# Windows Vista: The Facts



## sladesurfer (Jan 21, 2008)

http://neowin.net/news/main/08/01/20/windows-vista-the-facts



> When choosing a new operating system, the first thing many people ask is, "What will it help me do?" In answer, much of this site shows you the great experiences Windows Vista helps you have. The second thing many people say is, "Prove that it's better." In particular, many of you have asked about performance and safety improvements. The following information provides specific proof that Windows Vista is faster and safer.
> 
> 
> The majority of Windows Vista-based PCs boot in less than a minute, which can be an improvement over Windows XP boot times. And the new Windows Vista sleep and resume features can bring your PC to life in a snap—in fact, the vast majority of all Windows Vista-based PCs resume from sleep in less than 6 seconds.
> ...


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 21, 2008)

Finally! A member that doesn't attack Vista, and can PROVE it's a good OS!


----------



## wolfblitz1979 (Jan 21, 2008)

Yeah, had hardy no crashes on Vista compared to XP....great info!


----------



## Rob! (Jan 22, 2008)

Maybe it's the wording (or my unfamiliarity with that website) but it sounds like an ad.


----------



## Mediocre (Jan 22, 2008)

I enjoy it tremendously. When connected to the internet, it went and updated during install. 
Plus all the re-skinned games are cool, found myself playing chess again 

All my hardware works (X-Fi was a sonofa). It only crashes when my OC isn't stable or it overheats.
It plays games great.

I have the option everytime I turn my PC on to go to vista or XP...the XP partition is using ~3gb because I've got nothing on it   Not even '05 or '06


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 22, 2008)

3991vhtes said:


> Finally! A member that doesn't attack Vista, and can PROVE it's a good OS!



7 points why Vista is "good".. I can list about 1000 reasons why its not  I have to say the boot time point is invalid though, my XP system boots in about 20 seconds and thats not even on a clean install.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 22, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> 7 points why Vista is "good".. I can list about 1000 reasons why its not



I can too :shadedshu I even tried the lower version, Basic and it was bad


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 22, 2008)

*shudders* I tried Vista ultimate (even tweaked the crap out of it and made a custom install disc that cuts out all the bloat) and it was still crap. Benchmarks were way down vs. XP too. I'll post a link tomorrow if I dont forget that goes into great detail about Vista, link is on my backup puter.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 22, 2008)

Most of my games didnt even work or crashed alot


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 22, 2008)

IMHO, it's better than XP, and it's faster. Starts up quicker too. Yeah, I can admit there are a few bugs with it. And some annoyances. But, XP was the same when it first came out. When SP1 comes out, alot of the bugs will be fixed, and it'll be [even] more stable.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Most of my games didnt even work or crashed alot



Ever tried downloading patches? Compatibility mode? They worked for BF2, and a few other games of mine.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 22, 2008)

3991vhtes said:


> IMHO, it's better than XP, and it's faster. Starts up quicker too. Yeah, I can admit there are a few bugs with it. And some annoyances. But, XP was the same when it first came out. When SP1 comes out, alot of the bugs will be fixed, and it'll be [even] more stable.



Its not the boot time or bugs that made me unistall it its the game performance and constant crashing, some of my games just launched and crashed not even 2 seconds in everytime(like BF2 and FEAR)

yes everything was patched


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 22, 2008)

3991vhtes said:


> IMHO, it's better than XP, and it's faster. Starts up quicker too. Yeah, I can admit there are a few bugs with it. And some annoyances. But, XP was the same when it first came out. When SP1 comes out, alot of the bugs will be fixed, and it'll be [even] more stable.



SP1 is crap, I got my hands on a very late beta SP1 (almost final) and Vista still sucked.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> (like BF2 and FEAR)
> 
> yes everything was patched


Funny. Patching, and using compatibility mode caused BF2 to run without a problem.



Ketxxx said:


> SP1 is crap, I got my hands on a very late *beta SP1* (almost final) and Vista still sucked.


Wait till it's released, it'll be better than the beta version.

Oh, btw, you can't judge an OS by a beta release. I hated Vista when it was in beta, and I said it was the crappiest OS. Now that its been released, it's better than XP, and I'll NEVER go back to XP.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 22, 2008)

3991vhtes said:


> Funny. Patching, and using compatibility mode caused BF2 to run without a problem.



Still even if it did only a few of my games ran good. I got 20-34fps on WoW ffs :shadedshu


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 22, 2008)

3991vhtes said:


> Wait till it's released, it'll be better than the beta version.




Just like you put in bold beta SP1, I can do likewise and highlight the very following 2 words  *almost final* I doubt a lot will change between the SP1 I have and the final.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Still even if it did only a few of my games ran good. I got 20-34fps on WoW ffs :shadedshu


1.32GHz, that could be why. it's too slow for [let alone] Vista to run smooth. Also, having generic ValueRAM can bog down ur performance.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 22, 2008)

3991vhtes said:


> 1.32GHz, that could be why. it's too slow for [let alone] Vista to run smooth. Also, having generic ValueRAM can bog down ur performance.



I have a AMD x2 4200+ right now, the thing in my specs says 1.32THZ its a joke I dont even have the E2200 yet


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 22, 2008)

1.32GHz should be plenty eitherway, official recommended specs are something like 800MHz. ValueRAM also makes little difference, as long as theres 1GB or more Vista is supposed to run smooth, which of course, it wont.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 22, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> 1.32GHz should be plenty eitherway, official recommended specs are something like 800MHz. ValueRAM also makes little difference, as long as theres 1GB or more Vista is supposed to run smooth, which of course, it wont.



Actully, 800MHz is minimum. Your RAM makes a huge difference. ValueRAM = GENERIC, therefore, it'll cause your system to slow down. The last statement is funny. My system runs smooth with just 1GB.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 22, 2008)

rofl. Theres nothing wrong with valueRAM. I have 1GB of Kingston DDR2 533MHz in another system and that stuff goes up to 800MHz with nothing more than a divider change and its performance is equally as good as my XP2-8000 or PDP 6400 kits at the same frequencies. THeres also a significant difference betwen a system running, and running smoothly. Even on a clean Vista install, with 2GB memory it was eating something like 40-50%. Only after I tweaked the shit out of vista did it come down to an acceptable level, which was something like 25%.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jan 22, 2008)

i understand you all want to have a flame war over what os is better but unless your going to linux tomorrow you're sol.  vista is the next os like all of the ms windows before it, it will cut support and cease to be an opperating system that you'll be here on the forums asking where in the abandonware sites you can find a driver that will get your old rig to run it.  vista is the new os, why don't you all stop complaining about it and just get used to it.  ms is not going to give dx10 to xp, nor readyboost, or support for anything as time goes on. most of the bugs windows has is fixed by users reporting it, but all you guys ever do is bash and and say "i'll wait until service pack 1 comes out" " or i'll wait till the bugs are gone" sounds like you're all f'king lazy.  for a tech support forum you guys do a lot of bitching about what's inevitible instead of doing what this site was set up for which is fix computer problems and help the nubs like me get used to it.  for those of you who complain about the benchmarks, run an xp install on a small partition and just bench with it, i bet it'll work just fine, even then people are gonna be scoffing at your "insane bench scores" in another year and saying, why don't you show me a high score in vista, then what.... nothing i thought so


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 22, 2008)

I dont care about DX10 and I've never had to call MS about suport for XP for 5 years.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jan 22, 2008)

oh and on a smaller note eventually your going to be running sweet hardware on an outdated os, i thought most of us like to have sick fast rigs and mod them out and have "the latest and the greatest" i believe that includes os's as well... just my humble opinion


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 22, 2008)

Ketxxx said:
			
		

> rofl. Theres nothing wrong with valueRAM. I have 1GB of Kingston DDR2 533MHz in another system and that stuff goes up to 800MHz with nothing more than a divider change and its performance is equally as good as my XP2-8000 or PDP 6400 kits at the same frequencies. THeres also a significant difference betwen a system running, and running smoothly. Even on a clean Vista install, with 2GB memory it was eating something like 40-50%. Only after I tweaked the shit out of vista did it come down to an acceptable level, which was something like 25%.


My system runs smooth with 1GB. No crashes, no hangs. Guess you can't get that thru ur head.

I have more important things to do, than argue with some random dude who only wants to trash Vista. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to write a 1 page paper on Latin words, and find 200 english words derived from latin.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 22, 2008)

That's some good info and such Slade, and really what I say about Vista is from my experiences with Vista. I spent about 2/3's (if not 3/4's) of 2007 on Vista. It's a good OS, but it takes up more resources, but it does feel fairly snappy. There are still some compatability issues yet to be resolved and the ever improving drivers will continue to quelm that in the same way it was taken care of on XP.

I liked and disliked how some of it worked, but overall, I feel that XP SP3 was my way to go, at least for now. As-far-as boot times, I dunno...mine generally took closer to 2 minutes, maybe more I can't really recall boot time. XP feels faster to me. Plus Superfetch (iirc) has to play around after Vista boots up to get things sorted...I had it disabled for a time, but turned it back on to see how well it worked before I went back to XP a couple months ago.

I think everyone should at least give Vista a try, it's not a bad OS imo, but there were some things that felt rushed, and some lacking support which is to be expected (even if dissapointing). As PC's get more memory and speed with newer generations, the impact of Vista on resources will become less noticable. DX10 gaming will eventually improve to better performance and support...but I think DX9c will reign supreme for years to come just due to the wider customer base, but we'll see.

I will someday go back to Vista, but it will not be soon. I enjoy my gaming, surfing and everything else I do on my PC just fine in XP. Plus with SP3 (the RC1 from MS), my system seemed to become a little snappier and just felt faster overall...it works good for me. But don't dog on Vista if you haven't tried it...no point in making steep judements without seeing both sides of the arguement. So try it out...find someone that has it and see if they'll letcha play with it for a couple hours. Install it on your PC for the 30-days and see if it's what you want.

Vista is stable, but I ran into a few problems that did annoy me, yet the overall experience was more of a minor headache in comparison to the migrane it could've been.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 22, 2008)

Mediocre said:


> I enjoy it tremendously. When connected to the internet, it went and updated during install.
> Plus all the re-skinned games are cool, found myself playing chess again



dude DX10 chess FTW!!! at anyrate i love vista its good stuff...imo however security safety and stability have never really benn a selling point for me...

i mean idc if it has better security features why? because i install my own anti virus firewall and malware cleaner...and on top of that shut off the OS one including security center....and after all that im probably more protected than i was...

safety? i dont worry aboput that much eaither its all about how you set up your protection not your options....forexample....i can open all my ports and enable all my sharing on my home wireless networkl we have 7 computers and non are hardlined i open everything and enable everything....but im protecteed because4 i limit what is allowed to be shared...what privleges those ppl have...and my firewall tells me every connection in and out..and requires my input and i have the option of approving it for good so it will stop asking me...that and though vista may have less malware honestly i think it isnt used much yet..and it extremely easy...not to get viruses..i install all this protection software i have 3...avast comodo firewall and in the latest installment of comodo it includes a malware catcher...and so does avast...and these progs constantly run in the background...but iv never run into any virus because i know were i surf and what sites are shady....

