MarineCorps
Explosion!
Thats very intresting to know. I assumed since zdnet posted it that it had to be reliable.
Why Do People Hate Vista?
- Thread starter carmen510
- Start date
Thats very intresting to know. I assumed since zdnet posted it that it had to be reliable.
A lot of news sites picked this one up, seems they didn't pay much attention to the actual details though.
How did you find that benchmark? I am not an idiot when it comes to Google searches but I cannot find a site that has OfficeBench available. I see a lot of site referencing it (FiringSquad.com, MSFN.org, InfoWorld.com, Anandtech.com, ZDnet.co.uk). Oh, I think I may have found it here: http://www.xpnet.com/
For being an award wining benchmark, it was sure hard to track down.
Or maybe not.... I still can't find OfficeBench to download. I even tried a Google search on the xpnet.com site (OfficeBench site:http://www.xpnet.com/) and I get two page results (http://www.xpnet.com/iworldtest/) and the xpent.com home page. The first page are results from the OfficeBench test and the second page, when checking the Google cache, says this from Google "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: officebench".
Vaporware?
Vaporware?
WerBackIII
Jar of the Rotting Brain
No one hates Vista. We are just waiting for the service patches!
Pyrion
Liquid Metal Nanomorph
It's trendy to hate on Vista, just as it was trendy to hate on XP back when all of us elitists ran Windows 2000.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
People like to complain about new things that are buggy. Remember how people complained about Civ4 or any other Game the day/week/month/ it came out? Same with OSes.
Pyrion
Liquid Metal Nanomorph
It's even funnier with OSes than games cuz OSes, like games, practically require hardware upgrades. For games it's not an immediate necessity, for OSes you either upgrade, suffer, or downgrade (and if you go that route then the purchase was wasted).
And of course advising the user to upgrade his brain (to solve PEBKAC issues) never succeeds in the intended manner.
And of course advising the user to upgrade his brain (to solve PEBKAC issues) never succeeds in the intended manner.
Here's a list of everything I hate about Vista.
1. I can't install Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, which is installed on my dad's comp and is mildly fun!
2. There was a really annoying thing where almost every time you wanted to run a program, it asked you for your permission, which I could only figure out how to get rid of after TWO AGONIZING DAYS!
3. The shortcuts in the Civ4 folder to my CustomAssets and such don't work because it's a different file path for Vista, and I can't have the My Games folder hidden!
4. The feature that I was always hoping for, Windows playing a sound at the welcome screen (when Windows is started up and you enter your password) WASN'T ENABLED BY DEFAULT!! I had to search sooo long, like a month of occaisonally getting the Customization Syndrome and diving into control panel to change settings. After my SECOND, I repeat, SECOND visit I finally found the check box. It took a whole month to get a minor convenience that I wasn't even sure existed!
5.
WHAT THE HELL IS SO BAD ABOUT VISTA?????It's not that people hate Vista.
The way I see it, Vista just can't offer any advantages over WinXP.
At the same time some programs are not working, you need a better hardware, driver issues, game issues, etc. are a reality users face everyday.
I'm still to find a single Vista advantage over XP.
Any ideas?
The way I see it, Vista just can't offer any advantages over WinXP.
At the same time some programs are not working, you need a better hardware, driver issues, game issues, etc. are a reality users face everyday.
I'm still to find a single Vista advantage over XP.
Any ideas?
Bottom line- switching to Vista is optional right now and many don't see the benefits of switching outweighing the cost. If everything runs great, you know how to operate the system well, and you're satisfied with what you have, why upgrade?
I have no doubt Vista is on paper a superior operating system to XP, but for many the cost/benefit analysis of upgrading just doesn't weigh in favor of making the switch. If all you really want is the eye candy get Windows Blinds and use the "Arrow" interface.
I have no doubt Vista is on paper a superior operating system to XP, but for many the cost/benefit analysis of upgrading just doesn't weigh in favor of making the switch. If all you really want is the eye candy get Windows Blinds and use the "Arrow" interface.
Bottom line- switching to Vista is optional right now and many don't see the benefits of switching outweighing the cost. If everything runs great, you know how to operate the system well, and you're satisfied with what you have, why upgrade?
I have no doubt Vista is on paper a superior operating system to XP, but for many the cost/benefit analysis of upgrading just doesn't weigh in favor of making the switch. If all you really want is the eye candy get Windows Blinds and use the "Arrow" interface.
I speak for more than majority when I say that people aren't being pushed to upgrade from XP to Vista. It isn't being claimed that people should dump XP and buy Vista.
The bottom line is that Vista is a superior operating system, and people who claims otherwise or purchases XP in lieu of Vista on a new PC is wasting their money.
Genocidicbunny
Bug squasher
Actually, M$ is pushing people so hard its denouncing its own OS ( Its denouncing XP as crappy, security hole ridden and etc )
Yes, because MS makes money from that, Apple does the exact same thing with Leopard, and there's even less of a reason to upgrade from Tiger to Leopard than from XP to Vista.
The vast majority of good sources aren't going to push for people to upgrade their old computers to a new OS, regardless of which one.
Genocidicbunny
Bug squasher
Lets see some of my opinions on that list of your favorite features:
To also quote vbraun:
<+vbraun> A good OS would have excellent recovery from the rare crashes
So far, in my experience, lack of crashes isn't something Vista is good with.
Maybe because they prefer not to have to get used to a new computer with a new OS on it? For most consumers, new = confusing, scary. Plus that new computer, with Vista on it, will chug along just about as fast as the old one does, which is to say, what was the point?
Okay, thats great and all, but so far not many computers use over 4 gigabytes. Talk to me about this one when it becomes imperative to have it.Zelig said:
See the previous point
Again, great and all, but so far XP has been doing just fine in this area. I haven't noticed any significant ( read: more than 5% or so) increases in performance due to vista
At what cost? That every time you boot up it indexes your system? Or that its continually accessing your HD to check its indexes? I have about 250 gigs worth of stuff on my computer, and have had around that much for the last 6 months. I had to use search 3 times, and even then, it was in FAR Manager, which is so far faster than both XP and Vista. In other words, if you cant find the file, maybe you hid it too well. I can remember where most of my things are, and it takes all of 5 seconds to find them if I only know the approximate area.
Great, more gunk in my start menu
There is no better help system than the internet. Period
A good OS wouldn't need this feature.
To also quote vbraun:
<+vbraun> A good OS would have excellent recovery from the rare crashes
So far, in my experience, lack of crashes isn't something Vista is good with.
My current automatic updates work perfectly fine as is. And they don't bug me about whether or not I want to install the damned updates. If I didn't, would I have kept the feature turned on?
Again, a decent OS wouldn't need this. And most systems have two hard drives nowadays, so keep your important files off the one that has the OS. Or better yet, partition it so the OS has its own small partition and all your files are on another, in case you need to reinstall
Personally I surf without a firewall (And no, while it might look stupid, I haven't gotten any bad stuff in half a year). Either way, there are more robust commercial products out there, some are even free.
unless you defragment daily, you wont really care. There was a thread somewhere here ( A while back though) about a defragmenter that was just as good as the XP one. In most cases, users wont care for the extra features of the defragmenter, and it can only go as fast as the HD's can, which is slower than the CPU can run the defrag..
Nothing to say about this one, as it might be true
You mean task manager or the Scheduler? Im somewhat confused. Either way, if its the scheduler, I don't give a rats rear end since I never schedule my computer to do anything ( Who knows about who's using the computer at that moment, etc).
So now it can tile to only half the screen, stretch to pixelate on another fourth and get blown up so you can only see 10% of the entire image on the last quarter? Sounds like fun!
The performance difference isn't that great, at least in my usage
Speech recognition is still far from usable, whether its by a commercial product, or by integrated M$ software.
Zelig said:
Maybe because they prefer not to have to get used to a new computer with a new OS on it? For most consumers, new = confusing, scary. Plus that new computer, with Vista on it, will chug along just about as fast as the old one does, which is to say, what was the point?
32-bit MS OSes get quirky past 2GB. When Dell, HP, etc. move to 4GB on their standard machines, as they will do soon, the PCs will ship with Vista 64-bit. Can't have Macs shipping with more memory than PCs. 4GB of memory is available for under $100 in any case, it isn't expensive.
It really shines with quad-core and up.
Basically no cost, the default indexing location has been reduced to the users folder, and indexing only occurs when the drive is idle. I know where my files are, but with a fast search feature, it's often faster to type the file name in than to navigate through folders or than scrolling down a single folder.
It's an optional feature, which happens to be quite awesome. Whenever I'm using XP now, I have to catch myself when I hit the windows key and start typing the name of a program.
However, the help system in Vista has its uses. I never even bothered installing the help system in XP, in Vista, it links directly to MS kb articles, which are invaluable.
Too bad there aren't any "good OS"es in that case. On the computers in my room currently, I have Vista, Ubuntu 7.1, Knoppix 5.1.1 and Mac OS Leopard installed. They've all crashed on me, as have all the other OSes I've used extensively. Of those four, Vista has the best presentation of errors to the end user.
Your old system might work fine for you, but technically, the new system is improved.
Again, I guess we don't have any decent OSes available. Most systems do not have two hard drives, take a look at a catalog of what Dell has been selling recently. Hard drives can completely fail at time; people who don't keep regular backups are just waiting to lose their data. One of the big improvements with Leopard is an improved backup system.
How do you qualify robust, without referring to non real-world leaktests? Because the Windows firewall is included, free, and has low resource use, it's is commonly used. You might not use it, but millions of other people do, and you can't honestly argue that a vast upgrade in features isn't a good thing. It's now capable of being configured to do the majority of what any other downloadable firewall does.
And again, most users simply run the default programs that come with the OS. Defragmenting speed is affected by much more than HDD speed, take a look at the differing speeds of all the commerical (and otherwise) defragmenters out there. There are still better defragmenters than Vista has, but at least it's competetive with them, the XP one is a plodding monolith.
I was referring to the task scheduler, although the task manager is much improved as well. If you don't use it, you should take a look, you can do lots of useful things to save yourself time with it.
No, no you can have fit to a screen while keeping the original aspect ratio. Which can't be done in XP without a third party program, or editing of the original image.
Nevertheless, the technical improvements are obvious if you take a look at the whitepapers.
Speech recognition is very usable, it isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it's useless. For people who have difficulty typing or using a mouse, but no problems speaking, speech recognition is invaluable.
Righto, so everyone should have stuck with Windows 95, to keep away from scary new stuff. If a new computer is running at the same speed as an old computer, whoever purchased it probably shouldn't have done so in the first place.
I'm heading out for a few weeks, so I won't get to respond for a while after this, but I'll be back...
Ghost Ranger
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 357
Another thing Vista has is much longer lastability, and not just in terms of service patches. Since every retail version comes with the 64-bit version, you can install that later on.
Similar threads
