why is vista so bad?

The one thing i see the most is how much ram vista needs to run and that xp does not need as much but is this not the same with all new OS.

Did windows 95 not use as much ram as 98 and so on all the way to vista.

For me i like vista way better then xp .

1, it was way faster setting up my network.

2, Its a lot faster to find out whats going on when something stops working(like my internet).

3. its way faster getting to a program then xp was.

And yes you may need new hardware but i needed to get new hardware going from windows 2000 to xp.

So i dont see why people are getting to mad that you need to upgrade the hardware?.

The one thing i see the most is how much ram vista needs to run and that xp does not need as much but is this not the same with all new OS.

Did windows 95 not use as much ram as 98 and so on all the way to vista.

For me i like vista way better then xp .

1, it was way faster setting up my network.

2, Its a lot faster to find out whats going on when something stops working(like my internet).

3. its way faster getting to a program then xp was.

And yes you may need new hardware but i needed to get new hardware going from windows 2000 to xp.

So i dont see why people are getting to mad that you need to upgrade the hardware?.

General909

I feel the same as you. I love vista and don't see what people dont like it.

You 5 year old hardware may not run vista as fast as you like(did you reely thing it would?).

All new Operating systems needs more power then the older ver.

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Elemayo

1. It's not incompatable with that many programs. The majprity of programs will run with Vista, but of course with every release you'll get programs that break.

2. Never mind the fact that there's been a 5 year gap between XP and Vista, of course there's going to be a performance decrease.

4. I do agree with your here, UAC does get annoying.

[QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

G013M

1. It's not incompatable with that many programs. The majprity of programs will run with Vista, but of course with every release you'll get programs that break.

2. Never mind the fact that there's been a 5 year gap between XP and Vista, of course there's going to be a performance decrease.

4. I do agree with your here, UAC does get annoying.

I disabled UAC and never had a problem with the security type stuff.

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Elemayo

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Elemayo

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

[QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

General909

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

[QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Elemayo

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

Reely? New games need more ram. Is this new to vista?. I remember all ways having to upgrade my hardware on my xp system to play newer games.

In the end if i have a old game that needs 512 ram on xp its not going to need more ram on vista. (ex Css uses 700mb ram on xp and it uses 700mb on vista.)

[QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Elemayo

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

Well then let's just all go back to Windows 98 then, as it'll run faster the XP at games.

[QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

General909

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B646828A

Reely? New games need more ram. Is this new to vista?. I remember all ways having to upgrade my hardware on my xp system to play newer games.

Look down at the system requirements and tell me it's not higher for Vista than XP

[QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Elemayo

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B646828A

Reely? New games need more ram. Is this new to vista?. I remember all ways having to upgrade my hardware on my xp system to play newer games.

Look down at the system requirements and tell me it's not higher for Vista than XP

The game itself does not need more ram. If you go in to the task manager when playing the game you will see the amount of ram is all most the same.

Its letting you know that the vista os is going to take up more ram to run so the system not the game is going to need more ram then xp.

[QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

General909

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B646828A

Reely? New games need more ram. Is this new to vista?. I remember all ways having to upgrade my hardware on my xp system to play newer games.

Look down at the system requirements and tell me it's not higher for Vista than XP

The game itself does not need more ram. If you go in to the task manager when playing the game you will see the amount of ram is all most the same.

Its letting you know that the vista os is going to take up more ram to run so the system not the game is going to need more ram then xp.

Yes, I know that but wouldn't you rather have better performance?

[QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Elemayo

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B646828A

Reely? New games need more ram. Is this new to vista?. I remember all ways having to upgrade my hardware on my xp system to play newer games.

Look down at the system requirements and tell me it's not higher for Vista than XP

The game itself does not need more ram. If you go in to the task manager when playing the game you will see the amount of ram is all most the same.

Its letting you know that the vista os is going to take up more ram to run so the system not the game is going to need more ram then xp.

Yes, I know that but wouldn't you rather have better performance?

Yeah lets all milk the performance by playing all our games in low specs! Well get hundreds of frames per seconds if we go back to 8-bit!

Yes, I know that but wouldn't you rather have better performance?

Yeah lets all milk the performance by playing all our games in low specs! Well get hundreds of frames per seconds if we go back to 8-bit!

