What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
453 Comments
- inactive, on 06/16/2008, -33/+134I'm still sticking with XP. Some major changes will have to occur for me to switch.
- AndrewDB, on 06/17/2008, -23/+84I'm using Vista, and have been for about half a year.
After Service Pack 1 came out, things really started picking up.. and it runs beautifully. I'm actually happy I'm using Vista. - GregViers, on 06/17/2008, -19/+71I use Vista and it doesn't suck. No crashes yet after 4 months.
- DarkShroud, on 06/17/2008, -32/+76I've been using Vista almost since launch without any major problems. My printer didn't work for about a month but that was it. I like all the new UI & other features.
- SHUUTOBI, on 06/17/2008, -12/+55Sticking with XP until they create an operating system that warrants an upgrade.
Something with more productivity features rather than a prettier candy coating... - TheGrOgStEr, on 06/17/2008, -14/+56I've used Vista 64-bit exclusively since a few months after launch. After a few tweaks (Disable UAC, Indexing, SuperFetch and others) I found it no different in speed when compared to XP. maybe 5 FPS difference in games, but that's it. I'm not a M$ fan or anything, I just don't know why people are constantly complaining.
Really people, It's just not as bad as people make it out to be. - blog4net, on 06/17/2008, -34/+74I cant dare shifting to vista. Such a resource hungry. XP is far lighter than Vista, easy to use.
- Picard102, on 06/17/2008, -50/+85Vista is pretty good once you get past all the whiners.
- bobdobolena, on 06/17/2008, -26/+55I switched to Ubuntu on all of my home systems. Vista costs too much.
- inactive, on 06/17/2008, -10/+39I avoided Vista for awhile but when started using it, especially the media options, I don't like going back to XP.
I like XP and like having a dual boot, but it's more for legacy applications and a couple games.
And I think everyone is kinda sick of the propaganda about Vista sucking - so far no problems. But I think most of these goobers are talking about a friend.. or a friends friend... that heard that vista sucked... when doing an inplace upgrade. Any inplace upgrade usually sucks and would never advise it. That said, Vista kicks ass and the 64 bit version the most useful thing out there for people who actually want to work on large apps.
If MS was smart, they would make a dual bootup with both Vista and XP, giving a user an easy choice and easy emersion into their Vista OS - I mean MS gets owns both, they should offer both as an option. If they did, people probably would be switching over in droves. But this is nothing new and kinda like what happened with Windows 98 to XP. Now people dont wanna give up XP. Kind of ironic isnt it?!
PS- XP was ntroduced as more resource hungry and wanted users to upgrade to more memory and recommended a faster processor. And this is when those hardware products were much more expensive. So not sure what the bitching is about now in comparison. - DonSlice, on 06/17/2008, -9/+36I have to work with Vista almost exclusively at work. Gotta say, I'm not as turned off with it as I was before getting this job. I still prefer XP over it... though I am considering switching.
- Picard102, on 06/17/2008, -24/+46Funny how any pro vista comments are instantly buried.
- boobsbr, on 06/17/2008, -5/+27dude, I run Windows XP on a 2002 Athlon XP 1900+ with 512 MB of RAM (initially it was 256 MB) and a GeForce3 Ti 200. tell me, will Vista run FINE on this without looking like W98?
the point is, I don't need to spend another 20-30 bucks on RAM, specially here in Brazil where 1 GB of RAM costs about R$200. XP does everything a regular user needs, just faster than Vista. - Koush, on 06/17/2008, -11/+32Vista is fine, it is more resource hungry then XP, but that should only be a problem if your pc is somewhat older.
I've been using it for about a year now, and it runs smoothly, espically after SP1 fixed the bugs.
Before SP1, for me, if you ever tried to go into sleep mode, you'd get a blue screen of death :). - Foot56, on 06/17/2008, -29/+50as a gamer XP works great I get about 30% more FPS then when in Vista. =/
- smacksaw, on 06/17/2008, -9/+29Well, he got one thing right - Apple needs to change up their ads about Vista/PCs. Talk about beating a dead horse. The point where they were cute is long gone. Now they just sound smarmy and snotty. In fact, whatever bad rep that Apple users have is being perpetuated by these ads, because like any snob (the users or Apple) they simply don't know when to shut the ***** up already. Sorry fanboys. Not trying to insult you, just give you some friendly advice.
Will people stick to Vista in their new PC? I have 2 with Vista and bought 1 with XP after those two. The ones with Vista I boot into Kubuntu. The one with XP gets used for XP more than Kubuntu. I figure that if I have to ***** with my OS and fight with it, I'd rather use my energy on Linux and make it awesome as opposed to fighting Vista for no real gain.
Please Microsoft. Go simple. And not your version of "simple", my version of simple. Like Apple's version of simple. Your version of simple sucks. - Jackosx, on 06/17/2008, -17/+35Everyone moaned about XP when it was launched, the same will happen to Vista, it will mature and become a very widely used OS bundled with all cheap home/business computers, and so the vicious cycle continues...
