Vista... sucks

[sbrehm72255]

I must have pulled Vista off of 5 or 6 low-end OEM's in the past few months because the customers totally hated it, all opted to go back to XP......... Works for me and earns me a little badly needed extra cash.

 

[Rob Williams]

While I was there, I attempted to transfer some files from my sister's desktop to her laptop - since her desktop had apparently not been functioning for some time (unreadable boot volume error) I figured that the easiest way to get at the files would be to load up the desktop HDD in an external enclosure and plug it into the laptop.

Long story short, Vista's security would not let me copy the files, which mainly consisted of a bunch of word documents (school work). I tried several solutions which I looked up online (UAC enabled, disabled, command line takeown, etc.) with no success.

I just ran into a similar problem here, but different symptoms. I have a Vantec NexStar 3 enclosure with a Toshiba 200GB 2.5" drive inside, and it connects via USB. I wanted to get a program off the drive yesterday for benchmarking (because due to a Vista crash, I had to reinstall it), and each time I plugged in the drive, I had a prompt asking me to scan and fix the volume.

I let it do it's thing, and it took forever, so I canceled it and tried to copy over the files anyway. As soon as I tried to copy the file I needed over, the folder I was in closed up and the drive started clicking. After multiple reboots, I was unable to get the file I needed.

So obviously I thought something was wrong with the drive and wanted to back up the drive fast. I hooked it up to my main Linux computer, copied all 180GB worth of data on there to my storage backup drive. The fact that I ran into no errors during such a large copy had me confused, since I couldn't copy a single file in Vista. Regardless, once the copy was done, I hooked up the drive via S-ATA to the Windows machine so that I could check it's SMART information and also scan the drive...

... and damn, not a single problem. The SMART was all "OK" and full-fledged disk-scans with HD Tune and Windows' built-in tool yielded no single error.

 

[On_Wisconsin]

I am running Vista. No problems at all. Easy install too. I get a 5.9 Vista Experience score too. You couldn't give me a free Mac to run anything.

I think that's where the problem is...computers that could run XP decently (512 mb RAM, P4) won't handle as well as XP. XP's UI runs faster than Aero even on a good system...remove Aero and it's even "snappier" than XP.

No issues here, even on my underpowered lappy (1GB, P DC) works fine. Slow, but cheaper than buying a copy of XP. (But I do wish the world could run on Linux )

Heck, we all remember Windows ME, r?

 

[b1lk1]

I'll never understand this whole Windows ME hatred. I agree 110% that it was only Windows 98 with a new skin, but it worked fine on every PC I ever came across using it.

The main problem is Vista is that the demands are just too high for resources. I have a current test machine with an Intel Quad and 2GB of ram and Vista chugs along. But I know if I were to put 4GB in her, she's wake right up and make XP look silly.

 

[Rob Williams]

I'll never understand this whole Windows ME hatred. I agree 110% that it was only Windows 98 with a new skin, but it worked fine on every PC I ever came across using it.

Did you try more than zero PCs? ;-)

I ran into a problem with that OS on every PC I used it on. I remember the day I first installed it onto my own PC... I had a BSOD after the first reboot. It was with that, that I decided to go to Windows 2000 instead, which at the time, was far more stable.

ME was notorious for disconnecting people from the internet as well, especially with dial-up. I had to help out a few people with that bug alone. ME overall was just a very unfinished product.

On top of all that, isn't this the OS that crashed on stage while Gates was giving a presentation?

That aside, I need to retract the earlier comments about the external hard drive in Vista. As it turns out, it wasn't Vista, but rather the motherboard I am testing. It either has to do with the front USB port on the machine, or the USB header on the board itself... I'm going to find out. When I plugged the drive directly into the motherboard, the drive behaved itself.

 

[b1lk1]

I'm pretty certain EVERY version of Windows did that, LOL!!!!

All I can say is that I never had more problems with ME than I did with 98. As for 2000, it was a giant leap forward for M$, that's for sure. I am pretty sure it was Windows 98 that did that to Mr Gate$ though.

 

[Merlin]

I'll never understand this whole Windows ME hatred. I agree 110% that it was only Windows 98 with a new skin, but it worked fine on every PC I ever came across using it.

The main problem is Vista is that the demands are just too high for resources. I have a current test machine with an Intel Quad and 2GB of ram and Vista chugs along. But I know if I were to put 4GB in her, she's wake right up and make XP look silly.

Working in the field, when I see WinME I shutter. I know it's going to be a long day there.
The system just does not want to install different drivers, such as wireless cards-Wireless USB or most any other drivers.
Win98, I never had that problem.
Go figure....

 

[madstork91]

The prebuilts that were made with winME in mind didnt have that problem.

I had one. I didnt mind it. Xp was vastly better, and i was screwed.

Vista is far worse than ME in my exp with it.

 

[Merlin]

The prebuilts that were made with winME in mind didnt have that problem.

I had one. I didnt mind it. Xp was vastly better, and i was screwed.

Vista is far worse than ME in my exp with it.

I'm still trying to figure out why I'm not having any problems and others are.
I'm not promoting Vista...just using it on two computers now.
One was a fresh install on a new drive ( Computer below ).
And the other puter was an upgrade from WinXP home.
Now at first it was hard to find drivers for some things.
And another was Nero wouldn't even install, but Ashampoo would.
I read the Techgage article on the new NEro and got it, installed and works fine. I havent tried it on the upgraded machine.... I dont want to buy another copy just to test it. But it should work as well.

I do remember going from Win 3.5 to Win2000, I didn't like it at first, but later on I did. Then to Win XP.......it was a huge difference from Win200 to XP.
But I got over it after a while.

I guess if some people stated more what the problem was with Vista, maybe someone else has solved the problem and we could share the fix for all.

Merlin

 

[b1lk1]

I officially just had the most horrible experience ever with Vista. I set my AMD rig back up since the Intel machine is getting dedicated to some testing very soon. So I fired up Vista 64. It installed and worked flawlessly on this machine 2 other times. After 3 failed installs, I got it working @ 2 AM. Fired it up today, Explorer.exe kept freezing and nothing worked right at all. After 3 hours of fighting with it, I am back on XP.

 

[Rob Williams]

I had that same problem the other day... it's really strange you mention it. Coincidently, it was also with the 64-Bit version I was using. Re-installed three times, and each time, I'd receive Explorer.exe crash errors.

 

[b1lk1]

I was not convinced at all there were any issues with Vista since my last 10+ installs all went flawlessly. Last night was just pure hell. Having to reinstall yet again today with XP was just another headache I did not need. Oh well, atleast it's up and running!

 

[Rob Williams]

I hope it's not a constant problem with the 64-Bit version of Vista for some reason. That's the OS I chose to use in our upcoming GPU reviews.

 

[Greg King]

B1lk1, welcome to the fold. We have t-shirts.

That said, I have been running Ultimate 32-bit on my notebook since CES and have yet to have a problem. I use it almost nightly to work on reviews and it's performed flawlessly. That doesn't make up for the countless problems I have had over the past year but its a start. RC1 SP1 has helped a bit it seems.

 

[b1lk1]

HAHA! I am just so surprised it gave me so much grief on a setup that I was sure it would run flawlessly. Of course, doing an install at midnight on a day which you feel like death warmed over isn't the best idea.

 

[Rob Williams]

That said, I have been running Ultimate 32-bit on my notebook since CES and have yet to have a problem.

This kind of thing frustrates me, because I without fail run into issues with Vista, no matter what I am using it on. If I build a computer and install it, I run into bizarre issues. If I receive a brand-new notebook to review, I run into bizarre issues. I have no idea how some people seem to avoid all of these issues I run into. I think more of it has to do with other people having a higher pain threshold than I do. Small issues piss me off, such as Windows Update refusing to work (a problem I tend to run into often).

HAHA! I am just so surprised it gave me so much grief on a setup that I was sure it would run flawlessly. Of course, doing an install at midnight on a day which you feel like death warmed over isn't the best idea.

Heh, installing an OS that late at night is a bad idea. It's so frustrating to run into show-stopping issues right before you plan to hit the sack.

 

[Merlin]

B1lk1, welcome to the fold. We have t-shirts.

That said, I have been running Ultimate 32-bit on my notebook since CES and have yet to have a problem. I use it almost nightly to work on reviews and it's performed flawlessly. That doesn't make up for the countless problems I have had over the past year but its a start. RC1 SP1 has helped a bit it seems.

I REALLY think a clean install makes the difference, a good formatted hard drive brand new.
That's what i did on this 150 gig raptor.
It's just every single day there is an update, usually a defender or junk email update......it doesnt require a restsrt, just always an update

Merlin
Oh, there's one now ( update )

 

[madstork91]

I had that same problem the other day... it's really strange you mention it. Coincidently, it was also with the 64-Bit version I was using. Re-installed three times, and each time, I'd receive Explorer.exe crash errors.

which blows even more because right now things are moving to 64 bit.

I just think its b.s. that it has to be a COMPLETELY formated and/or new hdd to work well.

I mean, really? Wtf?

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING STEPS FORWARD WHEN WE UPGRADE SOMETHING! if I can do an install of xp on a drive that isnt BRAND NEW outta the box, why cant I with vista?

 

[b1lk1]

I don't know, if you ask me, we should be doing the full fresh format for any new OS. I was not having any luck with ANY OS on my PC and it came down to the fact my motherboard crapped out. Kinda weird the way it did, but oh well. Gave me a chance to try 64 bit XP and it is alot better than it used to be. Either way, I will use either Vista or XP 64 since I have 4GB in that machine and want to use it all. I will have a replacement mobo for it by mid week and will be happy. I am typing this on my fileserver which is a AMD Sempron LE1100 with DDR2 533 ram and a 13" CRT screen. Slow isn't the word for it and the screen really sucks to try to look at. Makes a killer filer server that cost me less than $400 complete, including 1TB of storage!

 

[Merlin]

I remember Win 3.5 with a whopping 1.6 gig hard drive and 6 mb's of ram....it was top of the line in 1994.
Then the operating system began to handle larger drives and mor ram.

Now we have a terabite set of hard drives and can go ( 64bit system ) to 8 and even 16 mbs of RAM

I have heard of a hard drive system using fluid ( in the works ) and NANO technology. so the big desktop systems we now have can be seen under a microscope in the future.
And even further back, a computer took up a whole roon, that same computerm now, can be placed into the palm of your hand.

The future....We shall see, We Shall See

Merlin