A few reasons why I'll never use Windows Vista again...

Published on May 21, 2008 By Pixeleo In Personal Computing

You heard and read the tales of many bloggers and daily life PC users of how they anxiously waited for Windows Vista's much awaited public release, and how it broke their heart to know that it isn't quite much of a... well...operating system.

And almost daily, many organizations hoping to direct the use of computing in the hopes of expanding their business, purchase Windows Vista and give it a test drive, which is almost always a test crash.

Why? Why is all this happening? Wasn't Vista supposed to be Microsoft's biggest success? And though I won't provoke arguments by saying that people should downgrade to XP, I'll say that most of the software present in Vista isn't as useful to us now than the software present in XP was useful to us then. I'll give some examples: Windows XP, when it was first released, shows the amount of progress Microsoft had made since Windows 2000 and Me. It boasted many new security features, a brand new GUI, and was the perfect OS for homes, industries, and laptop users alike.

And Microsoft was kind enough to keep their users happy with the latest security updates and newest versions of Windows software at their Windows Update site. And then last year, Microsoft released Windows Vista, which it promised would include all the features needed to make your computer do everything. That's not an official claim, but the amount of hard work and bloatware they put into Vista seems equal, so they were surely planning to make the OS a revolution in personal computing, right?

And speaking of bloatware, Vista is full of it. I won't anger those fans of Vista by saying that Vista should be replaced and a more updated version of XP should be released with all the good stuff of Vista in it, but let's face it, it's the right choice, isn't it? Windows Vista was never received with as much as enthusiasm as Microsoft was hoping for. The OS was found to be slow, memory consuming, and laptop batteries reported exhausting usage when one ran even the Basic version of Vista and the laptop had all the system requirements checked. So, now we come to versions. Believe me, I sat up all might reading reviews about Vista where I read the whole list of Vista versions several times, but there are so many that I can't remember them now. Hopefully, I'll just suffice by taking you through them one at a time. First there's the Home Premium. I've read its features and let me tell you this, DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON IT....HOME PREMIUM IS NOT WORTH IT! Then there's the Business versions, two of them I guess. They pack a whole lot more than the Home one, some more bloatware and combine together to form a good OS for those multinational biggies that can afford to use it on their PCs.

And finally, we come to the Windows Vista Ultimate one. No, I'm not listing more criticisms. Instead, I'll tell you my own personal experience in handling Vista. Till date I've bought Vista Ultimate twice. Both times, it installed perfectly well. Both times, it booted fine. Both times, the screen resolution never went higher than 640x480. Both times, I switched back to XP.

The main reason why I don't want to work with Vista again is the lack of compatibility with many graphic drivers. Other reasons:

User Account Control [UAC] - Microsoft stated that they built UAC for a specific purpose, to annoy you.
Packed with less needed features- Vista relies more on eye candy than functionality. Though you can get a lot of things done with it, you can do the same [or more] with XP too.
Microsoft's failure to realize that the classic Windows Explorer interface is losing popularity. Let's just hope Windows 7 doesn't have that ruddy taskbar.
Bloatware, bloatware, bloatware- 1 GB programs with 1% usability.

I'd add some links for those who aren't convinced.

Xp versus Vista at Tom's Hardware - Essential, you should check this one out.

Vista vs XP at InfoWorld - Haven't read much of this one but it has major sections of reviews, like usability, compatibility, etc.

Roundup: I'm not anti Vista. I love its new GUI as much as the next person. It also has Windows Defender, which is a great tool. The only problem is, its not worth it. Let's just wait and see whether Windows 7 makes up for what Vista messed up.

-Pixeleo

Comments (Page 2)

Alfonse

on May 21, 2008

I won't anger those fans of Vista by saying that Vista should be replaced and a more updated version of XP should be released with all the good stuff of Vista in it, but let's face it, it's the right choice, isn't it?

Let me tell you an analogous story. It's about a product called the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_FX_Series]GeForce FX.[/url]

The time was late 2003. The Radeon 9xxx series was out and selling like wildfire. It was a massive performance boost over the popular GeForce 4 series. It provided DirectX9-level features for the first time, and it was quite fast at performing them. For the very first time, ATi released a competing card that was flat-out superior in every way to anything nVidia had.

Of course, everyone waited. The GeForce FX was on the way, nVidia's answer to ATi's gauntlet.

Then, the FX hit. Benchmarks came out. Every performance review said it was inferior next to ATi's weakest 9xxx cards. Even Gabe Newell of Valve said that HL2 would run better on Radeons than GeForce FX's. The DX9 performance of FX's was nothing next to the Radeon 9xxx cards.

Everyone was screaming for nVidia to throw away the FX and bring out a completely new card. They called the FX hardware crap and suggested that nVidia should start from scratch.

They didn't.

