Why Does Vista Suck?

You only need a cheap c2d and 2 gigs of ram to run vista your "requirements" are for people who play high end games...8gb, quad core, dual graphic cards? what the hell man? You'd only need that if your playing far cry 2 and crysis on max settings...and let me show you how cheap 4gb of ram is:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184

24.99 after 30$ mail in rebate...

heres 2gb of ram for 27.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145201

Unless you would rather spend 50$ on a game that you can't run than to upgrade your computer so you can use vista without speed issues, than idk whats wrong with you.

 

Why don't you read before you post. If you want an Ãœber gaming computer then do that... If your going for a great gaming computer OF COURSE YOU WILL BE RUNNING FAR CRY 2 ON MAX SETTINGS.

I will reword it for you... If you feel like spending a bunch of money on a great gaming computer, get vista. If you want to spend as little as possible, and still be able to play most games, get XP.

For ram... Mail in rebates are annoying... It still costs 60+ bucks without all the rebates...

IDK why you would use vista in the first place, if you had to update it to run a game you could play on XP... If you choose to update your computer, IDK whats wrong with you.

 

Games run slower on xp
dx9 is slower than dx10 if you didnt know
and why dont YOU read before you post, i posted 2gb of ram that is 27$ without any rebates.

 

so what 27 is doubled is like 54 which is almost 60 for 4 gigs... DUR?

and games do not run slower on xp. dx does not matter if over half of your ram is taken up by vista... and i have vista, and dx 10 does not work... thats kinda fail now isn't it?


and i agree, vista is better for high-end gaming when you have a great rig. with a decent rig, use xp...

 

If you read any of my posts you would know that i was referring 2gb of ram to be efficient for vista. And i posted 4gb just to show how cheap it can get. Dx matters regardless of what your ram usage is. And your dx10 probably doesn't work because your card isn't dx10 compatible, which means it is obsolete since vista has already been out for a long time. It's fail on your part because your card is old and all cards made after vista are dx10 compatible.

 

You're an idiot. "Games run better on Vista because of DirectX 10" - only a few games use DirectX 10, so don't say shit like that - it's because of Vista's poor memory management and how it eats your resources. Also, games are NOT being made just for Vista. XP has been around for so many years, but even the most newest games are still supporting AND recommending it.

[One final note: You're an idiot. DirectX 10 would require more system resources anyway, so games would NOT run better.]

 

My card is DX10 compatible, but it fails to work anyways. And DX10 makes your FPS GO DOWN. DX10 gives you better graphics and some random nice looking shit, so of course it will slow your computer down. And the only games that even support DX10 are the newest ones, that you need a really good computer to run on high res, and high settings, so you need an uber computer to do it... If you want vista, then get an uber computer and play on huigh, but if you do not have the cash, get xp and play them on medium or low... and don't be saying just get vista and get more ram.... if you don't want to spend more money, upgrading is out of the question. The pros of vista are very few, and the cons have a great number, so why the fuck would you ever want it?

 

I love Vista... No questions asked!

 

You guys are really defending your 512mb of ram that you probably have...
Listen, you don't need an uber computer to play most games. You will probably never notice any sort of lag or glitching while using your computer if you have any c2d out there and at least 2 gigs of ram. Idk why you guys are so defensive about your shitty computers and your just insulting vista just because you can't use it. Are you guys just going to use xp forever? I don't get it...you keep bringing up gaming and having extreme computers to be the only reason to get vista. Let's look at it like this. Take yourself back some amount of years, and say your using windows 98. Than XP comes out, and wow "im not spending this much money on this shit". Few years later xp is extremely stable, and 98 is pretty much left rotting in the corner. Well?
After sp1 came out for vista all of the bugs and glitches are for the most part gone, and vista is now extremely stable.

 

I have 2 gigs of ram and i use vista, on the highest performance settings possible, and i hate it.

I have stated my opinion of when you should get vista, and i wish i had xp my self.

I hate vista for soooooo many reasons, gaming is not one of my reasons. I am simply trying to give my opinion...


And vista is not stable at all. sp1 helped, but it still a bitch. half of the stuff in the control panel does not work half the time still, and it takes forever to open up folders and shit. If vista just had performance problems, i would not hate it... i hate it do to it being so gay. performance is not the main concern of mine, other shit is.

my opinion still is, if your getting an uber computer get vista, otherwise stick with xp.

 

Folders open up slowly? Sounds like you need a defrag. I find everything in the control panel fine...I as well have 2gb of ram and a cheapo 1.8ghz c2d. Nothing is bogged down in performance so unless you have a p4 and some bad frequency ram than idk what the deal is with you

 

I do defrag, and Vista defrags by its self. I also downloaded a defragger and run that ever couple of weeks, or when I remember.

I know what the deal is with me, Vista is fail.

 

I have 1 gig of RAM and it's fine. Everything runs perfect, and no compatibility issues.
Still, I'm a Mac fan boy so.. hehe.

Either you have a REALLY shit computer, a cracked version of windows or you're just lying. Everything in the control panel works 100% of the time, it doesn't take ANY time what so ever to open folders, and if your going to describe it as being 'gay', then it just makes everyone think that you're a little child that can't run a program because he's too fucking stupid to right click and run as administrator.
Now don't come on a thread and lie about an OS just because you don't like it.
Oh and you don't need an amazing computer just to run Vista, you just need a none-shitty one. By shitty I mean 10 years old.

Thanks,
Nath

 

Wow, do not insult me. I know what i am talking about. Things such as power options, the networking thing, device manager are the main problem ones. SP1 helped them load faster and work more of the time, but still a good amount of the time they still fail and require a restart, or sometimes 2 restarts. (Device manager mainly fails when I start disabling or enabling things.)

To "run" vista you do not need a good computer, but to run it well, and have it fast, you need a "current" or "new" computer. My computer scores a 4.8 on the built in rating system.

Folders do not always take a long time to open, just sometimes. I think it is due to the fact that it must load the folders view off the to the side before it shows the stuff in the folder... Why that must make the folder freeze up if I even click it, IDK... When it takes a while to open it takes like 30 seconds to 1 minute, which is a long time to open a single folder, and thats when I am running on the highest Vista performance settings possible. (Not quite, but so close it does not matter much.)

I am not lying, I am simply giving my opinion of Vista. Do not accuse me of lying without proof. Your opinions are different than mine, but you have no proof you are right, I am no proof I am right. This is about the reasons people think Vista sucks, not the flame those who think Vista sucks.

 

That thing was about 3D gaming, that applies to any OS.
You can't have an opinion about whether folders load fast or not. They do or they don't, and if you have a less than 10 year old computer they won't.

 

Finally nathan someone to help me back up vista for once...especially against this suf guy.

 

I am only arguing about that, because it is a simple example about performance. There is other reasons why I dislike Vista, and if you cared to read my posts before you posted you would know why I disliked Vista.

Plus, I do not have a 10 year old computer and they do, not all the time, but they still do. That is called research, or testing. I tested it and they can take a long time to open, so I disproved what you think. Thats your opinion not fact.

List the reasons that you think Vista is better than XP. I will list my reasons that I think Vista is worse than XP. Thats better than senseless arguing.

1)It is very different than XP. This is a problem because those who used XP for years, suddenly have to learn a whole shit load on how to do the same things in Vista that you could do in XP. I also think that doing many tasks in Vista are harder, and take longer to do than in XP.

2)It uses a whole lot of ram, much more than XP. This is hard for those who are moving up to Vista from XP, since they need to upgrade their computers, that may only be 1 or 2 years old. This can be costly, depending on what needs upgrading, and annoying since you need to send it in, or bring it to Best Buy or something to upgrade it.

3)There is not much special about Vista. A large amount of the advanced options are the same menus used in XP. In the jump from 98 to XP, there is a huge difference in most everything, and XP was much different than 98. Since Vista has a lot of the same things as XP, there really is no point in upgrading.

4)It has a bunch of stupid popups. One of the most annoying ones in UAC, which can be disabled but it is still annoying. Another annoying popup I can not seem to get rid of is one telling me to check parental controls for my guest account. I even deleted the account and they still popup.

5)The shutdown and startup speeds for vista are much slower than XP, even with my crappy looking vista. SP1 of course made them faster in general, they still take a long time sometimes.

6)The auto-updates on vista are annoying. I have had to system restore after updates a great number of times. Most of the time it is because Vista says I am running an illegal copy, which I am not. Its not much better than XP, because same thing would happen to me with XP too, but not as often.

7)The way they are marketing Vista, I think is manipulating people that do not understand computers. They are focusing on Parental Controls, Game Rating, Free Software that you can download online, and random people saying "OMG, THIS IS VISTA? ITS SO GREAT!". I think its plain stupid and its basically lying to people about what Vista is.

I think 7 is good for now. I could think up a few more, but i am getting tired of writing. These are not in any particular order.

 

contradicted yourself in 1 and 3 ...your reasons aren't applied to everybody that uses vista. How is UAC still annoying if you disable it? makes no sense...
My computer starts up in at least 15 some seconds...something called msconfig, it's used in vista AND xp. Auto updates can be turned off. How does marketing affect the flaws with vista in any way?

 

Wow, you really like insulting me, or you really think I am retarded.

Vista places the links to the same menus that XP uses in different places than in XP. To find those menus is the hard part, and there is a huge amount different that has nothing to do with the things from XP. Once you get to the advanced XP windows, it is very easy.

It does not matter if it does not apply to everyone. It is still a flaw regardless, and I fit into the "I used XP, and Vista is a bitch to use" category, so that affects my opinion on Vista.

UAC took my a long time to disable because I could not find it since it was not where I thought it would be and the menus were different than XP.

Marketing affects my opinion of Vista, which is a reason I think it sucks. This thread is about why vista sucks, and that is an opinionated question, as we have proved. That means that the marketing campaign that Microsoft is using is effecting my opinion on Vista.

The startup time issue. I used to run a whole bunch more programs on XP for startup on a SHITTY computer, and it still started up at the same speed or faster than my current computer. Its not like I am running 100 programs at startup, but I run a few such as Steam, MSN, and a few other things that are required for my computer to work right, such as the program that handles the on the fly sensitivity changing in my mouse.

You have failed to change my opinion is anyway with that post.

 

Obviously im not going to change your opinion since you take the smallest flaws with vista and turn them into a hate issue.