Vista really isn't all that bad

[ameris_cyning]

My intent is not to start a flame war, rather, it is an attempt to start a serious discussion of Windows Vista and its pros/cons.

 

Granted, I will say that the security in Vista is laughable compared to UNIX-like Operating Systems. The UAC, in my opinion, is very intrusive; but if you turn it off, you open yourself to an onslaught of issues. But, at the same time, it also must be pointed out that Microsoft did a much better job at security this go-around. For instance, I have never had a virus on Windows Vista, even without virus protection; whereas with Windows XP, I constantly had to worry about these issues, even with virus protection.

 

At the same time, Microsoft is criticized at the amount of new eye-candy in Vista. Granted, too much can be a distraction, but I believe that Microsoft found a balance in Aero. When you look at Vista with Aero versus Windows XP, which looks more aesthetically pleasing? Vista looks more OS X-ish than the previous versions, and isn’t that what the majority of the users on this site appreciate?

 

The main reason why Vista gets such a bad reputation is user-based. One cannot be serious expecting Vista to be smoother than XP with 512MB of RAM, integrated graphics, and a 1.8GHz Intel Core Duo processor. I find it quite funny sometimes hearing the expectations of these people. Most think that having a fast processor automatically equals a fast user experience. People are amazed that my Pentium 4 four-year-old computer running Vista can run circles around their Core 2 Duo. My specs can be seen in my signature.

 

So, what are your thoughts on this issue?

[keypox]

My intent is not to start a flame war, rather, it is an attempt to start a serious discussion of Windows Vista and its pros/cons.

 

Granted, I will say that the security in Vista is laughable compared to UNIX-like Operating Systems. The UAC, in my opinion, is very intrusive; but if you turn it off, you open yourself to an onslaught of issues. But, at the same time, it also must be pointed out that Microsoft did a much better job at security this go-around. For instance, I have never had a virus on Windows Vista, even without virus protection; whereas with Windows XP, I constantly had to worry about these issues, even with virus protection.

 

At the same time, Microsoft is criticized at the amount of new eye-candy in Vista. Granted, too much can be a distraction, but I believe that Microsoft found a balance in Aero. When you look at Vista with Aero versus Windows XP, which looks more aesthetically pleasing? Vista looks more OS X-ish than the previous versions, and isn't that what the majority of the users on this site appreciate?

 

The main reason why Vista gets such a bad reputation is user-based. One cannot be serious expecting Vista to be smoother than XP with 512MB of RAM, integrated graphics, and a 1.8GHz Intel Core Duo processor. I find it quite funny sometimes hearing the expectations of these people. Most think that having a fast processor automatically equals a fast user experience. People are amazed that my Pentium 4 four-year-old computer running Vista can run circles around their Core 2 Duo. My specs can be seen in my signature.

 

So, what are your thoughts on this issue?

 

Pro: Dual monitor support blows osx out of the water. OSX cannot even disable one at a time...

Pro: Software support

 

I cannot list any cons off hand that leopard doesnt suffer from either:

Shared Con: require more than 1GB of ram to be happy

 

I guess one con for vista would be that its not as flashy as leopard out of the box. But with some additional software can do things like expose and spaces.

 

I think a major issue with vista is that it needs a stable platform to run on. It doesnt like bad memory, where xp would deal with it. Also it had some issues with sleep in the beginning. If microsoft choose the hardware though it would not have so much hate... all in all its good but it can and will be better. As well mac

[mifki]

all pros for me. runs beatifully with 10gb ram. only nag is the genuine software, but its only a popup so it doesnt bother me

[mifki]

all pros for me. runs beatifully with 10gb ram. only nag is the genuine software, but its only a popup so it doesnt bother me

[~pcwiz]

all pros for me. runs beatifully with 10gb ram. only nag is the genuine software, but its only a popup so it doesnt bother me

 

All of us aren't lucky enough to have 10 gigs of RAM, but it runs perfectly good with 2GB, I've tried with 1GB but that is not nearly enough although its still fine for the usual stuff (word processing, email, web browsing, office work, etc.) and even some light gaming. And no nag screen with my genuine Windows Vista Ultimate

[vbetts]

Vista is probably the best 64-bit OS I've ever used. Running it on 4 gb of ram now, and it was a HUGE difference from 2 gb.

[S.SubZero]

all pros for me. runs beatifully with 10gb ram. only nag is the genuine software, but its only a popup so it doesnt bother me

Are you.. not running genuine Vista?

 

I have purchased Vista x64 for my PCs, and WGA is invisible to me.

 

I like Vista. It looks nice, runs nice, and all of my software runs fine under it.

[NickF]

too chatty, I want my OS to get out of the way and let me do what I want, you have to disable UAC to cut back on these and less security in windows is not an option to me

 

mem usage too high

 

"runs beautifully with 10 gb ram" wow

[MiJKa]

LoL... I'd say there's some serious overkill right there. It runs just fine on 4GB of ram, and more than passingly well on 2. Same as OSX. As for how good it looks... well, opinions differ. I, personally, have skinned the sucker. Found myself a nice, unobtrusive, dark, relatively minimalistic skin. Pretty.

 

That aside, I'm working with 64bit Vista, which loves my photoshop far more than the 32bit version did. However, that tends to tone down the amount of games I can even try to play in what little spare time I have. Much as I was against the extra weight of the OS when it first came out, though, I have to admit I've gotten used to the flashyness and the extra little visual details that make XP seem so plain nowadays. (Plain...but FASTER. mmMMM. Faster.)

 

No real qualms, though. To be fair, I like to think that it's better to get more power for your money. So, with the same basic compatibilities one can find in XP (barring those few that have disappeared in Vista), I'm tempted to say XP is the better way to go. Not so much so because Vista is WORSE, but rather because it ends up using more resources for no indispensable reason.

 

That having been said, I'd like to point out that I was unlucky enough to pick up a virus on 32bit Vista a while back. With antivirus software installed. It was a stupid, stupid thing that ended me up with a virus on my PC though. OS independent. (Lack of sleep and computers are not always a good idea, in the same context.)

 

So, yeah. Little gain, but I like the prettyness, and I can spare the resources. And thus, I like me some Vista on the main PC, some XP on the secondary for gaming and on the laptop because I really need the ram for photoshop.

[vbetts]

too chatty, I want my OS to get out of the way and let me do what I want, you have to disable UAC to cut back on these and less security in windows is not an option to me

 

mem usage too high

 

"runs beautifully with 10 gb ram" wow

 

It's a new OS though. People were expecting Vista to use as much memory as XP, but XP you have to remember is what, 5-6 years old? Maybe close to 8. Maybe other new OSs like Leopard don't use as much memory, but Leopard is designed for one platform, and is completly based on another kernal. So you can't really compare them. And 2 gb is the standard pretty much right now, and is cheap. Now say 2 gb of ram was like $300, then I could agree with all the memory complaining. But even though it uses more memory, it manages memory extremely better than XP.

[d4v1d04]

It's a new OS though. People were expecting Vista to use as much memory as XP, but XP you have to remember is what, 5-6 years old? Maybe close to 8. Maybe other new OSs like Leopard don't use as much memory, but Leopard is designed for one platform, and is completly based on another kernal. So you can't really compare them. And 2 gb is the standard pretty much right now, and is cheap. Now say 2 gb of ram was like $300, then I could agree with all the memory complaining. But even though it uses more memory, it manages memory extremely better than XP.

Surely though Linux and *BSD run on all kinds of hardware, compiz-fusion on linux runs on all sorts of hardware and yet uses much less memory and other resources than windows...

[nli]

Cons: it's slow, doing the simplest things feels like driving a Canyonero -disk operations are pretty crappy. Leopard -at least hacked Leopard- suffers for a lot of the same issues.

 

Pros: It's got the best "dazzle" effects. The compiz effects for *nix are alright, but except for the cube (which is always a PITA for me to set up) they tend to be more stupid or annoying than anything else. The effects for Vista are good looking and practical (the preview view on the taskbar and the 3d flip effects).

 

It's the prettiest OS out there, imho.

 

Still -for practical day-to-day usage I'd rather go with a skinned XP or Leopard.

[vbetts]

Surely though Linux and *BSD run on all kinds of hardware, compiz-fusion on linux runs on all sorts of hardware and yet uses much less memory and other resources than windows...

 

Again, totally different operating system. May not be on different platforms, but different core, different everything.

[fatshitcat]

The worst thing about Vista is that it had great potential(winFS, just to name an example), and instead, we got this thing. It ran OK for me only after a big clean at the services menu. And the degradation(performance loss as time goes by) was a lot faster than xp's.

 

Microsoft screwed it up. Big time. Vista could have been a great OS.

[starfox5194]

Im not trying to strat a war, these are just MY opinions.

 

Pros

Good Driver detection if you're too lazy to seach for hours for drivers.

Direct x 10

64 bits compatability with programs/drivers

 

Cons

I don't like the ui. It is just not very good looking. I also dont like the fact that the only way to customize it is windows blinds.

RAM I really dislike how much ram it uses. im sorry, but using xp64 = 600 mb of ram searching web and music. Vista64 = 1.6 gb

I also don't like how microsoft is almost forcing you to upgrade to vista. Direct x 10 will work perfectly fine in xp too.

 

That is basically it.

I would not be complaining about like 1.2 gb of ram, but 1.6 is a little outregeous don't you think

[squigglethecow]

Vista is supported well, but it lags and the system itself hangs from time to time.

My rig should NEVER lag, but I have had it freeze for a few seconds while I am doing no more than im and browsing. Its bloatware.

 

Now, on the plus side vista is very easily customizable since its so well used, and there are TONS of freeware apps to do everything over the rainbow with it.

But for daily use, my vista experience has been full of bugs and I dont like it.

 

 

Which is why I ended up here!

[dies]

I would not be complaining about like 1.2 gb of ram, but 1.6 is a little outregeous don't you think

 

I think I didn't buy memory just to have it sitting idle. Seems pretty silly to me complain that something is being used for what it was intended.

 

It's like everyone has been trained to think your RAM should just sit there and do nothing.

 

 

The only time people should worry about RAM usage is

 

a.) If it's NOT being used because maybe you have some ridiculous amount like 10 gigs or because your OS is dumb like XP.

 

b.) Your machine is slow because it's started using the disk instead.

 

 

My experience with Vista has been mixed, I've seen it fly on one machine and not have any issues and I've also seen it crash and burn on a different machine with similar specs. Driver issues not necessarily OS problems, as usual. That's what happens when you try to support everything out there.

[solaar]

Just a question to the advanced Vista test drivers. Do you feel it's less bloated than XP was out of the box? I mean in terms of pointless or even potentially vulnerable services running all the time. MS' quite vague documentation what those service exactly do and which are safe to disable without wondering later why this or that app slows down or crashes all the time.

 

After a few months of heavy use, do you perceive less slump in performance than in XP? In other words, does it clog up as easily and quickly as XP does (ie. orphaned driver files that could interfere with new installs, the registry catching more dirt than the wing on my car etc) ? How about fragmenting when working with large files, video for instance?

 

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trolling against MS. I reckon these are valid points and I would definitely give it another shot if those issues are handled more elegantly than they used to, ie. leave it all in the hands of the user.

 

Do you feel it's necessary to do a clean slate about once or twice a year and reinstall the whole kit and kaboodle, the same way XP was literally screaming for it on a regular basis?

 

EDIT: think of it in a multimedia context (mainly music and video) but on a professional basis, recording studio etc. I'm in the middle of making a gear list for a mid-sized studio. I'll be dealing with people who are very used to XP but who are not particularly keen on continuing with it (mostly for the reasons I've mentioned). My immediate suggestion was a Mac Pro hands down but I've also heard good things about Carillon (a UK made PC optimised for recording studios). They come with XP but if Vista really cuts the mustard, that might be an alternative...

 

cheers

[Guest ѕиоѡ]

Euh, I wont go into pros and cons, I'm only going to tell you what I use Vista x64 for:

 

1. Games

2. Watching Vids in Surround (Audigy 2 ZS)

3. Converting vids to DVD with subs

 

Thats it, workflow is still much better on OSX.

[arcticsheep]

Vista is probably the best 64-bit OS I've ever used. Running it on 4 gb of ram now, and it was a HUGE difference from 2 gb.

 

Really? I didn't notice much difference from 2 to 8...

[CharredPC]

Not trying to convert anyone here, but this is how I look at it:

 

XP installs on older Win98 hardware and runs pretty well; it's fairly snappy on a P3 550MHz.

XP was desireable (even with initial growing pains) as it combined 9x's compatibility with Win2k's stability.

XP was around for over half a decade doing everything we needed or wanted it to do for us.

 

vs.

 

Vista often doesn't even run smoothly on the hardware it's sold on, let alone legacy.

Vista added 'features' which were largely uncalled for and are often turned off in annoyance.

Vista fills a hole we simply don't need filled; no one I know was whining and clamoring for a newer OS.

 

Of course Vista will eventually replace XP. They've scheduled an EOL for XP, stopped selling it everywhere they could, and are spending billions promoting Vista. It's really quite simple; unlike the 98/ME -> XP days, we're not driven by a reason to switch anymore. So it better be dang seamless in doing so not to ruffle feathers. Unfortunately, it was a mess, hence the bad publicity they are striving to undo now (Windows Mojave).

 

Joe user used to be able to walk into a computer store and have a salesman tell him how much faster this new XP model was compared to his XP Pentium4 at home. "You can do everything you used to do- but FASTER!" That's an easy sale. "Your games won't lag... Office opens much quicker... you can multitask better." He understands that.

 

Now he walks in and sees a different (often confusing) interface to learn, sees programs running just as slow on his older XP box, and every little problem or glitch after that becomes one more reason to hate this new Windows Vista thing. Maybe he even buys it for the slick GUI, not being geeky enough to know that XP can be made to look the same....

 

It's not that Vista's awful, no. It's a perfectly acceptable OS. The hurdle here is that (to a consumer) it's just eye candy coming at too high a cost. Luckily for Microsoft, it's often more difficult (if not impossible with lack of driver support) for end users to replace it with XP. M$ just has to play a waiting game to win.

 

When I bought my Acer laptop half a year ago, I chose a third option. I wiped Vista off it, installed XP on one partition, and OSX on the other. I now pretty much exclusively use Leopard and enjoy it very much. Both it and XP run circles around Vista on my "budget" hardware. Of course, most people won't do this. But I'm glad I had the choice. Being an IT geek forces me to be a realist, but it also helps be a non-conformant

 

The bottom line is what I tell my customers: If it works for you, that's all you need; enjoy! If you're unhappy, then we can discuss options and alternatives. No need to start a crusade when some people would rather just buy another 1GB of RAM. Teach those that wish to be taught, be happy for those who are satisfied. I may have my personal opinions, but doesn't everyone? Somewhere right now somebody's grandmother is extolling the virtues of WindowsME because she knows exactly how to use it to get her email. Just because 99% of the world cringes at that thought doesn't make her need correction. Some people still argue about the superiority of manual typewriters and 33rpm vinyl records

[scj312]

Here's a question:

If Vista sucks so much, then how does it have a higher market share than Mac OS X?

[squigglethecow]

Here's a question:

If Vista sucks so much, then how does it have a higher market share than Mac OS X?

 

Windows is far better supported than OS X is. Beyond that, windows has gained the upper hand in the market and since OS X is so radically different most people wont switch simply because windows is familiar.

 

Now, vista really sucks, and alto of people have been switching to mac. In fact, vista is what pushed me to join these forums.

 

 

Apple is coming up though, and windows is on its way out (hopefully).

[CharredPC]

Here's a question:

If Vista sucks so much, then how does it have a higher market share than Mac OS X?

 

 

Vista has a higher market share because:

 

-Windows itself has a higher market share, though the Vista fiasco has helped the OSX share grow

-You can buy a Windows PC at WalMart and other stores for under $300, or laptops for under $500

-If you (or a neighbor) has some basic knowledge you can build your own PC and slap on Windows

 

vs:

 

-Mac started out with a smaller user base, with the image of being a hip / cool / elite alternative niche

-There's no Macs at WalMart, and the stores that do carry Macs sell them for thousands, not hundreds

-OSX (legally) only runs on Apple-blessed $$$ hardware; no build-your-own money-saving whiteboxes

 

Some aspects of this are slowly changing, though. The OSX86 community is growing. People are specifically building boxes based on Mac hardware. EFI usb keys are being sold to allow for retail Leopard dvd's to install on PC's. Vista's negative image combined with the lack of XP availability has pushed many to try Mac. Hence Microsoft spending billions trying to "correct" their image with the silly Mojave commercial, and the direct response to the Mac ads ("I'm a PC, and I've been stereotyped.")

 

Personally, I think Microsoft has lost sight of what customers want. We love Firefox because it's free, very functional, and doesn't get in our way. We like the idea of Google's Chrome because it's free, fairly functional, and faster. In response, Firefox is being reengineered with webkit to run even faster than Chrome. 10.5.x updates (at least from what I've seen) tend to improve performance, polish the experience. Only Microsoft has this idea stuck in their head that anything new has to double the hardware requirements, double the difficulty, and double the price. Their only saving point currently is the Windows userbase lock-in, and having the widest driver database. Microsoft will stay on top of the heap for quite a while yet regardless of what bloatware it puts out. But I see a change already slowly occurring, or a lot of us wouldn't be here on this forum

[rumblpak]

I might be the only one here to argue this point but I like vista SO much more than xp. Does anyone on this forum even remember using xp before sp2? For those that don't remember it sucked. It had little to no driver support when xp came out and had tons of bugs. Vista on the other hand also had some driver issues (video mainly but that was at the fault of intel, nvidia, and amd), and some issues with older computers. Guess what, maybe its time for an upgrade? I haven't used a computer with less than 2gb of memory for years and if you don't have that much you shouldn't be using aero anyway.

 

I attempted at going back to xp after a couple of months of using vista and went right back to vista a couple days later because my computer ran faster in vista than it did in xp because of the speed increases that vista has over xp. I also had some major stability problems with my memory in xp (which works fine in vista and osx86).

 

/rant