Another... Vista is crap thread

[daviebroon]

Its just my opinion though... for what its worth.

Ive used every operating system from the days of 95 - 98 - 2000 - NT - Me - XP etc etc... and i've always loved the differences made from one to the other, however XP - Vista.... i already want to go back.

Vista is quite a poor layout, not very user friendly in the day to day runnings.

Maybe in my opinion (i'll say that bit again) XP was just about right for me? Only thing i really like so far, is im on 1440 x 900 res and it looks really good in gloss

 

[Final Maxim]

how long you used it for?

 

[Daz]

I hate the way they've changed some stuff, when nothing was wrong with the way they were done in XP.

But, I hated XP when it came out, now I reckon it's probably the best desktop OS out there.. *shrug*

It's just getting used to it

 

[DrR]

I just think it's really slow compared to xp.

 

[Final Maxim]

i didnt notice any performance gains after going back to xp a few weeks ago n id been using vista for a year or so

 

[Daz]

i didnt notice any performance gains after going back to xp a few weeks ago n id been using vista for a year or so

2GB RAM? (or more?)

On 1GB RAM, Vista is pretty poor.. shockingly poor.. 2GB RAM, it's fine.

 

[daviebroon]

2GB RAM here, but still doesn't seem a very fast OS

 

[DrR]

£500 vista laptop is so so much slower than my mates £500 2 yeard old xp laptop.

 

[Final Maxim]

i didnt notice any performance gains after going back to xp a few weeks ago n id been using vista for a year or so

2GB RAM? (or more?)

On 1GB RAM, Vista is pretty poor.. shockingly poor.. 2GB RAM, it's fine.

2gb

no performance difference at all, xp did boot quicker than my year old vista, but now it boots the same now i got start up programs

 

[Final Maxim]

£500 vista laptop is so so much slower than my mates £500 2 yeard old xp laptop.

exactly the same spec? exactly the same programs? exactly the same settings?

 

[Daz]

2GB is the key.
I've sold so many laptops with Vista now, and the ones with 2GB (or 4GB) were fine.. the ones with 1GB stupidly sluggish.

My laptop with 1GB was slow, went back to XP and it was rapid. Got 2GB in it now, with staying with XP until Vista has SP1 integrated into the install.. then I'll look at upgrading again.

 

[Toypop]

I like it but then I have 4GB of ram, spec'd up the CPU and got a decent graphics card.

To be honest though it is obviously using a lot more power than XP as my new machine runs no faster than my far less powerful XP PC.

So the question is, are the fancy graphics worth the extra power consumption?

Well NO is the answer. There are some nice features on Vista that I like but they should have just stuck with XP as you don't really get much new for your money.

Then again computer users are a bunch of gays that like a fancy looking OS so they have to pay the price!

 

[daviebroon]

does processor speed come into it much then... in addition to the 2GB RAM?
heard core-duo is more capable with vista than any others... not sure on that

 

[caister]

I've had vista since it came out. If your PC is of a reasonable spec the speed between the two is minimal.

Vista always looks as though it is using large amount of RAM however the OS is actually loading the program that you use most often into the system RAM so that they load quicker. This cache is empties imediatley if a program needs more RAM.

I do like vista but it takes a bit of getting used too. It has allot more functionality and I find it allot more stable then XP plus XP has been hanging around for 7+ years so its definately time for a change!!

 

[Daz]

does processor speed come into it much then... in addition to the 2GB RAM?
heard core-duo is more capable with vista than any others... not sure on that

Dual/Quad core is more capable on everything.. (providing both cores can be used)

RAM is the key though..

 

[DrR]

£500 vista laptop is so so much slower than my mates £500 2 yeard old xp laptop.

exactly the same spec? exactly the same programs? exactly the same settings?

Ones brand new (so assume better) and the others 2 years old.

 

[bmh.01]

I like it myself, big step forward from xp imo.

 

[Keydogg]

I absolutely love vista.

People who don't like it more often than not have s**t PCs and it runs crap because of that.

With 4GB of RAM and a well set up PC vista loads programs up quicker than XP - FACT. Vista was designed to support the computers in the next 5 years so that in 5 years time it is making them perform to their optimum, not designed to make shitty 2 or 3 year old laptops run well because they will inevitibly they will be replaced within the next few years.

Im sure if in 2 years time you all got a specced up PC and it was no faster than XP you would all be crying "omg viusta is s**t, its no better" but the fact is on a high spec PC it IS and will be faster.

P.S. I am talking about loading speeds, not FPS in games. FPS in vista is down by about 5-8% in vista compared to XP but thats because of windows aero and such which quite frankly is worth 5fps in a game.

