So Just How Bad Does Vista Suck?

[Wilbur]

I have Vista on one machine and really do like it.  Took a little getting used to, but is not drastically different from XP.

Obviously, it will take a small amount of time for hardware makers to come out with drivers for their products to work with Vista, but I have yet to have an issue with anything.

[Ed W]

I use a cheap laptop mostly for spreadsheets and text, so speed isn't an issue.  It's loaded with Vista Home Deluxe and generally works well.  But there are some programs that do not work well on this machine.  I tried GIMP and Pixia for photo editing, but they locked up continually.  The Avast anti-virus worked well until they issued an upgrade earlier this week.  It locked up the machine and it refused to boot until Avast was removed.  

So, in my limited experience, Vista is a mixed bag.  I've done some minor tinkering with Damn Small Linux and Ubuntu on one of my older machines.  I can see that eventually this one will go that route too.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

I use a cheap laptop mostly for spreadsheets and text, so speed isn't an issue.  It's loaded with Vista Home Deluxe and generally works well.  But there are some programs that do not work well on this machine.  I tried GIMP and Pixia for photo editing, but they locked up continually.  The Avast anti-virus worked well until they issued an upgrade earlier this week.  It locked up the machine and it refused to boot until Avast was removed.  

So, in my limited experience, Vista is a mixed bag.  I've done some minor tinkering with Damn Small Linux and Ubuntu on one of my older machines.  I can see that eventually this one will go that route too.

the problems you list were not vista's fault, rather crappy applications.  I concur that avast cannot figure out vista.  I had to switch back to avg because they suck on vista.  avast was gobbling more and more memory with each release anyways

[custosnox]

I didn't think about the power problem with Vista.  It does take a significant amount compaired to XP.  But, it is able to handle more.  Hence the reason I didn't think to mention it.  XP wouldn't be able to handle my system, one of the main reasons that I decided to upgrade.  

As far as Avast goes, I haven't had any problems with it.  Don't know if I just got lucky with my setup, if it's because of the added power of my machine (I'm a gamer and built my computer to take on the biggest games out there), or if it's because I am running 64.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by custosnox

I didn't think about the power problem with Vista.  It does take a significant amount compaired to XP.  But, it is able to handle more.  Hence the reason I didn't think to mention it.  XP wouldn't be able to handle my system, one of the main reasons that I decided to upgrade.  

As far as Avast goes, I haven't had any problems with it.  Don't know if I just got lucky with my setup, if it's because of the added power of my machine (I'm a gamer and built my computer to take on the biggest games out there), or if it's because I am running 64.

 x64 has better tolerance for crappy applications, especilly if they are being run WOW64.  Microsoft puts tigher tolerances on native 64-bit apps, so Avast may not bei ****ting on itself in that environment.  I haven't tried avast on my x64 boxes, just one x86 box.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'm sure inteller is a MS fanboy who will buy everything they make...

I like microsoft, without them a lot of IT people would be without a job. Vista's main problems were that it was rushed to market without some of the intended features like winfs. It also needed a lot more testing, especially on the graphic card side.  Problems with ATI and NVidia drivers account for a vast majority of the crashes. It also requires significantly more horsepower than XP so it's generally something to get with a new PC and not installing on the PC you bought 2 years ago.

But let's not blame MS for that.  The vendors knew full well this was coming, and Microsoft told them and gave them technical specs to be ready for it.  They weren't, but yet consumers blame MS.  It's not MS's job to make sure the vendors driver software works with their OS, it's the vendor.

And it only requires more horsepower if you want all the fancy 'Aero' bells and whistles.  Turn that off, and it's actually pretty close to XP as far as requirements go.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'm sure inteller is a MS fanboy who will buy everything they make...

I like microsoft, without them a lot of IT people would be without a job. Vista's main problems were that it was rushed to market without some of the intended features like winfs. It also needed a lot more testing, especially on the graphic card side.  Problems with ATI and NVidia drivers account for a vast majority of the crashes. It also requires significantly more horsepower than XP so it's generally something to get with a new PC and not installing on the PC you bought 2 years ago.

But let's not blame MS for that.  The vendors knew full well this was coming, and Microsoft told them and gave them technical specs to be ready for it.  They weren't, but yet consumers blame MS.  It's not MS's job to make sure the vendors driver software works with their OS, it's the vendor.

And it only requires more horsepower if you want all the fancy 'Aero' bells and whistles.  Turn that off, and it's actually pretty close to XP as far as requirements go.

