Vista Sucks!

[Theinfamousone]

Hey, I just got a new HP Pavilion 2500se. 2 gigs RAM Intel Core 2 Duo 250 gig HD etc.

WINDOWS VISTA?!?!?!?!?!?

I honestly haven't seen a bigger joke of a piece of software Microsoft has EVER made. As much as that is saying, it is true. I am appauled that I have to Ctrl+Alt+Del every time I use it (and of course it still takes about 3 minutes on average for the task manager to close the not responding program). Vista is a year old. I honestly can't believe this thing is actually on the market. It is an absolute joke. I'll go to rename files and the folder that the file is in will stop responding. It takes me 15 seconds to open up My Documents. I also bought a brand new Macbook Pro at the same time (ok truth be told someone offered me their new HP Pavilion for my 2 year old Powerbook G4 and I took him up on it right after I had bought the Macbook Pro) comparing Leopard to Vista is like comparing a nice back massage by a hot girl to getting shot in the balls in the batting cages. The Mac commercials are not making that stuff up. I want you guys to know that I never once had to reformat my old Powerbook, and I highly doubt I'll ever have to reformat my Macbook Pro. Trying to get the webcam working on my HP took about 5 hours last night by the time I finally found the drivers and AIM and Yahoo Messenger wouldn't work, the only one I've gotten it working with is Skype.

I installed Windows XP SP2 on my Macbook Pro and the webcam worked no problem in either OS.

So I went to install Windows XP SP2 on my HP and it wouldn't recognize my hard drive (apparently it has no SATA drivers or something) so I had to slipstream the drivers, but who wants to go through all this hassle. Windows is one frustration after another.

Ok, I just thought I'd tell you guys that and see if it's just me experiencing ineptitude with Vista or if that's pretty common.

[cheapprick]

From the few hours I have in on it, I'd agree completely.

[RACKnRAIL]

I hated it too. If you're going to use it there are some tweaks you can make.

After a week I updated to XP.

[mp3MaStA88]

when i tried to downgrade from vista to xp i was unable to do a lot of stuff. my sound didnt work. my built in wireless internet card was not detected. my graphics card was detected but i had lost more than half the options. seriously im thinking bout just wasting my time trying to get osx86 to work on my amd laptop. i just gotta wait for zephyroth's 10.5.2 rev 1 to be released and i'll be all good.

good news is. im running 10.4.8 on my westerndigital external hard drive with full compatability with my laptop. sound, internet, video card and all software works.

[Boomer The Dog]

mp3MaStA88, I think I know what you mean, those are motherboard driver packs that deal with the on-board sound, network, and graphics.

The good news is, you should be able to get that former Vista machine fully working with XP. What you don't do is go to the manufacturer's site for the computer model, for example if it's HP, don't go there, it will just show Vista drivers.

What you do is find driver packs for the motherboard model that's in the machine instead, from the board's manufacturer. Do a search on your computer model, then put in 'motherboard' after it. For example:

HP Pavilion 2500se motherboard.

That should bring up some forums or other info manufacturer and model of the board. Then search the board model, with motherboard drivers or mainboard drivers, or go the the maker's site and find them.

Also it's not that hard to slipstream the SATA drivers, get nLite and your XP CD, and you can do it from there, and it will make an ISO for you to burn.

[Excrement_Cranium]

The statement from my friend/co-worker and sad, pathetic microsoft groupie:


Vista is next gen, it's not broken, it's just that current software is too outdated for it.


His attempt to justify:

It's like running programs from 8-bit computing on 16-bit systems, it's just too fast.


I think he has a subscription to MS marketing rags... he drinks every drop of shit they spit out.

[Boomer The Dog]

I look at Microsoft like they are a band or a movie producer, they want to have a hit software that everyone is going to think is the best and run out and buy it. There's lots of hype, but no one can predict if they will have a hit or not.

They stick to their confidence in it, it's the best yet, new, easy, secure, but is it really a hit? That would be like a band putting out albums and every one tops the charts, or every movie from a certain producer has to be a blockbuster, it just doesn't happen.

Windows has been around for something like 20 years now, and has been a hit for the last 10, and it's possible that it could be on the downward turn.

[ratcat]

Hey, I just got a new HP Pavilion 2500se. 2 gigs RAM Intel Core 2 Duo 250 gig HD etc.

WINDOWS VISTA?!?!?!?!?!?

I honestly haven't seen a bigger joke of a piece of software Microsoft .........................


Ok, I just thought I'd tell you guys that and see if it's just me experiencing ineptitude with Vista or if that's pretty common.

Vista is unstable. Even after the first SP has been released.

My version is Home Basic w/Office 2007 on a Toshiba Satellie Pro laptop and it sux. Sick of app not responding. Double click on a file then get a error saying do you have the right path file ?, then double click on it the second time and it works. wtf. That's just some of the problems I have to deal with.

But.........

What's confusing at work is at they have Vista Home Premuim w/no add ons running on Dell's and its great. They run like a puter should.

At the moment I can't work this one out

[baksteen]

is there anyway you can like buy a new computer with xp installed? is that an option?

[Boomer The Dog]

Newegg had some computers with XP, and Dell was selling systems with XP as an option, something you would tell them that you want when you order it.

I think the chances are good that you can find an XP computer lots of places because of folks being unsatisfied with Vista. Just don't try to find it on retail shelves at a big box store. If you like to buy in your neighborhood, try a small computer store, they understand, and might have XP machines.

[ratcat]

Newegg had some computers with XP, and Dell was selling systems with XP as an option, something you would tell them that you want when you order it.


Yes you can. I've done it, six months after I brough my junk. Needed a new computer due to the main computer at the P.O.S. desk. the hard drive was failing.

Ask for XP Pro. Off memory no extra charge.

[Mavol]

Newegg had some computers with XP, and Dell was selling systems with XP as an option, something you would tell them that you want when you order it.
Call the sales desk at Dell. Just ask for XP and they'll ship the pc with XP instead of Vista.

[-0-BACKLASH-0-]

u have to pay extra for xp to be installed over vista, which sucks.

[Theinfamousone]

Vista is unstable. Even after the first SP has been released.

My version is Home Basic w/Office 2007 on a Toshiba Satellie Pro laptop and it sux. Sick of app not responding. Double click on a file then get a error saying do you have the right path file ?, then double click on it the second time and it works. wtf. That's just some of the problems I have to deal with.

But.........

What's confusing at work is at they have Vista Home Premuim w/no add ons running on Dell's and its great. They run like a puter should.

At the moment I can't work this one out

I know I have some at work that they work fine on. Those are the exact dumb things I have to deal with too. I'll be connected to the internet and for no reason it will try connecting to different wireless network. It took me 20 minutes to find how to disable/enable LAN connections.

[RACKnRAIL]

u have to pay extra for xp to be installed over vista, which sucks.

What if you order it without an OS and install your own special version? That would be cheaper and better, IMO.

