Why do people hate vista?



  • I've listen to ppl bitch and moan about Vista and have waited to upgrade/get a new PC with it.  Then I got on a Dell deal that came with vista.  After some initial issues (not supporting over 3.5GB of ram), I installed Vista X64 (which was a free upgrade), and I gotta say, I kinda like it.  It works better then XP64.  

    So to all the haters, what is so bad about Vista? 



  • One word: Bloatware.



    I have a question for you: Why do people take the time to spell out so many words, but insist on downgrading the 6-letter word "people" to the 3-letter bastard "ppl" ? It's hard to take people seriously when they "abbreviate" words like that.



  • Try copying a bunch of files. Doesn't really matter what they are, just copy a bunch. Time the copy, then compare to the same copy set in XP.



  •  This topic is likely to quickly devolve into an all out flame war... So thanks OP.

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    One word: Bloatware.

    That is a ridiculous argument that we have been over repeatedly on this forum. You can turn off just about all of the extra stuff that people whine about. You should expect the software to grow and have more features, and therefore need more hardware to run. With the rate at which hardware improves it would be ridiculous for MS to design an OS strictly around today's hardware.

    I would hate to see OSX run on a Mac Classic too (assuming it would even be possible with the drastic change in OS)  so I don't know why people would expect full blown Vista (Aero, etc) to run happily and fast on a Windows 95 vintage machine.

    For bonus points I love every idiot I hear who constantly tells me about "Vista uses all my RAM! Bloatware!!!1!~!". Explaining Superfetch only results in a morphing argument about other ridiculous crap.

    The most amazing part of all of this...Is no one is FORCING you to upgrade, so complaining about your current hardware not having the same performance running Vista is just stupid anyway. Change is just harder for certain people, and those people are the ones who end up the most vocal about these things.

    Cue the Slashdot MS bashers...



  • @MarcB said:

    Try copying a bunch of files. Doesn't really matter what they are, just copy a bunch. Time the copy, then compare to the same copy set in XP.
     

    New features often have bugs involved. If this is such a problem for someone, there are patches from MS.

    Another thing to try if it is a local (non network share) issue:

    Go to the Control Panel

    Open Programs and Features

    Click on ” Turn windows features on or off” on the left side of the panel

    Uncheck “Remote Differential Compression”



  • I'll try to be impartial (as I tend to slant against MS and don't want to be flamed for "flaming"), I use Vista on my "Vista Capable" (1.6ghtz CPU + 512MB ram) laptop. These are my current annoyances:

    1. It's fecking slow. I have the theming service (thus no Aero) turned off among others.
    2. It takes about 3 seconds for a tab to show in the tab bar (IE), another few seconds I can actually do something. This is annoying as my habit is to open a tab, let it load a page, continue reading the page that has loaded while I wait for the new one to load.
    3. It took me half an hour to prodding (on the bus at the time so I couldn't look it up) to give up, try the control panel and use folder options from there (which is what I wanted in the first place anyways). In IE I can click the TAB-bar and select "show menu", explorer does not have that. CTRL+T did not do anything (I was hoping to have tabbing in Explorer).
    4. Add-Remove programs has been renamed, totally not expecting that, not that I've needed to use it yet.
    5. Expected cmd.exe when running "route delete ..." to trigger UAC, runas.exe can't find administrator, with help found that right clicking command prompt lets you run as admin.
    6. Copying a 500-600MB file from my DVD-Drive will cripple the operating system, I can not do anything as a 5 second task takes about 30 seconds to go through. 4 minutes to calculate how long it will take.
    7. On my own I still can't figure out how to name an interface, because the default ones are crap "Local area network" and "public 2", guess which one is wireless.
    8. I vehemently hate dialog boxes.

      As for what I like:
    9. 2h40m of battery life. Stripped down Arch Linux gives 2h10m
    10. Seems to boot faster than anything else I have
    11. Start menu looks a bit more useful than past ones, I haven't used it much though.
    12. UAC, yes I actually like UAC.



      Additional notes about my setup: Programs installed: Vista Business Edition (only copy I legally or other-wise own), and Starcraft. I always set a nic to public (ironically it's the most restrictive mode)


  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Another thing to try if it is a local (non network share) issue: [snip]
    Thanks!



  •  @MarcB said:

    Try copying a bunch of files. Doesn't really matter what they are, just copy a bunch. Time the copy, then compare to the same copy set in XP.

     I did.  XP CD (579mb, 7561 files, 47 folders)

    On Vista copying from CD to HD - 2 mins 20 secs
    On Vista copying from HD to HD - 1 min flat

    On XP copying from CD to HD - 2 mins 25 secs
    On XP copying from HD to HD - 53 seconds

    Granted, my timing could be a bit off, and it's on diff hardware, but looks like it has about the same performance... 



