Why do people hate Vista?

[Mem]

Please tell me what in Vista SP1 will magically make your printer work properly again? Don't you mean that d-r-i-v-e-r support from the manufacturer is lacking? This is one of the largest problems with Vista systems, lack of good drivers, and it's not Vista's fault.

I have not read the whole thread but I'm guessing he's using a HP printer,they have the worst s driver support especially for Vista,FYI when I installed Vista x64 I never needed any drivers for my Canon i865,however they do have a plug-in model for Vista x64 at their website.


I won't meantion printer drivers are really the responsibility of the manufacturer and not the OS in question.Vista will have native support for quite a few printers but you can't expect it to support all printer models.

 

[sourceninja]

It is simple for me. I have strategic commander. I played it on xp max settings no problems. Installed vista (free intstall), installed the game, suddenly it was unplayable at the lowest settings.

That's enough for me.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
It is simple for me. I have strategic commander. I played it on xp max settings no problems. Installed vista (free intstall), installed the game, suddenly it was unplayable at the lowest settings.

That's enough for me.

Strategic Commander? If you mean Supreme Commander, it must be a bad video or audio driver as it works great on Vista (32 and 64)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: JiveCoolie
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.

Operating systems should be invisible. They should do only what is necessary, and get out of the way otherwise.

Vista runs contrary to this basic principle. It does unncessary things, and it gets "in your face" far too often.

Vista is the anti-OS.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel

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.

Complete lie, any others made up statements you'd like to share?

Wouldn't you consider games to be "processor intensive apps"? There have been a number of benchmarks showing frame rates under Vista to be measurably less than in XP.

 

[bsobel]

Wouldn't you consider games to be "processor intensive apps"? There have been a number of benchmarks showing frame rates under Vista to be measurably less than in XP.

Larry, larry, larry. Are we going to have another round of your FUD now that Vista is out. We know who hated XP (you posted about it constantly), so we'll just presume you hate Vista to fair enough?

And to answer your question, frame rates under Vista have been slower due to the fact that Nvidia and ATI are only now starting to tune their Vista drivers for performance. The situation has improved greatly since release (my new Nvidia drivers are measurably faster than those available at release).

However, (as I'm sure you know but can't help trolling) this has nothing to do with the statement Treemonkey made. He's suggesting the same thread running calculations under Vista is slower than the same thread on XP. Thats completely different from the GPU not rendering as fast. Your statement could only even possibly make sense if the frame rate drop was coupled by more CPU usage. But generally it's not, the issue is video drivers (and in some weird cases, audio drivers).

 

[zig3695]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: JiveCoolie
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.

Operating systems should be invisible. They should do only what is necessary, and get out of the way otherwise.

Vista runs contrary to this basic principle. It does unncessary things, and it gets "in your face" far too often.

Vista is the anti-OS.

spoken from a true unix user. i think there might be some hacks to allow windowsCE to run on your system, or is that too 'intrusive' as well.

i happen to like the fact i never need to worry about defragging, indexing, updating, cleaning, organizing... if i wanted to do those type of things all day i would just become a housewife.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: sourceninja
It is simple for me. I have strategic commander. I played it on xp max settings no problems. Installed vista (free intstall), installed the game, suddenly it was unplayable at the lowest settings.

That's enough for me.

Strategic Commander? If you mean Supreme Commander, it must be a bad video or audio driver as it works great on Vista (32 and 64)

Yea sorry, I always call it strategic for some reason. I'm not sure how it could be video or audio drivers, I tried like 3 different times with the same results. But if that was the case, then driver support is the reason I wont recomend vista. Because obviously the developers are not ready to support vista.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: sourceninja
It is simple for me. I have strategic commander. I played it on xp max settings no problems. Installed vista (free intstall), installed the game, suddenly it was unplayable at the lowest settings.

That's enough for me.

