4 Reasons Why I Won't Buy Vista

[quote]4est wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
The only people who bitch about Vista are people who didn’t upgrade their hardware as suggested, too lazy to bother to learn, or know very little about computers in general.

I mean no disrespect to anyone on this forum, but seriously with the right hardware Vista is twice as reliable and faster than XP. I switched to Vista over a year ago on all seven of my machines and I will never go back to XP. Now granted I don’t pay for software… but still.

OH really?

I’ve supported Vista for a few different companies/accounts. It’s security is horribly bloated and makes daily use a complete pain. VPN compatibility issues stare you in the face. It requires twice the hardware to run well. The average user can’t navigate all the security issues to install and/or run many applications.

VISTA is still “not supported” by many companies for it’s employees. I’m with a company that has about 235,000 employees (not sure how many computers). All, VISTA computers are reimaged with XP.[/quote]

Exactly.

In this case there is a good reason as to why Vista is not allowed for use on classified computers in the US DOD system.

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
The problem with those benchmark tests is they test the OS’s on “equal” machines. [/quote]

Those silly scientists!

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Synthetickiller wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
The only people who bitch about Vista are people who didn’t upgrade their hardware as suggested, too lazy to bother to learn, or know very little about computers in general.

I mean no disrespect to anyone on this forum, but seriously with the right hardware Vista is twice as reliable and faster than XP. I switched to Vista over a year ago on all seven of my machines and I will never go back to XP. Now granted I don’t pay for software… but still.

I agree with what you have to say, especially about stability, but Vista is slower than xp in all benchmarks. Just google vista vs xp. Don’t take my word for it.

The problem with those benchmark tests is they test the OS’s on “equal” machines. Microsoft made it very clear that Vista requires higher horsepower. So you cannot run the tests on “equal” machines and expect equal results. A high-end Vista rig will be faster than the traditional high-end XP rig, or at least just as fast. It will certainly not be slower.[/quote]

Benchmarks should always be done w/ the same hardware and the most updated stable drivers. What are you talking about with different hardware? Who would bother writing a review w/ different hardware to compare xp vs visat? Thats not scientific.

Man I tried Beryl with Ubuntu. Bill has some learning to do.

All I can throw in is that my new laptop came with it, and with only 2 pieces of software on it, the damn thing takes forever to boot up. All answer from tech support was always the same,… It’s Vista, it just has too much stuff in it. When I had a problem because I like to use an older version of Photoshop, I was told that Vista had issues with it as well. I’m definitely ‘downgrading’.

S

It’s not that Vista is outright horrendous. It IS that it does nothing, nada, zilch that anybody cares about any better than previous versions of Windows, but also is an unnecessary pain in the ass in the process.

In other words after spending money on a new machine people get less performance and additional hassle for no benefit whatsoever. I’m in the process of making a cottage industry out of helping folks avoid Vista.

Folks who buy new computers, especially laptops, and wind up on my phone begging me to [quote]“just get this thing so I can use it like before”.[/quote]

Folks with very little money and very old machines that I throw some memory in and load up with XP or even 2000 still giving them in many cases better performance than a brand new shiny one and costing them 100 bucks and some change.

The people who buy new machines with Vista and have me downgrade them to XP very often also give me their old ones which I reload and then resell to jubilant customers who also now have a perfectly good and cheap computer that does everything they need.

I just got a call from a girl yesterday who bought one of my blue light Windows 2000 specials a while back asking if I had another one for her sister. Goes online, gets email, runs Office XP, does her taxes, plays her music and she can view her pictures. All 95% of the average bonehead users in the world do with a computer.

As far as security goes. This is something that just hasn’t been grasped by the Microsofts of the world. For someone who knows what they’re doing security isn’t a problem and never has been. For someone who doesn’t no amount of security short of unplugging the machine will ultimately keep them safe. It may prolong the inevitable for a while, but they WILL end up finding a way to require another reload which is actually great for me because that’s how I make my living.

4est is right about things like VPN and networking in general too. Vista can throw some bizzare and inexplicable curveballs your way for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Shares that will not map in either direction or sometimes one direction, but not the other. They’ll map to every other machine in my network except the one Vista box I have. The Vista share will map to some machines, but not others. Mappings will drop out of the blue, but only if they touch that Vista machine and then won’t remap if I put a gun to their head. Slow dragging file transfer rates, but not all the time.

I have 4 network printers and every one except the 4M Plus will map, but I can ping it and Vista has native drivers for it. It works fine on all of my other machines including the 4 Linux boxes.

