Windows Vista: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista?
- 5/7/08 10:29 PM
You shouldn't blame Vista for the speed (slow)
by thljcl - 5/8/08 9:58 AM In reply to: Slow, Slow, Slow... by pjorgenunesYou deserve the speed because of the specs you choose.
"You deserve the speed because of the specs you choose."
by rbsjrx - 5/8/08 10:33 AM In reply to: You shouldn't blame Vista for the speed (slow) by thljclThis is the sort of response that really sets me off! If MS's programmers can't write an efficient OS, blame the users who aren't willing to throw money at hardware which can run it? I don't think so!
Back in the 80's, I was writing real-time FFT applications which ran on an embedded Apple II motherboard - 1MHz 6502 (8-bit) CPU, 64K RAM, and a single 143KB floppy drive.
These days I make my living designing and programming embedded systems. As such, I work on low-end to medium capability microcontrollers with limited amounts of memory and very restrictive power consumption requirements. I hate waste! I also hate sloppy programming and since I <u>know</u> systems don't have to be as inefficient as Vista it offends me. Also, many of the systems I work on have to be compliant with a variety of standards. If they're not, people can die. So when I see software which is poorly tested or with bugs left in to fix later, I'm offended.
Finally, when I hear people defending marketing strategies which try to force people to buy hardware which they shouldn't need to do the job, I'm really offended!
Don't blame Vista?
by Albertv - 5/8/08 10:53 AM In reply to: You shouldn't blame Vista for the speed (slow) by thljclReturn to XP and really fly. Even on a high powered laptop Vista is much slower than XP or Linux. where it is faster is in the wallet emptying department.
then we got the blame?
by DJEVEREST - 5/12/08 2:32 AM In reply to: You shouldn't blame Vista for the speed (slow) by thljclWell a think there are technology levels, and acording to that level, it cost more or less, but when it becomes to slow level or less speed specs in a pc, is because there are a lot of people who needs or want a pc but doesnt have a lot of money to buy the most excentrically speeds in a processor or RAM. By now i think buying a pc that costs above 1500, its buying a really fast pc, but, think about this, you will buy it just to run vista more smothly? to watch movies more comfortable? ot listen your mp3's and make your homeworks more efficiently? mmmmmhh maybe yeah.
But i gotta say i'd buy a pc costing above 1500 or even 2000 or more, because i'd really need the power for special aplications, like music or video or digital imaging and design productions, but i'm realizing that Apple's MAC is the best in those areas.
Learn more about your system.
by Igiveup2 - 5/12/08 2:16 AM In reply to: Slow, Slow, Slow... by pjorgenunesEven with only 1gb RAM, there is no reason anybody using Vista should be using the HDD for virtual memory. Learn about ReadyBoost.
hate it
by knelson276 - 5/8/08 3:12 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
i have 7 computers all most running xp pro and 1 running win2000, and 1 with vista, even after turning off all the useless visual bells and whistles the performance is seriously lacking considering the hardware. I tried installing xp on it but since this computer only came with vista from the manufacture was unable to get any xp drivers, so i'm between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In its current state it just a very pretty and expensive internet browser since its not much good for anything else.
Don't Downgrade to Vista
by jperelst - 5/8/08 3:23 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I bought one laptop with Vista installed. Kept it up to date with fixes, service packs, etc. Am considering blowing it away and switching back to XP.
I'll buy bootleg copies of XP before I'll go downgrade any other machine to Vista.
Problems:
1. Lack of drivers. Still, to this day.
2. Lack of compatibility with many products. It doesn't even work right with many Microsoft products. For example, certain components of Great Plains (Microsoft Dynamics) do not work reliably with Vista.
3. It's slow. It takes 3-4x as long to reboot as does my Windows XP -- and it's running on a faster machine.
4. The need to buy new versions of many pieces of software. I don't appreciate having to spend a couple of thousand dollars to upgrade other products to their Vista version.
I know, I know -- some of you will say technically not a Microsoft problem, but they should have developed Vista so that buying new versions of other software was not necessary.
I run a couple of Mac machines, and I've never had to buy new versions of existing products as a result of operating system upgrades.
5. Even the new Microsoft products that supposedly were written for Vista do not run reliably with Vista. I've had problems with Access 2007, with Excel 2007, and with Outlook 2007.
I have a number of Access applications, some of which were written using legal, documented DLL calls. Some of those don't work anymore. If I used a legal, documented DLL call, it should continue to work in an operating system upgrade.
