Why Vista Sucks Ass (and likes it)

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 10 Aug 2007, 01:15

I have a whole ton of information to post here. It's on my laptop. It'll have to be posted later.

For reference, here is my background:
DOS
DOSSHELL (which ruled)
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME (for less than 2 days)
Windows XP
Windows Vista 64-bit, on my laptop

I have no Mac experience, nor Linux experience. I consider myself an unwilling Microsoft fanboy, simply by virtue of the fact that it's what I was raised on and I've never learned anything else. Linux is bloody scary to me. All I know is that it's technical and drivers aren't easy to get.

I was huge on Vista before it was released. Excited, mostly about DX10 and DX10 hardware, but also just happy to see the new improvements that were made on XP.

And today I'm considering learning Linux. Vista is THAT bad. I still won't consider Mac, for the very reason I'll never use Vista or an iPod: I'm not a trendy whore. I would die before using an OS where every program must be preceeded by an "i", I guess I'm just not "hip" and "with it" enough.

So on with my argument. Why Windows Vista sucks.

From the top, the biggest reason is that it has absolutely not functional improvements aside from DirectX10.

I also won't use it based on principle: Windows XP could use DirectX10, but they won't allow it to, since they know that it's Vista's only perk. That sort of corporate forced upgrading is unethical and I won't stand for it unless I'm forced into it, like I probably will be one day. But that day's not today.

In fact, the reason I wont't use Vista is rooted mostly in principle. It is a shoddy OS with no new features except a new interface which is easily emulated in XP.

Vista cripples video out for many people, drivers are more difficult to make, despite Vista supposedly being super efficient games run about 10% slower.

...
Right, look, I've gotta go. I have an appointment in about 20 minutes. I'll get back to this later, with those links. Maybe tonight or tomorrow.

Lippy · Post by **Lippy** » 10 Aug 2007, 01:49

DX10 improvements are shortlived - New opengl revisions coming out this year will take full advantage of "DX10 Hardware"and will be cross-platform; hence we will (hopefully) see games running natively on macs, windows xp, windows vista, linux etc..

As for linux "being technical"; heres an example; ubuntu 7.04 installation - 1.3 hours (on a 4 year old pc); about 10 mouse clicks, about 20 words written, and about 100 words cut and pasted. I'm including all necessary drivers, latest versions of most software you will need (i.e. codecs, firefox, wings3d, blender, eclipse IDE, VLC player etc..). You don't even need to open a web browser!
I had to install windows xp for my brother a few weeks ago; it was a N I G H T M A R E. I hate the next button!

It only gets technical if you need to do something exotic, but then again, if you can follow tutorials and you know the basics, you can pretty much do most things. And once you set up the way you want it, you will hardly ever need to delve into harder stuff.

Also, if you choose to dualboot linux, please don't choose gentoo as your first distro like me; it put me off linux for a whole year

. I reckon you'll grow to like linux; only downside at the moment is lack of games (but then again i only play spring... if i have time)

imbaczek · Post by **imbaczek** » 10 Aug 2007, 02:13

Lippy wrote:It only gets technical if you need to do something exotic, but then again, if you can follow tutorials and you know the basics, you can pretty much do most things. And once you set up the way you want it, you will hardly ever need to delve into harder stuff.

That's true IF (big if!) your components aren't 1) newer than 6 months and b) ATI

Driver situation is improving and drivers for new chips are being made, it's just that it takes quite a bit longer than for Windows. (In ATI's case, several years longer

Yes, I'm an nvidia guy.)

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 10 Aug 2007, 02:18

It will take a new user a bit longer of course, but typically ubuntu takes about an hour and a half to install, including all software and drivers. Everything works out of the box, with the exception of the video drivers, but then there is the envy script or the built-in restricted drivers manager for that.

I would recommend you keep your vista install and dual boot ubuntu. If you need any help there are tons of guides just a google search away and the ubuntu forums which have the best community support you can get.

http://www.ubuntu.com/

http://ubuntuforums.org/ (Official forums)

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/index.php (A good beginner guide for installation of OS, dual-booting, drivers, and software)

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu:Feisty (Unofficial guide that kicks ass)

Lippy · Post by **Lippy** » 10 Aug 2007, 02:19

imbaczek wrote:
Lippy wrote:It only gets technical if you need to do something exotic, but then again, if you can follow tutorials and you know the basics, you can pretty much do most things. And once you set up the way you want it, you will hardly ever need to delve into harder stuff.
That's true IF (big if!) your components aren't 1) newer than 6 months and b) ATI Driver situation is improving and drivers for new chips are being made, it's just that it takes quite a bit longer than for Windows. (In ATI's case, several years longer Yes, I'm an nvidia guy.)

Lolz, how could i forget to mention ATI! (Probably cos subconciously i already know caydr already had a 8800

)

And that 6 month's is gradually decreasing; I would say on average it's quite a bit less nowadays; especially with popular things - (e.g. 8800 support was suprisingly quick, most chipset support is available on launch)

BTW this site pwns; http://ubuntuguide.org EDIT; Damn u Hellcom!

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 10 Aug 2007, 02:22

Lippy wrote: BTW this site pwns; http://ubuntuguide.org EDIT; Damn u Hellcom!

owned

Lippy · Post by **Lippy** » 10 Aug 2007, 02:29

Relative wrote:Last edited by Relative on Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:25 am; edited 4 times in total

spaz :P

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 10 Aug 2007, 02:47

I just had the unfortunate luck of trying to help a friend with a Vista laptop. When opening run lags three or four seconds, you know you're in trouble.

Vista is, out and out, a failure in optimization, capability and - indeed - marketing. I never knew you could mess up ALL three of the big factors, but they managed it.

Anyway, my OS credentials...

Apple DOS
ProDos
Macintosh System Software 2
Macintosh System Software 3
MS-DOS
PC-DOS
OS/2
SunOS
Macintosh System Software 5
Windows 2.0
Macintosh System Software 7
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11 Workstation
Unix
Solaris
Windows 95
Windows NT
Windows 98
Tru64 Unix
Windows 2000
Windows CE 3.0
Windows ME
Mac OS 8
Atari DOS
Windows XP
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X
Damn Small Linux

I have to say, out of that list, I liked MS-DOS 6, Windows 98, Windows XP, Macintosh System Software 7 and Damn Small Linux...

I'm going for Ubuntu next.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 10 Aug 2007, 02:53

My favourite operating systems were Win 98 (I never got 98se, but I hear it was better), and WinXP. XP has its hassles, but you can bloody well make it work when it counts. It does what it's supposed to. I *LOVED* DOS 6, grew up with it.

If I could get 98 with XP stability and compatibility, that would be the last OS I use.

In case anyone is wondering why I'd start a topic about something which is already widely considered fact, it's because AF is sure Vista is A-OK. This got me worrying that maybe there were others. For great justice!

(I'll have to finish my post tomorrow, it's bedtime. These hours are FRAKKIN KILLING ME. I leave home at 5:15, and I get home at 4. That should be illegal.)

lurker · Post by **lurker** » 10 Aug 2007, 03:00

My experience with Vista:
1. Oh My God this sucks on 512MB
[a week later]
2. ahh, much better with 2GB
3. why does it take so much ram? I need to give this thing a 3GB pagefile to make it happy
4. ooh, shiny search feature
[a month later]
5. why won't it boot!?
[three hours later]
6. screw it, I'll just get my files safe and get a copy of XP

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 10 Aug 2007, 03:03

My normal work schedule has me out six to six, boyo...

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 10 Aug 2007, 05:28

I'll use XP... and when they stop selling XP, I'll pirate XP.

I'd be using lunix already if I weren't a gamer. But vista doesn't make it any easier to be a gamer because it doesn't work with most games due to the fact that their open GL support couldn't be more ass.

DX10 is a great idea, but it's not a perk with all the downsides it comes with.

[edit] Lunix is a damn nice operating system.

DandyGnome · Post by **DandyGnome** » 10 Aug 2007, 05:37

The only person I know in RL that has Vista has it unwillingly (his laptop was knocked off a riser and it came on the replacement) and hates it. His primary reasons for hating it are that it is too much like Mac OS X. I looked at it and it did have many similarities to what I am used to as a Mac user. However it still retained enough of XP's look to make me not comfortable with it. Maybe Microsoft tried to make Vista be something that both Windows and Mac people would like and use, if so the failed miserably by making something that both sets of people hate.

I hope all goes well with your move to Linux. I to have been thinking of dual booting with Ubuntu, mostly so that Spring might run better on my machine. That plus I have been using Linux at work so I am getting used to it there.

Ishach · Post by **Ishach** » 10 Aug 2007, 09:39

i like vista

AF · Post by AF » 10 Aug 2007, 12:05

First off:

3GB pagefile for Vista isnt a Negative because any sane gamer should have 4096MB pagefile on XP and 2000 nm Vista. Pagefiles should always be at least 3x the size of your ram, and 4096MB minimum for gamers and heavy duty users.

Second:

Vista is a modern OS, you shouldnt be running it on 512MB ram, nor should you be running XP on 512mb ram if you want games. On the upside the recent hotfix packs shave 150-200MB off of the vista memory manager.

Third:
With a lot of programs running I can open the run dialog using 2 mouseclicks and 2 seconds, and most of that time is me moving the mouse.

Fourth:
Vista was optimized for newer hardware. Dont expect all sunshine on an ancient PC if you want all the flashy vista features like aero. Do what some low end XP users do and you can dramatically reduce OS overhead by turning off fancy featurs. Revert to that Windows 98 desktop theme, turn off that indexer service, reduce startup programs, its not hard, its all the same stuff you would do on XP, VLite vista even.

Fifth:
You have the 64bit version caydr, no wonder. Which edition? Premium? Basic?

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 10 Aug 2007, 14:08

AF wrote:First off:

3GB pagefile for Vista isnt a Negative because any sane gamer should have 4096MB pagefile on XP and 2000 nm Vista. Pagefiles should always be at least 3x the size of your ram, and 4096MB minimum for gamers and heavy duty users.

Compleat twodal... page size cant even be set to 4 gigs in XP
(Dont belive me? check the file pagefile.sys.... its never 4 gig even if you set it, hell even if you try forcing it with the registry settings)

And you only need your page file to be bigger than your ram (I'd say twice the size, but now adays with 2 gigs of ram that aint realy possible).
Games run totaly fine with hardly any page file anyway, cause it should only be used when your out of ram (which shouldn't happen)

And also... Linux rules... it boots quicker to teh desktop, I can open firefox faster, it doesnt cost insane amounts of money.
The only reason I have Vista is my laptop came with it... my PC will remain XP (fresh install and updates turned of, take that MS) and Linux.

And i think ill put linux on the laptop to.

aGorm

AF · Post by AF » 10 Aug 2007, 15:35

I fail to see where all these slowdown arguements are coming from. Mine boots quick and its only when it has updates configuring message that its any slower. Its only live mesenger that takes any real time to open up.

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 10 Aug 2007, 16:58

neddiedrow wrote:I have to say, out of that list, I liked MS-DOS 6, Windows 98, Windows XP, Macintosh System Software 7 and Damn Small Linux...

Haha, yeah, I LOVED Mac System 7. Still my most favorite operating system ever. Doesn't quite hold up to the modern multi-user machine, though. Too bad.

In my mind, the tolerable OS's in order of quality:

1) System 7
2) XP
3) OSX
4) Whatever Linux the Athena system at MIT uses

lurker · Post by **lurker** » 10 Aug 2007, 17:19

AF wrote:3GB pagefile for Vista isnt a Negative because any sane gamer should have 4096MB pagefile on XP and 2000 nm Vista. Pagefiles should always be at least 3x the size of your ram, and 4096MB minimum for gamers and heavy duty users.

I should have been clearer. It was cranky with 4 gigs of virtual memory running little more than the OS and firefox. And now with the current XP install the OS is using practically nothing compared to before.

And it's not my fault the laptop came with Vista on 512.

But in your opinion, what in Vista justifies the huge ram requirements for the OS itself? Keep in mind this was Vista Basic, with no shiny Aero.

ZellSF · Post by **ZellSF** » 10 Aug 2007, 19:32

Caydr wrote: In fact, the reason I wont't use Vista is rooted mostly in principle. It is a shoddy OS with no new features except a new interface which is easily emulated in XP.

Are you sure you've actually used Vista and didn't just look at a screenshot slideshow on your laptop?

Tons of news features in Vista, all of which XP does a crappy job at emulating at the moment.

Spring RTS Engine

Why Vista Sucks Ass (and likes it)

Why Vista Sucks Ass (and likes it)

Re: Why Vista Sucks Ass (and likes it)