Reasons why Vista sucks

I was also wary of switching to Vista ... but I must say - I like it.

I like new things. Vista is new - different.

Not a hardcore-stay-up-till-4am type of gamer, but vista runs my games decently.

The love finding tweaks to improve its performance - cos yes it is slower than XP.

The one thing that freaks me is the SATA drive performance. I do not know if it is safe to turn on advanced write caching for my sata drive. I tried it and it makes a big difference, esp if working with external hard drives. I am afraid that I might lose everything if power go down. (Might go and buy me a UPS)

For now I choose Vista.
 
Ekhaatvensters said:
Winamp is 10 years older than Vista, how would it not have come further?

I still don't find Winamp's music library as useful as WMP or even iTunes.
Click to expand...

Windows as a technology is older than Vista. Or we could say than count Winamp from when it started to support Vista?

EDIT: To make it clear, Windows as a concept is much older than WinAmp.
 
I prefer foobar2000 to Winamp, Winamp has gotten worse over time not better.

I used winamp from the first betas and have seen them lose the plot with 3 now 5 sadly
 
my 2c on winamp (and think that i last used it 3 years ago) was that even then it had lost what had made it the piece of software people loved. it became bloated for no reason. no users wanted the extras they added (by no users i mean most of course).

it actually is what amarok should watch out for in linux.
 
milomak said:
Windows as a technology is older than Vista. Or we could say than count Winamp from when it started to support Vista?

EDIT: To make it clear, Windows as a concept is much older than WinAmp.
Click to expand...

Aah, okay. :p Well I would disagree that WinAmp came further than Vista has since it started to support it anyway. I don't like much in the new Winamp versions either. :(
 
Vista is fine. Have run it more than a year now. The 64 bit version is better than the x86 one but both are great if you have up to date hardware. Haven't any major issue. Gaming is also good.
 
vista(x64) rocks, just complicated to install, and all the things you should disable, drivers are annoying

the sidebar thing is kinda annoyingalso resource intensive, nothing like the mac gadget one which has much better performance.

running on 2.4ghz C2d, 2GB ram, 160 7200rpm, Nvidia 8600M

next pc will be a mac, but for now vista is much better than xp, IMO
 
Last edited:
SlinkyMike said:
If that flips you out ...take a peek at what Vista is using for Shadow Copy temp space. Don't be surprised to see upwards of 20gb :eek::eek:
Click to expand...

My whole Vista partition is only 18GB.. with quite a bit of other stuff installed on it too. Are you sure your Shadow Copy used this much?

I don't use it anymore anyway, but it never seemed to get very big.
 
The minimum partition size for Vista is 15GB. Maybe that says something. I remember that my Vista (the time I made a mistake by just installing it) was HUGE. My shadow copy never got that big, but it was pretty impressive to see an operating system go above 20GB (no program files, those were on a seperate partition)...
 
froot said:
The minimum partition size for Vista is 15GB. Maybe that says something. I remember that my Vista (the time I made a mistake by just installing it) was HUGE. My shadow copy never got that big, but it was pretty impressive to see an operating system go above 20GB (no program files, those were on a seperate partition)...
Click to expand...

So how did you do that, x64 Vista? I've installed at least 5Gb of stuff on my 18GB partition with Vista.
 
VISTA is a joke with bloat. Anything that runs my games slower, even 10fps slower on hardcore hardware, and costs me money!? Ummm.... no thanks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X