Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I actually like Vista!

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
February 1, 2007 10:29:05 PM

I can't believe what a bunch of whiners everyone is. All you see are posts of 'Vista broke this' or 'Vista sucks at that'.
I don't know what everyone's problem is. I like Vista. It's nice, sleek and easy to use. It's also faster than XP for most things. No one mentions that. I mean, sure I lost some fps in games, but for the speed up of everyday stuff, I'd trade 10 fps in a game anyday. Especially since most games still run over 60 on my system anyway.
And what's this about Vista taking 2 hours to install? What did you do wrong? I've installed it 3 times now on different computers and it never takes more than 25 minutes, tops.
As to the driver problems, give it time. Drivers are new and it will probably be a couple of months for some of the bigger kinks to get worked out.
Still, for the most part, Vista is very nice. :D 

More about : vista

February 1, 2007 10:59:06 PM

Quote:
I can't believe what a bunch of whiners everyone is. All you see are posts of 'Vista broke this' or 'Vista sucks at that'.
I don't know what everyone's problem is. I like Vista. It's nice, sleek and easy to use. It's also faster than XP for most things. No one mentions that. I mean, sure I lost some fps in games, but for the speed up of everyday stuff, I'd trade 10 fps in a game anyday. Especially since most games still run over 60 on my system anyway.
And what's this about Vista taking 2 hours to install? What did you do wrong? I've installed it 3 times now on different computers and it never takes more than 25 minutes, tops.
As to the driver problems, give it time. Drivers are new and it will probably be a couple of months for some of the bigger kinks to get worked out.
Still, for the most part, Vista is very nice. :D 

I agree, Vista is a lot more sleek and streamlined than XP was but fps wise I haven't lost any. Also, Vista took me 20 minutes to install at the most :) 
February 1, 2007 11:32:20 PM

When i tried the RC2 version, it seemed fast and nice to me

I think i would upgrade , but the only problem is the whole DRM fiasco, so im waiting to see how that turns out
Related resources
February 2, 2007 2:26:53 AM

I don't understand what's up with all the hate. Go to any website and look at vista comments and everyone is just bagging on Vista. I mean, have they even tried it?
Now, maybe I'm biased because I got my copy for free, but still, I think it's nice. I even deleted my old XP partition after a couple of days with the new OS. Didn't see any reason to go back and I still don't.
February 2, 2007 5:03:48 AM

Quote:
I don't understand what's up with all the hate. Go to any website and look at vista comments and everyone is just bagging on Vista. I mean, have they even tried it?
Now, maybe I'm biased because I got my copy for free, but still, I think it's nice. I even deleted my old XP partition after a couple of days with the new OS. Didn't see any reason to go back and I still don't.


Vista will lock the consumer out of choices, I liked the RC1 and couldn’t wait for the retail version to be released. I'm disappointed that I will not be buying Vista; my children will end their relationship with M$ @ XP and learn OS X and Linux. M$ may have the upper hand now but next generation may use open source.

The DRM will give M$ complete control. Is the sleek OS worth that? No way!

http://badvista.fsf.org/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
February 2, 2007 5:54:18 AM

I also got a free copy of Vista so I'm trying it out. I'm really liking it so far and plan on keeping it. I don't support DRM but I won't reject a free copy.
February 2, 2007 6:32:20 AM

Free is one thing... at least M$ did not get your money.

How did you come across free Vista?
February 2, 2007 12:16:31 PM

I got a free copy for participating in the powertogether.com campaign. Had to learn a bit about how to use the new Office stuff, but then they sent me Vista Business and Office Professional for free.

As for other OSX, I had a summer job where my job was to try and make OSX crash and it was pretty easy. Just corrupt a system file and the whole thing would just die a horrible death. I wasn't impressed, really.

