VISTA SUCKS a friend of mine just got a new PC with vista today. The very first time it was ran you get system pop-ups asking you if you really want to do what ever it is you are doing. Some program pop's up and tries to tell you every time any program does anything and if there are multiple programs there are multiple windows. Here is a list of the operating systems I would prefer and in what order 1.) XP - The best 2.) Vista - Sucks but is still better than Mac because at least it runs almost every software out there. 3.) Mac - Mac sucks 4.) Linux - Linux sucks worse than mac
i got a new laptop with vista on it and i'm very impressed. everything works fine and it's fast (enough) -can't understand why so many people slate it..
Vista uses to many resources. My productivity suffered, so I switched back to XP. Tasks that take seconds in XP take minutes in Vista (simple things such as unzipping files, copying or cutting and pasting files). Before anyone flames me about my system sucking, I bought a new notebook less than a month ago with more than enough power to run even the most demanding apps and games.
I never have problems unzipping files or copy and paste or anything else. I have a AMD Dual Core and 3 Gigs of memory.
I vote for secret option c) Linux. Not to incite debate, but to voice that some of us use systems other than Windows (take Mac users, for instance). Granted, it is a significantly smaller market segment than Windows users, but not small enough to warrant ignoring entirely. Side Note: Before complaining about this post, consider that the thread title does not imply that it is Windows-only. It questions why we dislike Vista. In response to the topic at hand, I dislike Vista largely due to hardware issues. Not compatibility (though that is no small problem), but basic operating 'requirements'. I can run Linux on most hardware from the last 15+ years. Anything 386 and up will function, though I admit it's not really 'smooth' until you hit about 350-400MHz with 64MB+ of memory. With Vista, it's difficult to run it on hardware more than a few years old, if not outright impossible. Even if you take away most of the eye candy, it still devours memory (and the disk space... oh the disk space...). While I do enjoy my visual effects (hello Beryl/Compiz), I firmly believe that such options are just that: optional. I've got pretty decent hardware, which is where my views come from. My primary workstation is... * AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+ * 4GB DDR2-800 * 512MB GeForce 7600GS (PCI-X) * 1x500GB / 1x 320GB / 1x 200GB / 1x 120GB So based on that, I should be able to squeeze decent performance out of my system, but Vista consumes so much on it's own, there are few resources available for other applications, and that's where the problem lies: As hardware becomes more powerful, we should expect our existing applications to run better. As new optimizations become available, we should expect our systems to take advantage of them. Yet, it doesn't seem to be this way, does it? As hardware improves, developers spend less time optimizing their code, and what once was sub-par becomes the norm. The rapid advancement of technology gives developers an excuse to slack. "If it doesn't run well, the user can upgrade." is garbage, but it is a widely-held belief. Applications are written for the hardware available on the market at the time of development, and users who have not felt the need to upgrade, or are unable to afford to do so are left behind. In this way, the software industry feeds the hardware industry by writing more resource-hungry applications, and generally sloppy code. Tell me, what unique features does Vista offer that justify the increased hardware requirements over XP? Is it really that much more advanced, or is it just the same old trash with a new paint job?
Vista isn't too bad. I have 2Gb of ram on my laptop and Vista works just fine on there...Although XP is still probably my overall favorite
People are acting as if Vista is the first OS to be released that carried problems. If I remember correctly a lot of computer users hated 98' when it was released and most recently 2000 and XP because they were used to using something different. No one is forcing you to upgrade yet. Microsoft will only stop offering support. You can always find some other way of getting it like on DP or Sitepoint or DevShed.
Vista eats a lot of system resources, if your computer runs fast, and is stable, prepare to lose stability andprocessing power, only thing I like is the protection it provides while executing executables. Just wait until they actually fix it, should be good.
I've been using the windows OS since windows 95 (as a 8 year old ) and since then I used every OS they made. I can say that (as all approve ^^) ME was a total disaster. But regarding Vista I don't like it either. I used it on my new pc and it changed it into a snail compared to what XP would give you. So now I use ubuntu gutsy gibbon for my normal desktop work and web programming and XP for web design
Most users hated the first edition of 98 because it was, quite rightly, crap, but it was fixed in the Second Edition. ME should be named Mistake Edition, because that is what it turn out to be for most people (I was lucky enough never to have any real problems with it). XP was a truly huge leap and, despite some of it's problems, has turned out to be a great OS. We are being forced to upgrade, with Microsoft discontinuing XP soon and making their games only run on Vista even when there is no need for it.
microsoft has to differentiate themselves with every release, basically helping out the hardware companies by requiring better and better hardware, even for simple tasks like word processing. try getting a word processing machine these days. You'll end up with 6 gigs of ram and a blu-ray burner