local lan gigabit speeds a very very bad. google it, many people have problems..
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why hatred of Vista?
- Thread starter SuperCell
- Start date
- Status
local lan gigabit speeds a very very bad. google it, many people have problems..
My own reasons for disliking vista:
1) UAC. I tried to like it, I really did. But from my perspective, it takes a fairly good idea ( everyone runs as limited user ) and messes it up. Had they simply treated it like XP limited user with a automatic tool to figure out permission problems and fix them I would like it. But it bugs the ever living shit out of people to run simple applications. Admittedly, vendors need to fix their applications so they don't need admin permissions, but Vista compounds this problem by crawling up your ass everytime you want to run one of these apps. From a security standpoint, making an average user jump through hoops everytime they want to run something is just teaching them to click buttons.
2) Compatibility. In a business environment, I have a lot of applications that require a great deal of work to make work under XP. These same apps under Vista may not be possible to get running, I've been trying without much luck.
3) Interface. They changed it...again. Seems like every version of windows they make the interface harder to use then the previous version, except with XP you could change it back to the 2k style interface. Not so that I could find under vista. The explorer stinks, plain and simple. 2k and xp were usable. If I wanted to search for a certain file type under xp, I just click the search button enter my terms and it will find it under the current level. For some reason, this doesn't work for Vista. A game I have uses mp3s for it's music, so I went to it's folder under program files and did a search for *.mp3. Nothing, yet I was able to browse to the containing folder with no problem.
These are three major issues that alone would prevent me from using it ( indeed, that *did* prevent me from using it ). However, I might be willing to deal with these problems ( somehow ) were there a compelling reason to switch. But there isn't. There is no real reason to switch to Vista at this time. Either in a home environment or business environment. In fact, I would say that any IT managers that do push the switch haven't done proper risk/benefit analysis of the situation.
1) UAC. I tried to like it, I really did. But from my perspective, it takes a fairly good idea ( everyone runs as limited user ) and messes it up. Had they simply treated it like XP limited user with a automatic tool to figure out permission problems and fix them I would like it. But it bugs the ever living shit out of people to run simple applications. Admittedly, vendors need to fix their applications so they don't need admin permissions, but Vista compounds this problem by crawling up your ass everytime you want to run one of these apps. From a security standpoint, making an average user jump through hoops everytime they want to run something is just teaching them to click buttons.
2) Compatibility. In a business environment, I have a lot of applications that require a great deal of work to make work under XP. These same apps under Vista may not be possible to get running, I've been trying without much luck.
3) Interface. They changed it...again. Seems like every version of windows they make the interface harder to use then the previous version, except with XP you could change it back to the 2k style interface. Not so that I could find under vista. The explorer stinks, plain and simple. 2k and xp were usable. If I wanted to search for a certain file type under xp, I just click the search button enter my terms and it will find it under the current level. For some reason, this doesn't work for Vista. A game I have uses mp3s for it's music, so I went to it's folder under program files and did a search for *.mp3. Nothing, yet I was able to browse to the containing folder with no problem.
These are three major issues that alone would prevent me from using it ( indeed, that *did* prevent me from using it ). However, I might be willing to deal with these problems ( somehow ) were there a compelling reason to switch. But there isn't. There is no real reason to switch to Vista at this time. Either in a home environment or business environment. In fact, I would say that any IT managers that do push the switch haven't done proper risk/benefit analysis of the situation.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
My gigabit network is working great. It mostly depends on your switch, cabling, and disk speeds for your total throughput.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
You can still use the classic windows interface in Vista. It is under Personalize-->Theme--> select "Windows Classic".
