# Why You 'Hate' Vista..?!?!



## scooter

Given the fact that alot of people seem to be very, very passionate in announcing their hatred of Windows Vista, but rarely giving details into their specific issues...

I thought it would be interesting to get people to give at least 1 reason, feature, issue, bug, whatever which makes them 'hate' Vista or dislike, resent or whatever!

You gotta give a real issue, not just 'I hate Vista cause it sucks'


..Me personally..I dont hate Vista I just find that there is too much emphasis on pretty colors and not enough on properly developed features to make the user experience better...


----------



## Calibretto

Vista handles RAM and resources horribly. My laptop has 3GB of RAM and with the laptop running idle, a third of it is being taken up!


----------



## Justin

my only issue would be the RAM usage and some accessory drivers. i voted "i don't mind it"


----------



## alexyu

I didnt hate vista before, but now I hate it, because I'm on safe mode due to a BSOD.
So the second option.


----------



## cohen

I love it, i think it is GREAT!


----------



## Kesava

I love it. Runs completely fine with my 2Gb ram. I mean it usually uses around 1Gb of that. But if im gaming or something, even if its using 100%, I dont experience any slowdown or anything.

The only reasons that i think are valid for not to upgrade are, if your computer just cant run it smoothly, if you dont have a very big mental capacity and therefore dont want to familiarize yourself with a different OS, or if you have certain programs/drivers that will only work with xp.

Personally I have alot more trouble as far as drivers go on XP.


----------



## ScOuT

I love it also....been running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on my laptop(bought a copy the day it was released) and Vista Home Premium 64 bit on my desktop and never had any real problems. Had a few hang ups here and there but nothing I could not figure out 

It did take some getting used to at first...after soo many years of XP use. Now I can't really even use XP! When I work on my daughters Dell, I have more problems with XP than I ever have with Vista.


----------



## PHATSPEED7x

I have it on my new laptop, and I love it. 2GB of RAM works great. Will have to upgrade the gf's computer with another GB of RAM. I voted my cat's breath smells like cat food.


----------



## scooter

Who is selecting the last option???

Bwahahaha! lol


----------



## SIMP

I like Vista just fine.  I'm not a real "technical" person so Vista works just fine for me.  It uses about 1-1.5GB RAM while idle which is fine with me.

I just went from the 64bit back down to 32bit Ultimate and I can't tell a difference.  I also like XP just fine as well.


----------



## adarsh

Vista has by far has a greater security structure than XP.

Also, I don't think Microsoft will ever be able to iron out ALL the bugs, so Windows users, just live with it without complaining


----------



## jdbennet

> my laptop has 3GB of RAM and with the laptop running idle, a third of it is being taken up!



you just dont understand how it works. Linux does the same thing. Its not using all the ram, what its doing is caching, in the long run this actually improves performance.

under control+alt+del -> task manbaer -> performance

your actual free ram is Free Memory + Cached

i have 2037 total
1494 cached
and 77 free


1494+77 =  1574

so really i am using 2037 - 1574 =  463 used, which is only maybe 100mb more than an average xp install


----------



## Kesava

yep jdbennet is correct


----------



## jdbennet

vista is actually a lot more efficient, the only reason its slower to start up is becsause superfetch is caching stuff. Once its been up for a while its faster. Also vista uses less CPU cycles because all the windowing is offloaded to the GPU.


----------



## tlarkin

I voted for "My cat's breath smells like cat food," and I don't even own a cat.  However, I think, "I bent my Wookie," would have been a better Ralph quote.


I don't hate Vista but I think it is a complete waste of money and doesn't offer any real benefit over XP.  I will hold out till Windows 7.


----------



## jdbennet

windows 7 isnt going to be anything new. Vista SE basically.


----------



## tlarkin

jdbennet said:


> windows 7 isnt going to be anything new. Vista SE basically.



EFI support, ZFS, a new freaking kernel, the backwards compatibility bloat will be gone.  It will be leagues better I think.


----------



## Droogie

I think a lot of people say they hate just to fit in.  It seems like a "hate Vista" bandwagon has formed.  From my experience it's been great, and there isn't anything to hate about it.


----------



## Kesava

Haha yeah I was on the bandwagon for ages... just cos it was fun. Its much easier to badmouth something then stick up for it. I didnt have any reason to hate vista at the time...


----------



## Ethan3.14159

I bought Vista the day it came out, and I absolutely love it. It's far beyond XP in my opinion. Sure it's a resource hog, but so was XP to systems in 2001 when it came out. Most people on the "Vista hate" bandwagon haven't used it long enough to appreciate at all, or they try and put it on a system predating XP.


----------



## mep916

I don't have any issues with Vista, although I am going to install XP on another partition and see if I notice a big difference. I haven't used XP on a daily basis in over a year, nor have I run it with high performance hardware. Since building my first rig last year, I've run Vista Ultimate.


----------



## jdbennet

dont install XP after vista, it causes problems.


----------



## tlarkin

Ethan3.14159 said:


> I bought Vista the day it came out, and I absolutely love it. It's far beyond XP in my opinion. Sure it's a resource hog, but so was XP to systems in 2001 when it came out. Most people on the "Vista hate" bandwagon haven't used it long enough to appreciate at all, or they try and put it on a system predating XP.



I disagree.  There are plenty of qualified people that have used Vista and hated it since beta.  I am one of them.  There are plenty of people who talk out their ass too, and there are plenty of people that like it but have no idea of the underlying technologies.

The truth is, there is a lot of information out there, a lot of misinformation, and a lot of people's opinions.

I look at it this way, how is it better, how has it improved and how do you value it and justify the cost of upgrading?

Does it make your computer more immune to virus attacks?  No, it doesn't security is a bit better but it is more of a "user beware" security.  It is not like it made leaps and bounds over XP.  Improved yes, improved a crap ton, no.

Does it make your computer run faster?  This is highly debatable.  I won't get into specifics but google searching same hardware spec machines running benchmarks with XP on one machine and Vista on the other display some results that would say, No, vista is not all that much of a performance enhancement.

Features?  What features does it offer the average user?  Really, none at all. It does offer some features geared towards power users and IT people, but really nothing that would really benefit the average end user.

Cost?  Is it worth $300 for Vista Ultimate?  Not for me it isn't.  I also hate feature limiting an OS.  

Does it look pretty?  yes, of course way prettier than XP.  Maybe that matters to you, and if it was a deal breaker you would be running OS X or Linux with Beryl + Compiz if it was really that much of a deal breaker.

This part I will touch on I will actually side with MS on.  A big part of the problem is that developers got lazy, and MS gave all the developer the devkit like two years before Vista was released when it was in Alpha stage.  They had plenty of time to update their products, drivers, applications, so on and so forth.  This is the fault of the developer plain and simple.  However, MS has enabled this behavior by allowing developer to write sloppy code for an insecure kernel of an OS.  I still blame the developers though, they should have had their act together.


----------



## mep916

jdbennet said:


> dont install XP after vista, it causes problems.



lol. I know how to fix that.


----------



## Tuffie

My cat's breath smells like cat food... but I don't have a cat.


----------



## jdbennet

> lol. I know how to fix that.



yeah you just need to reinstall the vista bootloader from the cd. Dont know whether the vista bootloader can boot xp, or maybe you have to chainload it.


----------



## mep916

jdbennet said:


> yeah you just need to reinstall the vista bootloader from the cd. Dont know whether the vista bootloader can boot xp, or maybe you have to chainload it.



That's all you do. Vista creates a boot menu w/ the XP option. I've done it several times on my Sony Vaio.


----------



## patrickv

My cat's breath smells like cat food.....
but i don't have a cat either 

Vista does not suck..it's bloated... i don't see the WOW factor in it.


----------



## Shane

vista is okay but ive had so many problems with it,the only thing thats keepig me wth vista is DX10,microsoft aint stupid they wont be releasing DX10 for Xp 

i


----------



## jdbennet

they cant because vista uses a whole different graphics architechture


----------



## TrainTrackHack

I don't mind it. It's not great, but not bad either, though it gives me a lot of crap at times.

My lappy came with Home Basic, it runs it well, I tried Linux for a couple of months and while I found Linux generally a lot better (Compiz FTW), the fact that I couldn't find Linux-equivalents for all programs I need for college, and that I couldn't adjust my backlight brightness/some other powersaving features (really need them for college), and that it was a pain to get the wireless working, kinda did it for me. Switched back to Vista, and while I definitely do miss Compiz and the fast start-up times (and also, the screensavers that come with Ubuntu are way cool!), I still prefer Home Basic over Ubuntu. I think that's because Ubuntu is more of an "average user's" distro, now that I've got a hang of Linux I'll have to try something like OpenSUSE or Fedora, or some other full-fledged distros with as much software&crap coming with them as possible - as soon as I find one that works and supports all my lappy's features out-of-box, I'm going back (let's face it, in reality the only reason I went back to Vista is because holidays just started, and I had to fix my computer so that I can game with my bros & buddies )


----------



## jdbennet

opensuse and fedora suck they are unstable.


