# Ctrl Alt Del, Vista



## Dangle (May 24, 2008)

Vista is the best windows OS.  If you disagree, it's probably because you haven't noticed that when a program does crash, the task manager always takes precedence over other programs.  This is probably why the OS uses more resources, but it runs great on 2gb of ram.  Ctrl Alt Del always works, and always closes the crashed program.  I've never had to restart my computer because of a crashed program. Also, you don't have to wait for more than a second or two for the task manager to show up - even if you're in a game! The only thing that sux about vista is the User Account Control that's enabled by default.


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 24, 2008)

Dangle said:


> Vista is the best windows OS.  If you disagree, it's probably because you haven't noticed that when a program does crash, the task manager always takes precedence over other programs.  This is probably why the OS uses more resources, but it runs great on 2gb of ram.  Ctrl Alt Del always works, and always closes the crashed program.  I've never had to restart my computer because of a crashed program. Also, you don't have to wait for more than a second or two for the task manager to show up - even if you're in a game! The only thing that sux about vista is the User Account Control that's enabled by default.



This is usully true... Windows Vista is good at closing crashed apps before they take down the whole PC and it'll even restart some apps for you. The only time I've had issues with stuff locking up the machine is when using buggy drivers. Think back to ME... It was plauged by bad drivers and old drivers more than anything else, much like how Vista is.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (May 24, 2008)

This is actually pretty cool I never knew that


----------



## farlex85 (May 24, 2008)

I've had to do a hard restart before. Most of the time it is good about ending the program causing problems though.


----------



## Wile E (May 24, 2008)

The only time I've had to hard-restart is after a driver crash. An app has never locked up Vista on me.


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 24, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The only time I've had to hard-restart is after a driver crash. An app has never locked up Vista on me.



Same here... the only 'app' lock up I had was related to a driver (sound card).


----------



## pagalms (May 24, 2008)

Yeah, Vista is great. I've got only 4 BSOD's since install (2 of them caused by ALt+F4 exit from GRID what resulted with video driver crash and 2 because too low RAM voltage).


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 24, 2008)

It's great, but it took me ages to find out the shortcut to task manager is ctrl+shift+esc.  Kept going to task manager via the blue and green logon type screen.  Never going back to XP!


----------



## EviLZeD (May 24, 2008)

i gotta agree when some of my games or apps crash task manager can always be launched from my experience in xp i had to always restart


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 24, 2008)

so why are people still hating on vista?  I hated on it until I got a copy of it and installed it... It is a bit slower than XP at a few things, but Windows 2000 was faster than XP and so and on so forth...
My only gripe is that audio stutters occasionally (on several sound cards), but that's why I use XP for audio production.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 24, 2008)

What is the point of your statement? What you're basically saying "Vista rocks and if you disagree you're wrong" I fail to see a point that is open to discussion, something you wish to argue about or whatever. 

"the task manager always takes precedence over other programs. This is probably why the OS uses more resources" 
That makes no sense.


----------



## beyond_amusia (May 24, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> What is the point of your statement? What you're basically saying "Vista rocks and if you disagree you're wrong" I fail to see a point that is open to discussion, something you wish to argue about or whatever.
> 
> "the task manager always takes precedence over other programs. This is probably why the OS uses more resources"
> That makes no sense.



no, it don't make sense, lmao... The OS isolating the applications to prevent a system lock-up would not make it 'slow', it would make it 'stable'.
 Most PCs I've seen Vista on are just slow machines.. 'Wal-Mart computers' if you will...
But, with proper hardware and drivers, Vista is more stable than XP when it comes to applications crashing, imo.


----------



## largon (May 24, 2008)

I used Vista for ~year and went back to XP just a week ago and I can't tell any difference.


----------



## Darknova (May 24, 2008)

Same thing happens on my XP x64 install, I fail to see the point in this thread except as a need for you to validate spending all that money on an OS which is not really that much better than XP or XP x64, it is better, just not by much.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 24, 2008)

largon said:


> I used Vista for ~year and went back to XP just a week ago and I can't tell any difference.



