[myspacemedia]

It is your opinion, and the opinion of others too, but not the ultimate opinion that an OS shouldn't need anything and just sit atop of the system and manage it. Just an opinion is all. Nothing more.

What is wrong with Vista having features built in? Again, your opinion and some others that this is not a good thing, and therefore should not happen at all. The included features make for a more enjoyable user experience right out the gate. So bloat away Bill...Bloat away!

Consider this: When configuring Linux for the first time to run, people are given "packges" that they can choose from so that when Linux starts the installation process, these software packages will be included upon reboot. To me this seems to be an extra step, having to choose where Windows Vista has already made the logical choices for us. Thank you once again Bill. Of course, the reverse can happen in that if we do not want a particular application that is included, we can always delete, but most likely will not because the applications included in the Windows Vista OS are what Windows users need anyway for enjoyable optimum computing.

Linux pounces on every fad too as they try and compete, and provide what the majority of computer users want. Adobe = Gimp. The open source community is a behive of activity writing code that can be available for free right? Great, that is very nice. It's like this: Beta, beta, beta, bugs, and bug fixes galore in the open source community where VIsta is already complete, save for SP1 which ensures the OS's stability. That kind of patch is normal as technology progresses and therefore is not a drawback at all. SP1 is not a download to "fix" anything. It's ensures stability in the OS - ongoing maintenance if you will. Thanks again Bill.

Vista, in comparison of other OS's is an incredible chunck of code. It's an awesome Operating System, the premier stand alone OS that IS going to take the majority of PC users on this earth well into this 22nd century! Until another OS reaches such dominance, all others will still pale in comparison...

[TechyGuy]

Most annoying things:
-ridiculously high system requirements
-compatability w/ XP programs
-security leaks, malware/virus vulnerablilty
Things that could be improved:
-have compatability patches
-perhaps make Vista accessable to more people by lowering the system requirements
-make Aero less demanding on GPUs
-REDUCE THE COST OF THE BLOODY THING FOR PETE'S SAKE
-Include "Media Center" on Home Basic
-improve Windows Defender's effectiveness
-include MS Office on it free of charge
-have the Vista Ultimate exclusive "Windows Bitlocker Data Encryption" on other versions of Vista
-allow Vista Home Premium/Basic to support 2 physical processors (this does not mean something like having a Core 2 Duo CPU, but like two AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX processors in 4 x 4 platform)
Do I love or hate Vista?
At the moment, yes, but I might reconsider that when I buy my copy of Vista in March or April, when Service Pack one is released.

[PCWizKid]

I could give you a laundry list of issues with Vista, but the bottom line is Microsoft is not listening to users requirements properly and they are delivering a product which is substandard to other OS's at a high price. With this in mind there is no way Vista can move forward in the market.

As a user of all Windows versions (since the DOS days) , and today I am also using OS X and Ubuntu, I realize the differences and each others strengths. The point here Microsoft needs to step away from their conventional / conservative approaches to building an OS and start from the ground up fresh. Create only one client and one Server OS version and begone with multiple choices. Cater to the users needs and not what the they they think users want. Deliver performance and stability and compatability instead of developing eyecandy and useless features, keep it clean and simple (where possible) and continue to provide support for a large range of PC hardware the OS could be installed on.



If they can harness these requirements into a new OS next time around they will be off to a good start, otherwise they are doomed already with Windows 7.



Cheers
PCWizKid


Edited by MPHEnterprises - Please do not post anything that can be misconstrued as self-promoting. If you would like, you can create a signature with your web information.

[anfy]

I've been reading most of the posts here... and I want to point out a few things...

Every OS has their advantages and disadvantages, including Vista, XP, OS X, and Ubuntu/Linux. Nobody is perfect. I think most people realize this.

As an interesting side note, I really enjoyed the sidebar and gagdets feature of Vista and the dashboard/widgets of OS X. I know on Vista this takes a fair bit of system resources (and a fair bit on OS X too, depending on what you have running), and it slows down the system sometimes on Vista.

So, I tried adding a sidebar to my Windows XP installation... using 3rd party programs. There are fewer gadget choices, the interface wasn't as smooth (I was using desktop X I think), and by the time I added what I needed, the system took just as much RAM to run (and was slightly less responsive) than Vista. I really hope that Windows 7, which supposedly incorporates the sidebar onto explorer.exe (forgot where I read that) will make it even more responsive and take up less resources.

