Silent Vista-loving majority?
by chustar - 4/30/08 5:37 PM
Is anyone here part of the silent vista-loving majority? I've used it for close to a year without any problems. Come on people, let's get our voices heard!
Attention forum users: We want you to try out the new CNET forums platform! Click here to read the details. Thanks!
by: chustar April 30, 2008 5:37 PM PDT
0 people like this thread
Problems, but I don't know who's at fault--
It 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.
Hardware 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.
Greetings. 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?
My 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
and may consume to many battery resources as well.
This thread untracked.
I 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.
Silent Vista-loving majority.
You 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
I 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.
One 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.
Hi 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.
- AARON J -
i 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
Vista 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
Too 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
Someone 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
I'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
Silent? Not really
I am a IT professional, and dreaded the install due to what I'd heard... But as clients went ahead and bought systems with Vista installed, I broke down and installed it on my personal Toshiba laptop. Which Toshiba assured me was not in any way Vista compatible. The install went flawlessly, I learned the differences in the OS's and how terminology changed to protect the MS guilty (such as the control panel object names... why???).
Well, the two+ year old Toshiba M65 laptop runs Vista with higher performance scoring than many new laptops, after a upgrade to 2GB, it's performance was very good. Connecting to modems (cell phone broadband), wireless networks, Firewire devices and USB devices has been flawless. Wired networks no issues.
The only fly in the ointment is the video card driver - ATI will not issue new ones saying it's the laptop vendors responsibility and Toshiba will not saying the laptop is NOT Vista capable. So that means that (so far the only thing I've noticed) I don't have 16bit full screen capability. I can live with that.
It's been over a year for me. I like it. Just do a hands on test of any computer system to verify the performance before laying down dollars.
I have had Vista Ultimate since February of 2007. I love it. My son got it also. No problems on the 32 Bit version once you get software made for Vista. Drivers were not an issue as I built the computer around the same time using (then new)technology motherboards and CPU.
I like it much better than XP. It has a lot of power waiting to be discovered. Every day it seems there is something new being discovered. I also installed the 64 bit version but only recently companies (including Microsoft) started making compatible 64 bit drives and some software. While it is not dramatically faster than the 32 bit version it is noticable and it seems to operate the computer more efficiently. Before I bought a good Zalman Heatsink for the AMD X2 6000+ processor the CPU would over heat using 32 bit Vista and running a long Spy Bot or NOD32 scan unless it was in Power Saver mode (reduced efficency and speed). I could however run them with no problem in the 64 bit Vista as the CPU did not have to work hard at all.
I now have a Zalman heatpipe heatsink and run it on High Performance all day long with no cooling issues whatsoever.
Another niceity I found with Vista 64 is that I could connect both Network jacks to separate router channels so they utilize both for increased upload/download bandwidth. XP seems so "old hat" now after using Vista. Yes, people will complain if their beloved software doesn't run on Vista but you can really only blame the 3rd Party Software companies for that one. NOD32 Antivirus even has a 64 bit version that I use. I highly recommend NOD32 for any computer that is connected to the Internet.
I am doing well with Vista.
Right out of the chute (nearly one and a half years ago), I bought an HP PC with Vista installed . I was quite frustrated in the beginning, especially with the pop-up that INSISTED that I didn't have a legitimate version of the OS. Documentation directed me to call HP but after several unsuccessful attempts to translate the pidgin English of the East Indians (which gobbled hours of my precious time) I called MS, who provided a solution (albeit without joy or enthusiasm). I continued to stumbled over a number of frustrating quirks and, either found my own solutions, or got clues from forums (esp CNet). I have not found "Help and Support" to be very beneficial - it seems too superficial. After several months, the system began to smooth out as I tweaked it regularly and I became a happy camper.I am fairly content with Vista but am willing to acknowledge that XP is a good OS. However, I would not go back now that most everything seems to be operating smoothly in Vista.
A little 'ol lady PC addict.
what other os is designed for multiple core cpu?
the original purpose for vista was to better utilize background services, or to better multi-task. xp wont allow background ops to work full speed-ergo-if you like using faster modern processors you better get used to vista(or become a bilionaire by writing a new code that average users can handle).just my .02
That depends on how you use your computer.
Beautiful OS if you buy a new machine and search the web and watch youtube. No problem if you buy all new peripherals too.
If you use lots of programs and need to buy new versions because of incompatibilies, that becomes a problem. who enjoy being forced to buy new peripherals if your relatively young, perfectly working multifunction machine does not like Vista.
To love a new OS or not reflects what kind of computer user one is rather than the OS itself.
And we need new OS even if the old one is more than adequate, to keep the economy humming.
Vista is Superior
Although there are some issues with hardware out there, I have had only one issue with HD audio on Vista 64, Windows Vista has made many improvements in the areas of security, file indexing and user profile storage. The fact that Vista is so new, and many applications and firmware have not upgraded to incorporate this OS, make the general computer user uncomfortable with Windows Vista. The area where Vista will make the most noticeable difference is in a network environment. This obviously will happen slowly, as businesses upgrade as needed, and not on a lark. I personally run a multi-boot: XP Pro, Vista 64 and Ubuntu. I have had more issues with XP and Ubuntu than with Windows Vista.