The wildly popular GeForce 6xxx and 7xxx series cards share the same hardware structure as the FX's. Oh, they tweaked the internals for performance and such. But the FX architecture was their foundation; they were products derived from that architecture, rather than entirely new cards. Yet the 6xxx and 7xxx easily stomped all over ATi's comperable offerings in performance tests. Why?

Because the Radeon 9xxx architecture was an evolutionary dead-end. Oh, for its day, the performance was great. But it's architecture was firmly rooted in square one, in the old way of thinking about GPU hardware. The FX architecture was incredibly forward looking.

In short, the drumming that the FX took was necessary to provide nVidia with the successes of the 6xxx and 7xxx line. We've seen similar things with the GeForce 8xxx line; very expensive cards that perform only slightly better than 7xxx's. But the 88000GT and the new GeForce 9xxx's are all much cheaper and much more performant. Why? Because the early GeForce 8xxx's were again, a new architecture. One that needed some tweaking to get good performance and so forth.

nVidia ran a distraction on the entire industry when they dumped the FX name from the 6xxx products. That made people think that the FX hardware was long gone, when in fact, it was right there all along.

Let me tell you another story. This one is of an Operating System. It was called MacOS X. You may have heard of it.

MacOS X has no relation to MacOS 9. And by no relation, I mean none. They don't think the same, they don't work the same, etc. MacOS 9 is basically the worst operating system you can imagine. Basic concepts like memory protection, that have been in competing OS's like Win95 and Linux, were absent. Apple knew that MacOS sucked. So they threw the whole thing out.

MacOS X 10.0 was crappy. Just about everyone called it a downgrade from MacOS 9. It was slow, buggy, annoying, etc. What people call Vista now. But it was a modern operating system. It provided those features that a good OS should.

MacOS X 10.5, the modern version, is considered one of the best OS's ever. It's built on the foundation of 10.0, just like any good OS revision. It's slick, smooth, fast, etc. The growing pains of 10.0 were necessary to create a more modern OS.

The point is this: Vista may seem crappy now. It may ultimately be crappy in the future. But Vista's internal technology will be in future Windows OS's. Oh, Microsoft will probably focus on usability enhancements in the next windows revision. But just because it's not named "Vista" doesn't mean that Vista's guts won't be there.

These kinds of growing pains are necessary. As were the growing pains from Win3.1 to Win95.

RoseNell

on May 21, 2008

You know, I don't kown what anyone can really say.. You can like Vista or NOT like Vista but ITS HERE...... and I don't think anything is going to change that. I have Vista on my desktop and XP on my laptop.. Like them both for different reasons. Vista is prettier you have to agree. But I still enjoy XP. But what difference that makes.. ITS HERE, and I don't think its going any where soon.. Accep what you can't change.

CobraA1

on May 21, 2008

Yet another "why Vista sux" thread . . .

User Account Control [UAC] - Microsoft stated that they built UAC for a specific purpose, to annoy you.

I think you lost some context there - it grabs your attention when something wants to take control of your system beyond what you should be comfortable with. Allowing this kind of control is what allows a lot of malware to get onto systems. Disabling UAC is disabling one of the biggest security improvements in Vista.

ZDNet has created an excellent article on how to reduce UAC's annoyances without disabling it:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=436

I highly recommend not disabling it, and I'd rather people scale it back a bit rather than completely disabling it.

Packed with less needed features- Vista relies more on eye candy than functionality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everybody said the same thing about XP with its fancy blue borders and candy coated buttons. Got a short memory, eh?

Microsoft's failure to realize that the classic Windows Explorer interface is losing popularity. Let's just hope Windows 7 doesn't have that ruddy taskbar.

Windows Explorer I'd like to keep. The "All Programs" section of the Start menu I'd like to replace with something a bit more organized.

Yeah, it requires a bit more hardware - but should we really be surprised about that? Would XP run on a machine that meets the minimum requirements for Windows 95? I'd say no - Windows 95 would run on 486's, which for those who don't know is what came before the Pentiums and ran from about 33 to 100 MHz.

Back when XP came out, it was accused of being a horrendous hardware hog as well. But, technology advanced, and what was horrendous hardware hog a few years ago is now considered slim and fast. History repeats itself, and will repeat itself again. In a couple of years, I'm sure we'll have 8 to 16 cores, and will be wondering why we complained at all about Vista.

My system specs:
2.6 GHz, 512 MB DDR RAM, 40 GB HD, and Intel 82865G Graphics controller.

I'd say upgrade the memory and you'll be in good shape. The biggest memory hog is not actually "bloatware" as people here think it is - it's SuperFetch, which pre-loads programs based on how you've used them in the past. Which, BTW, can be turned off. I really wouldn't have it turned on on any system with less than 2 GB of memory.

Pixeleo

on May 21, 2008

Oh man, I never thought I'd get so many replies. Thanks guys.

And as some of you said, XP was also considered a hardware hog. SO I guess it was my first and last "Vista sux" thread. We'll have to see whether in 5-10 years we forget whether XP existed and become Vista lovers.

