# Vista not as bad as people say



## wolf2009 (Apr 22, 2008)

I installed vista 4 days ago , and applied the latest updates with SP 1 . Also applied some tweaks . It has been a pleasant experience till now . running pretty smoothly . 

Somethings which run better than XP SP2 are : 

Photoshop loads faster .

Winamp Bento Skin window doesn't stutter now when clicked on to show from minimized . It stuttered a lot in xp with the same system. 

And above all , vista looks sweet . 

Hard Drive Read Speed increased by 6Mb/s ( without the HDD speed tweak in vista, checked with HD Tune ) . Avg speed much more than it was in xp . 

Still have to get somethings ironed out. After that i think i'm going to keep this OS .


----------



## Lillebror (Apr 22, 2008)

Its usualy because people think that a new os should be able to run on a 4-5 year old computer  Vista runs great on my computer, but yeah, still got some stuff that needs fixing


----------



## Snake05 (Apr 22, 2008)

More of a general software thread than general hardware

Not all people are quite as lucky.  It took the third install of Vista for me to accept it, mainly because it wasn't cooperating with my wifi network.  It seems that since SP1 was released, my "Local Access Only" problem has dissapeard, and I am now satisfied with it as well


----------



## spearman914 (Apr 22, 2008)

It depends on what people think. Some people prefer Vista because of DX 10.1 and its appearance and some prefer XP because of DX 9 for older games and its outstanding performance. And theres some people who don't care about anything and stick with the stupid Windows NT 4.0?


----------



## trog100 (Apr 22, 2008)

some people dont like vista cos they are quite happy with the debugged and mature operating system they have already and dont fancy having to go thru the same stupid proccess all over again just cos MS want to keep making oodles of money at the worlds expense..

vista is a buggy bloated piece of crap that does nobody any good except MS.. it brings nothing new to the table even thow sooner or later we will all be forced to move to it..

vent over.. he he he

trog


----------



## xu^ (Apr 22, 2008)

from reports of Windows 7 ,ppl might not even have to bother with Vista if they so wish.

straight from XP to W7 bypassing Vista completely. we all know Vista was kinda  rush fill in OS ,and judging from how fast MS are supposedly wanting to get out W7 they know it as well.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 22, 2008)

xubidoo said:


> from reports of Windows 7 ,ppl might not even have to bother with Vista if they so wish.
> 
> straight from XP to W7 bypassing Vista completely. we all know Vista was kinda  rush fill in OS ,and judging from how fast MS are supposedly wanting to get out W7 they know it as well.



By the time win7 comes out would people on xp not be better moving to vista because then it would have become more mature and less driver issues etc and then there would be compatibility issues that vista had when it came out. i think


----------



## wolf2009 (Apr 22, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> It depends on what people think. Some people prefer Vista because of DX 10.1 and its appearance and some prefer XP because of DX 9 for older games and its outstanding performance. And theres some people who don't care about anything and stick with the stupid Windows NT 4.0?



i remember how much i hated xp when it first came out. look how times have changed . now everyone including me swears by xp . same thing is happening with vista .


----------



## trog100 (Apr 22, 2008)

MS had a reason to move to XP from 98.. they had to get rid of dos.. no such reason exists for the XP to vista forced move.. 

in some ways MS have shot themselves in the foot with such a resource hungry piece of bloatware.. the new low power atom aint gonna sit well with it.. in fact no laptop sits well with it.. battery life being the biggest problem.. 

trog


----------



## xmountainxlionx (Apr 22, 2008)

trog100 said:


> MS had a reason to move to XP from 98.. they had to get rid of dos.. no such reason exists for the XP to vista forced move..
> 
> in some ways MS have shot themselves in the foot with such a resource hungry piece of bloatware.. the new low power atom aint gonna sit well with it.. in fact no laptop sits well with it.. battery life being the biggest problem..
> 
> trog



how about for the sake of change? isnt the point of a company to offer a product or service, and make a profit?  i mean i know M$ isnt losing money or something, and they charge to much for stuff,  but its like your mad at them for giving you another product to choose from.  if you dont like stay with your 5 year old os


----------



## trog100 (Apr 22, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> i remember how much i hated xp when it first came out. look how times have changed . now everyone including me swears by xp . same thing is happening with vista .



wise up dude.. it aint the same XP now as when it first came out.. everybody dosnt hate the new operating system per se..

they hate the initial lack of driver support.. they hate having to buy new hardware to get the same performance.. and above all having gone thru all this several time before they hate having to do it a f-cking gain... 

i hated XP when it first came out for exactly the same reasons i now hate vista.. i dont f-cking want it but know sooner or later i will be forced to have it.. 

trog


----------



## Lillebror (Apr 22, 2008)

Just think about how huge a program windows is! And all the compatibility you have to keep making! People complain when they can't use all the old stuff, so they have to bloat the new windows's with alot of hacks to make old stuff work.. Wish they could begin from scratch.


----------



## xmountainxlionx (Apr 22, 2008)

uhh windows dosent make drivers for everything, because thats a responsibility that belongs to the hardware manufactuers


----------



## wolf2009 (Apr 22, 2008)

lets not turn this into a vista hate thread . lets look at the positive points of vista . that y i started this thread . i know it takes up 10 Gb of space on install but it is getting as fast as xp .


----------



## erocker (Apr 22, 2008)

The reason I don't like Vista is because they tried too hard to make it compatable with XP stuff.  Just wait for Windows 7 when next to nothing will be compatable.  I can't wait!


----------



## Lillebror (Apr 22, 2008)

Windows 7 will still be compatable with all or most of the old progams


----------



## devilhood (Apr 22, 2008)

Since building my new machine, I for one have never experienced a single Vista OS related BSOD or severe crash.
Only two problems I have had is with my RAID array (POS Intel) and messing with a BETA Nvidia Forceware driver now and then. All in all, no love lost for M$ and certainly no wishes to switch back to XP; the performance gains, personally, would be negligible.


----------



## xmountainxlionx (Apr 22, 2008)

Lillebror said:


> Windows 7 will still be compatable with all or most of the old progams



because its based on vista's kernal


----------



## Lillebror (Apr 22, 2008)

Windows 7 is based on the MinWin Kernel, so its basicly from scratch.


----------



## xmountainxlionx (Apr 22, 2008)

i could have sworn otherwise. source?


----------



## Lillebror (Apr 22, 2008)

Sorry, dont have any. Its something i read and heard  Maybe im wrong, but i know the minwin  kernel is in windows 7

Edit: Just found this on wiki "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7."


----------



## trog100 (Apr 22, 2008)

here we have a world all ticking along most of it useing XP.. punters like us.. thow to some of us a PC is just an operating system with the odd game on.. some of us just have new virgin machines.. 

but to some of us and the worlds businesses change for the sake of f-cking change is a f-cking disaster.. it cost billions in lost man hours and productivity..

all for what.. the enrichment of MS.. come on dudes wake up.. children playing with a PC with bugger all on it aint really what matters here.. its the worlds businesses that get messed up having to changes huge quantities of machines just to keep the MS pigopolists at the trough and in charge..

we are talking a cost of billions.. for what.. "it sure looks pretty".. he he he

as for staying where i am.. i do for as long as its reasonably possible.. but after xxxx time the move has to be made like it or not.. the longer its left the less painfull it is thats all.. but its not a choice its something that eventually has to be done.. dx10 being vista only looks like my next forced move will be sooner than the last few forced moves i have made..

if it really was a choice i wouldnt mind in the slightest but it isnt.. the biggest kick in the teeth for me will be no new 3dmark without vista.. hence my new found vista hate period.. he he he

trog


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 22, 2008)

I think they should make an "enthusiast" version of vista e.g no windows aero and optimised to consume less resources although, vista caches that ram and a smaller installation size, you know just general improvements for gamers.


----------



## magibeg (Apr 22, 2008)

As sucky as this sounds it would probably be great if nothing was compatible. I think everything needs to start fresh, microsoft has too much legacy now.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 22, 2008)

magibeg said:


> As sucky as this sounds it would probably be great if nothing was compatible. I think everything needs to start fresh, microsoft has too much legacy now.



I wouldn't mind if the hardware was compatible but programs I don't really care too much. Although that will make my games incompatible


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 22, 2008)

i run vista and it works great! the only reason i use it tho is for dx10 gaming. if dx10 gaming were available in XP i would not have switched OS.


----------



## rangerone766 (Apr 22, 2008)

every time i hear people talk trash about vista, about how bloated it is. how much it slows down there pc. it reminds me of when xp first came out. they said the same thing then, how 512mb of ram wasnt enough to run xp, but it worked in win2k or 98. 

i've got a copy of vista, i tried it and i liked it. but my copy is not so legit, so i didnt want to run it as a main os, just havent gotten around to buying a legit copy.


----------



## ShadowXP (Apr 22, 2008)

Reading why people hate Vista is exactly like reading why people hated XP when it was first released. It's the exact same story all over again  Plus the fact that people seem to love to blame Microsoft for hardware-vendors severe lack of driversupport, even though the vendors full well knew that there would be changes to the driver-model. Go figure.

Been running Vista since Beta 1, and I've become more and more pleased with it. Go back to XP? Yeah, sure, the day after the Dovre Mountains here in Norway fall, pigs fly, and there's a lasting peace in the middle east. In that order, please. For my own case, Vista runs smoother than XP did on this box (installed XP after hitting a bad batch of pre-RC patches for Vista and ran on XP between Beta 2 refresh and RC1), I find the interface more intuitive, easier to work with and a whole lot nicer-looking that XP's bubblegum-GUI ever was (or will be). System tasks have been simplified in operation without loosing any of it's options, and I'd daresay that there's more advanced options than you'd find at first glance (the Windows Firewall with Advanced Security in Administrative Tools, for example) if you know where to look (or just bother to look). And, of course, if you *need* those options. Never had a BSOD that I didn't provoke myself except when a memory-stick kicked the bucket, have had very little, if any, issues with incompatibility except early drivers for the Creative X-Fi-card I have (had to use XP's drivers until the proper ones for Vista was released).

SP1, while it didn't hold any hugely visible improvements (minor bump in framerates in certain games etc), made the system feel that much more smooth. Currently running Vista on two comps. My gamebox, and a Dell Latitude D630 laptop. The laptop has a gig of ram, and runs what it's supposed to quite nicely (websurfing, email, Skype/IM's, admin'ing stuff at work from home etc). SP1 actually improved the performance on the laptop to a greater extent than what I saw on the gamebox, too.

Calling Vista a disaster is like calling pogosticking in a minefield a safe and child-friendly pastime activity. Besides, Lil'Squishy doesn't command you to switch. If you don't want to, then simply don't.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Apr 22, 2008)

*MinWin kernel*



Lillebror said:


> Sorry, dont have any. Its something i read and heard  Maybe im wrong, but i know the minwin  kernel is in windows 7
> 
> Edit: Just found this on wiki "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7."



Appears there's some validity to this... See here..


----------



## Black Panther (Apr 22, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> I installed vista 4 days ago , and applied the latest updates with SP 1 . Also applied some tweaks . It has been a pleasant experience till now . running pretty smoothly .
> 
> Somethings which run better than XP SP2 are :
> 
> ...



I took a glance at your system specs and sure you're running Vista on your second rig. Vista performs nicely on nice rigs (and yours is awesome and Vista will run nicely).

I think the main problem with Vista has been that many low-end rigs were marketed as 'Vista compatible' just to have them sell. At least that was what was done in my country, and many people got very disappointed. More the gaming people than the guys who bought a new 'Vista compatible' system for office work and net browsing.

Just make the analogy between previous OS's, take as an example Windows 95 and Windows XP. An employee of mine has a computer which I didn't know the specs of, and she 'upgraded' from 95 to XP because she thought things would get faster and better. Wasn't she disappointed! When she shared her problem with me, she told me that she doesn't game but uses her pc for internet browsing and the people who sold her the OS told her that XP is more secure than Win 95 and would be better. What they didn't tell her were the obvious limitations encountered by running XP on a Pentium III with........ (take a deep breath!)......... 64MB RAM! I'm surprised she managed at all. On my suggestion she got 256MB of RAM (considering the pc is just used for internet and isn't stuffed with superfluous stuff and one of my work pc's works just fast and fine on 256MB RAM on XP Home) made the difference between her pc taking 15 minutes to load to just taking 1 or 2 minutes. By my standards 2 minutes to load the OS and 1 minute to load IE is awful... but she's ecstatic


----------



## ntdouglas (Apr 22, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I think they should make an "enthusiast" version of vista e.g no windows aero and optimised to consume less resources although, vista caches that ram and a smaller installation size, you know just general improvements for gamers.



In a way they do. You just have to do it yourself like I did. You buy windows home basic off of ebay for $40-$50 and then order from ms the 64 bit sp1. There you go, the most stripped down version of vista thats 64 bit.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 22, 2008)

I switched to the Vista.  I switched back.  The incompatibility with TF2 did me in.  I just about broke the disc.  Now I have a nice key I can save....  and then Windows 7 will come out.


----------



## strick94u (Apr 22, 2008)

I have vista on my laptop


----------



## erocker (Apr 22, 2008)

xmountainxlionx said:


> i could have sworn otherwise. source?



http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ws-7-taking-shape-meet-the-minwin-kernel.html

... and I wouldn't say it's going to be compatable with "most" programs.  It will most likely be like the jump from '98 to XP if not worse.  If you want to use "worse" as a bad thing it's up to you.  Starting from scratch will be good for all of us in the long run.  Plus, I hope there's no 32-bit at all!