Hold on, let me send you a virus (especially if you use AVG).  Then you'll see the difference between Windows Vista and XP.

No need for Ctrl+Alt+Del. That just brings up a crazy screen (with an option to select Task Manager). If you want Task Manager, just press *Ctrl+Shift+Esc*. Shazam!


----------



## mrw1986 (May 24, 2008)

Not true....I've had to restart my PC more times than I can count due to freezings etc where Task Manager NEVER pops up. Its all software related errors as well, nothing hardware related.


----------



## AsRock (May 24, 2008)

Not to start a argument but i am glad i did not buy it.  How ever i do like it. BUT i find less programs load less issue's with XP x64.

As for SP1 one for vista is giving me more problems than i have ever had with XP x64.  I would of been so depressed if i actually brought Vista. BUT i did not MS gave it me and better still it's a retail version too.  It'l get better over time just like XP x64 did.


----------



## acperience7 (May 24, 2008)

My sister just got a new inspiron laptop with Vista and for the short amount of time i used it, it was actually quite nice.  I may install it on my desktop for my next reformatt just to really test it out since I basically got it for free. Doubt I'll keep though.


----------



## Dangle (May 24, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> What is the point of your statement? What you're basically saying "Vista rocks and if you disagree you're wrong" I fail to see a point that is open to discussion, something you wish to argue about or whatever.
> 
> "the task manager always takes precedence over other programs. This is probably why the OS uses more resources"
> That makes no sense.



Woah! take it easy, Mary. 

"the task manager always takes precedence over other programs. This is probably why the OS uses more resources" - A small amount of CPU and RAM resources are dedicated to the OS rather than giving 100% to the applications.  This is the reason the task manager always loads up. 

 This is a thread for those of you who don't have Vista and bash the program.  It's also an informative thread to those who do have Vista and haven't noticed the stability.




oli_ramsay said:


> It's great, but it took me ages to find out the shortcut to task manager is ctrl+shift+esc.  Kept going to task manager via the blue and green logon type screen.  Never going back to XP!


Thanks!!! I had no idea you could get to the task manager without going to that login screen first!!


----------



## GLD (May 24, 2008)

My 2 complaints with Vista is the UAC and with 64bit you have to F8 into the menu to disable DSE just to get your unsigned drivers to work. I understand this is all to promote extra security though.

Off topic a bit, but I liked ME heaps more the 98(SE). 98 gave me WAY more grief then ME. Guess I just had my rig all polished and ME compliant.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 24, 2008)

mrw1986 said:


> Not true....I've had to restart my PC more times than I can count due to freezings etc where Task Manager NEVER pops up. Its all software related errors as well, nothing hardware related.



Well, if you use older outdated software try running them in Compatibility Mode. Windows Vista supports all prior OSes even back to Windows 95. Half of the space used by Vista after an initial install is all for compatibility. 

I won't deny that there are applications that just won't work in Vista. That's why you get updates or new versions.


----------



## Squirrely (May 24, 2008)

Yeah, never really understood too much why people bash it. Well, people did it to XP, and went back to 98, etc. So I guess its just the tradition, lol.

In Vista, I have only had a few BSOD's. Most of them were caused by me, testing settings on RAM, etc, lol. One was a freak one. BSOD'ed when I Alt-Tabbed out of Halo 2, but its never happened again. 

But I am happy with Vista, and it runs great with 4gb of ram as well, lol.


----------



## Dangle (May 24, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> I won't deny that there are applications that just won't work in Vista. That's why you get updates or new versions.


Do you remember what happened when OSX came out?  None of Macs software worked, but people didn't complain about like they do with Vista.

I'll admit, when Vista first released, I had many issues, but that was mostly because NVidia or Creative didn't release Vista drivers until later.  They were all unstable, old beta drivers.  Now my PC runs better than any I've ever pwned.

I did get a *red screen of death *once tho.  I ran Crysis demo at 1920x1200 Max graphics with 2900xt and a q6600.  Bad idea. 1fps for a few min then.... BOOM~!


