20 Reasons why vista can fail
- Status
casanova
The Frozen Nova
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
5) The Start Menu has been redone with a completely different look, unfortunately it is hard to navigate and find what you are looking for.
Can't think going to XP coz of this
13) Firefox runs ten times better than IE7 in vista.
What you wanna say. Is it Vista at fault or IE7 or is Firefox good.
5) The Start Menu has been redone with a completely different look, unfortunately it is hard to navigate and find what you are looking for.
Can't think going to XP coz of this
13) Firefox runs ten times better than IE7 in vista.
What you wanna say. Is it Vista at fault or IE7 or is Firefox good.
infra_red_dude
Wire muncher!
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
tho i don't agree wid most of the points pointed out by the author after which he concludes vista sux, i must say that i've faced about 1/4th of the mentioned problems. but i don't blame vista for it as thats not vista's fault in anyway. i say the same abt linux. if ppl whine that their hardware doesn't work wid linux then its not the fault of the distro!
tho i don't agree wid most of the points pointed out by the author after which he concludes vista sux, i must say that i've faced about 1/4th of the mentioned problems. but i don't blame vista for it as thats not vista's fault in anyway. i say the same abt linux. if ppl whine that their hardware doesn't work wid linux then its not the fault of the distro!
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
Exactly.
For years now, Linux has been suffering from poor hardware support (this is getting better now, but still not as good as Windows), but you never heard people complaining about the OS, in spite of the often claimed speed with which open source problems are rectified.
Now Vista has the problem of hardware vendors not creating drivers in spite of the two year beta stage, but when older hardware fails to work under Vista, it becomes Microsoft's fault.
Exactly.
For years now, Linux has been suffering from poor hardware support (this is getting better now, but still not as good as Windows), but you never heard people complaining about the OS, in spite of the often claimed speed with which open source problems are rectified.
Now Vista has the problem of hardware vendors not creating drivers in spite of the two year beta stage, but when older hardware fails to work under Vista, it becomes Microsoft's fault.
BBThumbHealer
BlackBerry Guru ! :)
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
Vista Rocks Surely...
Vista Rocks Surely...
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
I hate such articles. It is an article written out of spite and obvious bias. He started out not wanting to like the operating system, so he obviously ended up that way too. It is impossible to use Vista and not praise the instant search, the breadcrumb navigation, sidebar, live thumbnails, etc. If you want to tell us what you did not like, we also want to hear what you did. No product in the world is flawless and if you only list the flaws, it is obviously going to look bad. I see this happen all the time when people who hate Mac OS X set out to "review" it. Articles like those, and this one too, just make the author look like a complete jackass. I give this a 0/10. This sucks!
I hate such articles. It is an article written out of spite and obvious bias. He started out not wanting to like the operating system, so he obviously ended up that way too. It is impossible to use Vista and not praise the instant search, the breadcrumb navigation, sidebar, live thumbnails, etc. If you want to tell us what you did not like, we also want to hear what you did. No product in the world is flawless and if you only list the flaws, it is obviously going to look bad. I see this happen all the time when people who hate Mac OS X set out to "review" it. Articles like those, and this one too, just make the author look like a complete jackass. I give this a 0/10. This sucks!
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
But sadly enough for Apple, this happens to be my assessment of the Mac vs. PC ads too. This is exactly what they are doing in those ads (Forgive me, this is extremely off-topic to this thread, but I had to say it.)
Zigackly !!! (As everyone who reads Asterix will know.)Aryayush said:
But sadly enough for Apple, this happens to be my assessment of the Mac vs. PC ads too. This is exactly what they are doing in those ads (Forgive me, this is extremely off-topic to this thread, but I had to say it.)
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
Oh, and BTW, I seriously doubt this guy has used the OS. I think he made the list based on preconceived notions. He came up with twenty flaws, some of which are ridiculous (he says the searching is poor and since he is comparing Vista to XP in the article, does he really mean to say that XP's built-in search was better than Vista's!).
Yet somehow he did not even get around to mentioning one huge flaw in Vista, the sheer uselessness of the much hyped Flip-3D feature. This suggests that he has not really used the OS.