But I do like Linux. I've tried Suse for a while, but ended up sticking with Debian for the ease of customization it offers.
February 2, 2007 3:36:29 PM

Quote:
I can't believe what a bunch of whiners everyone is. All you see are posts of 'Vista broke this' or 'Vista sucks at that'.
I don't know what everyone's problem is. I like Vista. It's nice, sleek and easy to use. It's also faster than XP for most things. No one mentions that. I mean, sure I lost some fps in games, but for the speed up of everyday stuff, I'd trade 10 fps in a game anyday. Especially since most games still run over 60 on my system anyway.
And what's this about Vista taking 2 hours to install? What did you do wrong? I've installed it 3 times now on different computers and it never takes more than 25 minutes, tops.
As to the driver problems, give it time. Drivers are new and it will probably be a couple of months for some of the bigger kinks to get worked out.
Still, for the most part, Vista is very nice. :D 


What proof do you have that it is faster? Every benchmark I have seen says it is 15-30% slower.

I think you are being completely dazzled by the eye candy and because it is new.

Open up task manager and click on performance, then open up the new resource monitor. Then start multitasking.

Tell me it is faster.

I have an ATI TV650 pro card and it sucks down all 2gigs of memory and if I open other windows it locks up.

In winxp I can watch TV on one monitor, browse,open up about 20-30 tabs in firefox on my other monitor and still have 1 gig left.

Maybe you could enlighten me why anyone would spend 300-400 dollars for eye candy and a huge dose of DRM to limit your computing.

And do not tell me gaming because the drivers out make the gaming experience worse not better.
February 2, 2007 7:34:07 PM

Hmm... let's see. :wink:
Booting XP~5-7 minutes.
Booting Vista~1.5 minutes.
Loading Firefox for the first time in XP~14 seconds.
Loading Firefox in Vista first time~3 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in XP~16 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in Vista~3 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in XP~12 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in Vista~3.5 seconds.

I call that faster, don't you? I only have 1GB of RAM and I've not yet run out of memory. Now I don't have 30 tabs open in firefox, but I do like to have Guild Wars running with Winamp with Word and a couple of spreadsheets open.
And speed is only a small part of what makes the new OS better. What about security and stability? If your graphics driver dies, now the OS doesn't have to go with it! It can recover and keep going.
I'm sorry you don't like Vista. Looks like most people don't, and that's not surprising. Everyone hates the big guy, always have, always will. But for me, it's been a big step up and I was surprised after all the negative publicity it's getting. I was expecting it to be terrible, but I found that I like it instead.
February 2, 2007 9:34:44 PM

Quote:
Hmm... let's see. :wink:
Booting XP~5-7 minutes.
Booting Vista~1.5 minutes.
Loading Firefox for the first time in XP~14 seconds.
Loading Firefox in Vista first time~3 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in XP~16 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in Vista~3 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in XP~12 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in Vista~3.5 seconds.

I call that faster, don't you? I only have 1GB of RAM and I've not yet run out of memory. Now I don't have 30 tabs open in firefox, but I do like to have Guild Wars running with Winamp with Word and a couple of spreadsheets open.
And speed is only a small part of what makes the new OS better. What about security and stability? If your graphics driver dies, now the OS doesn't have to go with it! It can recover and keep going.
I'm sorry you don't like Vista. Looks like most people don't, and that's not surprising. Everyone hates the big guy, always have, always will. But for me, it's been a big step up and I was surprised after all the negative publicity it's getting. I was expecting it to be terrible, but I found that I like it instead.

I hate being called a fan boy for saying that I like Vista over XP. You can tell when somebody hasn't even used the OS when they say no programs run on it :lol: 
February 2, 2007 10:44:34 PM

Quote:
I can't believe what a bunch of whiners everyone is. All you see are posts of 'Vista broke this' or 'Vista sucks at that'.
I don't know what everyone's problem is. I like Vista. It's nice, sleek and easy to use. It's also faster than XP for most things. No one mentions that. I mean, sure I lost some fps in games, but for the speed up of everyday stuff, I'd trade 10 fps in a game anyday. Especially since most games still run over 60 on my system anyway.
And what's this about Vista taking 2 hours to install? What did you do wrong? I've installed it 3 times now on different computers and it never takes more than 25 minutes, tops.
As to the driver problems, give it time. Drivers are new and it will probably be a couple of months for some of the bigger kinks to get worked out.
Still, for the most part, Vista is very nice. :D 


