Why Are You All Against Vista

Im running vista, its a bit slower but I stil like it, buy if you have xp there isent realy a reason to get vista, had some probs on some games arent very stable an da few programs dosent work, like the search on the start manu trought.

 

Microsoft isn't too Original with their products.

 

I have no reason and see no reason to upgrade to Vista. I would have expecting significant changes to the Windows OS, like Win98 to XP was, but theres nothing.

Not to mention, there is still crappy support for Vista, which really sucks because XP still and will get alot of support for many years to come (I think till 2014). we've been hearing talk of Longhorn/Vista for many years, and when it arrives, its basically a redesigned XP at twice the price with 40 times more versions to choose from. This is all coming at a time too, where the Mac and Linux is striking hard against Microsoft.

One thing that bugs me about Vista is it demands so much from a PC. I would think that much like web sites and web applications, they would want to keep the demand on resources low to gain better performance rather than forcing your customer to go out and buy all the latest hardware. My PC isn't old, but it would just barely cut it for Vista, infact I would need to go get a new video card to use Vista.

Personally, Vista strikes me as a horrible business move from Microsoft, expecially with the competition hitting them so hard lately, namely Ubuntu (free) and OSX (or whatever the Mac is, I dont do Macs, sorry).

 

Well I'm not sure how it can be a horrible business move from just not releasing a new operating system at all.

This thing is a beast and was ages behind schedule and still is missing features that were suppose to be introduced. Now is it step up from XP? It sure is when you take a step back and look at what did make it to the release. The average user will not notice these because it's all behind the scenes work being done. The re-written TCP/IP stack, security fixes in the kernel to attempt to remove a lot of the buffer overflow issues experienced in numerous programs by doing it on the kernel level memory handling functions rather than attempting to fix them at the program level. Along with all the other security orriented features like no access to the kernel for programs and the dx10 along with the new way of drivers being handled and things of that nature.


But is it a disapointement? It sure it to a degree we were suppose to see a new file system comparable to SQL server. But even then would it make a difference? No because people would not see any difference in their world. It would be another under the hood change like majority of the vista feature set. Honestly does anyone even know vista contains i/o priority ability? Probably not but it is there while XP it was not.

 

Vista's problems start with it being so bloated. Why does it require so much from our hardware? How hard is it for Microsoft to clean up its code? Everything you mentioned should not require that much memory or require a DVD to install it. I hear Microsoft lovers make excuses for Microsoft but come on there hardware requirement for there OS is a bit much.

 

im using vista right now, lets just say its lost me $1,500 worth of work time in the last 2months.

has had a few problems but i understand microsoft are sh*t

 

wheres the option for neither?

 

I find Vista quite slow compared to XP

I would not like to update until the first service pack is released

 

I just like the design of Vista lol
It's the only good thing on this new OS lol

But if anybody gimme Vista i'm ok lol

 

The only good thing about Vista is that it looks nice. In every other aspect, it fails.

 

it's all copy Mac

 

i havnt got vista ,never actually been on it! i hear its not a lot different to xp?

 

Vista is heavy. XP has everything I need.

 

just purchased a new Dell with vista premium...eagerly waiting....Will give my review after using it

 

I got Vista on my laptop when I bought it and I have XP on my regular PC and Vista is faster and the security for me just rocks. I love it and I am happy as heck with it.

 

Well, i don't like Vista simply because it takes two years to Microsoft to release the needed service packs, for a product to work smoothly...

This thing happened when XP was released...

 

Vista is a waste; it really has nothing new and lags your system. If you think about it took 1 billion for Microsoft to develop it. Could they not have invested it to make something a bit better. I mean think of what you could do with a billion. Disappointment.

 

Vista has copped a lot of unwarranted flak after it's release, but that's not to say that it's perfect. It is (in my opinion) a fairly solid OS, but it's haunted by a lot of small, yet annoying, flaws and they seem to catch the attention of the user more than the improvements.

One of the most unwarranted comments is that it is only a small progression compared to XP, and yet people will happily criticise the lack of application compatibility. The vast majority of these incompatabilities is because software developers have been using unsafe programming practices which have been 'outlawed' since the introduction of XP, but XP still let them ran for compatibility's sake. The introduction of Vista just meant that these practices really were 'outlawed', and as a result many programs cannot run. For Microsoft to show off Vista as a more secure OS, they have to make sure that the programs running on it are at least more secure than they were previously.

A similar thing (although on a much smaller scale) happened when SP2 and the introduction of the Execute Disable (XD) Bit feature on CPUs. This security change does thwart a lot of exploits of programs, providing a safer computing platform. However, a few programs (generally programs that self-decompressed, such as installation software, etc.) that were poorly coded were not allowed to run.

Basically my point is for progression to happen, the software developers have to be on board as well. This problem doesn't just exist in Windows, but happens occasionally on my OS of choice, Ubuntu. As the linux kernel has new versions of itself released, and some of the coding practices change, the source code of some apps has to be updated to reflect this, although thankfully because of the open source community these programs are usually rectified promptly and they don't really affect the end user.

In summary, Vista definitely has its problems (why oh why must it use %50 of your RAM idling?) but we just need to cut it some slack, and hopefully SP1 for Vista can solve some of these problems.

 

I don't even care about the lag issues, Vista is causing so many annoying problems for me I cant believe I installed it. For one, when I save files to the desktop and then try to access them, they aren't there. As if, for some reason, the desktop window just fails to refresh itself.

Terribly annoying. Plus firefox still doesn't work properly under Vista, although I'm not sure if that's Microsoft's fault or Mozilla's fault.

 

maybe its in the download folder?
and firefox is working perfectly fine for me under vista