Besides the price, the performance drop from XP, and the evils of DRM? Or the fact that only the top shelf version of Vista is worth anything to us but with the price you'd pay, you could get a Core 2 instead? Or besides that there are transformation packs on the Internet that will do the same Aero effects and other GUI changes for free and be more stable than Vista will be on introduction? Or the fact that it has very limited driver support still? (This could be remedied soon though. Vista's driver library is increasing.)

To me the only redeeming feature that Vista has is its support for more than 4Gb of memory and that it will be 64bit. Then again, who here actually uses the full 3.25Gb that Windows leaves behind? Oblivion doesn't count. Does Oblivion even run in Vista?

And while I'm on that, only the top shelf versions of Vista will be 64bit.

Vista is a wonderful idea from Microsoft and I''m not going to say that it is a bastardization of the Mac OS, since they stole theirs from Xerox, but it just doesn't appeal to me yet. Maybe 3 or 4 years after it comes out and they've got most of the bugs worked out and are on SP2 I'll decide to switch.

 

[rodney_ws]

The fear that validation might fail on a legitimate copy.

 

[kukito]

People tend to downplay the importance of the interface, often with good reason, but I for one am sick and tired of the XP's Fisher Price look. I've been running XP since 2001 and I just want something fresh. Aero just looks better, but that's a matter of opinion of course.

The DRM is a huge issue though. I tried to record a movie full of commercials from a plain old analog TV channel and Vista would not allow me to burn it to video DVD. There are ways around this, of course, but I suspect it will become more and more restrictive as we transition to digital.

I don't like Microsoft's validation process, which is far more onerous than Apple's FairPlay scheme which many people around here love to hate. But that also applies to XP and it's not a deal-breaker. I don't begrudge Microsoft for wanting to get paid for their software. They've always been fair and honest with me as a paying customer for many years. Considering the abusive and repellent behavior of RIAA, Microsoft and Apple are kittens. But whatever problems Microsoft might be having with piracy and hackers, the paying customer should not have pay the price.

UAC is bothersome but I welcome it. Linux and Mac OS require entering your password before you can install software unless you log in as root, which is strongly discouraged. That's why they're more secure. With UAC Microsoft has caught up. Then again you can turn UAC off.

 

[TSIMonster]

I think the only reason most of us will eventually upgrade is for DX10.... if someone is able to get DX10 to work with XP, I won't upgrade at all. XP Pro is working just fine. I'd use soley Linux (Ubuntu specifically) if it was better for gaming.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Hey guys and gals,
Just interested in knowing what features you dis-like about Vista? I know there are some features most of us won't USE or aren't that beneficial, but are there features that you REALLY DON'T LIKE? Besides the price I mean.
I personally would've liked to experiment with Vista more, but it messed up my Windows XP OS a bit (they were on separate hdds and I was dual-booting), and soundcard drivers weren't out for it so I couldn't stand doing anything on it without sound .
I personally didn't like how the Windows Explorer folder system was laid out. It looked like a Mac. I like the way it is now, where folders branch out like a tree so you can see the heirarchy of the folders you're in. I felt the new version was confusing.
I know a lot of us are anti-Vista because of: Price, features we don't need, excessive cpu/ram requirements, etc. But are there any OS features you specifically DON'T like? Just want some opinions.

The prices. MS is reaming everyone with a $400 desktop OS (Ultimate) and the least priced being $200. Forutnately I work for a company with an MSDN subscription so I get at least 1 copy free.

Pricing for full retail versions of the software will be Windows Vista Ultimate, $399; Windows Vista Business, $299; Windows Vista Home Premium, $239; and Windows Vista Home Basic, $199.

Upgrades from Windows XP are priced at Windows Vista Ultimate, $259; Windows Vista Business, $199; Windows Vista Home Premium, $159; and Windows Vista Home Basic, $99.

I also don't like that they are saying Vista will be slower than Xp playing games.

BUMMER!

Oh yeah I also hate all of the crap they put in it that I will probably never use, especially the greatest contradiction in terms: MS SECURITY PRODUCTS.

 

[mitch074]

The thing is, in Linux you can set up permissions to stuff like devices the same way you do it for files (since everything in Unix is a file) and due to the way files are organized: usr/bin contains most executbles, usr/local contains local stuff, usr/lib contains 32-bit libraries while 64-bit versions are in usr/lib64, making them cohabit peacefully, settings are under /etc... and the user's stuff is set apart in /home/user, which can be put on a different partition, making reinstalling a system as painless as you get: reformat /, reinstall new version, all youir settings, emails, documents are still safe in your directory: you, and only you can touch it, and you can only access or execute those files for which you have been given access-and only in the way you're supposed to access them (having no execute rights on a command makes it useless for you, for example).
Another nice thing is the ability to run a software with some priviledges while the others run with user rights. A lock 'maintainer' is also integrated in Gnome and KDE, meaning that if you start playing root, you don't need to enter the password for those apps that need it until you decide to get out of god mode - but only apps that specifically require root access can get it during that time.

 

[niz]

My main complaint is that Vista in its entirety seems to indicate that Microsoft has lost its focus about what an operating system is, and what it is supposed to be.
I want one thing from my OS: a stable work environment. The OS needs to get my computer up and running, and allow me to use the programs that I want to use to for play or work.
I don't need or want pretty pictures. I want my OS to be almost invisible.
Maybe it's time for me to go whole-heartedly to Linux (except for games!)

actually a lot of the bigger games have native linux versions too now. And if you can't get that you can run the windows version under cedega or wine, although that may or may not work depending on the game.

I'm with you, I'm certainly considering moving totally over to linux.

 

[derek2006]

I agree with TSImonster. If DX10 works with XP I will never switch. And I hate the new interface. When I was running RC1 I tried to find a xp style interface aero sucks in my opinion. And ya there is no control whats so ever. Also isn't there something called wine for linux that allows you to run windows programs and games. If there is and it works Im going to go linux.

 

[SirCrono]

The DRMs, I really hope MS hasn't sold itself to RIAA or the like, the hardware usage isn't that big a concern IMO, I remember when I switched to XP and thought it had insane system specs, so in a year or so most pcs will be able to run it.

 

[gm0n3y]

Ah, I see the Linux fanboys have come out again. That said, I will be installing Ubuntu this weekend. I run linux on my PC for a while. If I can find all of the programs I need (a/v players, DVD burning software, bittorrent app, etc), then I will likely give up on Windows except for gaming (the ones that don't run on Linux anyways). I think that Linux also has no DRM, so I can hopefully play / modify / burn all media without hindrance. Will Linux support full HD (1080p) video (i.e. HD-DVD/BluRay)?

I am not too worried about the cost of Vista since my workplace also has MSDN subscriptions. As long as it can be installed on more than one PC, I will be fine.

As for the 'improved' interface, as soon as I install XP, I turn off all themes. I like my OS to be utilitarian. If it doesn't help me run apps, browse files, etc, then it is just fluff.

 

[caskachan]

Tested the released versions, i didnt feel they where super slow at all, the gimiky cool intrface is SLOW, but seting it up like classic windows look, made it as fast as xp


overcostly , bloated os to grant acces to DX10?

yes thats all i see int for me, nothign else nothing more


i bet as soon as dx10 comes out, ms will prevent it from running in xp with a patch , and some people witll make a patch to let dx10 run in xp, woudl this be possible to pull this of?

actually for the vast majorty of game centers, which only bought xp for licensin purposes and beeing able to run games, wont it kill them to have to move over to vista? just to get dx10? , becuase come on , these lan centers are only set up for gaming o.o