[drtoker]

this has been discussed to death, but here you go again:
Vista is in the same place XP was when it first came out. Every one was bitching and moaning until SP1 came out. There were driver problems, program problems, and all sorts of other issues pre-SP1. Vista will be more 'up to par' once sp1 is released.
Of course this is only speculation, but if anything is definate, its that history repeats itself, and vista seems to be getting the same response and complaints that XP did when it arrived on the shelves.

[Signa]

its funny though, i never had problems with starting out with XP; not even a *fraction* of the issues at all. at this point, MS needs to start thinking about quitting vista. its not impossible for them to pull something out of their ass, but its not looking good for vista one little bit.

[RACKnRAIL]

its funny though, i never had problems with starting out with XP; not even a *fraction* of the issues at all. at this point, MS needs to start thinking about quitting vista. its not impossible for them to pull something out of their ass, but its not looking good for vista one little bit.

In addition, Vista requires a shit load more memory to run properly.

...I know Vista running properly is an oxymoron.

[napho]

I think the best way to go is to buy a computer with no OS, then install XP, then Vista. That way you'd save money and have the option of a dual boot. If you install Vista first, it seems way tougher to then install XP and have the choice. btw Since I got a new computer, there haven't been any shell crashes like there were with the prehistoric PC.

[Theinfamousone]

Seems there may be hope. It took them long enough.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/04/announcing-the-rtm-of-windows-vista-sp1.aspx

[-0-BACKLASH-0-]

@ getting puter with no OS:

I've never seen the option to not have an OS when looking at puters. Maybe that's an option for corporations which buy in bulk and already have licenses. What companies offer this for home office customers?

[Excrement_Cranium]

@ getting puter with no OS:

I've never seen the option to not have an OS when looking at puters. Maybe that's an option for corporations which buy in bulk and already have licenses. What companies offer this for home office customers?



Erm, about every time you build your own?

Most local computer shops?

And I'm quite sure if you requested, you could order w/o the OS installed (installation, but you still get your OS as part of your package) if, dude, you got a Dell.

[Sephiroth]

You can buy Dell PCs with linux now, they started doing that last fall.

Vista isn't that bad, to those who are complaining about slowness they should turn off the search indexer especially if you just upgraded because that is a huge drain on hard drive performance and unless you do alot of searching for files just isn't worth the performance hit.

Vista runs fine with 2GB of memory, 1GB is a little low, but they changed how memory is used so you really can't use task manger to judge how much free memory you have anymore.

Of course there has been some patches to Vista that has fixed alot of the issues that was happening when it was launched, and by the sound of things I don't think some people have gotten the updates.

XP had way more issues when it came out, especially with hardware support and drivers. Many people were talking about downgrading to Windows 98 and sticking with windows 98 forever.

[Excrement_Cranium]

You can buy Dell PCs with linux now, they started doing that last fall.

Vista isn't that bad, to those who are complaining about slowness they should turn off the search indexer especially if you just upgraded because that is a huge drain on hard drive performance and unless you do alot of searching for files just isn't worth the performance hit.

Vista runs fine with 2GB of memory, 1GB is a little low, but they changed how memory is used so you really can't use task manger to judge how much free memory you have anymore.

Of course there has been some patches to Vista that has fixed alot of the issues that was happening when it was launched, and by the sound of things I don't think some people have gotten the updates.

XP had way more issues when it came out, especially with hardware support and drivers. Many people were talking about downgrading to Windows 98 and sticking with windows 98 forever.


I rode 98SE until SP2. My games still performed better under 98SE, but now I R adjusted to XP... O_o

[meyou123]

Seems there may be hope. It took them long enough.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/04/announcing-the-rtm-of-windows-vista-sp1.aspx

That still will not fix the DRM in Vista....nor will it make it a better OS, it will just fix the driver issues that some have had with Vista, maybe.

I will still stick with XP, I don't need a bloated OS.

[DigitalJunkie]

If you have a laptop tough luck!

Recently my motherboard fried after using 24/7 for over 5 years. So, I just purchased a new hdd (new WD 150gb 10,000rpm Raptor :icon_thum) & re-format it before doing a clean install of WinXP Pro. Took out the old hdd, then use it as ext. hdd after removing the OS. I did all this just to avoid the new Vista OS! But I'm happy, because WinXP Pro still the best for networking & stability in MHO. :)

[-0-BACKLASH-0-]

Erm, about every time you build your own?

Most local computer shops?

And I'm quite sure if you requested, you could order w/o the OS installed (installation, but you still get your OS as part of your package) if, dude, you got a Dell.

I know if you build you own there's no OS. I was merely referring to ordering it through a company.

[ratcat]

Even after the first SP has been released



Sorry the first Vista's SP has not been released the first 2007 Microsoft Office Suite Service Pack 1 (SP1) has been released. My installment date was 14/01/2008.

And still does not run smoothly. Everytime I open up an Excel file I get two app running, ones blank and the other with the open file.

[Krell]

Software Tool Strips Windows Vista To Bare Bones

vLite is a free download that can cut the operating system's size by half or more.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
January 28, 2008 09:31 AM

A free software tool that promises to strip down the Windows Vista operating system -- which even some Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) officials have called "bloated" -- to a minimalist state is attracting big interest on the Internet.

vLite, created by developer Dino Nuhagic, automatically removes a number of non-essential Windows Vista components in order to pare the OS's heavy footprint by half or more.

vLite allows users to preselect numerous Vista features for automatic removal prior to installing the OS on their personal computers. Among them: Windows Media Player, Windows Photo Viewer, MSN Installer, Wallpapers, SlideShow, Windows Mail and other utilities.

"It's not just about hard disk space. There is also an increase in OS responsiveness and you don't have to tolerate all kinds of things you don't use," said Nuhagic, in an e-mail to InformationWeek explaining why he launched the project.
vLite, however, isn't for the technically timid. The software warns that the changes it imposes on Vista are "permanent, so be sure in your choice."

Nuhagic said he doesn't know exactly how many downloads vLite has seen -- but a forum that asks users to submit suggestions for the next version has drawn almost 50,000 views.

The emergence of tools like vLite reflect the frustrations voiced by many computer users over Vista's bulk and resource requirements.

Loaded with an abundance of features and tools designed to ease navigation and bolster security, the Home Premium and Ultimate editions of Vista both require a whopping 15 GBs of available disk space for installation. By contrast, Windows XP -- Vista's predecessor -- requires 1.5 GB of available space for installation of the Professional version.

With Vista bearing a footprint 10 times larger than XP's, even Microsoft officials are expressing concerns about Windows' growing waistline. Speaking last year at the University of Illinois, Microsoft distinguished engineer Eric Traut said the operating system had become bloated.

"A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system. That may be a fair characterization," said Traut.

In response to such concerns, Traut said Microsoft has adopted a new, modular approach to OS development that will yield more streamlined products beginning with Windows 7 -- a successor to Windows Vista that's expected to be available some time in 2010.

The approach calls for Windows developers to use a bare bones version of the OS -- dubbed MinWin -- as the building block for their next programming effort. MinWin is built on about 25 MBs of data -- making it smaller than Windows Vista by an order of magnitude.