----------



## PHATSPEED7x

I was at walmart today and this lady was looking at laptops. She was so upset that they all had Vista installed on them, and they didn't have any copies of XP left. I told her about my experiences with my Acer, and offered to show her first hand. She played on my laptop for about 5 mins, and changed her mind about Vista. Too bad the Acer I bought was sold out, so She bought the Compaq laptop instead.


----------



## Ramodkk

Calibretto said:


> Vista handles RAM and resources horribly. My laptop has 3GB of RAM and with the laptop running idle, a third of it is being taken up!



I know man, it constantly uses like 600-1000MB of your RAM just "to be" Vista!


----------



## DirtyD86

honestly, I have never had one single problem with vista that I can think of. the UAC is very annoying but can be disabled. and like ramodkk said, it is a ram whore. but ram is dirt cheap, and most people on here have plenty to spare anyways.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> opensuse and fedora suck they are unstable.


Huh? What would you suggest then (for my laptop)? I though those were both... "mainstream" and I really prefer mainstream distros over some some tiny projects with the entire development team consisting of seven guys living in a basement...


----------



## chibicitiberiu

Voted for #1. Hate vista and not using it. I used it for few days in the past on this computer and it was very unstable (crashes at least twice a day), incompatible scanner and webcam drivers, working extremely slow (i had 512 MB RAM than and copying files took like 5 times slower than in xp, of course because of page file), and generally I only had problems with it. I simply prefer xp.
And I could say if there would be one more option "Hate Windows" that would be my pick.


----------



## Shane

jdbennet said:


> opensuse and fedora suck they are unstable.




i found OpenSuse to be very nice to use,very quick and reliable


----------



## jdbennet

its beta grade sofwtare.


----------



## Kornowski

ramodkk said:


> I know man, it constantly uses like 600-1000MB of your RAM just "to be" Vista!





DirtyD86 said:


> honestly, I have never had one single problem with vista that I can think of. the UAC is very annoying but can be disabled. and like ramodkk said, it is a ram whore. but ram is dirt cheap, and most people on here have plenty to spare anyways.



Well, Did XP use more RAM than Windows 2000, or even Windows 98? I'm sure Windows 7 will use more RAM than Vista when it comes out...

Vista only uses the amount of RAM you have, say if you were on a system with 2GB, it would only use around 400MB of it. My system for example, has 4GB of RAM, and I use about 900MB.


----------



## tlarkin

Kornowski said:


> Well, Did XP use more RAM than Windows 2000, or even Windows 98? I'm sure Windows 7 will use more RAM than Vista when it comes out...
> 
> Vista only uses the amount of RAM you have, say if you were on a system with 2GB, it would only use around 400MB of it. My system for example, has 4GB of RAM, and I use about 900MB.



That is subjective though.  XP and 2000 offered tons of features and performance increases over previous versions, where as Vista does not really offer that much.  That is why it has failed miserably in the enterprise market.  There is no good reason to upgrade.

2000 we saw the NT kernel gain some multi media aspects and become a more end-user friendly OS.  With XP we saw them combine the end-user friendliness with the NT kernel full on.  Vista is just a bunch of bloat with a pretty interface, and offers features that end users won't ever use, like encrypted file systems.


----------



## chibicitiberiu

tlarkin said:


> That is subjective though.  XP and 2000 offered tons of features and performance increases over previous versions, where as Vista does not really offer that much.  That is why it has failed miserably in the enterprise market.  There is no good reason to upgrade.
> 
> 2000 we saw the NT kernel gain some multi media aspects and become a more end-user friendly OS.  With XP we saw them combine the end-user friendliness with the NT kernel full on.  Vista is just a bunch of bloat with a pretty interface, and offers features that end users won't ever use, like encrypted file systems.



I agree.

According to Wikipedia, Windows XP was made by a combination of teams that worked on previous projects.


> Windows Neptune is an experimental version of Microsoft Windows that was in development from early 1999 to early 2000. The goal was to preview ideas for a home user operating system from the same sources as the NT-based Windows 2000 that was developed for business users, replacing the older DOS-based Windows 9x home user operating systems. After the release of Windows 2000, the Neptune team was combined with the Windows 2000 team to work on the "Whistler" project that was released in late 2001 as Windows XP, and Microsoft released another home user DOS-based operating system called Windows Me.
> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Neptune





> Odyssey was a codename for a version of Microsoft Windows that was in development from early 1999 to early 2000. The goal of Odyssey was to develop a successor to the NT-based Windows 2000 that was developed for business users. The same codebase, NT 6.0,[1] was going to be used in creating Windows Neptune, the "home" counterpart to Odyssey. (The version number "NT 6.0", but not the name, was later recycled for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system.) There were some publicly leaked builds of Neptune. However, after the release of Windows 2000, the Neptune and Odyssey teams were combined with the Windows 2000 team to work on the Whistler project that was released in late 2001 as Windows XP.
> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Odyssey



So the Windows Neptune and Windows Odyssey (canceled projects) teams and the Windows 2000 team joined to create windows xp. And xp is the best version yet, it had tons of new features, a brand new 21st century look, and much more... Most of the people that are on this forum ever used windows xp, so you know how it is, and if some used previous versions of windows know how good xp is.

(screen shot of Windows Neptune Build 5111)






Later Windows xp was codenamed "Whistler"
(screen shot of Windows Whistler Build 2257)





And than appeared xp as we know today.

For who is interested about:
*Development of Windows XP* click this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_XP
*Development of Windows 98:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_98
*Development of Windows Vista:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista


----------



## mac550

i dont mind it, some things in vista really bug you, like the personalization window, why did they not keep it the same as in xp but just make it funkyer and give you loads more toys to play with. but as an OS its ok, quite stable and looks a little better then xp, MS do have a long way to go before i will say "i love windows XX" one thing being, let the user change the way the start menu and taskbar looks and works.


----------



## TechShark

I just built a decent computer on a low budget and had the choice of putting XP Pro SP3 or Vista any recommendations?


----------



## `PaWz

Costs a lot of money with no real upgrades, heavy hardware requirements, uses a lot of harddrive space


----------



## Machin3

To use Vista, you need 1 gb of RAM to start off. Ever wonder why theres only 1 SP made for it? Thats because its not even worth fixing. Microsoft decided not to make another SP to it and so they are coming out with Windows 7.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Ever wonder why theres only 1 SP made for it? Thats because its not even worth fixing.


Vista hasn't been out for too long, that's why. Win2k has at least 4 service packs availale for it, XP now has 3, Vista has 1. See how it goes? The older the OS the more SPs they have because they're more mature nad more fixes have been made for them. They will release more SPs as time goes on. 

Personally, though, I really do like some features of it over XP but the main reason I have Vista is simply because my computer happened to come with it. XP or Vista, makes no real difference to me, and I voted "don't mind it".


----------



## tlarkin

I think Windows 2000 has like 6 service packs....or about

Yeah Vista has not been out long enough to constitute it having any more service packs.  Windows just updates their OS in a weird fashion.  When you look at Unix, Linux, or OS X, they will have for example version 5, then 5.1 then 5.3 then 5.5, then 5.9, then move on to version 6.  They don't have service packs.  Windows does it in service packs, and that is just how they roll them out.  That is also the down side to being in such a large market share.  They have to code and test everything for every possible configuration, otherwise they could release an update that may royally piss off one of their major clients.


----------



## brian

jdbennet said:


> opensuse and fedora suck they are unstable.



i find fedora super stabe.


----------



## bm23

had vista. utilise quad core real well and looks good too. but too many bugs. there was this bug that create an error msg that read "explorer.exe has encountered a problem". when i clicked ok, it restarted explorer.exe and the msg pop up again. this is the bug that made me switch back to xp.


----------



## brian

bm23 said:


> had vista. utilise quad core real well and looks good too. but too many bugs. there was this bug that create an error msg that read "explorer.exe has encountered a problem". when i clicked ok, it restarted explorer.exe and the msg pop up again. this is the bug that made me switch back to xp.



most likey sp1 fixed that, i have had no problems for a long long long time


----------



## bm23

actually, i was using SP1. i posted a thread about the problem some time ago but didnt receive any solution.


----------



## brian

oh, weird.


----------



## Twist86

Its odd I have that same exact error but on XP not Vista. I never could find out why it does it.

Either case I love Vista now ^-^


----------



## sgtsampay

After SP1, i don;t see why Vista is so bad. The biggest thing I like about Vista is the speech reconition. Its so fun!!!


----------



## pies

I'm fine with it. Having a couple problems with crossfire but it fixes that so it's not bad.


----------



## yangster

I've only had one problem with it and it couldn't handle 4 GB of ram, Vista Ultimate. I had all of the updates installed, and it kept giving me the BSOD. Got tired of it so I'm using XP right now. Gonna try Vista Business whenever I have the time since I got it for free from school.


----------



## alexyu

WTF? I was amongst the first to vote on this poll, and now I just voted again.....


----------



## atentora

I went with the Ralph Wiggums quote

I used to be annoyed with it, but I've gotten used to it.


----------



## eckx

well, since ram is an issue on vista, i always run my laptop on high performance. It doesn't take that long to open programs or run windows explorer. plus if you adjust the performance settings , your good to go.


----------



## sam2020

*it murdered my laptop*

i upgraded my laptop (e systems 2gb ram 120gb hdd intel celeron) to vista. it worked fine for a few minutes... then died. litterally froze and did nothing. after rebooting, i got nothing but blue screen of death. i had to reformat my hdd back to XP and i lost all my files.


----------



## eckx

It could be because your installation didnt go well. I had the same issue once when i upgraded from xp to vista. The best thing to do is split the hd to a 20 gb and a 110 gb. Thus you have enough place to stash your music and videos. Keep the 20 gb only for windows .


----------



## ikermalli

I <3 vista
It is amazing (well I like it better than xp)!
I just find that after a while of running it on 1GB of RAM, you are screwed if you aren't just word processing.


----------



## tlarkin

I have a decent PC spec wise and Vista Ultimate 64 runs kind of slow in my opinion for how my computer is configured.  I notice lags and sometimes things do not run first time smoothly, like when browsing the web.


----------



## skidude

I love vista. No problems with it. I have Vista Ultimate 64 and it's amazing.


----------



## scooter

I just noticed this is thread is a sticky..

how did that happen?


----------



## smoothjk

Vista is fine if you have a good computer.

For me, having XP Pro is a personal choice. I prefer not to waste ANY resources (however small the difference) on the OS that I can direct to apps and games. Until Vista or some other OS offers noticeably improved features that are useful and not just pretty, I'm sticking with XP Pro.

But I use Vista at work, and I don't see anything to "hate."


----------



## patrickv

I don't hate VIsta, it just does not suit my needs.
My thinkpad supports vista and i installed it, hang onto it for 4 months but i wasn't as efficient as when i had XP loaded on it.
Within those 4 months i didn't see any BSOD which is a plus but the lag, even though i configured it for performance and removed the sidebar and sh*t.
The file copy dialog is full of bullsh*t, takes ages.


----------



## mep916

scooter said:


> I just noticed this is thread is a sticky..
> 
> how did that happen?



We needed a Vista rant thread, so I thought this would be best.


----------



## lovely?

Vista is a good thing. When i wanted to get a new operating system i wanted it to look good as well as function as good or better then XP. And I am pleasantly surprised with vista.


----------



## bomberboysk

Yeah, well one thing i hate about vista is soon its gonna be replaced by windows 7, thats why XP became so popular, it had time to get into the market, now weve had vista for appx 2 years and within the next year or so windows 7 will prolly be released. I dont really like vista or hate it, only reason i have it is for dx10


----------



## uhv2200

OK , I hate Vista because the IPX Protocol is not found , Must Multplayer Games are need this protocol to work correctly , I don't Know Why Microsoft do this It's Perfect windows but this the only issu iI found in it ,  and Bey .....


----------



## caboose1408

My friend has it and I think its slower than Windows XP.


----------



## tlarkin

uhv2200 said:


> OK , I hate Vista because the IPX Protocol is not found , Must Multplayer Games are need this protocol to work correctly , I don't Know Why Microsoft do this It's Perfect windows but this the only issu iI found in it ,  and Bey .....



uh what game?  IPX is an old legacy Novell standard.  Networking now is straight TCP/IP or IP if you will instead of IPX.  What game needs IPX?


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> What game needs IPX?


Well, some legacy ones - Duke Nukem 3D and Doom for one (okay, you can't even play those in vista, but wth...).

I personally like IPX much better for games - in games literally all I need to do is to choose the IPX protocol (back in 98SE days when I spent hours bashing my brothers in Age of Empires and Stronghold). Now, though, many games require you to type in the host address, and having to know the host IP/name and typing it in every time I want to bash my brothers is really annoying, and the search feature in heaps of games doesn't even work (dammit...). And I'm the type who loves old classics - I have two desktops with 98SE ready for some gaming over IPX but I have no room to set up those things  so we have to use our laptops...with Vista, and the lack of IPX is a nuisance at times.


----------



## laznz1

I really dont like it 

its too big too slow and most of all hate the way its setup


----------



## lovely?

big? no way its less clunky then XP. 

slow? lol get a decent computer running a PIII on XP seems pretty silly too.

the setup is seamless if you get used to it. i for one think the new search function in the start bar is genius i use it for all of my less popular programs.




dear god have i become a fanboy?????


----------



## tlarkin

hackapelite said:


> Well, some legacy ones - Duke Nukem 3D and Doom for one (okay, you can't even play those in vista, but wth...).
> 
> I personally like IPX much better for games - in games literally all I need to do is to choose the IPX protocol (back in 98SE days when I spent hours bashing my brothers in Age of Empires and Stronghold). Now, though, many games require you to type in the host address, and having to know the host IP/name and typing it in every time I want to bash my brothers is really annoying, and the search feature in heaps of games doesn't even work (dammit...). And I'm the type who loves old classics - I have two desktops with 98SE ready for some gaming over IPX but I have no room to set up those things  so we have to use our laptops...with Vista, and the lack of IPX is a nuisance at times.



IPX is still old and busted, and I think you can most likely install legacy protocols on OSes.  Even go as far as to try a virtual network adapter.

However, IPX is an old and busted technology and supporting backwards compatibility already adds to the huge bloat that is Vista.  They need to cut that stuff off at one point and roll with the new.  Apple does this, and yes it sucks because it causes all your developers to patch their software or make a new product, but it also makes the platform perform better.


----------



## ThatGuy16

I love it.


----------



## robina_80

ive had it ever since jan and ive had 2 issues with it that ive worked round them 1 it doesnt support game ports but no biggie and the other i had to buy new nero coz my old nero keeped on producing window errors when i played a video


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

Vista detects and uses all 4 gigs of my ram. 32 bit. I have no problem with it... But i did when I had 1 gig.


----------



## OvenMaster

I've never used Vista, so I can't hate it.

I don't _trust_ it, however. I'm perfectly happy with XP. But Windows 7 will probably be even more incompatible with my present software than Vista has been. And I _hate_ having to pay for software.

Tom


----------



## AUTOBOOT2000

OvenMaster said:


> I've never used Vista, so I can't hate it.
> 
> I don't _trust_ it, however. I'm perfectly happy with XP. But Windows 7 will probably be even more incompatible with my present software than Vista has been. And I _hate_ having to pay for software.
> 
> Tom



What software does not work with vista? I use all my xp software and it still works like 2 games I had to put in compatibility mode... I only had 1 game that didn't work right and that was just from the dual core not vista.


----------



## DCIScouts

For my own personal usage, I don't mind it.  My lappy has it, and it works pretty well, but then I don't use it all that much, either...

As for at work, I HATE it.  We get customer complaints all the time because the new computer that they bought won't use the old printer.  Or the drivers for this device won't work right, or that software said it supposed to work on Vista and it doesn't even install...  Etc, etc...  It could just be ignorant people too, but we get waaay to many complaints for it to be just that.


----------



## P373R

i am a tight arse with money
and dont want to pay more on resources, for features that i dont use,
and that XP can compensate for perfectly [for me]


----------



## just a noob

i like vista compared to xp, only thing i don't like about vista is those stupid warnings


----------



## meg

Note: I found this topic a good one to respond to because I just reformatted from Vista back to XP last night -- if you are bored and at work, this might be a funny read! This is MY VISTA experience.

Why I hate Vista:

When I first built this PC, I had XP on it. But my uni gave me an Ultimate copy free of charge, so I figured I'd reformat and try Vista. I knew everyone hated Vista, even people that never saw it, or used it. So I thought I'd give it a fair shot. My computer components at the time (and have since been upgraded, slightly) were fine for it. 4gb of ram (which of course only 3 were recognized, but still plenty) and a C2D overclocked to about 2.8Ghz, and an Nvidia 8800 gt. A good hard drive, good motherboard, good xfi sound card, and so on. 

For the most part... it was okay. The aesthetic upgrades were nice, and while the administrator options were ludicrous, which I eventually turned off, it was all tolerable.

Over the last 5 months or so, I kept running into a lot of cockblocking on Vista's behalf. Since upgrading to that OS, it automatically (at least I'm blaming Vista for this since it was never the case until having it) disabled my keyboard and mouse from loading at boot-up. Making it almost _impossible to get into my BIOS_, boot menu, and so on. Unless I wanted to sit there for an hour restarting and smashing the keyboard hoping for that one time it'd work. Even that didn't bother me much, because I didn't need to get into the BIOS, and the keyboard was initialized upon desktop load, anyway.

Then we have the updates problem. Since Jan 26th, 2008, Vista just failed updating, every single time! I tried multiple things - going into cmd as admin and writing some asinine line of code out that supposedly set the updates back in place. Nope. Call me OCD, but even if most of those updates weren't critical, I don't like having an outdated system.

Lets not even bother with the USB hardware compatibility issue... one day my externals and camera work, the next day, nothing. Sometimes unplugging it thousands of times would work, but mostly I don't have time to pamper a system like that.

My favorite was when I was so frantic to leave for work that I accidentally clicked "hibernate" instead of "shut down". I'd never used hibernate, didn't need to, so I just left for work anyway. I came back home, and there was no way to turn the computer on. I tried hitting the keyboard, clicking the mouse (which was on), manual restarting. It was on, just not... usable. I finally gave up after 30 minutes and popped out the little cell battery. Then it was fine. At that time it was a "known" glitch, but really.. lets think of the average user. They would have just paid someone ~$70 to diagnose that, nevermind fixing it.

SO.. as of yesterday I was compelled to find a way to remove Vista from my life. Putting an XP cd in the drive did nothing, it would just float past it and boot my computer. Why? BECAUSE VISTA WON'T RECOGNIZE MY KEYBOARD SO I CAN'T SET BOOT PREFERENCES TO CDROM! That and Vista loves to ruin my life so much that it tried all it could to keep me away from XP. So I just start hitting the restart button and mashing F-12, hoping that just once out of hundreds of attempts I'd get into the boot menu.

YES! I'm in! Wait a minute... my arrow keys don't work. Awesome! Restart again. Maybe I can just get into BIOS and fix this keyboard issue. Another forty minutes of me hitting restart and mashing DEL. I get into BIOS but the only part of it I can get into is my 1st-2nd-3rd boot devices. I was furious, so I set them all to CDROM determined to get XP recognized at start. Still, I couldn't change the preference in the Boot Menu, so I didn't know what was coming. Restart. No XP install prompt. Seriously, Vista? SERIOUSLY?!?

While restarting endlessly, I'm searching around my house for an external enclosure, thinking to myself: I'll yoink out this hard drive and just format it from my laptop. But the only one I could find was strictly IDE and that didn't help me at all.

More hoping that my keyboard will be initialized at boot. I really wish I knew how, but *I finally managed to get into the USB/peripherals section WITH working arrow keys!* WTF!? I set the keyboard and mouse to work, restart, fix the boot menu.... and I saw the most beautiful screen I've ever seen in my life, albeit blue - my friends, this was not one of death. But one of purity, sanity and beauty. *"Windows XP is initializing setup. . . "* GLORY!

So why don't I like Vista? Because I don't like feeling stupid. And aside from being a little prettier, that's all Vista did for me.


----------



## tlarkin

Vista out of the box I hate.  I hate how it handles updates, how it handles security center, how it doesn't detect if you are running multi core CPUs, etc.

Vista after hours of tweaking.....semi tolerable.   The sad thing is, my 4 year old PC running Unbuntu and my 4 year old G5 running OS X is just as fast as my brand spanking new quad-core with Vista Ultimate 64.

The only reason I upgraded as for DX10.1 and 64bit memory addressing.  Is it really worth it?  I honestly think it is hard to say, because even though Vista sucks, it still runs video games pretty damn well.  

I do like some of the interface enhancements in Vista, and to me, the interface is a valid feature to like or dislike and to help make your decision.  I don't like task bars and start menus though, so I have a doc set up.  I use the doc to launch from folders or apps directly.  

If I had to pay for Vista I would have been a bit more pissed, but since my MS rep gave me Ultimate or free as SWAG, I am a bit more biased to like it.  Simply, because it was free.


----------



## chibicitiberiu

meg said:


> Note: I found this topic a good one to respond to because I just reformatted from Vista back to XP last night -- if you are bored and at work, this might be a funny read! This is MY VISTA experience.
> 
> .......




So I'm not the only one who had big trouble with vista.



When vista came out I was pretty let's say 'excited' and got a copy as quick as I could, and installed on my P4 3GHz with 512MB RAM pc (i still use that PC, but 1.5 GB of RAM).
First day i thought about it that was the coolest OS, but in few days I realized that the only cool stuff was the eye candy; I had to wait hours to copy a file from one partition to another, file that on xp would take 5 minutes.
It was verrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy slow, many bugs, I got for the first time in my life since win98 the BSOD, and every time like 10 mins after booting, and many other problems.

Two days after installing I decided to *upgrade* to xp. For some reason even though in the boot order CD-ROM was second in the list (after floppy), xp installer wouldn't boot.

I was very happy to have the Partition Magic boot floppies and use them to completely delete the C: partition where vista was installed (it had 50 GB, after vista was installed and some basic apps that I always use; only 5 GB free remained), and then recreated that partition.

Then the beautiful screen of XP setup came up and vista was gone.

The trouble didn't end here. The D: partition had some problems, and because I had (and still have) important data on it that uses too much space to put on CD/DVD-s I couldn't format it (last time I did was 2 years ago when i got the PC). One of the problems was that when I was trying to defrag it, the HDD would simply freeze. Don't know how, but in time the problem was gone.


----------



## Sharnie

*Re:*

I don't like Vista but it's what I have so I use it.


----------



## ellanky

I actually got vista a few weeks ago, I knew all about the fact that it takes up lots of resources and such, but I just love its interface, the Aero and all.
However after playing games; BF2, COD4, Bioshock, I took a bit perfomance hit, especially on Bioshock. And I really dont want to spend money on computer hardware right now.
Its a love hate thing, but Im just thinking of switching back to XP
..I'll miss Aero..

*voted dont mind it*


----------



## tlarkin

After some chatting today with some other IT professionals that came into my work to help us survey our wireless networking issues, we ended up having a small discussion about Vista.  Enterprise networks aren't using Vista at all, for many reasons.  The main being there is no benefit on the costs of upgrading, period.  

Then we started discussing what is lined up for Windows 7.  All the features you were promised but didn't get in Vista, revamped kernel, revamped source code, and streamlined OS, keeping most of the new Vista features and tweaking the ones that need tweaking.

It seems with Vista they took the 80/20 approach.  Meaning they dumped 80% of their resources into just the underlying technologies that run under the hood in Vista and maybe 20% of them that the end user may see or interact with.  

Which means Vista is the test market for Windows 7.  Since Vista has been sold and shipped and now tested in the world market they can change what needs to be done and stream line what needs to be streamlined in a new OS, with out having to dump tons of money into R&D.  MS basically is using paying customers to test out their new line of technology.

The only thing that draws me into Vista is the interface enhancements and DX 10.  Is it totally worth the upgrade over XP?  No, not really, you don't get any major end user benefits for running it.  Windows 7, should be a different story all together.


----------



## Geoff

Honestly, I think people still have the image of Vista when it was first released, and think that all of those problems are still going on today.  Vista is a great OS, as long as you have adequate RAM.  I must say though that it's nice to have more native hardware support and to not need drivers for most of the new devices we pick up today.  Windows XP is old (almost 8 years), and while it's usually fine for businesses and the average home user, I personally have loved using Vista.


----------



## tlarkin

Well, with 2 to 3 years of market research by Vista users Microsoft does not have to dump that much time and money into Windows 7.  They know what is wrong and they know what to fix by simple consumer feedback and testing.

It sucks for those people who think Vista is the best thing since sliced bread because it really isn't, and MS is using all of the Vista users (including myself) as market research to basically make Vista what it should be, which is Windows 7.

That is how Windows 7 can come out nearly 2 years later after Vista.  Because Vista was never a finished product, they just needed to get it out into circulation to finish it up, and that finished product will be Windows 7.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> Well, with 2 to 3 years of market research by Vista users Microsoft does not have to dump that much time and money into Windows 7.  They know what is wrong and they know what to fix by simple consumer feedback and testing.
> 
> It sucks for those people who think Vista is the best thing since sliced bread because it really isn't, and MS is using all of the Vista users (including myself) as market research to basically make Vista what it should be, which is Windows 7.
> 
> That is how Windows 7 can come out nearly 2 years later after Vista.  Because Vista was never a finished product, they just needed to get it out into circulation to finish it up, and that finished product will be Windows 7.



I don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread.  It has some new features, it looks a hell of a lot better, and there are just things I like better than XP.  A majority of the users that use it it came with their computer, so I fail to see the big deal with it being a 'test'.  In use, it works just fine.  Does it piss me off that I use it now that I know about windows 7?  No, I didn't pay for it, it came on my computers, it was nice to use in place of XP while I wait for 7.  That being said I do hope they offer it at a reduced price for people who own Vista


----------



## tlarkin

I'm just saying that it can be paralleled between ME and 2000.  XP had the best of both worlds.  It had the easy management and multimedia support of Windows 9x, but the NT kernel and security of NT under the hood, and the full on support of the NTFS file system.  ME was a stepping stone, that wasn't fully tested, had some underlining technologies, and it sucked.

It disappeared rather fast.  I think that Windows 7 will do the same thing, it will blow away Vista (I hope it does, Vista runs like crap compared to every other OS out there in current generation).  

Of course this is all speculation but MS won't have to spend years and lots of money in R&D because a lot of it was done with Vista.  So, it sucks that some people had to upgrade and pay for it (I didn't pay for Vista either, my MS rep gave me a free copy) but I guess they also help pave the way for Windows 7.

I really hope Windows 7 is a lot better than Vista.  I don't hate Windows, but Vista is not the greatest OS I have ever used, nor do I think it is leaps and bounds better than XP Pro by any means.  I think we will see the features that makes Windows 7 a better and more noticeable upgrade in Windows 7, and Vista was just kind of the first step.


----------



## speedyink

I get what your saying.  Sure, Vista wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of XP, but it still has a lot of features that I would not like to go without now.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> I get what your saying.  Sure, Vista wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of XP, but it still has a lot of features that I would not like to go without now.



Yeah, I also do like some of the interface features on Vista, and would not really want to give them up per se, but I also expect a MAJOR OS release to be at least more efficient than the last version.