Stability may work for alot of ppl...but if your like me and most of us are..when we install wondows the things we tweak usually make it more unstable than it was before..and then we work around that....file modification..service shutdowns...blue screens overclocking..reg edits....lets be honest...i dont see how alot of tweakers look for stability when buying..because we know that will be comprimised as soon as we boot it.


but needless to say i absolutely love vista...i think i was going to say more but i had to pick up my GF and forgot the rest.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I dont care about DX10 and I've never had to call MS about suport for XP for 5 years.



Dude, what are you going to do when all the games being released are DX10 or higher only?

All these people complaining that Vista crashes and what not, It must be your hardware or something. Vista was a tad bit off I agmit but that was because they were tyring to bring a future OS, to a World that had so many old apps and hardware. XP did fine cause it wasn't that big of a overhaul as Vista is.

Old things become obsolete, face it. Just like from the FLoppy to the CD,  no one gives a fudge for the floppy anymore. Thats the fate of all old technology. Face it, cause sooner or later youll be useing Vista or Vienna.

I don't mean to cap on anyone or anything, but honestly this crap needs to end, I wonder if the same shit happed when XP got release, People complaing about it. Oh well.


----------



## pt (Jan 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I can too :shadedshu I even tried the lower version, Basic and it was bad



me 3
it came with my laptop, and it didn't even detected my wireless  :shadedshu


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 22, 2008)

vista works fine for me and my rig is over a year old. im not sure why all the hate.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 22, 2008)

AphexDreamer said:


> Dude, what are you going to do when all the games being released are DX10 or higher only?



I will move to the newer op, im not buying vista again.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 22, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> vista works fine for me and my rig is over a year old. im not sure why all the hate.



I just think it's another case of "you either like it or don't", plus things that were promised that didn't make it, and people just flat out expecting too much from it. I know I was slightly dissapointed when I first installed Vista, but I also was pretty stoked to be on a new OS that would do most of what my old OS was capable of for my needs.


----------



## EddxPT (Jan 22, 2008)

Vista runs very good on average hardware with the proper drivers. The problem here is the concept of average hardware. Compare a core2duo with an a athlon64 or with a pentiumD and u can see the performance gap on average between every model from those families of processors. If XP does it for u, than don't change. It is the right symbioses between software and hardware that delivers the best experience. No point in using vista with a pentium3 with 512Mb of ram with a matrox g200 for instance. Use XP or linux and u will have a better experience in that case.

Also, remember : ram is meant to be used : Vista takes a little over a quarter of memory after boot up (with sp1) and if u have 4 gigs u will see on average 700 mb used. But try to open Internet Explorer or any other microsoft or a very used program and u will see little increase in memory usage. Prefetch works in my opinion and has advantages. RAM Speed and Capacity is the major bottleneck in todays systems. Bigger Caches on the cpu die can help to smooth the experience too.

The question here is rather old and remembers me the battle between windows95 and 98, and then 98 and XP... and what about linux ? linux just does not increases it's market share simply due to the fact of proprietary drivers and most games running out of the box only on DirectX. The same will happen to XP once DX9 gets fully unsupported.It will however not invalidate XP for office and general use. And lets also face it : going to proper DX10 hardware right now is still rather expensive.

Always ask : is there something i can't do if i don't change OS ?


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I will move to the newer op, im not buying vista again.



Lol, are you aware that the next OS will be based on Vista?


----------



## Conti027 (Jan 23, 2008)

I  Vista!!   it should be a club


----------



## Triprift (Jan 23, 2008)

U should start one up id join ofcourse ud get a few xp lovers in there but oh well thats all parts of the fun and great to see a thread supporting vista for a change i thought my old eyes were failing me for a minute there.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 23, 2008)

Conti027 said:


> I  Vista!!


ditto


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 23, 2008)

I AGREE!!!! I really like Vista, I think its a better looking and more stable XP.  It really has been good to me.  It does steal some 3dmarks though!


----------



## Triprift (Jan 23, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> I AGREE!!!! I really like Vista, I think its a better looking and more stable XP.  It really has been good to me.  It does steal some 3dmarks though!



Vistas been really good to me to the only small prob i had was when i had to reinstall vista after my lappy had to be repaired after the screen died was itunes not werking but just got drivers online and since then sweeeeet as.


----------



## HeavyH20 (Jan 23, 2008)

Well, if we go back a few years to the XP launch, every single comment made regarding Vista was made of XP. Big, slow, bloated, buggy drivers, resource demands, boot times, etc, etc. I run Vista 64, and, with the latest versions of the drivers, it is not much slower, if at all, than XP.  Personally, I am sticking with Vista.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 23, 2008)

HeavyH20 said:


> Well, if we go back a few years to the XP lauanch, every single comment made regarding Vista was made of XP. Big, slow, bloated, buggy drivers, resource demands, boot times, etc, etc. I run Vista 64, and, with the latest versions of the drivers, it is not much slower, if at all, than XP.  Personally, I am sticking with Vista.



vista just needs alot of memory and it runs fine.  I have 4 gigs but i have noticed 2gigs or more will keep vista happy.  

but it still steals 3dMarks!


----------



## CarolinaKSU (Jan 23, 2008)

Conti027 said:


> I  Vista!!   it should be a club



Such a short and hilarious to the point one-liner. For some reason I just busted out laughing at this.


----------



## Triprift (Jan 23, 2008)

Start the club now someone pleeeease.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 23, 2008)

Conti027 said:


> I  Vista!!   it should be a club



you know its funny, when i seen it as < 3 i couldnt get it, but in the qoute I now see the heart, ahhh, made me laugh too!


----------



## Frogger (Jan 23, 2008)

HeavyH20 said:


> Well, if we go back a few years to the XP launch, every single comment made regarding Vista was made of XP. Big, slow, bloated, buggy drivers, resource demands, boot times, etc, etc. I run Vista 64, and, with the latest versions of the drivers, it is not much slower, if at all, than XP.  Personally, I am sticking with Vista.



 That  is the statment !!!


----------



## Triprift (Jan 28, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I will move to the newer op, im not buying vista again.



What if your unhappy with it will ya stick with xp call it the greatest then find theres no support for it when everyone else is enjoying Vista or windows 7.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 28, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> Even on a clean Vista install, with 2GB memory it was eating something like 40-50%. Only after I tweaked the shit out of vista did it come down to an acceptable level, which was something like 25%.



Funny, but what's the point of loads of memory when the OS doesn't utilize it? Look at top under Linux for example, memory gets used. That's positive. Like topic says, superfetch loads things so you have to wait less. Besides, with memory prices as they are, just add some more GB's, 20 euros for 1GB, compared to the cost of the OS itself it's nothing.

And when saying "tweaked the shit out of it" you probably mean something like "I changed some settings but aren't listing them just so nobody knows what I'm talking about or what I actually did".


All I can agree on is game performance, benchmarks tend to prefer XP. However, how great was XP when it came out? I think Vista isn't as crappy as many people like to believe. Just because MS made it people shoot it down.


----------



## Black Panther (Jan 28, 2008)

Mediocre said:


> All my hardware works (X-Fi was a sonofa).



Actually the X-Fi isn't a sonofa...
Afaik, you can't use _any_ sound card with Vista.
Vista programs your pc to process sound using the CPU.

I stand to be corrected - after all I never tried it myself.

I'm not anti-vista by any means, but I've seen that Vista uses much more memory to run its background processes than XP. I'd prefer to have the resources to be used by my game/s rather than the OS. Even the page file. If you run a dxdiag (or check the taskmanager) using XP you'll see your page file would be between 200-300MB. With a clean boot it can get below 200MB. On the other hand, running a dxdiag/ taskmanager using Vista you'll see your pagefile usage going above 800-1000MB...

I think Vista needs some serious patching/updates/SP before it can be a suitable OS for gamers.



Kursah said:


> As PC's get more memory and speed with newer generations, the impact of Vista on resources will become less noticable. DX10 gaming will eventually improve to better performance and support...



Also that makes a lot of sense. Vista will be staying with us for a long time... imagine what pc's will be running that OS in 3 years time!
Right now it's like trying to run XP on a PII with 128MB RAM or something...


----------



## Triprift (Jan 28, 2008)

To be honest with ya bp the difference in games between xp and vista is now alot less than what it was and in most cases you woudnt be able to notice the difference in frame rates. In terms of interface,security & overall performance Vista has the advantage in my view.


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 28, 2008)

Black Panther said:


> Afaik, you can't use _any_ sound card with Vista.


You can, look at my specs 



> Right now it's like trying to run XP on a PII with 128MB RAM or something...


I ran a PII with 128MB RAM on XP. It was very mediocre


----------



## CH33T03S (Jan 28, 2008)

I just havent seen the value of the upgrade for the money it costs. 

(Grudgnly holds onto his XP box with both hands)


----------



## DeAtHWiSh (Jan 28, 2008)

I saw some inside stuff that microsoft was already in the process of a new operating system to replace vista by 2009. It's called vienna or microsoft windows 7. Supposed to be alot better than vista, well let's atleast hope right. Here is the link if you haven't heard about it:
http://www.windowsvienna.com/


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 28, 2008)

DeAtHWiSh said:


> I saw some inside stuff that microsoft was already in the process of a new operating system to replace vista by 2009. It's called vienna or microsoft windows 7. Supposed to be alot better than vista, well let's atleast hope right. Here is the link if you haven't heard about it:
> http://www.windowsvienna.com/



I posted that link either in this thread or another one. I dont remember which.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 28, 2008)

Black Panther said:


> Actually the X-Fi isn't a sonofa...
> Afaik, you can't use _any_ sound card with Vista.
> Vista programs your pc to process sound using the CPU.
> 
> ...


As for sound cards, I have an X-Fi that runs in Vista just fine. 

As for the RAM issue everyone complains about, I have used Vista on a single core with 1GB a single core/dual core with 2GB and a quad core with 2 and 4 gigs. Everything ran just fine. All of my games worked (including FEAR) I have never NEVER used all my RAM when using 1,2, or 4GB. NEVER. I have tweaked the crap out of Vista and I cant get the memory down but frankly I could care less as like I said, I never use it all. I dont mind that it uses a gig upon bootup. 

I am a hardcore gamer as you can tell from my specs and games for me run just fine. I notice no slow downs compared to that of XP and I run all my games fully maxed out with Vsync off.


----------



## BullGod (Jan 29, 2008)

I don't understand you guys. How can you be happy with an OS that makes your favorite game run 10fps slower or more? That's just utter bullshit. A new OS should make everything run faster not slower. And what do you get for it? DX 10 and some eye candy? I just hope they release XP SP3 soon and they will really work to make a better OS. Windows 7 seems promising. And btw it's not based on Vista. It's kernel has only got 28 MB, so it will probably be very fast and not a big resource hog like Vista is. Imo Vista is just another Milenium, a bullshit thrown together OS with a lot of eye candy for the masses... It will be obsolete soon enough, why do you think that news "leaked" of a new OS? Even Bill Gates admitted in his own way that Vista sucked.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

BullGod said:


> I don't understand you guys. How can you be happy with an OS that makes your favorite game run 10fps slower or more? That's just utter bullshit. A new OS should make everything run faster not slower. And what do you get for it? DX 10 and some eye candy? I just hope they release XP SP3 soon and they will really work to make a better OS. Windows 7 seems promising. And btw it's not based on Vista. It's kernel has only got 28 MB, so it will probably be very fast and not a big resource hog like Vista is. Imo Vista is just another Milenium, a bullshit thrown together OS with a lot of eye candy for the masses... It will be obsolete soon enough, why do you think that news "leaked" of a new OS? Even Bill Gates admitted in his own way that Vista sucked.



because at 200 FPS, no one cares about losing 10 FPS.

its *not* a flat '10fps' lower, its like 1%.

How can you people on XP stand those long, slow 15s load times? with superfecth, the second time i load say, a map in a game it loads instantly since its already in ram.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 29, 2008)

BullGod, everyone has their opinions, sure Vista has been dissapointing to many, including myself in some areas, that doesn't make it a bad OS. Sure you may lose some performance, but like many have stated, all too many forget that moving to a new OS needs time for support, drivers and technology. Every MS OS has taken more resources, lost some performance and had plenty of issues, how could we expect Vista to be any different? How about Windows 7? It'll be in the same boat with the same people pissing and moaning due to the modern "gotta have it now" society.

The trend won't change, and XP SP3 (at least the version I run) is nice, adds some pep, but it's not life changing. I agree MS should make a "performanced" OS that doesn't have all the junk in it, but in the end we can do it ourselves if we really want it like that.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 29, 2008)

> Even Bill Gates admitted in his own way that Vista sucked.



got a link to that?


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Mussels said:


> because at 200 FPS, no one cares about losing 10 FPS.
> 
> its *not* a flat '10fps' lower, its like 1%.
> 
> How can you people on XP stand those long, slow 15s load times? with superfecth, the second time i load say, a map in a game it loads instantly since its already in ram.



i'm always the 1st or second on bf2  when loading maps 
and some ppl there are on vista (they're my friends)


----------



## Kursah (Jan 29, 2008)

I do gotta admit that Superfetch does a good job with it's tasks, I'm personally waiting to see what Vista SP1 has in store. XP SP3 w/ Zune Theme works just fine for me atm, but I've been swapping between OS's for a while. I still think everyone should try Vista and give it a shot instead of dogging it w/o liking it. PT tried it didn't like it, I have tried it a few times, and I like some parts and dislike others, but every time I try it out and get the newer updates, it gets a lot better. Just like XP did back in the day.

My HDD doesn't go over 55 MB/s avg speed in HDTach on either OS, so really as-far-as loading repetetive games and junk is a tad faster on Vista, there's just some arguements between me, my soundcard, my gaming headset (mic specifically) and Vista that I got tired of messing with for now. I will go back eventually though, no real reason not to when the focus is really on Vista for future support, drivers and technology use imo. But I will always have my Xp copy on standby just-in-case!


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

BullGod said:


> I don't understand you guys. How can you be happy with an OS that makes your favorite game run 10fps slower or more? That's just utter bullshit. A new OS should make everything run faster not slower. And what do you get for it? DX 10 and some eye candy? I just hope they release XP SP3 soon and they will really work to make a better OS. Windows 7 seems promising. And btw it's not based on Vista. It's kernel has only got 28 MB, so it will probably be very fast and not a big resource hog like Vista is. Imo Vista is just another Milenium, a bullshit thrown together OS with a lot of eye candy for the masses... It will be obsolete soon enough, why do you think that news "leaked" of a new OS? Even Bill Gates admitted in his own way that Vista sucked.



If I get more than 40FPS in any game, I could care less if I lose 10FPS. Its still running smooth. 

Again with the ME bull shit. It amazes me how many people think that because the ones who do, never put the time into Windows Vista to even have a comparable difference. Because if you had, you would realize that Vista is NOT no pile of goat shit like ME is/was. ME crashed every 11 seconds. I dont see Vista doing that. 

Lemme guess, your one of the people whose computer cant run it decent so you bitch about  how much the OS sucks. Or that this and that dont work with Vista. If that is the case, then it is the fault of the software manufactures not Microsoft. Microsoft gave everyone plenty of time to make their shit compatible with Vista and they didnt. Now they are behind and we get people complaining about how its Microsoft's fault when it really isnt. 

Everyone gives Vista a shit poor rap when it is a helluva lot better right now than it was during its initial beta and final release. In fact, I will go as far to say its a LOT more stable right now than XP is. I have had far less crashes in Vista (and the crashes I did have were the result of to high of an overclock) than I did in XP.


----------



## AddSub (Jan 29, 2008)

You know, identical threads like this appear regularly, every 4-6 weeks or so, with identical participants and identical arguments and/or responses. It's almost like there is a rip in time-space-continuum and we are stuck in some sort of shitty B-movie where time repeats itself and we have the same conversation over and over and over.... well, I like B-movies, so, let's get started:



> Windows Vista: The Facts



"The Facts"? Is this anything like creating _"facts on the ground"_, one of those _"it's so because I/we/them say so"_ ?

Some personal Vista observations on my primary machine: 3DMark2006 is about 11% slower, 3DMark2003 is about 14% slower, and 3DMark2001 is 78% slower (19k vs. 34k). GLExcess runs @ 2-3FPS max, final score being less than 1k (vs. 26k on 2K/XP), this is due to shitty implementation of OpenGL. HD Tune benchmarks report much slower read/burst rates on my RAID0 (about 20% slower overall) and CPU usage is reported (in HD Tune) about 30% higher than 2k/XP (31% vs. 39% in Vista). WinRAR benchmark (3.71) also shows about 8% slower performance. Encoding with VirtualDub takes similar performance hits. Every game and/or applications either runs slower or it fails to run at all.

Another primary issue aside from obvious perfomance hits I listed: Overlocking issues. On three separate machines (one of mine and two of various family members) I have run into problems with Vista and overclocking. For example, my primary machine (<-- info on the left) does not boot unless I take the overclocks almost back to stock settings. My CPU is just fine @ 3.05Ghz with 2k/XP (18+ hours Prime95 stable), best I could get Vista to boot with was 2.6Ghz.

One of the machines had a multicore Athlon 64 X2 5200+ CPU. There were severe issues with Vista even before I got to overclocking that particular system. There were serious issues with RAM timings @ stock settings. No such issues were experienced with WinXP SP2, which booted just fine. Interestingly, 2Mhz oc on the RAM would cause Vista to go into convulsions, while a nearly 30Mhz OC was perfectly stable on XP. Issues with CPU overclocking were even greater than what I experienced with other single core systems.

----  Entering _"Right back at ya!"_ section! ------



> _because at 200 FPS, no one cares about losing 10 FPS_


Yeah, because in Crysis/Oblivion/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. we all get 200FPS, right? What if the game in question is barely running @ 20FPS, a 10FPS drop would mean going from almost unplayable to just unplayable.



> . _In terms of interface,security & overall performance Vista has the advantage in my view._


While I can both make amusing and serious comments on the "interface" and "overall performance" of Vista, the word "security" really caught my attention. I say this a lot, but if you want security, as in taking proper measures to keep your data integrity intact, you might want to skip Windows operating systems completely and go straight into Unix territory.



> Funny, but what's the point of loads of memory when the OS doesn't utilize it? Look at top under Linux for example, memory gets used.


Well, while various Linux distros and general Linux architecture can be praised for many things, as of lately overall performance is not one of them. Poor example. 



> Well, if we go back a few years to the XP launch, every single comment made regarding Vista was made of XP. Big, slow, bloated, buggy drivers, resource demands, boot times, etc, etc.


Few service packs later, XP is still those things, _"Big, slow, bloated, buggy drivers, resource demands, boot times, etc, etc."_ XP didn't get better, in fact, for the most part the bloat and architectural issues that existed in Windows XP are still there, 6 years and 2 service pack later. Vista bloat/overhead is here to stay and nothing can fix that, not one, not two, not even ten service packs. Anyways, XP is pretty much Win2k. XP just comes with a hallucinogenic lego color theme and fisher price interface and dialogs for the inept and let’s not forget, a draconian registration system that is completely absent in Win2k. Never having to call anybody after changing my hardware config 16 times over has its benefits, for sure. 

*Note #1:* 3991vhtes? Didn't you have a Vista logo as your forum avatar until recently? Nuff said. 

*Note #2:* Neowin? Neowin?! Bunch of neo-Win-zealots more like it, although  I must admit their zealotry has dropped off in potency (as has the general activity on their forums) in the last 6 months or so. I'm guessing it's hard to keep the faith in check when adoption rates of Vista are nowhere near what almighty Klan grandmaster Billy McGates promised.

*Note #3:* XP-wise, I did an in depth performance review on DSLReports.com (aka BroadbandReports.com) back in February 2002. And even then, in its buggy and unpatched form, with severe driver shortage, my tests showed a 1 to 5 percent of difference in favor of Win98SE, mostly when it came to 2D/3D performance. (A difference that is measurable even today, with fresher drivers) As you probably noticed my own Vista benchmarks show massive differences in performance in XP/Win2k vs Vista, nowhere near the 1%-5% of what was seen when going from 98 to XP.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Funny, but what's the point of loads of memory when the OS doesn't utilize it? Look at top under Linux for example, memory gets used. That's positive. Like topic says, superfetch loads things so you have to wait less. Besides, with memory prices as they are, just add some more GB's, 20 euros for 1GB, compared to the cost of the OS itself it's nothing.
> 
> And when saying "tweaked the shit out of it" you probably mean something like "I changed some settings but aren't listing them just so nobody knows what I'm talking about or what I actually did".
> 
> ...


I agree with all of that 100%. Ive said that all along. Just because Microsoft made it, people dis it. They bitched they wanted a new OS and when Microsoft tried to make it better than XP and delayed it, they bitched. When they shoved it out the door because people wanted it, they bitched because it was "buggy". It's a lose lose for Microsoft.


