Why Do Alot Of People Hate Windows Vista?

[rvalkass 5]

There is nothing wrong with the actual operating system that makes it run slow. If you have under 1.5 gb of ram its going to run regular but not fast. If you have 2+ gb of ram it will run great. Its a highly graphical system.

The colossal number of background processes may have something to do with the poor performance, along with the GUI taking up more processing power than it should, even at the graphical levels being used. If Microsoft had really thought about it, optimised the graphics and background processes, and allowed more tuning for how the graphics look, then performance might not be so much of an issue.

 

The only people that hate it are computer illiterate people who can't read the box that has minimum or "recommended requirements".

I rather take offence at being told that I can't read. I think you'll find that a large number of literate people also hate Vista. For example, a large proportion of the open source community hate it. People who have boxes popping up every 30 seconds asking for permission to do something are also getting pretty annoyed with it. People who find their hardware and software suddenly doesn't work are quite annoyed too. Laptop owners who find their batteries draining like charge is going out of fashion also hate Vista. And, of course, each of those people also fits into the group who has to pay around ?200 for this dud operating system.

 

If your computer doesn't meet them then don't get it. The only reason to really get it is on a new BUILT for vista computer.

A large number of manufacturers are selling computers with Vista that meet the requirements, and still run slow. They are built specifically for Vista and it still doesn't work!

 

Memory is cheap anyway, you can get 4 gb of ram on newegg for around $120 dollars. 4 gb of ram will make vista run fine seeing that you have a good processor and a decent video card. For the video card you need a minimum of 128 mb just for vista. Yes it may hog it, but vista was built for computers with good hardware. To meet the reccomended requirements may not be enough. But the reccomended is not always whats best.

4GB of unbranded RAM is around ?60 (120 USD). If you want RAM that will actually work, you can get 4GB of Corsair RAM for around ?80 (160 USD). That new DX10 graphics card you need is around another ?50 to ?70 depending on whether you want something from a good name (even those these prices are for the bare minimum required). Then you need the operating system. XP is roughly ?50. Vista? ?197.36! So that is a total cost of around ?300 to ?350, without upgrading your processor, motherboard or any peripherals that aren't going to work with Vista.

 

Alternatively, of course, I save all that money and run KDE4 with Compiz Fusion to get all the glossy effects people love so much for ?0.00, after spending ?0.00 on required hardware upgrades of course. Wow, that's a saving of at least ?300...

[heavensounds 0]

Some like it, some don't! Let's think about it from another point of view. Vista was a big big boom and bam that Microsoft tried to make a few years ago, but they ran into A LOT of problems trying to make a new great operating system that would close anti-microsoft mouths around the world....the failed BUT there was the promise and they waited as long as they could to create something that is not completely bad, but of course it is not great as promised. So yeah this is how it is, it is an ok operating system with all the latest things you need, but it runs slowly, sometimes just too slow and works well only on the latest computers...I think that we should all wait for the new so called "Windows Vienna" or something like that which is again, PROMISED to be really new with completely new code from scratch...and I hope that they will make it with vienna..but problems are inevitable even with that high amount of money involved...

[zamaliphe 0]

OK what i hate and what i like in windows vista

 

first what i like will Microsoft are a thief

thy stole most of Linux stuff like

Linux command line

commands like "kill" was one of the best in Linux

and Meany moor

i think allot of people did complain about boor command line of windows

will vista is much beater

in this side now

 

and the eay candy stuff

i did try Linux with Beryl 3d effects

and it much much much beater than Windows vista

but the only way to use Windows vista is that most of

 

mobile software work only under windows

 

so I'm stuck with vista

by the way i did use the same 3d effects and even beater on Linux with only 256 MB of ram

 

but when it come to vista 1GB of ram is not good to run the system

and i think that the next windows will need 4 GB of ram at last just to be installed

 

by the way my MB maximum capletey of ram is 4GB

are you still asking why we didn't like vista much

Edited February 11, 2008 by zamaliphe (see edit history)

[Amiel 0]

I hate Microsoft Windows Vista because of some reasons:1st: I hate Microsoft Windows Vista because of it's system requirements. Oh cmon, it's very hard to get high specifications this time. Evey PC specs are very expensive and they are not worthy to buy in my opinion. Well, could you imagine, 1 gb ram could exactly give you the satisfaction? Think, it's Windows Vista, there are too many things and etc loaded and added there which are not important. For me as a consumer, 1 gb is not enough to run Windows Vista. I need atleast 2 gb ram to run that.2nd: I hate Microsoft Windows Vista because of it's precious price. Oh cmon again. Microsoft Windows Vista is very expensive here in our country. So, pirated CD's are being sold in markets and everywhere! I almost cry when I saw it's price here. I cant imagine that at first, I need a 2 gb of RAM to run it, plus now, I need atleast 400 $ to buy Microsoft Windows Vista? I dont think so. I'd rather wait and I need to earn more money, so I can buy the luxurious Mac OS!3rd: I hate Microsoft Windows Vista because of it is just a shiny version of Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005! Well, it is more shiny, but I still hate it. I really prefer into the boring and classic original design of Microsoft's 95, 98, 2000, and ME!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But even though I love to hate it, Microsoft Windows Vista can assure us that we are safe. It has great programs but others dont help though. For now, I'll stick with Microsoft Windows XP!-Amiel

[Galahad 0]

The only people that hate it are computer illiterate people who can't read the box that has minimum or "recommended requirements".

Are you saying that 12 years of software development makes me illiterate? Choose your words more carefully in the future friend... I don't hate vista, as that would be a waste of my time and emotions on something that doesn't deserve a second of my time...
When I choose an operating system, I don't want it to hog all my resources... I don't need a fancy shiny operating system, I need an operating system that works... If I bought 2G of RAM, then I bought it to be used, but not to be used by an operating system, so I'd have to buy more RAM... Why do you thing businesses and corporations haven't made the switch from XP to Vista? Because it's cost ineffective... It would cost them millions to upgrade their computer systems, and millions more to buy Vista... And what do they get? Nothing... Just a big scam, that actually doesn't look that nice afterall...

I'll just remind you of a Linux desktop managers, like Beryl, that has a rotating 3D cube, that runs smoothly on 1.6GHz computer, with 1GB RAM... Movie is playing on one side, music on the other, while internet is on the third... And all of thet is being watched from the top side, mirrored! And there's no hickups...

Operating system is supposed to be designed to run in the background, not to be the front end application... Operating systems, by function, should consume as little computer power as possible, not the opposite... Why would a home user, who has no income from the computer, give away about 400-600 for they computer and OS, that will often hickup, when they can have a perfectly running compuet for 250?

I could say that people who run Vista are people, who just happen to have too much money and spare time on their hands, and do not depend on their computer to make money...

Sadly, M$ will eventually make people migrate from XP to Vista, just as they did make people migrate from Win98 to XP in the past... However, I won't be one of them...

[tricky77puzzle 0]

Sadly, M$ will eventually make people migrate from XP to Vista, just as they did make people migrate from Win98 to XP in the past...

I think MS (Yes, I don't use derogatory names, like Linsux, Fackintosh (<- swearword?) and Windoze), after they make people migrate from XP to Vista, will cut off compatibility in an update. This will ensure that people stay with Vista. It's sad how they go through things.

[darran 0]

Personally, I had the choice of choosing to upgrade to Vista or switch over to Leopard (Mac). I did the latter, and I am glad I did so after hearing the massive complaints in this thread as well as from all my friends on how resource intensive Vista is. Though the minimum requirements is 1GB, to actually run it decently (not high end); you would basically need 2GB of memory. And notice the keyword is decently, to run smoothly, even more memory is needed.Sure enough Vista is reborned with a classy and beautiful interface, the glossiness was nonetheless copied from Mac. Where is the innovation in the design which Microsoft has promised? I do disagree about the fact you should only get a Mac if you don't game much. I do play games like WoW and Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 which is running on my Windows XP partition. Once again, I have not touched Vista and unless by force, will never ever use it.

[logansmeadow 0]

Personally, my switch to vista has been relatively flawless for the programs that I run....that being said I bought a new computer a year ago and had no choice. XP was no longer available where I made my purchase.I've been relatively happy with it. Once I made my piece with the constant "Are you okay with this action" pop ups when I was customizing and the odd upgrade needed I was okay. My only BIG problems were the fact my one year old printer was obsolete and I was forced to buy a new one as an upgrade wasn't going to be available for another 4 months (grrr).If I was to do t all over again though......I think I would have gone the Mac route, just to try it out at the very least. In all honesty I only stayed with Windows due to the graphics program I have become accustomed to.

