• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vista x64 First Impressions (from a self-professed Vista hater)

UNCjigga

UNCjigga

Lifer
So earlier this week I bit the bullet and decided to install Vista Home Premium (x64) on my desktop machine. First, a bit about my current rig. I have a Shuttle SN25p XPC running an Opteron 165 at stock 1.8GHz, and an XFX silent 7600gs with 256mb RAM also stock. Prior to installing Vista, I had an old 160gb Maxtor as my main drive and 1GB of basic RAM. For the Vista upgrade, I installed 2GB of OCZ Platinum which allowed me to bump the CPU up to 2.25GHz. I also bought a 500gb drive for a clean install of Vista.

Now my intention was to use vLite to slipstream SP1 and preload updated drivers, but I didn't realize I'd need a 64-bit machine to slipstream the disk. So I installed it off the retail DVD first, giving me a taste of release Vista. I must say, I was impressed with the installation process. It took roughly 20 minutes from booting off the DVD to typing in my product code etc., then a few more minutes after that before I was at the welcome screen. Overall, the install was less painless than even XP's clean install. I didn't start testing right away--first order of business was to get vLite going so I could do a clean install with SP1, so I did just that.

Once I was up and running in SP1, I installed updated video, sound and network drivers but decided not to install updated nForce chipset drivers (I didn't want to break anything!) Luckily my system didn't have any issues with drivers, and everything was painless (I've heard horror stories about 64-bit support but things are much better a year after release!) My "Vista Experience" score is a 4.3, held back by Business Graphics/Aero Performance". Weird. My "Gaming Graphics" score was actually higher (4.7!!) Makes no sense to me. I had a feeling that my CPU may have been running at half multiplier during the Aero test (Vista seems pretty aggressive in throttling CPU power--CPUz often reports my clock at 1.2GHz even when playing back video.)

Then I tried installing some software. Fun. I'd heard all the criticism about User Account Control before, but MY GOD! Between IE and UAC, installing software off the web posed a seemingly unending litany of confirmation screens. I counted 4 dialog boxes before I could even run a setup program!! I finally got Firefox, iTunes, Java and Flash installed along with CCCP for video--now it was time to install Office 2007 Ultimate which I downloaded from the Ultimate Steal program.

With software installed, I could test the OS running various tasks simultaneously--ripping CDs, playing video, working on a preso or spreadsheet, etc. Now I'm no technical expert, but my first impression is that Vista does a much better job of multitasking than XP did. I think the OS is better tweaked for dual-core/multi-core setups. In XP my 2nd core went largely unused, while Vista seems to devote the 2nd core for CPU-intensive or background threads while keeping the 1st core free to make the system more "responsive". Again, I'm no technical expert, so I may be talking out my ass, but that's how it felt.

I'll update this post with gaming and other experiences as I use the system, but overall my experience has been positive and I can't really justify my hatred of the OS anymore. It seems like MS may have jumped the gun in releasing Vista when it wasn't "ready", and they should have done some more usability testing, but 1 year later things seem to be going well for this OS.
 
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
So earlier this week I bit the bullet and decided to install Vista Home Premium (x64) on my desktop machine. First, a bit about my current rig. I have a Shuttle SN25p XPC running an Opteron 165 at stock 1.8GHz, and an XFX silent 7600gs with 256mb RAM also stock. Prior to installing Vista, I had an old 160gb Maxtor as my main drive and 1GB of basic RAM. For the Vista upgrade, I installed 2GB of OCZ Platinum which allowed me to bump the CPU up to 2.25GHz. I also bought a 500gb drive for a clean install of Vista.

Now my intention was to use vLite to slipstream SP1 and preload updated drivers, but I didn't realize I'd need a 64-bit machine to slipstream the disk. So I installed it off the retail DVD first, giving me a taste of release Vista. I must say, I was impressed with the installation process. It took roughly 20 minutes from booting off the DVD to typing in my product code etc., then a few more minutes after that before I was at the welcome screen. Overall, the install was less painless than even XP's clean install. I didn't start testing right away--first order of business was to get vLite going so I could do a clean install with SP1, so I did just that.

Once I was up and running in SP1, I installed updated video, sound and network drivers but decided not to install updated nForce chipset drivers (I didn't want to break anything!) Luckily my system didn't have any issues with drivers, and everything was painless (I've heard horror stories about 64-bit support but things are much better a year after release!) My "Vista Experience" score is a 4.3, held back by Business Graphics/Aero Performance". Weird. My "Gaming Graphics" score was actually higher (4.7!!) Makes no sense to me. I had a feeling that my CPU may have been running at half multiplier during the Aero test (Vista seems pretty aggressive in throttling CPU power--CPUz often reports my clock at 1.2GHz even when playing back video.)