Microsoft still signs off on those drivers and should've made sure the OS shipped with capable drivers out the door. When XP shipped, you didn't have to wait 6months or more for drivers to be available for legacy hardware, they came with the OS.

The whole "driver signing" thing is pretty dumb idea too. Microsoft is really just saying "yeah, we looked at it" NOT "we are sure this thing works."

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Microsoft still signs off on those drivers and should've made sure the OS shipped with capable drivers out the door.

WRONG!  Microsoft only inspects drivers submitted to WHQL. Even then they only inspect the driver for how it adheres to the WDM, they don't debug the driver. Anyone can write a driver for windows and 32-bit drivers don't have to be digitally signed.  Digital signatures are simply issued once a driver has passed WHQL.  They do nothing towards the "quality" of the driver.

If device manufacturers would have always written good quality drivers from the get go, there wouldn't even be a need for WHQL.  

My god do some basic research next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHQL

[Dana431]

I use two Vista machines.  One I have at home, and one at work.  Both computers have done 95% of I have expected them to do. The other 5% come from having to wait on a driver upgrade for our plotter at work.  So now they do 100% of what I expect them to do.  I like Vista and don't miss XP at all.  Both computers are graphics-intensive computers installed with Vista Ultimate.  Don't go cheap when purchasing a Vista computer.  Three people I know paid less than grand for their Vista laptops with AMD processors.  Those three people are fuming mad over their computers performance (crashes).

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Dana431

I use two Vista machines.  One I have at home, and one at work.  Both computers have done 95% of I have expected them to do. The other 5% come from having to wait on a driver upgrade for our plotter at work.  So now they do 100% of what I expect them to do.  I like Vista and don't miss XP at all.  Both computers are graphics-intensive computers installed with Vista Ultimate.  Don't go cheap when purchasing a Vista computer.  Three people I know paid less than grand for their Vista laptops with AMD processors.  Those three people are fuming mad over their computers performance (crashes).

eh, none of my vista boxes cost over $1000 (maybe that for all combined) and they run just fine.  the biggest area of disappointement people will see is in the graphics area.  But microsoft said that Vista would be very graphics intensive and that you'd need a good card to see all the bells and whistles.

[Dana431]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Dana431

I use two Vista machines.  One I have at home, and one at work.  Both computers have done 95% of I have expected them to do. The other 5% come from having to wait on a driver upgrade for our plotter at work.  So now they do 100% of what I expect them to do.  I like Vista and don't miss XP at all.  Both computers are graphics-intensive computers installed with Vista Ultimate.  Don't go cheap when purchasing a Vista computer.  Three people I know paid less than grand for their Vista laptops with AMD processors.  Those three people are fuming mad over their computers performance (crashes).

eh, none of my vista boxes cost over $1000 (maybe that for all combined) and they run just fine.  the biggest area of disappointement people will see is in the graphics area.  But microsoft said that Vista would be very graphics intensive and that you'd need a good card to see all the bells and whistles.

Im glad to hear somebody else is having a good experience with Vista computers.  I have felt like Apple has done a great job in marketing their operating system/computers as being superior.  Based on my experience, I think its more of a Ford versus Chevy comparison than a Ford versus Yugo comparison.

I saw an earlier post talk about "Big Brother" software.  Autodesk comes to mind more than Microsoft.

[MichaelBates]

Dell's online store for small business offers new laptops with XP Home or XP Pro standard, and they'll throw in the media for Vista.

I don't see a compelling reason to switch, and having seen a brand new laptop with Vista take 10 minutes to boot, I'm happy to stay with XP.

[inteller]

oh yeah, Autodesk is up there....but Adobe is actually worse.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Dell's online store for small business offers new laptops with XP Home or XP Pro standard, and they'll throw in the media for Vista.

I don't see a compelling reason to switch, and having seen a brand new laptop with Vista take 10 minutes to boot, I'm happy to stay with XP.

omg, thank you for the FUD.  10 minutes to boot?  something was obviously wrong with the laptop other than vista.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Microsoft still signs off on those drivers and should've made sure the OS shipped with capable drivers out the door.

WRONG!  Microsoft only inspects drivers submitted to WHQL. Even then they only inspect the driver for how it adheres to the WDM, they don't debug the driver. Anyone can write a driver for windows and 32-bit drivers don't have to be digitally signed.  Digital signatures are simply issued once a driver has passed WHQL.  They do nothing towards the "quality" of the driver.

If device manufacturers would have always written good quality drivers from the get go, there wouldn't even be a need for WHQL.  

My god do some basic research next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHQL

That was my point.