  • @Lingerance said:

    I'll try to be impartial (as I tend to slant against MS and don't want to be flamed for "flaming"), I use Vista on my "Vista Capable" (1.6ghtz CPU + 512MB ram) laptop. These are my current annoyances:

    1. It's fecking slow. I have the theming service (thus no Aero) turned off among others.
    2. It takes about 3 seconds for a tab to show in the tab bar (IE), another few seconds I can actually do something. This is annoying as my habit is to open a tab, let it load a page, continue reading the page that has loaded while I wait for the new one to load.
    3. It took me half an hour to prodding (on the bus at the time so I couldn't look it up) to give up, try the control panel and use folder options from there (which is what I wanted in the first place anyways). In IE I can click the TAB-bar and select "show menu", explorer does not have that. CTRL+T did not do anything (I was hoping to have tabbing in Explorer).
    4. Add-Remove programs has been renamed, totally not expecting that, not that I've needed to use it yet.
    5. Expected cmd.exe when running "route delete ..." to trigger UAC, runas.exe can't find administrator, with help found that right clicking command prompt lets you run as admin.
    6. Copying a 500-600MB file from my DVD-Drive will cripple the operating system, I can not do anything as a 5 second task takes about 30 seconds to go through. 4 minutes to calculate how long it will take.
    7. On my own I still can't figure out how to name an interface, because the default ones are crap "Local area network" and "public 2", guess which one is wireless.
    8. I vehemently hate dialog boxes.

      As for what I like:
    9. 2h40m of battery life. Stripped down Arch Linux gives 2h10m
    10. Seems to boot faster than anything else I have
    11. Start menu looks a bit more useful than past ones, I haven't used it much though.
    12. UAC, yes I actually like UAC.



      Additional notes about my setup: Programs installed: Vista Business Edition (only copy I legally or other-wise own), and Starcraft. I always set a nic to public (ironically it's the most restrictive mode)
     

    Personally, I found UAC annoying as hell, and turned it off as soon as I figured out how.  I still get the annoying UAC is turned off warning.  

     I have however, gotten my first spyware within minutes of turning off UAC, so I can see the reason for it for more novice users.   I have since installed Spybot, which seems to have a much nicer version of UAC (prompts you when important registry changes are about to be made.

    Vista does use more RAM, but you have no excuse for running a laptop with 512mb of ram.  Ram is becoming dirt cheap these days, where you can get 2gb for under $50. 

     

     



  •  zomg russ!!!!! you created an account.

     Beware of russ0519. He'll h@x your g1b$3n.

    Vista is lame because: I can't run any of my legacy audio applications correctly. I've been using some of this software for over five years without any issues. Now I have to change my studio setup because of Microsoft? XP SP2 FTW ATM. 



  • @Lingerance said:

    I use Vista on my "Vista Capable" (1.6ghtz CPU + 512MB ram) laptop
     

    You must admit that is quite a bit on the low end of specs these days. 

    @Lingerance said:

    3. It took me half an hour to prodding (on the bus at the time so I couldn't look it up) to give up, try the control panel and use folder options from there (which is what I wanted in the first place anyways). In IE I can click the TAB-bar and select "show menu", explorer does not have that. CTRL+T did not do anything (I was hoping to have tabbing in Explorer).

    Why didn't you just press 'alt' like you would do on every other application that hides the menu?

    @Lingerance said:

    4. Add-Remove programs has been renamed, totally not expecting that, not that I've needed to use it yet.

    Don't complain about changes. You want to be in IT, changes happen and you should be the best person to be able to adapt. If renaming a control panel bothers you this much, you are going to have a rough life.

    @Lingerance said:

    5. Expected cmd.exe when running "route delete ..." to trigger UAC, runas.exe can't find administrator, with help found that right clicking command prompt lets you run as admin.

    It is quite a change to actually have to think about permissions in Windows, but again, it isn't like this is a secret. Adapt.

    @Lingerance said:

    6. Copying a 500-600MB file from my DVD-Drive will cripple the operating system, I can not do anything as a 5 second task takes about 30 seconds to go through. 4 minutes to calculate how long it will take

    I have not seen this on any Vista machine I have used so far, and I do a lot of large copies, etc.

    @Lingerance said:

    7. On my own I still can't figure out how to name an interface, because the default ones are crap "Local area network" and "public 2", guess which one is wireless.

    Right click --> rename. Just like it has always been.

    @Lingerance said:

    8. I vehemently hate dialog boxes.

    You could always go back to just using command prompts. No more GUIs FTW!

     

     

     



  • @russ0519 said:

     @MarcB said:

    Try copying a bunch of files. Doesn't really matter what they are, just copy a bunch. Time the copy, then compare to the same copy set in XP.

     I did.  XP CD (579mb, 7561 files, 47 folders)

    On Vista copying from CD to HD - 2 mins 20 secs
    On Vista copying from HD to HD - 1 min flat

    On XP copying from CD to HD - 2 mins 25 secs
    On XP copying from HD to HD - 53 seconds

    Granted, my timing could be a bit off, and it's on diff hardware, but looks like it has about the same performance... 

     

    Same here, I have never actually experienced the problem. Have heard people complain about any copies with lots of small files though.



  • @russ0519 said:

    Personally, I found UAC annoying as hell, and turned it off as soon as I figured out how.  I still get the annoying UAC is turned off warning.  

