Vista lack of an icon toolbar (the 2 forward / back arrows do not count) is its bigest flaw.

Really. Where is my "parent folder" icon...

And why do I still have a Floppy Disk Drive listed in Windows Explorer when I don't even have one?

Um, because you still have legacy floppy turned on in your BIOS?

Can't blame that on M$.

"Oh wow" on first impressions of Vista are expected. All you see is eye candy after all!

It's once you actually are forced to USE it for real work that all the problems crop up, and that's where the negative image is stemming from.

No DUH people think it's nice from a 10 minute test drive. It's like a movie trailer.....show you all the good stuff, but when you sit in the movie you'll realize you already saw all the good parts in the trailers and now you have to sit through 3 hours of torturously stupid dialog.

FWIW I've been using Vista x64 for a month or so and like it generally speaking. The one thing that bothers me is what gets mentioned most - UAC.

- It should only require one confirmation. The security aspect of it is fine but why ask permission 2-3 times? That just causes irritation.

- Some of the things UAC prompts for are rediculous, like interface options.

- Probably a few other detailed irks about it but I can't recall others right now.

I've decided to keep it turned on however because I use IE (yea I know, don't bother telling me to use something else) and disabling UAC entirely, which is the only option, whether directly or through 'always elevate' workarounds which are effectively the same thing, means no protected mode and I like the idea of protected mode. Even though I've only ever had one real malware infection in the last 10 years which was entirely my own fault I still like the protected mode idea.

MS should have made UAC configurable so that I can leave it turned on for some things and not others.

If it installed without errors and worked reliably I'd probably be using it now. If I get ambitious I'll try again when SP2 comes out. Preinstalled and tweaked is not what I got out of the box. The damn thing lost my video card every 5 minutes! WTF! XP works fine...

I had vista installed. Had the 32bit version up and running, pre SP1. Didn't like it. Too many clicks to get stuff done. Dual booted for a while, than went back to XP MCE. Installed Vista 64bit with SP1 two weeks ago. Things felt better, for a while. But this same feeling started creeping up again: XP just made my work...flow. With Vista, there's this nagging feeling that it just takes one more screen/action/click to get the same result. After a week or so, I just went back to MCE. I've had it with Vista. Call me when the next one arrives, I'll gladly take it for a spin.

i am yet to see someone concisely explain the so called downfalls of vista, usually its people blaming blaming vista for issues related to drivers or third party software

vista is better than xp, it's not perfect but i definitely wouldnt switch back to xp. the issues i have with vista are minor, such as windows update being annoying, certain control panel and menu layouts that need improvement

one thing probably missed (given the nature of the site) are the types of admins out there
in all seriousness, not even admins can be trusted to run a computer properly
or have setup a computer properly to prevent other users from completely breaking it

"oh sure but that's the admin's fault so they'd have to wear that responsibility"

that would be true until the end users of the computers who were given high level admin accounts, skip their administrator and complain to microsoft that their computer doesn't work and it's MS's fault
would you tell them to bug their admin, or accept the fact that since you've got over x% of computer users that they'll be too dumb to understand the concept of an 'admin' account
everytime 'send report' comes up on crashes the details go back to microsoft. what are the odds on the report says what account type was used and the percentage of those that were either power user or admin
so if microsoft see a giant portion of errors/issues coming from admin/power accounts, do you really think they're going to trust all admins/power users not to screw things up?
hell i've seen libraries with info kiosks installed on top of xp logged in with admin accounts. ADMIN accounts on a publicly accessible terminal. yea, what could possibly go wrong (and yes you could browse their internal network)
and it's not just a windows issue either. yeah linux is great because it's got sudo. that is until you get and idiot admin who decides, "i'm not giving them admin accounts, but instead i'll give them sudo access to... EVERYTHING"

so what the hell do you do when even the admin, the person charged with setting up the computer for security and reliability, can't set things up properly?
how about.... not trusting the admin...

