Vista

[dmf]

Vista will run Aces High just fine, depending on your video setup you might get 89 fps without a video card too.
Now keep in mind vista will run aces high for you just fine until msupdate updates the realtek drivers and vista crashes. or you try to update your favorite program to run on vista and vista totally crashes, or you turn it on one time too many and it deleted itself from you r hard drive( crashes)

I had vista when I first got this computer, I played AH on it in the H2H rooms, I redownloaded AH about once a week cause either vista would crash or vista wouldn't let me play AH cause I didn't have permission, wtf do I need permission for when I am the only acct on the computer?

afte a year of fiughting with that pos operating system I solved all my vista problems with a purchase of Windows XP. I don't care what ANYBODY says either, going from vista to XP was an UPGRADE , not a downgrade. My reasoning behind this statement? XP hasn't crashed, shut down, bluescreened me, lost my settings, failed to exacute a program command line, or anything else since I first started using it.
Face it XP,98SE,98,NT and the others rule, vista sucks swamp water through a used tampons

[bcadoo]

Originally posted by dmf
...Face it XP,98SE,98,NT and the others rule, vista sucks swamp water through a used tampons

Well, gentlemen, I believe that will cover the flybys

[Paxil]

Skuzzy... I suspect you say the same thing about every MS OS release... including the one you like so much now.

I usually wait until SP3 before taking the plunge into a new MS OS. Although, I am finding it very difficult to move past 98se. The lack of driver support for a lot of devices in XP is going to keep me away for some time. Oh, does it have a DOS box? If not, then it will never see its way to my hard drive. - Skuzzy 10-31-2001

Change is hard sometimes. I ran XP Pro and then Vista on the same box, and never noticed a perceptable change in performance. There are a lot of things I like more about Vista... but some things do annoy me. Overall it was less painful to switch to Vista than XP... so I think the gloom and doom over Vista is a overstated.

Now... I do understand your frustraction from software development (or support) point of view... the switch to XP was a pain for me as I did have to fix some bad code that other people wrote. The problem wasn't XP though... and I didn't tell anyone to stay away from XP because I was frustrated with how it made my daily work more difficult. Vista... same way and none of the companies I have worked for have yet dared to make it the standard for the desktop. That is what is installed on new PCs these days though... so like it or not that is what anyone in IT will have to support.

[Skuzzy]

Actually, when XP came out it was plagued with over 65,000 documented bugs and the driver support was bad.

And I waited.  I was glad I waited and wished others had at the time as well.  Early adoption of a new MS OS has never proven to be a good thing.

Vista suffers from poor driver support, and bad bugs as well, but there is something else it suffers from that XP did not suffer from.  Useful technological advances.  XP had a new memory manager and that alone was worth the wait for it to become stable.  Vista brings nothing to the party, except more bloat and a ton of DRM.  And they removed things from Vista as well simply because it did not play well into the new age of DRM.

This has nothing to do with change.  This has everything to do with a product this is not ready for prime time.  I already have a Vista box.  I already suffered all the problems I have listed.  You think that is fun?  You think I should be happy with that?  You think I should tow the line and keep my mouth shut?  Read on.

I already suffer having to deal with people, everyday, who are having nightmarish problems with Vista and running our game.  XP was a piece of cake compared to Vista.  If you think Vista is easier, then you have no clue what you are talking about and have not taken the time to really look at it,

Have any of you actually looked at the scheduler?  How many of you actually understand it?  Ease of use is not part of the equation.  And when the company that makes the OS cannot figure out why the auto-updater is broken on my box and they tell me I have to re-install.  You think that is a good thing?

The problem is Vista.  The things that Microsoft built into it are broken.  This is not an application issue.  This is not a driver issue.  It is an operating system issue and there are many more OS issues.

This is nothing like XP.  XP was a piece of cake compared to this. XP brought things to the table that needed to be fixed.  Vista brings absolutely nothing to the table.   It is an OS for the sake of an OS and that is all.

Currently, there are still OEM's that will install XP for you, and you can still purchase an OEM copy of XP, instead of Vista.  As long as that option exists, then I will advocate people should use it as Vista is simply a problem looking for a place to happen.  It will get better, but it will never be anything more than a product for the sake of a product.

