I'm going to upgrade to Vista Premium 64 bit pretty soon whenever I get my new computer built. DDR2 ram is so cheap these days that it really isn't an excuse. I don't see how you can possibly complain about UAC because you can turn it off in like 2 minutes if you want. If M$ gives you an option you don't want and you have the ability to turn it off so easily why the he11 are you complaining?
-
AMD RDNA 4 GPUs will allegedly be rebranded RX 9000 — A mixture of new RDNA 3/RDNA 4 mobile GPUs and an RX 7000 refresh is expected to arrive at CES
- Status
NightLight
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2004
- 574
- 16
- 19,645
i've been using vista since the first beta. it's rock solid on most hardware, and the new features are great! i can see people trying to run it on their obsolete systems and bumming out on the results, get a decent system, and it will run like a train!
Dudes, vista sucks. Time to get of the microsloth train. They keep making things "better" by bloating the crap out of them.
anonymous x
Distinguished
- Apr 22, 2008
- 121
- 0
- 18,680
wow, UAC annoying? Turn it off and stop complaining. Slower than XP? well of course its slower- it was released 5-6 years after. Don't you think hardware has improved one bit? By that flawed logic, XP ought to be faster than 2000, me, 98, 95, and 3.1. I hate seeing these illogical statements by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Bag Vista all you like, But I must say after service pack 1 and adding more ram(6gb total) to system, It is now as fast if not faster than xp.
2gb doesn't cut it, 4gb or more is the sweet spot.
I will back up everything and install 64bit vista(ultimate comes with both versions), And see how it performs as 32bit vista is limited and only using 3-4gb of the 6gb i have installed.
From what I have heard 64bit is more stable in certain games, Age of conan doesn't crash like it does on 32bit!
In my opinion I think most peoples problems probably come down to having an average system with not enough ram or outdated graphics card,folks its not windows 98/xp having 1gb or 2gb is a joke on a graphics intensive operating system!
Save those $$$ and upgrade, Then judge Vista!
2gb doesn't cut it, 4gb or more is the sweet spot.
I will back up everything and install 64bit vista(ultimate comes with both versions), And see how it performs as 32bit vista is limited and only using 3-4gb of the 6gb i have installed.
From what I have heard 64bit is more stable in certain games, Age of conan doesn't crash like it does on 32bit!
In my opinion I think most peoples problems probably come down to having an average system with not enough ram or outdated graphics card,folks its not windows 98/xp having 1gb or 2gb is a joke on a graphics intensive operating system!
Save those $$$ and upgrade, Then judge Vista!
the_one111
Distinguished
- Aug 25, 2008
- 390
- 0
- 18,780
I deem vista winner and anyone else loser in this argument by the sheer amount of positive vista ratings.
owned.
owned.
bf2gameplaya
Distinguished
- Mar 19, 2008
- 262
- 0
- 18,780
No amount of thumbs up or down is going to take away the DRM in Vista.
DX10? Useless. UAC? Poorly designed. WinFS? Non existent.
You can't put lipstick on a pig...oh wait, wrong topic.
DX10? Useless. UAC? Poorly designed. WinFS? Non existent.
You can't put lipstick on a pig...oh wait, wrong topic.
I'm a notebook user, and upto today XP still is the best operating system for notebooks,say what you may...
batterylife, performance, and XP combined with a GOOD safety like anti-virus/ad-&spyware/etc is still beyond Vista.
I don't play games, I do play HD movies on my laptop. FullHD seems to be an issue (1080pix.), whereas the newer laptops with Vista don't seem to suffer from it.
I'd rather run Ubuntu then Vista on my notebook (and currently do run a couple of linux programs on a mininotebook I own).
Vista sucks, XP rules, and Linux is coming up. MacOS is worse then shit...
that's my opinion, I care less if I offend some people; facts still are facts.
My next os might be Windows 7, definately not Vista.
batterylife, performance, and XP combined with a GOOD safety like anti-virus/ad-&spyware/etc is still beyond Vista.
I don't play games, I do play HD movies on my laptop. FullHD seems to be an issue (1080pix.), whereas the newer laptops with Vista don't seem to suffer from it.
I'd rather run Ubuntu then Vista on my notebook (and currently do run a couple of linux programs on a mininotebook I own).
Vista sucks, XP rules, and Linux is coming up. MacOS is worse then shit...
that's my opinion, I care less if I offend some people; facts still are facts.
My next os might be Windows 7, definately not Vista.
[citation][nom]franks[/nom]I'm so surprised that so many people complain about UAC but in the mean time praising Mac/Linux (Ubuntu). The reality is Mac and Linux also UAC and they also prompt the dialog box for admin tasks. And even worse, on Mac and Linux it requires to enter your password everytime and it cannot be turned off. Apparently those people have never used a Mac or Linux[/citation]
Yes, but in Linux it'll only give you once a popup with password.