----------



## trog100 (Apr 22, 2008)

magibeg said:


> As sucky as this sounds it would probably be great if nothing was compatible. I think everything needs to start fresh, microsoft has too much legacy now.



words well spoken from a dude who probably chucks his hardware away every few months and has practically spent nothing on software..

any estimates on what it would cost the world to throw it all away and start again.. ???

trog


----------



## erocker (Apr 22, 2008)

I agree with magibeg.  I don't like throwing out my hardware too early, but in order for advancement things need to change.  It's mainly software that won't be compatable.  If anything this is good for hardware because a new O/S not blown up with bloatware, will help with performance and the advancement of modern software applications.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 22, 2008)

If you take the time to make Vista good, it works.  I tweaked it well...  but still could not get Steam games to run, and why switch when I have no DX10 video card.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 22, 2008)

Vista works fine for me, as it came pre-installed on the Family PC. If I get Internet, a bigger hard drive and a better graphics card for my P4 PC, I'm considering putting Vista on that as well, just because I don't like XP as much.
Sure, I'll work on XP, I'll game on it, but Its easier and a more pleasurable experiance on Vista, partly because it is layed out pretty sensibly, and partly because it looks good.
For those people who have had a bad experiance with Vista, I feel sorry for you. It works fine, as long as you have the correct drivers. 
To those who don't like XP's Bubblegum/cartoonish theme, Google "XP Royale theme". It is a "glassed" version of XP's skin, which is more pleasing on the eye.

If we need legacy, then just keep an old computer, and run your legacy stuff on that: I've got a PIII laptop which can run DOS (Yes, I've tried), but I don't becuase command line sucks. Either keep an old machine, or get some VM software to run XP on Windows 7 or Vista.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 22, 2008)

ntdouglas said:


> In a way they do. You just have to do it yourself like I did. You buy windows home basic off of ebay for $40-$50 and then order from ms the 64 bit sp1. There you go, the most stripped down version of vista thats 64 bit.



you sir have made my day


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 22, 2008)

trog100 said:


> words well spoken from a dude who probably chucks his hardware away every few months and has practically spent nothing on software..
> 
> any estimates on what it would cost the world to throw it all away and start again.. ???
> 
> trog



I would be annoyed at my huge collection of games not working and if nothing was compatible I would stay on vista until it was time to upgrade. tbh the only games i play are supcom and battlefield 2 so until they became rather empty player wise I would gladly stay with vista til the rig expired and I got a new one.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 22, 2008)

I think there's a program called vLite for those people who want to slim down Vista.
I used nLite to slim down my XP installation and add in SP2 to the CD, and it ran about twice as fast on my laptop as the standard XP installation. I got it down to a 1 gig install, which is quite good with a 128 MB Pagefile!
Someone used vLite to get Vista to fit on the EEE PC, and run responsively as well!


----------



## kylew (Apr 22, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I think they should make an "enthusiast" version of vista e.g no windows aero and optimised to consume less resources although, vista caches that ram and a smaller installation size, you know just general improvements for gamers.



If you're bothered about vista's RAM use, turn off superfetch, though I don't see the point in having a large amount of RAM if it's no used, otherwise, it'd just be a waste of money wouldn't it? Also, aero is disabled when running a game, so it's not eating into the performance. I don't really know myself why people complain so much about vista, and say things like "well, I'll most probably give vista a miss and jump to windows 7". Most of the people who complain about vista will complain about windows 7, they don't know or don't want to deal with change. I know some one who used to play unreal tournament at 640x480 16bit because he didn't know what graphics settings were, I shown him how to change them, changed it to a higher res and 32 bit colour. He complained about it, it looked "worse". In reality, we all know 16 bit colour looks worse than 32bit colour, so why did he complain? He wasn't "used" to it, so automatically disliked it. I think that's what most people who complain about vista are doing, the same thing pretty much happened with XP when it was new on the scene. Local PC shops refusing to sell PCs with XP installed because it's "bloated" "slow" "over priced" and "unstable" (among other complaints). They were adamant that win 2000 was the best ever, and it'll never be bested. My nan bought me one of their computers (way before I could build my own and I was about 12-13), guess what? win 2000, from my experience was terrible(though I'm not saying it actually is bad), I had to teach myself how to format, reinstall windows, and then the reinstall drivers, and I did this about 10 times over the course of about 2 days because I constantly got problems with this PC. Everything they complained about in XP, was happening to my PC with win 2000. Anyway, I returned the PC for a refund, though they didn't acknowledge any problems until I had complained for weeks to them. In the end I got a refund and went else where, those people obviously didn't know what they were on about. That was pretty much my first experience of PC "enthusiasts" and I've had very similar ones since.


----------



## kylew (Apr 22, 2008)

erocker said:


> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ws-7-taking-shape-meet-the-minwin-kernel.html
> 
> ... and I wouldn't say it's going to be compatable with "most" programs.  It will most likely be like the jump from '98 to XP if not worse.  If you want to use "worse" as a bad thing it's up to you.  Starting from scratch will be good for all of us in the long run.  Plus, I hope there's no 32-bit at all!



There's no need for 32 bit anymore. I wish they hadn't made a 32Bit vista!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 22, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> I installed vista 4 days ago , and applied the latest updates with SP 1 . Also applied some tweaks . It has been a pleasant experience till now . running pretty smoothly .
> 
> Somethings which run better than XP SP2 are :
> 
> ...



In all fairness you went through a substantial upgrade:

Processor:	AMD AthlonXP 2800+ Barton --------------- Intel Q9450
Motherboard:	ASUS A7N8X ---------------------------- GIGABYTE EX-38 DS4
Cooling:	Stock AMD -------------------------------- Zerotherm Nirvana 120mm
Memory:	1 GB DDR333 ---------------------------- ------ 2x2GB GEIL Kit (4Gigs)
Video Card:	XFX 7600GTAGP -------------------------- Palit 9600GT w/HDMI 
Harddisk:	20 GB ------------------------------------- 250GB WD IDE + 250 GB External
CRT/LCD Model:	Arnos Instruments S-19 ----------------- Sony SDM-81 (19")
Case:	Some Cheap case - ---------------------- - - - -- Thermaltake Bach VX
Sound Card:	Onboard --------------------------------- Creative X-FI Xtreme Music
PSU:	Okia 420W 18A on 12 V -------------------------- Corsair TX650
Software:	Windows 2000 ---------------------------- Windows Vista
Benchmarks: 3D Mark06 Score 2933 w/7600 GT on xp sp2 - 3d Mark 06 Score 10897 w/9600GT on Vista

It's great you are experiencing no problems but do you think it's possible that your positive experiences is more likely do to the hardware you had vs what you have now more so then just Vista?  If you ever have the time try your new setup with XP and run a few games, benchmarks etc.  That would allow you to gauge the differences IMO.


----------



## kylew (Apr 22, 2008)

trog100 said:


> words well spoken from a dude who probably chucks his hardware away every few months and has practically spent nothing on software..
> 
> any estimates on what it would cost the world to throw it all away and start again.. ???
> 
> trog



Legacy HAS to be dropped though, sooner rather than later in my opinion. Like AGP, those people who are complaining about no AGP support just need to accept that they're running old tech. If some one complained that AMD don't make socket A CPUs anymore, they'd get laughed at.


----------



## kylew (Apr 22, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> In all fairness you went through a substantial upgrade:
> 
> Processor:	AMD AthlonXP 2800+ Barton --------------- Intel Q9450
> Motherboard:	ASUS A7N8X ---------------------------- GIGABYTE EX-38 DS4
> ...



I've ran vista (ultimate) on a fairly low-end PC, a sempron 2800 socket 754, 512MB RAM, 200GB HD and an X800XT. It wasn't lightning fast, but it worked well enough for me, I later added in an extra 512MB of RAM and that made things a lot better for me. After that, I upgraded my CPU to a A64 3400 and that made my vista installation pretty nice to work with. From then on, I knew I wasn't ever going to have XP on any of my home computers. From then on, it's just gotten better and better with my new PC (a year ago now). It's a different PC now of course . Still very happy with vista, I've got rid of my XP licenses as I was never going to use them again.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 22, 2008)

I actualy like vista  the laptop has basic, I have ultimate 32bit and 64bit on the gaming pc and I find running vista a dream apart from moving files where it asks for your permission and then tells you that YOU don't have admin rights


----------



## kylew (Apr 23, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I actualy like vista  the laptop has basic, I have ultimate 32bit and 64bit on the gaming pc and I find running vista a dream apart from moving files where it asks for your permission and then tells you that YOU don't have admin rights



Turn UAC off


----------



## FatForester (Apr 23, 2008)

Whoever said something about battery life on Vista being terrible is talkin' fud. When I first got my laptop I slapped XP on there to accompany Vista. After less than a week I had already reformatted and gotten rid of XP. On my Santa Rosa laptop XP consistently gave me an hour less of battery life when compared with Vista. (4 1/2 compared to 5 1/2) 

Even though at first it'd be a real pain in the ass, if MS would pull an Apple OS9 -> OSX transition, it would be for the better. It's great to have all these compatibility modes, but they really just end up slowing down the system. If they want to keep supporting legacy software / hardware, then every Win7 disc should come with an XP disc as well. I'd rather dual boot and have a fresh start with Win7 than keep running down the inevitable path of bloated-ness. 

OK, I thought I would stop, but I remembered an article I read a while back. Because of the anti-trust laws the EU handed down to MS, MS was forced to make Vista "compartmentalized", meaning they couldn't allow IE to be completely integrated into the OS. This actually makes sense, I'll see if I can't find the article... it helps explain why Vista is ~10GB on a fresh install and why there are so many services to bog it down.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 23, 2008)

kylew said:


> Turn UAC off



I did but my pc still undermines me with you do not have adequate privelages or some crap like that  its like having a wife


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 23, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I did but my pc still undermines me with you do not have adequate privelages or some crap like that  its like having a wife



Well, imagine if a Virus started trying to mess with your Windows files: The UAC would pop up for no apparent reason, and you'd know you have a problem, but the Virus wouldn't be able to continue because you didn't give it permission.
It kinda makes sense, in an overprotective way.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 23, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> Well, imagine if a Virus started trying to mess with your Windows files: The UAC would pop up for no apparent reason, and you'd know you have a problem, but the Virus wouldn't be able to continue because you didn't give it permission.
> It kinda makes sense, in an overprotective way.



I know but if I have a virus I back up my stuff and do a reinstall.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 23, 2008)

FatForester said:


> Whoever said something about battery life on Vista being terrible is talkin' fud. When I first got my laptop I slapped XP on there to accompany Vista. After less than a week I had already reformatted and gotten rid of XP. On my Santa Rosa laptop XP consistently gave me an hour less of battery life when compared with Vista. (4 1/2 compared to 5 1/2)



Thats correct.
Because Vista is supposed to utilize ram, which means less disk access, which at the end of the day is the major battery killer (apart from 3d gaming)


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> MS had a reason to move to XP from 98.. they had to get rid of dos.. no such reason exists for the XP to vista forced move..
> 
> in some ways MS have shot themselves in the foot with such a resource hungry piece of bloatware.. the new low power atom aint gonna sit well with it.. in fact no laptop sits well with it.. battery life being the biggest problem..
> 
> trog




Wow, did you forget Windows 2000? 

We all should forget WindowsME though.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 23, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Wow, did you forget Windows 2000?
> 
> We all should forget WindowsME though.



No actually we should remember it.
And if an OS of similarity is ever released, Microsoft's design team will be executed lol.


On that note, the main flaws in Vista not catering for lower end machines should be seen largely as a marketing problem rather than a technical one.


----------



## Edito (Apr 23, 2008)

when i first installed vista i was waiting for the worst OS ever, cause the forums and many other places are saying that vista really sucks but im using it from the very beginning and im adictive to it and can´t back to XP never and one more thing Vista was designed not to old machines...


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 23, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> No actually we should remember it.
> And if an OS of similarity is ever released, Microsoft's design team will be executed lol.
> 
> 
> On that note, the main flaws in Vista not catering for lower end machines should be seen largely as a marketing problem rather than a technical one.



Quite true on that, however something tells me its to do with the media stressing its "beefy" requirements.... most OEMs these days only ever ship with Vista.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 23, 2008)

Vista can, and will, run on an 8 year old laptop! I shall prove it!
It will probably be very slow, but it shall be done!
First I'll try it as a normal install.
Then I'd format the hard drive and install an nLited version!
I'll post my results as soon as I can find the Installation disk...


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Apr 23, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> Vista can, and will, run on an 8 year old laptop! I shall prove it!
> It will probably be very slow, but it shall be done!
> First I'll try it as a normal install.
> Then I'd format the hard drive and install an nLited version!
> I'll post my results as soon as I can find the Installation disk...



I've run Vista Home Basic without the eye candys on:
Athlon 1700+ Socket A
512MB DDR 400
Some old Gigabyte MB with Triton chipset
GF440 64MB
60GB IDE HDD

It worked just fine, just a bit slower than the XP would.


----------



## spud107 (Apr 23, 2008)

when i first installed vista i had an xp partition to fall back on, so wasn't using it 100% of the time, ended up formatting the disk for space lol,
but now iv given it another try as main os an for the past couple months its been running pretty well, one of my friends has changed there mind about it after seeing it running on my pc,
only problem was my creative card, but fixed with kx drivers,     
(anyone with an older 





> (SBLive, EMU APS, Audigy, Audigy2 and SB 512 cards)


 should give em a try)
http://download.kxproject.lugosoft.com/?file=kxdrv3541-full.exe


----------



## infrared (Apr 23, 2008)

Like a few people have said in this thread, I wouldn't mind if it was a choice to move to vista, but instead they're forcing it on us. 

