Vista Sucks!

[BleedThroughMusic]

All your comments are typical after a new OS or other software release from Microsoft. I downloaded Vista Ultimate from BTjunkie and absolutely love Vista. My machine is a 3Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, and high end Radeon graphics card.. never had a bit of trouble with it... very stable and is not a resource hog. It is Windows Vista... an OS that was by design, built to utilize more resources. So whatz the problem with that? You guys expect to run the latest and greatest OS with a 286 processor and 8MB ram? As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required.

I just bought a new Dell laptop with an AMD processor and 2GB RAM and Vista runs perfect. I had a sound card that wasn't supported by Vista but no big deal. I dont understand all the bitching. I have no special interest in Microsoft... I just evaluate without bias and see ti for what it is.

Vista get an "A" mark from me.... and cant wait for the release of SP1 in March.

[curlywagner]

True enough, I remember when people went on about 'upgrading' from XP to Windows 2000. I thought about it myself too. No Windows default install is optimised and you shouldn't expect blistering speed and flawless performance from your machine straight from the factory. Turning off the services you don't need and removing programs you don't use will go a long way to improving Vista's performance (in my experience).
That vLite program looks great.

[Excrement_Cranium]

As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required.

I'll pull the name off this quote (even though it's only 2 posts back), as I have no qualm with the person, just this conformist statement.



I think that as speeds and size limits for processing and memory increase, software developers are getting lazier.


It's simple; why must they use more resources? Why must they use more space?


How about we stop building the SUV of operating systems, and build a sensible sedan?

[Signa]

thats another thing: software compared to current hardware

when XP came out, im pretty sure the min reqs were 350mhz and 128mb ram. VERY much on the low end, but my middle grade pc (933mhz and 384MB) ran it just fine.

look what is available now, multi core processors with multiple GHZ to go around, and gigs and gigs of cheap ram, yet vista is still getting knocked for being "too slow." im not going to go do the research right now, but just from memory, i dont think vista is anywhere NEAR what the current hardware should be for a new OS. i dont remember win95, 98, ME or even XP being so far ahead of what everyone was running that only the highest end machines could expect to run smoothly.

it all goes back to my argument about new PC games. i dont care how good a game is, if you make it too pretty, you are going to cut your audience down because no one is going to buy it if they cant run it.

[drtoker]

thats another thing: software compared to current hardware

when XP came out, im pretty sure the min reqs were 350mhz and 128mb ram. VERY much on the low end, but my middle grade pc (933mhz and 384MB) ran it just fine.

look what is available now, multi core processors with multiple GHZ to go around, and gigs and gigs of cheap ram, yet vista is still getting knocked for being "too slow." im not going to go do the research right now, but just from memory, i dont think vista is anywhere NEAR what the current hardware should be for a new OS. i dont remember win95, 98, ME or even XP being so far ahead of what everyone was running that only the highest end machines could expect to run smoothly.

it all goes back to my argument about new PC games. i dont care how good a game is, if you make it too pretty, you are going to cut your audience down because no one is going to buy it if they cant run it.

Technology progresses rapidly, if you are unwilling to keep up, you will be passed by and not be able to use whats currently available to the market. Hardware capable of running windows vista effectivly is not expensive. Compare 'mid level' systems from back when XP first came out to 'mid level' systems today that are vista capable (by mid-level I mean something capable of running the OS smoothly), you'll see that it is cheaper today to get a system like this to run vista then it used to be when xp first came out, and your getting much better equiptment, so wheres the problem?

[Signa]

the problem is that grandma and office joe dont need dual core 64 bit machines to check email and fill in spreadsheets. i see your agument: my 933 was very middle range but i spent a little under a grand on that thing. a comparable middle range for today would be only a couple hundred bucks. but regardless, should you buy a new PC just so you can run the operating system? it just doesnt make sence

fake edit: i just went over specs in my head. "middle range" is just too large these days. the whole spectrum of low to high end PCs has broadened greatly from what it was in 2001. with the exception of vista and premium games, a "low end" PC will pretty much run everything a user could want and still have some functionality for higher end tasks. from what it out there processor wise, my current PC (pentium dual core 2.8) is actually pretty slow. we have quad cores now. yet despite this, im able to run everything i want, including games like UT3. despite this, im actually concerned about running vista on my PC. why would anyone want a PC that can run UT3 and bioshock when all they want is email and youtube videos?

keep in mind what we are discussing here, this isnt some program that would be a great advantage to anyone using it like MS office or a dvd/ipod converter. it wont read your mind and make life simpler, it just makes your PC capable of running the things you own a PC for. its an operating system. its SOLE function should be the interface that you use to make your PC do the things you bought it for. if your PC is using up all of its resources just to make it run, then how are you going to watch that movie that you just popped into your DVD drive? seriously, would you buy a car that uses all of its horsepower on idling? imagine that; you then hit the accelerator and just slowly move along. what would be the point in having a car if it didnt get you places?

[Andrew110]

the problem is that grandma and office joe dont need dual core 64 bit machines to check email and fill in spreadsheets. i see your agument: my 933 was very middle range but i spent a little under a grand on that thing. a comparable middle range for today would be only a couple hundred bucks. but regardless, should you buy a new PC just so you can run the operating system? it just doesnt make sence

fake edit: i just went over specs in my head. "middle range" is just too large these days. the whole spectrum of low to high end PCs has broadened greatly from what it was in 2001. with the exception of vista and premium games, a "low end" PC will pretty much run everything a user could want and still have some functionality for higher end tasks. from what it out there processor wise, my current PC (pentium dual core 2.8) is actually pretty slow. we have quad cores now. yet despite this, im able to run everything i want, including games like UT3. despite this, im actually concerned about running vista on my PC. why would anyone want a PC that can run UT3 and bioshock when all they want is email and youtube videos?

keep in mind what we are discussing here, this isnt some program that would be a great advantage to anyone using it like MS office or a dvd/ipod converter. it wont read your mind and make life simpler, it just makes your PC capable of running the things you own a PC for. its an operating system. its SOLE function should be the interface that you use to make your PC do the things you bought it for. if your PC is using up all of its resources just to make it run, then how are you going to watch that movie that you just popped into your DVD drive? seriously, would you buy a car that uses all of its horsepower on idling? imagine that; you then hit the accelerator and just slowly move along. what would be the point in having a car if it didnt get you places?

I don't think anyone could have said that better. Vista does nothing XP can't.

[drtoker]

You make some excellent points, and my only argument is that they don't have to upgrade. But thats not a good argument since eventually they will stop support for XP and force the switch. I agree that people using the computer for basic functions do not need a high end machine, even if its affordable, especially if they have one already.
Thanks for the enlightened point of view :)

[Sephiroth]

the problem is that grandma and office joe dont need dual core 64 bit machines to check email and fill in spreadsheets. i see your agument: my 933 was very middle range but i spent a little under a grand on that thing. a comparable middle range for today would be only a couple hundred bucks. but regardless, should you buy a new PC just so you can run the operating system? it just doesnt make sence

fake edit: i just went over specs in my head. "middle range" is just too large these days. the whole spectrum of low to high end PCs has broadened greatly from what it was in 2001. with the exception of vista and premium games, a "low end" PC will pretty much run everything a user could want and still have some functionality for higher end tasks. from what it out there processor wise, my current PC (pentium dual core 2.8) is actually pretty slow. we have quad cores now. yet despite this, im able to run everything i want, including games like UT3. despite this, im actually concerned about running vista on my PC. why would anyone want a PC that can run UT3 and bioshock when all they want is email and youtube videos?

keep in mind what we are discussing here, this isnt some program that would be a great advantage to anyone using it like MS office or a dvd/ipod converter. it wont read your mind and make life simpler, it just makes your PC capable of running the things you own a PC for. its an operating system. its SOLE function should be the interface that you use to make your PC do the things you bought it for. if your PC is using up all of its resources just to make it run, then how are you going to watch that movie that you just popped into your DVD drive? seriously, would you buy a car that uses all of its horsepower on idling? imagine that; you then hit the accelerator and just slowly move along. what would be the point in having a car if it didnt get you places?

Your argument while valid is really more about user needs. It really has nothing to with the Vista or any OS. It is really subjective too what you consider to be medium or low range may be completely different to someone else.

Why does someone who is just reading email or browsing the web even need XP. Why do they even need a modern pc, they can get by just fine with Linux and a Pentium 3.

By implying that the Operating System is somehow not important, you don't really understand what a Operating System does. The OS does make a difference and it does way more than just being a interface to run programs, it also connects all those programs to all your hardware, allocates and manages system resources. Without the OS no other programs could run in the first place, so I consider it to be a huge advantage.

[Signa]

oh believe me seph, i know what an OS is. my point was that when it boils down to it, it makes your computer go. if all your resources are being used to make your PC go, then you have a problem. it doesnt matter what other cool things your OS will do, YOUR PC ISNT RUNNING! as far as hardware connecting to software goes, it all depends on your PC. the only thing that vista does that no other version of windows does is multicore processing. multicore = highend PC = see above post. dont forget that any hardware out there still has drivers for XP and many even have 98 support. and yes, a P3 would be great for most people. but if you are running a P3 and you have no need for anything better, then 98/XP should do you well enough. after all, you will be using 98 era hardware. i get your point about linux but i think is a bad example for the real world. most people using a P3 these days arent going to be very computer savvy. i dont care how good the linux support base is, if you need help with it, its never going to be the same as if you are running windows.

[meyou123]

All your comments are typical after a new OS or other software release from Microsoft. I downloaded Vista Ultimate from BTjunkie and absolutely love Vista. My machine is a 3Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, and high end Radeon graphics card.. never had a bit of trouble with it... very stable and is not a resource hog. It is Windows Vista... an OS that was by design, built to utilize more resources. So whatz the problem with that? You guys expect to run the latest and greatest OS with a 286 processor and 8MB ram? As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required.

I just bought a new Dell laptop with an AMD processor and 2GB RAM and Vista runs perfect. I had a sound card that wasn't supported by Vista but no big deal. I dont understand all the bitching. I have no special interest in Microsoft... I just evaluate without bias and see ti for what it is.

Vista get an "A" mark from me.... and cant wait for the release of SP1 in March.

Give me a BREAK! You can read back TWO PAGES of posts of people who have tried Vista and DO have decent machines on which to run it! It is slow, bloated and full of DRM. Do you actually think all those people are running Vista on a machine with less than what the minimum requirements call for?

If you like Vista, then fine, but don't give me bullshit that most of the people posting and reporting problems with it must somehow have a slow machine and that is what is wrong. I call bullshit on that!

If it was just people having slow machines giving them their problems, it still would not take into account the DRM or the various programs it forces you to have that you do not need. Hell, it is just an OPERATING SYSTEM,so why should you have to devote a lot of your processing power to it?

Why should most of the resources of my computer be dedicated to it, when I can dedicate it to other apps? Vista is bloated, XP is also bloated, but not as much as Vista. They just keep getting worse as far as bloat and THAT is what people are complaining about!

It seems by the posts Krell made, that Microsoft is finally getting the message....most people do not WANT a bloated operating system. If they did not mind it so much, then why is it that sales for standalone versions of Vista suck? Most of their money is made from pre-installs on newer computers. Or why is it that a lot of people have tried Vista and went back to XP?

I simply do not think it is because they did not want to like Vista, but rather had way too many problems with it to keep it on their computers.

At least that has been my experience when I tried it....and I DID have MORE than the minimum requirements for installing vista on my machine, I can tell you that. Vista does suck, the original post was right!

[Krell]

LOL he could have just as well been a MAC user.

"As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required."

Well, this is not just a problem with Windows, Linux is just as guilty as hell and always has been. I've speculated on a more modular approach to an OS since the mid 90s, because I saw the handwriting on the wall. Of course, no one listens to me, but this is an area where google could use this and make a fast scalable system and kick everyones ass.

The problem there is, so you code a new OS, and you then have to make it run all the current 3rd party apps for all the platforms, AND try to get hardware manufacturers to write driivers for your new product. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. They already tell MS to piss off when it comes to Vista.

You cant have it all, and have less at the same time. Scalable, not just a growing swapfile. That's where it's at.



.

[Sephiroth]

oh believe me seph, i know what an OS is. my point was that when it boils down to it, it makes your computer go. if all your resources are being used to make your PC go, then you have a problem. it doesnt matter what other cool things your OS will do, YOUR PC ISNT RUNNING! as far as hardware connecting to software goes, it all depends on your PC. the only thing that vista does that no other version of windows does is multicore processing. multicore = highend PC = see above post. dont forget that any hardware out there still has drivers for XP and many even have 98 support. and yes, a P3 would be great for most people. but if you are running a P3 and you have no need for anything better, then 98/XP should do you well enough. after all, you will be using 98 era hardware. i get your point about linux but i think is a bad example for the real world. most people using a P3 these days arent going to be very computer savvy. i dont care how good the linux support base is, if you need help with it, its never going to be the same as if you are running windows.

On the crappy machines where someone is just going to view email and browse the web. How much resources do you really need for that? So what if the OS takes up most of the resources, that is how those types of PCs are designed to do and you get what you paid for. Typically people who buy that are looking for the basics stuff over the cool stuff. It isn't the Operating System's fault that the crappy 200 dollar budget PC with a shitty CPU and integrated graphics can't run crysis or 8 things at once.

XP does have Multi-Core support too.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Technology progresses rapidly, if you are unwilling to keep up, you will be passed by and not be able to use whats currently available to the market. Hardware capable of running windows vista effectivly is not expensive. Compare 'mid level' systems from back when XP first came out to 'mid level' systems today that are vista capable (by mid-level I mean something capable of running the OS smoothly), you'll see that it is cheaper today to get a system like this to run vista then it used to be when xp first came out, and your getting much better equiptment, so wheres the problem?

Uhr...


Vista is a premature ejaculation.


Unwilling to keep up has shit to do with the mass market. If keeping up were the mass market, everyone would drive a Maybach.

[ratcat]

In the threads before this one, they say at Vista is a process hog.

Is it worth the google to find out that how to I get my processes down w/o affecting the OS




Is there a dummy guide for this ?