I can't believe it, I'm a Vista basher too

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Well its not my job to talk people out of throwing away good money...

Why are you so obsessed with were others spend their money? All that matters is I believe I got a good deal.

Originally posted by: Soviet
You clearly are unfamiliar with the average user... Its obvious everyone you know is technically inclined or works with computers etc, heres a newsflash, these people are not the average user, they are a minority.

It is obvious you don't know me or my family or friends. The people I know could care less about the intricate details of technology. If average users do not care about the security of their systems, why do they spend billions of dollars every year on security related software? What makes you any more of an expert of the average user than I am? Nothing, so quit trying to make yourself out as such.

Originally posted by: Soviet
Besides, people have had bluescreens with creative drivers on vista, i had one once, updated the driver and it was fixed. But dont tell me vista corrects drivers problems because a bad driver can still crash it evidently.

You are right, an improperly coded driver can still crash a Vista system. Creative is notorious for putting out badly coded drivers that do not follow Microsoft's recommended model. That doesn't mean I was not correct that the new driver model makes Vista much more resilient to poorly coded drivers. The fact is it does, and any expert on Vista on this board will tell you it does. I never said that Vista was 100% bullet proof to poorly coded drivers.

Originally posted by: Soviet
I feel the exact same way about you, you keep on assuming that everyone else
is like you, thinks like you, appreciates the same things you do and uses their computer for the same uses as you. Heres another newsflash, they dont!

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Lets look at one of your previous postings for proof you think others use the computer like you do.

Originally posted by: Soviet
I have XP on my laptop, and Vista ultimate x64 on my desktop, so i use both regularly and i can confirm that vista is NOT worth the money at all, i got it free as im a student and thats the only way vista might be worth it. Theres nothing vista can do that XP cant, theres nothing vista has on XP, yeah ive heard of superfetch and security and blah blah blah, theres nothing real that positively affects my day to day use of the computer. If you have vista and its working out for you, fantastic, but many have problems with it and until you accept this there will be people like me who will bash it simply because people like you treat it like its gods gift to operating systems which it isnt.

For your information, I never said Vista was for everyone and in fact said people should wait for a new computer to move to Vista.

Originally posted by: Soviet
What the hell... no! They dont care about that stuff!! Damnit man, why dont you go talk with some random people about vista, go ask them about, they wont tell yoy about the fantastic new driver/sound model thats for damn sure. You have no idea what the average computer user is like do you?

As for increased stability... XP is stable as it is, theres nothing wrong with it.

I never said the average user would know the technical specifics of the changes in Vista that would positively affect them. That doesn't mean the average user does not care about the end result of such changes. Again I ask, what makes you think you are any more of expert of the average user than I am? You were the one who brought up the average user in this conversation in the first place, not I.

No, XP is not as stable, as other posters have already pointed out to you. XP suffers from user rot after being on for long periods of time requiring a reboot to correct the situation. Vista does not require that kind of attention due to the changes under the hood. XP is also more vulnerable to malware under it's default configuration than Vista, meaning it is less stable. You are right, there is nothing wrong with XP for an advanced user that knows how to lock down the system. But for people that don't know how to properly lock it down it is somewhat more dangerous to use.

Originally posted by: Soviet
You ability to understand a simple point sucks, your an idiot, and youve made a mountain out of a mole hill.

Look, I let a pet peave of mine get in the way of a good conversation. Lets not resort to name calling that might get this thread locked. I was wrong on singling out your grammar and apologize for that.

Originally posted by: Soviet
What the hell is wrong with you.

My family and friends have been asking that question for a long time. 😉

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Sir Anonymous
I don't understand why everyone claims that ME has twenty million problems or so, when I was using it on my desktop it worked perfectly fine.

I never (personally) ran WinME, but I did work on friend's and family's computers that had Millennium installed.

Truthfully, and I'm NOT trolling here...

I think many ppl had much the same reaction to ME, as they did to Vista - that's all!

What I hated about WinME is, I couldn't find anything - just like when I started using Vista.

Whenever I worked on a ME machine, I would put it in 'classic mode', or whatever, then switch everything back when I was done... 😉

Bottom line for me: I hated the user interface!

For others...

SOURCE

Criticisms

Dan Tynan called it "Mistake Edition" in the PC World article 'Top 25 Worst Tech Products'.[10] He declared Windows Me the fourth-"Worst Tech Product of All Time" (after AOL, RealPlayer, and Syncronys SoftRAM) because of various technical issues and bugs.[10] "Shortly after Me appeared in late 2000," the article states, "users reported problems installing it, getting it to run, getting it to work with other hardware or software, and getting it to stop running." It was also criticized for its instability and unreliability, due to frequent freezes and crashes.[citation needed] It has a larger number of bugs than its predecessor, Windows 98 SE.[citation needed].

Sounds just like Vista, huh? 😀

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: KLC

Are you referring to me? I didnt make that statement.

Then someone must be using your computer...

Whoops, I must have forgotten to delete a section when I replied to him, that was originally posted by griffinhart.

 

[Griffinhart]

Yep, it was me. I probably should have wrote that some posts in this thread were like that.

 

[wwswimming]

man that is my favorite part of vista instant search ah man its great. Just type the first 3 letters of a program and bam. I thought indexing is done after the first few days? Guess as you add things it autoindexes if its put in an indexed folder. The searching is pretty much the only thing i see/feel as a difference from XP. Well that i use everyday. I do get frustrated with the problems but i dont have many and i have less than i had with XP.

how does it work ?

with Yahoo Desktop Search, let's say you have a friend whose name
is Chuck whose email is in an old Eudora inbox located somewhere
in the hairball of information that a person can end up with after
using computers for a few years. Marc Andreassen gets the credit
for using the term Hairball to refer to software, that was how he
described Windows Explorer.

with YDS, you just type "chuck" into "all files", and it will bring up
everything anywhere that has the string "chuck" in it. if i wrote
a Wordpad note containing the term "upchuck" for my Bulimia
support group, it will bring up that.

8-{: <-- guy with a mustache and 2 zits on his chin.)

so does Vista search get instances inside files, or just file names ?

i think bashing cars is more fun than Vista bashing.

of course, if the Vista bashing were done in the presence of a
keg of beer ... car-bashing is still better.

(do they still have car-bashes at fraternity parties ?)

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

man that is my favorite part of vista instant search ah man its great. Just type the first 3 letters of a program and bam. I thought indexing is done after the first few days? Guess as you add things it autoindexes if its put in an indexed folder. The searching is pretty much the only thing i see/feel as a difference from XP. Well that i use everyday. I do get frustrated with the problems but i dont have many and i have less than i had with XP.

how does it work ?

with Yahoo Desktop Search, let's say you have a friend whose name
is Chuck whose email is in an old Eudora inbox located somewhere
in the hairball of information that a person can end up with after
using computers for a few years. Marc Andreassen gets the credit
for using the term Hairball to refer to software, that was how he
described Windows Explorer.

with YDS, you just type "chuck" into "all files", and it will bring up
everything anywhere that has the string "chuck" in it. if i wrote
a Wordpad note containing the term "upchuck" for my Bulimia
support group, it will bring up that.

8-{: <-- guy with a mustache and 2 zits on his chin.)

so does Vista search get instances inside files, or just file names ?

i think bashing cars is more fun than Vista bashing.

of course, if the Vista bashing were done in the presence of a
keg of beer ... car-bashing is still better.

(do they still have car-bashes at fraternity parties ?)

Yep, thats the whole point. It'll search titles, contents, attributes, tags, ete, from email messages, documents, internet history etc etc

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Sir Anonymous

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: KLC
I've got a Dell system from 2000 that is still running fine on Windows Me.

--there is your problem .. you are the ONLY person on the planet that likes WinME ...

so ...

.. your luck finally ran out when you installed Vista. 😛
:clock:

it's cosmological timing and karma ... stick with XP

I don't understand why everyone claims that ME has twenty million problems or so, when I was using it on my desktop it worked perfectly fine. I would have stuck with it, but as soon as Microsoft disowned I had to make the switch to XP so that I could use a program from at least the 21st century. Got XP SP2, just as good save for a little shinier and better support for program bugs.

Frankly, I would go ahead and buy Vista since I have the 2GB memory and all, but:
1) A little pricey for me at the moment.
2) Drivers across the Internet really need to get upgraded soon.
3) I like a superfast computer.
4) I'm content to wait until Vista SP2.

Well, if youre buying it along with well matched modern hardware, its not going to cost you much more than XP. The only drivers that are still issues are from companies that have always written bad drivers, such as creative. Motherboard and Video drivers from intel/amd/nvidia etc are quite mature at this point, the kinks were worked out months ago. It'll also only be noticeably slower if you have lower end hardware, but theres definitely no rush. Don't go out and spend the money to upgrade your older PC. If it aint broke, dont fix it. But if you're going to buy new hardware and need a new OS license to go with it, it would be silly to get anything other than Vista. So much of the Vista bashing is still held over by those who had a terrible experience at launch when it was *really* buggy. Its incredibly stable and quite mature at this point, aside from the small subset of programs that still have issues with it, which the OP managed to have quite a few of.

I can truthfully say that since day one, the *only* instability I've had with Vista has been either due to hardware (OCing too much/creative sound cards/immature drivers) or software (incompatibilities). I've never, ever had explorer or any other OS component spontaneously crash. It was slightly slower on my laptop vs. XP, but on my C2D desktop, its certainly "superfast."

 

[apoppin]

I can't believe it, I'm a Vista basher too

Some people are still running Win95 😛

i look at it this way .. who cares what someone ELSE is running on their rig? Perhaps they are just unenlightened or they simply want to be holding onto something "comfortable". They can talk all they want about their inability to install or even comprehend Vista; they can blab on and on how "DX9c with a gazillion tweaks looks almost as good" .. and they can dump all the FUD on it they want

They simply don't know and i believe they should be allowed to remain in their state of "bliss" ... i am not one to shake them out of it - even if XP is primitive in comparison.

We Vista users know better .. eventually they will either receive enlightenment or evolve or else they will remain with the XP-ship as it goes down. i guess i will pray to Darwin's god to intercede for them in a timely fashion.




:laugh:

 

[nerp]

Vista ownsj00.

🙂

 

[JustaGeek]

The best FREE search engine is Agent Ransack:

http://www.mythicsoft.com/agen...age.aspx?page=download

Works on all 32 and 64-bit systems. 😀

Finds files in (almost) seconds, and words within the files in minutes.

Couldn't do anything without it, and have been using it for almost 4 years now.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: apoppin

I can't believe it, I'm a Vista basher too

Some people are still running Win95 😛

i look at it this way .. who cares what someone ELSE is running on their rig? Perhaps they are just unenlightened or they simply want to be holding onto something "comfortable". They can talk all they want about their inability to install or even comprehend Vista; they can blab on and on how "DX9c with a gazillion tweaks looks almost as good" .. and they can dump all the FUD on it they want

They simply don't know and i believe they should be allowed to remain in their state of "bliss" ... i am not one to shake them out of it - even if XP is primitive in comparison.

We Vista users know better .. eventually they will either receive enlightenment or evolve or else they will remain with the XP-ship as it goes down. i guess i will pray to Darwin's god to intercede for them in a timely fashion.