Strategic Commander? If you mean Supreme Commander, it must be a bad video or audio driver as it works great on Vista (32 and 64)

Yea sorry, I always call it strategic for some reason. I'm not sure how it could be video or audio drivers, I tried like 3 different times with the same results. But if that was the case, then driver support is the reason I wont recomend vista. Because obviously the developers are not ready to support vista.

What video card and how long ago did you try it?

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: greylica

Originally posted by: 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.

And you have the courage to say 33 Million people worldwide are all idiot. Who is more ?
I never saw Linux Server Boxes causing problems or stopping productivity like Windows Machines.

Read more carefully. I said an idiot running linux is still an idiot. Not that all people running linux are idiots. An idiot running windows is an idiot. The point is that it's easy for someone who lacks a clue to hold up the fact they have a linux box somewhere and mistakenly believe that it somehow makes them knowledgeable about computers. It's rare to see someone proudly proclaim they're a windows user as if it's some type of lifestyle or social choice to make. It happens with linux all the time.

I like linux, it works for me on the tasks I assign it to do. Fortunatley, I'm not trying to use it as a desktop to get my work done. There's Windows for that.

 

[Arkaign]

Vista is fine with decent hardware. I'm not too thrilled with the new look/start menu/etc. This is kind of a non-issue in the end, because before long, Vista will be the only game in town (unless you go Mac/Nix) for new software.

Note : Vista is beyond useless on low-end hardware, similar to how XP was borderline unusable on bottom-end retail systems at the time of release (they SHIPPED many Emachines and other junk PCs with 128MB and Celeron/Duron Processors!). The worst so far has been a Compaq Presario C551NR that was bought at Best Buy over the weekend for a business client. Out the door, not a bad price, $449 for this :

Celeron M 440 / 1.86Ghz Cpu w/1MB L2 (not a bad proc, really)
512MB DDR2 / 533 Dual-Channel Memory (2x256MB Sticks)
80GB Sata 5400RPM Hard Drive
15.4" WXGA TFT LCD w/BrightView (nice screen for the price)
Intel GMA950 Video (Shared on mobo, okay for video/aero, useless for games obviously)
Bunch of other irrelevant parts

Came preloaded with Vista Home Basic, but the client already has a retail XP Pro license/media for it, along with Office 03 and Acrobat 8 (the apps his business uses daily).

So, take it out of the box, fire it up to check out the Vista load. Oh_my_god. From hitting the power button to getting to the Vista desktop took no less than 38 minutes. Maybe 60-90 seconds of that time was used in filling in blanks and hitting 'next'. To add insult to injury, just launching apps, connecting to the local wireless network, was utterly excruciating. Browsing files, copying some stuff off of the office NAS was unforgivably slow.

This isn't a jab at Vista, but is an observation of a couple faults :

(1)- The OEMs put an army of garbage apps/craplets on their PCs for retail. It's ridiculous. A full 4-5 minutes after the Vista desktop came up, I was still seeing new junk pop up (Norton! Lol). A clean load of Vista would probably have been a big boost in this situation.

(2)- Vista on 512MB CL5 DDR533, with a 5400Rpm hard drive, shared video, etc, is just a really bad idea. Spectacularly bad. Memory is cheap enough, 1GB seems to be minimal to not have a noticably WORSE windows experience than the user just came from.

So. Formatted the thing, loaded his XP Pro. With no hardware changes whatsoever, other than setting the Sata mode in bios to 'legacy' mode, the notebook runs immeasurably better. Boots in about a minute or a little less, the desktop is responsive, I can open a couple of apps without major paging/chugging, it's like a whole new laptop.

I told him that when he's ready for Vista, we can install using his original OEM license, and that he'll want to grab some extra memory for the thing, but he's in no rush at all. He only uses a handful of apps, and they all work fast and problem-free with his existing XP Pro loadset.

At my shop, customer response to Vista has been primarily negative, though I have found one way to drive a little more Vista business I have a Vista Home Premium-loaded Shuttle XPC up front, with the media center loaded most of the time on a Viewsonic 37" along with some Logitech X-540s (great budget media speakers!). Regardless, at this point I still get more jobs replacing Vista (almost invariably an OEM load) with a new license of XP, than I have actually sold Vista licenses. I only stock Home Premium and Ultimate.

Meh. In a year or two this will be mostly behind us, and we'll be looking towards the next Windows release.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: sourceninja
It is simple for me. I have strategic commander. I played it on xp max settings no problems. Installed vista (free intstall), installed the game, suddenly it was unplayable at the lowest settings.

That's enough for me.

Strategic Commander? If you mean Supreme Commander, it must be a bad video or audio driver as it works great on Vista (32 and 64)

Yea sorry, I always call it strategic for some reason. I'm not sure how it could be video or audio drivers, I tried like 3 different times with the same results. But if that was the case, then driver support is the reason I wont recomend vista. Because obviously the developers are not ready to support vista.

Only one game so you not recommending Vista,FYI I have over 30 games installed on my Vista x64 and they all work great,I think your reasoning is not valid,also did you try WinXP compatibility mode and run as admin from properties of the game,look in compatibility tab.

 

[bsobel]

Only one game so you not recommending Vista,FYI I have over 30 games installed on my Vista x64 and they all work great,I think your reasoning is not valid,also did you try WinXP compatibility mode and run as admin from properties of the game,look in compatibility tab.

Its SC, heck if it didn't run *I'd* probably still be on XP Almost all of these game issues are drivers which are for the most part fixed (at least for the big name cards) to the point that the games are fine. Then again, I usually don't freak over 60fps vs 57fps but would over 60fps vs 5fps

 

[Arkaign]

Gaming in Vista works fine for the most part, you just have to make SURE you've got a little extra ram in there. Try some different video drivers (Guru3d.com is a good place to scour) and see how that works

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Celeron M 440 / 1.86Ghz Cpu w/1MB L2 (not a bad proc, really)
512MB DDR2 / 533 Dual-Channel Memory (2x256MB Sticks)
80GB Sata 5400RPM Hard Drive
15.4" WXGA TFT LCD w/BrightView (nice screen for the price)
Intel GMA950 Video (Shared on mobo, okay for video/aero, useless for games obviously)
Bunch of other irrelevant parts

I have the same laptop and yes, Vista's out of the box performance is miserable. Since upgrading it to 2 GB of ram, the machine performs like a dream. I upgraded the Basic license to Home Premium and it's quite a sweet machine for my work as well as to watch movies on.

Anyway, I'd say that Compaq/HP are at fault here -- the machine is more than capable of running Vista nicely. The manufacturer has crippled it with only 512MB of ram.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Wouldn't you consider games to be "processor intensive apps"? There have been a number of benchmarks showing frame rates under Vista to be measurably less than in XP.

Larry, larry, larry. Are we going to have another round of your FUD now that Vista is out. We know who hated XP (you posted about it constantly), so we'll just presume you hate Vista to fair enough?

You obviously don't know what FUD is, since I simply stated a proven fact.

Originally posted by: bsobel
And to answer your question, frame rates under Vista have been slower due to the fact that Nvidia and ATI are only now starting to tune their Vista drivers for performance. The situation has improved greatly since release (my new Nvidia drivers are measurably faster than those available at release).

I didn't ask that question. I asked whether or not YOU consider games to be processor-intensive apps. Yes or no.

As to the question of whether or not Vista is slower than XP at gaming - it is, provably so. You can choose to make excuses on why that is so, but it doesn't change the fact.

Originally posted by: bsobel
However, (as I'm sure you know but can't help trolling) this has nothing to do with the statement Treemonkey made. He's suggesting the same thread running calculations under Vista is slower than the same thread on XP. Thats completely different from the GPU not rendering as fast. Your statement could only even possibly make sense if the frame rate drop was coupled by more CPU usage. But generally it's not, the issue is video drivers (and in some weird cases, audio drivers).

Games ("processor-intensive apps") will never run as fast in Vista as they do in XP. There's simply more software layers to deal with, thus overhead will always be higher. Especially the software audio stack in Vista, compared with the hardware-accelerated audio in XP.

 

[Mem]

Games ("processor-intensive apps") will never run as fast in Vista as they do in XP. There's simply more software layers to deal with, thus overhead will always be higher. Especially the software audio stack in Vista, compared with the hardware-accelerated audio in XP.

from what I read and understand, Vista's new sound/audio system is more efficient and more reliable .

The Windows Vista audio engine runs faster than the Windows XP audio engine did, and Vista has tighter requirements on audio buffer position accuracy than XP did. This exposed low level driver bugs that we had not been seen before.

Taken from Creative's website here .

It probably explains why some games are faster in Vista then in XP(yes I said Vista is faster with some games),drivers down the road will futher improve performance(drivers do play a factor in performance),6 months is a short time for drivers for a new OS,unlike XP that has had almost 7 years.

Further info on Vista sound system.

There's a new driver architecture called Universal Audio Architecture (UAA) and a new low-level API imaginatively named "Core Audio APIs," and the whole way Windows handles audio has been changed with a set of new user-mode components for mixing and processing audio.

The motivation behind both of these changes is to provide a higher-performing, better-quality sound system in Windows. Performance is a key issue in the sound system, especially the issue of latency. Latencies in the sound system must be kept low to prevent sounds from different sources becoming unsynchronized. This is a particularly true for audio professionals playing or recording multiple audio tracks and using multiple audio devices. A system that can't provide low latencies isn't useful in such scenarios.


UAA also makes higher demands of the audio hardware; the audio must now be "high definition," supporting 96 kHz 24-bit sound, and, where possible, should support 5.1 surround sound. One benefit that UAA will provide even those who aren't audio professionals is simpler installation. Devices compliant with the UAA architecture will be able to work without the use of additional drivers, and chipsets meeting Intel's HDA specification will be automatically supported.

link.

Personally I'm all for these improvements.

 

[rise]

re-installed test drive unlimited with my logitech momo racing wheel. whats with logitech STILL not supporting either vista 64 or 64 at all on some of their gaming devices? the message says 64 in general but i can't believe they don't have a xp 64.

it works with whatever vista installed as a driver, but the calibration sux.

i still like vista and game daily (med2, obliv, CoH, cod2, bf2 etc..) without major problems (some quirkiness like needing to re-install audio drivers for certain games at random times) but i've liked vista better than xp for a while now. i'll be glad to see a SP tho.

 

[dmcowen674]

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

Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

I bought two Toshiba laptops and the one with Vista is a dog.

I also brought up how file searching is slow and the MS pundits in here said it was my imagination.

Well today the proof is in black & white:

6-20-2007 Bowing to pressure from Google Inc. and antitrust regulators, Microsoft Corp. will make it easier for Windows Vista users to pick a non-Microsoft program to search their hard drives.

Microsoft will let PC users and manufacturers like Dell Inc. set a different program such as Google Desktop as the default instead of Vista's "Instant Search," according to a U.S. Justice Department report released late Tuesday. Microsoft will also add a link to that alternate program in the Windows Start menu.

Currently, when Vista users browse through their documents, access the control panel, or do other system-related tasks, a Vista search box appears in the upper-right corner of the window. That box will remain, and it will continue to use the Microsoft search engine, but Microsoft will also add a link to the default desktop search program.

Tuesday's regularly scheduled status report on Microsoft's post-antitrust business practices comes after Google filed a 49-page document with the Justice Department in April, claiming that Vista's desktop search tool slowed down competing programs, including Google's own free offering. Google also said it's too difficult for users to figure out how to turn off the Microsoft program.

