For all those who have "HEARD" Vista is bad

I hear it every day. Oh man dont get Vista it's terrible.
I heard Vista is the worst system ever.
I heard Vista uses way more resources
I heard Vista can make your prize bull sterile
I heard Vista can defrost a fridge at will
etc etc etc BLAH BLAH BLAH :uke:


KNOX AND WALDO COUNTIES (June 8): Windows Vista has been released for over a year now. Major computer manufacturers like Dell, HP, Acer, Sony and Toshiba are all selling computers with Windows Vista pre-loaded. Microsoft has released Service Pack 1 for Vista a short while ago. Even after all this, does your local computer guy/girl still tell you "Vista's buggy" or "Vista has all kinds of problems"? If so, has the tech even used Vista?

Rest of the article is here and its worth the read
http://waldo.villagesoup.com/busines...storyID=118351

Has been my experience as well. Issues with Vista iteself have been far fewer than any previous version. People can complain about their old apps and hardware not working all they like. If they wanna continue using stuff that's flawed by design, let em stick with an old OS that's flawed by design as well. Vista is a helluva good step in the right direction. Backwards compatability is just a way of allowing developers to continue in their pisspoor coding rather than forcing them into textbook standards.

People may bitch that Vista is slow or a resource hog, but it's made for the "hot/new" machines of today to be the botom end. They designed it with the PCs of the next couple years in mind. That's called "forward thinking" and is a good thing. It's not the fault of MS that OEMs like Dell and Emachine release hardware that was hot and new 2 years ago with an OS intended for today and tomorrow. I seen the original series P4s with 64MB of RAM come preloaded from Dell with XP. Want to talk about a dog of a machine. Do people look back at the crappy machines of yesteryear when thinking of XP's performance? no... They take a machine with somewhat current hardware, typically a few years newer than XP, and compare Vista using the same hardware (which to Vista is old bottom of the barrel CRAP).

The MAIN flaw I see in Vista's release was Microsoft's trust in developers to be on the ball with learning "what's next". I'm tickled to see they also ditched the "good faith" practice and if you want to develop a product and get it certified for Vista, you must also provide coding layouts for the next version, Windows 7 (starting just as soon as the first beta is out the door).

Although I also do hafta lay some blame on MS for the fact developers totally ignored it until it was already released. It was due to the many delays of Vista that caused developers to ignore it.

Either way, it's always the "bad press" that gets talked about, errr the squeaky wheel gets the attention, err whatever lil saying ya like. Vista has been and is a much better product than previous versions.

I still have most of my customers ask for XP with any new build. I tell them that the industry is moving towards Vista, and in a year or so you will have trouble finding something that isn't written for Vista, just like it is almost impossible to find programs today that are compatable with Windows 98.

Those arguments are at best childish. So it's a newer O/S, but why does it have to use so many resources? Remember Windows 95? All it *needed* was 4M of RAM, it was flying with 16 or 32. But try to run Vista on 512M and see how it crawls...
After all what does Vista or even XP do that 95 doesn't? Hmmm... not too much at the core if you think about it. Only a "nicer" interface and a bunch of useless gadgets that most people don't care about.
But hey.. someone has to force people into buying new computers, to do exactly the same things only slower and with more frustration.
Another example - Office. Look what happened with it from Office 95 to 2007... does the same, much slower, takes way more resources.. and it still doesn't produce the documents I need by itself.

People who write software should be *forced* to use it... then maybe they will start writing better code. I write code for a living and *do* fight to optimize and speed up my applications in any possible way.

Yea, I do remember Win95, and yea, all w95 needed was 4MB, and flew when ya had 16-32MB installed (FOUR to EIGHT times the amount of RAM)
then, all w98 needed was 16MB, but flew on 128-256MB (EIGHT to SIXTEEN times as much and I'm sure you can see where this leads)

That's apples versus oranges tho. Lets move on to a comparison worth making...

NT4 Workstation most commonly shipped with 16MB of RAM and 128MB was its high average.

Win2k, lots of machines shipped with 32MB of RAM, and 128-256MB was common for loads of systems.