You can also search for music easily using the search dialog. From the advanced search dialog specify "everything" in the location drop down box instead of "indexed locations". Then in the search field just type "mp3" or whatever song name you are looking for. It will bring everything up.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
1. Don't really agree, but of course I don't enjoy being nagged. I already have a wife, mother, daughter, and boss, no further nagging required. MS's plan backfired somewhat here. They were prolly hoping the nag screens would bring heat from users down on software devs to stop being lazy and quit requiring system level access for programs that don't actually need it. Instead MS is taking the heat. But it still is a good idea. If software devs did what they were supposed to, you would only see the UAC warnings during initial install for most programs. I would find that to be acceptable.
2. Partially agree, use Xp for tha apps that need it or upgrade those apps. But by the time businesses adopt Vista in numbers their will be apps available for most everything. Barring the obscure or custom written apps of course, There is always VM when it will work for you.
3. Totally agree. I abhor change in my UI. It takes some work but you can only get somewhat close to the 2k/9x look in Vista. But many things are still moved around and not where you expect to find them. And I don't like that myself. Join the feedback program, http://wfp.microsoft.com/, and let them know you want that option back. Not saying it will do any good, but it might.
I just want to bring up a point on UAC, I myself fix computers and such in my spare time, and where UAC really annoys me is during installs. I would try to install iTunes or Firefox or something along those lines and UAC would pop up, but it would pop up in the background and halt the install and when I come back the install fails. I like to do unattended installs and this UAC could become quite a hassle.
I never said it didn't take more ram. Just not as much as people think. And was just pointing out that most of the ram usage people are seeing is really superfetch and will not adversely affect system performance.
You can turn off UAC. No more pop ups. Though that just opens the door for unauthorized code to run. I'm used to having to grant access to apps from my time using both OSX and Linux. At least you don't have to enter your password each time. It's just a simple click.
There are patches for that. Still, speeds are fine, it just usually reports them wrong. I do regular transfer on my gigabit network. From Vista 64 to Vista 32 or to WHS.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2177716,00.asp
It annoys the hell out of me when people try to compare UAC to the way Linux does things... UAC has no equal in Linux, or BSD, or OSX, or any other OS that I can think of. It is entirely unique. But in this case unique doesnt mean good. In thias case a fairly simple escalation policy would suffice. UAC actually contributes to the problem becouse it trains people to click ok without checking out what is going on. I'd so much rather have a right click menu option with "run as" then UAC.. Boy that is so much more effective and useful.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,882
people dont like change
people dont like ms
people dont like ms
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
Hey, misinformation works great on brainwashing people. If they make one product look inferior to the other by having a calm/stoned trendy guy make fun of a fat guy in a business suit, people will agree with it. It's sort of like the average consumer saying they are sticking it to the man. Steve Jobs is awesome at mind control techniques on the weak.
Same thing. It prevents unauthorized code from running. You click in Vista or enter a password in linux to grant access. I don't think it's any worse than training people to just click through. In OSX and Linux and just entered my password whenever prompted without a second though. Same deal.
And you do have a right click menu option with "run as".
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,882
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
It seems to me the people having these general "problems" with Vista don't really understand how to use and tweak the OS.. or they are just too lazy. The rest just seems like a difference of opinion on how they want their perfect OS to run. There are however a few underlying issues still in Vista, mainly due to drivers because companies are too lazy to write good ones.
I'm sorry but that is not at all the case. You might want to spend a little time looking into rights escalation. When you understand the fundamentals then try to claim that UAC is just the same. You do realize that Linux just uses GKSU or GKSUDO dont you?
And that is all that is needed, everything is is just fancy automation. And UAC's automation process is problematic at best.
My hatred is all in Direct X 10- Its the reason I upgraded to Vista. I don't care about UI's and other eye candy. I don't care that it loads up a few seconds faster then XP or opens apps a few seconds faster. My office system will happily run XP till MS stops updating it
My gaming system was built with DX10 in mind and built around Vista 64. First there was the 4GB problem, then the creative drivers, then the Nvidia drivers. Now those problems have been mostly fixed but I have seen NO improvement running DX10 (the few games that support it) and a noticeable drop in FPS when I turn DX10 on. This is very disheartening- DX10 appears to be a giant waste of time so far and this OS has been out for a year or so.
