Why do people hate Vista?

[bsobel]

PS: To get the Vista lappy to see the XP network, I had to install software on the XP machines! So much for true "backwards compatibility"

Curious, what did you have to install on XP?

 

[Scooby Doo]

I already grabbed the drivers from Silicon, but there's a couple of problems. First I don't have a Silicon Image controller in my Storage controllers. Second when i do a legacy add manually, it says it can not start. Actually I don't believe I have a SiL controller, it should be JMicron. And JMicron's drivers just send Vista into a continous reboot cycle.

Course when I switched back to my main hard drive, Silicon Image issue no longer appeared. I didn't think the hard drives themselves needed special drivers.

 

[trexpesto]

Originally posted by: bsobel

PS: To get the Vista lappy to see the XP network, I had to install software on the XP machines! So much for true "backwards compatibility"

Curious, what did you have to install on XP?

Took a while to find it again: it's the LLTD Responder

Then also had to add the printer as a local printer.

EDIT: It was the LLTD responder my bad..

 

[trexpesto]

OK here's a couple more reasons to hate on Vista:

up to 15 minutes to see an XP share (search for "15 minutes")

Softpedia article: "... in excess of 20 Windows Vista features and services are hard at work collecting and transmitting your personal data to the Redmond company."

Don't that beat all.

 

[StopSign]

I can network Vista with XP just fine. It was no harder than networking on XP.

As for your laptop running slow, that's not Vista's fault. Something else is wrong there.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: trexpesto

Originally posted by: bsobel

PS: To get the Vista lappy to see the XP network, I had to install software on the XP machines! So much for true "backwards compatibility"

Curious, what did you have to install on XP?

Took a while to find it again: it's the LLTD Responder

Then also had to add the printer as a local printer.

EDIT: It was the LLTD responder my bad..

That link has nothing to do with printer or file sharing, just the ability to see XP nodes on the network map (which isnt required for sharing)...

 

[trexpesto]

yeah could be I hadn't waited the critical 15 minutes.
Oh so the network map is not necessarily meaningful. I hadn't considered that level of depravity.

I'm pretty sure I could only add the XP-hosted printer after installing that LLDP because only after that would it show up as a possible share when I searched the network.

Only then did entering the text share name work. Like \\Pete\HPLaserJ as a Local Printer. I had rebooted a few times.

Yeah theres something wrong with her ( HERS! she's my neighbor.) machine alright. Bloatware. I looked at the process list and it was crazy long. Norton this and that, god help her AOL stuff! I didn't want to get into it. Hm, wonder how up-to-date her XP installs were..

On MY machine - XP - I have sixteen processes currently running - including firefox. It boots to desktop in 32 seconds. It's actually a little slower for most applications since I added the second gig of RAM; had to return its memory overclock to stock speed.

 

[Raduque]

If you had to install a program to see XP in the network, you've got something wrong with the settings. Vista-to-XP networking worked just fine for me.

 

[Rayzn]

I think I had Vista Home Premium 64 bit installed all for an hour before I returned to XP.

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: Rayzn
I think I had Vista Home Premium 64 bit installed all for an hour before I returned to XP.

Wow, what an insightful post!

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Raduque
If you had to install a program to see XP in the network, you've got something wrong with the settings. Vista-to-XP networking worked just fine for me.

Yep, not seen any issues with file/printer sharing or browsing between Vista and XP.

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: Rayzn
I think I had Vista Home Premium 64 bit installed all for an hour before I returned to XP.

Why???
How can you not like Vista vs XP?

BTW, 99% of failed Vista installation can be blamed on hardware & operator's err.
Blame yourself or your hardware first before blaming something/someone else.


Here are some more reasons to love Vista....

Now I can watch/listen most of my favorites music tv show in my own family room from my own PC.
There is no need to get up to change cd or even my favorites dvd movies anymore.
Didn't I mention that I could watch HD-DVD movies thru my PC via the xbox hd-dvd?
The Vista Premium is way way much better than my previous MCE-2005, IMOE.
Vista Premium & xbox360 Live = Perfect match.

 

[trexpesto]

Originally posted by: videopho
Vista Premium & xbox360 Live = Perfect match.

On that I can agree. Crappy software and crappy hardware belong together.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Raduque
If you had to install a program to see XP in the network, you've got something wrong with the settings. Vista-to-XP networking worked just fine for me.

Yep, not seen any issues with file/printer sharing or browsing between Vista and XP.

