Windows Vista Why people have issues with Vista

Matt

Senior Member
How many customers would assume (a) C++ runtime error was a Windows problem? Or would blame a slow machine on spurious Vista performance issues, when it's every bit as likely to be caused by unnecessary and unwanted software running on the background, because the ISV has paid the OEM to include it on new machine builds..?

Maybe Microsoft should get into building PC hardware, and at least will have soup-to-nuts control over the hardware and software experience.

http://blogs.technet.com/ewan/archive/2007/10/10/dell-s-anti-crapware-initiative-doesn-t-go-far-enough.aspx

Well, I think this is why many people have issues with Windows, and one reason that Mac's don't have that much problems.
 
No, Everyones wrong. How can you complain about Vista?
I mean, its just means you have a bad computer, and get a new one!
 
Top 5 Reasons I see that people dislike Vista:

1. You need a new computer built within the two years to run it properly (within the last year for laptops).
2. Most PCs come with Home Premium, which, tbh, is like a kick in the face. When you're paying $1000 for a PC (Or more) you want Ultimate.
3. UAC is f***ing annoying.
4. Programs may require tweaking to work with Vista, which people believe is too much of a hassle.
5. XP runs lighter, faster, and as of SP3, almost as secure as Vista, and it's cheap, and familiar.



Now, I'm not saying people are right but I agree with those reasons, which is why I RARELY use Vista.
 
Well, I'm sure Windows 98 is faster than XP, so why not use Window 98 or 2000?

As for ultimate, I think they need to lower the price of it.

And, this laptop is 3 years old, came out a year before Vista, and has a Windows Vista Capable logo on it, and runs it better than some new laptops.

I also never needed to tweak any apps for vista, and I got a Windows 3.11 screensaver, Johnny Castaway.
 
98 would run faster than XP, as would 95, or 3.11.... The issue is; What hardware is supported by those old operating systems? All the Vista supported hardware is still working in XP. Until they have something that I really NEED to have, that XP doesn't support, I, and millions upon millions of others, have no reason to switch.
 
Well then Kyle, Disable UAC. And Vista Home Premium is actually very good for the money. Where i live it costs the same as XP Pro. And Home Premium has everything what I would need. No *New* (Notice the keyword *new*) Programs I use have trouble with Vista. As because all the old stuff is crap compared to new stuff.
 
I don't buy, so money isn't an issue. I've had Ultimate x86 and x64 running, and I see no reason to run them over XP, even with annoyances disables as much as possible.

Those reasons I posted are not my personal reasons, but the ones I've heard the most, either directly or indirectly.
 
Most issues in Vista re Hardwares and incompatible drivers, about softwares it runs fine in Vista, my old time fav Earth 2150: Lost Souls still working fine as good as I use in XP...Some softwares might not run in Vista but in my own use, I don't use old softwares much...

Vista SP1 looks like they fixed some probs in Vista before...about XP SP3 which I haven't tried yet, it's still not much as secure as Vista and it just almost reach the non-SP1 Vista security...
 
"Well, I'm sure Windows 98 is faster than XP, so why not use Window 98 or 2000?"



Speed isn't the issue in the least, but I DO run a Windows 98 computer to edit my photographs with. I have a graphics program that works for me that is a hold-over from Windows 3.11 and an old flatbed scanner that XP and later driver is not available for. I foolishly let my copy of Windows 2000 Pro get away, so I use Windows 98 SE for this application. This particular application would not install in Vista, but will install in XP and Windows 7, but does not run well in either. There are stability problems in XP and 7 as well as the 8 character file name limitation.
 
I have installed Vista on home-built PCs without any problems. Zlich, nada, kosong, zero.

And even on a Celeron D with 512mb of ram, there was no problem at all. Sometimes i wonder if it's more of a classic example of PEBKAC.
 
With respect. This is really old stuff. It has been discussed on almost every computer forum on the web, to the last fullstop.
 
Until SP1 most Vista systems were a real DOG -- Many Many times I saw Hard Disk lights LOCKED ON SOLID for minutes and minutes at a time -- maybe it was building an Index, or maybe it was doing something far more sinister. If it NEEDS to do this sort of stuff it should be done at INSTALL TIME so the user knows. Whilst this was going on the computer was UNUSEABLE. (This problem ocurred particularly on systems with pre-installed OS'ES.

Once I've installed an OS I want it to work acceptably "OUT OF THE BOX" even if I know I can make it better later.

Having no install disk also is a real pain as I'm sure anybody who has ever bought a computer knows how much CRAP and ADWARE is pre-installed with the system.

It's almost impossible to do a CLEAN install without the OS install disk -- the recovery one you get with the computer just re-installs all the original crap again so that doesn't work either.

Faced with a badly installed OS overloaded with a humungous amount of bloatware which you can't easily get rid of will of course make people think the OS is a load of dogs "little round objects".

Actually SP1 and SP2 do improve it somewhat --so does the later hardware but even if you buy a computer with a pre-installed OS ALWAYS but ALWAYS make them throw in a proper retail copy (or at least give you the OEM disk --you've paid for it -- there's normally a license / product key written somewhere on the computer --underneath if it is a laptop).

Cheers
jimbo
 
most people have a hard time finding drivers
biggest joy in win7 is how well it loads amost everything on the install

have several crash test systems that have gone thru xp vista and win7 and
by far the win7 beta install was the best on all of these pentium 4 based machines.
 
Top 5 Reasons I see that people dislike Vista:

1. You need a new computer built within the two years to run it properly (within the last year for laptops).
2. Most PCs come with Home Premium, which, tbh, is like a kick in the face. When you're paying $1000 for a PC (Or more) you want Ultimate.
3. UAC is f***ing annoying.
4. Programs may require tweaking to work with Vista, which people believe is too much of a hassle.
5. XP runs lighter, faster, and as of SP3, almost as secure as Vista, and it's cheap, and familiar.

Now, I'm not saying people are right but I agree with those reasons, which is why I RARELY use Vista.

Ridiculous reasons to bash Vista, i've used it for 2 years without any major problems (no more than i had in XP)

1. It's generally the graphics card and RAM which users need to upgrade/increase, both are cheap.
2. You can have a gold plated Vista Ultimate disk.....if you pay for it
3. Turn it off
4. The compatibility tab in the programs properties will sort that out
5. XP does run faster true...look at it though, it's ugly as hell, Vista's only heavy because of the GUI, it's noooo where near as fast as Vista. Vista is a LOT more secure than XP, a common misconception! XP is cheaper than Vista and rightly so, MS still need paying for the years of work gone into Vista. Although tbh, Vista Basic probably isn't thtat much more expensive than XP and will also probably have better functionality. And lastly, yes XP is familiar, but that inevitably gets boring and tedious.

Come back with a good argument as to why Vista sucks, I'm not saying it's perfect (far from it) but it is better than XP. Windows 7, on the other hand blows Vista & XP right out of the water at the same time!!
 
I used Vista and kind of liked it. That is, until I installed Windows 7 beta (7000). Vista seemed like shit compared to that :p
 
Using vista on my laptop for the last 2 Years. I went completely over to Windows 7 with the RC. Vista was fast, but 7 is Just amazing. BTW - check my spec :D
 
Back
Top