I hate Vista

spookyboo · Post by **spookyboo** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:08 pm

It is the worst piece of sh*t Microsoft ever produced. It doesn't perform, the security is terrible and decides for no reason that I am not authorised for my own files anymore, I cannot connect to the printer from my wireless laptap (the spooler crashes).

I am used to the oddness of Microsoft products, but Vista is a bad piece of software, somewhere in the lower ranks together with Windows ME.

synaptic · Post by **synaptic** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:18 pm

i see you've been suffering from the security in vista, it took me a while to get used to it, simply put previous versions of windows expected you to make windows secure vista on the otherhand is well basicly paranoid - you can turn off UAC or edit it to be less annoying.....

as windows ME, well unless your upgrading from Windows98se i'd wouldnt bother with it

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:26 pm

It works like a charm for me since 1.5 years

PolyVox · Post by **PolyVox** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:37 pm

Generally it's been ok for me, though there is no real reason to choose it over XP. I have turned off UAC because it got annoying, and I also find it thinks files are still in use long after they are not. But generally not to bad given I got a free copy on MSDNAA.

Also, don't forget SP1 is available. I haven't got it myself though.

Post by **betajaen** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:09 pm

I love Vista. From an die-hard Amiga and Apple user, it's quite a complement.

I leave UAC on (it's usually safer and is equivalent to sudo in Linux and username/password confirm prompt in OSX), I turn index searching off (I prefer to use Directory Opus's search) and ReadyBoost is off.

Most of the Desktop features are what I call modern these days; looking at XP, some parts haven't changed since Windows '98. I'm glad Microsoft took the slogan "Remond start your photocopiers" when Apple's Leopard was shown for the first time. Because they did copy the good bits. However they took to long developing it and what I heard had numerous stalls and fails. They dropped some of the best features I've heard (WinFS for one), and released it to early or to late (depending on how you look at it).

Of course; All those hardware instabilities are gone now, Microsoft can't be blamed for shoddy vendor drivers can they?

RedEyeCoder · Post by **RedEyeCoder** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:12 am

spookyboo wrote:It is the worst piece of sh*t Microsoft ever produced. It doesn't perform, the security is terrible and decides for no reason that I am not authorised for my own files anymore, I cannot connect to the printer from my wireless laptap (the spooler crashes).

I am used to the oddness of Microsoft products, but Vista is a bad piece of software, somewhere in the lower ranks together with Windows ME.

I agree 100%, I only recently rolled back to Windows XP and it was a great choice. My laptop is finally worth the money I paid for it. Regarding the Windows ME comment, that is exactly the OS I compare Vista to, they are both such an abomination.

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:29 am

betajaen wrote: (it's usually safer and is equivalent to sudo in Linux and username/password confirm prompt in OSX)

Barely.

Linux: pass:

Vista: So, I hear you wanted to run this program. You should know, running programs is not secure. Are you the one who installed this program? Well, are you sure you want to run it? Maybe I can find some alternatives. No? Ok, but are you completely sure you want to run it and risk a security threat? Ok, ok, just making sure one last time, you wanted to run this exact program?

Of course; All those hardware instabilities are gone now, Microsoft can't be blamed for shoddy vendor drivers can they?

Games are still faster on XP. And so is everything else. I don't know of any major businesses that made the switch to Vista. And probably never will, due to the upcoming awaited release of Windows 7.

Post by **xavier** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:05 am

nullsquared wrote:
betajaen wrote: (it's usually safer and is equivalent to sudo in Linux and username/password confirm prompt in OSX)
Barely.

Linux: pass:

Vista: So, I hear you wanted to run this program. You should know, running programs is not secure. Are you the one who installed this program? Well, are you sure you want to run it? Maybe I can find some alternatives. No? Ok, but are you completely sure you want to run it and risk a security threat? Ok, ok, just making sure one last time, you wanted to run this exact program?

ROFL & QFT

Don't forget the fact that it takes 10 times as long in Vista to calculate how long it will take to copy a file/directory/drive, than it does just to copy the damn thing.

It's "Windows For Dummies" is what it is. I'm perfectly happy staying with XP -- it does all that I need it to do.

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:27 am

I have a love/hate relationship with Vista. I like the feel, but its so damn slow and annoying. Does anybody know why we need to have more RAM to make vista run better? What exactly is it doing with all the RAM? I've heard Vista can run decently well on 64 bit with 8 GB RAM and virtual paging disabled, but thats not really economical..

Post by **betajaen** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:03 am

xavier wrote:Don't forget the fact that it takes 10 times as long in Vista to calculate how long it will take to copy a file/directory/drive, than it does just to copy the damn thing.

I've never had this problem at all. However I do use Directory Opus as an explorer replacement, and I've never had a problem with slow file copying. So this bug must be related to the explorer program itself.

But this whole Vista is slower than XP routine is getting old in my books. I regularly play Oblivion with ~10GB of mods (it's become an addiction of mine) both in XP and Vista, it's always known to be a hog of resources, but in my experience the performance has always been the same.

