# I fooking hate MS Vista



## Mattieuk (Oct 26, 2005)

WARNING RANT BELOW

Daughter received from Santa a nice shiny new Dell laptop for Christmas, which at last today she has had chance to set-up and use. 

We go through the usual log on stuff, set up the internet and anti virus, MSN etc.. then shut it down. 1 hour later we turn it back on, of which after the welcome screen completed the screen went black and stayed black. So booted in safe mode and it did it again this time with only safe mode showing around the screen edge.

So long story short... After 2 hours pissing around it is fixed (apparently this is a known fault). In 2 hours of my first experience of Vista it crashed, in 3 years of using OSX I have had a few freezes but nothing which has required major installs as my daughters new laptop has just had.

Bill Gates you suck:thumb:


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2008)

If anything it was probably the antivirus program you installed which has buggered it up... if windows is left alone it generally never crashes, none of my machines ever have problems!

I'd normally run all the windows updates first on vista before installing anything


----------



## wookey (Jul 13, 2007)

hmmm.....

my PC which has Windows XP installed has started doing exactly the same thing with the black screen - how did you fix it?


----------



## Mattieuk (Oct 26, 2005)

RS Adam said:


> hmmm.....
> 
> my PC which has Windows XP installed has started doing exactly the same thing with the black screen - how did you fix it?


Wiped clean started again


----------



## Mattieuk (Oct 26, 2005)

G220 said:


> I'd normally run all the windows updates first on vista before installing anything


Did that before we installed anything


----------



## wookey (Jul 13, 2007)

i thought you might say that, i don't think it's necessarily Vista. Had you been connected to the internet?


----------



## Mattieuk (Oct 26, 2005)

RS Adam said:


> i thought you might say that, i don't think it's necessarily Vista. Had you been connected to the internet?


its a brand spanking straight out of the box machine.

Logged on, download the masses of MS updates, installed MSN from MS site, installed Avast. So yes I was connected to the net.


----------



## wookey (Jul 13, 2007)

someone mentioned a virus when i told them what was happening. Just wondered whether yours could have been the same thing?


----------



## Mattieuk (Oct 26, 2005)

RS Adam said:


> someone mentioned a virus when i told them what was happening. Just wondered whether yours could have been the same thing?


I doubt it unless it was transferred via the MS official site or Avast's site. Done a scan since and nothing's come up.


----------



## badly_dubbed (Dec 11, 2008)

osx ftw.

ill never use windows again


----------



## Kev_mk3 (Sep 10, 2007)

i got my dell desk top couple of months ago i paid extra for a different graphics card as it would then have 2 out puts for my monitor / tv so i can have duel screen, only to find they gave me the old model and i couldnt do anything as its what i ordered  they are all in india so a nightmare to talk to 

Vista is shocking to be honest and ive disabled half of it - id go back to xp if i had a clue but now its more effort than its worth


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2008)

I've used Vista Business and Ultimate on my Machines since they were new and they are superb. From my expirence anyone whos had trouble tends to have >2GB ram!


----------



## edthedrummer (May 30, 2007)

Bailes1992 said:


> I've used Vista Business and Ultimate on my Machines since they were new and they are superb. From my expirence anyone whos had trouble tends to have >2GB ram!


yep exactly young bailies.

I run Vista Home Premium with the Entertainment Centre jobber thingy on it, its absolutely fantastic. Can't fault it, never had any problems with it at all. Very simple to use, looks the part, awesome.

I run 2gb of ram on mine i think.


----------



## Kev_mk3 (Sep 10, 2007)

so it idiot terms you saying my specs good or bad :lol:



> Intel® Core™ 2 Quad-Core Q6600 Processor (2.4GHz, 8MB cache, 1066MHz FSB)
> Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium SP1 - English
> 1 Year Limited Warranty - Collect & Return
> Display Not Included
> ...


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2008)

you shouldn't get any problems running vista and all of its aero stuff on those specs..

i'm in chester, if you want an XP disk+serial to borrow sometime you are more than welcome to


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 9, 2006)

4 gig here and runs ok, its typical MS runs fine then becomes buggy, just reinstall and put the freshness back


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

totally with the OP here - bought my shiny new macbook 2 weeks ago, and on the web in <2 mins and never once missed a beat since :thumb:

pricey but worth it IMHO


----------



## mattyb95 (Apr 21, 2008)

Did Dell include any of their own applications as that might have buggered things up? Bought a Sony Vaio back in January and it has been buggy at times till recently it just got too much, every time I put a memory stick or iPod in, it would not recognise it then never turn off where as my desktop which is a home build has Vista on and has never missed a beat and I don't think Sony's own applications have helped. Did a fresh re-install over Christmas with a new copy of Vista and not only do I have more disk space now without all the applications but it runs betters and boots up and shuts down quicker too.


----------



## stoneyfordni (Aug 28, 2006)

Kev_mk3 said:


> so it idiot terms you saying my specs good or bad :lol:


get that cpu overclocked , i have mine running 3.8ghz on air on an 8x multiplier - do you run an enthuisasts board ?


----------



## Noakesy85 (Dec 27, 2008)

I use Vista on my Laptop and ive never had any problems with the OS. Ive had a couple of major issues with the Motherboard going U/S but that's down to the hardware and not the software.


----------



## Mattieuk (Oct 26, 2005)

Bailes1992 said:


> I've used Vista Business and Ultimate on my Machines since they were new and they are superb. From my expirence anyone whos had trouble tends to have >2GB ram!


Well your experiences are a bit out as this machine has 4 GB of Ram.


----------



## Detail My Ride (Apr 19, 2006)

Bailes is exempt from rules that apply to everyone else don't forget.

After switching to Mac earlier this year, I will never be going back, with the exception of XP which I now run along side OSX Leopard on my Mac for the odd program that isn't available for Mac, even so, Windows is 10x better running on a Mac. 

MS Vista is really bad, even for Windows Standards.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2008)

Mattieuk said:


> Well your experiences are a bit out as this machine has 4 GB of Ram.


Thats why I used the wording "Tends" you probably did somthing wrong


----------



## Mattieuk (Oct 26, 2005)

Bailes1992 said:


> Thats why I used the wording "Tends" you probably did somthing wrong


:tumbleweed:


----------



## JasonRS (Aug 8, 2006)

Gaz W said:


> even so, Windows is 10x better running on a Mac.


That's due to the hardware.

As keeps being said over and over again, if MS controlled the hardware in the same way that Apple do, then their software would be lighter and quicker, but they have to contend with all manner of hardware.

Many, many of the issues with the MS platform are down to the hardware and drivers.

BTW, the current batch of new style macbooks have a large number of issues due to the new hardware (video issues, not accepting non-Apple RAM, trackpad etc) it's just that there's less people complaining about it, as Apple has a much smaller portion of the desktop space than MS.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Well done to JasonRS for actually talking some sense.

As for Bailes comment, some motherboards wouldn't install Vista if you had 4GB or more of RAM installed, you could install Vista with 2GB then add in another 2GB and it would be fine.

Your issues are likely not down to Vista but down to all the bloatware Dell shove on their machines.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

jamest said:


> Well done to JasonRS for actually talking some sense


I agree, he is talking sense, but with the PC platform we have a tail-wagging-the-dog situation with M$ trying to control a platform they don't own.

Does no-one else feel it's backside about breast that PC manufacturers submit their machines to M$ for approval so they can market them as "Designed for Windows"?

To me, that's a bit like Zanussi, Electrolux _et.al._ submitting their machines to Lever for approval so they can market them as "Designed for Persil Automatic"

The other big problem with Windows is the structure of the OS. When it goes wrong - for whatever reason - it can be a PITA to fix, especially if the Desktop won't start and so often you end up resorting to reinstalling the OS - either because you can't fix it, or because it's quicker than trying to fix it.

