Why do people hate Vista?

[JiveCoolie]

The only reason to hate Vista in my eyes is the lack of decent drivers.. and that is already almost no longer an issue.

But still.. everywhere I go I see people knocking Vista. Why? I have YET to read a decent criticism with facts at hand.. Mostly what I see is people stating they don't like it.. they don't know why they don't like it but they are sure they hate it.

Get decent hardware and Vista really shines.

People really need to get facts for themselves and stop taking word of mouth as such.

Also note that I don't mean people on the AnandTech boards.. people here have common sense. (thats why I use these boards)

But mainly when visiting gaming forums and such, when I see people state they will not purchase a game because they will never buy Vista and that specific game is Vista-Only.. that is what really grinds my gears! -peter griffin

 

[spherrod]

I agree with you - Vista is a very good OS and an awful lot of the criticism is misplaced (take UAC as an example - a very good feature that vendors need to support properly).

I had my doubts before release given the amount of changes and functionality Microsoft were working on but IMO it's already proved itself as a stable, productive OS for my producition and test systems

 

[Mem]

Some people don't like change,Vista in my experience is solid in all areas,drivers ,gaming etc...some people would like to stay on XP forever,now that is a scarey thought,personally XP was getting old (7 years more or less) so Microsoft needed to bring out an updated OS.

A lot of the criticism is also misplaced when it comes to Vista.

 

[xtknight]

Because you only hear about the bad experiences. If you think people hate Vista, maybe something needs adjustin'

Zealotry about it seems strong on both sides to be honest.

Main reason I don't like it: because I like something else. Simple.

XP64 works fine for me. It's fast, it's light, and it does everything I need. Why would I upgrade to something that suddenly does not do everything I need? For some, it makes no sense. If I was making an HTPC or multimedia PC for someone else, Vista would be quite an easy choice. For general use, bleh. Don't need it, it's just more trouble than what I already have.

When I installed it on my main PC ("real hardware") it worked very snappy, but it was kind of laggy in my virtual machine. If I used a Windows on my main machine it would probably be Vista. But in my VM, XP seems faster to me, thus that's what I use. I don't need all the security stuff, it's already in an isolated VM. I don't hate it, it's just not for me. I do have a few criticisms of it but these aren't necessarily the reasons I don't use it. I have little qualms about everything I use. I'm glad that it's better for other people (less security problems, better performance, easier to use, etc).

 

[nerp]

It's cool to hate MS. Facts and first hand experience get in the way of being cool.

An idiot running linux is still an idiot.

 

[NicColt]

Well you asked and I'm just giving my opinion on why I don't like it... and if I'm wrong please let me know.

Also I read all sorts of posts like this one...
Forum Post

My primary reason why I'm holding off on Vista and I posted this and it's snipets from several sources... and please don't bash me, people are allowed to like or not like something.

?Microsoft will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software.? It will once again ?send information about (whatever software) . . . version and product key of the software, and the Internet protocol address of the device.? to Microsoft."

Whithin Microsoft's right it will not ask, it 'will' validate. It will then without asking 'send' the information that you do not get to see back to Microsoft.

It goes on to say "If for some reason the software can't or phones home and gets or gives the wrong answer - irrespective of the reason - it will automatically disable itself."

The burden then falls on you even if you have a purchased legal copy of the software and unless you can prove to the satisfaction of some automaton that the software is ?Genuine,? or more accurately, that under the relevant copyright laws that you have satisfied the requirements of the copyright laws and all of the terms of the End User License Agreement, the software will, on its own, go into a ?protect Microsoft? mode. Besides placing an annoying ?Get Genuine? banner on the screen, and limiting your ability to get upgrades, the EULA warns that ?you may not be able to use or continue to use some of the features of the software.?

All this means that even if you purchased a genuine licence to use Vista, Microsoft at a time of it's choosing will REQUIRE access to your computer, require that you send proof from whatever software it asks, require that you send specific information that you don't get to see to Microsoft, even if you don't want to and if for some reason it can't receive it or you won't allow it, it doesn't care the software according to the EULA is within it's rights to disable itself.

So if for some reason Microsoft is at fault and there's a failure in the validation process and if your software and your business or network goes down because Microsoft can't validate and even though you have every licence to use the software, Microsoft then says that "you can recover from Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to the amount you paid for the software. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect or incidental damages.?

So if your computer or entire network is shut down and your business comes to a stand still and access to all your files permanently wiped out, you get your couple of hundred bucks back - at most." This basically saves them from prosecution if you lost business revenue and it turns out to be their fault.

I know there are Vista lovers out there and I would hope one day to go over to Vista but right now it's to risky for me. I just can't agree to these terms.

 

[hooterville]

Because they still have XP !!

 

[Rage187]

I hate it right now as I keep getting error Code 80070003 everytime I try and install an update. Followed every freakin KB but they won't install.

 

[A5]

Originally posted by: NicColt
Well you asked and I'm just giving my opinion on why I don't like it... and if I'm wrong please let me know.

Also I read all sorts of posts like this one...
Forum Post

My primary reason why I'm holding off on Vista and I posted this and it's snipets from several sources... and please don't bash me, people are allowed to like or not like something.

SNIP

Businesses are supposed to run local WGA servers to avoid this kind of thing. It's also why you keep backups of everything important, which is apparently much improved in Business and Enterprise.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: NicColt
snip

WGA isn't really that different than it is in XP.

And the guy in that thread is a moron.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: NicColt
snip

WGA isn't really that different than it is in XP.

And the guy in that thread is a moron.

:thumbsup: Of course it's impossible to be 1337 unless you bash Vista and Micro$oft<---Please note correct spelling

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: NicColt
snip

WGA isn't really that different than it is in XP.

And the guy in that thread is a moron.

QFT - a lot of the guys on that thread have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[magomago]

I hate it for driver issues - my friend has an HP webcam whose driver keeps borking and others online have this issue as well. Some of the messages are unnecessarily annoying as well. I think its a step over XP for sure, but Vista needs a year to be ironed out~ maybe at SP1 I'll take another look at Vista and consider recommending it to my friends...

And true it isn't Vista's fault (save for the annoying messages every damned second) but if people can blame Linux for drivers, well I can blame Vista for drivers

 

[zig3695]

microsoft has by far done the more backwards-compatibility then any other manufacturer. vista is an awesome os- i think people a little dissapointed it couldnt live up to the 'amazing' hype that M$ gave it for years, but for the true tech-geeks its a dream-come-true os. stable, functional, appealing, friendly... and still windows! mmmmm....

 

[squirrel dog]

I did my homework,got drivers for my scanner/vid card/camera/printer.I defragged an did the home prem upgrade.I like the results. I wish it was cheaper,but I would imagine MS supports an army of employees ,and its made in the USA.I like Vista,I realize its inception will drive new hardware sales,is that a bad thing?Not for me,I like new stuff.

 

[treemonkey]

For processor intensive apps, your comp will take longer to complete the same task under vista. If you just surf the web and edit word docs, vista is fine so long as you can find drivers.

 

[n7]

Ignorance is bliss.

I typed up a longer post, but really, there's no need for a wordy reply.

That statement sums up the majority of people out there hating on Vista.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: treemonkey
For processor intensive apps, your comp will take longer to complete the same task under vista. If you just surf the web and edit word docs, vista is fine so long as you can find drivers.

Care to back that up with some data, I've been using Photoshop under Vista for a while now and if anything its been faster then XP

 

[treemonkey]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: treemonkey
For processor intensive apps, your comp will take longer to complete the same task under vista. If you just surf the web and edit word docs, vista is fine so long as you can find drivers.

Care to back that up with some data, I've been using Photoshop under Vista for a while now and if anything its been faster then XP

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...p-vs-vista/page11.html

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue."


With regard to photoshop, Photoshop cs3 is more efficient than cs2 so that's maybe what you're seeing. The margins aren't in the 20% range but pscs3 is still faster under xp. Just try running the same filter on the same batch of imgs under the 2 os'es and see.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: treemonkey

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: treemonkey
For processor intensive apps, your comp will take longer to complete the same task under vista. If you just surf the web and edit word docs, vista is fine so long as you can find drivers.

Care to back that up with some data, I've been using Photoshop under Vista for a while now and if anything its been faster then XP

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...p-vs-vista/page11.html

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue."


With regard to photoshop, Photoshop cs3 is more efficient than cs2 so that's maybe what you're seeing. The margins aren't in the 20% range but pscs3 is still faster under xp. Just try running the same filter on the same batch of imgs under the 2 os'es and see.

Those benchmarks were taking near the release of Vista, using early drivers. When SP1 comes out and the drivers have matured, I doubt there will be a performance difference. The same was true when Windows XP was release. Most programs ran faster in Windows 98.

 

[treemonkey]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: treemonkey

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: treemonkey
For processor intensive apps, your comp will take longer to complete the same task under vista. If you just surf the web and edit word docs, vista is fine so long as you can find drivers.

Care to back that up with some data, I've been using Photoshop under Vista for a while now and if anything its been faster then XP

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...p-vs-vista/page11.html

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue."


With regard to photoshop, Photoshop cs3 is more efficient than cs2 so that's maybe what you're seeing. The margins aren't in the 20% range but pscs3 is still faster under xp. Just try running the same filter on the same batch of imgs under the 2 os'es and see.