One example of this - There is no reason whatsoever why DX10 wouldn't work on Windows XP. One guy even sucessfully hacked the dx10 drivers to work on xp, but he obviously got ass-raped by microsoft's legal team afterwards!

That said, I may consider trying vista again soon now that a few issues have been fixed.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Apr 23, 2008)

I've been on vista for a long time now,its been reliable and runs all my games fine.Theres no way i'd go back to xp now,it'd be like downgrading.I dont care if xp is 3% quicker in games,vista runs fine.

The only thing that pisses me of is all the retards slagging it off all the time.If you dont like it,fine.But why go into every thread that mentions vista just so you can slag it off? If you dont have somethig useful to add to the thread,then keep out of it.If you dont want to use it then dont,but at least respect other peoples right to use it and like it./end rant


----------



## wolf2009 (Apr 23, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> In all fairness you went through a substantial upgrade:
> 
> Processor:	AMD AthlonXP 2800+ Barton --------------- Intel Q9450
> Motherboard:	ASUS A7N8X ---------------------------- GIGABYTE EX-38 DS4
> ...


 
yes i did install xp first on this system, 3d Mark 06 was only 300 points less on xp . Hdd read speed with HDTune went up 6MB/s .


----------



## NaziEskimoes (Apr 23, 2008)

*Vista is horrible*

Vista is complete rubbish.  I have it on my laptop and I can't play shit for games on the damn thing.  For a gamer XP is the way to be right now due to lack of vista driver support.  I've also had SO many problems with nuissance popups with vista asking me if I want to make sure that I want to delete something pre-check bullshit, it just drives me nuts.

In other words.  Roses are red, violets are blue.  I'LL FUCK VISTA WITH A RAKE FOR YOUUUUUUU.


----------



## wolf2009 (Apr 23, 2008)

NaziEskimoes said:


> Vista is complete rubbish.  I have it on my laptop and I can't play shit for games on the damn thing.  For a gamer XP is the way to be right now due to lack of vista driver support.  I've also had SO many problems with nuissance popups with vista asking me if I want to make sure that I want to delete something pre-check bullshit, it just drives me nuts.
> 
> In other words.  Roses are red, violets are blue.  I'LL FUCK VISTA WITH A RAKE FOR YOUUUUUUU.



lack of vista driver support --- really ? do u mind posting ur laptop specs . 

if u have problems with popup , turn off UAC . 

do some research b4 blasting vista like that .


----------



## Braveheart (Apr 23, 2008)

totally, i dont understand why people rip on MS all day for vista, i love vista! sure you can barely  tweak anything, but it's default settings for almost everything is very good. when i had XP i hated every moment of it.


----------



## Triprift (Apr 23, 2008)

Just for once could we once have a balanced conversation instead of the Vista sux patrol come into any thread praising vista and bash it.Like tigger said if ya dont like vista then thats fine but atleast repect ppl's right to use it and like it.


----------



## magibeg (Apr 23, 2008)

trog100 said:


> words well spoken from a dude who probably chucks his hardware away every few months and has practically spent nothing on software..
> 
> any estimates on what it would cost the world to throw it all away and start again.. ???
> 
> trog



Well actually i buy a new computer every 4 years or so and more or less what i was getting at in terms of software is that because of the sheer amount of legacy that microsoft has to support from the previous operating systems anytime they add anything new it has to be in addition to possibly older and less efficent methods used for old software. I was more geared towards software compatibility rather than hardware compatibility in that statement so i apologize for not being more specific.

In short microsoft is being bogged down by its own success by having to cater to people who still want their ancient software to run on a brand new 'cutting edge' OS.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 23, 2008)

Haha triprift is right... vista is a bit of a polarizing OS...

As much as I like to think it sucks compared to the hype and what it was supposed to have been (all the good stuff that got taken out of longhorn)... Overall, its a very good OS.

Yeah its not that fast when compared to a barebone XP Pro system, and thats sad... but it has dx10 support (i refuse to play dx10 games in dx9), faster memory access and readyboost, and its safer, and looks more stylish (XP looks old and shitty).

Vista is definitely not as bad as people (including me) say it is.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 23, 2008)

Triprift said:


> Just for once could we once have a balanced conversation instead of the Vista sux patrol come into any thread praising vista and bash it.Like tigger said if ya dont like vista then thats fine but atleast repect ppl's right to use it and like it.



nice one  I like level headed and well founded criticims of vista and praising it's good points. While it may lag on some pc's I think it's mainly because of "user" errors e.g. virus' and installing bloatware that isn't really needed. For example when my mum got her laptop all she did was browse and play solitaire but when my little bro started using it, there was all kinds of unecessary programs and it is running badly now. 
Specs of the laptop 
CPU - Celeron 1.73 ghz single core
RAM - 768mb
GPU - SiS mirage

tbh it ran really nicely when she got it, I even installed battlefield 2 which ran but was kind of artifacty


----------



## warhammer (Apr 23, 2008)

Xp is famous for BSOD.

I updated the hardware in my sons PC new mobo mem and video card he opted to put XP back on his system it lasted 4 days crashing BSOD and picked up some viruses his exact words were weres the vista disc XP is f***ing crap.VISTA


----------



## wolf2009 (Apr 23, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> As much as I like to think it sucks compared to the hype and what it was supposed to have been (all the good stuff that got taken out of longhorn)... Overall, its a very good OS.



what was taken out of longhorn ?


----------



## erocker (Apr 23, 2008)

NaziEskimoes said:


> Vista is complete rubbish.  I have it on my laptop and I can't play shit for games on the damn thing.  For a gamer XP is the way to be right now due to lack of vista driver support.  I've also had SO many problems with nuissance popups with vista asking me if I want to make sure that I want to delete something pre-check bullshit, it just drives me nuts.
> 
> In other words.  Roses are red, violets are blue.  I'LL FUCK VISTA WITH A RAKE FOR YOUUUUUUU.



Judging by this morons username, I would just disregard anything that they say.  Is that supposed to be poetry or something?  Awww, Vista drives them nuts... What drives me nuts are ignorant idiots like him.:shadedshu  And now... Back to "Vista not as bad as people say"...


----------



## kylew (Apr 23, 2008)

NaziEskimoes said:


> Vista is complete rubbish.  I have it on my laptop and I can't play shit for games on the damn thing.  For a gamer XP is the way to be right now due to lack of vista driver support.  I've also had SO many problems with nuissance popups with vista asking me if I want to make sure that I want to delete something pre-check bullshit, it just drives me nuts.
> 
> In other words.  Roses are red, violets are blue.  I'LL FUCK VISTA WITH A RAKE FOR YOUUUUUUU.



You're a total retard, you need to be banned just for your username. I bet you signed up on here just to post your message of spam. I doubt you've even installed vista on your "laptop". As for driver issues, you know that's not true. I've had ONE driver issue with vista, and it's not even an "issue", it's the manufacturer refusing to develop 64bit drivers as they don't think any one uses 64bit (utterly fail I know), other than that, I've had very old hardware working on vista with very little effort.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 23, 2008)

vista works quite well. never had a BSOD that wasnt caused by overclocking, or betatesting software (beta drivers, beta games, etc)

To be honest, its ignorant people who complain anyway - vista is blamed for everything. OMG NO POPUPS ARE BAD! XPSP2 firewall anyone? popups that broke games! oh noes!
Crashes? stop using cheap $15 hardware you got, and inserting the 5 year old XP disk and forcibly installing drivers!

Vista is a great OS, that needs faster hardware than XP does. Then again, XP needs the same over windows 2000, so who cares.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Apr 23, 2008)

What was this thread about again?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 23, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> What was this thread about again?



this thread is now about pants.

My pants are blue, and covered in paint from work. They smell like ammonia.


----------



## ShadowXP (Apr 23, 2008)

Mine are brown/green, covered in inkspots (broke a pen today) and massive amounts of dustbunnies (had to clean a computer. The bunnies had installed wall-to-wall carpets, and were in many cases already climbing up the walls. Had to kill them to not be overrun. Vicious buggers...).


----------



## desertjedi (Apr 23, 2008)

Quotes from Steve Ballmer:



> "Vista is a work in progress."





> "Lessons we've learned from Vista - never wait 5 years in between OS releases."



Paraphrases from Bill Gates:



> "We're trying to get Windows 7 out the door as soon as is possible".



Oh so we have to pay for M$ learning curve? I'm with you Trog, expecting and eventually forcing the entire planet to buy a new OS that essentially brings nothing new to the table is insane -  especially the business community.

But let me put this whole thing in perspective. How many of you would continue to be M$ puppets if Linux gamed just as good as Windows?

::crickets::

And if you said yes, maybe I can help:


----------



## FatForester (Apr 23, 2008)

NaziEskimoes said:


> Vista is complete rubbish.  I have it on my laptop and I can't play shit for games on the damn thing.  For a gamer XP is the way to be right now due to lack of vista driver support.  I've also had SO many problems with nuissance popups with vista asking me if I want to make sure that I want to delete something pre-check bullshit, it just drives me nuts.
> 
> In other words.  Roses are red, violets are blue.  I'LL FUCK VISTA WITH A RAKE FOR YOUUUUUUU.



That post has got to be the biggest amount of fail I've ever seen on TPU. Banned after one post?? Anyway, disabling UAC is easy (msconfig / tools / disable UAC) and drivers aren't a problem unless if you're running legacy hardware. If video performance is a problem, then chances are your GPU isn't up to snuff in the first place.


----------



## ShadowXP (Apr 23, 2008)

desertjedi said:


> But let me put this whole thing in perspective. How many of you would continue to be M$ puppets if Linux gamed just as good as Windows?



If Linux had the same ease of use, ease of configuration, has the same level of hardware/driversupport and gamed as well or better than windows (without the use of WINE or other emulators), and could do fill all my other needs both as a home-comp and as a work-comp (i.e. run the same admin-consoles (SMS, MSSQL, Exchange, AD etc) as I do on my windowsbox, emailclient with full Exchange-support etc), then yes, I'd try it.

Until that day I'll stay a Lil'Squishy Fanboi.


----------



## francis511 (Apr 23, 2008)

Oh yes it is !


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 23, 2008)

I personally have run it on 3 computers and it has worked well. I ran it on my old AMD 3200+ @2.5GHz (2.6Ghz?), 1GB DDR400, BFG 6800GS (AGP) with a Gigabyte motherboard and all ran just fine (RC2 AND RTM). Then I upgraded to an Opteron 165 @2.75GHz 2 and 4GB of RAM, DFI LP nF4 motherboard with an 8800GTS 640MB (G80), and the current machine I am on. It has run the same amongst all machines very nicely. My brother even ran it on his AMD 3700+ @2.7GHz, 2GB DDR400, Abit baord and a 7600GT quite nicely. He had it for 120 days because i didnt have a key and i just kept rearming it.  

Any BSOD's I have come across are because of my own expense such as overclocks. Thats to be expected. I did have it BSOD on me one time for faulty memory. Or so I thought. Come to find out, my motherboard wsa undervolting my RAM and i kicked it up a notch and it ran beautiful. 

I tweak the hell out of any OS i use whether its 2000, XP, or Vista. Its pretty much essential for people like us so why bitch about doing it when you have to anyway?

Sure Vista uses a lot of resources, but when it comes down to it, whether or not you have the RAM to feed it is beside the point because Vista works with the amount of RAM that you have. The more you have the more it eats because thats what it is there for.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 23, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Any BSOD's I have come across are because of my own expense such as overclocks. Thats to be expected. I did have it BSOD on me one time for faulty memory. Or so I thought. Come to find out, my motherboard wsa undervolting my RAM and i kicked it up a notch and it ran beautiful.
> 
> Sure Vista uses a lot of resources, but when it comes down to it, whether or not you have the RAM to feed it is beside the point because Vista works with the amount of RAM that you have. The more you have the more it eats because thats what it is there for.



Well vista usualy releases those resources when they are needed which I didn't know and assumed it whored them  and overclocking bsods i understand but tbh I don't remember getting a bsod when I've not overclocked.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 23, 2008)

NaziEskimoes said:


> Vista is complete rubbish.  I have it on my laptop and I can't play shit for games on the damn thing.  For a gamer XP is the way to be right now due to lack of vista driver support.  I've also had SO many problems with nuissance popups with vista asking me if I want to make sure that I want to delete something pre-check bullshit, it just drives me nuts.
> 
> In other words.  Roses are red, violets are blue.  I'LL FUCK VISTA WITH A RAKE FOR YOUUUUUUU.



If this is what the internet is going to become ... I'l probably just ummm never go near it again.
That's the reason why I don't go on any forums apart from this one.


----------



## kylew (Apr 23, 2008)

desertjedi said:


> Quotes from Steve Ballmer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Bill Gates is on crickets trying to force vista DVDs down his throat! The don't install like that Mr. Gates!*

Sarcasm off, I don't see MS forcing people to install vista, otherwise they wouldn't be releasing XP SP3. They'd have discontinued XP a lot sooner if they wanted to force people to migrate. They're promoting their new software in favor of their old, nothing wrong with that really, pretty normal.


----------



## kylew (Apr 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> vista works quite well. never had a BSOD that wasnt caused by overclocking, or betatesting software (beta drivers, beta games, etc)
> 
> To be honest, its ignorant people who complain anyway - vista is blamed for everything. OMG NO POPUPS ARE BAD! XPSP2 firewall anyone? popups that broke games! oh noes!
> Crashes? stop using cheap $15 hardware you got, and inserting the 5 year old XP disk and forcibly installing drivers!
> ...



I don't think he realises that you don't build a PC with a hammer.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 23, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Well vista usualy releases those resources when they are needed which I didn't know and assumed it whored them  and overclocking bsods i understand but tbh I don't remember getting a bsod when I've not overclocked.



The only time I EVER get a BSOD is either with faulty RAM or a bad oc. Thats it. 

Usually people bitch about any OS if they dont know how to use it and they fuck something up along with not properly maintaining it.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 23, 2008)

desertjedi said:


> But let me put this whole thing in perspective. How many of you would continue to be M$ puppets if Linux gamed just as good as Windows?
> 
> And if you said yes, maybe I can help:



Me. Because I dont have the patience or the time to start learning Linux now. I have tried it, I dont like it, to much of a hassel to install shit. Not worth my time. Id rather have the simplicity of Windows.


----------



## paybackdaman (Apr 23, 2008)

Eh. vista is an alright OS. I have it on the family computer and my grandma's computer (which is funny because she just got done learning how to use xp when she upgraded...). Neither of them are used for gaming, but for internet and documents. They do great for those things. But, I had one major problem...NETWORKING!! I couldn't get them to communicate with XP computers. I changed all to MSHOME network. Set up file sharing through vista and all the xp computers, but still "you do not have permission to access these resources. Please contact the network administrator". However, after a fight with all of them, and the help of SP1, I got them all to communicate and play nicely. Been printing on the family printer for a month now.


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 23, 2008)

the old vista sucked the new vista with sp 1 i hear is much better but i still hate it XP professional sp2 is the best


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 23, 2008)

SP1 doesnt really improve all that much.


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 23, 2008)

really i heard it took out all the glitches


----------



## spearman914 (Apr 23, 2008)

ShadowXP said:


> pigs fly
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HERE YA GO:::!!:


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 23, 2008)

that was a useful post spearman


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 23, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> really i heard it took out all the glitches



Not all, but most. No piece of software is 100% perfect.


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 23, 2008)

yea i guess but thats kinda what i meant but xp was pretty close


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Apr 23, 2008)

Vista runs fine on my PC, just need to upgrade the 768MB of Single channel DRR to 2GB DDR duel channel, apart from that i can play games such as Team Fortress 2 fine, touch wood at the moment but i have had no problems compared to XP witch was one giant failure for me from the start.
Good words of advice i think i heard from Liptons ice tea, "Don't knock it 'till you tried it"


----------



## craigo (Apr 23, 2008)

I cant believe Microsoft and the hardware manufactures dirty underhanded tactics...they just change shit for no reason i mean look at the wallpaper in vista...fags i had to "hack" my install just to get it to work with the wallpaper i was accustomed to and whats with the nforce 4 not supporting 98 hey if i want to run 3.11 on my new hardware why should the chipset not support it....CONSPIRACY....damn the man...look what i had to do just so i was comfortable with my vista install


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 23, 2008)

failure how sp2 was like the perfect software


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Apr 23, 2008)

OOOHHH get 98 away from me!!!!


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Apr 23, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> failure how sp2 was like the perfect software



it would have been had not the bugs that kept me at bay. im happy with Vista,


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 23, 2008)

I honestly dont see why they should support legacy hardware/software in the first place. Its like supporting and making record players/records in this day and age.


----------



## craigo (Apr 23, 2008)

fixed!......


----------



## paybackdaman (Apr 23, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> yea i guess but thats kinda what i meant but xp was pretty close



That is because it has become the standard.


----------



## wolf2009 (Apr 23, 2008)

craigo said:


> I cant believe Microsoft and the hardware manufactures dirty underhanded tactics...they just change shit for no reason i mean look at the wallpaper in vista...fags i had to "hack" my install just to get it to work with the wallpaper i was accustomed to and whats with the nforce 4 not supporting 98 hey if i want to run 3.11 on my new hardware why should the chipset not support it....CONSPIRACY....damn the man...look what i had to do just so i was comfortable with my vista install



lol , u r in love man .


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 24, 2008)

paybackdaman said:


> That is because it has become the standard.



yea ur right like every other person u c has it


----------



## Triprift (Apr 24, 2008)

Lol yeah cus xps standard only crazy ppl like me use Vista hehe


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 24, 2008)

I said I would do it, and I have:
Vista runs happily on this:
Specs: Dell Inspiron 4000
CPU: Pentium 3 M @ 850 MHz
RAM: 512 MB SDRAM @ 100 MHz
Graphics: ATI Radeon M3 w/ 8 MB RAM
Hard Drive: 9.3 GB
Screen: 1400 x 1050

Using vLite, I managed to cut down Vista so that the installation files are 990 MB, and installed it off of 2 CDs. It runs about as fast as XP, but uses about 300 MB or RAM, and I've given it 512 MB of Readyboost. The installation takes up 3.8 GB, which means I have 5.5 GB of free space to play around with.
Here's some screenshots:




My Windows User Experiance Rating! One! 





Hows that for old hardware compatibility?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 24, 2008)

well I have both xp pro and vista home premium installed in this computer, which is a up-to-date build and no slouch performance wise. 

Noway is vista as fast as XP from my experience.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 24, 2008)

Well, It runs as fast as an XP fresh install, mainly because I cut off quite a lot of crap, such as the language support (1 gig!!) and Superfetch.
It runs faster for unfathomable reasons. It has the instant search feature switched on, which still runs much faster than the indexer for XP, and It has Sidebar open. It actually runs as fast as or faster than XP in almost all areas except for booting up, where it takes about 50% longer.


----------



## Triprift (Apr 24, 2008)

That is awesomelly impressive error and proof that vista can run on ancient machines.Vlite is something often overlooked when ppl complain about it being bloated.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 24, 2008)

Yeah, and the funny thing is that it helps prove that Vista has better architecture: running on the same machine, with most of the stuff that is central to Vista enabled, it runs faster than XP. Sure, it uses more RAM, but thats the point of HAVING lots of RAM!
(Lol, I got it upgraded for my birthday. )
Seriously, I now consider my laptop upgraded. If only it had a bigger hard drive...


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> Yeah, and the funny thing is that it helps prove that Vista has better architecture: running on the same machine, with most of the stuff that is central to Vista enabled, it runs faster than XP. Sure, it uses more RAM, but thats the point of HAVING lots of RAM!
> (Lol, I got it upgraded for my birthday. )
> Seriously, I now consider my laptop upgraded. If only it had a bigger hard drive...



i just bought 2x60GB laptop hard drives for $75 in a fore sale thread here on TPU to upgrade my laptop  a 40GB 2.5" drive over USB 1.1 got faster response times than the 15GB it has internally... made me realise a new drive just might make it faster.


----------



## lism (Apr 24, 2008)

I happend to browse on Techpowerup.com, and i saw this thread slipping by. I have to tell you i've tried the beta version of vista, i know, a beta is not the final product, but it gives a nice impression on Vista itself.

After the First public version was released, i gave it a go. All my hardware was'nt incompatible so that would kill the issue with outdated hardware. The real problem is within the way vista works. UAC, the Permission denied on your own files thing  , the way some games don't work since the strange implementation of OpenGL (and i use a Ati card), the generally lower-fps in games, or 3dmark ofcourse, the stuck 345 days remaining on a simple folder of 3GB while trying to move / copy.

Other sidenote is that Vista uses your memory on a well matter. It caches alot and it makes your programs startup faster (hence they are cached in the system memory). XP instead only caches what it needs and keeps the rest of your memory reserved for applications. This part is indeed improved. Also the Disk caching looks improved, but this could be done on XP too by changing the default '512KB' towards '4096KB' which works like a charm on every system.

Outlook express is replaced by Windows Mail. Nice and all, but if your EVER trying to go back towards Outlook express, there's nearly no support except for 3rd party to use your imported mail from Windows mail back towards Outlook express. This is a real shame. They should have made it somehow backwards compatible.

I see some postings about how MS did not 'force' Vista into the crows, well wake your eyes up, OEM systems are these days with Vista only. There are hardly new systems with XP only, and the actuall selling of XP ends somehow soon.

If anyone used a Nforce 3 motherboard with an Ati Graphics card, they proberly figured out the issue with Nvidia about quitting their support on these combinations. I had alot of customers who angry returned their stuff for not getting any support based upon these combo. Vista does not work on these platforms. 

Another nice example, of how MS really did 'force' to get gamers in the first place Vista, was Halo 2, which seemed impossible to play on any other OS then vista right? A few weeks later, some releasegroup showed how it wether was possible to even run this game on XP, and proved a point with MS still shoving vista upons alot of people their butts.


Btw... Another example is the implementation of Windows live messenger, how impossible its being made to even use an older version of MSN/Live messenger, and basicly forcing people with a slower computer to upgrade, in order to keep their computer running fine with Live messenger. Heck, i cannot even startup Windows messenger ( the classic one ) without getting a notice that i HAVE TO DOWNLOAD the new version in order to continue. And look, the latest live messenger with a shitload of ADS, TOOLBARS, FAMILY-SAFETY and what more! They control it, they decide how it goes, and sometimes i dont have a choice either to just click 'ok' and sigh the whole night about it.

DX10 was never really hacked/cracked or whatsoever to run on XP. This was a clear choice back on the release of Vista, to make it Vista only. Cause for what reason would vista be better if DX10 was also on XP?

it's technically possible to have DX10 on XP, but it requires adjustment of basicly half windows XP, and thats something MS is not going todo. Too much risk, and even John carmack said it , that DX10 is possible on XP. The choice is at MS , and they are not going todo it.

I might switch onto vista one of these days. Is there any reason why i should not to after i posted a few reasons for this?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2008)

lism said:


> After the First public version was released, i gave it a go. All my hardware was'nt incompatible so that would kill the issue with outdated hardware. The real problem is within the way vista works. UAC, the Permission denied on your own files thing  , the way some games don't work since the strange implementation of OpenGL (and i use a Ati card), the generally lower-fps in games, or 3dmark ofcourse, the stuck 345 days remaining on a simple folder of 3GB while trying to move / copy.


UAC is very very easy to turn off. takes 30 seconds. openGL has worked well since the betas - that was driver issues, and not vistas problem.



			
				lism said:
			
		

> Other sidenote is that Vista uses your memory on a well matter. It caches alot and it makes your programs startup faster (hence they are cached in the system memory). XP instead only caches what it needs and keeps the rest of your memory reserved for applications. This part is indeed improved. Also the Disk caching looks improved, but this could be done on XP too by changing the default '512KB' towards '4096KB' which works like a charm on every system.


memory usage is good. makes sense to use it that way.


			
				lism said:
			
		

> Outlook express is replaced by Windows Mail. Nice and all, but if your EVER trying to go back towards Outlook express, there's nearly no support except for 3rd party to use your imported mail from Windows mail back towards Outlook express. This is a real shame. They should have made it somehow backwards compatible.


outlook epxress is known as a horrible virus attracting magnet. thank god for security.



			
				lism said:
			
		

> I see some postings about how MS did not 'force' Vista into the crows, well wake your eyes up, OEM systems are these days with Vista only. There are hardly new systems with XP only, and the actuall selling of XP ends somehow soon.


MS isnt forcing it anymore than they forced XP on us when the crowds still bitched about how 98 was better,


			
				lism said:
			
		

> If anyone used a Nforce 3 motherboard with an Ati Graphics card, they proberly figured out the issue with Nvidia about quitting their support on these combinations. I had alot of customers who angry returned their stuff for not getting any support based upon these combo. Vista does not work on these platforms.


Vista can be made to work, Nvidia refuse to offer drivers. Yes this is a problem, but its Nvidias fault.


			
				lism said:
			
		

> Another nice example, of how MS really did 'force' to get gamers in the first place Vista, was Halo 2, which seemed impossible to play on any other OS then vista right? A few weeks later, some releasegroup showed how it wether was possible to even run this game on XP, and proved a point with MS still shoving vista upons alot of people their butts.


Thats MS making people go vista, yes. Its because they're trying to make vista and Xbox related, with the live! accounts.


			
				lism said:
			
		

> DX10 was never really hacked/cracked or whatsoever to run on XP. This was a clear choice back on the release of Vista, to make it Vista only. Cause for what reason would vista be better if DX10 was also on XP?


Why isnt 9.0c available for dos/95/98 (first edition)? Because they dont bloody well have to.


			
				lism said:
			
		

> it's technically possible to have DX10 on XP, but it requires adjustment of basicly half windows XP, and thats something MS is not going todo. Too much risk, and even John carmack said it , that DX10 is possible on XP. The choice is at MS , and they are not going todo it.


yes. a lot of work which would make it XP second edition. It would not be the same OS afterwards, and have the same driver issues as vista had in its early days.


			
				lism said:
			
		

> I might switch onto vista one of these days. Is there any reason why i should not to after i posted a few reasons for this?


works fine. SP1 fixed that 'xx days remaining' bug, and i've had no issues since.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 24, 2008)

With MSN, it is quite easy to disable most of the popups. You just need to take some time and go look for the options to disable them. Is there a way to get rid of the adds at the bottom of the MSN main program, though? That'd be cool, as it would make the box smaller and reduce my download slightly.
Bad news with my vista+laptop project: I can't find compatible drivers for my sound card. 
No sound for me...


----------



## lism (Apr 24, 2008)

Try www.apatch.tk btw. That'll solve all your problems 

The reason why MS is forcing everyone to goto the live platform is not cause of the nice services we all use but the matter of advertising potential, and the amount of $ that is included with this. MS holds a HUGE network over the whole world. They can almost do anything at all to make you see the latest ads. Someone explain to me why MSN Messenger requires 30MB of memory and Windows Live messenger needs 120MB of memory, while barely having any real improvements?

I'm having my doubts again on Vista and some say it might be the step between like it was back with 98 , ME & XP.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 24, 2008)

Cool, I'll try the patch tonight.
Vista us currently in its childhood. It is what XP was before SP2; new to the world, still with lots of bugs, and getting better all the time.
Hopefully SP2 for Vista will do what SP2 did for XP: make it better!
Does anyone know how much space SP1 takes up after installation? I'm tempted to install it onto my laptop, just to see if it runs faster, but I only have limited hard drive space.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> With MSN, it is quite easy to disable most of the popups. You just need to take some time and go look for the options to disable them. Is there a way to get rid of the adds at the bottom of the MSN main program, though? That'd be cool, as it would make the box smaller and reduce my download slightly.
> Bad news with my vista+laptop project: I can't find compatible drivers for my sound card.
> No sound for me...



messpatch can do that.

http://www.mess.be/


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 24, 2008)

Coming back to XP.
I realise how god damn ugly this thing is.


----------



## lism (Apr 24, 2008)

A 'Service pack' is nerely nothing more then a Pack full with updates. Some contain tweaks and some don't. It saves MS from users downloading update after update from their services, and in a later stadium, implement the new SP into the new CD's/DVD's.

Some people actually 3Dmark their config after a SP installation lol. No really gains.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 24, 2008)

magibeg said:


> As sucky as this sounds it would probably be great if nothing was compatible. I think everything needs to start fresh, microsoft has too much legacy now.



if they would dump the windows 9x and nt4 and older code support and just make it an addon or run it thru a virtual machien like apple did with osx(you could run 9/8/7 apps on a virtual machine installed with older macos)  that would clean out a huge portion of USELESS BUGGY code.

if you need dos apps, dosbox, or virtual machient, need 9x apps, virtual machien, need them hardware accelerated, use an old system thats built for their era......so they run as intended on the os intended........i have setup countless "old game boxes" for people who want to play old games properly, pretty cheap to do really.......


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 24, 2008)

Well, I've found out something useful today: Readyboost is actually quite useful!
When I booted my laptop without my USB configured for RB, it actually ran a fair bit slower. Maybe this is because It only has 512 MB of RAM, and the RAM is slow (SDRAM 100).
So, Now I need to find a PCMCIA to Flash Card reader and I can stick in 1 gig of RB without a USB poking out!

And about the legacy stuff: Yes, you could easily find an old box on the side of the road or on eBay for $50 that would run all your old games and programs. What kind of programs do people use that require NT 4 or 98 code? Seriously, this is the 21st century: Office 2003/7 is pwnage, MS Project 98 is not.
"But I want to play Dooooom!" say the retrotechs.
"Bad luck." Say Microsoft, as they implement their new policy of cutting legacy support.
"" go the retrotechs, as they wander off in search of a Pentium II.
We should petition MS to remove their Legacy support, or at least get them to run it virtually!


----------



## Mussels (Apr 24, 2008)

MS are running it virtually in windows 7. i recall reading about that. From what i can gather, they're waiting for more CPU's to support virtualisation (modern AMD's do, conroe do, kentsfield do, allendale dont, sempron dont etc)

What will most likely happen is that the OS will have its basic code in the background, and every app that opens is 'virtual' to an extent (not directly tied to the OS) - if it crashes the OS wont, and you can adjust priority of each 'virtual' app a lot easier. A game runs, loads up a virtual OS with ONLY whats needed (EG, no USB support, no bluetooth support, no hotplug for gamepads etc etc) making it leaner and meaner - and quitting the game, the OS wakes up from a sleep state.

Yeah its a rough idea as i dont truly understand it yet, but i hope it gets the basic idea i'm referring to across.


----------



## lism (Apr 24, 2008)

The OS is more modulair.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Apr 24, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> Well, I've found out something useful today: Readyboost is actually quite useful!
> When I booted my laptop without my USB configured for RB, it actually ran a fair bit slower. Maybe this is because It only has 512 MB of RAM, and the RAM is slow (SDRAM 100).
> So, Now I need to find a PCMCIA to Flash Card reader and I can stick in 1 gig of RB without a USB poking out!



As it uses PC100 I would guess it's a P3, Willamette or early Athlon? Why run Vista on such an old machine? (at least my laptop has PC133, pwnd )


----------



## Wile E (Apr 24, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> As it uses PC100 I would guess it's a P3, Willamette or early Athlon? Why run Vista on such an old machine? (at least my laptop has PC133, pwnd )



He did it just to see what Vista would run like on it.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 25, 2008)

Yeah, and its a Coppermine. I've never heard of a P3 Mobile with a 133 MHz FSB: can you post a CPU-Z screenshot?

I'm quite happy with vista running on my ancient machine, because it runs faster than XP, and once I get some money I'll upgrade it with a dedicated flash memory drive for my spare PCMCIA slot! Then I can copy Vista onto that, and have "instant" boot.


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 25, 2008)

ahh il always hate vista


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 25, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> ahh il always hate vista



Racist! 
Just cus its aero


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 25, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Racist!
> Just cus its aero



good one


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 25, 2008)

How big is SP1? If it speeds up Vista then I'll install it onto my laptop, but only if it is below 500 MB.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 25, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> How big is SP1? If it speeds up Vista then I'll install it onto my laptop, but only if it is below 500 MB.



Im pretty sure theres no performance gains from Vista to SP1.
Negligible at best.

Sp1 is 434.5mb for the stand alone update.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Apr 25, 2008)

The only plus side i see to vista is its pretty.

Well xp can be too with a vista mod Inspirat 2 and it wont use no where near as much ram!
xp will run on 256mb of memory iknow this cos my first xp pc only had 256mb and i played games i only later had to upgrade when i signed up for internet use cos then i had to run antivirus firewall etc in the background.
I cant see how vista would better my pc preformace when it swallows a gig of my ram for the operating system.
Even though i have 4gig of ram the only option im left with is to get a 64bit version that is lacking support and has alot more bugs and most of my older games like operation flashpoint and even newer games like armed assault wont run on it the 64bit version is just too much of a head ache and so is waiting for support and bug fixes.

Ive said it before and ill say it again Vista is just a test station for windows 7 to iron out bugs and we are the test subjects for microsoft.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 25, 2008)

The reason Vista uses about 1 gig of RAM is because it is designed to: Would you rather it uses 1 gig of RAM out of your 4 gigs (3 GB spare is still heaps!), or would you rather it use half that and go and thrash your hard drive with mounds of pagefiling? I think not.
Vista has better memory management than XP, which is why it uses more. Why do you have 4 gigs of RAM? Because you intent to use it. Complaining about it being used is like complaining that your car takes up space in the garage.


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 25, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> The only plus side i see to vista is its pretty.
> 
> Well xp can be too with a vista mod Inspirat 2 and it wont use no where near as much ram!
> xp will run on 256mb of memory iknow this cos my first xp pc only had 256mb and i played games i only later had to upgrade when i signed up for internet use cos then i had to run antivirus firewall etc in the background.
> ...



"pretty" i think it looks like sh1% just cause they copied mac... ugh MAC how i hate thee,...


----------



## wiak (Apr 25, 2008)

vista should run on atleast a dual core with a 690G IGP and 2GB PC6400 in Dual Channel! or higher!
anything less is rape!"


----------



## saadzaman126 (Apr 25, 2008)

yea agreed


----------



## Mussels (Apr 25, 2008)

wiak said:


> vista should run on atleast a dual core with a 690G IGP and 2GB PC6400 in Dual Channel! or higher!
> anything less is rape!"



i ran it on an AM2 3800+ dual core, with 2x256 DDR2 400 (CL3) and onboard GF 6150 graphics (64MB)

Vista really aint that hard on resources... unless you're being an ass and running a ton of programs at once.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 25, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i ran it on an AM2 3800+ dual core, with 2x256 DDR2 400 (CL3) and onboard GF 6150 graphics (64MB)
> 
> Vista really aint that hard on resources... unless you're being an ass and running a ton of programs at once.



I agree. Vista is like a modified XP really. Not that big of a jump IMO.


----------



## candle_86 (Apr 25, 2008)

trog100 said:


> MS had a reason to move to XP from 98.. they had to get rid of dos.. no such reason exists for the XP to vista forced move..
> 
> in some ways MS have shot themselves in the foot with such a resource hungry piece of bloatware.. the new low power atom aint gonna sit well with it.. in fact no laptop sits well with it.. battery life being the biggest problem..
> 
> trog



except Vista brings alot to the table you don't know about. The network protocols have been rewritten from the ground up. The driver libary was rewritten to improve driver compatibilty. DirectX and windows recived there first major overhaul for media/gaming since 1995. Better HD Support. Vista brings alot to the table you'd be aware of if you took the time to reseach windows instead of following the crowd. XP sucked balls untill SP2. And your argument is pointless. Alot of users went from 98 to 2000, anyone in the know did, and SP3 fixed most every compatibilty issue, why was XP made is the better question, its 2000 with a prettier face and a few Windows ME features, yes thats right windows ME features.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 25, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i ran it on an AM2 3800+ dual core, with 2x256 DDR2 400 (CL3) and onboard GF 6150 graphics (64MB)
> 
> Vista really aint that hard on resources... unless you're being an ass and running a ton of programs at once.



Use ReadyBoost with it, and you'll notice a speed increase.
Is it true that Vista Ultimate uses more resources by default than Home Premium?
Oh, and with this guide: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2110595,00.asp : i killed 50 MB or RAM hogging services!


----------



## Guarana (Apr 25, 2008)

I'm still debating on wether or not to put vista into the new machine I'm building.  The new machine that won't be built until August when I get back to the states from Iraq.  I've been really debating, should I go with vista, to put Vista BORG Ed or MS's horrible opperating system.  It's a tough call.


----------



## francis511 (Apr 25, 2008)

Guarana said:


> I'm still debating on wether or not to put vista into the new machine I'm building.  The new machine that won't be built until August when I get back to the states from Iraq.  I've been really debating, should I go with vista, to put Vista BORG Ed or MS's horrible opperating system.  It's a tough call.



Is vistaborg released then ?


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 25, 2008)

Error 404 said:


> Use ReadyBoost with it, and you'll notice a speed increase.
> Is it true that Vista Ultimate uses more resources by default than Home Premium?
> Oh, and with this guide: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2110595,00.asp : i killed 50 MB or RAM hogging services!



Tbh I don't find gaining 50mb advantageous since vista uses the RAM efficiently


----------



## craigo (Apr 26, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> except Vista brings alot to the table you don't know about. The network protocols have been rewritten from the ground up. The driver libary was rewritten to improve driver compatibilty. DirectX and windows recived there first major overhaul for media/gaming since 1995. Better HD Support. Vista brings alot to the table you'd be aware of if you took the time to reseach windows instead of following the crowd. XP sucked balls untill SP2. And your argument is pointless. Alot of users went from 98 to 2000, anyone in the know did, and SP3 fixed most every compatibilty issue, why was XP made is the better question, its 2000 with a prettier face and a few Windows ME features, yes thats right windows ME features.



candle...understands and unlike me has the patience to explain this still after all this time.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 26, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> "pretty" i think it looks like sh1% just cause they copied mac... ugh MAC how i hate thee,...



And there is the argument about copying MAC's again.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 26, 2008)

Guarana said:


> I'm still debating on wether or not to put vista into the new machine I'm building.  The new machine that won't be built until August when I get back to the states from Iraq.  I've been really debating, should I go with vista, to put Vista BORG Ed or MS's horrible opperating system.  It's a tough call.



Do you just say that Microsoft has horrible operating systems because you listen to everyone else bitch about how they hate Microsoft for a reason that they dont know themselves? Or do you actually have a reason to dislike their OS's? If the latter, why not just go Linux or Mac?


----------



## Triprift (Apr 26, 2008)

Heaps of ppl just listen to negative comments and assume vista is bad without even trying for themselves.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 26, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Tbh I don't find gaining 50mb advantageous since vista uses the RAM efficiently



Well, in his case, that's ram that isn't used advantageously. At only 50MB, it isn't attributed to Superfetch, so that's 50MB that the OS was using full time. Not the kind that gets dumped for a memory hungry app.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 26, 2008)

I tweak a few things off on my systems. sidebar, UAC... and one or two services if i feel like it.

Mostly, vista is great - vista uses more ram, the more ram you have. I had it using 250MB of ram on a 1GB system, and it uses about 800MB ram on a 4GB system - vista aims to use 1/4 of your ram, with the rest superfetch - superfetch ram drops instantly, while the other stuff needs to be paged out.  but hey, 3GB is enough for most of my games, so i dont mind.


----------



## candle_86 (Apr 26, 2008)

I just run Vista Lite, get the tool online and make a copy of your vista with all the useless crap pulled, i did the same thing with my XP disc, all the crap i dont like i dont even have.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 26, 2008)

Yeah, I nLite all my XP installs, but the last time I used vLite, it screwed up the install. Not all updates would work, and a few other bugs. Was waiting for them to get some of the issues ironed out before I gave it another shot.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 26, 2008)

same on Vlite. I made one, but some updates wouldnt go in. I plan on remaking one soon, with less removed - just (some) drivers and languages.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 26, 2008)

Im doing one as we speak. Never used it before.
Only ever used Nlite for XP and my RAID drivers.


----------



## Guarana (Apr 26, 2008)

Yeah, Vistaborg is released.  It was actually deved from the beta version of vista and has been tweaked ever since.  It's a pretty good version of vista that isn't so resource-heavy and that can actually out perform regular vista.  The only problem however is that it's a third party OS and could go unsupported at a moments notice.


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 26, 2008)

Whats Vistaborg? Sounds slightly evil.
vLite worked fine for me, as they've released an updated one recently. I vLited my version of Vista so that it only had the drivers I needed for my laptop. Unfortunately, it didn't have my sound card driver, so I had to hunt down one for XP on the net, which works fine.
And 50 MB of RAM not being used is about 10% of my total RAM. I've also disabled Superfetch, as I've heard it slows down Vista quite a bit on low powered systems.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 26, 2008)

vista borg is acctualy just a mod'd version of vista, just ax xp borg is just a moded version of xp, theres also xp black editon, performance edition, gamer edition, i could go on and on, alot of crappy moded versions of windows mostly done with nlite.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 26, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> vista borg is acctualy just a mod'd version of vista, just ax xp borg is just a moded version of xp, theres also xp black editon, performance edition, gamer edition, i could go on and on, alot of crappy moded versions of windows mostly done with nlite.



seen so many of them, and people using them - and most of them are crap with bugs and problems. Whats so special about the borg flavour?


----------



## francis511 (Apr 26, 2008)

Guarana said:


> Yeah, Vistaborg is released.  It was actually deved from the beta version of vista and has been tweaked ever since.  It's a pretty good version of vista that isn't so resource-heavy and that can actually out perform regular vista.  The only problem however is that it's a third party OS and could go unsupported at a moments notice.



Is it on the I$o-tek website ? I couldn`t find it ?


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 26, 2008)

I used Vlite and it didnt create a bootable disk?

I customised the install and then clicked finish and it did all its processing and then it stopped when it finished. There was no "burn disk" option or anything?

There was the option to create a bootable ISO, but in the past I havnt used ISO's to boot from nlite disks (it was just a direct burn), so Im not sure. Is bootable ISO what I want?


----------



## francis511 (Apr 26, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> I used Vlite and it didnt create a bootable disk?
> 
> I customised the install and then clicked finish and it did all its processing and then it stopped when it finished. There was no "burn disk" option or anything?
> 
> There was the option to create a bootable ISO, but in the past I havnt used ISO's to boot from nlite disks (it was just a direct burn), so Im not sure. Is bootable ISO what I want?



Yeah , then just use nero or whatever


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 26, 2008)

ahk so i create the iso then use nero to burn.

sweet.


----------



## Guarana (Apr 26, 2008)

Borg is essentially a lited version of Vista with less of the addons system hogs that vista contains.  Good for gamers and decent for your everyday computing uses, but like I said there's always the risk of it becoming unsupported.  You can get the same outcome if you lite your version of vista and remove resource hogs that you find yourself, but borg does it all for you just incase you miss something or aren't that computer literate.

It's another debate I have in my next build, but that's not going to happen until august when I get back home on leave, so I got alot of time to think about it.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 26, 2008)

Guarana said:


> Borg is essentially a lited version of Vista with less of the addons system hogs that vista contains.  Good for gamers and decent for your everyday computing uses, but like I said there's always the risk of it becoming unsupported.  You can get the same outcome if you lite your version of vista and remove resource hogs that you find yourself, but borg does it all for you just incase you miss something or aren't that computer literate.
> 
> It's another debate I have in my next build, but that's not going to happen until august when I get back home on leave, so I got alot of time to think about it.



well i'm interested to hear someone name some of these resource hogs. OFC languages and drivers take disk space, but i cant see them taking up ram or CPU time for example.


----------



## francis511 (Apr 26, 2008)

I was using nlite & I noticed that there is a direct burn option as well


----------



## jonmcc33 (Apr 26, 2008)

Snake05 said:


> More of a general software thread than general hardware
> 
> Not all people are quite as lucky.  It took the third install of Vista for me to accept it, mainly because it wasn't cooperating with my wifi network.  It seems that since SP1 was released, my "Local Access Only" problem has dissapeard, and I am now satisfied with it as well



Worked fine for me on wireless with WPA2. Sounds more like a driver problem from your wireless adapter. Don't blame Vista for that.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 27, 2008)

francis511 said:


> I was using nlite & I noticed that there is a direct burn option as well



Yeah thats what i always used.
So burning iso's is new to me.


----------



## Guarana (Apr 27, 2008)

Mussels said:


> well i'm interested to hear someone name some of these resource hogs. OFC languages and drivers take disk space, but i cant see them taking up ram or CPU time for example.



I'll have to do some research but I'll find something.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 27, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, I nLite all my XP installs, but the last time I used vLite, it screwed up the install. Not all updates would work, and a few other bugs. Was waiting for them to get some of the issues ironed out before I gave it another shot.



The last time I used vLite, my OS was completely unstable even at stock settings. I had to reformat and install the full version of Vista.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Apr 28, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Yeah thats what i always used.
> So burning iso's is new to me.



Is that u in your avvy dude?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 28, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> Is that u in your avvy dude?



I think it is. He looks like your average Joe. You are not making fun of him right? 

He looks Dutch. But I have never been to Australia so maybe thats the norm.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I think it is. He looks like your average Joe. You are not making fun of him right?
> 
> He looks Dutch. But I have never been to Australia so maybe thats the norm.



he could be australian. He could also have an echidna for hair.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 28, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> Is that u in your avvy dude?



Yes tis me.



DaedalusHelios said:


> I think it is. He looks like your average Joe. You are not making fun of him right?
> 
> He looks Dutch. But I have never been to Australia so maybe thats the norm.



Yes I am average Joe. With not so average mind (think more awesome, and more violent )

Im not dutch but yes that comment has been made many times by people Ive met. Some guy said I was Aryan once, was kinda weird.



Mussels said:


> he could be australian. He could also have an echidna for hair.



Yes. And Yes.
lol.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 28, 2008)

Kinda looks like a young Gary Busey


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 28, 2008)

Damn. When I heard Gary Busey I thought it was the same guy that played Biff Tannen in Back to the Future. Damn .


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 28, 2008)

Gary Busey with a bigger nose


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> Gary Busey with a bigger nose



and twice as much echidna.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 28, 2008)

Mussels said:


> and twice as much echidna.



But probably smaller teeth.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 28, 2008)

Actually he has a smaller nose. But revens head is probably half the size of Gary Busey's.

So the nose is just larger proportionally. Its a french nose, and not a roman nose and thats what matters.


Back to Vista talk.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 28, 2008)

Wait, did you just call Reven French? You better be happy you don't live in Australia.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 28, 2008)

I love vista.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 28, 2008)

i h8 the french.

2 examples of why the french need to be nuked


Atari

VUG


----------



## craigo (Apr 28, 2008)

reasons french can stay

1> The metric system
2>My Peugeot


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 28, 2008)

That seems a tad extreme. And perverse.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 28, 2008)

HussanAli said:


> Yeah i love Windows Vista , i would fuc.k all the fuc.king Windows XP users.



Hmmmmm somebody is Bisexual.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 28, 2008)




----------



## ex_reven (Apr 28, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> Gary Busey with a bigger nose



Not bigger. Just broken. Twice .



Mussels said:


> and twice as much echidna.







Wile E said:


> Wait, did you just call Reven French? You better be happy you don't live in Australia.







BumbRush said:


> i h8 the french.
> 
> 2 examples of why the french need to be nuked
> 
> ...



You forgot all those invasion parties they hosted.
And then there will be cake...



craigo said:


> reasons french can stay
> 
> 1> The metric system
> 2>My Peugeot



Nah just the Metro...their trains make ours look like dogshit with rusty training wheels.



HussanAli said:


> Yeah i love Windows Vista , i would fuc.k all the fuc.king Windows XP users.



Im an Xp AND Vista user. Screw you lol.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2008)

HussanAli said:


> Yeah i love Windows Vista , i would fuc.k all the fuc.king Windows XP users.



sorry, not interested in trolls. i prefer human women.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 28, 2008)

Mussels said:


> sorry, not interested in trolls. i prefer human women.



lmfao. for some reason when I read that, i read it as:

"sorry, not interested in trolls. i prefer hunting women"


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> lmfao. for some reason when I read that, i read it as:
> 
> "sorry, not interested in trolls. i prefer hunting women"



well.. that is fun. the trick is not to damage the parts you like, when you catch them.


----------



## oldmanclint (Apr 28, 2008)

Is this thread still about vista, or fuc**** french trolls?

If it is, I've had vista ultimate since its official release date and it has never missed a beat (surely i've jinxed it now)


----------



## Mussels (Apr 28, 2008)

oldmanclint said:


> Is this thread still about vista, or fuc**** french trolls?
> 
> If it is, I've had vista ultimate since its official release date and it has never missed a beat (surely i've jinxed it now)



topic more or less ended. the XP lovers/vista haters are a vocal minority, maybe 1 in 10 vista users complains and says they went back to XP, but those people are often running old hardware or trying to do tweaks that are designed at XP (TCP patching for torrents, and so on)

Sorry guys, those automated tweaks for XP just dont work in vista! it doesnt need them!

(personal rant, dealing with it a lot lately)


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 29, 2008)

oldmanclint said:


> Is this thread still about vista, or fuc**** french trolls?
> 
> If it is, I've had vista ultimate since its official release date and it has never missed a beat (surely i've jinxed it now)



Did you just call me a troll?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 29, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Did you just call me a troll?



are you french, and is someone having sex with you? if so, you are most likely a troll.

Dont mind this thread, its gone to spam.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 29, 2008)

Mussels said:


> are you french, and is someone having sex with you? if so, you are most likely a troll.
> 
> Dont mind this thread, its gone to spam.



Well...I am sleeping with the manager at work


----------



## Wile E (Apr 29, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Well...I am sleeping with the manager at work



What's his name?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 29, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Well...I am sleeping with the manager at work



that would make her the troll. and french.

edit: and a man.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 29, 2008)

Mussels said:


> that would make her the troll. and french.
> 
> edit: and a man.



I dont get it.

But hey! We cant ALL sleep with our computers  



I love you guys


----------



## beyond_amusia (Apr 29, 2008)

I was gonna jump on the Vista boat, but I decided to board the Server 2008 yatch instead... Once I spent a few hours converting it into a workstation OS I was impressed, but the Areo theme just looks so unfinished... The dialog buttons, the little animations.. they look... cheap somehow... I remember the first time I saw a screen shot of Vista I actualy cringed because the GUI looked like it was done 'quick and dirty.'  I am sure I will get used to it eventually. I'm already missing my XP x64...


----------



## Triprift (Apr 29, 2008)

What exactly was this thread about again?


----------



## Wile E (Apr 29, 2008)

Triprift said:


> What exactly was this thread about again?



Ex_Reven's new manager/boyfriend.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Ex_Reven's new manager/boyfriend.



Fuck you It was about PIRATES lol
and sigh i dont know how you came to the conclusion that shes a man.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 29, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Fuck you It was about PIRATES lol
> and sigh i dont know how you came to the conclusion that shes a man.



Educated guess?


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Educated guess?



Because my ex-gf posted pics of herself almost naked on 4chan ?


----------



## Wile E (Apr 29, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Because my ex-gf posted pics of herself almost naked on 4chan ?



That doesn't mean you don't swing both ways.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That doesn't mean you don't swing both ways.



Not until Angelina Jolie gets a sex change anyway


----------



## Palit_Guy (Apr 29, 2008)

I don't get the whole Vista thing.  To me it's like upgrading any other component, what does Vista do for me that XP can't?

I get DX10 and I'm sure we'll see a real DX10 title that actually does something DX10ish in my lifetime, but what else does it do?

It adds some security options that most people turn off right away.  It needs more RAM than a 32-bit OS can support and it removed the word start from the start menu.  I wonder if they still officially call it the start menu or is it now the menu formerly known as start?

It has drivers for more stuff right out of the box, I like that.  At least I can usually access the internet to get the latest drivers without having to install old ones first.

I can flip through windows like a roladex by clicking on a button on the task bar.  Not sure why I didn't just click on the app I wanted to look at instead clicking that button, scrolling and clicking again but ok.

One of my favorites is the security manager.  I disable it so instead of being warned I'm missing something it thinks I should have, I'm now warned the warning mechanism is off.  WTF?

I can understand the argument that a new OS requires more resources if it does more.  So the real question to me is what more does Vista do that XP?  I have two systems, one I use for work and one for gaming.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Apr 29, 2008)

vista is not that bad there are a few things that piss me off in it, but like every windows os they all have bugs and there own problems, and vista seems to like my system better than xp because xp runs fast but can't handle mutitasking that well.


----------



## Triprift (Apr 29, 2008)

I suppose its a personal preference i dont mind Vista and put up with the odd little gripe but alot of ppl dont its whatever were happy with.


----------



## craigo (Apr 29, 2008)

it removed the word start from the start menu. I wonder if they still officially call it the start menu or is it now the menu formerly known as start?

hahahahahaha
thats gold!


----------



## Triprift (Apr 29, 2008)

Is that with sp1? still waiting for mine with auto update.


----------



## Palit_Guy (Apr 29, 2008)

Live OR Die said:


> vista is not that bad there are a few things that piss me off in it, but like every windows os they all have bugs and there own problems, and vista seems to like my system better than xp because xp runs fast but can't handle mutitasking that well.



I'm not saying Vista is bad (at least not in this thread- I usually call it WinME II) but I'm curious to see what people find good about it and/or what it does better than XP.

I also multitask.  I run six monitors and frequently have something on all of them.  I've found that as soon as I get three apps going everything starts to slow down on Vista, RAM usage approaches 2GB and the OS starts to hang for 5-10 seconds almost every time I do something like save or Outlook does a send/receive.

It's so bad that I have moved my speakers over to the gaming machine because Vista makes Winamp skip.  I would also add this is a fresh install with all patches and absolutely nothing but work software installed.  I use Office, Mind Manager, PS, Acrobat, Skype, MSN IM, Norton Internet Security, Firefox, Winamp and Winrar.  That is everything installed on this machine except for drivers.

I have SP1 for office but not Vista.


----------



## Triprift (Apr 29, 2008)

The only really noticable thing with me was itunes not werking i had to get a drivers wich got it werking other than that havnt had ne problems.


----------



## Palit_Guy (Apr 29, 2008)

Triprift said:


> The only really noticable thing with me was itunes not werking i had to get a drivers wich got it werking other than that havnt had ne problems.



This is a great example.  Of all the things you can say about it, you choose to say it works.  Please don't misunderstand me, I think that's fine.  But, IMO, if I'm going to change operating systems I should be improving my computing position.

Windows98 worked but it was always a driver conflict nightmare and it was terribly prone to intrusion.  XP improved upon that and added some performance enhancements once you met a certain level of hardware.  It added all kinds of functionality that allows for better control of the OS from a central server for things like updates and patches.

I have yet to see anything major that Vista brings to the table that is new.


----------



## Edito (Apr 29, 2008)

Palit_Guy said:


> I don't get the whole Vista thing.  To me it's like upgrading any other component, what does Vista do for me that XP can't?
> 
> I get DX10 and I'm sure we'll see a real DX10 title that actually does something DX10ish in my lifetime, but what else does it do?
> 
> ...



Despite ever thing i prefere Vista cause its naturally more beautiful than XP in my opinion XP was beautiful once but Vista its something else...

Don't get me wrong, xp can't do AERO like vista and i don't want to crack the XP just to run DX10 the default of Windows Vista im using it since the official release date... and im loving it...


----------



## Palit_Guy (Apr 29, 2008)

Edito said:


> Despite ever thing i prefere Vista cause its naturally more beautiful than XP in my opinion XP was beautiful once but Vista its something else...
> 
> Don't get me wrong, xp can't do AERO like vista and i don't want to crack the XP just to run DX10 the default of Windows Vista im using it since the official release date... and im loving it...



I agree, Vista is better looking than XP.  As for Aero, that functionality has been around for quite some time for XP so don't think M$ had some cool idea of their own.

http://www.actualtools.com/transparentwindow/
http://www.spheresite.com/


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 29, 2008)

I dont understand why people call it another Windows ME because its just not. Usually the people that call it that either go by heresy or used it for like 2 minutes and said "fuck this, this is a retarded OS."

Theres no way in hell you can compare Vista to Windows ME. Windows ME crashed a lot and was so unstable it wasnt even funny. I dont see Vista doing any of the shit ME did.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 29, 2008)

vista loads all my apps faster (superfetch), never crashes unless i made it, supports all 4GB of my ram (seriously, XP64 is so hard to find/buy, and get drivers for older hardware. vista has better support)

vista also works wonderfully on my hardware - the new sleep mode means it takes longer for my monitor to turn on than it does the OS to load, searching is a lot faster even without the indexer... oh and it allows DX10 (assasins creed is shweet in DX10), quadfire and quad SLI


----------



## Wile E (Apr 29, 2008)

Palit_Guy said:


> I'm not saying Vista is bad (at least not in this thread- I usually call it WinME II) but I'm curious to see what people find good about it and/or what it does better than XP.
> 
> I also multitask.  I run six monitors and frequently have something on all of them.  I've found that as soon as I get three apps going everything starts to slow down on Vista, RAM usage approaches 2GB and the OS starts to hang for 5-10 seconds almost every time I do something like save or Outlook does a send/receive.
> 
> ...


I don't have any of those issues at all. Vista multi-tasks just as well for me. It even games just as well. I use the same settings in Vista that I do in both XP and XP x64. But Vista has the added benefit of being more responsive in day-to-day use, it's more secure (even with UAC disabled), and it has the benefit of DX10. All-in-all, Vista has treated me well, especially after SP1's release.

And you forget, XP had just as many problems on it's release. It was buggier, slower, and less stable than 2000Pro for a long time. It wasn't until SP1 that things started turning around, but it took SP2 to get it to the standards we hold it to today. I see no reason why Vista won't do the same.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Apr 29, 2008)

Palit_Guy said:


> I'm not saying Vista is bad (at least not in this thread- I usually call it WinME II) but I'm curious to see what people find good about it and/or what it does better than XP.
> 
> I also multitask.  I run six monitors and frequently have something on all of them.  I've found that as soon as I get three apps going everything starts to slow down on Vista, RAM usage approaches 2GB and the OS starts to hang for 5-10 seconds almost every time I do something like save or Outlook does a send/receive.
> 
> ...



i don't have any problems but vista x64 can handle alot of beating over x86 vista, i whent to using x64 for 2 months, than ova i weekend whent to x86 and it couldnt handle my mutitasking whent back to x64 drop my cpu usage a heap and memory usage down from 30-45% to 28-32%


----------



## Palit_Guy (Apr 29, 2008)

I think I'm going to have to go with the 64-bit version.  This is driving me crazy.  Third day of install and it crashes about once per hour.  Sometimes it just reboots.  Apps hang blah blah blah.

I still have the same things to say about XP that I did in the start.  Wile E, I agree with you and I would go so far as to say it's still dorked up.

I have machines that sit at idle on the work bench and don't do anything for a month at a time.  When it's time for them to do something I have to reboot or they won't work right.  Sometimes they crash just sitting there.  I think that's a riot.  Do absolutely nothing for a couple weeks and *poof* crash.

Someday we will hold software people to the same standards us hardware folks get held to.  If it's broke, you have to replace it with something that works.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 29, 2008)

Palit_Guy said:


> Someday we will hold software people to the same standards us hardware folks get held to.  If it's broke, you have to replace it with something that works.


I long for those days as well. lol.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 30, 2008)

Palit_Guy said:


> I think I'm going to have to go with the 64-bit version.  This is driving me crazy.  Third day of install and it crashes about once per hour.  Sometimes it just reboots.  Apps hang blah blah blah.
> 
> I still have the same things to say about XP that I did in the start.  Wile E, I agree with you and I would go so far as to say it's still dorked up.
> 
> ...



*Points at server 2003/x64pro and chuckles because it never does that shit*

but really, 2003 and x64pro NEVER force me to restart because stuffs just not working, unless I CAUSED IT(happanes ever so offten when beta testing software and intentionaly trying to cause it to bugger up)

i got a system in the other room running server 2003 sp1 thats never been reinstalled, its reastarted only when the power goes out(rare) and the fam uses it for email and such, i wouldnt use xp32 if somebody payed me to be honest, i get sick of fixing my mothers laptop because it just desides to act up........wish it was 64bit, it would get x64pro in an instant!!!!


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

oh and an argument i have been saving for long, hard years.

To all the vista haters... do you remember XP's launch? WHEN IT HAD NO USB2.0 SUPPORT?
i do. shut the hell up. vista is not as bad as XP, at least it didnt forget a completely common and widely used format for no real reason.

*bad day at work*


----------



## Palit_Guy (Apr 30, 2008)

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.  I don't hate Vista nay more than I hate XP which isn't any more than I hated Win98.  I did, however, hate Win95 more than I hated Win98.

What I'm getting at is that it isn't really any better than XP.  In some ways it is but in some ways it isn't.  We're just trading one set of problems for another.  At least they are different problems I suppose.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 30, 2008)

I've never had any problems. A new os is going to have compatibility issues. Period. Other than that, who cares if it takes up more recourses. Yeah on my machine it uses a gig of ram more, so what? It runs just as smoothly with, to me at least, a much better interface (prettier, better organized). 

I see what your saying Palit_Guy, but I think the move to the next os has been just as much as usual. Granted, I didn't have a PC a while ago, but I've used Windows since its been around and each new version is roughly the same as the last, with new features and a prettier and more intuitive interface. Its preference really.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

palit guys status, is more or less that he is neutral. vista has higher requirements, thus he stays XP as that is the only deciding factor. Correct, palitguy?


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> oh and an argument i have been saving for long, hard years.
> 
> To all the vista haters... do you remember XP's launch? WHEN IT HAD NO USB2.0 SUPPORT?
> i do. shut the hell up. vista is not as bad as XP, at least it didnt forget a completely common and widely used format for no real reason.
> ...



ah, but vista had 2.0 support its just slower then 2k/xp/2k3/x64pro and then got slowed down even more by sp1....lovely.

and i didnt jump on xp the day it hit, i had beta tested it and knew that it was just 2k with "go slower stripes" (luna)

i will post more later, i gotta setup a computer for my mother at her office for her employs to use on the net back later


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

BumbRush said:


> ah, but vista had 2.0 support its just slower then 2k/xp/2k3/x64pro and then got slowed down even more by sp1....lovely.
> 
> and i didnt jump on xp the day it hit, i had beta tested it and knew that it was just 2k with "go slower stripes" (luna)
> 
> i will post more later, i gotta setup a computer for my mother at her office for her employs to use on the net back later



vista isnt that slow, i can still do 50MB/s to my external hard drive over USB 2.0 - sure its 75-80MB/s over E-sata, but its certainly not as slow as people fear.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

One of the awesome parts of vista is that if you have a broadband connection its piss easy and incrediblty quick to get up and running, while with xp your left to install your drivers and such.
Part of what makes it more "noob-proof" IMO.


----------



## Palit_Guy (Apr 30, 2008)

I'm saying it's just as bad as XP.  There are people out there that haven't ever had a problem with XP just same as there are people that haven't had a problem with Vista.  There are even some people that don't understand what all the fuss was about WinME.

But there are plenty more people that have to put up with daily crashes and application hangs.  It's totally a guess but I'd bet that the number of people that have trouble with Vista isn't any smaller than the number of people that have trouble with XP.

So, my original question was how is Vista better?  Most responses are just that it isn't bad.  There are a few that cite a particular case where one app or another runs faster but I don't think enough have been listed to say, ahh, ya, I get it- Vista is better.

I'm saying it's the same crap as the last one and things don't show any sign of improving.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> One of the awesome parts of vista is that if you have a broadband connection its piss easy and incrediblty quick to get up and running, while with xp your left to install your drivers and such.
> Part of what makes it more "noob-proof" IMO.



vistas windowsupdate is a lot beyond XP's, for example: my 8800's under XP have no driver. Older cards get a generic D3D only, no OpenGL driver. Under vista, they not only download WHQL Nvidia drivers, they also include the software/control panel. My soundcard too, gets its full software package with the driver. Thats REALLY convenient, to be honest.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> vistas windowsupdate is a lot beyond XP's, for example: my 8800's under XP have no driver. Older cards get a generic D3D only, no OpenGL driver. Under vista, they not only download WHQL Nvidia drivers, they also include the software/control panel. My soundcard too, gets its full software package with the driver. Thats REALLY convenient, to be honest.



Lol I just realised we have the same GFX.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> Lol I just realised we have the same GFX.



i challenge you to clock yorus higher than mine 

I also have an 8800GTX in my other PC, it was in this rig until recently.


----------



## jonmcc33 (Apr 30, 2008)

On a side note in regards to Windows XP, seems as if SP3 for it has serious problems! 

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Pulls+XP+SP3+Delays+Release+Indefinitely/article11635.htm

Funny how alot of Windows XP owners bashed Windows Vista for the SP1 prerequisite patch issues.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i challenge you to clock yorus higher than mine
> 
> I also have an 8800GTX in my other PC, it was in this rig until recently.



eh, never did any gpu overclocking.
Wasnt familiar enough with it.

I concede 

btw, nice find jonmcc33


----------



## acperience7 (Apr 30, 2008)

I've heard a lot of bad stuff about Vista, but I know two people who have it, and I never hear them complain about it at all (They are not really into computers, but come to me when they have issues). Personally, now that Windows 7 has been announced I'll wait to see how that turns out. If I'm going to upgrade my OS I want great reasons to do so, and cool, innovative and creative features [and lots of them preferably]. If Windows 7 fails to deliver I may go to Vista depending on how good of launch Windows 7 has.


----------



## jonmcc33 (Apr 30, 2008)

acperience7 said:


> I've heard a lot of bad stuff about Vista, but I know two people who have it, and I never hear them complain about it at all (They are not really into computers, but come to me when they have issues). Personally, now that Windows 7 has been announced I'll wait to see how that turns out. If I'm going to upgrade my OS I want great reasons to do so, and cool, innovative and creative features [and lots of them preferably]. If Windows 7 fails to deliver I may go to Vista depending on how good of launch Windows 7 has.



It will require just as much as Vista if not more and have just as many issues as Vista did when it first came out. A lot of people are holding out until Windows 7, not sure why. It's like a shining star in their misty eyes or something.


----------



## acperience7 (Apr 30, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> It will require just as much as Vista if not more and have just as many issues as Vista did when it first came out. A lot of people are holding out until Windows 7, not sure why. It's like a shining star in their misty eyes or something.


Well for me it would be a waste of money to get Vista now. I won't be building a system for a few years, and my current system is an old P4 478 socket Dell that shipped XP Pro.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

acperience7 said:


> Well for me it would be a waste of money to get Vista now. I won't be building a system for a few years, and my current system is an old P4 478 socket Dell that shipped XP Pro.



looking at your specs, you could handle vista, but there wouldnt be much use. vista is optimised for faster systems.

Next time make the rig yourself eh? we'll give you a hand


----------



## Triprift (Apr 30, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> On a side note in regards to Windows XP, seems as if SP3 for it has serious problems!
> 
> http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Pulls+XP+SP3+Delays+Release+Indefinitely/article11635.htm
> 
> Funny how alot of Windows XP owners bashed Windows Vista for the SP1 prerequisite patch issues.



Cheers for that man put a smile on my face


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Apr 30, 2008)

jonmcc33 said:


> It will require just as much as Vista if not more and have just as many issues as Vista did when it first came out. A lot of people are holding out until Windows 7, not sure why. It's like a shining star in their misty eyes or something.



Windows 7 is being rebuilt from the ground up. Meaning new kernel, new GUI, new everything. No more of the whole Windows 95 look. The kernel is based around MinWin and the kernel size is about 25*MB*.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Windows 7 is being rebuilt from the ground up. Meaning new kernel, new GUI, new everything. No more of the whole Windows 95 look. The kernel is based around MinWin and the kernel size is about 25*MB*.



but at the same time, its probably going to require 64 bit CPU's, hardware virtualisation (vx bit on most new intel chips) and things we just dont even know about yet. The OS is supposed to virtualise heavily, which to me just screams current CPU's without hardware support (allendales, celerons, etc) wont be able to run it.

Yes windows 7 is a step in the right direction, but it will come at a price.


----------



## Triprift (Apr 30, 2008)

Its been mooted as being out next year my tip will be 2010 but then ive been wrong before.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

I just hope the art department gets it right 

Something original for a change...


----------



## Triprift (Apr 30, 2008)

U should do the artwerk man ur a god with ps


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Triprift said:


> U should do the artwerk man ur a god with ps



Ill just buzz on the door of their headquarters lol.
"Heyz um, we're here to make sure u guys dont fuck up windows 7, kayz?"

*indicates backwards towards pvtcaboose etc who are waiting to enter the building*


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 30, 2008)

Palit_Guy said:


> I'm saying it's just as bad as XP.  There are people out there that haven't ever had a problem with XP just same as there are people that haven't had a problem with Vista.  There are even some people that don't understand what all the fuss was about WinME.
> 
> But there are plenty more people that have to put up with daily crashes and application hangs.  It's totally a guess but I'd bet that the number of people that have trouble with Vista isn't any smaller than the number of people that have trouble with XP.
> 
> ...



vista's "better" to many people because "it looks kool" thats about it, they like the "sweet areo look" funny part is there are plenty of ways to get the same gui exp under 2k/xp/2k3/x64pro without slowing the system down.

windowblinds5.5 and 6 for example, older windowblinds 4.5 and older did slow the system, but in my exp thats not been true for quite some time, and 6 really works wonderfully.

i hear more complaints about stuff not working under vista then any other os, many times the user blamed the program for the problem not realising its bugged because of a flaw in vista not the app.

not saying xp was any better, sp2 broke nic/wireless drivers for likke 96% of cards (numbers are what i remmber from those days and having to work around the problem for clients) some companys had already put out fixed drivers, most hadnt because ms didnt spicificly warrn them that there was gonna be a problem.

as to the delay of sp3, the same flaw applys to vista sp1 if you read the artical, and its only a VERY small % of users who would be effected, also have seen reports of fixes for it after a little googling, some being simple reg patches.

its not a big issue, just an annoing one for the few users who it acctualy effects.



Mussels said:


> but at the same time, its probably going to require 64 bit CPU's, hardware virtualisation (vx bit on most new intel chips) and things we just dont even know about yet. The OS is supposed to virtualise heavily, which to me just screams current CPU's without hardware support (allendales, celerons, etc) wont be able to run it.
> 
> Yes windows 7 is a step in the right direction, but it will come at a price.



acctualy as i hear it and read it(i talk to ppl i know who work for ms not just ppl online) they are going to support32bit CURRENTLY, the dev's dont want to tho, and virtulization isnt going to be requiered BUT will help alot in some aplications.

I am hoping for them to cut out the 9x support from the preinstalled os, just keep it clean, 2k and up support only by default, yes i still want to beable to install my older games and have them WORK LIKE THEY SHOULD!!!!
dos games and 9x games are best run on an era computer anyway, one they where designed to run on, probbly best to have a voodoo card as well since back then voodoo was KING PERIOD.

im thinking of going into buisness with a buddy making custom game boxes, not just for new games tho, making era correct builds for retro gamers, stuff back then that they couldnt afford but wanted, along with games they wanted to play.

hes building himself an era accurate copy of a game pc that dual pentium2 chips with sdr and dual voodoo2 cards, scsi hdd's, the works, all stuff thats era accurate, should be great for older games that love GLIDE mode


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

well, if they did virtualise, running XP/98/dos compatibility mode would work a whooooole lot better...


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 30, 2008)

They should virtualise anything that doesn't run natively in Vista. Even LESS code would have to be devoted for legacy stuff, and XP, 2000, 98, maybe even DOS 6.22 programs, would all run in a VM. It should have the proper versions (Like Vista's Home Premium or Ultimate) running only on 64 bit, to maximise coolness. Then there should be a stripped down version (like Home Basic) that runs on slower, 32 bit machines.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Vista isnt crap.

Our hardware is clearly ALL outdated and substandard.


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 30, 2008)

theres no reasion for virtulizing windows 2k/xp/2k3/x64pro apps under any NT based os, since they are all based off eachother, and if they are gonna virtulize old apps like that they need todo same to vista since minwin is NOT just vista's next version.

really, as i understand it, minwin is based off the NT core but redesigned to be modular, if true this would mean that apps for NT should beable to run native as they currently do, but removing the 9x and nt3/4/os2 code support would remove alot of useless code thats only used by VERY rare users with crappy old apps, and that could be virtulized easy endough.

9x/dos support should be done with virtulization or a new ver of virtual pc that can access hardware.


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Apr 30, 2008)

okay this is from my perspective on a laptop.

running vista x64 sp????

bunch of shit that i can't get rid of and i can't find a program to get rid of it.
a lot of options but then you get lost.
its XP compatible also for some things like drivers and whatnotnow


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

If theres a bunch of shit you cant get rid of, youve probably installed it yourself.
Options are easy to find if you use google, MS has lots of pages up.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

k0rn_h0li0 said:


> okay this is from my perspective on a laptop.
> 
> running vista x64 sp????
> 
> ...



that makes about as much sense as mixing pepsi and coke together. Seriously... have you used vista? its MADE for people who 'get lost' with all these links and popups aimed to help you find what you want... and why does vista need to be XP compatible? that makes no sense.

cant get rid of vista? learn to use a PC...


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> cant get rid of vista? learn to use a PC...



bad day at work  ??


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> bad day at work  ??



i almost fell over into a big giant crunching machine so they sent me home and told me to not come back til monday for safety reasons. apparently, they dont want employee curtains.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i almost fell over into a big giant crunching machine so they sent me home and told me to not come back til monday for safety reasons. apparently, they dont want employee curtains.



thats...awesome...


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> thats...awesome...



9 day weekend...


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> 9 day weekend...



I was referring to you being turned into a curtain, but yeah weekends are cool too...i guess


----------



## Mussels (Apr 30, 2008)

ex_reven said:


> I was referring to you being turned into a curtain, but yeah weekends are cool too...i guess



curtains cant watch anime. no eyes.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> curtains cant watch anime. no eyes.



But they damn sure help keep the sun out. lol.

EDIT: And I just realized how terrible of an influence Reven is. Every time he comes in here, there's a derail of Amtrak proportions. lol.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> But they damn sure help keep the sun out. lol.
> 
> EDIT: And I just realized how terrible of an influence Reven is. Every time he comes in here, there's a derail of Amtrak proportions. lol.



I tend to feed off others lol. 
So I blame ALL of YOU


----------



## Wile E (Apr 30, 2008)

You would try it, Busey. Tell it to DR Phil.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 30, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You would try it, Busey. Tell it to DR Phil.



My IT teacher sent me to the school councillor last year in my last year of high school lol.
She suspected I had feelings for her that traversed that of a regular teacher-student relationship.

Id just like to say thats shes a moron AND a retard lol.


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Apr 30, 2008)

i have used vista personally its aight just more options.

i'm still having issues with all these programs on my laptop and i can't seem to uninstall stuff completely and have it still sit there. maybe registry tweaks will help out. 

so far i think people use vista just to play crisis and thats it. maybe work or home related stuff but vista still buggy and needs work


----------



## Triprift (Apr 30, 2008)

Lol no Crysis for me as me lappy cant run it.


----------



## tzitzibp (Apr 30, 2008)

the only thing that I am a bit concerned about, is the fact that after installing SP1, the imon software fails to load at startup!


----------



## Error 404 (Apr 30, 2008)

k0rn_h0li0 said:


> i have used vista personally its aight just more options.
> 
> i'm still having issues with all these programs on my laptop and i can't seem to uninstall stuff completely and have it still sit there. maybe registry tweaks will help out.
> 
> so far i think people use vista just to play crisis and thats it. maybe work or home related stuff but vista still buggy and needs work



Go onto Google, type in CCleaner, and go to their website and download the latsest version.
Run some of the cleaning devices in it, such as the Uninstaller, Startup controller (for faster logons), and Registry Cleaner. With the registry cleaner, be sure to back up your old setting to a USB and/or hard drive. CCleaner should prompt as to whether you want to do that, btw.

I use Vista for "home and office" work; homework, internet browsing, and MSN. I don't game on the Family PC. Not because it can't run good games, but because I'm not really into them much. Once I get a job, I will buy some.
Overall, I enjoy using Vista for what I do, and comparing it to XP, I find it easier to use and better in general.
It came preinstalled, which was a bonus: no driver incompatibilities.
Vista even runs on my laptop: A relic from the year 2000, when the Pentium 3 was new and all-powerful. (It runs fast because I managed to stuff in 512 MB of RAM into it as well. )

I'd choose Vista over XP any day, because I prefer the user experiance. Also, it just looks so damn good.


----------



## Guarana (Apr 30, 2008)

You think you had a bad day?  Today I got T-Boned by a HMMWV (Humvee) in my HMMWV, sure nobody got hurt and the damage done was nothing more than a bent up mirror and paint scratching, but still.. it happened.

Iraq is too stressful.


----------



## Edito (Apr 30, 2008)

k0rn_h0li0 said:


> i have used vista personally its aight just more options.
> 
> i'm still having issues with all these programs on my laptop and i can't seem to uninstall stuff completely and have it still sit there. maybe registry tweaks will help out.
> 
> so far i think people use vista just to play crisis and thats it. maybe work or home related stuff but vista still buggy and needs work



Try to format the laptop and install a fresh vista on it, cause im using vista since the official release date and never had issues to make think on XP cause the issues i had on vista anyone could face the same on XP or maybe it all depends on ur system specs and the way u use or computer and the OS i mean the way u manage ur DATA and programs... IMO...


----------



## BumbRush (Apr 30, 2008)

Guarana said:


> You think you had a bad day?  Today I got T-Boned by a HMMWV (Humvee) in my HMMWV, sure nobody got hurt and the damage done was nothing more than a bent up mirror and paint scratching, but still.. it happened.
> 
> Iraq is too stressful.



i have said it b4 and i will say it again, never let a "jar head" or anybody whos been in the millitary drive a car/truck/scooter/pocket bike


----------



## Guarana (Apr 30, 2008)

What was worse is that it was MP's that hit me!  Freaking MP's and it was their fault!

I hate MP's


----------



## bassmasta (Apr 30, 2008)

lol MP's, the only time I've ever seen them doing work was the time we were interviewed by CBC


----------



## wolf2009 (Apr 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> vista isnt that slow, i can still do 50MB/s to my external hard drive over USB 2.0 - sure its 75-80MB/s over E-sata, but its certainly not as slow as people fear.


hmm , i can do only 10Mb/s over firewire ? is that normal ?


----------



## Edito (Apr 30, 2008)

I think vista its away faster than XP and bugs ops we have on all OSs including XP, the ppl who doesn't like vista always talk like XP its the "anti-bug OS, anti-crash or the perfect for everthing"
but IMO it doesn't, and now its like the other older systems who needs to be replaced by a newer one in this case Windows VISTA.


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Apr 30, 2008)

if i was to overwrite a new clean fresh vista doesn't it void warranty. well i still have the activation code and everything just don't know if i should do it??


----------



## Mussels (May 1, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> hmm , i can do only 10Mb/s over firewire ? is that normal ?



no. i'd say thats far from normal. friend has a slow ass WD cage that still manages 30MB/s over firewire (thats as fast as it gets over any connection, its a useless cage)


----------