Try deleting a folder with some subfolders on an external harddrive,and vista easely gives !!5!! freakin popups!!!
5 is little for vista. I remember someone complaining about having to face 32 popups in Vista, what would give only 2 or 3 in Linux.
Apparently MS didn't learn that popups are annoying, and like spam to people. they are unwanted responses.
Instead learn from Linux that doesn't always give popups, but sometimes popups like tooltip windows that very discreetly appear and disappear,without the need for users to deactivate.
Yes, but in Linux it'll only give you once a popup with password.
Try deleting a folder with some subfolders on an external harddrive,and vista easely gives !!5!! freakin popups!!!
5 is little for vista. I remember someone complaining about having to face 32 popups in Vista, what would give only 2 or 3 in Linux.
Apparently MS didn't learn that popups are annoying, and like spam to people. they are unwanted responses.
Instead learn from Linux that doesn't always give popups, but sometimes popups like tooltip windows that very discreetly appear and disappear,without the need for users to deactivate.
dsm_2xtreme
Distinguished
- Sep 13, 2008
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
I really think you will see people jump to vista once SP2 gets released for it, as well as solid state hard drives for increased performance. A saucy .4ms access time will sure help when Vista is constantly running your disk (which just sucks the wind out of your PC.) As much as people want to bash Vista, if hard drive technology was even close to on pace with the rest of the systems, people wouldnt be griping about how bad Vista is. I can guarantee my 4ghz dual core and 4 gb of ram is bottlenecked massively by my 7200rpm drive and would be even with a new raptor. Guys need to step up the SSDs soon!
I also work in a small computer store & with that being said I had to install it at release time on one of my systems so I could learn it & know how to iron out any problems it had so when our customers brought in their Vista PC's I had an idea og how to fix them. I must say I hated it when I first started using it. I found it to be slow & prone to crashing which turned out to be buggy Nvidia drivers go figure..lol. After sorting out the bugs namely getting rid of Nvidia in favor of ATI the BSOD's stopped & the system ran fine but still slower than XP. I now have Vista on a quad core Intel at 4.0Ghz 8GB DDR3 4TB's HDD AMD Radeon 4870x2 My Vista 64Bit just flies along & is alot faster than Windows XP on the same Machine & I mean alot faster XP seems slow now.
We also had a lot of people doing the downgrades to XP as well from Laptops made by Dell or Toshiba some even by HP. These laptops that wee Vista ready mostly had only 512MB ram & just loaded with crapware & they were slugs. Some would have us upgrade the memory to 1 or 2GB & uninstall the crapware which helped these machine a lot. We have a local wal-fart in our very small town & we get all of the people coming to us after they buy one of those $250 Acer's units Wal-fart likes so much & we get to do the upgrades to these machines to make them able to run Vista like advertised in the fliers go wal-fart we like you.lol.
So as I finish this rant I must say a properly configured machine will run Vista way faster than XP ever could dream of running.
We also had a lot of people doing the downgrades to XP as well from Laptops made by Dell or Toshiba some even by HP. These laptops that wee Vista ready mostly had only 512MB ram & just loaded with crapware & they were slugs. Some would have us upgrade the memory to 1 or 2GB & uninstall the crapware which helped these machine a lot. We have a local wal-fart in our very small town & we get all of the people coming to us after they buy one of those $250 Acer's units Wal-fart likes so much & we get to do the upgrades to these machines to make them able to run Vista like advertised in the fliers go wal-fart we like you.lol.
So as I finish this rant I must say a properly configured machine will run Vista way faster than XP ever could dream of running.
vista is ok now...the only thing that's silly about it is that they continued to make the 32bit version as the mainstream.....32bit should die already....do they even make 32bit cpu's anymore?....pfff
Still, Vista sucks goat ass!
Using 1,5GB of RAM under Vista, doesn't that say enough?
Do you really need all that to get an operating system working?
Compare to Linux running firefox webpages.
You'll need to open about 60 webpages in order to get 1,5GBof ram used.
Linux can go online, view webpages, download, write office documents, can play games.
True,Windows is faster, but upto today, what can justify using 1,5GB, when you only do the same tasks as a 512MB RAM laptop can do with linux?
Is vista and all it's background activity all that better, or is it just wasting and destroying your harddrive, by it's continuous writes of tens of megabytes every minute!
Ow,and what about all unwanted crap Vista puts on external harddrives? (just like XP puts it's "System Volume Information", and "RECYCLER" dir on every drive!
No freakin one ever asked any OS to start messing with their harddrives!
In XP it's still ok, but vista will soon make your 4GB thumbdrive a 2GB one!
Using 1,5GB of RAM under Vista, doesn't that say enough?
Do you really need all that to get an operating system working?
Compare to Linux running firefox webpages.
You'll need to open about 60 webpages in order to get 1,5GBof ram used.
Linux can go online, view webpages, download, write office documents, can play games.
True,Windows is faster, but upto today, what can justify using 1,5GB, when you only do the same tasks as a 512MB RAM laptop can do with linux?
Is vista and all it's background activity all that better, or is it just wasting and destroying your harddrive, by it's continuous writes of tens of megabytes every minute!
Ow,and what about all unwanted crap Vista puts on external harddrives? (just like XP puts it's "System Volume Information", and "RECYCLER" dir on every drive!
No freakin one ever asked any OS to start messing with their harddrives!
In XP it's still ok, but vista will soon make your 4GB thumbdrive a 2GB one!
predator100000
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 8
- 0
- 18,510
One thing missing from all these comments is usability. Usability usability usability.
For the most part, we find (once Vista is loaded) that performance is similar. I shut off UAC. I really like how Vista does a much better job informing the user about errors that occur.
However, tasks take more mouse steps, and they are often not intuitive. This OS also does not favor the experienced user, it punishes him by requiring more clicks to do anything
The color scheme is low contrast, and requires more brain power to navigate.
Explorer is a mess. Icons look similar, and there are tons of custom folders most people don't use.
The long and short of it is that I feel like Vista gets in the way of tasks that I have done with ease for years.
For the most part, we find (once Vista is loaded) that performance is similar. I shut off UAC. I really like how Vista does a much better job informing the user about errors that occur.
However, tasks take more mouse steps, and they are often not intuitive. This OS also does not favor the experienced user, it punishes him by requiring more clicks to do anything
The color scheme is low contrast, and requires more brain power to navigate.
Explorer is a mess. Icons look similar, and there are tons of custom folders most people don't use.
The long and short of it is that I feel like Vista gets in the way of tasks that I have done with ease for years.
They actually failed with UAC because they made it too easy for users, having the system initiate the request trains users to be ignorant (didn't anyone learn anything from pop-up windows?). Conceptually it's no worse than su/sudo in Unix / Linux. If the 'runas' was more robust, we wouldn't need UAC. We could stick all ignorant users on the 'power users' account and log their actions.
For newer hardware I actually recommend Vista, it's been good after SP1, you have to give it a few days to index and smooth itself out, but afterward it's great - sure XP is working (now) but this is a great big leap in architecture. I for one, fully support it, it has yet to yield the major fruits but their focus is correct - Security, Integration, Sleeker UI, fast searching etc.
I can not recommend it for laptops yet - there are way too much indexing, updates etc etc that'll bog your laptop down if you don't use it every single day. I wish they would've focused on making a Laptop / Desktop / Workstation version (or at least usable hardware/service profile within versions) instead of trying to confuse users Basic/Home/Business/Enterprise/Premium/Ultimate (holy crap!).
For newer hardware I actually recommend Vista, it's been good after SP1, you have to give it a few days to index and smooth itself out, but afterward it's great - sure XP is working (now) but this is a great big leap in architecture. I for one, fully support it, it has yet to yield the major fruits but their focus is correct - Security, Integration, Sleeker UI, fast searching etc.
I can not recommend it for laptops yet - there are way too much indexing, updates etc etc that'll bog your laptop down if you don't use it every single day. I wish they would've focused on making a Laptop / Desktop / Workstation version (or at least usable hardware/service profile within versions) instead of trying to confuse users Basic/Home/Business/Enterprise/Premium/Ultimate (holy crap!).
I currently use both Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Both are perfectly good operating systems that serve their respective purposes. I have never once had a system hang or error with XP, requiring a restart. I said it before and I will say it again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Until there is a significant roadblock that forces me to upgrade to Vista, I will be sticking with what I have been using for the past 5+ years.
I held off on Vista until a month ago when I upgraded my 4 year old PC (XP - OEM). I got Home Premium SP1 32 Full and installed 64 when MS sent the disk (very very quickly).
I like it a lot.
A lot of things seem to be an improvement over XP. However, in agreement with Anon345456, Explorer is indeed a mess and I like to create my own folders and links onto other partitions, which is a learning experience having used 98SE then XP ... I like to do things manually and decide for myself where everything goes and customize. Perhaps I am a dinosaur or something as I still only use the classic start menu and arrange all my programs in folders with names I have used for 10 years.
Anyways, my Vista experience abruptly ended when my Asus P5Q Deluxe gradually died to the point it would no longer post and I found myself putting my old stuff back in the box. I am holding off on the RMA to have another go when my CM690 arrives, so I can have two PCs running without having to swap out.