----------



## DeAtHWiSh (Jan 29, 2008)

hey just to bring something up, microsoft should start with a fresh os, with no registry and all those stupid processes that have to run in the back ground. Just taking out the registry would help a ton, and stop it from slowing down after time.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

DeAtHWiSh said:


> hey just to bring something up, microsoft should start with a fresh os, with no registry and all those stupid processes that have to run in the back ground. Just taking out the registry would help a ton, and stop it from slowing down after time.



i guess it would be possible to segregate it - actually have each app have its own registry files, with less of them being in the core registry. (stopping the useless files such as file locations/links being in the registry where more important data is needed).

Good idea deathwish, wont be surprised to see that in windows vienna


----------



## Triprift (Jan 29, 2008)

they are going to be bringing out windows 7 wich will bring a strippedback kernal a simplified interface better compatibility with older software and touch screen technology. Expect to see it late 2009 or mid 2010 for my prediction.


----------



## OrbitzXT (Jan 29, 2008)

sladesurfer said:


> "What will it help me do?"



The presence of Vista on my boss's Sony Vaio VGN-NR160E has taught me how to properly slipstream drivers into a Windows XP disc, since Sony refuses and makes it downright difficult to downgrade from Vista to XP, offering no drivers at all. Successfully removing Vista and getting XP up and running on that laptop gave me a confidence boost as well. Thanks Vista! Who needs Dr. Phil?


----------



## Judas (Jan 29, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> 7 points why Vista is "good".. I can list about 1000 reasons why its not  I have to say the boot time point is invalid though, my XP system boots in about 20 seconds and thats not even on a clean install.





List away


----------



## Judas (Jan 29, 2008)

Conti027 said:


> I  Vista!!   it should be a club



I'd join think Vista is great..


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

OrbitzXT said:


> The presence of Vista on my boss's Sony Vaio VGN-NR160E has taught me how to properly slipstream drivers into a Windows XP disc, since Sony refuses and makes it downright difficult to downgrade from Vista to XP, offering no drivers at all. Successfully removing Vista and getting XP up and running on that laptop gave me a confidence boost as well. Thanks Vista! Who needs Dr. Phil?



same with asus laptops
i need to check every manufacturer for drivers
atheros, realtek, ati, etc.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> same with asus laptops
> i need to check every manufacturer for drivers
> atheros, realtek, ati, etc.



personally i think vista depends on the hardware somewhat.

If vista has default drivers for your hardware (such as intel chipsets) people seem to have more luck getting a stable, fast OS. i've personally noticed say, via chipsets - those systems seem slower and less reliable under vista. I dont mean ALL of them, but some of them have more problems than others (example: none of my intel chipsets crash in vista. One 650i chipset, sleep mode crashes the system. All the via systems, sleep mode doesnt work. On the via systems, one freezes while shutting down occasionally, and hte other refuses to boot sometimes (but always works on the 2nd try) )

If you have a modern, high end system ist all good.

Also lots of people love quoting antique benchmarks, such as 3dmark 2001 - currently, no one cares about anything over 100FPS except benchmarks. Vista does seem slower, if your FPS is above Vsync. i havent got any direct evidence since my last high refresh CRT died, but i've noticed if you compare vista to XP in an app that say, averages 30-60 FPS theres next to no difference. Compare an app where the FPS is over 100, and there is a large difference - go to 200FPS plus, and vista gets owned.

How do we know vista isnt dropping the FPS for some unkown reason past a certain point? Could it be capping it, to conserve power? i dunno, its only a theory atm.


----------



## DeAtHWiSh (Jan 29, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i guess it would be possible to segregate it - actually have each app have its own registry files, with less of them being in the core registry. (stopping the useless files such as file locations/links being in the registry where more important data is needed).
> 
> Good idea deathwish, wont be surprised to see that in windows vienna



Yeah, I'm sure vienna won't have that just because microsoft has a bunch of lazy bastards that don't bother on starting a freshly new os. They rather continue using the same crap the've always been using. I think Vienna might have something like what you stated (all programs having their own registry), which would gradually speed up applications, but still the damn registry is there. Let's just hope that Windows 7 isn't the same crap as vista and is better than xp (maybe gain fps this time rather than lose them).


----------



## EviLZeD (Jan 29, 2008)

vista 64 is running flawlessly for me i prefer it slightly over xp. all my games run fine on vista sometimes it feels like there even running better and its really stable


----------



## techbuzz (Jan 29, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> SP1 is crap, I got my hands on a very late beta SP1 (almost final) and Vista still sucked.



What sucks for you, may work well for others.

Can't we just leave it at that?!?!?


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

...or

you could just go with Mac OSX Leopard thats better than Vista OS


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 29, 2008)

Boo!!!! Mac OSX


----------



## newconroer (Jan 29, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> i understand you all want to have a flame war over what os is better but unless your going to linux tomorrow you're sol.  vista is the next os like all of the ms windows before it, it will cut support and cease to be an opperating system that you'll be here on the forums asking where in the abandonware sites you can find a driver that will get your old rig to run it.  vista is the new os, why don't you all stop complaining about it and just get used to it.  ms is not going to give dx10 to xp, nor readyboost, or support for anything as time goes on. most of the bugs windows has is fixed by users reporting it, but all you guys ever do is bash and and say "i'll wait until service pack 1 comes out" " or i'll wait till the bugs are gone" sounds like you're all f'king lazy.  for a tech support forum you guys do a lot of bitching about what's inevitible instead of doing what this site was set up for which is fix computer problems and help the nubs like me get used to it.  for those of you who complain about the benchmarks, run an xp install on a small partition and just bench with it, i bet it'll work just fine, even then people are gonna be scoffing at your "insane bench scores" in another year and saying, why don't you show me a high score in vista, then what.... nothing i thought so



Lol, "pwn3d!"


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

DeAtHWiSh said:


> hey just to bring something up, microsoft should start with a fresh os, with no registry and all those stupid processes that have to run in the back ground. Just taking out the registry would help a ton, and stop it from slowing down after time.



That what Windows Seven is. A fresh start. Dunno about not having a registry and stuff like that you mentioned though.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> ...or
> 
> you could just go with Mac OSX Leopard thats better than Vista OS


----------



## 3991vhtes (Jan 29, 2008)

> That what Windows Seven is. A fresh start. Dunno about not having a registry and stuff like that you mentioned though.


It needs a registry


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

3991vhtes said:


> It needs a registry



I dont see how it would work without one.


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

i still say OSX Leopard.

ive yet to have problems with it...


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> i still say OSX Leopard.
> 
> ive yet to have problems with it...



GoW? GTA: SA? Halo 2? Crysis?


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> GoW? GTA: SA? Halo 2? Crysis?



i dont know what any of that means...


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

They are games. That do not run on Mac. Which is my point.


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

bootcamp the mac and run either XP or Vista on it than.

macs run microsoft OS's better anyway


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 29, 2008)

I installed Mac OSX Leopard on my PC, I ran it under stress and tested it with my computer uses.  

There is no advantage to OSX, and to a REAL computer user OSX sucks!
If u like to tweak your computer and get the most you can stay far far away from OSX.

I run my machine @ 3.6ghz minimum, and its 24/7 stable.  After installing Leopard I had stability issues like crazy, it crashed after 20 minutes with SETI running at 100%

The arguement I get from MAC users : "Well you shouldnt Overclock you proc"
Thats a load of bull!

So i left OSX on for a day and tried using it, and it only to see how I liked it
.....
I did some video editing, some playing with pictures, music.  And I tried to find MAC versions for some of my windows stuff, and it all sucks.

There is a program made for PC that can do the same thing and that is 10 times better than the MAC programs, and yes, they cost more, but you pay for a good quality software.  

So in all fairness for OSX, I tried it, I consider myself a computer enthusiast, and I was highly disapointed, even going into it with no expectations.

So with all said and done, Vista is the way to go


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> bootcamp the mac and run either XP or Vista on it than.
> 
> macs run microsoft OS's better anyway



not true, my computer thinks its a mac, and i did get all the necessary drivers for everything

and Im pretty sure my quad core should be able to keep up....
EDIT: Man ur ISP hauls


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

how often do people run into problems with XP or Vista?(and i dont mean just people on this forum or anything, im talking about the general public who uses computers.) but its pretty often as opposed to if you use a Mac OS

mac OS is more stable than a Microsoft OS, yea you cant overclock a mac or anything but you really dont need to. a mac isnt meant for what you guys are trying to do. such as playing games OCin and such. anyone that goes from gaming and OCin to a mac is going to have a hard time because they wont be able to do the same things.

but in the end a Mac OS is more stable, reliable, and runs better than a Microsoft OS.
i mean i just got a macbook. im not a huge fan of mac and never have been. as a matter of fact i pretty much despise them because its a totally diferent interface but i did get it because i do alot of photo editing, music recording, web designing, and all that shit. oh and the fact that you can run XP or Vista on it.

it runs smoother, it looks nicer, and its more user friendly and for the average everyday person a Mac is better. plus microsoft has been trying to make its stuff more like a mac type interface because its better, with all the GUI and shit. the whole look and feel...

yea, id preffer a PC because you can do a hell of alot more stuff with it and OC and all.
but also at the same time Mac OS runs nicer, smoother, and is more reliable than a microsoft OS. and it looks better.


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> ...or
> 
> you could just go with Mac OSX Leopard thats better than Vista OS



yeah, but then you have to get a shitty mac with it....


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> it runs smoother, it looks nicer, and its more user friendly and for the average everyday *NOOB* a Mac is better. plus microsoft has been trying to make its stuff more like a mac type interface because its better, with all the GUI and shit. the whole look and feel...



FIXED!


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> yeah, but then you have to get a shitty mac with it....



eh, my macbook is pretty nice...

nicer than any other laptop ive owned.


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> eh, my macbook is pretty nice...
> 
> nicer than any other laptop ive owned.



my laptop (see system specs) totally owns my friend macbook and was cheaper 
and nice in what way? pretiness?


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> my laptop (see system specs) totally owns my friend macbook and was cheaper
> and nice in what way? pretiness?



yea, it runs cooler, it looks nicer, and its has a longer battery life than yours...

haha you only get an hour and a half? shits weakkkkk son.


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

and im not trying to have the "best" or "fastest" laptop around it does what i need it to do...


fast and efficiently.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

I have no real issues with Vista and have Home Premium 32bit on my dual boot system, I only really use it to game tho purely for DX10 but have never really had any problems with it.  I use XP to surf and run my general apps, I do find XP marginally quicker and it does seem a little more responsive to me but TBH we are on SP2 soon to be SP3 with XP so generally you would expect there to be less bugs than with an OS that was still on it's release version.

I liken Vista to a confused transvestite......it knows what it wants to be......it tries all it's life to get there but has never known what it really was to start with


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> and im not trying to have the "best" or "fastest" laptop around it does what i need it to do...
> 
> 
> fast and efficiently.



1:30 with hd2600
3:30 with onboard 
(i can switch, oh yeah baby) 
yours runs as cool as mine, maybe cooler since macbooks hardware sucks ass and doesn't heat up,
and why the hell you want a pretty laptop?
brag?
mac - hey my laptop is prettier than yours
me - oh really?, who gives a f*** about pretiness?
and all white isn't what i call pretty


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> how often do people run into problems with XP or Vista?(and i dont mean just people on this forum or anything, im talking about the general public who uses computers.) but its pretty often as opposed to if you use a Mac OS
> 
> mac OS is more stable than a Microsoft OS, yea you cant overclock a mac or anything but you really dont need to. a mac isnt meant for what you guys are trying to do. such as playing games OCin and such. anyone that goes from gaming and OCin to a mac is going to have a hard time because they wont be able to do the same things.
> 
> ...



well and thats why a MAC OS could never be used for a power user.  Half of the fun I have on a computer is from toying with clocks and pushing it. 

When you mention the general public, a good percentage doesnt know how to use a computer, mac or windows, so whatever you set them down to would be hard.  

after an explanation it might be easier on a mac, but a PC is so much more powerful because you can add on as much as you want, there is a program for everything on windows.  And for those slow computer people, nothing is easier than the desktop. 

I have 100 superintendents at my company that I have to provide tech support.  Its extremely hard to teach a stubborn 50 year old man to use a computer, so I have devised a program in Vista that makes using there computer soooo easy, 2 icons and a password and these guys are on the internet with their blackberrys and there email is open.  Life couldnt be any easier. 

Its about how its taught, and not what your teaching on


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 29, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I have no real issues with Vista and have Home Premium 32bit on my dual boot system, I only really use it to game tho purely for DX10 but have never really had any problems with it.  I use XP to surf and run my general apps, I do find XP marginally quicker and it does seem a little more responsive to me but TBH we are on SP2 soon to be SP3 with XP so generally you would expect there to be less bugs than with an OS that was still on it's release version.
> 
> I liken Vista to a confused transvestite......it knows what it wants to be......it tries all it's life to get there but has never known what it really was to start with



thats quite the comparison there!  ahh thats funny......

See I actually notice that Vista is more responsive in my everyday tasks, on my laptops its alittle slower because I only have 2 gigs of memory but with my desktop and 4 gigs it page files alot and my programs respond almost immdiatly, but with my system its hard to notice those little differnces, 

for some reason I really like vista, it works great for me and I like the UI for some reason, maybe its just me.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 29, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Lol, "pwn3d!"




lol +1 on that damn good writing exodus


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> 1:30 with hd2600
> 3:30 with onboard
> (i can switch, oh yeah baby)
> yours runs as cool as mine, maybe cooler since macbooks hardware sucks ass and doesn't heat up,
> ...



first off, its black. and its sweeter than anything you can put in front of it.

and because my shit doesnt heat up as much as yours means my hardware is shitty? is it just me or dont people want thier stuff to run cooler so it runs better and last longer?


and i get 6 hours out of my laptop, with pretty much whatever im doing...


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

asb2106,

thank you for actually reading what im saying. because i am talking about the average user...not a power user.

which pt does not understand.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jan 29, 2008)

The end of the conversation should very well be.

UNLESS you have used both OS's thoroughly you really cannot argue it because than you just become a fan boy.

i use both i am a pc tech and also a mac tech at a computer store.

so please just leave it alone its stupid to argue with fanboys of both operating systems each system has its up's and each has its downs

here are a few

Windows 

+gaming library is huge
+can be tweaked with setting clocks

-is way more prone to virus's than a mac
-crashes more frequently than macs (i mean the blue screen)
-believe it or not is not as user friendly as mac os x (and by user friendly i mean for the common computer user that doesn't understand more than internet, to install things on mac is fairly easy compared to a pc usually its a click drag drop operation)


OS X

+utilizes the intel components alot better than pc's (this is proven through many benchmarks and no i dont mean gaming)
+Hardly ever crashes and i don't even think the mac os has a "blue screen"
+not prone to virus's like a windows based pc

-gaming library is weak.
-isn't as much mac compatible hardware as pc
-isn't much to do with what comes out of the box concidering it is ready out of the box and there isn't much you can do to the operating system well, not nearly as much as windows.


so either way there is no clear winner it all depends on what we are talking about. 

if we are talking gaming than fine pc takes the win

if we are talking  encoding video editing photo editing etc than obviously the pc is the loser.


im going to run some benchmarks on windows vista, and mac os x the SAME games and the SAME bench mark on my black macbook, i have vista installed with bootcamp.

i'll post my findings when its done to clear up the argument


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> first off, its black. and its sweeter than anything you can put in front of it.
> 
> and because my shit doesnt heat up as much as yours means my hardware is shitty? is it just me or dont people want thier stuff to run cooler so it runs better and last longer?
> 
> ...



pretty or not is an opinion, imo all macs are fugly and should be put to fire.
my gfx is much better so it heat up more, on onboard mode it barely heats up and is still better than the intel onboard you have that barely heats up, but you can barely do anythign 3d with it, and my runs cool, just not as cold as yours 'cause they heat up more, since they're better

and i my battery never run out on me so far, so 4 hours is plenty
got my point?

ps: yes i used a mac


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> ps: yes i used a mac



used?

for how long? one day...


----------



## Triprift (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> ps: yes i used a mac



That definitly qualifys for a


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jan 29, 2008)

uh barley plays 3d games hmmm..i got that onboard intel 945m gpu and im playing postal 2 with over 40fps and for a laptop im sorry a MAC not ment for gaming it plays it pretty well concidering onboard graphics.


----------



## Ehstii (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> pretty or not is an opinion, imo all macs are fugly and should be put to fire.
> my gfx is much better so it heat up more, on onboard mode it barely heats up and is still better than the intel onboard you have that barely heats up, but you can barely do anythign *3d* with it, and my runs cool, just not as cold as yours 'cause they heat up more, since they're better



and how can you say that macs cant do anything 3D when Apples whole advertising market stradegy is all about designing and 3D stuff


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Ehstii said:


> and how can you say that macs cant do anything 3D when Apples whole advertising market stradegy is all about designing and 3D stuff



some days i have to use a mac (this is when i can get it to work correctly) especially in classes
and you can do 3d on a intel gma950, just no much, don't advise to do any major stuff on it..., and i call that misadvertising


----------



## Triprift (Jan 29, 2008)

Oh who cares lets not get a mac vista/xp flame war going if you like mac then more power to you i say. And that last post as you see from my sig ill use ne excuse to nutkick pt.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jan 29, 2008)

Triprift said:


> Oh who cares lets not get a mac vista/xp flame war going if you like mac then more power to you i say. And that last post as you see from my sig ill use ne excuse to nutkick pt.



exactly what i was trying to say


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 29, 2008)

How about from this point forward, everyone just shut up about mac vs xp vs vista. This is getting tiresome and childish.


----------



## zatblast (Jan 29, 2008)

vista came oem on my laptop its still there... but fedoras next to it and set to boot first... short version i dont really wanna go count up how many times it crashed on me back in my first 2 weeks or so of using it would estimate somewhere between 30 and 50 times.... can go check the logs though if you really want an accurate count xD although all but 4 times were caused by vista not getting along with zip genius...

anyways... once that was resolved and about a month later i started to uh "start" likeing it... still dont like it that much but eh


----------



## Triprift (Jan 29, 2008)

As far as im concerned the problem with Vista was it did what consumers and hardware manufactuers didnt want wich was to drag them kicking and screaming to the modern age. Honestly if we didnt have Vista weed have everyone with 1 gig or less and gpus would be poor as cus weed still be having dx9 as the benchmark. And if you think Vista is to bloated you can use vlite to strip it back.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> vista came oem on my laptop its still there... but fedoras next to it and set to boot first... short version i dont really wanna go count up how many times it crashed on me back in my first 2 weeks or so of using it would estimate somewhere between 30 and 50 times.... can go check the logs though if you really want an accurate count xD although all but 4 times were caused by vista not getting along with zip genius...
> 
> anyways... once that was resolved and about a month later i started to uh "start" likeing it... still dont like it that much but eh



thats another one that can be chalked up to a 3rd party app and not vista.
Far too many coders take lazy shortcuts that only work on one OS - thats the way its been sinec windows 95 was upgraded to 98, programs just kept failing every OS and evereyone blames the OS before realising its the application at fault.

Anyway what is zip genius? whats it got over winrar or 7zip?


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

tis got me using it... lol

and your right about it having been a 3rd party thing but i shall not stop blaming vista for it... glass is half full or half empty thing well that applies here so its still vistas fault, no changing that xD

anyways needed to do something or another probably unzip something, way back i dunno when or what it was and winrar failed me so stumbled upon zip genius and well *shrug* thats what i use...


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> tis got me using it... lol
> 
> and your right about it having been a 3rd party thing but i shall not stop blaming vista for it... glass is half full or half empty thing well that applies here so its still vistas fault, no changing that xD
> 
> anyways needed to do something or another probably unzip something, way back i dunno when or what it was and winrar failed me so stumbled upon zip genius and well *shrug* thats what i use...



its vistas fault it doesnt work in vistas, apples fault it doesnt work on a mac, and sonys fault it doesnt work on a PS3. Its the programs fault, go email the devs and ask them to update it.


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

no not apples or sonys faults for things that dont work on them from third parties, just vistas... and the devs had it updated shortly after the problem was recognized... just took me too long to realize what was the problem but something also tells me i should have shutup probably 3 posts ago... so i shall do that starting
~~now


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

I really enjoy reading some of the PC vs. Mac threads. They are more entertaining that the other fanboi threads in that the hate seems to be more deeply rooted on both sides and it brings out sort of a demented eloquence in the writers. I really think that people should use the computers that work best for them as that is really the whole reason for owning one.

Anyway ...

Vista worked straight out of the box for me on a brand new build without having to load any additional drivers (see specs). Never had this luxury with XP. For instance, I just bought a new Nikon DSLR camera. Vista saw it, knew what it was and handles all picture manipulation without having to load any additional thrird party software. Same for my older Sony camera. Vista has, by far, more compatibility with more devices than any OS I have ever used.

The only gripe I have with Vista is slow transfer rates and MS said this will be fixed in SP1, so I am looking forward to the update.

I'm not saying Vista is without problems, only that it is extremely stable and a pleasure to work with if you give it a chance.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> no not apples or sonys faults for things that dont work on them from third parties, just vistas... and the devs had it updated shortly after the problem was recognized... just took me too long to realize what was the problem but something also tells me i should have shutup probably 3 posts ago... so i shall do that starting
> ~~now



No. How can say ZoneAlarm not be at fault for not supporting Vista (at that time)? You tell me how that is Microsoft's problem?


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

question, i was not following close enough at the time but before vista was publicly released what were the requirements to get a development version so that programs could be made ready for the switch? by this I dont mean the public beta or torrents, I mean microsoft truely going out of its way to produce information for software developers... 
((no not dissing it for this ((unless they didnt)) just this was one of the problems I think apple went through... but wasent paying too much attention to that either))


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> No. How can say ZoneAlarm not be at fault for not supporting Vista (at that time)? You tell me how that is Microsoft's problem?



IT's obviously Microsoft's fault for not making every stinking piece of software ever written for windows backward compaitable to Windows 1.0


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I really enjoy reading some of the PC vs. Mac threads. They are more entertaining that the other fanboi threads in that the hate seems to be more deeply rooted on both sides and it brings out sort of a demented eloquence in the writers. I really think that people should use the computers that work best for them as that is really the whole reason for owning one.
> 
> Anyway ...
> 
> ...



The hotfixes that are in SP1 for that are actually available outside of SP1.
I should probably upload them somewhere but at around 50MB (uncompressed) i am unsure where to upload them and keep them there. (i have both 32 and 64 bit versions in this package)

If someone gives me a place to upload them, i'll happily pass them on to you guys.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> no not apples or sonys faults for things that dont work on them from third parties, just vistas... and the devs had it updated shortly after the problem was recognized... just took me too long to realize what was the problem but something also tells me i should have shutup probably 3 posts ago... so i shall do that starting
> ~~now



realising a mistake is the first step towards correcting it.

It helps having gone through several OS updates, people love blaming the thing right in front of them instead of actually determining the true cause.


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> people love blaming the thing right in front of them instead of actually determining the true cause.



The wind chill factor here at the moment is about -35F. I am thinking of sueing MS as it must be due to global warming caused by the production of Vista DVDs. 

I like Vista, but I am also looking forward to MS's next OS. Not sure when that will be or what it will contain, but tech is my thing and I love playing with it. If anyone comes up with an OS that is so easy and painless that people no longer need IT departments, I am out of a job.

New OS. See the Pain, Feel the Pain, Enjoy the Pain, be able to put dinner on the table.


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

ga freakin wind wish it would stop... oh in about the same boat with that -35 stuff, stupid vista... wait nvm stupid pirates stop burning movies to dvds its heating the world faster than vista dvd creation does >.< (just kinda rambling at this point)

anyways the next os is it still being based off windows or were they going to go ahead and redo everything?(redoing everything was a supposed rumor a while back i think...)


----------



## Triprift (Jan 30, 2008)

Read my post from earlier i said a few things that were gonna be different ....


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> The end of the conversation should very well be.
> 
> UNLESS you have used both OS's thoroughly you really cannot argue it because than you just become a fan boy.
> 
> ...



you say your a tech and youve never seen OSX lock up? 
And its been well documented that OSX has many more flaws than Vista, and its much more vulnerable to attack.  Vista is airtight and the only thing that can get through is what you allow, so if you disable UAC you have to accept that risk.

And no, benchies are much slower on Mac OS, I run a SETI benchmark and I ran the bios identitically between the 2 (OSX Leopard, and Vista) With proper drivers for both, and Vista was 8% faster(I wish I had those screenies)

The one thing I do agree with is that OSX has a much nicer install process, its very easy!
Video encoding goes much faster on Vista for me, that all depends on the software too, you cannot compare because Mac uses its own software, it cannot be compared.

AND THERE IS A CLEAR WINNER, ITS CALLED 97% of COMPUTER USERS
and they do have a choice


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

so anyone interested in the MS hotfixes? they fixed a lot of issues for me, including my webcam not working with 4GB ram in vista (Fuzzy green images overlapping the picture)


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> IT's obviously Microsoft's fault for not making every stinking piece of software ever written for windows backward compaitable to Windows 1.0



And they would do that why? Why not just leave PC's in the DOS era? Why support ancient hardware/software?


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> The wind chill factor here at the moment is about -35F. I am thinking of sueing MS as it must be due to global warming caused by the production of Vista DVDs.
> 
> I like Vista, but I am also looking forward to MS's next OS. Not sure when that will be or what it will contain, but tech is my thing and I love playing with it. If anyone comes up with an OS that is so easy and painless that people no longer need IT departments, I am out of a job.
> 
> New OS. See the Pain, Feel the Pain, Enjoy the Pain, be able to put dinner on the table.



LOVE IT, Im in the same business(personal computer biz, and Tech support for about 100 employees)


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

ok *notes kicking and screaming* oh guess thats not what you mean musta been this stuff..
trip, question what would a strippedback kernal mean? sorry not sure on that myself...
also does windows not already support touch screens?


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> ga freakin wind wish it would stop... oh in about the same boat with that -35 stuff, stupid vista... wait nvm stupid pirates stop burning movies to dvds its heating the world faster than vista dvd creation does >.< (just kinda rambling at this point)
> 
> anyways the next os is it still being based off windows or were they going to go ahead and redo everything?(redoing everything was a supposed rumor a while back i think...)



It still going to be a redo of everything. A stripped down windows kernel that is going to be 25MB insize using MinWin or WinMIn. Whatever the hell its called. Its going to have better support for older hardware though I dont know exactly how old. It supposed to have a new file system (WinFS) along with a new GUI and whatnot.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> so anyone interested in the MS hotfixes? they fixed a lot of issues for me, including my webcam not working with 4GB ram in vista (Fuzzy green images overlapping the picture)



i'd like to try them, I have heard rapid share you can post there for free, and it stays up until people stop downloading it


----------



## Kursah (Jan 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> so anyone interested in the MS hotfixes? they fixed a lot of issues for me, including my webcam not working with 4GB ram in vista (Fuzzy green images overlapping the picture)



hotfixes have been a saving grace for both XP and Vista imo. And I also think the direction this thread should take...we can all say the same things in 1,000 different ways, but in the end, it comes down to this:

Try it, like it or hate it...move on, or fix/tweak it.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> ok *notes kicking and screaming* oh guess thats not what you mean musta been this stuff..
> trip, question what would a strippedback kernal mean? sorry not sure on that myself...
> also does windows not already support touch screens?



stripped kernel means the OS is simpler. Less of windows NEEDS to run at one time - in other words, they're trying to match the efficiency of linux.

Say i run a 3D game - i dont really need printer services, file sharing, USB plug and play and floppy drive support. Why cant they ask a program what it needs to run and simply disable the rest (page them to the hard drive, for example)

This makes the system run leaner, and potentially faster for the really heavy apps.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Kursah said:


> hotfixes have been a saving grace for both XP and Vista imo. And I also think the direction this thread should take...we can all say the same things in 1,000 different ways, but in the end, it comes down to this:
> 
> Try it, like it or hate it...move on, or fix/tweak it.



well MS has to do this, with all the changes going on it just shows me that they are on top of the game, and they care about there customers. 

I respect MS because they have to satisfy millions of people and it seems that they continue to do so, not to many people even bother trying other options


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> stripped kernel means the OS is simpler. Less of windows NEEDS to run at one time - in other words, they're trying to match the efficiency of linux.
> 
> Say i run a 3D game - i dont really need printer services, file sharing, USB plug and play and floppy drive support. Why cant they ask a program what it needs to run and simply disable the rest (page them to the hard drive, for example)
> 
> This makes the system run leaner, and potentially faster for the really heavy apps.



Vista works fast because it keeps those things loaded, it keeps your stuff page filed for quick access, I enjoy that, and with good hardware theres no need to worry of lags, I never experience any


----------



## Triprift (Jan 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> stripped kernel means the OS is simpler. Less of windows NEEDS to run at one time - in other words, they're trying to match the efficiency of linux.
> 
> Say i run a 3D game - i dont really need printer services, file sharing, USB plug and play and floppy drive support. Why cant they ask a program what it needs to run and simply disable the rest (page them to the hard drive, for example)
> 
> This makes the system run leaner, and potentially faster for the really heavy apps.



thanks mussels i would of answered but need to go to work like now


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Triprift said:


> thanks mussels i would of answered but need to go to work like now



what time is it over there now??  You guys at work now??


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> stripped kernel means the OS is simpler. Less of windows NEEDS to run at one time - in other words, they're trying to match the efficiency of linux.
> 
> Say i run a 3D game - i dont really need printer services, file sharing, USB plug and play and floppy drive support. Why cant they ask a program what it needs to run and simply disable the rest (page them to the hard drive, for example)
> 
> This makes the system run leaner, and potentially faster for the really heavy apps.



thats something that would be nice, and kinda neat...however have to ask this next question
why are they getting around to doing it just now? current technologies as in the ones that are currently gearing up would just about make it useless in my current oppinion... as in new hdd options are developing (solid state) and well generally things are just getting faster... and so those more or less minor things in the bg will matter less and less as to if they are running or not... again oppinionated here but yea...


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

double click clock in bottom right, go to time zones...find somewhere in australia and theres a time for a rough estimate think its +10 or so from US central


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> double click clock in bottom right, go to time zones...find somewhere in australia and theres a time for a rough estimate think its +10 or so from US central



wow, probably took longer to type that than the time, thanks


----------



## Cold Storm (Jan 30, 2008)

I have vista ultimate x86, and by far this is the best os i've used... I have everything hooked up to everywhere... xbox loves it, tv loves it, modem loves it, and so does me! I have the whole media center hooked up. download movies, tv shows, and stream stuff hasn't been a problem.
and as in speed, i don't even see the whole windows signs... i did before ocing it... now i just see the start screen then desktop... all loads in less then a min.
Everyone has their own opinions. And, I for one, will be keeping vista, and showing everyone how this thing can get even sweeter!


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> And they would do that why? Why not just leave PC's in the DOS era? Why support ancient hardware/software?



@Crash : I am truly sorry that you failed to see the sarcasm in my post. There is no sarcasm smiley, so I can understand the confusion. 

There are many hotfixes that you can get now, but I am lazy and want them all in a service pack.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

good to hear!! Im a huge vista fan too, in the beginning I wasnt to impressed.  That was just because it was hyped way too much.  After I got over the shock of the new OS and finding everything I am a huge fan.  When I go back to XP it just looks boring!


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> wow, probably took longer to type that than the time, thanks



just incase : sarcasm!


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

lol... kinda figured that and even if it wasent prefer pointing out how easy things can be rather than asking for some stuff but uh wow that sounds bad... eh too lazy to reword...


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> just incase : sarcasm!



Sissy. Take the beating and explain later


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> lol... kinda figured that and even if it wasent prefer pointing out how easy things can be rather than asking for some stuff but uh wow that sounds bad... eh too lazy to reword...



no big,  soo ahhhh yah vista.....


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

is evil


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

It has officially hit -317F here. My cat if frosen to the window when last trying to let me know to let him in. It is to cold to light matches to start a fire. 

On the upside, Vista and my internet is still working.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> It has officially hit -317F here. My cat if frosen to the window when last trying to let me know to let him in. It is to cold to light matches to start a fire.
> 
> On the upside, Vista and my internet is still working.



I hear yah, (Im in wisconsin too!) today it was 49F and now its -2F, thats a 51 degree difference in 10 hours!! and its like 40 mile an hour winds now


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

could you imagine what would happen if in one of those "warm" places it went from like 90 degrees to 40 degrees? and i would love 40... ((also -30 w/ windchill here)) but thats iowa...


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> thats something that would be nice, and kinda neat...however have to ask this next question
> why are they getting around to doing it just now? current technologies as in the ones that are currently gearing up would just about make it useless in my current oppinion... as in new hdd options are developing (solid state) and well generally things are just getting faster... and so those more or less minor things in the bg will matter less and less as to if they are running or not... again oppinionated here but yea...



because there will always be a game or app that wants faster.

Look at it this way - back in the day when 3D hardware was new, no one ever thought of real time physics in a game - it required lots more power before people even thought of it. WIth a lean OS and more power than ever, maybe we'll finally get some new and exciting thigns in games, rather than rehases of old ideas.


MS hotfixes.7z

here is an upload of the hotfixes i use. Some of them are on winupdate now, but not all - they really do help the oS because faster and more stable, and i've not had or heard of anyone having problems with these on x86 or x64.

I even have notes saying what each one fixes - just keep in mind they fix MORE than they say they do. (Ex: the USB hotfix fixed my TV tuners and webcams not working with 4GB ram, even on x64)


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

I am going to step out on a limb here and make a sweeping generalization.

"We all suck"

All of us who stand fast by our hardware and software biases are just confirming the fact that poeple cannot make an objective opinion based on facts and are duct taped to their favorite niche at the moment.

While this may seem to be a detrimental thing, I say, "live with it."

All of these forums thrive on people supporting their favorite brand and they should.
What have these companies spent millions of dollars for if they cannot generate a loyal fan base through advertising their products?

Yes, "We suck", but we have the right to suck. So grab your fanboi hat, get the latest reviews, and let's keep promoting our fave brands.

No, no sarcasm here. Honestly. I love a healthy, spirited discussion on the merits of even the most craptastic products on the market today.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

ewwwww those speeds are very very slow!!!!!  Is everyone here trying to download this or what!


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> I am going to step out on a limb here and make a sweeping generalization.
> 
> "We all suck"
> 
> ...



who said we are biased, I have used both for quite some times.  Im going by what I prefer, and thats the whole point for these forums, to share that!


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Mussels said:


> because there will always be a game or app that wants faster.
> 
> Look at it this way - back in the day when 3D hardware was new, no one ever thought of real time physics in a game - it required lots more power before people even thought of it. WIth a lean OS and more power than ever, maybe we'll finally get some new and exciting thigns in games, rather than rehases of old ideas.
> 
> ...



getting 16.7kbs


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> ewwwww those speeds are very very slow!!!!!  Is everyone here trying to download this or what!



talking about my files? its the only site i knew of that would let it upload and stay for at least 30 days, and wouldnt get deleted. i did ask earlier but no one gave suggestions on where to upload to.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> i'd like to try them, I have heard rapid share you can post there for free, and it stays up until people stop downloading it



rapid share


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> who said we are biased, I have used both for quite some times.  Im going by what I prefer, and thats the whole point for these forums, to share that!



Ummm ... That whole little tirade was sarcasm. Sorry, like I said before, there is no sarcasm smiley


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

eew rapid share :/

anyways random question... anyone else find the email for every post slightly annoying but still nice enough to not wanna turn it off? if thats even possible been to lazy to look...gotta assume it is


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> eew rapid share :/
> 
> anyways random question... anyone else find the email for every post slightly annoying but still nice enough to not wanna turn it off? if thats even possible been to lazy to look...gotta assume it is



Holy spam Batman, turn off the notify by e-mail.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Ummm ... That whole little tirade was sarcasm. Sorry, like I said before, there is no sarcasm smiley



I see where your coming from, I think Im still wound up from my card dying!!!!  Sorry


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> eew rapid share :/
> 
> anyways random question... anyone else find the email for every post slightly annoying but still nice enough to not wanna turn it off? if thats even possible been to lazy to look...gotta assume it is



rapid share has been great to me, had bad luck in the past eh?


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Holy spam Batman, turn off the notify by e-mail.



but then how would i remember to be like oyea flame war going on there *run*... i would forget xD



as for rapid share eh... short version is i simply use the free download part of it which is just kinda annoying its not a overly bad service but... yea... just one of those annoyances


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

OK. this tread has wandered away from the original intent.
I suggest we vacate it and move to other threads so this can die a pianless death.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

ahh i c, I have been using their 1 click hosting stuff and it works great!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 30, 2008)

VISTA FOR THE WIN!!!!!

3 more posts till I hit 1000!!!!


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

AphexDreamer said:


> VISTA FOR THE WIN!!!!!



>.<


----------



## magibeg (Jan 30, 2008)

Well my new computer is up and running and i'm trying vista for the first time. It's not nearly as bad as many people seem to claim it is but i have to admit i wouldn't call it great either. There is a bit of sluggishness to it when it comes to games and my heroes of might and magic dark messiah crashed for no apparent reason twice today. Just stops responding then boots me back to the desktop.

Also when you first start running vista it seems to assume you're a complete idiot. The number of prompts to do anything was insane until i disabled it. Although realistically speaking the common user would be wise to mind some of the messages.

Also i only scored a *lowly* 10.8K stock settings in 3dmark06 which seems to be a fair amount lower than xp with a similar system.


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

check the event viewer, see if you can find a reason there..


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Well my new computer is up and running and i'm trying vista for the first time. It's not nearly as bad as many people seem to claim it is but i have to admit i wouldn't call it great either. There is a bit of sluggishness to it when it comes to games and my heroes of might and magic dark messiah crashed for no apparent reason twice today. Just stops responding then boots me back to the desktop.
> 
> Also when you first start running vista it seems to assume you're a complete idiot. The number of prompts to do anything was insane until i disabled it. Although realistically speaking the common user would be wise to mind some of the messages.
> 
> Also i only scored a *lowly* 10.8K stock settings in 3dmark06 which seems to be a fair amount lower than xp with a similar system.



you got 10k in 3dmark with a P4 and a 2600????  really


----------



## magibeg (Jan 30, 2008)

Sorry i didn't change my system specs yet, i thought that someone would mention that eventually


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

Vista runs most games without problem. If you are having a crashing issue check for updates. (I am assuming you are using latest video drivers).

I have had minimal problems with all my games and have yet to find a game that will not work under Vista. I have not tried them all, but my faves work fine.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Sorry i didn't change my system specs yet, i thought that someone would mention that eventually



ahh i c, 
let me guess.....

c2d @ ~3ghz and a 3870, maybe a highly clocked 3850...


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Vista runs most games without problem. If you are having a crashing issue check for updates. (I am assuming you are using latest video drivers).
> 
> I have had minimal problems with all my games and have yet to find a game that will not work under Vista. I have not tried them all, but my faves work fine.



Vista hasnt had any problems with my games, my Girlfriend has some old games that ran iffy so I ran them in compatibity mode and it worked great


----------



## magibeg (Jan 30, 2008)

After checking the vista event viewer, which is very nice might i add, it called it an application hang of program mm.exe. Doesn't really tell me much else though, but its done it twice over about 2 hours.


edit- and for curiosity sake what cooling are you using for your q6600?


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

magibeg said:


> After checking the vista event viewer, which is very nice might i add, it called it an application hang of program mm.exe. Doesn't really tell me much else though, but its done it twice over about 2 hours.
> 
> 
> edit- and for curiosity sake what cooling are you using for your q6600?



swiftech water kit, apachee GT block with a few radiators


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

hmm... only thing google is finding for mm.exe is that its a virus... so maybe see about checking on that...


----------



## Kreij (Jan 30, 2008)

It's my bed time kids, but on a last note I would like to say that there are really only two things I did not make Vista more pleasant.

Shut of UAC and shut off driver signing checks.

I think the 50 mph winds here causing wind chills of -50 or so are affecting my brain.
I'm going to snuggle with my wife in bed to keep warm and get some sleep.

Post on !


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Kreij said:


> It's my bed time kids, but on a last note I would like to say that there are really only two things I did not make Vista more pleasant.
> 
> Shut of UAC and shut off driver signing checks.
> 
> ...



second that, me and my sig. other are doing the same now, night all!


----------



## magibeg (Jan 30, 2008)

zatblast said:


> hmm... only thing google is finding for mm.exe is that its a virus... so maybe see about checking on that...



Naw thats just the exe that launches under the name Might and Magic (see the 2 m's?)


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

ohh and for anyone who wants those hotfix's, I posted them on rapid share just for shits, hopefully it goes fast for yah!

http://rapidshare.com/files/87734847/MS_hotfixes.7z.html

EDIT - Im getting like 450kbs as a download, it works well!


----------



## zatblast (Jan 30, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Naw thats just the exe that launches under the name Might and Magic (see the 2 m's?)



lol good point, sorry just decided oh i have no idea what mm.exe is so google it and came up with ackie stuff sorry about it


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Sorry i didn't change my system specs yet, i thought that someone would mention that eventually



those new specs haev a lot in common with mine. feel free to PM me if any niggling issues persist.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 30, 2008)

I'll probably just have to play with things a little more... I did just build it today and such, just for kicks I've been running a bunch of stability tests like orthos and things seem to be checking out at a hardware level. I'll just see what i can do over the weekend.


----------



## ChillyMyst (Jan 30, 2008)

sladesurfer said:


> http://neowin.net/news/main/08/01/20/windows-vista-the-facts
> 
> 
> > When choosing a new operating system, the first thing many people ask is, "What will it help me do?" In answer, much of this site shows you the great experiences Windows Vista helps you have. The second thing many people say is, "Prove that it's better." In particular, many of you have asked about performance and safety improvements. The following information provides specific proof that Windows Vista is faster and safer.
> ...



first off bad sorce, neowin is a known MS humper site, they will say anything to keep ms happy, its why i dont post there anymore, when server 2003 came out ms GAVE me full copys of web/std/ent, and later SBS via a voucher, i ran them as a workstation, it was fine at first, people where kool and alot of us ran it as a workstation because its faster and more stable then XP.

but it didnt take long and neowin started a shift in its stance on MS products, they use to be very unbias, they started accusing anybody who had a server os(nt4/2k/2k3) and used it for a workstation of being a pirat, this is the mods as well as power users, then it got even worse, if you said something bad about an ms product they would lock or even delete the thred, not because of how it was posted but because it was anti-MS in some of their eyes.

Since vista came on the scene they have had ALOT of *MS EMPLOYS* join and start posting how great vista is, some even became staff, some admit they work for ms, others just wont reply if they are asked if they work for ms.

as to your points you listed humm, i can refute them 1 by 1 and will.



> The majority of Windows Vista-based PCs boot in less than a minute, which can be an improvement over Windows XP boot times. And the new Windows Vista sleep and resume features can bring your PC to life in a snap—in fact, the vast majority of all Windows Vista-based PCs resume from sleep in less than 6 seconds.



ok first, vista systems that are not a fresh install may get to desktop faster but you cant do much till the hdd gets time to load your apps due to vista wanting to "super fetch" every damn program on the system into ram.......
resume from sleep, this is fast on 2k/xp/2k3/xp64 in most cases its 7-10sec, depending on if it was suspend to ram or suspend to hdd, hdd takes a bit longer but is more reliable.

the slow boot times with XP are only on systems that are full of crapware that loads along side windows, these same apps slow vista boot as well, or they are because the moron owner dosnt know what defaging the hdd is....



> PCs running Windows Vista that are equipped with 512 MB memory experience a performance boost of up to 40 percent with Windows ReadyBoost. Just plug a USB flash drive into your computer, and Windows Vista will automatically start using it to speed up memory access to important data.



512 is way to little to run vista on period, its borderline for XP, 2k 512 is plenty for non gamers.
i dont want vista waring my flashdrives out by wrighting/reading to them a thousand times a second, thats just stupid, flash drives have a limmited number of times the data can be changed, i have worne a few out already and they where name brand.



> Out of the box, Windows Vista performs as well, or better, than Windows XP on common home and business tasks.


ok this is a crock, super fetch lets software load SLITLY faster, thats it, you can do the same thing with xp if you wana mess with its prefetch and caching functions.
and many common buniness apps DONT WORK PROPERLY UNDER VISTA!!!!(adoby anybody?)



> Windows Vista users generally experience 20 percent fewer application "hangs" than those running Windows XP


humm funny since when i ran vista in this box i had alot of apps eather fail to start or crash within seconds of loading, examples, bf2/2142, fear, adoby acrobat(not reader), photoshop, paintshop pro, i could go on and on, vista has alot of buggs.




> Superfetch helps your computer adjust to your schedule, so your apps are ready to go before you even launch them. Use Microsoft Outlook every morning? Superfetch will serve it up just in time for breakfast. Play the same game every night? Superfetch gets your computer ready for the next big win. Waiting less means you can do more


super fetch has been proven USELESS for gamers, it at best helps get a game stared 10seconds faster, problem: it eats up ram that the games would benifit from by fetching other shit like IE.... dissable superfetch and see how your exp changes, if ur like most geeks your not using the exect same apps other then browser every time you use your system.



> Based on their first 180 days of availability, Windows Vista has been shown to have fewer vulnerabilities than Windows XP or MacOS X 10.4. PCs running it are 60 percent less likely to be infected with viruses, worms, and rootkits than PCs running Windows XP SP2. Windows Vista-based PCs are over 90 percent less likely to be infected than systems running Windows XP without a Service Pack. And the experts agree: "Windows Vista is arguably the most secure closed-source OS available on the market."



haha, osx has only had 1 virus that was acctualy a thret, i hate mac but damn i wouldnt even try and say windows was more secure.......neowin fanboi bullshit again.

as to "without a service pack" OMFG how many people today acctualy try and run windows xp without a service pack, not even my noob friends who dont know much beyond "thats the power button" and "thats an internet browser" and "thats my email"  wont run windows without it being patched up fully. most of them even found out how to use nlite themselves and slipstreamed their windows disk without asking me how(its that easy!!!)



> The more people use Windows Vista, the more they like it. So dig in and learn even more about the new features in Windows Vista. Once you've tried it, you'll see



i forced myself to use vista for a month, after that i removed it from my system and it hasnt gotten back on yet!!!

my mother installed vista after gateway gave it to her to replace windows MCE on her lappy, 3 weeks later she had me wipe it and restore the xp install i backed up for her because alot of her software for her buisness WONT WORK ON VISTA PROPERLY, and its not the software thats the problem, they are waiting for ms to patch some flaws they cant program around.



3991vhtes said:


> Actully, 800MHz is minimum. Your RAM makes a huge difference. ValueRAM = GENERIC, therefore, it'll cause your system to slow down. The last statement is funny. My system runs smooth with just 1GB.



this is a crock of shit, valueRAM is not generic, its just the stuff name brand companys sell cheap without heatsinks, infact many times its the same stuff they sell as mid range or ever high end they just use diffrent SPD's and add ramsinks.

oh and at least with kingston and gskill the valueram is acctualy stuff that was orignaly hign end that has been out paced by newer higher clocked kits, the SPD is already set for say 533, but the sticks and chips are the exect same ones that are use for high end kits now at 800mhz, i have prooven this with kingston,pqi and gskill, copy the SPD from the hign end kit, flash it to the low end kit after checking that the sticks are the same, and bam, 533 kit becomes 667/800 kit thats 3-5x the cost.......

ask ket said, valueRAM is fine, infact till the huge price drop i use to reccomend ppl get uber valueram, now i tell them to get something like the a-data extream 2gb 800 cas4 kit thats 52bucks because it overclocks to 1066 or higher without much effort at all and its still cheap!!!

now as to the sp1 will fix all the worlds problems, it wont, it improves perf on a large number of systems with 1gb or more of ram, but it also takes forever to install, as long as 5hrs from reports, thats INSAIN, 5-7 restarts and HOURS to update windows........screw that......

it fixes some problems, but some are overlooked, the current sp1 beta is VERY VERY close to RTM(ready for market) its acctualy in the RC stages nolonger being called a beta.

i have installed it, it helped my buddys lappy vista install, but didnt speed his main system much, mind you he has quad boot because hes a programer and had to test software on 
2k
xp
2k3
x64 pro(xp/2k3 64bit) 
vista32 and 64

he  uses vista at work exclusivly because the system the company got him had it preinstalled, he hates it, not because its diffrent from xp but because its buggy and he keeps having to manualy force it to reconnect to the network(known bug thats due fixed in sp1, vista dosnt like some older lan/wan setups currently and wont play nice)


everybody should just wait for vienna/windows 7, its by all accounts going to be a drastic redesign, 64bit only no 32bit version, using a striped down nt core thats got most of the lagacy code removed that is in vista/xp/2k/nt4 to support older lagacy apps,  its also said to be FAR smaller to install, talking cd size again insted of needing a dvd to install your os, this again is a good move because smaller=less bloated=good for users.

also smaller=more efficent in this case because they remove a huge block of the lagacy code thats been in the nt core since the 3x days(ewww) 

ms gives me os's because of the field i work in, vista is the one os they have given me that i have no intrest in reinstalling, it just dissapointed me so much, im a gamer and net geek as well as computer tech, and well vista is just a pain in the ass :/


----------



## ChillyMyst (Jan 30, 2008)

on and i missed it, this guy acctualy posted a link to a news post on another site thats a copy of a news post by 





> News source: Microsoft


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/facts.mspx

at least post the link to the orignal story dude, and to me this totaly destroys the articals possable credibility, not that i belived it anyway....ROFL


----------



## Ravenas (Jan 30, 2008)

This forum is getting so many flame wars, it wasn't like this when I first came here...It's so childish that stuff like this actually keeps happening constantly. Respect peoples opinions...

Windows and Mac is like Pepsi and Coke. IT'S JUST A PREFERENCE. Stop labeling eachother and throwing out names just because someone uses a particular software. Grow up. 

If you want my honest opinion, nothing in this thread is factual just because he finds a source that says "THE FACTS". Both operating systems have their flaws, and software changes constantly. There are no Facts in software because software is changed and can be changed constantly. 

:shadedshu


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

long posts... all my vista systems take 1-2 seconds to recover from sleep. i touch the mouse button, all fans/lights power on and then its upto me to type my password.

XP cant do that.

Valueram is teh same as expensive ram - its ram. faster ram is an advantage, but not that great - that said, vista uses ram more (superfetch) so fast ram does help performance.


----------



## ChillyMyst (Jan 30, 2008)

if its suspend to ram it can, and vista uses suspend to ram, suspend to ram systems just powerdown as much of the system as possable whal keeping the os and apps your using alive in acctive memory, the problem comes that alot of motherboards specly older ones dont use STR correctly and you gotta use STD(suspend to disk)

i personaly never shutdown unless its to change hardware or to clean my cpu cooler(damned dust!!!)

really the ultimate way to have your system ready in an instant, takes 1sec for my monotor to turn back on and im off doing stuff, well as long as my internets not stalling out and needing to have modem reset


----------



## magibeg (Jan 30, 2008)

Actually the vista sleep function is one thing i did notice that was rather interesting with vista. As mussels said it only really does take a couple seconds to come back on. Way faster than my laptop actually.


----------



## Duxx (Jan 30, 2008)

I guess im going to have to make the plunge... where is the cheapest to buy Vista at?  64 bit only por favorrr


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

Duxx said:


> I guess im going to have to make the plunge... where is the cheapest to buy Vista at?  64 bit only por favorrr



the cheapest is to download the OEM cracked vista 64. Of course it has the downside of being illegal.

cheapest legit, is to buy the OEM version - probably of home premium.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 30, 2008)

Newegg has some good prices on the OEM Vista Disks, I buy the 32bit's here for work and pay 109 a copy.  I couldnt imagine 64bit being much more. 

And I tried that cracked version awhile back and the crack continued to fail so I was re-installin every 3 weeks or so, so I just got a copy. (I normally like to wait atleast a few more weeks than that!)


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> Newegg has some good prices on the OEM Vista Disks, I buy the 32bit's here for work and pay 109 a copy.  I couldnt imagine 64bit being much more.
> 
> And I tried that cracked version awhile back and the crack continued to fail so I was re-installin every 3 weeks or so, so I just got a copy. (I normally like to wait atleast a few more weeks than that!)



32 and 64 are completely compatible - many many people i know with legit 32 bit, have used a copy of my legit 64 bit disk and their '32 bit' CD key and it works fine. It was made this way, so that you can order a disk of microsoft for only the shipping fee.


----------

