Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help a knob understand why Vista SP1 doesn't suck?

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
May 5, 2009 10:49:13 PM

I've been using XP now for 8-9 years now. I am using SP3 now.
I just bought a new Dell which only comes with Vista SP1.

I have an XP SP2 OEM CD from my old Dell that sits in the closet.
So I re-installed my new Dell as a dual-boot with XP and Vista.

Vista Aero Glass and the Rocket Strip are cool but other than that
vista drives me nuts.

Text seems sharper on XP so Vista bugs me when surfing the
internet with firefox 2.0.20. Not as easy to read. And Yes I turned
off "Cleartype". On or Off it's still not as sharp as XP.

Vista seems to ask me constantly if it's ok to execute programs
I start up. Just run things already.. Yes I'm sure I want to run
xyz!!!!

Vista seems harder to find settings than simplistic XP.

So what the hell makes Vista worth using over XP? I don't use
or need DirectX 10. I don't game at all besides MAME.

I read that Vista SP2 fixes bugs but is slower than SP1.

So help me understand why my Vista SP1 CD doesn't belong in the
trash... I am considering removing the dual-boot and just using XP SP3.

Not trying to piss anyone off, just trying to understand why Vista exists..
May 6, 2009 12:46:12 AM

So far your complaints are Font sucks and User Account Control Sucks. Oh and "I heard" that SP2 is slower.

I don't know what to tell you about the font not looking as sharp, I didn't notice any difference.

As for UAC asking you questions all the time: This is a security feature. It prevents malware from installing/running apps automatically without you knowing. It can be turned off.

I guess one other complaint is that things are hard to find. I don't really think they are any harder to find than in XP, just some things are in different locations than you are used to. Everything seems to be in logical places to me.

I switched to Vista over a year ago and haven't looked back. It's been rock solid. Would you like MS to stop trying to move forward? Hell, why did they have to make Windows 95? 3.1 worked fine. Silly question right?

They don't just make their OS for nerds and enthusiasts, it has to suite a lot of peoples needs. Moms and pops', young and old. It has to work for everyone. The UAC is probably the most beneficial change for your average user. All the graphical pretty BS that everyone on the internet hates is great for a large portion of people.

I installed Vista on my machine and with no effort, it connect to my network and I was on the internet. I suppose that is a lame. The search integrated into the start menu, lame. Media center built in, lame. Organized category view in the control panel, lame. Superfetch making practical use of my RAM, lame. With a couple of clicks, my PS3 was sharing all my videos, pics and music library, stupid Vista.

As far as trying to make you understand why "vista exists", it's nobody's obligation to make you understand anything. If you don't like it, don't use it. Switch back. Xp is a good OS. I know you are not trying to piss anyone off, but you come off like an arrogant asshole. Boo-hoo, I hate Vista but I can't switch back until I get the approval of the forum. Switch already.
May 6, 2009 1:57:50 AM

I got more than a chuckle from your post dmroeder.

tom92602,

I'm not gonna tell you why you should like Vista, but I have to agree with the sentiments above. Vista will work if you want it to. There are also many ways to slim it down also and if you can't find anything use the start menu search to find it as dmroeder has pointed out. Actually I find this method much quicker than clicking my way about the OS.

Where Vista fell out of favour with alot of people Windows 7 seems to have won them over. I always liked Vista but 7 has far exceeded my expectations. The UAC is less naggy and the OS as a whole seems to be much lighter. I'm hoping with the RC1 release of 7 that MS has made UAC customiseable, there are a few apps that I would like run silently on start-up that UAC stops, but that is a minor niggle.

If you are thinking of nuking Vista from existence on your Dell machine, why not download the new Windows 7 release and then see if you are unwilling to move out of the bronze age.

You can get Windows 7 RC1 and key from the link below. I believe it is free to use for 1 year.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/
Related resources
May 6, 2009 4:08:54 AM

I try!

I wasn't going specifically for funny or arsehole, but more honest and realistic.

I'm perfectly cool with people not liking it. He even has a legitimate reason (it doesn't have a benefit for him). I'm sure he didn't intend on being the way I described him, but he kind of came off like a cry baby. No offense Tom.
May 6, 2009 12:11:47 PM

Quote:
Help a knob understand why Vista SP1 doesn't suck?


Not trying to piss anyone off.. But if the knob doesn't want to use an OS, then he shouldn't use it.
May 10, 2009 9:07:18 PM

Vista isn't exactly a solid OS, especially when compared to XP. As far as all the glitches go, you'll have to pretty much grin and bear it. You can stick it out and wait for the next release to come out, or try and configure Vista a little more to your liking.

That said, I can't help but laugh when I see posts saying basically, "You don't like it then you're an idiot and don't use it, no on is forcing you." Did we all forget Windows Millennium so quickly..? No, Vista isn't as bad as Win ME was, but in a lot of aspects it comes close.


