Again, Why don't people like vista? High memory users only

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Help and Support' started by confused, Apr 7, 2009.

  1. confused

    confused New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    6
    I have an 8gb machine (memory) and it runs without a hitch. Were the problems cleared during the sp1? I have windows 7 on other and I find both to be very similar except for the taskbar and some networking features.

    Are these past vista complaints or is there a valid reason?
    Windows 7 is nice but PR for vista I think at present is getting a bad rap while windows 7 is over hyped. What do you think?

    Just wondering because it seems that Vista runs good on the high end machines. XP will need to be upgraded on the business and low end machines which it appears that windows 7 will do well.
     
    #1 confused, Apr 7, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2009
  2. blackroseMD1

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    28
    I think the problems that plagued Vista pre-SP1 is what people are hanging on to. I also have an 8GB RAM machine, but even back when I was running a 2GB machine, Vista ran fine for me pre-SP1.

    Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't want to let go of XP, and bash on Vista even if they've never used it. "Well, my friend says Vista sucks, so it must suck." Stuff like that.

    I loved Vista...I hated the way XP looked from the beginning, and Vista had a nice sleek look about it. As for you saying that W7 is overhyped, I don't think so. I have been using it since 6801, and it definitely offers a performance increase over Vista, while looking nice as well. Hopefully that will be enough to get people off of XP, so we can let it die.
     
  3. Camride

    Camride New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    12
    I also have a 8GB machine and while Vista runs great for me Windows 7 is still a big improvement. I'm looking forward to the release date as I think it'll really change alot of people's minds about Windows operating systems. I'm running Win 7 on my laptop and am constantly showing it to clients (I work for an IT consulting company) and everyone has been really impressed. Alot of people just heard all the bad press about Vista and decided to stick with XP until the next OS. I've been telling them they will be in for a good surprise. Vista is pretty good, but Windows 7 is what I think Vista really should have been.

    I'm already completely switched over, both my desktop and laptop are running Win 7 64bit. :)
     
  4. sw3rve

    sw3rve New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    exactly!

    my dell inspiron 1501 laptop came with vista. 1.8 ghz amd x2 w/ 2 GB ram. it took about 4-5 mins to idle after booting up. i think part of it was from my firewall. now i use ESET Smart Security and vista/w7 boot up a lot faster since ESET doesnt hog your ram for no reason.

    I love windows 7. i have been using it since 7057, 7068 as my main OS. The only time i use XP is on a virtual machine or at school. i cant wait for the release of windows 7.

    comparison of vista vs. windows 7:

    HP laptop with 4GB of ram running Vista: Idle ram usage about 38%

    My Dell laptop with 2GB of ram running W7: Idle ram usage 22%

    Thats a huge improvement in my book.
     
  5. Matt

    Matt Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    8
    I run vista on my laptop which has 4GB of RAM, and it runs fine. I've used it since Beta 2, and liked it since then. So, I would say it's pretty much FUD spread around by the apple fanboys.
     
  6. Joe S

    Joe S Excellent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,785
    Likes Received:
    113
    In my case I moved from XP to Vista and was frustrated by the way things were renamed and moved around. Then there was UAC really annoying on s single user computer. Then some of the services set to automatic by default like error reporting and customer improvement. And they sat the size of system restore at 15% of HD by default with no way to adjust it. The icon choice for Vista sucked Computer Network and Control Panel all used the same icon. So 5 months later still trying to tweak some things in Vista. Otherwise it's preformed quite well I've got 64 bit with 8 gigs of ram. I think Vista is hyperactive compared to Windows 7. If you use the Side Bar Gadget that shows cpu usage and core usage Vista constantly has something causing a blip when idle but Windows 7 is quite calm when idle.
    Joe.
     
  7. Cam493

    Cam493 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    3
    I find Vista's GUI to be horribly ugly compared to W7's (Build 7057). On top of that, applications and games run way faster on W7 than they do in Vista. Also, there isn't the UAC in W7, which was a total pain in the ass with Vista.
     