In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.

Microsoft said it expects the changes to be implemented in its first service pack for Vista, putting to rest speculation among Microsoft watchers that the company would do away with its practice of catchall software upgrades.

The software maker plans to release an early version of Service Pack 1 by the end of the year.
=============================================
Looks like a new code stripped of search bloatware will be out at the end of the year.

6 more months of suffering.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

 

[bsobel]

Rant deleted...

Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

Its quite fast here, faster than XP on the same box.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

Yes, it was locked with a huge mod comment after you pulled one of your P&N stunts and completely changed the original post and tried to start a NEW troll thread. We don't like trolls in OS so that tends to happen to you here.

 

[bsobel]

You obviously don't know what FUD is, since I simply stated a proven fact.

No Larry you didn't. You came into the middle of a conversation where person A said that 'processor intensive apps' (e.g. codecs ects based on the links he provided) are slower on Vista than XP. He was NOT discussing games which are known to be slower with some of the current drivers. You, trying to prove a point no-one made jumped on it and are now claiming he meant games when he said processor intensive programs.

I know you rarely get this technical stuff, but he's claiming the kernel scheduler isn't as effecient under Vista than as XP. If you want to have that debate, fine, otherwise don't troll and don't try to move the goal posts.

The game issue is a seperate isse which is resolving itself as new drivers came out. I did like how you said games will never be as fast due to video and audio and Mem pointed out direct conflicting statements from actual experts

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Rant deleted...

Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

Its quite fast here, faster than XP on the same box.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

Yes, it was locked with a huge mod comment after you pulled one of your P&N stunts and completely changed the original post and tried to start a NEW troll thread. We don't like trolls in OS so that tends to happen to you here.

I have to agree , I find it very fast and superior to XP,very stable and enjoyable gaming with no problems ,probably the best Microsoft OS I have ever used, and to think only 6 months old with young drivers and no service pack,things look great ahead for Vista .

 

[coloumb]

Probably the same reasons why people hate anything new - they have to unlearn nearly everything they have learned and they receive a lot of false information from word of mouth.

I didn't like vista at first for the same reason I didn't like XP at first - lack of driver and software support. However, now I'm mainly running Vista with [almost] no plans to look back. I will keep a copy of XP just in case I encounter a game that just won't run on Vista...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: bsobel
Rant deleted...

Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

Its quite fast here, faster than XP on the same box.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

Yes, it was locked with a huge mod comment after you pulled one of your P&N stunts and completely changed the original post and tried to start a NEW troll thread. We don't like trolls in OS so that tends to happen to you here.

I have to agree , I find it very fast and superior to XP,very stable and enjoyable gaming with no problems ,probably the best Microsoft OS I have ever used, and to think only 6 months old with young drivers and no service pack,things look great ahead for Vista .

You guys keep comparing apples to oranges.

Only you guys care about a select few games.

Many people on here including myself are talking about every day mondane use of the computer such as web browsing and file searching.

Should Vista be renamed "Vista - the Gamers choice"?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: bsobel
Rant deleted...

Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

Its quite fast here, faster than XP on the same box.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

Yes, it was locked with a huge mod comment after you pulled one of your P&N stunts and completely changed the original post and tried to start a NEW troll thread. We don't like trolls in OS so that tends to happen to you here.

I have to agree , I find it very fast and superior to XP,very stable and enjoyable gaming with no problems ,probably the best Microsoft OS I have ever used, and to think only 6 months old with young drivers and no service pack,things look great ahead for Vista .

You guys keep comparing apples to oranges.

Only you guys care about a select few games.

Many people on here including myself are talking about every day mondane use of the computer such as web browsing and file searching.

Should Vista be renamed "Vista - the Gamers choice"?

So how did I post in AT then,hmm yes web browsing in Vista so I do use it for everyday use,you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine and nothing you say will change that.