Lately there are a lot of articles bashing Windows Vista for its lack of driver support, stability or poor performance. All of these concerns are true just like all previous Windows versions.
I remember sites cropping up left and right back in 2001 that were dedicated to showing consumers how to get hold of Windows XP drivers and if your hardware was even compatible! At the time Windows XP was completely new, Windows 98/ME drivers didn't work on this new OS - you needed either new hardware or hope that the manufacturer would code (beta) drivers for your devices. In my case I had a very expensive 10/100MBit Ethernet card from HP (the name escapes me, it's 7 years ago!) and I emailed customer service about lack of driver support and they told me they would never release one and it was being discontinued, despite the driver being included in all "Whistler" builds right up until about the 24xx releases.
I had to install the older 24xx build and then "upgrade" to the latest beta releases. I think I did that until the RC's and finally swapped out the card for something else.
I remember sites cropping up left and right back in 2001 that were dedicated to showing consumers how to get hold of Windows XP drivers and if your hardware was even compatible! At the time Windows XP was completely new, Windows 98/ME drivers didn't work on this new OS - you needed either new hardware or hope that the manufacturer would code (beta) drivers for your devices. In my case I had a very expensive 10/100MBit Ethernet card from HP (the name escapes me, it's 7 years ago!) and I emailed customer service about lack of driver support and they told me they would never release one and it was being discontinued, despite the driver being included in all "Whistler" builds right up until about the 24xx releases.
I had to install the older 24xx build and then "upgrade" to the latest beta releases. I think I did that until the RC's and finally swapped out the card for something else.
In all fairness Windows XP for Windows users was a huge upgrade of an OS compared to Windows 95/98 and that sad excuse for an update Windows Millennium. Multi tasking was simply impossible without risking a blue screen of death and all of a sudden after its initial teething problems, became a very stable and reliable OS incomparable to the Windows 9x platform.
We forget all the ranting that went on here on Neowin when certain bits of hardware suddenly didn't work, or 3D acceleration was simply terrible up until shortly before its release and even then a lot of cards suddenly weren't supported under the new driver model.
I'd go as far as to say that XP really didn't cut it until SP2 was released, that is when Windows XP came of age and was finally something to write home about. There will always be the users (like me) that will use the latest and greatest despite lack of driver support and obvious performance related issues and we will go on complaining, writing and informing about those short comings until the appropriate people fix those issues. it is believe it or not part of my job
The OS costs money, it's my right as a consumer and hey, I am using it at work so it is also tied into my productivity, lets also not forget all those friends I have helped because they simply don't understand why their printer no longer works when they loaded a Vista upgrade over XP.
They will say: "Hey it worked on XP! Why not Vista?" and I simply respond, "It will eventually, when those OEM's and hardware manufacturers get off their lazy asses and support it properly.
So while it may look like a few of those articles on Neowin and around the Internet appear to crucify Vista, please remember that we are not the only ones doing that, real world average Joes are, and even big companies like Dell decided to back pedal by offering XP on their newer business line PC's and laptops (but not for the general consumer) when they are supposed to have some sort of influence on the hardware industry.
Just goes to show that Microsoft may not have much of a say in that sector as we all thought it did. I know first hand by speaking with Microsoft developers how unhappy they are at failed promises by certain hardware vendors to deliver good drivers. Given time Vista will rock as much as XP did and still does for many today.
Hang in there.
I almost see that a war is coming.
Last edited by EL1TE on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:01
I almost see that a war is coming.
So sick of those news post...
Similarly however there is no way of getting around the fact that it's not up to XP's standard in a lot of ways, and provides little or not genuine reason to adopt if people are happy with their office environment now.
Simple as that. You can do the same job on both...just a little slower on Vista currently.
This is the same bs argument that people keep claiming ad nauseum. XP was a huge improvement over 95/98/ME and even 2k right when it came out aside from the obvious lack of driver support.
The situation is very different with Vista which suffers from pretty severe performance and compatibility issues as well as bugs and little to offer over XP.