For those who complain about the price of Vista... shop around for OEM. It's so much more affordable =P

[myspacemedia]

PCWizKid stated, "I could give you a laundry list of issues with Vista"
We really wish you would. We would like to see that list of what you think Vista's issues are. Please support your Vista issues with your experience, facts, and some credible documentation. i.e., benchmarks, etc. Also, please provide to us here some system specs, and software versions that were running during the time you experienced an abnormality. And, are you running Vista basic? Do you have the Windows 32 bit or 64 bit version? This sort of information will be helpful to developers and similar tech personel that may be reading this.
The fact of the matter is, there is nothing wrong with Vista by itself. It's the hardware and software on a system that presents issues...

[lilxkid24]

everyone just take a chill pill and calm down this ain't a thread to be flaming people, this is a thread on what you like and dont like about vista. Respect other peoples opinions, no need into attacking other users.

[PCWizKid]

Take a look at my blog at PCWizKid.blogspot.com . you can see that I do use Vista , XP, OSX , Ubuntu and also I have Server 2008. The issue I have is the lack of flexibility Vista has for hardware. You may happen to have the latest hardware and have no issues with Vista supporting it, but not everyone (the majority) is as lucky as you are, for this main reason I must object to your statement on providing credible documentation. Have you not been reading the thousands of user experiences and compatability issues people are having with Vista, its pretty ovbious. Have you not realized that Vista hardly runs with all features turned , on a Pentium 4 PC, unless it has enough ram, proper memory card etc? An OS should be flexible, and should not limit its support to certain types of hardware. Take a look at OS X for example, I can install the OS Leopard on my old G4 PowerBook and it runs as smooth with all features on as a new Dual Core MacBook. I cannot say the same of Windows Vista being installed on a Pentium 4 PC for example, many features need to be turned off, disabled or drivers where not available. Like I said I can make a huge laundry list, and rant for ever with specific examples, but I think Microsoft is smarter than that, they know, and they need to realize they cant look the other way any longer.
You can give them as much benchmarking and stats as you want, that is not whats going to make a difference at this point, we are beyond that.

Cheers
PCWizKid

[Kilme]

I use Vista at work, and XP at home. I honestly haven't had any issues with Vista to date, but my work computer doesn't have many programs installed, so I can't say what works and what doesn't. It's speed seems fine to me, with only 1G of RAM, except during boot and shutdown. The pop up security messages are annoying, and I'd turn them off if it was my personal computer.



The only thing in Vista that I actually like is the new GUI (over the standard XP fat, ugly, blue bar), and the gadgets. Even then, the gadgets are okay, and nothing I can't live without, and Aero doesn't even look that great either. Also, for others like me who only like the new interface, there's no point in upgrading at the moment. With a simple patch, you can change the visual style of XP to look like whatever you want, like different Linux distros, user made originals, or even Vista. Although I wouldn't change it to a Vista style, since they're plain and boring in my opinion. Not only that, but visual styles are free, unlike programs like WindowsBlinds.



All in all, my XP machine runs great, and I don't see any reason to upgrade until Microsoft stops releasing updates for it. And if I remember correctly, that shouldn't be for a few years now.

[dilbert719]

Quoting myspacemedia: "The fact of the matter is, there is nothing wrong with Vista by itself.
It's the hardware and software on a system that presents issues..."

Nothing wrong with Vista, you say? Hogwash. I'm not opposed to Vista in general, but it shouldn't be too much to ask for a Windows Explorer and Windows Update that actually works as advertised. I'm running Vista 32 Home Premium, brand new computer, one of the Gateway models Office Depot was hawking. On my first boot, I ran Windows Update, and... blammo. Fail. Turns out one of the updates provided by Microsoft that had been installed by the manufacturer before shipping broke WU, and updates failed. I had to go into the registry and correct the issue manually.

Two days later, I ran into another fun little problem. I downloaded a zip file I planned to extract to a folder on my HD, put it where it was going, used Vista's uncompression software... and was promptly told the folder was empty. However, Properties showed the correct number of files and file size. Thinking it might be a Vista uncompression issue, based on some online research, I tried Freezip. And PKzip. And 7zip. And Winzip. And resetting the registry keys. And WinRAR. And about 7 other tricks. Finally, frustrated, I downloaded xPlorer2, to see if maybe it was a problem with Explorer rather than with the zip file or the unzipping programs. Everything was there, usable, viewable. Went back to Explorer, and it still showed the folder as empty, despite everything being exactly where it was supposed to be. I hold out no hope that this issue will be fixed, but it's clearly a problem with the operating system, rather than the hardware or software, since alternate software shows that the process completed properly.

