Vista VS XP

[TheTOM_SK]

4.Crappy folder management

In XP I allways used Windows Explorer, but when I moved to Vista, I was forced to change to Free Commander, because WE in Vista in a nightmare. I could probably used to it, but it even does not remember, when I uncheck Do not remember folders settings or views. Also mentioned permissions for shortcuts are bad idea.

5.Driver Signature Enforcement

I had no problem installing my unsigned driver for the ethernet card.

As for the UAC, I disabled it right away, I just could not stand a popup every 10 seconds, if I want to run that or that, because it would slow down my work with registry and system tools by a few houres per month at least.

Edited December 12, 2006 by TheTOM_SK

[thumpa]

this reminds me the time when windows 2000 was introduced. example windows 98 and me applications would not run on NT based systems.........speaking of NT what code does Vista use? Edited December 12, 2006 by thumpa

[bledd]

there is raid support, you just have to add the driver (this is silly i agree, they def should have included raid drivers)

[kti^]

Can't say I have any big issues with Vista, there are ofc things that needs to get used to, but that's what you get for using new stuff

I just wish that hardware folks like nvidia and creative would get some good drivers out there...

[dAbReAkA]

i agree with u on superfetch..

nice in theory but still sux..

in an effort to cache everything i might use it doesnt stop using the hard-drive..

when i start a game it has to free several hundred megabytes for it.. when i stop the game, it has to cache everything again.. and constantly using the hard-drive is not the worst part (the sound is annoying but, ..), it degrades performance.. if i start an application at the moment of superfetching, it seems like superfetching is getting a higher (or equal) priority to it, and it slows it down..

couldnt have they figured a way of determining when is the PC "idle", so that superfetch can gobble memory? even i can do that.. with their advanced PC monitoring apps bundled, they know the hard-drive's utilization, the lan-card's utilization, etc.. that's just lame

[Marthax]

but really, whats with the folders? [\quote] Amen to that.

In other words, just figure out where the signature check and the file integrity checks are, and patch the code to go around it. Of course, this will have to be done outside of the OS.

Exactly, but right now I'm running single-boot Vista which has turned out to be an nightmare in some cases. The OS is not ready for it.

I could probably fix these two problems, but at the moment I'm not too interested in Vista to bother installing it.

Let me guess why? Becuase XP has everything you need. That's exactly my point.

Some of the older (Backwards Compatible) stuff had to go, and some of my code was sloppy. Now it runs just dandy on Vista.

As long as they are gonna keep running that policy, people are gonna stick with XP because they really rely on some programs.

Or it could be that over 50% of support incidents are generated due to buggy/bad/misbehaving drivers, and that's a large support cost (no, we make no money on support - it's a cost center by far) that can be reduced by trying to eliminate the biggest supportability problem?

Sure, I agree with you that drivers are very important inorder to maintain system stability and performance, but when happends when all of a sudden some companies crap out and refuse to make drivers because that hardware is too old? Sure, people could adapt old drivers and make them run in Vista. OH WAIT! No they can't because someone installed a Drivers Signature Enforcement. In the end, you find a way to work around it, just like with everything else that's bugging you so why even bother with the enforcement?

And the Network Connections is just horrible

but when I moved to Vista, I was forced to change to Free Commander, because WE in Vista in a nightmare.

Simplicity MS! Simplicity. That's what people wants.

this reminds me the time when windows 2000 was introduced. example windows 98 and me applications would not run on NT based systems.........speaking of NT what code does Vista use?

I assume you mean what OS code it's based on. W2K3 in that case.

there is raid support, you just have to add the driver (this is silly i agree, they def should have included raid drivers)

As I stated in my starting post, I've already tried that. I've tried all the drivers that are available right now, but it's still not working. Probably because the drivers are for XP x64, which causes the Driver Signature Enforcement to deny them.

I just wish that hardware folks like nvidia and creative would get some good drivers out there...

You say that you don't have any problem when and the same time you wish that Nvidia and Creative could release some good drivers for Vista. The reason they're stalling is because of the..? Guess what? Driver Signature Enforcement!

couldnt have they figured a way of determining when is the PC "idle", so that superfetch can gobble memory? even i can do that.. with their advanced PC monitoring apps bundled, they know the hard-drive's utilization, the lan-card's utilization, etc.. that's just lame

I totally agree with you. They just haven't thought this through. As soon as my computer starts up, my HDD starts working like it's on the highway going way to fast. That's just wrong..