Oh, and BTW, I seriously doubt this guy has used the OS. I think he made the list based on preconceived notions. He came up with twenty flaws, some of which are ridiculous (he says the searching is poor and since he is comparing Vista to XP in the article, does he really mean to say that XP's built-in search was better than Vista's!).
Yet somehow he did not even get around to mentioning one huge flaw in Vista, the sheer uselessness of the much hyped Flip-3D feature. This suggests that he has not really used the OS.
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
Form (almost) always follows function in Mac OS X but that is certainly not the case with Flip 3D - you cannot see the full contents of any page except the first one, some windows get completely hidden, there is no way to differentiate between two identical windows (because the titles are illegible), etc. There are a lot of problems with Flip 3D.
And BTW, good design is more than just experimenting with spiffy effects and slapping them onto the operating system. When the whole desktop is two dimensional, how does Flip 3D suddenly become three dimensional and that too over the two dimensional desktop background? How does it get suspended in space when none exists?
Time Machine also employs the illusion of a three dimensional space but if you have seen it in action, which I doubt, you'll see that the two dimensional desktop slides off the screen revealing the endless time lapse beyond. As you "move back in time", you keep getting the illusion that you are approaching the end but it never comes. From a functional point of view, all this is no use but Apple designed all this to support their three dimensional approach. They did not just slap it on. This is good design.
And this also follows function. You are bringing back documents you've deleted in the past; you're bring back things from back in time. Doesn't it make sense to give you an easy to use UI that gives you the illusion that you are actually going back in time? Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't the form complement the function? Now find me one good reason why Flip 3D is three dimensional? And if it is, why is the environment it operates in two dimensional? It is like playing a game where you can only move back and forward but the characters are three dimensional.
Now, if both the function and the form are flawed, how can you say it is a good feature? Everyone I've seen using Vista uses Alt + Tab for daily use and Flip 3D for show-off.
Form (almost) always follows function in Mac OS X but that is certainly not the case with Flip 3D - you cannot see the full contents of any page except the first one, some windows get completely hidden, there is no way to differentiate between two identical windows (because the titles are illegible), etc. There are a lot of problems with Flip 3D.
And BTW, good design is more than just experimenting with spiffy effects and slapping them onto the operating system. When the whole desktop is two dimensional, how does Flip 3D suddenly become three dimensional and that too over the two dimensional desktop background? How does it get suspended in space when none exists?
Time Machine also employs the illusion of a three dimensional space but if you have seen it in action, which I doubt, you'll see that the two dimensional desktop slides off the screen revealing the endless time lapse beyond. As you "move back in time", you keep getting the illusion that you are approaching the end but it never comes. From a functional point of view, all this is no use but Apple designed all this to support their three dimensional approach. They did not just slap it on. This is good design.
And this also follows function. You are bringing back documents you've deleted in the past; you're bring back things from back in time. Doesn't it make sense to give you an easy to use UI that gives you the illusion that you are actually going back in time? Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't the form complement the function? Now find me one good reason why Flip 3D is three dimensional? And if it is, why is the environment it operates in two dimensional? It is like playing a game where you can only move back and forward but the characters are three dimensional.
Now, if both the function and the form are flawed, how can you say it is a good feature? Everyone I've seen using Vista uses Alt + Tab for daily use and Flip 3D for show-off.
Last edited:
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
Well now. Arya has just brought to the for the whole raison d'etre o the Mac OS, illusion.
See, i use Flip to see what windows and apps I have open and to switch between them. I don't really need to see what is in each window, since I have each open item labelled neatly in the taskbar.
It just helps that it looks pretty neat. But when you are worried more about looks than function, as with OSX, I guess you would think it sucks.
But I have changed my mind, having been forced to use a Mac for almost two months. I find I would far rather stick with Windows (and its flaws, of which surprisingly few bother me) than have someone else's idea of how things should be done forced down my throat.
Ironic that: for a company whose slogan happens to be "Think Different", all Macs are alike (aside from individual product lines), whereas hardly any PC's (the greatest evil) are.
Well now. Arya has just brought to the for the whole raison d'etre o the Mac OS, illusion.
See, i use Flip to see what windows and apps I have open and to switch between them. I don't really need to see what is in each window, since I have each open item labelled neatly in the taskbar.