May 10, 2009 10:51:03 PM

Vista is perfectly solid... at least as much as XP, if not more. The comparison to ME is ridiculous... of course it's better than ME. Yes, if people don't like Vista, then by all means they should stick with XP... they are not forced into Vista... at least not yet. There are still plenty of computers you can buy that come with XP media as well as Vista. Once Win 7 is out though, that will pretty much disappear.

Vista doesn't suffer from any more "glitches" than XP. Using old, incompatible software isn't a glitch... it's user ignorance. Some users are lucky that their software runs on XP... let alone Vista. Everyone likes to blame MS for bugs... yet there are vendors out there running ancient 16-bit code on so-called "modern" equipment. Everyone expects technology to move forward... yet how can it when companies insist on staying mired in the past?

The best thing for MS to do would be to tell everyone to upgrade or be left behind. Of course, they can't do that. People demand that a modern OS run software that's 5+ years old... and complain when it doesn't work "just right". People don't like to be told that their expectations in this area are unrealistic.
May 10, 2009 11:31:51 PM

wesright said:
Vista isn't exactly a solid OS, especially when compared to XP. As far as all the glitches go, you'll have to pretty much grin and bear it. You can stick it out and wait for the next release to come out, or try and configure Vista a little more to your liking.

That said, I can't help but laugh when I see posts saying basically, "You don't like it then you're an idiot and don't use it, no on is forcing you." Did we all forget Windows Millennium so quickly..? No, Vista isn't as bad as Win ME was, but in a lot of aspects it comes close.


Nobody ever said he was an idiot. It's just annoying that he was looking for the forum to explain why he should be using it. He obviously doesn't like it and the differences between Vista and XP aren't enough to justify using it, then why debate it, just don't use it. I even said in a previous post that not liking it is perfectly fine.

And this thread has nothing to do with ME. It's about Vista.

Wouldn't it be kind of retarded posting in a Toyota forum that your Tundra has crappy gas milage and the towing capacity isn't worth the extra money? Then asking everyone to explain why you should continue to own it?

And like a superhero, you come in here to defend his honor when he won't even post back in his own thread. +1 for the valiant effort first post.
May 11, 2009 1:22:54 AM

XP = windows 98/2000 upgrade. More RAM required or the systems purchased off the shelf ran like a snail.

XP SP2 = A patched in security center to prevent constant system crash/virus corruption. Also added driver support for the 'new' SATA HD technology. Used a floppy before SP2 to laod up SATA drivers at F6 prompt.

XP3 = combines the 3,264,878 prior 'parches' and 'updates' that took nine hours to load before this 'patch'. Some systems rejected the SP3 patch and crashed in flames. No system ran any better with improved performance with sp3 as the ancient hardware support XP provides like Prefetch is terribly outdated and lame.

Vista 64= Allows 64 bit computing to become reality for computer enthusiasts and two and half years later 64 bit becomes main stream. Hardware excellerators like Superfetch and Readyboost allow Vista to give XP the finger and say siyanara to the slow suckers still using blah old DX 9c XP.
May 11, 2009 3:51:10 PM

I made an analogy to these exact sentiments being applied to Windows ME, that's all. If that's wrong then all of the posts mentioning XP and Windows 7 are also off topic. I know this is about Vista and not ME, or not even XP. Other versions come up in conversation, that's all. I mentioned it and moved on, I didn't harp on it.

As far as calling him an idiot, he was called an arsehole. Also, I wasn't "defending" his honor. I replied to his post, where he expressed his frustration, with my opinion regarding this exact same thing regarding WinME. Oh, FWIW I do admit that Vista is better than ME, I might have overstated that a little but it just PROVES the point that companies make mistakes. I read above someone asking him if he wants Microsoft to just stop developing new products and moving forward. He wasn't saying that at all. When products like WinME and Vista come out, the consumer shouldn't sit there and say "Thank you, may I have another". Those are sheep.

As far as him not replying to his own thread, why would he. Look at the replies he got and tell me honestly, would you..? He seemed like he was a little frustrated and complained. I don't blame him. There are days I wish I could take a hammer and forcibly merge my Vista desktop with KDE but until that happens, I suppose I'll have to deal with it. If I complain in a forum and basically get told to stuff it, I wouldn't come back either.

I apologize if I ruffled some feathers. Honestly, it wasn't my intent. FWIW, I am actually writing this from my PC running Vista 64.

--Wesley
May 11, 2009 7:21:51 PM

Quote:
Help a knob . ..


You'll have to help your own knob buddy.
May 11, 2009 7:28:11 PM

To be honest, I didn't see anything worth complaining about... I mean come on... the "sharpness" of text. I see absolutely no difference in how sharp the text is with XP vs. Vista.

UAC. There are literally thousands of posts out there with instructions detailing how to turn it off. If it really bothers you to have a computer that is more secure, then by all means disable UAC. The prompts might be a slight annoyance, but how are they all that different from running software say on Linux that requires Root priviledges? You still have to go through essentially the same steps.

As for why Vista exists... well why does XP exist? Why does 2000 exist? Why does ME, 98 and 95 exist? Why does OS X exist? Why are there 50 billion different distros of Linux all being constantly updated? I'm sorry, but that question is bordering on the ridiculous. Yes, Vista does much the same thing as XP... but then OS X does many of the same things as OS 9. All software has product cycles... eventually you're forced to upgrade whether you like it or not. Vista may not have any added benefit for the OP, but then if it comes preloaded on your new PC.. what have you lost? It's not like you went out and spent extra money to upgrade to Vista and then found you didn't like it. I'm sure you were in the same camp when XP was first released and saying "You'll pry 98 off my cold, dead hard drive!"

You didn't ruffle feathers, Wes... I'm just tired of the BS and FUD. ME was the worst piece of sh*t that MS shoveled out and it seems like people want to say the same of Vista... when the fact is that Vista is so much better than ME. Your post came off saying that Vista isn't all that great... so it is like ME. As soon as anyone compares Vista to ME, I disregard pretty much anything else they have to say on the subject.

I just shake my head when people buy the fanciest new equipment and then install the oldest possible OS to use it. I suggest to the OP that he should immediately upgrade to Windows 7 Pro, Enterprise or Ultimate upon release so that he can take full advantage of Windows XP mode.
May 11, 2009 7:53:23 PM


There is one thing that I can't ignore in the comparing Vista with ME, most companies stuck it out with Win98 and went straight to XP. This seems to be happening now. The move towards Vista has picked up it's pace in the last year, but almost every network I work on is still XP. The companies ask why switch, and to be honest I usually don't have a decent answer to justify the cost to them.

I completely agree that companies always wait until a release is stable before upgrading but you have to admit this wasn't exactly the case with the Vista product launch and subsequent corporate attitude towards it's implementation.

Lastly, on a personal note, you'll notice I am running Vista 64 on the machine I'm replying with. I don't use XP on any machine that is capable of more. That would be downright silly.
May 11, 2009 8:37:00 PM

Up until last year, the Bank of Nova Scotia was running Windows 95. Look at that for a second... Windows 95!!?!!

Win 2K had already proven itself in the corporate arena and many businesses were already upgrading to Windows XP. It took the BNS more than 10 years to upgrade the OS running on their workstations. Other banks were either running 2K or XP. I understand that corporations drag their feet when it comes to new OS releases, so I'm not surprised that very little have upgraded to Vista. When a corporation clings to an OS that is way past it's prime... it's not exactly a shock that they won't install Vista.

I'm sure they'll be using XP until at least 2010 or 2011. Whether they'll go from that to Vista or Win 7 is unknown at this point.

You mention that businesses ask you why switch... and if they are still holding on to computers more than a year old, then you're absolutely right... it makes no sense spending money to upgrade them to Vista. If they're purchasing new computers, however, then the cost of the OS is irrelevant... you'll pay the same price for the new computer regardless of the OS that is preinstalled.

I think most of the companies running XP will probably upgrade to Win 7 faster than they will to Vista. The big reason for this, as I mentioned before, is Windows XP mode... basically a free Windows XP virtual machine downloadable and usable on a Windows Vista-like platform. I hope that this move will get more businesses to upgrade and finally leave the really old stuff behind.
May 11, 2009 11:36:42 PM

wesright said:
There is one thing that I can't ignore in the comparing Vista with ME, most companies stuck it out with Win98 and went straight to XP. This seems to be happening now. The move towards Vista has picked up it's pace in the last year, but almost every network I work on is still XP. The companies ask why switch, and to be honest I usually don't have a decent answer to justify the cost to them.

I completely agree that companies always wait until a release is stable before upgrading but you have to admit this wasn't exactly the case with the Vista product launch and subsequent corporate attitude towards it's implementation.

Lastly, on a personal note, you'll notice I am running Vista 64 on the machine I'm replying with. I don't use XP on any machine that is capable of more. That would be downright silly.


Win ME wasn't on the market long enough to compare to Vista.

As for business, ME was released about the same time as 2000. It was MADE to be a consumer OS and 2000 (NT5) was MADE to be the business OS. So there was never any reason for business to adopt ME. Many business still run 2000 and if it weren't for support issues many would never have gone to XP which was pretty much just 2000 with a few more goodies. XP took a LONG time to supplant 98 and 2000, several years in fact!

As for the failure of business to adopt Vista the bottom line is that XP was deeply entrenched in their ecosphere and Vista wasn't perfectly bkwds compatible with software/hardware made for XP. The lack of any compelling reason to switch to Vista made the expense and headcahes of switching pointless. Many machines would have had to be upgraded or changed, or so uit was felt at least, to be sure you would get Vista working fast and well.

This wasn't the "fault' of Vista, in the sense of it having bugs and the like, but it was a fault of the approach MS took when the designed and marketd Vista. Eventually business will adopt it in the form of 7 which is after all just Vista SE. Looked at that way it will eventually be adopted and at about the same pace as XP. XP was reviled for quite a while before it became everybody's OS.

There is a lot of fanboyism out there in the blogosphere so it is hard to get to the bottom of the Vista enigma unless you test it extensively yourself. The OS works fine now. Blame Apple adds for stigmatizing it irreperably.
!