If you think this is about fighting change, you are sadly mistaken.  I love change when there is a good reason for it.  People that accept crap for change are the people that Microsoft depends on.  Corporate America went wild for XP when it shipped.  Not so for Vista, which caused support for XP Pro to be continued far longer than Microsoft intended.

What part of this is hard to understand?  Vista was getting in the way of me doing my job.  I spent more time everyday working around problems, than actually doing my job.  I spent more time re-doing work due to bugs in Vista causing crashes, to not writing the data.  This is not sour grapes.  These are completely unacceptable issues.

The support costs for Vista are astronomical.  People get frustrated with me as they do not understand why there is not a simple solution to their problems.  Yes, I have to support it.  I feel sorry for every Vista user I have to talk to.  They do not want to believe that Microsoft would ship such a bug riddled piece of software with more bloat then anything in history.  It is easier to just remove our game from thier computer and so they do.

You think that makes me happy?  You think I should just fall in line with the rest of the herd?  And again, every single problem I have had with Vista is a documented and verified problem at MIcrosoft.  I am not overstating anything.  There are far more bugs I  have not run into than I have actually run into.

Where is any of this a good thing?

[Arlo]

Just bought a new Vista run machine this week. Three times the processor and twice the memory. At least the box said so. I sure miss playing all my 3-8 yr old games I'd hoped to see with all the bells and whistles for a change. At least AHII plays .... with maddeningly increasing static leading to loud pops and booms/vox drop/unpredictable frameloss and freezes (at one quarter settings).

Thank you Microsloth. I, too, don't know where all these guys going on about Vista being horrible are coming from.

Send the check to ....

[Skuzzy]

People do not know or understand what an operating system is supposed to be anymore.  They seem to accept what Microsoft offers as an operating system.  In the end, that is the real problem which causes or introduces much conflict.

I was taught the best operating system is the one you knew nothing about and did not need to know about.  It was transparent.  It allowed you to run your applications and the appilcations dictated what you could do and what you could not do.  If you wanted that extra feature, you contacted the application company.

With each iteration, Microsoft's operating systems become less transparent and more intrusive.  Vista dictates what you can and cannot do more than any other operating system ever shipped.  The application cannot over ride that.  Vista has taken one more step towards being an overglorified application itself, which is not application friendly.

It is as though Microsoft has an abundance of application programmers and not enough systems programmers.  Too very different thought processes are involved in those two basic types of programming.

Everday I see more and more, of what I call, lazy programmers.  They prefer to take the easy path or fast track to getting it done.  They are not keen on being efficient.  They are trying to redefine 'efficient coding' as being fast to get it done.  Often they are more than happy to accept the accompanying bloat associated with doing things in that manner.  After all, there is always more hardware available.  Microsoft insures that.

People will accept whatever Microsoft tosses at them, because it is easier to do so than the alternative.  Once we accept mediocrity, that is what we get.  Regardless of how you dress it up, mediocrity is what Vista represents.

People think I am against Vista because I do not like change.  Many may think that I have it out for Vista.  None of that is true.  What I have is a level of frustration with people who accept and support mediocrity.

I suppose in the end we do that with everything because it is easier.

[dmf]

When I first got this computer, I used it to replace a 1gig computer with 128 meg or ram.

This computer has a 3 gig processor and 512 meg of ram.

when I first got this rig it had vista, AH ran better and faster than it did on my old computer ( take note of the sys specs above to understand why), But I did notice the little things like lag, screen freeze, and the ever so popular one where Aces High has caused a critical error and has closed, were sorry for this inconvenience. NOW, here's the best part off my windows vista experience.
It was easy to remove from my computer.

since I have put XP on here, both a really bad install, and a good clean install, every video game I still play has gotten better than with vista on a good day.
read my signature, it says it all, vista is so secure hat a copy of 98SE can remove it.
Also vista is so powerful and great that a 166meg processor running windows 95 can format a vista hard drive.
Listen to skuzzy when he bashes vista, he's right

You vista huggeres need a clue

[Halo]

Speaking for the multitude of unwashed operating system robots, I appreciate the technical insights from those who know.  