Until it's ready, there's always programs like vLite.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205920302 (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.informationweek.com%2fnews%2f showArticle.jhtml%3farticleID%3d205920302)






Microsoft Wants Smaller Software Footprints Starting With Windows 7



Microsoft will use a bare-bones version of the Windows kernel, called MinWin, as the starting point for the development of future products, including Windows 7 and Windows Server.


By Paul McDougall (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=mailto%3apaulmcd%40cmp.com)
InformationWeek (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.informationweek.com%2f%3bjses sionid%3dJPOT0NUEL0ENAQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN)
October 19, 2007 10:52 AM


Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.techweb.com%2ffinancialCenter %2findex.jhtml%3fAccount%3dtechweb%26Page%3dQUOTE% 26Ticker%3dMSFT)) apparently is putting its Windowshttps://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/8.1.240.5/themes/base/clear.gif (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.informationweek.com%2fnews%2f showArticle.jhtml%3farticleID%3d202404710%23) operating system on a diet.

Acknowledging criticisms that the Windows operating systemhttps://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/8.1.240.5/themes/base/clear.gif (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.informationweek.com%2fnews%2f showArticle.jhtml%3farticleID%3d202404710%23) is "bloated," a senior company official said the software maker has adopted a new, modular approach to OS development that will yield more streamlined products beginning with Windows 7 -- a successor to Windows Vista that's expected to be available some time in 2010.

"We're starting on this path," said Microsoft distinguished engineer Eric Traut, during a presentation at a college campus.

"A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system. That's maybe a fair characterization," said Traut, who was speaking last week at the University of Illinois. A video of his presentation appeared Friday on the blog IstartedSomething.com (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.istartedsomething.com%2f).

With an eye toward offering slimmer products, Microsoft will use a bare-bones version of the Windows kernel, called MinWin, as the starting point for the development of future products, including Windows 7 and Windows Server.

Microsoft programmers will use MinWin as a base for development and then layer on only what's needed for particular Windows versions. "There's a really nice little core inside Windows," said Traut.

In adopting a more modular approach to Windows development, Microsoft may be bowing to criticism that current, one-size-fits-all versions of the OS are overstuffed for many user requirements. To prove his point, Traut demonstrated a version of MinWin built on 25 Mbytes of data, compared to Windows Vista's 4-Gbyte footprint.

"We've taken a shot at stripping out all the layers above and making sure we have a clean architectural layer," said Traut.

Microsoft has no plans to "productize" MinWin, but will use it as the basis for future OS development. "We're definitely going to be using this in a lot of the products we build," said Traut.

Microsoft may be hoping that the Windows-on-Weight Watchers approach will help it fend off competition from Linux and Web-based software -- non-Microsoft computing alternatives that impose less demanding hardware requirements on end users.

Despite the fact that Windows Vista launched earlier this year amid considerable hype, many consumers and businesses have shied away (https://mail.microsoft.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=fa6d91d48403440d8826b0b9ae3900de&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.informationweek.com%2fnews%2f showArticle.jhtml%3farticleID%3d199201492) from the OS, citing cost and compatibility concerns, in addition to Vista's steep resource requirements.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205920302



.

[RACKnRAIL]

Software Tool Strips Windows Vista To Bare Bones

vLite is a free download that can cut the operating system's size by half or more.



Nice! If I am forced to use Vista way down the road it's nice to know there's options.

I installed Vista a few months ago, after receiving a free copy. I was surprised at how much resources it sucked up by default. I was also disappointed that my TV tuner card no longer functioned. Besides the obvious problems, it ran quite slowly, compared to XP. I was able to tolerate it for about a week or so.

vLite sounds like a promising alternative. thx for the post.

[BleedThroughMusic]

All your comments are typical after a new OS or other software release from Microsoft. I downloaded Vista Ultimate from BTjunkie and absolutely love Vista. My machine is a 3Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, and high end Radeon graphics card.. never had a bit of trouble with it... very stable and is not a resource hog. It is Windows Vista... an OS that was by design, built to utilize more resources. So whatz the problem with that? You guys expect to run the latest and greatest OS with a 286 processor and 8MB ram? As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required.

I just bought a new Dell laptop with an AMD processor and 2GB RAM and Vista runs perfect. I had a sound card that wasn't supported by Vista but no big deal. I dont understand all the bitching. I have no special interest in Microsoft... I just evaluate without bias and see ti for what it is.

Vista get an "A" mark from me.... and cant wait for the release of SP1 in March.

[curlywagner]

True enough, I remember when people went on about 'upgrading' from XP to Windows 2000. I thought about it myself too. No Windows default install is optimised and you shouldn't expect blistering speed and flawless performance from your machine straight from the factory. Turning off the services you don't need and removing programs you don't use will go a long way to improving Vista's performance (in my experience).
That vLite program looks great.

[Excrement_Cranium]

As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required.

I'll pull the name off this quote (even though it's only 2 posts back), as I have no qualm with the person, just this conformist statement.



I think that as speeds and size limits for processing and memory increase, software developers are getting lazier.


It's simple; why must they use more resources? Why must they use more space?


How about we stop building the SUV of operating systems, and build a sensible sedan?

[Signa]

thats another thing: software compared to current hardware

when XP came out, im pretty sure the min reqs were 350mhz and 128mb ram. VERY much on the low end, but my middle grade pc (933mhz and 384MB) ran it just fine.

look what is available now, multi core processors with multiple GHZ to go around, and gigs and gigs of cheap ram, yet vista is still getting knocked for being "too slow." im not going to go do the research right now, but just from memory, i dont think vista is anywhere NEAR what the current hardware should be for a new OS. i dont remember win95, 98, ME or even XP being so far ahead of what everyone was running that only the highest end machines could expect to run smoothly.

it all goes back to my argument about new PC games. i dont care how good a game is, if you make it too pretty, you are going to cut your audience down because no one is going to buy it if they cant run it.

[drtoker]

thats another thing: software compared to current hardware

when XP came out, im pretty sure the min reqs were 350mhz and 128mb ram. VERY much on the low end, but my middle grade pc (933mhz and 384MB) ran it just fine.

look what is available now, multi core processors with multiple GHZ to go around, and gigs and gigs of cheap ram, yet vista is still getting knocked for being "too slow." im not going to go do the research right now, but just from memory, i dont think vista is anywhere NEAR what the current hardware should be for a new OS. i dont remember win95, 98, ME or even XP being so far ahead of what everyone was running that only the highest end machines could expect to run smoothly.

it all goes back to my argument about new PC games. i dont care how good a game is, if you make it too pretty, you are going to cut your audience down because no one is going to buy it if they cant run it.

Technology progresses rapidly, if you are unwilling to keep up, you will be passed by and not be able to use whats currently available to the market. Hardware capable of running windows vista effectivly is not expensive. Compare 'mid level' systems from back when XP first came out to 'mid level' systems today that are vista capable (by mid-level I mean something capable of running the OS smoothly), you'll see that it is cheaper today to get a system like this to run vista then it used to be when xp first came out, and your getting much better equiptment, so wheres the problem?

[Signa]

the problem is that grandma and office joe dont need dual core 64 bit machines to check email and fill in spreadsheets. i see your agument: my 933 was very middle range but i spent a little under a grand on that thing. a comparable middle range for today would be only a couple hundred bucks. but regardless, should you buy a new PC just so you can run the operating system? it just doesnt make sence

fake edit: i just went over specs in my head. "middle range" is just too large these days. the whole spectrum of low to high end PCs has broadened greatly from what it was in 2001. with the exception of vista and premium games, a "low end" PC will pretty much run everything a user could want and still have some functionality for higher end tasks. from what it out there processor wise, my current PC (pentium dual core 2.8) is actually pretty slow. we have quad cores now. yet despite this, im able to run everything i want, including games like UT3. despite this, im actually concerned about running vista on my PC. why would anyone want a PC that can run UT3 and bioshock when all they want is email and youtube videos?

keep in mind what we are discussing here, this isnt some program that would be a great advantage to anyone using it like MS office or a dvd/ipod converter. it wont read your mind and make life simpler, it just makes your PC capable of running the things you own a PC for. its an operating system. its SOLE function should be the interface that you use to make your PC do the things you bought it for. if your PC is using up all of its resources just to make it run, then how are you going to watch that movie that you just popped into your DVD drive? seriously, would you buy a car that uses all of its horsepower on idling? imagine that; you then hit the accelerator and just slowly move along. what would be the point in having a car if it didnt get you places?

[Andrew110]

the problem is that grandma and office joe dont need dual core 64 bit machines to check email and fill in spreadsheets. i see your agument: my 933 was very middle range but i spent a little under a grand on that thing. a comparable middle range for today would be only a couple hundred bucks. but regardless, should you buy a new PC just so you can run the operating system? it just doesnt make sence

fake edit: i just went over specs in my head. "middle range" is just too large these days. the whole spectrum of low to high end PCs has broadened greatly from what it was in 2001. with the exception of vista and premium games, a "low end" PC will pretty much run everything a user could want and still have some functionality for higher end tasks. from what it out there processor wise, my current PC (pentium dual core 2.8) is actually pretty slow. we have quad cores now. yet despite this, im able to run everything i want, including games like UT3. despite this, im actually concerned about running vista on my PC. why would anyone want a PC that can run UT3 and bioshock when all they want is email and youtube videos?

keep in mind what we are discussing here, this isnt some program that would be a great advantage to anyone using it like MS office or a dvd/ipod converter. it wont read your mind and make life simpler, it just makes your PC capable of running the things you own a PC for. its an operating system. its SOLE function should be the interface that you use to make your PC do the things you bought it for. if your PC is using up all of its resources just to make it run, then how are you going to watch that movie that you just popped into your DVD drive? seriously, would you buy a car that uses all of its horsepower on idling? imagine that; you then hit the accelerator and just slowly move along. what would be the point in having a car if it didnt get you places?
I don't think anyone could have said that better. Vista does nothing XP can't.

[drtoker]

You make some excellent points, and my only argument is that they don't have to upgrade. But thats not a good argument since eventually they will stop support for XP and force the switch. I agree that people using the computer for basic functions do not need a high end machine, even if its affordable, especially if they have one already.
Thanks for the enlightened point of view :)

[Sephiroth]

the problem is that grandma and office joe dont need dual core 64 bit machines to check email and fill in spreadsheets. i see your agument: my 933 was very middle range but i spent a little under a grand on that thing. a comparable middle range for today would be only a couple hundred bucks. but regardless, should you buy a new PC just so you can run the operating system? it just doesnt make sence

fake edit: i just went over specs in my head. "middle range" is just too large these days. the whole spectrum of low to high end PCs has broadened greatly from what it was in 2001. with the exception of vista and premium games, a "low end" PC will pretty much run everything a user could want and still have some functionality for higher end tasks. from what it out there processor wise, my current PC (pentium dual core 2.8) is actually pretty slow. we have quad cores now. yet despite this, im able to run everything i want, including games like UT3. despite this, im actually concerned about running vista on my PC. why would anyone want a PC that can run UT3 and bioshock when all they want is email and youtube videos?

keep in mind what we are discussing here, this isnt some program that would be a great advantage to anyone using it like MS office or a dvd/ipod converter. it wont read your mind and make life simpler, it just makes your PC capable of running the things you own a PC for. its an operating system. its SOLE function should be the interface that you use to make your PC do the things you bought it for. if your PC is using up all of its resources just to make it run, then how are you going to watch that movie that you just popped into your DVD drive? seriously, would you buy a car that uses all of its horsepower on idling? imagine that; you then hit the accelerator and just slowly move along. what would be the point in having a car if it didnt get you places?

Your argument while valid is really more about user needs. It really has nothing to with the Vista or any OS. It is really subjective too what you consider to be medium or low range may be completely different to someone else.

Why does someone who is just reading email or browsing the web even need XP. Why do they even need a modern pc, they can get by just fine with Linux and a Pentium 3.

By implying that the Operating System is somehow not important, you don't really understand what a Operating System does. The OS does make a difference and it does way more than just being a interface to run programs, it also connects all those programs to all your hardware, allocates and manages system resources. Without the OS no other programs could run in the first place, so I consider it to be a huge advantage.

[Signa]

oh believe me seph, i know what an OS is. my point was that when it boils down to it, it makes your computer go. if all your resources are being used to make your PC go, then you have a problem. it doesnt matter what other cool things your OS will do, YOUR PC ISNT RUNNING! as far as hardware connecting to software goes, it all depends on your PC. the only thing that vista does that no other version of windows does is multicore processing. multicore = highend PC = see above post. dont forget that any hardware out there still has drivers for XP and many even have 98 support. and yes, a P3 would be great for most people. but if you are running a P3 and you have no need for anything better, then 98/XP should do you well enough. after all, you will be using 98 era hardware. i get your point about linux but i think is a bad example for the real world. most people using a P3 these days arent going to be very computer savvy. i dont care how good the linux support base is, if you need help with it, its never going to be the same as if you are running windows.

[meyou123]

All your comments are typical after a new OS or other software release from Microsoft. I downloaded Vista Ultimate from BTjunkie and absolutely love Vista. My machine is a 3Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, and high end Radeon graphics card.. never had a bit of trouble with it... very stable and is not a resource hog. It is Windows Vista... an OS that was by design, built to utilize more resources. So whatz the problem with that? You guys expect to run the latest and greatest OS with a 286 processor and 8MB ram? As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required.

I just bought a new Dell laptop with an AMD processor and 2GB RAM and Vista runs perfect. I had a sound card that wasn't supported by Vista but no big deal. I dont understand all the bitching. I have no special interest in Microsoft... I just evaluate without bias and see ti for what it is.

Vista get an "A" mark from me.... and cant wait for the release of SP1 in March.


Give me a BREAK! You can read back TWO PAGES of posts of people who have tried Vista and DO have decent machines on which to run it! It is slow, bloated and full of DRM. Do you actually think all those people are running Vista on a machine with less than what the minimum requirements call for?

If you like Vista, then fine, but don't give me bullshit that most of the people posting and reporting problems with it must somehow have a slow machine and that is what is wrong. I call bullshit on that!

If it was just people having slow machines giving them their problems, it still would not take into account the DRM or the various programs it forces you to have that you do not need. Hell, it is just an OPERATING SYSTEM,so why should you have to devote a lot of your processing power to it?

Why should most of the resources of my computer be dedicated to it, when I can dedicate it to other apps? Vista is bloated, XP is also bloated, but not as much as Vista. They just keep getting worse as far as bloat and THAT is what people are complaining about!

It seems by the posts Krell made, that Microsoft is finally getting the message....most people do not WANT a bloated operating system. If they did not mind it so much, then why is it that sales for standalone versions of Vista suck? Most of their money is made from pre-installs on newer computers. Or why is it that a lot of people have tried Vista and went back to XP?

I simply do not think it is because they did not want to like Vista, but rather had way too many problems with it to keep it on their computers.

At least that has been my experience when I tried it....and I DID have MORE than the minimum requirements for installing vista on my machine, I can tell you that. Vista does suck, the original post was right!

[Krell]

LOL he could have just as well been a MAC user.

"As the OS becomes more sophisticated and feature packed, naturally more resources are gonna be required."

Well, this is not just a problem with Windows, Linux is just as guilty as hell and always has been. I've speculated on a more modular approach to an OS since the mid 90s, because I saw the handwriting on the wall. Of course, no one listens to me, but this is an area where google could use this and make a fast scalable system and kick everyones ass.

The problem there is, so you code a new OS, and you then have to make it run all the current 3rd party apps for all the platforms, AND try to get hardware manufacturers to write driivers for your new product. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. They already tell MS to piss off when it comes to Vista.

You cant have it all, and have less at the same time. Scalable, not just a growing swapfile. That's where it's at.



.

[Sephiroth]

oh believe me seph, i know what an OS is. my point was that when it boils down to it, it makes your computer go. if all your resources are being used to make your PC go, then you have a problem. it doesnt matter what other cool things your OS will do, YOUR PC ISNT RUNNING! as far as hardware connecting to software goes, it all depends on your PC. the only thing that vista does that no other version of windows does is multicore processing. multicore = highend PC = see above post. dont forget that any hardware out there still has drivers for XP and many even have 98 support. and yes, a P3 would be great for most people. but if you are running a P3 and you have no need for anything better, then 98/XP should do you well enough. after all, you will be using 98 era hardware. i get your point about linux but i think is a bad example for the real world. most people using a P3 these days arent going to be very computer savvy. i dont care how good the linux support base is, if you need help with it, its never going to be the same as if you are running windows.

On the crappy machines where someone is just going to view email and browse the web. How much resources do you really need for that? So what if the OS takes up most of the resources, that is how those types of PCs are designed to do and you get what you paid for. Typically people who buy that are looking for the basics stuff over the cool stuff. It isn't the Operating System's fault that the crappy 200 dollar budget PC with a shitty CPU and integrated graphics can't run crysis or 8 things at once.

XP does have Multi-Core support too.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Technology progresses rapidly, if you are unwilling to keep up, you will be passed by and not be able to use whats currently available to the market. Hardware capable of running windows vista effectivly is not expensive. Compare 'mid level' systems from back when XP first came out to 'mid level' systems today that are vista capable (by mid-level I mean something capable of running the OS smoothly), you'll see that it is cheaper today to get a system like this to run vista then it used to be when xp first came out, and your getting much better equiptment, so wheres the problem?




Uhr...


Vista is a premature ejaculation.


Unwilling to keep up has shit to do with the mass market. If keeping up were the mass market, everyone would drive a Maybach.

[ratcat]

In the threads before this one, they say at Vista is a process hog.

Is it worth the google to find out that how to I get my processes down w/o affecting the OS

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg255/ratcat73/TaskManagerProcesses.jpg


Is there a dummy guide for this ?

[Krell]

In the threads before this one, they say at Vista is a process hog.

Is it worth the google to find out that how to I get my processes down w/o affecting the OS

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg255/ratcat73/TaskManagerProcesses.jpg


Is there a dummy guide for this ?

Yes, consult my trusted friend at

http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

If you still have any questions, ask them concisely and I will answer them.

Some of these services, there is no hard and fast asnswer, it just depends. If you want to let windows automatically update, you will need to run the BITS for example, some people do, some people dont.


Windows Vista Super Tweaks (http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/supertweaks.htm)

.

.

[ratcat]

Yes, consult my trusted friend at

http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

If you still have any questions, ask them concisely and I will answer them.

Some of these services, there is no hard and fast asnswer, it just depends. If you want to let windows automatically update, you will need to run the BITS for example, some people do, some people dont.


Windows Vista Super Tweaks (http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/supertweaks.htm)

.

.

Big Thanks Krell

[napho]

@ getting puter with no OS:

I've never seen the option to not have an OS when looking at puters. Maybe that's an option for corporations which buy in bulk and already have licenses. What companies offer this for home office customers?


This is a Canadian company, but you can buy bare bones computers in the US too.

"Canada Computers' Warranty: 1 Year

Sales and Warranty Condition: Operating System not included."



http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=011596&cid=170.45

[RACKnRAIL]

I simply do not think!

I would have never guessed

[Signa]

I would have never guessed

HAHAHA! that was a good one. seriously, im ranting up a storm about vista and i dont even really *hate* it, but i have a lot to say about it. a few days ago when this thread popped up i was about to thank meyou for not going off on vista as he does... i guess he just couldnt stay away.

@ seph, ok ok, you win. vista doesnt suck and every one should just buy new PCs so they can have the latest greatest thing.

in all seriousness, ive said my piece about it. if you dont agree, fine by me. vista isnt a complete pile of trash that meyou makes it out to be. im not even going to bash you if you want to run it or give you a "i told you so" if you end up hating it. in the end, i just feel it was a really big mistake on MS's part to make so many poor choices on this new OS. all i can speak for is myself, and being the kind of user i am, for me to hate the latest-and-greatest speaks a lot about vista. i just want a new OS is both worth my time and money. im yet to see some convincing evidence on that.

[meyou123]

Hey fuck you guys. You think I cannot have a view on what I think of vista? You can fuck off.

I would have never guessed


I would have never have guessed you were a troll either, bitch!

[torrentlegend]

run Ubuntu then

[RACKnRAIL]

Hey fuck you guys. You think I cannot have a view on what I think of vista? You can fuck off.




I would have never have guessed you were a troll either, bitch!

LOL...that was the reaction I was hoping for.

I think you can have an opinion, but how can you have a valid opinion, when you already admitted you have never even installed the OS? You base your opinions on what other people say or what you've read. Now that's the real joke.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Hey fuck you guys. You think I cannot have a view on what I think of vista? You can fuck off.




I would have never have guessed you were a troll either, bitch!




Rofl!!!!


Go head, Incredible Hulk!!!

[Signa]

Rofl!!!!


Go head, Incredible Hulk!!!

"you wont like me-you when im angry!":green5

[RACKnRAIL]

"you wont like me-you when im angry!":green5

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c57/8005657421/hulk1.jpg

[Boomer The Dog]

In the threads before this one, they say at Vista is a process hog.

Is it worth the google to find out that how to I get my processes down w/o affecting the OS

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg255/ratcat73/TaskManagerProcesses.jpg



How that compares to the XP on this machine, with Processes: 33 |CPU Usage: 4% |Commit Charge: 368M / 1595M. The CPU bounced from 1 to 11 percent at the highest, with 4 as an average, with Xnews downloading and uTorrent on doing minimal seeding with 1 slow downloader, 5 tabs of Firefox in two windows, Outlook Express and a couple of folders open, wireless net card, and a few more small apps. It's a P4 3.4, 1G memory.

This XP has has had some tweaking, just the stuff that everyone is supposed to turn off, a '12 step program' from the net that I did last year. It would be good to see how a tweaked Vista would compare.

[ratcat]

Well my cpu bounce around from 4 to 11 then spikes to as high as 28%.

That 60 processes includes just the task manager opened. No extra av running, disable due to upgrade of the Trend Mirco v8 not letting me pass the modem(that another matter).
No internet connection.
Just idling, like it just boot up.


This snapshot below said 58 processes that before I ticked the box on the processes tab show all processes from all users

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg255/ratcat73/TaskManagerPerformance.jpg


Over the next couple of weeks between the family and work I'll will be tweaking this cpu and then the release of SP1 and it will be a great little system.

*fingers crossed*

[meyou123]

LOL...that was the reaction I was hoping for.

I think you can have an opinion, but how can you have a valid opinion, when you already admitted you have never even installed the OS? You base your opinions on what other people say or what you've read. Now that's the real joke.


You are full of SHIT! I DID install the last beta version of it in the past! I quickly went back to xp.

So you don't know what the hell you are talking about!

I would not be so down on it without at least trying it first! Try asking next time if I have ever tried it before making dumb ass comments.

[RACKnRAIL]

You are full of SHIT! I DID install the last beta version of it in the past! I quickly went back to xp.

So I don't know what the hell I am talking about!



Beta huh? You test an even buggier beta version and you come across like an expert on vista? LOL

[Krell]

Jerry!! Jerry!! Jerry!!


Jerry!! Jerry!! Jerry!!


Jerry!! Jerry!! Jerry!!


.

[mfgbypooter]

ow! I shot hot coffee out of my nose when I read that!

*

[Sephiroth]

Well my cpu bounce around from 4 to 11 then spikes to as high as 28%.

That 60 processes includes just the task manager opened. No extra av running, disable due to upgrade of the Trend Mirco v8 not letting me pass the modem(that another matter).
No internet connection.
Just idling, like it just boot up.


Over the next couple of weeks between the family and work I'll will be tweaking this cpu and then the release of SP1 and it will be a great little system.

*fingers crossed*

I notice in your screenshot you only have 512 megs of RAM. That is a little low. I don't know what kind of CPU you have but if your PC is old enough no amount of tweaking will make a difference.

[Signa]

at least with vista, he can just get a nice flash drive and boost his ram. but yeah, 512 is too small, even for XP.

[robincheema]

i use vista on my old pc but my new one has xp... my little sis uses the vista pc.. mostly for playing games.

[kiboy6]

until i get a super computer i could never justify the increased cpu usage of vista over xp....I'd rather all my cpu went to what i'm doing on my pc, rather then how it looks while I'm doing it!

[robincheema]

only thing that links me to microsoft or yahoo is xp and flickr.... soon to be replaced by mac and google picasa... if not fixed soon.

[evilmegaman]

I am waiting for KDE 4.0 to mature a bit more, then I am going back to linux. I have been using vista for reasons of mostly laziness. I just can't turn off the computer long enough to deal with installing linux -_-



by the way, I don't sit around on the computer all day. only night. like 11 PM to 6 AM





this nerd has gone the way of the cool kid ;)


Don't worry though, sooner or later I'll be back to my old ways of sitting around talking about processor speeds and complaining about my lack of ram (more often).

[carpefile]

I bought a new mid-range pc, no gamer's dream or anything, but plenty of power for what I do.
Amd Athlon 64x2 4800, with 2 gig of ram, and integrated geforce 6100 gpu, with vista home premium installed.
I ran it with vista for a week, but it really wasn't running much faster than my previous main pc, a p3 1ghz, with 512mb ram and a 256mb geforce5200 running tinyxpV5.
Lots of eyecandy, annoying security config, thats about it.

So I dual booted the system with vista and tinyxp vista edition (with sp3) and brother, it fuckin screamed in xp.
After a debate with Krell at another forum about sp3, I thought better of it and downgraded my xp install back to tinyxpV5. It fockin roxxors.

I'll use xp till hardware and software no longer support it. Hopefully by then they'll either have streamlined vista to speed it up or better yet, learned from the abortion and released the next gen of os that actually does what an os ought to.
Or I guess I'll finally have to take the plunge into linux.

And Robert, you have it backwards. At your age, you should be on the puter all day and then partying and sexing it up all night.
Get your priorities straight, m'man.

[Mels_Smileys45]

I just read that MS is about to shut down all the pirate vista machines. Sorry guys.

[Andrew110]

I didn't know anyone pirated vista...

[Mels_Smileys45]

I didn't know anyone pirated vista...


Oh yeah, I forgot there are no work arounds or cracks. How silly of me!

[RACKnRAIL]

I didn't know anyone pirated vista...

who would bother pirating Vista, is more like it?

[Andrew110]

That's what I meant lol.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I am waiting for KDE 4.0 to mature a bit more, then I am going back to linux. I have been using vista for reasons of mostly laziness. I just can't turn off the computer long enough to deal with installing linux -_-



by the way, I don't sit around on the computer all day. only night. like 11 PM to 6 AM





this nerd has gone the way of the cool kid ;)


Don't worry though, sooner or later I'll be back to my old ways of sitting around talking about processor speeds and complaining about my lack of ram (more often).


Indeed.


The more RAM I have, the less I am on the computer.

I like to have RAM every day.

[w31n3r]

vista sucks, so whats new. everytime something new comes out, it's bound to have it's fair share of problems. and it could be worse, windowsME anyone?

personally, i was quite impressed by it, a friend has it and i spent a couple of hours on his puter setting up his home network, seemed to work fine the whole while, and actually i thought it was quite intuitive *ducks to avoid flying objects thrown in protest*

err, but then a few hours don't me an expert...


I am waiting for KDE 4.0 to mature a bit more, then I am going back to linux. I have been using vista for reasons of mostly laziness. I just can't turn off the computer long enough to deal with installing linux -_-



bang on the money! when i first saw it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KppwuRbtuM), i was completely bowled over and decided moving over to linux. i don't play games much these days so i don't need windows anymore(i think), i just hope they've sorted out the the networking config bit. i'll give myself a few months to come to terms with linux, else it's back to XP for another few months till i get vista at the end of the year, when it'll be worth the money.

[curlywagner]

You guys can always test out Linux if you install VMWare on Vista/XP and build a Linux virtual machine. Download an iso of your chosen distro, mount it on the virtual machine's CD drive and you're away -> http://www.vmware.com/download/server/

[Krell]

You guys can always test out Linux if you install VMWare on Vista/XP and build a Linux virtual machine. Download an iso of your chosen distro, mount it on the virtual machine's CD drive and you're away -> http://www.vmware.com/download/server/

Do you see the strange irony in your statement?


.

[curlywagner]

Not at this moment. You mean running Windows and Linux together?

[Krell]

You suggest that one has a PC with enough resources to run a Windows OS, load VMWare and then successfully load ANOTHER OS and try it out, in order to get away from the OS your running VMWare on.

If your PC can do that, I think you probably just need to learn to properly configure your system and turn off the things you dont really need. By the time you do that, Linux isnt much of an advantage.


.

[curlywagner]

Lol, I see what you mean. I did suggest that people turn off stuff they don't need a few pages back in order to optimise the OS. This was more directed at EMM and W31n3r who are hesitant about loading Linux. For the purposes of learning/testing out Linux, a VMWare install beats the Hell out of dual-booting/overwriting your Windows install.
I agree with you, the first step for anyone complaining about Vista's performance is to configure their system properly.

[flyingmunky25]

Vista is truely a piece of garbage...but I must have been one of the few lucky people. so far no problems with it. I've had it for about 8 months now and it runs just pretty darn fast. I have it running on a core duo 1.6ghz, 2 gig ram, and only a radeon x1300.....so I don't even have a very powerful machine (its a laptop for that matter too)...
now that I say I don't have problems with it...I bet tonight i'll have a shit load of issues. thankfully I still have xp still dual booted on here...

[flyingmunky25]

While on the topic of windows...and how vista sucks...Which OS do you all think was the best? I'm guessing there will be alot of XP Pro answers...

[w31n3r]

i still cherish my copy of windows 98SE, even though it isn't supported by anyone anymore :(

[Boomer The Dog]

My mom started with Windows 95! I have a few disks of '95, and even found one in an old computer once. Imagine, on a new computer, it would probably boot in 5 seconds.

Maybe instead of trying to make Vista for those micro notebooks like the Eee-PC, maybe Microsoft could 'modernize' '95 or '98 for them. I'm sure that '98 is still fine for lots of things on the web, even being almost 10 years old.

In 1998 I had a CompUSA by my house, and there were lines of people outside, waiting for the launch of Win98, it was that much of an improvement! It's like when Apple releases a new product now.

[Andrew110]

Always nice to (woof) see you boomer!

[flyingmunky25]

Yeah 98 was great. once i was looking around my house and i found all my win 3.1 disks and i even found a windows 1.0 disk!!!! Windows 2k was even a decent OS.

[tokoloshe]

June 30 is the proposed date when M$ will command vendors to stop bundling XP with new machines, but the date is not concrete yet (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1307&tag=nl.e622)

[Boomer The Dog]

Yeah Andrew 110, I check here at least a few times a day, and I learn a lot. I have a little while to go to get to 369 posts though..

Windows 1.0, that must be from like 25 years ago, and probably so small it fits on one floppy. Windows 2000 is still great, and that's maybe the best choice for micro notebooks, since it wouldn't take up much of the flash hard drive or ram, even compared to full XP.

2000 has no activation like XP either, making it easier to install on a computer and make hardware changes. For everyday use, 2K is great! There's an 'Unofficial Service Pack 5.1' that you can use to bring it up to date too.

I read that XP execution article, and Microsoft comes across as some kind of a king or something, with dominion over how XP must be used: Oh yes, we agree to extend the availability of XP in emerging markets.. It's like they have a faucet that they can just turn off on the customers who like a beloved product that we want, and what about us, I thought that 'the customer is always right'.

Microsoft might as well have a built-in timer, like 6 years after release, it just stops working and you have to buy new Windows. There's lots of fear-mongering going on right now, telling people that their TVs will stop working next year, and that they must give up their Windows.

[Theinfamousone]

While on the topic of windows...and how vista sucks...Which OS do you all think was the best? I'm guessing there will be alot of XP Pro answers...

I have to admit, I've become somewhat of a mac fanboy. As much as I love dealing with random things not working, and taking shots in the dark at what to turn off that's jacking up my computer, Leopard is working very well for me. I recently bought a new Macbook Pro (after I sold my Powerbook of 2 years) and it's very nice. I am running VMWare Fusion so I can run Windows XP Pro (with a Vista skin) and Leopard simultaneously. I keep windows clean as a whistle because I don't use it for day to day stuff, just if I specially need a windows only app like Virtualdub or something. With spaces, you can run them side by side and a button toggles between them. If I don't want to waste the resources of running both, I can have it close the Windows window and it will just open up software straight from Leopard so I literally have the best of both worlds. The stability, simplicity, and power of an Apple Unix based system and the ability to virtually (pun intended) use any software you can think of.

[napho]

A new OS from Windows gets a bad rap. 10 years ago a $600 computer had 64MB of 133Mhtz RAM. Today a $600 computer comes with 2GB of 800Mhz RAM. Vista doesn't use anywhere near as much memory or processor as Windows 98 did relatively speaking. My processors have 20x the power my 1999 computer did, and it cost 1/2 as much in real dollars.

[wapazoid]

I'm using the 64-bit version on my quad core rig. Besides a few compatibility problems with a couple of older games and needing to upgrade my copy of After Effects 6.5, I don't have many complaints. The new UI features may be annoying to some, but that can be remedied.

[jospams]

edit

.......................

[soulxtc]

I've already removed this vaporware from like 6 of my friends laptops already...1Gb of RAM necessary to just run the OS itself is ridiculous if not downright criminal....

[Feather]

I will never downgrade to this OS. When XP is no longer supported. I will be running Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS exclusively.

[Carbinedevil]

My new Lenovo laptop with 1GB RAM just runs like a turtle with Vista.

After looking at the comments, it is probably caused by Vista. Or is it hardware problem?

On the other hand, I don't really like the interface of Vista. Maybe most of the people like the look, but I find it fat. I prefer the Windows Classic look anyhow; don't call me weird.

One thing I like, and maybe the only thing I like about Vista is its Task Manager as compared to Xp's - I find that I can shut down anything in Vista, unlike in XP, where even after pressing End Process several million times the program is still hanging there, unwilling to disappear. :icon_comp

[ratcat]

My new Lenovo laptop with 1GB RAM just runs like a turtle with Vista.
After looking at the comments, it is probably caused by Vista. Or is it hardware problem?

Know the feeling. It weird that somedays it great and other is shithouse, but I've get more shithouse than good. My RAM is small than that.

It depends on the combo, what's running in the background and what your trying to acheive on the frontend at the sometime.


On the other hand, I don't really like the interface of Vista. Maybe most of the people like the look, but I find it fat. I prefer the Windows Classic look anyhow; don't call me weird.

One thing I like, and maybe the only thing I like about Vista is its Task Manager as compared to Xp's - I find that I can shut down anything in Vista, unlike in XP, where even after pressing End Process several million times the program is still hanging there, unwilling to disappear. :icon_comp


I'm quite happy with its skin





bump

[flyingmunky25]

sadly the first time ever running vista was beta 2...on a computer with only 512 ram, talk about a big mistake...