[Biohead]

Vista is Windows NT6

Many of the changes from XP to me aren't that bad. However, I was using Longhorn wayyy back so I knew the slight changes from each build to the next build and it's kinda first nature now.

Look in my sig - it definately ain't the fastest laptop out there - but Vista runs 3 times quicker than XP does on it!! So all those people going on about you need a quick PC to run it are having a laugh - I can get my system to the desktop with everything loaded in about 70secs (including post).

Once Vista has been on your system about a week or so and it is used to your system, knows the file locations etc, its so much better than XP.

[Spooky]

I like Vista personally, its faster on my machines then XP ever was. I've been using it since the very first build was released to testers and i've had some time to grow used to it and learn how to make it behave. Myself, i've not had problems with my hardware as it was all purchased to meet the hardware specs for Vista, I upgrade some hardware every two years anyway (new hard drives, etc...). Out of several machines with a mixture of various hardware (including SATA and RAID set ups which Vista picked right up and uses fine) I only had one thing that Vista didn't like and that was an HP high speed USB scanner that was about 4 years old, no problem, i plugged another scanner in and donated the older one to a local school where its working fine with XP and 2000 machines. All the software I was formally using in XP works fine with Vista (about 150 different pieces of software including a few games), didn't have any problems except one thing I had to run in compatability mode but it works fine in that mode and as soon as I can aford the new version which does work with Vista without compatability mode i'm going to replace it just to keep current but not because its not working and needs to run in compatability mode to work. I did have a minor problem with not having a driver for an older Samsung monitor on one machine, but using an XP driver solved that problem, didn't have any driver signing issues with it, and it works fine, the monitor is going to be replaced soon anyway - Vista had drivers for all my other stuff.

Vista is no different then any thing else, every OS has its requirements and when those requirements are met it works. There are some good and some bad with any OS, XP was the same way when it hit the shelves, drivers weren't available, new things that were never before, etc...

It seems as if there are two camps - those for Vista and those for XP. It comes down to a matter of choice and the choice is very simple, if a person likes XP then stay with XP, if a person likes Vista then stay with Vista. There is no requirement to upgrade to Vista, if XP is doing everything for a person they want then indeed there is no reason to upgrade.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Spooky

[Marthax]

There is no requirement to upgrade to Vista, if XP is doing everything for a person they want then indeed there is no reason to upgrade.

Yeah, but you're wrong there. If you let MS decide, there is a requirement because they've spent money on the OS and now they wanna get it back.

Once Vista has been on your system about a week or so and it is used to your system, knows the file locations etc, its so much better than XP.

I've had it for a couple of weeks now and it still gets to me every single day.

Look in my sig - it definately ain't the fastest laptop out there - but Vista runs 3 times quicker than XP does on it!! So all those people going on about you need a quick PC to run it are having a laugh - I can get my system to the desktop with everything loaded in about 70secs (including post).

Well then you have to be doing something seriously wrong because I have IBM Think R40 whose hardware is twice as bad as yours and I get it to boot into XP ~35 sec.

Spooky, the biggest problem according to me isn't the fact that Vista might have lousy drivers support or Application compatibility right now, becuase I know that those are things that are gonna go away soon. What's bugging me is the fact that Vista has lost it's simplicity. The Network Connections tab is just an perfect illustration of it. I don't know who came up with such an idea, because it's honestly now helping. It's just making things worse. If something used to be great, why change it? Focus on the things that people are gonna notice in a positive way.

[Spooky]

Oh well

Edited December 13, 2006 by Spooky

[fizban2]

Yeah, but you're wrong there. If you let MS decide, there is a requirement because they've spent money on the OS and now they wanna get it back.

MS isn't deciding the requirements, the hardware that is out at the time decides that. we have what, 2,8 ghz quad core CPUs ok today, i don't see vista requiring quad or dual core CPU's, only a single CPU. Vista has to be built to work with todays tech and scale well with the technology of years to come, when XP came out people freaked that it required so much ram, to use that much ram was unthinkable, now a days my video card has more ram then what XP needed to run with. MS had to build an OS that could take advantage of todays tech and what wil come out till the next OS hits the market, Something that XP didn't do so well with, as tech got fast so did it but not enough for the jumps in speed that were seen throughout XPs lifespan.

What's bugging me is the fact that Vista has lost it's simplicity. The Network Connections tab is just an perfect illustration of it. I don't know who came up with such an idea, because it's honestly now helping.

I think you are talking about the Network and Sharing Center. For a large amount of home users this screen will be user friendly. In a corporate environment, most of these settings are managed at a domain level so you never have to worry about it, i do miss double clicking and getting the properties of the connection. but overall from a home users perspective, it is friendly, easy on the eyes and doesn't contain any threatingly large amounts of numbers or cryptic computer information that scare most home users.

[Stoic Joker]

XP Local Area Connections:

1. Right Click My Network Places off the Start Panel & Select Properties.

And you're there.

Vista Local Area Connections:

1. Right Click Network off the Start Panel & Select Properties.

2. Click Manage Network Connections on the left Tasks Menu.

And You're there.

So you people are having a freaking Hissy Fit over one extra Click?!?

*Sigh*

[LeveL]

1.Some XP programs don't work in Vista

Some? Only "some"? Hehe, you're lucky then, 95% of the programs

I tried from XP would not work in Vista. By the way, don't install Alcohol

120% in Vista... oh unless for some reason you like re-installing your OS,

because when Alcohol 120% is installed, you get a BSOD, (yes, even in safe

mode) and since a live WinPE XP disc does not even work on a HDD that has

Vista on it, you have to re-install your OS. I love it, you gotta.

2.No RAID support during setup

Thanks for pointing this out, I will remember to never use a RAID disk with

Vista. I think what we need, instead of all this promotion and baloney about

Windows Vista... how about a coherent list of reasons NOT to use it? Lets just

put the shoe on the other foot for ONE SECOND and bypass the multi billion

dollar promotion of this already ailing OS and just cut to the chase. I like these

items you're pointing out... it makes a refreshing change from all the stuff I

continually hear about how "great" Vista is and most of all it warns users about

the shortfalls. This isn't anything Microsoft is EVER going to tell you! All they will

do is say its brilliant... the old perfume on a pig routine.

3.SuperFetch

Just an excuse to use as much RAM as possible. Use Linux FFS, that can

run on 32Mb RAM and you know what... even if you have 4Gb RAM, Linux

would still run on that same 32Mb.

4.Crappy folder management

Sure is. Turn on "Show hidden files and folders" and also "Show protected operating system

files" and in the "Users" folder you see "All Users" but wait, its just a shortcut! Click the shortcut,

Access Denied!! Yes folks, access denied - to one of YOUR folders on YOUR computer! Would you

ever believe the main Administrator cannot access a folder? Come on, this is pathetic... this only

used to happen with "System Volume Information" in XP - that was bad enough, having one

inaccessible folder but in Vista there are tons of folders, sorry shortcuts, that are inaccessible.

5.Driver Signature Enforcement

Unacceptable. Microsoft suck again.

What do you guys think of Vista?

It sickens me!

Vista VS XP.

Thats a laugh.

You might as well say...

Something that does not work properly VS Something that does work properly.

PS - You can tell theres people here who work directly for Microsoft to promote

Vista, because you can point these things out and they never have anything to

say to it apart from things like "get over it" and so on.

As a neutral person I have to say, hand on heart, Vista is complete trash.

I have no reason to either promote it or slag it off, but the thing is, it needs

to BE slagged off because it has endless annoying things about it.

Edited December 13, 2006 by LeveL

[dAbReAkA]

LeVeL, your comment on superfetch was lame.. most of the linux distros cant run on 32mb.. in fact, they're heavier than windows.. 32mb? lol..

linux is more aggressive at caching than windows, so if u give it 4 gigs it will make use of them the best way, pretty much like vista does..

[Yzmo]

Well, ive been thinking of getting vista when it out...

So do you think i should get it, or continue to stick with XP..