# Thats it...I've had enough with vista.



## rgsgww

I got vista and thought, wow, great new look, dx10, etc. Well...its not all that great. I have a $170-$200 sound card...and I'm not getting reprocessed sound (x-fi) or 5.1...just flat 2 channel sound. Performance suffers compared to xp...memory usage is outrageous-1.3gb idle. Maybe someday I will take the time to move all my precious data to a backup drive, and format my drive to XP glory. 

Do you have any Vista experiences you would like to share?


----------



## Scuba_Dave

Yup, Vista sucks
I've turned off all the fancy graphics crap that just uses up memory
Worst OS since Windows 3.0


----------



## rgsgww

Scuba_Dave said:


> Yup, Vista sucks
> I've turned off all the fancy graphics crap that just uses up memory
> Worst OS since Windows 3.0



Its terrible, I went into xp with all my music and am fine tuning it to my tastes (couldn't do that with vista, impossible). Its amazing how happy xp makes you.


----------



## Clutchcargo

I'm running Vista on my laptop. I think it's pretty good. For me, it's much more stable than XP. YMMV


----------



## Shamus

Well I've lived with it and suffered through memory hog issues and IE/add on's/etc. Once I finally got it trimmed down it usually works fine. Although lately it's gone back into the lock-up mode. Delete history/cookies and start again. Just a pain.

I understand those doing the beta on Win 7 (I think thats it) are saying it's cleaner/better all around compared to XP. We'll see. I'm gonna jump to it early on as I have a back-up PC running XP. I'm through defending Vista.


----------



## rgsgww

Shamus said:


> Well I've lived with it and suffered through memory hog issues and IE/add on's/etc. Once I finally got it trimmed down it usually works fine. Although lately it's gone back into the lock-up mode. Delete history/cookies and start again. Just a pain.
> 
> I understand those doing the beta on Win 7 (I think thats it) are saying it's cleaner/better all around compared to XP. We'll see. I'm gonna jump to it early on as I have a back-up PC running XP. I'm through defending Vista.



I think windows 7 will be smooth...but still wont have audio implemented in the hal:furious: It was probably a big reason why the os crashed, but I dont care, because I never got crashed. I like to tweak my audio and game in 5.1 and 7.1 glory, now im stuck with 2.1. My only copy of xp is x86...I guess I'll keep my vista and xp dual boot so whenever I need x64 vista (doubt it) I can use it.


----------



## rgsgww

Clutchcargo said:


> I'm running Vista on my laptop. I think it's pretty good. For me, it's much more stable than XP. YMMV


It is a stable os, but they removed and added too many things. I like how smooth it is, but the thing that puts it all down (for me) is lack of eax support, maybe if creative updated alchemy once and awhile I would like vista. The only games supported are ones you would find in the bargain bin.


----------



## Scuba_Dave

I gave up using IE 7.0 on Vista, just crashes without reason


----------



## rgsgww

Scuba_Dave said:


> I gave up using IE 7.0 on Vista, just crashes without reason



I use firefox, they seem to have fixed the random crashes with firefox.


----------



## Clutchcargo

Oh I see... IE is a piece of crap and a root to many problems I've had in the past. I haven't had any issues since switching to Firefox.


----------



## rgsgww

Clutchcargo said:


> Oh I see... IE is a piece of crap and a root to many problems I've had in the past. I haven't had any issues since switching to Firefox.



A few months ago any browser was unusable, now they seem to have fixed the issues, of course, I do have 64-bit vista. I did get sp2 when it came out as a beta, seems to have sped my pc up a little.


----------



## perpetualjon

Ok, here's the deal with some of the Vista problems out there...

Audio: Probably the biggest goof-up MS did with Vista. This was in response to some pressure from the RIAA and the MPAA hoping to thwart people ripping their precious content --meaning they're hoping to keep you from turning your purchased CD's and DVD's into a format that can be USED on your iPod videos, video phones, PSP's, etc. The sad fact is that people that crack these sort of faux-protections were not even slowed down for a second but the rest of the unwashed masses had to suffer with terrible sound and video compatibility problems. Hopefully this will be the last time MS tries something like this...

UAC (user access control): This feature is what most users found the most annoying. Everytime you tried to make any changes to your system, the screen went dark and a little box would come up and say, "Are you sure you want to do this?" The problem is that it's SUPPOSED to be annoying. Most PC users before this were quite unaware of how significant making system changes would compromise their machine's security. Also, after the first week or so using the machine, most all these messages should go away anyways since the configuration should be pretty much set after that...