I have no problems with my Vista PC, plays TF2 fine, never crashes. OS X FTW tho ;) - 471776, on 06/17/2008, -2/+18Of course, yes, we should hold back development because a few people might get confused by an interface change. What a great idea. Maybe people should learn about the basics of computers rather than depending on being familiar with a certain user interface.
It isn't like the Vista and Office '07 interfaces are massively different. The designers don't make the interface deliberately hard to use. If you have any common sense, Office '07 is actually easier to use after about 30mins getting used to it. It all makes sense, it's organized and structured into tabs. Nothing particularly confusing about it - it's probably easier to pick up than the old menu system. Even if you've never used a computer before, it's all very unambiguous and logical. You don't need to be an expert to have common sense.
"radically new" - hardly. Half the complaints against Vista are that it didn't add anything really significantly new. Anyway, if you rely on computers to do your job, then you should be able to handle a computer, otherwise you aren't qualified for your job. Being able to use a computer includes adapting to news interfaces and features, because IT is a dynamic field and you have to be able to handle such changes in software. - calinthematrix, on 06/17/2008, -0/+16XP is as secure as any MS product.... if you configure it right and know what to disable/close.
I have used vista now for a year- and I am not happy with it. The problem with Vista's security is it nags the user to death with clicking permission popup windows, etc.... until the user shuts all the "security" off. I consider going back to XP all the time... but I haven't because I am well aware (after 17 years in IT) that if you are going to use an MS OS, you have to change with the times- or eventually most new software won't work. The only real option; if you get sick of Windows, is to use and OS like linux----> or use a Microsoft OS and put up with the upgrades, changes, patches, service packs, etc......and just shutup. Well, that's not entirely true.... you could always write your own. :P
- pdileepa, on 06/17/2008, -5/+21I like Vista and use it everyday at home. I use openSUSE 10.3/Windows XP at work. But someone at Microsoft has to answer the following questions for me:
1) Why does a default install need over 12 GB of free space?
2) Why does Windowswinsxs grow in size like crazy? (I understand that this is for application compatibility, but they could have just 'bundled' Windows XP if they wanted to offer real compatibility!)
3) Why does a default install of Vista consume over 700 MB of RAM with no applications running?
4) Why are there so many services running in the background? What advantage are these new services providing me over Windows XP?
5) Why do applications take longer to launch than with Windows XP, with all the available RAM and all the new Vista specific technologies? - MadEnvoy, on 06/17/2008, -0/+15I work for a technical college. Over 80% of our machines can't run Vista. We can't afford to buy new machines just for Vista. We will most likely NOT go to Vista anytime soon.
- agentb111, on 06/16/2008, -17/+32co-signed with sticking with XP, at least for another year or two though. vista just seems like of intrusive as is.
- ender7074, on 06/17/2008, -1/+14It was the same when it went from 98/ME to XP. Probably the same people whining too.
- igyigyigy, on 06/17/2008, -1/+14Ubuntu has a 'feature' of 'costs too much'?
... - Assezdefromage, on 06/17/2008, -0/+13Don't even start with ME....
- barc0de, on 06/17/2008, -3/+15I havent even upgraded to XP yet - 2000 forever!
- Jhiaxuz, on 06/17/2008, -1/+12It's a requirement on the box I think.
- Scott2, on 06/17/2008, -8/+19Thanks for finally beginning to accept reality, I'm glad someone is.
I've been using Vista for a while, and it's been great ever since SP1. The only group that has an excuse not to adopt Vista yet is entities with large numbers of off-network staff. - boobsbr, on 06/17/2008, -2/+12basically you're saying that his pc, which is capable of running xp and games cannot handle vista. tell me which os is the resource hog?
- FeloniusMonkey, on 06/17/2008, -2/+12So it's a pig with secure lipstick.
- tomz17, on 06/17/2008, -2/+12Windows has noticed you are attempting to click allow... allow / cancel
- tama00, on 06/17/2008, -5/+15He could very well just be playing crysis and getting 5 fps, then switched to tinyVista and got 6.5%
WHOA 30% INCREASE DUDE! - JasonCox, on 06/17/2008, -3/+13That argument seems familiar... Oh yeah, that's what everyone said about XP when comparing it to ME and 2000.
- dshPls, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10But old people might become confused when they see the glossy windows start button!
- Gillagad, on 06/17/2008, -4/+13Control Panel > User Accounts > Turn UAC off
- dshPls, on 06/17/2008, -0/+9I turned "account control" off too, which is the thing that bugs the ***** out of us, and now Windows makes sure I know because it tells me it's off in the Security Center. The daily popups letting me know it's off also help to remind me I turned it off.
- ahhell, on 06/17/2008, -7/+15You are such a rebel.
Let us all bask in your awesomeness. - Tenoq, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9Clearly because it works on your machine it must work fine on everyone's machines.
- GRTWHT, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9And they were right, at least until SP2.
- mrevaaaaa, on 06/17/2008, -18/+26For an extra GB of RAM which will only cost you 20-30 bucks these days, you can run vista fine. Your computer probably already COULD run vista fun, you're just letting all of the talk that everyone else says get to you.
I've used vista on multiple computers, good and bad. Even on a 1.5 Ghz Celeron processor with 1 GB of RAM it runs fine with a score of like 3.2. Stop listening to all that ***** everyone is saying about Vista, it is definitely not a bad operating system, nor is it as much of a hog as everyone says that it is. - allan17, on 06/17/2008, -4/+12As a gamer on a tight budget, I don't want an OS that will eat up more resources. Even if I did switch to Vista, I would just turn off every effect I could, and it still wouldn't be as fast as XP.
XP is just as stable and secure when configured properly.
XP is faster, simpler, and more compatible with old programs.
Having said that, I will probably end up switching to Vista when some of the games I want to play are DX10 only. - Jhiaxuz, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8I've seen charts which show 17% performance drops (before SP) but none as high as 30% and this was with the Source engine.
The biggest issue Vista still has is slow Network and Hard Drive copying speeds and a little chunky. - taladon, on 06/17/2008, -2/+101. Most likely for background compilation of .NET assembiles, exploading cab files etc.. Yeah it could clean up more frequently during the install, but that would slow the install down.
2. You kinda answered your own question. App compatibility. Windows has always "emulated" (and I use the term very loosely) previous iterations of itself. That's what wowexec.exe does on XP: provide some app compatibility for older programs by being a "runtime" of sorts for older code. (I know this entire number isn't totally accurate, but it gives the basics of what's going on.)
3. (Sigh) I've seen this complaint on every forum I've run across. Yes, Vista will suck up available memory. What it's doing is looking at usage stats it's collected and loading the dll's and programs it thinks you're going to want to run. If you run some other program, Vista happily releases that memory and loads the app you ran from disk. (And updates it's history tables so it may pre-load that program in the future)
4. Depends on the version of Vista you're running and the features you're using. By default, Vista Ultimate runs a boatload of services for everything from previous file revisions to Fast User Switching to Wireless Zero Configuration. Vista could certainly have a better way for you to tell the computer what you use and don't use, but turning off services is always a trade off. FOr example, turn of BITS and you won't get automatic updates.
5. A couple of reasons come to mind: If you are starting the program up when you first see the desktop, Vista is still busy doing preloads, looking for Windows Updates, potentially starting non-critical services that are configured to start dead last, etc.
If you're starting up your app after Vista is fully loaded, maybe the app is poorly written in regards to how it loads dll's or Vista is masking some application compatibilty issues. If there is a particular app that takes an exceptionally long time to start, I'd recommend seeing if a newer version is available or complaining to tech support if that is an option.
Vista did change many things. Security, while annoying, has now come to the Windows desktop. The old windows messages loophole is mostly closed. MSgina is gone, replaced with a modern, easy to plug into sign on system for third party authentication (biometrics, smart cards, etc).
And finally, the change of moving sound and video out of kernel mode is absolutely wonderful. I've had the sound system crash due to buggy drivers, and all I got was a little balloon tip telling me what happened, and a link to the manufacturer's site. So for me VIsta FTW!!!!one! - Stalks, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8E8400 @ 4.2Ghz, 4gb RAM, 8800 Ultra, Raid0 (2x 75gb WD Raptor)
When I first installed Vista 12 months ago I found World of Warcraft was unbearably slow compared to XP. Nvidia drivers were in their infancy at the time.
I just did a new install and decided to do a similar test using WoW, Age of Conan, Eve, Crysis and Half-Life 2 as test beds. Although altogethor an unscientific process there was less then 10fps difference accross the board on all games. And 10fps going from 70 to 80 makes no difference to the feel of the game whatsoever. Crysis had no difference in either games running @ DX9 in Vista & XP. - Melodik, on 06/17/2008, -2/+10Right, because Vista asks for your confirmation if you decide to so-much as think about opening any program ever.
My problems with Vista were stated best by DeathWish: Vista just isn't the high-end of what Microsoft is capable of. Yes, it has some features that I think we can all appreciate and I do understand that there are always teething problems when it comes to new OS' (except in Apple's case), but the problems with Vista go beyond simply getting used to a shiny new screen.
I simply can't understand why operating systems aren't going in reverse, with a streamlined approach to computers that takes up less resources while boosting performance. Is that really too much to ask for? - mnky9800n, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8On release XP was an exponentially better operating system than ME. Ugh, I had a laptop with ME and it would blue screen on at least a daily basis. It felt like the developers had said, "What are the worst attributes out of all the OS's we've made so far? Ok lets make sure those go into ME."
- madk, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8I'm in the same boat. All legit questions.
- hokie47, on 06/17/2008, -10/+18Really I kind of like Vista. Fewer crashes than XP. The biggest problem is developers gave Vista the finger.
- frepnog, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8"Oh and if I see "M$" or other such lame expressions like "Microshaft" in these comments, I will jab somebody in the eyes with a spork. Seriously. They aren't funny anymore."
Neither are comments year after year about "the beginning of the Linux Desktop era". That era will never begin. - JasonCox, on 06/17/2008, -4/+11I've been using Vista daily since the beta program in 2006 and moved all my machines to RTM the day it was released. I've never had an issue with Vista that wasn't related to faulty/failing hardware.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 465 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is