I love Vista

[Kernel Sanders]

Ok, i've had Vista since it first came out, and have been using it ever since. Now I don't mean to say that I don't like and use Ubuntu, it's just that I need Windows for some things, and XP's instability and total lack of any security just didn't cut it for me anymore.

Reasons why I love Vista:

1) Security
UAC is a godsend. I finally do not need any sort of anti-virus on Windows! I turned off the system slowdown monstrosity that is Windows Defender, and UAC along with the practically invisible Windows Firewall has been my sole means of system security (aside from a router with a hardware based firewall) for the last year. Nothing can install or alter my system without my say so, and i'm fully confident of that. Vista's recent performance in that hacking competition recently has made me even more confident.

2)Stability
What can I say, the things rock solid. I have great drivers, and crappy programs no longer bring down the whole system. If a program crashes, I can close it, and carry on as if nothing had happened. Under previous versions I had to restart the whole computer.

That's pretty much the only reasons. Aside from those two, it's practically Windows XP with a new skin. However, those two are so important to me, that for me Vista is a must as I do need windows from time to time.

I must also concede that I have a very high end laptop and desktop that i'm using Vista on, so i'm not suggesting my comments should be the same for all Vista users. All i'm really saying is that with the right hardware and the right drivers, Vista is very much worth it. However, if your hardware is not high end, and the only available drivers for your system are crappy, then I concede, Vista will be a total douche to run, and you should probably run XP instead.

My mini review and $0.02 :)

[LinuxGuy1234]

Ok, i've had Vista since it first came out, and have been using it ever since. Now I don't mean to say that I don't like and use Ubuntu, it's just that I need Windows for some things, and XP's instability and total lack of any security just didn't cut it for me anymore.

Reasons why I love Vista:

1) Security
UAC is a godsend. I finally do not need any sort of anti-virus on Windows! I turned off the system slowdown monstrosity that is Windows Defender, and UAC along with the practically invisible Windows Firewall has been my sole means of system security (aside from a router with a hardware based firewall) for the last year. Nothing can install or alter my system without my say so, and i'm fully confident of that. Vista's recent performance in that hacking competition recently has made me even more confident.

2)Stability
What can I say, the things rock solid. I have great drivers, and crappy programs no longer bring down the whole system. If a program crashes, I can close it, and carry on as if nothing had happened. Under previous versions I had to restart the whole computer.

That's pretty much the only reasons. Aside from those two, it's practically Windows XP with a new skin. However, those two are so important to me, that for me Vista is a must as I do need windows from time to time.

I must also concede that I have a very high end laptop and desktop that i'm using Vista on, so i'm not suggesting my comments should be the same for all Vista users. All i'm really saying is that with the right hardware and the right drivers, Vista is very much worth it. However, if your hardware is not high end, and the only available drivers for your system are crappy, then I concede, Vista will be a total douche to run, and you should probably run XP instead.

My mini review and $0.02 :)

(Not trying to bash here...)
1: Security
UAC = Bothers you all the time. Now you can waste extra minutes than with XP!
2: Stability
Closing programs that crashes is still slow like XP.

And if you have an real old computer you may need to run Linux :)

[Kernel Sanders]

In fairness, I feel just as bothered about UAC as I do on Linux, that is, not at all bothered.

It's the same as Linux really, if you don't install programs or access advanced admin options, you never see it. Although I will grant you that some poorly coded programs require write access to some files based in sensitive areas for some ridiculous reasons, triggering a UAC prompt whenever the program is launched. Thankfully those are the exception rather than the rule, and are the fault of the program maker rather than Microsoft IMHO.

I really don't have the same experience with XP with regard to program crashes though. Seriously, in XP if a program crashed it would almost always require a reset, and then it would bluescreen when it rebooted. On vista I just close the program, and everything still works fine. I can even re-launch the crashed program without problems. For me that was impossible under XP.

Overall, what i'm trying to say I guess is that Vista really isn't UNIVERSALLY as bad as people claim. It is possible to have a great experience. However, it's equally as likely that you can have a rubbish experience for the reasons I listed earlier. Vista is very much a "YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY" OS :lol:

[LaRoza]

Overall, what i'm trying to say I guess is that Vista really isn't UNIVERSALLY as bad as people claim. It is possible to have a great experience. However, it's equally as likely that you can have a rubbish experience for the reasons I listed earlier. Vista is very much a "YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY" OS :lol:

Vista does work well when it works well and you take care of it.

But one day everything crashed for no reason (I mean, NO reason). Any sort of file or web browser would freeze, while other apps worked fine. Nothing I did fixed it. Rebooting did fix it. So the moral is that Vista is a bit unpredictable and that has been my experience. If you don't mind the interface, it works...most of the time. I have had other weird problems with it. Odd nonsensical errors, things stopping working (my web cam has stopped working in Vista, although I didn't change the driver (which took a long time and a reboot to install)), my printer is suddenly found and Windows feels compelled to do things, and other oddities. If Vista were consistant, it would be OK, but I never know what it is going to do. (I boot it up once every two weeks, so I really don't care)

[natrixgli]

I liked Vista too, until I tried plugging things into the USB port, when it becomes apparent that nothing has changed since MS started toying with plug n' pray back in the '98 SE days.

I used Vista to run some music composing software, but plugging in my USB audio interface resulted in a BSOD every single time, despite using the manufacturer's Vista-certified drivers. So I tried running it in Ubuntu using Wine/Wineasio/Jack and not only does it not crash, but I get much lower latency also without using linux-rt, even!

Cheers,

-n8

[insane_alien]

UAC is no substitute for a good AV.

evidence: my neighbours vista box. he has UAC on and no AV(i'm installing AVG now though) and has approximately 14000 viruses on it.

[Kernel Sanders]

UAC is no substitute for a good AV.

evidence: my neighbours vista box. he has UAC on and no AV(i'm installing AVG now though) and has approximately 14000 viruses on it.

I don't think you mean 14,000 viruses? Maybe that many malicious cookies? I can't imagine a way to get that number of viruses?

I'm also assuming that he just allowed everything when the prompts came up? That's kind of the downside I guess. People who don't know much about computers just clicking "allow" without knowing/thinking :(

[sayakb]

UAC is no substitute for a good AV.

evidence: my neighbours vista box. he has UAC on and no AV(i'm installing AVG now though) and has approximately 14000 viruses on it.

+10 !!
Yes, I totally agree since I've seen a similar situation. The HP dv6000 comes with Vista Home Premium pre-loaded and Norton Antivirus 120 days license. So one of my friends just bought one of these machines. After Norton got expired, he just removed and and didn't bother to buy a new antivirus. Now when I installed avast Home Edition, it found 12500+ virus infected files in the boot time scan (Trojans and Worms, not malicious cookies or anything).

But I do agree with the OP with other points. Though I have used vista with the Kaspersky antivirus I once purchased, everything was fine. I too have a high end desktop. Vista is extremely smooth, stable, rock solid. I absolutely love the glass interface and the seamless UI. It is beautiful indeed. Though I don't completely agree on the security issue, or maybe, my friend was distinctively unfortunate ;). Lets see what Windows 7 brings up next year.

[insane_alien]

I don't think you mean 14,000 viruses? Maybe that many malicious cookies? I can't imagine a way to get that number of viruses?

nope, i mean viruses. various worms, diallers, trojans etc. etc.


I'm also assuming that he just allowed everything when the prompts came up? That's kind of the downside I guess. People who don't know much about computers just clicking "allow" without knowing/thinking :(

no actually, he said it never popped up, and i believe him. he has always been extremely good at telling me exactly what he done when i ask him to make sure he hasn't just been messing with the settings.

but even if he had, its another reason why UAC is not a substitute for an AV. people will just click allow. the average user doesn't know what the hell is going on under the hood.

UAC is only a substitute if the user knows what s/he is doing. and if they have that level of knowledge they wouldn't get viruses in the first place with or without UAC.

conclusion: UAC in its present for does bugger all for security.

[bribri124]

Here's some light reading for Vista lovers. Straight from Microsoft's champion.

http://www.cio.com/article/336925/Ballmer_Vista_is_a_Work_in_Progress_

[mustking]

I hate Vista as it always suck your hardware resources.

I saw that majority of people only like the Eye-Candy of Vista.

[Kernel Sanders]

no actually, he said it never popped up, and i believe him. he has always been extremely good at telling me exactly what he done when i ask him to make sure he hasn't just been messing with the settings.

but even if he had, its another reason why UAC is not a substitute for an AV. people will just click allow. the average user doesn't know what the hell is going on under the hood.

UAC is only a substitute if the user knows what s/he is doing. and if they have that level of knowledge they wouldn't get viruses in the first place with or without UAC.

conclusion: UAC in its present for does bugger all for security.

Ironically, that argument holds for Linux also. Try and play with admin settings in Linux and what do you get? A password box to elevate your privilages.

Both security systems are more than comparable, and both are the only means of computer security without an overbearing anti-virus nanny like system.

If an idiot can click allow to install a virus, he can also type his password in Ubuntu and similar.

Don't get me wrong, Vista has many many flaws, and I hope MS is keen on removing bloat for Windows 7. However, I don't believe that UAC is one of them, and this seems to be supported by Vista's great performance in the recent hacking competition.

[doorknob60]

You people are either crazy or just really lucky! When I had Vista on my Laptop with a dual core AMD and 1 Gb of RAM, it went a hell of a lot slower than XP did, and everytime I would buy something on iTunes, it would crash and I would lose my freakin money. Everything else just randomly crashed too. After that, I tried Ubuntu and now it runs faster than it would ever be with Vista or XP.

[James_478]

You people are either crazy or just really lucky! When I had Vista on my Laptop with a dual core AMD and 1 Gb of RAM, it went a hell of a lot slower than XP did, and everytime I would buy something on iTunes, it would crash and I would lose my freakin money. Everything else just randomly crashed too. After that, I tried Ubuntu and now it runs faster than it would ever be with Vista or XP.

I ran XP on my AMD Athlon X2 5600+ with 4GB DDR2. Then put Vista on and it runs super :) It's great, no problems. Your iTunes problem, well that's Apple's ****** coding, their programs in Windows Suck, ALL of them. Run them on a Mac and they are fine but they can't code for **** in Windows.

UAC Saved my PC a while back :P AOL released a GM version of AIM and install it without UAC and you might as well have gone through and removed half of the System32 Folder. With UAC on all was fine. I've yet to have ANY virus on my Vista machine and I've scanned with a multitude of scanners.

I am running Ubuntu on the same machine and I must say it's even faster than Vista. :)

Love Ubuntu and honestly I like Vista too.

[Scotty Bones]

You guys have the entirely wrong idea here. By MS's own admission (I wish I still had the article), UAC was not developed to protect anything. It was developed to be an annoyance to the customer. Thats right, it was made to **** you off. The reason for this is that software developers have become lazy in developing their products. MS has a set of guidelines on how software should run when executed. For the past few years developers have been ignoring the guidelines for ease of development and use, allowing their software to run with escalated privileges in the background regardless of the users permissions. MS have developed Vista to trigger an UAC event when such an application is run, in an attempt to get customers to complain to software developers to force them to follow the guidelines that have been set forth.

So if UAC has pissed you off, mission accomplished!

[Kernel Sanders]

I take that with a MASSIVE pinch of salt.

UAC only arises on two occasions:
1) When you access admin level options
2) When a program tries to write/delete to sensitive areas of the OS

So if your seeing it all the time you are either constantly twaeking settings, or using programs that are so badly coded it's options/log files are located in sensitive areas of your OS, in which case the developer is incompetent.

It's advantages for security are obvious. If I write a program that's designed to destroy key folders it will need the user to OK it before it runs. In XP it would just do it in the background.

Come on people, there are lots of negatives to Vista, but we are targeting the few that aren't here :(

[Scotty Bones]

You might want to grab your salt shaker.

At the RSA 2008 confab in San Francisco, Microsoft admitted that UAC was designed, in fact, to annoy. Microsoft's David Cross came out and said so: "The reason we put UAC into the platform was to annoy users. I'm serious," said Cross.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080411-vistas-uac-security-prompt-was-designed-to-annoy-you.html

[Scotty Bones]

double reply

[Kernel Sanders]

After reading that article your comments seem totally out of context....

The purpose of UAC:
1) To make sure users are aware of whats going on, and have the opportunity to stop suspicious activity, "you sure about that buddy?"
2) To make developers create programs that don't require needless admin privileges

What's wrong with UAC again? :/

[peterbrewer]

I think its fair to say that the best way of avoiding infection is also largely education. Having imho a insecure operating system (windows) doesn't help, however teaching people the risks is also very important.

nope, i mean viruses. various worms, diallers, trojans etc. etc.



no actually, he said it never popped up, and i believe him. he has always been extremely good at telling me exactly what he done when i ask him to make sure he hasn't just been messing with the settings.

but even if he had, its another reason why UAC is not a substitute for an AV. people will just click allow. the average user doesn't know what the hell is going on under the hood.

UAC is only a substitute if the user knows what s/he is doing. and if they have that level of knowledge they wouldn't get viruses in the first place with or without UAC.

conclusion: UAC in its present for does bugger all for security.

[Scotty Bones]

The problem is: a false sense of security.
You make it seem as if UAC is the same as any privilege escalation in Linux..It's not. Not even close.


Microsoft's Mark Russinovich has made it clear that the company does not view UAC as a "security boundary."

[Can+~]

The problem is: a false sense of security.
You make it seem as if UAC is the same as any privilege escalation in Linux..It's not. Not even close.


Microsoft's Mark Russinovich has made it clear that the company does not view UAC as a "security boundary."

I saw my father using his laptop with vista.

"Random application #1234 wants to run?", in less than a split second, he clicked "ALLOW", I can assure that he does not read warning any more.

Why that happens? We first read things, but when they repeat, we ignore them; Just the thing that happens with ads. On web design, people usually skips ads because they now how they look like, a rectangular box on the borders or on the top.

I thought the OP was sarcastic.

[Kernel Sanders]

The problem is: a false sense of security.
You make it seem as if UAC is the same as any privilege escalation in Linux..It's not. Not even close.


Microsoft's Mark Russinovich has made it clear that the company does not view UAC as a "security boundary."

Even so, that's how it works.

If anything tries to write to or delete anything from a sensitive area of your OS, you get a UAC prompt where you can stop said action in it's tracks.

With XP you needed a good antivirus and hope that it would catch it before it started infecting. That's why Vista is better than XP in that regard.

[LaRoza]

Even so, that's how it works.

If anything tries to write to or delete anything from a sensitive area of your OS, you get a UAC prompt where you can stop said action in it's tracks.

With XP you needed a good antivirus and hope that it would catch it before it started infecting. That's why Vista is better than XP in that regard.

Comodo would be better. It has the best security options that I have seen for Windows. (It does a lot, but it can restrict access to certain areas)

I agree, UAC seems to be an improvement (I don't use it on Vista, and I don't use Vista enough to care), but Vista has some issues that need to be fixed. Maybe Windows 7 will fix it, but I really doubt it.

[Scotty Bones]

ok, your referring to File and Registry Virtualization, which redirects writes (and subsequent reads) to a per-user location within the user’s profile. It doesn't stop it in its tracks.

This is exactly what I mean by a false sense of security. If you seriously think UAC is a viable replacement for a good anti-virus program, Then I would hope that you keep your restore set and a good backup handy.

[karellen]

one (serious) problem I found with comodo is that it doesn't "remember" some settings, like the programs that are always allowed to acces the internet - web browsers, torrent clients, im clients and so - and it keeps asking for granting access. it's really annoying

[LaRoza]

one (serious) problem I found with comodo is that it doesn't "remember" some settings, like the programs that are always allowed to acces the internet - web browsers, torrent clients, im clients and so - and it keeps asking for granting access. it's really annoying

That is a setting. Click "Remember" or something when you allow it the first time. It also depends on how it is configured.

I haven't used it in a while, and I don't use Windows.

[kamaboko]

[QUOTE=LaRoza;4796191]Vista does work well when it works well and you take care of it.

But one day everything crashed for no reason (I mean, NO reason). Any sort of file or web browser would freeze, while other apps worked fine. Nothing I did fixed it. Rebooting did fix it. So the moral is that Vista is a bit unpredictable and that has been my experience. QUOTE]


Come on...let's be fair here. This NEVER happens with Linux? Seems to me I've had a ton of freezes with Linux and Firefox. This has also happened with various applications. The point being is that this is not a Vista affliction.

[LaRoza]

Come on...let's be fair here. This NEVER happens with Linux? Seems to me I've had a ton of freezes with Linux and Firefox. This has also happened with various applications. The point being is that this is not a Vista affliction.

No, I have never had random freezes of apps that worked fine otherwise unless I caused it.

Also, Linux is free and I typically use new software.

Vista is expensive. What am I paying for? Their time? Or using software?

[GTengineer]

(Not trying to bash here...)
1: Security
UAC = Bothers you all the time. Now you can waste extra minutes than with XP!
2: Stability
Closing programs that crashes is still slow like XP.

And if you have an real old computer you may need to run Linux :)

1) You can turn off UAC with a couple of clicks, same as Windows Defender, Search indexing, Superfetch and all other features.

2) I have as many stability problems with Ubuntu. In fact Ubuntu on my machine seems to have a really annoying way of simply rebooting or logging off my system for no reason and sometimes making me lose whatever data I was working on (I posted a question regarding this that went no where). I have not had this problem with Vista x64 so far or any BSOD. Each OS has their strengths and weaknesses.

Don't get me wrong I like Ubuntu in fact it is where I do all my work. I only use Vista x64 for gaming. But people complain about so many things about Vista that it gets ridiculous as is the case for Windows Defender, UAC, and Superfetch. All of which can be turned off with only a few clicks and much easier then some of the things and tweaking we do with Linux.

In addition I find the Superfetch feature far superior to anything Linux has right now. It annoys me to no end when people complain that Vista is using up all their memory because they don't understand the purpose of superfetch and what RAM is really there for. RAM is there to be used, I have 8GB of RAM and superfetch loads up about 6.5GB of my most used programs into RAM when I boot up. If you have a slow hard drive this may be an inconvenience but with moderately decent desktop hard drives this is awesome since once in RAM everything opens instantly. Heck I can load Team Fortress and any game and maps fully into RAM. If people dont like it is simple to turn off but it is easier to simply criticize without learning.

(I wasn't trying to pick on you, just what I experience in general)

P.S. Funny ... Ubuntu logged me off unexpectedly just right now after posting this ....

[GTengineer]

BTW I am using Vista (tweaked for maximum performance, with most features off so no bells and whistles except superfetch) on my 2 year old Laptop as well with a 1.73GHz Intel centrino and 2GB RAM. Runs great in fact runs much faster and cooler than Ubuntu Feisty the last time I installed it on it. Not saying Ubuntu is slow but it just did not want to play nice with my hardware.

[zetetic]

Even so, that's how it works.

If anything tries to write to or delete anything from a sensitive area of your OS, you get a UAC prompt where you can stop said action in it's tracks.

With XP you needed a good antivirus and hope that it would catch it before it started infecting. That's why Vista is better than XP in that regard.

What part of this don't you understand?:

«It should be clear then, that neither UAC elevations nor Protected Mode IE define new Windows security boundaries. Microsoft has been communicating this but I want to make sure that the point is clearly heard. Further, as Jim Allchin pointed out in his blog post Security Features vs Convenience, Vista makes tradeoffs between security and convenience, and both UAC and Protected Mode IE have design choices that required paths to be opened in the IL wall for application compatibility and ease of use.»

Note: Words taken from Mark Russinovich's:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/02/12/638372.aspx

[jfank]

WOW this is all very interesting to me about the people that love Vista. Now I'm not trying to say anything bad about the people that love Vista, but what really is known about Vista? I do know that it does have some Linux coding in it. Vista even the home editions are more set for businesses than anything. How much of your older software that works on Windows versions up to XP will work on your Vista system? I know I have over $5,000 worth of software that will not work on Vista, and there isn't any downloadable patches that will make it work with Vista. The security actually isn't all that great that comes with Vista. I let the anti-virus bs that came with the operating system watch for viruses on my computer for the first month I had it, because I just didn't have the money right away to buy the software. Now after I bought AVG professional 8.0 and did the scan it was able to find and destroy over 13 viruses that my computer had on it. Vista isn't all that great, and there is more problems with it than what Linux has. I dislike Windows in general, but I do have XP on a couple of my computers, and that is because some members of my household are still leanring how to use Linux, and I have some software that just won't work on Linux at all. Vista has a lot of problems, and who knows when those problems will be able to be fixed.

This is just my opinion on the whole Windows Vista OS, and some things that I have also learned about it.

[kamaboko]

No, I have never had random freezes of apps that worked fine otherwise unless I caused it.

So the implication here is that Linux apps ONLY freeze due to user error, where as Windows apps ONLY freeze due to design error. Well, that's an awfully convenient argument. LOL.

I've had a number of Linux apps freeze not due to user error. That is unless one is suggesting that by using them in the first place was an error. This double standard is ridiculous.

[izanbardprince]

No, I have never had random freezes of apps that worked fine otherwise unless I caused it.

Also, Linux is free and I typically use new software.

Vista is expensive. What am I paying for? Their time? Or using software?

You're paying to have a platform on which to run software, you NEED Windows in order to do any kind of gaming, and if you don't want to have to know how every little arcane detail of your OS functions.

The average user can pick up on Windows a lot faster than any variety of Linux.

[LaRoza]

You're paying to have a platform on which to run software, you NEED Windows in order to do any kind of gaming, and if you don't want to have to know how every little arcane detail of your OS functions.

The average user can pick up on Windows a lot faster than any variety of Linux.

No...

Many gamers use Linux. It may take a little work, but it is done by many people.

No, the average user is clueless about Windows and cannot fix anything. They use it because it is preinstalled.

[karellen]

no matter how we put it, the windows software ecosystem is very strong and appealing (when it's not a "must" for various reasons)

[cardinals_fan]

no matter how we put it, the windows software ecosystem is very strong and appealing (when it's not a "must" for various reasons)
/me bursts into hysterical laughter

[karellen]

/me bursts into hysterical laughter

the sense of humor is very important, laughter was proved to prolongue life ;)

[LaRoza]

So the implication here is that Linux apps ONLY freeze due to user error, where as Windows apps ONLY freeze due to design error. Well, that's an awfully convenient argument. LOL.

I've had a number of Linux apps freeze not due to user error. That is unless one is suggesting that by using them in the first place was an error. This double standard is ridiculous.

No, the statement is that Linux rarely has issues on its own. To get Linux to freeze, I really need to work at it. Vista does it on its own as far as I can tell.

There is no double standard. I run Linux daily. I have it heavily modified and use applications that Ubuntu doesn't come with. It hasn't had any trouble.

I run Vista (OEM) rarely. Simple tasks cause it to freeze.

[rune0077]

I liked Vista, but I did not like the UAC. I disconnected it right away, and then installed Spybot: it's free, light-weight, and prevents any program from making changes to the registry without your permission (not to mention being a rather effective spyware detector). It means you can still do many administrative tasks without an annoying pop-up, just not ones that alters the registry.

Also, I really liked Windows firewall (enough so, that I'm still missing it).

[quickshade]

I think the people who try and bash Vista but make Linux sound godly are not the brightest bunch. Not to be mean but the loophole flaws that people point out on windows are retarded. It is user error if they don't read the UAC, just like if I enter my admin password everytime I run a linux app that requires it. Download .deb or .rpm files and installing them could break my linux system or destory it. But to most people they type in there password and thats it. The only difference on windows is that you don't have to type a password, you just click allow. Still, blaming Windows for user error.....it's not fair.

I also disagree about the 14000 virus thing. I can tell you thats complete ********. First off I'm good friends with a few programmers and have done my fair share of research on anti virus programs. Most make you system seem like it's in trouble all the time so it looks like it's doing it's job. Honestly it takes very little to protect a computer from viruses but if you never got pop-ups or warnings from your virus program you might think that it's not working or that it's a waste of money. Fact is once you reach about 500 viruses your computer becomes just about unusable, and unless your friend is a retard I don't think he is randomly clicking on pop-ups and watching porno on virus invested sites (or using limewire and downloading 32kb music files) Honestly most of the flaws in windows aren't because of windows itself but because of other programs that don't do enough to protect the user. But hey thats just my 2 cents.

[rune0077]

I also disagree about the 14000 virus thing. I can tell you thats complete ********. First off I'm good friends with a few programmers and have done my fair share of research on anti virus programs. Most make you system seem like it's in trouble all the time so it looks like it's doing it's job. Honestly it takes very little to protect a computer from viruses but if you never got pop-ups or warnings from your virus program you might think that it's not working or that it's a waste of money. Fact is once you reach about 500 viruses your computer becomes just about unusable, and unless your friend is a retard I don't think he is randomly clicking on pop-ups and watching porno on virus invested sites (or using limewire and downloading 32kb music files) Honestly most of the flaws in windows aren't because of windows itself but because of other programs that don't do enough to protect the user. But hey thats just my 2 cents.

Yes, 14000 viruses is impossible. A more plausible explanation is that the Virus-scanner lists all files associated with one virus, as if they were seperate viruses (or in the cases of a worm, lists each instance of the worm as a seperate virus). I know Spysweeper used to behave that way (haven't used it in while, though). It's a cheap trick to make your virus-scanner seem more useful and needed than it really is.

[situz]

I didnt bother reading all the replies on this topic, and this is surely mentioned before, if not, it should be:

linux > windows (all versions)

simply because linux is free, windows costs money.

yes of course you can crack windows, but there will always be some updates, or some crap that wont work with a cracked version.

Personally I just converted to Linux. I'm still running Vista on my laptop tho, because of 2 reasons: It came with vista when i bought it, and i need it for some school related programs.

but I'm very pleased with Linux so far! and i predict that linux will grow more and more popular nowadays

btw a mate of mine had 17k viruses on his computer once, norton said so atleast, but i guess it was 17k files infected, and not 17k different types of viruses :P

[nowshining]

This/The topic was made by someone associated with Microsoft and is paid to say Vista is their love of their life. I wouldn't be suprised if the post was made in one of the Microsofts Buildings.

[rune0077]

This/The topic was made by someone associated with Microsoft and is paid to say Vista is their love of their life. I wouldn't be suprised if the post was made in one of the Microsofts Buildings.

Good thing we all have our tinfoil hats, then - it'll block out Microsoft's mind-control rays.

[karellen]

Good thing we all have our tinfoil hats, then - it'll block out Microsoft's mind-control rays.

:lolflag:

[Kernel Sanders]

This/The topic was made by someone associated with Microsoft and is paid to say Vista is their love of their life. I wouldn't be suprised if the post was made in one of the Microsofts Buildings.

What? How about you take a look at my posting history. Is it really that much of a crime to like and use Windows Vista aswell as Ubuntu? :(

[metalf8801]

Ok, i've had Vista since it first came out, and have been using it ever since. Now I don't mean to say that I don't like and use Ubuntu, it's just that I need Windows for some things, and XP's instability and total lack of any security just didn't cut it for me anymore.

Reasons why I love Vista:

1) Security
UAC is a godsend. I finally do not need any sort of anti-virus on Windows! I turned off the system slowdown monstrosity that is Windows Defender, and UAC along with the practically invisible Windows Firewall has been my sole means of system security (aside from a router with a hardware based firewall) for the last year. Nothing can install or alter my system without my say so, and i'm fully confident of that. Vista's recent performance in that hacking competition recently has made me even more confident.

2)Stability
What can I say, the things rock solid. I have great drivers, and crappy programs no longer bring down the whole system. If a program crashes, I can close it, and carry on as if nothing had happened. Under previous versions I had to restart the whole computer.

That's pretty much the only reasons. Aside from those two, it's practically Windows XP with a new skin. However, those two are so important to me, that for me Vista is a must as I do need windows from time to time.

I must also concede that I have a very high end laptop and desktop that i'm using Vista on, so i'm not suggesting my comments should be the same for all Vista users. All i'm really saying is that with the right hardware and the right drivers, Vista is very much worth it. However, if your hardware is not high end, and the only available drivers for your system are crappy, then I concede, Vista will be a total douche to run, and you should probably run XP instead.

My mini review and $0.02 :)

This is a joke right?


If its not a joke I guess its worked well for you. I know 2 other people who would say the same thing. 1 of them however has never used another operating system so she has nothing to compare it to. However I know at lest 4 people (other than myself) personally who have Vista and hate it. I have and I don't use it unless I have to. part of the problem is that people get so sick of it asking you if you want to do anything they just click yes for everything which makes it pointless to ask.

Also its not cheap. There are thing I can do with Ubuntu that I can't do with Vista and I didn't pay anything for Ubuntu.

[Fenris_rising]

me i loved win 98 had it on my first PC £1000 worth way back. it fell over things went wrong, i learned how to fix it i learned what i had done to break it. my next PC had XP its been very stable for me and with what i learned on 98 im not likely to do anything that would break it, i have avg on it. my girlfriend has a brand new laptop with vista it worked lovely now im watching it gradually die (the OS) adware got through probably due to an 'allow' being made but my girlfriend wouldnt have realised. sadly the serial key label has come off so our only recourse apparently is to buy a copy of vista to get a new key (this is with cover and insurance through PC world), id rather install XP for her but if i can convert her to linux even better. my laptop is a budget end of market and runs significantly faster with fiesty fawn on it. i will never go to MS now ive got this far with ubuntu.

Fenris

[LaRoza]

What? How about you take a look at my posting history. Is it really that much of a crime to like and use Windows Vista aswell as Ubuntu? :(

To some.

Although I find no use for Windows, Vista is "good enough" in my opinion for what it is.

[seamuso]

At 4GB memory, I had to make a choice for my windows gaming platform .. though xp X64 has been around for a while, my feelings were that vista was more supported overall.

per a zdnet benchmark, vista is also faster than xp in some instances, and even though vista sp1 slows things down in vista x64, it's still faster than xp sp3 .. in fact, the top 3 spots are vista x64 (rtm), vista x64 sp1, vista x32 (rtm).

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

Yes, it requires more and newer hardware to run well, but it does run well.

As I think someone mentioned previously, MS doesn't seem to be at fault for the flaws, it seems to be more teh 3rd party developers. At this point, teh only thing I've wanted to run in vista x64 that I am unable to run is vmware-server 1.0.5 .. and that is a lack of support from vmware, not MS

[LaRoza]

As I think someone mentioned previously, MS doesn't seem to be at fault for the flaws, it seems to be more teh 3rd party developers. At this point, teh only thing I've wanted to run in vista x64 that I am unable to run is vmware-server 1.0.5 .. and that is a lack of support from vmware, not MS

Well, if something is labelled "Vista Compatible" it should work in Vista. Either Vista is fickle, or hardware manufactures out right lie.

[seamuso]

Well, if something is labelled "Vista Compatible" it should work in Vista. Either Vista is fickle, or hardware manufactures out right lie.

vmware chose not to add digital signatures to the kernel level drivers that vmware-server 1.0.x installs, so vmware-server 1.0.x can't install correctly in a fully patched install of vista .. the only (stupid) solution for the 1.0.x version is to f8 at boot and disable driver signing from there and never reboot again (that's per a how-to on the vmware site).

Or you can install vmware-server 2 beta X, which will install, but for whatever reason on my machine won't load any guests (hangs at 95%) .. vmware-server 2 also removes one of the best features it had, which is the ability to access raw disks from a guest OS .. Now it will all be virtual disks and webui interface.

BTW, the reason I get so angry about it has nothing to do with the linux side .. both versions of vmware-server will work for me in linux. I had originally planned (when I built my dignature system) to set up vmware in vista and setup my HH x64 drive to be a guest OS in the vista install. At times, I'm doing things in vista and don't always want to fully reboot my machine to accomplish specific tasks that are setup in my HH install. Because I'm running a 64bit HH install, I also need something that supports a 64bit guest + raw disk support .. in vista

[iSplicer]

If its no intentional, you spelt "Colonel Sanders" incorrectly.

[ChameleonDave]

Vista may have fixed some problems with XP, and be usable if you have flashy new hardware, but it has compatibility issues.

If I'm going to tolerate certain drivers and my favourite games not being available for my operating system, I might as well use Linux, rather that paying good money for the latest Microsoft offering.

[ChameleonDave]

If its no intentional, you spelt "Colonel Sanders" incorrectly.

Are you totally blind to puns? Have you heard of the Linux kernel?

[LaRoza]

Are you totally blind to puns? Have you heard of the Linux kernel?

Or just "Kernel", as it *is* the operating system no matter what it is.

[RaderCad]

There is only one thing I keep Vista for: to run High End GAMES. :) That is all. The game companies are writing for the most people, besides the XBOX, that is Windows. And Vista has direct X 10, the game companies that want to sell the most games will write for this 'standard.' Plus! since most of the people out there get their OS when they buy their computer, guess what comes on almost all of them? Yup! Vista. XP is being phased out and is supposed to be pulled from the shelves of the retail outlets soon. Besides XP only supports direct X 9.

I have Vista and I use it because I am forced to. Even though Vista looks better than XP and is more stable, I feel that Windows is definitely heading the wrong way. You can get rid of most of the 'bloat' and 'helpful services' that comes with Vista, however when you are doing this you might as well use another OS because now you are down at the system level editing the registry file and disabling services. :confused:

Anyway that's my two cents.

[NightwishFan]

I liked Vista when I had it, once I trimmed all the fat out. however I see no need for it. I use only open source software anyway.

What I liked:

UAC. Extra simple security is not a problem and it was not too much of a hassle. Also the ability to easily restrict certain areas of OS. Only downside was when the uac took 100% cpu and refused to show up for about two minutes and OS is unusable during that time. It happens rarely.

The aero theme was ok at first, but only because I was used to Windows Xp.

The system performance tools included as well as the built in benchmark although it was mainly useless.

The start menu search.

What I hated:

On the first boot it took forever to get to a usable desktop and uninstall all the manufacturer's crapware.

The sidebar and all applets included with it.

Superfetch. It was utterly useless. Sure apps will start faster but then I got lockups while using Premiere and any games. (Superfetch proven as cause)

Windows Media Player. Slow, heavy, ugly, drm ridden, no flac support etc..

The constant thrashing and groaning and buzzing of my pc. "Oh, that can't be good."

Never got bsod but whole gui lockups were common.

And my favorite: The immense amount of space it takes on my harddrive...

I mean to offend no one with this, just my opinion on the os itself.

[blane2]

I don't mind vista either.

In the end i honestly feel every OS is a horrid POS if you don't know how to configure it, use it, and keep it up to date.

[articpenguin]

i dualbooted vista and kubuntu. Vista was trash IMO. It takes 2 Mins to copy 1300 images that= 121MB. Kubuntu takes 30 secs or so. Also took more than 10 mins to extract an a 700MB zip file for vista. Then there is the annoying defragmenter. Then i got a power outage and my stupid NTFSs metadata got corrupted. Luckily i deleted the corrupted windows partition and expanded my ext3 partition over and now i am back to kubuntu full TIME:)

[cprofitt]

You people are either crazy or just really lucky! When I had Vista on my Laptop with a dual core AMD and 1 Gb of RAM, it went a hell of a lot slower than XP did, and everytime I would buy something on iTunes, it would crash and I would lose my freakin money. Everything else just randomly crashed too. After that, I tried Ubuntu and now it runs faster than it would ever be with Vista or XP.

Your problem was installing the iTunes virus.

[Ptero-4]

Hey Kernel Sanders, whats up with that stuff you said 'bout liking Vista. Did ya wake up to a massive hangover or did you just came from datin mary jane?

[Jammerdelray]

I've been using Vista as well since it first came out, but since have discovered Ubuntu and the greatness off all the open source software available for it. Also I have a lot of love the Awesome Ubuntu Community here who are very friendly - eager to help you out and knowledgeable which is a big plus for any user.

There must be something you like about Ubuntu since your here posting lol.

Too many problems in Vista for me to spend time on, Microsoft Dropped the ball big time, take Apple/Linux for instance which is creeping in to Microsoft's user base.

I do feel tho that they will make right with Windows 7, they can't afford not to.

[pbpersson]

Vista is "good enough" in my opinion for what it is.

What is Vista in your opinion? According to the Microsoft web site, it is the most advanced desktop OS ever and nothing even comes close to the excellence it achieves.

Somehow I think you view it in a different light. :)

[LaRoza]

What is Vista in your opinion? According to the Microsoft web site, it is the most advanced desktop OS ever and nothing even comes close to the excellence it achieves.

Somehow I think you view it in a different light. :)

A preinstalled version of Windows that is intended to be used with proprietary software. To me, Windows is the crummy default. On Windows (from many vendors) from OEM machines you typically get free trials of programs that no one would buy on their own. The only way such apps get any use is from people who don't know/care about others. (Some preinstalled software is useful, as it overcomes Windows's limitations, like Nero/Roxio and a few others)

Windows is just what is there because of business agreements to sell what wouldn't be bought by the average person.

For what Windows is, it is just a version of Windows. They are all bad (IMO), but they are all Windows and Windows has a place, albeit, small in my world.

[SidStudios]

i dualbooted vista and kubuntu. Vista was trash IMO. It takes 2 Mins to copy 1300 images that= 121MB. Kubuntu takes 30 secs or so. Also took more than 10 mins to extract an a 700MB zip file for vista. Then there is the annoying defragmenter. Then i got a power outage and my stupid NTFSs metadata got corrupted. Luckily i deleted the corrupted windows partition and expanded my ext3 partition over and now i am back to kubuntu full TIME:)


The copying bug was in Vista before SP1. I'm sure you've never heard of something called Windows Update. If you think that Updating is a hassle in Windows, you obviously shouldn't be using a computer.
Are you stupid? Everyone knows that Vista's in-built zip extractor is crap for large files. WinRAR is what you should've used, but from your post, you obviously are a newbie at these things.
What's wrong with the defragmenter?
What kind of crap are you trying to pull here? Do you seriously expect me to believe that with ONE power outage, your NTFS drive got messed up? Is extracting files and copying images ALL you do on your computer? Sorry, but your weak, baseless arguments fail to astound me. Oh, and as a point of advice, don't try to run Vista on your Pentium 2 with 16MB of RAM.


I've been using Vista as well since it first came out, but since have discovered Ubuntu and the greatness off all the open source software available for it. Also I have a lot of love the Awesome Ubuntu Community here who are very friendly - eager to help you out and knowledgeable which is a big plus for any user.

There must be something you like about Ubuntu since your here posting lol.

Too many problems in Vista for me to spend time on, Microsoft Dropped the ball big time, take Apple/Linux for instance which is creeping in to Microsoft's user base.

I do feel tho that they will make right with Windows 7, they can't afford not to.
Finally, a decent argument. I applaud you, and your intriguing post. Yeah, Vista is not the best thing around, but once you vLite it, it works like a charm ;)
SP1 makes it nearly as fast as XP, which is great too. I have a feeling people might switch to Linux once it becomes a more commercially viable solution; right now, not too many companies support Linux distributions pre-installed. This is probably because of the monetary incentive given by Microsoft. I'd like Windows 7 if it was completely rebuilt; that way, the trash would be removed, and it'd be a great O/S.

A preinstalled version of Windows that is intended to be used with proprietary software. To me, Windows is the crummy default. On Windows (from many vendors) from OEM machines you typically get free trials of programs that no one would buy on their own. The only way such apps get any use is from people who don't know/care about others. (Some preinstalled software is useful, as it overcomes Windows's limitations, like Nero/Roxio and a few others)

Windows is just what is there because of business agreements to sell what wouldn't be bought by the average person.

For what Windows is, it is just a version of Windows. They are all bad (IMO), but they are all Windows and Windows has a place, albeit, small in my world.

Nice arguments. I'd like to comment on one thing though--as unreal as it may seem, when computer manufacturers start pre-installing Linux on a large scale and selling laptops and desktops with Ubuntu or similar, trust me, it will have a lot of pre-installed crapware as well. This is a downside, but once a distribution like Ubuntu is officially supported, it means that it should work without too many fixes, as the company selling the computer should provide driver instructions. Then, it'll be much easier to re-install.
Saying that "they are all bad" is like saying that Linux is bad because Fedora is bloated and RPMs are slow. You see, XP != Vista. For some reason, I also get the gut feeling that Linux wouldn't have been this advanced had Windows not been developed this much.

[LaRoza]

Nice arguments. I'd like to comment on one thing though--as unreal as it may seem, when computer manufacturers start pre-installing Linux on a large scale and selling laptops and desktops with Ubuntu or similar, trust me, it will have a lot of pre-installed crapware as well. This is a downside, but once a distribution like Ubuntu is officially supported, it means that it should work without too many fixes, as the company selling the computer should provide driver instructions. Then, it'll be much easier to re-install.
Saying that "they are all bad" is like saying that Linux is bad because Fedora is bloated and RPMs are slow. You see, XP != Vista. For some reason, I also get the gut feeling that Linux wouldn't have been this advanced had Windows not been developed this much.

I really think it will be less. What could they possibly put on? Ubuntu has, out of the box, almost everything anyone could want except codecs.

I don't think anything preinstalled matters. If Linux were preinstalled with its trials, how difficult would it be to do a fresh install of that distro or another one?

By they are all "bad", I meant they all have the same purpose. They are the legacy operating system from a single company that with each version introduce higher system requirements (by a large scale). It is only useful for running Windows applications. They are all equal, so "good" and "bad" don't matter. I don't like them, so they are "bad". For someone who does, they will be "good".

[NightwishFan]

This needs to be more apparent:

It is not, "Games do not run on Linux". It is game makers do not make clients for Linux OS. If something will not work, it means that the drivers for it are not being made. The kernel and software we have are excellent. We just need others to support us along with Windows.

[SidStudios]

I really think it will be less. What could they possibly put on? Ubuntu has, out of the box, almost everything anyone could want except codecs.

I don't think anything preinstalled matters. If Linux were preinstalled with its trials, how difficult would it be to do a fresh install of that distro or another one?

By they are all "bad", I meant they all have the same purpose. They are the legacy operating system from a single company that with each version introduce higher system requirements (by a large scale). It is only useful for running Windows applications. They are all equal, so "good" and "bad" don't matter. I don't like them, so they are "bad". For someone who does, they will be "good".


That is exactly what I was implying; once Ubuntu is sold pre-installed on machines, those machines will be configured to work with Ubuntu. That seems to be a major problem across Linux distributions. Once the hardware works, it won't be a hassle at all to do a clean reinstall.

[NightwishFan]

Omg I Love Vista Pink Ponies Theme!!!!! (i will make it right now)

[NightwishFan]

Sorry to double post. Here we go:

[karellen]

Sorry to double post. Here we go:

:lolflag:

[yaztromo]

If a program crashes, I can close it, and carry on as if nothing had happened. Under previous versions I had to restart the whole computer

This is a feature of the NT kernel not just Vista. For this reason I find XP (and 2000) just as stable as Vista.

I echo your thoughts on UAC. It really is reassuring to know it's there, and only annoying when I'm messing about in C:\Program Files\.

[mshiva]

i hate vista ------one word

anyway, I do like Aero (much more than Aqua or Human)

[karellen]

i hate vista ------one word

anyway, I do like Aero (much more than Aqua or Human)

you are aware of the fact that you can change the Human theme anytime you want

[NightwishFan]

Aero is... lacking. I also love using 80% of my ram on it.

[rune0077]

Aero is... lacking. I also love using 80% of my ram on it.

I like aero - I find it way prettier than anything I can accomplish with Compiz. I agree with the RAM deal, though. I have four gigs of the stuff, and on Hardy, with Compiz and AWN and a dozen apps running, even with Firefox's memory leak, it never comes over 30% use - I open Vista in Virtual Box, and it jumps up to 75-80% right away. That's just dumb.

[LaRoza]

I like aero - I find it way prettier than anything I can accomplish with Compiz. I agree with the RAM deal, though. I have four gigs of the stuff, and on Hardy, with Compiz and AWN and a dozen apps running, even with Firefox's memory leak, it never comes over 30% use - I open Vista in Virtual Box, and it jumps up to 75-80% right away. That's just dumb.

Say that again: http://vixta.sourceforge.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=43

Less RAM requirements, and beats Vista at its own game.

(Fedora based distro)

[rune0077]

Say that again: http://vixta.sourceforge.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=43

Less RAM requirements, and beats Vista at its own game.

(Fedora based distro)

Yeah, I've seen these before, but they're not quite as nice as Aero. Aero's glass effect is great (I think), and way better than what Compiz/Emerald can do. Also, strangely, I really really liked Vista's progress bar (dumb think to like, I know, but it was pretty).

[LaRoza]

Yeah, I've seen these before, but they're not quite as nice as Aero. Aero's glass effect is great (I think), and way better than what Compiz/Emerald can do. Also, strangely, I really really liked Vista's progress bar (dumb think to like, I know, but it was pretty).

I think it is much better. It looks (IMO) like glass and is much better than Aero. (I don't use Aero or Compiz)

Well, in my experience, Aero requires more resources than it should need. It is like paying extra for what modern GUI's are supposed to do.

[cardinals_fan]

I like aero - I find it way prettier than anything I can accomplish with Compiz. I agree with the RAM deal, though. I have four gigs of the stuff, and on Hardy, with Compiz and AWN and a dozen apps running, even with Firefox's memory leak, it never comes over 30% use - I open Vista in Virtual Box, and it jumps up to 75-80% right away. That's just dumb.
Oddly, I actually think Vista is ugly. It's just a slightly more refined PlaySkool look with way too much transparency.

[LaRoza]

Oddly, I actually think Vista is ugly. It's just a slightly more refined PlaySkool look with way too much transparency.

You can change the transparency (yay! It is customizable!).

However, I do agree that Vista is by default ugly. It is worse than Ubuntu's brown. Vista looks (to me) sickly with its yellow/green theme.

[rune0077]

It's all a matter of taste. Each to their own and all that. I never got around to using Vista or Aero for very long, but I liked the look-and-feel of it while I did. Now that I run it in Virtual Box, I can't have Aero, but to be honest, I would probably have gotten tired of it in the long run. That's why I like Linux: when I get tired of all the fancy glitter, I just turn Compiz off and don't use it for a few months.

[DBrocks]

Yo man, your likely to get killed saying "I love vista" WTF is wrong with you?

[LaRoza]

It's all a matter of taste. Each to their own and all that. I never got around to using Vista or Aero for very long, but I liked the look-and-feel of it while I did. Now that I run it in Virtual Box, I can't have Aero, but to be honest, I would probably have gotten tired of it in the long run. That's why I like Linux: when I get tired of all the fancy glitter, I just turn Compiz off and don't use it for a few months.

It is an improved look over XP, but it isn't that functional. I have Vista with all visual effects disabled and in classic mode with a black background colour and no desktop icons.

[karellen]

Say that again: http://vixta.sourceforge.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=43

Less RAM requirements, and beats Vista at its own game.

(Fedora based distro)

I dislike Linux distros that try to emulate Vista's look :D; seems to me lack of imagination

[LaRoza]

I dislike Linux distros that try to emulate Vista's look :D; seems to me lack of imagination

That is just basically a theme. Vista's look is multifacited. Would you consider the start menu idea to be a "Vista" component? A panel? Transparency? Background images? A sidebar?

I use a tiling window manager (wmii) which is very different from Windows, KDE and GNOME. Windows, KDE and GNOME are all the same to me in function with minor differences.

[karellen]

That is just basically a theme. Vista's look is multifacited. Would you consider the start menu idea to be a "Vista" component? A panel? Transparency? Background images? A sidebar?

I use a tiling window manager (wmii) which is very different from Windows, KDE and GNOME. Windows, KDE and GNOME are all the same to me in function with minor differences.

not the desktop itself with the start menu and taskbar, but the theme...anyway it's not such a big deal, I just happen not to like mixing Windows themes with Linux ones

[Puptentacle]

We bought two HP DV2550se's from Best Buy. Mine has had the "came with" Vista Basic Home Edition stripped off and is running Hardy. The other machine is still running Vista. The Vista machine hangs at the simplest tasks, uses WAY more ram than it should, takes forever to boot and the built in defrag has YET TO WORK!!! This is on a laptop BUILT for Vista! I've told my daughter than when the OS finally gives up I'll be installing either Ubuntu or XP. We are also running an Ubuntu desktop and an XP machine (a VERY customized XP install) and an Ubuntu desktop for a file server. The Vista machine causes WAY more problems than any of the other three.

Personally I think the UAC is useless. If you are proficient above "turn on machine, launch browser, read email, turn off machine" it's pretty much (to me) just an annoyance. If you don't know or care how the machine functions you are just going to click OK and move on.

Of course, in the long run if you like it, use it. :D

[Midwest-Linux]

We bought two HP DV2550se's from Best Buy. Mine has had the "came with" Vista Basic Home Edition stripped off and is running Hardy. The other machine is still running Vista. The Vista machine hangs at the simplest tasks, uses WAY more ram than it should, takes forever to boot and the built in defrag has YET TO WORK!!! This is on a laptop BUILT for Vista! I've told my daughter than when the OS finally gives up I'll be installing either Ubuntu or XP. We are also running an Ubuntu desktop and an XP machine (a VERY customized XP install) and an Ubuntu desktop for a file server. The Vista machine causes WAY more problems than any of the other three.

Personally I think the UAC is useless. If you are proficient above "turn on machine, launch browser, read email, turn off machine" it's pretty much (to me) just an annoyance. If you don't know or care how the machine functions you are just going to click OK and move on.

Of course, in the long run if you like it, use it. :D

Delete or disable the following in Vista

UAC
System Restore
Norton Antivirus
Symantec
Windows Defender
Super fetch
Aero (if anyone has this)
Use the optimizing control for performance.
Turn off all startup programs except the most essential.

Your ram usage should go down 20 to 25% and the start up and shut down times should be much faster.

[LaRoza]

Delete or disable the following in Vista

UAC
System Restore
Norton Antivirus
Symantec
Windows Defender
Super fetch
Aero (if anyone has this)
Use the optimizing control for performance.
Turn off all startup programs except the most essential.

Your ram usage should go down 20 to 25% and the start up and shut down times should be much faster.
Home Basic doesn't have Aero.

I agree with disabling any preinstalled antivirus systems (and using a hardware firewall, and a limited account). Also uninstalling all the stuff that is preinstalled and not needed. This can take a while...

[yaztromo]

Aero is... lacking. I also love using 80% of my ram on it.

Vista uses your RAM to cache frequently used programs and as a HDD cache, it's not *really* using 80% of your RAM.

At the moment Ubuntu is doing the same, if I believe what "top" is saying I should start panicking!

Mem: 1035400k total, 1013356k used

[Fatec]

I love vista personally, all this hate is usually from people who either have stupidly poor *** hardware or havent even used it, vista rocks with sp1...up to xps speed now and no problems what so ever, looks much more beautiful than linux if you know what your doing as well.

People complain of the slow interface...which is so amusing considering how slow gnome is.

[cardinals_fan]

I love vista personally, all this hate is usually from people who either have stupidly poor *** hardware or havent even used it, vista rocks with sp1...up to xps speed now and no problems what so ever, looks much more beautiful than linux if you know what your doing as well.

People complain of the slow interface...which is so amusing considering how slow gnome is.
Compare Aero to Openbox and you'll see where I'm coming from.

[LaRoza]

I love vista personally, all this hate is usually from people who either have stupidly poor *** hardware or havent even used it, vista rocks with sp1...up to xps speed now and no problems what so ever, looks much more beautiful than linux if you know what your doing as well.

People complain of the slow interface...which is so amusing considering how slow gnome is.

Stupidly poor hardware? I think you have the Vista mindset. I have very good hardware, yet it lags where it should fly.

I don't use GNOME much, but I have an old computer (see blog) and it would never be able to run XP I would think, but I had Debian and Wolfix and now gNewSense on it and it works faster than Vista.

[keykero]

Compare Aero to Openbox and you'll see where I'm coming from.

How would that be a fair comparison?

[Fatec]

Stupidly poor hardware? I think you have the Vista mindset. I have very good hardware, yet it lags where it should fly.

I don't use GNOME much, but I have an old computer (see blog) and it would never be able to run XP I would think, but I had Debian and Wolfix and now gNewSense on it and it works faster than Vista.

My setup is nearly 4 years old now (old socket 939) and runs vista just fine.

If vista doesnt run great for you on even better hardware then you dont know what your doing.

[ugm6hr]

My setup is nearly 4 years old now (old socket 939) and runs vista just fine.

If vista doesnt run great for you on even better hardware then you dont know what your doing.

It is a shame that pre-installed Vista (Home) was unusable on my laptop (Acer 512MB RAM, AMD 2GHz) whcih is just over a year old now. Not so for out-of-the-box XP or Ubuntu.

I have no doubt that I didn't know what I was doing, but it took minutes to even start any application after waiting an age to boot, so I lost interest in trying to find how to slim it down.

[Fatec]

It is a shame that pre-installed Vista (Home) was unusable on my laptop (Acer 512MB RAM, AMD 2GHz) whcih is just over a year old now. Not so for out-of-the-box XP or Ubuntu.

I have no doubt that I didn't know what I was doing, but it took minutes to even start any application after waiting an age to boot, so I lost interest in trying to find how to slim it down.

I dont even have to slim it down...and all my apps open in a few seconds, most instantly...

[rune0077]

It is a shame that pre-installed Vista (Home) was unusable on my laptop (Acer 512MB RAM, AMD 2GHz) whcih is just over a year old now. Not so for out-of-the-box XP or Ubuntu.

I have no doubt that I didn't know what I was doing, but it took minutes to even start any application after waiting an age to boot, so I lost interest in trying to find how to slim it down.

The problem is the RAM. Microsoft is lying to you when they claim that Vista will run just fine on 512 mb. It does not, in any case I have witnessed: things loads, eventually, but performance is terrible. You probably need at least one gig, preferably two, and then things starts working really fast. But 512 mb, despite the minimum requirements statement, is just not enough.

[cardinals_fan]

How would that be a fair comparison?
How would that not be a fair comparison?

[RJARRRPCGP]

Oh, and as a point of advice, don't try to run Vista on your Pentium 2 with 16MB of RAM.



That may be an understatement!

When I calculated with SpeedCrunch, I gotten roughly 1 MB/s!

That would be as slow as a PC from 1994!

More like a 486 with 8 MB of RAM.

[Dark-Ace]

I wouldn't say that i Love Vista but for me, I say that vista is quite a nice OS and i stick with it on my Desk and Lap but with a disabled UAC cause that annoys the Sh*t outta me but otherwise, it's stable.

[Puptentacle]

Delete or disable the following in Vista

UAC
System Restore
Norton Antivirus
Symantec
Windows Defender
Super fetch
Aero (if anyone has this)
Use the optimizing control for performance.
Turn off all startup programs except the most essential.

Your ram usage should go down 20 to 25% and the start up and shut down times should be much faster.

I did, it does. My daughter thanks you a lot!

[CrazyArcher]

I like Vista's interface, but the fact that it requires tons of RAM/CPU time/graphics to realize this environment is the big bummer. I have a pretty old machine, so I stick to XP (as far as Win goes), which I can also describe as rock-stable and secure.

[NightwishFan]

Vista is great compared to Xp as long as you have a machine that can run it, or trim the fat out of it. I will never miss the infernal hardrive clicking of Xp, or the 5 minutes it takes to close a game.

[rune0077]

Vista is great compared to Xp as long as you have a machine that can run it, or trim the fat out of it. I will never miss the infernal hardrive clicking of Xp, or the 5 minutes it takes to close a game.

For me it was the bootup: XP took minutes to boot up - you turned on the computer, then went and made a cup of coffee, and if you were lucky XP had started when you came back - Vista did it in seconds.

[CrazyArcher]

That's odd... At my desktop with a pretty sucky CPU (Sempron2200) XP takes around 40-50 seconds to boot - and that including all startup programs in the systray.

[NightwishFan]

Speaking of coffee, I will return in a minute. :popcorn:

As for Vista. It is much better than Xp. If I had to choose between the two I would pick Vista, but I better hope I have a uselessly powerful computer. :)

[L815]

When I first bought my laptop with Vista home premium installed, I didn't like Vista much. Mainly because I thought the GUI looked horrible compared to XP.
After a while of using Vista with Aero off and on, I loved it. Aero is so crisp and clean. The glass is spectacular and looks crystal clear.

I always hear people complain about Vista, whether they use XP or Linux, doesn't matter. They all say the same thing.
Most of the issues have a reasonable solution that fits proper to each OS. You can always slim down Windows, and you can always bulk up Linux.

Things I hear about Vista:
UAC is annoying
Slow
GUI ugly
Too many services running
Slow boot up
Old application problems
Costs money

Things I hear about Linux:
Hardware support
Sound not working
Wireless not working
Command Line
Brown/Orange Theme is ugly (Ubuntu)
Password for admin rights (rare complaints)

I'm not bashing either OS. I use them both and love them both.
Linux because it's fast, free, and I can hop all I want :)
Windows because huge amount of applications, everything "just works" for me, and it looks beautiful (Vista).


Now, you can hopefully somehow see the comparison of problems from one to the either. Neither is guilt free. Each have annoyances.

I can sit here and write a couple of pages on comparisons, but what has and will be said is the same cliche arguments.

The answer to any * vs * thread is based on the USER.

Windows is good for business people, gamers, students, etc..
Linux is for the non dependent, free, flexible people...

Who is stopping anyone from being either one, or both?

Yes MS writes the code, but what % of newer linux users compile their own OS?

In the end you are FREE to choose whatever OS you want. If windows is preinstalled, you have the freedom to use Linux, so don't give me bs reasons for that :P

And as much hype Linux has gained in the world today, especially a techy world, don't tell me that Linux is not known.

So be free, be happy, and just get along :)

[jrusso2]

The main problems I see with Vista are the UAC is really annoying. I mean having to click like 3 times to add something to the start menu?

Also sometimes it won't even give me permission after clicking UAC.

Also the DRM really bothers me and it really messed up the whole sound system. Now a lot of the really good sound cards have to work in software mode and don't even use the hardware you paid good money for like the XFI.

The software compaitability issues a lot of that are because of the changes made for both UAC and the DRM.

Vista is also bloated but this can be over come with a fairly stout modern PC and at least two gigs of ram. Four is probably the sweet spot. And a seperate video card with the Pixel shader 3 and direct x 10 support.

All in all it seems pretty stable. Not really as bad as people make it out to be. But not worth the upgrade if you have a good working XP system. But I would not order XP on a new PC to avoid Vista unless I had a lot of expensive software and hardware that won't work with Vista.

At this point the bad mouthing has just spread to the point where its just everyone making out Vista to be the worst thing ever which its not.

[marks_linux]

For me Vista is the worst thing out. Two different Laptops from 2 different Manufacturers. Both came with Vista installed and are less than 6 months old. One would continually run out of disk space each time a restore point was created (would run for days then run out of disk space).

Second, has been reinstalled at least 4 times, firstly because of startup problems then because SP1 trashed it. The last time running disk cleanup removed windows, my program files and documents. A quick google proved I wasn't the only one.

So now one laptop runs XP Pro, and the other runs Ubuntu, with Vista as a Virtual PC.

[TheLions]

here is some pathetic video about Vista, Microsoft and SP1:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPv8PPl7ANU

:lolflag::lolflag::lolflag:

[Kernel Sanders]

In fairness, OEM's have done Vista a MASSIVE disservice.

My mother bought a mid range dell laptop with Vista, and it was junk. The thing crashed all the time, and it was as slow as treacle.

I knew this wasn't right as I was using Vista without incident on my Desktop, so I wiped her computer clean and installed Vista myself, and it works awesomely now. It's fast and totally stable.

I have a really high end Dell XPS M1330 too, and you guessed it, the default system made me long for the stability and usability of Windows ME it was that bad!

Yet, after installing Vista myself, it's become the fastest and most stable computer i've ever had.

So if you're going to use Vista, then please please install it yourself! Because if you're going to use the default OEM set up, I GUARANTEE you a bad experience :(

[Growbag]

....the last time running disk cleanup removed windows, my program files and documents

At last, Microsoft have seen the light and made "Disk Cleanup" work properly!

...now if they could just figure out how to automatically install Linux straight after the "cleaning"....

:lolflag:

But seriously, I like Vista now, they have much prettier clocks :)

[LaRoza]

So if you're going to use Vista, then please please install it yourself! Because if you're going to use the default OEM set up, I GUARANTEE you a bad experience :(

It is possible to clean it up (it takes over an hour if you know what you are doing...)

I had a computer that said it was ready for Vista, and I did a clean install. Guess what? It couldn't run it at all.

[karellen]

It is possible to clean it up (it takes over an hour if you know what you are doing...)

I had a computer that said it was ready for Vista, and I did a clean install. Guess what? It couldn't run it at all.

those stickers with Vista Ready are a plain lie in the face of the customers. not to be trusted...

[LaRoza]

those stickers with Vista Ready are a plain lie in the face of the customers. not to be trusted...

I know. I took it off and put it on a very old Dell at school.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Odd nonsensical errors, things stopping working (my web cam has stopped working in Vista, although I didn't change the driver (which took a long time and a reboot to install)), my printer is suddenly found and Windows feels compelled to do things, and other oddities.

Sounds like you need to open up your PC, unplug and reconnect everything.

It honestly sounds like loose connections.

I had that type of problem before with another PC, when I restarted my PC one day, all of a sudden my CD drive don't exist anymore and my that PC has freezed before when I touched the left side of the case!

And another time, all of sudden, my HDD didn't exist anymore!

I found out it was loose connections.