In my case, ignorance is bliss.  I haven't played computer games much lately, and none on Vista, so I can't comment on the cutting edge features that many games require.  

But I have so say for plain ol' day to day getting the job done, e.g., on-line Googling and general browsing and downloads, XP and Vista generally do fine for me.  True, they are slow to load and slow to close, primarily because of all the programs that somehow insert themselves as essential, especially virus and junk protections.  

Aside from keeping Windows, security, and other main programs updated, the only tweaking I do is purging Internet temporary files, cookies, and history after every on-line session.  I know these are supposed to be deleted frequently by the system, particularly at sign-off, but everytime the computer slows up, I go ahead and do these deletions, and system speed usually perks up just fine.

I agree that greatly increased computing power seems to be a main reason more cumbersome programs can be acceptable.  I can understand how that in turn generates a certain amount of complacency and laxness in producing the most elegant programs and systems.  

Yet in the long run I have to consider myself a happy camper.  Been a long time since I've had to spend hours solving crashes and slowdowns and broken connections and all the dues we've all paid over the years.

[bcadoo]

Saw this when I was reading the news this morning:

http://origin.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_8417811


The most telling paragraph..." They also may help explain how Vista has stumbled, generating numerous complaints and causing many consumers to question whether it is superior to its predecessor, Windows XP. The group Ars Technica, for example, has continued to recommend Windows XP "as we too believe that Vista is not yet capable of meeting the needs of our entire audience (particularly with regards to gaming)."

[68Wooley]

I'm with Skuzzy on this.

Vista epitomizes  the software industry today where developers have been taught to believe resources - memory, cpu cycles, processes etc - are cheap and to not to worry about them. Often this is exacerbated by the same developers testing their products on uber development machines that dwarf the kind of systems their customers will be using.

Vista is one example of this, but look at Acrobat Reader from Adobe or HP, who think 1GB is a perfectly acceptable size for a f'in printer driver.

Software development, compared with the rest of the computer industry, is largely stagnant. Whilst hardware development continues to obey Moore's law, what true innovation has there been in software development in the last 15 years?

The other problem has been the branching out of the major developers into 'content provision' which has resulted in them having to appease the recording industry. This has resulted in the universally awful implementations of DRM (and that right there is one of the major reasons Vista runs slow), but its also influencing Microsoft and other's attempts to protect their own products. God help you if you have the audacity to try and update components in your Vista box too often.

At the end of the day, Microsoft will get away with Vista in the home market because it manages to handle browsing, email and Office applications whilst looking pretty. And for the (vast majority) of people for whom that's all they do, it doesn't matter that its a bit slower. If the box was 90% faster than they ever needed it to be under XP and only 60% under Vista, who cares.

The problem for Microsoft is the commercial market where - if your CRM system doesn't install correctly because of UAC, or your VPN client is blocked by DEP - then I'm sorry, but you ain't changing.

When ME arrived to much derision, Microsoft had a get-out-of-jail card in that the parallel development of the Win 2000 / NT code base to what became XP was already underway. Not sure how they get out of this one. Does anyone know of any medium to large sized company that has upgraded to Vista? I don't.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I've run into situations with UAC where it arbitrarily replaced a client's databases which were located in program files, with original install time ones. UAC was apparently disabled on the box untill a security update was loaded.

It looks like it's not safe to load anything to 'program files' on a Vista box.

[dmf]

If you really look deep in vista, you will find the only real difference between vista and xp is the paint job, granted there are a few little things like defender coming with vista instead of having to download it and that stupid pc windows live thing thats worthless. But every folder and program in vista is the same as xp, they're just renamed and in different places.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by dmf
If you really look deep in vista, you will find the only real difference between vista and xp is the paint job,  

Or the main difference that Vista supports DX10, WinXP won't. Hence one more reason why Vista is staying on my system.


...-Gixer

[dmf]

Originally posted by Gixer
Or the main difference that Vista supports DX10, WinXP won't. Hence one more reason why Vista is staying on my system.


...-Gixer

No vista, no need for dx10 = no vista, no problems, even trade if you ask me

[MrRiplEy[H]]

DX10 is the biggest marketing hoax of the history.