Why do people hate Vista?

[WildHorse]

This (as posted on a different web forum) summarizes some of the strong reasons why many comnputer experts are calling Microsoft Vista a very bad piece of work:

"A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" by Peter Gutmann

We're in a spot between what's claimed to be "bad computer software engineering" (VIsta) on one hand, and future consumer market demand for DirectX 10 for next generation gaming on the other hand, which presently requires Vista.

So tomorrow I have to buy a new OS license tio replace a borked WIn 2000 Pro installation. Win XP PRo or Vista? The choice . . .What am I going to do? What am I going to do? dunno yet

 

[ielmox]

My main problem with Vista is that it isn't exactly snappy even on quite powerful systems. After turning off hog services like System Restore, my XP Home box - which is 4 years old - beats my brand new Vista Home Premium (32bit) box at everything except gaming and benchmarks. Boot/shut down times, responsiveness, connecting to the Internet, etc., are all way better on XP - not just marginally, but WAY better, as in twice as fast or more.

For some reason Vista is quite sluggish, even on a system with 2 GB DDR2 800 and an Intel E6550. I am very disappointed so far and I can definitely understand why some people are angry with Microsoft.

XP never ran this badly back when I first got it 5 or 6 years ago. In fact I remember very clearly how much snappier and more reliable my system was after upgrading from the hideous Win98SE. It felt like such a relief to finally have a real OS instead of the 98 junk.

 

[WildHorse]

The way I read the long article linked in my post above, the author, Peter Gutmann, sees Vista as being not at all about Microsoft trying to present a well-designed product for us.

The way I understand him, he sees Vista as being mostly a sly Microsoft strategy to push into position to dominate "content" providers' and users' (us) options in the future, partly through DRM and other embedded controls (tilt bits, etc.).

I don't know if Mr. Gutmann is right or not. Right after reading his well presented opinion it's pretty easy to be convinced by him, and left with an uneasy attitude toward Vista. But then again, Mr. Gutmann even describes himself as "Professional Paranoid, Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland."

Mr. Gutmann is only criticizing a portion of Vista dealing with media handling. What if the other portions of Vista that he doesn't discuss also have similar issues?

I just don't know. So many problems reported, but so many endorsements by good people too. Wish I was ready to jump to Suse Linux but I'm just not there yet, hard to make time to dive into Linux.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: scott
This (as posted on a different web forum) summarizes some of the strong reasons why many comnputer experts are calling Microsoft Vista a very bad piece of work:

"A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" by Peter Gutmann

We're in a spot between what's claimed to be "bad computer software engineering" (VIsta) on one hand, and future consumer market demand for DirectX 10 for next generation gaming on the other hand, which presently requires Vista.

So tomorrow I have to buy a new OS license tio replace a borked WIn 2000 Pro installation. Win XP PRo or Vista? The choice . . .What am I going to do? What am I going to do? dunno yet

Ya know, after reading most of that I'm still left with my Vista system that starts up faster, shuts down faster, launches applications faster, and doesn't BSOD after a gfx driver problem. I'm watching movies ripped by DVDdecrypter, all of my music still plays, and my new Bioshock looks stunning. XP can go to hell, it never ran this well for me.

 

[fierydemise]

Peter Gutmann's "report" has provided a lot of ammunition to those who dislike Vista however it is not so much a report as a rant and while he makes some big claims he backs up very little of it and their are "issues" mentioned in this report that are pure speculation at best and total BS at worst. While many of those who dislike Vista or those looking for a reason to hate Vista have latched onto this as proof that Vista sucks there has been a fair amount of criticism of the unsubstantiated claims Gutmann makes.

Here
Here
Here

Just because Gutmann has strong credentials doesn't make everything he says true especially when he offers little to know proof about what he's saying.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ielmox
My main problem with Vista is that it isn't exactly snappy even on quite powerful systems. After turning off hog services like System Restore, my XP Home box - which is 4 years old - beats my brand new Vista Home Premium (32bit) box at everything except gaming and benchmarks. Boot/shut down times, responsiveness, connecting to the Internet, etc., are all way better on XP - not just marginally, but WAY better, as in twice as fast or more.

For some reason Vista is quite sluggish, even on a system with 2 GB DDR2 800 and an Intel E6550. I am very disappointed so far and I can definitely understand why some people are angry with Microsoft.

XP never ran this badly back when I first got it 5 or 6 years ago. In fact I remember very clearly how much snappier and more reliable my system was after upgrading from the hideous Win98SE. It felt like such a relief to finally have a real OS instead of the 98 junk.

"hog services like system restore". Oh man that's rich.

XP snappier than Win98SE. That's rich too.


You should do stand up.

 

[Rebel44]

Lots of people hate Vista only because its made by Microsoft.

 

[Lavrenti Beria]

Rebel44,

Yeah, and not without reason! Just called their pre-sales support to get a simple answer about whether Vista would natively provide drive imaging or cloning across a network and got into the most incredible call-passing episode I've been involved with for some time. Pre-sales authorized a contact with tech-support, gave me a case number and transferred the call to some kabuki dancer in Wisnetchistan. I gave her the number and told her that the call was authorized by pre-sales but she refused to put me through to support, sending me against my will to - you guessed it - pre-sales. I explained the situation to yet another person, and, incredibly they told me that my number was not one thet'd issued yet I confirmed it digit-by-digit the first time. I left her with the most clear possible sense of how I felt about them and their cotton-pickin products. And I'll now be forced to get an answer to this question from a forum like this when those SOBs ought to be answering it themselves. Anandtech ought to think about billing Microsoft for the support its forum members bring when Microsoft hasn't the competance to handle something as simple as a telephone inquiry. I'm one steamed Vista prospect, I don't mind telling you.


Lavrenti Beria

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: scott
This (as posted on a different web forum) summarizes some of the strong reasons why many comnputer experts are calling Microsoft Vista a very bad piece of work:

"A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" by Peter Gutmann

We're in a spot between what's claimed to be "bad computer software engineering" (VIsta) on one hand, and future consumer market demand for DirectX 10 for next generation gaming on the other hand, which presently requires Vista.

So tomorrow I have to buy a new OS license tio replace a borked WIn 2000 Pro installation. Win XP PRo or Vista? The choice . . .What am I going to do? What am I going to do? dunno yet

Ya know, after reading most of that I'm still left with my Vista system that starts up faster, shuts down faster, launches applications faster, and doesn't BSOD after a gfx driver problem. I'm watching movies ripped by DVDdecrypter, all of my music still plays, and my new Bioshock looks stunning. XP can go to hell, it never ran this well for me.

Wow, it must vary quite widely from system to system. My box is nearly identical to yours, only @ 3.2Ghz, and XP runs ridiculously well (on a 400GB Seagate). In the same system, Vista Home Premium (now on a 750GB Seagate) runs notably slower in almost all areas. One would think that C2D@3.2/P965 Asus/4GB DDR2-800/7900 would run like greased lightning.

 

[Noema]

Yet my E6400 4GB DDR2800MHz 8800GTS does run it like greased lightning.

To the point I can't really go back to XP anymore. It feels clunky.

 

[Arkaign]

Yep, I think it must just vary widely from configuration to configuration. I've yet to see Vista run as fast as my XP install on anything so far though. Before long, though, you'll need Vista to take advantage of run-of-the-mill hardware (DX10 games, 8GB Ram, 16-Core Cpus, etc). I'll probably jump in Summer/Fall '08 to actually booting to Vista more than once every couple of months.

Clunky? Does that mean performance, or interface, or what? For me, I just click on what I want, it opens nearly instantly, it doesn't crash, it doesn't do anything I don't tell it to explicitly, and bootup/shutdown happen in a flash. Of course, I hover between 17-23 processes most of the time.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Wow, it must vary quite widely from system to system. My box is nearly identical to yours, only @ 3.2Ghz, and XP runs ridiculously well (on a 400GB Seagate). In the same system, Vista Home Premium (now on a 750GB Seagate) runs notably slower in almost all areas. One would think that C2D@3.2/P965 Asus/4GB DDR2-800/7900 would run like greased lightning.

Are you certain it is not the way Aero works that is giving you the impression that Vista is slower than XP? Benchmarks for both games and programs do not bear out evidence that Vista is substantially slower than XP.

Try setting Aero for best performance by right clicking on Computer -> Properties -> Advanced System Settings -> Performance -> Settings. This will turn off many of the effects of Aero while leaving it on and will result in a system that seems a lot faster to the eye. You will lose all the pretty stuff that Aero provides and will have a win2k style interface. You could also custom select which features you want and still have some of the pretty effects of Aero if you like.

Make certain you have all the latest drivers for your hardware and open device manager to make certain there are no driver errors in your hardware causing your system to be less responsive.

Case in point. I have a Creative Audigy SE sound card. Until I installed the free modified version of Alchemy, I had several problems with certain games like WoW not performing as well as they did on XP. Since installing it all my games now perform exactly as they would on XP. Hardware not working properly is the number one reason why some Vista machines are not running as fast as they should be.

Try these things and see if Vista does not seem much faster afterwards.

 

[WildHorse]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Peter Gutmann's "report" has provided a lot of ammunition to those who dislike Vista however it is not so much a report as a rant and while he makes some big claims he backs up very little of it and their are "issues" mentioned in this report that are pure speculation at best and total BS at worst. While many of those who dislike Vista or those looking for a reason to hate Vista have latched onto this as proof that Vista sucks there has been a fair amount of criticism of the unsubstantiated claims Gutmann makes.

Here
Here
Here

Just because Gutmann has strong credentials doesn't make everything he says true especially when he offers little to know proof about what he's saying.

I'm glad you pointed out those rebuttals.

I read them. Boy, they sure do get you thinking the opposite way from Mr. Gutmann's article.

That's another reason this forum is so helpful.

But I still don't know whether I'll buy Vista. I'm thinking more & more about how it might be better now to jump to Linux, but I have a lot more to learn about that.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: scott
I'm glad you pointed out those rebuttals.

I read them. Boy, they sure do get you thinking the opposite way from Mr. Gutmann's article.

That's another reason this forum is so helpful.

But I still don't know whether I'll buy Vista. I'm thinking more & more about how it might be better now to jump to Linux, but I have a lot more to learn about that.

Just keep in mind that you will have many of the same issues with Linux concerning drivers you currently have with Vista. Also some multimedia and web sites will not work well or at all in Linux. I suggest you dual boot with XP if you want to try Linux so you will lose nothing if some things do not work out properly for you in Linux.

Download PCLinuxOS and try the live CD on your computer. It contains drivers and codecs not installed in an Ubuntu Live CD. If you are willing to take the time to learn more about adding that stuff to Linux, then Ubuntu is a great choice. It is also a live CD so you will not have to install anything to your hard drive to try it out and see if you like it. Keep in mind the speed of a live cd is not as quick as the speed of a HD installation.

 

[Rebel44]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Wow, it must vary quite widely from system to system. My box is nearly identical to yours, only @ 3.2Ghz, and XP runs ridiculously well (on a 400GB Seagate). In the same system, Vista Home Premium (now on a 750GB Seagate) runs notably slower in almost all areas. One would think that C2D@3.2/P965 Asus/4GB DDR2-800/7900 would run like greased lightning.

Are you certain it is not the way Aero works that is giving you the impression that Vista is slower than XP? Benchmarks for both games and programs do not bear out evidence that Vista is substantially slower than XP.

Try setting Aero for best performance by right clicking on Computer -> Properties -> Advanced System Settings -> Performance -> Settings. This will turn off many of the effects of Aero while leaving it on and will result in a system that seems a lot faster to the eye. You will lose all the pretty stuff that Aero provides and will have a win2k style interface. You could also custom select which features you want and still have some of the pretty effects of Aero if you like.

In Performance Settings disable/enable options in that menu (from above):
disable
disable
enable
disable
disable
disable
enable
disable
enable
disable
disable
enable
disable
disable
enable
disable
disable
enable
disable
disable


Some efects wont slow down your PC but EVERYTHING will appear to be REAAAALY SLOW.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Clunky? Does that mean performance, or interface, or what? For me, I just click on what I want, it opens nearly instantly, it doesn't crash, it doesn't do anything I don't tell it to explicitly, and bootup/shutdown happen in a flash. Of course, I hover between 17-23 processes most of the time.

It's not that it performs poorly. It runs very well.

What I mean is: programs take a bit longer to open up. Icons on the desktop refresh every now and then (which never happens in Vista).

If I open up a folder with lots of files with lots of metadata or thumbnails, that takes a long time, and there's a lot of refreshing going on.

Vista has spoiled me in two ways: Accelerated desktop and superfetch, because those two features can make much better use of my hardware to make it run better.

In Vista, everything seems to have its place on the interface much more solidly, no doubt because of Aero. Dragging Windows for instance doesn't have some of the rare, but existing hiccups XP does. Specially with dual displays. The desktop in XP has dozens of overlays, each created by different programs...and often they don't get along so well.

In Vista I can be gaming in one Window, using Google Earth in another Window, running a midi composer program in another window, with dozens of gadgets running, while dragging a playing movie around from one desktop to another...no flickering, no hangs, no hiccups. It's just rock solid, and smooth. Not that XP is not solid, but you can see between the seams. You see it flicker; you see it refresh. Not in Vista.

And that's what I like about it.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Lavrenti Beria
Rebel44,

Yeah, and not without reason! Just called their pre-sales support to get a simple answer about whether Vista would natively provide drive imaging or cloning across a network and got into the most incredible call-passing episode I've been involved with for some time. Pre-sales authorized a contact with tech-support, gave me a case number and transferred the call to some kabuki dancer in Wisnetchistan. I gave her the number and told her that the call was authorized by pre-sales but she refused to put me through to support, sending me against my will to - you guessed it - pre-sales. I explained the situation to yet another person, and, incredibly they told me that my number was not one thet'd issued yet I confirmed it digit-by-digit the first time. I left her with the most clear possible sense of how I felt about them and their cotton-pickin products. And I'll now be forced to get an answer to this question from a forum like this when those SOBs ought to be answering it themselves. Anandtech ought to think about billing Microsoft for the support its forum members bring when Microsoft hasn't the competance to handle something as simple as a telephone inquiry. I'm one steamed Vista prospect, I don't mind telling you.


Lavrenti Beria

#1 Use the web for this sort of inquiry. All product specs and capabilities are listed on the web.

#2 Pre-sales is really best suited to licensing and other such questions.

#3 When you are talking about a specific technology tech support is better suited.

#4 Tech support isn't free unless something is broken with the product. So...See #1.


Anyone can make their own phone-call hell by calling the wrong people to answer the question. Stop harassing the non-technical with technical questions.

And to answer your original question: no.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: ielmox
My main problem with Vista is that it isn't exactly snappy even on quite powerful systems. After turning off hog services like System Restore, my XP Home box - which is 4 years old - beats my brand new Vista Home Premium (32bit) box at everything except gaming and benchmarks. Boot/shut down times, responsiveness, connecting to the Internet, etc., are all way better on XP - not just marginally, but WAY better, as in twice as fast or more.

For some reason Vista is quite sluggish, even on a system with 2 GB DDR2 800 and an Intel E6550. I am very disappointed so far and I can definitely understand why some people are angry with Microsoft.

XP never ran this badly back when I first got it 5 or 6 years ago. In fact I remember very clearly how much snappier and more reliable my system was after upgrading from the hideous Win98SE. It felt like such a relief to finally have a real OS instead of the 98 junk.

"hog services like system restore". Oh man that's rich.

XP snappier than Win98SE. That's rich too.


You should do stand up.

