All of you idiots bashing Bill Gates do know that he retired years ago and has nothing to do with any of this, right? No? Steve Ballmer runs Microsoft now, if you're going to spew stupid vile rants about Windows at least learn who's in charge first.

Nitwits.

WINDOWS 7 - IT JUST WORKS... AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT USE IT
I noticed a trend in Vista and Windows 7 that feels all too familiar, but it seems to happen much sooner in Windows 7.
Windows Rot:
The degradation in performance and stability that a Windows install experiences over time that is typically remedied by re-installation of the operating system.
Fuck you Micro$oft, & fuck you BILL GATES.
Windows 7 should save people a lot of money and time over the next few years. This is due to the fact that it has finally demonstrated that Microsoft software is no longer worth the investment.
SAY NO TO WINDOWS !

WINDOWS 7 - IT JUST WORKS... AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT USE IT
I noticed a trend in Vista and Windows 7 that feels all too familiar, but it seems to happen much sooner in Windows 7.
Windows Rot:
The degradation in performance and stability that a Windows install experiences over time that is typically remedied by re-installation of the operating system.
Fuck you Micro$oft, & fuck you BILL GATES.
Windows 7 should save people a lot of money and time over the next few years. This is due to the fact that it has finally demonstrated that Microsoft software is no longer worth the investment.
SAY NO TO WINDOWS !

Getting a Mac tommorow, thank GOD. Vista and windows 7 is SHIT, Bill Gates needs his head sorting if he thinks he is ever going to beat OSX. God bless Sir Steve Jobs. I loved windows 98, i thought xp was a healthy upgrade, but Vista and 7, oh boy... I'm not anti-MS, i just think BG needs to revalutate windows. The whole windows shell and dll's and ugggh, it needs to get up to date and sort it self out.

Never mind Vista being Shit, XP is becoming SHIT !!

Vista, it keeps your window positions, it remembers open windows, it remembers your settings etc, Yes it may take alot of resources but you can get rid of that crap. Ive got vista running on a P3 perfectly fine.

XP - Doesnt remember your window positions, it doesnt remember folder views , it isnt optimized for multi core cpu's correctly. in the end it becomes all clogged up and ends up grinding to a halt regardless of what spyware, disk clean up , registry programs etc.

Maybe windows 7 will be the answear if not , Mac here i come !!!

Windows 7 is a little bit faster than Vista and also more stable... but remember, anything is better than Vista!
Once again, the mediocrity of a company expressed to the highest level. In addition, Windows 7 is very expensive.
The way of doing business "forcing obsolescence" is a crime from Microsoft, that should be punished with jail.
Microsoft is a worldwide shame!

i am running a quad core with 8gb of ram and i can honestly say seeing as i just sold my dual core with 1 gb ram yesterday, vista SUCKS ASS!!!!!!! no comparison. my 4 year old xp weak ass computer was at least twice as fast and im pissed i sold it for this shit. im switching back to xp if there isnt a fix soon.

I agree with you 100%. I have a quad core box with 8gb ram and copying files from 1 folder or drive rto another is very slow.
Firing up basic programs like I.E takes 5-6 secs. Its ridculous. Cant wait for win 7

Yeah vista sucks ass. Microsoft's operating systems are all down hill from here. They should just stop making software and leave the world alone ffs, do us all a favour.

If you think vi$ta is bad...wait till you try 7. Programs that work on vi$ta, might work on 7. Games...probably not, but you might get lucky. File transfers suck, I'm moving a 120gig folder...about a day later...this is from a RAID to RAID on the same machine and no it isn't a bottleneck with the controler or drives. What a headache.

All of these things cry out "crappy virus scanner" or something related to slow I/O perf. Except for the VS SP1 problems, but I haven't hit any of those. Are you running x86 or x64?

I had no anti-virus installed, because I was planning on doing Load Testing and I didn't want it to interfere. 32bit. I am pretty sure Vista works well on some computers, but it seems mine is not one of those. :-)

Don't be sad. I installed Vista on a lot of machines lately and had the same problems you mentioned on a lot of them.

Vista badly needs a fast hard disk. And during the first weeks it starts indexing files like hell. So the hard disk is permanently rotating and you get the full speed not until this process is finished (after 2 weeks or so). And if you have things like a "crappy virus scanner" installed (i now exactly which one Paul means) then you will sure need even more time ...

If you are talking to SAMBA servers (when copying files over the network) you may want to read: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/935400

In brief: netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled

That solved that exact problem at home ;)

Vista is only usable in the 64-Bit edition with at least 8 GB RAM and preferably with Quad Core CPU. I must say that the 64-Bit Ultimate Edition runs very well on my Mac Pro (with the resources mentioned above).

I also have the 64-Bit version on a Dual Core Dell XPS notebook with only 3 GB RAM. I see the 'not responding' message in Outlook sometimes, but I also know that it would be much worse in the 32-Bit edition of Vista - I had that on the Dell before, and it crawled.

In summary, if there have been any optimization efforts, it seems that Microsoft put them into the 64-Bit edition ONLY. It's a night and day difference between the two architecture versions.

Hey Winni.

This is not against you or against anything you have written in your post in general but when i read comments like this it always makes me sad.

Does nobody recognize that there is something strange in here:

"... 64-Bit Ultimate Edition of Vista runs very well ... with at least 8 GB RAM and preferably with a Quad Core CPU ..." ?

With that kind of equipment you can go to NASA and start to make a proof of the Big-Bang-Theory by simulating it, or can compute the system of equations needed for designing the space-ship for the next mars mission or ....

you can run Windows Vista with it!

I might be a bit old already but when i went to university they told me that an ideal operating system should waste as least resources as possible because it should provide as much resources as possible for the applications running on it.

But nowaday it seems quite natural that you need at least 2GB RAM and Dual-Core-Machine with at least 2 GHz, 20 GB harddisk space just to be able to use the operating system (if you want to run big programs, you will, of course, need a lot more resources).

With 8 GB RAM and Quad-Core-CPU and Windows XP or Linux as the operating system you can run an Apache Server, Play Quake 4, listen to mp3 songs, program with Visual Studio and do many more things in parallel and that all at once (ok, you wouldn't want to do this but you just could :-) ). Or you can run Windows Vista and maybe Word at once ...

So what is the whole point of Windows Vista ? (make the hardware industry happy or the entertainment industry (built-in media-stream encryption - one thing an end-user has always hoped for) ?). Except of DirectX10 and a nicer desktop environment, IPV6 (does anybody need it yet ?) and a lot of built-in anti-piracy stuff which costs a lot of resources it offers nothing more for a developer or an end-user than XP. It just costs a lot more resources. Why are all the new netbooks running Linux or Windows XP and not Vista ? Why have a lot of companies not yet switched to Vista ?

The first thing i did after i got my new notebook was replacing the preinstalled Windows Vista with Windows XP (after a short amount of testing). And i think to this day it was the right choice.

No bad words here but i just think Windows Vista is the worst operating system Microsoft did ever design (and i am a really happy Windows XP 64 bit user (which has all the pleasantries an 64 bit operating system can offer together with all the maturity of XP) and of course a Linux user).

Well when I read comments like this it makes me sad as well.

It's full of Anti MS FUD. 8GB Ram? Quad core?

I am happily running Vista on my core2 duo with 1,8ghz (the weakest core2) and 2GB ram, without any of the issues described above. Sure XP performes better and Vista has it's shortcomings, but it's not that bad like people here make it out to be.

Media stream encryption? Anti piracy stuff that costs a lot of processor power?
Now it's getting old. What facts do you base this on? There is a protected media path to play DRM protected content. If you don't buy DRM protected content (wich I surly hope your not) then this will not bother you and it will NOT use any processing power whatsoever.

Hi Simon.

I am now even more sad :-(

If you would have read my post carefully then you would at least not accuse me of spreading Anti MS FUD. You are just making it too easy for yourself. It is always easy just to say this is FUD. Did you miss the line "... i am a really happy Windows XP 64 bit user ..." ? I am really happy with XP but i am not with Vista.

The things i have written in my post above where intentionally exaggerated (which i think was clear) to satirize but should just point out that the latest Microsoft operating system does not seem to be designed for the good of the end user alone.

From my point of view and my experience with it, it delivers not so much more of a usability experience to justify it's high hardware demands. It offers not much more than Windows XP yet it needs a lot more hardware resources. Why that ? It's good for the hardware manufacturers but not for an end user or for a company which has to upgrade all of their computers. Microsoft showed before that this does not have to be (look at the moderate differences between Windows 2000 and Windows XP regarding hardware requirements). And Microsoft really has a problem with Vista regarding netbooks or selling it's new os in emerging markets. This is the only reason why all netbooks are running XP. Don't you think Microsoft would not like to see their new shiny operating system on these ? I really don't understand your claim of FUD here.


Why does an end user need a protected media path ? Why is this good for me as an end user to have a protected media path in my operating system? I don't have it in XP and i don't have it in Mac OS X and Linux. I would like to have a protected environment, yes. One which protects me against internet threats, trojans and such stuff. And this protected media path costs resources (cpu time and memory). Mine. Encryption and decryption of media content in realtime does not come for free. The problem with this is, that all of the so called "premium content" is protected (which is more than just DRM protected content which i don't buy - be sure!).

And again this is a feature not designed for the sake of the end user but for the media industry. Why did they left out so many planned new Vista features which would be good for an end user like for example their new filesystem ? They said that they did not have the time finishing these. But they had time enough for a protected media path. Interesting priorities, don't you think too ?

So this is not Anti MS FUD but i think MS while designing Vista did not think so much of the end user and i hope that they realized this and that they will think more about their customers while designing Windows 7.

So if your happy with Vista and it runs fine on your machine then i wish you all good things in the world. I installed Vista on a lot of machines recently (upgrading from XP) and my experiences where much more like the things Ivan mentioned in his post. And he too writes in the beginning:

"I want to make it very clear that I am not an anti-Microsoft junkie and that I have been a happy user of Windows for a long time both in Virtual Machines and on real hardware."

So just saying were all spreading Anti MS FUD is too easy. Just to be critical and not praising everything does not mean to spread FUD. It's always easy to say if you don't have the same opinion then you are spreading FUD. It's like if you are not completely with me your against me. But things are never so easy ...


What facts do i base this one ?

Take a look at:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vist...

and

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/d...

for example.

I run windows vista on my home box and working box and no problems at all! At work i've visual studio professional, vista bussines, sql express, vmware workstation and php web development stuff (apache, mysql, php, memcache, many browsers and more stuff)

No problems at all! My work computer is an OLD 2 x Athlon MP 2800+ (= 2.2ghz), no simd advanced instructions, with 3gb of ram and all works perfectly.

All this stuff runs on a crappy fake-raid controller for a raid 1, so there is another slow down ... but, sincerly, the differences between windows vista and windows xp, on my machine, are really few. The boot is faster using XP, but i don't think that the work pc needs to be rebooted more and more during the day so this is a secondary thing.

I know, windows vista needs a lot of ram, but it, for example, has a lot better caching system, a better pre-fetching system and so on!

note: on 64 bit you need more ram than normal because memory pointer need double of space!

Yikes, that sucks. I've been happily doing all those things in Vista for about 2 years now. On the other end of the spectrum, I spent the weekend installing Windows 7 to play with it. :)

I played with Windows 7 Beta and it looked very good actually. If I have time I will play with Windows 7 RC when it becomes available for non- MSDN subscribers.