I read the comparisons here between XP and Vista DX10 in their (this sites) articles (the latest is LOTR online) and it makes it even more frustrating.
Not acceptable. My solution? Dual boot XP and Vista 64. Every few weeks I boot to Vista to update stuff and keep it ready for the day it will up to par for running DX10 games.
My gaming system was built with DX10 in mind and built around Vista 64. First there was the 4GB problem, then the creative drivers, then the Nvidia drivers. Now those problems have been mostly fixed but I have seen NO improvement running DX10 (the few games that support it) and a noticeable drop in FPS when I turn DX10 on. This is very disheartening- DX10 appears to be a giant waste of time so far and this OS has been out for a year or so.
I read the comparisons here between XP and Vista DX10 in their (this sites) articles (the latest is LOTR online) and it makes it even more frustrating.
Not acceptable. My solution? Dual boot XP and Vista 64. Every few weeks I boot to Vista to update stuff and keep it ready for the day it will up to par for running DX10 games.
There are currently no DX10 only games. They are all hybrid DX9 and DX10 games. I don't think you'll see better DX10 performance and visuals until there are DX10 pure games instead of DX9 games with some stuff tacked on. I think developers will get better at coding for DX10 and DX10 drivers from ATI and Nvidia will improve given time. It's all new and developers have been using DX9 for years.
Also adding more visuals is not going to improve performance.
You can _not_ just turn UAC off it requires a reboot!
So when you do remote support and UAC kills your vnc connection on each click you do, what are you going to do? Tell the customer you're going to disable a safety feature from his computer and reboot it to fix a problem that was easily solvable in XP? It ain't gonna work bubba.
So when you do remote support and UAC kills your vnc connection on each click you do, what are you going to do? Tell the customer you're going to disable a safety feature from his computer and reboot it to fix a problem that was easily solvable in XP? It ain't gonna work bubba.
Waaaaaaaaah I dont want to spend money to upgrade to a new OS when I can still use my 5 year old one. OMG I'm using new software which is more demanding WHY did my system become slower it ran my copy of XP fast!? (which a PII could do)
So sick of these stupid Vista hate threads.
To all of you who bitch and moan about Vista, this is generally like the same crap with people who didn't want to upgrade from win2k to XP. Heres your options:
Stay with dx9 XP
Suck it up
Get a mac
Get Linux /whatever
Quit your bitching
XP doesn't have DX10, Vista It's actually stable, and oh no it's ment for new systems. Only people who seem to have a lot of problems are those who can't build something stable. Or those who seem to think a New OS is sposed to run as fast as a 5 year old one with new hardware.
So sick of these stupid Vista hate threads.
To all of you who bitch and moan about Vista, this is generally like the same crap with people who didn't want to upgrade from win2k to XP. Heres your options:
Stay with dx9 XP
Suck it up
Get a mac
Get Linux /whatever
Quit your bitching
XP doesn't have DX10, Vista It's actually stable, and oh no it's ment for new systems. Only people who seem to have a lot of problems are those who can't build something stable. Or those who seem to think a New OS is sposed to run as fast as a 5 year old one with new hardware.
You are probably right, but when I said performance, what I really meant to say is Image Quality. I would give up so FPS for IQ but so far have not noticed much difference. Maybe when we see a built from the ground up DX10 title it will change the equation as you said. For now though I will just continue to game in XP till something comes along that makes me want to choose it over XP.
Well, you do.
Right click, choose "Run as Administrator". Ofcourse UAC will ask you to confirm that you want to run as admin (which is a good thing, right?), and then since your app runs as admin, the entire UAC thing won't have to beg for permissions for the remainder of the lifetime of the application.
Excuse me, but Bill Gates is obviously much better at it, given the marketshare of Apple vs Microsoft.
In fact, he seems to be so good at it, that you don't even realize he's doing it.
