Why does everyone hate vista?

interesting link that give the compatibility of a good list of program/game under Vista both 32 and 64 bit. I am actually surprised that the list of unsuported game is so short

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_Software_Compatibility_List

I don't like Vista.

I have a Cooler Master Cosmos case (210€), an Abit IP35 motherboard (90€), 2 GB of RAM Corsair XMS2 800 Mhz CL 4-4-4-12 (80€), a Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (200€) overclocked to 3.0 Ghz (9x 333) with a Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme disipator and attached with a SilenX iXtrema 120 mm 14db fan (70€), a Asus EN 8800 GTS 512 (270€) and a ViewSonic VX2025wm 20" display (620€) with a Logitech DiNovo 2.0 with MX 900 mouse (120€) and a nice Logitech Z-5500 Digital speaker system (300€), so my system rig is nice in performance; I run Crysis at 1680 x 1050 all on High (no AA) at average 34 fps under Windows XP SP2, and all the other games at max with AA at 1680 x 1050 usually over the 60 fps.

And the real question is not "why you don't use Vista?" BUT "Is a Damm reason to change my SO?" The answer is NO. Vista demands 4 GB of RAM to run all of my games except Oblivion slighty slower than XP. To me, is demential to change the OS if not increaSed performance is garaunted. The Vista exclusive titles (Halo 2, Alan Wake) SAYS ME NOTHING. All the future games I care (Soulstorm, Far Cry 2, Starcraft II, Battlefield 3, Aliens: CM, Crysis 2... ) will run under XP.

So, I'll await the next MS OS spending money in hardware and software and not in obsolete, under-performing OS that Vista IS.

Reinforcing that with the fact that they stop supporting their older products just proves more that ms wants you using what "they" want you to use. They don't care what WE the consumer want. IF they really did care, they'd still be supporting Win98 which a ton of ppl still use and love, and they wouldn't be halting their support of XP soon as well.

1Lonehawk

Well, with that thought process if you want your product to be continually supported, you will be more than happy to pay on a possible yearly basis to keep Microsoft hashing out those patches. The EULA on your product can be changed at any moment to accommodate. In fact, Microsoft has the full right to legally discontinue use at anytime, and you agreed to it when you accepted the EULA agreement to install Windows XP.

Companies you work for, like employers pay a nice premium to keep that software supported. Where as "we" as in the normal home user do not pay for that luxury. I would actually like to see how many would actaully like to pay a $40+ premium to keep their copy of Windows active. I bet that a majority of home users would launch a rectal log at the thought.

Any business, company, non-profit require a near-constant influx of money. Money just doesn't mysteriously appear in thier coffers at a whim. They have to continuously produce a product and try to sell it. Automobiles, Cell Phones, among other reinforce this concept.

With some tweaking Vista is ok. I personally prefer XP, but it isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. The first service pack is coming out soon, so that should fix a lot of Vista's annoying minor bugs. As long as you have a capable machine that can handle Vista (meaning 2 or more GB of RAM and a dual-core processor), it works ok. Sites like extremetech have some nice guides on tweaking Vista to better suit your preferences and optimize performance a little bit.

The only problem I have with Vista is that Microsoft is trying to stuff it down people's throats when XP works perfectly fine.

Mostly blind hate because it's Microsoft.EndersAres

I have not had any problems playing any new or old titles on either of my two Vista based systems. I can play Final Fanasy 7, MOH:AA, which MOH:AA had major issues when XP Service Pack 2 was released. I can play BF2 just fine, UT3, Portal, and TF2 all on Vista without any issues.Valkyrie_44

There's no good reason to use Vista over XP if you are a gamer. The only people I knew who defended Vista had no choice because it was their only OS. "It wasn't that bad" they said. But I lent them my XP CD and the next day they were like "Wow, I'm so glad I don't have Vista etc. so on and so forth". Vista has no improvements over XP and runs a tad slower than XP. Much slower when it comes to games. The interface just feels bloated.

Why do people ***** about Vista being slower than XP?Indestructible2

Because it's unnecessary.

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]Why do people ***** about Vista being slower than XP?GodLovesDead

Because it's unnecessary.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]Why do people ***** about Vista being slower than XP?Indestructible2

Because it's unnecessary.

Actually, a lot of people did. Many years ago, Windows ME was considered the optimum gaming OS. But most operating systems pre-XP had many core issues such as crashing, blue screens, hard drive failures, etc. XP doesn't have any of these issues. It's perfect. Vista is trying to fix something that isn't broken, and fails.

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]Why do people ***** about Vista being slower than XP?GodLovesDead

Because it's unnecessary.

Actually, a lot of people did. Many years ago, Windows ME was considered the optimum gaming OS. But most operating systems pre-XP had many core issues such as crashing, blue screens, hard drive failures, etc. XP doesn't have any of these issues. It's perfect. Vista is trying to fix something that isn't broken, and fails.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]Why do people ***** about Vista being slower than XP?Indestructible2

Because it's unnecessary.

Actually, a lot of people did. Many years ago, Windows ME was considered the optimum gaming OS. But most operating systems pre-XP had many core issues such as crashing, blue screens, hard drive failures, etc. XP doesn't have any of these issues. It's perfect. Vista is trying to fix something that isn't broken, and fails.

I don't have to prove anything. I used Windows ME for the longest time before switching to XP. This isn't even about crashing. I haven't experienced any stability issues with Vista. It just runs slow. What's the point of using it? It's be like upgrading from a 8800GTX to a 9600GT just because it's newer.

Well, with that thought process if you want your product to be continually supported, you will be more than happy to pay on a possible yearly basis to keep Microsoft hashing out those patches. The EULA on your product can be changed at any moment to accommodate. In fact, Microsoft has the full right to legally discontinue use at anytime, and you agreed to it when you accepted the EULA agreement to install Windows XP. Valkyrie_44

First of all, if ms wanted a yearly fee to continue supporting the OS that I bought and liked and wanted to stick with, I'd pay for that service. Why not? I understand how things work. And I confidently doubt it would be as high as $40 bucks a year. They could and would make a fortune even if it was only $10 bucks a year.

As far as the EULA goes. Comon! How many ppl who don't agree with it are actually going to go, "Oh, I don't agree with that so I'm not gonna use windows." Only power users have the knowledge to actually take that option, the rest of the world is just stuck with the ms product.

Furthermore, what's the problem with poeple objecting to others who have a problem with Vista being slower? This is a very VALID concern and compaint. Do people actually forget what OS stands for? It stands for Operating System. A system of software made to "operate" your computer. It's not a GAME. The very nature of the software and it's title assumes the responsibility and purpose of running your machine for you so you can, in turn and within the OS, run your various programs. A "new and improved" OS is supposed to be an "improvement" in the task of running your computer. NOT a decrease in it's very purpose for the new purpose of "looking neato keen."

Just my 2 cents worth again. Peace all.

Because its new. masters89

No problems with Vista here, not the greatest OS for gaming

but hey I have yet to run into any problems w/ any of my games.

Because XP was doing just fine. They could have just gone with that and released service packs but they decided to cash in and make another OS just as things like Ubuntu are coming into wider use. They went way too far with security measures and upped the system requirements for their Aero interface (optional but vanilla Vista uses more resources than XP), they made an entirely new version of DirectX that will only work within Vista, thus alienating gamers and basically forcing you to upgrade if you want the latest graphics (though we still do have OpenGL). On top if this, gaming performance in Vista isn't up to scratch with that of XP even though Vista is toted as catering more to gaming.

Basically right now everyone is sour because Vista is still kind of new and XP is still more than adequate.

I'm running Vista Ultimate and have been since it was released. I personally love it. I've had very few problems with games and have even been able to get some games that wouldn't run in XP to run in Vista. I upgraded to the 64bit version when I upgraded my PC and it runs games on par with my XP 64bit dual boot. I only keep XP for the couple programs I have and use frequently that won't work with Vista.

With some tweaking and at least 2GB of RAM any computer that passes the Vista compatibility test should be able to run it fine. Just like all of the other Micro$oft OSes were when they were released it is a bit of a system hog. With the various updates and fixes that have been implemented into Vista since it's release and the recent price drop it is definately worth upgrading if you have a machine that can handle it.

I'm running Vista Ultimate and have been since it was released. I personally love it. I've had very few problems with games and have even been able to get some games that wouldn't run in XP to run in Vista. I upgraded to the 64bit version when I upgraded my PC and it runs games on par with my XP 64bit dual boot. I only keep XP for the couple programs I have and use frequently that won't work with Vista.

With some tweaking and at least 2GB of RAM any computer that passes the Vista compatibility test should be able to run it fine. Just like all of the other Micro$oft OSes were when they were released it is a bit of a system hog. With the various updates and fixes that have been implemented into Vista since it's release and the recent price drop it is definately worth upgrading if you have a machine that can handle it.

thanatose

ditto.

it sucks up allot of memory..

has some unneccassiry and annoying features...

i have it cause of DX10 only

it sucks up allot of memory..

has some unneccassiry and annoying features...

i have it cause of DX10 only

phase_1337

You can optimize it to use less memory and turn off those anoying features. Check out this guide at PC Stats it help get my Vista running like a champ.

Most polls i see show more people are using Vista. Soon XP will be old news. I guess some people hope to use it for 10 years. XP looks so old now... Deihmos

Do people honestly care how good the interface looks? XP looks fine, and it's easy to do anything I want with no extra thought. Vista can take me awhile to do what I'm trying to do.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]Most polls i see show more people are using Vista. Soon XP will be old news. I guess some people hope to use it for 10 years. XP looks so old now... GodLovesDead

Do people honestly care how good the interface looks? XP looks fine, and it's easy to do anything I want with no extra thought. Vista can take me awhile to do what I'm trying to do.

Yes people do care. Look at the Itouch. I can basically find anything on my hard drive in a a split second so everything is faster. No more browsing folders.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]Most polls i see show more people are using Vista. Soon XP will be old news. I guess some people hope to use it for 10 years. XP looks so old now... Deihmos

Do people honestly care how good the interface looks? XP looks fine, and it's easy to do anything I want with no extra thought. Vista can take me awhile to do what I'm trying to do.

Yes people do care. Look at the Itouch. I can basically find anything on my hard drive in a a split second so everything is faster. No more browsing folders.

I don't even see how that's relevant.

I don't even see how that's relevant.

GodLovesDead

the part about the interface and the part about Vista taking a while to do stuff. or, your entire post.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

I don't even see how that's relevant.

Hewkii

the part about the interface and the part about Vista taking a while to do stuff. or, your entire post.

Touch screen control is different than an interface though. He's arguing that Vista's interface warrants buying a new operating system.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

I don't even see how that's relevant.

GodLovesDead

the part about the interface and the part about Vista taking a while to do stuff. or, your entire post.

Touch screen control is different than an interface though. He's arguing that Vista's interface warrants buying a new operating system.

You said people don't care about interface but that is not true. I used Itouch as an example because a lot of people are attracted to it because of the interface / presentation. I never said anyone needed to buy a new OS. The topic is why do people hate Vista? I see nothing to hate.

http://www.stardock.com/brad/blog-384.jpg

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

I don't even see how that's relevant.

Deihmos

the part about the interface and the part about Vista taking a while to do stuff. or, your entire post.

Touch screen control is different than an interface though. He's arguing that Vista's interface warrants buying a new operating system.

You said people don't care about interface but that is not true. I used Itouch as an example because a lot of people are attracted to it because of the interface / presentation.

http://www.stardock.com/brad/blog-384.jpg

It's just the 'In" thing to hate microsoft and their os's.smerlus

That is true. I have used Vista and I liked it a lot. The only reason I am using XP right now is because Creative hasn't released a compatible driver for my cound card, hence I am not able to get the 5.1 running like it should.

Otherwise, Vista is really good.

It's true that you have to upgrade your hardware, but every generation of OS brings some changes.

If Vista didn't have any changes, people complain that it didn't, and if it, they complain that it had way too many. So basically there is no pleasing some people. Vista is a very good and a stable OS. If you have the current generation hardware (dual core CPU, 2GB RAM, and directx 10 video card), you can use Vista without any problems.

I can't say that I hate Vista so much as I just don't need it. XP works just fine for anything I do, why the heck would I spend all that money to buy a new OS. And then, after buying it, I have to go into and spend time tweaking everything in it to get it to run as quickly as I want, leaving me with an OS that looks a helluva lot like XP anyways. I just don't see the point. My wife has it on her new laptop, and it's pretty enough, just doesn't impress me as a gaming OS.

Maybe after a couple of service packs, I'll give it another look. Until then, I don't have a compelling reason to make the switch.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]Most polls i see show more people are using Vista. Soon XP will be old news. I guess some people hope to use it for 10 years. XP looks so old now... GodLovesDead

Do people honestly care how good the interface looks? XP looks fine, and it's easy to do anything I want with no extra thought. Vista can take me awhile to do what I'm trying to do.

