American Express-Savings
Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Silent Vista-loving majority?
Problems, but I don't know who's at fault--
by wme1221 - 5/8/08 6:58 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarIt frustrates me that Vista was released before the third-party manufacturers had drivers ready. Don't know if Microsoft jumped the gun or everybody else dragged their feet. For example, I've been running Vista a year and a half and Xerox still hasn't come up with a driver that'll make the scanner on my all-in-one work. The OS is fine, but that continues to be frustrating.
Blame Xerox
by caskater4 - 5/8/08 7:01 PM In reply to: Problems, but I don't know who's at fault-- by wme1221Hardware manufacturers had plenty of time to work on drivers for Vista. They at least a full year when Vista was in public beta and even longer for private beta. Many companies have dragged their feet on the matter. However, if you have an older Xerox product, chances are they don't think its worth it to support in future releases as compared to their newer products. So you may have a product that is very low on their priority list to port to Vista.
Not Quite Love
by XSYLUS - 5/8/08 7:09 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarGreetings. I was introduced to Vista when I bought a new laptop. For the most part I can't say that I absolutely love it, but I won't say I hate it either. It seems that the majority of the features Vista includes are visual - what I call "Eye Candy" especially the Aero Theme. However, it doesn't make sense to run all the extra unnecessary bells and whistles on a laptop because it uses more resources which requires more power and I like to get the most out my battery per charge. The transition from XP to Vista was easier for me than it was from Windows 2000 to XP but then again I'm only using Vista on my laptop because I know it's compatible. My desktop computer is probably just as compatible but I don't see an absolute need to migrate it over. All in all Vista is not that bad but it's not great. I personally do not recommend Vista to novice computer users - but then again I don't recommend a computer to novice, non-techie users. In my opinion when it comes to computers ignorance is not bliss. In fact ignorance can cost the user more time and money. Case in point; by default Vista has disk defragmenter scheduled to run everyday! Also it has super-prefetch which is supposed to be a step up from XP's prefetch service. That service is meant to make searching for files on your computer faster and make programs load quicker but at the cost of indexing files on the hard drive and loading programs into memory at boot. This takes a toll on the computer and decreases performance. Checkout PCSTATS.com and look for their Vista guides to find simple tweaks that can make Vista less presumptuous and less taxing on your computer.
The navigation features in Vista's explorer are well conceived. Placing the users directory right in C: instead of in documents and settings is a nice touch. I also discovered that even with the tweaks I mentioned above used to turn on scheduled defragmenting and prefetching among other service, Vista is still very stable. I've only had it crash twice and that was before I installed that latest security updates. I think in another three to six months Vista will be more polished and may be more widely accepted.
One final note: I wish Microsoft hadn't taken out the ability to chose the login theme in Vista. I found a third party program that lets me change the background, but I personally prefer the Win2k / XP style login screen with the box. Microsoft needs to make things more customizable rather than just shoving their crap down our throats. Also I still use XP because Vista doesn't support ActiveSync. Vista has some other mobile utility that doesn't meet my needs. What ever happened to asking the consumer what they want rather than just producing proprietary applications that only meets the user half-way?
Vista
by verschoor2 - 5/8/08 7:13 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarMy old XP machine died thanks to a virus infestation and I purchased a rebuilt Gateway from Tiger Direct for about $400. It had Vista on it so I asked the sales guy how much Ram I needed to have my machine work at a decent speed. I added another gig to bring the total up to two gigs. The refurbished machine has a slower CPU than my old XP machine but it has dual processors so the untimate result is that in spite of of Vista being bloated and cumbersome my processing time is less per operation than with the XP machine. Although I have had a few compatability problems and still have a few quirks(my spell check using AOL cannot learn new words) the Vista OS has really make finding things on my computer much easier than under XP. Finding documents and music requires far less effort than before.
So the key seems to be have plenty of memory and if possible a dual core processor.
Just went with my X wife to buy a lap top and every single one of them had 1 gig or less RAM. Vista would crawl like a stoned turtle on those machines. She finally bought a rebuild XP machine which runs fine with 1 gig. Her first purchase a Vista machine with 1 gig memory was almost dead in the water and we turned it back in.
Yep, this might be because two GB creates too much heat
by Dango517 - 5/8/08 7:21 PM In reply to: Vista by verschoor2and may consume to many battery resources as well.
This thread untracked.
Vista is fine
by dony - 5/8/08 7:26 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarI have been using Vista for almost a year now and have had exactly one driver problem. Epson did not produce a good driver for the 2200 printer and it would not print until I attached it with the USB2 cable instead of firewire. Instant success! My advice is to keep your drivers current.
Vista did close slowly until I upgraded to SP1. Now, it opens quick, operates fine and closes quick. Programs run better than they did on XP, expecially games. Graphics are better and colors/color separation is better than XP. No science here, just an experienced photographer. I use Photoshop mostly and do a lot of photos and I can really see the difference. I am using the same nvidia 8800 card I used before
Vista seems to handle memory better but I cannot prove that. It just seems faster.
Overall, Vista is more stable than XP.
I tried some of the other operating systems and they are not for me. Just too much hassle.
I also tried Mac and cannot upgrade my hardware systems as I can with the PC so I won't go back there soon. I upgrade one or two parts at a time instead of sudden purchases of full systems. This keeps my overall cost down and systems fresh.
So count me as part of the silent Vista-liking majority.
