no problems ??? one year and running HHmmmm

[Blairs Carpentry]

Vista is working fine, why does everyone have these problems. I run various
cad and picture programs, quad core lots of ram minor issues resolved
easily. Love-in it!

 

[Uni]

Some systems are better suited than others. Older computers also *tend* to
have more problems.

 

[none]

First to start tell the truth about your computer and not lie. A lot of
people do have trouble with their computers. My brand new Vista Based
Computer loses internet connection all the time and all I have to do is run
Diagnose and Repair to fix the problem and the problem is not my service
provider it is Vista so tell the truth. A lot of people have trouble with
screensavers not working and power options I know for a fact because last
night I did a reformat for a client and screensavers do not work and does
not go to sleep. I had to change some settings and turn off the Allow this
device to wake the computer in the Device Manager under Network Adapter
Properties to get the sleep options to work and the screensavers to work. So
where is the problem it is the manufactures and windows vista. Vista is a
good operating system and I like it better than Windows XP but once again it
does have problems and that is why almost a year later when Vista Service
Pack 1 came out they are going to release Service Pack 2. So do not worry
about other peoples problems with vista and mind your own business.

 

[DanS]

minor issues
resolved easily.

So there was some problem(s).

 

[Steve Thackery]

Vista is working fine......

Same here. Almost two years, and it's been totally rock solid. Not a
single blue screen, not a single freeze. It runs 24/7 and the only time it
gets a reboot is when a Windows update requires it.

It's in heavy use every day, including the full suite of Office 2007 apps;
software development using Delphi and Visual Studio; video editing; audio
editing; graphics editing; technical drawing; Web development; plus all the
usual browsing, emails, and stuff.

Some of the applications have crashed occasionally (I can crash Word 2007
almost on demand), but not once has an application crash rippled through the
OS or any other apps.

Network file copying was abysmal in the early days, but that seems to have
been sorted out (though I use Directory Opus, so it was never a real problem
anyway).

To be fair, I was meticulous about making sure all the hardware was Vista
compatible before building the system. I think that was probably the best
thing I did.

I prefer the UI to XP, although there was undoubtedly some "change for the
sake of change".

If W7 will be as good or better, I'm really looking forward to it.

SteveT

 

[Steve Thackery]

First to start tell the truth about your computer and not lie.

You are bang out of order there, buddy, and you owe the OP an apology.

He was reporting his own experiences, which are very similar to mine. You
have no grounds to accuse him of lying.

SteveT

 

[Don]

Same here. Almost two years, and it's been totally rock solid. Not a
single blue screen, not a single freeze. It runs 24/7 and the only time
it gets a reboot is when a Windows update requires it.

It's in heavy use every day, including the full suite of Office 2007 apps;
software development using Delphi and Visual Studio; video editing; audio
editing; graphics editing; technical drawing; Web development; plus all
the usual browsing, emails, and stuff.

Some of the applications have crashed occasionally (I can crash Word 2007
almost on demand), but not once has an application crash rippled through
the OS or any other apps.

Network file copying was abysmal in the early days, but that seems to have
been sorted out (though I use Directory Opus, so it was never a real
problem anyway).

To be fair, I was meticulous about making sure all the hardware was Vista
compatible before building the system. I think that was probably the best
thing I did.

I prefer the UI to XP, although there was undoubtedly some "change for the
sake of change".

If W7 will be as good or better, I'm really looking forward to it.

SteveT

I would have to say my experience has been about the same with Vista
Ultimate 64 bit.
Installed in late Feb of this year - no blue screens, no crashes, no
apparent issues for me at all.

I do have fairly good hardware and made sure I had device drivers available
for all my needed periphs.

I set up my system to dual boot with XP Pro - did not take long getting used
to Vista and I was no longer booting into XP.

I have been very pleased.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

First to start tell the truth about your computer and not lie. A lot of
people do have trouble with their computers. My brand new Vista Based
Computer loses internet connection all the time and all I have to do is run
Diagnose and Repair to fix the problem and the problem is not my service
provider it is Vista so tell the truth.

From the little information you've provided, I can't tell you what the
problem is, but I can tell you that it's certainly not Vista. I have
two computers here, and have worked with many others; none of them
*ever* loses its internet connection.

A lot of people have trouble with
screensavers not working and power options I know for a fact because last
night I did a reformat for a client and screensavers do not work and does
not go to sleep.

You don't know something like that for a *fact* simply because it's
your personal experience. Once again, on my computers and the others
I've worked with, I've never seen such problems.


You say "a lot of people do have trouble with their computers." That's
certainly true, but it's by no means necessarily true that the reason
they have trouble is that they are running Vista. The single most
common reason people are having problems these days is that they are
infected with malware.

 

[NotEvenMe]

I haven't had any problems that I couldn't resolve.
After using it through BETA and into SP1, I just plain do not like the
interface.
MOST of the changes were just for the sake of change. I see no logical
reason for them other than to make it look different.
They claim better security & stability.
I didn't have (don't have) problems with either in XP amyway.
Those that like it are entitled to their opinion, but that won't make ME
like it.
Some people swore their Corvair/Edsel/Chevette/Cimmaron/Kcar was the best
car they ever had...

 

[FBonServer2008X64]

Oh no... not one of those "it works for me" guys... !!!!!

You should come with me and interact with the real world who is using
vista in multiple ways..

 

[FBonServer2008X64]

hey idiot.. you probably have a new computer with vista installed on it..


fuk vista, it's a failure OS

Hey idiot!...hahaha...you are the failure and Vista is your Master!...LOL!

 

[B. Smith]

hey idiot.. you probably have a new computer with vista installed on it..

have you ANY FRIKIN idea how fast it would be with XP?????

and do you have any frikin idea how slow your OLD computer would be with
Vista on it?


Vista is just a pig with lipstick... the OS is bearable only if you have a
very fast computer..

I have a 4 core with 6 gigs of ram and tripple boot... vista seems slower
in everything than XP and linux on this same computer..

heck it seems slower than my 5 year old laptop with XP on it! lol

Don't lie.
You don't like Vista ... so you make up stuff.

I also triple boot Vista,XP, and a linux distro.

Vista boot time 21 sec....linux 28 sec.
Vista opening MS Word 3 sec....linux OO Writer 9 sec.
Vista first opening of IE7 2 sec ... linux Iceweasel ... 7 sec.

This goes on and on ... so obviously Vista is superior speed wise and with
assigning resources.

And if you think its because I have a brand new PC...it isn't.

My PC has an Nforce 4 SLI x16, a PD 3.2 GHz CPU, 2 GB 667Mhz RAM, 2x Geforce
6800's.

It's over 2 years old.

The only thing I've seen noticeably slower on Vista is the first opening of
WinMail.

SP1 fixed slow file copying.

One thing I noticed recently is preconfigured PC's.

Best Buy has a Gateway with 8 GB RAM...yet it only has a Geforce 6150
graphics card.
It ran like crap.
So somebody buying that is gonna be disappointed...and the store will claim
its Vista....when it really is a poorly designed PC.
Put a dam real graphics card in it !

 

[Brontosaurus Burger AKA Vista!]

Oh no... not one of those "it works for me" guys... !!!!!

The funny thing is nothing will work for you. Even that tiny micro nano
needle dick of yours. You know the one you need a search party to help you
find?

You should come with me and interact with the real world who is using
vista in multiple ways..

Sorry, I don't want to go to Jack In The Box where you work and watch you
clean toilets.

I find myself trying to find excuses for microsofts miserable failure with
vista!

You only excuse is that you are not drinking enough. More Vodka.

A guy today told me, why doesn't microsoft just abandon vista and start
working on xp again and make it better...???

No - A Sheep told you last night, "Faster, harder, deeper"

 

[Charles W Davis]

Who cares how fast it might run in some other configuration. The OP was
simply stating his experience. Probably had two reasons for doing so; 1)
notice the link to his woodworking business, and 2) see if he could get
another useless exchange of nothing. He succeded in both instances.

 

[oscar]

Same here. My 1 1/2 year old Vista laptop is humming along just fine. I had a
few problems with one of the "updates" but I never had to do a System Restore
or an OS reinstall. I'm so pleased with Vista that recently I purchased
another Vista laptop to replace my HP XP laptop. Eventually, I will have
replaced all of my home/business XP machines with Vista or the next
generation.

Bottom line: Vista out-performs XP.

 

[Not Even Me]

hey idiot.. you probably have a new computer with vista installed on it..

have you ANY FRIKIN idea how fast it would be with XP?????

and do you have any frikin idea how slow your OLD computer would be with
Vista on it?

Vista is just a pig with lipstick... the OS is bearable only if you have a
very fast computer..

But with Vista, they put the lipstick on the pig's anus, not it's mouth.












Too bed Frank can't tell the difference...

 

[Richard Urban]

Some poor, sick souls just do not like to hear that some people are very
happy with Vista.

 

[xfile]

Actually, many poor, insecure, and sick souls just don't have the confidence
for their own decisions and need to seek recognitions from the Internet and
people they don't personally know.

If I were the only one in the world who is happy with a product, I would
still be happy with it as long as I know exactly the reasons for me to
purchase and use the product.

I don't go out asking people why they don't like the products and services
that I use which could be soaps, cars, tissues, and/or an operating system.

There must be some issues or problems that the don't like so they chose a
different one.

It is very sad to see an MVP with such a low self-esteem for first
encountering Linux trolls and now engaging to another useless post.

What are you so afraid of if you really believe MS is a great company?

 

[xfile]

Define problems?

 

[DanS]

Don't lie.
You don't like Vista ... so you make up stuff.

I also triple boot Vista,XP, and a linux distro.

Vista boot time 21 sec....linux 28 sec.
Vista opening MS Word 3 sec....linux OO Writer 9 sec.
Vista first opening of IE7 2 sec ... linux Iceweasel ... 7 sec.

This goes on and on ... so obviously Vista is superior speed wise and
with assigning resources.

All of that's just the 'SuperFetch' service. SF preloads your commonly used
programs, which is one reason a lot of RAM seemed to be used when you are
doing nothing.

The bigger question is, for instance, Word & OO Writer load speeds....what
does that 6 seconds do for you ? You open the progrma once, and then spend
a lot of time using it. That must be the increase in productivity MS claims
is gained by using Vista !

Of course, those are completely different programs as well, on different
platforms. What would be a better comparison would be to install OO Writer
in Vista, since there's both Windows and Linux versions, disable
superfetch, and then reboot Vista, and start Writer to get the time. Then
reboot into Linux, and start Writer there for a more accurate comparison.