someone even pointed out that if you're an admin and if you want to delete certain files on your system i should damn well be able to
well fair enough except as responsible as people may be with the account there's 1,000's of people with admin access that just aren't.
so when they delete system files (and they will) are they gonna say "whoops thats my fault", or are they gonna say "stupid OS sucks"
this seems appropriate:
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

with that said i'm not justifying microsoft's choices
my main complaint is microsoft's default installation
comes pre-installed with so much bloat it's ridiculous
1 guy with 30 minutes could change default install and improve things dramatically
no, i don't want web-server processes on by default
no, i don't want telephony services on automatic
no, i don't have a smart card reader
no, i don't need camera/scanner services on auto
no, i don't want to install every possibly keyboard profile on earth
etc, etc, etc...

This morning with Vista:

Using Explorer : copy the vmware 2.0 RC1 550ish MB .exe to a local disk from my laptop...... nothing happens

Using copy in cmd.exe - instantaneous response - access denied - the file kept its permissions as I moved it on the source machine's disk. Fix the ACL, and the copy works.

I hate how so many of my peripherals don't work with it.

I'm not a big fan of the "super-administrator" mode you have to go into for some changes.

Oh, you mean all that bothersome security stuff like you'd find in a real OS?

This is exactly why Vista is better than XP.

I don't think you should turn off UAC.

There's a reason for it: To escalate privileges to administrator when needed. Vista appears to be the first Windows to actually treat the Administrator account as a "standard user", and only escalates it when needed.

The principle is taken from Unix/Linux/OSX. (So Microsoft actually done something right for once!). Those who've used Ubuntu will know about sudo (command line) and gksudo (GUI desktop). Its the same concept.

Although, some of the things UAC prompts you for are a little over the top. Things like certain shortcuts, etc. I suppose you can tweak that in gpedit.msc. (In Ubuntu, you are only asked for a password when you're making system wide changes like installing an application, updating the system, etc...You don't get asked with trivial situations).

As for the GUI, I tend to agree. I recently was awarded a copy of Vista Ultimate as a "thank you" for a bunch of friends I helped over the years.

I installed it on a test system, and even when I switched it to "Windows Classic" mode, it still feels a bit off. It seems like they changed things for the sake of looking different. Some parts are like: "WTF? Why put it there?"

The good thing, (after a year), the printer works. (It only worked in black and white, but it appears HP finally resolved that issue). So after testing it on my test box, I resolved my sister's laptop issue.

Vista-hating, know-it-all-but-not-really consumers being dumb on camera? Sold!

Am I the only one who thinks that Microsoft is making a bad move by making public fools out of their own customers?

and windows media center is not made for large media collections. navigating my 10k+ library of music is a horrendous task.

Dude, Vista Search in WMP works great...even uses mnemonics.

I don't think Vista is deplorable. But for experienced Windows users who know what settings they like, the little things build up and it just feels cumbersome. Vista is like having to read a childrens book, while XP is an old novel you really enjoy.

I really like some of the added "toys" like the quick cascade to switch between windows, and the superior search functions. And stupid stuff like UAC can simply be turned off, so it's of no worry to me.

Having said that, though, I still have a lot of small gripes and annoyances that I can't accept. Not to mention the fact I don't understand why I have to boot up w/ 56 processes on a relatively clean system, vs my XP machines that boot up with 24-30 processes.

Some of my other personal gripes/issues are:

Why have they gone and reordered/renamed basic features and controls like "add/remove".

Why has desktop properties been replaced by the more cumbersome "personalize" that forces you to open multiple windows (vs just changing tabs) to get where you want.

The start menu has merit, I like the search box where Run used to be. Besides that it's worse than the XP start menu though. And, of course, the XP start menu is worse than the "classic" 98/95 variety which I still use. So it's really one step forward and two steps backwards...

Why is there no longer a thumbnail view option? This is extremely annoying after you "adjust for best performance" and turn off all of the "eye-candy". In XP adjusting for best performance doesn't actually REMOVE useful function. In Vista I no longer have thumbnail previews of my pictures b/c vista only has "Large" icon views, assuming you want all their bloated aero crap to be running.