Fact: MS has extended their deadline for providing OEM license for XP to computer builder up to January 2009. They will extend it again.
Fact: MS has committed in supporting XP, i.e. produce monthly patches, until 2014.
Fact: XP SP3 is right around the corner. (Beta right now)
Fact: Vienna beta will be release very soon. They already announce possible release for H2 2009 for that next Windows.
IMHO Vista will soon be an after tought. It will be shelved.
Now lets hope that MS will show us that they have learn from the Vista mess.
The problem with Vista is they went too far from XP. You can change stuff, you can add stuff, but it has to stay backward compatible. Yes, there was problem when XP came out, but at least you could connect it to a network and have it communicate with a 2000 or a 98. You can't transfer file from an XP to a Vista. How stupid is that ?
Only thing that could be improved is ofcourse the game support, however that's not a big issue personally.
Only thing that could be improved is ofcourse the game support, however that's not a big issue personally.
You must not have run into Vista's continuing networking bugs, which drive IT people crazy. Or had driver problems with professional audio and video/3D hardware, which makes Vista unsuitable for many creative types. Or with Vista deactivating after BIOS or driver updates, which annoys OC types and modders. There's also the applications that don't work as well in Vista as in XP, or work at all, which makes noobs think that Vista is "broken." Lastly, as everyone knows, Vista has on average an extra 200-500MB of overhead for games, which brought up the whole x64 vs. x32 debate because Vista gamers--unlike XP gamers--were running out of RAM.
XP was a mess when it was released, but it was noticeably better than Win9x for stability and some features (not quite as much compared to Win2K though!
For Vista to be a noticeable improvement in something other than eye candy and Microsoft's self-serving "features," apps have to be optimized for Vista. What all this means is that Vista's performance isn't going to noticeably improve this year, no matter what MS does. People in 2008 are going to continue to ask "Why the hell should I bother with Vista when it doesn't improve anything?"
XP was a mess when it was released, but it was noticeably better than Win9x for stability and some features (not quite as much compared to Win2K though!). Vista doesn't have any significant improvements that are apparent when using XP-compatible apps. Comparing Vista to XP is like comparing XP to Win2K, not to Win9x. There's very little improvement, and quite a few drawbacks.
For Vista to be a noticeable improvement in something other than eye candy and Microsoft's self-serving "features," apps have to be optimized for Vista. What all this means is that Vista's performance isn't going to noticeably improve this year, no matter what MS does. People in 2008 are going to continue to ask "Why the hell should I bother with Vista when it doesn't improve anything?"
I'm a creative type and a gamer. I run Vista Home Premium. I've had zero problems. Never seen it crash. I play 3D intensive games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas without issue (plays flawlessly). I use all the Adobe Creative Suite applications without issue. I've updated my PC BIOS and Vista didn't de-activate. I've only had one of my applications not work properly under Vista, and the company has since released an upgrade. There are some performance issues when compared to XP, but those will be addressed in SP1.
Last edited by hewitt s. on 17 Jan 2008 - 14:10
INTENSIVE? Lord... San Andreas was 3D intensive some time from now... Ok, getting real now, let's face that on the best case scenarios Vista 3D Performance is, at best, on par with XP. BTW, Vista performance is 98% XP Performance in ANY case best scenario... Plus the fact that Vista don't give any meaningful feature, why get thru the hurdles of a fresh OS, with all the driver mess and backward compatibility issues if I can keep my 8 years old XP working flawlessly?
I really hope that Windows 7 give us some really exciting new features. I really want that the MinWin make Windows 7 faster than XP - ok, I think I'm getting delirious on that, but I'm a man of faith. Well, frankly, I really want something that make me JUMP Vista at all, and make me happy as XP made me.
LMAO
See? xD
But if you asked that one, and seeing as we have seen the photos, you may get some answers that you do not want
But then if Froggy had let you loose in his car, who knows what could have happened.
you musn't have an aussie accent, they all put out when they hear our good old aussie accent
If your happy with XP then STFU and don't upgrade.
and yes, i am running Vista on 3 desktops and 5 laptops = no issues with performance and stability
Last edited by abulfares on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:22
XP did it for me actually... all because of drivers from Nvidia. It took 3 months to get stable drivers. Sounds simular?
This article is to the point. It's time to end this silly spreading of myths. I still see post in forums asking if this game works in Vista, why does Vista eat my RAM etc. I guess ignorance isn't always bliss...
Vista is perfectly fine for a newbie if it's pre-loaded. A newbie should never attempt to upgrade any OS.
Neobond is suggesting that questioning his authority will get you banned. :p
Last edited by .kvn on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:52
Test Setup (Tried to keep the hardware similar to what a typical person would use)
Pentium 4 (not dual core) 2.4Ghz
Intel p865 chipset
2GB DDR 400
80 Gig Maxtor HDD
Nvidia 7800 GS XP/Vista Driver 169.25
XP SP2 w/ current drivers and updates, and the same w/ Vista SP1 RC refresh
Startup time:
XP - 37 sec
Vista - 47 sec
3D Mark 2001:
XP - 9805
Vista - 11122
PC Mark 2005:
XP-3198
Vista - 2665
HDD XP startup: XP - 7.2MB/s Vista - 7.18
Physics: XP - 98fps Vista - 75.53
Transparent Windows: XP - 1040 windows/sec Vista 474
3D: XP - 189fps Vista - 180
Web Page Loading: XP - 1.82/s Vista - .94
File Decryption: XP - 48.27Mb/s Vista - 48.1
Graphics Memory: XP - 1352.59fps Vista - 1165.21
HDD - General usage: XP - 5Mb/s Vista - 4.97
Multi app test:
1 Audio: XP - 785.2kb/s Vista - 739.8
1 Video: XP - 106.14kb/s Vista - 97.75
2 Text: XP - 46.5 Vista - 37
2 Image: XP - 9Mb/s Vista - 8
3 File Compression: XP - 1.62/? Vista - 1.43
3 File Encryption: XP - 13.3Mb/s Vista - 12.14
3 Virus Scan: XP - 26.47Mb/s Vista - 20.48
3 Latency: XP - 6.47 Vista - 6.35
the end
the end
Yes I agree, if you are a gamer. This comparison was to show that the transfer rates are fairly close. If it is fps that is the main issue, then this is nothing to do with Vista, it is the drivers for your graphics card. I run a ton of things on my home pc, ranging from graphic editing programs, to video editing, and I have not found any problems encoding or decoding anything, and everything is just as fast as XP. But of course, this is my PC, and may be different with someones else.
the end
I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games.
the end
I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games.
Because all he showed are really important for all those people who purchased laptops with vista and home pcs with vista installed.
So, I'm sorry, but in the real world, where the majority of customers are tech-ignorant don't give a crap about the minimal difference between transferring two files or encoding a music file. They care when they run a game that they play and end up with 10 fps instead of 30 and whine left and right about why the performance is so crappy or when they have a laptop with 512 mb of ram and vista keeps on hanging(YES plenty have those) go on public and say how much vista sucks.
So no, maybe in your world where everyone is so tech savvy they give a rats ass but in real world.. they don't.
the end
I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games.
Because all he showed are really important for all those people who purchased laptops with vista and home pcs with vista installed.
So, I'm sorry, but in the real world, where the majority of customers are tech-ignorant don't give a crap about the minimal difference between transferring two files or encoding a music file. They care when they run a game that they play and end up with 10 fps instead of 30 and whine left and right about why the performance is so crappy or when they have a laptop with 512 mb of ram and vista keeps on hanging(YES plenty have those) go on public and say how much vista sucks.
So no, maybe in your world where everyone is so tech savvy they give a rats ass but in real world.. they don't.
Heheh, "I'm sorry, but" the "Majority of customers" do not play games, they use thier PCs to surf a few websites, send e-mail and use Office.
I'm just going to skip to the point now, if you're going to troll, try to not to make it so blatantly obvious, and do it in a topic where your "arguement" dosen't make you look like a clueless basement-dwelling 13 year-old.
In summary: Lurk Moar.
Last edited by Athernar on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:13
The most important thing is evaluating the performance of the whole system that's a multitask enviroment: vista improves cpu scheduling, memory managment, I/O managment, I/O scheduling, all things that improve the responsiveness of all daily activities, smoother desktop loading, smoother application loading, smoother application closing, system stability improved after a video crash (driver is automatically restarted, no BSOD), less reboots (SP1 will also enable the hot patching = less less reboots), improved the windows's redraw with desktop composition (aero), etc.
Last edited by franzon on 17 Jan 2008 - 17:02
Reseachers for Devil Mountain Software using a Dell XPS M1710, ran test using MS Office 2007. The results showed that XP was twice as fast as Vista.
That's real life.
The article ran in late december, google it and find it.
Install a vanilla Windows XP install, and a vanilla Vista install. Without any service packs or updates, XP is far superior.
I used a (Admittedly dodgy - but im legal now) copy of XP RC2 for ages, and it was perfectly stable. Vista is just a bad O/S
The new features are nice, the security is nice, the fact it wont run correctly, hangs, is slow, won't play games correctly and ***AND THIS IS THE BIGGY*** is not as intuative as XP.
I'm not a microsoft basher - an everytime there is a new build of SP1, or a new update, I dig out my copy of Vista Ultimate (Which MS gave me free btw, so I'm unbiased), within a week I'm begging for XP back - and then I format and do just that - put XP back.
I just cant't live with vista, and I originally thought one day I'd have to. Now I'm not so sure I will.
Microsoft marketing calls it a "streamlined user interface" or some such nonsense. I call it cluttered and completely illogical. Getting rid of the tabbed applets and sticking things all over the place using hyperlinks was a huge mistake.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.
yes, lets go back to windows 3.1 because change is bad.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!) and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.
yes, lets go back to windows 3.1 because change is bad.
Bad change is bad. Wow, that was easy.
Last edited by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:43
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!) and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.
As a Vista user I can assure you that they DID NOT remove the recycle bin. It still sits on the desktop, and you still empty it the same way. They did make one really really stupid change though -- the Recycle Bin folder info does not show you how much disk space the files in the bin use.
I must be the 2nd person on the planet that hasn't had problems with Vista. There are a bunch of us on this forum running Vista without issue. Most of the problems stem from users who upgrade to Vista but who haven't taken the time to find out if their existing hardware is supported. People who got a new PC with Vista aren't having problems.
Think again. I own a computer store. Not a week goes by where I don't have 2 or 3 people bringing their PC in for a retrofit to XP. I'm doing so many, I'm now an expert at it. I can do one in my sleep.
Just go on the HP (Compaq) or Acer support forum and go look at post. 90% of the request for support are people looking for drivers to retrofit their PCs to XP.
On the other hand, Vista is definitely slower with games (FPS) and boot time.
I have two identical raid 0 setups with Vista and XP running off partition 1 on each.
From the time I choose OS at boot:
XP = useable in under 30 seconds
Vista = about 60-70 seconds
As far as general usage goes, I am finding Vista (latest SP1 RC) is now just as snappy as XP for most stuff.
Mick
Last edited by mikeyjames on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:25
Nothing to be done about the framerate, though.
Yeah there is.. buy new hardware.
feels faster thanxp and handles everything w/o an issue
few bugs..but hey..sp1 is comin..and lets not forget the horror xp was upon release
most of the haters seem like they musth ave outdated hardware
my old 4800x2 2gigs of ram 1950pro agp cudnt handle vista
my new system handles it like a dream..and its grown on me
when i had xp on here i just cudnt stand it
stability on vista is not an issue..no crashes yet..the bugs i was havinissues with are gone in sp1
So I can "upgrade" to a new OS that requires me to upgrade my hardware to run anywhere close to XP's speed, and really offers me nothing that I don't already have aside from a cluttered unintuitive interface or I can just keep using XP. Not really a touch decision.
Last edited by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:15
So I can "upgrade" to a new OS that requires me to upgrade my hardware to run anywhere close to XP's speed, and really offers me nothing that I don't already have aside from a cluttered unintuitive interface or I can just keep using XP. Not really a touch decision.
same here!
Last edited by Shadrack on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:34
Been using it since late 2006 and had no major issues.....a canon scanner didn't work but the scanner was a 2002 model so that was ok i expected that and besides thats Canon's fault not MS Vista.
Been running vista ultimate x64 on my wifes quad core machine for the last 6mths and she think your all idiots....she says what problems....when she reads articles like this.
Today i get my new quad core system with 4gig ddr2 and 8800 GTS 512meg and iwill be installing dual boot only for legacy support....but Vista ultimate x64 will be the deafult OS on it for sure.
XP is OLD......(its almost 8yrs old now, if u think thats not olod why dont u guys run 98 then lmao)
So? XP still works perfectly, and it still being updated. It's not like people are using XP retail with no service packs.
Oh and if you can't tell the difference between XP and 98 then lmao at you.
So? XP still works perfectly, and it still being updated. It's not like people are using XP retail with no service packs.
Oh and if you can't tell the difference between XP and 98 then lmao at you.
No i can tell how old fashioned, and behind the times 98 is compared to XP.....
And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.
Name some. I've used Vista, I saw very few features worth upgrading to. Many of them were a step backwards. The new defrag, completely dumbed down and useless. At least in SP1 you can finally select drives again, how revolutionary. The scanner and camera wizard, in XP you can choose which pictures you want to download from your camera. With Vista it just downloads them all and if you don't like it tough. The new Windows Explorer is a cluttered mess imo. Ooh, a shiny new version of Solitaire. Nope, sorry I'm not buying it. Having seperate audio controls is nice, too bad they yanked out DirectSound support. From my experience I found Vista to be a very minor update to XP, and in many ways a downgrade. I'm glad you like it, but I'll pass.
Last edited by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:37
Comparing the 98-XP jump to the XP-Vista jump is like comparing Batman to Orgazmo.
Last edited by tiagosilva29 on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:30
It would have worked in XP out of the box. This is the point many try to make. You may point fingers at Canon, but does that make the scanner install on Vista? No.
There aren't too many Vista features that XP users can't get from even open source or freeware and save a lot of money in the process. You'll likely even get better software doing it that way, since many of the new Vista bundles were hastily put together due to their development problems and project reset during Longhorn. Doing it this way, the foundation will then also remain a slimmer OS.
Last edited by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:41
WTF????????
Isn't it the job of the software (os) to support the hardware rather than the other way about?... THAT'S the problem with Vista.. the hardware has to do it VISTA'S way instead of Vista doing it the hardware's way.... which has caused endless problems for us all.
Last edited by The Walker on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:20
I wouldn't expect people to install it on their existing Xp computers, but you'd be a fool to buy a new computer and favour Xp over Vista.
I do agree that the file browser is still terrible. It's a piece of **** in XP and is very much so in Vista too. I wish they'd just license Directory Opus.
Oh.. here's the post I wrote about.
I'm glad, though, somebody who can post on the main page has echoed my (and other's) sentiments.
What's ironic is that I don't like Vista - am sticking with XP.
Still - we've been through millions of similiar posts. Move on already. Let people decide for themselves.
sounds like you need a codec pack update.
Something you've installed to integrate with the shell, or a drive you've migrated forward with invalid security permissions is causing a problem.
If you look at your "Problem Reports and Solutions" tool in the control panel, you might be able to diagnose and resolve your issue.
Something I couldn't do on..... XP
Guess which camp I'm in
I'd bet the SP1 for Vista will help a lot with many things.
once vista sorts out its issues it may be worth installing but until then i am not going to install it on any important machine.
