Windows Vista info

[thescreensavers]

This is to help some people with Vista

I had windows Vista beta before when it will ask for drivers give it the Win Xp drivers for my printer it worked for my phone it worked. But on physical hardware in your computer I do not know. Gaming will not be faster because there is more GPU usage in Vista then Xp and below. Some applications will run some will not some will make it so that it is unbearably slow. To fix that you would need to go into safe mode and uninstall the software that is conflicting with vista. Right now I would recommend not putting any sensitive data on it. and no virus protector because the active scan will tremendously slow down vista. You can have on installed but not actively on.

if you have 3 windows open and in Xp pro you hit Alt+tab it will switch but in vista you can do that and if your GPU is capable Windows logo+tab and look what happens

 

[ProviaFan]

I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

 

[Looney]

I got a 3 for overall rating too.

Here's my breakdown:
Process: Intel M 2.0Ghz - 3.5
Memory: 2GB - 3.5
Primary HDD: 20GB - 3.5
Graphics: nVidia Geforce Go 6800Ultra - 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 256mb - 5.3

Vista performs fantastic for me. I have no max/minimizing jumping or anything. IE does flicker on some sites though... i think it has to do with some of the flash content. But Vista performs as fast as XP for me.

 

[stash]

As an FYI, the overall rating is determined by taking the lowest subrating and rounding down to the nearest integer.

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

If Vista's GUI can't even run smoothly on a 6600, then they'd have a real problem. I'm guessing it's just the fact that it's a beta OS with beta drivers.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
This is to help some people with Vista

I had windows Vista beta before when it will ask for drivers give it the Win Xp drivers for my printer it worked for my phone it worked. But on physical hardware in your computer I do not know. Gaming will not be faster because there is more GPU usage in Vista then Xp and below. Some applications will run some will not some will make it so that it is unbearably slow. To fix that you would need to go into safe mode and uninstall the software that is conflicting with vista. Right now I would recommend not putting any sensitive data on it. and no virus protector because the active scan will tremendously slow down vista. You can have on installed but not actively on.

if you have 3 windows open and in Xp pro you hit Alt+tab it will switch but in vista you can do that and if your GPU is capable Windows logo+tab and look what happens

they rig in my sig got a 4 but i have driver errors its says..

so prolly faster..

Vista hauls and looks pretty damn cool on this box..

 

[Fenixgoon]

crap, i think i picked the wrong number

 

[MSCoder610]

I tried installing Vista today, had a few problems with the mouse cursor not moving smoothly and such. It might be the beta drivers, like someone said above.

If not, if Vista can't run well on this hardware, I just won't get it for a while (X2 3800+, X1900 XT, etc.)

 

[MikeyLSU]

got a 3...

Video card and GPU both were 5.9
Said my CPU was unknown. I have an AMD 2500 OCed to 3100 and it got a 3.2
RAM, 1.5 GB of PC3200 got a 3.2 also
Storage was a 3.somthing, but my second drive is not working yet.

 

[jlbenedict]

rig in my signature got a 4 on the 1st beta..

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: clickynext

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

If Vista's GUI can't even run smoothly on a 6600, then they'd have a real problem. I'm guessing it's just the fact that it's a beta OS with beta drivers.

I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Looney
I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

A graphics card with 128MB is within spec for 1600x1200 (supposedly up to 1920x1200 is ok on 128MB), but I see now that Microsoft's minimum requirements are definitely not written for someone who runs more than a few apps at a time.

And by the way, who wants to run Vista without the new UI? For what it's worth, XGL runs more smoothly than Aero on this system (including the jiggly windows), and it even manages well at 1152x864 on another system with a Geforce FX5200 - I'd like to see Vista try that (actually, I think I'll try it later).

I understand that my graphics card is a lower-end model that is now out of date, that I shouldn't bitch about upgrading, and so on and whatever, but it sucks that Vista has trouble throwing basic 2D textures around on this card - something that the card should be perfectly capable of doing. Hopefully NVidia can optimize their drivers more before the release, but I'm not counting on that, and have set aside a budget for a high-end card when Vista comes out - sadly, gaming graphics seems to be necessary now even for the 2D power user. 🙁

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: Looney
I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

A graphics card with 128MB is within spec for 1600x1200 (supposedly up to 1920x1200 is ok on 128MB), but I see now that Microsoft's minimum requirements are definitely not written for someone who runs more than a few apps at a time.

What do you think minimum requirements mean?

And by the way, who wants to run Vista without the new UI?

Um people who's system can't handle Aero?

For what it's worth, XGL runs more smoothly than Aero on this system (including the jiggly windows), and it even manages well at 1152x864 on another system with a Geforce FX5200 - I'd like to see Vista try that (actually, I think I'll try it later).

Ok :thumbsup:

I understand that my graphics card is a lower-end model that is now out of date, that I shouldn't bitch about upgrading, and so on and whatever, but it sucks that Vista has trouble throwing basic 2D textures around on this card - something that the card should be perfectly capable of doing. Hopefully NVidia can optimize their drivers more before the release, but I'm not counting on that, and have set aside a budget for a high-end card when Vista comes out - sadly, gaming graphics seems to be necessary now even for the 2D power user. 🙁

Don't know why you think you need a highend card. I'm running it on a 6800Go ultra just fine. And by the time Vista comes out, this card will be considered lowend. In case you have never been around for an OS release, i even explained to you what minimum requirements really mean with a new OS.

 

[ProviaFan]

Thank you for the information. I was just born a few days ago, so I didn't know any of that.

 

[clickynext]

When does this beta end and how will it end?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: clickynext
When does this beta end and how will it end?

June 2007

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: clickynext

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

If Vista's GUI can't even run smoothly on a 6600, then they'd have a real problem. I'm guessing it's just the fact that it's a beta OS with beta drivers.

I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

If you think about this statement carefully, it doesn't really make any sense. You are, essentially saying that the OS needs high system requirements in order to last longer, correct?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: clickynext

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

If Vista's GUI can't even run smoothly on a 6600, then they'd have a real problem. I'm guessing it's just the fact that it's a beta OS with beta drivers.

I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

If you think about this statement carefully, it doesn't really make any sense. You are, essentially saying that the OS needs high system requirements in order to last longer, correct?

I don't know where i said that. I'm simply saying that these OSes are made to function today, but not really shine until the hardware catches up with it. I was in the XP beta as well, and i remember very well how many people said XP was crap. Drivers for it sucked, software support sucked, it ran slower than 98, etc. I seriously don't remember a single instance where somebody said XP ran faster than 98. The average consumer PCs at that time was 1ghz, 256mb... compare running XP and 98 on that, and which would you prefer? Of course we know now how stable XP is compared to 98, but most people who hadn't tried XP, or only knew XP from early beta, wouldn't.

Vista runs better on the average computer today than XP did when it was in beta... much better. And lets not forget about 98. Hell, my first 98 machine was a retail machine, and it was a 133MX with 32mb of ram. Do you realize how slow that was? And that laptop cost me $4000!

I seriously can't imagine what a 98 beta must have ran like.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: clickynext

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

If Vista's GUI can't even run smoothly on a 6600, then they'd have a real problem. I'm guessing it's just the fact that it's a beta OS with beta drivers.

I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

If you think about this statement carefully, it doesn't really make any sense. You are, essentially saying that the OS needs high system requirements in order to last longer, correct?

I don't know where i said that. I'm simply saying that these OSes are made to function today, but not really shine until the hardware catches up with it. I was in the XP beta as well, and i remember very well how many people said XP was crap. Drivers for it sucked, software support sucked, it ran slower than 98, etc. I seriously don't remember a single instance where somebody said XP ran faster than 98. The average consumer PCs at that time was 1ghz, 256mb... compare running XP and 98 on that, and which would you prefer? Of course we know now how stable XP is compared to 98, but most people who hadn't tried XP, or only knew XP from early beta, wouldn't.

Vista runs better on the average computer today than XP did when it was in beta... much better. And lets not forget about 98. Hell, my first 98 machine was a retail machine, and it was a 133MX with 32mb of ram. Do you realize how slow that was? And that laptop cost me $4000!

I seriously can't imagine what a 98 beta must have ran like.

Whats to shine? There aren't any features in XP that are especially useful that I could imagine requiring higher system requirements. Look at Windows 2000 and XP, there is still no explanation except more bloat.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: clickynext

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

If Vista's GUI can't even run smoothly on a 6600, then they'd have a real problem. I'm guessing it's just the fact that it's a beta OS with beta drivers.

I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

If you think about this statement carefully, it doesn't really make any sense. You are, essentially saying that the OS needs high system requirements in order to last longer, correct?

I don't know where i said that. I'm simply saying that these OSes are made to function today, but not really shine until the hardware catches up with it. I was in the XP beta as well, and i remember very well how many people said XP was crap. Drivers for it sucked, software support sucked, it ran slower than 98, etc. I seriously don't remember a single instance where somebody said XP ran faster than 98. The average consumer PCs at that time was 1ghz, 256mb... compare running XP and 98 on that, and which would you prefer? Of course we know now how stable XP is compared to 98, but most people who hadn't tried XP, or only knew XP from early beta, wouldn't.

Vista runs better on the average computer today than XP did when it was in beta... much better. And lets not forget about 98. Hell, my first 98 machine was a retail machine, and it was a 133MX with 32mb of ram. Do you realize how slow that was? And that laptop cost me $4000!

I seriously can't imagine what a 98 beta must have ran like.

Whats to shine? There aren't any features in XP that are especially useful that I could imagine requiring higher system requirements. Look at Windows 2000 and XP, there is still no explanation except more bloat.

XP is faster than 2000. You can believe whatever you want, but i've proven this many times at work (when we had 2000 machines). If you have the ram and CPU, and everything else being equal, XP is faster than 2000.

But the big one, more hardware and game support for it. And it might not matter to you, but it does to me... XP looks better than W2K.

 

[batmang]

got a 2.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/batmang/vista-04.JPG

 

[Exsomnis]

Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+ *3.6*
Memory(RAM): 2.00GB *3.4*
Primary Hard Disk: 97.63GB Free (111.78GB Total) *3.8*
Graphics: Radeon X1800 Series *5.9*
Gaming Graphics: 256 MB Graphics Memory *5.8*

Overall Rating: *3*

 

[mb]

Overall 3

Processor: 5.2
Memory(RAM): 5.7
Primary Hard Disk: 3.8
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.7

 

[lokiju]

Overall Rating 3
Processor 3.3
Memory(RAM) 3.4
Primary hard disk: 4.1
Graphics 5.9
Gaming Graphics 3.5

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: clickynext

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I get a 3 for the overall rating. The breakdown is as follows:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ -- 5.2
Memory: 4.00GB -- 4.9
Hard disk: 48.82GB free (74.53GB total) -- 3.7
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 -- 3.5
Graphics memory: 128MB -- 4.0

Vista performs fairly well on this system, except that the UI can be a bit quirky (basically, IE has flickering problems, and max/minimizing windows is jumpy). I'm not sure whether to blame this on beta video drivers, or whether I should be thinking about a faster graphics card for when Vista is released.

If Vista's GUI can't even run smoothly on a 6600, then they'd have a real problem. I'm guessing it's just the fact that it's a beta OS with beta drivers.

I don't see why it would be a problem. Aero isn't REQUIRED for Vista, and 128mb card is close to the minimum requirements. It could be the res he's using as well.

This OS will need to last a few years. When 98 first came out, most systems only had 32mb of ram. When XP came out, it was rare to see a new system coming with anything more than 256mb.

So it wouldn't surprise me that low end systems will barely be functional with Vista (it probably will be more functional with Vista than 98 and XPs with their minimal requirements).

If you think about this statement carefully, it doesn't really make any sense. You are, essentially saying that the OS needs high system requirements in order to last longer, correct?

I don't know where i said that. I'm simply saying that these OSes are made to function today, but not really shine until the hardware catches up with it. I was in the XP beta as well, and i remember very well how many people said XP was crap. Drivers for it sucked, software support sucked, it ran slower than 98, etc. I seriously don't remember a single instance where somebody said XP ran faster than 98. The average consumer PCs at that time was 1ghz, 256mb... compare running XP and 98 on that, and which would you prefer? Of course we know now how stable XP is compared to 98, but most people who hadn't tried XP, or only knew XP from early beta, wouldn't.

Vista runs better on the average computer today than XP did when it was in beta... much better. And lets not forget about 98. Hell, my first 98 machine was a retail machine, and it was a 133MX with 32mb of ram. Do you realize how slow that was? And that laptop cost me $4000!

I seriously can't imagine what a 98 beta must have ran like.

Whats to shine? There aren't any features in XP that are especially useful that I could imagine requiring higher system requirements. Look at Windows 2000 and XP, there is still no explanation except more bloat.

XP is faster than 2000. You can believe whatever you want, but i've proven this many times at work (when we had 2000 machines). If you have the ram and CPU, and everything else being equal, XP is faster than 2000.

But the big one, more hardware and game support for it. And it might not matter to you, but it does to me... XP looks better than W2K.

Considering that XP consumes more resources, I find that hard to believe. If you have both systems with 64MB of ram, you're telling me XP is faster? I find that hard to believe.

And if you consider getting to the desktop quickly as being 'faster' then I'd have to say you're clueless. There is no point in getting to the desktop quickly if you can't do anything once you're there..