Vista Woes: are the problems being exaggerated?

Well, I didn't think my idea was bad but the response certainly was considering 117 views and only 7 votes/no posts. Apparently this is where people go to find help and not for general comments (even though this is the 'General' section).

That or maybe nobody gives a rats what I have to say (on that note--)

I agree that Vista is a brand new OS and it will have bugs but for such a low # of bugs I see that as very impressive. Also once the drivers get a little better it should be close to or better than XP.

My view, although likely to be binned as I'm actually running and using the OS unlike many here.

I installed OEM Ultimate 32 bit as a dual boot about a week and a half ago now. Since I have now re-installed and removed XP Pro from my PC and I'm just running Vista.

No driver issues at all - everything installed - the installation took me about 40 minutes the first time (keeping old files) and just under 30 minutes the second time clean.

Basically, everything works as before. Programs loading from desktop (Word, Excel, Outlook etc) are far faster and snappier. I've had only one error which Vista recovered from when trying to install non-compatable Logitech webcam drivers. I had a problem with installing Paint Shop Pro 9, but have since found out this was myself not setting user allowances in Vista correctly.

Likes

- the looks
- it's secure
- gaming performance with the new 100.xx Nvidia drivers
- all the normal glossy new OS stuff etc etc

Dislikes

- Indexing your hdd can takes quite a lot of time at the start, pictures, videos etc
- Gaming with the new immature Nvidia drivers - games like BF2 run like a dream but upon first running a new map etc it takes a few extra seconds to load the textures into VRAM
- ReadyBoost does not make a huge difference to a higher-end system

The OS itself is a higher RAM overhead than any other OS I've seen. However if you're a gamer and already running 2gb then you won't see a difference between Vista and XP - Vista is already faster. I'd hate to run it on 512mb though.

The additional system overhead does not impact upon gaming at all - if you needed 2gb of RAM before in XP you will not require any additional for Vista.

Overall I would say if you are curious and can afford to buy it and you have a decent PC, do so. If you are a serious gamer with a decent PC, get it.

If you just e-mail and browse, just hold on and wait.

64 bit support from 3rd parties is just as poor as it was with XP x64. If you're a 64 bit nut, upgrade. If not but you want it, wait 12 - 18 months.

I don't know about RTM but I installed RC1 with very few problems.

I didn't vote because you are asking whether the press has the level of Vista problems correct. The press hasn't even commented on the real issue, which is HDCP. I'm sure you already know about this. If not check my sig.

100% with you on all the comments.

When I bought my new computer, I did not have any OS, so I got a winxp 64 from a friend of mine. I must say I had more problem with XP64 then with vista Business 32bit.

IMO 64Bit transition looks like it will be pretty slow, only way to speed it up would be with application and scenarios where you really need 4 gigs of ram.
Drivers and such are really slow to come for XP64 and it's not normal, common HP it took you 1+ year to get printer drivers! I hope they do a better job for Vista since they need new drivers anyway!

well, if new hardware vendors want to put the shiny Vista Ready sticker on em, they need to have functional 32 and 64bit drivers. kinda forces 64bit support out of em, heh.
I am running Vista x64 at the moment, and have had minimal compatability issues. I also tried XP x64 and Vista beta 2 x64, and both were maddeningly disapointing in terms of ANY support. it has come along way, and I predict most, if not all of the newer software and hardware will at least be able to run on x64.
HDCP imho is a non issue. you want to whine about it, blame Intel for creating it and the MPAA and RIAA for imposing it. not Vista for loading it up. I dont get why everyone is complaining. Set top boxes follow the rules of HDCP and people dont whine at Sony, Toshiba, etc... why target Vista? /rant off

Overall, Vista I think has had fewer bugs and problems than alot of prior OS's although it does have its share. It has alot of room to progress, and I think it will do well over the next year.

It's nice to see a bunch of reasonable people in here. I voted for "No every OS has problems at launch". My problems have be virtually non-existant with Vista RTM but I do concede that others might not be as fortunate (older or bleeding edge hardware etc.)

For me, Vista is running very well. No crashes, no quirks, and all my development software is running great. I just picked up a HDCP-capable monitor (LG L204WT), not that I'm too concerned with HD right now. Overall I couldn't be happier. All the new administrative tools are very useful (Reliability Monitor kicks ass) and love the additions to the task manager (it's about they allowed us to see what services svchost.exe is actually hosting lol.)

Overall, I am very happy. My father-in-law recently upgraded his Dell Inspiron 8600 to Vista and he is quite happy as well. I'm just waiting for NVIDIA to fix up the 8800-series drivers for Vista (the beta versions suck) and then I'll move my dad from XP to Vista as well.

Yeah, I have an HDCP supported Dell LCD 720P Monitor and I have been playing DVDs both off harddisk, torrent loads and DVD discs. No issues. So far, the problems appear to be HD/Blue Ray - no surprises there if you follow all the issues that people have had with the technology - and are completely blown out of proportion, for now at least. Other than a few minor headaches with driver support, this is a very good OS upgrade that is relatively stable and it will become more stable with better driver support over time. People will always complain about new OS changes because they have to change their expectations and how to do things in a slightly different manner.

"117 views and only 7 votes/no posts."

Some, like me, probably don't want to vote b/c they don't have Vista and, therefore, their opinion means jack squat.

I am interested in the results, nevertheless.

I vote no: The ow isn't exaggerated.

That said, I have had a relatively painless upgrade that I would attribute to nothing more than very beefy hardware. I wouldn't want to play around with a Vista with less than 3 or 4gb of RAM. At idle, with minimal processes loaded, 21% of my memory is being utilized.

And I still can't get my WiFi to work.

Again, stop measuring OS performance on how much memory is used idling. If you want to compare, compare under load. An Idle cycle is a wasted cycle, and Vista uses unused Ram for caching and indexing, and will release it when needed by an app. I have ran Beta and RC1/2 on a 1GB AMD64 (Newcastle) box, and even on a 1GB Athlon 2800 (thunderbird) box, and had no performance issues at all, and I'm running Ultimate final now on a 2GB C2D box, and have had no performance issues (even when running another instance of Vista in a Virtual PC). 3 or 4gb isn't NEEDED for anything in Vista, unless it was needed in XP as well (which isn't much to be honest). Unless apps and games start demanding over 2GB of RAM, there is no reason to assume 'only' 2GB of RAM will not give you a satisfactory Vista 'Experience'.

well I've installed vista on two of my pcs and have had few problems with either, the first one I installed is an xp 2800+ with 768 of ram and a geforce 5600 and I was amazed at how good the os felt to use even with office 2007 It was nippy and responsive, My main pc is a 4000+ with 3 gig of ram and a geforce 7900gt and it fair clips along. all I need now is for nvidia and creative to sort drivers out, razer to fix the deathadder and than I can get don to some fun with my games, so far all I've played is guildwars and thats great under vista, even on the slower machine!!