Actually, there is one issue with network printers. If you have UAC disaled (as I do, for now) Vista fails to install a network printer. There's a manual work-around, though, and after that, the printer works perfectly.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: trexpesto

Originally posted by: videopho
Vista Premium & xbox360 Live = Perfect match.

On that I can agree. Crappy software and crappy hardware belong together.

:roll:

 

[TMoney468]

Originally posted by: videopho

Originally posted by: Rayzn
I think I had Vista Home Premium 64 bit installed all for an hour before I returned to XP.

Why???
How can you not like Vista vs XP?

BTW, 99% of failed Vista installation can be blamed on hardware & operator's err.
Blame yourself or your hardware first before blaming something/someone else.

Ok, I've been trying to get Vista working once again (32 bit, Premium Edition) and I can't for the life of me get either hibernate or sleep working. My screen will turn black for about 15 seconds, and my computer will remain on until the screen comes back up showing the login screen. I have all of the S3 power options set up correctly in the BIOS. For all the people who say it's either hardware or the user to blame, why is it that the same BIOS settings + same hardware, and both work on XP but neither work on Vista? Surely isn't it Vista's fault?

 

[Scooby Doo]

Agreed... when Vista works.. it works wonderfully, apparently, but when it doesn't... boy is sure does complain a lot.

I've managed to install the JMicron's JMB36X standard dual pci-ide drivers and STILL studders. Sleeping doesn't work for me either, never comes out of sleep. I just turned that feature off. Also had 0 problems before vista.

 

[Chaotic42]

I like it. It's been flawless for me for months now. There are a few things that I wish it did (RAR support, PDF support, more robust disk checking and defragging tools, etc), but it's a solid OS. I don't regret my purchase at all.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
more robust disk checking and defragging tools

Take a look at Diskeeper, It's a great product.

 

[trexpesto]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Raduque
If you had to install a program to see XP in the network, you've got something wrong with the settings. Vista-to-XP networking worked just fine for me.

Yep, not seen any issues with file/printer sharing or browsing between Vista and XP.

Actually, there is one issue with network printers. If you have UAC disaled (as I do, for now) Vista fails to install a network printer. There's a manual work-around, though, and after that, the printer works perfectly.

That machine booted directly into her account, could be disabled. Can you tell me if this is only a problem when on a domain, or affect "workgroup networks"?

PS: sorry about the vista bashing, couldn't resist tho - he was hearting on the xbox360 when it's failure rate is astronomically high

 

[Sunner]

I'd say my single biggest issue was nVidia drivers, which of course isn't Vista's fault, but it's an issue for me nevertheless.
For one, I'd get lockups now and then, I'd say once a day(on gaming days anyways).
And secondly, basic UI performance was pretty bad, the 3D stuff(which I don't care about) worked fine, but stuff like text scrolling was sluggish with lots of text on the screen.
And for some reason the good ole Win2K(Classic is it?) "theme" was rather sluggish overall, much more so than Aero Glass, which is a damn shame because I prefer that by far, compared to both Luna and Aero Glass.

Then some more minor stuff, just stuff that's changed that I thought was fine in XP.
I hate the new search, as well as the explorer for example.
Stuff to get used to I guess, but I really wish they just had one single button to press somewhere to make it look and feel more like Win2K, while obviously keeping the under-the-hood improvements, much like just setting XP to "Adjust for best performance" and changing to the classic start menu.
I guess the basic complaint here is that I'm not used to Vista, and that they changed it around too much, not really a flaw with the OS, just personal annoyances on my part.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Stuff to get used to I guess, but I really wish they just had one single button to press somewhere to make it look and feel more like Win2K, while obviously keeping the under-the-hood improvements, much like just setting XP to "Adjust for best performance" and changing to the classic start menu.

Amen to that.

The kernel improvements are noteworthy, but the overall user experience, IMHO, has declined since XP. It just seems like bloatware to me.

And what's with the dropdown list in the File Save dialog boxes from IE? Instead of clicking on it and getting a nice hierarchial view of directories like in XP, I get a last-used history list of locations. That's bogus UI as far as I'm concerned.

That's one of the primary UI problems with Vista - it takes more clicks to get things done than it did under XP. As a power user that bothers me.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Sunner
Stuff to get used to I guess, but I really wish they just had one single button to press somewhere to make it look and feel more like Win2K, while obviously keeping the under-the-hood improvements, much like just setting XP to "Adjust for best performance" and changing to the classic start menu.

Amen to that.

The kernel improvements are noteworthy, but the overall user experience, IMHO, has declined since XP. It just seems like bloatware to me.

And what's with the dropdown list in the File Save dialog boxes from IE? Instead of clicking on it and getting a nice hierarchial view of directories like in XP, I get a last-used history list of locations. That's bogus UI as far as I'm concerned.

That's one of the primary UI problems with Vista - it takes more clicks to get things done than it did under XP. As a power user that bothers me.

Stop trying to treat Vista like XP. If you want XP use XP. Those of us that have moved on to Vista (and by "move on" I do not mean use vista but cling to old XP concepts) leverage the favorites list frequently. After you are "moved in" to your new OS you'll only use that folder view a small percentage of the time. When using a small "save as" dialog with only a small amount of real-estate I would rather it default to freqent locations.

That said. Hit the stinkin folders expansion button in the bottom left and you'll have your old-balls folder view. I would recommend that after you get done with your click fest navigating to wherever it is you are saving that you hit the favorites button so next time you are one click away.

Why are you using the file menu anyway?? [obiwan] Let go luke! [/obiwan]. Did you actually enable that thing? If you want the top bar to be crowded use IE6 or something.

I see a lot of gripes about Vista from people who just want it to look like XP. In this example it's not Vista that's broken it's the user. The user is clinging to a 5 year old OS. I can't stand XP anymore. When I have to go back to it I find it feels crusty like NT 4.0 or Windows 95. The guys that designed the interface happen to be more "power user" than you or I. They are users too. Figure out what they envisioned with the interface and roll with it. You'll find you are faster than you were before.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Sunner
Stuff to get used to I guess, but I really wish they just had one single button to press somewhere to make it look and feel more like Win2K, while obviously keeping the under-the-hood improvements, much like just setting XP to "Adjust for best performance" and changing to the classic start menu.

Amen to that.

The kernel improvements are noteworthy, but the overall user experience, IMHO, has declined since XP. It just seems like bloatware to me.

And what's with the dropdown list in the File Save dialog boxes from IE? Instead of clicking on it and getting a nice hierarchial view of directories like in XP, I get a last-used history list of locations. That's bogus UI as far as I'm concerned.

That's one of the primary UI problems with Vista - it takes more clicks to get things done than it did under XP. As a power user that bothers me.

Stop trying to treat Vista like XP. If you want XP use XP. Those of us that have moved on to Vista (and by "move on" I do not mean use vista but cling to old XP concepts) leverage the favorites list frequently. After you are "moved in" to your new OS you'll only use that folder view a small percentage of the time. When using a small "save as" dialog with only a small amount of real-estate I would rather it default to freqent locations.

That said. Hit the stinkin folders expansion button in the bottom left and you'll have your old-balls folder view. I would recommend that after you get done with your click fest navigating to wherever it is you are saving that you hit the favorites button so next time you are one click away.

Why are you using the file menu anyway?? [obiwan] Let go luke! [/obiwan]. Did you actually enable that thing? If you want the top bar to be crowded use IE6 or something.

I see a lot of gripes about Vista from people who just want it to look like XP. In this example it's not Vista that's broken it's the user. The user is clinging to a 5 year old OS. I can't stand XP anymore. When I have to go back to it I find it feels crusty like NT 4.0 or Windows 95. The guys that designed the interface happen to be more "power user" than you or I. They are users too. Figure out what they envisioned with the interface and roll with it. You'll find you are faster than you were before.

Hey, that's a little harsh. I think someone can want and respect the under-the-hood features of Vista without wanting the layout/gui/cosmetic changes. In most cases, everything that was there in XP is there in Vista, but it's been moved around, reorganized, and/or hidden. For users that have gotten used to a particular layout, and are efficient with it, it takes some time to get things the way they want it.

Thankfully, Microsoft understands that, and you *can* make Vista what you want it, and changing the cosmetic layout/interface of icons, start menu setup, explorer views, etc, just makes it personalized to your liking, while still having the advantages of the new security, robust memory and hardware potential, DX10 capacity, and so on.

And finally, though you personally can't stand XP anymore is a personal opinion, and has no bearing on anything else. I prefer the classic look myself, as the cosmetic fluffing just gets in my way. Thankfully Microsoft saw fit to let us customize their product to the preference of each user. Nobody is 'wrong' here, just use what you want, and don't bitch at people because they don't share your outlook. Your expertise and ability to help are invaluable here, but please don't look down on someone because they have different preferences or opinions.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Sunner
Stuff to get used to I guess, but I really wish they just had one single button to press somewhere to make it look and feel more like Win2K, while obviously keeping the under-the-hood improvements, much like just setting XP to "Adjust for best performance" and changing to the classic start menu.

Amen to that.

The kernel improvements are noteworthy, but the overall user experience, IMHO, has declined since XP. It just seems like bloatware to me.

And what's with the dropdown list in the File Save dialog boxes from IE? Instead of clicking on it and getting a nice hierarchial view of directories like in XP, I get a last-used history list of locations. That's bogus UI as far as I'm concerned.

That's one of the primary UI problems with Vista - it takes more clicks to get things done than it did under XP. As a power user that bothers me.

Stop trying to treat Vista like XP. If you want XP use XP. Those of us that have moved on to Vista (and by "move on" I do not mean use vista but cling to old XP concepts) leverage the favorites list frequently. After you are "moved in" to your new OS you'll only use that folder view a small percentage of the time. When using a small "save as" dialog with only a small amount of real-estate I would rather it default to freqent locations.

That said. Hit the stinkin folders expansion button in the bottom left and you'll have your old-balls folder view. I would recommend that after you get done with your click fest navigating to wherever it is you are saving that you hit the favorites button so next time you are one click away.

Why are you using the file menu anyway?? [obiwan] Let go luke! [/obiwan]. Did you actually enable that thing? If you want the top bar to be crowded use IE6 or something.

I see a lot of gripes about Vista from people who just want it to look like XP. In this example it's not Vista that's broken it's the user. The user is clinging to a 5 year old OS. I can't stand XP anymore. When I have to go back to it I find it feels crusty like NT 4.0 or Windows 95. The guys that designed the interface happen to be more "power user" than you or I. They are users too. Figure out what they envisioned with the interface and roll with it. You'll find you are faster than you were before.

Hey, that's a little harsh. I think someone can want and respect the under-the-hood features of Vista without wanting the layout/gui/cosmetic changes. In most cases, everything that was there in XP is there in Vista, but it's been moved around, reorganized, and/or hidden. For users that have gotten used to a particular layout, and are efficient with it, it takes some time to get things the way they want it.

Understood. It will take some time to get used to something new. I would like to see people recognize the fact that they are in a learning curve and expect the adjustment instead of griping about it. Once the adjustment was over were you faster in 9x than in 3.1? 2000 vs 9x? XP vs 2000? Will Vista suddenly reverse the trend? Silliness I think.

Thankfully, Microsoft understands that, and you *can* make Vista what you want it, and changing the cosmetic layout/interface of icons, start menu setup, explorer views, etc, just makes it personalized to your liking, while still having the advantages of the new security, robust memory and hardware potential, DX10 capacity, and so on.

Yep. I customize the crap out of every OS I use. As an example I leveraged favorites in my start menu back in XP to navigate quickly. Every box I "moved in" to I had to get this setup before I was happy. In Vista I've moved on but I'm already developing new tweaking preferences.

And finally, though you personally can't stand XP anymore is a personal opinion, and has no bearing on anything else. I prefer the classic look myself, as the cosmetic fluffing just gets in my way. Thankfully Microsoft saw fit to let us customize their product to the preference of each user. Nobody is 'wrong' here, just use what you want, and don't bitch at people because they don't share your outlook. Your expertise and ability to help are invaluable here, but please don't look down on someone because they have different preferences or opinions.

Subjectively I like Vista and Larry likes XP. Subjectively. No right or wrong there. Totally agree with you.

Objectively it does not take more clicks to get things done in Vista. If it does you are using it in a way it was not intended and probably to satisfy subjective XP preferences. In Larry's example 90% of the time you should be navigating to a common location. It may indeed be slower when using the other 10%. If you try to make it to work like XP did I'll agree that it would be annoying.

The objective example:
1. In XP...File | Save As.. | n number of clicks to navigate to a folder, 1 click to save.
2. In Vista trying to behave as XP...
couple clicks to bring up the file menu | save as.. | n+2 clicks to navigate to a folder (extra click to hit 'folders' and extra click since it's not expanded by default, 1 click to save.
3. In Vista the way it was meant.. Page | Save as | 1 click to navigate, 1 click to save.

#3 of course assumes you've been using Vista the way it was meant all along. If you've been using it like XP then your favorites list is probably not populated.

Regarding the harshness of my post. It was not an attempt to put down someone because of their subjective views. The harshness of my post is a futile attempt to "nip it in the bud" with Larry. There is a history here that you may not be aware of (someone shout amen smilin!). You'll note I didn't jump Sunner for his subjective view and I've tried to provide rational argument in response to yours.