[rayzoredge 2]

I'm starting to get sick of this whole comparison gig where one OS supposedly copied another. It's starting to get to the point where I don't care anymore, as long as the OS works well.I haven't gotten a chance to sit down and play around with a Vista machine, but I just hear horror stories after horror stories. Same with Mac's Leopard. And of course, Linux's Ubuntu is always in development.A lot of people are going to have a mixed bag of opinions when it comes to operating systems because everyone uses them in different ways. Developers will probably bash them for inefficiency; geeks will bash them for being incompatible with a majority of applications and/or hardware (driver support); and everyday computer-illiterate (normal ) consumers will appreciate the new operating systems for their shiny eye candy. (And we all know how we love our shiny eye candy.)I got the chance to play around with a Mac with Leopard installed at Best Buy and for the very basics, I can safely say that it's okay if you're doing the very basics. I never got too in-depth into it, but given the opportunity I'll explore it more and probably give you a different opinion on the operating system itself. Funny enough, it strikes a VERY strong semblance to Ubuntu... especially the Control Panel/System Preferences/System Settings section. (I don't know who came up with that look first and I'm starting to not care.)Nowadays, it's hard to actually pitch operating systems against each other as being the best, as each operating system almost caters to certain audiences. Windows XP is the staple for most computers nowadays, and in my opinion, Professional SP2 is the best in terms of software variety (especially our beloved Adobe programs). Things just work on SP2, and really, it's one of two operating systems right now that actually can boast that "it just works" that I know of personally.Vista is on the opposite spectrum, apparently, being much of a resource hog and incompatible with a lot of things. I have no real experience on the operating system so I can't say much about it.I haven't touched Mac OS X aside from general use on my buddy's Macbook, and it's okay as far as general use. Leopard brings more features to the table, but if it's actually like Mac OS X, it wins my book for being visually-pleasing, easy to pick up, and being expensive as hell. Not to mention that I hate this elitist thing that goes on for a lot of Mac users.I've been using Kubuntu on and off for a bit, so I'm sort of familiar with it. It is the second one of the two that I can safely say that things just work... but if it doesn't, be prepared to be lost in researching for an answer to your problem. If you're not familiar with Linux, you can get lost with the command lines and the feeling that you have to be a geek to play with 'nix operating systems. It's constantly being developed, so I can say that there's hardly anything actually WRONG with the operating system, but then again, a lot of programs for Linux, although free, may be ridden with bugs (unless it's out of beta).So basically...- Windows XP is still going to be popular, in my opinion, until Vista becomes more viable. It's probably what most PC users will stick to.- Windows Vista is still not a good move yet. I don't know what the first service pack fixed, but until it actually performs better than its predecessor in terms of compatibility and performance (in proportion), computer-literate consumers will stay wary.- Mac OS X is apparently pleasing the Apple crowd. It seems easy to use and is visually-pleasing, but it comes at a high cost to be "in" with the younger, hipper crowd, as Apple almost seems to be gearing their products towards.- Leopard seems to follow the Mac OS X legacy, although peer reviews suggest otherwise. I'm thinking that it's on the same path with Vista, although nowhere nearly as bad.- The Linux distribution of Ubuntu seems to be heading in the right direction, offering a complete, working operating operating systems with hundreds if not thousands of alternative, open-source software [all for free, mind you], but continued development, beta programs, and an intimidating (and almost necessary) inhabitance of the shell console keeps most everyday people away. This is changing, however, as Ubuntu is becoming even more user-friendly. (I think that most other distributions may cater moreso to certain computer-literate tastes, although my experience out of Kubuntu only includes Freespire, in which I didn't spend much time on.)

[dre 0]

A lot of people are going to have a mixed bag of opinions when it comes to operating systems because everyone uses them in different ways.

You'd get confusion from most people if you mention Linux, maybe even Mac. Most people are just too lazy to actually investigate the differences between the OS's themselves and assume that 'big brother' knows best so Vista is the way to go.

I'm starting to get sick of this whole comparison gig where one OS supposedly copied another. It's starting to get to the point where I don't care anymore, as long as the OS works well.

Nobody makes you read it, it's just there, and it will always be there. And most comparisons aren't interested in claiming others copied it, they're mostly out there to try and inform people that there's other options.

Funny enough, it strikes a VERY strong semblance to Ubuntu... especially the Control Panel/System Preferences/System Settings section. (I don't know who came up with that look first and I'm starting to not care.)

It's like saying "Alright everybody, lets get us a new idea in the next 30 seconds, never thought before." People are bound to make things similar to the things that inspired them.

[saitunes 0]

I haven't used Vista for an extended period, Call me crazy but I'm not a fan of spending 100's of $$ on a DVD which is essentially 1's and 0's... I am a mac user, yes, running tiger. See unlike Microsoft Apple make the hardware as well as the software, so they know the strengths and weaknesses of each. And because they make a majority of the software for the mac, they don't charge alot... because they've got a cut before you bought it. They would just be triple (because they get a cut for the OS & The computer itself) dipping if they were charging alot for their software.

 

Lets weight this up,

 

Mac Vs. Pc

 

The latest operating system:

 

Mac OS X Leopard ($129 single user, $199 Family pack (4 or 5 licenses i think)

System Reqirements:

# A Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor

# 512MB of memory

# DVD drive for installation

# 9GB of available disk space

 

Windows vista Home Basic ($385 single license)

System Requirements:

*1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

*512 MB of system memory

*20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

*Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory

*DVD-ROM drive

*Audio Output

*Internet access (fees may apply)

Windows Vista Ultimate ($754)

System Reqirements:

*1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

*1 GB of system memory

*40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

*Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

oWDDM Driver

o128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

oPixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

o32 bits per pixel

*DVD-ROM drive

*Audio Output

*Internet access (fees may apply)

Lets review shall we?

Leopard (which doesn't have a basic version with all the cool stuff turned off btw.)

#$129, 199 for 5 licenses (i think)

#Specs fit computers upto 4+ years old

 

Vista

*Different versions, different costs none of which is under $300 brand new

*Very Heavy on the graphics..

 

I have used XP before I became a Mac user... And it was good, Except that once every six months or so i would have to back everything up and run the recovery disk, then have to re-install all my software.

With my mac I've had for almost a year, I HAVE had to clean out my documents folder and such... but never had to do a clean recovery.

 

I used linux for a while (edubuntu) and I thought it was ok... I never really got into it for very long. I do however like 'puppy linux' a lightweight version of linux. Very basic, word processor, net browser and a few other handy utils... The only thing was i didn't have drivers for it to work with my hardware which was the end of a perfectly good linux OS...

 

Basically My point of view on the matter is this:

 

No matter what you do, it all comes down to the user. Some people like macs, some like windows and others like freeware operating systems like linux, darwin and such... I prefer mac because i have not had a problem which was unprovoked. When finder crashes (The equivalent to explorer) other programs are generally not affected and i can relaunch easily. in otherwords... when explorer trips, windows falls over. With mac, when a program freezes, its generally the only thing that freezes... and when i it CMD+Option+ESC(CTRL ALT DEL equivalent) it pops up fairly quick... and isn't built into the finder... which means when finder dies... it doesn't, unlike windows task manager...

 

And the mysterious "No viruses for mac" Conundrum... its sprung a few conspiracy theories as to Microsoft knowing the vunerabilities, and giving those to virus developers/anti-virus developers... not to mention the numerous "security updates" Windows, if you're going to make an operating system, finish it. And if there are a few problems... yeah update them. But finish them first.

 

The countless updates, every few days 'security update' this or 'priority update' that... My mac- once a month or so an update or two (mainly when new versions of apple software (itunes, quicktime, safari, has a new release... or the pro apps have been updated, occaisionally there's a firmware update, but i've only had one of those i think.

 

Long story short, I'm not a huge fan of windows anymore, The best PC I had was a p2 i think with 600mHz processor, 32 mb ram with a 1.5 GB hard drive running windows 98... only crashed once, and that was when we tried to load sim city 2000 on it... which it couldn't handle.

 

It all comes down to what you want to do with your computer, but always keep your mind open. play with a mac next time you get a chance.

 

Notice from rvalkass:

System requirements aren't original material, so they need to be quoted.

[Fleet 0]

I'd use Vista if it were there, but I generally prefer Windows XP Professional. Vista's fancy windows and effects slow it down tremendously. When I have to use Vista, I pretty much, start by changing the theme to Windows Classic, that speeds it up a bit in my opinion.

[dre 0]

See unlike Microsoft Apple make the hardware as well as the software

Actually, neither of them do, Apple just modifies it to be specifically for Apple. Apple has no right to create NVIDIA or ATI video cards, it just buys the chips and makes the rest.

[tricky77puzzle 0]

The problem with Microsoft is that they have a closed mind. They want to force everyone to buy their products (an "anti-push" factor, so to say) and use their endorsed hardware, as well as assimilating smaller companies (a "double-pull" factor, where one company pulls the company that pulls other customers), rather than trying to work with them. Why do you think they're so against the open-source movement?

[darran 0]

The issue about Macs are that you pay for the OS more than anything else. You could be paying a SGD 3,200 for a Mac when you can get a high performance PC for SGD 2,000. It all boils down to the OS, I personally would not mind paying SGD 1,200 more for a lower spec computer with a much superior OS in my opinion. Though the starting was tough for me, as I had to readapt to the new keys like command and option, where control isn't control like in Windows, I have passed the transition period that using Windows is increasingly difficult now.