:laugh:

i've been using vista for a year, and it's not nearly as enlightened or evolved as you make it sound. from my perspective, it is a poorly rehashed and fattened xp, that never left beta.

i'll spare us all the list of things that i hate about vista, as the obvious answer is "wtf go back to xp then, dummy." but, there are a couple small things i do prefer over xp. things like a default programs button, better control over audio level output (although i still want hardware-based audio), video thumbnails (that mostly work), a slightly better task manager, etc. there's no reason why these improvements shouldn't be added to xp.

most disappointing is the general sloppiness. some are good ideas executed poorly, some are bad ideas executed poorly. it reminds me a lot of american cars in the 80's.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: apoppin

I can't believe it, I'm a Vista basher too

Some people are still running Win95 😛

i look at it this way .. who cares what someone ELSE is running on their rig? Perhaps they are just unenlightened or they simply want to be holding onto something "comfortable". They can talk all they want about their inability to install or even comprehend Vista; they can blab on and on how "DX9c with a gazillion tweaks looks almost as good" .. and they can dump all the FUD on it they want

They simply don't know and i believe they should be allowed to remain in their state of "bliss" ... i am not one to shake them out of it - even if XP is primitive in comparison.

We Vista users know better .. eventually they will either receive enlightenment or evolve or else they will remain with the XP-ship as it goes down. i guess i will pray to Darwin's god to intercede for them in a timely fashion.




:laugh:

i've been using vista for a year, and it's not nearly as enlightened or evolved as you make it sound. from my perspective, it is a poorly rehashed and fattened xp, that never left beta.

i'll spare us all the list of things that i hate about vista, as the obvious answer is "wtf go back to xp then, dummy." but, there are a couple small things i do prefer over xp. things like a default programs button, better control over audio level output (although i still want hardware-based audio), video thumbnails (that mostly work), a slightly better task manager, etc. there's no reason why these improvements shouldn't be added to xp.

most disappointing is the general sloppiness. some are good ideas executed poorly, some are bad ideas executed poorly. it reminds me a lot of american cars in the 80's.

i bet you 'tweak' Vista .. like you do with XP
-i dare you to tell me you leave it completely stock - i bet you don't 😛

 

[The Boston Dangler]

tweaks:
shut off UAC, System Restore
kill processes i have no need for (media center, wmdm, sidebar etc.)
shut off auto update on everything, switch to manual

please tell me how eliminating useless crap has crippled vista. view/sort/group/stack, searching, and other basics are a complete CF right out of the box.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
tweaks:
shut off UAC, System Restore
kill processes i have no need for (media center, wmdm, sidebar etc.)
shut off auto update on everything, switch to manual

please tell me how eliminating useless crap has crippled vista. view/sort/group/stack, searching, and other basics are a complete CF right out of the box.

As i thought .. you castrated it 😛
-obviously .. and i am NOT going to debate you about specific tweaks - find out for yourself - do Vista the RIGHT way!

You would fit into my group that simply doesn't understand Vista although you think so - based only on your obvious expertise with XP
... and in case you missed the *most important* part of my post, i'll be glad to repeat it:

i look at it this way .. who cares what someone ELSE is running on their rig?

i am sorry you are unhappy with Vista. But if you really want to give it a FAIR chance, reinstall it - a fresh install - and DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING - *stock*

Leave it stock for 3 weeks - unmodified - THEN report back
--not until them - you simply have NOT "experienced Vista" although you have it installed [incorrectly, imo] on your HD - for over a year!
:roll:

 

[Goosemaster]

stop bickering over an OS..go outside and enjoy the sunlight...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
stop bickering over an OS..go outside and enjoy the sunlight...

that is what *I* said 😛
- and it is DARK outside where i live right now .. so it'd have to be the "starlight" and coyote symphony i'd enjoy this night
:moon:

But when someone says they experienced Vista and it sucks it is USUALLY because they castrated it with their "tweaks"

just a PS message

you are now returned to your normal [antiVista bashing] programming now

aloha .. i'm headed outside

ah woooo

 

[nerp]

Overtweaking + crummy 3rd party firewalls, security suites, media/burning suites, spyware scaners, "fix it utilz", codec packs, defraggers and memory washers and registry eroticizers = slow ass hobbled PC.

The only things I suggest disabling is the realtime scanning of defender (leave to scanning occasionally) and system restore (i don't mind really, not for mom and dad but OK for me). Otherwise, tweakify = screwupify. Leave the damn stuff alone and you'd be surprised. We're not in 1997 folks. Saving 200kb of ram and a process in your list = zilch.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
tweaks:
shut off UAC, System Restore
kill processes i have no need for (media center, wmdm, sidebar etc.)
shut off auto update on everything, switch to manual

please tell me how eliminating useless crap has crippled vista. view/sort/group/stack, searching, and other basics are a complete CF right out of the box.

As i thought .. you castrated it 😛
-obviously .. and i am NOT going to debate you about specific tweaks - find out for yourself - do Vista the RIGHT way!

You would fit into my group that simply doesn't understand Vista although you think so - based only on your obvious expertise with XP
... and in case you missed the *most important* part of my post, i'll be glad to repeat it:

i look at it this way .. who cares what someone ELSE is running on their rig?

i am sorry you are unhappy with Vista. But if you really want to give it a FAIR chance, reinstall it - a fresh install - and DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING - *stock*

Leave it stock for 3 weeks - unmodified - THEN report back
--not until them - you simply have NOT "experienced Vista" although you have it installed on your HD
:roll:

i forgot to mention i turned off auto-play. yeah, that's a real deal breaker :roll:

let's see.....i'm supposed to re-install vista ult 32 (twice because i have the upgrade) and not touch it for 3 weeks, while getting the UAC popup constantly, loading my pc with (literally useless - I DON"T USE THESE PROGRAMS) processes and bogging it down randomly with indexing and auto-updates for everything whether i want them or not.

that will fix video thumbnails, folder view settings, driver incompatibilities, drm, boot/shutdown times, hardware-based audio, wasted hdd space, ms outlook refusal, total lack of ultimate extras (f-ing scam in the first place), and my new-for-sp1 video player crash?

no, it won't.

the only things it will accomplish are swelling my useless prefetch, sys restore and index directories. maybe i could use messenger to transfer some files and have them duplicated on the hdd for no reason.

after a full year, i know enough that vista is broken right out of the box. i don't think i can take much more "vista experience", thanks.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nerp
Overtweaking + crummy 3rd party firewalls, security suites, media/burning suites, spyware scaners, "fix it utilz", codec packs, defraggers and memory washers and registry eroticizers = slow ass hobbled PC.

The only things I suggest disabling is the realtime scanning of defender (leave to scanning occasionally) and system restore (i don't mind really, not for mom and dad but OK for me). Otherwise, tweakify = screwupify. Leave the damn stuff alone and you'd be surprised. We're not in 1997 folks. Saving 200kb of ram and a process in your list = zilch.

After 3 weeks, YES .. not before

my advice to the people who love the primitiveness of XP and try to impose on Vista is to TOUCH NOTHING - not for 3 weeks until they are *sure* how it behaves.

Restore and defender may be slightly annoying but i'd keep them for the first month until i knew about what really makes vista really tick

OK, i am REALLY going outside

😀

now 😛

logging OFF!

 

[The Boston Dangler]

enjoy your evening

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: apoppin

As i thought 😛
-obviously

You would fit into my group that simply doesn't understand Vista although you think so based on your expertise with XP
... and in case you missed the *most important* part of my post, i'll be glad to repeat it:

i am sorry you are unhappy with Vista. But if you really want to give it a FAIR chance, reinstall it - a fresh install - and DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING - *stock*

Leave it stock for 3 weeks - THEN report back
--not until them

I have to disagree with your assessment on the things The Boston Dangler turned off. I do agree much of the tweaking done on XP is useless on Vista and can negatively affect performance. However, the things that TBS did would not affect the performance of Vista one bit in a negative way.

1. Shut off UAC - I don't recommend it for security reasons, but no one has ever had a performance hit from turning it off.

2. Shut off System Restore - This will actually give you a minor performance increase and free up hard disk space. If TBD is using imaging software and makes regular backups, then system restore is useless and I recommend turning it off.

3. Shut off processes - Depends on the processes that TBD has turned off. The ones he listed have no negative or positive performance impact except for sidebar, which will lead to slightly less memory usage and a faster boot time.Turning off some system processes like ready boost will hurt performance since ready boot requires it. Shutting off Superfetch will only lead to longer load times for software, but otherwise will not affect any other area of performance negatively.

4. Shut off auto update on everything - Again, depends on what he means by shutting off auto update. If he is talking about the gazillion stand alone applications that want to start at boot and auto update, I have to agree. If he is talking about turning off Windows Update altogether, then there will be no performance gain or loss either way. However, his system is a lot less secure. I recommend that people leave Windows Update on and set it to at least check for updates weekly but let the user choose to download and install them.

I will post some tweaks that will help Vista's performance, without sacrificing functionality.

1. Turn off auto scanning and real time scanning on Windows Defender. This will give one of the biggest performance boost to Vista. Leave Defender enabled so you have access to the very useful software explorer. If you have anti-virus installed, turn off those previous features and email scanning. Only do this if you are committed to manually scanning on a regular basis. (At least once a week is idea) If you do this, leave UAC enabled and set DEP to work on all programs for added security. You will not have to worry about third party spyware/adware scanners by practicing safe computing, locking your system down and running as a standard user.

2. (Obvious) Turn off the Side Bar. This thing is a resource hog and leads to slower boot times. It could also be a security risk if you install a bad third party gadget. Turn this useless piece of shit off.

3. Change the page file from dynamic to fixed. Vista regularly runs a process to dynamically adjust the page file. This process causes the hard drive to grind at inopportune times and eats cpu cycles. By fixing the page file to the recommended size displayed by Vista, you will have a slight performance boost by killing this unnecessary process. Do not apply any other tweak to the page file. Vista is much more picky about where the page file is and moving it or eliminating it will negatively impact the performance of Vista.

4. Set Vista to use all cores to boot. Vista by default uses only one core to boot. To set it to boot off of all cores go to msconfig - Boot tab - Advanced and set the number of cores and hit apply. Some people claim this doesn't do any thing, but I noticed a slightly faster boot time on my system.

5. Adjust indexing to only the files you will actually search on a regular basis or turn off the service if you never use the instant search. Due to Vista's better priority system, indexing will not affect the performance as much as it does on XP. But there is no point in having it run longer than needed either.

6. Turn off all start up programs using Software Explorer and msconfig. Unless it is a driver, like creative there is no reason for any programs to run at start up. You can safely disable all the Nvidia startup services in most cases.

Added number six on the edit.

These few tweaks will give most user a noticeable difference on the speed of Vista without sacrificing any functionality.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

soonerproud, windows defender and update and anti-virus are on, but not auto-update. i have turned uac and indexing off, since i rarely search on the machine. i don't use media center, wmp, readyboost (big LOL there), mobile devices, windows movie maker, etc. page file (drive 0 only) and superfetch are unchanged, although i delete the contents of the prefetch dir every couple months.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
soonerproud, windows defender and update and anti-virus are on, but not auto-update. i have turned uac and indexing off, since i rarely search on the machine. i don't use media center, wmp, readyboost (big LOL there), mobile devices, windows movie maker, etc. page file (drive 0 only) and superfetch are unchanged, although i delete the contents of the prefetch dir every couple months.

I see a couple of problems with what you posted.

Readyboost is needed for readyboot (Speeds up the boot times of Vista drastically.) You should turn that one back on, even if you never use readyboost.

Turning off wmp, mobile devices, (Tablet PC?) media center etc will not give you any performance increase if you are not using them. However, turning off some of those things may affect other things you do use, so you should leave them enabled. The most you would want to do is set them to manual, but you will not gain any performance benefits by doing so due to Vista's priority system.

Never clear out the prefetch directory. You are killing performance by doing so. Superfetch will have to rebuild your usage patterns so you will have to live with less performance for up to two weeks.

You should reinstall Vista and do not tweak anything but what I posted. Avoid Nero, iTunes, Quicktime, Realplayer and anything from Norton or Mcaffee. Use Cdburner XP Pro instead of Nero, install quicktime and realplayer alternative. Use AVG or Antivir instead of Nero or Mcaffee. Install FFDSHOW instead of any codec packs and all should be golden.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Readyboost is needed for readyboot (Speeds up the boot times of Vista drastically.) You should turn that one back on, even if you never use readyboost.

never turned it off, simply ignored. that's one of over a dozen svchost.exe's, right?

Turning off wmp, mobile devices, (Tablet PC?) media center etc will not give you any performance increase if you are not using them. However, turning off some of those things may affect other things you do use, so you should leave them enabled. The most you would want to do is set them to manual, but you will not gain any performance benefits by doing so due to Vista's priority system.

i no longer use a pocket pc, and i detest media center. right there is at least 5 things my computer never needs to spend time running.

Never clear out the prefetch directory. You are killing performance by doing so. Superfetch will have to rebuild your usage patterns so you will have to live with less performance for up to two weeks.

i don't need to pre-load something i uninstalled months ago. the only startups are AVG, drivers and speedfan. my usage patterns are pretty simple: opera, CoD4, and audio/video. if i bust out the word or excel, i don't mind a few seconds of loading for a less frequently used program.

You should reinstall Vista and do not tweak anything but what I posted. Avoid Nero, iTunes, Quicktime, Realplayer and anything from Norton or Mcaffee. Use Cdburner XP Pro instead of Nero, install quicktime and realplayer alternative. Use AVG or Antivir instead of Nero or Mcaffee. Install FFDSHOW instead of any codec packs and all should be golden.

i'm quite familiar with small-footprint software. my pc isn't underpowered, i just want to extract the most from it when it's called for. that, and "the simpler, the better". i use nero, but sparingly (no startup). i use irfanview, foobar and mpc with ffdshow and haali. qtalt is ok, no need for rpalt. since sp1, i've uninstalled zoom player and rely on mpc-hc.

it's been fun discussing this, but i'm going to bed. good night :moon:

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
never turned it off, simply ignored. that's one of over a dozen svchost.exe's, right?

Correct.

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i no longer use a pocket pc, and i detest media center. right there is at least 5 things my computer never needs to spend time running.

That is my point, unless you specifically start these programs they will never run on their own. Just set the services to manual for these things if they bug you that much. That way if something you do use depends on one of them, you will not have as many problems. Honestly, leaving these services alone will not make a difference one way or the other but disabling them might.

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i don't need to pre-load something i uninstalled months ago. the only startups are AVG, drivers and speedfan. my usage patterns are pretty simple: opera, CoD4, and audio/video. if i bust out the word or excel, i don't mind a few seconds of loading for a less frequently used program.

Vista already takes care of the prefetch folder for you automatically, without hurting your performance. there is no need to delete the contents yourself as this is redundant and hurts performance.

Try disabling all the AVG stuff and do manual updates/scans. The performance increase is quite noticeable. In services.msc, leave the AVG updater service set to manual and disable the Alert Manager Server. In the AVG control panel disable:

1. Auto scanning/updating
2. Shell Extention
3. Email Scanner
4. Resident Shield

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i'm quite familiar with small-footprint software. my pc isn't underpowered, i just want to extract the most from it when it's called for. that, and "the simpler, the better". i use nero, but sparingly (no startup). i use irfanview, foobar and mpc with ffdshow and haali. qtalt is ok, no need for rpalt. since sp1, i've uninstalled zoom player and rely on mpc-hc.

it's been fun discussing this, but i'm going to bed. good night :moon:

I figured you had an idea about small footprint software but wanted to reinforce how much more important this is for Vista. Nero has a nasty habit of installing all sorts of unneeded services, like it's own search indexing that is hard to disable. Trying to disable it from starting in msconfig is a waste of time because it adds a whole bunch of processes it allows little control over. Nero also does not uninstall cleanly and is very poorly written in many areas. You should really look for another alternative to it.

Have a good night man and take care.