Samsung Exec: Windows 8 not better than Vista

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Samsung Exec: Windows 8 not better than Vista.

The director of Samsung’s computer memory division criticizes Windows 8

Click to read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/samsung-exec-windows-8-not-better-than-vista-66434/](http://www.myce.com/news/samsung-exec-windows-8-not-better-than-vista-66434/)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Hey anybody home? Biff MS?
Samsung’s director is downplaying how bad W8 is.
Vista didn’t ever kill computer sales.
He would have never mentioned this if there wasn’t a real problem with W8 sales.
MS was warned early on…now this statement.

I do wonder if they got the message or are they prepared to stay on course for the huge iceberg ahead.


#3

Another statement of the obvious by the Samsung executive.


#4

I wouldn’t be surprised if Microsoft quietly brings back the Start button.

This is Vista, part 2.


#5

[QUOTE=whatever_gong82;2680678]This is Vista, part 2.[/QUOTE]

Hey, that’s unfair. Vista wasn’t that bad. :wink:


#6

[QUOTE=TSJnachos117;2680681]Hey, that’s unfair. Vista wasn’t that bad. XD[/QUOTE]

LOL.

To this day, I didn’t care for Vista’s Security features, and the fact that it is a resource hog (I still have an Vista laptop that I use from time to time, and I’ll probably get rid of it sometime around X-Mas later this year.)


#7

IMO, Vista wasn’t bad at all when it had 3-4 gigs of RAM to run on. Even if the CPU wasn’t all that fast. If I had to choose between two identical laptops where on had Vista and the other Windows 8, I might take the one with Vista.


#8

My desktop has Vista 64 on it and my laptop has W7 64.

I have never seen that much difference between them except W7 boots up faster
and Vista tends to bloat itself faster…because of multiple backup/safety running in the background.

For everyday use, there is little difference.

Vista is not that much different than XP or W7.
Anyone who has used Vista for a long time knows this, there are many that have only heard what has been parroted on the internet.

On the other hand, W8…just check out reviews…you pick them and you will see people are returning computers…simply because of the OS…or they mention installing W7 to get rid of W8.

I am sure this is the reason Samsung’s Exec. made this public statement.
I am sure Samsung and other computer builders don’t like the fact that they are getting higher than normal returns due to W8.


#9

I still have Vista 32 on my desktop & it works fairly well .
It has been majorly tweaked & I have ownership of most of the files.
Some work better if the system owns them but I can take ownership if I need to.
As UTR posted definately helps to have 4GB RAM.


#10

I’ve had 4gb of ram since 2002, and I still have 4GB of team.

VIsta was released buggy, particularly networking file transfer issues. All my complaints with vista were fixed prior to release of service pack 1, but by that time, Windows 7 was about to be released, and everyone lost interest in vista.

VIsta 32 was terrible on release, and the giant memory footprint (actually due to scalable, intelligent disk caching) made everyone think it was a hog, also highly noticeable because vista32 had to fit into 3.5GB of ram.

Vista 64 was the first mass adopted 64bit OS, and the experience was badly tainted due to lack of preparation by device manufacturers, applications programmers, and even some manufacturers deciding to coincide their retirement of highly popular, and still retailing products (no fingers pointed at creative Labs with their sound blaster audigy 2, 3, 4 and xifi series, which were still in stores and still being included on newly released motherboards) with the release of vista.

Btw, I refuse to buy another creative Labs product. I’d like to see them merged with sony, before they both go down the drain.


#11

Wireless networking is one area where W7 definitely improved upon Vista. When I got my W7 laptop 3 years ago, it took me literally 2 minutes tops to connect onto our home network. My g/f’s Vista 32 laptop takes forever. Also W7 seems to recover better from an outage. We are on the same wireless network now and her Vista box takes forever and a day to find signal again if the wireless network goes down.

Also, the UAC in Vista is annoying to the point of me wanting to throttle Ballmer while yelling, Vista was not ready for prime time! Say it!
In contast they did a much better job of setting the UAC to an acceptable level in W7. My firewall blerps at me 10x than the UAC. But its also French, so its finicky.


#12

Although I skipped Vista, I’ve had enough headaches troubleshooting Vista on relatives and friend’s computers, with the vast majority before Service Pack 1 was launched for Vista.

Besides running like a snail (most had 1GB RAM), the main problem I seen was the infamous “Windows Update encountered an unknown error”, either when trying to check for updates or install a service pack. On the first few computers I looked at, I tried the System Readiness Tool, “sfc /scannow” and deleting the SoftwareDistribution folder. Both tools took 1 to 2 hours due to how sluggish Vista runs with <2GB and not once have I ever seen these “solutions” fix Windows Update, which only meant one remaining fix - reinstalling the darn OS. :doh: I think I once tried an in-place upgrade (i.e. Microsoft’s alternative solution - install Vista as an upgrade over an existing Vista), but all that did was waste about 2 hours as it would fail at the end with some other “… encountered an unknown error” and spend an hour reverting the whole process.

The only few people I know of that actually liked Windows Vista were those who build their own PCs, since obviously they were not going to fit just 1GB of RAM or install countless resource hogs like the PC manufacturers do. Also, Windows Vista use to intermittently take 5 minutes to shutdown even without installing updates and I wouldn’t be surprised if many users gave up waiting and pulled the plug, which probably what was killing Windows Update. I’ve never seen Windows 7 take longer than a minute to shutdown expect when installing updates.

Unfortunately, I have already experienced one instance of this Windows Update problem with Windows 8 on my own new laptop. After a clean Windows 8 installation, I went through the updates for the first time and after a reboot, it said “Failure Configuring Windows Updates. Reverting Changes.”, spending 30 minutes doing so despite using an SSD (I sure wonder what it would take with a HDD.) I tried the Windows Update process a few more times, trying just a few updates, etc., but kept getting this failure message once the laptop rebooted. Finally, I tried Microsoft’s suggestions for curiosity (System Readiness Tool, sfc /scannow, deleting SoftwareDistribution folder, etc.), but no luck and in the end just had to reinstall Windows 8. Thankfully the problem hasn’t shown up again since.


#13

My Vista started with 2GB & I ran that for about a year .
Maybe a couple of things I did from the get go helped.
I turned off UAC & automatic Windows Update.
I’ve never had a slow shutdown( except when something was wrong).
I also installed a desktop icon for shutdown & one for restart.
It takes maybe a minute but usually less.

I manually use Windows Update once a month .It is very slow to find what needs updating but works without error.
I do have something that bugs ms about Windows Update & this could be a Vista problem. It will find updates that when installed & checked in Event Viewer give a message something like this: This K############ update is not for this OS .
My question is “Then why did Windows Update find it ?”

When I used icacls for a complete system grant & takeown I had to call MS to reactivate. That was a PITA .

I could go on as I have done a lot more to my Vista OS . That is why I still use it.


#14

Hmm, I suppose by the time I got Vista 64, most of those problems mentioned were already ironed out.
But I do run a lot more ram than others mentioned, yeah, I don’t think I would like to run Vista with just a small amount of ram.
Regular shutdown is fast.

There is still a demand for Vista also from what I see online as well as forums devoted to it.

The problem with W8 is out of the box, without the start menu, there will be many that simply don’t want it and cause returns of new computers to be higher than in the past.