Microsoft Spins Over a 'Mojave' Approach to Grow Vista User-base

[Dark_Webster]

On my lappy, Vista 32 SP1 runs and looks like a purring kitty, when I tried Vista 32 as soon as he came out on my desktop... can you say: Games have half of the frames compared with Windows XP. But SP1 for Vista brought some stability, so I believe that in some years, Vista will become mainstream.

 

[AsRock]

Sheesh, all you know they might of used slow(er) XP machines and really good machines for vista with hand picked parts guaranteed to work with Vista.

And who cannot tell the difference from XP and Vista, what programs did they use games ? office ?..

I'm not against Vista i find it all right but not found it as fast as XP. Vista's faster if you strip it down we all know this but so is XP.

Best thing you can do to know if Vista is for you is to borrow a copy of a friend 1st. These studies are to be ignored what ever it concerns as people do not even know what to eat these days though them.

I remember when people were saying XP x64 sucked ass but i still got it and i had\have 0 issue's with it for years now in fact i have had more issue's with Vista. I find Vista nice ( w\O sp1 as it messes up my system).

 

[magibeg]

Someone who has never used vista could not tell it is vista. I think we're assuming that the average joe is a techpowerup user. When i built this computer i was a little nervous about all the flak vista was getting but when i actually used it everything turned out to be more than peachy. Vista just seems to have a bad reputation.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Vista just seems to have a bad reputation.

True that - people don't really like change.

 

[Ketxxx]

Nobody has an issue with change in the IT world. Vista has a bad reputation for good reason.

 

[Ketxxx]

There's alot of things going on in the background that you don't notice, like it automatically defragments when idle and it introduces new cryptography standards as well. Also it builds on voice recognition and touch screen although they only touched on it. There's probably tons of things but I can't remember it all.

I know all about the things going on under the hood of Vista - half of which are what make me not use Vista. Its very very possible to make a new OS that is faster and more secure without dramatically increasing memory usage. Vista simply goes overboard here. The absolute best I could crimp Vista down to was 512MB, after extensive services optimisation. Nevermind any programs running on top of that. In XP I can be running 4-7 relatively memory hungry programs and just be peaking 512MB.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Nobody has an issue with change in the IT world. Vista has a bad reputation for good reason.

Exactly. If corps don't dare to change over, ever, to vista, then you know problems lay inside it's useless, ugly, gui.

 

[Kreij]

My personal experience with Vista (Ultimate 32) :

Built rig.
Was leary about Vista but I bought it anyway because I am a sucker for new tech.
Got ready to do F6 install for RAID. Didn't have to, Vista recognized every component in my rig.
Got ready to install more drivers for peripherals. Didn't have to, Vista recognized everything I plugged in.
Bought a new Nikon D300 camera, grabbed the s/w disk. Plugged in camera (USB). Vista knew what it was and I never had to load any crapware.
Noticed that my HDDs were being utilized a lot. This stopped once Vista figured out what I did most.
All games worked great. I don't care if I get 1 FPS less in Vista. Never noticed a difference in my gaming experience.
Loaded up the original Starcraft thinking, Ha! Vista won't like this old game. Nope. Runs perfectly.
Loaded up AtiTool. Vista said, "Are you sure", I said, "Yes". Runs fine. So do all the other utilities that I use for monitoring.

Just my opinion, but I really like Vista. It has made many things a lot easier for me than they were with XP.

 

[Ketxxx]

Thats probably just you then, with XP just about every peice of hardware known to man at some stage or another has been connected to my puter, not once has XP griped about it. Stuff like my Sandisk MP3 and my Samsung digicam dont need their disks, just plug it in and XP recognises it, does its thang and thats that.

