One Vista user suggests renaming it to "bloated operating system"
It’s just too easy for people to pick on something these days and Vista has become everyone’s favorite punching bag. Complaints usually surround performance issues, file transfer problems or the fact that it doesn’t support older peripherals.
Maybe Microsoft could have done better, maybe Windows 7 will be what Vista was supposed to be but for the meantime with Windows XP driver support ending, you will use Vista with your new hardware whether you want to or not.
Having said that, one reader of The Mercury News couldn’t help but give his thoughts on Vista and suggested “Vista OS should be renamed Vista B.O.S. (Bloated Operating System).”
He said that Vista took two minutes to boot and become usable and that it used 750MB of memory with nothing open and around 900MB with one program open.
I achieved similar memory usage stats but I’d disagree with him on the boot times, my laptop and desktop both boot Vista to a usable state in 30 to 45 seconds.
But then again, he’s using AOL, I don’t think I need to comment on that. AOL, come on guy, AOL?
Rather than continue down that line of thought, here are some ways to make Vista start up faster, disable unneeded startup items in msconfig (type msconfig in the search box, press enter and go to the Startup tab, uncheck items you don’t need but leave your Firewall, anti-virus and malware protection entries alone).
Things that are safe to disable include things like “helper service,” iTunes and Quicktime entries can be disabled (those services start with the applications anyway), Adobe entries, Java entries (starts as needed but is not necessary at boot), any burning application (Nero, for example), IM applications (Yahoo, AIM, Google Talk, et al) and plenty of other things but I can’t list them all here.
Additionally, turn off unnecessary system services (and which ones that you can turn off really depend on how and where you use your computer) but this list is a good place to start. To disable system services, right click “Computer” go to “Manage” and then “Services and Applications.”
Instead of complaining about how “bloated” or “slow” it is, maybe Vista users should consider looking this up for themselves.
Related Posts:
January 2nd, 2008
“Instead of complaining about how “bloated” or “slow” it is, maybe Vista users should consider looking this up for themselves.”
This reminds me of being in a manager’s meeting and listening to a Senior Vice President give us a presentation. Following his chart-a-thon, we were given a questionnaire to fill out. My boss was very irritated when none of the ten of us gave the correct answer as to what the most important point of the presentation was. As my boss railed at our stupidity, I couldn’t help but think back to a public speaking class where the same scenario was played out, but the speaker was responsible for 80% of the class missing the point, since the whole point was about communication. It never occurred to the instructor to blame the audience.
Given the amount of resources, the research, the amount of time that was invested in it is quite perplexing that a failure of this magnitude has happened. Blaming the users for not knowing how to tweak it, is pretty lame.
January 3rd, 2008
The amount of loyalty to Microsoft astounds me. Gee if only we disable Vista enough we can get it to almost work as good as XP. Gee we have no choice anyhow. Actually there is some choice. Some of the Linux Operating Systems are becoming very good. I currently run XP and Mepis. I only run XP because there are couple of specialized programs that I can’t get in Linux. Linux is faster, almost virus proof, free, and for me just works! I always say use what ever operating system you like. But maybe you should consider trying one of the Live CD or DVD that come from the Linux community. Just for fun get a copy of Puppy Linux. Put it in your CD drive and see some of the innovative things the open source community is doing. Vista is a colossal disappointment. Five years in development, 50,000,000 or plus of code, five billion dollars, and this is the best Microsoft could come up with?
January 3rd, 2008
“Blaming the users for not knowing how to tweak it, is pretty lame.”
I doubt that 90% of Vista hate comes from actual Vista users. Vista starts out the same as Windows Server 2003. All doors are closed and the OS is in a high security state. I thought that’s what consumers wanted. Those who are dumb enough to click on love letter virus emails and foolishly allow spyware to run on their PC’s.
Its tweaked for safety at initial boot because users don’t know HOW to keep themselves protected. If you are smart enough to disable the protection then you are probably smart enough to not need the protection.
January 3rd, 2008
John: He wasn’t talking about security, he was writing about fixing slow booting, not viruses or spyware. Did you miss:
“here are some ways to make Vista start up aster, disable unneeded startup items in msconfig (type msconfig in the search box, press enter and go to the Startup tab, uncheck items you don’t need but leave your Firewall, anti-virus and malware protection entries alone).”
Server 2003 is certainly not at a “highly secure state”, at least if you have a technet subscription and heed the suggestions. There’s a big difference in the way Vista Basic vs Vista Premium installs at default. If you don’t think the majority of Vista hate stems from Vista users, you need to get out more.
” If you are smart enough to disable the protection then you are probably smart enough to not need the protection.”
Or one of your Windows rags or websites gives instructions to “Supercharge Vista”. Nothing speaks louder about the idiocy of giving the ignorant the keys to the kingdom than the history of Windows. Developers got so sloppy when writing code that presupposed the user having Admin rights, UAC is being disabled because programs won’t load or run. Most homes don’t have anyone able to write system policies like users of Server 2003.
January 3rd, 2008
I disagree with the advice you gave here. In fact, I’m outraged: why should we have to disable our programs to make Vista run faster? Operating systems were created for using the programs we want, not disabling our programs to speed the OS up.
This sounds like an unusable OS to me:
“Things that are safe to disable include things like “helper service,” iTunes and Quicktime entries can be disabled (those services start with the applications anyway), Adobe entries, Java entries (starts as needed but is not necessary at boot), any burning application (Nero, for example), IM applications (Yahoo, AIM, Google Talk, et al) and plenty of other things but I can’t list them all here.”
Well, once you’ve disabled all those programs, what’s left? Why not just have us work out of the Command Prompt and the hell with using any actual software besides Vista?
My copy of Vista also takes 2 minutes to “boot and become usable”…actually, it’s closer to 3 minutes for me. It’s so slow you’d think there was lard clogging up the processors. And UAC and File Protection are a living hell when you’re trying to do any cleanup/maintenance/repairs on the OS.
Not to mention you can’t run Vista smoothly without paying money for new hardware…so here we are, paying anywhere from $179-$500 to install either an upgrade or a fresh copy of some version of Vista, then paying perhaps another $200 to upgrade RAM and CPU, maybe more, then you’re telling us to disable all our programs *on top of that*? You’ve got to be kidding. What a sucker’s game Vista is.
You want to speed Vista up? Remove all of MicroSell’s so-called “safety features” and guess what? It becomes XP all over again, only a bit nicer looking, with a faster, more intuitive Search.
In the interest of helping others restore Vista to it’s little-known XP-like glory (not to spam) I wrote (and wrote about) every possible way to disable all of Vista’s resource-sucking “features” here:
http://antiaol.insanejournal.com/12492.html
There are also Vista guides you can look up that tell you which “Services” you can safely disable, and I suggest you use those, too.
People, don’t disable your programs to run Vista! Disable Vista so you can run your programs.
Then write Bill Gates and tell him you’re never spending another penny on his bloatware again.
January 3rd, 2008
It’s not about disabling the programs, it’s about disabling their (mostly useless) startup entries. Okay, so the programs start five to ten seconds faster, that’s not worth the pain of a longer boot, for me.
If you remove the safety features of Vista (but I’m with you on UAC) then it’s just XP with a prettier face. That’s not the point of a new OS.
I even did this with XP, any operating system can be faster when tweaked correctly, only, Vista needs it more than others.
January 4th, 2008
The only answer OS X Leopard. Awesome GUI on a BSD core.
January 4th, 2008
The only answer is OS X Leopard. Insanely fast with an awesome GUI on a BSD core. What more could you want?
January 4th, 2008
“The only answer is OS X Leopard. Insanely fast with an awesome GUI on a BSD core. What more could you want?”
How about open hardware choices? I run Linux to skip bowing to the Steve.
January 6th, 2008
“If you remove the safety features of Vista (but I’m with you on UAC) then it’s just XP with a prettier face. That’s not the point of a new OS.”
Bingo. Give the man a Cuban. Move along folks, nothing to see here. This was the first MS OS I’ve removed (I skipped ME) because the pain far outweighed the gain. Wake me when 7 is Beta.
January 10th, 2008
Ken,
Amen, brother, you tell it. I never thought I’d *uninstall* Vista, either, not after upgrading my RAM, installing a much bigger second hard drive to hold it and taking the two or so hours it took to get it installed and what passes for “usable” at MS these days, but here I am, and that’s my story. It’s just XP with more eye-candy. And too much stuff clogging up the pipes. At this rate I’ll keep using XP until I die.
With issues like Vista is having, I think Bill should rename his company: “Microslush” would be a more accurate description of what his latest OS does to most people’s computers.
June 5th, 2009
On my new computer with a 2.8 ghz processor and 3 gbs of RAM, Vista’s OPERATING SYSTEM only used 2.2 gbs of RAM! Seriously folks, what.the.buck. I knew Vista was a resource hog, so I planned to install Windows XP Pro on the new computer. Turns out, Vista says otherwise, and I had to take extreme measures to put XP on the machine.