My Laptop with Vista SUCKS!!!!

[user 22118]

I am about to throw it away and get a mac. Any suggestions for either deleting everything and adding a new OS like linux. I have never used it so know nothing about it. Or should I just give up and go to a mac? What about a netbook with Windows XP (more reliable and better in all ways than Vista)

 

[KYB]

I still don't understand how people can have so many problems with Vista, and want XP, much less a Mac. I have had no problems with Vista 32bit or 64bit. I always had problems with XP, although I had less when I built my computer and put XP on it, rather than a retail PC. But go ahead, pay exactly double the price for a Mac, just because it has a "cool" OS (same exact hardware between a Dell and a Mac, Dell was half the price).

Disclaimer: If Linux was a little more user friendly and supported Adobe software natively (no Wine or commercial equivalent) I would primarily use Linux. Enter crap in the terminal all the time gets old fast. Used Fedora 32/64 and Arch 64.

 

[rex]

Download Ubuntu 9.04...burn the cd...pop it in your machine and boot it as a "live" os....

It will boot, load and run the full os directly off of the cd...without actually having to install it.

That will allow you to try it and see how it runs.

There are many variations of Ubuntu also..Mint, Mediabuntu..etc. They all are based on the same thing but offer specific features that you may or may not be interested in.

Give it a try! You've got nothing to lose!!!

Feel free to ask any questions you like.

 

[Homercidal]

NOTE: Running a live distro of Linux will be slower than actually running off the hard drive and tweaked. So your actual performance will be better once you decide to install it.

I'm not hot on Vista, but I've heard there have been several major improvements. XP runs fine for me and I just don't see any real value in upgrading to Vista yet. Direct X 10 might be the only thing.

 

[david_42]

I've been running Linux as my primary personal O/S almost since its inception and use it for my company's website. I've also installed and run it on almost 1000 servers. I don't have any experience with versions aimed specifically at consumers, but I've heard very good things about Ubuntu as a desktop O/S.

Linux is astonishingly compact (for this day and age), as is the Gnome GUI. With FireFox3 and Thunderbird running, I'm using less than 240MB.

 

[Arkador]

Windows 7 Release Candidate! Way better than Vista, and currently free!

 

[Mutilated1]

Its not at all free - you just don't have to pay for it till next year. Thats not free.

 

[rsmith179]

Most of the problems people experience with Vista are due to the hardware requirements for the OS. With Vista, you're looking at needing no less than 2 gigs of RAM for useful operation, more if you actually want to do something like edit videos and photos. It is totally true what people say about Vista, it does take at least 1 gig of RAM just to run the OS. I monitor my memory and CPU usage on a regular basis. On my laptop, 1/2 of the memory is used solely for Vista to run. In my opinion, that is way too much.

Other than the memory issues, I have not really run across many other problems with Vista. Yeah, their User Access Rights are a little funky and sometimes programs can't run with each other at the same time without running both as the administrator, but those types of issues are easily solved with a little bit of knowledge. In general, I would still pick XP over Vista any day just due to the memory usage alone.

 

[Arkador]

Dualcore 2.4Ghz with 4GB of ram, Vista ran just fine, and Windows 7 runs better.

and FYI, that was a $550 computer 2 years ago....

 

[wildwest450]

It is a bit of a memory hog, but every bit as stable as XP. I've been running the 64 bit version without a single problem.

 

[carbon111]

I work as I.T. for a small company with about 150 computers, including a small server farm.

There are only two Vista computers in the company, the CEO's laptop (he hates it) and a Vista test computer. I hate Vista with a vengence. It will turn a relatively fast computer into a boat anchor - it is a memory hog and very sloppily coded. The ultimate in MS bloatware. Wost of all, all the administrative functions have been dumbed-down to the point of stupidity, many hidden deeply or reconfigured to the point of unrecognizability. Tons of arbitrary paradigm changes and lots of questionable ergonomic choices...

I've had the opportunity to test the most recent release candidate of Windows 7 and it benches about the same as Vista with a couple of tweaks and different window dressing. Not impressed at all.

I'm keeping the company on XP for the forseeable future. It is stable and very lean and fast - especially when compared to Vista.

At home I have 5 pcs 3 of which are running Win XP and two of which are running Ubuntu Linux.

 

[TxBrew]

I'm running Vista that I've stripped down and it runs slightly ok. I look forward to 7. I've been told it's great.

 

[user 22118]

I have had my computer since Vista came out and I bought my lower end laptop. The thing about it is that the laptop was put together before they realized that Vista would be such a hog and they didn't add enough memory. I am so fed up with it that I am looking into a netbook for my base internet usage and then a desktop for my heavy usage at home. Currently it takes ten minutes to start up my laptop!

 

[carbon111]

You can always put XP on your laptop. $90 is a lot less than the price of a new computer:

http://www.nextag.com/Microsoft-Windows-XP-Home-606280721/prices-html

Alternately, you can download Ubuntu for free.

 

[bull8042]

I LOVE Linux, and Ubuntu is an excellent flavor. It is unbelievable the strides the developers have made in recent years towards a robust and reliable desktop that is very user-friendly. I drop to a terminal usually because I can, but almost never because I have to.
To ODaniel, you should really give Ubuntu a shot before you discount Linux as NOT being user-friendly. Lightyears ahead of Fedora in my opinion.

 

[zman]

I am not a big vista fan but that is just because it ask you if you are sure that you want to do something or tells you that you need elevated privileges. Server 08 is the same nonsense. If you are already a member of a domain admin group I do not see the need for the constant prompts.

 

[Fusorfodder]

Change the theme to windows classic and turn off user account control. Right click on the taskbar, do properties, then click the start menu tab. Set that for classic. Any folder you open, change it to classic view on the left side. This will get everything looking and feeling like win2k or xp. These changes will undoubtedly address most of your issues. Also, if your laptop doesn't have 2gb of ram in it, that can be trouble as well with vista.

 

[phreephly]

I work as I.T. for a small company with about 150 computers, including a small server farm.

There are only two Vista computers in the company, the CEO's laptop (he hates it) and a Vista test computer. I hate Vista with a vengence. It will turn a relatively fast computer into a boat anchor - it is a memory hog and very sloppily coded. The ultimate in MS bloatware. Wost of all, all the administrative functions have been dumbed-down to the point of stupidity, many hidden deeply or reconfigured to the point of unrecognizability. Tons of arbitrary paradigm changes and lots of questionable ergonomic choices...

I've had the opportunity to test the most recent release candidate of Windows 7 and it benches about the same as Vista with a couple of tweaks and different window dressing. Not impressed at all.

I'm keeping the company on XP for the forseeable future. It is stable and very lean and fast - especially when compared to Vista.

At home I have 5 pcs 3 of which are running Win XP and two of which are running Ubuntu Linux.

I've got to ask, what are the hardware specs that you are trying this on? I have a laptop with a T9300 CPU, 4 GB RAM and an nVidia 8600M GS, and Vista was no slower than XP. I am running Win 7 on it right now, and it is about the same.

As far as memory hog goes, how are you coming up with that? Vista certainly has a larger RAM requirement than XP, but it is also 5+ years older and the generally available hardware today meets that requirement easily. The use of Superfetch uses more RAM, but it was unused RAM anyway, why should it sit idle. The moment an App needs that memory, Vista gives it up.

In terms of administration, the group policy management in Vista is lightyears ahead of XP, and when combined with Server 2008 even easier.

PhreePhly

 

[phreephly]

I have had my computer since Vista came out and I bought my lower end laptop. The thing about it is that the laptop was put together before they realized that Vista would be such a hog and they didn't add enough memory. I am so fed up with it that I am looking into a netbook for my base internet usage and then a desktop for my heavy usage at home. Currently it takes ten minutes to start up my laptop!

Can you add more memory? RAM is pretty cheap and your laptop can probably max out to 2 GB. The problem is probably your GPU, which doesn't have its own memory, so it uses your RAM. I had a buddy by a cheap HP desktop being offered at Office Depot, it came with 512 MB ram, and had a Video card that used 128 MB. It was $299, so he got what he paid for, but it was hard to run. He had Vista Basic installed on it and it was like yours, 10 minutes just to get to the desktop from boot.

I put 2 GB in it and that went to about a minute to start up.

PhreePhly

 

[carbon111]

I've got to ask, what are the hardware specs that you are trying this on?

My OS test bench is completely reconfigurable - I've tried it in many different hardware configurations. Regardless of hardware, Vista is an absolute pig.

In every case Vista has been much slower for most applications and benchmarks. A lot of it has to do with the way Vista handles mainboard and processor-level functions.

When MS first announced Vista, I was thrilled - it sounded like they were going to build a lean, efficient OS from scratch, abandoning a lot of the feature-creep and bloat of their earlier efforts. Sadly they delivered exactly the opposite - a massive resource hog that needs a very fast processor and a ton of ram just to run the OS.

I'd be overjoyed if they would come out with something lean so my computers' power goes to the apps, not the OS.

There's a reason I use a combination of Ubuntu and XP on all my personal boxen...and it's not "convenience". LOL!

 

[Yuri_Rage]

I bought SWMBO a brand new Dell laptop last year. I was excited about the dual core processor and RAM. It has never run well. Vista makes it suck. I did install Linux Mint on another partition and it runs great, but SWMBO is crippled by Microsoft's empire and doesn't like Linux. I'm downloading Windows 7 right now as a result. If it works well, I'll pay for it next year.

 

[Weizenheimer]

Just get a mac...you won't turn back

 

[carbon111]

Just get a mac...you won't turn back

Unless, of course, you want to run 80% of the applications out there.

As much as I love BSD, and I really do, I think buying a Mac is like buying a car with the hood welded shut.

...An expensive car at that.

 

[Mutilated1]

I bought SWMBO a brand new Dell laptop last year. I was excited about the dual core processor and RAM. It has never run well. Vista makes it suck. I did install Linux Mint on another partition and it runs great, but SWMBO is crippled by Microsoft's empire and doesn't like Linux. I'm downloading Windows 7 right now as a result. If it works well, I'll pay for it next year.

Put your wife on Ubuntu - you won't regret it. My wife wanted a new laptop when her XP machine started to get old. I said "No" and bought the kids each a Dell with Ubuntu. So she started using the kids machines once she figured out that she really could do her myspace and facebook, chat online, visit her forums, etc... just as well with Ubuntu as she could with Windows.

A few weeks later after she'd been doing her thing with Ubuntu and her Windows XP box was sitting there unused I implied that her XP box might run faster with Ubuntu on it as well. So I put Ubuntu on it and sure enough it was much faster and she was happy.

Then this year when we got our income tax refund she asked for a laptop again only this time she specifically asked for Ubuntu. I was happy to oblidge her.

If you don't have anything better to do with your time than endlessly fiddle with settings, download drivers, install updates, remove spyware, scan for viruses, etc.. you might prefer Windows. But If she just wants to use the computer for something other than an endless exercise in novice level system administration she'll love Ubuntu.

 

[BADS197]

At my last job an atty comes in to our dept and is talking to our manager.

He's saying how windows sucks and is so hard to use, mac is better etc.. bla bla bla...

So he goes out and buys a mac laptop and bring it in for us to configure for remote desktop connection

The first question I asked him, knowing full well the answer. (I'm NOT a fan of MAC).

me "ok, do you know how to get this connected to a server so I can load the software?"

he says "no"

me "ok.. hmmmm you dont have a floppy... what about a cdrom (looks all over the thin laptop)..."

he says "I don't know"

me "ok... lets try to get on the internet and maybe download it directly from MICROSOFT"

him "ok"

me "where is IE or whatever browser you use?"

him "I don't know... I just bought it"

me "hmmmm" (opens safari)

him "yea i bought it because its so much easier to use and Ive had nothing but problems with windows. MAC is so much more user friendly."

me "yea.. i totally understand"

There are those that get it and those that don't. He bought into the commercials and the hype and in the end still didn't know ****.

I don't have problems with vista and I know a lot of people that dont unless they get to installing tons of nonesense on their systems and silly spyware infected smilie programs and crap.

The only benefit I can see with MAC is their ability to control the hardware used. They only use certain hardware that meets their specs and thus drivers that are garanteed to work for that hardware.

With IBM/windows based pc's there's a billion clone parts, tons of companies in ohter countries copying video cards and motherboards and millions of different drivers for them.

If there was a set standard in the normal x86 based world with drivers adhering to strict codeing... there wouldnt be a crash using one video card from some company with knockoff drivers or with drivers that were made by a reputable company that created drivers that work for their video card specifically.

I'm not saying that you know nothing about computers but I've learned that the people for the most part with the most problems, know the least about the computer.

 

[Mutilated1]

Unless, of course, you want to run 80% of the applications out there.

As much as I love BSD, and I really do, I think buying a Mac is like buying a car with the hood welded shut.

...An expensive car at that.

how is a Mac like a car with the hood welded shut any more than a Windows PC is like a car with the hood welded shut ?

I guess you've got a point about the expensive part.

And another thing... does anyone really want to run 80% of the applications out here ? No. You want to do four maybe five things on a regular basis and you want to be able to do them well without screwing with things that barely work or crash or cost a lot of money. Nobody in this world owns or runs 80% of the applications out there.

 

[zman]

I bought SWMBO a brand new Dell laptop last year. I was excited about the dual core processor and RAM. It has never run well. Vista makes it suck. I did install Linux Mint on another partition and it runs great, but SWMBO is crippled by Microsoft's empire and doesn't like Linux. I'm downloading Windows 7 right now as a result. If it works well, I'll pay for it next year.

What model Dell do you have? I recently bought and XPS M1530, and have had no issues with it at all.

 

[Mutilated1]

The only benefit I can see with MAC is their ability to control the hardware used. They only use certain hardware that meets their specs and thus drivers that are garanteed to work for that hardware.

Well there is also the benefit of having a user interface that looks and functions like a work of art instead of like a fisher-price toy.

 

[carbon111]

how is a Mac like a car with the hood welded shut any more than a Windows PC is like a car with the hood welded shut ?

Funny you should ask... :rockin:

In the Beginning was the Command Line
by Neal Stephenson

PC zip: http://www.cryptonomicon.com/command.zip

Mac stuffit: http://www.cryptonomicon.com/command.txt.sit

 

[BADS197]

Well there is also the benefit of having a user interface that looks and functions like a work of art instead of like a fisher-price toy.

I have no problem with fisher price's interface. It works quite well actually.

I rarely if ever have a crash, it stays up for weeks on end doing various tasks. I find everything I need/look for in the gui. It's stable and robust enough to run a lot of different programs, easy to maintain and remove old software...