Silently enjoying Vista
I wouldn't go so far as say that I love Vista. I like it. I really do. Although in general I would say it seems more a flashy version of XP, and that if my Laptop didn't come with Vista installed, I am not sure if it would be worth paying for an upgrade from XP.
I have used Computers pretty much all my life, starting with Texas Instrument, Commador 64, Victor 20 (not to be confused with Vic 20). My first home was PC Compatible was a 286 overclocked to 16 MHz, although I did have a 8086 for a while while learning assembler at college. I even still have a copy of PC-Dos 2.1 sealed in the original packaging. Over the years every OS I have used had their own problems. This past December I bought a $500 Laptop that had Vista Home Premium pre-installed.
I have had virtually zero problems with Vista. I say virtually zero because I did have an issue using a 5 year old USB to COMM adapter (with 5 year old drivers) that I was using to program a 20 year old barcode printer with a DOS interface. I could not start the Vista with the barcode printer attached, but it worked fine if I plugged it in after Vista started up.
I do have the advantage, in the fact that I bought this name brand Laptop with Vista pre-installed. I know upgrading on older computer, or making a U-Build computer, can come with it's own headaches. Been their, done that, but isn't that true for all new Major releases of OS?
My Experience with Vista is that it is the most stable version of Windows Yet. With XP sp2 a very close second. And Vista's Eye Candy is nice. I am sorry to hear that so many are having problems with Vista, but that are so many like me that enjoying their Vista experience.
How can you love something that's an obvious step back?
I really wanted to love it, and had high hopes. But Vista turned out to be a huge disappointment.
First, there's the missing drivers. A year and a half after Vista's introduction, Linksys still has not released new drivers for its wireless printer driver. In fact, Linksys has that wireless printer driver listed as being fully compatible with Windows. That might be true with the 32-bit Vista, but it is definitely not compatible with the 64-bit Vista. So, now I can't print from my shiny new Vista computer.
But, worse than that, Microsoft and Windows Vista itself are to blame for the sub-par software that is included in it. For example, Windows Mail is much less capable than Outlook Express. They had a perfectly good product in Outlook Express, and they had to mess it up. We can't use Outlook Express any more, and have to put up with the dumbed down Windows Mail
Windows mail offers only some eye candy (like the ability to add photos for each contact - Who has time for that?). But, when it comes to real features, it has dropped several features that worked perfectly well in Outlook Express, such as:
1. When using several Groups of contacts, there is no way to find out which Groups a person belongs to (by looking at the person's Contact info). Outlook Express clearly shows the Groups in the "Other" tab. But Windows mail is blind is this respect.
2. There is no easy way to synchronize two Address Books on two computers (like you could easily do by exporting and importing the WAB file in OE).
3. You can't drag and drop individual contacts into Groups (like we used to be able to do in Outlook Express).
4. You can only export individual contacts, using a .CSV file (the most primitive method). There is no way to export Groups.
Basically, some idiot at Microsoft decided to strip all these functions away from us, and now they expect us to love it?
The depressing thing is that there is no indication that the future will bring any relief either. Microsoft simply finds new ways of making life more difficult for us, to strip away functionality, or to hide things were it is more difficult to find.
Why can't they just keep the interface we are used to, and just add any new features, without stripping away the old ones?
Oh, and on top of that, my Windows Vista has a mind of its own. When it is in a good mood, it lets me use my external hard drive for backups. When it's in a bad mood, it simply pretends it doesn't see the hard drive there. Sometimes it ignores all USB ports. Sometimes rebooting fixes things. Other times it doesn't.
Only geeks who like to constantly tinker with things could love Vista. The rest of us are just annoyed when we can't get our work done.
Been using vista for over a year with no problems at all
by decromin - 5/9/08 2:47 AM
In Reply to: How can you love something that's an obvious step back? by Emilio2000
You can count me into the positive vista experience group. I've been running Vista Ultimate on my two home machines since Feb last year, and so far I've not run into any problems whatsoever. I've not seen any driver issues, save for Netgear taking so long to release their SC101 software for vista, and again I cannot blame vista for that! All in all I prefer vista to the XP machine I use at work, and I frankly cannot understand the complaints people make about it, especially when it comes to drivers. Nvidia ***** up a driver and suddenly it's Microsofts fault?? Hmmm ....
Just showing some love for vista, i bought and HP Pavillion notebook with vista home premium, and have had no problems at all, the only thing i wish i did different was and amd dualcore! And if i remember right XP had it's share of issues at first, and i still had security issues untill i finally got rid of my desktop!
so cheers to vista and hopefully great patch coming soon!
I have been using Micrsoft's operating systems since I bought my first PC, IBM XT, in 1986. I have experienced DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Millenium, Windows XP and now Windows Vista. What is the big problem with getting used a new operating system? I don't love Vista. I just think it is better than the last operating system. Get with it.
vista 64 bit is the future
microsoft made a lot of improvements in vista and put a lot of effort into the 64 bit editions to improve compatibility. Out of the apps I regularly use only about 10% wouldn't run and none caused a system crash. I wish I could have said the same for all the other windows versions I have installed... At any rate I am now running home premium 64 bit and it has been great so far; it's a hedge on future developments as more aps take advantage of the greater memory access and 64 bit speed advantage . till then the 32 bit software runs fine.
When I bought my Lenovo laptop I received a free upgrade to Vista Basic when it was released. I've loved it with the exception of learning how to use it. I only wish my machine could support using Home Premium, but that'll have to wait till I upgrade mt desk top.
Robbie Talking The Pros and Cons of Vista
Robbie Talking The Pros and Cons of Vista
I first saw Windows Vista Home Basic on Teo and parents' computer. Later I began to use it for production in Microsoft in Zizhu. I found these problems of Windows Vista:
- High memory load after booting. XP takes about 120MB RAM after booting up, but Vista takes about 600MB (not counting that SuperFetch cache), even with no visual effects enabled. This makes the whole system sluggish. Without SuperFetch, XP is still much faster than Vista is.
- Only a little improved GDI experience (GDI is the GUI programming interface on Windows). Although Vista introduced the new bitmap drawing era (translucent applications draw faster, so that a translucent clock floating on top of other apps is feasible?), most old applications won't enjoy the benefit of this. The only useless improvement is: when an application stops responding, its old window content will be preserved and redrawn automatically, and covered with a slim white silk to tell you that it stopped responding.
- Strange behavior of ctrl-space on the command line. Usually on the command line, ctrl-space means turning on or off the IME (switching back and forth between IME mode and keyboard mode). On Vista, it became very strange. It doesn't turn on/off the IME, but turns the IME between double width and single width, and I can't find any key to really switch on/off an IME. Can anybody help me!!!
- Compatibility problem of non-mbcs applications on the command line. OK, this is the app's problem so let's blame it.
- UAC is annoying if it is turned on. In the end, I could not bear it. I limited my user account to be normal User and use another Administrator account to do administrative tasks. In addition I disabled UAC.
- Non-consistent interface with Office 2007. Office 2007 uses ribbons but Windows Vista doesn't. But Windows Vista Explorer uses such a strange interface, making me very stunned when I first used it.
I have got these new things in Vista:
- UAC storage virtualization. This redirects file creation in system directories (Windows, Program Files) to directories in the user's profile. For example, file creation in the Windows directory will be put in a place like:
, IIRC. This prevents legacy applications to misuse program directories. It is a compatibility improvement. However, this kind of virtualization is limited: Vista 64-bit doesn't have this, and programs cannot virtually delete an existing file.
Anyway, the number of programs incompatible in this way is less and less. I hope that one day this feature is useless, when Windows applications are all programmed to support multi-user security.
- Explorer searching. Searching speed is improved using the new Windows Search feature. However I usually don't do file content search excessively. I'd rather make the directories tidy. If I search for a file name, I only need to dir /s /b to dump a list into a .txt file, and then grep inside the .txt file, and this is very fast.
- Clickable structure in Explorer address bar. And folder views selectable by a slider. However these things are not useful to me since Windows 2000, so I don't appreciate them very much.
- The new visual styles. It is beautiful and distracting. Don't take me to Compiz.
- Individual application volume control. This should have existed since Windows 2000, but postponed to such a late time. Pathetic.
- Session 0 isolation. This is OK. May affect performance a little bit, but not too much.
- UIPI (User Interface Privilege Isolation). This adds some security to an administrator shell running in a normal user log-on.
- File junction (like symbolic link, but more limited). Anyway, this feature does provide some kind of flexibility, but I hope it is 2000 (directory junctions are supported then) rather than Vista.
- HDD and CPU performance test. What did I say? Oh, yes, install Vista and expect your HDD to be the real bottleneck of your system, and welcome a sometimes busy CPU.
Vista Application Compatibility Cookbook
vista and Digital FX
If anyone would have serious problems with vista it should have been me. I work professionally in the commercial visual effects industry. at work we use windows xp x64, and i like it. at home i have 2 machines, one with xp x64 and another with vista ultimate x64. i have no problems running any of my animation or visual effects software; i run programs like, Alias Maya, Adobe After Effects, Premiere, Digital Fusion, Zbrush. They all run flawlessly on both these versions of windows. but i definitely prefer vista over xp for 64 bit software - xp x64 had more than a few compatibility issues with x86 software.
Its true that vista had some problems at the get-go. my first week with vista was problematic because of nvidia drivers, but once i upgraded those i haven't had any problems. drivers are still an issue on some old hardware, for example, i have a linksys gigabit ethernet card that doesn't have x64 drivers, but it would work fine if i was using the 32bit version of vista. I firmly believe that most driver issues, like this one, are not Microsoft's fault, the hardware manufacturers are simply not choosing to provide uniform support of their products.
I use vista x64 every day, i don't suffer BSOD's, and all my software runs the way i expect it to - what more could i ask for? I'm glad that Microsoft is pushing the x64 version of vista, i wish they would push it even more. most of my professional software comes in x64 versions and the extra memory and speed i get from those is essential for getting my work done on time.