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 24, 2008)

Dangle said:


> Do you remember what happened when OSX came out?  None of Macs software worked, but people didn't complain about like they do with Vista.



That's because nobody used Macs back then. 



Dangle said:


> I'll admit, when Vista first released, I had many issues, but that was mostly because NVidia or Creative didn't release Vista drivers until later.  They were all unstable, old beta drivers.  Now my PC runs better than any I've ever pwned.



I agree. I just switched to Vista Business x64 (uses the same VLA license that my work's 32-bit Vista Business uses) and OMG I am blown away! Everything is quicker, everything just works and now I can live in relative glee that I don't have to worry as much about 32-bit viruses.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (May 24, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> Hold on, let me send you a virus (especially if you use AVG).  Then you'll see the difference between Windows Vista and XP.
> 
> No need for Ctrl+Alt+Del. That just brings up a crazy screen (with an option to select Task Manager). If you want Task Manager, just press *Ctrl+Shift+Esc*. Shazam!



The whole Ctrl+Shift+Esc should be used to get that crazy screen with those options and Ctrl+Alt+Del should bring up TM.


----------



## Darknova (May 24, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> The whole Ctrl+Shift+Esc should be used to get that crazy screen with those options and Ctrl+Alt+Del should bring up TM.



Depends on whether you have the Welcome Screen, or the Domain Logon screen at boot up.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 24, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> The whole Ctrl+Shift+Esc should be used to get that crazy screen with those options and Ctrl+Alt+Del should bring up TM.



On a domain you won't get Task Manager when you hit Ctrl+Alt+Del. You get a crazy screen with a bunch of options. 

Ctrl+Shift+Esc has always brought up just the Task Manager, even back to Windows XP days. You just weren't aware of it. 

Go ahead, try it in Windows XP too.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 24, 2008)

I find Vista Lacking on my wifes Laptop. Its pretty neat, but its not as fast on her laptop which is pretty new (HP DV2610). Its awesome that it has media center built into it. However, on hanging programs, it tends to hang to close them down. I do love that it can restart a program for you. Now that Ive updated her lappy to SP1 it seems a bit smoother and more stable.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (May 24, 2008)

IMHO general laptops arent fast enough to run Vista.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 24, 2008)

Dangle said:


> Do you remember what happened when OSX came out?  None of Macs software worked, but people didn't complain about like they do with Vista.
> 
> I'll admit, when Vista first released, I had many issues, but that was mostly because NVidia or Creative didn't release Vista drivers until later.  They were all unstable, old beta drivers.  Now my PC runs better than any I've ever pwned.
> 
> I did get a *red screen of death *once tho.  I ran Crysis demo at 1920x1200 Max graphics with 2900xt and a q6600.  Bad idea. 1fps for a few min then.... BOOM~!



ah but apple included a way to run older apps on osx, you could install os7/8/9 on a virtual install to give you the ability to run those apps, go check it out, ms SHOULD do something simlar to this for windows 7, not drop all past apps, but cut out lagacy app support as a default componant, apps like windows nt3/4, and 9x/dos apps, 2k,xp,2k3/vista are all in the same family and based on the same root core, so supporting those apps shouldnt be a big problem or cause perf or stab problems.

as to your assertion that vista is better because it lets task manager run no matter what, try having nvidia drivers go into "recovery" mode, it will lock on most any game/app that causes the drivers to trigger recovery mode, this is true in ALL windows versions, and task manager at times will show 100% cpu use by that app once you manage to get it open.

server 2003 and x64pro both will give task manager precedence over hung apps, and just like vista, it make take a few seconds for task manager to show up, OR you may be forced to just wait for gpu recovery to....well recover if its nvidia( ati's recovery tends to go smoother in my exp) 

as to other hangs, i used vista for a solid month and really really tryed to like it, ms gave me vista ultimate, i just couldnt get past all the buggs and lack of what i consider polish.

xp was bad when it came out, but at least IMHO it was more polished then vista, and 2k, when it came out the only ppl who cryed it sucked where those who eather didnt have compatable hardware OR who didnt have enought ram, other then that 2k was a godsend, it worked just as well or better for gaming and work as my dual boot 98se and nt4( 98se=toy os....no good for working on important projects) when i got ahold of 2k, i started checking, only thing i had in any of my systems that i couldnt get decent drivers for was the rage128 videocard(back then ati's driver support for anything but 98 was abizmal)

XP was and still in my book is just patched beta ware, where server 2003 and x64pro are what xp SHOULD HAVE BEEN, and WOULD HAVE BEEN had ms given them the time to finnish getting xp to the state where it was server stable, but, alas, ms likes to push things out early, so we got xp with lots of buggs insted of 2003 with very few.

I use to be an ms beta tester, i beta'd ME,nt5/2k(started being called nt5 then name changed to 2k), xp, 2003, in all those experiances, i would put 2k and 2k3 as the best experiances, 2k early on was buggy as hell, but they where working out a new driver model and getting down the basick system manager vs the old skool nt3/4 management software(ewww) xp, in beta was horrible, unstable, unreliable, and alot of errors atributed back to the theming services, system restore and other noob babysitting services.

vista, well i tryed it in beta a few times, then the open beta, dispite not being in the beta i ofcorse can get ahold of them( lost my os beta access because i was offline during signup for a few betas ms offered me)

vistas task manager is just that of server 2003( and x64pro since its just server 2003 x64 in pro mode) 

guess it could be worse, you could be bragging about how great noobuntu


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 24, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> I find Vista Lacking on my wifes Laptop. Its pretty neat, but its not as fast on her laptop which is pretty new (HP DV2610). Its awesome that it has media center built into it. However, on hanging programs, it tends to hang to close them down. I do love that it can restart a program for you. Now that Ive updated her lappy to SP1 it seems a bit smoother and more stable.



Yeah, SP1 resolved a LOT of issues that Vista had.



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> IMHO general laptops arent fast enough to run Vista.



So a 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo with 2GB DDR2-667 on a laptop isn't fast enough?

Vista ran perfectly fine on my Dell Latitude D400 which has a 1.8GHz Pentium M and 2GB DDR333. The only reason I don't run it is because SpeedStep didn't work at all even though it was enabled in the BIOS. I can't have a laptop running full speed all the time. Gets too hot and battery doesn't last for crap. 

But it ran smooth and without any problems either.


----------



## spearman914 (May 24, 2008)

I disagree. It may be fast for closing less resource processes but not for processes taking 1GB RAM or up. Once I got BSOD for clicking the termination thing.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (May 24, 2008)

where is windows key + u + u?


----------



## iamajunky (May 24, 2008)

I don't know how my friend did it but he has different shortcut keys


----------



## Dangle (May 25, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> _blah blah blah..._


That's great that you think Vista sucks balls.  I've never had any problems... but then again my PC isn't a POS.  Runs extremely smooth.  Better than XP.  I love this os! Plus, it looks neat.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (May 25, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> Yeah, SP1 resolved a LOT of issues that Vista had.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every laptop I have seen have always had low end C2D's and run the OS like shit. It may be however, the fact that they dont put decent size hdd's in them either.


----------



## AsRock (May 25, 2008)

Dangle said:


> That's great that you think Vista sucks balls.  I've never had any problems... but then again my PC isn't a POS.  Runs extremely smooth.  Better than XP.  I love this os! Plus, it looks neat.




I guess my PC sucks too.  everyone to there own. BUT becouse i do not like Vista more and gives me more issue's than XP x64.

Saying Vista sucks balls is not the right way or right to say.  And some people just hate change which i cannot blame them when there's talk of stuff like DRM.

Maybe i need to buy a comp as good as yours  YEAH RIGHT.  As i believe i said in the post before people just have to wait till all \ more \ most bugs are fixed.  Funny though installing SP1 in Vista gives more problems than not installing it.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (May 25, 2008)

Dangle said:


> That's great that you think Vista sucks balls.  I've never had any problems... but then again my PC isn't a POS.  Runs extremely smooth.  Better than XP.  I love this os! Plus, it looks neat.