Then I tried installing some software. Fun. I'd heard all the criticism about User Account Control before, but MY GOD! Between IE and UAC, installing software off the web posed a seemingly unending litany of confirmation screens. I counted 4 dialog boxes before I could even run a setup program!! I finally got Firefox, iTunes, Java and Flash installed along with CCCP for video--now it was time to install Office 2007 Ultimate which I downloaded from the Ultimate Steal program.

With software installed, I could test the OS running various tasks simultaneously--ripping CDs, playing video, working on a preso or spreadsheet, etc. Now I'm no technical expert, but my first impression is that Vista does a much better job of multitasking than XP did. I think the OS is better tweaked for dual-core/multi-core setups. In XP my 2nd core went largely unused, while Vista seems to devote the 2nd core for CPU-intensive or background threads while keeping the 1st core free to make the system more "responsive". Again, I'm no technical expert, so I may be talking out my ass, but that's how it felt.

I'll update this post with gaming and other experiences as I use the system, but overall my experience has been positive and I can't really justify my hatred of the OS anymore. It seems like MS may have jumped the gun in releasing Vista when it wasn't "ready", and they should have done some more usability testing, but 1 year later things seem to be going well for this OS.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. I am thinking to go vista 64 as well. With SP1 and a year and half for software/hardware companies to get their act together and support Vista, maybe the benefit for Vista is finally worth the hassle.
 

LoL! UNCjigga is hooked... 😀

Welcome to the club!

BTW, Vista gets better/faster as it learns your habits... plus, it's self healing!

Have fun!
 
UAC can be a bit traumatic to Vista newcomers. Thankfully, it's really only noticeable during the initial installation period. Depending on what software you have, you can easily go days and weeks without a UAC prompt.

There are a couple of ways you can limit UAC prompts as well. For me, I get UAC prompts mostly from games that want to update itself prior to playing. EverQuest 2, for example. I assume World of Warcraft would behave in the same way. The simplest way to deal with it is to install it outside of the program files directory structure. Of course, you can just live with the "run as administrator" UAC prompt when you wish to play it.

These days, very little software I run wants to run UAC. It did take upgrading some versions, but most of those were free or minimal cost.
 
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
UAC can be a bit traumatic to Vista newcomers. Thankfully, it's really only noticeable during the initial installation period. Depending on what software you have, you can easily go days and weeks without a UAC prompt.

There are a couple of ways you can limit UAC prompts as well. For me, I get UAC prompts mostly from games that want to update itself prior to playing. EverQuest 2, for example. I assume World of Warcraft would behave in the same way. The simplest way to deal with it is to install it outside of the program files directory structure. Of course, you can just live with the "run as administrator" UAC prompt when you wish to play it.

These days, very little software I run wants to run UAC. It did take upgrading some versions, but most of those were free or minimal cost.
Click to expand...
Well, it took me awhile to figure out how, but I finally disabled the annoying bastard in User Controls. Of course, now I've got a red shield in my tray and an annoying balloon message every time I boot up.

 
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
UAC can be a bit traumatic to Vista newcomers. Thankfully, it's really only noticeable during the initial installation period. Depending on what software you have, you can easily go days and weeks without a UAC prompt.

There are a couple of ways you can limit UAC prompts as well. For me, I get UAC prompts mostly from games that want to update itself prior to playing. EverQuest 2, for example. I assume World of Warcraft would behave in the same way. The simplest way to deal with it is to install it outside of the program files directory structure. Of course, you can just live with the "run as administrator" UAC prompt when you wish to play it.

These days, very little software I run wants to run UAC. It did take upgrading some versions, but most of those were free or minimal cost.
Click to expand...
Well, it took me awhile to figure out how, but I finally disabled the annoying bastard in User Controls. Of course, now I've got a red shield in my tray and an annoying balloon message every time I boot up.
Click to expand...

try this program

 
I have been using Vista x64 since day one,not had any real issues to complain about.

I had all drivers within 5 weeks of official release,all my software works fine from Firefox with extensions to OpenOffice etc....70 plus games installed including Starforce/TAGES ,SecuROM drivers.Burning software I have tried includes Nero 7,8, Cyberlink Power2GO,aShampoo Burning Studio 7,Roxio Easy CD 9SE.


UAC I leave enabled,only took me two weeks to get use to it.
I also have Vista x86 on my laptop again no issues to complain about(well maybe one,Dell never offered Vista x64 as an option for the OS, but then thats a Dell issue rather then Vista).
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
UAC is a great security feature. Disabling it is stupid. (IMHO)
Click to expand...

I don't need it. At all. Not even a little bit. It doesn't lower my risk .0001%. So why is disabling it stupid?

I'm not a Vista basher in the least, but as far as I am concerned UAC is of very limited benefit. At least sudo on Linux requires the root password. I think Vista UAC might occasionally keep a less savvy adult from getting in trouble. With kids all it does is teach them to click OK. I applaud MS for trying to do something, but UAC isn't the best overall solution, imo. A true user/superuser account hierarchy is what's needed.
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Originally posted by: Pabster
UAC is a great security feature. Disabling it is stupid. (IMHO)
Click to expand...

I don't need it. At all. Not even a little bit. It doesn't lower my risk .0001%. So why is disabling it stupid?

I'm not a Vista basher in the least, but as far as I am concerned UAC is of very limited benefit. At least sudo on Linux requires the root password. I think Vista UAC might occasionally keep a less savvy adult from getting in trouble. With kids all it does is teach them to click OK. I applaud MS for trying to do something, but UAC isn't the best overall solution, imo. A true user/superuser account hierarchy is what's needed.
Click to expand...

Without giving the kids the administrator account password how exactly do the kids click "OK." That is the purpose of the limited accounts, you have to have the password to elevate your level during a UAC prompt.
 
I'm not a Vista basher in the least, but as far as I am concerned UAC is of very limited benefit. At least sudo on Linux requires the root password. I think Vista UAC might occasionally keep a less savvy adult from getting in trouble. With kids all it does is teach them to click OK. I applaud MS for trying to do something, but UAC isn't the best overall solution, imo. A true user/superuser account hierarchy is what's needed.
Click to expand...
This completely misses the point of UAC, which I don't blame you for, given our horrible messaging on it.

The goal of UAC is to make it possible to run your computer full time as a standard user. Everything else is just convienence. The split token, click OK to elevate model doesn't do very much for security, but it's a lot easier than FUS'ing between an admin and standard account. UAC is just the first (small) step in a really long journey.
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
I don't need it. At all. Not even a little bit. It doesn't lower my risk .0001%. So why is disabling it stupid?
Click to expand...

YOU don't need it, OK. But a lot of people DO, and while it isn't a perfect solution, it is a major improvement from XP. Vista is more secure in part because of it, however inferior you may feel it is.

I'm not a Vista basher in the least, but as far as I am concerned UAC is of very limited benefit. At least sudo on Linux requires the root password. I think Vista UAC might occasionally keep a less savvy adult from getting in trouble. With kids all it does is teach them to click OK. I applaud MS for trying to do something, but UAC isn't the best overall solution, imo. A true user/superuser account hierarchy is what's needed.
Click to expand...

I agree, UAC is not a replacement for a user/superuser hierarchy. But it is a step in the right direction.
 
Originally posted by: stash
I'm not a Vista basher in the least, but as far as I am concerned UAC is of very limited benefit. At least sudo on Linux requires the root password. I think Vista UAC might occasionally keep a less savvy adult from getting in trouble. With kids all it does is teach them to click OK. I applaud MS for trying to do something, but UAC isn't the best overall solution, imo. A true user/superuser account hierarchy is what's needed.
Click to expand...
This completely misses the point of UAC, which I don't blame you for, given our horrible messaging on it.

The goal of UAC is to make it possible to run your computer full time as a standard user. Everything else is just convienence. The split token, click OK to elevate model doesn't do very much for security, but it's a lot easier than FUS'ing between an admin and standard account. UAC is just the first (small) step in a really long journey.
Click to expand...

What about the loss of Protected Mode when UAC is disabled, and the loss of the Registry/file-system virtualizations?

At least sudo on Linux requires the root password.
Click to expand...

Run Vista with a non-Admin user account and your UAC prompts will require the Admin password.

 
What about the loss of Protected Mode when UAC is disabled, and the loss of the Registry/file-system virtualizations?
Click to expand...
Protected Mode is good, but not the "sandbox" that many think it is. The registry and file virtualizations are part of what makes it possible to run full time as a standard user. I wasn't saying to turn UAC off 🙂
 
I have been using Vista-64 SP1 since it was released.
Current system is e2160 OCed to 2.66 (undervolted to 1.3v) with 8 Gigs of memory (had 4 gigs, but couldn't pass up another 4 for $49.99 after rebate), Asus 9600GT.
After reading this article,
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/
I knew I just had to get 8 gigs LOL.

Computer is rock stable, super fast, no problems what-so-ever.

Using Comodo Firewall Pro 64-bit
Antivir antivirus 64 bit
Auslogic Disk Defragger
CCleaner
 
YOU don't need it, OK. But a lot of people DO, and while it isn't a perfect solution, it is a major improvement from XP. Vista is more secure in part because of it, however inferior you may feel it is.
Click to expand...

Sure, but my point was that disabling it isn't automatically stupid. I don't know Vista very well yet, I admit. I log on to my daughter's laptop as admin to make a change to her DHCP config the other day, and I get four UAC prompts before I can get to the dialog I need. That sort of behavior undermines any regime of restrictions.

So I agree, a lot of people do need protection. I think I mentioned certain adults in my reply. I don't need it, and so for me disabling it isn't stupid.

What about the loss of Protected Mode when UAC is disabled, and the loss of the Registry/file-system virtualizations?
Click to expand...

Don't need either of them, so for me getting rid of the annoying prompts is well worth it. As I said above, its the behavior that undermines it. If I elevate I shouldn't have to do it again everytime the system accesses a different subsystem.
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
YOU don't need it, OK. But a lot of people DO, and while it isn't a perfect solution, it is a major improvement from XP. Vista is more secure in part because of it, however inferior you may feel it is.
Click to expand...

Sure, but my point was that disabling it isn't automatically stupid. I don't know Vista very well yet, I admit. I log on to my daughter's laptop as admin to make a change to her DHCP config the other day, and I get four UAC prompts before I can get to the dialog I need. That sort of behavior undermines any regime of restrictions.
Click to expand...

I just altered the DHCP settings on my system from my Standard account and it took exactly one UAC prompt to change it. Maybe you're taking a roundabout approach? At any rate, I don't want changes to my DHCP settings to go unchallenged, but I'm just crazy like that 😀

What about the loss of Protected Mode when UAC is disabled, and the loss of the Registry/file-system virtualizations?
Click to expand...

Don't need either of them, so for me getting rid of the annoying prompts is well worth it. As I said above, its the behavior that undermines it. If I elevate I shouldn't have to do it again everytime the system accesses a different subsystem.
Click to expand...

How are you planning to deal with programs that need the virtualization tweaks when they're not available? Just not use them, or deal with the headaches?
 
Originally posted by: mechBgon
I just altered the DHCP settings on my system from my Standard account and it took exactly one UAC prompt to change it. Maybe you're taking a roundabout approach? At any rate, I don't want changes to my DHCP settings to go unchallenged, but I'm just crazy like that.
Click to expand...
What REALLY sucks is having your DNS settings changed. A client with XP Pro on a Domain allowed spyware to take over. It immediately changed his DNS settings from his local server to a DNS server in Russia. That, of course, is EXTREMELY dangerous. You enter "www.bankofamerica.com", and it sends you to a fake Russian server that imitates the Bank of America server and asks for your password.
 
I just altered the DHCP settings on my system from my Standard account and it took exactly one UAC prompt to change it. Maybe you're taking a roundabout approach? At any rate, I don't want changes to my DHCP settings to go unchallenged, but I'm just crazy like that
Click to expand...

I can only report what happened on my daughter's system, which is an HP Laptop that was running Vista Home Premium prior to the SP release. If I recall correctly I used the settings->control panel->network connections->LAN connection->protocol->properties path.

I'm not terribly concerned about the DHCP settings getting changed. Not saying they can't be, but on my small home LAN I'll notice it. And in any event, clients on my LAN don't connect to the net directly: they use a Debian-based caching proxy, so unless the attackers can change the resolv.conf on that machine they aren't getting anywhere. If they change the proxy settings on the client the router will block the MAC address at the gateway. If someone hacks the router, of course, all bets are off, and it just uses old-fashioned authentication. But it emails me its logs every day.

Corporations are a far different story, and I'm not in a position to critique the methods they use, as I don't have 2000 clients on my network, but I think they did a pretty good job without UAC, using techniques similar to mine. Recall, I didn't say UAC was always stupid, or unnecessary. But I did disagree with the idea that it's always stupid to turn it off. I think most knowledgeable people are far more concerned than they need to be. We don't have monster botnets because brilliantly evil malware insinuates itself past people like you, mech. We have them because some significant percentage of people are stupid. 6 - 10% of people click-through on pop-up ads, last time I saw a figure. That's astounding. Those people need to be running in VMs. UAC isn't going to save them.

How are you planning to deal with programs that need the virtualization tweaks when they're not available? Just not use them, or deal with the headaches?
Click to expand...

Same way I have dealt with every other GUI operating system upgrade since 1990: upgrade eventually when I can no longer avoid it, by which time the system is usually pretty well tuned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top