The performance thing may be the worst though. Telling people [quote]well, of course it runs like shit you didn’t do the all the horsepower upgrades Microsoft recommended[/quote] is like putting 5000 pounds of lead in their trunk and then chastising them for not buying an industrial vehicle. They don’t want to haul 5000 pounds of lead around. They just want to get to and from work like they always did and are wondering why they should buy a new vehicle so they can do it with 5000 pounds of useless lead in their trunk.

Linux is free, boots faster, and for many things runs smoother. There are times when windows (XP or Vista) is better, but it’s mostly limited to games and DRM… i.e. not Linux’s fault, rather, the software just isn’t there.

My company got our hands on vista and it did a shitty job of working with our current ERP and CRM systems. Its also designed to not work with older ver’s of office.

I must say that when you strip vista down. It runs way faster then XP service pack 2 on the same machine. I even benched it using Sandra. It handles multi cpu cores better then xp and memory management works much better.

But with all the flaws and digs for money built into Vista its not worth the price tag. M$ is just trying to get money out of people and advance our need to upgrade our hardware/software to run its OS

wow trib, that vista rant should be published or something

I think the bottom line is this. You can bitch all you like, but truth be told, EVERYONE (unless you use linux or mac) will be upgrading to vista b/c of new programs requiring it as well as drivers for hardware will start moving in vista’s direction.

If you want 90% of software and video games, you’re stuck with windows.

I will say one thing about security. Wait till the market has 50% of computers w/ linux. Open source is going to be a nightmare for security. You have the damn source code available and you can do just about anything to exploit it. The majority at least 95% or more of people who would own linux computers would not know how to keep it secure and they would be more vulnerable to attack.

Its not that windows has crappy security, more so, that no one tries to hack into linux / mac b/c no one owns one. Security will always be an issue for the number one OS, doesn’t matter which one. You cannot secury ANY os 100%.

Also, I have versions of Ubuntu that will not install on my computer, which is pitiful. I have to run 32bit versions b/c the 64 bit just won’t install no matter what I do. Linux has a lot of problems with new hardware and if you want the fastest system, you’re stuck with windows for drivers and stability, oddly enough.

[quote]Synthetickiller wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
Synthetickiller wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
The only people who bitch about Vista are people who didn’t upgrade their hardware as suggested, too lazy to bother to learn, or know very little about computers in general.

I mean no disrespect to anyone on this forum, but seriously with the right hardware Vista is twice as reliable and faster than XP. I switched to Vista over a year ago on all seven of my machines and I will never go back to XP. Now granted I don’t pay for software… but still.

I agree with what you have to say, especially about stability, but Vista is slower than xp in all benchmarks. Just google vista vs xp. Don’t take my word for it.

The problem with those benchmark tests is they test the OS’s on “equal” machines. Microsoft made it very clear that Vista requires higher horsepower. So you cannot run the tests on “equal” machines and expect equal results. A high-end Vista rig will be faster than the traditional high-end XP rig, or at least just as fast. It will certainly not be slower.

Benchmarks should always be done w/ the same hardware and the most updated stable drivers. What are you talking about with different hardware? Who would bother writing a review w/ different hardware to compare xp vs visat? Thats not scientific.[/quote]

That would only be true if Microsfot made the statement that Vista would be equal on an equal machine. I believe they made it very clear you would need upgraded hardware.

I also find it very hypocritical of people to blast Microsoft for making people upgrade when that’s what the gaming industry has been doing since the beginning of time. How come no one is mad at Sony for not making all of their new games work flawlessly on a PS1? Why should I have to get a PS3 to play GTA IV?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It’s not that Vista is outright horrendous. It IS that it does nothing, nada, zilch that anybody cares about any better than previous versions of Windows, but also is an unnecessary pain in the ass in the process.

In other words after spending money on a new machine people get less performance and additional hassle for no benefit whatsoever. I’m in the process of making a cottage industry out of helping folks avoid Vista.

Folks who buy new computers, especially laptops, and wind up on my phone begging me to “just get this thing so I can use it like before”.

Folks with very little money and very old machines that I throw some memory in and load up with XP or even 2000 still giving them in many cases better performance than a brand new shiny one and costing them 100 bucks and some change.

The people who buy new machines with Vista and have me downgrade them to XP very often also give me their old ones which I reload and then resell to jubilant customers who also now have a perfectly good and cheap computer that does everything they need.

I just got a call from a girl yesterday who bought one of my blue light Windows 2000 specials a while back asking if I had another one for her sister. Goes online, gets email, runs Office XP, does her taxes, plays her music and she can view her pictures. All 95% of the average bonehead users in the world do with a computer.

