Why Hate On Vista? What turns you away from it?

[humble 0]

there is many reasonsi still waiting for VINA Windows wil lcome out in 2009

[Ethandrule 0]

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is obviously the best choice by far. Why don't you people ever listen? Few people have ever even tried a Mac.

[rvalkass 5]

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is obviously the best choice by far.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? What are your reasons for liking the Mac OS over Linux or Windows, for example? What does the Mac OS do better?

 

Why don't you people ever listen?

When people present me with an argument I will listen to it. The problem I have with the vast majority of Mac users, when making their arguments, is that they never come up with much that is done better than in another operating system. It might be done just as well, but then it just comes down to personal preference.

 

Few people have ever even tried a Mac.

I have. There are things I like, things I don't. There are things that are very clever, and things that smack of incredible stupidity. I personally decided not to get a Mac when I bought my computer, not least because of the price, and that is where Apple really needs to do some work. At the moment you pay for the name, that little plastic Apple logo on the case. To me, that isn't worth the ?500.

[Live-Dimension 0]

Woah, this thread seems slightly off-topic? Lets continue it, for a short while!

I read a write up about the three major OS's - Mac OSX, Windows, Linux. Kinda wish I knew where the article is now, but basically these OS's compliment each other - as such there'll never be a "Holy Grail" among the OS world. Why?

 

You've got three levels

Mac OSX - Plain, simple, and actually works right out of the box. Unfortunately, you've got to pay extra for apply-only hardware that's really re-branded from windows-compatible hardware.

Windows - Sort of the middle ground that's only really popular because of high app and hardware compatibility, as well as a high recognition value. It's currently the gamers system of choice, but only because they are forced to.

Linux - Most customisable, but also the most "complex" system. It can install on anything (including "apple" hardware I assume, which is only really re branded hardware that windows uses). App and hardware support is improving all the time, but lets face it - gimp is still no substitute for Photoshop

 

Let's say your going to buy a new PC. Which would you go for? There's no "Holy Grail" any more like there used to be, so most people would try based on their needs.

 

As for the famous "XP vs Vista" thing - people should get their heads into gear and realise that these are two totally different yet similar OS's. True, the price sucks, but Vista *IS* far ahead then XP - in some areas. Others - it totally fails in.

 

Roughly 8 years ago, there was the same thing going on. a Win9x platform, or Windows XP with its "High system requirements, sluggish performance and poor app/hardware support". Sound familiar? Yet, look at it now. People keep going on about Vista's sluggish perfomance and complaining that Vista needs higher requirements then XP. What did you expect? Here's there minimum system requirements for Win98.

 

66mhz

16mb ram (24mb recommended)

(roughly) 250MB drive

VGA (16-bit or 24-bit SVGA recommended)

internet - 14.4 bps modem

 

Are you trying to tell me today's OS's should run on a 15mhz processor, with 2mb ram, 15mb hard drive, and a 2-bit display? How about a 5 bps modem? I'm sure your favourite websites would load soooo fast on that. How about youtube? Moves in a second me ol' lad

 

My graphics card alone could run an entire win98 setup if you could use the GPU as a cpu, and memory as a hard drive. Seriously, stop complaining Vista is slow and UPGRADE or stick with XP. Sure, Vista used to be bad on some things, but after a year of updates, games run just as fast as XP, and a lot of the other problems have been fixed. I consider Vista a nice stable platform, just like XP was, but not for a while after it's release.

 

Ugh, I want to clean that up but I have work >_> So consider it a slight rant, but full of truth.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Live-Dimension (see edit history)

[Galahad 0]

My "hate" of Vista comes from some moderate experience, that extends only to install it and maintain it for a few friends of mine...Thing that people must realize is that OS is supposed to run invisibly, and allow you to use applications to to the work... Vista consumes so much resources, that working with anything complex becomes pain... I have a friend that uses 3D Studio Max for modelling, who wanted to try Vista... He has fairly new computer, 2.5 GHz CPU, 3 Gigs RAM, some fancy GFX card... And whe he installed Vista, and managed to get 3D Max to run on it, it was so slow, that he wanted to cry... Has has very decent knowledge of computers, but at that point he called me, and I tried to make things run smoother... Ofcourse, with no success...Whatever professional application you want to run, Vista will choke it, or you'll need to spend a ton of money, just to upgrade your hardware... This is how I see current OS/Platform distribution:- Mac is best when used for video editing applications, and that's where 90% of people in that field agree... There is just no comparison of Mac and PC in this field- Linux is (for now) best in programming and scientific stuff, mainly because of it's intermediate complexity- Windows is a home/gaming platform... Yes, it has wide application support, but let's face it, I don't need an OS that requires 2GB of RAM just to run, and I have to pay for it...This is just how I see things with OS/platform deployment at the moment... I happily run Ubuntu 7.10 for few months, and previously I used XP... I thought I'd never get used to Linux, and I would switch back to XP, so I made a dual boot... I booted only once into Wintendo, and that's to consult a forum when I accidentaly screwed up my Ubuntu's network...I only miss Photoshop from Wintendo, but it too runs under Wine in Linux, but I just want to try and make it with GIMP...So, my choice is Linux, and from few months back, it will always be so... As for others well... Whatever their choice be, I hope they are happy with it...I would just recommend people to keep their mind open, and not exclude others without trying... I tried Wintendo, used it for years, then tried Linux, and I love it more than wintendo, and I even find ton of stuff easier to do under Linux, in console, than finding stuff in a bunch of Wintendo windows and menus...My choice is Linux... What is yours

[audiovia 0]

Vista just tries too hard to be like a Mac OS X and fail to do so. Now Microsoft annouced that Vista user go back to XP for now until they fix all the bugs in Vista.

[Live-Dimension 0]

I have a friend that uses 3D Studio Max for modelling, who wanted to try Vista... He has fairly new computer, 2.5 GHz CPU, 3 Gigs RAM, some fancy GFX card... And whe he installed Vista, and managed to get 3D Max to run on it, it was so slow, that he wanted to cry... Has has very decent knowledge of computers, but at that point he called me, and I tried to make things run smoother... Ofcourse, with no success...

That has nothing to do with vista, but rather having the wrong drivers for his video card. Basically, you have your normal gaming cards, and the work-station cards (FireGL and nvida's equivilent - Quadro). I don't know about ati's side, but all nvidia's are is normal gaming cards with slightly different hardware (more memory, etc usually) running a different Device ID hence different drivers. There's a software hack which you can use to turn your GeForce into a Quadro. So, my Geforce is now a Quadro. Install the Quadro drivers, and suddenly, 3DS Max performs a whole lot better.

You see, there's some hidden rendering code inside the Quadro drivers that is enabled when you install them. So, why pay alot more for a quado when a Geforce does the same? If your just a student, or your friend, it should be ok (though I don't know how legal it is). For a company, paying that little bit extra for proper support when things go wrong is well worth it.

Vista just tries too hard to be like a Mac OS X and fail to do so. Now Microsoft annouced that Vista user go back to XP for now until they fix all the bugs in Vista.

Where did they announce this, I wonder?
Edited May 26, 2008 by Live-Dimension (see edit history)

[saitunes 0]

I've only used vista a few times, and its not bad. it's just in my opinion, too many pretty bells and whistles i prefer the look and feel of XP (over vista) but not to say that I wouldn't grow into vista if I had to. I prefer Mac OS X, I've got tiger, haven't got leopard, I have used it and there's not a whole lot of difference other than a new cool looking interface. and a few really good new features. I haven't upgraded yet because some of my software i use is not leopard compatible.But to me XP vs. Vista: Vista's got too many fancy bells and whistles, and there's not too much difference underneath. P.S OS X tiger and OS X leopard: Leopard is kinda like a new service pack for OS X (to explain to windows users) it's not a whole new operating system.

[chriscannon 0]

Vista just tries too hard to be like a Mac OS X and fail to do so. Now Microsoft annouced that Vista user go back to XP for now until they fix all the bugs in Vista.

Honestly, where do you get this information? It's just... wrong.

A lot of these things you guys are saying are bad qualities, I find to be good. I like the bells and whistles to be honest, and I dont care if it takes a little bit more RAM or CPU... whats the point of having higher resolutions if you dont use them (aka fancy bells and whistles)? You try reading this forum in 600x400 resolution and see how far you get.

So it requires better hardware, just means it will do that much more.


I dont think anyone has actually said why any one, is better than another. I have almost no experience in mac because I can't even go 10 minutes in best buy without getting anoyed. I also have little experience in linux, though more than mac os', and wasnt using it long enough to tell. I just had trouble installing things, it could have been a technical issue but it was probobly my lac of knowledge as to how it runs.

Is there anybody out there who uses windows, mac, and linux regularly and can tell us what would be better in one than another.

It is common knowlege that windows is the way to go for games, so enough of that now... And I dont care about the differences between vista and xp, I have both. And i use them at the same time, just like now, with no problems.
Edited May 27, 2008 by chriscannon (see edit history)

[Live-Dimension 0]

It comes down to personal choice chriscannon. Some users love Linux and don't need applications that are on Windows/Mac OSX only. Others love the simplicity of Mac OSX, and others like the familiarity of Windows, plus it's huge application+hardware support. There's no reason to use all three, unless your forced to (work, for example). I would of stayed on Linux, tried out ones other then Ubuntu, but I'm a semi-gamer and not being able to run PS CS3 was a pain, especially after shelling out for it. Also, I found ubuntu full of little annoyances, aka bugs which for some reason just didn't seemed to be as ironed out as I expected. I've played with the idea of MacOSX and using a virtual machine of WinXP for my games... But Directx9/shader support is still iffy (Sins of a Solar Empire apparently refuses to run, which I love) and I'm still using windows anyway.

[rayzoredge 2]

I liked how you compared XP to its predecessor. Not a lot of people think of it that way, and even I remember being wary to switch over to XP from my beloved Windows 98SE. It's a simple process of being weaned onto the next big thing.I have to stick to my guns though on Vista, simply because my feelings are still the same. From a Joe Schmoe level, I don't see what Vista brings to the table other than DirectX10 support and a fancier desktop interface. XP brought better USB capability, a smoother interface (and if you didn't like it, you could revert to the classic look), device compatibility, etc. Then again, now that I look at it, it's probably the same animal... but hey, you guys can point fingers at me when I finally migrate to Vista and bash Vienna or Windows 9 for what it is. At this point in time, I consider the Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac argument rather pointless as like you said, they cater to different tastes. Mac aims for pretty eye candy and user-friendliness, which apparently they've achieved... but I have nothing much to say about it as I have never used it extensively. It has the basics and has powerful multimedia-editing software available for it, which coupled with the "easy" way of doing things in Mac, probably gives it the strong arguing point for a multimedia production platform. Windows is the basic flavor and what I would recommend to anyone XP Professional SP2 just because it works with a plethora of the programs and games available out there without too much of a hassle, if at all. Linux has a bajillion different distributions out there and as much as I would like to jump aboard fully with Ubuntu, the small things like not being able to get my keyboard and mouse combo to work under the operating system irks me enough to keep me away, not to mention that compatibility with programs that I use under Windows can't be used (unless you use Wine... which, why emulate when you already have Windows available as a dual-boot option?). I don't think I've unleashed the power of Ubuntu quite yet to actually bolster an argument for Linux, but I can say that if you want a free operating system that does the basics very well with a splash of sophistication, it would be a great and easy alternative to Windows as opposed to shelling out the money for a Mac machine (although you may snag the Mac elitism with that price tag too ).

[Janissary 0]

When the XP came out, many people hated it, including me. I was thinking why to use this ram eating monster, mine Win98 is great. Now we all using XP and we are all happy (okey maybe not so :)What Im saying, I dont like vista but I dont hate him becasue I learnt from my mistakes After a few service packs, we'll get used to Vista

[disneyreporter 0]

I have to agree with you guys on this. While I've never used Vista before (I want to, but I just got a new computer with XP on it last summer), I think it all comes down to changing to a new interface that you're not familiar with. A lot of people like more sudtle changes. Vista looks quite a bit different than XP. I think if Vista looked more similar to XP, XP users would have an easier time adjusting because it would look more familiar to them. It's often hard to change to something else when you get so attached to what you currently have. When my mom got a new car, I hated it. I was so attached to the old one, I didn't want to see it leave. But after two years, I actually like my mom's current car. It just took a while for me to get over the fact that the new one wasn't the old one and never would be. The same will happen with XP users. Give it a couple of years and everyone will be loving Vista while XP will look so primative.

[Live-Dimension 0]

I liked how you compared XP to its predecessor. Not a lot of people think of it that way, and even I remember being wary to switch over to XP from my beloved Windows 98SE. It's a simple process of being weaned onto the next big thing.

Thankyou I remember the exact same thing. I didn't even tell dad for a good week lol. I think this was before SP1.

I have to stick to my guns though on Vista, simply because my feelings are still the same. From a Joe Schmoe level, I don't see what Vista brings to the table other than DirectX10 support and a fancier desktop interface. XP brought better USB capability, a smoother interface (and if you didn't like it, you could revert to the classic look), device compatibility, etc. Then again, now that I look at it, it's probably the same animal... but hey, you guys can point fingers at me when I finally migrate to Vista and bash Vienna or Windows 9 for what it is.

You can use Aero, a more Win-XP graphical approach, or classic, though it looks different. Vista does tend to bring more in some subtle ways, but I do agree - it doesn't really bring anything new. However, one such as myself grows tired of using XP for over 5 years. I just wanted to change, be it Vista, Linux, or MacOSX - and right now I'm on Vista and its refreshing to feel something different.

Linux has a bajillion different distributions out there and as much as I would like to jump aboard fully with Ubuntu, the small things like not being able to get my keyboard and mouse combo to work under the operating system irks me enough to keep me away, not to mention that compatibility with programs that I use under Windows can't be used (unless you use Wine... which, why emulate when you already have Windows available as a dual-boot option?).

Same. Wine works *ok* not *fantstic*. I don't like alot of things about it. I ended up using virtual box to run WinXP in a VM for a few weeks. The somewhat irritating "support" of Wine plus the constant "irkness" of Ubuntu forced me away. For example, I had the panels so they were only as wide as the icons. Occasionally, the panels would just suddenly go blank, and I'd have to reset them.

My basic stratregy was to wait for SP1 becasue by then it'd be far more stable and useable, and it is! As for Windows7 - Microsoft has to make it good and they know it - or they risk losing alot of valueable market share. Hence, it's not going to be crud, nothing like another Vista in any case.

[AbdurahmanL 0]

Vista is actually pretty good. It looks cool and stuff, and if you upgrade it to Service Pack 1, it is VERY stable and fast. It is not as much of a system hog as people think. For me, Windows XP Pro takes up 600mb of my 2 gigs of ram. That's because i'm running lots of programs in the background. But the thing is, with those same programs running in Vista Ultimate, It's only 100 to 150mb more. I'd Say that's pretty cool, with the 3D AERO and all!