Like I said, Windows 7 I hope will be the answer to my issues.  Otherwise, I may have to look for some alternatives to Windows.  I just can't accept my quadcore processor taking time to load apps, it is just lame.


----------



## speedyink

I also hope that Windows 7 slims down and becomes more efficient.  It's definately something I'm keeping track of.  So far it's only marginally better on resources, and speed is pretty much the same.  Granted it's still far from complete.


----------



## Hugh9191

I have decided I am going to run it for 2 weeks and see what I think before I comment. I will also be taking an image of my XP for when I decide I hate it (which I probably will)


----------



## teamhex

I had some nasty Trojan that wouldn't go away, my PC was really slow because of it, I switched to vista my PC is now extremely fast.


----------



## tlarkin

I get a crap ton of memory leaks, and all I have in Vista, All MS updates, and video games loaded.  I don't download anything to my windows boxes and it still runs like crap.

Last night played left 4 dead for 2 hours and it crashed, looked at my system resources and it was using 3.9 Gig of ram.


----------



## Kornowski

tlarkin said:


> I get a crap ton of memory leaks, and all I have in Vista, All MS updates, and video games loaded.  I don't download anything to my windows boxes and it still runs like crap.
> 
> Last night played left 4 dead for 2 hours and it crashed, looked at my system resources and it was using 3.9 Gig of ram.



I've not experienced any of the issues you have.


----------



## mep916

tlarkin said:


> Last night played left 4 dead for 2 hours and it crashed, looked at my system resources and it was using 3.9 Gig of ram.



Solution: Get more RAM.


----------



## speedyink

I'm with Danny on this one.  I have yet to have memory leaks on mine...If you've ever seen my posts in the desktop thread you'd see that I have a cpu/ram monitor on my sidebar, so it's constantly being monitored.  

Actually...I blame winamp of stealing my ram...a don't think a media player should take 80mb of ram to play a freakin song.  What happened winamp???  

As for programs running slow on a quad core..iTunes would be the only one that comes to mind.  I can fly through all my other apps, but switch to iTunes and I'm waiiiting for everything it does.  I have a feeling thats just Apple trying to get people to switch to macs or something 
Foolish Apple...I notice that yours is the only app that runs like a bag of crap on my machine.  Plus you'd also be in the winamp boat with STEALING MY GOD DAMN RAM!!!

These would be the reasons I'm excited for WMP12.  Plays everything I need out of the box, and uses half the ram!  Not to mention extremely simple (but nice to look at) interface


----------



## tlarkin

I am running Winamp, that could be part of the problem.  I haven't had time to figure it out either.  I work all day figuring that stuff out and when I get home I just want to kill zombies and explore post nuclear fall out worlds, is that too much to ask?

When I get a chance to actually sit down and troubleshoot the problem I know I will figure it out, but for now I will just bitch about it.


----------



## speedyink

Haha, I know what you mean.  I'm on vacation, so I have time to nit pick this shit, lol.

Winamp could definitely be a potential memory leak, I've been suspicious about the new winamp...It doesn't seem like they have the same goals as they once did.

How you liking fallout by the way?  I'm not very far, but I'm very happy Bethesda stuck to their roots.  Lovin it so far


----------



## Kornowski

What's up with WMP11, It's all I use and it's great. I only ever use iTunes for my iPod and I do agree, it runs like a bastard.


----------



## speedyink

Kornowski said:


> What's up with WMP11, It's all I use and it's great. I only ever use iTunes for my iPod and I do agree, it runs like a bastard.



I got sucked into milkdrop 

Yeah, theres nothing wrong with wmp11, except having to download codecs.  I do like the new one a lot more though


----------



## Kornowski

speedyink said:


> I got sucked into milkdrop
> 
> Yeah, theres nothing wrong with wmp11, except having to download codecs.  I do like the new one a lot more though



Haha, Is that just visualisations?

I haven't had to DL any codecs, either. Heh, maybe I got the all-awesomely-complete-best-ever-version of Vista?


----------



## teamhex

tlarkin said:


> I get a crap ton of memory leaks, and all I have in Vista, All MS updates, and video games loaded.  I don't download anything to my windows boxes and it still runs like crap.
> 
> Last night played left 4 dead for 2 hours and it crashed, looked at my system resources and it was using 3.9 Gig of ram.



Yeah my Call of duty 5 crashes randomly, so far I think its only when I dont have the disc in. Even during multiplayer. TF2 and all my steam games seem to work fine though.


----------



## speedyink

Kornowski said:


> Haha, Is that just visualisations?
> 
> I haven't had to DL any codecs, either. Heh, maybe I got the all-awesomely-complete-best-ever-version of Vista?



Yeah, milkdrop is a trippy ass visualization that comes with the new winamps.  

Well, I'm talking about divx .avi videos and such.  Of course you don't need to download codecs for mp3's and wma's


----------



## Dystopia

Well, i cannot sya I "hate" vista. When it came out, i HATED vista, due to driver issues. But now, those seem to be largly gone, with SP1. I would not mind having vista.


----------



## ducis

I like vista because it is better suited to me the OSX, gnome, KDE, or xp

nuf said


----------



## Kornowski

speedyink said:


> Yeah, milkdrop is a trippy ass visualization that comes with the new winamps.
> 
> Well, I'm talking about divx .avi videos and such.  Of course you don't need to download codecs for mp3's and wma's



They look pretty trippy, Ideal for you then! 

I've played .avi's and I haven't DLed any codecs.


----------



## patrickv

ducis said:


> I like vista because it is better suited to me *the* OSX, gnome, KDE, or xp
> 
> nuf said



?? 
you meant "than".
KDE and Gnome are not operating Systems


----------



## chibicitiberiu

Got some new reasons recently why I hate it and not use it:

In the high school where i study there were brought 30 new PCs (Intel Celeron with 2.5 gigs of ram) and they had preinstalled Vista.
At school we do C++ programming in the old 16-bit Borland C compiler. On xp the window could work on full screen; but not on vista.
Also they had sound, and the old xp computers didn't have, so for few minutes it was very noisy because everybody was surfing the net: youtube, flash games etc.
Also they were working pretty slow with 2.5 gigs of ram !!! and the processor was at it's max.


----------



## speedyink

Kornowski said:


> They look pretty trippy, Ideal for you then!
> 
> I've played .avi's and I haven't DLed any codecs.



Haha, of course not all that great for a visit from Mary Jane but get into the more fun stuff...I spent 3 hours one time with my best friend just listening to music and staring at it 

Well maybe you did get the super-awesome-no-codecs-to-install version of Vista 




chibicitiberiu said:


> Got some new reasons recently why I hate it and not use it:
> Also they were working pretty slow with 2.5 gigs of ram !!! and the processor was at it's max.



Ahh DUURRRRR!  Hello, school computers?  Schools can make Macs look like unstable pieces of crap.  I know because I had video class...took 10 minutes (at least) to boot, crashed ALL the time...and this is from Macs.  

Why do school computers suck?  They cheap out on the processor, kids screw around with settings, and the administrators couldn't give a rats ass whether or not they are performing at their fullest...as long as they boot it's fine.


----------



## gla3dr

I voted don't mind it but I would preferably stick to xp. The problem I have with Vista is that it focuses too much on being fancy looking and shiny. I prefer xp because it is simpler and less distracting.


----------



## tlarkin

Well, my Vista rig for no good reason is running fast now.  I didn't change a single thing about it at all, but I think after that last reboot it now runs great.  Very snappy.  I blame what I was experiencing probably most likely due to memory leaks and memory dumps.  Can't say who's fault it was, the app developer or Microsoft, but now it seems to run faster than it ever did, even after first installing it.

I wonder if that has to do with Vista's advanced memory management, which is suppose to preload things into memory you run a lot, so maybe it is starting to learn what I do with my PC.

Either way, can't say that I am totally impressed with it, and I hope Windows 7 is way better.


----------



## Carlton

jdbennet said:


> opensuse and fedora suck they are unstable.



I don't think that's true at all.  I've been running SuSE since 9.1 and all of them with the the exception of 10.1 have been very stable.  It has never once crashed or become unresponsive.

What problems did you have?


----------



## anth11

I'm running Vista Ultimate on an AMD 4800+ with only 1 GIG of RAM and 128MB onboard graphics.

It runs great. It downloaded every driver it needed during the install and has not missed a beat since.

XP would have left a sea of yellow in the device manager, probably without ethernet drivers to even get on line.

I simply cannot figure out why people complain, unless they are running Vista on very old hardware. My son runs it on a single core 2.6Ghz PC!


----------



## !!!Daniel!!!

^^^^
true, I dont know why people are complaining on the RAM ect when yes, it does run fine on a single core 2.6Ghz,
my problem with it is probably the way everything is layed out.
after being with XP for a long time, i don't think i could ever get used to vista.


----------



## Pheonix iz pro

Because when I install CoD5 it crashes and I need help to get it off the Verrfying DMI Pool Data screen. (See ''CoD5 crashes Vista'' thread to see full storry )


----------



## !!!Daniel!!!

Yer, i should have also added that most of the programs and games i use don't work with vista


----------



## Hdk20

Same here, only issue is RAM.


----------



## !!!Daniel!!!

What RAM are you running,

i know the minimal requirements for vista is something like, 1.5Ghz, 1Gb RAM and it should run.


----------



## sabrinna

i could say that i'm not really a big fan of vista coz i just started using it this couple months after years using xp, got some problems but i dont hate it either 
there're lots of guides, tips and tricks out there to help us using vista
(i've tried some and put it in my blog  )
so i vote : i dont mind it


----------



## Irishwhistle

!!!Daniel!!! said:


> What RAM are you running,
> 
> i know the minimal requirements for vista is something like, 1.5Ghz, 1Gb RAM and it should run.



512MB  is minimum RAM, 1GB is better, but 2GBs is preferable.


----------



## tlarkin

Irishwhistle said:


> 512MB  is minimum RAM, 1GB is better, but 2GBs is preferable.



Try running it on 512mb ram though, just try it.  Minimum my ass.


----------



## funkysnair

tlarkin said:


> Try running it on 512mb ram though, just try it.  Minimum my ass.



i tried fixing a friends computer who was running vista on 512ram....

he is now happy with xp and 512ram, i would never build a computer with 512 ram and put vista on it lol!!


----------



## tlarkin

funkysnair said:


> i tried fixing a friends computer who was running vista on 512....
> 
> he is now happy with xp and 512, i would never build a computer with 512 ram and put vista on it lol!!



Yeah just like MS said the minimum for XP was like 256 or something, lol yeah right, try running XP with 256mb of RAM.  Your boot time will be 10 minutes, but yeah it will boot


----------



## Ethan3.14159

The minimum for XP is 128mb I think. It's beyond slow. I've seen Vista run on a Compaq Evo laptop with 384mb ram. It was designed for windows 2000, lol. It worked, but it was beyond slow, and couldn't run solitaire.


----------



## Hugh9191

I actually hate it less than I thought I would, if you have enogh ram and tweak it then its not bad at all.

I was expecting to hate it.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> Yeah just like MS said the minimum for XP was like 256 or something, lol yeah right, try running XP with 256mb of RAM.  Your boot time will be 10 minutes, but yeah it will boot



Actually it was listed as 64mb.  I tried it, and used it for a while when I still had the ol' hp pavilion   Then for the hell of it took one of the 32mb sticks out...needless to say it got to 'welcome' then froze 
Back in the day XP wasn't bad with 128 mb of ram, but then again that was in 2001, and the programs out were a lot less resource intensive.


----------



## musashia

*Windows Vista SUCKS!*

It doesn't even let me rename anything without asking me a hundred times whether I really want to do that or not!!! Is there a way to turn that off?!!? It's so frustrating!


----------



## musashia

I HATE THAT IT HAS TO ASK ME TO CONFIRM EVERY ACTION! EVEN SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS RENAMING A FILE!!!! IT'S OBNOXIOUS!!

It also wont let me download to my external hard drive. Only to my downloads folder!


----------



## !!!Daniel!!!

There probly is. but you are right...Windows Vista SUCKS!!!


----------



## PC eye

Turning off the UAC or User Account Control is as easy as going into the Control Panel>user accounts and clicking on the last link seen on the screen for "Turning the User Control on/off" seen there. That will bring you to the next screen where you simply uncheck the box for this seen there. You then simply click the "ok" button to put that into effect immediately following a system restart if prompted to do so.


----------



## mep916

musashia said:


> It doesn't even let me rename anything without asking me a hundred times whether I really want to do that or not!!! Is there a way to turn that off?!!? It's so frustrating!



Merged into the hate Vista thread.


----------



## PC eye

tlarkin said:


> Yeah just like MS said the minimum for XP was like 256 or something, lol yeah right, try running XP with 256mb of RAM.  Your boot time will be 10 minutes, but yeah it will boot



That was 64mb actual,128mb minimum(recommended) according to MS there. The MS page on this is seen at  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865



mep916 said:


> Merged into the hate Vista thread.



Don't mind that a bit since there would be too many threads with the exact same title!  "we can't have that now!"


----------



## Gooberman

Vista only uses 30-50% of My 2 GB of RAM VISTA RULES


----------



## PC eye

Why a little memory is used in the first place by Vista explains another question asked lately about the SuperFetch now seen in Vista superceding the PreFetch seen with XP when that was first introduced there namely a form of memory management that preloads the most commonly used programs into a standby mode seeing them load faster. I remember reading on this when Vista was first being introduced.

Under the same title, SuperFetch, the MS information goes as follows:

"Windows SuperFetch enables programs and files to load much faster than they would on Windows XP–based PCs.

When you're not actively using your computer, background tasks—including automatic backup programs and antivirus scans—run when they will least disturb you. These background tasks can take up system memory space that your programs had been using. On Windows XP–based PCs, this can slow progress to a crawl when you attempt to resume work.

SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them. Windows Vista also runs background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first." http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/superfetch.aspx

This is one of the main reasons you even see upto 50% taken up out of a 2gb total.


----------



## douche

Hah! 'the cat smells bad' choice is there to suppress the "HATERS" of Vista, eh?


----------



## hondro

PC eye said:


> That was 64mb actual,128mb minimum(recommended) according to MS there.



yeah u can use the minimum but if u actually want to be able to move your mouse you'll need 256.


----------



## speedyink

douche said:


> Hah! 'the cat smells bad' choice is there to suppress the "HATERS" of Vista, eh?



Actually I believe that was for our members with A.D.D.


----------



## PC eye

hondro said:


> yeah u can use the minimum but if u actually want to be able to move your mouse you'll need 256.



At least! I had 98SE along with XP running on a build seeing a full 1gb installed at the time. Just before dumping the problem build altogether I brought that to 2gb of memory then moved those dimms to the next build.


----------



## teddy picker

I hate it but still use it.  I, seemingly like everyone else, experience a large amount of RAM (most times 4 of 6 GB) being used when I'm just stilling watching the Performance window.  Also it doesn't run my uTorrent or Nero, the two programs that i use most.  I also get lots of system freezes requiring manual shut downs.


----------



## Jozeorules

Look to define it all, Vista is a ram hog... But with a decent computer you can run vista perfectly fine. I use it and it works fine for me


----------



## tlarkin

Gooberman said:


> Vista only uses 30-50% of My 2 GB of RAM VISTA RULES



That is because of Vista only uses what it can when it is free.  Since you have half the RAM I do, it uses less.  Vista uses around 25% of my RAM is is around 1gig.  It is constantly caching things out to RAM to make performance better, almost every modern OS does this.


----------



## PC eye

This is where the SuperFetch process comes in there as the newer form of memory management. People call it a ram hog or something else but never look at the amount of hardware changes and increased capacities have been seen since 2001 when XP was first released. SP1 had to address the 136gb barrier XP saw with newer larger drives coming out then.

At this point you could say Vista is actually behind not ahead of things explaining why MS plans to dump the 32bit kernel altogether as you look at desktop boards seeing 32gb capacities! Vista a ram hog? Not likely! Already outdated would be a needed correction there.


----------



## speedyink

teddy picker said:


> I hate it but still use it.  I, seemingly like everyone else, experience a large amount of RAM (most times 4 of 6 GB) being used when I'm just stilling watching the Performance window.  Also it doesn't run my uTorrent or Nero, the two programs that i use most.  I also get lots of system freezes requiring manual shut downs.



Well, then, your computer's f***ed.  Both those programs work perfectly fine in Vista (Gee, is that utorrent in my taskbar?), and come on...4gb of ram being used with nothing open?


----------



## PC eye

Good grief! With 4gb in with the 32bit edition of Home Premium the task manager reports some 3.581gb total and over 2.8gb free leaving only some 700mb actually taken up by background services and the few startups like active protections like antivirus and antispyware programs. 

4gb out of a 6gb total? suggests something is being misreported in Windows there for teddy picker to start with. Unless you are simply looking at the initial spike seen in the monitor when first opening it up or moving the mouse a little. After a quick peak to the top it then falls back down to the actual point.


----------



## tlarkin

My uTorrent on occasion crashes, but it relaunches and runs.


----------



## PC eye

Do you have the latest 1.8.1 version on? That sees more support for Vista plus Mac.


----------



## brycematheson712

I don't have a huge problem with Vista. I don't mind it. My main thing is speed. I can't stand to have my system resources wasted, even if I have no intention of using them.

I do enjoy some of the new features in Vista, however. I really enjoy the DVD Maker. I hate having to install 3rd Party Software, because I feel it bogs down my system. Maybe integrated software bogs it down just as much, but it gives the sense that it's been utilized by the operating system more efficiently.

And lastly, it just doesn't 'feel' solid. I can't explain it or give examples of where things have happened. But you can just tell. Things feel more secure and solid in XP.

Just my opinions.


----------



## Twist86

PC eye said:


> Do you have the latest 1.8.1 version on? That sees more support for Vista plus Mac.



Eh I run 1.6 and never had issues on Vista 




brycematheson712 said:


> I don't have a huge problem with Vista. I don't mind it. My main thing is speed. I can't stand to have my system resources wasted, even if I have no intention of using them.



You can disable all that if you want.




brycematheson712 said:


> Maybe integrated software bogs it down just as much, but it gives the sense that it's been utilized by the operating system more efficiently.



