AH and vista 64bit

[Skuzzy]

The only thing you said worth agreeing on is the fact that eventually everyone will need to move away from XP.  Thankfully Vista will be replaced before official support for XP Pro runs out.

The copy of FSX we have seems to run better on XP than it does under Vista.  Easy to understand that one though.  Different hardware, different drivers will almos always yeild different results.

[Gixer]

See Rules #4, #5

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Gixer Vista=WinME so give it a rest already. W7 will be a total rewrite of the core and a fundamental change in the way MS structures the OS. If it fails it's simply time to move on, get linux which will emulate Windows faster by then than the machines we have now.

[Gixer]

See Rules #4, #5

[Skuzzy]

Gixer, make mention of our game in such a derogatory, ignorant, and clueless manner again, and you will be banned from this board.  You have no idea how the game works or what underlying technology is used.  Just because it is efficient does not give anyone the right to belittle it.

If that is the best you can do in a discussion, then maybe you should just leave the board now.

[Getback]

I'm still considering whether to get another copy of windows xp pro. I still have 2 unused copies of windows xp home.

I have never used Vista. Don't plan on it.

Different thought: Not to schmooze up to Skuzzy, but this is the only game I play. It's worth my 15 bucks. I enjoy the people who play it like Faclon23, DCboss, LLogan, Warloc, Gusman, Jed, Dadsguns, 1plus44, and countless others. The help that many have given me in play and in computer knowledge cannot be measured. And all that started with a great game that keeps getting better and better.
What other game can you get feedback from the people who develop and run the game?!

[Mini D]

I've not heard good things about XP64. If you're intent on 64 bit, then go with Vista64. Otherwise, go with XP 32bit.

So far, I've not had the problems everyone not using vista insists I should be having. It's very smooth and stable.

[Skuzzy]

You have to wonder about that inconsistency.  The only people I hear of having problems, beside my self (they got so bad we had to relegate the Vista box to a test only box), are the people I talk to everyday.  Of course, only the ones with problems are going to call.

Many calls are people who just do not understand Vista has  alot of overhead and requires more hardware to run at the same performance levels as XP.  The truly frustrated ones are those who simply go from XP to Vista on the same hardware.  Then there is the UAC (user access control) issues.  I really do not see how anyone can like UAC, but I suppose there probably are those who find it useful.

EDIT:  It really is pointless to discuss an operating system which is going to be replaced as soon as Microsoft can.  Given the fact the XP Pro will be supported, by Microsoft, until Windows 7 ships.  Why bother with Vista?  In releasing a replacement so soon, one has to wonder how long Microsoft will continue to support Vista after Windows 7 is released.  Just seems like an unneccessary gamble to go with Vista at this point in time.

If you are going to have to suffer growing pains, why do it with Vista, then again with Windows 7?  I am all for moving forward, when it makes sense.  Due to the nature of my job, I do not have the luxury of having a myopic view of any Windows based operating system.

[Mini D]

Skuzzy, I know about 15 people that have loaded XP. All of them experienced computer users. I have not heard a complaint from any of them on anything except network drivers for wireless cards (cards out there that support it, but very few). That's not a group of microsoft rules guys, it's a group of people that just like trying new operating systems. All of them have experience with LINUX, UNIX and everything from microsoft. The only people I know who complain about how much Vista sucks (this is at work with a bunch of geeks) are people that have never loaded it.

I'm going to ask you a simple question that you don't need to answer: If you had a problem with a machine you just installed XP on, would you admit it in these forums? Think about the answer to that and you'll begin to see why I see your view on this subject as biased. You speak with great candor about the doomed vista system, but have you had an XP system that just didn't work well despite a clean install on a system that was working just fine before that clean install?

[Skuzzy]

If I had a problem with XP would I say something?  Sure I would. 

All the work computers hare are running XP.  Many different configurations of hardware and software.  The systems were all built in-house.  And in all cases, there has never been an issue with XP Pro.  They all installed just fine.  The latest configuration is an Intel E6750 with 2GB of RAM and an NVidia 9800GTX video card.  Been rock solid.

HT has a Vista based laptop for a while.  That was a nightmare.  Could not get Vista off that computer fast enough.  He hated it.  Thing took forever to boot.  Took even longer to load an application.  XP Pro runs much better on that laptop.  I have talked to many people who own laptops and they state they hate Vista on it, without me saying a word.

I have no reason to be biased.  If something works well, I typically do not say anything.  No reason to.  But if something has problems I will say something.  It does serve my interests and the interests of HTC to try to help people avoid problems up friont.

I have detailed my exact problems with Vista.  I have duplicated each problem.  I have reported them to Microsoft.  I was not alone in all the problems I had reported.  I did not have a lot of the problems that were reported.

I was the one who pushed to have a Vista system in house.  I was the one who had to have it as my work computer so I could get familiar with it and any potential support issues we would have.  What I did not expect was all the compatibility issues that would serve to prevent me from doing my job.  The actual problems with Vista were secondary concerns.

I suffered the network sharing problems, which were supposed to be fixed in SP1 for Vista.  It was not.  This really hurt my ability to coordinate with everyone else in the office.  I am on my second installation of the operating system so far just to be sure it was not a bad installation.
I suffered the printer issues which still have not been addressed.  Never could get betwork printing to work as our betwork printer is tied to a Windows 2000 machine.  Microsoft's answer was, "You will have to install Vista on that machine as well, but then the XP systems will not be able to use it".  This was due to the drivers not being compatible with Vista.  Everytime Vista tried to connect to the printer it insisted on downloading the printer drivers even though they were not compaitible with Vista.
I suffered the inability of the operating system to auto-update.  The auto-updater would error out.  I had to download and manually install patches.  A bug that is supposed to be fixed in SP1.  I have yet to be able to verify it has as I have had other issues to deal with.

Everyone with Vista suffers the UAC issues with our game that prevent the game from being patched without having to be 'Run as Administrator' (that is about as intuitive as handing someone a brick and expecting them to know they should break it open to get the candy).  Yet, they can run the game normally without using that option, they just cannot find the game's data files when they want to send in a film or post a screenshot (by default, the 'AppData' folder is hidden from users).  This one really hurts us and costs an enormous amount in support time.  Sadly, this is not a problem in Vista.  It is designed to work like that, so it will not be addressed.  We can fix this problem by not installing the game in the 'Program Files' folder.  Is that a fix?  No, it isn't.  It is one of many work-arounds we have for Vista that is not required for any other Microsoft operating system.  Why?  No good reason really.  If you can work around it, then why is it implemented to begin with?

I suffered debilitating performance issues due to SuperBoost (or whatever the prefetch things is called) wanting to continuue to load things whole the game is running and then when the game needed to load something, a massive stutter would ensue.  This is eventually going to force us to preload everything for the game.  We have already seen other games that have gone that route as well.  It will force us to change the minimum amount of RAM for Vista to 3GB in order for us to do that.  Even though the game really does not need that much RAM.

I have more, but it is pointless to keep listing them over and over again.  SP1 did not fix or address any of these issues.  All the issues I had are still listed as bugs at Microsoft.  This is not bias and I tire of being accused of it.  I would be wrong not to mention the problems I have with any software.  We run a tight ship and finding ways to circumvent problems before they become problems is a major part of what I do.  All the issues I had forced me to build another computer with XP on it so I could do my job.

Will everyone have the same problems as I had?  Absolutely not.  The UAC issues will plague everyone though.  The SuperBoost/Prefetch crap will effect some more than others, depending on how much is preloaded on the computer and how much RAM is installed.  The inconsistency is expected due to the problems with drivers and Vista.  Those should eventually go away.  Until they do, consistency is just a pipe dream.

What do I detest about Vista the most?  The amount of work it needlessly generates for me.  Talking to frustrated people, everyday, and knowing there are many more that simply do not call and just give up, all due to the problems, both real and perceived, they have with Vista.  Vista costs us business everyday and we know it.  Does XP cost us business?  I am sure it does.  But due to the maturity of the operating system it will cost us less and the ones it does cost us are probably machines that need a fresh installation of the operating system anyway.  Cannot say that for Vista.

So when someone comes in here and claims Vista is all peaches and cream, I will not hesitate to voice the problems I have had and continue to have with it.  Problems that Microsoft acknowledges as well.  I distrust the opinion of anyone that actually does not consider UAC to be a problem (as it is currently implemented), along with the other defaults Microsoft has chosen to force upon the unsuspecting public.  UAC is a joke and nothing about it does anything to prevent what it is intended to prevent.  My personal opinion on UAC is; It is a marketing-feel-good effort that adds bloat and more end-user frustration to an already bloated and frustrating operating system.

In the end, if I had these issues with Xp, I would be doing the same thing.  When XP was first released, I did talk about the problems with it.  I also knew they would be eventually addressed.  However, with Vista, there are design choices in it which are not going to change.  Many of those design choices are a problem that have to be worked around.  Unfortunately, 99% (just a guess) of the public has no idea how to do that. 

[Mini D]

I asked that question because I knew the answer skuzzy. And you answered exactly how I expected. I'll maintain my oppinion on bias.

[68Wooley]

I had Vista on my work laptop - a new, pretty well speced machine for almost six months.

For five of those months, all was well and I actually liked it. Sure, there was a few apps that wouldn't work or required you to buy an upgrade, but they were the exception. Sure, some new interface elements - like networking - seemed counter-intuitive at first. Sure - file transfer speeds sucked like you wouldn't believe. But once I had switched off all the UAC cr@p, all seemed well. I was coming to view XP as old-fashioned by comparison. I was a believer.

Then it all went wrong. One day about a month ago, I booted the machine and it was running slow as hell. A quick look in Task Manager showed the NT System and Kernal process eating all available CPU. I rebooted and it seemed to correct itself. However over the next few weeks it became a frequent occurrence, requiring several reboots to correct. Initially, I wasn't worried. I'd do a bit of hunting about, see what I'd changed, check out Google, maybe even call Dell Support...(OK, I'm joking about the Dell Support  ). However, for the first time ever, I drew a blank on a computer problem. Sure there are a couple of threads out there on the problem, but no-one has an answer.

In the end, I did some hard thinking about what I need my work laptop for and as a result it is now running Ubuntu 8.04 64bit absolutely flawlessly. This does 95% of what I need and for that last 5% I've got an XP VMWare image.

My home PC is running XP still - despite initially liking Vista, I saw nothing in it that would compel me to go out and buy an upgrade. My home PC is predominately an entertainment tool - music, internet, video. Now, if it weren't for Aces High, I'd be seriously thinking about a Mac for next time around.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

If you install XP and manufacturer drivers and the box won't work it's 99.9% faulty hardware.

If you install Vista and manufacturer drivers and the box won't work you can not know where to search the problem as the software breaks easyer than the hardware. That, my friends, is a definition of an IT nightmare.

Say no to Vista.

[Skuzzy]

I asked that question because I knew the answer skuzzy. And you answered exactly how I expected. I'll maintain my oppinion on bias.

So, you were just trolling.  I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt.  My mistake.  Will not make that one again.

[Gixer]

Why bother with Vista?

Simple, I have the hardware to run it with ease and want multi core and DX10 support now. Not wait in hope for the next OS release or stick with XP which doesn't support what I want today.

This thread is just like a new motorbike thread at advrider. New bike comes out only people that post are the ones complaining for what ever reason while the other 99% are out riding having a good time. Hence you end up with a disproportionate view of the new bike. If I read forums I'd probably never buy another new bike again and be trying to restore some old piece of 90's junk to make it as good as the new model. Not going to happen no matter how much you tweak the old ride and search ebay for parts.

Yes but I have my single core 1Gb ram PC that only windows XP can run then compared to system resource hogging Vista which doesn't support my 5 year old graphics card and some obscure USB device that was only sold at Walmart... Give me a break.

As i said from the very begining, if I was running a single core 1gb ram system then yes I would of kept XP. Running a new high end system I run Vista with FSX and enjoy multi core support, load up Crysis and it's DX10 which floors you with it's graphics and AI.

My point being, Hardware has developed past XP, It's cheaper and more over clockable then ever before, today with under a grand you can build a dual core 4Ghz,4Gb,8 series SLI rig with change for a 22" display that will scream through 3D Marks. Time to move on and think outside XP and Single Cores, unless of course your stuck with an old PC.


<S>...-Gixer