I personally have had a few issues with my Vista box, but they are minor and I fixed them (becides the point), and the point im making is, I haven't formatted it since I bought Vista (well except for the original clean install). I Which is a hell of a lot better than my XP installs.
but whatever people have there taste, vista is not my cup of tea even when gets sp1/sp2 I'll skip to next OS hopefully would be next-gen......
Two years away for a fixed up OS, according to your guesses, isn't that much, since they still haven't got Vista fixed.
Maybe they will have in... two years? :-p
Last edited by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:33
No you won't, because you'll be too busy complaining about how bad Windows 7 is compared to Vista and you'll wait at least until Windows 7 SP1 or SP2 is released, when all of the new problems have been ironed out.
Two years away for a fixed up OS, according to your guesses, isn't that much, since they still haven't got Vista fixed.
Maybe they will have in... two years? :-p
i was being generous to MS, assumign they didnt release too far behind schedule, and didnt havea lot of major issues to fix. no idea why, it is more likely 3 or 4 years till the next version is stable enough for corporate use, i do agree though in 2 years i will be running Vista as i am sure it will be at the point XP is now.. then i'll wait a few more years till they fix up the next version
This is how the Office will continue to be developed. The ribbon has already proved to be more useful, more helpful, more good-looking, more easy to learn than the classic structure.
yeah i heard that too, and i like it....
Last edited by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 05:50
?
I thought XP was a total piece of crap when it came out. I got my free copy from the beta program and put it on the shelf for almost a year while continuing to use 2000... Sound familiar?
I thought XP was a total piece of crap when it came out. I got my free copy from the beta program and put it on the shelf for almost a year while continuing to use 2000... Sound familiar?
im wityh the wolf on this one, XP was crap when it was first released.
I thought XP was a total piece of crap when it came out. I got my free copy from the beta program and put it on the shelf for almost a year while continuing to use 2000... Sound familiar?
im wityh the wolf on this one, XP was crap when it was first released.
Ok, care to explain why though?
I remember migrating from 98SE to XP and thought it was a huge improvement. I didn't like XP's new theme but just dropped back to classic and never again thought about 98. When I moved to Vista, I hated it after 10 minutes of use; slow, buggy, extra bs activation and annoying unintuitive design. I still have vista installed as a dual boot but haven't used it for the last five months.
eVga nForce 680i SLI 775 A1 Version, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe OC'ed @ 3.20GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Powersupply
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB Dominator (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Four Seagate 750GB SATA's Running Raid 0
Two eVga-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Superclocked
X-Fi Platinum
Two Dell 3007WFP 30" Monitor Running 2560x1600 On Each Panel
Saitek Blue Backlit Eclipse Keyboard|Logitech G5 Laser Mouse
Quad Boot - Windows XP Pro/Windows Vista Ultimate x64/Ubuntu 7.10/OSX 10.4.9
eVga nForce 680i SLI 775 A1 Version, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe OC'ed @ 3.20GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Powersupply
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB Dominator (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Four Seagate 750GB SATA's Running Raid 0
Two eVga-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Superclocked
X-Fi Platinum
Two Dell 3007WFP 30" Monitor Running 2560x1600 On Each Panel
Saitek Blue Backlit Eclipse Keyboard|Logitech G5 Laser Mouse
Quad Boot - Windows XP Pro/Windows Vista Ultimate x64/Ubuntu 7.10/OSX 10.4.9
I'd like to just ask why you are Quad booting. Are you a developer? I can only see 2 or 3 professions demanding this sort of wide spread net of OS's.
With that System....you are obviously either a hardcore gamer, a CAR or 3D gfx designer, or a Developer with stupid GFX clarity for your needs. Either way this post is nothing more than attempt to enlarge your penis by bragging about your hardware.
Fail ^^
eVga nForce 680i SLI 775 A1 Version, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe OC'ed @ 3.20GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Powersupply
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB Dominator (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Four Seagate 750GB SATA's Running Raid 0
Two eVga-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Superclocked
X-Fi Platinum
Two Dell 3007WFP 30" Monitor Running 2560x1600 On Each Panel
Saitek Blue Backlit Eclipse Keyboard|Logitech G5 Laser Mouse
Quad Boot - Windows XP Pro/Windows Vista Ultimate x64/Ubuntu 7.10/OSX 10.4.9
Well, at least one of those is illegal to run on your machine, so I'd suspect possibly more, and your opinion slides down the "care" scale rapidly...
eVga nForce 680i SLI 775 A1 Version, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe OC'ed @ 3.20GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Powersupply
CORSAIR XMS2 4GB Dominator (4 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)
Four Seagate 750GB SATA's Running Raid 0
Two eVga-GeForce 8800GTX 768MB Superclocked
X-Fi Platinum
Two Dell 3007WFP 30" Monitor Running 2560x1600 On Each Panel
Saitek Blue Backlit Eclipse Keyboard|Logitech G5 Laser Mouse
Quad Boot - Windows XP Pro/Windows Vista Ultimate x64/Ubuntu 7.10/OSX 10.4.9
I'd like to just ask why you are Quad booting. Are you a developer? I can only see 2 or 3 professions demanding this sort of wide spread net of OS's.
With that System....you are obviously either a hardcore gamer, a CAR or 3D gfx designer, or a Developer with stupid GFX clarity for your needs. Either way this post is nothing more than attempt to enlarge your penis by bragging about your hardware.
Fail ^^
Hey wigz to reply to your comment, I am a gamer, but I also work with several platforms and software for different clients. I am not a developer =) and nor do I want to be. But for troubleshooting software/hardware issues its nice to use one box, not four.
Cheers,
Mikee
Who the hell cares if OSX is "illegal." It's not like you can buy it. Besides, what point does that make about the topic being discussed?
Maybe you should go back to admiring legal rule books.
Well, if Windows 7 is truly coming out in 2009 like some reports are now starting to tell, it seems like many will simply skip the Vista generation of Windows like they did with Windows Me.
Last edited by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:28
oh thats low, you cant compare anything to ME, hell that was the biggest pile of doggy doo i have EVER seen in my life......and MS even admitted it was not worth the disk it came on
oh thats low, you cant compare anything to ME, hell that was the biggest pile of doggy doo i have EVER seen in my life......and MS even admitted it was not worth the disk it came on
Yeah and Bill Gates admitted Vista is a dissapointment as well.
Many people won't remember Vista too, one day. Because it's already 2008 and next year is Windows 7. 90% of people I know is still on XP SP2. The remaining 10%, I know they use Vista because they complain a lot.
In the deep, XP is just a 2000 osr2, specially since xp is nt 5.1 and 2k is nt 5.0.
Vista in other aspect is almost a brand new os (nt 6.0). The sad parts is that Vista was created and thinking on many users request and this was a wrong, if a users is too stupid of lazy to run a hideous executable downloaded from the net, then he must blame themself and not the OS.
Last edited by Magallanes on 17 Jan 2008 - 12:11
Then there are of course complete train wrecks like the "new and improved" backup feature of Vista too.
Also, keep in mind that the majority of news to Vista is updated versions of Microsoft-bundled applications. New Windows Explorer, IE 7, Windows Media Player, games, etc. However, it's very easy to on XP just run an Explorer replacement, Firefox 2/3, and something like VLC or Media Player Classic... Often, even FREEWARE for XP is better than what the new software in Vista supports.
And WHEN will Windows get truly useful features like: undelete support, ability to read+write cross-platform volumes (Linux, MacOS), multiple desktop support, etc.
Last edited by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:46
With the exception of IE7, the updates to the default programs are a minor but welcome change (IE7 still has that horrible interface). The new Windows Calendar is a nice addition. Are these default programs alone worth the upgrade? No. They are minor updates. Besides, upgrading your OS for an update to a default application is a stupid reason to upgrade. Regardless of your OS, there will always be third-party programs that are better than what's included with the OS.
Keep in mind that Vista's changes are primarily "under the hood". Microsoft rewrote almost every subsystem. There are some performance issues, and these should be addressed in SP1.
For the average joe like me, it does wonders! (if you can afford a little hardware upgrade)...
using it now for more than a year... not a single CRASH or BSOD (some BSOD's with CS, sXe injected was the culprit in it)
overall a very nice eye candy OS with a little more features than XP... love it... (k)
Tight Lines...
I do like the updated open/save dialog boxes, the look and feel but the poor performance, drivers, and memory use in Vista really make it hard to recommend.
No, but the Windows 2000 drivers worked most of the time.
I know, not all the hardware had W2k drivers, but that is besides the point now.
Some companies were almost 2 OS's late with their drivers.
Unix has almost 40 and still kickin ases. I dont buy the icon and stupid graphics interface. Thats for the kiddos nowday, ala John tard Connor.
Unix is like the Yoda of operating systems... All the other's are just in training!
Don't forget about the TCP/IP stack modification that left the max. half-open connections at 10. That did cause some performance problems...
Vista on the other hand, didn't have anything scary about it except people wanting their drivers to work, nothing like bad security. From day 1, there hasn't been a single infection from Virus to Spyware/Malware ETC I'm starting to believe it has built in blockage to keep the garbage out, my detectors aren't catching anything except those blasted cookies.
Last edited by Octol on 22 Jan 2008 - 14:41
Signed
- the file copy can be extremely slow on some conditions - known bug
- the removal of the toolbar in the file explorer - to this day I still don't get it
- the lost of hardware-accelerated sound for games
And now I am getting excited about the 2009 new OS so I won't have to deal with Vista at all.
would like to see this back on tool bar options, They say Vista is supposed to be more user friendly what more simple they keeping them on the tool bar,
Using sp1 at the mo hoping this would be back but no! hopfully it will be on the finished version,
Although you can have clasic veiw what do you think of having a XP like view,
This is my first use of Vista only because it came with the Laptop Vista home premium already put another gig of ram to make 2gig just seems slower to.
That I want to mean is, well, Win98 give us an interface that was useful and was pleasant because it was simple. From the standing point we are nowadays, XP, it got, well, a little better. On top of it, we got all the new features XP brought us, a new stability standart, network features... ok, we got security issues, sure, but the new features made it worth it.
Microsoft should get it in account... It put a lot of effort on Vista to make a super-duper-mega-wopper eye-candy OS... I think MS was targeting OS X when it made it. It was a really nice feature that XP was keeping the old 98 interface, it helped us saving performance back on these days, and we still could use all the new OS features that mattered.
Why couldn't Microsoft learn from that past experience? Even a dog learn that when someone is kind to you, it's because you are making things the right way... It could really pick up on the strong points in XP and make then better, on top of the cream, the yummi cherry: new features. But, please, USEFUL ones.
But that's not what Microsoft did. No, I don't want an Ipod-like player with a stupid name (Zune), I don't want a Iphone step-brother with an MS logo, as much as I don't want an candy-shop OS named Vista.
I want performance. I want speed, with useful new features, better security and stabillity. Eye-candy.... eye-candy... I think my eyes are getting diabetes.
changed gui which I cannot get my head round most things need more clicks to do.
worser desktop theme model.
crippled sound hardware, what I mean by this is that creative cards are crippled due to the way the dirver model has changed and new drivers cant fix this.
superfetch - this supposed to be a selling point but its actually horrific causing unneeded disk thrashing.
drm - slows down windows media player amongst other things.
networking configuration and the break up of the control panel
few things I like
uac - although its perhaps integrated badly overall it is a good thing to have
automatic tcp tuning
better windows firewall
overall my main fripe with vista is not driver problems they are what I would call a minor annoyance but rather the gui layout changes eg. it took me 20 minutes to find the menu in windows media player, the replacement for windows explorer is horrible I am not sure what was wrong with it. If MS kept the gui the same, added uac, added tcp auto tuning and left it at that then would have been worth using and had higher takeup. The only issue I remember is the infinite loop bug.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.