RAM usage: Why anyone is upset about this after seeing all the previous new OS versions come out is quite funny. With the price of RAM these days, it's hardly a problem for newer 64-bit systems. In addition, Vista actually USES the RAM. Now for power users like myself, I have a problem with it as I need the most RAM I can get for the apps I'm running as I do a lot of large image processing and 3D CAD driving. But for the majority of PC users, having a lot of RAM on their machine was just a waste of money. Until now, the OS itself used very little of the RAM for basic day-to-day operations. With Vista, the more RAM you have, the more it will suck it up and make your entire experience that much better (meaning faster). This is actually a good thing but without a decent explanation it doesn't sound like an advantage.

The fact is that the more you use Vista, the more you will HATE having to go back to XP. Hell, the start menu search feature alone I miss once you see how quick it works (especially if you have a lot of apps installed on your system). When you see your desktop on Vista, you're ready to go. With XP, seeing your desktop meant you still had a lot of waiting to do as the background apps were still loading.

Understand this though: Vista is NOT good for an old PC or as an upgrade. Dual-core CPU's with bunches of RAM are the order of the day. 64-bit OS makes it even better as you'll finally be able to break out of the 4GB RAM limit that a 32-bit OS keeps you in (and that includes the video RAM as well). As far as backwards compatability goes, I've not yet found a program that won't run in a 64-bit environment --which was actually a suprise to me. It turns out that Vista knows when you're trying to install a 32-bit app on a 64-bt OS and places it accordingly to work. Nice job!

Windows 7 will most likely NOT be what everyone was hoping for. It looks like it will moreover be a "Vista -second edition" flavor. The real hope for the future is a complete re-design from the gound up. This will finally be able to work with the use of OS emulation now that RAM prices are so low. If you want to run an app that was designed for Windows 3.11, just open up a virtual machine and go to town. No longer will the native kernl need to maintain old code for all these little apps that we still need.

Hope this helps...


----------



## rgsgww

I love vista and xp. Love how xp just works...hate how vista will not.

I think waiting for "waveRT" drivers from auzentech may be my only choice, or learning how to write drivers...

Emulation is very possible with our high power cpus. I like how intel dumped lga775 and went to the new bus. Aswell as moving the memory controller to the cpu, removing fsb.


----------



## Scuba_Dave

Vista is an a product that should have been aborted
MS has long used its users as Beta testers
Windows 7.0 should be handed out for free to anyone who has Vista
Instead they will screw the consumer again

UAC is the biggest piece of junk ever
It asks ALL the time to confirm things. There are always updates & other things that are installed. And it gets to the point where people simply click YES YES YES, which makes the very product pointless & worthless

The fact that MS continues to escalate the resources needed to upgrade to an OS is just shooting themselves in the foot. Many business simply will not upgrade to Vista for this very fact. 3,000 PC at our site & NONE were upgraded - Vista was effectively BANNED - no support

The more I use Vista the MORE I Want XP back

I bought a Quad core with plenty of memory & HD space
Vista sucks, plain & simple


----------



## rgsgww

Scuba_Dave said:


> Vista is an a product that should have been aborted
> MS has long used its users as Beta testers
> Windows 7.0 should be handed out for free to anyone who has Vista
> Instead they will screw the consumer again
> 
> UAC is the biggest piece of junk ever
> It asks ALL the time to confirm things. There are always updates & other things that are installed. And it gets to the point where people simply click YES YES YES, which makes the very product pointless & worthless
> 
> The fact that MS continues to escalate the resources needed to upgrade to an OS is just shooting themselves in the foot. Many business simply will not upgrade to Vista for this very fact. 3,000 PC at our site & NONE were upgraded - Vista was effectively BANNED - no support
> 
> The more I use Vista the MORE I Want XP back
> 
> I bought a Quad core with plenty of memory & HD space
> Vista sucks, plain & simple


I have a custom built quad core system with ddr3 ram and all of that. Vista just doesn't make me happy. Especially the fact that my $180 x-fi sound card doesn't even do x-fi on vista.


----------



## rgsgww

Well I did find a "partial" fix for my x-fi. I forced vista to run unsigned, xp 64 wdm drivers. Seems to have messed up volume control, but not my card's software.


----------



## DangerMouse

longhorn was crap....but it was still better than vista....

DM


----------



## perpetualjon

Scuba_Dave said:


> Vista is an a product that should have been aborted


Ok, so you would encourage a company to spend years of development and resources and just give up?



> MS has long used its users as Beta testers


And this is wrong?



> Windows 7.0 should be handed out for free to anyone who has Vista
> Instead they will screw the consumer again


By "screw the consumer again" you mean put a price on a product you feel should be given away for free --no matter how many millions of dollars were put into it's development?



