Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cypher on February 26, 2008, 07:49:55 PM
-
I'm in the market for a new computer and was wondering what the pros and cons of vista are.
-
Vista sucks. Make sure your vista machine is twice as powerful as your XP machine - in order to run a little slower than your XP machine.
Oh, and if your peripherals are more than two years old, be prepared to buy new ones...
You could always give Dell an extra $100 to load your new puter with XP.
-
I have vista. I heard all the problems with it ,I have not had one yet. Maybe a year ago or when it first came out but seems to work fine for me.
-
I have vista. The only thing I have lost is the older printer I have. The Vista driver simply won't load. If I need to do any printing I just do it with the lap top. I am still using the same Word program that I have had for several years. It works just fine as do the old games I have including Red Alert2 and other Command and Conquer games. I have been playing Dawn of War and two follow up games for it with no problem at all.
Frankly I find that Vista isn't quite the beast it was reputed to be. I still would rather be under win xp but unfortunately it costs more to load it than to simply use vista on a new machine from HP.
-
Honestly, I don't know what the problem is.
I just got a brand new computer with vista, and it runs great... Don't really see a difference.
Why, what's wrong with my vista? Is it broken??? :( :confused:
-
I have had absolutely no problems with Vista. I just got my laptop last month and it runs all games fine and runs AH easily with textures all the way up and on the high res pack.
My laptop has a AMD X2 processor, a nvidia 7600GO vid card, 2GB RAM, and a 160GB HD and I have no problems.
I really dont see why people say Vista is so bad.
My only complaint is that AMD hasnt released a dual core patch yet.
-
Vista is very stable, but slow.
-
I make my living working on computers. I was in on the alpha and betas of vista. I wouldn't say that vista is 'bad'. It is however the answer to a question that did not exist.
Its so called security is obtrusive, so much so that I often turn it off at my customers request.
The interface is greatly different from previous versions; which requires you to re-learn where everything is. (if you wanted to do that, why not get a mac?)
It is S.......L.......O......W !!!!!!!
Its not the bullet proof OS that Microsoft touted.
IMHO: There is no compelling reason to 'upgrade' (ha) to vista....other than to put money into MS bank account.
-
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.
-
Somehow every time someone comes with a Vista laptop and connects it, it starts to do updates, yells that it wants to reboot and doesn't like no for an answer. I'm sure the auto updates can be disabled, but damn this is annoying.
It simply does not give you anything that XP doesn't give you. If you want a fancy interface, MacOS and even Linux do a better job for far less resources. In fact, I am writing this on a 5 years old computer with 512 MB ram, onboard lousy graphic card, that runs ubuntu Linux with a prettier interface than Vista.
-
Had Vista 64bit for some time, usual whines are just that and I'd bet majority are just going on by what someone else has said or they have read in another forum rather then first hand experience..
I've had no problems with it and wouldn't go back to XP. SP comes out next month.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Had Vista 64bit for some time, usual whines are just that and I'd bet majority are just going on by what someone else has said or they have read in another forum rather then first hand experience..
I've had no problems with it and wouldn't go back to XP. SP comes out next month.
...-Gixer
I've worked on over 5000 PC's. From DOS to Vista, Linux, (and even got OSX to run on a PC!) I speak from personal experience.
I will tell you what I've read about the SP's. (Since I'm not testing for MS anymore)
XP SP3 makes it 10% faster, Vista SP1 NO CHANGE in perfermance. (which has been clocked at half of XP)
-
Vista can be as fast as XP if you turn off most all the garbage that makes it Vista.
I'll let the Guinea Pigs sort the issues before I'll ever get Vista. Can anyone say SP1??
-
My wife uses Vista on her new laptop and hates it. It came preinstalled, it's slow, it's non-intuitive for anyone who's used a computer before (it might be great for folks who are just now trying out these 'television typewriter' machines, but not for anyone with technical experience as far as I can tell).
Vista might be fine in another year or so, no idea, but I have no interest in installing it on my computer right now, there's no benefit I can see. I'll stick w/ XP until I feel Vista reaches a point where it's an actual move upwards and not down.
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.
-
Shuffler, I've shut off every little bit of UI fluff on her Vista lappy, cut a bunch of services that she wasn't using, uninstalled a bunch of OEM cruft, and weeded a lot of junk out of her startup tasks & the registry.
...and it's still slow.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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. >
-
Actually there was a 16 bit version of C/PM. :) I ran it on a Motorola 68000.
-
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.
-
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.
-
left my XP Pro box running for almost 9 days without a reboot, still played AH without a single drop in FR's :aok
-
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
-
when you say vista is slower, do you mean in bringing programs up? like when starting word or AH2 longer load times?
-
Skuzzy is dead-on, my brother is a Cisco engineer out of their Richardson, TX office... Vista has them pulling hair out. I participated in all of the RC releases of Vista and tried to use it for awhile... I figured if i wanted to have a slow running computer I could just install XP on my old 266Mhz system i have laying around (Dont laugh, i have a 486/75 laptop on Win 3.1 that I still use!)
I was hoping MS would have been forced by the market to release an XP based "stop-gap" OS like they had to do with Windows ME. Yes ME sucked overall but a few builds of it actually were pretty decent, I have a machine with ME still because i have an old set of analog CH controls that must be programmed on a 3.1/95/98/ME machine.
On our work network we are actually looking in to a user friendly Linux distro like Ubuntu when our support for XP expires. For those who laugh, I have used Ubuntu with Cedega to play AH2 with really good results.
Ubuntu.com has a "live cd" you can use to test drive the OS before you change your HD - I was lucky in most respects, My wireless network card and other hardware worked "out of the box"
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Skuzzy is dead-on, my brother is a....
Geeze no name, what a brown nozer.
-
Originally posted by Cypher
when you say vista is slower, do you mean in bringing programs up? like when starting word or AH2 longer load times?
One of the things that plagues Vista is the new pre-fetch services. Those create a false sense of performance increase by preloading applocations into memory. Yes, while Vista is idle it will simply load up memory with what it thinks you are going to run.
If you happen to hit one of those applications, it seems like it starts lighitng quick. And it should. It is being run out of RAM. The major downside to this is the fact that when you run a game, they all have a tendency to be very dynamic which causes Vista a lot of thrashing as it tries to make room for the ever expanding application by dumping off what it had already loaded.
Actual application performance is down by up to 35% in part to these new prefetch services. In another part due to the sheer number of background processes Vista runs by default. The Windows Task Manager has always provided a panacea to users by using a granularity so fat it would take a background process a week to show it is consuming CPU time, when in fact they all consume a measure of CPU time simply due to the Windows loop which all EXE's have to run all the time.
The more background processes, the more CPU time lost to them. It does not matter if it is Windows 98 or Vista. In this regard they are all identical.
I could not get any game to run well on my Vista box until I shut down those prefetch services. Those things caused all manner of warping and stuttering. I just got through installing Windows XP Pro back on the same box and it is like night and day in the performance difference. XP just blows Vista out of the water. Games play nice and smooth with higher frame rates.
I'll ne able to do my job better. I'll just reload Vista on another box and use it for test purposes. And of course, I need to rewrite a lot of our documentation as the default configuration of Vista has no "Run" option from the "Start" menu, among other things that we refer to.
It really brings nothing to the user that could not have been brought to XP. In many ways it is far worse. Configuring Vista is a nightmare unless you are use to using the NT 3.51 Task Manager and its language. Vista is a giant step backwards in ease of use. And lets not forget about UAC (User Access Control). Now OEM's own your computer as you are no longer the Admin for it, sort of. Yes, UAC is a kludge. A big, fat, nasty kludge.
How many people actually enjoy that annoying box popping up everytime you try to install or remove anything? And for its intrusiveness, the computer is still no safer than it was before UAC came into existence. Then there is the placement of files for applications when you are not the Admin (OEM computer owners).
Another area I have to change all our documentation as I can no longer say, "look in C:\Program Files\HTC\Aces High II" for your screenshots. Why? Because they are not there if you are not the Admin of the computer (OEM owners)! Nice stuff like that really gets me thinking about retiring early and getting away from this mess.
Everyday I kringe when some user calls with a Vista box complaining about warping and stutters, on perfectly good hardware. Then the hours I have to spend with them trying to find the compromise in the Vista configuration which will allow the game to run well. I feel for the user as they get frustrated. And why shouldn't they be frustrated? They just spent a good chunk of change for a state of the art computer system which will not run a game well at all.
The number of these calls are escalating. They really do tax my time, the users patience, and there is no real need for that type of frustration to exist. This is what Vista has brought to my party. Substantially higher supports costs.
