Thread: OMFG now I see why people hate vista so much

Dont blame Vista, blame the hardware manufacturers of your incompatible devices for not releasing a Vista driver.

x2 on running Vista 64 with NO problems - except my treo wont sync - PALMS FAULT FOR BEING LAZY AND NOT UPDATING THEIR SOFTWARE!

Come to think of it, my brand new 1080p LCD sucks because it looks terrible with the standard analog cable signal.

Originally Posted by kevinlekiller

Lots of my hardware didn't work with vista x64 so I installed that microsoft virtual PC 2007 to use XP, but it doesn't support USB. So then I bought vmware to run xp to install drivers that don't work in vista. Then I ran into the trouble of latency problems ( audio ) clicking and popping in sound and stuff ( sound recording through USB ). Anyways I put in another hard drive and installed xp. No more troubles.

You should have done your homework before buying Vista 64-bit. I made sure all my devices had 64-bit drivers available before deciding to go with Vista64.

I blame vista for many things... Lack of hardware support really isnt one of them.

Microsoft needs to make 2 OS's. 1 for retards and 1 for another. Vista is good for the first option. You cant do anything without it warning or yelling at you. File copying is all scanned and protected while scanning making file transfers slow. Eye-candy that just slows everything down. Yadda yadda.

I want one that boots into an environment that looks like 98 that runs programs made for microsoft systems and thats it. If I want to delete my ntldr.exe file, that's my business, let me do it.

User Access Control can be turned off and you wont get those warnings to allow. Thats their attempt at making the OS more secure...

I back up 10's of gigs per week (I do computer repair) on my Vista machine and i dont think is any slower than when I had XP.

Its all about the system, I guess. My Core 2 E6600 with 4GB PC-6400 RAM flies.

You do know that file copying is known very recreatable problem with Vista. And I know UAC can be turned off.

I am using it on a T7600 with 2Gb of RAM and it is barely tolerable.

If I had the time, and a copy of XP tablet, Vista would be gone.

What specifically is the problem with the file copier?

Originally Posted by blazinlow

What specifically is the problem with the file copier?

Nobody from MS has chimed in, but most people seem to believe it is the Remote Differential Compression.

It takes forever to copy even the smallest file. And no the HD line is not full, the CPU is not being taxed, plenty of free RAM, it just takes forever. From the drive to the same drive (not a flash drive or USB anything, actual SATA into mobo).

Just a quick google will show you I am not crazy.

There are just way too many checking operations going on before the file starts to be transfered to make sure you arent a moron. For instance, after the box starts moving with the "time remaining" it still takes longer but not much longer on my new vista machine than my P4 with XP. This is ok for transfering 1 10Gb file. But transfering 10Gb's worth of 500Kb and 2Mb files, is a royal pain in the *** on vista, and the lower equipped P4 with XP and a slower more full HD, does it much much faster.

Originally Posted by Jistari

BTW OMG will suffice

How do you know?