> UAC is the biggest piece of junk ever
> It asks ALL the time to confirm things. There are always updates & other things that are installed. And it gets to the point where people simply click YES YES YES, which makes the very product pointless & worthless


I'll agree with you there! Vista was the first OS from MS that took security into account in a major way. I'd say they pendulum swung too far in the other extreme and wound up mostly just annoying people that use it but I still contend that it's a necessary feature (that's been paired down quite a bit in Windows 7) that most Windows users need to realize.



> The fact that MS continues to escalate the resources needed to upgrade to an OS is just shooting themselves in the foot. Many business simply will not upgrade to Vista for this very fact. 3,000 PC at our site & NONE were upgraded - Vista was effectively BANNED - no support


MS has escalated the resources with EVERY single OS release since their beginning (and so has Apple). That this is upsetting has to come across as strange if you've been around the Windows world for more than the last 8 years. As it has always been, a new OS should go with a new PC --and almost never as an upgrade to an existing system (especially in a business environment). Businesses aren't adopting Vista for a number of reasons but hogging system resources is not one of them. Driver support has been a major one --which is not MS's fault since the Beta's of Vista have been around for 2 years prior to it's full release. I experienced this myself in our own company as we had a Vista machine sit in it's box for a year waiting for Canon to release a Vista driver for our corporate equipment (which they finally did). That's Canon's fault and not MS's. Beyond that, there are no truly compelling reasons for large businesses to "upgrade" as there are no compelling features in Vista that are considered essential to improving their IT systems --especially since XP is just as secure when you can control and maintain the security with a well-trained IT support staff. Believe me, when you can no longer buy PC's with XP on them, you can be sure large businesses will start buying Vista boxes (or Windows 7 for that matter)...



> The more I use Vista the MORE I Want XP back
> 
> I bought a Quad core with plenty of memory & HD space
> Vista sucks, plain & simple


Ok, tell me why --because I have quite the opposite reaction to using Vista. Is the UAC just too annoying to deal with? You can always turn it off (as was suggested in an issue of MaximumPC recently --although I don't agree with them for "common users"). Is it high-end sound card drivers?


----------



## perpetualjon

DangerMouse said:


> longhorn was crap....but it was still better than vista....
> 
> DM


Now that is very true! There were tons of features in Longhorn that just never made it to Vista and it's a real shame. A new file system was first on my short list of features I was really looking forward to but oh well. Development just got too long and they had to release something soon...


----------



## Scuba_Dave

Ok, so you would encourage a company to spend years of development and resources and just give up?

*Rather then release a piece of junk, YES*

And this is wrong?

*YES Would you like other Mfgs to test their product on the public? How about drugs to see if they are safe, cars - hey lets try some new brakes*

By "screw the consumer again" you mean put a price on a product you feel should be given away for free --no matter how many millions of dollars were put into it's development?

*I don't care how much money they wasted developing a piece of junk - that's THEIR problem. Screw the consumer again - charge them again after releasing a defective software product. Cars are recalled with defects, software should have the same control*. 

I'll agree with you there! Vista was the first OS from MS that took security into account in a major way. I'd say they pendulum swung too far in the other extreme and wound up mostly just annoying people that use it but I still contend that it's a necessary feature (that's been paired down quite a bit in Windows 7) that most Windows users need to realize.



MS has escalated the resources with EVERY single OS release since their beginning 

*Escalating the resources needed without good reason is garbage*

Ok, tell me why --because I have quite the opposite reaction to using Vista. Is the UAC just too annoying to deal with? You can always turn it off (as was suggested in an issue of MaximumPC recently --although I don't agree with them for "common users"). Is it high-end sound card drivers?[/quote]

*By the time I've turned everything off I'm right back at basically an XP system. IE STILL doesn't work without crashing after a few hours. A flawed OS is a flawed OS, consumers shouldn't have to put up with the junk.*


----------



## johnnydanger

I really hate there vista commercials.

Lying to the customer and saying they get to try the new mojave OS. Then humiliating the customer on television by showing how ignorant they are. That doesn't seem like a good way to advertise.


----------



## perpetualjon

Scuba_Dave said:


> *YES Would you like other Mfgs to test their product on the public? How about drugs to see if they are safe, cars - hey lets try some new brakes*


That's why it's called "beta". MS and many other software developers have been doing it for decades --and with our full knowledge. I'd rather they get the customer's input from the beginning rather than just guess with "product focus groups" like other large manufacturers do. I see no harm in testing products on the public --so long as they're aware. Drugs ARE tested on the public BTW.[/quote]



> *I don't care how much money they wasted developing a piece of junk - that's THEIR problem. Screw the consumer again - charge them again after releasing a defective software product. Cars are recalled with defects, software should have the same control*.