Bottom line: if you're doing anything more sophisticated than running the web browser, you're going to have trouble if you migrate to Vista. Don't do it.
Vista with new Acer???
by tameria11 - 5/8/08 3:24 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi ( my first posting)
I have used desktops for 12 years and had good times and bad times with W95, 98se, XP. Now I am switching to Vista. Unless I go to Mac, Vista seems to be the future. To be honest, I have only heard neg feedback. I heard lots of neg about windows ME and 2000.( Do you feel Vista will be pulled like windows ME) I will be using a DLink network. Anyone have problems using this wireless network ( with Vista) , I will still be using two desktops on my network, both of them running XP. I am concerned about sharing info with XP and Vista, files, pics, the printer etc...
Why are a lot of laptop suppliers provided extended XP installs if Vista is running smoothly. I am 95% sure I will be buying an ACER for 2 reasons, First budget and second I think they are now making good desktops and good monitors. They seam to cost about 25% less than the other popular laptops
Thanks
Dave
Vista 32 Home
by maldelus - 5/8/08 3:27 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I specifically got a machine designed for handling Vista and dove right into the water with it. I graduated from XP SP2 and have not regretted a moment. I don't miss XP at all. Heck, I even remember when the GUI platforms weren't out yet, so I am always eager to try the newest OS. I may even upgrade to the 64x Ultimate after I have settled all my Blu-Ray issues.
Vista == Windows XP Millenium Edition
by ralphmzzz - 5/8/08 3:55 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Lets face it, the parallels between Windows Millenium Edition and Vista are too great to ignore. Lets hope that Vista meets the same end.
I purchased a new system that came with Vista Premium installed. This is a fast, dual-core machine with tons of memory. Vista could just barely get out of its own way. The problem was all of the extra c**p that M$oft tacked in to try an improve security and an enhanced user experience at the same time. Since this was layered on to of all of the other whiz-bang M$oft ideas, like DCOM, of course it ran slowly.
The ultimate insult was when I decided to install XP. The hardware vendor refused to supply the applicable drivers due to an agreemnt with guess who. But I perserved and the new machine is happily running XP in a very acceptable way.
I am convinced that the situation will not improve until (1) M$oft abandons some of the flawed OS features that contributed to the security issues and (2) provides a more open, standards-based platform. If you don't believe that's possible, have look at the Apple systems that are currently out there. The user interface is slick and polished. The systems are simpler to understand and use and, since they are UNIX-based, have a much lower incidence of security issues.
I hate it
by fliersrr - 5/8/08 3:58 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have owned Vista from day one, and hate it. Everything is moved around and takes longer to find.
Not for Me
by willum08 - 5/8/08 4:01 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I find the present results of your poll ("50% - little or no problems") hard to believe and I don't think it is truly indicative of the general feeling of people who have experienced vista.
I have not met one person so far, who has not experienced considerable problems with this bloated, over priced collection of totally unnecessary Eye-Candy. The people to whom I refer, are experienced computer users and most have reverted to XP.
Personally, I will NEVER install vista on any of my PCs - XP works fine for me and along with some third party security software, is stable and does everything I need. So why should I continue to line microshaft's pockets, just to be Up-to-Date.
Vista?
by rktompsett - 5/8/08 4:07 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
No Way!
I'm working myself into Linux.
MY Personal experience with Vista
by OttifantSir - 5/8/08 4:08 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have used Vista only on friends' computers, so no real-life, day-to-day experience with it, but I have been using Windows since 2.5, up until Vista was released, so I believe myself to know a few things about the Windows series of OS.
I ran the initial start-up and installation of my grandfather's Vista-preloaded computer. I have done quite a few of these during the years, and the comparison with other Windows versions was not promising. It took forever. With XP I have done quite a few clean installs and initial start-ups, and it usually takes an hour (clean install) or about 20 minutes (initial start-up). Vista took two hours with an initial start-up.
Later, he needed help, because despite the UAC, he had managed to do some minor damage to his system. Minor because he had only disabled one application. All the rest were running (slowly, but) happily along. In XP I know the ways to correct this problem, and it wasn't TOO different in Vista, but as the layout has changed completely, and settings have changed categories, it took me an hour locating the tools to perform the operations. XP would have let me at them after five minutes or less.
Having found the tools, I set out to correct the problem. In XP, I know the procedure well enough to know that it will take maximum an hour to run the tools. In Vista it took the better part of five hours.
He wouldn't even have been able to make this problem in Ubuntu. He would have been able to do it in EVERY Windows version out there, from as far back as 2.5
I have used a friend's ultra-lightweight laptop with Vista connected to a large widescreen TV as a music player. During the party, a few other friends with computer knowledge dropped in, and we wanted to check out some features of the machine, not the OS. We had to get to the Control Panel while playing music in iTunes. We hit the flag-button (Start-button) and waited. And waited. It took nearly two minutes to pop up. We had given up already.
An ultra-lightweight laptop provided by a school in a poor district isn't exactly what's recommended for running Vista, but come on. You play music and then it takes two minutes for the menu to appear? XP might have been sluggish on that computer too, but I doubt it would have used two minutes to open the menu.
From a side-experience, I had a very old laptop. Comparative in size, but not specs. It was a Pentium 366MHz, 192MB RAM, 6.2GB HDD, no graphics-card, integrated sound, no network adapters of any kind, 1xCD-R (my father almost chose floppy for this computer more than eight years ago), and 1 USB 1.1 port. It had XP on it, and did a fairly good job. (Compared to Vista on the laptop above, it only took five seconds to open the menu). I decided. after getting a DSL-cable modem with USB connectivity to try going online. I had to search for almost six hours on another computer to find a driver allowing me to do that.
Having another computer working perfectly with XP, and only curiosity to see what the laptop could do, I tried Ubuntu 6.06. I installed in less than an hour, was online (found the USB-port and ticked a checkbox to tell the OS that it was supposed to be used for networking) and finding that the only thing my desktop with XP could do better and faster than the out-dated laptop was viewing YouTube videos. And that's not a very crucial part of my online-experience. I stuck with Ubuntu. Since then, I have upgraded to 6.10 and sold the laptop, gotten a modern laptop, installed 6.10, upgraded all the way through 7.04, 7.10 and now 8.04. Only trouble so far has been with widescreen in 6.10 (solved in 7.04) and wireless in all versions (ndiswrapper needed to use native Windows-drivers in 6.10 and 7.04), but in later versions (7.10 and 8.04) it's just three mouse-clicks to get it working perfectly. (Broadcom doesn't support Linux, and therefore the three mouse-clicks)
A lengthy post, and one filled with off-topic references at that. But these experiences are linked together with my experience of Vista in particular and Windows in general.
A final off-topic experience: I had to do four clean installs of XP on my modern laptop in less than 8 months. It took me nearly a week getting everything back to the way it was, every time. I have tried a few distros on my laptop, and the clean install of Ubuntu and getting everything back to the way it was, has never taken more than six hours.
A little history
by stueyg - 5/8/08 4:09 AM In reply to: Poll: What’s your personal experience with Vista? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I'm no MS fanboy but...
I started out on DOS then to Norton Menu to Windows 3.0 to 3.11 to 95 to 98 back to 95 to XP to Vista and along the way used, worked on, learnt on or taught on just about every other major OS (Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac, iMac, BSD, BE...) out there. So I've seen a few new OSes over the years, and Vista is easily far and away the most complete OS released. The XP to Vista transition was the smoothest and had the lowest learning curve.
For those that complain about drivers and hardware compatibility I'd recommend going back ten years and using any of a range of *nix releases "intended for home PC users" so you can have the wonderful error message - "There are no drivers available for your modem, click OK to connect to the internet and download them". I'll leave it to your imagination how it tried to connect to the internet and the error message that resulted. 
Vista is a modern OS and as such requires modern hardware and modern software. Some people complain that it runs slowly or that such and such application doesn't work. I have yet to hear of a complaint that wasn't solvable by updating to the current version. It's OK that Acrobat 7 doesn't work, cos Acrobat 8 does. Yes, you need lots of RAM and HDD space, but memory is amazingly cheap now.
In a similar vein, XP is out of date. I recently loaded XP Pro over Vista onto a brand new laptop for a friend - after slipstreaming SATA drivers onto a new install disk just to load it onto the harddrive more than half of the hardware was not supported by XP. Some hardware didn't even have XP drivers available from the vendor. Did I point out that I needed my Vista PC to create the disk to install XP?
I've used Vista since RC1 and have had two BSOD in almost two years of daily use, while having more when borrowing other peoples' XP PCs. Vista is more stable and while the security (UAC etc) can be annoying, it has prevented more problems than it has caused. Overall my experience with Vista has been very good.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