You can't believe everyone ummm everyone is a whiner? Excuse me? But I dont like my privacy stolen away from me with NSA building backdoors to break into my privacy.....damn I'm almost afraid to surf the Internet....what if I click a wrong link and I end up at some website I did not even want to visit....this info would go straight to Microsoft and they could take actions. Man that is totally weird...you say you dont know what the problem is? Well, I hope you understand that problem cause if not, you could be just one of them reasons that Microsoft is still alive and Linux for example still not being able to take the crown while it's prosumed to be way better (as it has no backdoors and does not need a powerfull pc and has a beautifull adaptable interface that Microsoft took a lot of lessons from creating their graphical interface) and not even cost a penny/dollar/euro. I know some people (maybe vista lovers calling people whiners whoever tells a negative thing about vista even if this is true) that dissagree with this statement but it's true. When you want a Vista look in Linux it's all possible...hell it's even possible to create your own interface in Linux. Can vista Aeroglass give you this choice? No, it just comes the way it comes.....what the problem my friend? Am I a whiner now for saying all this? You like Vista and I respect that...that's just you.....benchmark tests show different results....XP is way faster then Vista....you just can't call me a whiner for that cause it's true also. And the installing part of Vista.....give me one noob site that is telling it takes 2 hours to install...I just dont believe this. I guess you are visiting the wrong sites....and now we should give the non supported drivers time? lol....why should we give it time....so first spend a lot of money (not you) while for some people the drivers are not even there?....ain't that a bit weird? And you still call me a whiner? Sorry but I think you don't fully understand what pro magazines and pro review sites actually are telling about Microsoft Vista and you don't have the gift to see the difference between XP and Vista. Call me a whiner for that only if you want to call yourself a Pro reviewer trying to tell that almost everything is ok in Vista..... thx.

ps: this little part you wrote is even more crazy and really shows you have no idea what you are talking about :

Hmm... let's see.
Booting XP~5-7 minutes.
Booting Vista~1.5 minutes.
Loading Firefox for the first time in XP~14 seconds.
Loading Firefox in Vista first time~3 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in XP~16 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in Vista~3 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in XP~12 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in Vista~3.5 seconds.

Yes right...and you call tomshardware benchmarks fake too in their very well written (benchmarks included) review you can read right here? >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
February 2, 2007 11:32:29 PM

Quote:
I can't believe what a bunch of whiners everyone is. All you see are posts of 'Vista broke this' or 'Vista sucks at that'.
I don't know what everyone's problem is. I like Vista. It's nice, sleek and easy to use. It's also faster than XP for most things. No one mentions that. I mean, sure I lost some fps in games, but for the speed up of everyday stuff, I'd trade 10 fps in a game anyday. Especially since most games still run over 60 on my system anyway.
And what's this about Vista taking 2 hours to install? What did you do wrong? I've installed it 3 times now on different computers and it never takes more than 25 minutes, tops.
As to the driver problems, give it time. Drivers are new and it will probably be a couple of months for some of the bigger kinks to get worked out.
Still, for the most part, Vista is very nice. :D 


You can't believe everyone ummm everyone is a whiner? Excuse me? But I dont like my privacy stolen away from me with NSA building backdoors to break into my privacy.....damn I'm almost afraid to surf the Internet....what if I click a wrong link and I end up at some website I did not even want to visit....this info would go straight to Microsoft and they could take actions. Man that is totally weird...you say you dont know what the problem is? Well, I hope you understand that problem cause if not, you could be just one of them reasons that Microsoft is still alive and Linux for example still not being able to take the crown while it's prosumed to be way better (as it has no backdoors and does not need a powerfull pc and has a beautifull adaptable interface that Microsoft took a lot of lessons from creating their graphical interface) and not even cost a penny/dollar/euro. I know some people (maybe vista lovers calling people whiners whoever tells a negative thing about vista even if this is true) that dissagree with this statement but it's true. When you want a Vista look in Linux it's all possible...hell it's even possible to create your own interface in Linux. Can vista Aeroglass give you this choice? No, it just comes the way it comes.....what the problem my friend? Am I a whiner now for saying all this? You like Vista and I respect that...that's just you.....benchmark tests show different results....XP is way faster then Vista....you just can't call me a whiner for that cause it's true also. And the installing part of Vista.....give me one noob site that is telling it takes 2 hours to install...I just dont believe this. I guess you are visiting the wrong sites....and now we should give the non supported drivers time? lol....why should we give it time....so first spend a lot of money (not you) while for some people the drivers are not even there?....ain't that a bit weird? And you still call me a whiner? Sorry but I think you don't fully understand what pro magazines and pro review sites actually are telling about Microsoft Vista and you don't have the gift to see the difference between XP and Vista. Call me a whiner for that only if you want to call yourself a Pro reviewer trying to tell that almost everything is ok in Vista..... thx.

ps: this little part you wrote is even more crazy and really shows you have no idea what you are talking about :

Hmm... let's see.
Booting XP~5-7 minutes.
Booting Vista~1.5 minutes.
Loading Firefox for the first time in XP~14 seconds.
Loading Firefox in Vista first time~3 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in XP~16 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in Vista~3 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in XP~12 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in Vista~3.5 seconds.

Yes right...and you call tomshardware benchmarks fake too in their very well written (benchmarks included) review you can read right here? >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

Bravo, Standing Ovation... you feel as I and many feel about Vista, the lost of the PC due to the pro M$ that like it up the a**. Vista will be the fall of M$ and anyone that supports what M$ is doing needs to join the Army to get the sense of what it is like to fight for freedom instead of just taking and liking it. Benjamin is rolling in his grave IMO.
February 3, 2007 2:24:04 AM

Quote:
Free is one thing... at least M$ did not get your money.

How did you come across free Vista?

Got mine through MSDNAA (I'm a college student).

What is with this Vista and back doors? I haven't been reading any Vista related articles. Do they have something like built-in spyware for monitoring contents of your hard drives?
February 3, 2007 2:57:35 AM

Hi Human1,

I am surprised at your estimated xp boot up time
Booting XP~5-7 minutes.
We seem to have similar systems but my boot up time is about 1.5 min
You may have a lot more processes starting I would guess.

I am interrested in Vista and I am hoping someone can answer some questions for me

Does Vista home premium dvd have both 32bit and 64bit versions on it or is it just 64bit with backwards compatability with 32bit software ? (or are they a seperate purchase?)

Thanks in advance, any help is appreciated.
February 3, 2007 6:58:36 AM

I have to agree, Vista is definately worth it too me. Yes, I am having some troubles, I will admit, but it's not quite so bad. Had more hardware problems with this computer then software ones. Just need some times to tinker around with it to get it working right.

Oh yeah, if the NSA is snooping around on my computer, they're not going to find much worth reporting. I'm definately enjoying the music and videos pulled from the Internet. Going to try a DVD and see how that runs for me.
February 3, 2007 1:37:02 PM

About DRM,
The protection of intellectual property is something that should be subject to complains if it has negative side effects on legitimate applications and content, but if you disagree with the level of protection of intellectual property you should be lobbying to the lawmakers, its a political issue not a Vista one.
February 3, 2007 2:07:38 PM

First, as to your scathing critique of my quick run down of speed increases, did you see this article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/31/windows-vista-su...
As to the article done by Toms XP vs Vista, it's pretty clear that most of the problems are driver related or just due to the system having a few more bells and whistles to keep up with. Ever see benchmarks of Win98 vs XP. Win98 kicked some a$$ then, and everyone whined, just like you're doing now. Quit being a sheep.

But really, if anyone could explain intelligently what this guy meant about DRM problems and NSA backdoors, I'd like to know. Like darious, I've read a lot of articles about Vista, but I've never seen anything about this.

To Shadowed:
According to Amazon, you buy the 32-bit software and it includes instructions on how to have a 64-bit version mailed to you. Hope that helps.
February 3, 2007 2:50:04 PM

Quote:
First, as to your scathing critique of my quick run down of speed increases, did you see this article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/31/windows-vista-su...
As to the article done by Toms XP vs Vista, it's pretty clear that most of the problems are driver related or just due to the system having a few more bells and whistles to keep up with. Ever see benchmarks of Win98 vs XP. Win98 kicked some a$$ then, and everyone whined, just like you're doing now. Quit being a sheep.

But really, if anyone could explain intelligently what this guy meant about DRM problems and NSA backdoors, I'd like to know. Like darious, I've read a lot of articles about Vista, but I've never seen anything about this.

To Shadowed:
According to Amazon, you buy the 32-bit software and it includes instructions on how to have a 64-bit version mailed to you. Hope that helps.

I have heard things regarding the DRM with HD DVDs and Blu Ray discs but haven't really seen anything first hand.
February 3, 2007 4:33:32 PM

Your ISP knows which sites you've visited... you don't need a backdoor into Windows to find out that kind of information. You're deluding yourself if you believe there is such a thing as anonymity on the internet. The moment you start sending those data packets over a public domain, you open yourself up for anything.

It surprises me that people expect privacy on a public domain. It's never going to happen... and I'm sorry to have to break the news to you. If you're really that concerned about your privacy, you shouldn't be on the internet. Vista or no Vista, that's the way it is.
February 3, 2007 4:58:39 PM

I've heard plenty of things about the whole DRM deal. I do think it has affected me in a minor way already. When trying to watch a DVD with VideoLAN, I get sound just fine, but the picture just stays a white screen. Oddly enough whenever I do a snapshot the video comes in clearly, or when I have subtitles going it also works, in a way.

With strict audio files with content protection Vista is said to manipulate the sound to drop the frequency, then ramp it back up, leaving a song with a lot of artifacts and reduced quality. So far I haven't had to deal with the sound issue. And VideoLAN could just require an upgrade to cope with things.
February 3, 2007 6:27:19 PM

Quote:
Your ISP knows which sites you've visited... you don't need a backdoor into Windows to find out that kind of information. You're deluding yourself if you believe there is such a thing as anonymity on the internet. The moment you start sending those data packets over a public domain, you open yourself up for anything.

It surprises me that people expect privacy on a public domain. It's never going to happen... and I'm sorry to have to break the news to you. If you're really that concerned about your privacy, you shouldn't be on the internet. Vista or no Vista, that's the way it is.


Zoron, I agree with you.....offcourse everything you do on The Internet is tracable. You've got sniffers and all this stuff going on on The Internet. That does not concern me at all. But that does not let somebody look in my pc (just for an inspection ok but still) if I for example accidently land on some forbidden site via some crazy link. And the backdoor is not only Internet related is it? It also watches for suspicious code being executed on a Vista PC. But I dont care if people want to use Vista :D  It's their choice. Personally, I don't like the idea behind this type of security (privacy) but that's just me.
February 3, 2007 6:33:38 PM

Quote:
First, as to your scathing critique of my quick run down of speed increases, did you see this article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/31/windows-vista-su...
As to the article done by Toms XP vs Vista, it's pretty clear that most of the problems are driver related or just due to the system having a few more bells and whistles to keep up with. Ever see benchmarks of Win98 vs XP. Win98 kicked some a$$ then, and everyone whined, just like you're doing now. Quit being a sheep.


If I'm a sheep and you show me these benchmark results....man than what are you? A donkey? Every guy who sees this knows this is just plain noncence. Why you are giving these fake results I don't know. And then you say to them that it's all driver related? lmao
Also I think it is a very bad comparinson when you say...look at win98 vs win xp.....NTFS...you know what NTFS is? It's not for win98. Btw, Win XP is almost the same as Win2000 and the differences were not that big at all. It just got filled up with multimedia and little things like an internal firewall. But never ever had a Microsoft product (Vista) this much critism in magazines and pro sites. And you say"oh most is just all driver related".....like all those magazines and sites are talking crazy noncence and could not come up with this themselves if this were true? Sure there are some driver problems it's the same case with every new OS doh. If you think you are so smart...why can't you do a proper benchmark test.


