Vista why is it so bad..

[Mem]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: TheStu

give it at least 3-4 weeks IMHO then you'll see how fast it is.

Seriously? That is your answer? Use the system for 3-4 weeks and it will magically become faster? That is just a ridiculous answer to a person. Almost on the same level as;
Guy 1: I put Vista on my laptop, and it just isn't as responsive or snappy as i would like it to be, XP felt snappier to me.
Guy 2: Just give it 3-4 weeks it will be super fast then.
Guy 1: Well, I don't have 3-4 weeks, I have a project that I need to work on and I need my system responsive.
Guy 2: Buy a new laptop

No ones asking you to use Vista. And it does run like crap on low end hardware (Single cores <2 gig of ram, same as XP did when paired with low end system at the time) On laptops with slow drives it does tent to be a lot slower (5400 and 4200 rpm driver in particular, even the 7200rpm drives are not that much better)

On good hardware yes it does become faster after it finishes indexing all the crap (Or get RAID 0 ), but then its fast anyways. Vista does need more system resources but then why don't we complain how every new os is slower, why Microsoft are b****rds I want to run xp and vista on a 486.

I never once complained about the performance of vista on any hardware. I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of replying to someone with performance issues "Just keep using it, eventually it magically becomes faster". That was all. Mem was replying to Nocturnal, and I in turn was replying to Mem.

I was being generous with 3-4 weeks probably only a week for most users but you got to remember its learns what software you use and that takes time,I already gave some safe tweak tips,sad people just bash an OS for no good reason.

This thread has gone downhill real fast.

Btw I have Vista x86 on my laptop too,fast and no issues however I prefer my Vista x64 on my main PC,my other PC has XP but that has become redundant due to Vista(everything works for me so no need to use my XP PC,however I still miss my good old Dos 6.22).

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: TheStu

give it at least 3-4 weeks IMHO then you'll see how fast it is.

Seriously? That is your answer? Use the system for 3-4 weeks and it will magically become faster? That is just a ridiculous answer to a person. Almost on the same level as;
Guy 1: I put Vista on my laptop, and it just isn't as responsive or snappy as i would like it to be, XP felt snappier to me.
Guy 2: Just give it 3-4 weeks it will be super fast then.
Guy 1: Well, I don't have 3-4 weeks, I have a project that I need to work on and I need my system responsive.
Guy 2: Buy a new laptop

No ones asking you to use Vista. And it does run like crap on low end hardware (Single cores <2 gig of ram, same as XP did when paired with low end system at the time) On laptops with slow drives it does tent to be a lot slower (5400 and 4200 rpm driver in particular, even the 7200rpm drives are not that much better)

On good hardware yes it does become faster after it finishes indexing all the crap (Or get RAID 0 ), but then its fast anyways. Vista does need more system resources but then why don't we complain how every new os is slower, why Microsoft are b****rds I want to run xp and vista on a 486.

I never once complained about the performance of vista on any hardware. I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of replying to someone with performance issues "Just keep using it, eventually it magically becomes faster". That was all. Mem was replying to Nocturnal, and I in turn was replying to Mem.

I was being generous with 3-4 weeks probably only a week for most users but you got to remember its learns what software you use and that takes time,I already gave some safe tweak tips,sad people just bash an OS for no good reason.

This thread has gone downhill real fast.

Btw I have Vista x86 on my laptop too,fast and no issues however I prefer my Vista x64 on my main PC,my other PC has XP but that has become redundant due to Vista(everything works for me so no need to use my XP PC,however I still miss my good old Dos 6.22).

I wasn't bashing the OS, I was bashing you and your advice. I don't care about the OS. I used Vista for a while, and then uninstalled it because I no longer needed a full installed version of Windows, my Windows work was getting done just fine in a VM, and for that I chose XP since I had a license for it, and since it was going to be in a VM, I wanted it to be a resource friendly as possible, but still let me run the software I needed.

I have no problems with Vista (ok, I do... I hate the size of the borders on teh windows... drives me nuts) just your advice.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: TheStu

give it at least 3-4 weeks IMHO then you'll see how fast it is.

