Listen folks, the Vista Sucks is an opinion. On a technical merit, the OS is great. Except last night I had it crash and recover explorer just like XP, so I'm guessing it is equal to.
This is a clean install of an OEM version of Windows Vista, with all updates applied expect the foreign language ones.
However, on a performance basis. It is slower with any task I have attempted when compared to XP SP2, thus far it is incompatible with...
Supreme Commander patching utility
Crysis MP BETA
Nero 6.6.1 DVD/CD burning utilities
My webcam from sony
Cam studio 2.0
Vegas 7.0 trial
Yes it looks nicer but I didn't buy it to look nicer, I bought it to perform better, be safer, the same things Microsoft is FALSELY advertising. With every new incarnation of Windows in the past, that were a success, performance was increased overall, yet with Vista I am yet to be "WOWed" in any regard except the visual.
Frankly I do not think trading visual cosmetics, for performance and compatibility is an acceptable compromise. In using this for 2 days I can't think of any particular market or user that is served better by Vista than by XP. Which is disgusting!
What I find less than inspiring is Microsoft's hard line on XP price, because it is obvious they believe it to continue to hold more value for their customers than Vista, and they are right.
For those of you who say Vista boots faster than XP, For me it is taking about 2 min. Why? How are you achieving a faster boot? Is this from the sleep mode where your fans are running and leds are on or from a cold start? I consider booting from a shutdown machine to a desktop? Are we measuring by the same ruler?
Now some responses to you guys
"I must say, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, Dan."
Thanks Whip lol. It might be Karma, but I am a paying customer who is entitled to bitch about a product that is not meeting my expectations. It's not like I acquired an illegitimate clone of this and am complaining.
"Vista doesn't "suck". Of course, you do have to know what you're doing."
I've been using computers for 19 years. I may not know the ins and outs of Vista, but with baseline performance what it is, I'm not even inclined to do that learning. Do tell me what I am missing and why so many other experienced users are upgrading back to XP? I think perhaps there is a-- group of technical people and developers who see the potential but skew over the value rather than admit Vista has serious short comings when it comes to performance on Monster systems!
--godamnit there is goes agian, every time I load it asks me if it can load my probe 2 program to monitor my CPU mobo temps, you'd think after allowing it once it would just allow it again the next time. WTF!?!
Another thing, I'm using Yahoo messenger but for whatever reason it doesn't minimize to the sys tray, so I can't turn it off without going to the task manager and killing it, I know it's running because when ppl log on and off the little popup comes up. Why doesn't that work right?
"Did you choose the upgrade option or a fresh install? If the upgrade, I would try again with a fresh install. While I have heard of performance issues on computers running 1gb RAM or less, I have not heard of those problems with 2gb RAM, a dual core proc, and a quality video card. Especially not with those experience scores."
Gid, I want to acknowledge your computer experience and technical know how as greater than my own. I am baffled by the apparent high scores, would you happen to know if these are on a scale of 1.0-6.0? (like ice skating?)
This is a fresh install, originally I wanted to RAID over the XP partition on the original HD, but for whatever reason the raid didn't wanna go through so I just formatted the XP HD and put Vista on the new one. According to the system health the HD is running good or great. I have no idea if it would be faster on a RAID, probably. But I know XP would be faster on a raid and that is what I am going to do on Monday I think.
I have 2 GB of ram cause that is what I heard is the sweet spot for both XP and VISTA and really with XP I was rarely running above 1.5 gb, even with sup com running late in the games. On Vista I have peaked about 1.93 gb, in FSX!
"Oh, and I agree about the Chess. I especially like that it's 3d."
I love the chess, it's about time MS put that in, but seriously couldn't that have been a freebee for XP or a paid gadget or whatever for XP? lol.
"enough ram and processing power to qualify for the label of "flame throwing". That aside, from purely an operating system perspective, I have found Vista to be what you make of it."
How much ram? More than 2 GB? Better than a quad core CPU? Where am I going wrong here? Seriously Vista chugs like Win 3.1 when DOS 5.0 was faster. Maybe when compared in the technical sense Vista is better but by practical measure XP is winning the war.
We aren't winning in Iraq but we aren't losing either. I guess it's the same with Microsoft, we aren't winning with Vista but we aren't losing with XP.
"There is something about comfort that applies to operating systems and software in general - we tend to like what we get comfortable with - even if it is bad."
"I tried Vista back in March...was so disgusted I got a copy of Linux Debian and ran it for a while. Then ('cause I was a noob at Linux) I switched back to XP. Tried Vista again in June (after I thought some updates would be out)...and you wouldn't believe it, but I was so disgusted again that this time I installed Ubuntu and used it for a few weeks, got comfortable in the Linux shell/GUI, then switched to Debian 4.0. Now (due to my gaming tendencies ) I'm back to XP. BUT, there is good news! I gave it another go again two weeks ago, (and didn't vomit this time ) and it appears that some patches are finally working! I can run some games and don't get too many problems. The only issue I find is that while running games it fills up the RAM to full, and then I start to get poor framerate (I've got 1.5GB's).
The only reason I used Vista was actually because I couldn't bear the thought of having Dreamscapes and not being able to use it, and it works...well, kinda...apart from the glitch in the program/Vista that causes the freeze when it loops. I did find a solution, though...Webcam"
This seems like the past present and near term future of Vista. Features that kinda work, and features that are on the cutting edge but don't exceed the value of an OS that actually runs programs
Where does XP SP2 fail us? It is fast, compatible, and has the features of Vista in different form. I seriously am disappointed by Vista, lack of compatibility with my stuff. I know it isn't all MS's fault a lot of it is 3rd party vendors, but that should have been taken care of by the release date, or in a month or two after. It's Q1 of 2008! I really have no idea where MS is on SP1 for Vista but it needed to be released this summer at this pace Vista is a wasteland of incompatibility.
Now with Vista being faster, or more secure, better in ways I was open minded to learn where the next buttons are what they all do, how they all work, where to find my stuff on the HD, where to go to find My computer all that, but its like working in the Overlook hotel with all the lights out, and a late autumn thunderstorm rolling through. There are flashes of inspiration here and there but geez then the f--king UAC thing corners you and you just click yes by design.
"I remember reading those same kind of posts complaining about XP when it came out. And now everybody loves it.[/quote]
Sadly, some people aren't happy unless they're bitchin' 'bout sumfing."
Perhaps XP was a crappy OS when it came out and yeah I ran XP SP1 for a day before I figured to try to upgrade to SP2, on this very rig, it's slower and more cramped but when you compare it to Vista today, SP2 is a breeze of an OS and computers are much more powerful, you should be able to take advantage of that power not sit and wait for your unresponsive fat ass pig of an OS to decide what to do with your cpu while you wonder why it takes so long for the task manager to come up.
"About SupCom...I've been running that since day 1 and never had any problems with it. Patch updates in SupCom were never a problem either..."
They weren't for me when I was running XP, but they are with Vista.
"Elitist...you're the elitist attempting to sway people away from an OS that is actually better than XP (for the average user). "
Uh in what way is rampant incompatibility better, or slower performance, or a slower load times, or useless gadgets? Help me out here I thought things were supposed to get better as time went on. Progress is made. If asking me permission a second time when I just give the computer interface a command to do something, is the answer to security then imagine where we will be with security in 6 months or a year, when people are just clicking yes to get the damn UAC off the screen. Or another few million users' answer to the problem, just turning the damn thing off.
It's kinda like putting a piece of electrical tape over the blinking VCR clock, instead of making it easy enough for the general user, or set the clock or just have the damn clock smart enough to set itself!
I can set a VCR clock btw, but I can't install the manual patch for GPG net and can't play Sup Com on my f----=000--99009ing superior Vista rig. LOL BTW after I write response I'm putting in my XP SP1 disk and Wiping the HD clean of this bs. And within 30 days I am calling MS and getting an OEM activation for my XP disc!
Well I guess I am done. Thanks for chiming in if you all did, I'm sure this isn't the last we've heard of Vista but it is the last I'm interested in exploring with it. I really am excited more for the blue and yellow screen of an XP install
It makes me giddy just thinking about destroying Vista bit by bit. If I was a richer and more extravagant waster of a man I'd take my scissors and cut my Vista DVD in half but I wont. Maybe one day it will be worthy of the hardware power I have amassed.