[ernliz]

Per your guidelines:

*What is the most annoying thing about Windows Vista?

Most annoying to me is the excessive hard drive activity! Before I upgrade to the next OS years from now, I expect to go through several hard drives. I have indexing turned off and have no scheduled system scans, yet the hard drive goes nuts several times during my sessions. (No malware on my system, BTW)

*What do you hope Vista SP1 will fix, streamline, and improve upon?

First, I would hope SP-1 would fix the excessive hard drive activity. My XP system is great with hardly any extracurricular activity. Second, I really wish SP-1 would make file sharing much easier between Vista and XP. This is a much-discussed topic in Vista newsgroups.

*Do you love or hate Windows Vista?

I love Vista, a little.

EW

[tclaroy]

I recently bought a new laptop with Windows Vista OS. It has a 200 GIG hard drive. Before I load it up with programs, screen savers, and entertainment packs. I want to partition it into smaller logical drives. I can't do the partitioning because Norton's 'PartitionMagic 8.0' nor PowerQuest's 'PartitionMagic 8.0'is not compatible with Windows Vista. I am a staunch advocate of partitioning large hard drives because to some degree, the sofware packages do run somewhat faster because the search function doesn't have to search the whole drive, only part of it.


Regards, Thomas C LaRoy

[Evildave]

(Off-topic technical answer...)

Thomas, try the trial version of this software. It's functional enough to defrag in an 'offline' mode and move the nasty 'immovable' bits that Vista pollutes the partition with and won't move. If I still used Vista, I'd have probably bought it. As it is, it only had the one use of keeping the alternate Vista boot of my notebook around and at a limited size without me deleting the partition and writing Vista off completely. Oh, and it draws a picture for you, yet another thing Microsoft 'forgot' how to do, probably in their haste to release yet another semi-functional defrag utility, hoping nobody would notice.
http://www.raxco.com/onlinestore/onlinestore.cfm

This was the article that led to the eventual 'breakthrough', but it's the discussion afterwards that narrowed it down to the tool.
http://www.howtogeek...quacy-problems/

I was stuck with a 90GB partition (which started as a 150GB one, and I only got that far by turning everything off like the article says) with 28GB of data in it.

[anfy]

tclaroy said:

I recently bought a new laptop with Windows Vista OS. It has a 200 GIG hard drive. Before I load it up with programs, screen savers, and entertainment packs. I want to partition it into smaller logical drives. I can't do the partitioning because Norton's 'PartitionMagic 8.0' nor PowerQuest's 'PartitionMagic 8.0'is not compatible with Windows Vista. I am a staunch advocate of partitioning large hard drives because to some degree, the sofware packages do run somewhat faster because the search function doesn't have to search the whole drive, only part of it.

Regards, Thomas C LaRoy

Hi Thomas,

Vista has its own partitioning utility. If you right click on My Computer, and click "device properties", and choose "disk manager" on the left pane (I'm using a Mac ATM so I can't make sure the names are completely correct), and you will see all of your disks. Right click any partition and select "shrink" or "expand" and you can resize your partitions. Voila! You don't have to pay for PartitionMagic.

Alternately, if you don't like this method (sometimes it has limited resizing room because of Vista's paging file usually placed near the end of the partition), go download the opensource GParted CD and boot into it. You can resize partitions more efficiently and much more flexibly. Problem solved :)

Good luck!

[crazy4laptops]

here is a saying that rings true on the machines i've worked on that have vista

Vista
is like a Porsche with a scooter engine, it has no power, but it looks great.

Tips for next o/s-

make it faster than XP
5 gigs max for installation, 1.5 ghz processor, 512mb-1 gig of ram, 32-64 mb video card
design an desktop and laptop edition/adaptation

[Evildave]

Here's a fine suggestion for a new OS feature that I would heartily buy into: Built-In Virtualization!

In other words, the actual drivers and whatnot all go into a virtual host system, and then you can boot into any of the various versions of Windows (or other OS) support available for it.

