overclockers.com's take on Vista

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01286/

(Warning, it ain't pretty.)

 

[Aberforth]

First sign of madness.

 

[soonerproud]

You can always depend on VirtualLarry to post any and all bad reviews of Vista.

Edit:

This is just a really bad written opinion piece. The author presents his "subjective" view and offers nothing we already did not know. What a waste of time.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
You can always depend on VirtualLarry to post any and all bad reviews of Vista.

Edit:

This is just a really bad written opinion piece. The author presents his "subjective" view and offers nothing we already did not know. What a waste of time.

Agreed!...as always more FUD being spread about Vista.
(Warning pure FUD!)

 

[Megatomic]

Where's the fud? It's slower than WinXP. That was my exact observation as well...

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Where's the fud? It's slower than WinXP. That was my exact observation as well...

Obviously he is trying to make Vista look worst then what it actually is,any person that has used Vista knows it not as bad as the comments he has posted.

You want some honest feedback on Vista go here. .


Personally I find Vista quite nippy in general but hey I have only been using it for 13 months ,what do I know .

This thread was only started for one reason and you know the answer to that.
Ironic an OCUK member probably posted a 100% more accurate comment then what that guy ever did.

In terms of technology, Vista is much better. The re-written graphics stack and security enforcement, the kernel lockdown, superfetch etc etc.

In terms of speed, it's horses for courses, vista is faster in some situations, XP is faster in others. To compound the problem, there are some situations where XP seems faster than vista, but isn't, because of the different way it does things (File copying being the most obvious).

Plus there's the obvious fact that an OS designed to run on 7 year old hardware will probably run better on modern hardware than the brand new one designed to make better use of the modern hardware to do more things...

QFT!!!!!!!

 

[Megatomic]

I did use Vista on a modern computer and I was left feeling "meh" afterwards. So, rather than bitch about it on the internet, I did something about it - wiped it off the computer and installed XP.

Then I got a Mac.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
I did use Vista on a modern computer and I was left feeling "meh" afterwards. So, rather than bitch about it on the internet, I did something about it - wiped it off the computer and installed XP.

Then I got a Mac.

I miss my AMIGA A500 ,those were the days , reminds me of the old Atari ST v AMIGA A500 threads hehe.

 

[apoppin]

You mean Ed "clueless-about-anything-except-overclocking" Stroligo


:Q

he knows less about Vista than i do but will have a strong opinion about ANYTHING .... he is a blogger with an expertise in O/C'ing - that is *all*

This is not terribly appealing, especially since the version of Vista being used 95% of the time can't use any more RAM than XP, roughly 3.25GB. That means 64-bit Vista is my only real option, and we know that's as neglected as the crazy aunt in the attic.

what a moron .. the more he strays outside his field the less relevant he is
:roll:

 

[Megatomic]

Ohhhh, I had an Atari computer, but it was a 600XL. I loved that computer.

 

[apoppin]

i had an Atari 800xl

 

[nerp]

Yet another rookie wannabe journalist.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nerp
Yet another rookie wannabe journalist.

Actually Ed is quite respected inside his field ... he is a "tweaker" and an "overclocker"

Outside his field of expertise he often blunders ... and i can see 'why'
The experts with XP always try to MAKE VISTA INTO XP ... in doing so they castrate Vista without realizing ... it is NOT "tweaking friendly" [yet].

Every setting affects another ... they are layers upon layers and MS makes it work well together if you leave it alone ... it "anticipates" you after awhile

Frankly, the guys stuck on XP might as well use Win2K
- it is *primitive* in comparison to Vista

 

[soonerproud]

Here is a gem of a quote from this knucklehead.

This is not terribly appealing, especially since the version of Vista being used 95% of the time can't use any more RAM than XP, roughly 3.25GB. That means 64-bit Vista is my only real option, and we know that's as neglected as the crazy aunt in the attic.

Most people do not need more than 2 Gigs of RAM. Unless you are a gamer, heavy multitasker or you use memory intensive programs, 2 Gigs is more than enough and will be for at least the next year or two.

Vista 64 bit is hardly as neglected as the crazy aunt in the attic. Support for 64 bit Vista is actually very good and most people would not be able to tell the difference between the two if they were running them side by side. I have set up several computers with 64 bit Vista for people, and so far they have handled everything thrown at them. This guy is a complete loon for even suggesting that 64 bit Vista is not an option or even implying that it will lead to a bad experience.

But I don't buy a new OS for the thrill of turning off all the new features. After you turn all everything MS thinks you ought to have, what's left that I think I ought to have?

Classic BS. The "features" Microsoft suggested turning off will only help if you have only the minimum RAM. XP was the same exact way if you used just 128 or 256 Megs of RAM. This is because these systems are hitting the page file like mad to compensate for the lack of overhead on memory. By turning off visual and sound effects, you will free up a little memory that will help lessen the hit to the page file. Tweakers have been doing this for ages with their systems to reduce overhead. This is why Aero will not automatically turn on with less than a Gig of RAM.

If this guy thinks the only new "feature" in Vista is Aero, then he has a real problem. Improved security and stability is not a "feature" according to this dolt.


Edit:
Removed my PAE comment due to my understanding of it being wrong on Microsoft Operating systems. My comment would have been correct had this been about Linux instead.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: Mem
You want some honest feedback on Vista go here. .

To be honest Mem, OCUK is the last place I would go for accurate and honest opinion on anything.

There seems to be a lot of so called experts there who talk a load of BS most of the time.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Mem
You want some honest feedback on Vista go here. .

To be honest Mem, OCUK is the last place I would go for accurate and honest opinion on anything.

There seems to be a lot of so called experts there who talk a load of BS most of the time.

if you really want some honest feedback .. go ...

... nowhere
:Q

STAY here ... we know the truth about Vista ... is it no longer "out there "

Vista is a better OS than XP
... XP is SO primitive in comparison ... and eventually everyone will know.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Mem
You want some honest feedback on Vista go here. .

To be honest Mem, OCUK is the last place I would go for accurate and honest opinion on anything.

There seems to be a lot of so called experts there who talk a load of BS most of the time.

You get a lot of BS in all forums around the world if we are being honest,anyway I have more faith in their opinions of Vista then what that guy has posted,also speaking from my own personal usage of Vista as well.

 

[Nothinman]

First off, this guy who considers himself an "expert" has obviously not ever heard of PAE .(Physical Address Extension) If you decide to enable PAE, Vista 32 bit will use all of your RAM. So you can use all 4 Gigs on a 32 bit system if needed.

Except that even with PAE enabled 32-bit Windows clients won't touch a physical address >4G so you won't be able to use all of your memory.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Except that even with PAE enabled 32-bit Windows clients won't touch a physical address >4G so you won't be able to use all of your memory.

Correct, but it still enables you to use over 95% of your memory.

 

[Nothinman]

Correct, but it still enables you to use over 95% of your memory.

You'll get the same amount that you would've gotten without PAE.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
You'll get the same amount that you would've gotten without PAE.

I am not doubting you simply because you have a much better grasp on this stuff than I do. But my understanding of PAE was it enabled 32 bit XP or Vista to use all of the RAM installed up to 4G's. What is the advantage of using PAE?

 

[Nothinman]

I am not doubting you simply because you have a much better grasp on this stuff than I do. But my understanding of PAE was it enabled 32 bit XP or Vista to use all of the RAM installed up to 4G's. What is the advantage of using PAE?

PAE allows non-crippled OSes to address up to 64G of physical memory, which is just about every OS besides Windows. MS has artificially limited their client OSes so that they will never touch a physical memory address >4G. The only thing PAE is good for on 32-bit Windows clients is hardware NX support.

 

[stash]

^^
Nothinman is right. PAE is enabled by default on XP SP2 and Vista, solely for the purposes of DEP. Those versions of Windows are still hard limited to 4GB of RAM. "Turning on" PAE in boot.ini or bcdedit won't do anything, since it is already enabled.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Mem
You want some honest feedback on Vista go here. .

To be honest Mem, OCUK is the last place I would go for accurate and honest opinion on anything.

There seems to be a lot of so called experts there who talk a load of BS most of the time.

if you really want some honest feedback .. go ...

... nowhere
:Q

STAY here ... we know the truth about Vista ... is it no longer "out there "

Vista is a better OS than XP
... XP is SO primitive in comparison ... and eventually everyone will know.

lol okay then.

Vista will be a footnote, akin to Win2k between the 98se to XP jump. I admire Microsoft's ambition with the project, but let's be honest, Vista is far from a screaming success story. And to be fair, it's far from a total failure either.

XP is not 'SO primitive'. Besides DX10 gaming, you can do pretty much anything you can do in Vista with XP, provided you know what the hell you're doing in the first place.

Bottom line : if you need a feature that's exclusive to Vista, or are just building a new box and want the longest OS support platform you can currently get, grab Vista64. If you already have a copy of XP, have older hardware, etc, there's nothing wrong with sticking with something that works really well already.

 

[stash]

akin to Win2k between the 98se to XP jump

I'd hardly call Windows 2000 a footnote. It was never really intended to be a consumer OS, but in the server and business spaces, it was revolutionary compared to NT4. I don't think you can call the product that introduced Active Directory a footnote.