As far as security goes. This is something that just hasn’t been grasped by the Microsofts of the world. For someone who knows what they’re doing security isn’t a problem and never has been. For someone who doesn’t no amount of security short of unplugging the machine will ultimately keep them safe. It may prolong the inevitable for a while, but they WILL end up finding a way to require another reload which is actually great for me because that’s how I make my living.

4est is right about things like VPN and networking in general too. Vista can throw some bizzare and inexplicable curveballs your way for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Shares that will not map in either direction or sometimes one direction, but not the other. They’ll map to every other machine in my network except the one Vista box I have. The Vista share will map to some machines, but not others. Mappings will drop out of the blue, but only if they touch that Vista machine and then won’t remap if I put a gun to their head. Slow dragging file transfer rates, but not all the time.

I have 4 network printers and every one except the 4M Plus will map, but I can ping it and Vista has native drivers for it. It works fine on all of my other machines including the 4 Linux boxes.

The performance thing may be the worst though. Telling people well, of course it runs like shit you didn’t do the all the horsepower upgrades Microsoft recommended is like putting 5000 pounds of lead in their trunk and then chastising them for not buying an industrial vehicle. They don’t want to haul 5000 pounds of lead around. They just want to get to and from work like they always did and are wondering why they should buy a new vehicle so they can do it with 5000 pounds of useless lead in their trunk.

[/quote]

I agree that for the average non-technical person that Vista is a hell of a learning curve. For computer enthusiasts though, like me, it’s much more interesting to use than XP. This exact same argument came out back when XP arrived on the scene and everyone was like- but it doesn’t do anything that W98 w/OSR2 doesn’t do (I won’t mention ME, since everyone compares that to Vista). But once you use it for a while it’s hard to go back.

Give any version of linux to a typical windows user (some brainless mutant who knows nothing) and ask him/her to install a program.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE! Installing on linux is a PITA and honestly, whenever I use linux, i feel like I’m using alpha/beta software. There’s as many security fixes / updates as windows has. Ubuntu and others have automated pathes like windows update.

I do agree that microcrap should have made a light weight version of vista. DO NOT DRAG OUT XP. It will be limited as an OS in a few years, just like 95,98, and 2000 are now. Honestly, vista should have been an upgrade comparable to leopard on MAC, being faster and requiring less resources. Then again, the pre-cashing is FASTER than xp for a lot of things.

As well, programs are becoming more powerful and do require more ram / cpu power than they did in years previously. I can’t image playing DOOM 4 (yes, its been announced) on my previous video card or w/ 2 gigs of ram. Hardware is just so cheap now and very fast cpus are cheap as well. Even hdd space is incredible. 750 gigs for 110 bucks, damn. We just need better programmers. Let the hardware get faster, just don’t let the OS coding go down the drain.

One thing to consider, XP required minimally a 233 mhz CPU,64mb ram. Thats REALLY OLD. It also came out in 2001. Come on, this OS is ancient and I think compared to some vista features, its showing its age. Ram cost less now than ever before. I have NO idea why anyone is bitching about hardware upgrades. Even if you are still running xp, you might as well upgrade just so everything runs / loads faster.

Ubuntu requires 700mhz cpu, and 384 mb. Which OS is more efficient? Even linux is starting to require more horse power to run.

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
<<< I agree that for the average non-technical person that Vista is a hell of a learning curve. For computer enthusiasts though, like me, it’s much more interesting to use than XP. This exact same argument came out back when XP arrived on the scene and everyone was like- but it doesn’t do anything that W98 w/OSR2 doesn’t do (I won’t mention ME, since everyone compares that to Vista). But once you use it for a while it’s hard to go back.[/quote]

And I was one of the people saying the same thing about XP then and I stand by that today. Windows 2000 was a significant improvement in every way once the premature release and lack of drivers was overcome and the second service pack took care of any remaining stability issues.

Especially on the stability front. A well configured 2K box ran rock solid, had full direct X support and the benefits of NTFS. 98 had passable stability under the best of circumstances with non existent security and NT while stable and secure (alright relatively secure), was a drag to set up, lacked drivers a lot of the time and had no direct x support past version 3.

2000 effectively addressed all these and their related issues while providing a reasonably familiar interface that was a breeze for all but total morons to pick up. XP provided a few very minor improvements, but was essentially 2000 with a prettier interface and heftier system requirements.

