Why Does Everyone Hate Vista?

[pjarvi]

I've run Vista in BootCamp and run it on my gaming PC, and have had no problems with either one. Of course, I know what i'm doing.

It requires more tweaking than XP to get it useable from a power-user perspective, but everything thus far has "just worked" for me.

The only thing I honestly don't like about Vista is the lack of new sidebar gadgets. It's been out for over a year, and there is still no decent GMail gadget.

I'm still sticking with Leopard as my primary OS, and would ditch Windows altogether if Apple made a mid-range Mac suitable for gaming, but until then I'm perfectly fine with running Vista on my game system.

 

[fearful]

There's going to come a time when MS need to do an OS 9 to OS X major transition.

I agree with you there. While I'm so big fan of Mac OS (I just have to support it) I conceed that dumping OS9 in favour of OSX was one of the best things Apple ever did.

Problem is that Windows has such a huge installed base it's much more difficult for them to do it. Also, the one thing that MS cares more about than anything else is backwards compatibility. It's the main reason Vista's feature set was so drastically reduced for their original vision.

 

[JFreak]

dumping OS9 in favour of OSX was one of the best things Apple ever did.

Yes! Out with the old, in with the new. It's called progress and I love it!

Problem is that Windows has such a huge installed base it's much more difficult for them to do it. Also, the one thing that MS cares more about than anything else is backwards compatibility. It's the main reason Vista's feature set was so drastically reduced for their original vision.

So you're stating the obvious: MS only really cares about the money they can make with inferior product. They don't have the guts to move forward so they're stepping sideways hoping their customers don't notice. Have to move, but all movement is good? Sometimes not moving forward *is* moving backwards and that's what MS has done with their so called backwards compatibility.

And besides; who really cares *why* they need to drop a feature? If a features is dropped the reason can just as well be "we cannot make it work" or "we don't want to break anything", because all the customer hears is "the feature is dropped". If their precious backwards compatibility is so valuable they are not able to move forward, then I call it moving backwards.

I'm so glad Apple didn't make this choice!

 

[RoninXI]

I skipped to the end because I know how ugly this thread may have gotten so I will just state some of my issues.

I have found it to be so resource hungry that less than 1 year old computers will not run it at what I would consider "normal" mode (the visuals and all the toys may have to be turned off).

The school I was going to go to until they canceled my class would not allow Vista on their network since it was causing "serious problems" what those problems were I cannot say since the admin would not state any of the problems he faced. So I was going to be limited if I had a PC (Mac with bootcamp) running vista. My prof used Dreamweaver for XP and my copy for mac for some reason was not good enough even though I was already proficient in it.

Drivers, drivers, drivers. This is a serious problem even though we are coming up on 1 year later. It seems to me like Vista could have made a sort of rosetta for out of date drivers but we know that would never be likely.

I tested it along the way (the very very long way) and always found it to be beta and in my opinion worse at the end than it was 6 months earlier. I sent my reports in as did many others but it seems they were worried about waiting any longer and released it (I believe) 9 months too early. You can make changes easier when it is not in easily a million "mission critical systems"... that term always makes me think of nuclear missiles for some reason.

Cost, when 10.5 Leopard can come out for $129 for 1 copy or $199 for a 5 pack the cost of vista seems to be prohibitive as we all know the $129 and $199 are not upgrades thay are full versions and very stable as upgrades for anyone who is not sure. The home version that last I knew you would be breaking the ToS on is $199 but illegal if used in VMware or Parallels, according to MS. How they charge $70 for a stripped down version is beyond me. The only "legal" version for Virtual machines (according to MS) is the ultimate edition $329 I just can't see a full version of Vista being worth $200 more than the full(only) version of Leopard is so much less. Again full version with all the toys, OSX:$129 Vista:$329, XP is more compatable in the full Pro version for $50 less than vista and many places are trying to dump them so there are sometimes $99 for XP Pro.

