I think Vista haters are full of poo

Zarf said:
I installed on both my desktop(x64) and laptop(x32) last summer and haven't had any issues at all, I always get a chuckle out of the Vista haters desperately scrabbling for imperfections in a pathetic attempt to be one of the 'cool kids'.
Click to expand...

I always get a chuckle out of the vista lovers who think just because they have no issues with vista must mean other vista users won't have issues too, and those with problems must be "full of poo"...

Having said that I have not boot into XP for a long time now mainly because I'm used to vista now and a few DX10 games that I play.

A few older games don't work despite compatibility mode and although SP1 improve things greatly it still doesn't eliminate the general sluggishness in vista; transfer speed is still slow sometimes and the folder window will often stop responding when copying large amount of files.

I had trouble getting eax to work in Bioshock as well but fair enough the problem is most likely down to Creative Alchemy.

It's not without flaws by any mean but in general it's very good os.
 
steve258 said:
I always get a chuckle out of the vista lovers who think just because they have no issues with vista must mean other vista users won't have issues too, and those with problems must be "full of poo"...
Click to expand...

I always get a chuckle out of the XP lovers who think just because they have a few issues with vista it must mean that vista is "poo"...

By far the worst problem vista has faced is third party support for drivers and that's not a problem with Vista.

Burnsy
 
mrk said:
Completely flew over your head :p Vista uses Superfetch to cache frequently used applications to memory so that when you relaunch them they load faster. This "training" process can take weeks to build up but the end result is a faster OS that feels smooth.

I suggest you read up on Vista and memory management before continuing further into this area!
Click to expand...

I am very aware of Vista's Superfetch implementation and I have experienced the results of this. I maintain several hundred computers throughout the country with vista machines ranging from 1GB to 4GB. Superfetch is the reason why 2GB is a must for Vista imo as it gives you a little freedom when you throw a new application into the mix. One of my Vista machines is dedicated to Web Development and it goes great but now and again I need to run a certain large application on it and the system becomes a lada trying to go up a hill. Eventually Vista will work things out but you could have to sit back and wait as it sorts out the memory allocation. If you had an extra GB or two, then this doesn't be the case.

Hence this is my point when I say the more memory you have for Vista, the overall performance is fantastic.

I'm not dishing Vista, just pointing out a disadavantage with it, or should I say, a problem with Superfetch. I do agree however that there are two many people slagging of Vista for absolute nothing.

One probem isn't bad is it?
 
I wouldn't recommend Vista to anybody unless they had at least 2GB of RAM, it needs it to run smoothly in my opinion.
 
I don't get why people are so critical of vista either.

XP was loads of hassle at loads of times and was never very stable, something that seems much better in vista.

Even the most recent SP3 for xp would seem to have problems looking at the thread on it!! :rolleyes:

Could it be that techy people are becoming fearful of change?......surely not! :eek:
 
m_cozzy said:
I agree, vista really is truely dire.
The only people who seem to like it are on this forum :p
Click to expand...

Wrong, there's too much misinformation about Vista.

When my dad tried SP1 Vista 64, he actually likes it far better than his old system with XP, as for example due to Superfetch, his commonly loaded programmes now load exceedingly quickly. It's simply a case of trying things with an open book rather than going 'oh thats different from xp, thats different' etc etc.

Yes there are still issues with Vista, but as has already partially been proved, a surprising number of those arent actually Vista or MS' fault.
 
Last edited:
Scream said:
I am very aware of Vista's Superfetch implementation and I have experienced the results of this. I maintain several hundred computers throughout the country with vista machines ranging from 1GB to 4GB. Superfetch is the reason why 2GB is a must for Vista imo as it gives you a little freedom when you throw a new application into the mix. One of my Vista machines is dedicated to Web Development and it goes great but now and again I need to run a certain large application on it and the system becomes a lada trying to go up a hill. Eventually Vista will work things out but you could have to sit back and wait as it sorts out the memory allocation. If you had an extra GB or two, then this doesn't be the case.

Hence this is my point when I say the more memory you have for Vista, the overall performance is fantastic.

I'm not dishing Vista, just pointing out a disadavantage with it, or should I say, a problem with Superfetch. I do agree however that there are two many people slagging of Vista for absolute nothing.

One probem isn't bad is it?
Click to expand...

Surely that larger program you wish to open would open the same speed with or without Superfetch, as it immediately hands over the memory as soon as it's needed?
 
wolvers69 said:
I don't get why people are so critical of vista either.

XP was loads of hassle at loads of times and was never very stable, something that seems much better in vista.

Even the most recent SP3 for xp would seem to have problems looking at the thread on it!! :rolleyes:

Could it be that techy people are becoming fearful of change?......surely not! :eek:
Click to expand...

It isn't hassle or fear of change; it is that Vista is worse by design.
 
I cannot see how people do not like vista, Personally Vista runs better for me that xp-pro 64bit, it plays all my games and runs all my software, including some rather specialist GIS mapping software.

The graphics are better too!

The only problem i encountered was UAC, but turn this off and run as admin and you are fine :)

And personally UAC i think was a good decsion by microsoft, it now warns the muppets who think they know what they are doing, that they are about to do something stupid :D

Having a quad core and 4gb of ram, vista does not run slowly, neither have i had any problems with it slowing down or lagging!
 
I tried Vista on my system, and also have it on one works PC (so we can do support for vista customers more easily).

Overall, not as bad as people say, gaming performance was acceptable, in some cases better than XP, loading times in world of warcraft were improved in Vista over XP.

But its not without its annoying problems, the work PC, was happily on the network for months, then one day all the PC's in the workgroup vanished. Tried everything, but that machine just wont see them in the network browser, and I cant find a "search for computer" option which works a treat on XP systems that dont want to play the network game.

Another issue I've run into is directorys that suddenly become unreadable. Had to reinstall to regain access to "My Documents".

I dont object to vista itself, and quite like the aeroglass frontend, but I returned to XP because of the little annoying issues which can pop up.
 
Well my Vista just crashed an hour ago, totally not Vista's fault though as I was connected via remote desktop half way through encoding a DVD video slideshow in ProShow Gold when is crashed. I remember turning off a Proshow service when installing it thinking it's not important!
All back up and running now though...uninstalled Proshow though :P
 
Last edited:
dirtydog said:
It isn't hassle or fear of change; it is that Vista is worse by design.
Click to expand...

So where does that leave XP with security and memory handling by design,yes a lot worst then Vista,bottomline there's no perfect OS, however I feel Vista is a better OS then XP(I have been using XP for 7 years).
 
Vista fails hard. Everyone knows it, even you!

Lets put things into perspective; Microsoft makes billions of dollars, pounds, gold! from Windows, every single year. Its customer base is hundreds of millions, the most sold product on.. planet earth? Windows usually gets a major update every two to three years, from XP to Vista it was five. Expectations were understandably and justifiably very high for Vista.

Overall Vista is better than XP, but its three steps forward and two steps back. Not worth the wait at all, and particular users will be better off giving it a miss completely.

People say that the compatibility issues are not Vista's fault, I disagree. Microsoft knew a great percentage of customers would use big brand hardware such as Epson, Nvidia and Creative. They shouldn't have released without having at least a timescale on adequate driver support for it. If they weren't such a monopoly this ignorance alone would have flat lined sales.

Microsoft could never re-pay for all the beta testing and stress its caused to its customers, even up to this very day it continues, its still not fully compatible with the most popular of hardware.

Then you have the performance issues.. which by itself makes XP > Vista for many users.


Avoid Vista if you have:
- Some old hardware.
- Specific, but popular, new hardware.
- Your a gamer.

If none of this bothers you(not much chance of that), then Vista will be a mediocre update to XP for you.
 
cozm01 said:
Vista fails hard. Everyone knows it, even you!

Lets put things into perspective; Microsoft makes billions of dollars, pounds, gold! from Windows, every single year. Its customer base is hundreds of millions, the most sold product on.. planet earth? Windows usually gets a major update every two to three years, from XP to Vista it was five. Expectations were understandably and justifiably very high for Vista.

Overall Vista is better than XP, but its three steps forward and two steps back. Not worth the wait at all, and particular users will be better off giving it a miss completely.

People say that the compatibility issues are not Vista's fault, I disagree. Microsoft knew a great percentage of customers would use big brand hardware such as Epson, Nvidia and Creative. They shouldn't have released without having at least a timescale on adequate driver support for it. If they weren't such a monopoly this ignorance alone would have flat lined sales.

Microsoft could never re-pay for all the beta testing and stress its caused to its customers, even up to this very day it continues, its still not fully compatible with the most popular of hardware.

Then you have the performance issues.. which by itself makes XP > Vista for many users.


Avoid Vista if you have:
- Some old hardware.
- Specific, but popular, new hardware.
- Your a gamer.

If none of this bothers you(not much chance of that), then Vista will be a mediocre update to XP for you.
Click to expand...

I'm a heavy gamer and have yet to find a 32 bit game I can't run in Vista x64,I even do beta online testing,performance is fine,ALL my software works fine,unfortuantely there is a lot of FUD spread about Vista which is a shame,glad I never listened to other people.

As to "if you a gamer avoid Vista" Vista is one real reason to go for gaming and DX10 etc...it'll only get better down the road and lets face it XP is dead in its tracks as far as DX development goes,if you want to stay on DX9 and yesterdays games then fine,but most gamers don't.

Video cards are getting faster and DX10 games and development is only going to grow and get better over time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom