Windows Why wont you use Vista?

Why i don't use vista:
First, i am not a real gamer, i play game like unreal tournament sometimes, but thats almost all. Personally, Linux is much better for my need: much much more flexible, powerful, free (free (open source) and free to use) and, i have to admit it little more challenging than windows, and i love that. I don't have/want to pay for an useless upgrade to a system that is not even the best for me.

 

Yes it does.

 

1. If you want to watch any type of Movie on Windows PC then you need DRM, it's imposed on them by hollywood.
2.Microsoft have released preformence patches lately and Vista is faster than a kid on crack running from the police.
3.I guess you haven't read this thread properly!
4.ummm no

 

solidworks 2008 surports vista.


think this thread needed a poll, with subcatorgies like 'cost', 'compatablity', etc

i haven't gone vista as i will get 64-bit when software has caught up a little better, plus the cost of retail vista is too high. i refuse to waste £100 on OEM when i know something will go wrong and il have to spend out again and again. so for me its cost

 

I only bought vista cause I know a guy that used to work for them, and got ultimate for $50. If it wasnt for the price, I wouldnt have touched vista.

I've become attached to vista, and it works very well.

 

Been using Vista as my main O/S for about 2 months now. I've got XP on another harddrive & have the option to dual boot if I wish.

As a whole I like Vista, but find XP more intuitive & easily to use - may be its because I've used XP for 6 years now.

But I do find Vista a lot slower in certain places. Transferring files from one place to another seems incredible slow. As Un-RaRing files seems to take twice as long as XP. Also, for no apparent reason, Vista will suddenly start reading from the harddrive for about 15 minutes - flat out, even if I'm using the PC. I don't know what its doing as I've turned off relevant index search stuff.

 

I don't understanf how vista is unituative compared to xp, the only thing is control panel, but rather than putting in classic mode i've forced myself to use it and now i fly around it.

It's different yes, but not unintuative (imo)

Now as for the file transfer, yes, you are right, it's a complete SOD!!! But we are lucky as sp1 is going to be fixing this (when they get it right )

 

Fair point. I mean if you buying a new OS, then fair enough. But I already have a copy of XP. I don't have a legal copy of Vista. Besides, I only run Windows occasionally now days, and even then it's in Fusion, so it makes little difference.

 

UAC (User Account Control) is the first thing to go when i install, windows already asks you 3million times if your sure you want to install a program, so why include something that asks you another billion billion times?
Ok, those numbers are abit extreme, but you get the point.

Sam

 

I haven’t and wont upgrade to vista for two simple reasons.

1: Work & Uni don’t support it yet / won’t give it to me free (doest help if i'm writing programs which might work in vista but fall down in xp)

2: i shift large files around my LAN quiet often, and the File transfer speed from the vista machine is mental. its totally rubbish.

Once that’s fix’ed then I’ll upgrade

 

The 'indexing' that Vista does actually does speed it up some. It works in Vista, unlike the indexing function in XP, which in comparison is a lemon turd.

 

i was forced to install vista.... xp crashed and that was the only cd i had(taking out the battery to make a restart is not so goo on it)

after 2 months im back on xp.... vista was totally ridiculous, so many problems i cant even count them all.
firstly everything was much slower (especially photoshop and thats what i use all the time) no to mention shitload programs running in the background
then, it would use only its own tablet drivers/support... all the buttons were messed up and all the little things meant to make tablet use better just got in the way (hold to make right click and stuff like that)
ctrl+aalt+delete was also not a fool proof tool on it... had to select it from a menu... when a pc is crashed, it wont usually allow you to do that.
start menu build up was so pointlessly chaotic and classic menu was made so fugly with that damn banner
eh, i could just keep counting but i need to make breakfast

 

The main reason I'm not interested in Vista is that I like the EAX effects in my older games with my Audigy 2 ZS.. I probably could make it work in Vista with enough fiddling, but I already have XP setup, and any game I care to install just works. Also DX10 doesn't look good enough to be worth the performance penalty imo, games look good in DX9 too.

 

But it doesnt.

If I'm searching for stuff, then yes its very quick - almost instant. But I know where my stuff is, therefore I dont need to keep searching for it. But Vista doesnt know this & thinks I'm a braindead goldfish, so it spends all its time searching around & re-indexing all the files that I've moved 1/2 hour ago so that it can tell me quicky where I put them!! I know where they are - I PUT THEM THERE!
Once I turned off the indexing, Vista sped up!
Also, why does Vista take about 30 secs to display thumbnails of my video files EVERY time I open up folder & its instant on XP!


I know lot of these types of complaints are probably me being a bit stupid & dont know my way around Vista - but it would be nice to be informed on how to fix some of them.

 

If think Creative have now realised drivers for EAX effects & Audigy cards. Still, if your happy with XP then theres no reason to jump ship!

 

Long time reader, first time poster.

I've had XP Pro and Vista 64 dual booting for the last year or so, RC1-2 and then Vista proper.

In that time I've begun to use Vista more and more as my main OS.

I've had all the issues that everyone has mentioned above and been able to resolve them by turning off or tuning all of the various features, for example UAC can be turned off, so can the indexing function along with the automatic defragmentation service, Aero is easily switched off, the list goes on and on and they all go towards making the system feel faster and lighter on it's feet.

I have an e6600 oc'd to 3.4Ghz stable on air with 1.4 volt cpu and 1.3 fsb, it's faster and more responsive in Vista than in XP which hangs and BSOD's unless the voltage is increased pushing the temps up and scaring the bejesus out of me. Strange but true.

The only thing I don't like is how the majority of all the functions which are easily accessible in XP are hidden beneath layers of rather pointless gui.

Also Intel's Thermal Analysis Tool doesn't work.

 

I really like using Vista, I've had it installed on my home machine for the last six months.

We mainly use XP Pro at work, with a scattering or Linux and Apple OS machines for specialized tasks. The more I use Vista, the more I find things in XP start to feel old or plain ridiculous. Small things, like XP asking if I really want to shut the computer down (are you really sure? Can't we just talk about this? Pleease...)

There are things that still need to be fixed in Vista, UAC (it's off), the ability to delete the recycle bin icon and folders not remembering Folder views (icon sizes, arrangements and such,) but on the whole I still prefer to use Vista over XP.

Hopefully the SP1 will fix these niggles and make Vista a more fluid experience.

 

A thread at Anandtech on tweaking Vista;

 

TAT=win!

 

How Vista frees RAM on "request"... Please read the hole post.

I have 2 GB of RAM....
I have MANY application running (you will see in the screen shot) with documents and projects loaded, and even a GameCube Emulator running on the back AND Anti-Virus! Oh and Vista DreamScene [animated background] (recognize the background?)
Also note that I have SetPoint running on the back , Logitech webcam, Daemon Tools, Winamp playing internet radio, my own bandwidth monitor software, and nothing disabled in Windows configuration (default settings)

System status: HDD heavily in use, but interface and videos PERFECTLY SMOOTH! I'm even shocked myself. XP would never handle that well.
Here is the screen shot with Task Manager open: (56K warning)
http://www.helpweaver.com/vista.png

In idle (nothing running): I use ~1.20GB.

Now this could be seen as crappy test, but I encourage you to try what I did, and look at the RAM while you start programs the RAM will decrease and increase... you will have a sense that more you run the more free RAM you have, but then Vista will catch up and increase RAM usage, making it a bit higher then what it was original was.
I wish I had a recording program to show you... anyway, its just something interesting which I tried out and saw for myself.

It's not worthy of it's thread, that is why I post it here.