I do not understand the negatives for Vista .. new computer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Telstar
  • Start date Start date
T

Telstar

I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.

I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.

What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff does
not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.

Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).

I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).

That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
fact.
 
PS

The computer was designed for Vista, by the way. That is the key. I would
never try to retrofit or use it with less than what I got: 2.1 Ghz Dual
Core, ATI graphics, 3 gigs RAM, etc. This machine loads as fast or faster
than XP, and with all the Aero bells and whistles on multitasks with ease
and fluidly.
 
What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
XP.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. There are some really rather impressive technical
changes under the hood. The user interface is better than XP's in most
respects, although some change-for-the-sake-of-change did creep in, and a
number of people dislike the poor contrast for highlighted items.

It is even more stable than XP. The only way to crash Vista is to use bad
hardware or bad drivers.

I haven't noticed much difference in performance, although the benchmarks
clearly show that Vista is a bit slower than XP (XP was slower than W2K -
and so it goes).

Having got XP and Vista machines in daily use, I wouldn't consider
downgrading my Vista machine back to XP.

SteveT
 
Telstar said:
I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.

I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.

What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
does not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with
XP.

Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).

I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).

That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
fact.
Click to expand...
No beef here! Recently had to update from an old XP (but kept up to date)
laptop, and the new Vista one is great; it plays nicely with the Vista
desktop I got in April. Both Home Premium, and matched for using graphics
but not games (laptop rating 3.1, desktop 3) and with SP1. And, as you
mentioned in your PS, bought with Vista installed. I was going to get my old
XP box fixed but now don't think I'll bother; will just donate it or recycle
it.
 
LesleyO said:
No beef here! Recently had to update from an old XP (but kept up to date)
laptop, and the new Vista one is great; it plays nicely with the Vista
desktop I got in April. Both Home Premium, and matched for using graphics
but not games (laptop rating 3.1, desktop 3) and with SP1. And, as you
mentioned in your PS, bought with Vista installed. I was going to get my
old XP box fixed but now don't think I'll bother; will just donate it or
recycle it.
Click to expand...

I dual boot Vista on a couple systems, one a Q6600/4GB the other a 1.73Ghz
core 2/2GB.
XP runs faster on both.
I don't have problems with Vista, I just don't LIKE it.
 
Where to begin?

1.) Whats with the new My Documents? Why all these extra "My ......" such
as My Downloads? Its confusing! and more than a small pain when in the
corporate enviroment, more folder redirection to do, on folders we do not
want.

2.) The new Save/Open dialogue boxes, not as clear or quick to use as the XP
one.

3.) When deploying software with group policy on a Windows 2000 or Windows
XP it would say on boot "Installing Managed Software ... Office 2003 Pro" for
example. What does Vista do? "Please Wait....." hmmm, thats useful, now i
know whats going on!

4.) New logon screen (Domain CTRL+ALT+DEL one). Its slower to use. Say i
have a domain called ACCOUNTS, and a PC called PC1. On XP and 2000, NT 4, NT
3.51.... to logon as Administrator you just type Administrator in the
username box. Not in Vista it now takes longer because if you type
Administrator in the username box, it switches the "Logon To" to PC1 from
ACCOUNTS, so now i have to type ACCOUNTS\Administrator ... WHY O WHY!!!!
Bring back GINA!

5.) Navagating files and folders in Vista just seems to make my head hurt,
its cluttered with gunk, too many thumbnails now, and when you turn it off,
it turns it off for the 1 thing you do want it on for, Pictures!, add to the
fact that when it first came out simple things such as copying a file accross
a network did not work correctly, took 100x longer than it should......

6.) New start menu, why does the Programs menu expand within a box now
instead of outwards like it has always done since Windows 95? I now end up
scrolling up and down which takes longer. I know there is a search box, but 1
peice of software we have alone puts over 100 shortcuts on the start menu,
you try remembering the name of every peice of software you want, sometimes
you need it in front of you to remember the full name.

7.) New control panel, its just a MAZE. Do not need so many control panels,
and its gone to flashy, you have to wait for the icons to load in. Plus for
example Wireless Control panel was quick and easy to use in XP, under Vista
what took 1 or 2 clicks takes more, again its a maze and cannot do simple
things quickly its cluttered again. clutter clutter clutter!!!!!

i could go on and on and on and on, Microsoft have made Windows bulky,
cluttered, and slow to use. I'm all for change, but not just for the sake of
it, and thats what they have done with a lot of Vistas parts.
 
I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.

I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.

What's the beef?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask you're probably too dumb to understand the answer.
It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff does
not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.

Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in particular).

I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).

That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project) lead
me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
fact.
Click to expand...

Actually the negatives come from people using Vista and watching it
fall flat on it's face doing simple everyday tasks.

Like... Windows Explorer encountered an unexpected problem and needs
to close. The problem with Vista is the same problem Windows 1 had. It
doesn't work as advertised. Lurking deep inside Windows REGARDLESS of
version are coding mistake Microsoft has yet to address. Yes, I know
all software has bugs. What's so annoying with Windows is as each new
version is released the size of Windows grows and new bugs get added
to ones that were already there. The result is Windows gets more and
more bloated, bugs become more random and way more difficult to
isolate meaning they don't get fixed.

A lot of people simply have no idea how bad Microsoft is with fixing
KNOWN bugs. There bears repeating. KNOWN BUGS. For example when the
final version of Vista was released to beta testers it has a bug list
that numbered in the thousands. While most of those were fixed the
SHIPPED version still contained hundreds of known bugs.

I ask you, would you accept a car that GM knew had brake issues but
sold them anyway? Would you buy food from General Mills they knew was
tainted? Would you buy a big screen plasma TV that had several dozen
pixels that were dead?

No to all of the above?

Then why in the hell to people willing hand over their hard earned
money to Microsoft when they ship a product with hundreds of known
errors that will cause many customers issues?
 
I put my observations to your replies inline.. Most of your "negatives"
aren't really there in Vista.

----- Original Message -----
From: "D Lawton" <DLawton@discussions.microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: I do not understand the negatives for Vista .. new computer

Where to begin?

1.) Whats with the new My Documents? Why all these extra "My ......" such
as My Downloads? Its confusing! and more than a small pain when in the
corporate enviroment, more folder redirection to do, on folders we do not
want.
Click to expand...

Why not use a roaming profile? That's what my corporation does. The heavy
stuff stays on the system (/AppData/Local/), but everything else gets 2-way
synced with the server.
2.) The new Save/Open dialogue boxes, not as clear or quick to use as the
XP
one.
Click to expand...

I can't find a signficant difference except that you have to press "down" to
see the full list.
3.) When deploying software with group policy on a Windows 2000 or Windows
XP it would say on boot "Installing Managed Software ... Office 2003 Pro"
for
example. What does Vista do? "Please Wait....." hmmm, thats useful, now i
know whats going on!
True...


4.) New logon screen (Domain CTRL+ALT+DEL one). Its slower to use. Say i
have a domain called ACCOUNTS, and a PC called PC1. On XP and 2000, NT 4,
NT
3.51.... to logon as Administrator you just type Administrator in the
username box. Not in Vista it now takes longer because if you type
Administrator in the username box, it switches the "Logon To" to PC1 from
ACCOUNTS, so now i have to type ACCOUNTS\Administrator ... WHY O WHY!!!!
Bring back GINA!
Click to expand...

We use the standard Vista one here.. works great for the most part, though
it takes longer to login to a local account.
5.) Navagating files and folders in Vista just seems to make my head hurt,
its cluttered with gunk, too many thumbnails now, and when you turn it
off,
it turns it off for the 1 thing you do want it on for, Pictures!, add to
the
fact that when it first came out simple things such as copying a file
accross
a network did not work correctly, took 100x longer than it should......
Click to expand...

I think that's why they invented Windows Search. However, from expereicne,
its mostly similar to a hybrid of the way XP did it and the way every other
major desktop operating system does it.
6.) New start menu, why does the Programs menu expand within a box now
instead of outwards like it has always done since Windows 95? I now end up
scrolling up and down which takes longer. I know there is a search box,
but 1
peice of software we have alone puts over 100 shortcuts on the start menu,
you try remembering the name of every peice of software you want,
sometimes
you need it in front of you to remember the full name.
Click to expand...

Switch to the classic one. It's still there.
7.) New control panel, its just a MAZE. Do not need so many control
panels,
and its gone to flashy, you have to wait for the icons to load in. Plus
for
example Wireless Control panel was quick and easy to use in XP, under
Vista
what took 1 or 2 clicks takes more, again its a maze and cannot do simple
things quickly its cluttered again. clutter clutter clutter!!!!!
Click to expand...

Switch to the classic view. it's still there
i could go on and on and on and on, Microsoft have made Windows bulky,
cluttered, and slow to use. I'm all for change, but not just for the sake
of
it, and thats what they have done with a lot of Vistas parts.
Click to expand...

Actually.. on this machine, its more responsive than the XP that originally
shipped on it...

2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
2.0 GB RAM
500 GB Western Digital GreenPower drive
Geforce 7900 GS

Vista boot time to useable desktop: 2 minutes
XP boot time to useable desktop: 10 minutes

Vista time to open "Computer": instantly
XP time to open "My Computer": 2 minutes

Occurence of whole desktop freezing on Vista: never. Individual programs do
lock up still
Occurence of whole desktop freezing on XP: often. One program locks up, and
the rest seize up until that program is killed.
 
Justin said:
I put my observations to your replies inline.. Most of your "negatives"
aren't really there in Vista.

----- Original Message ----- From: "D Lawton"
<DLawton@discussions.microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: I do not understand the negatives for Vista .. new computer



Why not use a roaming profile? That's what my corporation does. The heavy
stuff stays on the system (/AppData/Local/), but everything else gets 2-way
synced with the server.


I can't find a signficant difference except that you have to press
"down" to
see the full list.


We use the standard Vista one here.. works great for the most part, though
it takes longer to login to a local account.


I think that's why they invented Windows Search. However, from expereicne,
its mostly similar to a hybrid of the way XP did it and the way every other
major desktop operating system does it.


Switch to the classic one. It's still there.


Switch to the classic view. it's still there


Actually.. on this machine, its more responsive than the XP that originally
shipped on it...

2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
2.0 GB RAM
500 GB Western Digital GreenPower drive
Geforce 7900 GS

Vista boot time to useable desktop: 2 minutes
XP boot time to useable desktop: 10 minutes

Vista time to open "Computer": instantly
XP time to open "My Computer": 2 minutes

Occurence of whole desktop freezing on Vista: never. Individual programs do
lock up still
Occurence of whole desktop freezing on XP: often. One program locks up, and
the rest seize up until that program is killed.
Click to expand...

Although I generally prefer Vista to XP, myself, it sounds like there
was something wrong with your XP installation to be so slow-responding
I have used MS and Apple OS since 1984.

I just bought a new laptop with Vista installed.

What's the beef? It multitasks with greater fluidity, the fancy stuff
does
not slow it down compared to a comparable machine (I have four) with XP.

Sure, you have to fool with software upgrades (multimedia in
particular).

I really think it is a modest step forward. The tablet and touch screen
capabilities are first rate (esp. in One Note).

That, with some interesting comparative analyses (the Mojave project)
lead
me to conclude that fully 75% of the negatives come from hype...not from
fact.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
 
sooner or
later you have to catch up with the Jones . This ( Vista ) platform is
here to stay .
Click to expand...


It's this sort of mentality that made me try Ubuntu

I do love Ubuntu.

fast, straight forward

compatible

& Free..

I don't think I'll EVER get a PC with Microsoft on it ever again
 
If you have to ask you're probably too dumb to understand the answer.





Actually the negatives come from people using Vista and watching it
fall flat on it's face doing simple everyday tasks.

Like... Windows Explorer encountered an unexpected problem and needs
to close. The problem with Vista is the same problem Windows 1 had. It
doesn't work as advertised. Lurking deep inside Windows REGARDLESS of
version are coding mistake Microsoft has yet to address. Yes, I know
all software has bugs. What's so annoying with Windows is as each new
version is released the size of Windows grows and new bugs get added
to ones that were already there. The result is Windows gets more and
more bloated, bugs become more random and way more difficult to
isolate meaning they don't get fixed.

A lot of people simply have no idea how bad Microsoft is with fixing
KNOWN bugs. There bears repeating. KNOWN BUGS. For example when the
final version of Vista was released to beta testers it has a bug list
that numbered in the thousands. While most of those were fixed the
SHIPPED version still contained hundreds of known bugs.

I ask you, would you accept a car that GM knew had brake issues but
sold them anyway? Would you buy food from General Mills they knew was
tainted? Would you buy a big screen plasma TV that had several dozen
pixels that were dead?

No to all of the above?

Then why in the hell to people willing hand over their hard earned
money to Microsoft when they ship a product with hundreds of known
errors that will cause many customers issues?
Click to expand...

- Well, eventually people will throw up their hands and migrate their
entire corporation to either open source or Apple

Then again, Using a browser and Googles on line apps is a definite
possibility
 
harvey said:
It's this sort of mentality that made me try Ubuntu

I do love Ubuntu.
Click to expand...

How can you love an O/S?
fast, straight forward
Click to expand...

I have never had a problem with any O/S.
compatible
Click to expand...

I never had a problem there too.
& Free..
Click to expand...

Poor man's excuse are you doing food stamps too and government cheese?
I don't think I'll EVER get a PC with Microsoft on it ever again
Click to expand...
Then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
 
harvey said:
- Well, eventually people will throw up their hands and migrate their
entire corporation to either open source or Apple

Then again, Using a browser and Googles on line apps is a definite
possibility
Click to expand...

Well, if you listen to Negative Nut -- Tall Tales -- Chicken Little
Ronald McDonald aka Ringmaster Albright, the sky will fall tomorrow.

Hey, don't let the sky hit you in your head on the way out.
 
Actually.. on this machine, its more responsive than the XP that
originally shipped on it...

2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
2.0 GB RAM
500 GB Western Digital GreenPower drive
Geforce 7900 GS

Vista boot time to useable desktop: 2 minutes
XP boot time to useable desktop: 10 minutes

Vista time to open "Computer": instantly
XP time to open "My Computer": 2 minutes
Click to expand...

There *absolutely* had to be something borked with XP, so I don't think
comparing the two is valid.

I would think that would be the general concensus looking at the XP boot
time, and opening 'My Computer'.

I've *never* worked on an XP box that took 10 minutes to boot unless it
was infested with malware/spyware.

I know you won't, but if you did a clean install of XP on that box from
retail/OEM MS media (which means an actual install and not an OEM mfg
'restore' with all the extra crap), you'd find that it ran waaaay faster
than before.
 
zuoer said:
wait till you start using for something other than staring at the pretty
icons..

smuck!

Vista is crap and so is frank!
Click to expand...

No props this time? And what does Frank have to do with your fantasies?
 
Whats a smuck?
Click to expand...

Frank is a classic example of a smuck. That's a stupid person or
dimwitted fool. Originally in Yiddish the word smuck, like putz,
referred to your penis and not in a complementary way either.

Schmuck in old German was once considered a decorative or ornamental
term when making reference to one's penis and is the basis for the
modern "family jewels" as a reference to the testicles, which along
with the penis were highlighted by wearing a codpiece in some cultures
during the middle ages. Cod in middle English is a reference to the
scrotum.

Imagine Frank in a cod piece. You don't have to imagine:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n8/mweis2000/PappyCod-Piece.jpg

That's all padding of course. ;-)

Who says this isn't a educational group? <giggle>
 
Back
Top