Gambler

on May 21, 2008

It's annoying how some people always claim that nothing can be changed, that their favorite product is "just there", that you have to accept it and shut up. The reality is, voicing discontent with crap products is an essential responsibility of smart consumers. And it works too.

Dell tried to dump XP. Then their sales fell, and they changed their mind. Go to their website, look for yourself.

CobraA1

on May 21, 2008

You are right, it is annoying how some people claim that nothing can be changed: Vista has changed since its first release, and it will continue to change in the future.

The major issues have largely gone away with the first service pack. Yes, it had some bugs upon first release, just like every other piece of software larger than a basic "hello world" program. But I find it unjustifiable that people are complaining that this is some sort of problem without a solution. Microsoft has already released a service pack that fixes many of the largest problems, and I expect that they'll continue to improve their product in the future. So is Vista really a crappy product?

Well, it's not a huge jump in functionality from the user's point of view, and it does demand a bit more from the machine - but IMHO that's a long ways from making it the horrible product some people are claiming it is. It does offer some nice features XP doesn't have, and it's a huge change from the point of view of the developer. This is certainly going to be the new base on which future versions of Windows will be built: Even if Vista does not succeed as well as Microsoft hopes, it will not be a total failure if the next version of Windows succeeds.

erathoniel

on May 21, 2008

Vista might say it will run with 512 MB, but it certainly doesn't run well. I wouldn't put Vista on a machine with less than 2 gigs of RAM.

I'd only use 4 gigs or greater for Vista. On a 64 bit laptop processor, I only have 2 gigs, IIRC, so I ain't movin' to Vista. Heck, I'm not moving to Vista because I prefer my DX10 cracked for WinXP over working on WinVista, All Vista has is a catchy name. Everything else? Bull crap.

My PC goes up to 1440x900 on XP, I'm not going to Vista to have 320x240 on a 17 inch screen for everything I do.

MadDeez

on May 21, 2008

wow! another vista-bashing thread by someone whose machine can't run it! 512 megs of ram, huh? vista needs 2 gig just to be happy. personally, i prefer 8 gigs on my rig. if ya can't run it, stop bashing it just because your rig isn't up to snuff.

Vampothika

on May 22, 2008

i have dual boot....xp and vista.....and i loved vista the moment i saw it installed on my pc......the love affair has not wained.... i LUV vista..........

I also encourage everyone to make up their 'own' mind about vista, instead of letting a 'vista bashing' thread make up your mind for you.

CobraA1

on May 22, 2008

I'd only use 4 gigs or greater for Vista.

Vista isn't that bad. 2 GB works great for the vast majority of uses. You only need 4 GB or more if you're doing memory intensive tasks like multimedia editing.

My PC goes up to 1440x900 on XP, I'm not going to Vista to have 320x240 on a 17 inch screen for everything I do.

This is utter nonsense. In no way, shape, or form do you have to turn down your resolution for Vista.

GenBlood

on May 22, 2008

MS Vista is " OK " ...

I just purchased a new laptop and it's running fine. I'm still
running 3 WinXP and a Gentoo system on my little home network.
Right now I'm in the process of adding HP WHS to my small net.

In my opinion MS Vista is designed for new hardware and you
should never select the min. for hardware specs.

SIR NASTY OF TANG

on May 22, 2008

my little Old

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.2GHz

1.g ram( I would not try any less then that tho)

GeForce 7600 GS

run it pretty good

but I mainly run XP

Nasty

Gideon MacLeish

on May 22, 2008

wow! another vista-bashing thread by someone whose machine can't run it! 512 megs of ram, huh? vista needs 2 gig just to be happy.

Actually, while I intend to upgrade as soon as I have the extra cash, I have suffered no performance problems on 1GB. And this is Vista Ultimate.

Of course, I've tweaked it for performance, but they're tweaks anyone can google if they have any level of tech skills whatsoever.

My specs: AMD 3500+ dual core proc, 1GB DDR2 RAM, 2-SATA 160GB hard drives, onboard video.

(I know, I know...yes, I AM saving up for a new video card!)

Astyanax

on May 22, 2008

Actually, while I intend to upgrade as soon as I have the extra cash, I have suffered no performance problems on 1GB. And this is Vista Ultimate.

Same here, I've got a testing pc with Ultimate at my home with 1gb of valueram that is untweaked and it runs perfectly fine. Saying you need 4gb minimum is either an utter lie or you are just extremely nitpicky.

Pixeleo

on May 22, 2008

So it's actually my RAM that's at fault right. And Gideon, I read the minimum specs for Vista Ultimate at Microsoft's website, and it says that for the other versions of Vista you should have at least 512 MB while you need 1 gig in the least for Ultimate. So I guess I should try the Home Premium or Business one, and I've made up my mind on upgrading my RAM too.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!