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:29 am

xavier wrote:Don't forget the fact that it takes 10 times as long in Vista to calculate how long it will take to copy a file/directory/drive, than it does just to copy the damn thing.

That was true before SP1.

volca · Post by **volca** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:57 am

These discussions always seems to either say:
1. Vista sucks (slow, UAC, DRM,...)
2. Vista is ok, because it is not worse than XP

now why should one upgrade from XP to Vista when it offers no benefits (Or does it)?

lonewolff · Post by **lonewolff** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:17 am

I am not a big fan. Probably because I still run a relatively slow AMD 2000XP processor and Vista absolutly chugs on it.

I am sure I'll be forced ditch XP one day. But, at the moment XP it is for me.

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:20 am

volca wrote:(Or does it)?

In many small ways Vista is more convenient than XP. But there aren't any "killer features" that would warrant to stop using XP and switching to Vista. I don't know if I would be using Vista if I didn't get it for free via MSDNAA.

reptor · Post by **reptor** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:45 am

KungFooMasta wrote:I have a love/hate relationship with Vista. I like the feel, but its so damn slow and annoying. Does anybody know why we need to have more RAM to make vista run better? What exactly is it doing with all the RAM? I've heard Vista can run decently well on 64 bit with 8 GB RAM and virtual paging disabled, but thats not really economical..

Well, you see, scanning your hard disk drives for terrorism-related content uses a lot of resources.

Then, preparing what was found and sending it to the FBI/NAA/NYC is also consuming a lot of resources. It's just the price you have to pay for national security. Suck it up!

Just joking of course. I don't know if they send it to NAA.

I've compared XP and Vista gaming performance, and it is obvious that the Vista is slower even with latest updates. Giving Vista better hardware does not necessarily help, Vista could still be slower. When me and my friend played the same game (demanding for the computer) and he had a much better computer than I had but he got almost no better performance than I got. I didn't believe it at first but then I saw it myself.

lonewolff · Post by **lonewolff** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:09 pm

Imagine how fast Windows 3.11 would run on todays hardware.

Vectrex · Post by **Vectrex** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:13 pm

I've heard Windows server 2008 is actually good, any experience with this?

lonewolff · Post by **lonewolff** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:20 pm

Yep. It is actually considerably faster than Vista (until you install Active Directory - then it slows up a bit).

I am running the 64bit version at work which it even more responsive than the 32bit version.

white tiger · Post by **white tiger** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:23 pm

i hate vista too. the UAC is too annoying (why i can't READ my own files?), it takes too much resources, it takes too time to install (except if you follow this tutorial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVbf9tOGwno), every time i try to run an application a window appear that say if you are sure, when you trust the application it can write only to the temp folder, unless you run it with administrative privilege (wich means click->properties exc..)

my cousin cannot run emule with vista. i have trusted it in the firewall, open the tcp and udp ports and set it to run with administrative privilege, still not working. i have disabled the firewall at all. working but the arrows were yellow and no green, the port test failed. superscan give the ports as open. bah.....

SomeFusion · Post by **SomeFusion** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:50 pm

Vista isn't that bad with SP1. I remember the first run after the installation was pretty cool.
At first I really liked it until I started working with it (installing Visual Studio was a nightmare!).
It got slower and slower as time went on. I had also some other problems with my hard drives.
Suddenly they where working even when I didn't use my computer until I noticed Vista defragments the hard drive automatically every Wednesday without giving me any indication what it is doing.
This really annoyed me to the point that I was trying Linux again after several horrible failures

Most of the points got better with SP1 but it was to late, I was using Linux by the time it was released. Vista is my gaming OS now and for everything else I use Linux.

Nauk · Post by **Nauk** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:49 am

I love windows 2000, but sadly more and more apps are released that require at least XP. As for Vista it makes me cringe every time I have to touch it on customers computers. Resulting in me strongly considering linux as future OS or ReactOS (Opensource Windows OS) speeds up some when soon and becomes usable.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:14 am

Nauk wrote:I love windows 2000, but sadly more and more apps are released that require at least XP. As for Vista it makes me cringe every time I have to touch it on customers computers. Resulting in me strongly considering linux as future OS or ReactOS (Opensource Windows OS) speeds up some when soon and becomes usable.

So you want something better than Windows?

I don't think alpha-quality, three-steps-behind clone of Windows is the best choice.

lonewolff · Post by **lonewolff** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:16 am

I must admit that my favorite OS is Windows 2000 as well. As it leaves out all of the garbage that XP (and Vista) has crammed into it. We should be able to choose if we want Windows Movie Maker and programs like that installed.

I would rather start with an empty bare bones system and decide to add to it if I choose. Not the opposite.

Nauk · Post by **Nauk** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:23 am

lonewolff wrote:I would rather start with an empty bare bones system and decide to add to it if I choose. Not the opposite.

Same here

Post by **xavier** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:43 am

lonewolff wrote: I would rather start with an empty bare bones system and decide to add to it if I choose. Not the opposite.

LFS!

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org

Ogre Forums

I hate Vista

I hate Vista

Re: I hate Vista