The auto industry is a perfect example here. They come out with a new model every year. Why? To charge the customer again. The add fins, a different paint job, GPS nav, and expect you to pay even more. This is because a large (and publicly traded) company is expected to continually increase their revenue. If they just come up with one product and then sit back and cash checks, they will eventually die (and their shareholders will quickly revolt). For that reason, companies try to get their customers to buy as often as possible. It's up to you to decide if you'll be a lemming or if what they're offering is worth your $$. It also forces the large company to continually innovate and improve their product or we'll go elsewhere. In this case, Apple and Linux flavors are slowly building momentum so it's all good for us. But to be upset about a company trying to get as much money out of us as possible seems funny to me. --And as far as actual "defects" go, I've yet to see one. The vast majority of problems I've encountered supporting Vista desktops (as well as my collegues) have all been related to 3rd-party drivers and software not beeing fully tested and developed for Vista before it's release. Companies were hoping to save a few bucks on their end and avoid having to port their legacy hardware drivers over to Vista by getting us all to simply buy their new hardware products. That didn't happen and most of these companies had to scramble to put together Vista drivers in a short period (usually with a whole host of problems). MS got the blame for it though...



> *By the time I've turned everything off I'm right back at basically an XP system. IE STILL doesn't work without crashing after a few hours. A flawed OS is a flawed OS, consumers shouldn't have to put up with the junk.*


Ok, so you're turning off UAC and your IE keeps crashing. What else are you turning off? Considering the fact that I've supported literally hundreads of Vista installations without a persistant IE crashing situation, I'm starting to think you may have a specific problem with your system and an anecdotal evaluation of this product. To consider it an inherently flawed OS that should have been recalled or never released is a stretch to me.

From a brief search, it looks like most of the IE-Vista crashes are Adobe Flash plug-in related anyways. Can you be more specific on the type of crashes you're having? Is it when closing IE or just when using it to browse?


----------



## Scuba_Dave

Uh, NO they release the final version that is still GARBAGE
Then they fix things that screw up peoples PC's
THAT IS NOT BETA - Duh!!

I don't need to buy a new car to put new tires on it
Last time I checked a car doesn't use more gas & oil every year to get you to the same place

Some can't afford to replace PC's every 3 years
AND THERE ISN'T A GOOD REASON TO DO SO
They stop supporting old OS & force people to upgrade
That isn't innovation
I haven't seen a SINGLE thing in Vista that "innovative" or necessary

IE has crashed since I received the PC as installed by Microsloth
It lasts maybe 4-6 hours & that's it


----------



## Lilith785

I honestly have no issues with vista. Yeah it built for a pc that can handle it. I think that's the issue. Te mistake was selling PCs that weren't made for a monster like Vista and so it got a bad rap. That and the drivers issues it started with. But like I said, I've never heard a burp out of mine.


----------



## rgsgww

Lilith785 said:


> I honestly have no issues with vista. Yeah it built for a pc that can handle it. I think that's the issue. Te mistake was selling PCs that weren't made for a monster like Vista and so it got a bad rap. That and the drivers issues it started with. But like I said, I've never heard a burp out of mine.



I do think it is because pcs cannot handle it properly.

My issue is the sound, but I've resolved most of the issue. Just can't get 5.1 sound:furious:


----------



## vectravl400

I think the biggest problem with Vista was perception. MS sold a lot of people on the fact that they'd get it perfect right out of the gate. They've never been able to do that before, and so the mantra (at least for corporate users) has always been 'wait till service pack 1'. True to form, there were sizable issues with the initial RTM product (things like file copying) and they were fixed (or at least improved) with service pack 1. There were also a number of problems due to poor/nonexistent drivers that have been fixed by the hardware manufacturers only in the last year or so.

It's true that we shouldn't have to wait for the service pack to come out before we get a properly working OS, but that's the way it seems to be for MS. People just need to learn to wait for a little while when a new OS comes out, so that the bugs can be worked out. We do the same things for cars when we avoid buying them for the first model year of a new vehicle line.


----------



## Just Bill

Why do they keep doing this to us?? It's not like we have a lot of OS to choose from. Win 98 was an improvement over 3.0, 98SE more better, 2000,NT were crap, XP has been the best for a while, now Vista, which won't run my old stuff. I still have a couple of old DOS based CADD programs that I love.

