Author Topic: Vista (Read 2302 times)

bcadoo · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2008, 09:45:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
...

Of course, I might have to wait until the next OS. Windows Me (Millenium) is a good example of an MS OS that just straight up sucked, it never got better. [/B]

ME actually stands for 'Microsoft's Excuse' for an OS

Skuzzy · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2008, 11:08:08 AM »

Anyone that says Vista runs better than XP had a poor installation of XP. I have run into far too many problems with Vista. It finally got to the point I had to build another box for work running XP so I could get my job done.

The Vista box is now relegated to test status. It quit doing updates altogether a few weeks ago. Comes up with an error and the best Microsoft can say is to reinstall the operating system to fix it. Supposedly fixed in SP1.

Could not install a network printer as the network printer is attached to an Windows 2000 box so there was no way to get the drivers for the printer from it.

It quite showing the local network neighborhood some months ago. A known bug in the operating system supposedly addressed in SP1.

No one could access any of the shares due to another network bug. Supposedly addressed in SP1 as well.

Many of the services cannot be terminated as Microsoft has fixed the operating system to stop doing other things if they deem you should not be turning off those services. A bit of extortion on thier part. Supposedly addressed in SP1 as well.

You cannot run Aces High II on a multi-core AMD CPU without running it in compatibility mode. No fix from AMD as MS has blocked the type of patch AMD needs to be able to do to Vista. So, no fix will ever be coming for this unless Microsoft decides to do it themselves.

How many more problems you want me to list? The above is my personal experience with Vista. The operating system is not stable yet. It should get better when SP1 ships, but Microsoft keeps moving the release date for it. They do not seem to be able to get the performance issues addressed either.

Anyone claiming Vista runs as fast as XP had a terrible installation of XP as the performance issues with Vista is widely known and accepted.

If you want a stable operating system that happens to be well supported, then XP is the best option. A properly installed XP also happens to have better performance than Vista. Vista brings nothing to the table at all.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2008, 11:39:58 AM »

SP1 was accidentally updated to several clients a couple weeks ago and it immediately broke several applications and left some customers with an unbootable installation.

MS pulled the update back before more damage occurred. But I wouldn't hold much hope for SP1.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2008, 12:36:24 PM »

They did say it would be released sometime in the first quarter of 2008, when they last pushed the date. They still have another month before they have to announce it is delayed again.

I have not heard too many good things about SP1 from the Beta guys. Seems performance is still an issue and more things got broken as well.

That's what they get for starting with the NT 3.51 code as the basis for Vista.

Elfie · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2008, 03:16:14 PM »

Quote

You cannot run Aces High II on a multi-core AMD CPU without running it in compatibility mode. No fix from AMD as MS has blocked the type of patch AMD needs to be able to do to Vista. So, no fix will ever be coming for this unless Microsoft decides to do it themselves.

Why would MS block that type of patch? Do they just hate AMD or something? Or is there a valid reason for doing that?

Gixer · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2008, 04:15:10 PM »

I really don't care about speed claims vs XP I've never bothered to uninstall Vista and reload XP to find out. Just saying that I've been running it pretty much since it was released and have no problems with it at all speed is fine whether running one or multiple applications. Those that refering to professional experience, I'm also in the game so no mug.

Runing on a Intel Core2Duo E6420 with 2Gb Ram.

~~...-Gixer~~

sluggish · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2008, 04:55:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
I really don't care about speed claims vs XP I've never bothered to uninstall Vista and reload XP to find out. Just saying that I've been running it pretty much since it was released and have no problems with it at all speed is fine whether running one or multiple applications. Those that refering to professional experience, I'm also in the game so no mug.

Runing on a Intel Core2Duo E6420 with 2Gb Ram.

~~...-Gixer~~

~~Yup. Imagine how fast that sucker would run on XP...~~

Skuzzy · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:18:51 PM »

About 25% to 35% faster for most applications. Games realize the biggest benefit.

Of course, that is on a properly configured XP installation running against a properly configured Vista installation. Out of the box differences can be more depending on which version of Vista you install.

Gixer, this is no 'claim' per se. Microsoft is struggling to get the performance close to what XP was. There is a reason for that effort. You can pretty much bank on the performance differences.

Of course, the thing that rubs me the wrong way, is for all that bloat, you really get nothing substantial for it.

SIG220 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:22:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Halo
I've had Vista a couple years on an HP laptop. Runs fine. Still using two XP desktops. They run fine too.

Well, okay, true -- lots of updating at least weekly and slow loading in all three, but all three run fine. All in all, XP and Vista seem lots better than all the earlier Windows they replaced.

But all consumer versions of Windows before XP were junk, so that is really not saying all that much.

Windows NT was not that bad, but it was marketed mainly to businesses.

Windows Me was a nightmare. So were Windows 2.0 and 3.0 Windows 3.1 and Windows 98 were a little better.

Now, CP/M, there was an OS!! Only problem, though, was that it was designed for 8 bit CPU's.

< I think that I may be dating myself here. >

Skuzzy · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:25:13 PM »

Actually there was a 16 bit version of C/PM.

I ran it on a Motorola 68000.

mg1942 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:37:23 PM »

Is Microsoft trying to play "catch up" with Macintosh when it comes to GUI? I guess this is why Vista exists, they are scared of Macs ruling home computing again.

Fishu · « **Reply #26 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:53:23 PM »

I've used Vista for a few months, almost for half a year now and for the past two weeks I've been using XP again. Vista is roughly 5 to 30% slower than XP, depending largely on the software. In general I'd say 5 to 10%. However, over the time without reboots Vista is much more stable than XP. Biggest problem with Vista are the software developers that neglect it's working environment, especially the UAC.

It's hard for me to say which one I'd choose. If I want everything to work I'd choose XP, but if I want contingency without reboots it's Vista hands down.

outbreak · « **Reply #27 on:** February 27, 2008, 06:01:26 PM »

left my XP Pro box running for almost 9 days without a reboot, still played AH without a single drop in FR's

Gixer · « **Reply #28 on:** February 27, 2008, 06:10:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by sluggish
Yup. Imagine how fast that sucker would run on XP...

Running what faster? And when I move to DX10 I'll just have to re-install Vista. Personally I find current system runs much better then previous single core setup on XP. So I'm happily sticking with Vista 64but and dual core. Add a good graphics card and be ready for FSX DX10 when it rolls out.

~~...-Gixer~~

Cypher · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2008, 12:04:55 AM »

when you say vista is slower, do you mean in bringing programs up? like when starting word or AH2 longer load times?