-
Well, I do this stuff for a living. Stop buying comps from Dell/HP and all the other guys in Microsofts pocket and build your own. Research your hardware, build it, buy XP Pro for 130 bucks, install, and run.
Vista is not now, nor will it be after SP1 release, ready for deployment. If you run Vista Basic, then all you have is a prettied up version of win2k. It will run, but there are combatabilty issues, hardware problems., driver problems.
I run beta on this stuff at work. I have multiple Vista test boxes, with various version of vista and the SP1.
Oh and to advertise myself, if you want a gaming rig built cheaper than you can get one from Dell, PM me!
Gaidin
PS- There is a number of reasons that most university systems will not mass deploy vista yet. USG (University system of Georgia)'s beta testing is one of them.
-
Originally posted by scot12b
I have vista. I heard all the problems with it ,I have not had one yet. Maybe a year ago or when it first came out but seems to work fine for me.
I second this.
Heard all the problems... didn't experience any of them.
The new OS took a small amount of getting used to.
I run Vista with everthing enabled, no programs shut down.... I get a fairly flat 60FPS with all detail settings maxed out and Hi-Res textures installed.
I could probably squeeze more out of it but the fact is that this runs so much better than my old XP machine (granted, it was a very old machine) that I'm not concerned.
28FPS was doing well with everything at minimum and all non-essential apps/progs shutdown on my last machine.
With that same tinkering (using FSAutostart (an excellent program for squeezing those extra FPS out of your machine)) I'm sure I could achieve a flat rate of 60 at all times but as it is it's fine for me.
I drop to about 48 when I get down low in huge furballs with GVs and trees everywhere sometimes.
There is no doubt that a custom machine will run better than a stock box with vista but if you don't know the first thing about all this computer business Vista will do the job sufficiently.
I have a 2 gig dual core HP with 2 gig of ram + a Nvidea 8500GT graphics card with 512mg/r (stock with the machine).
I paid roughly $1400 USD including a Samsung 22" LCD, Logitech keyboard (handy macro keys for gaming) and all the other watermelon that comes with the computer.
I'm sure I could have saved 100 or 200 if I mucked about with a custom rig but I've been happy with my box-bought machine.
-
Hmm depends when you bought the machine.
You can get a Core2duo + 2gigs + 150gig hd + geforce8500 for about $450 and the 22" Samsung costs $350. That's a lot more than $200 savings.
Gixer: DX10 is a shaft job - you won't be looking forward upgrading to that. All it does is lag you down. Heavy.
-
Originally posted by outbreak
left my XP Pro box running for almost 9 days without a reboot, still played AH without a single drop in FR's :aok
Try two months.
If you use a wide variety of programs under XP it will succumb over time rather quickly. Sure it can stay in good shape if you just use couple of programs, but what's the point of that in regards of true contingency.
-
Judging from Gixer and Xasthur's results I can only conclude that Vista runs better south of the equator.
-
If you come from a poor installation of XP, then you would naturally think Vista runs better.
Perceptions aside, all applications do run slower on Vista versus XP, on the same identical hardware. Vista cannot help but be slower.
-
Skuzzy,
I think the increase in performance noted with the new machine was due more to the better hardware than the older machines that were in use. Yep my vista HP runs "faster" and boots faster than my old XP box did. Then again I have 3 gigs ram on a 5200 AMD vs 512 megs ram and a 1500 AMD xp box to compare it to. A large enough boost in hardware performance largely overcomes the decrease in OS capability for the average "hobbyist" user like me. Frankly I'd rather have had xp again but the cost in swapping the os was a factor. I was maxed out on the purchase as it was.
I simply went with a "store box" as I couldn't build one as good as this HP is for the same money. In my case money IS an issue and I had to cut corners. Later on I'll get a better vid card and help boost the box up a bit. Maybe after the tax return is in.
-
Certainly a bigger hammer can solve performance issues but you still give up X percent performance gain when using Vista versus XP.
-
This is an enlightening and depressing thread.
-
Skuzzy, sounds like you have a love of all things Mircosoft and Vista is your current pet. Sorry mate you can enjoy it even more in years to come as people expect DX10 and move away from XP.
Again I've never encountered a single problem, on my desktop or laptop everything has installed and run first time, even AH is stable. Given the strain that FSX (plus addons) puts on my system I have less crashes then I did running it under XP.
And believe me, there is nothing more frustrating then being 5 hours into a 7 hour flight on Vatsim and have the PC crash.