Also, why can't I customize my folder options by adding buttons for folderviewdelete/cut/copy/paste/moveto/copyto/properties/etc? And the left pane in windows explorer is now far less useful with its default options.

Overall it seems like they tried to make it more "user friendly" and actually removed and/or convoluted features advanced users have come to enjoy and expect.

I don't use Vista much though, so there may be solutions to these issues. If there are I'd love to hear them.

Just my take...

vista stole my virginity. killed my father. burned down my village.

Microsoft announced a few days ago that it had sold 180,000,000 licenses for Vista in the ~18 months the OS has been shipping--an average of ten million licenses per month. This seems to clearly indicate that the "Vista image problem" exists for the most part in the minds of those who haven't bought it.

Good for Microsoft, as this experiment proves that the "bad image" some people insist on believing Vista has is primarily the imaginary fiction concocted in the main by people with some sort of anti-Microsoft axe to grind. Vista has given me no trouble at all--in fact, far less trouble than I had with XP when I installed it in '01.

It's always amazed me that over any given five-year period people will spend thousands of dollars upgrading hardware and buying new software--but just ask some of them to part with ~$200 every five years for a new OS--the foundation for their entire platform--and watch them squirm and complain. It's very bizarre.

Anybody wants to guess how many comments this one will get with the Vista bashing? Considering the Vista bitching thread is up to 34 pages now as of this writing...

And people think AMD has a bad marketing department.

I personally aint a fan of vista but I dont suppose there is anything wrong with it as such its just slower than xp, I dont have much need for DX10 yet so for now I'll take the extra speed and stick with xp

I don't think any of the major complaints with Vista have to do with how it appears. It has to do with all the crap it breaks, the stuff that won't work with it, the way some legacy devices (like Creative's cards) get shafted.

All that said, SP1 is a much, much improved release and I've been much happier with it. However, I do not see enough of a value equation for upgrading from XP to Vista SP1. If you get it on a new computer, you will more than likely be happy with it.

Funny thing is that was my initial reaction to vista as well ! I liked what i saw and thought that the 3D interface was quite nice. But then, after some days of use.. my mind changed drastically. :S

Adi

Who wants to bet that Microsoft's footage mysteriously omits dealing with UAC?

File copying is extremely slow even with SP1. The other major problem is Windows Explorer. It has way too many view configurations and 50% of the time displays something incorrect.

If I'm looking at my source code folder I don't want to see how well my DLL is rated or the author or what the Genre is. It starts grouping things when I don't want them grouped and I have to change every single folder. Drives me nuts...

Also, why do I have to confirm twice each time admin access is required under UAC. That is horrible.

Heh heh. Yeah people are predictable. NewFangled is neat, indeed.

I use Vista in one of our home systems I built, and it's not nearly as bad as some claim IMHO and it's got some good features.

That said, I find it amazing that MS would stoop to such a silly "experiment" at this point in time as a means of buttressing the reputation of Vista. Their time would be better spent, say, fixing UAC and giving the user greater input and control. This so-called "experiment" is the kind of stuff that makes MS look frankly foolish.

We are secretly replacing the coffee served in this fine restaurant with Folger's Crystals!

Or...

We secretly switched the pasta seved in this NYC-based Italian restaurant with Pizza Hut (I think that's what it was after my guffaws) pastas.

Which goes to show the average person is happy with mediocre products.

I'd like someone to come to my house and secretly replace the rubber chicken dinner with some fillet mignons.

I don't explicitly have any problems with Vista, I just don't really see the point in it. I only use Windows on my home machine because I'm a gamer. I work on Linux or OS X. It seems a lot of hassle and cost just so I can use DX10.

hint hint: they're going to announce windows 7 "early"

it'll just be vista with a new theme. vista haters will hail it for "fixing" all of vista's problems.