Seriously? That is your answer? Use the system for 3-4 weeks and it will magically become faster? That is just a ridiculous answer to a person. Almost on the same level as;
Guy 1: I put Vista on my laptop, and it just isn't as responsive or snappy as i would like it to be, XP felt snappier to me.
Guy 2: Just give it 3-4 weeks it will be super fast then.
Guy 1: Well, I don't have 3-4 weeks, I have a project that I need to work on and I need my system responsive.
Guy 2: Buy a new laptop

No ones asking you to use Vista. And it does run like crap on low end hardware (Single cores <2 gig of ram, same as XP did when paired with low end system at the time) On laptops with slow drives it does tent to be a lot slower (5400 and 4200 rpm driver in particular, even the 7200rpm drives are not that much better)

On good hardware yes it does become faster after it finishes indexing all the crap (Or get RAID 0 ), but then its fast anyways. Vista does need more system resources but then why don't we complain how every new os is slower, why Microsoft are b****rds I want to run xp and vista on a 486.

I never once complained about the performance of vista on any hardware. I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of replying to someone with performance issues "Just keep using it, eventually it magically becomes faster". That was all. Mem was replying to Nocturnal, and I in turn was replying to Mem.

I was being generous with 3-4 weeks probably only a week for most users but you got to remember its learns what software you use and that takes time,I already gave some safe tweak tips,sad people just bash an OS for no good reason.

This thread has gone downhill real fast.

Btw I have Vista x86 on my laptop too,fast and no issues however I prefer my Vista x64 on my main PC,my other PC has XP but that has become redundant due to Vista(everything works for me so no need to use my XP PC,however I still miss my good old Dos 6.22).

I wasn't bashing the OS, I was bashing you and your advice. I don't care about the OS. I used Vista for a while, and then uninstalled it because I no longer needed a full installed version of Windows, my Windows work was getting done just fine in a VM, and for that I chose XP since I had a license for it, and since it was going to be in a VM, I wanted it to be a resource friendly as possible, but still let me run the software I needed.

I have no problems with Vista (ok, I do... I hate the size of the borders on teh windows... drives me nuts) just your advice.

Typical,you try to help people and all they want to do is bash the advice I give them (funny how you thought I was bashing you when you know this thread is quite long and I was not actually pointing that part of my statement to you,but after your reply I now wonder),sad there are too many people in the world like that.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Originally posted by: TheStu

give it at least 3-4 weeks IMHO then you'll see how fast it is.

Seriously? That is your answer? Use the system for 3-4 weeks and it will magically become faster? That is just a ridiculous answer to a person. Almost on the same level as;
Guy 1: I put Vista on my laptop, and it just isn't as responsive or snappy as i would like it to be, XP felt snappier to me.
Guy 2: Just give it 3-4 weeks it will be super fast then.
Guy 1: Well, I don't have 3-4 weeks, I have a project that I need to work on and I need my system responsive.
Guy 2: Buy a new laptop

No ones asking you to use Vista. And it does run like crap on low end hardware (Single cores <2 gig of ram, same as XP did when paired with low end system at the time) On laptops with slow drives it does tent to be a lot slower (5400 and 4200 rpm driver in particular, even the 7200rpm drives are not that much better)

On good hardware yes it does become faster after it finishes indexing all the crap (Or get RAID 0 ), but then its fast anyways. Vista does need more system resources but then why don't we complain how every new os is slower, why Microsoft are b****rds I want to run xp and vista on a 486.

I never once complained about the performance of vista on any hardware. I was simply pointing out the ridiculousness of replying to someone with performance issues "Just keep using it, eventually it magically becomes faster". That was all. Mem was replying to Nocturnal, and I in turn was replying to Mem.

I was being generous with 3-4 weeks probably only a week for most users but you got to remember its learns what software you use and that takes time,I already gave some safe tweak tips,sad people just bash an OS for no good reason.

This thread has gone downhill real fast.

Btw I have Vista x86 on my laptop too,fast and no issues however I prefer my Vista x64 on my main PC,my other PC has XP but that has become redundant due to Vista(everything works for me so no need to use my XP PC,however I still miss my good old Dos 6.22).

I wasn't bashing the OS, I was bashing you and your advice. I don't care about the OS. I used Vista for a while, and then uninstalled it because I no longer needed a full installed version of Windows, my Windows work was getting done just fine in a VM, and for that I chose XP since I had a license for it, and since it was going to be in a VM, I wanted it to be a resource friendly as possible, but still let me run the software I needed.

I have no problems with Vista (ok, I do... I hate the size of the borders on teh windows... drives me nuts) just your advice.

Typical,you try to help people and all they want to do is bash the advice I give them (funny how you thought I was bashing you when you know this thread is quite long and I was not actually pointing that part of my statement to you,but after your reply I now wonder),sad there are too many people in the world like that.

You quoted me, so I assumed the comment was directed at me. And I never thought you were bashing me, I was merely clarifying myself since it seems that it has been confused as to what I was referring to with my original post which was that the recommendation to deal with slowness until it fixes itself on its own is a poor recommendation. That is all.

 

[Mem]

I quoted you because you asked about the 3-4 weeks part,as to slowness its not that Vista is slow to begin with (unless it does not have enough ram or you use an old PC) just that it gets faster with time,like any OS it needs enough ram to run at full speed and we all know even XP will run like crap with not enough ram,anyway the point was Vista does not reach its full speed potential in 2 days,it needs to learn what software you use.

End of the day Vista is designed for todays hardware.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Mem
I quoted you because you asked about the 3-4 weeks part,as to slowness its not that Vista is slow to begin with (unless it does not have enough ram or you use a really old PC) just that it gets faster with time,like any OS it needs enough ram to run at full speed and we all know even XP will run like crap with not enough ram,anyway the point was Vista does not reach its full speed potential in 2 days.

End of the day Vista is designed for todays hardware.

So what are you saying, if I install Vista on today's hardware (or at least 2 year old high end hardware since that was when it was released) let's say Core 2 Duo 2 GHz with 2GB RAM (maybe 2.4GHz and 4GB RAM given prices) that it would be snappy within the first 2 days? Instead that it needs significantly more time, perhaps even the 3-4 weeks to mentioned earlier in order for me to see Vista actually running at full speed?

If you were instead referring to Vista on older hardware, or on hardware that skates on the edge of the requirements, then you should have said so.

I am willing to forgive slowness up until the moment the drive is indexed and the system is up to date. Past that a little maybe depending on what I am doing with the system.

 

[Mem]

So what are you saying, if I install Vista on today's hardware (or at least 2 year old high end hardware since that was when it was released) let's say Core 2 Duo 2 GHz with 2GB RAM (maybe 2.4GHz and 4GB RAM given prices) that it would be snappy within the first 2 days? Instead that it needs significantly more time, perhaps even the 3-4 weeks to mentioned earlier in order for me to see Vista actually running at full speed?

Other people like myself have notice speed improvements over time look here,

Paul Tasker said on 19th July 2008

Initially I wasn't that impressed with vista premium. I thought it slower to use than XP and more resource hungry. But it learns how you use it and now my system runs really quickly. The opposite of XP which slowed to a crawl the longer you used it. Vista service pack 1 seemed to make a huge difference and now if I use a computer with XP it looks and feels dated. The sidebar is great, I have many weather, monitoring and photo slideshow gadgets and its 100% stable. Not once has it crashed, rebooted, or frozen in 6 months of use!!!! I'd be lucky to get through a week with XP!
100% recommended so long as your computers up to it. I'd recommend 2GB memory, makes a big difference.

Link.

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
Needed to install SP1 on a laptop for someone. This laptop gets a 3.5 performance rating in Vista. It took well over an hour to install. I was multitasking, in the time it took SP1 to install, I was setting up a windows XP system and loaded SP3 / IE7 / 38 Windows critical updates, Joined the system to a domain and installed Wordperfect, Symantec Endpoint and 3 other applications.

Vista is ridiculous....

Installing either service pack 2 or 3 in XP is no faster.

Can you read? I have been installing SP3 on systems for the last few weeks, none have taken more than 20 Minutes to install.

OMG what a pile of bull. Let me tell you working for BNC that I do well over 20 SP3 loads a week, and they ALL take over 20 minutes to install. The average SP3 install is 30+ minutes using MS update, maybe 20 using the disc. On my laptop (T7500 and 2GB of RAM at the time), after the download was done, SP1 installed in about 15 minutes, then a reboot, and it ran another 10 minutes doing those 3 stages as it booted and it was done. At BNC, our average load time for SP1 is about 30 minutes. Our Core 2 Quads and phenoms can do it faster.

I love my Vista 64. I'll never go to XP. I'm building my gf's computer with Vista 64 because once she used my laptop for a month, it killed her to have to go back to XP. Even my 70 year old grandma likes Vista over XP after she got past the learning curve. As for drivers, I only had one issue and that was with an old piece of equipment built only for 2000/XP (gaming pad). But 4 months later the company put out Vista drivers and they worked great.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: heymrdj

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
Needed to install SP1 on a laptop for someone. This laptop gets a 3.5 performance rating in Vista. It took well over an hour to install. I was multitasking, in the time it took SP1 to install, I was setting up a windows XP system and loaded SP3 / IE7 / 38 Windows critical updates, Joined the system to a domain and installed Wordperfect, Symantec Endpoint and 3 other applications.

Vista is ridiculous....

Installing either service pack 2 or 3 in XP is no faster.

Can you read? I have been installing SP3 on systems for the last few weeks, none have taken more than 20 Minutes to install.

OMG what a pile of bull. Let me tell you working for BNC that I do well over 20 SP3 loads a week, and they ALL take over 20 minutes to install. The average SP3 install is 30+ minutes using MS update, maybe 20 using the disc. On my laptop (T7500 and 2GB of RAM at the time), after the download was done, SP1 installed in about 15 minutes, then a reboot, and it ran another 10 minutes doing those 3 stages as it booted and it was done. At BNC, our average load time for SP1 is about 30 minutes. Our Core 2 Quads and phenoms can do it faster.

I love my Vista 64. I'll never go to XP. I'm building my gf's computer with Vista 64 because once she used my laptop for a month, it killed her to have to go back to XP. Even my 70 year old grandma likes Vista over XP after she got past the learning curve. As for drivers, I only had one issue and that was with an old piece of equipment built only for 2000/XP (gaming pad). But 4 months later the company put out Vista drivers and they worked great.

BNC?

Here is a question. Is there much point to Vista 64 if one does not have 4GB of RAM? I have an MSDN license for it that will actually work on either 32 or 64 bit Vista Business, and so I am just curious if I should even bother with 64 on my existing desktop (which is 64 bit) or just do 32 bit for now until I upgrade the mobo/CPU/RAM.

 

[Mem]

Here is a question. Is there much point to Vista 64 if one does not have 4GB of RAM? I have an MSDN license for it that will actually work on either 32 or 64 bit Vista Business, and so I am just curious if I should even bother with 64 on my existing desktop (which is 64 bit) or just do 32 bit for now until I upgrade the mobo/CPU/RAM.

Main benefit of Vista x64 is being able to use more ram then Vista x86,Vista x64 also has improved security with digital signed drivers etc...having no legacy 16 bit software crap in the OS seems to make the OS slightly leaner then Vista x86,personally I prefer Vista x64 over x86.

Obviously both have their Pro's and Con's so I guess you need to weigh the difference and go with what is important to you.

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: heymrdj

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
Needed to install SP1 on a laptop for someone. This laptop gets a 3.5 performance rating in Vista. It took well over an hour to install. I was multitasking, in the time it took SP1 to install, I was setting up a windows XP system and loaded SP3 / IE7 / 38 Windows critical updates, Joined the system to a domain and installed Wordperfect, Symantec Endpoint and 3 other applications.

Vista is ridiculous....

Installing either service pack 2 or 3 in XP is no faster.

Can you read? I have been installing SP3 on systems for the last few weeks, none have taken more than 20 Minutes to install.

OMG what a pile of bull. Let me tell you working for BNC that I do well over 20 SP3 loads a week, and they ALL take over 20 minutes to install. The average SP3 install is 30+ minutes using MS update, maybe 20 using the disc. On my laptop (T7500 and 2GB of RAM at the time), after the download was done, SP1 installed in about 15 minutes, then a reboot, and it ran another 10 minutes doing those 3 stages as it booted and it was done. At BNC, our average load time for SP1 is about 30 minutes. Our Core 2 Quads and phenoms can do it faster.

I love my Vista 64. I'll never go to XP. I'm building my gf's computer with Vista 64 because once she used my laptop for a month, it killed her to have to go back to XP. Even my 70 year old grandma likes Vista over XP after she got past the learning curve. As for drivers, I only had one issue and that was with an old piece of equipment built only for 2000/XP (gaming pad). But 4 months later the company put out Vista drivers and they worked great.

BNC?

Here is a question. Is there much point to Vista 64 if one does not have 4GB of RAM? I have an MSDN license for it that will actually work on either 32 or 64 bit Vista Business, and so I am just curious if I should even bother with 64 on my existing desktop (which is 64 bit) or just do 32 bit for now until I upgrade the mobo/CPU/RAM.

If you don't use any old hardware (hardware that is ME compatible and lower basically), then get 64 bit so you can use it on future systems with more power, but Mem answered it best, it's whatever works.

As for SP3, loaded SP3 on a fresh installed Dell, AMD Sempron 3600+, took 42 minutes on a 6mb download.

 

[evident]

I'm here to tell you that Vista x64 SP1 takes less than 30 minutes to install and update. I can pop the disc in, take a shower, come back and it's complete. windows xp? have to click through a myriad of menus in the middle of the install process

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

What do you guys see in Vista? It has nothing new in it. It wastes CPU cycles scanning for DRM. Its GUI eats up resources. In the end, it doesn't offer anything new other than a better partition editor which could be fixed with Gparted. I could care less about how the GUI looks, I use Linux all though command line for Pete's sake. Yes, I know I could switch off all the UI "improvements" but then what is the point of using Vista? Why would I pay money for new OS that offers nothing new? Vista is a resource hog and there is no denying that. DX 10 also offers nothing new since editing a config file in Crysis produced the same results. Honestly, I want 64-bit but I don't want Vista. How is Windows XP 64?

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
What do you guys see in Vista? It has nothing new in it. It wastes CPU cycles scanning for DRM. Its GUI eats up resources. In the end, it doesn't offer anything new other than a better partition editor which could be fixed with Gparted. I could care less about how the GUI looks, I use Linux all though command line for Pete's sake. Yes, I know I could switch off all the UI "improvements" but then what is the point of using Vista? Why would I pay money for new OS that offers nothing new? Vista is a resource hog and there is no denying that. DX 10 also offers nothing new since editing a config file in Crysis produced the same results. Honestly, I want 64-bit but I don't want Vista. How is Windows XP 64?

Simple, Vista is not for you. Some of us like a GUI that flows and is more productive. I also guarantee you that in diversity, I could more quickly do a set of tasks (edit a document, surf a page, play a song, SSH and admin my server, write an email, and IM my work buddies) on Vista far before you'd ever get done in CLI. You use linux. Good for you. But apparently by what you say you do nothing graphical with your computer, hence why you're good with CLI.

And I know CLI, i run web servers. My laptop also dual boots Debian. I run it in CLI or with Gnome. But honestly I just got rid of Ubuntu on my laptop for the same reason I will probably get rid of Debian soon. They offer nothing that Windows can't do better (for me and in my honest opinion, of course for certain people linux will work better).

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: heymrdj

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
What do you guys see in Vista? It has nothing new in it. It wastes CPU cycles scanning for DRM. Its GUI eats up resources. In the end, it doesn't offer anything new other than a better partition editor which could be fixed with Gparted. I could care less about how the GUI looks, I use Linux all though command line for Pete's sake. Yes, I know I could switch off all the UI "improvements" but then what is the point of using Vista? Why would I pay money for new OS that offers nothing new? Vista is a resource hog and there is no denying that. DX 10 also offers nothing new since editing a config file in Crysis produced the same results. Honestly, I want 64-bit but I don't want Vista. How is Windows XP 64?

Simple, Vista is not for you. Some of us like a GUI that flows and is more productive. I also guarantee you that in diversity, I could more quickly do a set of tasks (edit a document, surf a page, play a song, SSH and admin my server, write an email, and IM my work buddies) on Vista far before you'd ever get done in CLI. You use linux. Good for you. But apparently by what you say you do nothing graphical with your computer, hence why you're good with CLI.

And I know CLI, i run web servers. My laptop also dual boots Debian. I run it in CLI or with Gnome. But honestly I just got rid of Ubuntu on my laptop for the same reason I will probably get rid of Debian soon. They offer nothing that Windows can't do better (for me and in my honest opinion, of course for certain people linux will work better).

Hold up. I don't use Linux exclusively, I use it for my server. I am a Windows XP user. Vista's GUI does nothing revolutionary. It's the same start bar with a Windows logo instead of "start". It offers a search bar and more shortcuts, big deal. I don't understand how you would get more stuff done when you do the same thing: click start, [program]. You could even just add it to your quick launch bar for a single click. It's interesting that you prefer Windows to *nix for a server, many people would disagree with you.

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: heymrdj

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
What do you guys see in Vista? It has nothing new in it. It wastes CPU cycles scanning for DRM. Its GUI eats up resources. In the end, it doesn't offer anything new other than a better partition editor which could be fixed with Gparted. I could care less about how the GUI looks, I use Linux all though command line for Pete's sake. Yes, I know I could switch off all the UI "improvements" but then what is the point of using Vista? Why would I pay money for new OS that offers nothing new? Vista is a resource hog and there is no denying that. DX 10 also offers nothing new since editing a config file in Crysis produced the same results. Honestly, I want 64-bit but I don't want Vista. How is Windows XP 64?

Simple, Vista is not for you. Some of us like a GUI that flows and is more productive. I also guarantee you that in diversity, I could more quickly do a set of tasks (edit a document, surf a page, play a song, SSH and admin my server, write an email, and IM my work buddies) on Vista far before you'd ever get done in CLI. You use linux. Good for you. But apparently by what you say you do nothing graphical with your computer, hence why you're good with CLI.

And I know CLI, i run web servers. My laptop also dual boots Debian. I run it in CLI or with Gnome. But honestly I just got rid of Ubuntu on my laptop for the same reason I will probably get rid of Debian soon. They offer nothing that Windows can't do better (for me and in my honest opinion, of course for certain people linux will work better).

Hold up. I don't use Linux exclusively, I use it for my server. I am a Windows XP user. Vista's GUI does nothing revolutionary. It's the same start bar with a Windows logo instead of "start". It offers a search bar and more shortcuts, big deal. I don't understand how you would get more stuff done when you do the same thing: click start, [program]. You could even just add it to your quick launch bar for a single click. It's interesting that you prefer Windows to *nix for a server, many people would disagree with you.

I find Vista manages things and keeps things to my finger tips better than Windows XP did. It's still personal taste. Vista also gives much better security than XP ever did. Really reduced my in family (ie forced to be free) service calls cause of the reduced malware install from *cough* porn *cough*.

Also, rather than picking one of the other, i just use the servers for different things. I use linux servers mostly. But when it comes to the ease of slapping together a quick onsite server for my LAN Parties I run (i'm a party setup guy for hire basically), I use W2k3. I can easily move my DNS/DHCP setup with fileserver and everything else. I have a GUI so I don't have to trace down logs if something goes wrong, I can just pull it up. But like i said, I'm impartial.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: yusux
I tried to upgrade to SP1, it failed for some reason and reverted to original, it wasted at least an hour on my computer, after that it gets worse, it keeps uninstalling some DX9 and 10 files eachtime I restart comp or restart a 3D application and it would also delete some of the nVidia drivers, I would lose the control panel each time I start/close games, and after that it won't allow dx10 mode in games.

Now I just reinstalled the OS from x86 vista to x64 vista (another 2 hours + many more cause I have reinstall alot of things), I lost all reloading and footstep sounds in Farcry 2, reinstall FC2 and all proper x64 video/sound driver, still no sounds

While trying to install rivatuner, it says it won't install because 1 of the .sys files are not digitally signed, Vista is garbage, Microsoft is garbage.

lol nub

i remember xp taking way longer to install vista is so fast to install.... i could never go back to xp, or 98 for all you xp haters

 

[zerogear]

Vista actually does start running smoother after a week of use. Between indexing and superfetch, first few days are pretty slow.

 

[corkyg]

I find the premise of the original thread title to be false. I have 4 systems - 2 XP Pro and 2 Vista. The Vista ones load faster and are ready to go very quickly.

 

[TheStu]

Well, last night I bit the bullet and put Vista64 onto my desktop. Although I do not have 4GB of RAM, I do have a 64bit CPU, so I figured why not?

It installed pretty quickly, not much slower than XP really. It restarted a few times, but then once it was finally up and running everything was all taken care of. My graphics drivers were installed, sound seemed to work, and my monitor was at its correct resolution. All in all pretty painless. It alerted me that one of my hard drives was failing, but does not give me any more information past that, at least that I could find. Everest told me that it was failing part of the SMART test. So, that is another drive that needs to be replaced

 

[nerp]

Claming that Vista "hogs resources scanning for DRM" is total BS hogwash. Want to know when you have to deal with DRM? When you buy DRM content. End of discussion.

If you hate DRM, uninstall iTunes.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: TheStu
Well, last night I bit the bullet and put Vista64 onto my desktop. Although I do not have 4GB of RAM, I do have a 64bit CPU, so I figured why not?

It installed pretty quickly, not much slower than XP really. It restarted a few times, but then once it was finally up and running everything was all taken care of. My graphics drivers were installed, sound seemed to work, and my monitor was at its correct resolution. All in all pretty painless. It alerted me that one of my hard drives was failing, but does not give me any more information past that, at least that I could find. Everest told me that it was failing part of the SMART test. So, that is another drive that needs to be replaced

Give it a week or so and you'll see it gets better,hope your HD does not give you any issues until its replaced.

I don't know if you game but I recommend you update DX9.0C to latest version (Aug 2008) in Vista too link,remember its for Vista as well as XP and you'll still have DX10.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
What do you guys see in Vista? It has nothing new in it. It wastes CPU cycles scanning for DRM. Its GUI eats up resources. In the end, it doesn't offer anything new other than a better partition editor which could be fixed with Gparted. I could care less about how the GUI looks, I use Linux all though command line for Pete's sake. Yes, I know I could switch off all the UI "improvements" but then what is the point of using Vista? Why would I pay money for new OS that offers nothing new? Vista is a resource hog and there is no denying that. DX 10 also offers nothing new since editing a config file in Crysis produced the same results. Honestly, I want 64-bit but I don't want Vista. How is Windows XP 64?

Do you know what you are talking about?...Vista is designed for today's hardware ,XP was released back in 2001,if you look at Win95/98, even XP back then(2001) was a resource hog compared to them.


DX10 you meantioned , no hack in the world on XP is the real thing,you forgot to meantion DX10.1 and even DX11 down the road for Vista/Windows 7,XP on the otherhand has no DX upgrade option its stuck on DX9.0c,so DX upgrade wise its dead.

You forgot to meantion all the real security benefits or improved memory handling Vista has, I could go but whats the point,people like you spread too much FUD,oh and I have been a XP user since 2001 so know what I'm talking about,I can go back to good old DOS 6.22 if you like (now that was a simple OS,which came on 3 floppies).

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
What do you guys see in Vista? It has nothing new in it. It wastes CPU cycles scanning for DRM. Its GUI eats up resources. In the end, it doesn't offer anything new other than a better partition editor which could be fixed with Gparted. I could care less about how the GUI looks, I use Linux all though command line for Pete's sake. Yes, I know I could switch off all the UI "improvements" but then what is the point of using Vista? Why would I pay money for new OS that offers nothing new? Vista is a resource hog and there is no denying that. DX 10 also offers nothing new since editing a config file in Crysis produced the same results. Honestly, I want 64-bit but I don't want Vista. How is Windows XP 64?

Do you know what you are talking about?...Vista is designed for today's hardware ,XP was released back in 2001,if you look at Win95/98, even XP back then(2001) was a resource hog compared to them.


DX10 you meantioned , no hack in the world on XP is the real thing,you forgot to meantion DX10.1 and even DX11 down the road for Vista/Windows 7,XP on the otherhand has no DX upgrade option its stuck on DX9.0c,so DX upgrade wise its dead.

You forgot to meantion all the real security benefits or improved memory handling Vista has, I could go but whats the point,people like you spread too much FUD,oh and I have been a XP user since 2001 so know what I'm talking about,I can go back to good old DOS 6.22 if you like (now that was a simple OS,which came on 3 floppies).

3 floppies :shocked:. What a resource hog! It should have been 1

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: TheStu
Well, last night I bit the bullet and put Vista64 onto my desktop. Although I do not have 4GB of RAM, I do have a 64bit CPU, so I figured why not?

It installed pretty quickly, not much slower than XP really. It restarted a few times, but then once it was finally up and running everything was all taken care of. My graphics drivers were installed, sound seemed to work, and my monitor was at its correct resolution. All in all pretty painless. It alerted me that one of my hard drives was failing, but does not give me any more information past that, at least that I could find. Everest told me that it was failing part of the SMART test. So, that is another drive that needs to be replaced

Give it a week or so and you'll see it gets better,hope your HD does not give you any issues until its replaced.

I don't know if you game but I recommend you update DX9.0C to latest version (Aug 2008) in Vista too link,remember its for Vista as well as XP and you'll still have DX10.

As it stands right now, I do not expect it to get much faster. It is a single core, 1.8GHz CPU I do not expect miracles out of it. The best I can hope for is that it will not be significantly slower than XP. Mostly I am just trying to get myself adjusted to it. I do game actually, but not that much I did not know that Dx9.0c was a separate codebase from Dx10 (in the sense that Dx10 doesn't cover all of 9.0c) so I will have to follow that link, see where it goes.