1. Higher resource demands
Almost as if it was a new version of windows... strange!
I’m sure that resource demands could be reduced with the removal of useless features and functions
2. Increased User optimisation (now even harder to find anything)
I have no idea what this means. I rather like the new Search feature... running cmd as admin has become a few quick keystrokes. Windows key, "cmd" Application key, down arrow, enter. Additionally I've always opened explorer windows directly with the run dialog (as in, Windows key+R, "explorer D:\vbproj\vb\bcfile\bcsearch" or whatnot), and that still works with Vista.
Yes run has always been in every Windows, but now you have to add it manually to the start bar. Increased User Optimisation, I will admit is a general moan about the reorganisation of Windows’ file system. Good for you, memorising all those file names and locations.
3. "Revised & Optimised" Document layout
This sounds more like it's referring to Office 2007. That's not a Vista Feature.
Office 2007 is the illegitimate offspring of OS10 and Vista, raised by the evil hand of Microsoft customer support team. It’s goal in life to ruin decades of IT MS Office training around the world. But I digress, back to Vista... I’m referring to the User’s personal file layout, apparently all my pictures, videos & music are not my documents and should come under such a folder.
4. Networking designed to be more difficult than Win98
Umm... ok.... I had my vista laptop networked with my old PC and it had NT 3.51 installed... It's rather easy to use, IMO. At least now there is a progress bar for network.
I have a laptop on Vista and a computer on Vista. Can I access files between them? No. Never have and have given up trying. I am being totally serious when I say that I have had an easier time networking ME to XP. Oh and don’t get me started on the useless Vista loading bars that are about as accurate as the Windows 98 file transfer percentage bars. All they do is provide morons with a pretty green bar to look at and assume that their computer is doing something. (See reply to point “1.” about useless wastes of resources).
5. Reduced Stability
A complete and utter lie, my laptop has now been on for over a month without a reboot, and no problems. My older XP machine, while fairly reliable, seems to encounter video issues after about a week or so. Obviously the claim will be to "blame the display driver"... why blame other stuff in XP but the OS in Vista?
I never had the issue of reduced performance until a reboot is performed before (usually after programs lock up and I can’t get stuff done). I’m loving the fact that program processes get stuck on and cannot be disabled. (I had this in XP as well but this is a Vista gripe not an XP gripe) XD. I agree with Patio on this you deserve a medal for that laptop.
6. "Improved" start menu (now harder to use than ever before)
OMG! It's different! Same tired old argument from XP's introduction. Point made even blunter by the fact that this "improved" start menu can be reverted to classic just as XP's before it. But of course the XP start menu didn't get criticized at all! Don’t be ridiculous!
I actually like everything about the XP start menu, although I will admit initial complaints. I also like the Vista start menu layout... until I go into programs and oh no! Microsoft has removed the flowing folders. Now folders have to be clicked on and the contents drop down filling your menu even more. Yes I have to revert to the ‘Classic’ start menu, I would rather have the Vista one IF it was practically functional.
7. Non functional system defrag
Works fine here.
I should really thank Vista for this actually because if it’s defrag worked then I would never have discovered IO Bit Smart Defrag. (Download it, it’s good):
http://www.iobit.com/8. Renamed system files (Add Remove Programs - Programs and Features)
This is a con? Please, you’re grabbing at straws here. Why no gripes about how XP changed the name of "network neighbourhood"? Oh of course, that's XP.
I would like to make a point here of when did I proclaim my love of XP? Probably because the name change was minor and un noticeable, that and I don’t have XP anymore. How many hours of your life have you spent looking for a file or program because Microsoft renamed it?
9. Reduced backwards compatibility
Personally I think this is a plus. Programs that don't work because of this are simply badly programmed. Blame the developers, not the OS that decided that enforcing a rule that is explicitly stated in the API documentation was a good idea.
So your saying that programs developed before Vista are badly programmed because the developers could not see into the future and predict the alterations to the API documentation that Microsoft were going to make?
10. Emulated DirectX 9 crashes
I'm starting to think your PC is having problems... not Vista...
No, asides Vista being rubbish it works fine (never crashes on Linux). I’m not the only one that has problems with DirectX on Vista. C&C3 has problems with it and that’s a fairly new game.
11. 2 or 3 times OS size (compared to XP)
Compare XP (around 1.5 GB) to Windows 98, or Windows 95. Same relationship, same tired old argument, same lack of any real point.
Windows 95 – 350Mb (0.35Gb), Windows 98 – 500Mb (0.5Gb), Windows ME- 700Mb (0.7Gb), Windows XP – 1500Mb (1.5Gb), Windows Vista – 15000Mb (15Gb). So that’s:
Windows Vista – 15000Mb
Win95 – Win98 ~50% increase
Win98 – Win ME ~40% increase
Win ME – Win XP ~100% increase
Win XP – Vista ~ 1000% increase
Oh my god! I didn’t even know that it was that bad! I’m shocked. Windows XP and Vista figures taken from:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx &
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx respectively. Previous Windows versions from personal experience.
12. Stupid aero themes (ooo I can see through my windows wooww)
Yes, the "fisher-price" Luna theme was SOOOO much better. Of course it was. XP can do no wrong just as Windows 98 could do no wrong before it.
Windows 98 was alright, limited but alright. You might as well say that propeller planes could do no wrong until jets were invented. XP was bad then they fixed it (SP2). Vista is bad then they invented Windows 7. Is Windows 7 the fix to Vista?
13. IE 8 (increased exploitability)
True... but I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with Vista. IE8 will install on XP too. Does that make it a con for XP? Of course not. It's XP.
Microsoft allowed something new on an older version of Windows? Incredible! I thought they only let the new stuff loose on the newest versions to force people to upgrade. For the millionth time I do not want XP’s babies!
14. Decreased user streamlining (browsing function now even harder (loss of window tabs))
Haven't a clue what you mean here.
Remember those lovely tabs you use to get in settings windows, like for example when you used to right click your desktop and click properties? You used to get a window with the tabs: Background, Appearance, Screen saver, etc.
In summary, you’re really just echoing the exact same things windows 98 users griped about XP. OMG... look at that awful blue taskbar. Of course just as you have conveniently forgotten that Aero is easily disabled so too did they not realize that the windows Classic theme is easy to get to.
To repeat myself, I like the task bar (although I did gripe about the XP one at first) just not the functionality of the menus. I’ll give you the fact that I could turn the themes off and not complain about them wasting resources.