WinXP, some systems shipped with as little as 64MB of RAM initially (painfully slow once AV and other common apps are added). Just before Vista's release, even the bottom line wallywerld $399 specials all had 512MB but the most commonly sold systems shipped with a gig (599-799 range).

Now with Vista people are finally going to start complaining about resource usage when RAM is WAY cheaper than it's ever been? Give me a break... 1GB to 4GB isn't much to ask in today’s market for a new OS. Shoot, 2GB of top name RAM like Crucial or Corsair can be had for MUCH MUCH less (under $50 typically) than what 32MB originally cost in the Win95 days (maybe you do not remember, but back then the average was $28 per MB).

As for the gadgets, maybe us techs could care less about them, but users do like them. How do you think so many users get duped into download virus laiden icon packages and themes and such. Gadgets and a pretty interface are all that's left to work on and improve on once the core functionality is set.

Is sort of the same reason cars still don't look like the modelT, they got the pointA to pointB part down, so in your way of thinking they should have stopped there. (I realize that's a silly analogy, but so is what you provided above)

In short, I really wish people who liked to complain also liked to do research and would direct their complaints legitimately at the 3rd party developers that'd rather "figure stuff out" than educate themselves and adhere to textbook standards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeeBee

Those arguments are at best childish. So it's a newer O/S, but why does it have to use so many resources? Remember Windows 95? All it *needed* was 4M of RAM, it was flying with 16 or 32. But try to run Vista on 512M and see how it crawls...
After all what does Vista or even XP do that 95 doesn't? Hmmm... not too much at the core if you think about it. Only a "nicer" interface and a bunch of useless gadgets that most people don't care about.
But hey.. someone has to force people into buying new computers, to do exactly the same things only slower and with more frustration.
Another example - Office. Look what happened with it from Office 95 to 2007... does the same, much slower, takes way more resources.. and it still doesn't produce the documents I need by itself.

People who write software should be *forced* to use it... then maybe they will start writing better code. I write code for a living and *do* fight to optimize and speed up my applications in any possible way.

---

I cannnot believe what I have just read.
Ummmmm lets start with a built in backup system and i dont mean some crap documents and stuff. I mean a full image backup .
Then lets look at the Media centre and what it can do with a tv card. Absolutely amazingis what .
But wait you say you have to add a tv card.
Didnt that have to be added ion to win95? and wouldnt you need to spend likely 1 to 3 hundred dollars on decent tv program and you still wouldnt have live tv guide and recordability like Vista does.
Doesnt do more then win 95 huh. Could you use a removable disk in win95 like a memory stick?
Could you find a built in dvd burning program in win95?
Could you find a built in compression program in win95?
Could you find remote desktop in Win95?
The list is quite endless and shows that the statement:

After all what does Vista or even XP do that 95 doesn't? Hmmm... not too much at the core if you think about it. Only a "nicer" interface and a bunch of useless gadgets that most people don't care about.

Is very foolish indeed

I heard it kicks puppies, and pushes old people down the stairs. Oh and I also heard it's against all that's pure and good in the world.

Windows 95, the Vista of its day. :)

I remember someone I knew up in Sydney trying to dazzle me with how much better it was than Windows 3.11. We spent a morning at his house failing to access useful websites & bulletin boards, and he was thrilled that it was fully 32-bit with pre-emptive multi-tasking. He looked a bit disconsolate when I commented that it actually still had wodges of 16-bit code left over from 3.1, and most people were still running 16-bit applications which didn't run pre-emptive.

He couldn't point to anything useful it did that 3.11 couldn't like maybe USB support, because of course it had none. He couldn't even suggest I run it on my 286 and try its benefits for myself, as I would have needed an expensive upgrade to a 386 to even run it. And memory at $28 per megabyte? The Kobe earthquake was Jan '95, memory went over $100 per megabyte in Australia!

Fortunately I had recognised that Windows95 was nothing more than a means to force people into buying new computers, and DOS 5 really made my system fly, with only 2MB of memory! I could have a 1MB re-sizeable ramdrive, and to this day I haven't needed to update anything to migrate onto that bloated resource hog Windows 95...

Oh wait... that's not quite right. In the real world, I realise I'm happily using XP and Vista on dual-core systems running at 2.5 GHz with 2 and 3 GB of RAM, that in relative terms cost no more than the 386SX I eventually upgraded to in order to run... Windows95!

The $28 per megabyte information was taken from an invoice in February of 1996 where I had purchased two 16MB 4Mx36-70 (72 pin SIMM) @ $460. Yes, $920 in RAM.

I can't see any reason in bitching over Vista wanting fifty dollars worth of RAM. People need to research before making complaints and then complain about something that will do them some good.

Wish my truck ran on something so cheap.... :mad:

Heh, sorry if it sounded like I was saying you were wrong, I wasn't.

I just remembered I couldn't afford to get 1MB 32pin SIMMs for my 286 at the time. $100 here was probably about $65 US.

LOL

Not at all man, I remember the that quake and price hike as well and if memory serves me well, you're spot on the money. Guess I was primarily pointing out the fact that I'm not being a MS fanboy, I don't make a statement without factual backing to what I say. Nothing at all directed at you Platy, or anyone else in specific, just adding to the convo and keeping the thread alive. :)

May as well add more rant:
I could care less about who makes a product, when it rocks it rocks (I like Macs and AMDs, and Intels and I'm not an ATI guy or Nvidia guy, I'm a computer guy and I love em all), and from everything I've seen personally, Vista has been the best release of Windows to date (I've been through them all inside and out). Granted Vista took forever, and that led developers to lose interest in having stuff ready for it. Microsoft has apparently learned from that and worked out a fix in the form of the additions to the Windows Certified program requirments and that will be an improvment of the next version of Windows over Vista, it should go much smoother.
As far as computers as a whole goes, everyone is still learning and creating. Hardware and software; and as one grows, it gives new capabilities to be added and new learning to be explored in the other and vice versa. Everyone wants constructive criticism on what they spend time creating, but when it comes to MS, nobody ever offers any, all they wanna do is whine and spew unfounded/uneducated claims. Does anyone honestly beleive the guys and gals at MS didn't do the best job they're able to do and does anyone honestly think they personally could have done a better job creating the product MS created? I think they did a helluva job and deserve a pat on the back. I can't see where they made any changes that were specifically geared to make a persons experience worse than previous versions. Rather than just casting hate and blame blindly or taking someone's word for something, do the research, learn the product, inside and out. Then put forth legitimate gripes to where they belong. Falsehoods and hype cost money from the end user to the implementers and administrators. The ones trying to feed a family. (like most of us)

As for my own personal experiences with Vista, I have many Vista machines in operation in both business and home enviroments and all issues have been related to third party software and devices and none have been too hard to work through or around. Yes, sometimes that requires spending some extra money. But any IT person worth a hoot should be able to perform testing and have all that laid out from day one so there's no surprises (which is the best practice in all implementations).

What I tell everyone is owning a computer is not a purchase, it's an investment. That once you have one, you will never want to do without it. That being the case, upgrading is inevitable so you plan things accordingly. I have customers on Vista who have truely not had a "new" computer in almost ten years. Proper upgrade planning is essential.

Another note, overall in the year and a half Vista has been out I've got less support calls on it than ever with XP, and also the time involved in repairing Vista on the occasions the user gets it goofy is far less than with XP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrit

Ummmmm lets start with a built in backup system and i dont mean some crap documents and stuff. I mean a full image backup .

---

Ghost can do an image backup. The built-in backup that has been around for years is *not* a resource hog either.

Quote:

---

Then lets look at the Media centre and what it can do with a tv card. Absolutely amazingis what .
But wait you say you have to add a tv card.
Didnt that have to be added ion to win95? and wouldnt you need to spend likely 1 to 3 hundred dollars on decent tv program and you still wouldnt have live tv guide and recordability like Vista does.

---

So you have 1 decent program that should take no resources when not used. There was no "live TV guide" back then. I see no reason for which such an app should take more than 5-10M of RAM when running or 10k in standby.

Quote:

---

Doesnt do more then win 95 huh. Could you use a removable disk in win95 like a memory stick?

---

If I remember well Win95C had USB support. Yes it needed drivers for mass storage, but again should take no resources when not in use.

Quote:

---

Could you find a built in dvd burning program in win95?

---

There were no DVD's back then, but the old Adaptec Easy CD was working great.. again no resources taken when not in use.

Quote:

---

Could you find a built in compression program in win95?

---

Not built-in but many 3-rd party utilities had it and were taking no resources when not in use.

Quote:

---

Could you find remote desktop in Win95?

---

PC Anywhere, VNC and many other 3-rd party tools.

So again.. what is at the "core" besides integrating things that have been around for a long time and were working fine confined in few MB of RAM??? And even with those new "enhancements", why does it have to take so much CPU and so much RAM? Really, why should you need a high-end video card to view the desktop??? 3D games have been around for ages and needed by far less graphics power... The answer is very simple - to drive the PC sales. That and the fact that many programmers go by "we have fast computers, we can afford writing inefficient code". It's not about the price of RAM, it's about the way the capabilities of a system are being used. Have a computer execute longer code and it will take it more to execute than a short code (duh!).
Want more examples? Look at virtually any piece of software that was originally developed for *NIX and ported to Windows and compare to software developed for Windows... you'll see what I'm talking about.
And then compare old versions of software with newer versions...
See where I'm getting? Yes there are some small enhancements, but at what cost?
Finally, I *DO* have Vista Ultimate 64-bit installed on a partition... but aside from using it to get familiar with it I can't find any good reason to switch from XP... SP3 has boosted performance significantly (again talk about good/bad coding and using of resources) so that I'll stick with it until I have to use Vista-only programs...

You want to go totally featurless and strip out the bells and whistles and go straight to the core. Vista, it's core, the kernel, only uses 404K of RAM when in use. Everything else is only there to make everything else you want to dismiss possible, so we'll just not include that...
Yea you could spend time and money hunting the best solutions available for your tasks, out of your list of comparison programs, at roughly 1995 prices was almost an extra grand in software. I think most users appriciate the fact that they try to make the operating system more operational with additional features and new technologies that don't cost extra (beyond a new copy of Windows every few years).
When you put together a barebones way back when and loaded Windows 95 on it you didn't have nearly the capaiblities as you do doing the same today with Vista. Anyone who disagrees needs to be forced to use nothing but windows 95 with no 3rd party stuff from now throughout eternity.
The argument of why it needs to take so much CPU and RAM is moot, because it's available, cheap, and the step up in requirements is no more than previous version upgrades. By your standards of programming Win95 is inferior to Win1 cause Win1 would FLY with only 256KB of RAM.
And yes, PROGRESS is SOLELY to drive sales. DUH :rolleyes: Sales = money a.k.a. what keeps people clothed and fed... Do you really wanna see Ferrit or me naked and hungry?
Nobody is twisting your arm to upgrade to Vista today, just go ahead and keep using your XP machines, I've got both going on seperate machines and use both daily (although Vista is my primary machine). Thing is, until you've used it daily for as your primary machine, you know not what you speak and therefore shouldn't talk something down you haven't even put full effort into making work for your own tasks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niclo Iste

I heard it kicks puppies, and pushes old people down the stairs. Oh and I also heard it's against all that's pure and good in the world.

---

AND if ya put in a WIn95 CD it will spin it up to 52X then eject and spit it at ya. :flames:

This has become one of the best threads I've read in a long time! Thanks CeeBee for stirring the pot! Let's not lose sight of what CeeBee is saying here. I don't think he means we should all go back to CP/M, Wordstar, and CalcStar, he's just making the point that slower, more bloated code, consuming more and more horsepower shouldn't be an inevitable outcome of newer, more capable software.

He's totally wrong of course, because he forgets the inherent tendency of most people to take the path of least resistance and look for the easy way. Software development is evolutionary, and if I can stretch a point, just like the human genome, there are useless and even potentially lethal genes in the package.

Could most software be far more efficient? Sure. How much software is written in assembly languages these days? The truth is that raw speed just isn't the deciding factor in most software purchased. We all like to bitch about poor performance, but we're generally willing to live with it.