     I have however, gotten my first spyware within minutes of turning off UAC, so I can see the reason for it for more novice users.   I have since installed Spybot, which seems to have a much nicer version of UAC (prompts you when important registry changes are about to be made.

     

    You deserve everything you get then. I hear way too many people who turn off things like UAC in Vista, and then complain about spyware and such... UAC really isn't the problem. 



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:

    Personally, I found UAC annoying as hell, and turned it off as soon as I figured out how.  I still get the annoying UAC is turned off warning.  

     I have however, gotten my first spyware within minutes of turning off UAC, so I can see the reason for it for more novice users.   I have since installed Spybot, which seems to have a much nicer version of UAC (prompts you when important registry changes are about to be made.

     

    You deserve everything you get then. I hear way too many people who turn off things like UAC in Vista, and then complain about spyware and such... UAC really isn't the problem. 

     UAC is pretty bad though.  I admit, it was my own fault for getting the spyware, and UAC would've probably prevented it, but it was annoying as hell.  Spybot S-D Resident does the same job without being so annoying. 

     Either way, I'm an experienced user and I knew how to clean up the spyware, but like I said, for more novice users it might be a good thing, although they should let you customize it.  For example: Only ask me if an application is making important changes to the registry (such as startup, installing a new service, etc).  This would help fight spyware, without being annoying as hell.   

     

     



  • @russ0519 said:

     Either way, I'm an experienced user and I knew how to clean up the spyware
     

    BANG! TRWTF emerges!

    If you really knew what you were doing, UAC wouldn't be such an issue, and you wouldn't constantly have issues with spyware.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:

     Either way, I'm an experienced user and I knew how to clean up the spyware
     

    BANG! TRWTF emerges!

    If you really knew what you were doing, UAC wouldn't be such an issue, and you wouldn't constantly have issues with spyware.

    I do know what I'm doing.  UAC is an issue because it's annoying as hell and won't let me be productive.  I also never said that I constantly have issues with spyware.  I said I got spyware a few minutes after disabling UAC, but that was my own fault for not installing SpyBot S&D first. 

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Why didn't you just press 'alt' like you would do on every other application that hides the menu?
    Not used to that.
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    Don't complain about changes.
    Fair enough
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    It is quite a change to actually have to think about permissions in Windows, but again, it isn't like this is a secret. Adapt.
    No matter how many times I read this I can't figure out what you meant.
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    You must admit that is quite a bit on the low end of specs these days.
    True enough, however I would reason that an OS doesn't need to do much other than make other programs run, as I am only testing the OS and it's included software I believe my laptop to have ample CPU, RAM on the other hand I should have doubled.
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    Right click --> rename. Just like it has always been.
    I wish. I did find it though.
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    You could always go back to just using command prompts. No more GUIs FTW!
    That's a bit of a stretch, my comment, although vague, said nothing about anything other than dialogue boxes, which have the following annoying properties (generally): cannot be resized (fun when you need to scroll to see all the permissions of a file), prevent the main window from working (Users and Computers is the only program that lets you use the main window from what I recall), do not show up in the task-bar, and finally tend to be used far to often and subsequently abused. I would much rather a new window be generated than a dialogue for configuration. See "Internet Options" for reference, it has a scroll-bar on the advanced tab, I cannot get rid of that scroll bar because I can't resize it because it isn't a windows it's a dialogue.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    It is quite a change to actually have to think about permissions in Windows, but again, it isn't like this is a secret. Adapt.
    No matter how many times I read this I can't figure out what you meant.

    You need to actually consider permissions in Vista,you need to learn about them. You cannot blame Vista for your lack of understanding. Research, learn, and grow from it.

    @Lingerance said:

    True enough, however I would reason that an OS doesn't need to do much other than make other programs run, as I am only testing the OS and it's included software I believe my laptop to have ample CPU, RAM on the other hand I should have doubled.

    You say it is only an OS, but then you are complaining about the web browser and other things. Which is it? Fact is, everyone wants their OS to do more and more out of the box, but then MS does it, and they get sued and called bloatware. 

     @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    Right click --> rename. Just like it has always been.
    I wish. I did find it though.

    ..I cannot figure this out. It is simple and clear. I cannot think of anything more windows-standard than to see something in Explorer, right click and hit 'rename'.

     

    As for dialogues... I don't know what to tell you. I haven't noticed that to be a problem at all. But like I said, there are always command prompts you can go back to. 

    MS-DOS 6 FTW!

     



  • File operations do seem slower. I haven't tried the 64 bit version. I'm running Vista Business and have the Differential setting turned off and some other patches along with SP1. Sometimes it still takes time to calculate an action that should be immediate.  I mean over a minute for under a meg. It doesn't happen every day, only occasionally. I ran for months without a problem and then one day it was very slow. Its pretty easy to kill the control panel, I've had to wait for it to open before and it just kills halfway through open. Explorer too. Every now and then I'll just be naviating and it will just close itself all of a sudden. I'm running a 2 Ghz Dual Core with 2 GB ram, so I have adequate resources. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You need to actually consider permission in Vista,you need to learn about them. You cannot blame Vista for your lack of understanding. Research, learn, and grow from it.
    Which is part of the problem I had, I couldn't figure out how to get permissions to increase so that I could run the program, the fact that even using runas /user:"An Admin Account" "route delete" did nothing other than open another cmd.exe for a split-second was confusing as hell. I have since adjusted it so that I don't have cmd closing immediately.
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    I cannot figure this out. It is simple and clear. I cannot think of anything more windows-standard than to see something in Explorer, right click and hit 'rename'.
    What window are you doing that from? Network? It's empty for me. Network and File Sharing? Right-click does not work, although customize does let me change the name, something I failed to notice before I made the complaint.



    I'm going to have to start packing my Vista training book, alas I fear my bag may not have sufficient volume for such a task.



  • @Lingerance said:

    What window are you doing that from? Network? It's empty for me. Network and File Sharing? Right-click does not work, although customize does let me change the name, something I failed to notice before I made the complaint.
     

    In 'Network Connections'. Again, the same place it was in XP and 2000.

    Title bar reads: Control Panel > Network Connections

     

    Where else would you look for your network connections?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    In 'Network Connections'. Again, the same place it was in XP and 2000.

    Title bar reads: Control Panel > Network Connections

    Where else would you look for your network connections?

    I honestly do not have that in my control panel the only thing that starts with N is "Network and Sharing Center". I'll post a screen shot when my access to the internet is limited to a public wireless connection and a wired connection that goes directly to a hub because we were trying out snort and wireshark. I wish my host let me connect through SFTP and not just FTP.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    You need to actually consider permission in Vista,you need to learn about them. You cannot blame Vista for your lack of understanding. Research, learn, and grow from it.
    Which is part of the problem I had, I couldn't figure out how to get permissions to increase so that I could run the program, the fact that even using runas /user:"An Admin Account" "route delete" did nothing other than open another cmd.exe for a split-second was confusing as hell. I have since adjusted it so that I don't have cmd closing immediately.
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    I cannot figure this out. It is simple and clear. I cannot think of anything more windows-standard than to see something in Explorer, right click and hit 'rename'.
    What window are you doing that from? Network? It's empty for me. Network and File Sharing? Right-click does not work, although customize does let me change the name, something I failed to notice before I made the complaint.



    I'm going to have to start packing my Vista training book, alas I fear my bag may not have sufficient volume for such a task.
     

     

    yes, route delete will open up a cmd.exe for a split second.  Is this not how it is in XP?  If you are going to run a command line program, you start a command prompt first.  then you can see if there's an error running the command because of UAC.  Run as Administrator seems to be a pretty good idea, sort of like su or sudo in *NIX. 

    Personally, I prefer to run my session as administrator or root, which I know is a bad practice, but I am just more efficient when I dont' have to constantly sudo or say run as administrator.      



  • @Lingerance said:

    I honestly do not have that in my control panel the only thing that starts with N is "Network and Sharing Center". I'll post a screen shot when my access to the internet is limited to a public wireless connection and a wired connection that goes directly to a hub because we were trying out snort and wireshark. I wish my host let me connect through SFTP and not just FTP.
     

    I don't know, I never go there through the control panel. 

    Right click a network device or the network icon on your desktop and click properties. Then 'Manage Network Connections'.

    I can't remember the last time I actually went through the control panel for anything really, so they may have taken it out. I wouldn't even notice the difference.



  • @MarcB said:

    Try copying a bunch of files. Doesn't really matter what they are, just copy a bunch. Time the copy, then compare to the same copy set in XP.
     

    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001058.html 



  • @russ0519 said:

    yes, route delete will open up a cmd.exe for a split second.  Is this not how it is in XP?  If you are going to run a command line program, you start a command prompt first.
    I was unclear, sorry, I was already running "route delete" from a cmd.exe it opened another cmd.exe and closed it immediately.
    @russ0519 said:
    Run as Administrator seems to be a pretty good idea, sort of like su or sudo in *NIX. 

    runas didn't work in vista for permission elevation from admin account to the UAC admin level when I tried it (hope that makes sense).



  • @russ0519 said:

    yes, route delete will open up a cmd.exe for a split second.  Is this not how it is in XP?  If you are going to run a command line program, you start a command prompt first. 

    Yeah, really I have lost track of this issue. This might the problem Lingerance is describing though.



  • Well, Vista works for me. And I wouldn't know otherwise. I sometimes joke with my fellow computer nerds that Vista sucks, just to humour them and trying to conform.

    However sometimes it seems the whole world is having trouble with Vista except me, or computers, for that matter.



  • @Ice^^Heat said:

    However sometimes it seems the whole world is having trouble with Vista except me, or computers, for that matter.
     

    Bingo!

    Same thing happens everytime an OS changes.



  • Holy shit! I go run an errand, talk to SysOps about something, hit the Side Bar, then check General... WHAM!.. This thing had gone from 1 to 28 responses. I'll dig through it later. For now, I'll address the first reply to mine.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    That is a ridiculous argument that we have been over repeatedly on this forum.

