Why do people dislike Vista?

[Lucas]

I mean c'mon guys,

This happens everytime Microsoft releases a new operating system, So what, Some hardware doesn't work or software.

Manufacturers have had a stack of time to get themselves in gear and fix it, It's not Vista's fault, or Bills. So stop passing the buck around, and experience it for yourself instead of piggybacking off other peoples opinion

OK, the GUI has had a facelift, but that's not the only thing that's happened.

The UAC I love, Yes, it can get annoying, but if you get multiple popups for a program it's not vista's fault, it's the coders fault, it's poorly written.
FACT

But it's these bandwagon jumpers that really get me riled up, heck, only recently we had a guy on this forum calling Microsoft M$, that's plain rude.

And then before that there was a guy saying outright, never having used Vista saying it stinks, I mean get with the program.

As for all this guff about the service pack being fake and Microsoft only releasing it so the consumers think it's secure now.

Why would they want to do that anyway, Microsoft knows that they have the lions share in the everyday users market, and indeed the tech market as well.

And Vista's not that expensive, Sure OEM's are cheaper and they lock you out more often, but just give Microsoft a buzz and they'll activate you again, Whooo, a Toll Free number and 3mins of your time.

Personally I love Vista, I have Business, my University was giving them away, how could I say no?

It makes me more productive, looks nicer on my eyes, and I've never blue Screened it.

That's what It's all about right?

I also play games, Halo, Unreal 2004, Age Of series, Quake, BZFlag... I see no noticeable difference, they actually seem to run faster

Let's cut through the fat guys.

What I would like to see is
1. Reasons you dislike it (Vista)
2. If you have a reasonable way of getting Vista to not do what is mentioned in #1 - post it.
3. Spec of the PC you are using Vista on (If Any)

[JordanN]

Cute interface; high system resource use for no real reason; no killer features.

[rkresge]

Nearly pointless debate/discussion, other than purely technical issues like compatibility and security.

I manage a network of almost 2000 computers, and I will be blunt. Nearly a year after release, Vista is *NOT* ready for a production network. The necessary management tools - including Microsoft's - aren't there yet. We're keeping it out for the time being because it isn't ready to play nice in a corporate network environment, we don't have the tools we need to make sure it does play nice. Having said that, we will be deploying and supporting it on new computers beginning within a few months, but it brings next to nothing of benefit to the table in our environment other than driving hardware requirements and support costs through the roof.

I'll point out a place where Vista does not play nice. IPv6. It's on by default. What affect does that have on your network? Is it creating traffic you don't know about? Does it pose a security threat? For the next couple of years, at least, we won't be doing IPv6 - so we have to take the time to turn it off on all new Vista PCs, and we have to do it by hand because the management tools don't exist yet.

Then let's talk about user learning curve. Lucas, would you turn your grandmother loose with Vista? That sounds like a joke, but it's not. How fast will she get tired of UAC interruptions?

That's my perspective on it: A huge increase in workload and hardware costs, with very little functional benefit.

Blessings,

Roger

[Trib4l]

And as an addendum, it's no wonder that manufacturers aren't jumping on it yet when Microsoft goes and pulls something like their recent unveiling of DX10.1. While it's "backward compatible", everyone who went and jumped on the DX10 bandwagon with brand new 8800's from Nvidia just lost out - it adds new hardware specs and some new API's that the "old" $500 per/cards won't support.

[kbob]

It seems more like the difference between windows 98 and NT4. If they had positioned it that way, and made the jump to 64 bits, while giving no 32 bit upgrade path for xp, meaning 32 bit was end of life, they might have had more success selling it tot he public and admins. As it is though, htere just isn't enough upside to warrant a change-save perhaps security, which could likely be handled by simply adding in the UAC to xp.

In effect, the 32 bit version seems like they copied the UI from the 64 bit version, slapped on the UAC, added in a not quite ready for prime time DX 10...

sigh

A lot of the promises-the new file system, 64 bit, etc...just didn't get put intot he new version. Perhaps they were concerned that they could end up forking the os again, as they did with NT versus the whole 95/98/se/me line, with two driver sets, two code certs, etc...

Unfortunately, that appears to have happened anyway, with microsoft now officially supporting the "downgrades" to xp for many manufacturers...

So now, again, there are two sets of drivers, two different os's to code programs for...with most of the existing stuff "kind of" working, though as noted, with some problematic artifacts such as the pop ups.

I'm sure it will get better eventually, but as a former attendee of the MS roll outs for 2000 and XP, I just gave this one a pass. I don't need it for anything I do so far, and there isn't a compelling need to do so in the near future either...If MS keeps their promise to support xp pro for five years following the official roll out for vista, then I'll never really run into an issue-that's plenty of time. Note I'm not saying so much that its a bad OS, as it just doesn't work with the software required by work, driver support is non-existent for much of my companies printers (& HP seems to have no plans to ever support it, even on relatively new multi function printers...printing will work, but not fax or scan, which nearly everyone in our company has), and other mission critical third party apps just don't work at all. Its not the install, they just don't run. Not really MS's fault, but it's not mine either. Eventually, new versions will supplant the old-but why spend over $30,000 just to keep the same functionality we already have? And unfortunately for us, if we upgrade one machine, we have to upgrade all the others in order to be able to read the files et al. No sale here...not for a long time at this rate.

In the meantime, hopefully MS, Apple, and linux will be working to entice me into whatever the next "best" OS is going to be..

[LeAnn B]

I really don't know the technical side of why Vista is better or not but the upgrade was a lot less scary than I had imagined. Several months ago I had installed Vista Business on my husband's laptop but maybe his laptop couldn't handle it because he had never-ending problems. That's why I waited so long to upgrade mine. Maybe a matter of months isn't long enough to wait but so far I am very happy with Vista. I guess it's like going from a Pacer to a Cadillac....I don't know what's under the hood but it sure makes for a smoother ride

[wvpv]

I agree with rkresge.

From a management perspective, most of the corporate tools we use to automate A/V updates, do remote installs, patches, etc., don't work in Vista. We'd have to upgrade all of them before we rolled it out.

Not only that but all the new versions and such -- it's going to cost us more money -- and we are currently using Microsoft's eOpen non-profit pricing for all of our Microsoft products.

Cost vs benefit doesn't justify it.

Having Vista at home is another matter. I'd upgrade -- after SP1.

[[Admin] osborn4]

With our 5000 PCs, there is much pain in moving forward. There is also pain in staying behind too long.

We skipped 2000 and went from NT to XP. I'm hoping to skip Vista and go to what comes after.

Management has not approved any project to look at a new OS or a new browser (IE6 to IE7 or a different browser would be a seperate projecto) for this Fiscal Year.

So, professionally, this year I've been told to not worry about it.

Personally, if I bought a new PC, I would probably let it come with Vista, so I could get familiar with it.

So, I don't actually dislike it. I've just been told to not be interested in it, officially.

[voyager529]

I'm gonna flip the question on you, Lucas.

How has it made YOU more productive? how has YOUR production value gone up and/or production time gone down?

When it comes to hardware, I'll agree that complaining about your seven-year-old scanner not working is a bit ridiculous, but let's pretend that you spent $400 on a piece of hardware last year that works perfectly with XP but vista compatibility is half-baked. You either have to replace your $400 worth of hardware (which would mean that Vista cost you $400 in productivity), wait for an updated driver (if it doesn't work, who cares who's to blame? your hardware doesn't work. period.), or deal without it. No matter which way you slice it, in this case, Vista has *decreased* productivity, not increase it. And for that, I cannot justify it by using Flip3D.

Then there's the issue of DRM. A hot topic since no one is sure of exactly what's in it who hasn't signed a nondisclosure agreement (Peter Guttman vs. Ed Bott, so far Ed Bott is winning). Either way, the fact that there is DRM built into the OS, especially since I don't see myself using it or having the option to remove it along with the functionality it protects, makes it *very* difficult for me to justify paying for it.

Joey

[Gracetech]

It's different....

Change is hard and especially when you pay a premium and get so little in return. I think Vista is flat out worthless in 32 bit mode but in 64 is where vista will shine when all the hardware peps start getting the driver issues worked out. If you have a 32 bit system i would say xp should be your flavor of choice for now unless you are into Linux.

I personally don't dislike Vista but i don't exactly like it yet either. I'm Swiss for now until some progress is made. When it comes down to it i end up turning all the features in Vista and XP off so what i look for in an operating system is a small footprint while still packing in a good support for drivers and hardware tools. Honestly i think OSX rules in this department but that's only because they control what hardware you can use and i just hate that. Apple grates my nerves with their whole live in our box philosophy..... Oh,... right,.... Vista has very little support right now so when it starts getting more support and more support the ball will start moving heavily in its favor. I am looking forward to some movement in the 64bit domain and anxiously await developments.

crt

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by voyager529

I'm gonna flip the question on you, Lucas.

How has it made YOU more productive? how has YOUR production value gone up and/or production time gone down

Joey

Right, I'll get down to it,

You know if you want the exact sub-directory path to a file you normally have to copy and paste the path and then find the file and extension, NO LONGER!, just right click the file and [Copy Path]... Ingenious

Did you know in Vista that is you have, in your Quick Start Bar on your Start Bar they have auto shortcut keys assigned to them, for example if you want the Third program to open you can go [Window Key]+3, and lo and behold it opens.

Then you have Flip 3D which lets you see a preview of what's happening in another window, but you knew that. Everyone does so I won't harp on with that.

You may also notice on Vista that the Explorer windows no longer have the menu bar, a simple press of [Alt] and it pops back in the equation.

Everyone, have you every been selecting file and missed clicked a file and you have to start again?

Well in Vista there's a setting somewhere (don't ask me where, a friend turned it on by accident) that chucks a check box next to every file and folder, Flaming handy, no more starting again.

It's all the little things that make it great, that said Vista is not my everyday OS, XP still is, but it's coming to a end of it's life on my PC. Fast.

[greg4god]

Originally Posted by Lucas

1. Reasons you dislike it (Vista)

#1 for me not using it on my systems is Microsoft's reputation on their OS's when they first come out. That reputation will keep me from installing it on my two systems. My fist system with XP was buggy as all heck until after the first Service Pack. I'll let others "beta test" it for Microsoft.

#2, With each new OS, they just get more bloated and bloated IMO. Heck i run both my XP systems with the "XP Look" disabled. Frees up memory (of course with how much memory I run now, it's a small percentage, but why waste it???) I'm perfectly happy with the 2000 look.

I know I'll probably switch to it someday, but for now, don't have a need for it. Not worth the possible headaches.

Originally Posted by Lucas

You know if you want the exact sub-directory path to a file you normally have to copy and paste the path and then find the file and extension

No, I don't know that..... If i want a path to a file that is showing in Windows explorer, it is showing in the address bar at the top of the screen, just hit ALT-D then CTRL-C.

Originally Posted by Lucas

Did you know in Vista that is you have, in your Quick Start Bar on your Start Bar they have auto shortcut keys assigned to them, for example if you want the Third program to open you can go [Window Key]+3, and lo and behold it opens.

I can pretty much do that in XP, instead of holding down the WIN key and then pressing another, I can press the windows key and then press the key for the first letter of an item in my start menu. So if I want to use numbers, just rename them to be listed as 1-Dreamweaver, 2-Zend Studio... etc.

Not saying it doesn't have features that XP doesn't, just noting for others who may want to do those two items, that they can easily accomplish in XP.

-Greg