 

[himansk]

The point is that it's inconsistent. Some developers even put an alias to the Applications folder and a little arrow in there, some don't... it needs a standard.

right and the thousands of different types of installers on windows is not a problem at all. Or when some installers launch on their own when a cd is inserted, or when some cd's (especially games) show a menu instead of the setup, or... Just like you can say that it was the choice of the developer of the software to pick the installer, at least in osx there is normally a very simple way to install software, drag it to your computer, it doesnt really need to be in the applications folder.
My point being, there are many ways in which windows is inconsistent, osx though not perfect, still has a lot fewer inconsistencies.

 

[himansk]

Mac OS has had the same desktop arrangement since it was first appeared in the 80s: A single menu bar, that stretches across the entire length of the display, that is context sensitive to the application that has focus. I personally find this extremely frustrating, especially on larger displays.

There is a reason why the menu bar on the top is better, easy to reach using a mouse. When a mouse is being targeted at a menu bar, which is easier to hit - an edge of the screen or a 10-20 pixel high menu bar somewhere in the middle of the screen. That was amongst the first thing we discussed in our User Interface Design course, read up on Fitt's Law on wikipedia:
"Edges (e.g. the menubar in Mac OS) and corners of the computer display (e.g. "Start" button in Windows XP) are particularly easy to acquire because the pointer remains at the screen edge regardless of how much further the mouse is moved, thus can be considered as having infinite height."
This is exactly why they also added active corners to osx to access the expose & dashboard features, its like having a target of infinite width and height, easier to target.

 

[RoninXI]

I admit it took getting used to but yes the menu bar on top of the screen with OSX is nice I ran into windows problems where the window actually got pushed off the screen to the point it was untargetable I had to [alt]+[tab] then [alt]+[F4] and start over with the menu on top i could have saved first. seems like preference but that is mine.

 

[MKnight]

Most of the people that complain and whine about Vista have no idea what the hell they are talking about...

In all honesty Vista still does some things better than Leopard...thumbnail caching and live previews are far smoother...

On the same hardware, after I upgraded my P4 3GHz machine to Vista, it ran even faster on Vista...though I did have a good video card capable of running Aero to its full potential.

 

[RoninXI]

Most of the people that complain and whine about Vista have no idea what the hell they are talking about...

This happens when OS haters(Windows, OSX, and Linux alike) come on and make remarks they some times start with information then let their remarks sound more broad when it should have stayed focused on the point or points they know for sure. That is what makes these debates so hard to read it just gets ugly.

 

[AJsAWiz]

I don't hate or like vista. I don't have it but I used to have windows xp, but after a while it stopped working (my old windows 95 stopped working too) so I switched to mac. They should have only one version of vista. too expensive anyway.

First I need to say I dislike the system wars . . . to each his or her own.

That said . . . I have an iMac and Sony Vaio. I'm running Vista with Bootcamp on the iMac. And Vista was pre installed on the Sony Vaio. Vista runs better and faster on the iMac . . . go figure

Anyway, my preference is and has always been Mac OS.

 

[contoursvt]

Sorry dont mean to sound harsh but the reality is much more complex than a home user with a laptop or desktop. Companies have tons of money invested in software, hardware and their overall infastructure (network, network software..etc). If you think MS is going to make a sudden jump and leave them in a lurch, then you need to think again. Slow and steady is the way to go.

The OS9 to OSX did not impact a lot of people because apple had almost zero network server capability and almost nobody was using an OS9 'server'. As far as desktops, as much as you'd like to think, the number of Mac machines in most companies are actually very small so if out of 200 machines, the company decides to upgrade 10 of them, then big deal.

