Anyone that claims "I haven't had a problem" with regards to ANY computer software is either forgetful, deliberately misleading you, or has a radically uncritical outlook of computers.
It is not possible to use any operating system for seven months and "not have a problem." Every computer user, no matter how advanced or how infrequently he or she uses the software, WILL experience unexpected, unwelcome, or unstable computer behavior. No matter what popular computer software it is, it is nowhere near perfect. You cannot use XP SP2 and "not have a problem" for seven months. Nor Linux, OSX, or DOS.
My guess is Vista has posed to you what most people would consider a problem--it's just you have overlooked it or are so lenient that you tolerate problems that most people would complain about.
i have used vista, it came with my R61 Think pad. there was nothing "wrong" with it. other then the fact that it used almost 500 mb of RAM for idle processes. when XP uses at most 200. i actually have it down to almost 90 :)
My experience exactly. It's cool to bash Vista, but there's no real problems behind it. It seems that vista bashes either a) Don't know how to run a computer, and find problems that are really their own b) Are stuck in a windows 2000, 'things were better in my day' mentality, or c) Have never actually used Vista on a regular basis
I bought a new laptop, with Vista Home Pro, a few weeks ago and returned it the next day. Vista was too restrictive, wouldn't allow me to use command line arguments, and would ask me if I wanted to use a program that I just double clicked - every single time. I'm sure you can turn these controls off, but seriously, how about these controls be turned off initially and then allow us to turn them on. I felt like I had a great 'looking' operating system with parental controls on it. I was insulted. Plus MS was trying to sell me AOL, assuming that I didn't already have an internet connection. Next, there was so much crap (useless programs) pre-installed. Finally, to get the new laptop to where I wanted it, i.e. remove the crap, take off the "parental controls", etc... It probably would have taken about 20-30 hours (including updates, etc...). So yeah, being a CISSP and having knowledge about different operating systems out there, I have to say that Vista is more secure than XP because it restricts users to non-power user functions, but by far this does not mean it is a secure platform. My next computer will be a Mac.
OK, what about performance; it sucks. Moving/copying files, more clicks to get things done (the whole UI is almost designed like qwerty...made in such a way as to slow you down!), built in defectiveness like DRM and 30 millisecond polling of hardware to check if it has changed, snafu'd highdef, horrible and destructive diskaccessing. I chalenge you to change your mobo without a reinstall (xp has the same problem, but there's ways to get around that, if you're lucky).
Vista takes long to get adjusted to. Not because it's 'new', but because of it's horribly designed UI. Ubuntu and Leopard (or whatever animal it's called) takes less time to get used to.
Vista sucks on a hardwareacces and software-use level. XP does everything Vista does, minus several of Vista's flaws. The people complaining about Vista are likely more knowledgable about computers than you are, thus they know what's wrong, why it's wrong and why they should complain.
"My experience exactly. It's cool to bash Vista, but there's no real problems behind it. It seems that vista bashes either a) Don't know how to run a computer, and find problems that are really their own b) Are stuck in a windows 2000, 'things were better in my day' mentality, or c) Have never actually used Vista on a regular basis"
a) I'm pursuing a bachelor's in computer science, and you'll have to take me at my word when I say the problems I had in Vista were real. (E.g., screen resolution randomly changing, cursor disappearing, dwm.exe frequently crashing, slow network performance, slow file performance, taking ten minutes to boot up, etc.)
b) I never liked Windows 2000, and think XP is dated and ugly. I want something that can run Windows-compatible software but that looks and behaves as well as modern versions of Linux or OSX.
c) I bought a laptop that was designed for Windows Vista, used it on a daily basis, and tried hard to like it for nine months. I went back to XP.
Now you know a 'Vista basher' that doesn't fall into your neat categorization.
Vista was rushed to market. Microsoft didn't give any other software or hardware company time to get compliant drivers and software ready. Lots of customers bought a brand new PC that came with Vista, mostly not of their choosing, just to find that their Logitech Keyboard wouldn't work, and their HP printer wouldn't work. Remember the Mac Ads about "Your Printer won't work with Vista, I say Buy a new Printer. Ask not what Vista can do for you; Ask what you can Buy for Vista"
Also, Vista's increased User Account Control (UAC) "security" prompts users every 10 seconds "Vista needs your permission to continue".
All in all, early adopters were really screwed by Vista. It has yet to be widely adopted in the business world because of the UAC changes that require software to be re-written to work properly. Many businesses are running software designed 10-20 years prior. They don't take kindly to having to throw more development money because Microsoft says so.
haha. i loves guys like this. "oh i have extensive knowledge about operating systems." and two lines before that "microsoft is trying to sell me AOL internet.. blah blah blah" haha. no idea whats going on.
anyway. i've had vista since the release date. had no major problems. disabled UAC, cuz i dont need that. so that doesnt bother me. and since SP1 i can say that I've had no problems. nothing unexpected. xp blows.
I find it funny how these people that say "people only hate it because it's Microsoft and it's new" at the same time constantly ignore the complaints of people that HAVE used it and STILL prefer Microsoft products over anything else, but then when the next anti-Vista article comes up, they'll say the same damn thing again.
I mean, are you just entirely incapable of believe other people's experiences or what?
While Vista may be OK for you - anyone who runs XP on the same equipment as Vista - EVEN new stuff - Quad Core 3 GHz, 4 GIGs of RAM, fast hard drive, good video card - XP just runs FASTER -that is what everyone is complaining about. For those who don't believe me - just GOOGLE Windows Vista XP benchmarks.
YES they have benchmarks that include SP1 - and XP is still faster.
No - there are no FIXES for the speed problems with Vista as so many have said - there are fixes to improve performance but those aren't FIXES - they only increase performance - but as any 3rd grader can tell you two times zero is still ZERO = Vista.
I sorta agree with Marc as well as MEAT! on this one. I have had Vista since October and while I have had problems, they have been minor and not disruptive of getting any real work done. I have automatic updates turned on and have noticed improvement in the performance of my system over time.
I realize that any OS has issues. I use OSX as well and it also has its own problems. But like Vista, is not disruptive to my workflow.
I'm sure Vista is super if you don't use anything much more complex than Wordpad and Solitaire but as a programmer I hate it with a vengence. Microsoft have long recommended not placing changeable files in the same folder as the executable but many of their own efforts broke this rule but that didn't matter because it was not enforced. Vista changes all of that, there are many things that you just cannot do in Vista which breaks lots of old code. To ensure programs that work in all previous win32 envoironments work in Vista is a major PITA. There are many other "security" aspects of Vista which cause all sorts of problems for the software designer
Just because someone has a bad experience using a machine with Vista doesn't mean it is attributed to Vista. I have heard many people who have used Vista and say it is rock solid and a great OS. Then there are people who have complaints. Some people have real insight and some just complain and make noise. For example the fact that getting to certain network configuration panels is a little lengthy is one of my complaints, however it is not a very big problem. Then there are people who complain without understanding what is truly going on and blindly blame the OS.
My cousin had a problem with Outlook in Vista where it would take a few seconds to perform any task, like load emails or click menus. Influenced by Vista's negative press and the fact that Outlook worked fine for him in XP, he concluded that Vista sucks. He asked me to take a look at the problem and it turns out that all the performance problems were caused by Google Desktop which came pre-installed with the machine and had embedded itself into Outlook. After uninstalling it everything worked fantastically. I didn't say anything to him about his false assumption but hopefully he doesn't make anymore in the future.
@Dave: So you were doing something in your code that MS has said is bad practice and that you should not do, and now you're complaining when said code doesn't work anymore???
For everyone complaining about Vista and saying they'll wait until Windows 7 to upgrade: Windows 7 will not run faster than your XP anyways, it'll probably run slower than Vista on the same hardware. Every time a new version of the OS comes out, it runs slower than the previous version on the same hardware.
This has always been the case: Win98 was slower than Win95, Win2k was slower than Win98, XP was slower than Win2k, etc. The only reason why you don't notice that XP is slower is that the hardware has gotten a lot faster in the 7 years since XP was first released.
If you want the fastest Windows ever, just run Windows 1.0. It's so much faster than XP. It'll boot up in less than a second and you can still run your notepad on it.
OK people. I'm thrilled with all your enthusiasm in my posed (although I'm fed up with all the emails) and from reading through all the comments I seem to have noticed one particular trend.
The majority of people who have trouble with Vista are those who have tried to exploit it or any software on it. This reflects the opinions of many other people I've talked to in various forums. A lot of complaints involve the use of unlicensed programs. The general rule of thumb.... as it appears, is only buy quality hardware and software. And, in fairness, technology evolves so rapidly that wouldn't this generaly be a good ethos?
@Marc "...from reading through all the comments I seem to have noticed one particular trend. The majority of people who have trouble with Vista are those who have tried to exploit it or any software on it."
Didn't like Vista on hardware designed for it: josh myself
Didn't like Vista on unspecified hardware: m.edgar boe (I think) Dave
Implied he or she was pirating Vista: ...no one did.
Implied he or she was "exploiting" software: no one.
How, exactly, did you come to the conclusion the the majority of people who dislike Vista are pirating it or other software? Did you even read the opinions and experiences posted in this thread?
Wasn't QWERTY designed to swap key strokes from one side to another so that they wouldn't get jammed? Not to slow you down. Makes it more uncomfortable.
Anyway man, stop moaning. I think most people who have problems with vista don't know how to use a computer. I've had a few problems but after 5mins on google I managed to fix it. Also, many problems are with 3rd party developers and users being stuck with rubbish hardware. It's cheap! Buy a new computer! Use an alernative OS, if your computers that old, Feather linux, Damn small linux. If your not happy with Vista, try something new! Experiment :P You'll either realise Vista is wonderful or appauling lol.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
after using vista for 7 months i still haven't had a problem... WTF is everyone talking about?
yeh, most of those naysayers probably haven't even used Vista. All the negative opinions on Vista are created by Apple fanbois, I reckon..
+1
They just hate it for two reasons:
It's Microsoft.
It's New.
If you think back, you will recall how XP received a similar hub-ub when it came out, and people were quick to realize how good it was.
I have been on Vista for a year now, and I have had absolutely no problems.
Anyone that claims "I haven't had a problem" with regards to ANY computer software is either forgetful, deliberately misleading you, or has a radically uncritical outlook of computers.
It is not possible to use any operating system for seven months and "not have a problem." Every computer user, no matter how advanced or how infrequently he or she uses the software, WILL experience unexpected, unwelcome, or unstable computer behavior. No matter what popular computer software it is, it is nowhere near perfect. You cannot use XP SP2 and "not have a problem" for seven months. Nor Linux, OSX, or DOS.
My guess is Vista has posed to you what most people would consider a problem--it's just you have overlooked it or are so lenient that you tolerate problems that most people would complain about.
i have used vista, it came with my R61 Think pad. there was nothing "wrong" with it. other then the fact that it used almost 500 mb of RAM for idle processes. when XP uses at most 200. i actually have it down to almost 90 :)
My experience exactly. It's cool to bash Vista, but there's no real problems behind it. It seems that vista bashes either
a) Don't know how to run a computer, and find problems that are really their own
b) Are stuck in a windows 2000, 'things were better in my day' mentality, or
c) Have never actually used Vista on a regular basis
@Marc
I bought a new laptop, with Vista Home Pro, a few weeks ago and returned it the next day. Vista was too restrictive, wouldn't allow me to use command line arguments, and would ask me if I wanted to use a program that I just double clicked - every single time. I'm sure you can turn these controls off, but seriously, how about these controls be turned off initially and then allow us to turn them on. I felt like I had a great 'looking' operating system with parental controls on it. I was insulted. Plus MS was trying to sell me AOL, assuming that I didn't already have an internet connection. Next, there was so much crap (useless programs) pre-installed. Finally, to get the new laptop to where I wanted it, i.e. remove the crap, take off the "parental controls", etc... It probably would have taken about 20-30 hours (including updates, etc...). So yeah, being a CISSP and having knowledge about different operating systems out there, I have to say that Vista is more secure than XP because it restricts users to non-power user functions, but by far this does not mean it is a secure platform. My next computer will be a Mac.
Erm...where to start?
OK, what about performance; it sucks. Moving/copying files, more clicks to get things done (the whole UI is almost designed like qwerty...made in such a way as to slow you down!), built in defectiveness like DRM and 30 millisecond polling of hardware to check if it has changed, snafu'd highdef, horrible and destructive diskaccessing. I chalenge you to change your mobo without a reinstall (xp has the same problem, but there's ways to get around that, if you're lucky).
Vista takes long to get adjusted to. Not because it's 'new', but because of it's horribly designed UI. Ubuntu and Leopard (or whatever animal it's called) takes less time to get used to.
Vista sucks on a hardwareacces and software-use level. XP does everything Vista does, minus several of Vista's flaws.
The people complaining about Vista are likely more knowledgable about computers than you are, thus they know what's wrong, why it's wrong and why they should complain.
@Mike
"My experience exactly. It's cool to bash Vista, but there's no real problems behind it. It seems that vista bashes either
a) Don't know how to run a computer, and find problems that are really their own
b) Are stuck in a windows 2000, 'things were better in my day' mentality, or
c) Have never actually used Vista on a regular basis"
a) I'm pursuing a bachelor's in computer science, and you'll have to take me at my word when I say the problems I had in Vista were real. (E.g., screen resolution randomly changing, cursor disappearing, dwm.exe frequently crashing, slow network performance, slow file performance, taking ten minutes to boot up, etc.)
b) I never liked Windows 2000, and think XP is dated and ugly. I want something that can run Windows-compatible software but that looks and behaves as well as modern versions of Linux or OSX.
c) I bought a laptop that was designed for Windows Vista, used it on a daily basis, and tried hard to like it for nine months. I went back to XP.
Now you know a 'Vista basher' that doesn't fall into your neat categorization.
Vista was rushed to market. Microsoft didn't give any other software or hardware company time to get compliant drivers and software ready. Lots of customers bought a brand new PC that came with Vista, mostly not of their choosing, just to find that their Logitech Keyboard wouldn't work, and their HP printer wouldn't work. Remember the Mac Ads about "Your Printer won't work with Vista, I say Buy a new Printer. Ask not what Vista can do for you; Ask what you can Buy for Vista"
Also, Vista's increased User Account Control (UAC) "security" prompts users every 10 seconds "Vista needs your permission to continue".
All in all, early adopters were really screwed by Vista. It has yet to be widely adopted in the business world because of the UAC changes that require software to be re-written to work properly. Many businesses are running software designed 10-20 years prior. They don't take kindly to having to throw more development money because Microsoft says so.
@ Josh
MS doesn't add any 3rd party software to their OS, the computer's manufacturer does. Blame them for your bloatware & AOL install prompts.
@ Josh
haha. i loves guys like this. "oh i have extensive knowledge about operating systems." and two lines before that "microsoft is trying to sell me AOL internet.. blah blah blah" haha. no idea whats going on.
anyway. i've had vista since the release date. had no major problems. disabled UAC, cuz i dont need that. so that doesnt bother me. and since SP1 i can say that I've had no problems. nothing unexpected. xp blows.
I find it funny how these people that say "people only hate it because it's Microsoft and it's new" at the same time constantly ignore the complaints of people that HAVE used it and STILL prefer Microsoft products over anything else, but then when the next anti-Vista article comes up, they'll say the same damn thing again.
I mean, are you just entirely incapable of believe other people's experiences or what?
While Vista may be OK for you - anyone who runs XP on the same equipment as Vista - EVEN new stuff - Quad Core 3 GHz, 4 GIGs of RAM, fast hard drive, good video card - XP just runs FASTER -that is what everyone is complaining about. For those who don't believe me - just GOOGLE Windows Vista XP benchmarks.
YES they have benchmarks that include SP1 - and XP is still faster.
No - there are no FIXES for the speed problems with Vista as so many have said - there are fixes to improve performance but those aren't FIXES - they only increase performance - but as any 3rd grader can tell you two times zero is still ZERO = Vista.
@Boe
And I'm sure Dos run even faster than xp on that box...
I sorta agree with Marc as well as MEAT! on this one. I have had Vista since October and while I have had problems, they have been minor and not disruptive of getting any real work done. I have automatic updates turned on and have noticed improvement in the performance of my system over time.
I realize that any OS has issues. I use OSX as well and it also has its own problems. But like Vista, is not disruptive to my workflow.
I'm sure Vista is super if you don't use anything much more complex than Wordpad and Solitaire but as a programmer I hate it with a vengence.
Microsoft have long recommended not placing changeable files in the same folder as the executable but many of their own efforts broke this rule but that didn't matter because it was not enforced. Vista changes all of that, there are many things that you just cannot do in Vista which breaks lots of old code. To ensure programs that work in all previous win32 envoironments work in Vista is a major PITA.
There are many other "security" aspects of Vista which cause all sorts of problems for the software designer
@ Scott
Just because someone has a bad experience using a machine with Vista doesn't mean it is attributed to Vista. I have heard many people who have used Vista and say it is rock solid and a great OS. Then there are people who have complaints. Some people have real insight and some just complain and make noise. For example the fact that getting to certain network configuration panels is a little lengthy is one of my complaints, however it is not a very big problem. Then there are people who complain without understanding what is truly going on and blindly blame the OS.
My cousin had a problem with Outlook in Vista where it would take a few seconds to perform any task, like load emails or click menus. Influenced by Vista's negative press and the fact that Outlook worked fine for him in XP, he concluded that Vista sucks. He asked me to take a look at the problem and it turns out that all the performance problems were caused by Google Desktop which came pre-installed with the machine and had embedded itself into Outlook. After uninstalling it everything worked fantastically. I didn't say anything to him about his false assumption but hopefully he doesn't make anymore in the future.
@Dave:
So you were doing something in your code that MS has said is bad practice and that you should not do, and now you're complaining when said code doesn't work anymore???
For everyone complaining about Vista and saying they'll wait until Windows 7 to upgrade: Windows 7 will not run faster than your XP anyways, it'll probably run slower than Vista on the same hardware. Every time a new version of the OS comes out, it runs slower than the previous version on the same hardware.
This has always been the case: Win98 was slower than Win95, Win2k was slower than Win98, XP was slower than Win2k, etc. The only reason why you don't notice that XP is slower is that the hardware has gotten a lot faster in the 7 years since XP was first released.
If you want the fastest Windows ever, just run Windows 1.0. It's so much faster than XP. It'll boot up in less than a second and you can still run your notepad on it.
@MEAT!
UXTheme.dll patch {free}
or
WindowBlinds {$$}
will take the ugly out of the XP
OK people. I'm thrilled with all your enthusiasm in my posed (although I'm fed up with all the emails) and from reading through all the comments I seem to have noticed one particular trend.
The majority of people who have trouble with Vista are those who have tried to exploit it or any software on it. This reflects the opinions of many other people I've talked to in various forums. A lot of complaints involve the use of unlicensed programs. The general rule of thumb.... as it appears, is only buy quality hardware and software. And, in fairness, technology evolves so rapidly that wouldn't this generaly be a good ethos?
@Marc
"...from reading through all the comments I seem to have noticed one particular trend. The majority of people who have trouble with Vista are those who have tried to exploit it or any software on it."
Didn't like Vista on hardware designed for it:
josh
myself
Didn't like Vista on unspecified hardware:
m.edgar
boe (I think)
Dave
Implied he or she was pirating Vista:
...no one did.
Implied he or she was "exploiting" software:
no one.
How, exactly, did you come to the conclusion the the majority of people who dislike Vista are pirating it or other software? Did you even read the opinions and experiences posted in this thread?
m.edgar..
Wasn't QWERTY designed to swap key strokes from one side to another so that they wouldn't get jammed? Not to slow you down. Makes it more uncomfortable.
Anyway man, stop moaning. I think most people who have problems with vista don't know how to use a computer. I've had a few problems but after 5mins on google I managed to fix it. Also, many problems are with 3rd party developers and users being stuck with rubbish hardware. It's cheap! Buy a new computer! Use an alernative OS, if your computers that old, Feather linux, Damn small linux. If your not happy with Vista, try something new! Experiment :P You'll either realise Vista is wonderful or appauling lol.