Vista is Complete Crap

[Cykoth]

I am bitterly disappointed. I just put together my new system....

Asus Striker II Formula (780i chipset)
Intel Quad Core Q9650
4 GB of Corsair XMS ram 800 mHz
2 - eVGA 8800GTS-512 in SLI mode
And even a DEDICATED 250 GB Western Digital hard drive just for the OS. I have a 750 GB WD for games and such.

I installed x64 bit Vista, and from the very beginning it gave me problems. At first I thought I had a hardware issue, but no, when I put the XP disk in and booted, it went along merrily. So after arguing some, I finally got Vista to boot and install. Over a period of about 10 hours of constantly tussling with this thing, I guarantee that the OS crashed suddenly requiring hard re-boots no less then 75-100 times. The very first thing I did after installation was perform windows updates to get all the latest patches from MS. Even so, ANY driver installation that I performed caused a system crash. And yes they were all up to date x64 bit drivers. I thought about going down to 32-bit just to see if that was more stable, but I'm tired of losing my life to this absolute piece of CRAP. I'm installing XP and a deleted/created new partition now....so if I get the same kind of errors, then it's me and my hardware. But if it runs great....SCREW total utilization of 4 GB of RAM and SCREW DX10. I'll live without.....

Sorry for the rant. Seriously, have other folks had seemless installs of this system? And on similar platforms? Most of the hardware I have is pretty new, and honestly it could be the issue. What KILLS me is that Vista acts just like Millenium.....any addon or driver install would just completely freeze the OS. Heck it even crashed once with me just changing the background wallpaper......JEEZ. I will say that at one precious stable point, my hardware rating was 5.9. But after I got a OS freeze when trying to load Bioshock.....that was the last straw.

Peace.

Cyko

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: Cykoth

Seriously, have other folks had seemless installs of this system?

Yes, and it has never crashed on me in almost 8 months.[/quote]

Most of the hardware I have is pretty new, and honestly it could be the issue.

I have no doubt you have faulty hardware, probably bad RAM, or a compatibility problem with your chipset which is very new.

What KILLS me is that Vista acts just like Millenium....

No, it doesn't. Don't blame faulty hardware problems on the OS.

 

[JustaGeek]

This is a serious overreaction to hardware problems.

I bet that your hardware is unstable, and you didn't bother reading about Vista installation issues with 4GB of RAM installed.

You know that you must install it with 2GB, download the patch, and only then put the remaining 2 GB of RAM in, correct...?

Have you previously used the 600 or 700 series chipset from NVidia...?

They are very "quirky", to say the least, and all the settings MUST be done manually, especially for the RAM voltage, frequency and timings.

And yes, Vista is more sensitive to hardware problems than XP, which would explain your "successful" XP install. But... are you sure that your XP is stable...?

Relax, take a deep breath, adjust your settings, and do it again...

This time, do it right...

EDIT: And I hope you added your 2nd Video Card later, not right away, correct...?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
This is a serious overreaction to hardware problems.

I bet that your hardware is unstable, and you didn't bother reading about Vista installation issues with 4GB of RAM installed.

You know that you must install it with 2GB, download the patch, and only then put the remaining 2 GB of RAM in, correct...?

Have you previously used the 600 or 700 series chipset from NVidia...?

They are very "quirky", to say the least, and all the settings MUST be done manually, especially for the RAM voltage, frequency and timings.

And yes, Vista is more sensitive to hardware problems than XP, which would explain your "successful" XP install. But... are you sure that your XP is stable...?

Relax, take a deep breath, adjust your settings, and do it again...

This time, do it right...

EDIT: And I hope you added your 2nd Video Card later, not right away, correct...?

The fact that he has to do all of this just to install Vista is ridiculous. Right out of the box a frickin' 64-bit OS should be able to install itself with whatever amount of RAM is on the mobo. The fact that he has to drop it down to 2GB and then add the other 2GB later on is completely stupid. As for the video cards, same deal. SLI has been out for a while now and Vista should support these things natively right from the get go with no issues. Why should you have to stop in the middle of building your computer just to install the OS? You should be able to COMPLETELY build your computer and then install the OS with no problems.

Oh yeah, and then there's that bug where Vista installation just randomly nukes the contents of a second drive that's attached to the system, like that thread we had a few days ago.

 

[nerp]

Sounds like bad hardware. Run Memtest86+. That's just step one. Yes, even a lavish home build can go wrong. XP would exhibit similar symptoms.

 

[JustaGeek]

Look... fuzzybabybunny...

It is, what it is!

If you don't want to deal with the issues, go get a Dell of HP - it will be preconfigured!

Did you just wake up yesterday to discover that Vista was out, and there are KNOWN issues to deal with...?

If you don't know how to set up your build, it is only YOUR fault.

And if you're too lazy to read about the Operating Systems and their requirements, get the DOS 6.0.

It is almost guaranteed to work on any hardware configuration.

You don't even need a DEDICATED 250GB Hard Drive for that

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

SLI has been out for a while now and Vista should support these things natively right from the get go with no issues.

I was going to stay away from this Vista bashing thread, however, I felt the need to comment on this particular sentence. It is not Microsoft's job to write drivers for Nvidia's or ATI's or Creative's or anyone else's hardware. That is the responsibility of the maker of the hardware. If SLI doesn't work under Vista, you blame Nvidia, not Microsoft. Microsoft's obligation is only to include a very basic VGA driver to allow you to install the more advanced drivers from Nvidia.

And its definitely likely the OP has a hardware issue, I'm leaning towards some flaky RAM personally.

Vista's been running since August for me without any instability or glitches. Granted, ATI's Vista drivers are far superior to what Nvidia has thus far produced though.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Look... fuzzybabybunny...

It is, what it is!

Yeah, because having to run around all these rings just to install an OS is absolutely acceptable. I remember back when XP had been out for about half a year and I helped a friend build an absolutely ridiculous computer (for that time). All four DIMMs were populated with something like 512MB sticks and there were 4 120GB HDDs in this thing plus the state of the art nVidia card at the time. XP installed flawlessly. The hardest thing we had to do was install the watercooling. None of this "take out two sticks of RAM or else it won't install right and you have to format your boot drive and start all over" crap.

My point is that it SHOULDN'T be what it is. I don't see how all these problems and issues are acceptable.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

SLI has been out for a while now and Vista should support these things natively right from the get go with no issues.

I was going to stay away from this Vista bashing thread, however, I felt the need to comment on this particular sentence. It is not Microsoft's job to write drivers for Nvidia's or ATI's or Creative's or anyone else's hardware. That is the responsibility of the maker of the hardware. If SLI doesn't work under Vista, you blame Nvidia, not Microsoft. Microsoft's obligation is only to include a very basic VGA driver to allow you to install the more advanced drivers from Nvidia.

And its definitely likely the OP has a hardware issue, I'm leaning towards some flaky RAM personally.

Vista's been running since August for me without any instability or glitches. Granted, ATI's Vista drivers are far superior to what Nvidia has thus far produced though.

That's a good point about the drivers. I agree that the blame also rests on hardware manufacturers. My Creative Audigy 2 runs like crap in Vista and Creative doesn't seem to give a damn, even with their newest X-Fi cards. My nVidia card has been ok, but this is because I don't expect much from it and don't really tax it. Granted, I don't expect much from my Audigy other than to play, uh, sounds. But evidently this is too hard for it to do under system load.

I've been running Vista for about a third of a year now. I admit that it's not TOO bad, but there are some things that just really piss me off, like folder settings not being remembered, WMDC being a COMPLETE piece of crap, sleep screwing things up after it wakes up, and background processes that grind away at the HDD and CPU that don't know the meaning of "work only when machine is idle."

 

[JustaGeek]

If it isn't acceptable to YOU, go get something else (so many choices around, huh...? :laugh: ).

Perhaps you are always perfect, and you always get that perfect shot with your camera.

Just think how many shots YOU have to take, before ONE can end up in your gallery...

So does Microsoft...

And everyone else in this world.

Nothing is perfect.

If you wanna post something, give the OP a suggestion what to do instead of your senseless rant.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
If it isn't acceptable to YOU, go get something else (so many choices around, huh...? :laugh: ).

Perhaps you are always perfect, and you always get that perfect shot with your camera.

Just think how many shots YOU have to take, before ONE can end up in your gallery...

So does Microsoft...

And everyone else in this world.

Nothing is perfect.

If you wanna post something, give the OP a suggestion what to do instead of your senseless rant.

That's exactly the problem. There aren't any choices. We are forced to accept this by default. How much of this default acceptance are we willing to give until it finally can't be acceptable?

I take a TON of shots before I get the perfect one, but that's the point. I don't even think about releasing one of my shots to the public (my gallery) until I have all the kinks ironed out. I don't just take a few shots, half-ass it through Photoshop, and then post it online and force people to use it for their desktop wallpaper.

As for the OP, what advice is there? Starting all over again with the minimal hardware installed is about the only thing that he can do at this point.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

That's exactly the problem. There aren't any choices. We are forced to accept this by default. How much of this default acceptance are we willing to give until it finally can't be acceptable?

Linux, BSD, and if you want to be told exactly what hardware you'll be using, OSX

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
If it isn't acceptable to YOU, go get something else (so many choices around, huh...? :laugh: ).

Perhaps you are always perfect, and you always get that perfect shot with your camera.

Just think how many shots YOU have to take, before ONE can end up in your gallery...

So does Microsoft...

And everyone else in this world.

Nothing is perfect.

If you wanna post something, give the OP a suggestion what to do instead of your senseless rant.

That's exactly the problem. There aren't any choices. We are forced to accept this by default. How much of this default acceptance are we willing to give until it finally can't be acceptable?

I take a TON of shots before I get the perfect one, but that's the point. I don't even think about releasing one of my shots to the public (my gallery) until I have all the kinks ironed out. I don't just take a few shots, half-ass it through Photoshop, and then post it online and force people to use it for their desktop wallpaper.

As for the OP, what advice is there? Starting all over again with the minimal hardware installed is about the only thing that he can do at this point.

See, you can do it!

This is your best line in this thread. :thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

PEBKAC.

 

[stash]

Right out of the box a frickin' 64-bit OS should be able to install itself with whatever amount of RAM is on the mobo. The fact that he has to drop it down to 2GB and then add the other 2GB later on is completely stupid

In most cases, this is a non-issue. You only need to drop the RAM in certain situations; most machines with 4GB shouldn't have an issue.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Cykoth
I am bitterly disappointed. I just put together my new system....

Asus Striker II Formula (780i chipset)
Intel Quad Core Q9650
4 GB of Corsair XMS ram 800 mHz
2 - eVGA 8800GTS-512 in SLI mode
And even a DEDICATED 250 GB Western Digital hard drive just for the OS. I have a 750 GB WD for games and such.

I installed x64 bit Vista, and from the very beginning it gave me problems. At first I thought I had a hardware issue, but no, when I put the XP disk in and booted, it went along merrily. So after arguing some, I finally got Vista to boot and install. Over a period of about 10 hours of constantly tussling with this thing, I guarantee that the OS crashed suddenly requiring hard re-boots no less then 75-100 times. The very first thing I did after installation was perform windows updates to get all the latest patches from MS. Even so, ANY driver installation that I performed caused a system crash. And yes they were all up to date x64 bit drivers. I thought about going down to 32-bit just to see if that was more stable, but I'm tired of losing my life to this absolute piece of CRAP. I'm installing XP and a deleted/created new partition now....so if I get the same kind of errors, then it's me and my hardware. But if it runs great....SCREW total utilization of 4 GB of RAM and SCREW DX10. I'll live without.....

Sorry for the rant. Seriously, have other folks had seemless installs of this system? And on similar platforms? Most of the hardware I have is pretty new, and honestly it could be the issue. What KILLS me is that Vista acts just like Millenium.....any addon or driver install would just completely freeze the OS. Heck it even crashed once with me just changing the background wallpaper......JEEZ. I will say that at one precious stable point, my hardware rating was 5.9. But after I got a OS freeze when trying to load Bioshock.....that was the last straw.

Peace.

Cyko

FYI I have 56 games installed including Bioshock(which is working fine in my Vista x64) I also installed Starforce drivers and it still did not bat an eye lid,your PC is NOT THE NORM,and you have a serious issue which probably is not caused by Vista x64,there were problems with motherboards that use Storport and 4GBs ,example being here ,but there is a Vista patch/update that fixes the problem.



It's always easier to blame OS then troubleshoot the cause,I won't bother listing any since some troubleshooting options have been suggested.

My Creative Audigy 2 runs like crap in Vista and Creative doesn't seem to give a damn, even with their newest X-Fi cards. My nVidia card has been ok, but this is because I don't expect much from it and don't really tax it. Granted, I don't expect much from my Audigy other than to play, uh, sounds. But evidently this is too hard for it to do under system load.

I'm using an Audigy 4 which is running ok in my Vista x64,I even use the free Universal Alchemy wrapper for some of my older games.

Vista's been running since August for me without any instability or glitches. Granted, ATI's Vista drivers are far superior to what Nvidia has thus far produced though.

Been running fine for a year now in my case,I'm using Nvidia video card and chipset drivers,I do have an ATI card but that's in my old XP PC.

 

[boomerang]

I'm a relative newb to computers having built my first one over a decade ago. But I remember having to move jumpers on ISA cards and getting into W95 and having to assign IRQ's. You had to shut down and add cards one at a time otherwise you'd go insane trying to get them all recognized and configured properly. Having to partition a very expensive 2.5GB HD because the OS couldn't see over 2GB.

We're spoiled nowadays. We slap it together with everything included and have at it.

A little minor pain on a Vista install just brings back the challenge of it all. Embrace the change. You'll be changing your whole life.

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: Noema

Originally posted by: Cykoth

Seriously, have other folks had seemless installs of this system?

Yes, and it has never crashed on me in almost 8 months.


Most of the hardware I have is pretty new, and honestly it could be the issue.

I have no doubt you have faulty hardware, probably bad RAM, or a compatibility problem with your chipset which is very new.

What KILLS me is that Vista acts just like Millenium....

No, it doesn't. Don't blame faulty hardware problems on the OS.

:thumbsup: Ditto. No problems from day one for me.

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
This is a serious overreaction to hardware problems.

I bet that your hardware is unstable, and you didn't bother reading about Vista installation issues with 4GB of RAM installed.

You know that you must install it with 2GB, download the patch, and only then put the remaining 2 GB of RAM in, correct...?

Have you previously used the 600 or 700 series chipset from NVidia...?

They are very "quirky", to say the least, and all the settings MUST be done manually, especially for the RAM voltage, frequency and timings.

And yes, Vista is more sensitive to hardware problems than XP, which would explain your "successful" XP install. But... are you sure that your XP is stable...?

Relax, take a deep breath, adjust your settings, and do it again...

This time, do it right...

EDIT: And I hope you added your 2nd Video Card later, not right away, correct...?

What do you mean that you have to install Vista with only 2gb of ram installed? Is this something with nVidia chipsets? I installed Vista x64 with no issues whatsoever with all 4gb of ram installed in my PC.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: tdawg

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
This is a serious overreaction to hardware problems.

I bet that your hardware is unstable, and you didn't bother reading about Vista installation issues with 4GB of RAM installed.

You know that you must install it with 2GB, download the patch, and only then put the remaining 2 GB of RAM in, correct...?

Have you previously used the 600 or 700 series chipset from NVidia...?

They are very "quirky", to say the least, and all the settings MUST be done manually, especially for the RAM voltage, frequency and timings.

And yes, Vista is more sensitive to hardware problems than XP, which would explain your "successful" XP install. But... are you sure that your XP is stable...?

Relax, take a deep breath, adjust your settings, and do it again...

This time, do it right...

EDIT: And I hope you added your 2nd Video Card later, not right away, correct...?

What do you mean that you have to install Vista with only 2gb of ram installed? Is this something with nVidia chipsets? I installed Vista x64 with no issues whatsoever with all 4gb of ram installed in my PC.

It's a rare bug that is completley overblown and now you see people saying "You can only install Vista with 2GB of ram" on forums like these even though for the vast majority of people this is completley irrelevant.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: tdawg

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
This is a serious overreaction to hardware problems.

I bet that your hardware is unstable, and you didn't bother reading about Vista installation issues with 4GB of RAM installed.

You know that you must install it with 2GB, download the patch, and only then put the remaining 2 GB of RAM in, correct...?

Have you previously used the 600 or 700 series chipset from NVidia...?

They are very "quirky", to say the least, and all the settings MUST be done manually, especially for the RAM voltage, frequency and timings.

And yes, Vista is more sensitive to hardware problems than XP, which would explain your "successful" XP install. But... are you sure that your XP is stable...?

Relax, take a deep breath, adjust your settings, and do it again...

This time, do it right...

EDIT: And I hope you added your 2nd Video Card later, not right away, correct...?

What do you mean that you have to install Vista with only 2gb of ram installed? Is this something with nVidia chipsets? I installed Vista x64 with no issues whatsoever with all 4gb of ram installed in my PC.

It's a rare bug that is completley overblown and now you see people saying "You can only install Vista with 2GB of ram" on forums like these even though for the vast majority of people this is completley irrelevant.

How do you know that he is not suffering from that "rare bug"...?

The bug is a bug, and it might have affected his installation...

And this is only one of the reasons why his machine is screwed up.

Get the NVidia chipset and play with it for a bit, nerp... :roll:

 

[stash]

How do you know that he is not suffering from that "rare bug"...?

He most likely is hitting the bug. The bug will be hit on systems with the following:

* using storport.sys
* > 3GB RAM
* a controller that uses 32-bit DMA

Nvidia boards are generally running into this issue the most.

The bug is rare in the sense that not many configurations meet the conditions that lead to the buggy code. But given that certain Nvidia boards are included in that collection, and that millions of systems with these boards were sold through OEMs and elsewhere, the bug gets a lot of visibility.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Cykoth
I am bitterly disappointed. I just put together my new system....

I installed x64 bit Vista, and from the very beginning it gave me problems...

Sorry for the rant...

Peace.

3 posts, eh? Nice start!

I've been running Vista for a while now, and it isn't crap - it's great! I've praised it from the beginning and I'm never looking back...

Almost all 'the rants' I've read concerning Vista were from x64 users, so I believe you, when you say you've had a crappy experience!

To tell you the truth, I *suspect* the ppl that praise Vista x64 are frauds. I've yet to see a snapshot from one of these overjoyed Vista x64 users, proving that's what they're actually running...

If I was you, I'd install Vista x86 and have a go at that, before proclaiming "Vista is Complete Crap".

I haven't had a single problem with Vista x86 (other than a few quirks installing/uninstalling SP1 beta) and I don't *think* you will either!

 

[Mem]

To tell you the truth, I *suspect* the ppl that praise Vista x64 are frauds. I've yet to see a snapshot from one of these overjoyed Vista x64 users, proving that's what they're actually running...

Calling or suspecting AT members "frauds" that are running Vista x64 with no problems is not nice,I always call it as I see it , apoppin and I always pm each other with feedback on our Vista experience including gaming etc (Vista x64 in my case)...


Why would AT members here that have no real problems /issues have reason to lie about Vista x64?...

That post of yours was almost a flame thread in itself.

Last note consider this,I'm mainly a gamer (both single player and online)and I also do beta game testing etc..I can't afford to have issues with my OS and so far Vista x64 has not let me down.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: VinDSL
To tell you the truth, I *suspect* the ppl that praise Vista x64 are frauds. I've yet to see a snapshot from one of these overjoyed Vista x64 users, proving that's what they're actually running...

WTF are you smoking?