Printable View
Alright, I gave Vista two months to prove to me that is was better than XP. It failed none of my applications work the same as they did under XP (VB6, Vonage V-Phone, etc.) So until Vista improves it's ability to work with applications written for XP, I am switching back to good old reliable Win XP SP2.
Tell us something we didn't already know.
Oh, and on a more amusing note... from what i've read, XP SP3 runs faster than Vista SP1. Pretty sure I have no motivation to "upgrade" to Vista.
I've been using Vista 64-bit for about 9 months or so. Zero issues. In fact, it works much better than XP ever did and to top it all off, I haven't had an issue with any pieces of software other than iTunes (you know, before they "put in" support for 64-bit. I just think they suck at making Windows applications) which works fine with the latest version.
I think it's a problem between the keyboard and the chair.
I wouldn't upgrade existing hardware to Vista.
Anything new would I would run it though.
I also have had no issues running x86 versions of Vista on both my HP laptop and a custom quad core here in the office. When Vista is run on optimal hardware (which will be considered old hardware in a few months time) it runs just as fast as XP
SP1 was a great improvement too. I don't know how many devices I have plugged into Vista and XP, only to have Vista recognize and install the drivers for it in 5 seconds, and XP just giving me the "found new hardware wizard" and then wanting a driver disk. Vista has something like 2x the number of drivers that XP had out the door.
Even when I formatted a computer here and put Vista on it, Vista was able to identify all the devices there were no drivers for, and tell me what the devices were, and give me the websites of the mfgrs where I could download drivers. In XP all you get are those fun ? in the device manager and you have to go looking up mobo specs and the like to find out what drivers you need to go find...
Why does everybody fail to mention Microsoft Update for drivers? It hasn't failed to get everything I need yet.
Hillary Clinton uses Vista Ultimate.
No she uses Vista LewinskyQuote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
I have been running Vista for 16 months with no crashes and no problems.
Why is it that everyone wants to stay in the past. We dont say "Oh but XP doesnt run all my DOS 6.22 apps. So XP sucks!"
No ts, you keep thinking that you know. You dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
Those that can not read and learn how to program for Vista always bash Vista instead of learning how to accomodate for changes.
Similarily....
"Oh I dont know how to use .NET so it must suck!" Oh please!!!
What really sucks is most of the "problems" people run into when trying to get their applications working under Vista are relating to abusing the admin account. Many things people do in Windows XP should not be done. Thankfully Vista stops those bad habbits cold and hard :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Yup, but people just cant seem to understand or break those bad habbits. They like to blam it on Vista instead of themselves :D
Vista costs money.
Money you could otherwise be spending on quad cores :D
Well, infairness we have two machines in work with Vista on and we've had a number of problems with both of them.
1) An HP laptop with built in webcam refuses to recognise the webcam (despite the fact it came with Vista installed). Apparently this is not an uncommon complaint (look for "hp webcam vista"). We've uninstalled drivers etc. But to no avail, it just doesn't work with vista (and yes the laptop has a little Vista sticker on it).
2) The other laptop refuse to remember passwords for our sharepoint accounts despite ticking the little "remember password box". And yes, we've added it to the trusted sites etc. Apparently it will be fixed in SP1!
3) It keeps asking if you really want to do this etc.
4) The "all programs" menu is now restricted to a tiny portion of the screen, so now you have to scroll through it. Fine with a mouse, but not so fine with the little notepad touchpad thingy.
A mulititude of other little things meant to hold our hands, but really just tick me off. And don't even get me started on file copy...... :)
Our two Vista users are very tech savy, and I've had a go with the problems a number of times and still no joy.
Don't get me wrong, we have also had problems with XP machines in the same time frame, and a lot of it comes down to it being different. But the first two points are serious flaws, and cannot be brushed away by the comments on here of "well I've not had any problems, therefore anyone who complains is doing it wrong." :) Trust me you guys got lucky.
I think it will be inevitable that we all move to Vista, but I am not prepared to make my company take the plunge just yet. All of our machines are quite capable of running Vista (they are all very high end machines), but I don't really see any benefits that Vista brings to the table.
wouldnt HP be to blame in this case? I dont like HP, from personal experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Personally I think the new startmenu is a relief, whereas the XP one could grow very large, covering the entire screen easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
From what I've seen on the internet, as soon as a guy going from XP to Vista finds that something isnt done the same as it was in XP, and cant be arsed figuring out how its done in Vista, he bashes Vista as if there was no tomorrow. I'm not saying that you (SurfDemon) are doing this, but most people are.
I am not talking about apps that I have written, I am talking about commercially available applications such as te Vonage V Phone. I rely on this while I am on the road and it doesn't work under Vista. I plug it into my xp machine and it works fine. I need an os that will run all of my apps all the time without gerrymandering them. I am frustrated becaus eI spend all morning with some idiot from Vonage who barely knew how to turn on a machine but she sure could read from that script like a trained monkey.