At my current place of work we have about 140 PC desktops and about 20 macs. We have 5 full racks of servers, one of which is a G4 Xserve and one is a G5 Xserve and pretty much just serving the 20 macs because the mac guy prefers to be separated. (current)

Last place of work we had about 60 PC desktops and about 15 mac desktops. We had 1 full server rack and no apple servers. (around 2004)

Previous place of work we had about 100 PC desktops, 6 mac desktops, 2 full server racks and no apple servers (around 1999)

Place before that we had 400 PC desktops and only 1 mac that I was aware of and no apple servers (this was around 1993)

So you see, a sudden change in the Apple architecture really has minimal impact in the work place, but to introduce a huge shift and possibly cause a giant incompatability between the new OS and old will have a horrible effect on the PC side due to the substancial investment most companies have....

... MS only really cares about the money they can make with inferior product. They don't have the guts to move forward so they're stepping sideways hoping their customers don't notice...

 

[r-gordon-7]

I am brand new to the Mac world - and have a "Blackbook" on order (my 1st ever experience with Mac). It will have 4GB RAM & a 250BG harddrive. I intend to install VISTA Ultimate & run it w/Parallels. (This will be my first experience with VISTA, as well, as my other computer is a 3 1/2 year old HP laptop w/XP SP2 w/only 512 MB RAM & a 64 MB video card.)

Will VISTA run with all the Aeros bells & whistles on my "Blackbook", or is the "Blackbook's" shared video not up to the task?

Given the "Blackbook's" shared video/system RAM, will having 4GB system RAM help at all to run VISTA's Aero video bells & whistles?

(Note, I'm not a gamer, so I don't need or expect the "Blackbook's" video to perform on that level...)

Thanks,
r-gordon-7

 

[RubberShoes]

Wow what a great thread...im lovin it!

I have a 24" alu iMac w/ leopard and the x64 FULL copy of vista ultimate...

yea yea so apple doesnt officially support x64 on macs, it still runs, and it runs pretty fast...

even though its x64 and runs faster than other x86 machines with the same specs, its still a slug compared to leopard...not only are the start up times slower...but compared to a 30 second start up time w/ leopard, it takes a good 2 minutes on the mac. and to be honest I don't have many start up apps much less applications in general installed on vista compared to leopard...

DRIVERS...C'MON

overall its not a bad OS [sarcasm], takes up much more resources to display an elegant desktop that looks like ***** compared to beryl running on linux...nothing like leopard's simple and intuitive layout...and many programs seem to run pretty well...under emulation because nobody wants to create native x64 apps...

I have to say for running 64-bit vista I havent had as many problems as I thought I would...but compared to the beryl project, OS X's design, and XP's simplicity, its probably the most corrupt and flawed OS I have ever used.

As for now I'll keep it cause DreamScene (3-D video background wallpapers) is still the coolest thing in the world

P.S. I worked on Vista when it was still in the Beta 2, RC1, and RC2 stages...I have to admit you can't complain about compatibility problems compared to Beta 2...talk about your keyboard not even working...

 

[ayeying]

Personally, I think Vista isn't that bad of an OS. Of course, there is a lot of annoying features, such as the "Cancel or Allow" but beyond that, its basically just as any other OS. Vista doesn't work well with old hardware, and its proven. Some, 3 year old laptop or desktop wouldn't be able to run vista as smoothly as something you buy right now, that can't be helped. Same thing for windows xp, if you use a 75MHz processor with 32MB of ram, it'll lag, it'll crash, it'll be crap. I don't see whats the difference, even with Leopard, you require a 733MHz G3(not sure about this) processor or better to meet minimum requirements, its just vista has a crap load of requirements that people don't want to spend money on upgrading yet.

People just complain more about vista because it is way too resource hog and not really compatable backwards with older technology and hardware. For the crashing and freezing and crap, the majority of the problem would be bad drivers, improperly installed programs, bad programs, or just slow hardware and people being impatient clicking the button over and over until the system crashes.

The major flaw in vista I find is the icons. I like to organize my start menu and every time i do, vista seems to "lose" the icons... literally.

