Why do people hate Vista?

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: kabob983
From a much simpler standpoint I don't like Vista because (IMHO) it takes alot more steps to do the same thing as it did in XP. Maybe it's just that I haven't learned the system in the year I've owned it (I'll admit it's my wife's laptop that I rarely use while I use XP multiple times every day).

I've got more gripes with the new Office than anything though...

I think that is the biggest reason many people hate Vista over XP is that it is different. Almost all the gripes about Vista's performance and incompatibilities have evaporated in the last year.

I can actually respect people that are honest enough to admit that they hate Vista only because it is different. My hats off to you.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: 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

maybe you just don't venture out of the OS forum? you don't seem to post much though, so maybe that explains it.

 

[C1]

Com'mon guys. VISTA has some issues which some people just cant solve with a reasonable level of effort & arent willing to live with. I had to fall back to XP because, among other things, my VISTA couldnt play a movie while at the same time performing a file transfer in the background (nobody could fix). Now I was looking for a portable USB HDD. The 320GB Buffalo Ministation looks real good but check out the findings when trying to use it with VISTA.

"It is very important to note that there were some definite discrepancies with the drive's performance and Windows Vista. Performance in Vista was just absolutely horrid with read and write speeds coming in at 16.4 MB/s and 14.6 MB/s respectively. Turbo USB didn't change anything as the results were the exact same with it enabled. A wide variety of testing was done on Vista to try and isolate the issue, including two completely different systems, Vista x86 and x64, and with and without service pack 1. It seems that this is just one more issue with Vista that needs to be sorted out and since the drive performs excellent in XP, Vista is simply the only thing we can point the finger at."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
I think that is the biggest reason many people hate Vista over XP is that it is different.

Almost all the gripes about Vista's performance and incompatibilities have evaporated in the last year.

Completely and utterly false.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Vista is a double edged sword in the business world. On one hand you have an OS that clears up some of the issues from XP. On the other there are driver and application compatibility issues.

It is a matter of waiting these out though. I personally like Vista at home. But in the work place it has been iffy at best. But it will get better once we get some business units to upgrade their software.

I disagree to an extent (on the reasons - not that yours are invalid or do not apply - your reasons are quite true for a lot of smaller companies). The Vista discussions revolved around 3 things:

1) We guessed 1GB of memory based on what MS was telling us in 2003 for performance. Err, no. So, too many assets have only 1GB of memory. Upgrading 35000 units gets expensive as a total. Add to that the purchases are contracted and based on specific configurations to reduce support costs (having only 2-3 PC models in use is a huge savings for support and maintenance.)

2) We just finished swinging to XP last year. Big companies that are dependent on stable PCs for revenue are like mile long ships; it takes lots of room to turn it. So, skipping is a cost savings. We would still be rolling Vista when W7 came out. There have been no serious compelling reasons to upgrade from NT to XP either (skipped 2000 - see a pattern?). The best gain we get has been security updates.

3) Massive swings require a large IT focus. With limited funds, more limits on people, and lots of competitive application development to do, changing OS' is low on the priorities. There is no competitive advantage, so it is low priority until it has to be done because of OS retirement by the vendor.

And W7 will bring a big issue - migration from roaming profiles to roaming credentials. Roaming profiles have always been issue bound. Roaming credentials will solve things like user certificates for roaming users. But it will require a rework of users working at different stations during the day.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: soonerproud
I think that is the biggest reason many people hate Vista over XP is that it is different.

Almost all the gripes about Vista's performance and incompatibilities have evaporated in the last year.

Completely and utterly false.

How so? So you are saying that SP1 did not fix the most glaring performance faults with Vista, even though many of the other detractors will admit it does? Please list the real performance issues people are still having that only a patch will resolve. The fact is that the majority of performance issues with Vista were fixed and the few that remain are configuration issues and not glaring bugs with Vista.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: soonerproud
I think that is the biggest reason many people hate Vista over XP is that it is different.

Almost all the gripes about Vista's performance and incompatibilities have evaporated in the last year.

Completely and utterly false.

Half right: The performance differences *have* evaporated:


http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2302495,00.asp

It's clear that driver issues in Windows Vista have been largely ironed out, as the five to 10 percent performance drop compared to Windows XP is virtually gone. In fact, the only test out of these three in which Vista didn't match its predecessor was in the pre-SP1 World in Conflict result......


If you were expecting a huge drop in performance as your eyes scanned from the XP to the Vista results, well, surprise! As many a tech analyst predicted, Windows Vista's gaming performance conundrum has largely been solved, and it was mainly due to early graphics drivers.

In fact, I'd been planning to run a few other gaming tests, but the results from these were so uninteresting that further work didn't seem merited. Love it or hate it, Vista is performing far better than it used to.

Game performance, it seems, has been exorcised from your concern when choosing a Microsoft operating system. That leaves a few other factors, of course: stability, responsiveness, eye candy, price, DirectX version, and a few other odds and ends.

It took about a year and a half, but the performance gap between Vista and its forerunner has finally evaporated.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...nce_update/default.asp




Sadly, though not unexpectedly, the whining has not.

 

[VinDSL]

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.

Truth!

LoL! I love vB...

 

[Mem]

Truth!

LoL! I love vB...

Those diehard XP users have to whine about something,it'll be interesting to see what they do when XP is layed to rest,maybe they have a whine about Win8 or Win9 .

I got a friend to upgrade to Win7 x64 from XP (32 bit),he had some reservations from all the FUD he heard about Vista and even some from 7, but in the end is very happy with Win7,FUD can be such a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.

 

[imported_Jid]

I don't hate vista, I just never used it since the laptop that came preinstalled with it was incapable of running it smoothly, XP ran and still does like a dream on that machine (at the time 1GB ram was quite a bit, though not enough for Vista). Now I have a laptop that runs the preinstalled Vista perfectly and it's fine, though I think I'll go with Win7.

I'm wondering if anyone can clarify something for me though, how much HD space does a typical Home Premium Vista installation take up? I've done nothing significant with my new lappy yet and it seems like 40GB+ is already used up, is most or all of it Vista? I checked Microsofts min requirements and it mentions something about 40GB free space, for Win7 it says 16GB for the 32bit version.. 40GB just for OS is insane IMO

 

[n7]

System restore & the hibernate file tend to eat up a lot of space (two things i personally tend to disable for my desktops).

 

[F1shF4t]

System Restore will use up to 15% of the HDD space by default. You can change the % by going into regedit and setting the DiskPercent value to what ever you want. I typically set the percentage of HDD to be equal around ~2-4 GB in size.

The location is:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\SystemRestore\cfg

 

[imported_Jid]

System Restore will use up to 15% of the HDD space by default. You can change the % by going into regedit and setting the DiskPercent value to what ever you want. I typically set the percentage of HDD to be equal around ~2-4 GB in size.

The location is:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\SystemRestore\cfg

ahh, thanks for the tip. I made mine about 3GB and now I've 20GB more space.