He doesnt show system specs either. 

And he calls Ubuntu noobuntu. :shadedshu


----------



## AsRock (May 25, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> He doesnt show system specs either.
> 
> And he calls Ubuntu noobuntu. :shadedshu



Which to me how can he call is comp pos when he don't even know the guys specs lol.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 25, 2008)

Well of course, she only has 1 gb of DDR2667 memory and about 128 of that is reserved for Video.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 25, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Every laptop I have seen have always had low end C2D's and run the OS like shit. It may be however, the fact that they dont put decent size hdd's in them either.



Like I said, my 1.8GHz Pentium M handled Vista fine. I've also used a Latitude D430 at work which has a 1.2GHz Core 2 Duo and it ran without problems as well. 

Even an 80GB hard drive is fine for using Vista on a laptop plus installing any applications. Don't expect to store tons of music and video on it though. That's what external hard drives are for though. 

Not sure what your points are as they don't reflect truth on laptops not being able to handle Vista.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 25, 2008)

Dangle said:


> That's great that you think Vista sucks balls.  I've never had any problems... but then again my PC isn't a POS.  Runs extremely smooth.  Better than XP.  I love this os! Plus, it looks neat.



i love how fanboi's alwase resport to insisting that somebodys puter must suck when they say an os sucks or runs worse then the fanboi's choice. real mature.



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> He doesnt show system specs either.
> 
> And he calls Ubuntu noobuntu. :shadedshu



yeah, and noobuntu is the proper name, its a crappy distro of linux pandering to the lowist common denominator among user base, it runs like crap compared to other *nix flavors, really noobuntu is the vista of linux os's its made for the retarded masses to make themselves feel leet because they can use linux......

i have linux on a couple boxes, i dont brag about it unlike many noobuntu users, because linux is just another os, good for some stuff bad for others, but unlike other os's linux is full or twats who think they are kool because they can install and run a noobie distro like
noobuntu or linspire or manderva..........real users dont run around pretending that the use of an os makes them kool, specly when if they ever fell to the command line they would be totaly lost and endup crying b4 they reinstalled.......i dont have that problem, i know my way around command line in dos/linux/os2 and a few other os's, not that i know every command, but i know the ones needed to unbreak a system 

now as to specs, 

2gz@2.6gz athlon64 x2
Biostar TA770 A2+
4gb ddr2-800@1022 (wintek ampx 2x2gb kit) 
4 hdd's
2 burners
x1900xtx(8800gt under RMA) 

yeah so im not on core2, but im far from "shitty" by anybody but an intel elitist twats point of view.

my next upgrade will be a 4*50e cpu, to hold me over till the 45nm k10 dual, tri and quads come out, funny how people like you 2 will diss somebodys system or their skills or their intelegence when they dissagree with you, oh and how you will diss somebody elses prefered version of windows, because you yourself eather had no or very little experiance with it and only go by what you have read/heard other fools say.......

Dangle, you lost all crediblilty with me when you said that all librals are nazi's........what a crock of shit....


----------



## Wile E (May 25, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> 2k early on was buggy as hell, but they where working out a new driver model and getting down the basick system manager vs the old skool nt3/4 management software(ewww)


Well, you make a lot of points, that are true for your experiences. None of those are true for me, well except XP x64 being rock stable, but then again, so has been Vista x64 for me. 2k3 was stable, but a general PITA to setup and use. Not to mention the crap you gotta go thru to install some apps, even ones from MS themselves, like WMP 11 (which I never could get to work, no matter how hard I tried). I wouldn't recommend 2k3 to many people at all for desktop use. I do like XP x64, but it's a bit redundant anymore with Vista x64 out there.

Anyway, back to what I quoted, you just defended 2k for being buggy at first because of a new driver model, but that's exactly why Vista has been unstable for many people.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 25, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Anyway, back to what I quoted, you just defended 2k for being buggy at first because of a new driver model, but that's exactly why Vista has been unstable for many people.



Microsoft doesn't make the drivers. It's not a Vista problem.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 25, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Well, you make a lot of points, that are true for your experiences. None of those are true for me, well except XP x64 being rock stable, but then again, so has been Vista x64 for me. 2k3 was stable, but a general PITA to setup and use. Not to mention the crap you gotta go thru to install some apps, even ones from MS themselves, like WMP 11 (which I never could get to work, no matter how hard I tried). I wouldn't recommend 2k3 to many people at all for desktop use. I do like XP x64, but it's a bit redundant anymore with Vista x64 out there.
> 
> Anyway, back to what I quoted, you just defended 2k for being buggy at first because of a new driver model, but that's exactly why Vista has been unstable for many people.



no, thats not what i said, in the beta the drivers where buggy because they had full changed the driver model, by RTM i had ZERO driver issues with any common hardware i had, and even a good number of weird oddball devices worked fine, you just had to find the driver, in the beta device makers acctualy spent time making drivers and got good feedback from ms beta testers, vista i dont know, but my guess is that eather ms didnt do a good enought job, or hardware makers didnt want to support vista, eather way, this is ms's fault, they made the os, they made the driver model.

and 2k3, you must really not be good at googleing or following guides, i found all of maby 8 apps that wouldnt install by default and all of them where pretty much CAKE to get working, plenty of guides of what to edit, and orca is easy to get.

same apps have issues with x64pro(xp 64) and vista mind you, wana know why, because they are set to only work on nt500,501 and not 502(5.0 and 5.1 work, 5.2 and newer arent in the supported list, and as such dont work by default)

as to wmp11, it wasnt hard to get working, i found 10+ guides on how to get it working, mind you i know where to look and how to google for that stuff, it sometimes takes swaping words around many times to get the proper combo for it to give you the results you want.

best places to look for info on 2k3 as a workstation, msfn and neowin to a lesser extent, that or just ask me, im quite skilled dealing with it, and its not hard, my buddy rod whos below the avg skill level of a tech forums user has no problem setting up and configuaring 2003 to run games and apps, if he hits an app he cant get to install, he asks and i eather tell him how to fix it, or i fix it for him, or in 2 rare cases, i just gave him better choices(stupid online desktop games he wanted to play with his gf who lives down here(5hrs away from where he moved to take care of his ageing mother), the ones she found didnt support anything bug xp, and tho there where fixes for this, i had a ready list of better places to get the same kinda games, such as yahoo 

basickly i feel that ms shouldnt have put vista out RTM till it had 1/2 decent driver support and they had made sure that at least the majority of common apps worked, like say adoby acrobat reader!!!!!!!(that was one app that would just crash or lock up vista when it first came out......how can you not assure that acrobat will work......its only the most common app used by buisness to swap information.........)

like is said, i have tryed vista, and its not the gui that bothers me, its the fact that its so damn buggy and requiered far more fucking around to get apps installed/working then even server 2003 did for me.

now WileE may have had no problems, but he breaks stuff all the time so how long does his typical windows install last?


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (May 25, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> Microsoft doesn't make the drivers. It's not a Vista problem.



acctualy ms and vista are part of the problem, its what happens when you rush out a product without enought testing and debuging with hardware makers, had they waited another year, till server 2008 was ready, kept vista as an open beta, then started selling it once it had matured, MORE people would have bought it,because they would have been addicted to it, AND would have been getting an already matured and debuted product.....as it is they put vista out in at best a beta1 or 2 stage, and expected 3rd party program and driver makers to fix their mistakes...........

saying its all a 3rd partys fault or all other companys fault is like saying that its not ms's fault that they leaft the hole the blaster bugg exploited open, dispite years of security experts warrning ms about it....or like saying its not dangels fault that he called librals nazi's.....


----------



## erocker (May 25, 2008)

This thread spews nothing but argumentative garbage, starting from the original post onwards.  I've had enough of people reporting garbage posts from this thread made of filth.


----------