Darn Asus. Aside from one PC Chips board with a K62 350, I have always used Abit boards, I have never had a problem with them. I have had nothing but trouble with the P5Q, I had to flash the bios first to get anywhere, then do a bunch of other stuff until it finally would install Vista, then after 2 weeks of solid running, it decided to randomly not boot, then more often than not boot, then not boot and finally not post. The Asus forum is full of this sh*t about this board. A lot of answers involve removing the board battery and replacing it ... well where is the battery? ... right under your 4870 ... !!
Should have bought an Abit. Doh!
I like it a lot.
A lot of things seem to be an improvement over XP. However, in agreement with Anon345456, Explorer is indeed a mess and I like to create my own folders and links onto other partitions, which is a learning experience having used 98SE then XP ... I like to do things manually and decide for myself where everything goes and customize. Perhaps I am a dinosaur or something as I still only use the classic start menu and arrange all my programs in folders with names I have used for 10 years.
Anyways, my Vista experience abruptly ended when my Asus P5Q Deluxe gradually died to the point it would no longer post and I found myself putting my old stuff back in the box. I am holding off on the RMA to have another go when my CM690 arrives, so I can have two PCs running without having to swap out.
Darn Asus. Aside from one PC Chips board with a K62 350, I have always used Abit boards, I have never had a problem with them. I have had nothing but trouble with the P5Q, I had to flash the bios first to get anywhere, then do a bunch of other stuff until it finally would install Vista, then after 2 weeks of solid running, it decided to randomly not boot, then more often than not boot, then not boot and finally not post. The Asus forum is full of this sh*t about this board. A lot of answers involve removing the board battery and replacing it ... well where is the battery? ... right under your 4870 ... !!Should have bought an Abit. Doh!
JonathanDeane
Distinguished
- Mar 28, 2006
- 1,469
- 0
- 19,310
At first I hated Vista, then SP1 hit and it did fix a few of the issues I was having with it. Now when asked I recommend Vista 64 Ultimate to people who wish to game, for home web surfing anything works and Ubuntu is fine for most
Game PC's tend to have good CPU's GPU's and lots of RAM these things Vista loves and makes excellent use of.
I do turn off UAC on my own machine though... So I must confess although I use Vista its tweaked to work the way I like it, of course anyone who would use XP stock must be a masochist.
Game PC's tend to have good CPU's GPU's and lots of RAM these things Vista loves and makes excellent use of.
I do turn off UAC on my own machine though... So I must confess although I use Vista its tweaked to work the way I like it, of course anyone who would use XP stock must be a masochist.
- Jul 24, 2006
- 22,838
- 268
- 57,490
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]Still, Vista sucks goat ass!Using 1,5GB of RAM under Vista, doesn't that say enough?Do you really need all that to get an operating system working?[/citation]
No you don't, so maybe you should turn off all the other crap you're running to free up your RAM.
No you don't, so maybe you should turn off all the other crap you're running to free up your RAM.
I got my new system with vista64bit mainly because I wanted full directx10 support and to recognise the 8gb of ram I have.
Software requirements are only going to get higher as time goes on and this paves the way forward in my opinon. You can't hang back on 32bit OS in directx9 mode forever.
Software requirements are only going to get higher as time goes on and this paves the way forward in my opinon. You can't hang back on 32bit OS in directx9 mode forever.
I had Vista installed. Can't say I hated it. Had a couple of bugs that are probably fixed with SP1.
But once I turned off Aero, because it looked like my 12-year-old brother tried to rip off OSX, I wondered: The biggest IT-company in the world spend 6 years and millions of dollars developing this and that is all?
Where is the added value? At least a dozen people here give advice on upgrading PCs to make Vista run as smoothly as XP, but nobody says why. It can't be more secure because XP is already so secure, that you have to be somewhat of nimrod who clicks on everything that promises porn to screw it up. More productive? How? Isn't that more an application based issue?
And without added value, isn't it more prudent to not upgrade the PC and let XP run as smoothly as XP?
But once I turned off Aero, because it looked like my 12-year-old brother tried to rip off OSX, I wondered: The biggest IT-company in the world spend 6 years and millions of dollars developing this and that is all?
Where is the added value? At least a dozen people here give advice on upgrading PCs to make Vista run as smoothly as XP, but nobody says why. It can't be more secure because XP is already so secure, that you have to be somewhat of nimrod who clicks on everything that promises porn to screw it up. More productive? How? Isn't that more an application based issue?
And without added value, isn't it more prudent to not upgrade the PC and let XP run as smoothly as XP?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
News Holding back China's chipmaking progress is a fool’s errand, says U.S. Commerce Secretary- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
News Intel terminates x86S initiative — unilateral quest to de-bloat x86 instruction set comes to an end
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 31
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram