Why do people hate Vista?

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

Realize that the majority of computer users are not people who research the operating system, or even read reviews on computer hardware.

The majority are people who want to turn on the pc, check there email, play some games, read some web sites or go to chat rooms.

They don't care about dx10 or even know what it is.
When operating systems started out you HAD to upgrade to use a word processor like word perfect. You had to upgrade to use a graphical browser.

Now all those task that people routinely do are supported by all the OS already out there.
So to get them to switch to something newer your either going to have to force it on them, or give them a feature that they just have to have. There are still tons of people out there that don't even care about broadband.

As the biggest thing people keep pushing with vista is dx10, thats not going to be enough.
Considering most users don't know and don't care what it is.
Ever talk to people in computer sections in the besty buy, circuit city, walmart ?

I had to laugh at best buy one day when a salesman was trying to sell vista to a family that had xp.
salesman: "its more secure ".
family : "we already have norton internet security"
salesman :"vista has dx10 "
family: "whats that ?"
salesman : "vista has the aero interface"
family: "yeah it looks nice"
salesman : " you can upgrade for 169.00"
family: "I think were going to wait"

People on forums that push vista don't realize that the majority of the public don't care about half the stuff we talk about concerning an OS. If xp allows them to do there everyday task,they are happy,and telling them its going to cost them another 150.00 + so they can do what they already do, just isn't going to work.

For vista to succed they need to come out with a killer application that people just have to have that only works on vista.

What you just described is ignorance and nothing more. None of that has anything to do with the actual OS.

 

[AllGamer]

The thing that Vista lovers fail to see is exactly what you all talk about, the need to buy new hardware for it

and even so, not all new hardware are fully compatible with Vista, Take Creative Fatality line of sound cards for example, yeah they have drivers, and it works, but they are incomplete, and that is not acceptable.

anyways, to each one their own.

personally i don't care much, since i multi-boot, but i'm not a happy camper with vista, until full support is provided to vista, so until then i'll just keep using the OS where all the hardware works perfectly at 100%

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
The thing that Vista lovers fail to see is exactly what you all talk about, the need to buy new hardware for it

and even so, not all new hardware are fully compatible with Vista, Take Creative Fatality line of sound cards for example, yeah they have drivers, and it works, but they are incomplete, and that is not acceptable.

anyways, to each one their own.

personally i don't care much, since i multi-boot, but i'm not a happy camper with vista, until full support is provided to vista, so until then i'll just keep using the OS where all the hardware works perfectly at 100%

Well, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

You cant expect it to have new features and take up less resources.
You cant expect there to not be any growing pains when they change the driver model to prepare it for future hardware needs. You cant expect it to perfectly support every piece of the tens to hundred of thousands of hardware and software releases over the past several years without a few bugs.

Its not perfect...no operating system ever will be. The only reason you'd be disappointed with it is if you had unrealistic expectations in the first place. Maybe thats partially due to microsofts marketing it like its the second coming of jesus, but around here, you should all know better than that.

XP has been out for 6 years...thats about three times the average length of time between Windows releases. And XP is stable, unlike every other consumer windows beforehand. So theres a good 6 years of changes to an OS that a lot of people were already satisfied with. Thats a good reason to stick with XP and not buy Vista for yourself, but thats not really any decent argument against Vista itself. Some people here are so vehemently against it with these crazy conspiracy theories its as if windows vista raped their children.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: StopSign

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

Realize that the majority of computer users are not people who research the operating system, or even read reviews on computer hardware.

The majority are people who want to turn on the pc, check there email, play some games, read some web sites or go to chat rooms.

They don't care about dx10 or even know what it is.
When operating systems started out you HAD to upgrade to use a word processor like word perfect. You had to upgrade to use a graphical browser.

Now all those task that people routinely do are supported by all the OS already out there.
So to get them to switch to something newer your either going to have to force it on them, or give them a feature that they just have to have. There are still tons of people out there that don't even care about broadband.

As the biggest thing people keep pushing with vista is dx10, thats not going to be enough.
Considering most users don't know and don't care what it is.
Ever talk to people in computer sections in the besty buy, circuit city, walmart ?

I had to laugh at best buy one day when a salesman was trying to sell vista to a family that had xp.
salesman: "its more secure ".
family : "we already have norton internet security"
salesman :"vista has dx10 "
family: "whats that ?"
salesman : "vista has the aero interface"
family: "yeah it looks nice"
salesman : " you can upgrade for 169.00"
family: "I think were going to wait"

People on forums that push vista don't realize that the majority of the public don't care about half the stuff we talk about concerning an OS. If xp allows them to do there everyday task,they are happy,and telling them its going to cost them another 150.00 + so they can do what they already do, just isn't going to work.

For vista to succed they need to come out with a killer application that people just have to have that only works on vista.

What you just described is ignorance and nothing more. None of that has anything to do with the actual OS.

Nah, it's not ignorance, it's just that XP is good enough basically.
Like my parents(I hope they never start asking for royalties every time I use them for an example).
They don't know much about computers, but they're sensible people(ok, that puts them in the upper 1% of the users out there...).
I can think of no reason to upgrade them to Vista, for the same reason I can think of no reason to move them to Ubuntu.
XP works for them, they have a firewall and an AV program, they use Firefox to browse, and OpenOffice for office stuff, GMail for mail, and it all works fine.
There's simply no reason to move them to another OS, be it Vista, Linux, MacOS, or whatnot.

I think that's what Modelworks was describing.

 

[Modelworks]

Nah, it's not ignorance, it's just that XP is good enough basically.
Like my parents(I hope they never start asking for royalties every time I use them for an example).
They don't know much about computers, but they're sensible people(ok, that puts them in the upper 1% of the users out there...).
I can think of no reason to upgrade them to Vista, for the same reason I can think of no reason to move them to Ubuntu.
XP works for them, they have a firewall and an AV program, they use Firefox to browse, and OpenOffice for office stuff, GMail for mail, and it all works fine.
There's simply no reason to move them to another OS, be it Vista, Linux, MacOS, or whatnot.

I think that's what Modelworks was describing.

Thats exactly what I'm describing.
The general public is so computer illiterate that they don't know what the difference between one os and another is and they don't care. They just want there stuff to work.

That is the market MS needs to go after. If you can get the average user to switch to vista then vista would be the biggest success MS ever had.

But to do that you got to give them something that makes them want the OS, something they don't or can't do now.

Its like going to buy a car at a car lot where you have two cars exactly alike except one has a slightly better paint job. The thing is the salesman wants twice as much for the one with the better paint job. What do you think people are going to pick ?

I know that there are big differences between vista and xp, but to the average pc user its just xp with a new look.

Vista needs something that will make people take notice of it, right now all its getting is bad pr.

Vista had lower market share than win2000 until june of this year.
Thats a bad sign for MS.

 

[bsobel]

The general public is so computer illiterate that they don't know what the difference between one os and another is and they don't care. They just want there stuff to work.

Agreed, and they'll most likely get Vista on their next box. People running 98 didnt' run out to buy XP either, the majority of upgrades where as machines rolled over and where replaced (sans folks like us that actually install OS's and upgrade machines).

has a slightly better paint job. The thing is the salesman wants twice as much for the one with the better paint job. What do you think people are going to pick ?

Except Vista isn't twice as much as XP, basically at least when bought from the big OEM's the price is the same.

Vista had lower market share than win2000 until june of this year.
Thats a bad sign for MS.

You'll need to explain that logic. Vista started in January with 0 penetration, it passed W2K within 5 months. I could pick whatever arbitrary yardstick I wanted and claim Vista is doing great or horrible because of it. What do you feel is the reason to make a W2K comparison?

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: StopSign

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ignorance and / or the fact that they just don't like change.

Realize that the majority of computer users are not people who research the operating system, or even read reviews on computer hardware.

The majority are people who want to turn on the pc, check there email, play some games, read some web sites or go to chat rooms.

They don't care about dx10 or even know what it is.
When operating systems started out you HAD to upgrade to use a word processor like word perfect. You had to upgrade to use a graphical browser.

Now all those task that people routinely do are supported by all the OS already out there.
So to get them to switch to something newer your either going to have to force it on them, or give them a feature that they just have to have. There are still tons of people out there that don't even care about broadband.

As the biggest thing people keep pushing with vista is dx10, thats not going to be enough.
Considering most users don't know and don't care what it is.
Ever talk to people in computer sections in the besty buy, circuit city, walmart ?

I had to laugh at best buy one day when a salesman was trying to sell vista to a family that had xp.
salesman: "its more secure ".
family : "we already have norton internet security"
salesman :"vista has dx10 "
family: "whats that ?"
salesman : "vista has the aero interface"
family: "yeah it looks nice"
salesman : " you can upgrade for 169.00"
family: "I think were going to wait"

People on forums that push vista don't realize that the majority of the public don't care about half the stuff we talk about concerning an OS. If xp allows them to do there everyday task,they are happy,and telling them its going to cost them another 150.00 + so they can do what they already do, just isn't going to work.

For vista to succed they need to come out with a killer application that people just have to have that only works on vista.

What you just described is ignorance and nothing more. None of that has anything to do with the actual OS.

Nah, it's not ignorance, it's just that XP is good enough basically.
Like my parents(I hope they never start asking for royalties every time I use them for an example).
They don't know much about computers, but they're sensible people(ok, that puts them in the upper 1% of the users out there...).
I can think of no reason to upgrade them to Vista, for the same reason I can think of no reason to move them to Ubuntu.
XP works for them, they have a firewall and an AV program, they use Firefox to browse, and OpenOffice for office stuff, GMail for mail, and it all works fine.
There's simply no reason to move them to another OS, be it Vista, Linux, MacOS, or whatnot.

I think that's what Modelworks was describing.

I understand what you guys are saying. However, this whole discussion is not about whether you should upgrade to Vista or not. It's about the people who bash Vista. Most Vista bashers don't know what they're talking about. If you don't want to upgrade to Vista, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. However, they often bring up some "other" reasons for not upgrading, such as "Vista sucks." Hence the ignorance.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: StopSignI understand what you guys are saying. However, this whole discussion is not about whether you should upgrade to Vista or not. It's about the people who bash Vista. Most Vista bashers don't know what they're talking about. If you don't want to upgrade to Vista, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. However, they often bring up some "other" reasons for not upgrading, such as "Vista sucks." Hence the ignorance.

Yep, thats basically the impression I get as well. Vista needs 4gb of ram to run smoothly, DRM this, DRM that, nothing works with it etc...

If anyone were to buy a Dell PC preconfigured with hardware that is well supported on Vista with at least 1GB of ram, it would be rock solid. Hell, I bought a $200 compaq with Vista Basic with a celeron in it, upgraded it to 1.5gb of ram, threw a Geforce 7300LE and Envy24HT in it, and have been using it as an HTPC for several week. Not a single program has crashed, not a single glitch whatsoever, its only been restarted maybe once the entire time...it even goes in/out of suspend mode by remote control and comes in and out within seconds. It's by far the best HTPC I've ever had, and quite a bit of that has to do with Vista being quite excellent for multimedia.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: BD2003
it even goes in/out of suspend mode by remote control and comes in and out within seconds.

Now that's a neat feature. How is the remote control connected to the PC? USB?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: BD2003
it even goes in/out of suspend mode by remote control and comes in and out within seconds.

Now that's a neat feature. How is the remote control connected to the PC? USB?

Yep...MCE remote. It'd prob work just as well in XP, I didnt have the remote then, but the entire setup has been smooth as butter and I know Vista is a part of that.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: StopSign
I understand what you guys are saying. However, this whole discussion is not about whether you should upgrade to Vista or not. It's about the people who bash Vista. Most Vista bashers don't know what they're talking about. If you don't want to upgrade to Vista, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. However, they often bring up some "other" reasons for not upgrading, such as "Vista sucks." Hence the ignorance.