Yes people do care. Look at the Itouch. I can basically find anything on my hard drive in a a split second so everything is faster. No more browsing folders.

I don't even see how that's relevant.

There are still compatibility issues with Vista, that's my biggest reason for not embracing it. Also, why spend the money for something that isn't giving you a substantial jump, or any jump in performance at all? Not sure why some people are on Vista crusades, it's almost as if they have a vested interest.

compatibility issues with Vista, that's my biggest reason for not embracing it. Also, why spend the money for something that isn't giving you a substantial jump, or any jump in performance at all? Not sure why some people are on Vista crusades, it's almost as if they have a vested interest.

mismajor99

There is not a lot of compatibility issue with Vista and that come from someone that didn't wanted to make the jump to vista. I actually had to get vista because they discontinued the north american french oem version of XP, the bastard. So far (well 1 week and 2 days lol) I had no compatibility issue with Vista 64bit ( I wanted to make the complete jump to be ready for the future), but it's probably because my computer is totally new, except my printer, but i found 64bit drivers really fast, thanks to HP update service.

Game wise, I had almost no problem to run any game and I took the whole afternoon to test them for the fun. The only exceptions are Stalker (black screen half of the time... Will have to go see in the forum for a fix) and Kotor 2 (work on xp compatibility mode without SP2, but still get choppy sometime). 2 out of 15 game installed is really good.

For the performance, I really suggest to not install it unless you got a 2 core comp. I installed it on my *not so old* p4 3ghz with 1 gb of ram and it was the equivalent of XP on my 1ghz.--> People tend to forget that XP was also a system hog back in the time. The min requiement was like 600mhz and 64mb of ram, but on my 1ghz with 256mb of ram it was an horrible performance drop from ME to XP.

I have to admit, that I never tested my monster rig with XP ( I could do it with an english verison, but why bother), so I dunno how many fps I lost in my game, how fast the system is running, etc. so my view of the new system can be a little off. The fact that I also supported ME for a long time (3 years) probably make me less demanding with my new os. Anyway, I can't wait to see how SP1 will affect my experience, even 1 fps in Crysis will be appreciated.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

compatibility issues with Vista, that's my biggest reason for not embracing it. Also, why spend the money for something that isn't giving you a substantial jump, or any jump in performance at all? Not sure why some people are on Vista crusades, it's almost as if they have a vested interest.

Franko_3

There is not a lot of compatibility issue with Vista and that come from someone that didn't wanted to make the jump to vista. I actually had to get vista because they discontinued the north american french oem version of XP, the bastard. So far (well 1 week and 2 days lol) I had no compatibility issue with Vista 64bit ( I wanted to make the complete jump to be ready for the future), but it's probably because my computer is totally new, except my printer, but i found 64bit drivers really fast, thanks to HP update service.

Game wise, I had almost no problem to run any game and I took the whole afternoon to test them for the fun. The only exceptions are Stalker (black screen half of the time... Will have to go see in the forum for a fix) and Kotor 2 (work on xp compatibility mode without SP2, but still get choppy sometime). 2 out of 15 game installed is really good.

For the performance, I really suggest to not install it unless you got a 2 core comp. I installed it on my *not so old* p4 3ghz with 1 gb of ram and it was the equivalent of XP on my 1ghz.--> People tend to forget that XP was also a system hog back in the time. The min requiement was like 600mhz and 64mb of ram, but on my 1ghz with 256mb of ram it was an horrible performance drop from ME to XP.

I have to admit, that I never tested my monster rig with XP ( I could do it with an english verison, but why bother), so I dunno how many fps I lost in my game, how fast the system is running, etc. so my view of the new system can be a little off. The fact that I also supported ME for a long time (3 years) probably make me less demanding with my new os. Anyway, I can't wait to see how SP1 will affect my experience, even 1 fps in Crysis will be appreciated.

It really depends on your situation. You've obviously had a much better experience than I and many others I know.

*sighs*. I should backtrack and copy and paste some of my older forum posts but anyway.. My main issue with Vista is the following.

1. Pay more money for same functionality as XP. In other words if you have a Console with a 40gb harddrive, would you then go buy the exact same Console if they re-released it with a 50gb harddrive except that the re-released console runs slightly slower?

DirectX10 is something that was mean't to be a drawcard, a reason to upgrade but atm it is offering no value over directX9.

Other than that I don't have a problem with Microsoft.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

compatibility issues with Vista, that's my biggest reason for not embracing it. Also, why spend the money for something that isn't giving you a substantial jump, or any jump in performance at all? Not sure why some people are on Vista crusades, it's almost as if they have a vested interest.

Franko_3

There is not a lot of compatibility issue with Vista and that come from someone that didn't wanted to make the jump to vista. I actually had to get vista because they discontinued the north american french oem version of XP, the bastard. So far (well 1 week and 2 days lol) I had no compatibility issue with Vista 64bit ( I wanted to make the complete jump to be ready for the future), but it's probably because my computer is totally new, except my printer, but i found 64bit drivers really fast, thanks to HP update service.

Game wise, I had almost no problem to run any game and I took the whole afternoon to test them for the fun. The only exceptions are Stalker (black screen half of the time... Will have to go see in the forum for a fix) and Kotor 2 (work on xp compatibility mode without SP2, but still get choppy sometime). 2 out of 15 game installed is really good.

For the performance, I really suggest to not install it unless you got a 2 core comp. I installed it on my *not so old* p4 3ghz with 1 gb of ram and it was the equivalent of XP on my 1ghz.--> People tend to forget that XP was also a system hog back in the time. The min requiement was like 600mhz and 64mb of ram, but on my 1ghz with 256mb of ram it was an horrible performance drop from ME to XP.

I have to admit, that I never tested my monster rig with XP ( I could do it with an english verison, but why bother), so I dunno how many fps I lost in my game, how fast the system is running, etc. so my view of the new system can be a little off. The fact that I also supported ME for a long time (3 years) probably make me less demanding with my new os. Anyway, I can't wait to see how SP1 will affect my experience, even 1 fps in Crysis will be appreciated.

I can't think of a single compatibility issue. If programs are still having issues their development team should be fired unless its legacy software. Maybe the 64bit versions might still have issues since not all companiesare jumping on 64bit. I already got SP1 but can't tell you what difference it makes. Some sites are reporting a huge difference. No one is saying that anyone needs to buy Vista. I don't see anything wrong with it. In retrospect it is a lot better than Windows XP.

*sighs*. I should backtrack and copy and paste some of my older forum posts but anyway.. My main issue with Vista is the following.

1. Pay more money for same functionality as XP. In other words if you have a Console with a 40gb harddrive, would you then go buy the exact same Console if they re-released it with a 50gb harddrive except that the re-released console runs slightly slower?

DirectX10 is something that was mean't to be a drawcard, a reason to upgrade but atm it is offering no value over directX9.

Other than that I don't have a problem with Microsoft.

DJGOON

That is where you are wrong. There are numerous functions that are not included with XP.

I dont hate vista. I just dont see what i need it for. Back when xp arrived i was running win 2000 and win me, win me was better for games but still a very crappy OS. XP was great even at its release compared to those 2 when you used your pc for a lot of gaming. Vista dosnt have anything i need, plus many old games have some serious problems running on that system and i like to play old games and new games, and there xp does that perfectly, so why upgrade? :)

Dx 10 havent impressed me one bit, and current consoles are running dx9 if im correct, and we all know that sadly consoles are where the game companies earn the most money now, so why would they make a full blown dx10 game?

I want to use Vista cos I like to have the latest stuff but it causes me problems. I have it on dual boot with XP and when I boot into Vista it wont run through my graphics card. It says cannot find enough free resources to use this device (or something like that), even though it runs fine on XP on the same system. I have dual core 2.8ghz, 2gb ram, gainward nvidia geforce 7950gt oc. Ive not managed to solve the problem so am stiull using XP for now.

And yes - disabling the UAC is the first thing every Vista user should do

Reasons Why I don't like Vista:

1. Performance - Its not a step forwards in using OSes, its a step backwards. Its great to launch a new OS to take advantage of new hardware, but it isn't great when the new OS that uses more system power to run when we should be streamlining an OS to make it as efficient as possible. Granted, there are useful additionals to the system that help performance like the system protection and the security but this can be implemented on XP using certain programs

2. Compatiblity - Currently horrible, you can't run Windows Professional Image as it conflicts with the windows media centre. There are also other compatiblity issues with programs reported.

3. Next Generation support - DX10 looks good, but nothing fully supports it yet. It may have been better to implement DX10 as a release in Vista rather than support it at the start.