 

[RubberShoes]

Personally, I think Vista isn't that bad of an OS. Of course, there is a lot of annoying features, such as the "Cancel or Allow" but beyond that, its basically just as any other OS. Vista doesn't work well with old hardware, and its proven. Some, 3 year old laptop or desktop wouldn't be able to run vista as smoothly as something you buy right now, that can't be helped. Same thing for windows xp, if you use a 75MHz processor with 32MB of ram, it'll lag, it'll crash, it'll be crap. I don't see whats the difference, even with Leopard, you require a 733MHz G3(not sure about this) processor or better to meet minimum requirements, its just vista has a crap load of requirements that people don't want to spend money on upgrading yet.

People just complain more about vista because it is way too resource hog and not really compatable backwards with older technology and hardware. For the crashing and freezing and crap, the majority of the problem would be bad drivers, improperly installed programs, bad programs, or just slow hardware and people being impatient clicking the button over and over until the system crashes.

The major flaw in vista I find is the icons. I like to organize my start menu and every time i do, vista seems to "lose" the icons... literally.

to correct you, I think leopard requires a 800MHz or faster ppc processor (not quite sure which one)

But still, Vista doesn't run smoothly on systems older than even 3 years, yet leopard still runs very smooth on systems even 5 or more years old...for a lot of people that is a big step...

 

[J Karp 21]

Honest Truth

Let me just say i love trying every OS that is made every version of linux and everything. I was excited to try out VISTA when it came out. I have been a mac guy for a year cause i got a macbook for school.
The HONEST TRUTH IS it was a let down. VISTA was supposed to be revolutionary, it took FOREVER for the OS to come out, and wat was different?? The LOGO and the NAME. It was not anything new, it was soo hyped up, if you ever read anything after XP came out, the new OS was supposed to change the way we use computers. The 1st comment is correct, its like 98 and ME same feel different name, and you have to pay for it.
It was OVERHYPED at the beginning and thats the real reason.
I go to my computer science classes in college and the Professor BASHES VISTA every day, and majority of the class has a mac... this is a COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASS lol

 

[DoFoT9]

to correct you, I think leopard requires a 800MHz or faster ppc processor (not quite sure which one)

But still, Vista doesn't run smoothly on systems older than even 3 years, yet leopard still runs very smooth on systems even 5 or more years old...for a lot of people that is a big step...

vista wont even run on some machines under 1 year old hahahahaha.

 

[macfan881]

hate to bring up this from the dead but i had just recently got a copy of Vista to play Halo 2 which afterwords found out there's a work around with Xp. anywhoo i have been a hater of vista before hand but after using it for a week almost it isn't quite as bad there are a few problems which i cant figure out yet one being the 2ghz core 2 duo imac 17" Sound card is not supported by vista yet or i haven't found the drivers but i have a usb adapter work around Second i got a few Graphic glitches in one of the MMO's i play. other than that it isnt to bad i do like Media Center and i think my imac runs Vista faster than it was running xp there a few other things i like in it to i still think Leopard is 10x better overall its better than what i thought i hope i can find a work around that soundcard issue...

 

[themoonisdown09]

I'm glad you brought this thread back from the dead... it gave me a good laugh.

 

[mrbmine]

I bought Vista for my PC extremely slooooooooooooooooow, apart from that the rest of it was great, the interface almost spat on XP. Unfourtuantley it was just soo slow I had to downgrade to XP which set me back about $500. I am lead to believe it was cuz I only had 1GB of RAM. If you want a fast computer, skip XP and go straight for windows 2000

 

[macfan881]

I bought Vista for my PC extremely slooooooooooooooooow, apart from that the rest of it was great, the interface almost spat on XP. Unfourtuantley it was just soo slow I had to downgrade to XP which set me back about $500. I am lead to believe it was cuz I only had 1GB of RAM. If you want a fast computer, skip XP and go straight for windows 2000

if it was just that your were probally cheaper off geting the ram

 

[Bengt77]

Wow, such whining here! I bought Vista 64 (the Home Premium edition) for my MacBook (strictly for gaming) and I honestly think it's a really good operating system. Sure, it took ages for it to finally come out. And when it did, it lacked nearly all the features that would have made it a revolutionary OS. But try to forget that fact, and just use the OS as it is. Then you'll come to realise that Vista (especially Vista 64) is a good operating system. Period. It's rock solid, never crashes, looks tons better than XP and is just more intuitive. (If that world even applies to any version of Windows, it would be Vista.)