Well, let's all just act like good little firewalls and silently drop all that noise

 

[nerp]

Well, let's all just act like good little firewalls and silently drop all that noise

But.. But.. If we do that, I can't keep repeating myself about how trouble free, smooth, fast and reliable Vista has been for me since I've been using it (Jan. 30).

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: nerp

Well, let's all just act like good little firewalls and silently drop all that noise

But.. But.. If we do that, I can't keep repeating myself about how trouble free, smooth, fast and reliable Vista has been for me since I've been using it (Jan. 30).

You're just bandwagoning. You need to point out specific troubles you have not had

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Nah, it's not ignorance, it's just that XP is good enough basically.

If you really believe this it's because you haven't read some of the more venemous anti-Vista crap on the net.

I can think of no reason to upgrade them to Vista, for the same reason I can think of no reason to move them to Ubuntu.

Okay, I get it. It's just as possible that there are folks who are happy with 98se, or even something earlier. Which is fine. I really doubt anyone meant to call your parents ignorant, and you should have known that.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Ha, finally got a new SATA drive to replace the IDE. Guess what? It still stalls, even with updated drivers.
Rigth now I definetely have a hatred for Vista.

Alright anyone else have any ideas? I'm not replacing the mobo.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Ha, finally got a new SATA drive to replace the IDE. Guess what? It still stalls, even with updated drivers.
Rigth now I definetely have a hatred for Vista.

Alright anyone else have any ideas? I'm not replacing the mobo.

Yea, go back to XP and hate on your motherboard, not Vista.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Mobo works fine, until it sees Vista running and complains LOL

I'd like to get it to run, outside this I have no real complains about it.
Question, would installing drivers after installing vista work differently than installing during install?

 

[hans007]

as a software developer here is what i have to say about vista.


its slow, the security model is not really better (and honestly uac is so annoying yet easy to turn off that i'd assume most people would turn it off once they figure out where the off button is) and it wastes tons of ram.

it basically has 0 benefit over windows xp other than the UI is prettier. i mean ask yourself what can vista do that xp can't?

i suppose taken on its own, it is a mediocre OS. i think most people's main gripe with it is its really not as good as xp because xp set the standard pretty high and generally people expect you know "better" after 5 years.

i suppose the one thing i like, is that in explorer you can click a higher level folder on the part that displays the path and it takes you back there instead of clicking the back arrow a few times. thats saves clicks.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: hans007
as a software developer here is what i have to say about vista.

its slow, the security model is not really better (and honestly uac is so annoying yet easy to turn off that i'd assume most people would turn it off once they figure out where the off button is) and it wastes tons of ram.

it basically has 0 benefit over windows xp other than the UI is prettier. i mean ask yourself what can vista do that xp can't?

i suppose taken on its own, it is a mediocre OS. i think most people's main gripe with it is its really not as good as xp because xp set the standard pretty high and generally people expect you know "better" after 5 years.

i suppose the one thing i like, is that in explorer you can click a higher level folder on the part that displays the path and it takes you back there instead of clicking the back arrow a few times. thats saves clicks.

Sorry hans, but just saying that you're a SW developer doesn't add any polish to this often regurgitated tripe.

 

[nerp]

Shall I paste the kernel improvement links again?

Anyone who says "Vista is just XP with pretty eye candy" obviously hasn't done any reading or research on the major architectural changes. Lazniess and ineptitude FTW.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
Mobo works fine, until it sees Vista running and complains LOL

I'd like to get it to run, outside this I have no real complains about it.
Question, would installing drivers after installing vista work differently than installing during install?

Scooby...can you give details? What do you mean when you say it stalls? Have you loaded the latest mobo drivers?

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: hans007
as a software developer here is what i have to say about vista.


its slow, the security model is not really better (and honestly uac is so annoying yet easy to turn off that i'd assume most people would turn it off once they figure out where the off button is) and it wastes tons of ram.

it basically has 0 benefit over windows xp other than the UI is prettier. i mean ask yourself what can vista do that xp can't?

i suppose taken on its own, it is a mediocre OS. i think most people's main gripe with it is its really not as good as xp because xp set the standard pretty high and generally people expect you know "better" after 5 years.

i suppose the one thing i like, is that in explorer you can click a higher level folder on the part that displays the path and it takes you back there instead of clicking the back arrow a few times. thats saves clicks.