That's exactly what I do. I have UAC disabled, and I use "run as". I'm just saying that is all that is needed. UAC contributes more to the problem then anything else. If t didnt exist it would force people into making there own decisions about what is allowed to run as what and when it is allowed to do so. With UAC it takes that ability away and forces people to automatically click ok.
Besides you dont run everything as administrator, instead you create a user (or group) that has permission to do what that application needs to do, and when you run that program you run it as that user. It really is that simple. This effectively gives you a very large amount of control over many applications, and is how ALL applications should be run. You should never escalate any application to a level above what it needs to run.
Well you can blame Creative for that one. The X-Fi drivers made Vista 64 buggy as hell. With bioshock for instance it would BSOD "process has locked pages" after exiting the game every single time. Thats not acceptable and caused Creative to do a driver rollback to older and just as buggy drivers.
Only in the last 2-3 weeks have they finally released a good driver for Vista64 making it finally an option for me.
My hatred towards Vista is probably 90% driver related, and 85% of that directed at evil Creative Labs.
digital_exhaust
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2008
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 6,903
Then really your "hatred" should be aimed squarely at the hardware companies that have refused to provide functioning drives for their products..... it's not as if Microsoft has withheld the information needed to write said drivers.... it's companies like Creative that have decided that producing Vista compatible drivers is a low priority that are causing many of the issues people are having with Vista......
And really, I feel your pain man.... I'm stuck with on-board sound thanks to Creative's decision to "end of life" my perfectly functioning card..... fuckers.....
XP is slow and buggy? Whatever man. Vista is in the same state XP was in it's pre-SP1 days: SLOW and BUGGY (and aching for a service pack).
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Exactly. I find this in almost every single aspect of life, not just computers. People hate change.
QFT. This, IMO, is one of the biggest contributors to why it seems that everyone hates Vista.
The media spawned alot of the pre-Vista FUD, which even after it was released... kept circulating.
Apple is not helping either, as having brainwashed the country with their well-known Mac ads. I don't care if you are a fan of Macs or not- the ads are simply not true. The company was genius at marketing the iPod, and now folks listen.
This is a reason why I very much think Vista is just a transitional OS.
Programs need to be written in a low-access environment- they don't need to be touching the system at all. Vista is taking the first step to this- making developers choose between "doing it right" with low access and zero UAC prompts- or cutting some corners and having their program generate UAC prompts for the user to enjoy.
IMO it is a great step in the right direction for programmers to get their programs whipped into shape.
So, we have to right-click or screw with entering the password in Linux, and this somehow makes it better? Remember your post was aimed at how usable it is for the end user.
Clicking a single button from a window that is generated automatically is a ton easier for the user than trying to teach people how to use "Run As", and also screwing with typing in a darn password.
I hope that was a joke... Apple wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for Microsoft
Macs have their use. I just don't think the use they have is worth the money- when Windows can do the same thing.
My XP machine and Vista machine are similar on hardware. I've used this Vista machine since February. Bought XP machine in July.
4 Months for XP compared to 9 months on Vista.
XP has become so bogged down and slow it's ridiculous. I'm almost at the point of re-installing again. This is less than half the time of Vista, and my Vista machine has been running just as fast as it ever has (And opening Outlook takes 2 seconds versus 30- Superfetch FTW).
Apple wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for Microsoft
Macs have their use. I just don't think the use they have is worth the money- when Windows can do the same thing.
Well yes, it was a joke.
However, you have to give Apple credit.
Firstly, Apple invented the whole concept of a Personal Computer, a computer that could be used by 'normal people'. At the time, Bill Gates was still writing BASIC interpreters for Altair. Compare Altair to the Apple I.
Secondly, while Windows can do the same thing as a Mac, you have to realize that Apple popularized the whole GUI concept, firstly with the Lisa, then later with the Mac.
Windows started off as nothing but a poor copy of MacOS for IBM PCs.
So in that light, I'd say Microsoft wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for Apple. Microsoft just had a businessmodel that turned out to be more successful.