Those benchmarks were taking near the release of Vista, using early drivers. When SP1 comes out and the drivers have matured, I doubt there will be a performance difference. The same was true when Windows XP was release. Most programs ran faster in Windows 98.

Yes, and so for the time being many people are sticking with xp. I'm sure MS (and the fanboys) will let us know if vista starts performing better than xp.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: treemonkey

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: treemonkey

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: treemonkey
For processor intensive apps, your comp will take longer to complete the same task under vista. If you just surf the web and edit word docs, vista is fine so long as you can find drivers.

Care to back that up with some data, I've been using Photoshop under Vista for a while now and if anything its been faster then XP

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...p-vs-vista/page11.html

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue."


With regard to photoshop, Photoshop cs3 is more efficient than cs2 so that's maybe what you're seeing. The margins aren't in the 20% range but pscs3 is still faster under xp. Just try running the same filter on the same batch of imgs under the 2 os'es and see.

Those benchmarks were taking near the release of Vista, using early drivers. When SP1 comes out and the drivers have matured, I doubt there will be a performance difference. The same was true when Windows XP was release. Most programs ran faster in Windows 98.

Yes, and so for the time being many people are sticking with xp. I'm sure MS (and the fanboys) will let us know if vista starts performing better than xp.

You should really find out about Vista by using it yourself,so many lies out there,personally performance is fine,there has already been benchmarks with some games that prove Vista is faster in some,while XP is faster in others ,overall not a lot of difference,drivers are getting better all the time performance wise.


Btw why MS and the fanboys?... lot of the Vista users are XP or ex-XP users,that statement is very arrogant and inmature,when you know what you are talking about let us know.

 

[treemonkey]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: treemonkey

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: treemonkey

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: treemonkey
For processor intensive apps, your comp will take longer to complete the same task under vista. If you just surf the web and edit word docs, vista is fine so long as you can find drivers.

Care to back that up with some data, I've been using Photoshop under Vista for a while now and if anything its been faster then XP

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...p-vs-vista/page11.html

"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue."


With regard to photoshop, Photoshop cs3 is more efficient than cs2 so that's maybe what you're seeing. The margins aren't in the 20% range but pscs3 is still faster under xp. Just try running the same filter on the same batch of imgs under the 2 os'es and see.

Those benchmarks were taking near the release of Vista, using early drivers. When SP1 comes out and the drivers have matured, I doubt there will be a performance difference. The same was true when Windows XP was release. Most programs ran faster in Windows 98.

Yes, and so for the time being many people are sticking with xp. I'm sure MS (and the fanboys) will let us know if vista starts performing better than xp.

You should really find out about Vista by using it yourself,so many lies out there,personally performance is fine,there has already been benchmarks with some games that prove Vista is faster in some,while XP is faster in others ,overall not a lot of difference,drivers are getting better all the time performance wise.


Btw why MS and the fanboys?... lot of the Vista users are XP or ex-XP users,that statement is very arrogant and inmature,when you know what you are talking about let us know.

Did you read my post? I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've tried pscs3 under both os'es and it's marginally faster under xp. And I think it's very fair to say that MS would write articles if vista outperformed xp and you'd see them everywhere.

The only reason I made the comparison was to see if vista was better (faster). And if it had been I would have used it even with the driver issues.

 

[Mem]

And I think it's very fair to say that MS would write articles if vista outperformed xp and you'd see them everywhere.

The only reason I made the comparison was to see if vista was better (faster). And if it had been I would have used it even with the driver issues.

You forget one thing Microsoft owns both XP and Vista so they lose nothing, if somebody buys XP rather then Vista they still get their profits and come out top dog.

There have been a lot of benchmarks and the fact is the results are mixed,especially with the very recent benchmarks.

Driver issues are all relative,personally I have had none (only problem I had was on a certain map on Stalker, but the problem I had with quickloads crashing was also reported by XP users too in their forums so its really a game bug).

I have been playing well over 30 games in Vista x64 so when I say " no drivers issues"I don't say it lightly,yes I can't speak for other people just like I can't speak for some XP users that also have driver issues.

Also I will say some driver issues have been hardware problems,I know one that was posted here in AT forums ,turned out to be faulty ram,but the guy blamed Vista OS rather then doing a memory test or hardware test at first,end of the day no OS (or person) is perfect and there will always be some users with problems regardless of the OS in question.

 

[treemonkey]

My only knock on vista was it's performance with cpu intensive tasks. I wasn't knocking ms, I was just saying that if the opposite were true, and vista outperformed xp, ms would use it as a selling point for vista. And they don't.