Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73

Thread: Vista Haters, read this.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default Vista Haters, read this.

    Ok, so I've decided after getting a negative rep for saying that people should STFU about vista sucking, I've decided to defend me stance here (And possibly open myself up to more bad reps, but whatever.)

    First, some background. I have been running vista ultimate x64 for about 6 months now, I have LOVED it as an operating system. Before I bit the bullet, however, much of the negative rep it received made me fairly nervous about using it. In fact, I almost didn't!

    So here is how I would like to proceed, I'll address the most common complaints that I've read about vista and then answer questions or "Vista sucks because of X" statements. I won't respond to "Vista sucks because Microsuck made it!" type responses. As that just screams "Im a fanboy that can't come up with rational arguments".

    Vista is a memory hog
    This statement has to be the most common vista complaint I've seen. So obviously you have to ask the question "Why is vista using so much memory?" The answer, simple, Superfetch. Vista, much more then XP did (and yes XP did do this to some extent), loads up frequently used programs and files into memory. It does this so that when you click on the Icon, the program seems to launch much quicker.

    So what if you want to run a program that uses more memory that is available? Simple, vista frees the superfetch memory and allocates it to the program requesting it.

    So my question to those complaining of this, would you rather your 8gb of ram sit there empty, doing nothing, or would you rather it provide a performance increase by pre-loading frequently used data?

    Vista is unstable
    There is not much to say here other then that is a complete lie. Vista is EXTREMELY stable. I've experienced fewer crashes with it then I did with XP (and I experienced very few crashes with XP). So where the problem? recent studies showed that 90% of all vista crashes where caused by nVidia drivers. Not exactly microsoft's fault. They gave nVidia and several other driver manufactures tons of specs/SDKs about how their drivers would work, and yet the companies sat on their duffs.

    Vista doesn't support X
    You know, this one sucks, but eventually microsoft had to stop supporting programs made for the 1980's. Most of them will run with a program like DosBox if you really need it to. Its Ironic because this complaint leads to the next. Much of vistas support issues where fixed with SP1. I, myself, haven't run into a program that vista couldn't handle out of the box.

    Vista's Too bloated!
    My response, Well, of course. Chances are the same person that complains that vista doesn't support X will also complain about how bloated it is. Well, you can't have it both ways. Vista supports far more hardware straight from the disk then any previous version of windows has. That support comes at the cost of bloat. Not only that, but the added features and background services that make the system run smoother and cleaner aren't magically free. So vista resideds in 1GB of HD space, and DOS only took up 1 MB, So what? Are you saying that $.01 you spent for the gig that Vista occupies is really that important?

    UAC sucks!
    Yes, it does, it also makes the computer much more secure. Vista infection rates are the lowest of any MS operating system ever. Sounds like UAC is doing its job well. Not only that, but you have the option to disable it if it really bugs you that much.

    Those are the main points I've seen brought up about vista sucking. I'll be happy to address any other that you are willing to bring up. I'm just tired of seeing the childish bashing of vista. It started with a media propaganda hatred for MS and ended with the now moot arguments we see today. The same thing was attempted with Win 7, however, microsoft seams to have effectively smooshed that with their open beta program for windows 7 (because enough people are able to say STFU when a online reviewer talks about how terrible win 7 is).

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Williston, ND
    Posts
    3,106
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    good post, i've also used vista for about a year now with NO qualms. the UAC is fairly easy to turn off, and I've loved it off the whole time. as for stability, 1 BSOD over the year I used it, and that was when I accidentally did something stupid to cause the crash.
    Proud owner of "Efferator" my totally boted main account!
    "You see, sometimes, science is not a guess" -Xiaobing Zhou (my past physics professor, with heavy Chinese accent)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boberman View Post
    UAC sucks!
    Yes, it does, it also makes the computer much more secure. Vista infection rates are the lowest of any MS operating system ever. Sounds like UAC is doing its job well. Not only that, but you have the option to disable it if it really bugs you that much.
    Statistics show that 90% of the users of Vista would recommend it to a friend. Also, that the UAC stopped 70% of malware from entering the operating system.
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,155
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    Vista is amazing i love it cant wait for windows 7 to come out

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    ithurtsithurtsithurtsithurts
    Posts
    2,930
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    135 Post(s)

    Default

    Well, I'll agree with you that Vista isn't nearly as bad as people say it is, but I still don't particularly like it.