...-Gixer
-
This has nothing to do with how I feel about anything. Vista *is* slower than XP on equivalent hardware. This is not something subjective. It is easily verified and I took the time to do so. You can too, if you like.
And for me, Vista interfered with my ability to do my job almost every single day of the week. The problems I had were numerous and over time got worse. The Vista box is now setting on another desk as I am going to have to reformat and reinstall the operating system, per Microsoft, as it simply quit allowing updates from Microsoft's updater. They could not figure out why. Gives me a warm fuzzy.
To date, I have yet to see any Microsoft operating system that did not run better after a fresh installation than one that was months old. My Vista install certainly was better when it was new. It got progressively worse. It got to the point where it was not saving data, which it claimed it did. That was the straw that broke the monkey's back.
Everything I have experienced wrong with Vista is a documented bug at Microsoft. I have yet to run into anything that has not been reported and verified.
This has nothing to do with my feelings. It is the way it is. I had to switch back to XP in order to provide support to the community. I'll keep the Vista box around so I can try and find better ways to set it up so the game will work better.
I also need to know what SP1 will do to the OS.
And Gixer, I am glad you are happy with it. All I can hope is that I will be able to retire before Vista becomes too mainstream. The toll it is taking on me and the customers who are having no end of problems with it is very high.
-
Vista is slower than XP...just like XP was slower than 2k. My experience with Vista has been about the same as with XP in the beginning. Some things don't work correctly, most things do. I have noticed no performance degradation on any game I play except one. Railroad Tycoon 3 won't run on Vista.
In addition after installing SP1 every issue I had that could be fixed by MS has been. The other issues I can't fault MS for since they have little control over what drivers other companies will produce. (I know it's all Microsofts fault that HP isn't making drivers for older products because we all know that they get money from HP for every new printer HP sells).
It would be interesting to re-visit this thread in several years and see if it mirrors the complaining being done over the newest version of Windows compared to Vista
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ....
:D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
DX10 is the biggest marketing hoax of the history.
-
I'm really starting to remember why I don't like XP's task managing. I've had to reboot computer twice because one program just doesn't get to be terminated when I tell so. One of the most common reasons that has forced me to reboot XP during the years. I haven't had to boot Vista for a single time for that cause - once I terminate a software it also does so and wipes it from the face of the memory without further thinking.
-
The inconsistent behavior of the operating system from user to user is fascinating and also very telling.
Fishu, I left my Vista box on over the weekend, by accident, once. I had to physically remove the power cord from the computer when I came in on after the weekend, because it would not even allow the power button to shut it off. I had no applications running on it. It was just stting at the desktop.
Not sure what the big deal about DX10 is. The supposed performance gains it should have brought to a system got wiped by Vista's massive overhead. I am compelled not to support any game that is DX10 only as it is simple extortion. Rather than be extorted to put Vista on my box, I just do not buy the game.
Microsoft is paying some developers to do DX10 only versions of thier software. If anyone wants to support that business model, then that is certainly up to each individual. Of course, if that is the only rationalization you have for having Vista, then I understand why one would cling to it.
Back to the inconsistencies. This is very indicative of a product which was not ready for prime time. The mere fact that is acts so very different from user to user pretty much tells the sad tale.
-
are there any other companies that are working to truly break the microsoft monopoly on operating systems?
i don't mean open source, i mean competitors.
-
Theoritically, Google is. That is a couple of years away.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
DX10 is the biggest marketing hoax of the history.
What, you think they are just going to stop at DX9 and call it a day?
...-Gixer
-
He is referring to the fact Microsoft made the conscious decision to not make DX10 available for XP so they could coerce gamers to purchase Vista.
At the same time to insure there would be some games only available for DX10, Microsoft paid some developers to make DX10 only versions of their game.
Then Microsoft made it all sound like it was the next coming with thier advertising and marketing blitz. Truth is, it is all a ploy to coerce people into purchasing Vista.
I'm not big on supporting those types of business practices nor the game companies that went along with it.
-
skuzzy.. my puter is about 4 years old but plays AH well.. when it doesn't...
I will get a new one. I fear that it will break or something soooo..
I bought a new copy of XP and keep it in the drawer.. if I have to have a puter built I will just install this XP on it. Is this a wise decision?
I think that vista may be like every microsoft one.. if it is out for a few years it will get better or they will dump it. either way.. XP works good for me. I think I will keep that system till all you smart guys get all the bugs worked out for me and tell me to go ahead and install whatever the latest vista or whatever replaces it.
What for you guys is a tiny bit frustrating is for me.. puter ending. I am not puter literate.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The inconsistent behavior of the operating system from user to user is fascinating and also very telling.
Fishu, I left my Vista box on over the weekend, by accident, once. I had to physically remove the power cord from the computer when I came in on after the weekend, because it would not even allow the power button to shut it off. I had no applications running on it. It was just stting at the desktop.
Not sure what the big deal about DX10 is. The supposed performance gains it should have brought to a system got wiped by Vista's massive overhead. I am compelled not to support any game that is DX10 only as it is simple extortion. Rather than be extorted to put Vista on my box, I just do not buy the game.
Microsoft is paying some developers to do DX10 only versions of thier software. If anyone wants to support that business model, then that is certainly up to each individual. Of course, if that is the only rationalization you have for having Vista, then I understand why one would cling to it.
Back to the inconsistencies. This is very indicative of a product which was not ready for prime time. The mere fact that is acts so very different from user to user pretty much tells the sad tale.
DX10 is supposed to be better than 9, so far it only works on vista so we all know what that means.
Now as for you vista box and having to pull the cord, personally I'd have bashed it to pieces and thrown it away right there on the spot. A computer that doesn't do whet you tell it to do is a dangerous computer.
-
Lazs, XP Pro wil be supported until 2014. No reason not to go ahead and use it.
-
My job takes me into 4-5 businesses per day, quite often into their I/T depts, and I have NEVER seen a computer at any of these places running Vista---only time I ever see it is a mom/pop who bought a laptop from Best Buy
-
Skuzzy I've got a sort of o/t question - Would Win2000 run AH better than XP if everything else was the same?
-
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, 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.
DRM (Digital Rights Management) is a big difference between Vista and XP, Skuzzy and others can tell you more about it, or you can do searches and see other threads on Vista where DRM and Vista are discussed.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Then Microsoft made it all sound like it was the next coming with thier advertising and marketing blitz. Truth is, it is all a ploy to coerce people into purchasing Vista.
I'm not big on supporting those types of business practices nor the game companies that went along with it.
Marketing ploys? That's what marketing is all about, we get douped left right and center and from far worse then Mircosoft. From razor blades to car purchases/servicing and of course everyones favourite scam insurance. So claiming the business practice high ground against Microsoft is just another band wagon. Desktop products I don't mind, their server products give me a headache which is why I took a career well away from servers network admin or engineers. E-Commerce,Security,TCP/IP,VOIP and MS Servers = alot of call outs over my weekend. :furious
Again I know Vista isn't the greatest OS ever, but at the moment it runs everything I need better then XP did on my old single core. FSX runs without crashing for hours on end with serveral applications in the background for addons. In fact only program that did give me trouble for a couple months was AH with crashes/discos. Everyone on here said it was Vista and go to XP. I made some changes to router, ended up being a ADSL+2 setting. And only one disco since.
I use to be a typical nerd at one time when it came PC's,overlocking spending hours tweaking BIOS and the OS. Someone else made the comment about cheap hardware and how it has progressed compared to OS. Great!!! As with working in IT for last 10 years last thing I can be bothered with these days when I get home is tweaking the computer to scrape out some performance when I can just go out and buy another stick of ram for $50.
And it isn't just Microsoft when it comes to O/S, one section of our business at work is Unix running on the latest and greatest million dollar platforms. New project high profile customers were missing criticle SLA's. Spent two months tweaking code with programers from here and the US. Gained about 15% time. Slapped in some more CPU's and RAM. Gained about 40% time.
Cripes, we still have the same problem O/S versus Hardware with multi million Tandem mainframes. Anyone know how to fix memory leaks causing process abends on Tandem Comms Handlers let me know.
I built the PC I have now, purchased Vista O/S (was a first :D ) loaded it up and haven't made a single setting change since. Had to download some specific USB drivers for the cell phone and that's it. Only product to fail has been TrackIR but i found that a worthless POS anyway and was already sitting in a box waiting for ebay.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Elfie
DRM (Digital Rights Management) is a big difference between Vista and XP, Skuzzy and others can tell you more about it, or you can do searches and see other threads on Vista where DRM and Vista are discussed.
Oh please........vistas drm is about as defender, I know a 11 year old that can bypass it in 10 minutes.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The number of these calls are escalating. They really do tax my time, the users patience, and there is no real need for that type of frustration to exist. This is what Vista has brought to my party. Substantially higher supports costs.