    I'm not arguing anything. That's my take on it. I don't want to pay $300 to turn it all off. They paid developers to make Aero, etc, so they want their money back. I don't want Aero, yet I still have to pay for it. Same goes for any other fluff they jammed into it. I just want a rock-solid OS without fluff that took years to make, but doesn't really serve a purpose (or that it does, but only to a certain audience).

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I don't know why people would expect full blown Vista (Aero, etc) to run happily and fast on a Windows 95 vintage machine.

    It won't run on my 1.5 year old one. I wouldn't call that vintage.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    The most amazing part of all of this...Is no one is FORCING you to upgrade, so complaining about your current hardware not having the same performance running Vista is just stupid anyway.

    I'm not upgrading, nor did I say anything about hardware. I just said it's bloatware. I like to install things individually. It'd be awesome if Microsoft would make a true OS with non-essential stuff as add-ons. XP Professional has everything I need and will run all of my current software. I'll upgrade about the time my computer shows signs of dying.



    Also, I'm only now starting to tinker with Linux. I've been using Microsoft stuff since DOS 3. I'm not a MS basher, but I do have my opinions.



  • I unfortunately waited until the betas for SP1 came out before even looking at Vista - I wish I had looked at it earlier because I like it alot. I haven't seen any of the performance issues either, although I do have a beefy development machine (dual core 2.4GHz, 4 GB ram).  I'm also using the 64 bit version, so that might have some impact on it as well. 

    To me it just seems snappier then XP64 and performs very well even when virtualized under VMWare.  My gut reaction is a lot of the issues people are having are due to poor drivers and/or underpowered hardware. 




  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    It'd be awesome if Microsoft would make a true OS with non-essential stuff as add-ons.

    Possibly of interest to you: Windows 7 Likely Going Modular, Subscription-based

    I only read the title, seriously. Although I agree, I don't want 7 ports turned on by default that I have to hunt down various settings for just to turn them off, nmap against Vista in public mode does not show any open ports glee!.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I'm not arguing anything. That's my take on it. I don't want to pay $300 to turn it all off. They paid developers to make Aero, etc, so they want their money back. I don't want Aero, yet I still have to pay for it. Same goes for any other fluff they jammed into it. I just want a rock-solid OS without fluff that took years to make, but doesn't really serve a purpose (or that it does, but only to a certain audience).
     

    By all means, no one says you have to buy it. But why call it 'bloatware' if you don't even use it?

    If you want a 'rock solid OS' then you would be well advised to start considering Vista over XP soon. It wasn't just 'fluff' they added after all. Despite all the FUD.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    It won't run on my 1.5 year old one. I wouldn't call that vintage.

    1.5 year old means nothing. Neither does 'it won't run'.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I just said it's bloatware. I like to install things individually. It'd be awesome if Microsoft would make a true OS with non-essential stuff as add-ons. XP Professional has everything I need and will run all of my current software. I'll upgrade about the time my computer shows signs of dying.

    You are hardly qualified to be posting insults or assessments of Vista then. The term for this kind of assessment you are making is 'FUD'.

    I won't even get into your unrealistic expectations of a desktop OS though....  I doubt MS is ever going to ship a stripped down version that you can install piece by piece... Although Server 2008 core goes against that belief so who knows?

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I'm not a MS basher, but I do have my opinions.

    But your 'opinions' are based on FUD. And you are only spreading it around.



  • @op said:

    ...

     

    Thought I may bash Vista, XP64 has been a royal pain in the neck for me.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    But why call it 'bloatware' if you don't even use it?

    For the same reason I would call a 4-bedroom house a "4-bedroom house". Feature lists and screenshots are what I go by. I'm not taking someone else's word for it.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    If you want a 'rock solid OS' then you would be well advised to start considering Vista over XP soon. It wasn't just 'fluff' they added after all. Despite all the FUD.

    XP is solid for me. Why would Vista be anymore solid?

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    1.5 year old means nothing. Neither does 'it won't run'.

    What type of counter is that? You were stating that people shouldn't complain that a new OS won't run on vintage hardware. I stated that my hardware is not vintage, yet it does not meet the requirements.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You are hardly qualified to be posting insults or assessments of Vista then. The term for this kind of assessment you are making is 'FUD'.

    I posted one assessment: Too many unneeded features for too high of a cost. That is far from "FUD". Fear? No. Uncertainty? No. Doubt? Possibly.. depending on what you would consider is the doubt. If I was incapable of reading and only took everyone's word for it, then yes, it would be FUD. But, I go by Microsoft-issued feature lists and end-user screenshots. Are you saying both are faked?

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    But your 'opinions' are based on FUD.

    See previous response.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    For the same reason I would call a 4-bedroom house a "4-bedroom house". Feature lists and screenshots are what I go by. I'm not taking someone else's word for it.

    You seem to confuse fact with opinion.

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    XP is solid for me. Why would Vista be anymore solid?

     Perhaps it is time to do more research than just reading Slashdot?

    Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    What type of counter is that? You were stating that people shouldn't complain that a new OS won't run on vintage hardware. I stated that my hardware is not vintage, yet it does not meet the requirements.