You're a software developer? God help your company...

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: hans007
as a software developer here is what i have to say about vista.


its slow, the security model is not really better (and honestly uac is so annoying yet easy to turn off that i'd assume most people would turn it off once they figure out where the off button is) and it wastes tons of ram.

I'll bite. (Just call me a fish!)

The only problem I see with either XP or Vista is software developers that write programs that use more resources than necessary. By the time you add all the software to XP needed to have the same security and functionality Vista has out of the box, you will use more RAM than a default Vista installation. This will result in a slower XP since more cpu cycles and RAM are being used.

Originally posted by: hans007
it basically has 0 benefit over windows xp other than the UI is prettier. i mean ask yourself what can vista do that xp can't?

Out of the box I can think of several things that Vista can do that XP can't.

1. (Superfetch) Intelligently cache your programs according to your usage patterns.

2. Provide better security. Vista comes with a better firewall, a more secure kernel, better security defaults, (IE7 protected mode for example) and it has Windows Defender built into the system.

3. Richer Multimedia experience. Vista has improved multimedia tools compared to XP. DVD Maker, Media Center, Media Player, Movie Maker and Photo Gallery are all improved upon compared to their XP counterparts. Only WMP 11 is ported over to XP. Even then it is missing some of the polish and functionality the Vista version has.

4. Better desktop search. XP's default desktop search blows compared to Vista's. Sure you can add that functionality to XP at a huge cost to system resources. Vista's is integrated into the OS and does not consume the level of resources the software for XP does.

5. Better maintenance tools. Disk defragmenter now allows you to schedule regular defrags. Task Scheduler is way more robust and much easier to use. Windows Update no longer requires IE to run. Disk Cleanup provides more options than XP does for deleting files. And of course there is Windows Defender again.

Originally posted by: hans007
i suppose taken on its own, it is a mediocre OS. i think most people's main gripe with it is its really not as good as xp because xp set the standard pretty high and generally people expect you know "better" after 5 years.

From the features I mentioned it makes XP look mediocre compared to Vista. When XP was released people were saying the exact same stuff about it as you are now. Most people don't care what OS they use as long as their programs run and they can surf the web, check email and do basic multimedia stuff.

Both XP and Vista had teething pains when it comes to program compatibility. In fact there is far more software compatible for Vista than was compatible with XP when it was released. (I know this first hand since I was a early adopter of both.)

Originally posted by: hans007
i suppose the one thing i like, is that in explorer you can click a higher level folder on the part that displays the path and it takes you back there instead of clicking the back arrow a few times. thats saves clicks.

I left this one out of the list since you already mentioned it. There are a lot of little touches like this that make Vista more robust and better than XP. Once people get over the learning curve they will see the benefit of most of the changes to the UI.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I'm heading back to XP, spent enough time wasting trying to figure out how to get Vista to behave properly. I'll keep a spare partition handy for it. Maybe by next year or SP1 it'll be actually useable.

All those "wonderful" security, superfetch (never noticed a difference anyways), "better" multimedia again found WMP11 a little poorer than WMP10, are worthless if driver support isn't there. I liked the search (where's was search for text?) but I hated the new file manager, how do you go up a folder level quickly and why is it so slow? I was very impressed on the boot time. UAC would have been so much better if there was a simple "always allow" checkbox.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Scooby Doo
I'm heading back to XP, spent enough time wasting trying to figure out how to get Vista to behave properly.

User error? You talk like you've been trying to wrestle a kodiak to the ground. Besides the sheer newness of Vista, the transition from 6-years of XPro to MS's latest has been fairly painless. I've got two XP workstations on my desk at work, and dealing with them is like crawling through a cave compared to Vista.

I'll keep a spare partition handy for it. Maybe by next year or SP1 it'll be actually useable.

Why not save yourself more torture and just stay with XP until the bitter end? If Vista is so utterly painful for you to use now you have to know that a SP isn't going to turn it into XP.