[OS] Microsoft Windows Vista

[Belisario93]

What it is: an operating system that is supposed to replace windows XP
What it costs: I got it for free with my computer
How long have you owned/used it: about 9 months
Pros:
-Looks really shiny
-More security
Cons:
-Many bugs
-Takes up a lot of RAM to operate
-Many programs from XP don't work on it
Overall Rating: 3/10
Conclusion: I couldn't be less happy with an operating system. With all the bugs I have encountered, I almost want to move over to a Mac operating system. Almost every time I start the dang thing up it will blue screen, and I get lucky whenever I do finally get to my desktop. I also can't hardly play any games on it unless I want to upgrade to like 4GB of RAM because the OS eats most of it up. And did I mention that now I have to actually spend money on an FTP uploader because WS_FTP won't run on here? The only good things about it are things like how it looks and more security features, and even those aren't really helpful. For one, XP looked fine, thanks. For two, the security features that were implemented are really annoying and unnecessary if you buy an anti-virus program (which most people who can buy a computer should be able to afford). My view: AVOID AT ALL COSTS

 

[Sage]

You know that annoying dialog box that pops up every time Vista needs permission to run a program? Is it possible to have that box only pop up when a never-been-run-before program is started, but then once I approve it, have it permanently approved and never have that stupid box pop up again for that program? (That’s how it works in OS X.) That’s the one thing that most drives me insane about Vista.

 

[daan]

What a brilliant, impartial review.

It sounds like your PC is having other issues that are unrelated to Vista. I've not had any problems with it whatsoever.

And you can use Core FTP, for free, on Vista.

 

[Eric.]

What a brilliant, impartial review.

It sounds like your PC is having other issues that are unrelated to Vista. I've not had any problems with it whatsoever.

And you can use Core FTP, for free, on Vista.

Agreed completely. The "RAM whoring" that everyone complains about is actually a little feature called Prefetch. It keeps your most commonly used programs in RAM so that they launch faster. From my experience, it always uses about 50% RAM at idle. I've used 2GB of RAM on my Vista machine and I've used 1GB in it when one module failed. It ran fine in both configurations, using half the RAM each time.

Please email me your product key and uninstall Vista immediately though. I'd love to have another license.

Also, how about listing the bugs and programs that don't work that you lived with for nine months.

@Sage: No, I don't think it is possible to do that.

 

[emad]

I just built a new PC. Vista runs phenomenally. It's lightning fast and it's more stable than XP has been for me. Of course, I build a properly modern PC. I was reluctant at first because I'm a mac user and all my windows experience is in XP. This has been a pretty decent experience so far.

Are you running service pack 1? That fixed a TON of bugs. Do you have a dedicated video card? Intel's GMA cards won't do the job in Vista. 1.8ghz multi-core or faster? Vista wants the extra juice. Give it to the OS. 2 gigs of ram or more? Vista likes ram. Similar to OSX - the more ram you throw at it, the better it performs.

That annoying pop-up? Disabled in a few easy clicks through the control panel.

Still miffed about performance? Get the 64 bit version for an even speedier experience.

 

[TB]

Besides a few programs not wanting to cooperate (AutoCAD 2002, which ended up not being an issue as I now have AutoCAD 2008 and Revit 2008 MEP (soon to be 2009) installed) and a registry problem with Paint Shop Pro, Vista has been just fine here, as well.

For the record - C2D T7200 + 1 Gig of RAM + 128 meg ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 video card = Vista Experience Index of 4.0. Not screaming by any means, but suits me just fine.

 

[Delirious]

But how well can older games run on Vista such as Morrowind, Unreal Tournament (99), Mechwarrior 4 (or even 3!) Diablo 2 and Starcraft?

 

[emad]

They should run well enough. I mean, I can run BioShock at max settings and 1680x1050...morrowind should be a breeze. Really old titles may not work in the x64 edition of Vista, but that's a small price to pay knowing that some of the applications I use more frequently (Adobe Lightroom, various video encoders) are optimized to perform better in a 64 bit environment.

Older apps don't run in x64 because it doesn't support a 16 bit instruction set - something that was phased out over 10 years ago.

 

[Tornado]

I haven't had any problems with Vista (C2D T7200 + 2 GB RAM + 256 Meg GeForce Go 7900GS), and other than occasional hiccups when starting out (incredibly old games not working that didn't really enjoy working on XP either, which led me to make a new partition for them; Windows Photo Gallery being Teh Suck) I have found that my computer overall runs incredibly faster with Vista Ultimate than it ever did with Media Center 2005. Not to mention it actually is somewhat intelligent in laptop specific features that XP just kind of crashed and burned on.
That being said, I refused on principle to get Vista X64, so I'm talking about the 32 bit version.

 

[Robin]

Ive been having to use vista a lot reciently and it is the worst OS ever! No wonder MS has tried to now sweep it under the carpet and move straight on to windows 7... Im glad my main computer is still on XP.

Vista makes the most simple things damn complicated... Im quite tech savvy and finding out how to change the most simple of settings requires going through loads of security confirmations and also stupid menus which have been degined for people who dont get computers but it makes it harder for everyone else.

Good example is the display setting which all used to be on one nice window with various tabs... but no MS splits it all up and hides many of the advances features.

Basically stuff that used to take like 2 clicks now takes 5, its memory hungry, eats HDD space, never seems to stop reading the HDD... is buggy, slow (using it on a "vista capable" laptop, which means barely capable!)...etc etc...

Boy MS really messed this one up, its taken me like a week to disable half the stuff, loads of stupid services and get it the way I want it.

I really do hope they dont mess up seven.... but they probably will, afterall, this is MS!

Robin

 

[Tornado]

Good example is the display setting which all used to be on one nice window with various tabs... but no MS splits it all up and hides many of the advances features.

?

eats HDD space

There's your problem.

is buggy, slow (using it on a "vista capable" laptop, which means barely capable!)...etc etc...

Mine is "Vista Capable" and I have no problems. Though I recognize that the "Vista Capable" PR was mostly a sham.

 

[emad]

Vista Capable is the #1 reason the OS is getting such a bat rep. When the OS came out, you needed an upper mid-range PC to make use of it. Hardware vendors were and still are distributing the lowest end pieces of junk with Vista, knowing full well that they are meeting the bare bones minimum requirements. Even the mid-range ones are still going barebones on one or two key hardware components (ie, video card), making the overall experience suffer.

Shame on MS for allowing such poor quality components to be put onto a "Vista Capable" machine.

 

[Robin]

?

See, they have removed all the tabs... they are all on separate windows now... and this is the same for many other settings, what a stupid idea! A don't get me started on what they have done to disk defragmenter!

There's your problem.

Yeah, Ive just managed to sort that out... Damn vista doubles like the HDD spaced used everyday by making copies... not good on a laptop! Disable!

Mine is "Vista Capable" and I have no problems. Though I recognize that the "Vista Capable" PR was mostly a sham.

Try running it on a Celeron M, integrated graphics with like 1G or RAM and then you will see the problem!

As for a PR scam, it was the biggest scam of them all! MS got sued over it for misleading customers... Vista Basic is not Vista, MS!!!!

Vista Capable is the #1 reason the OS is getting such a bat rep. When the OS came out, you needed an upper mid-range PC to make use of it. Hardware vendors were and still are distributing the lowest end pieces of junk with Vista, knowing full well that they are meeting the bare bones minimum requirements. Even the mid-range ones are still going barebones on one or two key hardware components (ie, video card), making the overall experience suffer.

Shame on MS for allowing such poor quality components to be put onto a "Vista Capable" machine.

Well shame on MS wanting to make more money and put Vista on everything out there available regardless oF whether it would actually run properly or not!

Robin

 

[emad]

Well shame on MS wanting to make more money and put Vista on everything out there available regardless oF whether it would actually run properly or not!

Robin

Microsoft isn't alone there. Rest assured, the hardware vendors also have some say in it. After all, what better way to push a $300 desktop than to through the latest and greatest software onto it considering that it costs the vendor the same to sell vista or xp licenses.

Dell was one of the first to learn from this and push MS to keep providing XP licenses for OEM distribution...

 

[Tornado]

Isn't that what Intel is currently in court for?

 

[wrcsti]

My view on vista. Depends on your pc. My moms vaio is crap with vista. Looks great but its 4-10min start up time. Freezes 60% of the time and doesnt allow most of our old printers to run. Now my grandpas pc with vista is AWSOME! Super fast, great looks, no slowing down at all, faster than my xp with vista inspirat(vista theme for xp).

 

[ExigeEvan]

Sony Vaio
2.1Ghz dual core
3GB RAM
GeForce 8400M GPU

I have no quarms with Vista except it thwarted a few of my attempts at retro gaming. Not purely it's fault, I just wasn't capable of getting them running with the right info in place.