    There are a lot of games and programs that I use/have used since Vista's launch that 90% of the problems (glitches, crashes, etc) could be traced back to attempting to run said program on Vista. All were active, constantly updated programs.

    As for the UAC, sure, it does protect the system some, but it also trains people to just click "yes" or "okay". Let's face it, not everyone is either aware that you can turn off the UAC or is unable to.

    There's also the fact that a lot of systems were advertised as "Vista Ready" when they were barely capable of running Home Basic, if at all.

    Edit: Also, it's really easy for Vista to have a lower infection count than XP when you consider the fact that there are just under 3 times as many people using XP as there are people using Vista.
    Last edited by senrath; 07-24-2009 at 01:13 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Some where fun.
    Posts
    2,891
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    5 Post(s)

    Default

    I have vista, for around a year, and i had xp when i was younger.

    Too be honest, i dont care xp or vista.

    IF im going to be running games and stuff like that - XP
    Else - VISTA
    (JUST WHAT I PREFER)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    15,252
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Quoted
    680 Post(s)

    Default

    Vista worked like crap on my laptop, but works awesome on my desktop. To be honest, I don't mind it on my desktop, it runs fine, I've never had any major crashes, and I've been using it over a year.

    I agree with pretty much everything you said, I mean, if you're going to complain about how bad something is, just don't use it, simple as that. There's no point in complaining to everyone about it, how is that suppose to help your situation.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    2,823
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    25 Post(s)

    Default

    Vista is only good if you got a powerful computer otherwise its just crap, running wise.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BobboHobbo View Post
    Vista is only good if you got a powerful computer otherwise its just crap, running wise.
    Worked fine on my Acer Aspire 5720Z (my current laptop). Look at the specs, ran smoothly
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If you have a computer built in the last 5 years, then vista will run fine on it. it has the requirements of a high end 10 year old system. (and a bottom of the barrel system now)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United States, -7:00 GMT
    Posts
    1,790
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Only thing that I don't like is 64 bit, but that is nothing against Vista.

    I'm running Windows 7 right now 64x, it's great.

    hakuna matata ;)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    California, US
    Posts
    2,765
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There are 32-bit versions of Vista I believe, correct me if I am wrong.

    Edit: But I'd like to have more memory, so...I have 64 bit .

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Williston, ND
    Posts
    3,106
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    I think that Ejjman meant that he doesn't like the 64bit version.
    Proud owner of "Efferator" my totally boted main account!
    "You see, sometimes, science is not a guess" -Xiaobing Zhou (my past physics professor, with heavy Chinese accent)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada, BC
    Posts
    728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    macromedia MX's programs have sooo many gliches with vista. that was the main reason i hated it when i first got it, because i usto always be on macromedia flash makeing little flash games and expanding my skills, (before i got into scar) but with vista it always crashed. so i looked for something new and i suppose it was a blessing because it brought me here ;D

    Edit: actualy the biggest thing i dont like about vista, is that it looks so much differant from XP. I became fluent in XP and i could navagate around it so well, it was hella annoying when vista came along and everything looked differant. I realy wish they had an option to keep the design of it the same as XP if you didnt want to go and get used to the new style.
    Lance. Da. Pants.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lancerawks aka Lance View Post
    macromedia MX's programs have sooo many gliches with vista. that was the main reason i hated it when i first got it, because i usto always be on macromedia flash makeing little flash games and expanding my skills, (before i got into scar) but with vista it always crashed. so i looked for something new and i suppose it was a blessing because it brought me here ;D