Vista doesn't know what a "network" is. Maybe you need a service pack to handle all this new fangled interwebby thing.
#1 - HPs fault, not Vista's.
#2 - Bug and as you state its appearantly fixed in SP-1.
#3 - Just turn off the UAC. Its simple. User Accounts in the Control Panel.
#4 - In this case smaller really IS better :lol: Laptop touch pads are gay anyways. Get a laptop mouse.
#5 - FileCopy has improved performance in SP-1
#6 - Vonage's issues and they need to have tech support that is not almost 2 years behind the times. Were they at least able to speak English?
#7 - At least your using Vista :)
Ah yes now that you mention it Rob, I havent had a single slow "file copy" since SP1. Great fix, it could get a bit annoying.
Yup.
Ok, bring on the next so called "problem" with Vista! :D
You don't scroll. You press the Win key and type the first few characters of the application name.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
I had a customer come in the other day with his brand new laptop with the following specs (I did snoop a bit :) )
duel core duo 2 - 2.2ghz
3 gig ram
500MB hard drive
and when I doubled clicked on windows explorer it took (no joke) 8 seconds to open .... what the? :confused:
On my dinosaur of a XP machine (P4, 2ghz, 1gig ram) windows explorer opens in less than a second. The same delay also occured with other things such as Control Panel, viewing networked machines etc....
I'll be sticking with XP for a long while yet!
Then he obviously most have had something else going on with his PC. You seriously cant belive that its an ordinary thing for explorer to take 8 seconds to load on Vista?Quote:
Originally Posted by lintz
From all the Vista machines I've seen Windows Explorer takes for ages to open (compared to XP).Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
Rob,
Are you using Vista Ultimate Edition on all your machine?
Greg
Well, to be quite honest, if my XP machine had a 500MB HDD, then it'll probably take 20 minutes, let alone 8 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by lintz
500MB? Damn! :eek:
:D
And my input in this thread would be: I don't have a problem with Vista except for my wallet. If I could afford a legal copy, I would've had one by now. :(
Mine is instant, literally. My XP machine is far slower, but that's a hardware limitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by lintz
I hope that's a typo, too. 500 MB is not very much hard disk space. :)
The issue with laptops is that they usually come with pre-loaded crap courtesy of the manufacturer.
Oops, should have been 500GB :o
:D Well, my laptop at work is like that. It has XPSP2 (same as I have at home) and it's a monster:
Centrino Duo 2GHz
2GB Ram
ATI X1650
Where at home I have:
Celeron D 2.4GHz
1GB Ram
And the laptop at work is pathetic. You really wait a while for ANYTHING to work, even opening notepad!
Yes, I run the Ultimate version.Quote:
Originally Posted by KGComputers
It takes mine ~0.25 second to open AND display explorer. :p
I have VS6, VSTS .NET 2005 and VSTS .NET 2008 all installed as well as all the MSDN versions, almost 60 Gigs of programs and data and its superfast. Beats XP hands down and kicks its arse. :D
Robdog, are you running a laptop or desktop? What are your specs?
Desktop. Basic specs in my sig. and also not shown... 2 150 GB WD Raptor 10,000RPM drives in a RAID 1 mirror
Have vista premium on my self build, vista basic on laptop A and vista premium on laptop B. And they are all much better than xp. Any software issues ive had where with really old software. Anything recent just ran.
Anyway i hated xp's "Plastic" look. I much prefer vistas file system also!
Also, ive heard numerous people (acutally a hell of a lot). Complaining about there old machines blue screening and not installing large programs when they upgraded to vista.
This is NOT a vista issue, its a ram issue. Basicly vista does not use ram sequntually. This means that it tends to come across bad portions of ram very quickly. Ive had three people i know run memtest on their ram. And what do you know after a full test 2 had fault ram and one had a faulty mobo. XP did not catch these due to the way it read the ram.
After they installed the new parts they had no more issues
Not another anti-vista rant.. seriously.. go smoke some vista packaging or something..
Anti-vista rants are more than allowed in this place. Back to work. :mad:
Hark! Art thou yet virtuous? Be there no more cakes and ale? Go now, and rub thy chain with crumbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
All I have is Gatorade, so it'll have to do.
Er, about the HP camera not working, I don't care whether it's HP's or Microsofts fault, that doesn't make any difference to the end user. The bottom line is that it doesn't work under Vista.
As for the fixes under SP1, yes, that may sort everything out, but it's only just been released under MSDN and hasn't been released to the gen. public as far as I'm aware. If it fixes everything, then great (apart from the crappy little menu thing and all the hand holding), but as it stands I see no reason to inflict it upon my users.
Now, if SP1 does fix my major concerns, then I will be happy to buy Vista with any new machines I buy, but I see absolutely no reason to upgrade the existing machines from XP to Vista. Can anyone give me some? (This is not a rehtorical question - I really want to know if there are any good reasons I should consider it).
This is in contrast to XP's release, which was a no brainer of a choice to upgrade compared to NT and ME.