8-bit all the way.

if you have at least 2gb and a mid grade cpu, you wont notice much of a performance decrease... and id rather have good performance AND better visuals (dx10 + any system costing over 600 bucks)Lilgunney612

Well Vista and good performance don't mix. After turning off all the frills in Vista my 3dMark only dropped 800 points from 14.5K when I attempted to switch my system, it's vista ready and solid equiptment but the game play in my 2 main games BF 2142 and DDO were significatnly laggy and the actual Frame Rates in game dropped by HALF and the damned thing kept crasing. Just enough te effect the gameplay in Titan mode on 2142 and the Orchard in DDO.

Just my 2 cents but Vista is Horrid for Gaming. It sure is georgus I just wish it worked.

[QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"][QUOTE="General909"][QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

Penguin_dragon

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

Look on the box of most newer games...Minimum RAM-512MB(1GB For Vista) Just an example...

And why WOULDN'T you want better performance and lower stystem requirements for games?

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=B646828A

Reely? New games need more ram. Is this new to vista?. I remember all ways having to upgrade my hardware on my xp system to play newer games.

Look down at the system requirements and tell me it's not higher for Vista than XP

The game itself does not need more ram. If you go in to the task manager when playing the game you will see the amount of ram is all most the same.

Its letting you know that the vista os is going to take up more ram to run so the system not the game is going to need more ram then xp.

Yes, I know that but wouldn't you rather have better performance?

Yeah lets all milk the performance by playing all our games in low specs! Well get hundreds of frames per seconds if we go back to 8-bit!

XP has better graphics in crysis and still VASTLY better performance.When i mean beter graphics i mean i can pump in the settings alot more in XP than vista if i am to retain reasonable performance.

The only people who like vista are those who are ONLY running vista and dont know what kind of gaming performance they are sacrificing for no reason.99% of the games either dont look better in vista or you cant really make them look better than what they would in XP due to it being really demanding.

I have a pretty decent PC and i am running dual boot and fully know what i am saying here.

The only people who like vista are those who are ONLY running vista and dont know what kind of gaming performance they are sacrificing for no reason.99% of the games either dont look better in vista or you cant really make them look better than what they would in XP due to it being really demanding.

I have a pretty decent PC and i am running dual boot and fully know what i am saying here.

Thinker_145

5-10 FPS really isnt much of a sacrifice, more like an inconvinience. And 99%? Where exactly did you pull that fact out from?

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

The only people who like vista are those who are ONLY running vista and dont know what kind of gaming performance they are sacrificing for no reason.99% of the games either dont look better in vista or you cant really make them look better than what they would in XP due to it being really demanding.

I have a pretty decent PC and i am running dual boot and fully know what i am saying here.

Penguin_dragon

5-10 FPS really isnt much of a sacrifice, more like an inconvinience. And 99%? Where exactly did you pull that fact out from?

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

The only people who like vista are those who are ONLY running vista and dont know what kind of gaming performance they are sacrificing for no reason.99% of the games either dont look better in vista or you cant really make them look better than what they would in XP due to it being really demanding.

I have a pretty decent PC and i am running dual boot and fully know what i am saying here.

Penguin_dragon

5-10 FPS really isnt much of a sacrifice, more like an inconvinience. And 99%? Where exactly did you pull that fact out from?

5-10? that's huge, i would un-install it straight away after seen an effect on performance like that.

[QUOTE="Penguin_dragon"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

The only people who like vista are those who are ONLY running vista and dont know what kind of gaming performance they are sacrificing for no reason.99% of the games either dont look better in vista or you cant really make them look better than what they would in XP due to it being really demanding.

I have a pretty decent PC and i am running dual boot and fully know what i am saying here.

michael098

5-10 FPS really isnt much of a sacrifice, more like an inconvinience. And 99%? Where exactly did you pull that fact out from?

5-10? that's huge, i would un-install it straight away after seen an effect on performance like that.

I am so glad that i went dual boot.

[QUOTE="Elemayo"]

Okay...

1. It's incompatible with so many programs.

2. It requires much Higher system requirements for Games than XP

3. It drastically lowers system performance compared to the same hardware running XP.

4. All of the security settings get extremely annoying even when disabled.

So all of this almost eliminates the entire point of upgrading at all.

General909

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

1.Ummm you do know that it win 2000 came before XP. So that's like running a Win. 2000 program on Vista.

2. No, they certainly do not. You need almost twice the ram to equal xp's performance.

3. My computer (I've upgraded since) was made for 2000 and xp ran great on it. I experianced the same performance. In vista, this is not the case.

4. BAM!

I get 7 more fps in crysis in XP compared to vista in the same settings.But that's not all,the game stuters considerably more in vista.I'll call that HUGE.

I am so glad that i went dual boot.

Thinker_145

the reason why it stutters is because in default it starts up in dx10. try starting it in dx9 with the dx9 very high tweak and see the results.

After reading through all the posts of this thread, I've got some things to share:

1) Generally speaking, even though you get a lot of RAM for vista, say 4 gb, it will never perform as well as XP does.

2) How is it possible for games to look better in XP than on Vista? I don't think this is possible. The ONLY exception is Crysis, and only because there is a tweaking method one can do in XP files to simulate DX10. After this, it would look about the same as on vista, but never better... And for the rest of the games, it would always look better in Vista because of DX10.

3) Continuing my previous point, of course that games will always perform better in Xp. One thing is performance and other thing is image quality.

Summing all this up, I would only use XP in order to play Crysis at DX10. For the rest, Vista. There is no such application that demands as much as Crysis does. For the rest of the programs, the performance loss between vista and Xp is insignificant, if not, minimal.

I think Dual-Boot is the best solution for ppl who wants to use VISTA badly and they cant give up from using XP and this is what im going to do later.

i dont see why i need to change os when xp works great.

the only reason i see is vista's directx 10.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

I get 7 more fps in crysis in XP compared to vista in the same settings.But that's not all,the game stuters considerably more in vista.I'll call that HUGE.

I am so glad that i went dual boot.

filmography

the reason why it stutters is because in default it starts up in dx10. try starting it in dx9 with the dx9 very high tweak and see the results.

The next person who says Vista is a system hog should take a look at this..........

Am running Vista Ultimate with 2G of ram.......boot up with Avast (Anti-Virus), Comodo (firewall) and ATI's control panel and only use about 30% memory. I've looked at that meter however when I'm running COD2 and memory usage has shot up to around 55-60%.....so perhaps Vista uses a little more memory in certain instances like that, but I haven't noticed any significant lag/slowdown--even when I'm running iTunes, Firefox(w/several tabs open) and Microsoft PowerPoint.

My Vista scores are near the top of the chart too (5.7 for the processor, 5.9 for everything else)............dunno how much this means in the grand scheme of things........don't have any current/next gen. games (like Crysis, COD4, R6: Vegas etc.) installed yet though......

I can't say that I really hate Vista but its bass-ackwards in a lot of ways, it does away with several old ways of doing things and replaces them with solutions that are less easy to use and less helpful to me.

So sure the imaging is better (finally) and some other things are improved but given that DX10 has yet to prove itself and Vista takes steps back in a lot of ways..its just not good.

1.The same thing happen when xp came out(there were a lot of games from win 98 i still cant install not that i would wont to any more)

2.what? games needs as much requirements on vista then it does on xp.

3.it's like that will all new OS.(see if u can find a computer that was made for windows 2000 and run windows 2000 for a day then put xp on that computer. You will find out that windows 2000 runs faster on that computer then xp does.

4.i will give that to you vista does have a lot of security.

General909

1. XP is an entirely different code base than its most widely-used predecessor 98. XP was a software architecture switch, Vista is an NT numerical increment.

2.This part may be true, can't say for sure.

3. The mandatory upgrade cycle barely exists outside of the Windows world and even between 2K and XP it wasn't bad at all, when the minimum for running Vista decently is above spec for 95% of the computers out there its bloated. Even those of us with computers that can blow them away should desire lower reqs.

I doubt RAM is even an issue because of those awsome USBs with ready boost (which only works with Vista)Penguin_dragon

Windows 7 Should be Good ?bike749

Hopefully they'll roll WinFS into Windows 7 and streamline the system instead of trying to add a bunch of features that nobody really wanted.

If thats the case, yes it could be good.