Are you some kind of cretin, or do you just enjoy gesticulating pointlessly while offering no counter claims whatsoever? If you have a problem with my post state your case, otherwise spare us such idiotic posturing.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: ielmox
My main problem with Vista is that it isn't exactly snappy even on quite powerful systems. After turning off hog services like System Restore, my XP Home box - which is 4 years old - beats my brand new Vista Home Premium (32bit) box at everything except gaming and benchmarks. Boot/shut down times, responsiveness, connecting to the Internet, etc., are all way better on XP - not just marginally, but WAY better, as in twice as fast or more.

For some reason Vista is quite sluggish, even on a system with 2 GB DDR2 800 and an Intel E6550. I am very disappointed so far and I can definitely understand why some people are angry with Microsoft.

XP never ran this badly back when I first got it 5 or 6 years ago. In fact I remember very clearly how much snappier and more reliable my system was after upgrading from the hideous Win98SE. It felt like such a relief to finally have a real OS instead of the 98 junk.

"hog services like system restore". Oh man that's rich.

XP snappier than Win98SE. That's rich too.


You should do stand up.

Are you some kind of cretin, or do you just enjoy gesticulating pointlessly while offering no counter claims whatsoever? If you have a problem with my post state your case, otherwise spare us such idiotic posturing.

Meh I guess since you went to all the trouble to type that up I could at least give you a tiny response.

System restore only leverages computing resources when it is creating or restoring a restore point. This is activated by non-compatible installers, non-signed drivers, manual activation and a handful of other conditions. If it is not creating a restore point it doesn't do anything to the performance of your computer at all. period. Your post indicates a fundamental lack of understanding about system restore. The lack of understanding is so blatant and obvious that I found it funny and not really worth responding to. I couldn't sleep at night if you thought I was a cretin so I've responded.

Regarding Windows 98. Windows 98 was a very snappy OS. It wasn't until much heavier hardware came out and multitasking really started being used that XP stood a chance of competing with it. Many gamers back in the Windows 2000 (and later XP) days stuck with 98 just for this reason. The stability of 98 was the utter suck but the extra framerate was nice especially on the voodoo cards of the day. If you noticed some vast performance difference when switching from 98 to XP then maybe it was because your then 4 year old OS was bloated with a bunch of crapware and the new install did you some good.

That system restore comment kills me though. funny stuff. Also, telling me that you disable system restore tells me something about you. I don't predict you winning many technical debates.

Are you a blackviper fan?

 

[Rebel44]

Originally posted by: Smilin[/i]

ielmox: ......

Smilin: ......

ielmox RE: Are you some kind of cretin, or do you just enjoy gesticulating pointlessly while offering no counter claims whatsoever? If you have a problem with my post state your case, otherwise spare us such idiotic posturing.

Smilin RE: That system restore comment kills me though. funny stuff. Also, telling me that you disable system restore tells me something about you. I don't predict you winning many technical debates.

Are you a blackviper fan?

Well system restore might be usefull for someone but I disabled it simply because I´m regularly creating image of my HDD (only when I´m sure everything is OK) which is IMHO better than System restore(which would protect just OS and not my apps).

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Rebel44

Originally posted by: Smilin[/i]

ielmox: ......

Smilin: ......

ielmox RE: Are you some kind of cretin, or do you just enjoy gesticulating pointlessly while offering no counter claims whatsoever? If you have a problem with my post state your case, otherwise spare us such idiotic posturing.

Smilin RE: That system restore comment kills me though. funny stuff. Also, telling me that you disable system restore tells me something about you. I don't predict you winning many technical debates.

Are you a blackviper fan?

Well system restore might be usefull for someone but I disabled it simply because I´m regularly creating image of my HDD (only when I´m sure everything is OK) which is IMHO better than System restore(which would protect just OS and not my apps).

That works too. I really like system restore though. I've probably used it 3 times in my life, but when I needed it, it worked perfectly. Very quick, and I didn't have to re-image for a relatively small driver problem. The $1.50(aprox) of drive space it takes is a small price to pay for the convenience.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Peter Gutmann's "report" has provided a lot of ammunition to those who dislike Vista however it is not so much a report as a rant and while he makes some big claims he backs up very little of it and their are "issues" mentioned in this report that are pure speculation at best and total BS at worst. While many of those who dislike Vista or those looking for a reason to hate Vista have latched onto this as proof that Vista sucks there has been a fair amount of criticism of the unsubstantiated claims Gutmann makes.

Here
Here
Here

Just because Gutmann has strong credentials doesn't make everything he says true especially when he offers little to know proof about what he's saying.

I'm glad you pointed out those rebuttals.

I read them. Boy, they sure do get you thinking the opposite way from Mr. Gutmann's article.

That's another reason this forum is so helpful.

But I still don't know whether I'll buy Vista. I'm thinking more & more about how it might be better now to jump to Linux, but I have a lot more to learn about that.

Wow.

This Gutmann guy is a genius.

A f*cking genius at being a retarded moron.

I deal with customers every day paranoid about Vista...& it's incredibly annoying, since they don't even know why.
They've just heard from someone who's heard from someone who's an idiot who didn't know what they were doing...

Ah gawd seriously...

Quite funny reading those rebuttals though...you'd think a person might want to try using the OS before spouting nonsense, but no....

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: Smilin
System restore only leverages computing resources when it is creating or restoring a restore point.

precisely. Turning off System Restore means that your system won't ever create a restore point, which means it will not be sluggish and unresponsive while a restore point is created (in the middle of running an application, for example). Since there are better, more reliable, and and less intrusive options available than System Restore, I turned it off - and have since been subject to fewer annoying slowdowns or bursts of sluggishness.

So spare me the superior attitude, it is completely unwarranted.

Windows 98 was a very snappy OS.

If by snappy you mean crash-happy and prone to a zillion problems, you are correct.

It wasn't until much heavier hardware came out and multitasking really started being used that XP stood a chance of competing with it. Many gamers back in the Windows 2000 (and later XP) days stuck with 98 just for this reason. The stability of 98 was the utter suck but the extra framerate was nice especially on the voodoo cards of the day. If you noticed some vast performance difference when switching from 98 to XP then maybe it was because your then 4 year old OS was bloated with a bunch of crapware and the new install did you some good.

No actually, I keep my PCs clean. That particular Win98 installation was about a year old and just as sucky as all the others. I finally got XP about a year after its official release to allow MS time to fix the million bugs with the OS, and after a couple weeks of playing around and customizing it I found XP to run remarkably better and faster than that POS Win98SE.

I did the same thing with Vista (waited several months for MS to get its act together and fix the major problems with their OS) because I'm a gamer and I like reliability. I stuck with Win98 as long as I could bear that piece of crap because I kept hearing the same nonsense you are repeating, that 98 was better for playing games. Then when I moved to XP I actually found my gaming experience significantly improved - not necessarily in frame rates, which I admit I didn't measure (and which weren't an issue), but in response times, loading times, reliability, up-time, etc.

Now my current XP Home installation is years old (too lazy to reinstall everything) and it is still extremely fast and reliable - like I said, snappier and less buggy than Vista has proved so far. And my Vista box is this year's hardware, unlike my XP box which is years out of date (a quarter of the RAM in DDR1 and the P4 doesn't even have HT).

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: ielmox

precisely. Turning off System Restore means that your system won't ever create a restore point, which means it will not be sluggish and unresponsive while a restore point is created (in the middle of running an application, for example). Since there are better, more reliable, and and less intrusive options available than System Restore, I turned it off - and have since been subject to fewer annoying slowdowns or bursts of sluggishness.

System Restore doesn't create points when you're running applications. It does it during idle time, or when a major change is being made to the system, eg installing drivers.

 

[ielmox]

I've read it creates a restore point every x and y hours regardless in addition to whenever it monitors system changes. MS claims that writing a restore point and monitoring have a small impact on performance, funny though how after disabling SR my computer runs noticeably better, is free from those annoying slow-downs, and fragments more slowly. Restore will fill up 12% of a hard disk with restore points - clogging up the drive and impacting performance, which sure qualifies as a hog in my book. Sure, you can change the setting to a lower quota - I just turned it and a bunch of other stuff I don't need off and have been blissfully happy ever since...