Windows Vista is bad. What do you think?

Searching for Vista comes up with this website http://badvista.fsf.org/

The goal of the site:
The BadVista campaign is an advocate for the freedom of computer users, opposing adoption of Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free (as in freedom) software alternatives.

Here is the summary why Windows Vista is bad:

What do you think after reading this? What do you comment above?

Is Windows Vista exploiting your rights or freedom for their corporate own benefits?

Finally what are the advantages and disadvantages of Windows Vista, and should we upgrade to Windows Vista?

 

Personally I don't like Vista, but the reasons are:
1.- high hardware requirements
2.- very limited (maybe for noob users it's OK, but I like to do more)

Each time I use Vista, I end up very annoyed with the endless warnings and pop-ups that each click generates.

So i'm sticking to XP as long as I can, and I'm smoothly migrating to Linux, if such migration can be called smooth....but that is another story...

 

I highly dislike Vista's high requirements but thats it. Once I get a new computer I *should* have no problem.

 

Within limits, the focus on the OS is misguided.

It's the application base that matters. Users will migrate to and from platforms as the application base and external pressures (e.g. complete and seemless compatibility with work-based applications, institutional standards (work, college, home, etc), gaming (availability and performance), and so on) dictate.

Blue

 

Well, since there are many lies, nothing. Eg, when you buy a new PC, you call MS support center and tell them, that your motherboard has been damaged so you had to get a new one and they will reactivate Vista. That webpage is written by people, who do not know to use Windows (like disable WD), who steal stuff like music, so of course, that they are upset by things like DRM or WGA and also who propagate Linux to make profit from open source, so what else should they say, that "the Vista sucks". It is normal marketing and that is just another Linux AD webpage, though it seems to me, that Linux getting desperate by doing that.

Sure, every smart software developer does, even Linux, but I guess, that you are reffering to that, that MS does it more than others. Well maybe, for most people benefit and good, but if it bothers you that much, you can prevent it by disabling certain services and blocking all MS's processes traffic in firewall.

Well, I could write a book about it. Simply put, it depends, what do you want to do (play games, work in office) and what hardware do you have or will have?

Advantages: Security, especially 64-bit (hardware DEP along with Patchguard - no known rootkit for Vista64) and UAC (limited account, most malware simply is not able to run, because it is not compatibile with Vista). Better peformance on high-end hardware (Superfetch, new core), reliability (no BSOD), easy to use.

Disadvantages: Incompability with many aplications, limited driver support, especially for less known hardware, though both of those are because of lack of developers support, not due to Vista itself. Some features may be considered as disadvantages. Hardware requirements of course, but new car needs new fuel.

 

My notebook that I got this Spring came with Vista Home Premium and I have not used the XP notebook since June.

I have done some tweaking to Vista. For example, UAC is off. If you are interested, I documented some of what I have done on my website.

Bottom line is that, yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements than XP, and yes, there are some annoyances. However, there are some annoyances to XP as well, we have all just gotten used to them.

 

I have not yet encountered anything of the bad stuff described in the article. I have watched and burned downloaded movies ripped some of my DVD´s, usually I dont download or rip music but I have done it to test if I am restricted in anyway. But I guess that is not what the article is about?

I find Vista as fast as XP, or faster (With all the bloat on) Nothing is slowed down.
I can access everything I want and do all the stuff I´ve done on XP. The UAC is at least as annoying as any of the HIPS out there, but I use LUA instead and that makes everything easier.
Well except, right now my Vista is f***d up for some reason, it wont update. I´ve even done the genuine advantage thing just in case but I gett this 8007000b error that seems to be impossible to fix, tried all the suggestions I could find on the net. There are indications that it is some hotfix that has caused it so I´ll have to reinstall Vista.
In that perspective Vista sucks bigtime, I agree, but thats just common windows practice I guess
I´ll keep my pants on until I actually encounter any of the things described in the article.

Sure, MS say that I dont own the software but I disagree and act accordingly to that. They can sue me if they want.

But I am looking at Ubuntu trying to learn it, hoping one day they will make it easy as windows (if it is possible) Even if it is the easies distro yet, you still have to be a engineer or a patient googler to fix stuff when something goes wrong, like right now I can not install Nvidia drivers because it crashes xorg-something making ubuntu unbootable.

 

Good grief, not this again.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/archive/2007/01/25/519180.aspx

Another good link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=429#

Google "Vista DRM FUD" and you will find many more examples.

The bottom line is that Vista's DRM gives you the ability to play DRM content. Nothing less, nothing more. It does not turn your media into DRM, it does not report non-DRM content to MS, and (this is the most laughable) it does not delete non-DRM content on your hard drive.

I believe the open source community is shooting it's own foot with badvista.org, Slashdot, and the likes of Peter Guttman. Why do they spread this FUD about Vista? Are they afraid of it? I used to be an open source advocate but I have distanced myself from this zealous fanaticism. How could anyone take them seriously after this?

 

I must disagree with most of the things that this article says .
Yes , it is true Microsoft is a Giant , Bill Gates is the world's Richi Rich but the article is against Vista , not against Microsoft .


My comments are mixed with the quotes

It is painfull to reall ALL kind of licenses , laws , etc , not only Vista licenses

Why does the author of the article means Vista ?! All the above mentioned statement are valid for all MS OSes , not only Vista . I have read XP's EULA and other license documentations. If the copy comes with the purchased PC or other hardware (the OEM versions) , then the above is valid for XP , too. If you buy a OS - retail version , it is for ONE computer only . This automatically means you must completely erase it from ONE machine , then transfer to another. Windows Defender , well , completely valid for all the security software that we use . Microsoft allows the Defender to be disabled. WGA - no other way Microsoft can check our systems if genuie or not . There are many reasons which can make us not worry about it such as the whole world uses Microsoft products and if they would collect some info they will collect if from my neighbour , too . Why worry ? At least here , I have never found they use anything from my computer against me.

 

I would like to point out that this is a campaign by The Free Software Foundation. Richard Stallman anyone?
What do you expect them to say? Welcome to the sweet world of Linux!

 

I've got the impression that Vista is strikingly similar to Windows Millennium in its floppish or,at least for now,uncertain existence.
Are they not already working on a new OS to take its place relatively soon?

There are a bit too many defenders of Vista, considering you need to change of computer to go as fast as XP, or at least to double your RAM.
Generally, people are against imposed,useless taxes....i wonder why there are so many people eager to pay more in electricity consumption to have more hassles in return.

 

Believe me, WinMe and Vista are NO comparison. WinMe lasted 6 months on my computer before I got rid of it (I became a Whistler Beta (XP) tester which was more stable than WinMe, lol). When I had WinMe I got at least 2 BSOD's a week. And then the reboot you had to do after a certain time because of the memory leak which I don't think was ever fixed. WinMe was a hybrid Win98/2000 that was thrown together until XP came out.

I have yet to experience a BSOD in Vista (btw, it is still blue? )

 

If Microsoft actually set out to provide an OS that would tick people off with so many issues, they couldn't have done a better job. With the issue of all the 'levels' of Vista, alone, they destroyed an opportunity. When the hardware manufacturers are screaming bloody murder over PC's with XP not being allowed to be sold at the retail (non mail-order) level (except through a complicated 'roll-back' scheme) - that should say a lot. Store returns of Vista are trying the patience of the retailers as well. Now, we have them doing the 'roll-backs'. It isn't a pretty sight.

 

Btw, people will probably be surprised about Bill Gates' stance on DRM:

Bill Gates takes a Jab at DRM

If you are going to place blame about DRM, do it on the media industry which started the fiasco. In the George Ou blog link I provided, he says it the best:

So by it's very nature, DRM was doomed before it was even started.

 

Well to answer the original question, I personally like Vista and won't be going back to XP. I am not having any problems with Vista so I really can't say anything bad against it.

 

Is XP letting you down? If the answer is no, why bother with Vista?
Vista will run slower on your current hardware, that's a fact.
Also, do you approve the DRM scheme built into the OS core to satisfy the RIAA/MPAA mafia?
Do you need some of the new features of Vista (DX10, reworked audio and network stack, Superfetch, etc)?

 

I surely don't see Vista running slower, if anything it is faster. And what comes with Vista Home Premium runs very well on my comp. There is no compatability problems with any of my hardware or the software I was useing in XP. Now why wouldn't I upgrade to Vista when it runs as fast if not faster while giving no problems. Vista is actually more stable on this comp than XP pro was. And what harm are the new features doing. I can't see that they are hurting anything. Now if I was illegally trying to download music and movies then maybe I would be less happy. But since I don't they don't bother or affect me.

 

The question back in 2001 was:

Is Win98 letting you down? If the answer is no, why bother with XP?

Most people want to move on and experience different things (and there are differences between XP and Vista and not just the Aero and icons) as I did. I was just bored with XP having done all it was going to do and decided to move on.

My experience has pretty been much as BigC's.

 

Looking at Vista's I/O Performance

Good for you. There are tons of software/drivers issues with Vista, although they aren't Microsoft's faults.

My Gigabit network runs very smoothly with XP and Linux, so I don't need the revamped network stack. Also, my soundcard drivers are very good and stable. I don't need the new audio stack and features.

It doesn't mather if you use P2P or not. Vista has DRM buried very deeply in the OS core. It's true that it will only kick in if you're going to play protected media, but I won't support polling of my hardware and the media mafia deciding what to code for an OS.

 

vista is definatly slower than xp.
ive come to the conclusion like most people have is that vista is mainly eye candy and just slows the computer down. when XP works and all your software works with it then why even bother with vista?
since vista has had so many changes under the hood how comes it is even slower than xp and you still have to retart for most software?
btw im also not a fan of apple eiether since macs and macbooks are over priced fashion icons.
i mean windows 2000 pro SP4 works very well but it just hasnt got enough.
i think windows XP is the best compromise between eyecandy and proformance.
it isnt boring and grey like windows 2000 pro but doesnt slow you down eiehter.
lodore

 

The resource and RAM limitations of the 9x kernel was a real showstopper. You can have Win98 boxes running without issues, but this isn't the norm. FAT32 isn't a very modern filesystem too.

 

Apples & oranges.

The difference between 98 and XP was HUGE. The difference between XP and Vista is huge as well - but they went backward. If we got the Vista that was promised back when Longhorn was in the early planning stages, it would be a good comparison. But, the Vista we got and XP is not anywhere close to being the difference-maker as 98 and XP.

 

I was just pointing out that with every new OS release we seem to repeat a cycle. Can anyone remember the "XP sucks, I am going back to Win98" posts just 6 years ago? Remember the laments about Activation being one of the reasons of not going to XP? Now it is hardly even spoken of. I can see this happening:

2010: Is Vista letting you down? If the answer is no, why bother with Vienna?

I first believed all the FUD that was going around before Vista's release. I have even said in other forums that it would never be on my machine (much like Norton, lol). But I decided to make up my own mind and try it out. It was not too long afterwards I figured out that what I had been believing in was propaganda that even Goebbels would be proud of.

It is fine if you don't like Vista, nobody is forcing you to. As for me it is working fine on my almost 5 year old system.

 

I personally would be willing to give it a try if it weren't for my hardware. I doubt Vista would run on this 6 year old P3 1 gig cpu with 512mb ram. So for me, it's just something I'll have to wait on till I buy a new PC. Now I am doing great with XP and Linux, so there's also no real need for Vista, however, if I did have the horsepower here, I think I would be willing to give it a try for sure, regardless of the negative hype that surrounds it.

 

And nobody has even mentioned the ridiculous pricing structure for Vista.