Vista-a question.

[Luigitendo]

my father works at a large hospital and works much off of computers. he says they hospital just got rid of the vista computers because they didn't "like" them.

He wants to get me a Dell computer for Christmas...I like the vistas.

I hear there are "some" problems, but I don't intend to do much professional work

A little storywriting, some powerpoint stuff, just a little internet.

Please tell me what the problems with vista are and if it is a good choice

[climatewarrior]

One of the biggest problems is that it is slow as hell when compared with Windows XP or Ubuntu which is even faster than XP. It also suffers from a lack of certain drivers. Also it is highly vulnerable to malware(viruses,spyware,etc.). Among many other problems

[buzzmandt]

built in microsoft spyware

[xiota]

Here's a short list of problems I experienced when I tried Vista...

Vista felt sluggish compared with XP. (Which felt sluggish compared with 2000.)
Configuration options were not where I expected them to be (renamed or moved from their previous positions)
Vista kept reactivating wireless even though I was turning it off with the external switch.

And the biggest annoyance of all:

"Are you sure you want to do that?"
"Are you sure that you're sure that you want to do that?"
"Are you sure that you're sure that you're sure that you want to do that?"
...
"You don't really want to do that." (revert changes)

It's difficult to describe how frustrating it was having every decision I made second guessed by the machine and having to make the same configuration changes half a dozen times because it wouldn't stick.

If you don't mind... the above problems... that MS may be monitoring you... the general problems that have become part of the Windows experience (such as malware)... If you really do like Vista (some people do)... Then Vista may be the OS for you.

Linux and Mac OS X have their own sets of problems. Choosing an OS is a matter of choosing the set of problems you can live with and still accomplish what you want with the computer.

[the.dark.lord]

For the work you intend to do, I suggest you check out a few linux distros to see if they suit you.

[Vadi]

I recommend you give Ubuntu a try (if you didn't realise, this is a Ubuntu, not a Vista, forum).

Ubuntu's shiny graphics beat Aero to a pulp (just search on YouTube for vids), it's fast & efficient, it doesn't slow down over time, and it is very well protected against viruses (so well that in fact there are -no- known viruses for it).

And it's completely free, in every sense of that word.

[igknighted]

Here's a short list of problems I experienced when I tried Vista...

Vista felt sluggish compared with XP. (Which felt sluggish compared with 2000.)
Configuration options were not where I expected them to be (renamed or moved from their previous positions)
Vista kept reactivating wireless even though I was turning it off with the external switch.

And the biggest annoyance of all:

"Are you sure you want to do that?"
"Are you sure that you're sure that you want to do that?"
"Are you sure that you're sure that you're sure that you want to do that?"
...
"You don't really want to do that." (revert changes)

It's difficult to describe how frustrating it was having every decision I made second guessed by the machine and having to make the same configuration changes half a dozen times because it wouldn't stick.

If you don't mind... the above problems... that MS may be monitoring you... the general problems that have become part of the Windows experience (such as malware)... If you really do like Vista (some people do)... Then Vista may be the OS for you.

Linux and Mac OS X have their own sets of problems. Choosing an OS is a matter of choosing the set of problems you can live with and still accomplish what you want with the computer.

Vista can indeed be a little more sluggish than XP... but the tradeoff is XP looks like crap. If you want a fast windows system, use win2kpro... its faster than XP and is essentially the same system underneath. If you want your computer to look good (ie, you have a decent system and want to use it) then go with Vista. Sure you could go through a lot of hastle mod-ing XP to look nice. But all the money you would spend on the apps to do it, and how much those would slow your PC, you are better off on Vista.

A few votes for Vista: It is much more secure. This isn't even a close competition. Vista (through the UAC and a rebuild of much of the code with security in mind) is so much better than XP in this department. I spent so much time on XP plugging holes that my computer slowed to a crawl and I had no time to do anything else.

Addressing the quoted posters issues:

* Vista looks good, win2k was fast... XP does what that anyone would want?

* ZOMG!!! They changed things! Oh wait, you mean the config options in XP were properly placed? Heck no. Just because its unfamiliar doesn't make it bad. They admitted it was poorly designed before and are trying to fix it (to varying degrees of success). It's called progress. If no one adapted to better way we'd still be using win3.1 and hating the start menu.

* So you have a soft switch on your case? How is this the fault of the OS? Turn of a soft switch with software options. If there are none, talk to your PC vendor, they should have provided software for this.

* And last but not least... any Ubuntu user used to Sudo should have nothing bad to say about vista's UAC. It asks for permissions about as much Ubuntu does, and it doesn't even make you type a password. Frankly, I think UAC is the best thing to happen to windows since the start menu.

All this said, I only use Vista on my desktop for gaming, and its on my laptop as a relic from when I was searching for the proper linux distro. So it's still windows. But if windows is what you want, and you have a fairly fast computer, the choice should be vista, hands down.

[lvleph]

Vista can indeed be a little more sluggish than XP... but the tradeoff is XP looks like crap. If you want a fast windows system, use win2kpro... its faster than XP and is essentially the same system underneath. If you want your computer to look good (ie, you have a decent system and want to use it) then go with Vista. Sure you could go through a lot of hastle mod-ing XP to look nice. But all the money you would spend on the apps to do it, and how much those would slow your PC, you are better off on Vista.

A few votes for Vista: It is much more secure. This isn't even a close competition. Vista (through the UAC and a rebuild of much of the code with security in mind) is so much better than XP in this department. I spent so much time on XP plugging holes that my computer slowed to a crawl and I had no time to do anything else.

Addressing the quoted posters issues:

* Vista looks good, win2k was fast... XP does what that anyone would want?

* ZOMG!!! They changed things! Oh wait, you mean the config options in XP were properly placed? Heck no. Just because its unfamiliar doesn't make it bad. They admitted it was poorly designed before and are trying to fix it (to varying degrees of success). It's called progress. If no one adapted to better way we'd still be using win3.1 and hating the start menu.

* So you have a soft switch on your case? How is this the fault of the OS? Turn of a soft switch with software options. If there are none, talk to your PC vendor, they should have provided software for this.

* And last but not least... any Ubuntu user used to Sudo should have nothing bad to say about vista's UAC. It asks for permissions about as much Ubuntu does, and it doesn't even make you type a password. Frankly, I think UAC is the best thing to happen to windows since the start menu.

All this said, I only use Vista on my desktop for gaming, and its on my laptop as a relic from when I was searching for the proper linux distro. So it's still windows. But if windows is what you want, and you have a fairly fast computer, the choice should be vista, hands down.
XP can be hacked to make it look better, through the uhtheme.dll. (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hack-Windows-XP-Visual-Styles-44831.shtml)

And from my experience with Vista it asks more questions.

[igknighted]

XP can be hacked to make it look better, through the uhtheme.dll. (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hack-Windows-XP-Visual-Styles-44831.shtml)

And from my experience with Vista it asks more questions.

"hacked" is hardly something most users will do. And even that only changes the skin, it doesn't add any real effects. I used the Royale Noir theme for a while on windows and it looks nice... but the desktop is no nicer then a gnome or KDE desktop without effects...

Is clicking two boxes really worse than reaching for the keyboard and typing a password?

[timcredible]

buy the laptop, if you don't like vista, dual-boot with linux.