Try XYZ, it is the best thing since ***, and it turns out they may still have a few bugs in it. It goes off into left field and never returns, gobbles memory, etc. Why not just fix/improve what works. I am happy with my XP Pro..........more or less.


----------



## rgsgww

Just Bill said:


> Why do they keep doing this to us?? It's not like we have a lot of OS to choose from. Win 98 was an improvement over 3.0, 98SE more better, 2000,NT were crap, XP has been the best for a while, now Vista, which won't run my old stuff. I still have a couple of old DOS based CADD programs that I love.
> 
> Try XYZ, it is the best thing since ***, and it turns out they may still have a few bugs in it. It goes off into left field and never returns, gobbles memory, etc. Why not just fix/improve what works. I am happy with my XP Pro..........more or less.



Since most of my programs work on xp, I am finding myself using it more. Vista did a lot of stuff for me...but I keep finding my way back to xp.

I do have a dual boot...so its not like I'm stuck with one os at a time.


----------



## TuscolaMatt

I picked up Vista shortly after it was released. I HATED it. I disabled UAC and auto updates. That helped a little. I now periodically update when >I< feel like it (instead of every other time I turned on the computer). Now that I've had it for a while, I find it to be somewhat more stable then XP (except where Explorer is concerned). Windows Media Center is kinda nifty (especially for playing DVDs). Anyway, my primary system multi boots either Vista, XP Pro, or Ubuntu (Linux). I tend to use Vista mostly these days. I slowly trying to transition into Linux more and more though. I recently started using Vector Linux (on a server I'm building). What a really great OS THAT is! The biggest drawback for Linux is a lack of high end Video support (and I imagine audio as well). But it's slowly catching up. One day soon perhaps it will be peoples first choice and be widely supported.


----------



## rgsgww

TuscolaMatt said:


> I picked up Vista shortly after it was released. I HATED it. I disabled UAC and auto updates. That helped a little. I now periodically update when >I< feel like it (instead of every other time I turned on the computer). Now that I've had it for a while, I find it to be somewhat more stable then XP (except where Explorer is concerned). Windows Media Center is kinda nifty (especially for playing DVDs). Anyway, my primary system multi boots either Vista, XP Pro, or Ubuntu (Linux). I tend to use Vista mostly these days. I slowly trying to transition into Linux more and more though. I recently started using Vector Linux (on a server I'm building). What a really great OS THAT is! The biggest drawback for Linux is a lack of high end Video support (and I imagine audio as well). But it's slowly catching up. One day soon perhaps it will be peoples first choice and be widely supported.



I tried linux (ubuntu) and it was great! very stable os. High end video and audio isn't that good for it.

We have the same multi boot config...nice isn't it?

I use foobar2000 for my audio playback.


----------



## JeepinMass

Vista itself is a great OS. The problem with vista is that the hardware it's put on can't run it well, hence the vista crashing. Vista is exactly what the masses wanted. It's a more user friendly and safe version of windows. Now people dislike it because of the UAC. People need to make up their mind. Vista is a huge resource hog. I've got Vista basic on my laptop, XP on my netbook, and deal with a few other OS's at work. Vista basic with the UAC turned off and the graphics down i'm running 600mb or so at idle for RAM. I've got 1.5GB of ram in this machine. Now my netbook with XP runs like 200mb at idle with 1gb in it.


----------



## rgsgww

Crashing is not really my problem, and I shouldn't have any, I have 4 gb ram in this rig, it should handle vista and a game well, and it does. I just don't like some of the changes they made, like the removal of audio from the kernel, etc.


----------



## JeepinMass

rgsgww said:


> Crashing is not really my problem, and I shouldn't have any, I have 4 gb ram in this rig, it should handle vista and a game well, and it does. I just don't like some of the changes they made, like the removal of audio from the kernel, etc.


Did you get in on the Windows 7 beta a couple months ago? Windows 7 is pretty cool. I've been testing it for a little bit now. I like how they took some crap out but i'm still unhappy they are going to release 3 or 4 different versions. I would rather have 1 version for all.


----------



## rgsgww

JeepinMass said:


> Did you get in on the Windows 7 beta a couple months ago? Windows 7 is pretty cool. I've been testing it for a little bit now. I like how they took some crap out but i'm still unhappy they are going to release 3 or 4 different versions. I would rather have 1 version for all.



Yeah, I have the isos and keys, I just haven't gotten around to installing it. I don't feel like messing around with my multi boot and hdds.


----------



## JeepinMass

rgsgww said:


> Yeah, I have the isos and keys, I just haven't gotten around to installing it. I don't feel like messing around with my multi boot and hdds.


