All the bad things about Vista in one thread

Tyrant

New Member
Besides shelling out for faster hardware, users should expect to pay for Vista upgrades for many of their favorite Windows software.

Forced software upgrades can add up for Vista users



BadVista_no_littering.png


http://badvista.fsf.org/


Microsoft says they’ve put security first in Vista and have even brought their own Internet Security and antivirus software to market. So why then in new tests by AV Comparatives has Microsoft come last?

Don't use Microsoft OneCare for antivirus

Microsoft promises to wow people who are upgrading from Windows XP to its new operating system, but with the joys of Windows Vista comes plenty of pain.

Falling into the Vista trap


Symantec has issued a report on the state of security within Microsoft's flagship operating system Vista, claiming that the platform is far from the panacea for all security ills that many had hoped.

The security company said that Vista's new plumage has been mainly plucked from the open-source community, rather than being new security developments in themselves.

Vista is no panacea for security

Windows Genuine Advantage is an anti-piracy tool loathed by many, tolerated by some, and even appreciated by others. How you feel about it may depend in part on whether or not you've been caught in its snares: the "authentic software" validation tool is known to have falsely identified thousands of "pirated" Vista installs.

Windows Genuine Advantage's newest setting: "you might be a pirate"

Microsoft, nobody is pirating Vista. Who would WANT to.


Consumer Vista support slashed by Microsoft

Even 'critical' updates will stop in five years.

Microsoft is using the catchphrase "The 'Wow' starts now" to market Vista, their new operating system. There is, however, nothing awe-inspiring about this software. In fact, it's more likely to elicit emotions that range from anger to revulsion. There is no need to "upgrade" to Vista, no matter how much Microsoft or other salesmen would like you to think the contrary. Installing Vista on any machine that you own, or purchasing one with it pre-installed, is costly, detrimental to your freedoms and, most importantly, completely unnecessary. If you're thinking about getting Vista, I have three (loud) words for you: DON'T DO IT!

Don't downgrade to Vista

Windows XP vs Vista

Overall performance is slower with Vista.
 

Cranky Bastard

New Member
They're making DX10 only available to Vista. Until they make it XPable, you'll need Vista, Harlot.
 

Ishcabittle

Member
Are there any games out there that require DX10?
 

Cranky Bastard

New Member
Ishcabittle said:
Are there any games out there that require DX10?

At the moment, no.

The first MMO to require DX10 will be Age of Conan. Many say this is a "bad move" but someone has to lead the way. Might as well be Funcom.
 

Colonel Kira's Left Tit

Bearded Belly of Bajor
Still haven't tried Vista but I suppose I'll have to, sooner or later, mainly due to support issues.

Personally, I'm fine without it and don't need it. I've been moving everything over to Linux and I'm not much of a gamer these days. And anyway, my long standing policy has been to not deal with a new Microsoft OS on a permanent basis on my home machines until it's been out for at least a year.
 

Acrimonious

New Member
I may considerin switching to vista at SOME point, but not right now.

I have 64 bit processors and I'd like to run an OS in 64 bit. Since XP 64 sucks ass, Vista 64 is my only option. As far as the OS capability goes, Vista 64 is what XP 64 should have been.

The main issue for me is the WHQL certified driver requirements. If you don't have a WHQL certified driver, Vista gives you a boot to the head. Even disabling the "WHQL certified requirement" in the installation sequence doesn't help you.

In other words if you have any OLD hardware or *gasp* hardware owned by a company that is out of business or not interested in WHQL certifying all of their stuff, then you can't install that hardware with vista.

I have an external DVD burner/reader that I like and the company that made it is no longer in business. It won't work without a driver, and MicroSoft isn't making one. So I'd have to buy a new DVD burner/reader to even install vista. They aren't that that expensive now, and it's easy to get internals that use standard MS drivers so that's what I'd do...

But still, an OS that requires me to have their corporate stamp of approval on all of my hardware drivers bothers me.
 

Mentalist

Administrator
Staff member
I've been using Vista exclusivley for 5 months now. It has some issues but it is head-and-shoulders over XP. The diagnostic tools alone make it worth it. There is a vocal bunch out there decrying it but almost every single issue they bring-up is moot.


Oh, and as for Vista actually being slower than XP? - It's not.

Services run under a totally new architecture and no longer hog memory. Remember when you had to go and disable about 50 services in XP to push your comp to the limit? No longer needed in Vista. Seriously, the OS is a lot faster.


As for security: Stuff like OneCare might make headlines but the fact remains that Vista's kernel is waaaay more secure. I think the security on Vista is pretty damn good so early into market.

Aaaaaannd one last thing: :D

About Microsoft stealing ideas from Linux and Apple?


They ALL steal from eachother. Some of the features in OSX that people are saying Microsoft stole were actually developed by MS first! It goes both ways.

The real issues with Vista that piss me off are that for some reason the picture gallery (while being wildy superior in every way other than this) doesn't support animated gif's. You have to open them in your browser. :roll:

I am sure this will be fixed soon though... And don't get me started on Nvidia.


Anyway. Vista is a solid entry for MS. If you just check your E-Mail and do a little browsing it may still be a little early to switch over due to some silly problems but for the rest of us it's good to go.
 

Mentalist

Administrator
Staff member
Acrimonious said:
The main issue for me is the WHQL certified driver requirements. If you don't have a WHQL certified driver, Vista gives you a boot to the head. Even disabling the "WHQL certified requirement" in the installation sequence doesn't help you.

In other words if you have any OLD hardware or *gasp* hardware owned by a company that is out of business or not interested in WHQL certifying all of their stuff, then you can't install that hardware with vista.

Umm....


Yes you can.
 

The Question

Eternal
I've used Vista. Yes, Mac and Linux distros have had some of Vista's features first. Windows PCs had multi-button mice first. So fucking what. A feature that works is a feature that works, and if it works, I want it on the system I'm comfortable with. Is Vista better than OS X? For me it is, yeah. It is better than XP? Yep. Better than Linux? For what I want it for, yep.

And to the boy who did that last review? I'd bet money he's never actually used the thing except through Parallels.
 

Tyrant

New Member
More bad stuff:

Stay away from Vista for now
If you are considering getting the Vista computer operating system, DON'T.

Advertisement
At least don't get it for a year or two. Nothing works correctly with it.

Nothing, that is, except Bill Gates' own stuff and a few vendors he apparently made deals with.

First of all, forget your Blackberry. It will not work properly. The calendar goes berserk. Fortunately, Vista does not destroy the link to your old computer so you will, at least in our experience, be able to go back to your old computer, but who wants to constantly operate two computers?

Unfortunately, if you want to run Photoshop, Word Perfect, Quattro Pro, and most everything else, you have to have two operating systems: the new and "improved" Vista and XP or Windows 2000 to do the real work.

Blue smoke and mirrors

The problem is that Gates is so paranoid about someone figuring out the blue smoke and mirrors upon which his fortune is built, that he will not share enough program information with other software operators to allow them to do their jobs. His solution? In the case of Photoshop he apparently made some sort of deal with Corel to install a trial version of Paint Shop Pro XI. It comes with Vista for a 30 day free trial. After that you have to send money to use it.

Paint Shop Pro XI stinks. Hopefully Photoshop is able to get on board before 30 days is up. If not, just do without a photo editing program until Photoshop CS4, or whatever arrives.

The dude didn't get to be the richest man in the world by being Mr. Nice Guy, or Mr. Generous. In the old days you could buy his expensive operating system and his expensive Microsoft Office suite when you bought your computer. Now you get a "free" 90-day trial version of Microsoft Office built into the computer. After 90 days you have to send him more money. I have been afraid to find out how much more.

Oh, yes, of course Microsoft Office 2007 files are not compatible with earlier versions. They appear to be labeled ".docx." To be fair, you can save your efforts in an older version (.doc), but "not all features will be saved." What does it leave out? Who knows, maybe it omits every third "e" or something. By the way, if you have ever used a PC for more than 13 seconds, you know not to even open Microsoft Works.

Other computers laugh

When you burn a CD and follow Vista's procedure to "allow it to be read by other computers" you are wasting your time and a perfectly good disk. Other PCs will laugh at it. All photos pop into some program called "Snapfire." It, too, does not seem to be compatible with anything else on the planet.

Ironically, Vista seems like a pretty good program. It has not crashed yet, which is unusual for the Seattle boy's fruit. Of course, it does occasionally want to open up in "Safe Mode," and I have spent some time on the phone to Microsoft in India or somewhere.

The new menus for Excel and Word seem to be better, though they take a little getting used to.

Excel is still nowhere near as good as Quattro was before Word Perfect ruined it. I believe it peaked in, maybe, Version Six or Seven; anyhow, it has been downhill since then. The latest version won't even stay up on Windows 2000. Of course, Microsoft probably has a lot to do with that.

Mac is better

Stay with XP or 2000 -- my kids say Macs are even better. Apple is better, but I have not yet found a good Mac spreadsheet. People say that Excel spreadsheets have seamless operation on both PC and Mac platforms. People are wrong. If you build a big, complicated spreadsheet with charts on it and share it with a Mac, parts of it will never be the same. The really bad thing is that you might not notice the damage right away.

Mac has been at a disadvantage all these years because so many more programs would run on PC. Vista has eradicated that advantage for at least a year or so. Outside of the limited Microsoft monopoly stable, we have not found a single program we use that works properly on Vista.

I don't know about the entire editorial, but the last paragraph definitely gives food for thought. It's insane for MS not to give backwards-compatibility high priority. Sooner or later the world will stop revolving around MS.
 

Tyrant

New Member
'Vista Ready' - The biggest con in IT?

There has been much buzz around the ‘Vista Ready’ and ”Made for Vista’ logos lately. My inbox has been swimming in releases about products that proudly display the sticker, and assurances that the given product will work with the new operating system.

I am calling their bluff. Most of the products displayed will work with Vista anyways. Granted, software and some hardware like graphic cards can and should be classified as Vista Ready. Monitors? No. CD burners? Absolutely not. Webcams? I don’t think so. Mice and keyboards? Unlikely.

At the current rate, we will see ‘Vista Ready’ stickers on out power cables and mouse pads very soon. But why stop there? Why not have ‘Vista Ready’ desk and office chairs? ‘Vista Ready’ speakers? ‘Vista Ready’ digital cameras? It sounds strange, but all those products are out there (apart from the desk and chair, which is a great idea.)

Several USB thumb drives are now being touted as ‘Vista Ready’. Does this mean they have read and write speeds quick enough to utilize Vista Readyboost? No, it merely means you can plug them in and they work. Just like with XP. And Windows 2000. And NT, -98, Mac operating systems and multiple Linux systems.

Is this the biggest con in IT to date? Perhaps not, but it is certainly up there along with upselling separate printer cables for $24. Don’t get conned by stickers. Do your own research, and in most instances you’ll find old products work just as well with Vista.

If that doesn’t work, buy a t-shirt with the ‘Vista Ready’ logo on it and future proof yourself.

http://blogs.reseller.co.nz/reseller/channelling/2007/04/vista_ready_the_biggest_con_in.html
 

The Question

Eternal
Mac has been at a disadvantage all these years because so many more programs would run on PC. Vista has eradicated that advantage for at least a year or so. Outside of the limited Microsoft monopoly stable, we have not found a single program we use that works properly on Vista.

Then you're fucking retarded. Step away from your Power Mac, or your 386, or whatever the fuck you're tapping these articles on using your enormous, shovel-like proboscis, go outside, find a freeway and leap into traffic.

Most major software publishers are now shipping Vista-compatible software packages. The ones that aren't doing that will issue updates and/or patches to make them so. The ones that aren't doing that can still be run in Vista's Compatibility Mode, which works just as well as running an incompatible program natively in XP.

These articles seem to be coming primarily from angry little people whose proficiency with an actual computer -- as opposed to an Apple-brand productivity/information appliance -- is somewhere beneath that of an average 10 year old.

The truth is, Vista's two major problems right now are that it was rushed out the door too quickly - or, more accurately, entered its development cycle too slowly - and that peripherals OEMs have been half-assed with developing and releasing drivers for it. But for God's sakes, let's not be objective, whatever we do!
 

Tyrant

New Member
I'm one of those angry little people, to be honest. I went through the same shit a while back when I went from 98 to XP. I don't need any more eye-candy for my computer. I like things just the way they are. If an OS can make them run faster, then I'm all for it. If I have to go out of my way to accommodate it, then I'm disgruntled. If I have to discard any single bit of what I've worked for years to customize, then the OS can fuck off entirely.

I am personally very happy with XP. Microsoft will eventually plateau, if it hasn't already. Vista doesn't offer me anything other a new set of standards I need to conform to.
 

Colonel Kira's Left Tit

Bearded Belly of Bajor
I've never been a Microsoft basher. I was perfectly happy with Windows 3.1, 95, 98SE, NT4, 2000 Pro, 2000 Server, and XP Pro. Okay, so WinME was an abortion. I never used it, but ended up doing a lot of teck support for it. Ack. :bill:

My only gripe is they always distribute their operating systems on new machines hyped for the general public before the OS is ready for prime time. Come on, it always takes at least one service pack for a Microsoft OS to be usable and secure for the general public, or at least it has since 1998 or so when broadband became available for home users and the virus/spyware instances started skyrocketing.

Personally, I have no need for Vista. My machines could run it just fine, btw, but I prefer my operating systems to be relatively lightweight and do what they're supposed to do: run programs and not crash a lot. Eye candy is nice, but not essential.
 

The Question

Eternal
The eye candy and new gimmicks are superficial. It's Microsoft "keeping up with the (OS X) Joneses. Now some people make fun of that or get upset about it -- for fuck's sake, why? I'll fucking tell you why: Apple set a benchmark with the OS X feature set. They set a standard. Microsoft has endeavored to meet that standard. Pure and simple. Nothing to mock there, any more than it would have sounded clever to mock the second automaker ever to put power steering in their cars.

No, the real upside to Vista is the new way that folders and files are organized. I've had more than enough of this:

Start Menu --> All Programs --> KA-FUCKING-BOOM!!! Flyout eats the WHOLE DAMN SCREEN.

No more. In Vista, All programs opens within the Start Menu. Folders open within the Start Menu. The folder/file layout in Explorer is also far tidier. As straightforward and accessible as they are in XP, but as neat and clean an appearance as they have in OS X. Best of both worlds. The complaints about Vista are primarily coming from a very few types of users:

1. Apple zealots. Now I admit, I like Apple's stuff, including the ability to run XP and Vista on their hardware. Smart move. They're doing a fine job with software innovation and hardware design -- well, the aesthetic end of hardware design, at least. There's much to admire. There's nothing to use as the bases for poison pen articles like the ones above, however.

2. Not technically proficient. Can operate a Mac just fine, but put them on a PC and they freak out. Too many choices, their brains shut down and they go into hungry infant mode.

3. Too damn impatient to wait for OEMs and peripherals manufacturers to get with the ball and start supporting the new OS -- and in some cases, too fucking stupid to realize that it's the OEMs and peripherals manufacturers who are slow on the fucking ball in this regard.
 

Tyrant

New Member
The Saint said:
No, the real upside to Vista is the new way that folders and files are organized. I've had more than enough of this:

Start Menu --> All Programs --> KA-FUCKING-BOOM!!! Flyout eats the WHOLE DAMN SCREEN.

No more. In Vista, All programs opens within the Start Menu. Folders open within the Start Menu. The folder/file layout in Explorer is also far tidier. As straightforward and accessible as they are in XP, but as neat and clean an appearance as they have in OS X. Best of both worlds.
I don't have that. I've taken the time to customize my PC and don't suffer from any confusion (I would consider what you just mentioned about folder organization to fall under the category of eye-candy). And if I did have a bunch of crap fly at me, it sure as hell wouldn't be a good enough reason for me to upgrade to a completely different operating system.

1. Apple zealots. Now I admit, I like Apple's stuff, including the ability to run XP and Vista on their hardware. Smart move. They're doing a fine job with software innovation and hardware design -- well, the aesthetic end of hardware design, at least. There's much to admire. There's nothing to use as the bases for poison pen articles like the ones above, however.

2. Not technically proficient. Can operate a Mac just fine, but put them on a PC and they freak out. Too many choices, their brains shut down and they go into hungry infant mode.

3. Too damn impatient to wait for OEMs and peripherals manufacturers to get with the ball and start supporting the new OS -- and in some cases, too fucking stupid to realize that it's the OEMs and peripherals manufacturers who are slow on the fucking ball in this regard.
You forgot another group. We're happy with our comps the way they are. We don't need or want this change, but it will be forced on us either way.
 

The Question

Eternal
Tyrant said:
I don't have that. I've taken the time to customize my PC and don't suffer from any confusion (I would consider what you just mentioned about folder organization to fall under the category of eye-candy).

It's not a case of "confusion" -- it's just untidy. File and folder organization, IMO, hardly falls under the category of "eye candy." It's about making your data more easily navigable.

And if I did have a bunch of crap fly at me, it sure as hell wouldn't be a good enough reason for me to upgrade to a completely different operating system.

No, but it's a decent non-gimmicky example of the new OS's approach, one that I personally find quite appealing.

You forgot another group. We're happy with our comps the way they are. We don't need or want this change, but it will be forced on us either way.

Who's forcing you? And I would think that people who are simply happy with what they've got would not be so insecure as to pen attack pieces like those above.
 

Mentalist

Administrator
Staff member
The Vista kernel is far superior to XP's. It has had a major overhaul. That on its own makes Vista far more appealing than XP.

Take, for example, heaps. Most Windows XP users don't know what a "heap" is (it deals with how developers allocate memory and make memory requests), but there are problems in Windows XP when developers deal with large heaps, heap fragmentation, etc. In the Vista kernel, they have cleaned that up, helping to prevent heap fragmentation and gracefully deal with large heap requests. If that sounds like a bunch of technobabble nonsense, don't worry. You don't have to know what it means, you just have to know that it makes life easier on developers and improves performance. And it doesn't stop with heaps. Lots of relatively little, commonly-used functions have been improved, like procedure calls.

The security and stability of Vista is also far more advanced than XP's. Vista runs on an entirely new architecture meaning that services no longer eat memory and basically run silent. The architecture has also been re-written for sound. Meaning that it takes up very little resources and is completley customizable for whatever app you're running. Search features are completley overhauled and retooled and the new indexing service is a huge leap from the outdated XP model.

Also, welcome to SuperFetch:

A key improvement to the root file system and memory management of Vista is a technology called SuperFetch. SuperFetch learns which applications and bits and pieces of the OS you use most and preloads them into memory, so you don't have to wait for a bunch of hard drive paging before your apps or documents load. Microsoft has developed a pretty sophisticated prioritization scheme that can even differentiate which applications you are most likely to use at different times (on the weekend vs. during the week, or late at night vs. in the middle of the afternoon).
The scheme is also smart enough to make sure background tasks like virus scanners don't get priority over the foreground tasks you're working on. In fact, the whole I/O system now has a priority structure not that different from services, so your computer shouldn't bog down when some peer-to-peer file trading program has to do a hash check on a big file or something. SuperFetch also takes advantage of external memory devices—plug in that spare 256MB USB key (any size will work, really) and Windows can cache a lot of the working set to it. It's not as fast as your system RAM, but it's much faster than randomly grabbing small bits of data from all over your hard drive


Readyboost works like a charm as well.


As for how drivers work.... Totally different now. Most drivers used to sit at the Kernel level and now they're run in a user enviroment meaning when a driver fails for whatever reason the whole system doens't even come close to crashing. This also FUBARS trojans and viruses from being very successful since they never get near the Kernel.


And that's not even to mention DirectX 10. SH.04, a new code base that takes computations from the CPU and lets them intelliegently processed by the GPU, ect.


And hell, OSX isn't that great anyway. Everyone touts it as this amazing OS but the GUI isn't even as user friendly as XP in many cases. The GUI in Vista is more than "eye-candy" though. It is highly intuitive. It does what you expect it should and there is so much customization to be had.

Aero is very pretty but it is just shine. You don't really think about it after a short while but the design ethic at every single level of Vista is still there and I;m glad to have it since I use my comp in an intense fashion and I require speed and ease of use when I'm throwing files around the place and doing complex work.

You can't escape Vista now. And neither should that be a problem. Nobody uses Windows 3.1 anymore either. And actually MS is pretty good when it comes to supporting their products long after they have become outdated. XP will be supported for years to come I would imagine. Still, a lot of new stuf coming out won't be much cop on XP or won't work at all (DX 10) but that's just technology progressing.

I ran a completley decked out version of XP. I customized it myself. I had hacks and programs built into the installer so it would be pimped from the moment I did a fresh install. I pushed XP to its absolute limit and despite it's problems it's a very good OS and I still run it on another computer since it's still relevant. I did the same with 98SE when XP came out as well.


Vista is just a lot better.
 
Top