Don
Silent Vista-loving majority.
by panda2006 - 5/8/08 7:27 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarYou MUST be kidding. Vista is a very unreliable, resource consuming, unstable Operating System. It has many bells and whistles that make it look nice and the security features but it is a piece of crap, one of the worst operating systems released by Microsoft. It crashes very often, even the Business Edition I have installed in my IBM/LENOVO T60p that should be more oriented to companies that need a rock solid and stable OS. I already installed SP 1, I think we have to wait for SP 3 to improve it a little.
Many companies will not change XP which is much more stable. I am talking as a consultant with more than 15 years of experience.
If you are planning to change from XP, DO NOT! If you are buying a new computer, buy a Mac. By the way, I have been a Windows, Mac and Linux/Unix user for many years (more than 10)and I own a PC (Windows Vista and Linux Xandros) and a Mac with Leopard.
Luis E. Perez
IT Consultant.
Vista bugs
by skipsul - 5/8/08 8:34 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority. by panda2006I use vista at work, business edition, and it's nimble and requires less fixing than my previous XP install. Many application compatibility issues have been solved using a Virtual PC, and our DOS based accounting system (why replace what ain't broke?) actually runs better on a VPC in Vista than natively in XP. You laptop users, however, are in a real jam as so many laptop makers have provided junk drivers (Lenovo and Toshiba in our case) so our laptops have to stay XP, but that is not the fault of MS.
Re: Vista Bugs
by PhotoMan - 5/11/08 11:19 PM In reply to: Vista bugs by skipsulOne of my clients decided recently it was time for a general upgrade for his graphics business as most of the printing equipment and computers were a bit "long in the tooth" and all the purchase expenses had been written off a year ago. Since all new equipment was in order, he decided to take the plunge and go with Vista. All the other equipment ordered was also Vista Certified.
He had a couple of custom coded DOS programs (circa Windows 98) that did not "like" Vista too much but that was to be expected. He kept some of the old equipment for job specific requirements that used the custom coded programs. His IT people experienced a few hiccups (some of the manufacturers' updated "certified" drivers were iffy and had to be tweaked), as would be expected with any new setup, but as he said to me..."nothing serious, only a few hours downtime that first month"
I find it hard to believe that an IT consultant with many years experience would have that many problems with a companies computers, especially since the job requires him / her to do the homework on the present installation (programs compatability, drivers, hardware etc) before advising the company on which direction to follow and what is needed to get there or what can not be done. Almost sounds like a surgeon operating without first knowing what the patients' problem is.
Vista
by ADJFerret - 5/8/08 7:41 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarHi everybody! I have been using Vista for about a year now, and compared to XP I much prefer the new Vista operating system. It has not crashed on me yet, as a gamer, thanx to some of the new features, I find it plays more games for me. The visuals are important, and Vista is very nice to look at. It much easier to work with all around. A friend who used XP from the start, and recently started using Vista about 6 months agree with me on all those issues.
The only issue I have, is that it can be much slower than XP when you first install it. But after a few tweaks, it runs as smooth as silk! And it is a new OS, so that is to be expected.
Thanx
- AARON J -
doing fine...
by matt lagana - 5/8/08 7:47 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustari haven't had any problems other than lag and it occasionally locks up and haven't had any major unresolvable computably issues 
Slowest Operating System
by tshoffm - 5/8/08 8:01 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarVista is by far the slowest operating system I have ever used. I bought a new computer that came with Vista. I have installed the system from scratch 3 times, and it's always very slow. I like a lot of things about the Vista OS, but those things don't offset all the wasted time and frustration. I wish I had XP again, bujt it would take me about 30 hours to reinstall everything.
You may need more memory
by bigvince - 5/9/08 11:47 AM In reply to: Slowest Operating System by tshoffmToo little memory can cause any os to run slow. Vista will run very slowly with less than 1Gb of ram and 2Gb minimum is what I recommend to people.
Vista's Fine by Me
by skipsul - 5/8/08 8:29 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarSomeone ought to track this forum back to Paul Thurrott's site because he's been saying this for a long time now...
I've been using Vista Ultimate X64 for a year now and have no major complaints. My troubles have always been caused by 3rd parties (like itunes) which didn't have x64 support for a long time. But even itunes came in line, so I'm running trouble-free.
Office 2007, however, I still dislike, but that's another posting altogether.
I really don't see what the fuss is about
by Zekeuyasha - 5/8/08 8:33 PM In reply to: Silent Vista-loving majority? by chustarI've had Vista the second day it came out (I couldn't the first because I was too busy) but anyway, the thing has never crashed on me. Not once. But a month ago I sold the desktop because, lets face it, a 3.2GHz Celeron D isn't going to be giving me the best experience. Now I finally have a dual core machine in the upper middle range and Vista is giving me a 5.4 on the rating scale.
I'm not exactly silent either, I make it quite a spectacle when I say I love Vista. It really is all the devoted die hard macintosh users that give me trouble. I can pick them out of a crowd because they look at me like they want to give me a lecture on how much better their macintosh computer is.
The problem with everyone "hating" vista is because the people complain that this obscure device doesn't work. And yeah it is the third party's fault for not developing drivers (when Vista was accessible in 2005?) and then the people who use the macintosh platform and the apple commercials that are just screaming F.U.D. It's immature of them to go down that far. I've seen 2nd graders do that kind of thing...
But yes Vista is a LOT better than what people say. I did see a noticeable speed boost when I got SP1. So there's another reason to not listen to the FUD alerts. All those compatibility problms have been 85 to 90 percent resolved.
I love Vista and I dare anyone to try to change my mind =D
-Zeke
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