 

[Kreij]

Perhaps, but perception plays a big role in what people do.
For instance, I have not pushed to upgrade all of the systems I manage at work to Vista.
Why ? Because for what they are used for, there is no compelling reason. They work fine.
As an IT Manager I cannot justify the expense.
At home is a different story.
I want my home system to be a trouble free as I can get it. I do not want to have to work all day on computers and then come home and deal with problems on my home network.
I spend much more time dealing with problems in the XP computers on my home network that with my Vista rig. It just runs happily.

Again, people will have different experiences, but my experice with Vista has been nothing but favorable.

 

[TheGuruStud]

You must be an email and web browsing grandmother LOL

I haven't encountered such a pile of crap since win95a (we'll let ME lay low).

 

[Kreij]

You must be an email and web browsing grandmother LOL

I haven't encountered such a pile of crap since win95a (we'll let ME lay low).

Please elaborate.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Please elaborate.

Vista works fine for very simplistic tasks (aka email, web, etc). But as soon as you try anything resource intensive, it goes belly up and cries (aka goes slower than molasses) for you to stop. That's aside from the many quirks that make me yell obscenities repeatedly. If I wanted something to thrash my HDD all day and still not get anything done, I'd use vista. If I wanted to wait all day to copy/delete files, I'd use vista (contrary to popular belief it's not fixed completely). If I wanted crap gui, I'd use vista (of course I'd just disable it and install blinds). If I never wanted a chance to repair the OS or just flat out not run some EXEs (but the same files magically work on a different vista machine). Or crap drivers b/c they feel the need to dick with the driver models. DirectX 10 can suck my nuts, worthless (irrelevant though haha).

Maybe I should use vista for a few mins then I can write some more.

I'd still be using 2000 if they had a 64 bit version (running xp x64 here).

My sister's old comp that I built - xp 2600 512 ram XP - is as fast or faster (depending) as vista with 2 GB ram and dual core
There's definitely something wrong with that picture. And it's running blinds and about 10 other apps in the background.

 

[AsRock]

True that - people don't really like change.

It's not change whot my issue's are with it. It's the lack of changes that bother me. And then again some things should not be changed. As they say don't fix it if it ain't broke.


Some love it some don't Some hate it and some just had bad luck with it. If i had brought my 2 copy's i would of been pissed like hell.

People are people just seems like more hate\dislike it which i cannot blame them as it don't give much if any thing extra than XP x64 gives.

 

[candle_86]

I have never had an issue with Vista, i dual boot Vista Home Premium 32 and Windows XP 64 and i can honestly say i have less hassle with Vista than my XP install. On average with XP i would format every 2-3 months simply from clutter, with Vista since i installed it i havnt noticed the slowdown i got with XP after a few months of use. Also i notice less conflicts with stuff, some older games won't run on Windows XP 64 and look right, blocky almost, this isnt the case with Vista.

 

[AsRock]

I have never had an issue with Vista, i dual boot Vista Home Premium 32 and Windows XP 64 and i can honestly say i have less hassle with Vista than my XP install. On average with XP i would format every 2-3 months simply from clutter, with Vista since i installed it i havnt noticed the slowdown i got with XP after a few months of use. Also i notice less conflicts with stuff, some older games won't run on Windows XP 64 and look right, blocky almost, this isnt the case with Vista.

But thats just it i've never had a issue with ATI cards for over 10 years but you have... Whats good for one is not always good for another. Think this is were people are going wrong, you CANNOT please everyone.

 

[TheGuruStud]

I have never had an issue with Vista, i dual boot Vista Home Premium 32 and Windows XP 64 and i can honestly say i have less hassle with Vista than my XP install. On average with XP i would format every 2-3 months simply from clutter, with Vista since i installed it i havnt noticed the slowdown i got with XP after a few months of use. Also i notice less conflicts with stuff, some older games won't run on Windows XP 64 and look right, blocky almost, this isnt the case with Vista.

x64 doesn't like some older games, the video driver kinda fails.

I had a vista install, lasted 6 mo, then it killed itself and was a nightmare every day (only purpose was to learn all of it's BS). XP 32 installs only last about 6-12 mo for me, but the x64s last 2 yrs.

 

[AsRock]

x64 doesn't like some older games, the video driver kinda fails.

I had a vista install, lasted 6 mo, then it killed itself and was a nightmare every day (only purpose was to learn all of it's BS). XP 32 installs only last about 6-12 mo for me, but the x64s last 2 yrs.

Yet again it depends on how tyou use and treat a computer. I install about 10-40 different apps a month on mine at least. Were another might only install 20 apps\games over a year. Then you have the fact of what apps as some remove better than others.


Everyone using a computer differently hense the reason i said if you going buy Vista borrow a copy of a friend and see how it runs for you. Too many factors in this to say which ones better.

 

[newconroer]

those 90% must have been some dumb people to not see vista was vista, I still stand firm saying that I hate vista because the more powerful your machine is the more power vista will suck from it with the exact same settings in my experience

Interesting coming from someone who doesn't have their computer specification fields filled in.

 

[DrPepper]

I regularly reinstall my OS's sometimes upto twice a month so I don't really know how badly vista ages (I like the feeling of a brand new OS. Its like getting a new car and smelling the newness) but my friend who had his for over a year has had no problems apart from the motherboard dying, also my little brother who is the antichrist to operating systems still hasn't destroyed vista.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

i bet those ppl in that survey couldnt programa remote

 

[magibeg]

i bet those ppl in that survey couldnt programa remote

Or maybe they're just regular people that don't go onto tech forums all the time. And having never used vista they wouldn't know the difference between vista and mojave.

And when people say vista is only good for simple tasks could i get a few programs to try out that wouldn't be considered 'simple' to see how it runs on vista. I've had no problem compiling code and encoding movies. Games haven't really been an issue either. Also to the comments about vista eating up all the ram and such, you have to realize that vista works on an entirely different ram management. Whats the point of having a bunch of ram if its empty all the time?

 

[TheGuruStud]

Or maybe they're just regular people that don't go onto tech forums all the time. And having never used vista they wouldn't know the difference between vista and mojave.

And when people say vista is only good for simple tasks could i get a few programs to try out that wouldn't be considered 'simple' to see how it runs on vista. I've had no problem compiling code and encoding movies. Games haven't really been an issue either. Also to the comments about vista eating up all the ram and such, you have to realize that vista works on an entirely different ram management. Whats the point of having a bunch of ram if its empty all the time?

What's the point of using all of it when I go to load a game and it has to page it right back at the same time the game's trying to load? It works both ways and it's management sucks. Plus, it hoards ram other than just its caching "feature". I encode all the time, but that's hardly stressing except for the CPU.

 

[Mussels]

What's the point of using all of it when I go to load a game and it has to page it right back at the same time the game's trying to load?

that doesnt happen. vistas ram caching is improved a lot, the OS uses it until another app wants it, then the OS loses priority. I know this is a fact because i ran 1GB of ram for a while, my games ran fine but when closing/quitting/alt tabbing out of the game, the OS took upto a minute to load again - it was cached, NOT remaining in ram.

 

[TheGuruStud]

that doesnt happen. vistas ram caching is improved a lot, the OS uses it until another app wants it, then the OS loses priority. I know this is a fact because i ran 1GB of ram for a while, my games ran fine but when closing/quitting/alt tabbing out of the game, the OS took upto a minute to load again - it was cached, NOT remaining in ram.

Load up fear and tell me how that goes, ok. The game can't even play smooth b/c to go around a corner it has to pause to load more data. And yeah, a lot was still in ram, but since vista's so bloated it still took forever to become functional. If it has actually offloaded the ram then games would be as smooth as they are in XP, but that's not the case.

And how can anyone justify it taking such a tremendous amount of time to alt-tab or exit a game to get back to windows. It's so freaking asinine. If I had to use that shit every day I wouldn't be able to see straight with fury. It's bad enough with XP.