Sure, it's a memory hog and a standard installation takes up well over 10GB of hard drive space. It's expensive and it comes in a boat load of versions, making it unnecessarily hard for customers to pick the version that's right for them. I admit, all these points are true.

But still, considering it's Windows, I really think Vista 64 is the best OS Microsoft has released to date. It may have had it's share of problems after it was released (I think that's why many people still like to bash it, not knowing that most, if not all problems have been solved by now), but it's rock solid as it is, right now.

Stop the whining. It doesn't run on hardware older than three years? So what? When was it released? Two years ago? Then why the whining? Snow Leopard won't run on hardware older than three years either, since it will be released in 2009, and the first Intel 64-bit Apple machines came out it 2006. Will you be whining about that, too?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore Apple guy, but this needless and ungrounded Windows-bashing is just... well... foolish.

 

[SpecOps2087]

I have 2 main grips with vista


A) It seems whenever I boot into vista there is ALWAYS some kind of update to be performed. I can't remember the last time I used vista that stupid windows update didn't pop up to tell me I need to restart my computer AGAIN.

B) For all intensive purposes, its slow as crap compared to XP. It takes a long time to fully boot to where the operating system is usable and everything in general takes much longer to load compared to previous versions.


FWIW, I'm using vista 64 ultimate on my macbook pro unibody with 4GB of RAM, my computer is not out of date by any means which is why I put the blame on vista for these problems.

 

[nplima]

[...]
A) It seems whenever I boot into vista there is ALWAYS some kind of update to be performed. [...]

Annoying indeed. disable it all and use a normal login instead of an Admin user and they will all disappear, except some stubborn 3rd party products, such as Adobe Reader and Java which must be killed separately. It's more of an art than a science sometimes...

[...]

B) For all intents and purposes, its slow as crap compared to XP.

[...]

Disable some useless things with this:
http://www.winvistaclub.com/Ultimate_Windows_Tweaker.html

and use this one here to block software to set itself to auto-run on boot up.
http://www.mlin.net/StartupMonitor.shtml

FWIW, I'm using vista 64 ultimate on my macbook pro unibody with 4GB of RAM, my computer is not out of date by any means which is why I put the blame on vista for these problems.

You're probably right about some of the issues. I would be curious to know what software you have installed on your PC and how much of it is trying to take over with updates agents and other crap. It's a tough battle these days.

 

[joelovesapple]

I like Vista.

I run it in Bootcamp on my intel iMac from 2006 and it works FLAWLESSLY. I have had zero problems with it apart from the intermittent network problems but even that is a rarity.

I don't see why people should hate it with a passion when the majority of people here have got a pretty powerful computer.

I hear the people with a computer that is obviously going to be too old to run Vista (I know someone who hates Vista because it wouldn't work on their Intel Celeron processored laptop, which was pretty poor spec). Well, DUH!

Its really fast, runs like butter and I've got the Home Premium edition. In fact, I've been able to try out Chrome which I had not been able to as for some reason, our XP machine does not like it. Chrome is amazing! I really wish they would port it to the mac like, almost immediately.

Vista also looks really good, and for the naysayers who say it looks identical to OS X must not be seeing the same OS as me - they look nothing like each other! Yeah I know, the dashboard was stolen and renamed Sidebar but to be honest, if they want to compete, MS need something equivalent.

Please, please give it a good run before you criticise it. I'm glad I installed it!

And by the way, I've tried Vista on a lower spec new laptop and it was really annoying but it was Home Basic and it is obvious it would not work as well.