A few Vista Beta 1 impressions

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

charles555

Banned
Mar 15, 2005
266
0
0
Originally posted by: MaxFusion16
posting this on vista right now, takes about an hour to do the install.

honestly, it's not worth the trouble. it's clearly still in early development, slow loading, high memory usage(over 300mb with clean boot), and compatibility issues.

I'm reinstalling xp first thing tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...

He has a Raptor, that is why you took so long.
 
I

imported_tabasco122

Member
Jul 24, 2004
42
0
0
hmm, vista seems useless without win fs. and i like the idea of not having drive letters as long as i can view them the old fashioned way also. like keep windows and programs on one partition and games and media on the other and have them merge into different sections within the os, but remain seperat in case you need to reformat. like i have most of my games and media on my 70GB partition and my programs and windows on my 30GB partition. the thing is i also have some games and media on my system partition and vice versa. it would be nice to have all my games and stuff grouped together no matter where its physical location. like having one virtual media library that is made up of archived videos, your recording destination for your tv tuner, and stuff you dl from the internet all in seperate places but grouped together. i like that idea...

and as for the wireless thing, my shuttle pn11 wireless module worked fine with 4074 and 5058, although i havent tested vista yet.
 
Nocturnal

Nocturnal

Lifer
Jan 8, 2002
18,927
0
76
I fix computers for a living and the search tool within Windows is horribly slow. If it could be as fast if not faster than what Google uses, hey, all the merrier for me, no complaints here lol.
 
I

imported_tabasco122

Member
Jul 24, 2004
42
0
0
i have never used more than 700MB of my gig at one time, and that was running a game and the operating system. most new computers will have 2 gigs or more by that time so if the most you use of your ram is 75% then who cares if the os takes up 400-500MB? the extra ram is never used.
 
flexy

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
honestly, it's not worth the trouble. it's clearly still in early development, slow loading, high memory usage(over 300mb with clean boot), and compatibility issues.
Click to expand...

It would need a LOT of crack to *Seriously* think that ONE day MS will release a FAST, RESOURCE FRIENDLY, STABLE OS. It would also take a lot of drugs to assume that MS, as a company, rather goes for progress and improvement.

Too bad - always the opposite is the case. Stuff out of redmond uses more and more resources, gets slower (?), gets LESS compatible and stable....just is a REGRESS compared to what we had before.

Why even bother ? (I mean: Us: why bother to use it ? And for MS: Why bother to write/release it ?)

I have never heard ONE positive thing about X64/Longhorn/Vista.







 
flexy

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Originally posted by: tabasco122then who cares if the os takes up 400-500MB? the extra ram is never used.
Click to expand...

actually i do.

Because excessive ram-usage is one result of inefficient (bad) code.

Windows was(and is) ALWAYS a bad and inefficient/slow OS.

Compensating for software/OS slowness by just adding gigs of memory and gigs of mhz on the CPU is the LAME way to go. The fact that you need monster machines just to RUN this OS is porof enough how bad/inefficient it is.

Of course - ME (and thousands of others) in the future will not care wince there is just no way around MS and what comes out of redmond....we WILL all have 2,3,4 GB memory and 4,5,6,7MHZ machines in the future - and we WILL have X64/LH/Vista....and it will be slow and inefficient....same as it ever was :)

 
V

valkator

Member
Apr 6, 2005
115
0
0
weee a little off topic but i managed to fine me the recycle bin icon. So now i have that little clear one for xp. That is about all i like so far in vista. LOL
 
AgaBoogaBoo

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
A little off topic, but if any of you want to do something with vista-os.com, let me know, I own it. I'd be willing to give webspace or something.
 
B

BlingBlingArsch

Golden Member
May 10, 2005
1,249
0
0
can i download the 32-bit version somewhere for testing?

@aga: if u like post some screenshots. i wonder what is "new" regarding system options, search engine, tell us about the changes pls :)
 
n7

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
A little off topic, but if any of you want to do something with vista-os.com, let me know, I own it. I'd be willing to give webspace or something.
Click to expand...


Start hosting the 64 & 32-bit versions of Vista there :D
See how long it takes for you to get shut down :p
 
n7

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
Originally posted by: Safeway
I want Vista =(
Click to expand...


Then get it.

Really though, you're not missing out on much.

I haven't even booted into Vista all week.

I'm back to using XP Pro.
 
Ichinisan

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
*Ugh*

Vista never asked me for anything other than the product key before installing. IT DIDN'T EVEN ASK FOR THE @#$%ING TIME-ZONE and proceeded to botch my system time and use Pacific Time instead of EST (GMT-5 Hours). I started the installation from within Windows XP Professional and chose the "Clean Install" option because "Upgrade" was disabled.

It took an extremely long time to install. When I try to install the ethernet network driver by pointing to the existing NVIDIA platform driver in C:\nvidia\nForceWin2KXP\5.10\Ethernet, it pretends to install for a long time and then flakes out with this error message:
There was a problem installing this hardware:
NVIDIA nForce Networking Controller

An error occurred during the installation of the device

The name is already in use as either a service name or a service display name.
Click to expand...

I don't see why I would have this problem and not anyone else. What the hell is going on?

CPU
AMD Athlon XP 3200+

Memory
512MB DDR400 Kingston Hyper-X

Motherboard
MSI NVIDIA nForce2 Ultra 400

Video Card
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro All-in-Wonder

Hard Drive
100GB IDE Western Digital
 
P

Pepsi90919

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,162
1
81
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Well, I'm now posting from a clean install of WinVista Beta 1. Everything went smoothly. I installed from my WinXP installation, and was able to choose which hard drive to install to. I installed to my secondary hard drive which housed a trial version of WinXP64. It basically said it was going to move everything to a folder called Windows.old, and that installation wouldn't work anymore. Looks like it's done exactly that.

My first thoughts during installation is I liked the extreme simplicity of it, however I hated the lack of feedback of what exactly it was doing. Just a note that said it was installing, and nothing more but a moving bar. This may change later, though, I understand. My guesstimate put installation at around 30 minutes. I was able to get into WinVista with no problems, and the drivers for my 6800GT have installed fine. I'm running at my beloved 1680x1050 as I type. My ethernet driver installed fine also for my KV8-Max3.

Other than that for right now, not much else to report on. I haven't delved into anything yet, although I love the look. I had a window that refused to close by any conventional means, but a CTRL-ALT-DEL did the trick. I must say I like the new windows for the 3-finger salute, which gives you a few more options, one of which is to open the task manager.

I must say it is quite zippy, and I'm enjoyed tinkering around with it so far. It's looking good so far!
Click to expand...

welcome to windows NT.
 
P

Pepsi90919

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,162
1
81
Originally posted by: flexy
Originally posted by: tabasco122then who cares if the os takes up 400-500MB? the extra ram is never used.
Click to expand...

actually i do.

Because excessive ram-usage is one result of inefficient (bad) code.

Windows was(and is) ALWAYS a bad and inefficient/slow OS.

Compensating for software/OS slowness by just adding gigs of memory and gigs of mhz on the CPU is the LAME way to go. The fact that you need monster machines just to RUN this OS is porof enough how bad/inefficient it is.

Of course - ME (and thousands of others) in the future will not care wince there is just no way around MS and what comes out of redmond....we WILL all have 2,3,4 GB memory and 4,5,6,7MHZ machines in the future - and we WILL have X64/LH/Vista....and it will be slow and inefficient....same as it ever was :)
Click to expand...
you will have 4-7MHz machines in the future? ok then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom