Vista aint so bad...

I just purchased a laptop from pc world (managed to haggle them down £100).

paid £400 for:
Amd X2 core 2ghz
4 gig ddr2
350 gig HD
15.6 inch widescreen
ati 3200 HD (256 meg dedicated)
Vista home premium
2-3 hour battery life!

Bit of a bargain me thinks!

Anyway, I don't understand what people are moaning about on these forums and pretty much everywhere. Vista aint so bad, infact I am finding it very stable and fast! (30 seconds boot time) I am sure I could have better performance with XP or linux, but at the sacrifice of a less stream-lined approach.

I have been using XP since it was released. I have also used Mac OS X alot as I purchased a mac. XP is good as everyone knows, but it just doesn't offer the same level of ease of use as mac os.

For me I am finding that Vista has "dumbed down" the experience a bit, but why is that such a bad thing?

Example:
"I want to run a program on my computer"

XP...
option 1: Use a shortcut. This clutters your desktop. There is only so much quick launch space you can use before you eat up your entire task bar. It involves many clicks with start menu sub-folders...

option 2: Use the run dialogue from start menu or WINKEY + R. Not very user friendly but I use it alot!

option 3: navigate to the correct folder and run the EXE (tedious and time consuming)

Vista...
Press WINKEY, start typing eg "blitz", system searches and displays your best options automatically.

I wonder why people don't notice these improvments? Some are complete rip-offs of other oeprating systems, but so what? Surely if a feature is worth having then does it really matter where its from.

It's not perfect, but I likes it.

People don't like to go against the flow and there are plenty of Microsoft haters out there, there's some of people who make a lot of noise about not using Vista while the rest of us just got on with using it.

There ARE some real irrations and a complete lack of a USP but no, it's not that bad.

Darkheart

Option 4: Use xp and Launchy ;-)
It does the same and you can configure it what and where to scan.
I catalogize my MP3s with it, so I just need to type the first few letters
and it starts the song. Very nice tool. With the included plugins you can start websites/favorites, system commands or use it as calculator.

I use Vista and have no problems with it. I've got three machines at home running Win2K, XP, and Vista now - really not much difference between them other then new software not working with 2K any longer.

(XP and Vista need increasingly more powerful machines to run them though)

I like the look of launchy, I may have to install it on work computer ! (xp)

Windows 7 Beta works amazingly well, it has probably less bugs than Vista.

I really like Vista as well. The only complaint I can think of is that some old games don't run well in it (graphics driver stuff).

You have 4GB RAM... I too like Vista (better than XP), but it requires way more RAM to function well than XP or the majority of Linux distros.



I agree, but there are still some issues. Many of the compatibility problems have disappeared after SP1 and other updates, but older games and some hardware still doesn't work with Vista. Eg. older connection cables to Nokia phones require a driver that does not, and will not, work with Vista.

The truth is, most of the improvements of Vista could be had on XP with third party software, and without loss of compatibility. Vista's incompatibility problems are in stark contrast to *nix, where pretty much all libraries and likely dependencies are designed to be backwards compatible.

option 5: create a shortcut toolbar, stick your most used programs on it, stick it where you want (at the edge of the screen, in the middle, on your taskbar), then click the icon to run the program...

RE: option5

Apart from when windows decided to forget your toolbar existed and you promptly have to re-add it!

I fight with mine a lot but it still works better than Ubuntu did on my machine.

When I get frustrated I just go to DSL on a stick and then I feel better when going back to Vista.

Sometimes you just have to 'walk away' and cool down :)

Keep in mind: You got Vista SP1, which is significantly better than the initial release version. Also, you have a lot more memory than was typical when Vista first hit the streets, and in the mean time a lot more hardware devices are supported than at initial launch.

I had Vista when it launched, at the time with 2GB of ram, which I would say it's the requirement for a smooth experience (it's passable with 1GB though). Apart from some low-level driver apps which needed an updated version everything worked right from the beginning.


I think a suitable comparison would be with the MacOS X, which has similar requirements. A well loaded Kubuntu installation isn't so smooth too. If you compare a seven years old architecture with a new one it's quite obvious that the old one will work on a seven years old pc while the new one will struggle. Also, both XP and Linux don't use advanced prefetching techniques.

Shortcuts? On your desktop!? Rubbish. I use toolbars on XP (category-sorted), and Panels on Linux.

I use vista since the BETA 2, on a 1GB ram computer with a intel dual core processor of 1,78Ghz with a crap intel card and it works ultra smooth. I'va got Aereo turned ON. And I'm sure there is not any miracle on my HP laptop. I just keep it updated and properly protected, and it works very very well.

Plash Indeed...

Click for full version
Image of desktop at work. It works but it sure is wasting alot of screen space... not to mention looking fugly!

I've been using Vista since its release, but only a couple of weeks ago I got around to installing a 64-Bit version of Vista on my Mac Pro (2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB RAM). Using the 64-Bit version makes a difference like night and day (on the same machine); the 64-Bit version blows its 32-Bit sibling out of the water. And performance-wise, I think Vista 64 also has OS X Leopard for breakfast on my Mac.

Still, I very much prefer the user experience that OS X and the apps that I use on it are giving me. But that's another story.

Although Vista SP1 64-Bit performs very well, it still has a lot of design issues on the user interface level. Windows Explorer sucks on Vista, because I have to scroll and click much more to finally get to my drives than I had to on XP or other older versions of Windows. What also sucks is the now non-intuitive Control Panel and its chaotic applets. Everything is harder to find than before, and it still looks to me as if the designers at Microsoft just changed whatever they could change just for change's sake - not because it actually made sense to do it.

It only took me a few days to get used to all the changes Windows XP brought over Windows 2000. But after more than two years, I'm still not used to most of the user interface changes that Vista brought. Especially everything network-related in Vista is designed in a counter-productive way.

Anyway, I can live with it as a second operating system. It's now mature and robust enough and except for an unsupported TDK label printer that I own, I do not have any compatibility issues worth mentioning.

@skn3[ac]: I actually have mine to auto-hide (at the top of my screen), then I have a directory/category layout:

stucture
	\apps
		\comm
			\pidgin
			\ventrilo
			\etc..
		\dev
			\blitz
				\blide
				\maxide
				\wxcodegen
				\etc..
		\etc
		\media
		\palm
		\tools
	\code (programming project folder shortcuts)
		\asm
		\bmax
		\csharp
		\palm
		\tools
	\games
		\steam
		\oblivion
		\etc..

I like vista a lot. Have to go back to XP occasionally to use my 15 year old serial wacom tablet and its painfully slow and less responsive for everyday WIMP stuff and multitasking. And I don't have a modern PC at all, just a decent 2GB of old DDR1 400mhz ram

I have a few shortcuts to programs that I use on the (XP) desktop, I can start those programs in the blink of an eye. That's quicker than clicking the Start button and entering the word "Blitz" and then selecting from the options.

Apart from that I have a shortcut to my game programming source code folder on the desktop, so in two or three clicks I can continue working.

I have to say though, the Commodore 64 was better... just put the tape in the cassette player, rewind if necessary, shift+run/stop and there you go, 10 minutes later I was steering the Arac spider robot through a futuristic bunker.

Yes but I don't need that space for anything else anyway; the program windows are drawn on top of the shortcuts after all. ;)

Seriously what are you going to do with that non-wasted stretch of blue pixels...

Its not so bad since the service pack, if you re-arrange, re-theme it and change everything so the whole gui doesnt look like its been designed for a short sighted 5 year old.
However like the others before the system seems to be getting there just as its replacement is starting to come out. By the time 7 comes out and vista gets its SP2 it will be what was originally intended.
I am still happier with Ubunt64 though, i dont think MS will win me back (for primary OS use) with vista as i think its perhaps as good as its gonna get about now.

I've always used the quicklaunch toolbar for anything that I use a lot. Whether it's vista or Xp it's pretty much the same. From what I understand they broke the quicklaunch in windows 7. Is supposed to be a tweak to kind of get it back.

There is a way to get old fashioned quicklaunch back 100% - but it's hidden from view and requires file/folder manipulation, possibly a registry tweak. I'm not sure, I havn't needed it. I know it's certainly not as simple as switching an option on in an applet somewhere, but all the code supporting quicklaunch is still there somewhere.

Quite frankly, since you now drag any program you want to 'sticky' straight into the main toolbar - why this is considered any different is beyond me. True, there are slightly different controls when switching between windows of the same application - but this can easily be set back to 'normal' (which is the first thing I did). Really, a lot of people complain about the change made (which I think is good) because they're too impatient to learn how to best use something.

It's very different:

1) It appears that the new style icons have a lot more horizontal spacing between them than the quicklaunch icons had, wasting a lot of horizontal space on programs that you aren't running at the time.

2) It automatically 'groups' a running session with the icon itself, so it's harder to see at a glance whether or not a specific app is already running or not. Especially for resource-hungry applications that can be a big deal.

3) It's a lot more cumbersome to open a whole bunch of instances of an app. With quicklaunch, you can just hit the button when you need one, with the new crap it will change focus to the already running instance. For a second (or third/forth/fifth/etc) you'll have to right-click and hunt for the menu option to launch another instance. Even more annoying since you don't notice at a glance whether or not there's already an initial instance running or not.
(I easily have half a dozen copies of things like notepad open at a time, so this is really annoying)

Maybe it's just me, but it's little things this that are really really annoying. Quicklaunch worked. Stop screwing with it, or at least keep it as an option that can easily be turned on!

(something else I fnd really irritating is that Microsoft got rid of the 'up' button in Windows Explorer under vista. those newfangled breadcrumbs aren't horrible, but sometimes you just want to go up three levels and would like to do so without hunting and pecking with your mouse all over the place. Especially if you have long folder names, you may not even see the folder one level above your current one -- and iterating through multiple folders with variable lengths means that you have to keep moving your mouse to the location of the netx crumb instead of just hammering a single button in a stationary position. (Even more so because 'up' stood out as a yellow button, instead of variable-length text)

Although ever so slightly off-topic, this reminds me of the Awesome (tm) address bar in Firefox 3, for which there are now 'add-ons' to make it act like the old address bar. :)

If you need teh up button and your willing to pay about £3.50 (shareware)
http://www.mavisapps.com/up-button/

LOL!!!

I like the address bar, I really can't see the problem with it.

skn3: Interesting, I think I'll give it a try.

thanks!

No offence, but you've simply got a bad view of it because you havn't seen it and thus don't actually know what you're talking about.


There is a small amount of spacing between the icons, probably slightly more than the QuickLaunch (hard to tell without a side by side comparison), but it's a matter of pixels, not tens of pixels. It's negligible.


As I said, this can easily be set back to normal (or XP/Vista)-like behaviour.


Or you can use the middle mouse button to open a new app without doing the right mouse button menu nonsense.


Seems pretty simple to hit the beginning of the breadcrumb and go down three directories from there. Look, I've just gone up 3 directories in 2 clicks instead of 3!

It is just a matter of "getting used" to a new way of browsing your computer. The breadcrumb method sorta unifies computer browsing with the majority of website browsing. I am guessing this was the thinking behind removing the up button. To be fair they should provide the option to enable/disable it.

It is quite funny having to "buy" an up button for vista, but £4 aint really that bad when you REALLY have to have it.

Anyone want a vista close button for £9.99? Im doing a special this month: buy a close button and recycle bin and get the up button for free!

Im used to it but i still think its less effecient than XPs

That doesnt explain why Ubuntu boots up in almost half the time as Vista (inc. post-login delays), is quicker/smoother to navigate, load apps and open windows etc faster than Vista does on the exact same machine (2.5ghz Dual, 4gb ddr2). I guess what it makes up for in being more efficient in general it just... catches up. (although i think support for what you describe is comming soon).
Vista runs faster than XP though if you have -lots- of ram (except where user action/input is concerned :D)

Doiron:

I don't have much experience with MacOS X, but a default installation of Ubuntu runs on 256MB and runs well on 512MB of RAM. Linux has at least readahead, preload and prefetch (the last one still in development, I think).

xlsior:

Just hit backspace?

Perturbatio:

At least for me the problem was the same as with Vista: FF3 is memory intensive and the Awesomebar database-lookups take time from the disk. It takes a few seconds to get results on older (low RAM) computers.

You pretty much have to if you wish to use keyboard shortcuts to launch your programs -- if they're on toolbars and such it won't work unless they have the focus first. (At least, that's how it used to be)

Whats wrong with a few desktop icons its kinda the whole point in having one :/
Superkey-D -> clickclick.
Its a hell of a lot faster than any launcher i have ever tried (inc menus, OSX-thingy etc..)

Yeah I have a few like hard disk, cd, documents, downloads. The trouble is when you see a users screen that is one solid block of about a thousand icons!

I also like the 'AppLauncher' vista sidebar gadget, which pretty much behaves like a big QuickLaunch area on the side of the screen.

Still, I would be crippled without my keyboard shortcuts to launch a bunch of apps.
Command Prompt, FTP, CD burning, Web Browser, EMail, etc...

The "OSX-thingy" works for me:

I hate launchers personally, they just take up space, or get annoying if "autohidden" (eg, you want to click on the address/task bar, go too far and a bloomin launcher appears.

Personally what i would really like to see on windows is, link registering of all executables in a windows path registered folder eg. "c:/BinLink" (would work a bit like the /usr/bin on unix derivatives). That way i could just do Sprintkey-R and type the name of the app i want (unfortunately on windows this only works for windows apps or apps dirs you register. = too much hassle to set up)
I find this much faster than looking around for an icon on a scrolly launcher or menu and always use it for things like "notepad","control","calc" etc.. ("Static" icon launchers like the desktop/taskbar are ok though when using sprintkey-D to get to the DT fast)

I like them, the amiga had some pretty good ones, then they kind of dissapeared and with OSX and XP/Vista they come again.

@taumel, yeah its funny isn't it.

I used to be a microsoft detractor. But now with 4 (yes... count them 4) XP Home licences for 2 desktops (alright one was upgraded from Win98) and 2 laptops - I have respect for Bill Gates.

Seen a documentary on the bloke during the week and he came across as very personable. Some people may say with all that dosh you can be that way - but he had a dream a while back to have a computer in every home with a windows OS.

The sick thing is in retrospect (yeah, bit of self analysis - but I've helped get microsoft its dosh in my own small way - 70 quid for each licence equates to £280) - his business model works so well because if you have > 1 computer you need > 1 licence.

As for Vista - haven't tried it and probably won't. Not that I'm a luddite - but I simply cannot afford to go upgrading for the sake of it - XP still works well.

On a 24" widescreen, you can afford to lose an inch or two on the side of the screen. Since I already have the sidebar on anyway, I might as well use part of it for the AppLauncher.



At this point in time buying Vista is pointless anyway, since Windows 7 could hit the streets as early as a few months from now.

Yeah a wide screen display does help with the sidebar.

heh, most mac users I know also have windows installed dual boot now that they share the same architecture.

Apple is currently involves in a court case against Psystar for violating the apple license agreement (Installing OS-X on non-apple hardware, which goes against Apple's terms and conditions)

If Psystar happens to win that court case, then you can expect more PC's with OS-X to follow as well.

Vista aint bad at all. but its slow.

also IE7 crash stalls hangsss..

i changed recently to firefox and vista..

It depends on how much hardware you throw at it: It's slow on underpowered machines, but Vista 64 runs smoother on my PC than XP did.

Vista is slow. I don't care what hardware you throw at it. In hacking terms, it's slow. It's inefficient code, simple as that.

That's not to say it isn't a good OS. It's extremely stable. The architecture is quite clever, in that device driver bugs no longer pose as much threat of hanging the machine as they once used to. The audio bus isn't the best, but it's probably the best of an already bad job.

You say it's slow, yet for me and many others it outperforms a fresh install of XP with regards to start up time and overall responsiveness.

Startup doesn't count imo, the real issue is in usage speeds.

Like Hotcakes said: "and overall responsiveness. "

Back when I ran XP, I often had issues with intermittent choppyness. No such thing with Vista 64.

I'm wondering if responsiveness is merely the UI renderer being weird. My old desktop machine feels a snappier (with Aero) under Win 7 than my super-bling laptop.

Both desktop and laptop are a lot more responsive under Win 7 than they ever were with Vista. Win 7 on my desktop gives me the same sort of responsiveness as XP on the same machine.

XP is still the fastest for me on my laptop.

I'm going to install Vista x64 on my laptop to make a more qualified judgement.

In my experience vista only seems to have better performance than XP (discounting boot/shutdn) when you approach the 4Gb mark.

As will all operating systems early drivers have bugs that ether get sorted out or not, some companies are very bad at updating drivers im stuck with xp because vista drivers are not stable with my music hardware and some of my software. I think pro music production stuff does lag behind a bit compared to gaming. so ill leave upgrading untill its stable. i have a laptop with vista and its ok for that.

Pete

They'll pay millions for a settlement before they let that happen.



I don't know if that's particularly clever, given that *nix and many other OS:s were designed like that in the first place.



Yeah, I wouldn't say "Vista is slow", rather Vista takes up way more RAM and requires a better graphics card. Given you have enough of both, it may well be faster than XP in many tasks.

You don't even need a great CPU for it to be better than XP. Just the ram and a good budget gaming card from 2-3 years ago, then vista runs very well.

The Geforce 7800GTX in my old desktop runs Aero fantsatically. It's a card that cost me £300+ at the time I bought it. Cards costing less than £70 outperform it now though.

We'll see. There have been allegations that Psystar is a front for a larger company testing the waters, in which case they are strictly after the precedent, not so much a few million bucks.

Oh -- and I realize that this isn't really a solution for a commercial game that messes up someones icons, but for a quick 'fix' on your own computer I recommend taking a look at DeskSave: http://www.desksave.de/

It's a free tool that you can use to save/restore your desktop icon positions, so if they do get jumbled around you can easily restore them to their proper locations.

that would be great for that "you cant arrange icons by penis" quote in some tech support video thread months back

LOL. I like that one, they should add it to the contect menu!