If it weren’t for the fact of some software being written to not run in 2000 there would have been no reason to date to abandon it. Vista is a strongarm marketing tool. It attempted to play on the same ignorance that sold XP. [quote]“look at the cool shit you can now do!!!”[/quote]. The thing was and is that you could ALWAYS do all that cool shit if you had any idea what you were doing and there was just wizrds for it now. AND some of that shit is only significantly cool in the minds of developers and market strategists that don’t spend much time around average users.

I can’t tell you what you like and I’m not saying anybody who is favorably impressed by Vista is an idiot, I know you better than that. I do take exception with your original statement that there aren’t very valid reasons for other people not being so favorably impressed.

I doubt if many people have more computer crap than I do and I would definitely consider myself an enthusiast, but to me Vista is useless at best and an ulcer inducing irritation at worst. I keep one Vista box out the 11 full time machines I run just because I have to, but like I do with XP I had to strip it down to the cozy old stoic look and feel of 2000 to keep from beating my head on my keyboard. Personal taste, but I cannot stand frilly flowery paint n jewelery all over my interface.

You’re still my buddy, but I just think we have different ways of approaching computing.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re still my buddy, but I just think we have different ways of approaching computing.[/quote]

Agreed. I don’t have to support any machines but my own. I can imagine having to fix other’s would be a pain in the ass when you don’t even like the OS.

[quote]Synthetickiller wrote:
<<< As well, programs are becoming more powerful and do require more ram / cpu power than they did in years previously. I can’t image playing DOOM 4 (yes, its been announced) on my previous video card or w/ 2 gigs of ram. Hardware is just so cheap now and very fast cpus are cheap as well. Even hdd space is incredible. 750 gigs for 110 bucks, damn. We just need better programmers. Let the hardware get faster, just don’t let the OS coding go down the drain. >>>[/quote]

I have no problem with programs requiring more muscle when what they do justifies it. Games, which at bottom are just programs, are a perfect example.

They require constantly increasing power because they are constantly actually better on all levels at least where quality games are concerned. Why would I want to sacrifice resources to the OS that could be better allocated where needed to run games that really do provide a bang for buck benefit. A cool aero desktop does not. It’s a desktop just like any desktop has ever been except you need a shitload of new muscle to run it.

I do love Linux, but you’re right. It can be a pain in the ass to get configured and it’s resource requirements are increasing as well except that “requirements” is a bit of a misnomer because it is infinitely tweakable to the point where ultimate penguin people can build an OS from the ground up distro free staring with a completely custom kernel.

Compiling a Kernel is where linux shines. I know a guy who does that a lot for different distros. Just incredible.

I just don’t see that as viable for the average public and I think thats why windows has thrived, it just works (although not very well, lol).

I won’t lie, I am a little biased b/c my main use of computers after work/school is gaming and overclocking. There’s no way to do the latter two w/o windows.

Meh.

With Vista, I can play a crap load of games that other people can’t.

My old cpu melted on me so I bought new everything and the OS, except for HDDs.

This is the first time I’ve ran genuine windows and so far I have no complaints. The shit runs smooth. Regardless of what shit I run and crash, I don’t have to reboot.

I consider my computer to be relatively fast and I have no complaints. I wouldn’t recommend Vista if your computer is slow.

Aren’t we just arguing about when Vista is good/bad for different users?

I use Vista at home. I like how it looks, and it hardly crashes.
I use XP at work. If I were in IT, I’d push to stick to XP for a while, because of the compatibility issues.

2000 better than XP? maybe. If you were buying an OS that you were going to stick with for a while, you’d want something that was supported the longest (especially for critical fixes.) This alone would push me to XP.

What about Server 2003? Some people like even better as their desktop OS. How about Server 2008?

Oh, If you’re waiting “only 1.5 years” for Windows 7, when it comes out, you should just wait “2 more year” for Windows 8. They’re going to try to stick to a 2 year release cycle. Vista was the exception.

Also, for home users, isn’t Visa more secure than XP? Especially with UAC? If you say “but UAC is so annoying” the proper response is: “It was DESIGNED to be that way.” Microsoft has said as much.

What I REALLY LIKE

Is if you substitute “Vista” for “XP”, you have the same fucking thing being said when XP came out way back when. 2000 was better, XP was shitty and Fisher Price. Now, people have hardons for XP and Vista is the devil.

People, think back to the hatred of XP when SP2 came out! It’s the same bullshit! Just chill, you will embrace Vista or you will embrace the maggots. XP will die and you will love Vista, just like 2k died and you love XP.

Yawn.