I can hear you on the dual boots and multiple HDD's. I put it on a spare HDD for my laptop. I've got a 320 dual booted with ubuntu and vista. I'd say give it a shot on a spare HDD. It's pretty good.


----------



## rgsgww

JeepinMass said:


> I can hear you on the dual boots and multiple HDD's. I put it on a spare HDD for my laptop. I've got a 320 dual booted with ubuntu and vista. I'd say give it a shot on a spare HDD. It's pretty good.



I have a 40gb ubuntu drive, a 300gb vista/xp drive (I'm filling it up fast though) and a 500gb storage drive. I am going to have a 120 gb free to use, but thats going in my xbox pc case mod in the off topic forums.


----------



## n0c7

JeepinMass said:


> Vista itself is a great OS. The problem with vista is that the hardware it's put on can't run it well, hence the vista crashing. Vista is exactly what the masses wanted. It's a more user friendly and safe version of windows. Now people dislike it because of the UAC. People need to make up their mind. Vista is a huge resource hog. I've got Vista basic on my laptop, XP on my netbook, and deal with a few other OS's at work. Vista basic with the UAC turned off and the graphics down i'm running 600mb or so at idle for RAM. I've got 1.5GB of ram in this machine. Now my netbook with XP runs like 200mb at idle with 1gb in it.


Vista makes perfectly good hardware useless. It was a slopped together attempt at holding their market share and they f'd up. Too little for too long, and definitely too late. They'll be lucky if Windows 7 takes off.

Anyone looking for a stable computer that just works should definitely consider making the move to a Macintosh these days. Yes the hardware is expensive BUT that's because they took the time to engineer a product near perfection. The operating system is based off of a solid UNIX kernel making operating and performance tasks, as well as your general computing experience impeccable. The OS has no license key or "Authentication" nags, and is REASONABLY priced. Products like VMWare Fusion are available to virtually run a Windows session if you require access to certain legacy Windows applications that have not yet been ported to Mac OS X. On top of that, their warranty is excellent. If an acknowledged hardware issue occurs after your warranty is expired, most of the time they'll still fix the problem.

I know what I'm talking about, I've been in this gig going on 17 years and have watched much change. I've dealt with Microsoft's unstableness for far too long. They're another big corporation that only have one interest in mind - $.


----------



## Scuba_Dave

I'll go back to XP before I go to their next piece of junk

Security is NOT asking someone who DOESN'T KNOW if something is safe to continue to hit "YES"
That's hogwash


----------



## n0c7

Scuba_Dave said:


> I'll go back to XP before I go to their next piece of junk
> 
> Security is NOT asking someone who DOESN'T KNOW if something is safe to continue to hit "YES"
> That's hogwash


Completely agree. Stick with XP. Many large corporations have chosen this path as well and are waiting to see what Windows 7 may have to offer.


----------



## steve771

I agree on sticking w/ XP, however, when buying a new computer, they come with Vista. Some of the hardware has 'Vista only' drivers (no XP), so before you downgrade (?UPGRADE?) from Vista to XP, be sure you can get drivers for all your innards.

BTW, does anyone else feel that an OS is there only so I CAN RUN THE PROGRAMS I WANT? (which, would certainly NOT include M$ if most programs weren't written for it, thus forcing the issue) :furious: Thanks... I feel better now! :thumbsup:


----------



## rgsgww

Id stick with xp. I use vista a lot though, I game a lot.

I hate having to live without eax and surround but now that I've forced vista to try to use xp drivers, I can use eax, etc.


----------



## vectravl400

Scuba_Dave said:


> Security is NOT asking someone who DOESN'T KNOW if something is safe to continue to hit "YES"
> That's hogwash


I do have some concerns with vista security in general. That said, asking the user if they want to allow a program to continue *is* more secure than just assuming that it's safe and blindly executing whatever comes along. As for whether the person knows what they're doing or not, educating yourself about this is a personal responsibility. At some point people *will* be expected to understand a few basics about computer security in much the same way that people are expected to know how to change a light bulb or reset a circuit breaker these days. It's time to stop excusing *willful *ignorance about what is rapidly becoming a necessary tool.


----------



## Hobb3s

I'm the IT Admin for a mid sized company, and as with a lot of companies out there Vista is going to be passed on. There are too many incompatibilities with legacy software and unnecessary bells and whistles for a corporate environment. Plus don't even get me started on the cost of upgrading the licensing on all the MS servers and machines across the board to make it compatible, it's outrageous! If there were an alternative to Outlook/Exchange that I could get my users to accept, I would already be moving the ones I could over to a linux based desktop. Maybe one day we'll get there.