I find it works fine, is stable (More than our XP machine, that was better than our Me machine) and functional. I don't see what the big fuss was, for or against.

Now lets discuss Window Me when talking about pathetic operating systems.

 

[nick09]

I don't like the jump in minimal requirements. It used to be 128MB of RAM in XP and in Vista its 512MB of RAM that is only needed. The users who are gonna hate this are gamers and heavy computer users with photoshop or an another heavy resource program.

 

[TB]

I don't like the jump in minimal requirements. It used to be 128MB of RAM in XP and in Vista its 512MB of RAM that is only needed.

When XP came out, 128MB of RAM was expensive. Now, 512 can be had for peanuts. Hell, 2GB DDR2 clocks in at $50.

The users who are gonna hate this are gamers and heavy computer users with photoshop or an another heavy resource program.

See above. People who need extra RAM can max a machines RAM for $200. After spending what most do on a rig, adding RAM is nothing.

 

[Sniffs]

I had the same problems with XP group when it came out. I was used to the 9X group and it's settings.

My view on vista. Depends on your pc. My moms vaio is crap with vista. Looks great but its 4-10min start up time. Freezes 60% of the time and doesnt allow most of our old printers to run. Now my grandpas pc with vista is AWSOME! Super fast, great looks, no slowing down at all, faster than my xp with vista inspirat(vista theme for xp).

there it is. vista works just fine for comps actually built for it, but not as a retrofit. some of use older comps. (i have a still working tower designed around the 9x family that I'd like to do my art programs on)

Besides a few programs not wanting to cooperate (AutoCAD 2002, which ended up not being an issue as I now have AutoCAD 2008 and Revit 2008 MEP (soon to be 2009) installed) and a registry problem with Paint Shop Pro, Vista has been just fine here, as well.

For the record - C2D T7200 + 1 Gig of RAM + 128 meg ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 video card = Vista Experience Index of 4.0. Not screaming by any means, but suits me just fine.

DO WANT!
sorry...I haven't played with AutoCAD since I was in high-chool/tech school. I took third 2 years in a row at the VICA competitions. we were trained on a pre-windows CAD 10. however, the monsterous 900 buck licence cost is off-putting.

 

[Tornado]

See above. People who need extra RAM can max a machines RAM for $200. After spending what most do on a rig, adding RAM is nothing.

Especially when most of the time the lack of RAM is the problem.

 

[Wolfe]

I don't understand how anyone could defend Vista's resource usage. The UI is still barely more complex than Windows 95; it just has a little antialiasing here, some shiny buttons there, and a few frilly flip-around windows. Then, of course, there are the system processes, caching of files and memory, and whatever programs the user happens to be running; the core of an OS. Beyond that lies the sea of wholly unnecessary system and security services Microsoft started cramming in since XP.

Okay, so ignoring the GUI for a moment, you've got those system services, which may indeed help protect the computer illiterate from themselves and others. That's fine. But how does the OS perform after you've turned all of that nonsense off (if you can find all of it, as Robin was complaining)? What about if you turn off all of the new special graphical effects?

Assuming you're using an identical machine, if Vista is still noticably slower than XP by this point (and I suspect it is), how could anyone consider the new OS an upgrade? And why would you insist a computer upgrade is the sensible solution?

If we allow software to continue to bloat and grow, we'll have to keep spending more money just to run them at the same level of performance, much less faster. From my perspective, it's all a dumb, circular race to see who can put together the chunkiest programming and the most extravagant hardware, and we consumers are the losers.

Nearly everyone has heard of the acronym KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. Apparently, Microsoft hasn't. And while upgrading your computer to meet the needs of a new OS may seem sensible enough on the surface, buying an upgrade you wouldn't otherwise want or need because of your OS developer's incompetence seems pretty foolish to me. I personally believe in upgrading your OS to match your hardware/personal software needs, not the other way around. In my case, I would still be using 98, but my current PC has more RAM than it could recognize. Thus, XP it is.

Anyway, all of the above is before you get to "features" that don't use a lot of resources (or so I would hope), but insult the intelligence of anyone who's used a computer for at least a year...

You know that annoying dialog box that pops up every time Vista needs permission to run a program? Is it possible to have that box only pop up when a never-been-run-before program is started, but then once I approve it, have it permanently approved and never have that stupid box pop up again for that program? (That’s how it works in OS X.) That’s the one thing that most drives me insane about Vista.