Show this to Bill Gates....he will be a happy man with guys like you :D  :

Hmm... let's see.
Booting XP~5-7 minutes.
Booting Vista~1.5 minutes.
Loading Firefox for the first time in XP~14 seconds.
Loading Firefox in Vista first time~3 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in XP~16 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in Vista~3 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in XP~12 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in Vista~3.5 seconds.

What I mean is....5 to 7 minutes XP loading time? And 14 seconds for Firefox? Man that's a big joke. What are you running....a pentium 2? The site you gave me does show the advantage in app startup time using SuperFetch and ReadyBoost sure that's very nice (they decompiled reversed engineerd it straight from MAC OS 10 btw...most of Vista is an exact copy of MAC OS 10) but that does not take away the problems and make programs run faster while running?
February 3, 2007 8:16:25 PM

Lets not bring up the "copy" subject. Mac is far from original.
February 4, 2007 1:33:52 AM

Also remember that Apple is a virtual mini-monopoly themselves; yet we rarely hear people bitching about them. When you're the biggest, there will be that many more to try and knock you down.
February 4, 2007 1:41:33 AM

Quote:
Lets not bring up the "copy" subject. Mac is far from original.

Yea the Apple fan boys at school like to bring up the fact that Apple had the first OS with a GUI. Funny how Xerox did way before...
February 5, 2007 1:22:33 AM

Quote:
Hmm... let's see. :wink:
Booting XP~5-7 minutes.
Booting Vista~1.5 minutes.
Loading Firefox for the first time in XP~14 seconds.
Loading Firefox in Vista first time~3 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in XP~16 seconds.
Booting Word 2007 in Vista~3 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in XP~12 seconds.
Booting Excel 2007 in Vista~3.5 seconds.

I call that faster, don't you? I only have 1GB of RAM and I've not yet run out of memory. Now I don't have 30 tabs open in firefox, but I do like to have Guild Wars running with Winamp with Word and a couple of spreadsheets open.
And speed is only a small part of what makes the new OS better. What about security and stability? If your graphics driver dies, now the OS doesn't have to go with it! It can recover and keep going.
I'm sorry you don't like Vista. Looks like most people don't, and that's not surprising. Everyone hates the big guy, always have, always will. But for me, it's been a big step up and I was surprised after all the negative publicity it's getting. I was expecting it to be terrible, but I found that I like it instead.


I'm gonna go ahead and cry foul here on your benchmarks...

With your hardware, no way are you taking 5-7 minutes to boot XP on a relatively clean system (it's obviously an old install, which slows things down, sometimes dramatically). No way its takes that long to boot XP with your hardware on a clean system. Since you installed Vista relatively recently, your comparison is invalid. Pretty much the same applies for your other comparisons.

My test system has almost the same stats as yours, with an older graphics card (ATI AIW 9800) and no discrete sound, and it has NEVER taken that long to boot XP, even on an old install.

As for drivers, you obviously haven't tried an All-In-Wonder card on Vista. Vista renders them virtually useless, since neither the TV viewer nor the Video capture work, with no real timeline for implementing that feature. From what I have seen, this is due to the "phantom" DRM issues that some say don't exist.

As for security, I would bet my XP install is at least as secure as Vista, with a better firewall and browser (I don't like IE 7, to be fair), it never crashes or gives me issues, so why should I upgrade?

And before you think it, NO, I am not an M$ hater. I was actually looking forward to Vista until I got my hands on RC1 to play with. Since then, I have been less than impressed...
February 5, 2007 1:30:48 AM

Quote:
Lets not bring up the "copy" subject. Mac is far from original.

Yea the Apple fan boys at school like to bring up the fact that Apple had the first OS with a GUI. Funny how Xerox did way before...

Not to mention that OSX is based on Unix (BSD) at its core, and Unix was out for around 10 years before Apple was founded...
February 5, 2007 2:49:37 AM

Yea lol
!