 

[Richdog]

I tried Vista in its RC1 stage and really didn't get on with it, went back to XP and thought i'd delay Vista as long as possible. However, I installed it again a week ago and I have to say my experiences so far have been overwhelmingly positive... especially with SP1 installed.

I think the problem is that we've been using XP so long that it's like an old favourite pair of slippers... comfortable, you know where you are with it. Vista on the other hand doesn't immediately seem any improvement barring a few graphical tweaks... and it's as though they made some things harder for you to find/accomplish.

However i'm pleased to say that after some serious playing around with it I think it will really grow on me... I think it's just a case oof gettiing used to it, and don't forget that XP was completely slated when it came out forbeing "slow and bloated". The difference is it's had chance to mature into a stable and wonderful platform, whereas Vista is still doing this.

Now that Vista drivers are more plentful I haven't had a single problem finding anything, and gaming performance is MUCH improved, barely any different to XP. I added a spare 2GB RAM I had lying around and with 3.5GB total detected it's very very smooth. For those who moan about increased hardware requirements well... that's the price of progress, and RAM is so cheap nowadays (£45-£60 for 4GB DDR2) that cost isn't such a barrier any more for those wanting ultra high-end performance.

My company will be rolling out Vista to everyone in the latter part of this year so it's about time I got to grips with it as the sole IT guy in my office. It ain't bad.

 

[Greeny.]

My PC is great and runs Vista lovely, the os is bad!

 

[Richdog]

Ok bad in what way?

 

[daviebroon]

I absolutely love vista.

People who don't like it more often than not have s**t PCs and it runs crap because of that.

With 4GB of RAM and a well set up PC vista loads programs up quicker than XP - FACT. Vista was designed to support the computers in the next 5 years so that in 5 years time it is making them perform to their optimum, not designed to make s**tty 2 or 3 year old laptops run well because they will inevitibly they will be replaced within the next few years.

Im sure if in 2 years time you all got a specced up PC and it was no faster than XP you would all be crying "omg viusta is s**t, its no better" but the fact is on a high spec PC it IS and will be faster.

P.S. I am talking about loading speeds, not FPS in games. FPS in vista is down by about 5-8% in vista compared to XP but thats because of windows aero and such which quite frankly is worth 5fps in a game.

disagree with that.

The computer i'm running vista on is top end spec. It IS only 2GB, but its not like 2GB is base model RAM. Whether behind the scenes things are running faster or not, it makes you feel/appear that it is taking forever to do anything. Particularily on start-up and shutdown etc. OH, and IE is sooo slow in handling capabilities comparison.

The PC i run XP on is a good 8 years old now... so hardly a top of the line spec'ed up PC, and it just seems to run so much faster. And i've got sooo much p**n on thier its not funny.

 

[Keydogg]

I know loads of people who have top end systems and agree with me. But the fact is superfetch is far superior to the XP paging system and therefore makes common programs load up super quick. Yes it takes longer to boot, yes it takes longer to shut down but the principal reason is because its pagin every b*****d thing you use into the page file therefore mnaking it load up super quick.

If your machine isn't running as quick as a similar spec'd pc or an older pc on XP than you haven't set up your PC correctly.

 

[Richdog]

Mine shuts down and starts up pretty damn quick... in fact significantly quicker than my year old XP installation which I did my best to keep relatively clean.

 

[daviebroon]

i don't really know enough about the differences to give a fair answer, can only say how it appears to myself. PC i'm using is brand new

 

[Richdog]

i don't really know enough about the differences to give a fair answer.

Unfortunately half of the people complaining about Vista will give you this same answer. They don't know why they don't like it, they just do. Personally I think it's due to what I said before... you get use to things being done a certain way, and when it changes and you can't understand why then this is when confusion and resentment builds. Give it a bit of time, in a few months you'll forget you ever had any bad thoughts about it.

 

[caister]

Vista has allot of crap installed with it to try and improve security and make life easier for people that arn't necessarily going to be using it to its full potential. Just like XP it benefits massivly by having certain unused/annoying functions disabled such as UAC.

As for hardware I have seen brand new PC's that have poorer hardware than the PC that I'm using now and thats 3 years old. Ita amazing the sort of rubbish that places such as PC World flog to the unknowing public who think they are buying a good PC. Vista needs several things to function quickly and perfrom how it should.

A quick processor - Multicore would be preferable but a P4 3ghz is ample for most peoples needs.

RAM - As said earlier the more the better however 2GB is a good place to start.

A Good Video Card - This is what most new PC's from PC world are missing as they tend to dump any old rubbish in there. Vista unlike XP runs in 3D 24/7 and so loading programs etc is hindered by a poor graphics card. You dont need anything amazing but onboard motherboard graphics are just not enough.

 

[Greeny.]

Vista has been crap for me because:

Ive had to totally format my Vista install at work due to it just totally dieing on me. Basicly sitting at the loading screen after logon, tried everything to fix as I really didnt want to format but oh well.

At home its doesnt want to pickup any USB mass storage devices, such as my USB Key or Sony Camera, was working 100% fine until 2 weeks ago and now will not work, nothing changed on my PC at all. Again spent hours trying to fix this but no luck yet.

Windows explorer likes to randomly crash on my work pc running Vista Ultimate.

Iva had to f**k around loads trying to sort the mouse accel, again after hours of messing around managed to sort it messing with .dlls.

When selecting folders in explorer on the left hand side unless you click on the folder it will not update the main screen, highly annoying at work.

Installed Vista SP1 Beta and none of my Office 2007 Pro apps would open, great stuff. After a reinstall of Office it still didnt work, pld Microsoft



Apart from all of those highly annoying problems its been ok, oh apart from the worse performance than XP But it looks nicer and my PC is a good enough spec for me not to worry about the worse performance. Could do with the extra 3dMark06 points to put me over 17k though!

 

[Richdog]

Greeny I think your problems are pointing towarda serious system instability... either drivers or hardware. What are your full specs?

 

[Greeny.]

Work PC (which I have most problems with): Dell Optiplex 755, 3Gb DDR2, running latest Bios,video,chipset etc from Dells site.

Home PC (which has been fine apart from mass storage problems): Intel Q6600 @ 3.85Ghz on water, 8800 GTS 512Mb on water, 2GB Corsair DDR3, Asus Maximus Extreme, again with latest drivers apart from GPU but thats hardly to do with my usb issue

 

[Richdog]

Ouch you bought DDR3? Must have a loose wallet considering it's 5x the price of DDR2 with barely any benefits.

To be fair though at work we deal with XP machines that go tits-up all the time, I deal with them a few times a weekl, it's deifnately not Vista-specific!

 

[Greeny.]

well tbh its the worse PC ive ever had from Dell, was doa then had the mobo replaced 2 months later

Wanted the board which happened to be DDR3. About £100 more ram wise that would I would of got, its flying along at 576mhz though.

The USB mass storage problem im having at home is defo Vista specific, most fucked up thing ive ever tried to fix. Gave up with mass anger last time and just booted up my 6 year old Win 2000 laptop and downloaded my photos in 2 mins.

Also bought a Dell Vista pc for a mate through work and the first thing it did on boot up was windows explorer crashing

At work we rarely get any Xp faults tbh, I only support 200 PC's though and about 150 are XP. Most problems are hardware or use error

Not a great os, very average and buggy thats for sure. Not worth spending your money on.

 

[Richdog]

Hmm well the saying "You go hell if you buy a Dell" certainly has a ring of truth then! Have you ever considered building your own mate?

 

[Greeny.]

I always build my own for my home PC's mate, boss wouldnt want that at work though due to the extra hassle if/when we get any problems with them.

From my experience Dells are fine for a cheap basic office pc though, even if they do use cheap foxcon motherboards :S

 

[Richdog]

Ahhh sorry I thought you were talking about your home PC being a Dell... but then I just noticed you said it was overclocked, so it can't be! You a member of any PC/Overlcocking forums then mate?

 

[Greeny.]

yeah just ChilledPC and OCForums, not been on there since I built it though, been more interested in my car lately, I cant get off here!

 

[Greeny.]

yeah just ChilledPC and OCForums, not been on there since I built it though, been more interested in my car lately, I cant get off here!

 

[Richdog]

Ahh cool. I usually post on OCUk and Extreme Overclocking forums. Can see me spending a fair bit of time here though now i've just bought my 182!

 

[caister]

I used to post allot on OcUK and coolercases but this forum is taking up more of my time especially seeing as my pc is starting to get a bit dated!!!!

 

[Adams_16v]

I tried it on my old pc and it did my nut in, but since buying a new pc (not for vista btw) I really like it. not had any problems at all, and it runs sweet as a nut. Yes parts are different and its taken time to get used to them, but once you do you'll realise they are different for a reason and get to benefit from them.

I was really anti-vista, but I really like it now. XP does what id want it to but it just looks dull now in comparison, were moving into the future about time we had some fancy shizzle in windows even if the fancy stuff doesnt really have any real benefit!