One of the biggest failings is the registry which, IMNSHO, is without doubt the worst OS design feature ever. Burying critical startup config data inside a multi-megabyte B-tree file is stupid beyond belief. It's also a great way for malware to hide stuff in - do any of those 128-bit CLSIDs and GUIDs actually mean anything to anyone?


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

They don't submit their machines to Microsoft for the label. Microsoft sets out the levels the computers need to hit. Manufacturers will barely hit the target just so they can put the label on. Which in itself means nothing, it is just that Microsoft is a known name.

As for the registry, I think it is more of a legacy idea that has stayed in for compatiability. If they brought out the next Windows without the registry, all programs that relied on it will not work which will be a huge pain for Microsoft. Which would result in the media being up in arms about Microsoft.

Microsoft made a rod for their own back and it comes back to bite them a lot, the alternative is to do what Apple did, and Apple have been very successful with their marketing, whereas Microsoft just fail.


----------



## Janitor (Feb 14, 2006)

iLove all things Apple and Mac now!

Never used to 'get it' in the slightest. Never had an iPod or anything until getting a Macbook Pro for music work a couple months ago and from the moment the postman turned up with it, I fell hook, line and sinker

Broke my N95 phone and ONLY considered the iPhone to replace it. Have since bought a Nano for another purpose and now have an iMac on order

It's different gravy :thumb:


----------



## Nickos (Apr 27, 2006)

Switched to Vista 64 business a couple of weeks back and love it so far. Hada few teething probs getting a couple of 32 bit apps to run, but soon sussed it! :thumbs:


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2008)

The registry wouldn't be so bad if microsoft actually designed an interface or component to configure/manage all the registry keys centrally..

There are so many registry keys which if changed from a 1 to a 0 (or whatever) have massive ramifications from the result of changing 1 key, yet MS provide no functionality or a program to check through them to verify they are as they should be to diagnose problems.. Half of them aren't even documented properly either.

Despite that I still think XP and Vista are great OSs and if you don't fiddle and install unnessesary software, you don't get problems... It seems people cannot just resist fiddling and installing programs which they don't actually need (despite the websites telling them they do).... A large amount of the trouble starts with security software which because of its complexity causes conflicts and slowdowns in the core of the OS.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

You mean you shouldn't install the software the pop up tells you because the pop up is telling me my computer has been hacked and I shouldn't download that nude video of Paris Hilton that I have to download a codec to watch or download countless screensavers of cute puppies and polarbears....


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

jamest said:


> They don't submit their machines to Microsoft for the label. Microsoft sets out the levels the computers need to hit. Manufacturers will barely hit the target just so they can put the label on. Which in itself means nothing, it is just that Microsoft is a known name.


You sure? I thought that they had to submit them to WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs or something)? There is a Hardware Compatibility List for the various Windows OSes which includes everything from mice to full systems. Hmm, maybe then *can* submit them, or can just do their own compatibility testing?



jamest said:


> As for the registry, I think it is more of a legacy idea that has stayed in for compatiability. If they brought out the next Windows without the registry, all programs that relied on it will not work which will be a huge pain for Microsoft. Which would result in the media being up in arms about Microsoft.
> 
> Microsoft made a rod for their own back and it comes back to bite them a lot, the alternative is to do what Apple did, and Apple have been very successful with their marketing, whereas Microsoft just fail.


'Sfunny but i remember when Win95 came out (when the registry first appeared) and all the magazine reviews hailed it as a great thing and "the end of the dreaded .INI files". At the time I thought is was a bad idea and so it has proved to be.

I agree about the 'rod for their own back' comment. That, IMO, is one of M$'s biggest failings; their anal obsession with backward compatibility. Unlike Apple, Sun, etc. who draw the line and only make a new OS - or new major version - work on only certain hardware, e.g. if you can't just install OS X on any Mac.

Similarly, backward compatibility with apps. This is one of the things that causes so many of the security issues with Windows. Because to make many legacy apps - i.e. those not designed for a multi-user environment - work under NT-class versions of Windows normal users have to be members of the Administrators group as the apps store user data under /Program Files and/or /Windows and in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE registry hive which needs admin rights. This means that malicious s/w can install stuff that compromises the whole machine.

Now when M$ try to do something about it, although poorly implemented, namely the User Account Control in Vista all people want to do is disable it to "get rid of those annoying pop-ups" which shows that M$ has created - or helped to create - the wrong mindset in their users.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

G220 said:


> The registry wouldn't be so bad if microsoft actually designed an interface or component to configure/manage all the registry keys centrally..
> 
> There are so many registry keys which if changed from a 1 to a 0 (or whatever) have massive ramifications from the result of changing 1 key, yet MS provide no functionality or a program to check through them to verify they are as they should be to diagnose problems.. Half of them aren't even documented properly either.


Exactly - plus if one of those keys stops the OS from starting then it isn't that easy to recover.

True story. I've been using NT at work since NT3.1 (the first version of NT). Adaptec made a parallel-to-SCSI convertor which meant you could use a DAT drive to backup to without installing a SCSI card.

When I tried to use this on NT4 it wouldn't work and I kept getting errors about an IRQ conflict with the atapi.sys driver. In those days IDE disks weren't referred to as ATA or ATAPI devices, but CD-ROMs were so, I went into the registry and disabled the atapi.sys driver thinking that it would just disable the CD-ROM and bang - OS wouldn't boot.

Turns out that atapi.sys was also the IDE disk driver :wall:

There was no way to fix this except from within Windows - regedit - so I had to reinstall the OS.

OK, so it was my fault (I later found out that Adaptec had brought out a new version of the adaptor for use with NT4) but that simple thing rendered the OS unbootable.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

I have actually been doing some reading in to Windows 7 to test the new beta and there are people complaining as the kernel version is 6.1 not 7.

Microsoft have had to use kernel 6.1 (vista is 6.0) due to application compatiability. Supposingly the change from kernel 5 to 6 (XP was 5) caused a lot of application problems, so they aren't changing the kernel number even though they have rewritten it.

If anything has to change from Vista it is the bloody awful Network centre.


----------



## TMM (Aug 30, 2008)

There's very little wrong with Vista and XP, they just require maintenance, which OS X doesn't. The number 1 problem with Windows OSes (other then malware/viruses) is the amount of junk that programs leave behind after being uninstalled.

I've tried Windows 7 briefly and thought it was fantastic for something that hasn't even reached beta yet.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2008)

The Vista kernel is fine to be honest.. It is the same as Win Server 2008 and that is also perfectly fine. MS have publically stated that Win7 will just be more GUI/functionality focused rather than under the hood improvements.

I am not sure where you have heard they have rewritten the kernel - to the best of my knowledge they haven't, it is being left alone (it will be parrallel with win2008), hence why it is still v6 in numbering currently


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

I suspect that M$ has realized that Vista was a step too far and that they have alienated a lot of users.

Whatever and whoever is responsible for the problems is irrelevant, a lot of people have had a lot of problems with Vista and although M$ always counter criticism with statements about Vista being the fastest selling Windows ever they, like everyone else, know that that is down to the fact that it is difficult, though not impossible, to buy a PC without it, yet the number of people who've just re-formatted and re-installed XP means that a large number of those "sales" don't translate into active users.

Since the launch of Vista the number of people switching to Macs, and Linux, seems to have ramped up quite sharply too which I think reflects the general dissatisfaction with Vista and M$ in general.

The fact that they've just put back the end of XP sales yet again ('til the end of May) show that they know that Vista isn't really cutting it in the marketplace.

Maybe with Gates' departure and Ballmer now at the helm the company will take a new direction?


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Seriously doubt Balmer will make a big difference.

Everyone knows why Vista is the fastest selling Windows ever, and I am surprised that they still churn out that.

The problem is the OS is getting heavier and heavier. As we advance the OS should be getting smaller and more compact and not be intrusive to using the computer. Microsoft need to make a linux killer.

@G220, Just read up on the kernel rewrite, looks like the things I read mistook a quote from one of Microsofts developers. They are just taking out some garbage that doesn't need to be there.


----------



## dantiatto (Oct 21, 2008)

parish said:


> I suspect that M$ has realized that Vista was a step too far and that they have alienated a lot of users.


that's exactly why MS have been so anal about backward compatibility since windows' birth - in my admittedly limited experience of it, vista improves little of consequence on XP yet manages to make the PC experience far worse... that's some achievement on how many years work!
what people forget is that some of us use PCs to carry out our work, I can't just ditch windows because I need it to run my software, but I can run my software on a pentium II built on NT4 or a quad core on vista - I don't need to bin software or hardware after an upgrade, which is handy.


----------



## Chris_R (Feb 3, 2008)

parish said:


> Since the launch of Vista the number of people switching to Macs, and Linux, seems to have ramped up quite sharply too which I think reflects the general dissatisfaction with Vista and M$ in general.


Agreed to some extent, however the thing is that both OSX has become much more of a contender since Apple got known in the home market. This is in large due to the Ipod etc which has what they call the "halo effect" luring people in. They have long been in the domain of designer types historically but now people want them in the home. I am not a huge fan personally as I dislike the hardware tie in and price premium that they want for the same hardware as everyone else has.
Linux has also got over itself and some of the beardyness that it requires (although still its a long way off the out of box experience of anything MS have done in the last 10 years) with distributions such as Ubuntu. Still however it requires more than a slight bit of digging to get simple things that just work on every other operating system - extra mouse buttons or wheels don't work and its massively convoluted process to get them going for a user of little experience.
Still, MS are by in large responsible for you having a PC at home like it or loathe it.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

You make valid points Chris but I believe that the more successful both Macs and Linux are - i.e. the bigger dent they make in Windows market share - the more it will benefit Windows users because M$ will have to up their game and sort out all the crap in Windows.

Firefox proved that they will respond to competition. M$ had repeatedly stated that IE7 would only be available as part of Vista and not as a standalone product (meaning that XP users wouldn't be able to have it). When FF started making a noticeable dent in IE's market share they did an abrupt U-turn and brought IE7 out as a standalone product ahead of Vista.

As for Linux, if it hadn't been for all those 'beardy' types pounding away at their keyboards living off pizza and coffee it would never have happened. No matter what you think of it, it is a monumental achievement to produce a full-blown OS and all the surrounding userland stuff they way they have.

The other thing that is happening with Linux is that increasing numbers of hardware manufacturers are starting to support it - nVidia and ATI both produce Linux drivers, as do several printer manufacturers - so hardware-compatibility issues will slowly disappear. Also big-name software companies, e.g. Oracle, PTC, Adobe, etc., are porting their products to Linux. It wouldn't surprise me if in 5 years time Photoshop was available for Linux.


----------



## Chris_R (Feb 3, 2008)

Oh yes indeed, don't get me wrong. Competition drives innovation and I am all for it. Its just I get a bit tired of the posts on here (and many other forums) that somehow Windows is the spawn of Satan, when in fact it is largely responsible for the uptake in the home market of PCs and without that market there would be no drive for Apple or *nix to aim at casual/home users of their products.
Firefox is approaching (or indeed it has passed it now) critical mass of market penetration - I can't remember the technical term for it but once a product reaches a certain percentage share of its target market it snow balls. 
Linux I think has some way to go to attain that. Apple will continue to keep the share they have I think unless they can get some cost off their products IMO.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Chris_R said:


> Linux I think has some way to go to attain that. Apple will continue to keep the share they have I think unless they can get some cost off their products IMO.


For the home market Linux has a huge way to go. And I personally think Apple will continue to grow even if they increased their prices. A lot of people are buying the label and until that label becomes negative, they will continue to sell.


----------



## isherdholi (Sep 18, 2007)

G220 said:


> if windows is left alone it generally never crashes


The trouble is, people buy computers so that they can _use_ them, not leave them alone.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2008)

isherdholi said:


> The trouble is, people buy computers so that they can _use_ them, not leave them alone.


You would be struggling to find someone on the computer more than me, I also tinker more than what your average user needs to do too... and yet I have no problems.


----------



## timprice (Aug 24, 2007)

likewise, as a computer professional, i don't actually see windows as a problem at all.

i think a lot of the problem is people installing applications that MAKE windows crash, not windows making everything else unreliable.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

G220 said:


> You would be struggling to find someone on the computer more than me, I also tinker more than what your average user needs to do too... and yet I have no problems.


Ah, but you are tech-savvy aren't you, therefore you're not an average user - same as me.

The big problem is that due to the monolithic nature of Windows, when something goes wrong it can - and often does - go spectacularly wrong leaving you with no other realistic choice than to reinstall it.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

timprice said:


> likewise, as a computer professional, i don't actually see windows as a problem at all.
> 
> i think a lot of the problem is people installing applications that MAKE windows crash, not windows making everything else unreliable.


I agree, but the question should be why can some random piece of software have such a major effect on the OS?


----------



## timprice (Aug 24, 2007)

parish said:


> I agree, but the question should be why can some random piece of software have such a major effect on the OS?


indeed that's true, it shouldn't.

however, i've been running a 5 pc network, active directory, roaming profiles etc etc at home for the past 3 years. I've only just rebuilt my HP Server 2003 box after 2 1/2 years of continuous uptime because i've now got exchange 2007 so need a 64-bit OS. It's been fantastic.

A think a lot of people are just too quick to blame Microsoft nowadays for shortcomings in software from another manufacturer, and as much as MS are a PITA with their monopolies, they have a large market share for a reason, because their software works!


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2008)

parish said:


> I agree, but the question should be why can some random piece of software have such a major effect on the OS?


I am not a programmer but that is why Windows is Windows I guess, it could be more "secure" like Linux and Mac but software would be more difficult to produce software for it, and functionality is more limited without having to resort to large workarounds.

Problems start when people install more than two AVs, etc.

MS aren't blameless indeed, but I am convinced that a lot of people who say "MAC is much better" that if they had ran the system, say, like I do, or uninstalled unnecessary software, then they wouldn't have probably switched away from windows in the first place..

It is very difficult now to get people to "stop tinkering" because you have the security industry and they have drilled into it everyone's head that the PC is going to explode if you don't install all their security products (my aunty got a virus on her PC and threw it in the bin!!), we all know this is not exactly true but it is difficult to reverse the damage that has been done.

That is why the most of the malware programs this year has been all the "antivirus 2008" variant programs which are actually conning users to install their software, the security industry is actually to blame for all of this because since they have been saying "if you don't renew your subscription your computer will blow up" (or something to that effect), users' have no reason to doubt the actual malware itself now which is claiming to be an antivirus program.

Even some so-called computer "experts" seem to be terribly misinformed with the whole security thing now, recommending users install 20-odd security products onto their PC in the name of security, hence slowing the PC down to a halt. OEMs get worse and worse by the day (bundling absolute ****e into the product suite - you should see the crap which is pre-installed on my Toshiba laptop) which again also slows down the PC. Dell PCs seem to come out of the box slow with all the rubbish (McAfee) that it comes with. No wonder everyone is fed up with Microsoft Windows to be fair, but sadly it isn't actually Microsoft's fault 

Hmm, better stop rambling now


----------