I don't think either bogs down the system myself...but I think 3rd party programs are better. 



brycematheson712 said:


> And lastly, it just doesn't 'feel' solid. I can't explain it or give examples of where things have happened. But you can just tell. Things feel more secure and solid in XP.



I dunno....I remove all the security from both XP and Vista so I feel solid once its all disabled and I installed all my AV-Firewalls and other programs.

I feel Vista did a poor job on a lot of ideas...I think windows 7 will be the way they wanted Vista to be.


----------



## PC eye

The next version will be seeing the improvement to Vista's SuperFetch with that replacing XP's own PreFetch type of memory management. The one thing to note here however is that it took Vista's delayed release date and initial disappoint for older systems to see SP3 with over 1,000 fixes come out!

When any new version of Windows has come out before the one main complaint still lingers mainly finding drivers for various things! It took a few years just to see enough for 98 then. By the time XP was first out 98 finally was seeing adequate support. SP2 Beta 2 for Vista is on now without one problem being seen showing that MS has decided to get it in gear a little for Vista before 7 is ready!


----------



## torjancolin

i don't mind it,but Windows7 i love it


----------



## PC eye

I don't see how you can love the next version this soon since Windows 7 won't reach the Release Candidate beta stage until June 2009. The final look hasn't even been decided on at this early stage. 

There will be some rather different changes seen on the next version giving everyone something to speculate on.


----------



## pcbistro

I voted that I hate it but still use it because it is something new to try to use when I get tried of looking at windows xp.  I recently wrote an small article about it at http://www.pcbistro.com/articles/getting-windows-vista-to-work-better-for-you/ and I can you tell you what is very disappointing about vista and the hardware upgrades that is require for it run smoothly.  I also, agree with everyone else that the memory management is pretty bad.  Ubuntu Desktop is way smoother with the memory management.


----------



## d3adpoetic

Calibretto said:


> Vista handles RAM and resources horribly. My laptop has 3GB of RAM and with the laptop running idle, a third of it is being taken up!



really?? (sarcasm)

it holds programs you use most often in RAM so they open faster. its a service called superfetch. im sorry you have a problem with your OS trying to be efficient for you. i have 3gb too,and personally i want it to be used. i dont want to pay for 3gb then look and see that only 500mb is being used...what a waste unless im gaming.


----------



## Spyder

My issue is that you needed to upgrade your computer just to run Vista Premium or ultimate.  At the same time if you upgraded your computer for vista and you ran xp on it, it would run amazingly well.  I did it and I'm glad i did.  Vista has some great features, no doubt, but I can't wait for a windows distro to really be designed for raw performance, and stability.  But I just may be asking for too much.


----------



## Spyder

At the same time, is there a way to reduce the features of an Ultimate install to, say a basic install?  I have ultimate but theres few features I use from it.  I would like to streamline it. can i?


----------



## PC eye

What you need is a tutorial on how to speed things up in Vista like increasing the number of processors listed in the msconfig>boot tab.advanced from 1 to 2 for dual cores and to 4 with quads as well as following various blogs on things like "10 Simple Ways To Speed Up Windows Vista"  http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/10/19/10-simple-ways-to-speed-up-windows-vista/

In fact even Microsoft has a "How To" article for "Get maximum performance from Windows Vista" seen at  http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/Help/596FB57F-CC9D-4AC5-A813-5C0830E9156A1033.mspx


----------



## M0LD0V4N

I hate vista because in Home premium, alot of people are having this LOCAL Access only with the internet connection. It makes me Spend about 4 hours with my ISP trying to resolve the problem only to find out that my Vista, MAGICALLY broke by itself. So..  Now I'm using Vista, Which is Hogging my RAM for no Reason, I mean that's stupid to take up that MUCH memory? And not to mention how slow it can be.. Especially when you have alot of programs up. In XP I had 20 programs up and running, In Vista, You cant just do that , Unless you wanna get mad, So pretty much Vista is Just for Looks.. Nothing special about it. It's JUST PROFIT MAKING For Microsoft.


----------



## speedyink

I see lots of complaining about high ram usage at idle, but no complaints about all of the ram actually being used.  I find it hard to use all of even 2gb (doing real world things of course, nothing retarded like running 3 games at once).  But, I realize some people have to bitch about something, so I'll let that argument go


----------



## FairDoos

I would still prefer XP over Vista though but the only reason Vista is in my good books is because of the design i like it i think it makes XP look ugly to be honest but thats my oppinion


----------



## brycematheson712

I'd have to agree with you there. I do enjoy the good looks, but I don't believe that they need to use that much RAM to make a different design.

There are a few things I do enjoy in Vista, but very few. XP has done almost everything better in everyway.


----------



## Roy Rogers

*vista and E machines problems*

I upgraded my EL1200 e machines computer to Vista but The OS did not load many of the drivers. Since the modem driver did not load I was unable to register the upgrade with Microsoft. I contacted emachines and was told I could  obtain a free disk with all necessary drivers but the shipping charge would be $35. Here's the rub, it would be 10 days before the drivers would arrive and Microsoft Vista must be registered within 3 days. The bottom line, I can't load drivers without the modem  and I cant activate the modem without the drivers. Additionally I can't register windows Vista within the required 3 days. I possibly could find a phone number for registration but, with my luck so far, I'd prefer to actually see the system working properly before registering it.


----------



## scooter

Roy Rogers said:


> I upgraded my EL1200 e machines computer to Vista but The OS did not load many of the drivers. Since the modem driver did not load I was unable to register the upgrade with Microsoft. I contacted emachines and was told I could  obtain a free disk with all necessary drivers but the shipping charge would be $35. Here's the rub, it would be 10 days before the drivers would arrive and Microsoft Vista must be registered within 3 days. The bottom line, I can't load drivers without the modem  and I cant activate the modem without the drivers. Additionally I can't register windows Vista within the required 3 days. I possibly could find a phone number for registration but, with my luck so far, I'd prefer to actually see the system working properly before registering it.



3 days?? 

You get 30 days and you can re-arm that trial period and extend the trial for up to 120 days?

Not sure where you got 3 days from!?

Also, anytime you deal with a retail machine..you need to manufacturers drivers.

Microsoft does not provide drivers for your system on thier o/s disc.

You need to go to the manufacturers website and find the driver/download section and go from there,,,thats assuming you don't get the disc you mentioned.

I would recommend to pay the $35 bucks and get the disc from them....just rearm the vista trial period if you truly have 3 days left...(Doesn't make sense, but you are not out of luck)

EDIT: try the gateway site

http://support.gateway.com/support/drivers/search.asp?st=pn&param=EL1200


----------



## CAC

I love Vista, it looks so much better than XP, sure there is a few bugs with it, but most are with third party software, it has improved a lot since it came out and I think when SP2 comes out in 2009 we are going to see a tremendous difference in the operating system. It seems like all operating systems when they first come out have a lot of bugs in them, I know XP did when it first came out. Older computers will not run Vista well, I have a Gateway GT5670 with a AMD 8400 triple core processor and 3 gigs of RAM and my system runs vista fine, especially with the proper settings. One thing I really like the most in Vista is the search bar in the start menu to search for files. In a lot of cases this makes it so much easier to search for them, The security is also better than what XP offers. The only thing I wish is that it didn't use so many resources but I think this will improve with SP2 also.


----------



## Strokes

My cats breath smells like cat food.


----------



## fritzj92

Honestly, what are you guys running on vista that is taking up your Ram so much?... my ram idles at around 600-780mb, i have 2gig Ram... So far I have yet to see a reason to get another stick of ram... I never really use more than like 1.5gig in ram... unless i'm playing GTA4, or F.E.A.R or W.I.C.... etc basically unless i'm gaming w/ music in the background...


----------



## epidemik

Ithought they fixed it so that it uses a sensible ammount of ram...
Like it uses a different ammount if you have 2gb than if you have 4.

I was under the impression they fixed a lot of the issues. Am I wrong?
I don't use it but was infact interested in trying it.


----------



## speedyink

epidemik said:


> I was under the impression they fixed a lot of the issues. Am I wrong?
> I don't use it but was infact interested in trying it.



Yes, a lot of issues have been fixed, but that was to be expected


----------



## tlarkin

The Application enhancer process was part of my problem, it will eat up 2gigs of RAM by itself.  It is part of Fetch, and it preloads things into memory for faster use.  The problem is, it doesn't clear things out either.  If I kill that process from running my RAM usage will drop from 3gigs to 1gig idle.  

Also, if you have less memory, 2gigs or under it will idle at less, since Vista seems to take a percentage of your RAM when it is not being used, roughly 25% from my dealings with Vista.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> The Application enhancer process was part of my problem, it will eat up 2gigs of RAM by itself.  It is part of Fetch, and it preloads things into memory for faster use.  The problem is, it doesn't clear things out either.  If I kill that process from running my RAM usage will drop from 3gigs to 1gig idle.
> 
> Also, if you have less memory, 2gigs or under it will idle at less, since Vista seems to take a percentage of your RAM when it is not being used, roughly 25% from my dealings with Vista.



Wow...sounds like you got a serious problem there.  Have you tried reinstalling?  

Yeah, it uses about 25-30% at idle, though, with 1gb and less it tends to use more.  Windows 7 has changed it to use roughly  500-600mb at idle, i think no matter your ram amount.  I've only tested this with 3gb and 2gb installed though.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> Wow...sounds like you got a serious problem there.  Have you tried reinstalling?
> 
> Yeah, it uses about 25-30% at idle, though, with 1gb and less it tends to use more.  Windows 7 has changed it to use roughly  500-600mb at idle, i think no matter your ram amount.  I've only tested this with 3gb and 2gb installed though.



I don't think reinstalling would make a difference this was a clean install from about a month ago.  If anything something I am using with ApplicationEnhancer is causing some serious memory leaks.  

I think it may actually be my torrent client, it crashes the most out of all my Applications, and I think when it crashes it never clears it out of RAM all together.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> I don't think reinstalling would make a difference this was a clean install from about a month ago.  If anything something I am using with ApplicationEnhancer is causing some serious memory leaks.
> 
> I think it may actually be my torrent client, it crashes the most out of all my Applications, and I think when it crashes it never clears it out of RAM all together.



Which client do you use?


----------



## mx344

Well, i have no compaints, besides the hole ram utiliztion part of it. But it seems to do good on my 2 gigs, so no complaints.


----------



## realmike15

i upgraded about 3-4 months ago.  getting drivers for my wireless card was the only initial problem.  where XP tends to have little 1-2 second hang-ups when multitasking Vista does not.  my only gripe was lock-ups when transferring large numbers of files, but that seems to have disappeared, maybe with one of the updates.

i understand some people may have some hostility from when it first came out, i didn't try it but i heard it wasn't running very well.  whatever problems you had, a lot has changed, and i would suggest at least trying it a second time.  unless you have a known hard-ware issue, it should run better than xp.

as for people with issues about how much RAM it uses.  just because it has RAM cached doesn't mean anything... as soon as you run an application that needs that memory it's going to release it.  i would suggest having no less than 2GB or RAM for Vista but 3GB would be more ideal if you're a big multi-tasker.

i personally have 64-bit w/ 4GB Memory... but even when i only had 2GB it still ran better than XP ever did for me.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> Which client do you use?



utorrent newest build for vista


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> utorrent newest build for vista



utorrent has worked fine for me on multiple computers since I first starting using Vista at launch.  It's never crashed on me either...What other software have you installed?  You have a newer computer right?  So all your hardware should be fine...


----------



## glenman

9 weeks ago I switched from a 4y old tower desktop, 20 gig, 250 meg ram, XP to a ShuttleX, 160 gig, 4 gig ram and Vista Ultimate.
I find 3 things very annoying that very very rarely happened with XP...
1) MSN Messenger using webcams - the cams are freezing every 3/4 minutes and I lose 
Messenger connection frequently.
2) The spinning blue ring changing and using websites, this also happens with Messenger, hence slowing me down.
3) Sound cuts out (rarely though) listening to internet radio (BBC).
Is switching back to XP the only answer?


----------



## FairDoos

I know this is a really dumb question but how much RAM do i need to run Windows Vista Ultimate? Because people are telling me 3GB then people are saying 2GB then 4 but im like and my Laptop runs windows vista home premium and has only 2GB of RAM? HELP


----------



## FairDoos

*BUMP* Anyone aswear my question?


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> utorrent has worked fine for me on multiple computers since I first starting using Vista at launch.  It's never crashed on me either...What other software have you installed?  You have a newer computer right?  So all your hardware should be fine...



I have vista and games, that is it


----------



## mx344

FairDoos said:


> I know this is a really dumb question but how much RAM do i need to run Windows Vista Ultimate? Because people are telling me 3GB then people are saying 2GB then 4 but im like and my Laptop runs windows vista home premium and has only 2GB of RAM? HELP



Your would be fine with 2.
My laptop has Ultimate and it has 3 gigs and never goes above 1 gig in normal use, and it goes to 1.5gigs while playing games.So you would be fine with 2 if you like to web browse, watch moves/music,playing games.etc.
But if you are an editor i wouldn't have anything less than 3...You should be fine with 2.


----------



## GSAV55

I've never really used vista for anything other than surfing the internet in a computer lab at school.  I'm waiting for Windows 7

Edit:1,000th post!!! wew! (I didnt post this just for that, but I noticed it and was like, sicckkk)


----------



## N3crosis

GSAV55 said:


> I've never really used vista for anything other than surfing the internet in a computer lab at school.  I'm waiting for Windows 7
> 
> Edit:1,000th post!!! wew! (I didnt post this just for that, but I noticed it and was like, sicckkk)



Same here, I was debating whether to go with XP or Vista, and since XP was cheaper I bought it . So now I'll wait until Windows 7, and see if they fixed some of the major issues of Vista, such as hogging system resources (or so I've heard).


----------



## Nums

Flar0n said:


> such as hogging system resources (or so I've heard).



Isn't so bad if you disable most of the unnecessary crap it has running.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> I have vista and games, that is it



I have no idea dude...might be a hardware issue (some sort of incompatibility)


----------



## konsole

I dont mind Vista at all.  The sidebar is quite nice.  The only thing I'm not crazy about is the strange location of some common things like changing the display properties or getting into the device manager.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> I have no idea dude...might be a hardware issue (some sort of incompatibility)



I doubt that I just dropped 1200 on brand name components for my PC.  If anything it could be crappy driver issues, but I think it just has to do with the bloated poor memory management.  If you Google Vista errors it seems one common theme is among them.  Half the people post online that they have the same problems while the other half say no way you're crazy mine runs with out any issues.

The hard part is with custom built PCs, it is very hard to narrow down what is causing the issue.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> I doubt that I just dropped 1200 on brand name components for my PC.  If anything it could be crappy driver issues, but I think it just has to do with the bloated poor memory management.  If you Google Vista errors it seems one common theme is among them.  Half the people post online that they have the same problems while the other half say no way you're crazy mine runs with out any issues.
> 
> The hard part is with custom built PCs, it is very hard to narrow down what is causing the issue.



Thats so weird...I've used/installed Vista on so many different computers now and have yet to come across that issue on any of them.  I don't know what to say dude.


----------



## MichaelPC

I am using Vista Home Edition SP1 atm. Thinking about downgrading it to XP Pro SP2. Um..I dont really hate it, it requires too much RAM, it is a little bit slower, I hate the UAC pop-up balloon even after disabling it, not very compatible with certain applications, I LOVE the interface and start menu. XP...meh I don't really like the interface. It bothers me for some reason. I like the performance =D I hate the old version of Windows Media Player and Movie maker on there.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> Thats so weird...I've used/installed Vista on so many different computers now and have yet to come across that issue on any of them.  I don't know what to say dude.



It seems more common if you have 4 or more gigs of RAM from what Google searches have told me.


----------



## Carla456

I don't like Vista because it's slower and requires much RAM. New PCs work far better with old versions such as XP. Vista is not successful and there are a lot of bugs, for instance with iTunes, WMP...a lot of things are not compatible with it.


----------



## tlarkin

Carla456 said:


> I don't like Vista because it's slower and requires much RAM. New PCs work far better with old versions such as XP. Vista is not successful and there are a lot of bugs, for instance with iTunes, WMP...a lot of things are not compatible with it.



WMP works in Vista.  What do you mean?


----------



## Carla456

I had a bug with it and I wasn't able to listen to music anymore. I had to do a system restore, after having a bluescreen


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> It seems more common if you have 4 or more gigs of RAM from what Google searches have told me.



Well that would explain why I haven't experienced it.


----------



## Roy Rogers

*hate progress bars in vista*

the progress bars appear to be moving fast even when nothing is happening. it's like those spinning  hub caps on cars that keep spinning at stop lights, confusing.


----------



## daxusb

I don't necessarily 'hate' Vista.  But I do dislike it.  I prefer XP, mainly because I am more familiar with XP.  Vista seems to have a lot of bugs, limits your options, and it's just too slow.  It looks really good, all the fancy colours.. but it's just not very user friendly.  At least not for me. 

My room mate is very familiar with most computers, and he just bought a laptop with Vista on it.  And I hear him sitting in his room swearing at his computer now, more than ever. 

He also prefers XP.  It just operates much smoother.

I voted my cat's breath smells like cat food.


----------



## sinnie92

i only use it for dx 10


dont like eye candy, dont like pretty popups. a solid, matured OS is what i like


----------



## mcutra

*Replay*

I used to say i Hate vista it is so complicated and stuff like that ..... But since i got it i love i use XP too but i like vista better . Anyway why should u hate Vista ?? My reason was It runs too slow??? (changed my mind when i got new PC)


----------



## mix1009

because of the crashes i had when i tried it 
and the fact that Microsoft announced Windows 7 just a little after Vista reaching my hard drive


----------



## 3uL

Why are you all keep babbling about vista is being slow?? It slow because your hardware is old. Don't try to compare vista perfomance with xp and expect vista faster than xp with same hardware because xp n vista is created in different technlogy timeline(that what i called it). You all are aware xp is 2001 os, and that old.. From that moment, technology keep is evolving...

Try think video technology... Are there any hd video size is smaller than low quality one?? non n that totally absurd... That should explained what I try to say..

So, don't blame vista for being slow. Try to think yourself about what I'm talking about.


----------

