Jump to content

OT- How bad does Vista suck?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Vista sucks so bad its truly impressive. Everytime I use the PC I run- I hate it. Its new, cheap, and came only with vista. I know I should shut up and switch but I really don't use this computer that often relatively speaking.

 

But everytime I do ( at least 20 minutes a day ) it just proves over and over HOW MUCH VISTA SUCKS.

 

And I know everbody already KNOWS this! It just STILL amazes me HOW MUCH it sucks and CONTINUES to set new standards of suck achievement.

 

Top 10 "How bad does Vista suck"-

10.Vista sucks so bad its actually got credits in the movie deep throat.

9.Vista sucks so bad David Oreck is building a usb vacuum attachment and filming the "Vista Challenge" infomercial...

8.Vista sucks so bad any trucks chrome hitch within 5 square miles gets 100% stripped...

7.Vista sucks so bad it considered having Chevy Chase as its host... (but even Vista doesn't suck that bad)

6.Vista sucks so bad it makes the movie "Catwoman" look like its up for a "Best Picture" award...

5.Vista sucks so bad I almost got out my Commodore 64 and played "miner 2049er" instead... Wait I did do that!

4.Vista sucks so bad it almost makes internet porn not worth looking at... almost.

3.Vista sucks so bad, even the designers of the Xbox are clowing it...

2.Vista sucks so bad even the NASA shuttle program won't use it...

And number one-

1.Vista sucks so bad I just wasted 10 minutes writing a top 10 list nobody but me really cares about!

 

Vista hate thread. Cat photos welcome.:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

my vista tablet runs smoother than my xp desktop- which is also very smooth-:wave:

 

but it is an HP- I keep hearing from other HP owners that Vista seems to run pretty good on HP machines for some reason- and I have an AMD processor- which laso helps [for audio] or so I've heard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I had Vista for a year (early adopter), and it was great until Service Pack 1 which broke all my third party VPN support and made my computer very unstable. I spent a frustrating month trying to get it to work right, but it sucked too much so I switched to a Mac (in a fit of rage). The Mac has VPN support built into the operating system, so ... yay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

vista sucked so bad it made me keep using it on and off for non-audio related tasks. it kept me coming back for more security when surfing and more included apps with the os that mattered like dvd backups and shadow copies.

 

sure it has issues with the lack of support from software vendors and hardware drivers...

 

but that isn't the operating systems fault, it's the fault of the software and hardware vendors not following the guidlines set by the operating system's creators. hardware companies had lots of forewarning and chose not to do a damn thing about it. and software companies are refusing to patch thier software that was improperly written in the first place by insisting on kernal mode access to function.

 

blame microsoft for what they did do wrong in vista, namely changing where things are located in the operating system just for the sake of change, and 5 different skus for the same product and bowing to intel's lack of real hardware direct x 9 support in their chipset's onboard video and allowing it to remain labeled as vista capable.

 

i am forced to use xp because some of the apps i use are slightly busted in vista due to having been improperly written to require kernal mode access or to rely on outdated technologies like sql de, yes sony acid i'm talking about you.

 

here's a sad thing my ati x1900xtx has been overheating now for a 4 months and i didn't know it because vista's driver model was more stable so i could play my different 3d games for around 20-30 minutes before they'd fail, usually at a map change so i thought it was an issue with the latest source based games updates. turns out in xp the damn games will run 3 seconds before the machine restarts due to the overheating issue. so yeah i think vista sucks for stability over xp for sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Intel and Microsoft have been joined at the hip for so many years. And yet, according to the NY Times, Vista sucks so bad that . . .

 

"Intel, the giant chip maker and longtime partner of Microsoft, has decided against upgrading the computers of its own 80,000 employees to Microsoft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Intel and Microsoft have been joined at the hip for so many years. And yet, according to the NY Times,
Vista sucks so bad
that . . .

 

"Intel, the giant chip maker and longtime partner of Microsoft, has decided against upgrading the computers of its own 80,000 employees to Microsoft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I switched to Microsuck Vista when I built a new computer to run Crysis last November (yes I know I'm a nerd). Vista was intolerable. My sound kept cutting out and the display always looked blurry even though there's nothing wrong with my hardware, not to mention the random crashes & errors. When I switched back to XP, all of these problems were gone.

 

And by the way, everything runs noticeably slower in Vista. It doesn't matter if you have more than 2GB of system memory and an ultra high RPM hard drive, it's slower than XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Driver issues aside, Vista is crippled deliberately with DRM big brother watching everything you do, and degrading output if it thinks you are not authorized to do something.

 

Sorry, it's never going to run on any of my computers. Big brother can go take a flying $%^.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Vista sucks because it actually runs slower than XP on the same hardware.

 

As I.T. guy at a metal fab place, I've been paid good money to remove Vista from machines. I'm not going to run it on any of our administrative machines or engineering stations. It's a bloated resource hog.

 

I run a number of different OSs at home, Vista is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Driver issues aside, Vista is crippled deliberately with DRM big brother watching everything you do, and degrading output if it thinks you are not authorized to do something.

D'oh. Someone quoting bits from stories they hear without quite understanding things fully. First off, you won't be running OSX either then, will you? Since Apple is, on multiple levels, an even more obnoxious company than Microsoft when it comes to DRM sorts of thing. When they're not deliberately killing their own customers phones, because they dare to unlock them, they're putting DRM onto OSX itself. It requires a motherboard chip (which contains an identifier unique to your system) in order to run. And you better believe, if anyone ever wants to play back next-gen blu-ray content, they'll have to play ball with the movie companies too.

 

Personally I dislike Vista myself. But, for the average dumbass consumer, who only wants to download porn without being infested with spyware, Vista is an improvement on some levels. Much better default security, and it's more robust. Here's the problem.. To make it more robust MS have basically introduced extra layers between the hardware and the software. These extra layers do several things. There are bad things, like DRM control. Then there are others, like trying to add security to stop people infecting their machines. Then there's generally good things, like stopping a driver from having the ability to take down your whole OS.

 

It comes as news to some people that most crashes in Windows aren't Microsofts fault. Most often they're the fault of companies doing bad drivers. Some numbers came out a while back that showed Nvidia were the worst offenders for making Windows crash.. by a mile! They crashed it more often than Microsofts own code across the entire OS! ATi weren't great either, but were better. So MS decided to do something about it.

 

The problem is, for things that need fast access to hardware (read: DAW low latency real time audio) those layers get in the way. MS added workarounds that lets drivers bypass those layers if you code support into your drivers. The problem is, in reality, it still doesn't appear to recover much of the lost performance.

 

Having said all this, I'd still be happy to bet that Vista runs many apps with better performance than OSX, and a nice XP machine can certainly be made to perform more smoothly than OSX in my experience too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Vista sucks because it actually runs slower than XP on the same hardware..
It's a bloated resource hog.

But XP can run slower than Win2k on the same hardware. WinME ran slower than 98. 98 ran slower than 95. Spot a trend? Oh btw, you better believe OSX runs slower than its previous incarnations on the same hardware too..

 

The REALITY is, CPU wise, Vista is fairly close to XP. It eats a few percent more here and there, but it's a few percent. You'd barely even noticed on a P4, much less these new multi-core CPU's. Where I think a lot of those opinions come from is Vista attempts to cache far more things into ram than XP, thus creating the appearance of using much more ram than XP for the same tasks. So people just see things like more ram usage and make (often incorrect) assumptions.

 

Here's what actually b0rks Vistas performance.. First, the GUI, which uses the graphics card. The theory was that offloading the graphics to the GPU would help.. your graphics card handles graphics and frees up your CPU. Makes perfect sense! The trouble is, in reality, it appears to HARM performance by a few percent when you do that. Luckily you can switch it off. The downside is they've made Vista explorer Windows look like crap when you do that.

 

Secondly (and where it matters for DAW applications) they added extra layers, already described, that gets between hardware and software. There's good and bad aspects to this, but the immediate bad one is that it means your OS performance is lower on the same hardware. You do get positive effects from this too, but it's a hard sell if you've got a stable XP machine. Plus, unlike many of the added things in Vista where you can switch them off (User Account Control security etc) you can't do anything about this aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whatever.

 

I'm I.T. for a living. I'm also Machine Shop Lead with a stable of about 25 CNC machining centers and four cutting lasers. Vista is not currently stable enough or lean enough to get anywhere near these babies.

 

work.jpg

 

Maybe we'll put Vista on some of our administrative boxes in a couple of years but for now we can't take the quite solid speed loss we'd see on current machines. I've tested the OS in real world applications with CAD/CAM machines. Its a {censored}ing pig. Period.

 

Currently the administration tools in Vista are a mangled non-homogeneous mess. This is another thing that makes it unattractive besides its {censored}ty performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...