  8. Matt

    Matt Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    8
    I turn up UAC all the way up in Windows 7 so that it's more secure. As for gaming speed, I saw a 2fps improvement from Vista to 7, from 29 to 31FPS. The os it's self does seem to load faster (say windows explorer), but Vista runs perfectly fine for me. I don't see much of a GUI difference either aside from the new taskbar, which I instantly reverted. :\
     
  9. DRFP

    DRFP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    1
    But Vista was not being marked on High Ram Computers in 2005 through 2006, Laptops had 500mb of ram in the beginning
    and as late as Jan 08 still had 1 GB only.

    then in second half through this Winter 2GB and 4GB showed up.

    Tell me how many 8GB laptops are there today, as a standard?

    In case you haven't noticed the standard and average is who has the most influence, not high end users.

    This is the biggest complaint of Microsoft, until Win 7 the resources Vista needed was above average and high end.

    What makes people hate Microsoft is not only do we have to buy the Software but new computers and then more add ons like ram too.
    Then the drivers and the older software does not work too.

    To post "High Ram only" is really missing these points all that the mainstream media picked up on and some of it Microsoft has addressed in win 7 Vista = Win Millennium. ( OMG I have both too)

    I ran Vista with 1.5gb of ram Core Duo, now Win 7 runs so much better so far.:rolleyes:

    Also it seems the idea of retiring XP is over too, the new netbooks are using XP and even MS is saying you can uninstall Win 7 to XP now.
     
    #9 DRFP, Apr 13, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2009
  10. Athlonite

    Athlonite New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    10
    if you put lipstick (SP1) on a pig (Vista) it's still a pig but if you transplant it's organs (server2k8) into a person (Vista) its a person(Win7)
     
  11. davehc

    davehc Microsoft MVP
    Premium Supporter Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    5,116
    Likes Received:
    301
    Both programs run 100% for me.(Vista and 7 32bit and 64Bit). IBut perhaps users should study the Performance improvements though, rather than modified built in software options. I must iterate here, will have no hesitation in moving on to 7 when it reaches retail stage.
    There are a few benchmarks out in the past few weeks, which has given time for testers to play and customise 7. I failed to see the hysteria over 7, as my own home tests did not bear out with what was being said. Uunless compared with another OS on the same, or identical computer. the benchmarks do not convey any meaning.
    On my very average laptop, unfortunately, I am not so excited. Vista overtuned, 7 tuned as best is known. Full Programs and hardware. Lan and Internet
    Loading. Avast doing its final thing. (A real time hog on startup.)
    Vista boot up in1.20 mins: 7 in 1.10 - nothing that will excite me!
    Both shutdown in about 10 seconds.
    Both run programs at near enough, the same speed. I am not a big game player, so take the word of the experienced that they run better.
    7 definitely outclasses Vista in compatibility. Vista would, of course, have caught up with this and did, to a large extent, with SP1.
    Speed on the Internet about the same.
    7 uses a little less memory on my computer. (Very litte less, in truth) Not much of a consideration, as I have memory to spare for either system.
    The biggest lag in boot up is the antivirus at the end of the chain. This would alter benchmarks, according to which program they are using. There does not seem to be any reason why the boot up technique , using excess memory in parallel, could not have been incorporsted into Vista, but I am not a programmer, so perhaps the problem may have been insumountable.
    Again, with the difference between the size of the average hard disk, at the beginning of the XP era, and the average size now, I don't think the footprint of the OS is a consideration, although it is remarked on quite a lot.. Removing the pointing finger from Microsoft, for a moment, there is not a lot of good software on the market that has not telescoped in size over the past few years.
    With the software manufacturers at last waking up, 7 is a big step into the only future, 64bit. I think we will find that, within a year, you will have to be happy with the software you have running on XP, probably no longer supported in any way, or move on, as we did from 16bit.
    Vista is a fine OS. One thing that has nor surfaced, which I feel was very much resonsible for its demise, was the Web. When XP was in Beta, and final release, Forums were in there infancy. Thus there was very little global feedback. At the time Vista began to emerge, Forums were mushrooming. The early releases, of Vista, were downloaded massively from pirate sites. Those early releases, not meant for the public, were full of bugs. The word spread, from home "experts" and pirating users, most of whom used hackneyed and constantly repeated adverse comments from other sources. Vista was condemned as a disaster, months before its final release. I spend a great deal of time on help forums, and am so tired of reading one-liners "Vista was useless" etc. In most cases, whenever these posters are challenged, their answers are less than knowledgeable.
    I earnestly believe that the reason that 7 has been received with such enthusiasm, is because of its (unimportant) install and bootup time, in its raw state. This must, of course, impress the average user.
    It is only in Beta, but I feel less confident than most, that the final product will not be so innovative as we may think.
    My own amateur investigation of the files in, for example, system32, are inclined to lead me to the conclusion that 7 is a well tuned Vista. But I support the Microsoft business view. If it was neccessary to rebadge the product, to dispense with the really bad image, and sell some more products, so be it.
    I have been Beta testing Windows 7. Yes, I think it is great. I also still support Vista. I spent long hours customising and tweaking Vista. I find most of that customisation and tweaking has already been done in Windows 7. So am am inclined to the view that 7 is 1. What Vista should (could) have been, and, 2. 7 is essentially a tweaked Vista.

    Fwiw: " find Vista's GUI to be horribly ugly compared to W7's (Build 7057). On top of that, applications and games run way faster on W7 than they do in Vista. Also, there isn't the UAC in W7, which was a total pain in the ass with Vista. "
    There is!
     
    #11 davehc, Apr 14, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2009
  12. jyanks

    jyanks New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    This analogy stinks :|

    Also, SP1 did fix a lot of the problems that Vista had.
     
  13. mistofeles

    mistofeles New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have a 200MHz PC with 128 MB memory without a HD but with two CF cards. It runs Puppy Linux without a hitch. The system is on a CF card, so I can take it away and use Win 3.11 when needed.
    Win7 takes 7.62 GB, Win 311 about 32 MB.
    I find no good reason, why the OS should be so large.
    There was all the colours, sounds and basic tools I needed in WIn 311.One thing that has changed is that there has born a lot of devices, who don't work with standards: printers, VGA cards, Sound cards...
    Still. I have only one screen, one VGA card and only PS printers.
    Win 3.11 had network drivers and USB drivers can be installed.
    There was all the basic tools: paint, notepad, file explorer.
    Where is the beef ?

    Okay, Win311 can not be run over new MSDOS version, so it can not use large memories or HDs. Still this is a minor thing. In Linux the file system is separated from the main executables. It could have been done to Windows too. Without knowing better I think this is done in the new versions of Windows.

    If you go in Win9x/NT/2k/XP/Vista/7 you find hundreds and hundreds of programs without any documentation. Are they of any use, if you don't even know what they are ?
    There is even programs you want to get rid of ASAP, like the damned Tour and IE.

    I've been told that Win7 has great abilities for sound, video, graphics etc. Why ? Everyone I know installs in any case her own programs in the system. VLC for video, Audacity for sound, ACAD or some painting program for graphics.
    There is this WordBad and Not-so-Bad for simple text handling. Still everybody is installing OpenOffice to her PC.
    The first thing my customers are doing is installing Firefox,Thunderbird and Lightning even thoug there is IE.

    There is a lot of rumours about removing IE. What I have heard is that it will still be there but the lings are removed. THis is understndable, because IE is a part of the main system. It seems that FileExplorer is only a side effect of InternetExplorer, or vice versa.

    Windows XP was honed during the years and didn't have very many problems, so they had to build another to give us a new bunch of problems.
    They could have continued in small steps and added new and tested parts on a well behaving system, like it is done in Linux, but they had to build SP3 and those damned updates of 2008 to show us how old, bad and vulnerable the old system was.

    I'm running XP and Win7 (and two Linux PC) side by side all the time with a KVM. So far Win7 has been a winner: 14 times BSOD, WinXP none. (mostly somehow connected to antivirus and TDS.SYS). Linux uptime 400+ days. Windows restarted daily becasue of configuration changes.
     
    #13 mistofeles, Apr 14, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  14. ickymay

    ickymay New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    113
    for me vista runs well on my new hardware but I don't like it as it regularily makes my hard drive work for no apparent reason (doing something ?) and takes too long to boot and shutdown ?

    It feels to me like WINME was to Win98 :rolleyes:

    heavy bloated and unnecesary !
     
  15. davehc

    davehc Microsoft MVP
    Premium Supporter Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    5,116
    Likes Received:
    301
    It isn't original. It is from a short (and early) blog from Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, of the Computer World magazine, in connection with Vista. But it can be used colorfully. Obama also used it during his election campaign, speaking of the opposing party.
     
  16. Joker

    Joker Honorable Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got Samsung, 8gb 800mhz, Win7 64bit and running without problems, although it only uses 3.5gb, my graph card uses 1.7gb, total 300mb stock, so basicly Im just using 6gb, dont ask why..
     
  17. RobMinor

    RobMinor New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2
    Performance

    Hi, I'm not a high-mem user but I wanted to toss this out, for what it's worth. I never went Vista, went straight from XP to the 7. I don't know if it's just because it was a nice clean install, but I do know that some of my stuff runs faster under 7 than under XP (oh, with only 1G mem btw). HUGE difference in Half Life 2 especially. Under XP it would take 10 or 15 minutes sometimes for a game to load up, now with 7 they load up very quickly (actual gameplay was never a problem, so that's the same).

    Well sorry to intrude on you l33t folk, but thought someone might be interested.
     
  18. davehc

    davehc Microsoft MVP
    Premium Supporter Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    5,116
    Likes Received:
    301
    "Under XP it would take 10 or 15 minutes sometimes for a game to load up, now with 7 they load up very quickly (actual gameplay was never a problem, so that's the same)."

    Interesting comment. As I said in my previous post, I had not noticed any mind shattering changes in the actual use of programs in 7. Nor do I play memory intensive games. But what do you mean by "load up"? Install??

    "Well sorry to intrude on you l33t folk" lol. You probably mean the thread title "High memory users" Nothing elite on this site, freedom of speech and so on. I am a low income member and I also wonder at the priority of hardware users, mostly, it seems, quite young people. As a teenager (many years ago!) I could barely afford an ice cream at the end of the week. Anyway, apologies, I digress from the thread!!
     
    #18 davehc, Apr 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2009
  19. brandonM3

    brandonM3 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    didn't like vista - felt like it was a bad ripoff of OSX with tons of hangups

    really didn't like Vista, tried beta versions and the RC and didn't like it... downgraded back to xp until W7 (which i love btw). the OS would lock up constantly and there were enough problems that it necessitated the downgrade which made things essentially trouble-free. could be also that i have a powerbook g4 running OSX leopard which at the time - forced me to make comparisons (OS that worked flawlessly versus Vista). After getting an early W7 build and installing.. I really dig W7, just looks and feels right to me and it doesn't seem like there is all the extra crap of useless programs that Vista and earlier windows OS' seemed to be plagued with. just my opinion but its why i didn't like vista but love W7.

    oh yeah... almost forgot - Vista boot times took forever it seemed. W7 for me now averages about 45 seconds from complete power off to desktop- that's nice.........

    -giggity!!
     
    #19 brandonM3, Apr 26, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2009
  20. mistofeles

    mistofeles New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    4
    " I really dig W7, just looks and feels right to me and it doesn't seem like there is all the extra crap of useless programs that Vista and earlier windows OS' seemed to be plagued with. just my opinion but its why i didn't like vista but love W7. "

    The Beta versions of W7 seem to be rather streamlined. What I have heard, th RC and production versions will change this all: the only usefull version 'Pro' will be stuffed with all the eyecandy and ding-dong Microsoft has collected.

    All the comments of Win7 have so for been about the wisual side of Win7. It seems that the main engine is OK.
    - It seems that most people who don't like W7, find the menu and windows system messy and functionality inferior to anything.
    - Those who like W7, have liked the looks of it. Beautiful colours and nice sounds.

    It seems that there is two kind of users:
    1. Those who use a PC as a tool.
    - They know allready that all the niceties make it more vulnerable to viruses and othe problems
    - The work is important, the results and documents cost pig money

    2. Those, who don't know or understand anything about the technical side of the computer.
    - They use the computer for MP3 player, video player, game console or videophone.
    - They very seldom make any important with their PC. The documents are thrown away and you can allways take another picture.

    Knowing this and having read how Microsoft is going to profile their production versions of W7, I either stay with WinXP waiting for Win8 or move totally to Linux.
    Of cource this is not possible, because my 4000 customers have to buy W7. There is no way to move all our systems to Linux. So I have to keep one W7 PC on my table too.
     
    brandonM3 and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page

Loading...