Am I the only one? Can't be

[microsnot]

I hate Vista! It takes forever to install, slow as hell to run, and functionless.

Why do computers still ship with Vista?

Remember - it may look nice but that feature fades away after a little while and then the user realizes how slow and resource-hogging Vista really is...most techs would agree with me, I'm sure!

EVIDENCE: FROM CSI (computer systems investigation) LAB :

My friend (he worked at HP for 25 years) spent two whole fricking days just trying to figure out how to share folders.

Another techie (A+ certified helpdesk 2) guy said it is so underpowered (he gets like some weird error that says not enough or insufficient resources when he simply tries to print anything)!!

Edited May 2, 2008 by microsnot

[cluberti]

I hate Vista! It takes forever to install, slow as hell to run, and functionless.

If it's slow to install and run, then I would suspect the drive controller - what motherboard/chipset is in there? I have seen the same problem on Intel RAID controllers in Dell's and HP's, and a driver update from Intel directly fixes it.

My friend (he worked at HP for 25 years) spent two whole fricking days just trying to figure out how to share folders.

Sharing folders is quite easy - right click a folder, click "sharing", and use the "Advanced sharing" functionality. If it took him two days to do that, then the problem is your friend, not Vista.

Another techie (A+ certified helpdesk 2) guy said it is so underpowered (he gets like some weird error that says not enough or insufficient resources when he simply tries to print anything)!!

A+ is a hardware cert, not software, so I'd take it with a grain of salt - but I agree, machines with 512MB or even 1GB of RAM may not run Vista well until vLite'd down. If he had a 1.5GB RAM machine or higher, however, then it's not Vista, it's the bloatware on the PC slowing it down. Heck, 2GB is the sweet spot for Vista (and RAM is cheap nowadays). Not only that, but the error is talking about a resource OTHER than RAM (probably a kernel pool resource, or perhaps desktop heap) - if he doesn't know that, it's not unexpected, as again the A+ cert is a hardware cert, not software.

Just my .02¢, as these things get said here (and rebuffed here) regularly.

[puntoMX]

cluberti, AMEN man!

I can´t add more to that other than people that don´t know how to build a PC that will work flawless with Vista and users that don´t know how to read AND understand what is writhen.

Hell, even on "not supported" Intel 845 chipsets it runs flawless with 640MB (Home basic if you have only the onboard VGA). Sure it gives a 1.0 performance rating for gaming .

Who´s next?

[microsnot]

Another techie (A+ certified helpdesk 2) guy said it is so underpowered (he gets like some weird error that says not enough or insufficient resources when he simply tries to print anything)!!! A+ is a hardware cert, not software, so I'd take it with a grain of salt - but I agree, machines with 512MB or even 1GB of RAM may not run Vista well until vLite'd down. If he had a 1.5GB RAM machine or higher, however, then it's not Vista, it's the bloatware on the PC slowing it down. Heck, 2GB is the sweet spot for Vista (and RAM is cheap nowadays). Not only that, but the error is talking about a resource OTHER than RAM (probably a kernel pool resource, or perhaps desktop heap) - if he doesn't know that, it's not unexpected, as again the A+ cert is a hardware cert, not software.

Just my .02¢, as these things get said here (and rebuffed here) regularly.

First of all, you are right about my friend. He may be a techie but not a very good one. However, you're totally wrong abt A+. I'm doing the course so that I can take the exam, and sorry to say (I'm not trying to offend you), but there is a software component/element to it.

In fact, even my trainer (he's been a level 3 software technician for the last 16 years) tells me that Vista is rubbish. I can't be wrong, when so many "educated" people are telling me not to use Vista! Probably you guys are so awed and overwhelmed by the "Glass" features and other resource-hogging themes that everything else is overshadowed.

I seriously think it is time you recheck your opinion on Vista.

Sincerely,

Caleb

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

I personally manage around 400 machines. I have been working with Windows since Windows 3.0 and DOS since around v4. I'm am no newbie to this field. you however cite the opinion of an A+ certified tech as some kind of expert. By Comptias own definition A+ is an entry level certification. You say that Vista users should recheck their opinion, i say you should recheck the people handing you your opinions.

I choose to run Vista on the 4 machines I use regularly. I can tell you that Aero has very little to do with my decision. I will admit it is kinda nice to have something that changes the look of pretty much the same gui ive been staring at for for around 13 years. There are more reasons to run Vista right now than there are not. I've been working with XP for 6 years (and the underlying tech since the NT days) I've learned all I'm gonna learn from XP. That alone should be enough reason to switch.

If your are a consumer, yeah you can get away with skipping a version you'll just have to look extra hard to find the 'reply to all' button for your in Windows 7/office 2010 config when you buy your next Dell in 2011 but if you are a technical person that wishes to have a job in a technical field, you will learn the latest greatest technology or someone that is willing to do it will be happy to take your job.

The vista marketing hype is just that -hype. Vista is not a huge groundbreaking milestone that will forever change the face of computing but it has enough significant changes to the underlying framework that if you don't learn them now, you will have to learn them later for server 2008/win7. but if you want to cling to your copy of Xp like the 95/98 users on this site that still refuse to abandon their beloved 9x kernel, there will be a forum here on MSFN for XP users long after they stop making hardware the OS will run on reliably.

[puntoMX]

*taken from the compTIA site.

Any way, it´s not only software, I would like to repeat that you need the hardware to run it to, don´t think that a build for 98/ME machine can run Vista...

I personally don´t give much for the looks and Vista Bar myself, but the 64bit version of Vista does the job faster than every other OS Microsoft ever made...

[cluberti]

In fact, even my trainer (he's been a level 3 software technician for the last 16 years) tells me that Vista is rubbish. I can't be wrong, when so many "educated" people are telling me not to use Vista! Probably you guys are so awed and overwhelmed by the "Glass" features and other resource-hogging themes that everything else is overshadowed.

Personally I grew up on Unix and love a CLI over GUI features anyday, but Vista really is a good OS. Remember, educated people thought the world was flat once. Educated people mocked WinXP (with basically the same arguments) back in 2000 and 2001, if you can remember that far back, and now XP is the best thing since sliced bread if you ask most of those same people. When 2000 and XP were released they were also tagged/canned as "resource-hogging" OSes that had no future, and to stick with Win98 and NT4. I think they turned out OK, and Vista will as well. A 2GB RAM box is more than affordable for most people these days, and as time goes on it will probably be the defacto standard lower-end box (I remember 64MB being that at one point, then 256MB, then 512MB - it'll be 2GB before long) which will run the current Windows OS very well.

And no A+ certification will teach you the first thing about software and troubleshooting. It might give you a good base to start learning from, but no, it's basically useless on the software front. You can learn most of it in first year CompSci too, and I wouldn't take the opinions of a first year (or even one with the BS) as gospel.

I have used Vista since the alphas, did the same with XP, and did the same with 2000. The kernel updates to memory management, the security updates to the kernel, the architectural changes to user mode and process startup, to name a few, make Vista the best OS from Microsoft thus-far. If all you can see is what's skin-deep, you miss the point entirely.

[Idontwantspam]

Ok... here goes.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, and I don't use vista as my primary OS. I have used it on my laptop before, although I inevitably end up going back to XP because my laptop, despite being "Vista Capable", does not run it well.

Those arguing that Vista is a good OS have a point in that some of the same things were said about Windows XP and even Windows 2000 back in the day. I wasn't actually all that much into computers "back in the day", being relatively young, but looking back into the depths of the interwebs, I'd say that's true. You are also right that Vista doesn't run well on hardware that isn't up to spec. Giving Vista anything less than 2 GB of RAM is not a great idea. XP requires a minimum of 64 MB, recommended 128 MB and starts to work well at 512 MB or RAM, from what I have observed, although it can run well on as little as 256. So, you win the RAM argument. However, the user who started the thread is right as well: the world is saying "no" to vista. The simple fact is that Vista does not run well without decent hardware. A computer that just barely can run aero - like my laptop, with a 1.6 GHz Core Duo, 1 GB RAM and an integrated Intel GMA 945 graphics chipset, does not like vista. It's slow and laggy. On the other hand, this computer speeds along quite well with Windows XP. Although it can't play the latest games well, it can perform most day-to-day tasks with ease, even while seriously multi-tasking. So imagine then what a truly vista capable machine can do with XP. In my opinion, you would get more out of your hardware using XP than Vista, turning a "good enough" computer into a "damn good" computer. Also, never has there been such a public outcry against an OS. Vista is different in this way: the general public, joe sixpack, people who are noobs not nerds, are commenting on vista and how bad it is for them. Not everyone can build their own computer with the best parts, so they get what they can from HP or Dell, and it comes loaded with crapware (although dell is starting to lay off on the crapware, especially if you buy through the right parts of the site). The crapware slows down their computer (granted, not vista's fault) and vista slows it down more. My peers who know next to nothing about computers talk about how annoying that new vista is and darn it why can't they give back XP. Was there ever a petition to save windows 98/ME/2000? No. When Windows XP came out, it was new and strange, much like vista is now, but it was an immense improvement over windows 98, which is what most home users were using, and even better improvement over windows ME which all the unfortunate people were using. It brought the NT kernel to the masses, with improved security, stability, etc. Vista offers no advantage over XP for most users. True, there are a myriad of advantages, but there are no large, major changes that will really make people go "wow", despite the whole "Ow is now" program. In fact, I would venture to say that there are quite a few new "features" that are disadvantages. UAC is a failure in the eyes of joe user - most people end up turning it off and it never does any good, and those who leave it on are often irritated by it. Although those who are more tech savvy can afford to turn it off and be careful, those who don't know what they're doing are those who need it the most. Then there's the whole issue of DRM, which is getting worse with every release. Also, a few days ago it was announced that MS is handing out free for the taking a backdoor exploitation kit to law enforcement agencies. Do you really want any cop to be able to walk in and get right into your computer, supposedly even being able to bypass vista's highly touted bitlocker encryption? I didn't think so... Anyhow, most of this is either opinions I've developed from my limited experience with vista, or a summary of what average people I know are saying about vista. And I'm tired so I'm going to leave it at that.

Oh - I must mention, that file sharing is very easy in vista, and is one of the few improvements. Can't argue there. The A+ exam does have a software segment, but xp has only just made its way on there, and vista is not in any of the questions. And as it has been mentioned, the A+ is an entry-level exam, not a declaration of expertise.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Idontwantspam

[puntoMX]

A computer that just barely can run aero - like my laptop, with a 1.6 GHz Core Duo, 1 GB RAM and an integrated Intel GMA 945 graphics chipset, does not like vista. It's slow and laggy.

Check if you run dual channel with your RAM, which will boost it to 3 WITH the latest Intel driver. If you use it with single channel RAM it will give you a 2.5 score in vista and with the stock vista driver 2.0.