    Edit: actualy the biggest thing i dont like about vista, is that it looks so much differant from XP. I became fluent in XP and i could navagate around it so well, it was hella annoying when vista came along and everything looked differant. I realy wish they had an option to keep the design of it the same as XP if you didnt want to go and get used to the new style.
    they do. You just have to dig a bit to get it.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada, BC
    Posts
    728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    they do for what? the macromedia programs or getting back the old XP design?
    Lance. Da. Pants.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Banville
    Posts
    3,914
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Quoted
    98 Post(s)

    Default

    Do you think superfetch is something special to Vista? It is because of how it is engineered that it requires superfetch to speed it up.

    Duct tape might work, but it's not the best solution.
    The jealous temper of mankind, ever more disposed to censure than
    to praise the work of others, has constantly made the pursuit of new
    methods and systems no less perilous than the search after unknown
    lands and seas.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,240
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    11 Post(s)

    Default

    Vista idles with 2gb of ram for me I switched to Ubuntu it idles with around 300mb
    Click here to find out how to get full screen without members! | Click here to check out my Ultimate Bitmap Tutorial! Edited to work with Simba! |

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    4,603
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cycrosism View Post
    Vista idles with 2gb of ram for me I switched to Ubuntu it idles with around 300mb
    Oh my god you're an idiot.. /facepalm

    Read the first post, specifically the 1st point.
    You may contact me with any concerns you have.
    Are you a victim of harassment? Please notify me or any other staff member.

    | SRL Community Rules | SRL Live Help & Chat | Setting up Simba | F.A.Q's |

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    320
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    5 Post(s)

    Default

    Yep, Vista is great. Only problems for me are dodgey USB driver but that's not Vista's fault, it's Saitek's fault. Anyway, vista is stable, and runs MUCH faster than XP. Although, that might be due to the fact I have 8x more ram than my laptop.
    The things I use (VS2008, MS Office 03, Firefox, mIRC, Notepad++) have never crashed on me. So yeah, it's stable enough.
    (Waits for neg-reps).
    -- BP

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,089
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Quoted
    43 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm a happy Vista user too.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,553
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Networking shizzle Vista <----> Xp is a hell and my xp never works on vista or comes with troubles... and it's not my fault!
    ~Hermen

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Players[-1].Loc
    Posts
    962
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    5 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boberman View Post
    So where the problem? recent studies showed that 90% of all vista crashes where caused by nVidia drivers. Not exactly microsoft's fault. They gave nVidia and several other driver manufactures tons of specs/SDKs about how their drivers would work, and yet the companies sat on their duffs.
    I used to have a massive article (Edit: Here it is, please at least load it up to see how big it is ) going over changes Microsoft made in the drivers scheme for Vista, and I have to say here that this is completely Microsoft's fault. All digital display ports capable of DRM (read: HDMI) are forced to monitor themselves for tampering so that DRM can't be circumvented by checking various sensors for changes ("tilt bits" they're called). This is also one of the many things that slows down Vista fractionally (but it adds up) and also caused lots of people on launch to not be able to watch any DVDs at all.

    Anyway, I installed Vista once. Roughly 7 seconds in, the sidebar crashed and I said fuck this (it took like 10 seconds to log in from the fresh install). Also, there's about a 50ms lag when moving windows. Aero is the most bloated graphic interface ever. Compiz looks a lot nicer and is more customizable, faster, and can do all the triple-buffering, etc. that Vista's drawing system does (you could even replicate those diagonal bars behind the titlebars and such).

    I don't remember what it's called, but that thing that uses flash drives as fake RAM has been shown to make flash drives only last roughly 10 years before data starts corrupting (compared to ~90 years)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    3,880
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    152 Post(s)

    Default

    Vista is okay... but I just hate how lazy of an effort Microsoft put into it.

    Proof Vista is crap imo is: Microsoft ditched Vista for Windows 7.
    Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    3,137
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    5 Post(s)

    Default

    Windows 7 > Windows XP > ... > Windows Vista
    Thx.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •