1. You may have noticed things look a little different around here - we've switched to a new platform (XenForo) and have some new forum styles and features. This how-to guide will help you find your way around. If you find anything that looks strange, post it in this thread.

Whats so bad about Vista?

Discussion in 'Microsoft Windows XP and Vista' started by perrin_aybara, Dec 26, 2010.

  1. KLF

    KLF NBR Super Modernator Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    81
    I actually installed MSE on a 2008 Server just couple weeks ago. Installed without complaints and worked okay. That was just a temporary test server tho, up for one day only :p
     
  2. kojack

    kojack Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Someone on here told me that vista would destroy a ssd drive, is there any truth to this and why? I cnat see how this would be an issue as win 7 and vista are essentially the same program. But if it is true I would like to know.

    Sent from my ARCHOS 80G9 using Tapatalk
     
  3. DetlevCM

    DetlevCM Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Messages:
    8,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    definitely not. tell whoever claimed that, that he/she is an idiot.

    what you should do however, is to switch off automatic defragmentation on vista as it is pointless and adds to wear. but it still wouldn't destroy a ssd
     
  4. tijo

    tijo Sacred Blame Super Moderator

    Messages:
    9,261
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    281
    Well the lack of TRIM will slow writes down to a crawl over time if your SSD doesn't have garbage collection that can take care of things without TRIM. That's about it and a secure erase will restore performance should you need to restore it. That however will not destroy the SSD.
     
  5. DetlevCM

    DetlevCM Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Messages:
    8,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well....

    You can use an Intel G2 for a significant amount of time without trim. You can fill it and benchmark it nearly full... it hardly slows down...

    So there is something else at work too. And the G2 doesn't have auto-trim on Vista.
     
  6. mochaultimate

    mochaultimate Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
    While Vista doesn't have TRIM, you can use the Intel SSD Toolbox do manually trim your drive (it's recommended to do so every week, and can be automatically scheduled if you wish). I've been using this setup with Intel G2's and G3's for ages, with no issue with degradation whatsoever.
     
  7. DetlevCM

    DetlevCM Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Messages:
    8,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know you can. The question is, do you need to? And the answer seems to be no.... - whyever.
     
  8. Nick

    Nick Mr.Mischief

    Messages:
    4,057
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    131
    I thought Vista wasn't so bad....Then I used my moms old 1525 running Vista Home Basic. It's not slow machine: CD T4300, 3GB DDR2, and 160GB 7200RPM. But, with Vista it is horribly slow. I installed Windows 7 on it a while ago and it was much, much faster.
     
  9. Baserk

    Baserk Notebook user

    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I don't think Vista SP2 is that bad. At all.
    Was your mum's laptop decently maintained regarding the OS and progs? How many startup progs, what load did the installed progs cause?
    I mean, every fresh installed OS feels snappy without a plethora of progs installed and perhaps running at startup. (XPSP3/VistaSP2/Win7SP1 user)
     
  10. Nick

    Nick Mr.Mischief

    Messages:
    4,057
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    131
    I don't really know if it was optimized, I tried to never use it:D

    When it was a fresh install it was ok, but after loading a few programs it slowed down a lot. And, it's not like she does a lot with her laptop. 20 Chrome tabs, 3 word docs, and 2 PDFs. That's it. I also remember my Dad's Compaq with Vista Home Premium. It had a dual core 1.6GHz AMD processor and 2GB's of memory, and it was similar slow.

    I'm not bashing Vista, given the choice of it or XP, I'm going with Vista.

    I should install Vista on my HP and see how slow it gets. Maybe with decent/above average hardware it's fine.
     
  11. kojack

    kojack Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Well I'm going with another Intel 320 ssd, and a 750 HD in my 7720. Running vista sp2

    Sent from my ARCHOS 80G9 using Tapatalk
     
  12. SemiExpert

    SemiExpert Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Messages:
    7,791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    semiexpert has lots to learn. nr. 1: learn to read.
     
  14. SL2

    SL2 Notebook Deity

    Messages:
    891
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    41
    No, it won't die.:rolleyes: It doesn't work like that.
    Most users already do.
    What do you mean?
     
  15. SemiExpert

    SemiExpert Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think it's advisable for anyone to use an unsupported OS, especially when it comes to Windows. When the "Patch Tuesday" ends for Vista users this April, they are going to be wide open to any emergent exploits. Unsupported means unsupported.

    I wouldn't encourage anyone to use an unsupported version of OS X or an unsupported Linux distro, and I think we can all agree that Unix-based operating systems are a lot less vulnerable than Windows.




    There's going to be big gap between the end of Vista SP support on April 10, 2012 and the launch of Windows 8. It's not even clear if well see a retail, x86 version of Windows 8 ship in calender year 2012.

    Basically, the end of Vista support is going to put the remaining Vista users into an unenviable dilemma. Buy a retail upgrade of Windows 7, which itself will only have support for about a year past the end of Windows XP support, or pursue other alternatives.

    It's a colossal embarrassment to Microsoft that mainstream Vista support dies two years ahead of XP. Yes, Vista was a commercial failure, but all the same, do customers deserve to get the short end of the stick just because they purchased an unpopular product?
     
  16. MAA83

    MAA83 Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    31
    You have to remember though that longer XP support was demanded for by consumers and businesses alike, specifically because of the debacle that Vista deployment was initially. Granted, it's been a mature and stable OS for some time now, but there was a strong dislike of it for quite some time, even when it was fixed - its bad initial rep carried over. Had windows vista been as well received and as widely accepted as XP or 7, I doubt XP support would have been (as) extended.

    Windows 7 however had no such levels of resentment (relative to Vista), and was generally well accepted, so extended/long term vista support is not a must have. 7 has been out for some time now, and there's been ample time for users to move on from Vista to 7 if they so choose, and microsoft has no obligation (as they did with XP in light of Vista's reception) to grant extended Vista support.

    If you look at the support lengths for 95, 98/SE, 2000, XP, Vista and 7, it's clear that XP had unusually long support.

    IMO customer's aren't getting the short end of the stick.. they're getting the normal sized stick after being granted a massive stick with regards to XP extended support. You can't expect MS to have decade+ long support life cycles for each iteration of windows. It's not profitable. Consider that new windows iterations come out much more frequently than that.. they would accumulate and have to support new versions faster than old ones died out/lost support. They would end up having increasingly larger allocations of business resources to product support, instead of development. That's not a good business model IMO.
     
  17. SL2

    SL2 Notebook Deity

    Messages:
    891
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Since when did updates become hard to get? If MS stops Windows Update for consumer Vista in April, just download them yourself!
    Extended support ends 2017, and while it's not that fun or realistic to install updates every month for five years, you can at least do it until W8 comes.

    Exactly, and unsupported doesn't mean dead. "Wide open" may be the case if you turn off the firewall and antivirus etc. Stop exaggerating.
    You put a bit too much trust into updates. Yes, they're important, but it's naive to think that it's the only thing that makes a system safe.
    As an example, we WILL see updates for Windows 7 in 2013 that fixes vulnerabilities that exists NOW.
    Meaning, W7 is wide open to those exploits right now, yet we don't see the forums getting flooded with posts about unknown issues caused by not yet identified exploits.
    Well if you're that paranoid, why don't you use Windows 8 beta, it will be released in February?

    Or use W7 or Vista business without a key and use slmgr /rearm and combine with System Image.
    It worked last time I checked.
     
  18. kojack

    kojack Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I have since loaded on Win7, and wow, the computer is much faster.
     
  19. MikeGeek

    MikeGeek Notebook Enthusiast

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Interface is not easy to use.
     

Share This Page