The machine boots up by default into the 'Latest, Greatest', but also has an 'XP' boot up mode, even a 'DOS', 'Win95' and 'Win98' and 'Win2000' mode. After all at various times, different things have worked or not worked for different versions of Windows. No sense alienating the user by insisting they throw thousands of dollars worth of software into the bit bucket just because you wanted to add a dancing paperclip to the help.

The virtualization layer would work with a 'standard' driver for each OS emulation, similar to VMware's drivers (except more functional; i.e. DirectX would be available), which would behave as if you booted natively into that OS, with only minor loss of performance (similar to the 'hit' you get with VMWare, which is insignificant).

You can 'boot' a VM in XP mode to run most of the current stuff, and another into Vista mode to not run anything worth crap, or boot it into Windows 98 mode to run the simple things from the 'good old days'. You wouldn't necessarily be able to run a Win95 compatible app in Vista, for instance, but you could bring up the Win95 desktop and run it as if it were an incredibly fast machine in 1995 with incredible amounts of RAM and awesome 'in-DirectX' and GL capabilities. The wireless and/or wired network could just behave like a standard ethernet port for the older OSs, just as USB2 or SATA could look like more 'conventional' devices in a DOS or Win 3.1 app. The fact that the new machine is running 'science fiction' hardware compared to what the old OS is expecting doesn't matter at all.

This way, the underlying virtual OS could be 32 or 64 bit, and you could run as many TRULY COMPATIBLE 16 and 32 bit virtual machines at the same time as you like, according to how much RAM and CPU you have. The various emulations could sit behind a NAT firewall maintained by the host OS, and share common underlying security, and you could control whether they can access common or global resources, in case you fear malware compatibility. If you need a native 64 bit OS mode for the latest video editing software, you can start it right up without all of the 'baggage' of the other emulations.

Best of all, instead of one MONOLITHIC NIGHTMARE to debug, test and maintain that never quite works right, you get to use stable versions of any OS past or present for near perfect compatibility across the board. Even old DOS games could run better than they ever did.

From a Microsoft-wanting-to-own-the-world perspective, SO WHAT if somebody uses the virtual OS to run Linux or even MAC OS? The driver subsystem that makes running that OS possible on whatever machine would still be owned and controlled by Microsoft (or whatever company shipped this OS), and people who buy a new PC would never be faced with the problem of finding drivers, since the built-in ones will work just fine. They'd virtually all run Microsoft's OS and virtualization layer underneath what they were doing with their PC because it's just EASIER than trying to hand-configure native installations of any other OS.

But that's just me dreaming, isn't it? Microsoft's NEXT P.O.S. will probably be even huger and have even less desirable things than DRM-crippled device drivers to show for it.

[rgreen4]

On of the things I love about blanket statements is that they always get proven wrong.

Can't install Vista on a P4 - hogwash, or should I remove it from my 4 year old HP D530 with a 3.2 Ghz P4?

Won't run old devices - is a 1984 HP Laserjet II old enough for you? It was on the list of supported printers from HP on day one. The oldest I have is an HP Laserjet 4P produced in Feb, 1995. When researching a question for a community member, I pulled it out of the closet and hooked it up to one of my Vista desktops (I have 3). It is the only printer I have left that uses the old parallel connection as my newer ones are connected to the network. When I booted Vista, it found the printer, installed the driver automatically and informed me it was ready for use. And it was. Once that was over I went back to my 37PPM Laserjet, the 4P is painfully slow at 4PPM (but it's now officially a teenager at 13).

I confess I didn't try my 1988 Okidata dot matrix, but then I don't have any pinfeed paper and no ribbons for the print head either. It gets a one way ride the next time I go to the dump.

Vista - a small percentage of people seem to hate it, or is it that they hate anything Microsoft. That is their right, but I ask then, why do they use Microsoft products so much?

Vista is here to stay. Put your big boy britches on and get over it, or just step aside and use something else. 99.99% of the people using Vista don't understand what all the ranting and griping is about.

[BobDobbs]

What is the most annoying thing about Windows Vista?

Hmmm, since I found the right NVidia driver, it doesn't blue-screen and reboot causing data loss anymore. I guess the most annoying thing is that it's mind-numbingly slow and generally incapable of doing the basic work of an operating system with even minimal efficiency. (hardware: AMD 64 x2 2.2GHz; 2GB RAM)



What do you hope Vista SP1 will fix, streamline, and improve upon?

Contrary to what I'd hoped: judging by the early performance reports, it will fix very little --- only marginally improving the perfomance issues --- nevermind the new problems it seems it might introduce. Originally, I'd planned to at least load SP1 before giving up. I've lost all hope for it now. It will, however, streamline my probable return to XP, voided warranty and all. Even so, only the most ephemeral paranoia prevents me from dumping all Windows for Linux. I've been using Linux heavily for ten years, mostly/currently Slackware, but I tried out Ubuntu 7.10 recently, and was truly blown away at its out-of-the-box hardware support for my laptop. An Ubuntu live CD/DVD is probably a game-changer for many people running Vista.



Do you love or hate Windows Vista?

I certainly don't love it, but it would only add to my suffering to hate it. Have I wasted too much time and experienced too much frustration in giving Vista a fair shot? Yes.



I am the spinning blue ring of Jack's wasted time.

[rgreen4]

BobDobbs said:

An Ubuntu live CD/DVD is probably a game-changer for many people running Vista.

Except for those of us who have laptops whose wireless chip is unsupported by Linux.

As to the slowness of Vista, have you tried posting your specific situation on the PC World community windows discussion to see if the members could help in any way? I keep making this offer to those who say their Vista is slow, but I have yet to see one actually follow through with a question on that discussion branch. BTW - there are many regular members now running Vista and seem to have fast responses. One regular recently had to replace his machine, and the new one came with Vista pre-installed, he says he likes it.

So give the community a change to work with you and maybe get your system to functioning as it should.

[BobJam]

I've read most of the posts in this thread, and whether or not some like VISTA, I doubt very seriously if Microsoft is going to do anything like pull it off the market because some people don't like it. Yes, that's a pretty ridiculous statement I just made, but some Microsoft bashers (and I've been one myself from time to time) actually think that can happen.


Some of us, myself included, went kicking and screaming from 3.1 to 95 and then from 95 to 98 and then to 98SE and then maybe to Millenium and then to 2000 and then to XP. I thought 98SE was pretty slick and tried to hang on to it, but once the maker decides to drop support, it's just a matter of time before you have to switch (same thing with some apps, like Quicken for example). I myself have finally gotten XP stable and working just fine and now like it. I am reluctant to go to VISTA, and I'm sure at first I'll not like it. But if experience is any prediction, I'll eventually probably like VISTA, and just when I get comfortable with it, new systems will come with Longhorn or some other VISTA successor. And then I'll have to go through the whole cycle again . . . anger, denial, acceptance, etc.

So, all of us would probably do better just to skip the anger stage and get on with it.

[BobDobbs]

> Except for those of us who have laptops whose wireless chip is unsupported by Linux.
[/quote]

Yeah, I had to jump through a few hoops to get mine working (broadcom). Suspend still don't work (HP+AMD issue, apparently arising from the particular kernel config in 7.10), but everything else is fine.

> As to the slowness of Vista, have you tried posting your specific situation on the PC World community windows discussion to see if the members could help in any way? I keep making this offer to those who say their Vista is slow, but I have yet to see one actually follow through with a question on that discussion branch. BTW - there are many regular members now running Vista and seem to have fast responses. One regular recently had to replace his machine, and the new one came with Vista pre-installed, he says he likes it.
[/quote]

Believe me I scoured the 'net. I did finally manage to stop the indexer from grinding up my disk, and one other setting made network (samba) file transfers at least possible, if not fast. My biggest gripe is how badly it runs firefox, though eventually it will gum up enough so that, no matter if I close all apps, I have to reboot to get any performance back. I tend to keep a lot of tabs open, which uses up resources, but too many times I find myself asking what the machine is doing that it can't easily respond to a single mouse click, or scroll a page, in the only application I'm running. I don't have anywhere near the same troubles on Linux (on another machine with very similar hardware). This machine came pre-installed with Vista; that some people got lucky in the Vista lottery is no help to me. I've been using personal computers since CP/M was a contender. I've used Kaypro, Commodore, Amiga, DEC, IBM PC w/ DOS, Windows 2/3/95/98/NT/XP, Linux since '98, and a few Macs, but Vista is by far the worst experience of the lot. One big reason for that is there are no new features in Vista (as opposed to, say, 95 and XP) that could possibly justify it being as slow and incompatible as it is -- nevermind the UI anti-fixes like the new start menu and more layers of fluff between you and administering the machine.