Oh please are you saying that all those people in that thread hate Vista because they have Mac & run OS X i don't think so , anyway's me & you have had too many run in's in the past to start another war
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Vista worse than XP?
- Thread starter MBX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh please are you saying that all those people in that thread hate Vista because they have Mac & run OS X i don't think so , anyway's me & you have had too many run in's in the past to start another war
Actually. Yes. They're called fanboys. You don't go to a Nissan dealer when you want to know about a Toyota, do you? Many people here (on these forums, not necessarily in this specific section), have never used Vista and only throw out their 2 cents based on what their friend's other friend who knows a guy who had dinner with a girl who's father works for a company who once used Vista told them.
Did you actually look at all the reasons listed? One reoccuring one is "Spyware." That's not entirely a Windows problem. That's a user stupidity problem. Stop going to sketchy websites. Stop downloading sketchy programs, and you have no worries. Practice safe browsing and it's not a problem.
Another one is "slow" (geeze, thanks for explaining). It helps that you don't install Vista on an old computer.
One person mentioned "Copied OS X." I sure hope they're not referring to Vista's sidebar and Dashboard in OS X, because the sidebar was around a lot longer than Dashboard (think 2003, possibly earlier). Apple just beat MS out with the product due to the delay and eventual cancellation of Longhorn.
People mention UAC. Disable it if it bothers you. I mean, it's not like OS X doesn't ask for your password when you go to upgrade, or alarm you each time you open an application that you downloaded from the web... Wait. It does.
If people don't want to like it because of of the "experience" (look and feel). Fine. It's personal preference. But when it seems like people are just making things up just to hate Vista for, or take relatively minor things and blow them out of proportion, that's when credibility is lost. I'm not saying that Vista's perfect. But Mac OS X is no where near perfection either. No OS is. "Problems" that are presented in Vista that are also in Mac OS X, are seen as awesome, and ground breaking OS X (take the memory management for instance, and asking for the admin password, which is just a different presentation of UAC).
Coming here to get reasons to use or not use Vista is like going to a Windows forum and asking for reasons to use or not use Mac OS X (where the list is just as long).
This website sums it up for everyone...
http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/
A little test Microsoft ran (yeah i know it was a self-trial) to make a point about Vista. I too feel that everyone has jumped on the hate Vista bandwagon.
Vista copied Mac... We copied Linux. Even coverflow was acquired from elsewhere.
I'm fed up of all of these excuses to why Vista is crab when in reality the only thing they f***ed up a treat is the audio drivers which drives a/v techs like myself crazy!
I love the new improved Vista and as far as i'm concerned they can copy mac all they like as i prefer the way OS X works any way!
http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/
A little test Microsoft ran (yeah i know it was a self-trial) to make a point about Vista. I too feel that everyone has jumped on the hate Vista bandwagon.
Vista copied Mac... We copied Linux. Even coverflow was acquired from elsewhere.
I'm fed up of all of these excuses to why Vista is crab when in reality the only thing they f***ed up a treat is the audio drivers which drives a/v techs like myself crazy!
I love the new improved Vista and as far as i'm concerned they can copy mac all they like as i prefer the way OS X works any way!
I think the biggest setback with Vista is the amount of memory a computer has. I have two laptops running Vista. One was an HP originally running XP and upgraded to Vista with 2GB ram. The other is a HP that I bought a month ago running XP and 4GB ram. The first HP with 2GB is much slower at doing the same things that the 4GB machine can do.
Other than the memory issue, they are the same and run Vista just as good as my Macs running OS X. I've had my Macs apps crash and had to push the power button to reboot. I've had the same problems with Vista that I had with XP. One thing I've realized over the one year that I've been using Macs is the only difference is OS X does things differently but it doesn't do them any better than Vista or XP.
I thought I was going to end up the biggest Mac fan ever since I bought four Macs in one year but I still enjoy using my Windows computers just as much.
They both are good. MS has a good thing in Vista. I put off using it for over a year because of all the negative things I read but it was a year that I now wish I wouldn't have waited.
Other than the memory issue, they are the same and run Vista just as good as my Macs running OS X. I've had my Macs apps crash and had to push the power button to reboot. I've had the same problems with Vista that I had with XP. One thing I've realized over the one year that I've been using Macs is the only difference is OS X does things differently but it doesn't do them any better than Vista or XP.
I thought I was going to end up the biggest Mac fan ever since I bought four Macs in one year but I still enjoy using my Windows computers just as much.
They both are good. MS has a good thing in Vista. I put off using it for over a year because of all the negative things I read but it was a year that I now wish I wouldn't have waited.
So if Windows Server 2003 runs just hunky-dory in VM (and it does, along with an Oracle 11 instance and an enterprise-class application), what's the problem with Vista by it's little lonesome, purported to be "just" a desktop OS?
Face it: MS totally screwed the pooch with Vista, from years before release until now. It has been, is, and will continue to be recognized as a failure. Don't even waste my time with the 180 million
Time to jump on the Windows 7 bandwagon while there's still room.
whats the point making exaggerated statement when no OSX can even be run in VM anyway. Does that mean apple screwed the pooch with Leopard?
You sure like to bash M$ in every possible way, it seems. Any minor stuff will be "screwed up" in your dictionary, Im sure about that.
PS, If you want to claim Vista just like windows Me, sold alot of copy but still a failure, you might want to present some data. I don't take false implications.
Granted but not all
But the people who post these comments have tried Vista thats the point to call them liar's is abit rude
Yep i do understand what your saying but the people on here use Mac's and the best machines to run Vista on are Mac's
Anyway's i expect your gonna post back to my comments but like i said i don't war Fi so can we drop it ?
Where's the claim by Apple or anyone here it could? You're changing the argument.
Once again, that's a distracting statement, not based in any fact whatsoever. Get with the program.
PS, If you want to claim Vista just like windows Me, sold alot of copy but still a failure, you might want to present some data. I don't take false implications.
Neither do I. You like to toss numbers and challenge folks, but when you're challenged tend to go on some indignant offensive. Learn the difference between shipped and sold. Business Accounting 101 might be of some use.
Your arguments are unconvincing, claims specious, statistics egregiously misstated. You defend Microsoft for no other reason than to defend them, countering any statement regardless of validity or thoughtfulness that speaks of any weakness in Redmond.
I have implemented, used, trained, and supported Microsoft products at the enterprise level for over 20 years, do so to this day, and likely will for the foreseeable future. Many of their products have been more than sufficient for the task, and in some cases, even the best tool for the job. I can say however, that they completely dropped the ball with
You're right.
I didn't call them liars. Misinformed. Yes. They can believe what they want. If they don't want to use Vista, fine by me. Not hurting my wallet since I'm not on big Bill's pay role.
I've had problems locating that article. Got a link to it? I have a hunch that's an overgeneralized statement. I know it was an article in something, but I never read it and I would be interested in reading it. I would venture to guess that it was written sometime last year since that's when I last heard about the article. Then again, my personal experience with any pre-installed Vista on a pre-built computer is crappy due to all the bloat these OEM manufacturers (not MS) throw on them. So, in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote the article did the benchmarks and everything using the pre-installed version of Vista, bloatware and all that wouldn't be found in a boot camp loaded version of Vista (since it's a "clean" copy of Vista). After all, Macs use the same hardware as any other manufacturer or home built PC. So, there is nothing preventing these other Dell's, HP's from achieving the same scores with the same hardware, unless they bundle crap drivers, which all OEM manufacturers do.
But even then. Making the assumption that your statement is true (I'm not all that interested in arguing that with you, and my above statements aren't meant to be argumentative, but rather inane babbling where I'm not trying to make much of a point, especially since I haven't even read the article), what does that have to do with the validity of their statements? I personally think the best machine to run Vista with is a home built PC made to your own needs/wants using a fresh version of Vista, like what you'd use with Boot Camp (no trial bloat crap).
I only have a problem when misinformation is spread or I disagree with something. I'm not looking for a war and I'm not calling you stupid or anything.
Kind of a side comment, but didn't you say that you did IT? If you didn't, then please disregard this, and if did, then just give my following comment(s) some thought. If it wasn't for any of Window's problems (whether it be crashing, over complication of what arguably should be simple tasks) or even Linux's problems, then wouldn't you not have a job? If Windows or any OS for that matter was perfect, simple, easy to use and maintain that even any average user could do complicated tasks with ease, wouldn't that possibly eliminate IT jobs? Couldn't you argue that one of the main reason for IT jobs is due to the complicity of OS's and networking and flaws in OS's? So wouldn't it make sense that due to MS's market penetration and Linux/Unix's complicity, that people in the IT field have jobs, so that the business men/women, artists, average joe, old people, computer illiterate don't have to learn how to run a computer (besides the basic tasks)? This isn't so much a jab at you, but everywhere I go, even Windows forums, people in IT are always complaining about changes in Windows. Whether it's changes from 2000 to XP or XP to Vista or Server 2003 to Server 2008. These changes to me seem like job security. If they were all consistent and easy that any idiot could do it, there would be no need for an IT department in a company, since the OS would be perfect.
Windows Server 2003 doesn't have the same features that Windows Vista has.
It's best experienced with full access to a graphics card. Several new technologies rely on having a graphics card (such as Aero, without it your experience wont be as good).
You are correct however, "recognized" as a failure - but that impression is wrong.
It does a lot of things well, but some people are unwilling to let go of the past or to actually try it because of all the inaccurate stories they've heard.
In some ways Windows Vista is a lot better than Leopard.
ha! this is hilarious. i don't believe any response is needed. this is sort of like arguing with somebody over whether or not water is wet.
Please. I would like to read your response. Instead of just trolling and posting inane comments, please, post something with some substance. Something that MAYBE someone can get something out of it or even hold a decent conversation with you. Please. I'm begging you. Enlighten us all.
Well at least we seem to agree on something so that's a good start
Ok the word liar was a bit harsh sorry, but i still don't understand how people are *misinformed* when they say that they have tried it on their on machines and their is so much info around on the subject
I wish i did have i did have the page booked marked but lost it due to safari taking a dump one day (funny that )but i do know it was from one of the top PC mags
What i think I'm trying to get at is if they try to run Vista on machines that fall well within Vista's recommend spec's then why do so many people still have issue's with it their must be a reason for this surely?? and i don't think this is down to them being misinformed as most people on here know about sp1 etc & people that don't use this forum still have the same problems
I still don't understand this misinformed bit but i do understand your not trying to call me stupid and the same goes for you,i'm not after a war either but i think it's pointless us airing are view's in public as we clearly have different views & will keep on going round in circles on this one
Yep you are correct i do work in IT and i do think all you mentioned above is a perfectly valid point, but i only teach IT and on that level i think windows in any form is/are a horrible OS, but i do degress that this could be in part to my students as most of my student's are of O.A.P's or have learning disabilities ( this comment was not to be-little them in any shape or form, only to make a point ) as i love my job & it is very rewarding . Your right people in IT do complain about changes but if it was a progression and not a backwards progression then i think this would be less. But you are right if OS's were perfect then there would be little need for an IT department and for that all i can say is god bless bill gates
I don't see why.
Microsoft designed Windows Vista to run natively on a pretty high spec PC with a graphics card that could handle all of the desktop composition stuff (just like Mac OS X does... - you don't seem to find that funny).
If you run it in a VM, you'll lose a lot of the interface's best features because they simply aren't designed to work in a VM.
Windows Server 2003 isn't as modern as Windows Vista is either.
Windows Vista was built on top of Windows Server 2003, so it's only logical that Windows Vista would have higher requirements than Windows Server 2003.
In the future, please add something to the discussion rather than posting some smartass comment.
When I say misinformed, I'm talking about the people who make over generalized statements, like "Vista is a resource hog," or "it's slow."
Vista is not a "resource hog." It does use a lot of resources, but it just doesn't use them and do nothing with them. Most of this complaining is due to "superfetch." Vista is no more of a "resource hog" than Leopard. People on here bash Vista for stuff that they praise Mac OS X for having.
People say that it's slow. In all honesty, I have no idea under what circumstances they're saying it's slow in. Are they talking about in Boot Camp or under virtualization? I'll be the first to admit, Vista would not be an OS I would want to virtualize anytime soon. When XP was released, I wouldn't have wanted to virtualize that on modern hardware from that time. Running two OS's adds a huge burden on an OS, even if it is modern and relatively up to date. If I was going to run Vista in a virtual machine, I would disable some services (such as superfetch and Indexing). I will say that file transfer times still suck for the most part. In some programs, you can see a bit of a performance hit. But it's nothing that I would say is "bad." There's a performance hit in games in XP over 2000 but nobody says anything about that. If you have modern hardware, there shouldn't be any problems.
People claim it's "unstable." Sure it was, after it was released with the crappy Nvidia drivers that were out (and boy, did they SUCK). It's been over a year and half since completion. You shouldn't be seeing problems any more. If you're having driver problems on your Mac, go write Steve Jobs a letter, not Bill Gates. Yesterday I had my first BSOD in Vista, and it was a driver issue. This was on my self-built PC. Vista restarted successfully, and when it said that it may find a solution for the problem, I let it do it (after all, how could it hurt, even though in XP it was useless). To my surprise I actually got a response and it told my nforce SATA drivers caused the crash (which I had a hunch it was a driver problem due to getting the "IRQ_LESS_THAN_EQUAL" error which is usually a driver or memory problem). I installed the latest nforce drivers I could find. Restarted, ran Windows Update, and updated SATA drivers appeared, I installed them and I may have to wait another year and a half for a BSOD.
My Mac had a BSOD once in Vista, because I was using highly unstable alpha software in the beginning stages of development. Not what I would consider a fault with MS or Vista.
Here's something from a thread a few months ago I wrote up:
This should make a pretty clear comparison between Vista's superfetch and Mac OS X's memory management. The main difference is the lack of a pretty chart in task manager that breaks your memory down for you.
If someone says they don't like Vista, fine. I'm not going to bug them. But when they start spreading FUD, I'll correct them.
The idea that Vista is not a resource hog and simply makes efficient use of its resources is absurd. When a machine running Vista is sitting idle, take a look at the task manager and pay attention to the amount of system resources being used, and remember that this is when the computer is not in use. Another funny quirk with Vista is how it likes to constantly spin hard drives up when they aren't being used. So here are two examples off of the top of my head and I can't for the life of me see how they are efficient uses of the systems resources. A big part of the problem with Vista are its DRM "features" that are built in require more computing power than is needed to perform a task. This is a good summary of those awesome features http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html
But it's not absurd that Mac OS X can use all my memory because it does make efficient use of resources while when Vista uses half my memory it's absurd. Awesome ill-informed double standard.
Do the same in Leopard.
It's called indexing. You know, the same thing that Spotlight does. I have a Vista desktop and my hard drive doesn't "constantly spin" and it doesn't do it on my Macbook Pro.
Like Mac OS X, Vista releases the memory when you need it. Having all these free and unused resources is stupid. If they're not being used, they're being wasted. Period.
Fair enough. It's something that doesn't bother me and it's no reason for me to stay on a 7 year old OS. Never mind the fact that iTunes itself has DRM with stuff that you purchase off of there.
Ok, I never compared Vista to OS X, I compared Vista to XP. So go ahead and try to change the argument. For the record though, I do not see Leopard eating up RAM and CPU cycles while sitting idle the way I do see it happen in Vista.
The issue with hard drives spinning needlessly is is common issue with Vista and it is usually related to its SuperFetch feature which a lot of people are disabling because they don't want it shortening the lifespan of their drives.
Having free and unused resources is most certainly not stupid if you are not even using the computer for anything, or only for small, minor tasks. That is the exact opposite of efficient, and correct me if i'm wrong but this was an argument about whether or not Vista made efficient use of its resources.
Don't bother trying to explain this. I've tried so many times but people's ignorance gets the better of them. They think that for some reason OS's will always and forever from here on use no more than 128 MB of RAM and 2 GB of install space.
By their logic, Windows 98 should have the same requirements that XP does, so for some reason Vista should also have the same requirements as XP. Then they get upset when they don't understand why 512 MB of RAM isn't enough to run Vista.
I could understand why someone wouldn't want to go from 32-bit to 64-bit yet. But when someone knowingly purchases a 7 year old OS simply because "it's been out longer"? Come on now, you're being biased and you know it.
I have no need to change my argument. XP is a 7 year old OS, so it makes sense that it would use less resources. Just like it makes sense thatWindows 95 would use less resources than XP.
I've never run into this "hard drives spinning needlessly" issue in Vista. Must be big ol' Bill Gates targeting you and everyone else.
Come back and understand how superfetch works and then maybe you'll understand. If you're not using the computer, then why does it matter if half your RAM is being used to cache programs that you use so that when you do come back and use the computer, they load quickly (which to me seems like it's increasing efficiency over XP since it's saving the user time and a little bit of hard drive access, since it's quicker to access a program from RAM than from the hard drive). Mac OS X does the same thing. XP doesn't because back in 2001 when it was released, the resources on computers it was designed to run on, simply wasn't there. This was when half a gig was considered un-Godly.
But hey, you want to remain an ignorant computer user, go ahead. I don't see how free and unused resources translates into efficiency. In anything else, that would be inefficient (like in a factory, having workers not doing anything but still getting paid).
Here's a few definitions:
Vista does that, XP doesn't. Superfetch saves you time and saves access to the hard drive when accessing the program, since it's already in memory.
That's what Vista does. XP doesn't. That's what Mac OS X does. XP doesn't.
Ok instead of a XP vs Vista thread why don't we start another Fusion vs Parallel's thread ??? and see if we can go round in circles with that, they get the same results