I have said this before but I guess I can say it again, I don't see it as hatred of Vista really, just dislike of anything new. People get used to something and they know it and they think they know best and anything else is crap for people not smart enough to use <whatever they use>. They don't want that to change.
Maybe I ran into the shockingly rare (I doubt it), but I remember this same kinda junk going on with XP and 2k and OS X. "2k won't run anything! It has no drivers", "XP uses all your ram and your games won't work! It looks like fisher price playset the OS", "OS X is nothing like OS 9, it lacks <stuff> that made Apple great!" etc.
This is the same thing. FUD. I upgraded each of those times and did just fine. An OS is a tool, or should be, to get work done. For some reason a few people want to make it into a religion. Use what works, Vista is a fine OS, but you by no means have to use it nor do you have to convert people to whatever you use. If something you use is great, tell people why. Don't waste time telling people that the OS that works fine for them really doesn't work fine and they just don't know it yet... that won't get you anywhere
Maybe I ran into the shockingly rare (I doubt it), but I remember this same kinda junk going on with XP and 2k and OS X. "2k won't run anything! It has no drivers", "XP uses all your ram and your games won't work! It looks like fisher price playset the OS", "OS X is nothing like OS 9, it lacks <stuff> that made Apple great!" etc.
This is the same thing. FUD. I upgraded each of those times and did just fine. An OS is a tool, or should be, to get work done. For some reason a few people want to make it into a religion. Use what works, Vista is a fine OS, but you by no means have to use it nor do you have to convert people to whatever you use. If something you use is great, tell people why. Don't waste time telling people that the OS that works fine for them really doesn't work fine and they just don't know it yet... that won't get you anywhere
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,718
Bil Gates isn't good at it. In a capitalist consumer market, the consumer makes the ultimate decision. Steve is getting desperate and resorts to creating FUD commercials to try to persuade the weak to join his 'family'.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
I don't hate Vista. I simply resent using it because it seems like I got every single documented quirk out there on my laptop. Every single problem I've had so far has been documented and is fixed in SP1. I'm just pissed because MS is making me wait for SP1 when they have fixed for all my problems right now. Why the hell can't they just put these fixes out on Windows Update?!
Being easy to use is not always the best solution... In ths particular case forcing the user to make educated guess is. Giving the user an automated method of rights escalation is not.
Lets face it most software is complex. A good software is one that works well, AND is easy to use... While UAC may be easy to use, it doesn't matter because it DOESNT do what it is advertised as being able to do. Giving the user the ability to right click on a menu to select what permissions that application is allowed to have is an ideal compromise between UAC's flawed design, and a secure rights escalation policy. It'd be much easier to use then a full blown policy editor, and at the same time much better then UAC.
While the UAC patent that MS filed last year is null&void due to SUDO being its prior-art, SUDO it is NOT!!! or at least this implementation (btw you can get sudo for win)
Sudo is completly different to UAC just go and use a distro that uses it and you will see. Ubuntu have gone the whole hog and made it so the first user created is in the wheel group AND has a very large custom sudo.conf file to manage everything such that a passwd is needed
you don't have to do it like that, that is just ubuntu's way todo it. to be fair since ubuntu are trying to bring linux to the masses they must cater to the mindset of windows-users... ie run as Administrator which is mad mmmkay and they are doing an alright job of it
Sudo is completly different to UAC just go and use a distro that uses it and you will see. Ubuntu have gone the whole hog and made it so the first user created is in the wheel group AND has a very large custom sudo.conf file to manage everything such that a passwd is needed
you don't have to do it like that, that is just ubuntu's way todo it. to be fair since ubuntu are trying to bring linux to the masses they must cater to the mindset of windows-users... ie run as Administrator which is mad mmmkay and they are doing an alright job of it
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
Am I the only one that wants to stab the "Im a Mac" guy in the throat? I have seen a couple new Vista commercials....
oh yes... but we're not allowed to say that because we look like MS fanboys. But some of the stuff they put on those adds... is just wrong...