    No you didnt. You stated a duration of time, and said it 'won't run'. 1.5 years does not tell me the system specs at all. I still know of companies who make 233mhz back planes.'won't run' is like some retard who calls tech support and says the same thing. "Ok, have you checked if the power switch is on?"

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I posted one assessment: Too many unneeded features for too high of a cost. That is far from "FUD". Fear? No. Uncertainty? No. Doubt? Possibly.. depending on what you would consider is the doubt. If I was incapable of reading and only took everyone's word for it, then yes, it would be FUD. But, I go by Microsoft-issued feature lists and end-user screenshots. Are you saying both are faked?

    It IS FUD. Because you made the decision you did not need a new OS at this time. That is fine everyone can respect that. I agree, actually and my primary machine is running XP.

    However, posting to forums that Vista is 'bloatware' is a WHOLE different ball of wax.

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You seem to confuse fact with opinion.

    WHAT?! So "facts" are in reality "opinions" ?! I said "Feature Lists" and "Screenshots". How are those opinions?

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Perhaps it is time to do more research than just reading Slashdot?

    I have never been to Slashdot or any other user-controlled list (aside from Digg -- which I only use for my bookmarks). I have no problems on XP, and I have full software and hardware compatibility with it. Vista probably won't run most of my software. The list you provided is all about security. I have had no security problems with XP. I'm not exactly wide open to the internet, nor do I peruse questionable content on a daily basis. The thing that all Vista fanatics tend to forget is that not all of us have thousands of dollars to invest in new hardware and software.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    No you didnt. You stated a duration of time, and sait it 'won't run'. 1.5 years does not tell me the system specs at all. I still know of companies who make 233mhz back planes.'won't run' is like some retard who calls tech support and says the same thing. "Ok, have you checked if the power switch is on?"

    If you want the complete specs, refer to my "Linux Live CD" thread in this same forum. It's a Pentium D 2.66GHz with 1GB RAM. The last time I ran the test, it said my computer is not compatible. I can't give you specifics as to what will happen if I try to run it because I see no reason in blowing up my XP installation by attempting to install a trial of Vista on it.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    It IS FUD. Because you made the decision you did not need a new OS at this time. That is fine everyone can respect that. I agree, actually and my primary machine is running XP.

    However, posting to forums that Vista is 'bloatware' is a WHOLE different ball of wax.

    So you bypass the fact that I made the assessment after reviewing factual information and then basically call me a liar. Either something is bloatware or it's not. Vista IS bloatware. Nothing they do short of stripping it down to modular will make it otherwise. I have not said "Vista is teh sux!" or any other such thing.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Vista probably won't run most of my software.
     

    I doubt that. Especially with Virtual PC being free, there is no reason you cannot make ANY application work, even old 16 bit apps and such.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I have no problems on XP, and I have full software and hardware compatibility with it.

    Then STAY WITH IT. No one is trying to make you change. But stop posting in a vista thread as if you know something.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    The list you provided is all about security. I have had no security problems with XP.

    Then DONT CHANGE. But stop saying the only changes were fluff. Clearly you had no idea of the actual changes.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    The thing that all Vista fanatics tend to forget is that not all of us have thousands of dollars to invest in new hardware and software.

    I know of no 'Vista fanatics' here. But I do have a problem with you running your mouth about something you clearly know nothing about. As stated previously, I don't even run Vista on any of my personal machines yet.

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    The last time I ran the test, it said my computer is not compatible.

    And then it would have told you WHAT was incompatible. Likely it had nothing to do with the performance of your hardware, but rather, your various devices or drivers. Sorry, but you are not giving the whole picture here.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I can't give you specifics as to what will happen if I try to run it because I see no reason in blowing up my XP installation by attempting to install a trial of Vista on it.

    You don't need to, it tells you what wasn't compatible.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Nothing they do short of stripping it down to modular will make it otherwise

    Like XP was? I guess I don't see your point. Use whatever you want, but stop pretending to know something in this area.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I have not said "Vista is teh sux!" or any other such thing.

    Yes you have. You reached right into the anti-Vista propaganda bag and pulled out 'bloatware'. And you can't even reasonably back it up.



  •  @dlikhten said:

    @op said:

    ...

     

    Thought I may bash Vista, XP64 has been a royal pain in the neck for me.

     

    I have tried XP64 in the past, and have had all sorts of issues forcing me to go back to XP32.  Vista x64 is much better and actually works properly...      



  • Can we all agree that Vista uses more resources and is therefore not a good OS for upgrading, but it is good enough to order a new system with.

    In the past, I have avoided ordering new systems with Vista because of all the bad opinions of it, but I think it's a good OS if your hardware supports it (which most new hardware should). 

     

     



  • @russ0519 said:

    but I think it's a good OS if your hardware supports it (which most new hardware should). 
     

    That could/should be said about ANY OS.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:

    but I think it's a good OS if your hardware supports it (which most new hardware should). 
     

    That could/should be said about ANY OS.

     

     

    What I meant was that Vista needs much better hardware then XP vs what XP needed over 2K.  XP was a good upgrade over 2K, while Vista is not necessarily a good upgrade for existing hardware.  

    I think, though, that Vista is a fine OS, and if you are getting new hardware, you should give it a try (and I believe two of the higher versions have downgrade rights, just in case your apps don't support Vista).  



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I doubt that. Especially with Virtual PC being free, there is no reason you cannot make ANY application work, even old 16 bit apps and such.

    That is why I've been testing various Virtual PC configurations. Once I am satisfied with how things are working, I'll go from there.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Then DONT CHANGE. But stop saying the only changes were fluff. Clearly you had no idea of the actual changes.

    Where did I say "fluff" was "the only changes" ? Quote me directly where I said that. I specifically said something about Aero and "Same goes for any other fluff they jammed into it." That does not translate to "the only difference between XP and Vista is a shitload of fluff". QUIT reading it that way!



    And if I have no idea what the actual changes are, then blame Microsoft. My sources, again...



    <font size=4>MICROSOFT-ISSUED FEATURE LIST AND SCREENSHOTS</font>

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I know of no 'Vista fanatics' here. But I do have a problem with you running your mouth about something you clearly know nothing about. As stated previously, I don't even run Vista on any of my personal machines yet.

    Your attitude makes you sound like you're a fanatic. I'm not "running my mouth" about anything. If I was, I'd be on an anti-Vista campaign. I've only said that it's bloatware and has extraneous features. You were the one that then jumped on the single word I posted and threw out a bunch of fanboy-type attacks.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    And then it would have told you WHAT was incompatible. Likely it had nothing to do with the performance of your hardware, but rather, your various devices or drivers. Sorry, but you are not giving the whole picture here.

    So.. if it has a problem with all of my devices and drivers.. then what? Buy new hardware? Exactly!

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Like XP was? I guess I don't see your point. Use whatever you want, but stop pretending to know something in this area.

    XP at least fits on a CD. When it takes a DVD to install the OS, you know things are bloating. WTF is up with you calling me a liar? Here it is again:



    <font size=4>MICROSOFT-ISSUED FEATURE LIST AND SCREENSHOTS</font>



    How is that pretending? That is the same thing as saying I'm "pretending" to be a software engineer because I was not formally trained, but instead used the internet to learn.. the same way I researched Vista.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Yes you have. You reached right into the anti-Vista propaganda bag and pulled out 'bloatware'. And you can't even reasonably back it up.

    Stating that it's bloatware and stating "Vista sucks!" are two different things. Why can't you differentiate?

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    But stop posting in a vista thread as if you know something.

    Well since you seem to think that Microsoft and everyone else but you are wrong, then I am going to stop posting in this thread.



  • @russ0519 said:

    I have tried XP64 in the past, and have had all sorts of issues forcing me to go back to XP32.
     

    That's because XP64 is actually in essence a rebadged Windows Server 2003. It's a completely different codebase than XP32. Server 2003, being a server edition, isn't going to get all the drivers that the consumer level Windows gets, because most servers aren't going to be handling the scanners/printers/usb doo-dads/etc... that your average home PC has. Then throw in having to do 64bit drivers on top of it all, it's no wonders XP64 drivers are few, far, and buggy in between. 



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    XP at least fits on a CD. When it takes a DVD to install the OS, you know things are bloating.
     

    Vista switched over to using an image-based installer. To its credit, it does install faster than XP, but that's mostly because it's just slurping over one giant file and decompressing that, rather than a zillion little *.??_ compressed files.

    What I don't know yet is how easy it'll be to make a slipstreamed version of my Vista Home Premium disk now that SP1's out. WIth XP it's a tedious but straightforward process. But how do you slipstream an image file? Haven't bothered to Google that yet, because I reverted back to XP after my Vista install completely ate itself 3 times in a row. I'd rather be working than constantly reinstalling. 

     



  • @MarcB said:

    Vista switched over to using an image-based
    installer. To its credit, it does install faster than XP, but that's
    mostly because it's just slurping over one giant file and decompressing
    that, rather than a zillion little *.??_ compressed files.

    Therein lies the rub: 

    @MarcB said:

    What I don't know yet is how easy it'll be to make a slipstreamed version of my Vista Home Premium disk now that SP1's out. WIth XP it's a tedious but straightforward process. But how do you slipstream an image file?

    You don't - at least, not in an officially MS supported manner.  Microsoft giveth, and Microsoft taketh away.

    http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx

    SP1 will change a significant number of files; customers cannot apply SP1 to offline Windows Vista images.

    Here's an interesting tidbit:

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_sp1_inside.asp 

    I was told that users would be able to copy service packs and
    other hot-fixes into an UPDATE folder in the root of a Vista DVD or
    install image and just install the system, and all those updates would
    be automatically applied. It sounded fantastic, as it would to anyone
    whose suffered through the XP slipstreaming process countless times,
    and I was looking forward to testing this with Vista SP1.

    ...

    So it with a sense of relief
    that I can now report that drag and drop slipstreaming--excuse me,
    offline updating--is still happening. It's just not happening in Vista
    SP1. "Vista Service Pack 1 will not be able to be applied as an offline
    update to prestaged install images," Zipkin told me. "But this will
    work as planned with future update, post-SP1 updates. We ran into some
    unexpected issues with the servicing stack, so we can't do it for SP1.
    But we're planning to add this capability for SP2, though we can't make
    any promises. This will be a bigger issue around SP2 than it is now. We
    think this is a one time thing. But you can still make your own
    slipstream DVD using the old '-integrate' method as with XP if you want
    to."