It just helps that it looks pretty neat. But when you are worried more about looks than function, as with OSX, I guess you would think it sucks.
I always thought this was what Mac did best.Aryayush said:
But I have changed my mind, having been forced to use a Mac for almost two months. I find I would far rather stick with Windows (and its flaws, of which surprisingly few bother me) than have someone else's idea of how things should be done forced down my throat.
Ironic that: for a company whose slogan happens to be "Think Different", all Macs are alike (aside from individual product lines), whereas hardly any PC's (the greatest evil) are.
Last edited:
infra_red_dude
Wire muncher!
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
too good a thot!pillainp said:
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
Re: 20 Reasons why vista $ucks!!
No surprise then, that at the end of the two months, you weren't very happy with the operating system. You like Flip 3D, but for some weird, unexplainable reason, you did not like Exposé. You did not like the fact that it mounts ISO and DMG images by default (and those are the only ones you need because Mac developers do not use other formats) or that there is a widget that not only shows you flight schedules but also where the flight is at any given time. You did not notice how aliases (shortcuts) stick to files even when they've been renamed or relocated, you did not notice that you can work with busy files, you did not appreciate the sheer convenience of not having to install applications. There is a lot to like in Mac OS X and the pros far outweigh the cons. But you were blind to the pros so of course the cons were glaringly evident.
I would've believed you if I would have ever met a single person who bought a Mac with the genuine desire to try it out, to learn something new and was disappointed with it. Five people I know have switched to a Mac after me and not one of them has anything to complain about. Of course, I do get the occasional distress calls - my Internet is not working, a VCD I bought is not playing, the Digit DVD is not playing, where can I find software - but I've been able to address everything that's been thrown at me so far and I've never had two calls about the same problem from the same person.
There are thousands of people switching to Macs nowadays and a few of them are bound to dislike it. It is not perfect. It is not for the person who likes to tinker with the OS too much. I am sure you are going to jump at this one, "Yes, I am such a person and therefore, I did not like it." But it is not a universal rule that you can apply to everybody. I used Windows for five years and I used all sorts of hacks and stuff - I followed a lot of Vishal's tipcs, messed around with the registry, installed WindowsBlinds and such, edited the startup items, removed the TCP/IP limit of reserving 20% bandwidth, tried a lot of Linux distros - I've done a lot of those. And I used to like it too. Trying out the latest antiviruses and keeping them updated used to be a fun thing to do. I was just like most people on this forum are. But then I switched to Mac OS X and I was very apprehensive about it too. I would probably not even have switched if I had anything to lose. But I was only seventeen and had not done anything serious with a computer yet. I figured that if for some reason I did not like the OS, I could always go back to using Windows.
And then I used it. I had the same attitude towards it that I had towards Windows six years back, one of curiosity. When I found that the option of playing full screen movies was disabled in QuickTime Player, I tried to find ways around it, when I couldn't play DivX movies, I searched for ways to do so. I did not note it down in a diary so that I could later complain about it on an online forum. That attitude would get me nowhere. Today, I can very confidently say that after having tried out a lot of OSes - Windows 98, XP and Vista, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora and Mandriva and finally Mac OS X - OS X is clearly the most advanced one. Yes, it restricts you choices but that is what makes it better. Of course, there are certain things in which it lags behind Windows, the most disappointing one being that it does not have anything like the incredibly useful System Restore feature in Windows XP and Vista. It will be there in Leopard (and will be a vast improvement over Vista's), but it should have been in Tiger when XP has had it for seven years.
Overall, however, Mac OS X is definitely the best. Almost every review and shoot-out says so and almost every Mac user says so (and almost every Mac user has used Windows and Linux). I say so. Even simple applications like TextEdit and Address Book are very good at what they do. Most of the things are available by default and they actually work, for a change. Compare Address Book to Windows Contacts, Apple Mail to Windows Mail, TextEdit to Wordpad and Notepad. In each case, the former is a better contender for the crown.
As for their motto, it does hold true. In fact, I find that it is the ideal description for most of Apple's products and their customers. You would never use a Mac if you wouldn't dare to be different from everyone else. They cannot possibly make a different Mac for every customer, but they sure as Hell can provide a better user experience compared to the rest of the industry and they quite successfully do. The magic starts from the packaging itself.