Especially a tool that restores it as a desktop image with minimal fuss :D

Ive changed my mind, after this morning's fiasco...

Vista IS BAD!!! >:(

This morning, for no reason whatsoever it kicks in with installing new device. "What new device?" i ask as i click on the box.
"Please insert disk for bluetooth device". It has not asked this for this before. Its a genuine hardware message from the found new hardware applet.
Ok, i dont have a bluetooth device except my phone, and i always use the cable. I click on never ask me again and the screen goes black. CtrlAlt delete brings up the menu but the mouse is jumping laggy all over the place. Wait 5 minutes, nothing happens so its hard power off.
"Vista did not shut down properly... blaah blah blah"
Now no matter what i start it in, even safe mode, as soon as i log in the screen goes black and i get the same probleem, ctrl-alt delete wait 3 years is the only thing i can do.

What the hell? What has a (non existent/unrequested) bluetooth device that i chose NOT to install got to do with the screen, or worse completely collapse windows? Its not the disk/ram/gpu as i have done a diag on it and Ubuntu is working fine.

please run your restore disc before posting any support techinal question on here


Muhaha :)

Its not a support question, its a statement of disgust :D

Change my mind

Vista is probalby as bad as any windows operating system is

just a cheap hack that some one sells expensive.

but at least it works on all intel hardwares :)



we ned new thinking.. we ned new cpus with massive multi cores and a new programing langues too one that is simple as blitz basic :)

for the nurds thats likes to design microprocessors look here

http://www.circuitcellar.com/library/print/0502/

I want a VM or slave kernel that can support directx, if i had that i would have everything i need right now. Booting into windows to use b3d or play a game is annoying at best when life for EVERYTHING else i do is so... pleasant on the 'other side' of the fence.

I must admit VISTA is a lame dog on my laptop or my pc ,but when i set it up to dual boot with XP everything is sweet again.Vista for visuals,Xp for work.

Jeez, vista for visuals - you can get those with linux for free, so the morale of the story is dual boot with linux for visuals and XP for your windows blah that works. Yeah, vista ain't that bad if you like flushing money down the toilet.

Yeah and Linux for a heartache of hell if your a noobie.

Show me a Linux that installs like Windows,with NO! going online to get software updates.

Oh dear i don't have an internet connection.

Drivers that most of the Linux distributions do not support.

because they are not registered.

Shall i go on

is that still the case with ubuntu? Haven't tried it but all accounta are its not bad.

everything heartache and headache for a noobie, including windows.

@NicebutDim, it really depends on the distro (as "Linux" is not an OS, DSL and Ubuntu are chalk and cheese regardless that theey are both have similar heritage :), but i have 6 very different PCs, , 4 of them laptops, webcams, bluetooth devices, video camera and i have no problem on any of then except one which is my netbook aspire which cannot use the built in mic, but thats it.
All of it pretty much works out of the box. I have never had a Lan (wire) problem and rarely a wireless problem that cannot be solved.
Even on occasion when -something- is a hassle to set up (as it was when i tried it 2-3 years ago) at least once it is set up it STAYS set up with no BS like i described above, those settings can be saved/ backed up and once you have the knowelage an entire system restore including pretty much your entire software base takes very little time compared to a windows restore.

These days i refuse to buy hardware unless its supported, rather than the other way round.

Try and install Linux without an internet connection and you are paddaling without paddles.

Done it many times.

well... by "linux" i assume you mean something like ubuntu or fedora? + perviously gotten 'essential' packages.

Despite that, who doesnt have an internet connection these days anyway? you NEED an internet connection with windows unless you want to get plagued by update popups and other bugs (so pretty much same same in that respect).

Believe me D4NM4N there is probably quiet a few people that do not have internet access.Everyone owns a Cd from a PC magazine of some sort,where the Graphics drivers from Ati/Nvidia are on it.
Show me where the linux drivers for graphics so easy to install.

If you are not online.

Get the right hardware (inc ati/nvidia) and you dont have to, its all just works. (kind of like mac users) As for video drivers on ubuntu, for ati/nvidia you just go to the admin menu and say you want to use the proprietry driver.
Otherwise you need internet access yes, (unless you save all the essential packs to a cd or make you own lan repository)
All things being equal, show me a windows installation that can be installed FULLY working without driver CDs/internet.

Windows 7 did that for me on this occassion. =]

vista isn't about visuals. If thats your only reason to have it stick with XP. My reason for using vista is that it runs much better on older single core cpus than XP does thanks to better use of system ram mostly.