     

    If you are feeling adventurous, try vLite:

    Of course it is always better to either capture or get a preintegrated
    DVD because MS said that integrating is not recommended before SP2 is
    out.

     

     



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    I know of no 'Vista fanatics' here. But I do have a problem with you running your mouth about something you clearly know nothing about. As stated previously, I don't even run Vista on any of my personal machines yet.

    Your attitude makes you sound like you're a fanatic. I'm not "running my mouth" about anything. If I was, I'd be on an anti-Vista campaign. I've only said that it's bloatware and has extraneous features. You were the one that then jumped on the single word I posted and threw out a bunch of fanboy-type attacks.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    And then it would have told you WHAT was incompatible. Likely it had nothing to do with the performance of your hardware, but rather, your various devices or drivers. Sorry, but you are not giving the whole picture here.

    So.. if it has a problem with all of my devices and drivers.. then what? Buy new hardware? Exactly!

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Like XP was? I guess I don't see your point. Use whatever you want, but stop pretending to know something in this area.

    XP at least fits on a CD. When it takes a DVD to install the OS, you know things are bloating.

     

    Linux nowdays comes on five cds or a DVD.  Are you saying that Linux is bloatware?    



  • @russ0519 said:

    Linux nowdays comes on five cds or a DVD.  Are you saying that Linux is bloatware?  
     

    Not quite a fair comparison. That DVD of Linux is an utterly complete operating system, with full 'Office' suites, multiple browsers, development tools, games, fun stuff, boring stuff, useless stuff, amazing stuff.

    That DVD of Windows, by comparison is... Windows, plus Minesweeper and a few drivers. 



  • @MarcB said:

    That DVD of Windows, by comparison is... Windows, plus Minesweeper and a few drivers. 

    That is nowhere near accurate and you know it. Don't discredit your normally insightful replies with ridiculous accusations like this.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Where did I say "fluff" was "the only changes" ? Quote me directly where I said that. I specifically said something about Aero and "Same goes for any other fluff they jammed into it." That does not translate to "the only difference between XP and Vista is a shitload of fluff". QUIT reading it that way!
     

    You have said: 

    @you said:


    I'm not arguing anything. That's my take on it. I don't want to pay
    $300 to turn it all off. They paid developers to make Aero, etc, so
    they want their money back. I don't want Aero, yet I stillhave to pay
    for it. Same goes for any other fluff they jammed into it. I just want
    a rock-solid OS without fluff that took years to make, but doesn't
    really serve a purpose (or that it does, but only to a certain
    audience). 

    What you don't say is just as good as what you do say.

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    And if I have no idea what the actual changes are, then blame Microsoft. My sources, again...

    Clearly you are not reading any of the same material the rest of us seem to be reading.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/accessibility.mspx

    With the features list there, I fail to see how you can not understand the various features (surprise! they do not all read 'Aero'). If you cannot find the same things I found through google, than again I invite you to not be the first to reply to a thread that you have not researched at all.

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Your attitude makes you sound like you're a fanatic.

     Because I don't stand by the same ridiculous,baseless arguments that you do? Sorry if I actually try the OS before telling everyone it is 'bloatware'.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I'd be on an anti-Vista campaign

    Being the first to post to the thread with no experience with Vista, and calling it 'bloatware' would qualify IMO.

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I've only said that it's bloatware and has extraneous features

    By that definition, every Linux distro I have ever tried qualifies as well.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    You were the one that then jumped on the single word I posted and threw out a bunch of fanboy-type attacks.

    You only posted one word, was I supposed to make up a few just to be sure? They aren't fanboy attacks, they are simply fact.I have documented my sources. You have not.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    So.. if it has a problem with all of my devices and drivers.. then what? Buy new hardware?

    Yes! Because obviously something there is not compatible. You know, just like Linux has compatibility lists, so does Windows.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Exactly!

    Never mind, looks like you came to your senses and figured it out.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    XP at least fits on a CD. When it takes a DVD to install the OS, you know things are bloating.

    My last Ubuntu install needed a DVD. Did I cry and call it bloatware? Nope. Did it come with everything I needed? Nope. Did I need other stuff it didn't come with? Yes.

    Do I cry about it on forums and say Ubuntu is bloatware or anything else? Nope.

     @AbbydonKrafts said:

    <font size="4">MICROSOFT-ISSUED FEATURE LIST AND SCREENSHOTS</font>

    Experience with the OS might have helped you. Since you keep falling back on this one line, I can safely assume you were just running your mouth.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I was not formally trained

    Then WHY did you feel the need to be the first post with an anti vista remark? 

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    the same way I researched Vista.

    You did a great job with that, too.

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Stating that it's bloatware and stating "Vista sucks!" are two different things.

    No they aren't. 

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I am going to stop posting in this thread.

    Finally, you come to your senses. 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.