# ok yup Solaris is finally considering it sorry guys :(



## Solaris17 (May 22, 2007)

so i got vista ultimate and im currently dual booting with my XP install but as i tinker and as i apply the tweaks i found in the thread above i find that vista is way way less buggy than when i beta'd it......it plays games it has a REAL funky interface but over all it boots up just as fast the speed/preformance hit is so far negligable to none to me right now. so im wondering should i make the switch? should i use vista as my primary? i want to and i will if theirs not much wrong with it. so im asking if i should incase you know of some serious problems that should prevent me from doing it. and remember no bashing answers like "you shouldnt cause its vista N0oB!" remember sillys i mod this section


----------



## ktr (May 22, 2007)

if web surfing, emailing, chatting...etc is what you mostly do, sure make vista a primary. If you do game a lot, do @ least keep xp as a secondary. 

For me, i just web surf, email, chat, and play wolfenstein et...and ET natively runs in linux, so i made my linux rig my primary.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 22, 2007)

any one else? id like the help guys i mean its kind of a big move


----------



## Kreij (May 22, 2007)

Switch.  
How will you ever get Vista tweaked to perfection if it's not your main?


----------



## Solaris17 (May 22, 2007)

also i forget could someone tell me the 2 keys you have to hit to get your windows to turn at an angle?


----------



## Steevo (May 22, 2007)

If drivers are available and you have a machine or source to get drivers if your system shits out then do it.



My biggest issues were the buggy drivers and mediocre performance, however that was the last release and advancements have been made.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 22, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> also i forget could someone tell me the 2 keys you have to hit to get your windows to turn at an angle?



I do believe its windows+Tab

But you won't be seeing much help from me, as I made the switch a long time ago..

Just not to windows


----------



## Greek (May 22, 2007)

i got legit vista when it was out to companies can member 25th sumit, its been about maybe 4 months or so, i have NEVER had major issues with it, no bugs for me and i game,burn/convert and surf and all that crap, true games run just a little bit slower at the begining, but that could be to driver problem, for me vista is the main op, if your system handles it fine i say u go for it, one thing is for sure, its a lot less buggier than what xp was when it first came out.


----------



## wolfblitz1979 (May 22, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> also i forget could someone tell me the 2 keys you have to hit to get your windows to turn at an angle?



Windows key + Tab


----------



## Grings (May 22, 2007)

i'd leave xp on for now, but use vista as your main system, when all your games/software works good, then dump xp, though it does only take up a few gig, i just shrunk xp's partition to 30gig so its there if i need it (plus im on the server 2008 beta3 eval, so i need it if anything goes tits up)


----------



## Solaris17 (May 22, 2007)

well guys i thik im going to do it...but instead of a clean install i thnik ill do an upgrade and see how that go's wish me luck


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (May 22, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> well guys i thik im going to do it...but instead of a clean install i thnik ill do an upgrade and see how that go's wish me luck



Good luck... an upgrade could be interesting. Still prefer XP over here, but Vista isn't too bad, part of the problem is that there aren't any good free firewalls yet!


----------



## DaMulta (May 22, 2007)

you shouldnt cause its vista N0oB!​lol




If all of your drivers are working great, and the games you play are working great. Then I would go with Vista.


----------



## DaMulta (May 22, 2007)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> Good luck... an upgrade could be interesting. Still prefer XP over here, but Vista isn't too bad, part of the problem is that there aren't any good free firewalls yet!



That's what hardware firewalls are for


----------



## zekrahminator (May 22, 2007)

Personally, I think you should just move to Vista. Everything is much smoother and easier to use/configure, in my opinion. 

However, either XP or Vista will serve you well. Just make sure to choose one. Dual booting sucks, in my opinion.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (May 22, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> That's what hardware firewalls are for



Got one of those on my router - brilliant for inbound traffic, useless for anything going out like trojans. In fact, the built in firewall on Windows XP and Vista is fine for inbound protection if you set it up ok. I want Comodo for Vista! It's an amazing free firewall, give it a try.


----------



## zekrahminator (May 22, 2007)

Jimmy, you know what's hilarious? 

There are all the Vista haters, and most of them have never even touched the Release Candidate. Almost all the people I know that actually own Vista aren't looking for things wrong with it, and think Vista is a great upgrade from XP. I personally think that Vista makes things much smoother, assuming that your other computers are running Vista. Otherwise, XP can't read Vista's network settings .


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 22, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> There are all the Vista haters, and most of them have never even touched the Release Candidate.



I'd say most people hate vista because they played with the release candidates.

I did


----------



## zekrahminator (May 22, 2007)

That's not the point I was trying to make .

I admit, everything before RC1 sucked. Compatibility is still a problem with the full version of Vista. However, when it does work...it works beautifully.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (May 22, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> Jimmy, you know what's hilarious?
> 
> There are all the Vista haters, and most of them have never even touched the Release Candidate. Almost all the people I know that actually own Vista aren't looking for things wrong with it, and think Vista is a great upgrade from XP. I personally think that Vista makes things much smoother, assuming that your other computers are running Vista. Otherwise, XP can't read Vista's network settings .



I do have Vista installed as a second OS btw. There's nothing wrong with it as such, I just don't think there's anything wrong with XP either and that does everything I want and runs a little better, with more support for firewalls and drivers ect. Only times I really use Vista at the moment are when I'm defragging the partition with XP installed...


----------



## Kreij (May 22, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> I personally think that Vista makes things much smoother, assuming that your other computers are running Vista. Otherwise, XP can't read Vista's network settings .



In what way, Zek?  My Vista rig works fine with my other two XP machines on my home net.


----------



## zekrahminator (May 22, 2007)

My (dad's) Vista laptop cannot print off of the HP printer when it's hooked up to and shared through an XP computer. Also, the two XP computers in my (parents) house cannot access the shared Vista drive, but the Vista drive can access the shared XP drive....hax .


----------



## Kreij (May 22, 2007)

Wierd I have an HP multi-function on my old XP (Pro) rig and Vista (Ultimate) prints to it just fine. I also use the XP machine as a file server and Vista sees all the shared directories as well.

Are they set up as a workgroup? If the workgroups are different (like MSHOME for XP and WORKGROUP for Vista) then very strange things happen like intermittent connection problems, not to mention it takes about 10 times as long for Vista to see the XP workgroup at all.  XP defaulted to MSHOME, while Vista went back to WORKGROUP, at least in Ultimate.


----------



## kwchang007 (May 22, 2007)

make the jump dude, it's amazing on this side of the fence. only problem is i don't think system restore wrote the system state everyday in xp, so with vista, i just clean that up every week.  defrag-don't use the windows one it's so junky, you can't see what's going on.  also with 2 gb of memory it's really no problems.  also, did you find any more tweaks than what's in the vista tweaks thread?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 22, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> I admit, everything before RC1 sucked. Compatibility is still a problem with the full version of Vista. However, when it does work...it works beautifully.



I'm not exactly sure whats changed..

when things work in XP, they work "beautifully" too.

so why upgrade?


----------



## Frogger (May 22, 2007)

take the plunge you won't regret it!!


----------



## Lt_JWS (May 22, 2007)

Vista is the way to go  If your a benching whore like i am... keep xp just for benching LOL


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (May 22, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> when things work in XP, they work "beautifully" too.
> 
> so why upgrade?


----------



## zekrahminator (May 22, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> I'm not exactly sure whats changed..
> 
> when things work in XP, they work "beautifully" too.
> 
> so why upgrade?



Because I like Vista .


----------



## russianboy (May 22, 2007)

I have few problems with Vista.



I give the p1r4t3s thumbs up.

YARRR! This be pirateable!


----------



## Solaris17 (May 23, 2007)

well i have found more tweaks ill post them later right now im on my sisters comp upgrading was NOT the way to go it whent through the wholeprocess and now keeps rebooting i noticed though that vista is really sketchy with oc'ing at any rate im going to clean install w/e ill have to reinstall everything i used to hate loosing years worth of work but hey 250gb back up drives 
FTW at any rate ill get back to you guys and then ill add the tweaks i found im searching long and hard for them so iv found a few thnx boys ill let you know whats up.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (May 23, 2007)

Vista is great.  Unfortunately, XP is more refined.  Therefore, I use XP until hardware can catch software.  Go for an all out Vista Solaris, o and FYI, do you score about a 4.4?  Thats what I did.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 23, 2007)

yes id did actually exactly a 4.4 pvt lol our systems are sooo close together.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (May 23, 2007)

Solaris17 said:


> yes id did actually exactly a 4.4 pvt lol our systems are sooo close together.



And the lowest is CPU right


----------



## Solaris17 (May 23, 2007)

lol yup i was like WTF?


----------



## Solaris17 (May 23, 2007)

well its done after a failed upgrade attempt i wiped the disk and installed from the dvd...well here i am no problems at all and everything works and its just as fast imo as xp after some tweaks etc...im going good boys i might just keep this updated so future ppl can read it and see whats up ill have 06 scores etc for you guys tomarrow


----------



## Greek (May 23, 2007)

4.4 ? ur on am2 as well, hmm weird. ma cpu is at 5.2


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (May 23, 2007)

Greek said:


> 4.4 ? ur on am2 as well, hmm weird. ma cpu is at 5.2



Yours is dual core, Vista probably likes that.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 23, 2007)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> Yours is dual core, Vista probably likes that.



Ofcourse it does.

It thinks its got MOAR POWA!

srsly, why does anyone even use these numbers?

ZOMG I GOT .1 MORE!!!!!11111111oneoneoneoneone


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (May 23, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Ofcourse it does.
> 
> It thinks its got MOAR POWA!
> 
> ...



It means noobs can buy games and brag about their PC being better just because Vista says it is.

I think my system scores 4.2.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 23, 2007)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> It means noobs can buy games and brag about their PC being better just because Vista says it is.
> 
> I think my system scores 4.2.




 Wonder what I would score. (Haven't bothered installing vista after I broke it)


----------



## Kreij (May 23, 2007)

Vista likes more cores !

Mine is at 5.9 for everything except RAM, which is 5.5


----------



## DRDNA (May 23, 2007)

5.9 is my lowest score on cpu @ 3.12 on the rig in the sig.

And noway will I get rid of XP as it will let me watch High def with out buying a new monitor and graphic cards .WTF a new monitor , the one I have now in my sig cost friggin $1500...what a joke.


----------



## Kreij (May 23, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> 5.9 is my lowest score on cpu @ 3.12 on the rig in the sig.



5.9 was the highest score you could get unless they updated the scale.
I had heard that as better hardware came out they were going to up the max number but I never heard any more about it.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (May 23, 2007)

I score 5.9 on everything, except 5.3 on HD and 4.4 on CPU.


----------



## DRDNA (May 23, 2007)

I really need a DX10 card for my rig!!! Any recommendations?  I don't think I would be happy with the HD2900xt ....and damn if I can wait to the first quarter of 2008 which is just about a guarantee of being late.


----------



## Wile E (May 23, 2007)

DRDNA said:


> 5.9 is my lowest score on cpu @ 3.12 on the rig in the sig.
> 
> And noway will I get rid of XP as it will let me watch High def with out buying a new monitor and graphic cards .WTF a new monitor , the one I have now in my sig cost friggin $1500...what a joke.


I thought that Westinghouse is HDCP. You shouldn't have to buy a new monitor. Without HDCP, you wouldn't even be able to play some HD movies with standalone players on that set, and that completely defeats the purpose of selling a 1080p set.


----------



## theonetruewill (May 23, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> XP can't read Vista's network settings .



Thats why I won't upgrade to Vista. I've got three laptops on my network sharing this computer's files, and I'm not about to shell out huge amounts to make the whole network compatible, when its perfectly fine at the moment. Maybe if there was a way to make them compatible...


----------



## Wile E (May 23, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> Thats why I won't upgrade to Vista. I've got three laptops on my network sharing this computer's files, and I'm not about to shell out huge amounts to make the whole network compatible, when its perfectly fine at the moment. Maybe if there was a way to make them compatible...


There's no need to worry. You just have to change Vista's network settings. It sets them differently than XP by default. I have 2 PCs and 2 Macs on my network, and Vista networks flawlessly with any of them.


----------



## DRDNA (May 23, 2007)

Wile E said:


> I thought that Westinghouse is HDCP. You shouldn't have to buy a new monitor. Without HDCP, you wouldn't even be able to play some HD movies with standalone players on that set, and that completely defeats the purpose of selling a 1080p set.



Wow , your right !! I read an artical that came out after My monitor was released that said (There are no Monitors that are HDCP vista compliant being made as of the time the article was writen.)So I just figured it wouldnt work . I will for sure find out when I actually use it to watch High Def content while on my Vista.The article also said manufactures can lable stuff as HD ready and it truely is not vista HD compliant.


----------



## DRDNA (May 23, 2007)

theonetruewill said:


> Thats why I won't upgrade to Vista. I've got three laptops on my network sharing this computer's files, and I'm not about to shell out huge amounts to make the whole network compatible, when its perfectly fine at the moment. Maybe if there was a way to make them compatible...



I think this is only true if the Vista OS is distributing the network to other PC's, but with a router no issues.


----------