----------



## Scuba_Dave

vectravl400 said:


> I do have some concerns with vista security in general. That said, asking the user if they want to allow a program to continue *is* more secure than just assuming that it's safe and blindly executing whatever comes along. As for whether the person knows what they're doing or not, educating yourself about this is a personal responsibility. At some point people *will* be expected to understand a few basics about computer security in much the same way that people are expected to know how to change a light bulb or reset a circuit breaker these days. It's time to stop excusing *willful *ignorance about what is rapidly becoming a necessary tool.


Wrong, people get sick of it & just click YES

It's not more secure

Try telling a doctor or lawyer that they need to know more about their PC



> THAT is YOUR job, NOT MINE


I had a user having a problem - error message came up
She simply bypassed the error message EVERY DAY
I said I needed to see the error message
She booted up & bypassed the error 3X before she realized she was doing it


----------



## vectravl400

Scuba_Dave said:


> Wrong, people get sick of it & just click YES
> 
> It's not more secure
> 
> Try telling a doctor or lawyer that they need to know more about their PC



**Obligatory Princess Bride quote**
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 

If people just blindly click through warnings, that's not really a security problem, since the warnings are being provided. What it does indicate is poor user interface design, since proper ui design accounts for the human factor, by filtering out the less necessary warnings so that the important ones don't get lost in the confusion. (Apparently Windows 7 does this a lot better than Vista).

The other point I was trying to make (that seemed to get lost in a rant somewhere along the way) was that at some point in the future, we will expect that the average person has a minimal knowledge of how to make decisions that affect the security of their computer. There's no harm in starting to work towards that now.


----------



## Scuba_Dave

Giving warning after warning about nothing invalidates the warning
Thus the warning is garbage

Ever hear of the boy who cried Wolf?

The fact is people just want the computer to work
Many don't want to know or care to know how it works
And many simply do not have the experience or the time to gain the expereince
Bosses want the work done, retraining people every time MS changes the OS or Office suite is not an option & too expensive
Changing menu's & the way things work just because they think it adds pizzaz doesn not add value to software


----------



## steve771

Scuba_Dave said:


> Giving warning after warning about nothing invalidates the warning
> Thus the warning is garbage
> 
> Ever hear of the boy who cried Wolf?
> 
> The fact is people just want the computer to work
> Many don't want to know or care to know how it works
> And many simply do not have the experience or the time to gain the expereince
> Bosses want the work done, retraining people every time MS changes the OS or Office suite is not an option & too expensive
> Changing menu's & the way things work just because they think it adds pizzaz doesn not add value to software



Agree 100%. Reference security, M$ even said so when they stated that Windows 7 would be less "annoying". A large amount of Vista users have turned off this 'wonderful' security (non)feature.


----------



## perpetualjon

Look, if you guys just don't like Vista and aren't interested in changing with the technology, there's a very simple solution for you. I'll sell you all my old hardware (that will run XP and Office 03 wonderfully). I'm sure the old games, printers, and apps will be readily available to you for many years to come. You can simply sit back and enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that the pain you experienced learning the ropes on XP will be all you need undergo for the foreseeable future -no need to work your brain anymore (like you once did)

OTOH, if you want to continue using technology and adapting to it as it changes, read on. Otherwise, take a break and move on to another thread...

The menus in Office 07 and Vista weren't just to add pizzaz. They are a tremendous time saver -and a much more efficient use of screen real estate considering the fact that the GUI for Office hasn't changed significantly like this since it was first even considered a GUI at all (circa 1991). Windows hasn't changed their GIU significantly since Windows95. Give this a try and let me know what you think...

Open up the Character Map program:

In XP, click START --> ACCESSORIES --> SYSTEM TOOLS --> CHARACTER MAP

In Vista, hit the Windows button --> start typing "cha" --> you will notice that the start menu has already found the program you're looking for and highlighted it... So just hit Enter and you're done. You never even used your mouse in the process.

In Office 07, the start menu dynamically changes based on what you're in the middle of doing. There absolutely NO reason to have the toolbar for Table Formatting open when you're just typing words. Instead, inserting a table is under the Insert ribbon --and when you highlight a table, that set of tools appears as needed. There's a decent video showing how it works here.

I could go on but I think you get the point...


----------



## Scuba_Dave

It's not a matter of changing with the Technology
Having bloated software that is not needed & gives no added benefit is the point

Computeres have increased in speed
The bloated software cancels out that increase


----------



## PunkyPoo

Had it on my laptop. Went back to XP. Never got CorelDRAW to work on my laptop till reloaded it with XP.

I believe that Microsoft allows you to load XP if you purchased Vista. At least they did for a while.


----------



## JohnCarpenter

Have a network engineer for a wife. 4 computers at home - 3 running linux and 1 running Windows 2003 server.

The 2 linux desktop been running without a reboot or crash for 6 months. The linux laptop runs with the same stability. Windows Server is better than xp or vista but still crashes for no reason sometimes.


----------



## CodeJock

*Just my two cents*

Wow, I see the Vista "hornet's nest" has hit DIY Chatroom too 

For what it's worth, I was reluctant to move to Vista myself -- even with over 20 years of computer and programming experience. I've used Microsoft OS's since DOS, but the backlash on Vista has been stunning.

I finally built a new quad-core PC and decided to throw Vista-64 Ultimate on it. I did not care for it until I had used it for a while. No, I did not "drink the MS Kool-aid", I just accepted it for what it was for the ideas it tried to adopt.

As for the annoying security pop-ups, yup, they annoy me too. But I understand that even though I hate the "Run as Administrator?" questions when I am logged in as Administrator it is an unfortunate by-product of the increased security the public screamed for.

Now, as a developer, I also understand that the better solution would be to detect whether a program/process was being launched by some other process *or because of a user starting it via mouse and/or keyboard activity*. That alone could reduce the number of annoying confirmation boxes.

I do not see performance issues, but I also was not trying to install it on an existing older model PC. I play World of Warcraft, which is a bit of a CPU/memory hog itself, and I can run multiple copies of it on the same machine simultaneously (I've gone as high as 4 copies). If Vista truly was hogging RAM as many say, it would not be possible to do that.

Software I write runs as well on Vista as it does on XP machines, so no complaints there either.

Sure, it's a matter of taste and individual preference, but as someone who's worked on writing operating systems, trying to deliver all the things people say they want the OS to handle will inevitably lead to large operating systems.

If you want to know true pain, I think I still have the install disks for Windows 1.1 around here somewhere... :laughing:


----------



## CodeJock

JohnCarpenter said:


> Have a network engineer for a wife. 4 computers at home - 3 running linux and 1 running Windows 2003 server.
> 
> The 2 linux desktop been running without a reboot or crash for 6 months. The linux laptop runs with the same stability. Windows Server is better than xp or vista but still crashes for no reason sometimes.


I have a couple Linux boxes here that have also run smoothly for months, althought I confess they do not get a lot of use.

However, I also have a hosted PC at a data center that has been running Windows Server 2003 for over 3 years without a crash or reboot (except for planned maintenance or a test version of an app that went *bang* ). The 2003 server in my home office was running for longer, til I recently took it down to rebuild it.

I do know some 2003 servers had a lot of application crashes, but those were due to MS security updates that broke the apps -- which deserved to be broken due to design flaws (yes, one of them was even mine -- fixed it in an hour or two after the embarassment and my own ranting subsided :no.


----------



## skipjack

All the complaints about vista has got me considering changing OS's altogether.. perhaps to Ubuntu... I mean, if I've got to go through "growing pains" and use my brain to change technologies.. why not go with something that's efficient and stable?


----------



## CodeJock

If Ubuntu will handle everything you need, then by all means. I've used several of the Linux distributions, and Ubuntu is quite popular.

For me, it's not so simple. Writing software for Windows is much easier if you are already experienced at that OS platform, and -- more significantly -- much easier to earn a living at. MSFT was kind enough to teach everyone that not everything is 'free' :wink:

I'll probably get Ubuntu back up and running here again myself.


----------



## GoFins

First, not a fan of Vista at all. But word of caution, don't do as I did and blame EVERYTHING on Vista. I have had crashes and lock ups and wireless problems and have been cursing Vista for the past year through two reformat and reinstalls. After a lot of research I found that Zone Alarm, a firewall I have been using for years with no issues, has lots of problems with Vista. I unistalled it and put on Comodo in its place and have had no problems since.


----------



## CodeJock

Comodo has an excellent firewall -- I use it on a hosted server that runs websites, email, etc. Can't remember what was used before but the system got hijacked. Comodo has kept it secure since (and it's free to boot).

But be aware: if you use Comodo on a system that you access remotely or monitor infrequently (like a server), *do not* set Windows to auto-install updates! Often it triggers a reboot, and Comodo has a tendency, if the settings are strict enough, to interrupt program loads to ask permission first. Some apps may be stuck there until you notice (hopefully sooner than later) that they are not running. Manually starting the update process allows you to monitor the reboot and startup.


----------

