Why is Vista so terrible?

[Onyx Oblivion]

Because Vista HATES games, deliberately nags your ass off about changes it makes to itself(!), deprives you of the ware freedom XP has (sounds and recording for one thing) and the system requirements are just unfair.

And let's not forget some games only run on Vista in a RETARDED attempt at phasing out XP just to promote Vista.

How does it hate games, exactly? It can't run some older ones, as evidenced above, but that is no reason to hate the newer version. You don't hate the Gamecube for being unable to play N64 games, do you?

That is just the WORST argument ever. The GameCube doesn't support cartridges, idiot. And the fact Vista doesn't play older games is a completely valid reason to hate it because it deliberately crashes or BSoD's on them for no reason.

Yeah, it was, but I couldn't think of anything at the time. But the newer PS3s don't support PS2 games, so pretend I said that.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

because handling files on it is a *****.

SP1 fixed that. The performance on it was a *****.

 

[XJ-0461]

I think people hate it because of the changed layout in some applications. When I got it about a year and a half ago, I didn't know where all the different buttons are. However, after a month or two I got used to it and it's given me no problems since.

 

[oktalist]

It's incredibly inefficient, poorly coded

Yes.

still runs on top of DOS

No.

the networking absolutely fails

Yes.

still prefers to use FAT

No.

incredibly inaccessible

Mostly agree.

compatibility goes down with every release of Windows

Yes.

places security in the hands of the user (which can still be easily beaten)

Better than XP in this respect.

is a massive resource hog

Mostly agree.

unstable

Yes.

Essentially, when presented with an opportunity to fix everything (releasing a new OS is usually the time to fix any major flaws in your previous design), Microsoft instead decides to take everything that is good about the OS and either overdo it to the point of futility, or remove it.

Yes.

 

[Arehexes]

I love how some of you say vista haters don't know how to work computers. I don't like it, and I think I'm pretty good at computers. It's slow, it has issues with compatibility, when it first came out it had nasty bugs, it worries me that windows 7 is coming out so soon cause of how bad vista is, you have to say your a admin for different programs when you have different errors. Not all people who don't care for vista don't know how to use comps, I know a lot of Computer science students who don't care for it and try to stay with XP. I rather stay with Ubuntu (I will never go to a Mac) and windows XP.

 

[InsanityWave]

Im using it and its working prefectly much better than my old computer although i have 2000mb of RAM which may have something to do with it XD

 

[Inarticulate_Underachiever]

Because it's not linux

 

[oktalist]

I'm sure you've actually spent more than 1000 work hours testing it (like I have)

Anecdotal.

and determining that errors you encounter are in fact due to Microsoft's inepitude, and not to vagaries of user hardware variations and/or configuration.

If it works in XP and not in Vista, it is Microsoft's ineptitude (or arrogance, laziness).

The really sad part is that so many of you wish to think of yourselves as "free thinkers" and "individualists", but the truth is that, rather than thinking for yourselves, you have simply chosen to ally yourself with the perceived 'underdog' or counter-culture element. The Linux community hates all things Microsoft, and 'Linux R gud', so you're going to listen to them. That is actually beyond sad, but I don't suppose we can help it: there are always going to be people who seem to think that promoting the minority opinion gives them some sort of cache as being 'edgy' or 'thoughtful'.

"I take offence, sir."
"Well, offence was meant, sir, so you take it rightly."

Like I said, I've been using Windows since 3.1, and Linux for 10 years. Since Vista I have lost all hope for Windows, but I'll be happy to switch back to Windows when it goes open source, which it will need to do if it wants to survive another decade. Because IMO that's the only way to have a secure and stable OS.

I use Linux exclusively now, out of a desire to avoid brain damage, and because it allows me to work more efficiently. If the free OS works better than the one that costs $$$, then MS is doing it wrong. I wouldn't be so pissed off if it was free to download. But the Linux community does not hate Microsoft. A serious proportion of them happily use Windows all day without complaint, and in fact are quite enamoured to it.

It makes me think back to the guys I saw when I was in school, who had dropped out of college, wore all black, hung out in the coffee shop all day, and stank of B.O. and patchuli.

It makes me think back to this one kid at school who I'm sure used to wank off over pictures of Bill Gates 'cause he loved Windows so much

It is my fervent hope that all of you WAKE THE FUCK UP and realize that your one experience on one set of hardware does not, in fact, give you the right to claim to be an authority and condemn something as being worthless.

My one experience, and his one experience, and his one experience, and her one experience, and his one experience... after a while they start to add up.

 

[jockslap]

V= vista
Y=you

V: Do you want to download the file?

Y:yes

V: are you sure?

Y:yes

V:would you like to open the file?

Y:yes...

V:would you like to allow the file?

Y:yes

V:are you sure?

Y: *throws computer out the window*

 

[sneak_copter]

Well, I upgraded straight from XP to Vista, and the only thing I don't like is that XP (for me) ran DOS programs perfectly, without an emulator and with no modifications at all.
Vista apparently is to "cool" and "hip" to support DOS programs, so *sniff* no more DOOM.

 

[jockslap]

I'm sure you've actually spent more than 1000 work hours testing it (like I have)

Anecdotal.

and determining that errors you encounter are in fact due to Microsoft's inepitude, and not to vagaries of user hardware variations and/or configuration.

If it works in XP and not in Vista, it is Microsoft's ineptitude (or arrogance, laziness).

The really sad part is that so many of you wish to think of yourselves as "free thinkers" and "individualists", but the truth is that, rather than thinking for yourselves, you have simply chosen to ally yourself with the perceived 'underdog' or counter-culture element. The Linux community hates all things Microsoft, and 'Linux R gud', so you're going to listen to them. That is actually beyond sad, but I don't suppose we can help it: there are always going to be people who seem to think that promoting the minority opinion gives them some sort of cache as being 'edgy' or 'thoughtful'.

"I take offence, sir."
"Well, offence was meant, sir, so you take it rightly."

Like I said, I've been using Windows since 3.1, and Linux for 10 years. Since Vista I have lost all hope for Windows, but I'll be happy to switch back to Windows when it goes open source, which it will need to do if it wants to survive another decade. Because IMO that's the only way to have a secure and stable OS.

I use Linux exclusively now, out of a desire to avoid brain damage, and because it allows me to work more efficiently. If the free OS works better than the one that costs $$$, then MS is doing it wrong. I wouldn't be so pissed off if it was free to download. But the Linux community does not hate Microsoft. A serious proportion of them happily use Windows all day without complaint, and in fact are quite enamoured to it.

It makes me think back to the guys I saw when I was in school, who had dropped out of college, wore all black, hung out in the coffee shop all day, and stank of B.O. and patchuli.

It makes me think back to this one kid at school who I'm sure used to wank off over pictures of Bill Gates 'cause he loved Windows so much

It is my fervent hope that all of you WAKE THE FUCK UP and realize that your one experience on one set of hardware does not, in fact, give you the right to claim to be an authority and condemn something as being worthless.

My one experience, and his one experience, and his one experience, and her one experience, and his one experience... after a while they start to add up.

Thats alot of nerd rage to contain in one post (not just u oktastitic, in fact hardly you at all

 

[oktalist]

Thats alot of nerd rage to contain in one post (not just u oktastitic, in fact hardly you at all

It is my policy to fight fire with fire. And it was as a result of this that I was fired from my post at the London Fire Brigade.

 

[jockslap]

Thats alot of nerd rage to contain in one post (not just u oktastitic, in fact hardly you at all

It is my policy to fight fire with fire. And it was as a result of this that I was fired from my post at the London Fire Brigade.

that was witty and made me smile, thanks

 

[Rusty Bucket]

P.E.B.C.A.C.

Either that or an ID.10.T error.

 

[Lucia di Lammermore]

I haven't really noticed any problems, I don't play any games with it though.

Now, the new MS office, on the other hand, is extremely annoying. I blame the new "ribbon" interface.

 

[Iampringles]

It isn't terrible.

Impractical at times, yes, but not terrible.

There will always be haters of pretty much everything on this planet.

 

[kolompi]

Nothing is wrong with Vista, it just runs fine and stable. And its actually faster than XP in everyday work/game.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I'm glad to know that many people seem to agree that its not terrible.

 

[CAPPINJACK]

Lets see it steals a gig of ram, you need to give it permission to do basically anything and so many little things I have to configure or run in admin mode to get working. Just a pain in the ass really. It also gave me some error in an auto update that ended up frying my video card.

Wow. You're just stupid aren't you?

1. The "stealing" of RAM is usually Superfetch caching your more frequently used programs. What's the point of having tons of RAM if it's not being used? Any other additional memory usage is par for the course. Windows has always required more RAM on subsequent versions. I used to have difficulty running Windows 2000 efficiently in 128MB of RAM, 98 ran great with that, so clearly 2000 was shit right? Of course it wasn't, 2000 was one of the best operating systems Microsoft ever released and many people (who are infinitely more qualified to comment on this than you) in the technology sector will agree with me on that. Regardless, if you can't afford another gig or 2 of RAM, then you've got bigger issues to deal with.

2. The UAC. It is overzealous no doubt about it. But given that other people use my computer in my house I'm glad it's overprotective. It's kept a lot of bad things out and as such I'm quite willing to trade a little convenience for additional security. Let's face it: The more roadblocks you throw up to keep the bad guys out, the less convenient it is for the person who's got access. But if you're really retarded (as you appear to be) you can disable UAC and it'll act like XP. In fact a little google on the subject will yield a ton of info about how to do this.

3. The temperature dropped 2 degrees today and my dog died. So clearly the temperature dropping is a major cause of death for dogs. Specious reasoning like this is just incredibly stupid. My video card fried a month after installing vista. Did I blame Vista? Fuck no, I blamed my fan on my card which stopped working and overheated it. Now, if this were due to the drivers (and I could prove it), I still wouldn't be stupid enough to blame the Operating System. After all Microsoft does not write the drivers for the various video cards.

I hope you've been somewhat educated by this. But you're just more likely going to be another drooling mouthbreather who is incapable of any critical thinking. I am totally fucking sick of seeing idiots like you spew your bullshit.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

I use it, and its just...awkward. You don't notice it until you go back to xp or another OS.
It just really doesn't like basic operations.