Skuzzy,
Are there any rumblings about bypassing Vista entirely and **** canning it for a different architecture? Or even if it was another build of XP - what could be improved on XP that would make your job easier that you would rather see in another OS other then Vista?
(side plug) Keep in mind, I bought a 3rd party Dell laptop with Vista, where I promptly reformatted it with a MSDN XP build. It uses less power under XP b/c the hard drive isn't running continuously for no ****ing reason, and runs cooler.
-
skuzzy..
will Aces High run on UBUNTU?
:P
-
Originally posted by dmf
Oh please........vistas drm is about as defender, I know a 11 year old that can bypass it in 10 minutes.
Your average computer user can't do that, I can't do it. I have no idea how to bypass that.
Vistas drm is about as defender? Could you please speak english? :D
Seriously, what the heck did you mean? lol
-
Originally posted by bj229r
My job takes me into 4-5 businesses per day, quite often into their I/T depts, and I have NEVER seen a computer at any of these places running Vista---only time I ever see it is a mom/pop who bought a laptop from Best Buy
From anywhere lately. No, seriously. You know of any stores selling new pcs loaded with XP?
Alas, gone are the days of an OS actually being an improvement until it's practically in the stages of being replaced by another crappier one. I picture the next great MSOS being a tetrabite absorbing "miracle do-it-all" that melts the box entirely when you boot up.
I may actually end up losing weight. Give up pRon for fat drunk old women in bars .... again. That is if AHII actually becomes completely unplayable. Eh, I'm learning to tune out static, ironically live with the typing deaths due to unvoxability and a obssessive compulsion to respond to fellow players who broadcast "mmmmfffpl lllarblo" through my speakers and shrug on the occasional framerate drop to 4 or less or screen stutters. ;) :D
-
Originally posted by moot
Skuzzy I've got a sort of o/t question - Would Win2000 run AH better than XP if everything else was the same?
Microsoft broke the updater for Windows 2000 which prevent DirectX9 being installed. Of course, you can work around this by manually downloading it and installing it.
At least Windows 2000 has a working scheduler. XP and Vista both still have a threading bug that 2000 does not have.
And Gixer, uh, UNIX is not, nor never has been a real time operating system. You want the clock to be accurate? You create a cron process which keeps it accurate by asking remote atomic clocks what the time is. Doing that once ever 4 hours will keep the clocks within milli-seconds of being perfect all the time. There are a couple of utilties which make this easy to do. I have not had to touch the clock on our UNIX servers for years.
All the problems you mention, sounds like Admin issues, not operating system issues (except for the Tandems, which have always sucked), which are easily solved.
As to the rest, I think I already mentioned something about people being able to rationalize anything away. I get it that you will support Vistia till heck won't have it. I choose not to for my personal systems and will do the best I can for the people who got forced into it.
I get that you support strong arm business practices. That is fine. I choose not to . I realize I am may be more the exception rather than the rule as it pertains to how I go about choosing things. I would not expect anyone else to do things as I do them.
All of that aside, the documented problems with Vista are very real. Not everyone will run into all of them, but turning a blind eye to them is not wise either or you could end up with another Tandem on your hands.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
And Gixer, uh, UNIX is not, nor never has been a real time operating system. You want the clock to be accurate? You create a cron process which keeps it accurate by asking remote atomic clocks what the time is. Doing that once ever 4 hours will keep the clocks within milli-seconds of being perfect all the time. There are a couple of utilties which make this easy to do. I have not had to touch the clock on our UNIX servers for years.
Clocks? You miss understood. I wasn't going on about the clock. I was making a statement that code was only able to improve compiling speed by a few percent compared to just putting in more CPU's Ram. Nothing to do with setting the clocks on a Unix or any other type of box.
"except for the Tandems, which have always sucked" So what do you think is better? Windows 2000 and a server for each CH.
Just how much experience do you have with TEL and Tandem, which series? Base24 or Connex? To say that "they suck" you must have years of industry experience in a EFT or other high fault tolerance environment. Personally I wouldn't work on anything else.
...-Gixer
-
Apolgies for misunderstanding the clock issue.
I only have about 9 years experience with Tandems. I finally had to get away from them. They were too frustrating for me. I was exagerrating a bit, but I grew to hate Tandem. It seemed everyday was an exercise in frustration.
I did end up replacing them at the company I worked for before. Hehe, not with anything Microsoft based, that is for sure. Ended up with a better solution for the accounting department, which is who used it.
-
Ok, back on topic. Been looking at SP1 for Vista to see what would be fixed and what would not be fixed and lo and behold, and one of the networking issues which plagues everyone, is not being fixed.....sort of.
"Another significant fix appearing in SP1 is a partial resolution to the conflict between the MultiMedia Class Scheduler Service and networking. As we’ve talked about the issue a bit before, the Vista audio stack is now in user space, which has lead to a change in how it operates. MMCSS boosts the priority of multimedia processes to real-time levels so that lower-priority processes can’t interrupt multimedia playback. During this time many other operations are interrupted or delayed so that they do not themselves interrupt the audio stack. One area that is dialed back involves the network interfaces, which are limited to 10k packets per second as a precaution.
For SP1 we were hoping for a complete overhaul of the MMCSS so that it ceased adversely affecting network performance, unfortunately what we’re getting is something about mid-way towards that. With SP1 it is now possible to control the amount of network throttling that MMCSS does, which means that throttling hasn’t been removed completely nor has it even been adjusted as far as the defaults are concerned. A quick test with Microsoft’s NTttcp tool shows the throttling level remains the same post-SP1 as it was pre-SP1 (roughly 70Mbps on a 1000Mb connection), which means SP1 will not be bringing any immediate relief. Furthermore there’s no GUI component (or real documentation) for this tweak, so users will be left to directly modifying the registry, a very uninviting situation."
This problem is one of the major reasons discos are on the rise in online games.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Apolgies for misunderstanding the clock issue.
I only have about 9 years experience with Tandems. I finally had to get away from them. They were too frustrating for me. I was exagerrating a bit, but I grew to hate Tandem. It seemed everyday was an exercise in frustration.
I did end up replacing them at the company I worked for before. Hehe, not with anything Microsoft based, that is for sure. Ended up with a better solution for the accounting department, which is who used it.
Tandem was being used for reporting for bean counters? Not suprised they found another solution. Which series? I've only worked on K and now S series for a global company that switches EFT for world banks.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Skuzzy,
Are there any rumblings about bypassing Vista entirely and **** canning it for a different architecture? Or even if it was another build of XP - what could be improved on XP that would make your job easier that you would rather see in another OS other then Vista?
(side plug) Keep in mind, I bought a 3rd party Dell laptop with Vista, where I promptly reformatted it with a MSDN XP build. It uses less power under XP b/c the hard drive isn't running continuously for no ****ing reason, and runs cooler.
Microsoft has said a replacement for Vista is coming, but they are always working on a next geberation OS. I tis just odd they have already said a replacement is on its way. While they are also lowering the price of Vista upgrades. Feels like the ME OS all over again.
XP would use considerably less power on a laptop than Vista will, in Vista's default configuration.
XP has a lot of room for improvement. The single biggest area I wish MS would foxue on is the configuration area. Right now, you have to be intimately involved with msconfig, regedit, all the utilities in "Admin tools". You have to know how to find config informatipn for the video, you have to reacquaint yourself with sound config with each diffierent vender as they have taken to replacing the WIndows audio control panels.
Bottomline, get the frakin config stuff into one place and quit allowing applications to replace the operating system configs!!!! That would be a huge step in making it easier to support.
While they are at it, quit arbitrarily restricting the amount of memory the operating system can address!
Quit trying to be an application! It's an operating system! Quit arbitrarily intruding on what an application should be or should not be allowed to do!
Streamline the operating system and stop adding more bloat which enhances nothing for anyone! Turn it all off by default, and let the user turn it on if they want to! If all game companies took the approach Microsoft does with the OS, in this particluar regard, they would be out of business.
I could go on, but it is pointless.
EDIT: Gixer, you are taxing my memory now. If I recall, it was a TXP(?) series. It was during the late 80's and early 90's.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Your average computer user can't do that, I can't do it. I have no idea how to bypass that.
Vistas drm is about as defender? Could you please speak english? :D
Seriously, what the heck did you mean? lol
ok I missed a word there I meant to say about as good as defender.
Oh any anybody can do it you just need to look around in vista its there .
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Geeze no name, what a brown nozer.
Skuzzy... Is it not hilarious that I, of alllllllllllll people would be called a brown-noser on THIS board??? LMAO :rofl