Why Vista Sucks...
- Thread starter Gandalf501
- Start date
I can't even get the damn thing to install on my PC, I am using an Epox SLI Nforce 4 board with 4 HDD all using the nforce SATA ports, 2 of the drives are just standard drives the last two are in a striped Raid array. I partitioned the second standard drive (my D: drive, calling the vista partition T
so I could install Vista on it, fired up the install DVD in Windows, choose the partition and away it went, started to install, it informed me it had to restart to continue so I let it, it happily flashed thro POST, then came up with that my Drive E: (the RAID array) file structure was corrupted and it needed to fix the errors, it tried to and came up with thousands of errors, so I had to stop it, I restarted again booted into normal XP and found that my RAID array was knacked and I had to reformat it. The installation of Vista never completed and so I now have an OS that tries to boot at start-up that can't and I have to manually select XP.
GGGGRRRRRRRR, I know it is only a BETA atm but I expect to be able to do asimple thing like install the damn thing without it destroying my HDDs, and not even the damn one I was installing it too.
Any thoughts?
so I could install Vista on it, fired up the install DVD in Windows, choose the partition and away it went, started to install, it informed me it had to restart to continue so I let it, it happily flashed thro POST, then came up with that my Drive E: (the RAID array) file structure was corrupted and it needed to fix the errors, it tried to and came up with thousands of errors, so I had to stop it, I restarted again booted into normal XP and found that my RAID array was knacked and I had to reformat it. The installation of Vista never completed and so I now have an OS that tries to boot at start-up that can't and I have to manually select XP.GGGGRRRRRRRR, I know it is only a BETA atm but I expect to be able to do asimple thing like install the damn thing without it destroying my HDDs, and not even the damn one I was installing it too.
Any thoughts?
Soldato
Cant say i would advise installing any Beta specially on a machine with live data on it.
You say your suprised that its uses 7Gb for installation, there are two points to this, one the pre-release versions are demonstarting what will be the "Ultimate" version ie: full feature with everything thrown in and two the price per GB in the hard drive market these days means the install size is pretty much irrelevant, if you come across a machine noadays with a hard drive less than 40Gb i doubt youll get Vista installed properly on it anyway, technology is changing and becomming larger and more powerfull, its only natural software grows with it to provide better end user experiences.
Yes the RC1 release was a very buggy pre-release, R2 make slight headway, Beta 2 is a very usable OS and good demo of whats to come but i still wouldnt trust it until it's reaches final..
Last edited:
Degas said:I can't even get the damn thing to install on my PC, I am using an Epox SLI Nforce 4 board with 4 HDD all using the nforce SATA ports, 2 of the drives are just standard drives the last two are in a striped Raid array. I partitioned the second standard drive (my D: drive, calling the vista partition T
GGGGRRRRRRRR, I know it is only a BETA atm but I expect to be able to do asimple thing like install the damn thing without it destroying my HDDs, and not even the damn one I was installing it too.
Any thoughts?
You need the raid version of your IDE/SATA drivers, instead of installing through windows, boot off the DVD and press F6 when prompted for boot drivers....
Curiosityx said:
My laptop is imaged.... I take my laptop home every weekend with a copy of certain live data to work on over the weekends.... get in on monday and re-syncronise....
As for the OS, the first time I re-installed it I did it properly and once I finished installing apps I made a full image of it on our servers.... I'll never have to install XP again..... lol
Wow.
Seems like a lot of people are sooo defensive for MS. Why bother? They pays millions for lawyers to that job.
Yes, im very well aware its a beta. In fact, it even says BETA in the bottom left corner. I downloaded it from the MS BETA site. As I can read, I can say im aware its a beta.
That doesnt stop me commenting on the product. Thats what BETA's are for. Yes, I have fed back all my problems to MS, and on the MS BB's as well. So im not just moaning.
A lot of people keep saying that "it will be great when its released". All the problems will be "ironed out on final release". Yeah, right. Just like WinXP, and Win98, and Win95. How much do you want to bet it takes less than 6 months before Vista SP1 is released!!!
And to all those people who say DX10. And? Do you really, really think that companies will stop writing DX9 games the moment vista is released? Ok, some people 'love' new technology, and some people 'have' to have the latest OS. but thats not everyone, and im afraid the big gaming companies are only interesting in Market Share. They arent going to be able to write DX10 only games as what would they say to the share holders???
Anyway, the point I was making was if MS cant get the BETA2 right after 5-6 years of development, do you really think its going be better in 6-12 months time???? Really???
Seems like a lot of people are sooo defensive for MS. Why bother? They pays millions for lawyers to that job.
Yes, im very well aware its a beta. In fact, it even says BETA in the bottom left corner. I downloaded it from the MS BETA site. As I can read, I can say im aware its a beta.
That doesnt stop me commenting on the product. Thats what BETA's are for. Yes, I have fed back all my problems to MS, and on the MS BB's as well. So im not just moaning.
A lot of people keep saying that "it will be great when its released". All the problems will be "ironed out on final release". Yeah, right. Just like WinXP, and Win98, and Win95. How much do you want to bet it takes less than 6 months before Vista SP1 is released!!!
And to all those people who say DX10. And? Do you really, really think that companies will stop writing DX9 games the moment vista is released? Ok, some people 'love' new technology, and some people 'have' to have the latest OS. but thats not everyone, and im afraid the big gaming companies are only interesting in Market Share. They arent going to be able to write DX10 only games as what would they say to the share holders???
Anyway, the point I was making was if MS cant get the BETA2 right after 5-6 years of development, do you really think its going be better in 6-12 months time???? Really???
Gandalf501 said:
Yes. That's the whole point of beta testing, the testers report the bugs then the developers fix them. It won't be perfect (What software is?) but it will be considerably better come release day than it is currently.
I don't think this will be any different to every other new OS MS release; the people who want the very lattest will upgrade then everyone else will follow slowly after. Soon enough, Vista will be standard.
Remember this thread when you're upgrading your PC to Vista in the next few years
R4z0r said:Remember this thread when you're upgrading your PC to Vista in the next few years
TBH apart from for gaming (where there still is no credible alternative) I'll be on Linux and probably win2k still (maybe a stripped to the bone XP once they stop 2k support).
Even for gaming on Vista (which seems like it'll be needed due to the DX10 issue) I'd certainly be running something as stripped down as possible.
DX10 seems like the only must have thing for Vista (apart from better hardware to get back to where you started resource-wise), that is not a lot to base an OS upgrade on, even if they do have you over a barrel.
In a corporate/business sense I think MS would actually do better just re-branding Win2k as “Windows for Business” or something.
Soldato
Fop said:
Well what do you want a medal, i'm using vista beta and for what its worth, i love it, its much prettier and i like the window animations and things
I tried linux and found it hopeless for anything other than web and word processing, but hey it may have got better.
I'm using vista media center and i think its great, yes its got a few bugs but its a beta
stuppy said:
There is no chance in hell of Apple ever reigning supreme. The vast majority of people know nothing about Macs or OSX, and it'll likely stay that way. The average home user will stick with what they know. That means Windows, and all their Windows-compatible apps.
The number of Mac users is certainly slowly rising, but I don't see why Vista will immediately push people over to a Mac.
Slam62 said:
No the medals will probably come with Vista WGA.
TBH yes if you like pretty stuff I can see why you might like it (although Linux has a better version of that sort of desktop freely available already, surprisingly), but if you turn all that nonsense off (and most people will get bored with it sooner or later) there's not a great deal left (which I guess maybe IS the main reason for the DX10 thing).
Linux does most things pretty well these days (and some things much better), and many distros are getting as almost user friendly as Windows (which was always one of the big Linux issues), and if you go for something like ubuntu pr kubuntu is free (which is hard to beat).
But that's not really the issue, its more that Vista doesn't seem to be bringing a lot of new things to the table, what is perhaps more worrying is the timescale for the NEXT Microsoft OS after Vista (2015 if things carry on like this) and what they are going to bring in with that.
If I was Microsoft I'd be looking for serious innovation to keep hold of the desktop OS market in an iron grip, but at the moment it really seems to be DX10 and a GUI that's already available in Linux (which I believe is hardware driven rather than software emulated in Vista - although I maybe mistaken about that).
Permabanned
TheVoice said:
I am not saying that Apple users are going to outnumber MS users. Im saying that Apple are doing new things and creating new/easier ways for people to do stuff. MS are going over the same old stuff, but adding new animation effects to make the user go oooooo. Apple have been doing that for ages and so do not need to concentrate so much on that, and can focus more on powerful tools. I mean, can you go out and buy a PC with XP/Vista and straight out of the box take your camcorder, plug it in and create a cool DVD of your holiday vids etc etc.
That is the kind of thing that your average joe user is going to look at when buying their new computer.
Rumours have it that Leopard is going to be able to run Windows applications right within OSX aswell, meaning you do not need a copy of XP. Whether this happens or not is uncertain, but if it does, then Apple have MS over a barrel.
Soldato
sad thing for me is that I know as soon as it's installed the first thing I'll do is disable all the effects like I did when I first installed xp as it uses up to much system resources, if I really want a decent looking OS that does'unt require a grands worth of PC to run smoothly then I'll get a Mac,
I did try the beta on my secoundry system which is a P4 3.06 HT with a 5900XT and even that had trouble running all the effects, don't get me wrong It did run them but it just did'nt feel solid/robust like the the effects are on OS X 10 Tiger running on a mac less than half the power, why is that ?
I did try the beta on my secoundry system which is a P4 3.06 HT with a 5900XT and even that had trouble running all the effects, don't get me wrong It did run them but it just did'nt feel solid/robust like the the effects are on OS X 10 Tiger running on a mac less than half the power, why is that ?
I find that the Aero effects leave a lot to be desired, especially the slow jerky response when moving items across the taskbar. However, I refuse to discount it as "suck[ing]" until I see a stable release in action.
Suse 10 is idiot proof, except if you want a dual boot.... then it requires that you know a bit about partitioning....
Other than that, your given a choice of GUI's or none at all....
I prefere linux from scratch as it only includes what I want in an OS.... if I don't want it, I don't compile it.... but then again, I'm technically minded.... and a controll freek...
The only problem with linux is that game writers don't bother thinking of linux users... if they started publishing the source for games, linux people would start porting it onto linux free of charge... as with quake 2 they released linux binaries (exe's effectively) and new libraries.... and at a gaming session my pings were 50% lower than everyone elses and I slaughterd everyone dispite being on a slower pc....
People have been locked into using ms windows, but thanks to the people that work (for FREE in most cases) the linux dream is coming closer and closer every day.... (gets excited!)
If everyone that uses linux and wants their games to run on linux started emailing the manufacturers then perhaps they would see the errors of their ways.
Everyone, email games manufacturers and ask them when they going to port their games to linux!
Other than that, your given a choice of GUI's or none at all....
I prefere linux from scratch as it only includes what I want in an OS.... if I don't want it, I don't compile it.... but then again, I'm technically minded.... and a controll freek...
The only problem with linux is that game writers don't bother thinking of linux users... if they started publishing the source for games, linux people would start porting it onto linux free of charge... as with quake 2 they released linux binaries (exe's effectively) and new libraries.... and at a gaming session my pings were 50% lower than everyone elses and I slaughterd everyone dispite being on a slower pc....
People have been locked into using ms windows, but thanks to the people that work (for FREE in most cases) the linux dream is coming closer and closer every day.... (gets excited!)
If everyone that uses linux and wants their games to run on linux started emailing the manufacturers then perhaps they would see the errors of their ways.
Everyone, email games manufacturers and ask them when they going to port their games to linux!
yoda said:
You do realise that the above products were all "final" when you tried them and that...
yoda said:
The above versions of Vista are not. There is a huge difference between using a beta product and a finished one. Also I should mention that you stated that you have used RC1 and RC2 of Vista. Well there hasn't been a single RC release yet (RC=Release candidate) the latest build number is 5472 and is only the second interim build after Beta 2. We are still quite a long way from an RC release.
Anyway, in my opinion Vista is shaping up very nicely. It has its issues at the moment but nothing more than I would expect from any beta version of an OS. Did anyone try the beta versions of XP? 2000? 98? Exactly the same story. Why people get their pants in a twist over a product that is a long way from completion is beyond me.