What problems have you had to date with Vista?

i think microsoft rushed into releasing vista and didnt beta test it was well as they could have, and all the nightmares vista has caused is going to end up killing their reputation

 

more vista issues for me..that accept or deny thing is really starting to piss me off, but if dont put it on ur unprotected...ugg i hate vista so much

 

Well no system is perfect. Mac had a worse problem when they switched to Intel. Right now the best thing I can tell you is to keep using XP until you get that fixed. For me Vista is perfect.

 

yes that does get very annoying...when I had vista I shut that off after a week and didnt care

 

i notice firefox uses 25-30% CPU alll the time no matter what it's doing.. I turned OFF Aero, I turned OFF defender and user account protection crap.. just bought a new laptop for work with it on it TODAY so I don't know for sure yet. I will see how it goes...

 

FF does use a lot of memory. When I used to use it I could tell.

 

Well, XP is pretty darn close by comparison. I don't use Mac, either, and never have.

That is exactly what I plan to do.

 

Funny thing is everyone said XP was the buggiest system ever released and now that Vista is here and has less bugs they are holding up XP as a God of OS and comparing it to OSX and the likes. Thats nonsense. XP had way more problems. I still have to use XP on my desktop computer so I know what I am saying. Crashes, viruses (lucky my computer did not wipe out), systems errors, freezes and not to mention the dreaded messages you get when trying to do a simple task.

 

my ie7 seems crashing for every 5-10 mins on vista, worked like a charm on xp

 

Contested. Windows 98 First Edition probably takes that title.

Well, maybe it has less "bugs" but it depends how you define it. XP works more reliably than Vista, mainly due to tried and tested computability.

And I still use it every day of my life on my laptop, so I think I know how well it works.

I've had more on Vista.

Two words: anti-virus

Vista has about five a day.

Which ones. You mean the ones in Vista that ask you to confirm that you do want to run the program you just opened?

"Mr Pot, please see Mr kettle; he would like a work with you about your colour".

 

Errors on Vista none. XP at least 5 a day. Who wants to use anti virus when you can put it out of business by getting Vista? In terms of bugs again that goes to XP. Most bugs for any OS came out for XP.

And in terms of buggiest system I stand to be corrected. ME owns that.

 

How many programs do you run on Vista compared to XP? What sort of errors are you getting. I'm including all the little nagging driver errors which were long since fixed in XP.

No they can't. Even Microsoft don't say that you can go without anti-virus. It is ridiculous to claim that you know more about how secure Vista is than Microsoft.

No they didn't, as you just said yourself, ME had far more bugs than XP and so did the First Edition of 98. Besides, XP may have had a lot of bugs when it first came out but his is two service packs on from then and a lot has been fixed. If Vista is so perfect then how come the first Service Pack is already coming out?

 

I said ME had the most bugs to start off with. But XP currently has the most bugs in circulation because ME is obsolete.

I run almost every imaginable program on Vista. Ms office, AutoDesk 3ds max, photoshop, illustrator, adobe premier, winzip, Art Explosion Label Maker.

You want a list of the programs that were not supposed to be compatible that I am using?

Now I said you can basically put anti virus companies like Symantec out of business by getting Vista. The reason is less bugs and although you are still running their program they do not have to charge you as much as they were because they are not fixing as many bugs. Common sense.

 

there are more viruses designed to exploit vulnerablilities in XP because XP is still the most common OS available. I guarentee within a couple of year Vista will soon run into many viral issues as well, as some wily hacker will find a way around that annoying accept or deny thing (not sure what it is called)

 

My Vista deletes itself, yes i will be working away and some error will throw up CHKDSK and it deletes a string of files and i need to re-install the OS.

The PC is a dual core AMD 64 @ 4200 and 2GB ram, so its more then capable.

So i scrapped Vista for an XP and Ubuntu dual boot.

 

That logic doesn't follow. Soon, XP will be obsolete. Does that suddenly make it better than Vista? Even I wouldn't claim that! Show me the data for number of bugs in XP compared to Vista.

No, it's not worth the bandwidth.

If you can't be bothered to answer my question then at least don't make yourself look idiotic by responding with gibberish.

Even Microsoft don't say that you can go without anti-virus. It is ridiculous to claim that you know more about how secure Vista is than Microsoft. Is that what you're saying?

If Vista is so perfect then how come the first Service Pack is already coming out?

 

It may use more memory but I find that it runs faster than IE

 

Number one I did not say you never need Anti virus. I said you can run Vista without another one installed other then the one provided by Microsoft. Secondly I did answer your question. You do need protection but it does not have to be from third party sources.

Now the reason for the first Service Pack is not mainly for security reasons but for adjustments to the OS that was over looked at the release date.

Check it out Here.

 

Then why is Microsoft recommending third-party anti-virus if they already include it?

I know, it's for bugs.

 

That does not count as an outside threat. As I said the service pack is not for security reasons pertaining to virus mostly but to tiny bugs in the OS.