"macs dont get cryptic error messages"...
right but they still have software conflicts which just means you have to pay your techi (me) an extra $50 pissing around trying to find the issue where as in XP or vista... those error messages always put me in the right ball park.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Am I the only one that wants to stab the "Im a Mac" guy in the throat? I have seen a couple new Vista commercials....
Dude, did you see the new "pick a Vista" one?! I don't care what OS you prefer or how corny the previous Mac ads were, that ad was fricken FUNNY!
Gawsh, I laughed for ten minutes after seeing that. "Wait...didn't you make this?" Gold. TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
They can. They have every ability to. If they did that- what would they have to put into a SP?I'm just pissed because MS is making me wait for SP1 when they have fixed for all my problems right now. Why the hell can't they just put these fixes out on Windows Update?!
Vista is so much more stable than all other Windows versions- Microsoft doesn't need a big SP to fix a ton of issues. There are so many (in contrast) minor fixes- it could techically be solved through Windows Update.
But if that were the case- all the people still (blindly) going by the "Wait until SP1" would not switch over. IMO it is just Microsoft pleasing folks in that camp.
Windows is so well documented, which such a large userbase- you can search the large majority of your issues yourself and find a solution.
Macs simply don't have that option, either.
As I Lay Dying
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 975
My problems with vista is this, its fast enough, though I still do not find it faster than my ubuntu install. I still do not have 5.1 sound out of my onboard sound, not really MS fault on that one, these bad drivers also caused many bsods. Luckily for me I knew how to figure it out and solve the problem, many people cannot. I have seen vista loaded on some machines that it should not be on, I know MS wants to push vista but I mean on a 512MB machine, and its painfully slow on it. There are several compatibility issues with it, another reason why all our new desktops at work are xp machines.
One thing that is driving me up the wall right now with XP and Vista, especially vista, because you would think it would be supported by now but the lack of network audio. Face it some of us have multiple computers and don't want to have 3 sets of speakers on our desk. Sadly I dual boot vista and ubuntu, what features besides gaming (the reason why I have it still) although I have a 360 elite for that as well, does vista offer that ubuntu does not. I don't want to make this a vista vs linux thread. I have vista ultimate and I have ubuntu, vista actually lacks in comparison to ubuntu. Thats my problem, vista ultimate lacks the promises I was supposed to be offered, pretty much I paid extra a premium for nothing. The reality of the situation is that vista is overpriced, there is no feature or functionality vista is offering me right now that I can justify the price. Even if you don't use linux, xp professional offers the same vista, even if you love hate UAC (hate it then you probably have disabled, but you can be a limited user and runas in xp from command line) for the power user. I am not saying vista is bad, but really what is it offering other than playing catch up against its competing operating systems.
Before any one mentions it, but I do have per application volume control in linux.
One thing that is driving me up the wall right now with XP and Vista, especially vista, because you would think it would be supported by now but the lack of network audio. Face it some of us have multiple computers and don't want to have 3 sets of speakers on our desk. Sadly I dual boot vista and ubuntu, what features besides gaming (the reason why I have it still) although I have a 360 elite for that as well, does vista offer that ubuntu does not. I don't want to make this a vista vs linux thread. I have vista ultimate and I have ubuntu, vista actually lacks in comparison to ubuntu. Thats my problem, vista ultimate lacks the promises I was supposed to be offered, pretty much I paid extra a premium for nothing. The reality of the situation is that vista is overpriced, there is no feature or functionality vista is offering me right now that I can justify the price. Even if you don't use linux, xp professional offers the same vista, even if you love hate UAC (hate it then you probably have disabled, but you can be a limited user and runas in xp from command line) for the power user. I am not saying vista is bad, but really what is it offering other than playing catch up against its competing operating systems.
Before any one mentions it, but I do have per application volume control in linux.
- Status