No, I don't think it is possible to do that.

...until things like this can be disabled and/or unless the next Windows OS is more practical, there's a literal 0.00% chance of me upgrading to another Microsoft OS at any point in the future.

When XP becomes too ancient to run any contemporary programs, I may very well be a Linux man.

 

[emad]

I honestly can't see how anyone could defend Vista's system resource usage. The user interface is still barely any more complex than in Windows 95; it just has a little antialiasing here, some shiny buttons there, and a few frilly flip-around windows. So if the GUI isn't so crazy, what else is there? Well, necessary system processes, of course, caching of files and memory, and whatever programs the user happens to be running. In other words, the core of an OS. Beyond that lies the sea of wholly unnecessary system and security services Microsoft started cramming in since XP.

One could say the same about OSX. Try running OSX on older hardware. It'll run slow as a pig. Same reason. Newer OSes almost always use more resources than the previous ones. The trick is to utilize those used resources better with current hardware. Vista and Leopard both do an excellent job at it. Linux will run on older hardware. But have fun running a quality GUI like KDE or Gnome. Those are massively piggish on resources and space required.

Okay, so ignoring the graphics of the interface for a moment, you've got those system services, which may very well help protect the computer illiterate from others and from themselves. That's fine. But how does the OS perform after you've turned all of that nonsense off (if you can find all of it, as Robin was complaining)? What about if you turn off all of the new special graphical effects?

Turning off the special graphics doesn't improve performance on my end. Not by more than 1 or 2 fps in games. After all, how can it? Aero runs entirely off my GPU since I bought a DX10 card. Background Services are in their own little control panel menu and are accessed the same as in XP. They can be disabled at will. There are guides available that outline what services can safely be disabled.

Assuming you're using an identical machine, if Vista is still noticably slower than XP by this point (and I suspect it is), how could anyone consider the new OS an upgrade? And why would you insist a computer upgrade is the sensible solution?

Nope. Vista runs just as well. Slightly faster since - my build was Vista optimised. My old PC - XP wins, hands down. A good vista optimized PC can be had from Dell for around $700. Anything cheaper will barely run XP effectively anyways. Its all in the specs. Don't do something silly like get an Intel GMA graphics card.

If we allow software to continue to bloat and grow, we'll have to keep spending more and more money just to run them at the same quality of performance, much less faster. From my perspective, it's all a stupid, circular race to see who can put together the chunkiest programming and the most extravagant hardware, and we consumers are the losers.

Software will ALWAYS grow. It will never shrink. I remember back when Adobe Photoshop used to be only a 50mb install. It is now about 1gb. Windows 95 was only 100mb at most. It was also a godawful OS with glaring instability issues. XP installs in 2gb once you run updates. Vista isn't that much bigger - probably 3-4gb out of 650 on my hard disk. The times are changing. Get with it.

Nearly everyone has heard of the acronym KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. Apparently, Microsoft hasn't. And while upgrading your computer to meet the needs of a new OS may seem sensible enough on the surface, buying an upgrade you wouldn't otherwise want or need because of your OS developer's incompetence seems pretty foolish to me.

Why upgrade from XP when it runs fine? The choice to upgrade is strictly in the consumer's hands. I didn't HAVE to go from OS Panther to Leopard. I chose to go out and upgrade my macbook. Apple still supports Panther. I got the upgrade because I felt like it. And because I know my hardware supports it. Also, because Apple upgrades are released once every 1-1.5 years compared to MS running one OS for over 7 years and allowing it time to mature.

...until things like this can be disabled and/or unless the next Windows OS is more practical, there's a literal 0.00% chance of me upgrading to another Microsoft OS at any point in the future.

Just a few clicks to get rid of that nag screen.


At the end of the day. Either a) stop complaining, or b) get a mac or linux. Vista is here to stay for at least another 3-5 years. Windows 7 is still in pre-alpha stages. Don't expect anything there for quite a while to come.

 

[Wolfe]

You caught me before I could tweak my post.

One could say the same about OSX...

I do know of that problem with OS X, and between that and the Leopard-specific problems I've run into (my laptop came with Leopard, so I can only learn about Panther's advantages via tech help pages), I wouldn't go out of my way to praise OS X, particularly this version. However, Apple's simplistic, "want to upgrade? Buy a new computer" business model renders that argument kinda pointless. And I don't necessarily agree with that business model, either.

If the legacy versions of MacOS were as good as OS X (or even 98/XP) and I had an older Mac, I would just keep MacOS, like I am now with XP and as I did with 98. Of course, MacOS kinda sucked (damn bombs...). I'm afraid there's not much to say other than people who bought Macs before OS X might not have made the best decision.

The trick is to utilize those used resources better with current hardware. Vista and Leopard both do an excellent job at it. Linux will run on older hardware. But have fun running a quality GUI like KDE or Gnome.

If you couldn't tell, I don't necessarily equate a quality GUI with a quality OS. For me, a quality OS' first priority is to do everything it absolutely needs to do using as little of your system resources as possible. The second priority is to make file/directory/window browsing as quick as possible. After that, it can offer the other, nifty features that you're talking about when you say "quality GUI," but it must also offer the ability to turn off all of them. Windows 98 was phenomenal at this, and XP is the only other OS I've tried that's anything like it. I still get impatient waiting for the My Computer window to open. I need an OS that can keep up with my mouse.

Yes, Vista and Leopard work well on current hardware. Why wouldn't they? The only other possibility would be Microsoft/Apple overshooting current hardware limitations, or hardware manufacturers falling short of Microsoft's/Apple's requirements, depending on how you want to look at it.

If you define a quality OS as a spiffy GUI that chugs along "adequately" with brand-new hardware, that's your opinion. I just put more stock in efficiency, I guess. I don't expect an Apple II to be able to run Leopard, but I would like to see maybe a 10-year-old Mac run it in simplified form, and run it well.

Software will ALWAYS grow. It will never shrink.

Actually, I know of one company that was brilliant enough to make a U-turn and do exactly what I'm calling for. Consider the transition from Netscape/Mozilla to Firefox.

Microsoft needs to "pull a Firefox" with Windows 7.

Just a few clicks to get rid of that nag screen.

Then Eric. is wrong? My Vista-laptop-owning friend would love to know how to disable it.

 

[emad]

Actually, I know of one company that was brilliant enough to make a U-turn and do exactly what I'm calling for. Consider the transition from Netscape/Mozilla to Firefox.

Firefox started as a branch of the Mozilla browser and evolved over a period of over 5 years. It wasn't until recently that the Mozilla Foundation decided to pull the plug on the Mozilla browser. Firefox has also grown. When the browser was in its 1.0 state, we were looking at 1.5mb downloads. Its much bigger than that now.

Then Eric. is wrong? My Vista-laptop-owning friend would love to know how to disable it.

Control Panel > User Accounts > Turn User Account Control on or off. You want that to be turned off.

 

[Casio]

If you couldn't tell, I don't necessarily equate a quality GUI with a quality OS. For me, a quality OS' first priority is to do everything it absolutely needs to do using as little of your system resources as possible. The second priority is to make file/directory/window browsing as quick as possible. After that, it can offer the other, nifty features that you're talking about when you say "quality GUI," but it must also offer the ability to turn off all of them. Windows 98 was phenomenal at this, and XP is the only other OS I've tried that's anything like it. I still get impatient waiting for the My Computer window to open. I need an OS that can keep up with my mouse.

You can customise the Vista GUI quickly to look pretty much identical to the Windows XP GUI in appearence though. You can even go back to the, what I think now is horrible, XP style start menu.

As with any Windows, if you load your system up with crap then your system will run slow. My brothers XP system takes about 15 minutes to boot up on relatively new hardware because of all the junk he has on it. I have run Vista on my laptop with 1GB of RAM for almost 18 months now, and have not had any problems with it being slow or not being able to keep up. Never had it seriously crash or BSOD. Never had any programs fail to work either cause I don't use programs designed for ARPANET.

Going back to January 2007, I was running the Beta and RC versions of Vista on my old XP machine that only had 512MB of RAM and it worked perfectly and quite quickly, with Aero and all visual options enabled. I find a lot of people have problems with Vista because the first experience they had with it was with a new computer or laptop with Vista Pre-installed, with was just filled with bloatware, and also that terrible UAC which emad describes.

Personally, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that XP does better or easier than Vista. Working in IT Support, I see about 50+ different PCs a day and I can honestly say that I find the Vista machines a heap faster and quicker to work on. Also looking at the crap people have on their PCs, Vista seems better at managing slow-down from all the crap people load onto it too.