You, like most other Windows users who "try" Mac OS X, started out with the opinion that it sucks, that you were being forced to use it. You started out with the aim of finding the flaws. When you encountered the neat features that would be amazing for anyone switching from Windows, you let them pass without notice and when you chanced upon the problems, which you are bound to encounter when you are switching from a platform you've been using for years and are very comfortable with, you noted them in your head instead of looking for solutions.pillainp said:
No surprise then, that at the end of the two months, you weren't very happy with the operating system. You like Flip 3D, but for some weird, unexplainable reason, you did not like Exposé. You did not like the fact that it mounts ISO and DMG images by default (and those are the only ones you need because Mac developers do not use other formats) or that there is a widget that not only shows you flight schedules but also where the flight is at any given time. You did not notice how aliases (shortcuts) stick to files even when they've been renamed or relocated, you did not notice that you can work with busy files, you did not appreciate the sheer convenience of not having to install applications. There is a lot to like in Mac OS X and the pros far outweigh the cons. But you were blind to the pros so of course the cons were glaringly evident.
I would've believed you if I would have ever met a single person who bought a Mac with the genuine desire to try it out, to learn something new and was disappointed with it. Five people I know have switched to a Mac after me and not one of them has anything to complain about. Of course, I do get the occasional distress calls - my Internet is not working, a VCD I bought is not playing, the Digit DVD is not playing, where can I find software - but I've been able to address everything that's been thrown at me so far and I've never had two calls about the same problem from the same person.
There are thousands of people switching to Macs nowadays and a few of them are bound to dislike it. It is not perfect. It is not for the person who likes to tinker with the OS too much. I am sure you are going to jump at this one, "Yes, I am such a person and therefore, I did not like it." But it is not a universal rule that you can apply to everybody. I used Windows for five years and I used all sorts of hacks and stuff - I followed a lot of Vishal's tipcs, messed around with the registry, installed WindowsBlinds and such, edited the startup items, removed the TCP/IP limit of reserving 20% bandwidth, tried a lot of Linux distros - I've done a lot of those. And I used to like it too. Trying out the latest antiviruses and keeping them updated used to be a fun thing to do. I was just like most people on this forum are. But then I switched to Mac OS X and I was very apprehensive about it too. I would probably not even have switched if I had anything to lose. But I was only seventeen and had not done anything serious with a computer yet. I figured that if for some reason I did not like the OS, I could always go back to using Windows.
And then I used it. I had the same attitude towards it that I had towards Windows six years back, one of curiosity. When I found that the option of playing full screen movies was disabled in QuickTime Player, I tried to find ways around it, when I couldn't play DivX movies, I searched for ways to do so. I did not note it down in a diary so that I could later complain about it on an online forum. That attitude would get me nowhere. Today, I can very confidently say that after having tried out a lot of OSes - Windows 98, XP and Vista, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora and Mandriva and finally Mac OS X - OS X is clearly the most advanced one. Yes, it restricts you choices but that is what makes it better. Of course, there are certain things in which it lags behind Windows, the most disappointing one being that it does not have anything like the incredibly useful System Restore feature in Windows XP and Vista. It will be there in Leopard (and will be a vast improvement over Vista's), but it should have been in Tiger when XP has had it for seven years.
Overall, however, Mac OS X is definitely the best. Almost every review and shoot-out says so and almost every Mac user says so (and almost every Mac user has used Windows and Linux). I say so. Even simple applications like TextEdit and Address Book are very good at what they do. Most of the things are available by default and they actually work, for a change. Compare Address Book to Windows Contacts, Apple Mail to Windows Mail, TextEdit to Wordpad and Notepad. In each case, the former is a better contender for the crown.
As for their motto, it does hold true. In fact, I find that it is the ideal description for most of Apple's products and their customers. You would never use a Mac if you wouldn't dare to be different from everyone else. They cannot possibly make a different Mac for every customer, but they sure as Hell can provide a better user experience compared to the rest of the industry and they quite successfully do. The magic starts from the packaging itself.
- Status