[tokoloshe]

I don't see how the task manager can be the only redeeming feature of Vista... Ok so "end program" doesn't work most of the time, but changing the tab, and killing the process directly is instant.... or just use processxp to replace the task manager completely...

[Carbinedevil]

I don't see how the task manager can be the only redeeming feature of Vista... Ok so "end program" doesn't work most of the time, but changing the tab, and killing the process directly is instant.... or just use processxp to replace the task manager completely...

No, what I meant was that even after switching the tabs and using "killing the program" directly, it still doesn't work in XP.

Well of course, thanks for the processxp thing. I'll try it on my other computer that's using XP.

[ROMANTICGUY50]

Yeah I tried it Sorry Microsoft, XP is must better... I will be staying with it.

[Christoph]

Hey, I just got a new FujitsuSiemens 3 gigs RAM Intel QuadCore (2,4) 500 gig HD etc.

Windows Vista!???

YES!! Its great!

[tokoloshe]

Hey, I just got a new FujitsuSiemens 3 gigs RAM Intel QuadCore (2,4) 500 gig HD etc.

Windows Vista!???

YES!! Its great!

Notice how with new pc's 3 gb ram is standard? That's because you need 1 gb to run the OS... So basically you are getting a new pc with 2 gigs of RAM.

They should just figure a way to dedicate certain hardware components to the OS, so that the system specs you choose to buy the pc are actually the system specs you get... Its like when you by a PC wiht a 500 gig HD and then you only can use 450, because of the OS, its recovery crap, and all the ohter vendor shit that is on there. If they advertise a 500 gig HD then that is exactly the amount of space you should get...

Same with RAM. I am getting a new HP desktop today with 3 gigs of RAM, and I am going to have to format it and install tinyXP in order to actually have the 3gb ram and 740 gb HD that I paid for...

OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

[drtoker]

Notice how with new pc's 3 gb ram is standard? That's because you need 1 gb to run the OS... So basically you are getting a new pc with 2 gigs of RAM.

They should just figure a way to dedicate certain hardware components to the OS, so that the system specs you choose to buy the pc are actually the system specs you get... Its like when you by a PC wiht a 500 gig HD and then you only can use 450, because of the OS, its recovery crap, and all the ohter vendor shit that is on there. If they advertise a 500 gig HD then that is exactly the amount of space you should get...

Same with RAM. I am getting a new HP desktop today with 3 gigs of RAM, and I am going to have to format it and install tinyXP in order to actually have the 3gb ram and 740 gb HD that I paid for...

OUTRAGEOUS!!!!


Um, do you even know what your talking about?
I have a mid-range system, single core 2.4ghz p4, with only 1GB ram.
My system uses LESS then half my ram for the system, and thats fully up and running with uTorrent open and seeding >50GB of files.
I use aero and have not tweaked vista or stop'd any default services.

I have 0 issues running vista with this setup, and have had 0 ram issues since sp1. Although I must admit, ram was more of an issue for me pre-sp1, not sure why...

As for your hard drive comparason, thats a problem with how the manufactures define a byte vs how the OS reads a byte. My new 500GB hard drive reads as a 460GB within windows, without any OS or software on it.

[tokoloshe]

Um, do you even know what your talking about?


Nah, not really, LOL But isn't this fun?

[Christoph]

Notice how with new pc's 3 gb ram is standard? That's because you need 1 gb to run the OS... So basically you are getting a new pc with 2 gigs of RAM.



Vista is using 600 MB from Start (Home Premium).
Im using a lot Avid.
If Avid needs more than 2,4 Gig, Vista gives him.
As I know Vista is loading a lot of things for making the experence faster. Better than empty ram. Don't you think?

At all, I had never Problems with Avid,Premiere,PhotoShop,AfterEffects etc.

[Evolver]

Vista does suck...I recently bought a new hard drive and switched back to XP. I kept the hard drive with Vista because I am waiting for SP1 final to be released. I have heard that Microsoft plans on abandoning Vista and releasing Windows 7 in 2009 or 2010.

[Christoph]

I kept the hard drive with Vista because I am waiting for SP1 final to be released.
It was released March 18!Im using it.

I have heard that Microsoft plans on abandoning Vista and releasing Windows 7 in 2009 or 2010.

Microsoft wanted to publish Vista 3 years after XP... you saw what happend.

[wapazoid]

My biggest complaint so far with Vista is networking. I've never had more problems sharing a few simple folders in my life. I have one machine acting as a server, with three password protected shared folders. For some bizarre reason, I could not tun off password protected sharing at all, and no programs were installed that would directly impact that function. Not a single machine on the network could gain access to those folders, no matter what permissions were set. A friend of mine came over the other day and started going crazy with the run command, trying to diagnose the issue. He got it to work, but like most admins I know, he was flying on that keyboard. My take on it: if average Joe has to resort to that much trouble over a very simple task, then MS has clearly failed to provide ease of use to their customers.

[tokoloshe]

Yeah I am having problems with that too... I am trying to sahre the C drive on my Laptop(XP), with my desktop(Vista), and vista sees it, but when I try to map to it, vista asks for a password, but the laptop drive has permissions set to full control allow, so I don't know what password it want. also I am administrator on BOTH pcs, and I have not set any passwords on either of them, so what the hell is going on???

Very frustrating...

[Theinfamousone]

Yeah I am having problems with that too... I am trying to sahre the C drive on my Laptop(XP), with my desktop(Vista), and vista sees it, but when I try to map to it, vista asks for a password, but the laptop drive has permissions set to full control allow, so I don't know what password it want. also I am administrator on BOTH pcs, and I have not set any passwords on either of them, so what the hell is going on???

Very frustrating...

I know what you mean. I spent about an hour dealing with crap like that trying to connect my gf's computer to my windows xp computer. If any of you knew how easy it was to network with Leopard, you'd cry. When I go to school and connect to the school's internet, it automatically shows me every computer I have access to. It's nice, it's an easy way to download movies and music nearly instantly. I was even able to hack into some sensitive stuff at work, payroll and things like that ridiculously easily, mac, windows, everything. I love it.

[tokoloshe]

Ok so I got my vista desktop to see my laptop, but everytime I reboot the desktop, it does not automatically reconnect to the laptop, I have to enter a password everytime, even though I selected remember password.... And my laptop doesn't even have a password. As for the laptop it sees the vista machine, but when I map network drive it says access denied. I hate the way windows says access denied, I am the administrator and omnipotent god of both machines, how dare windows deny me anything!!!!!

Very frustrating.... But other than networking, I can't say I have much to complain about with Vista... I'm just lucky that my 3GHZ dual core and 3 GB RAM can handle everything...

[mountain_rage]

Came to this thread to see what the common issues are with Vista. I remember seeing so many complaints about it and was concerned when I did not seem to detect any of them. The installation was smooth, most drivers were already installed automatically, the ones that weren't were easy to find and install, it even seems more stable than the version of XP I have installed. Anyway, due to this odd behavior I came here to see what the issues were, just in case. So interestingly enough I don't have any of the problems yet. It seems that either the problems are mostly fixed now or I somehow lucked out with an extremely compatible machine. So other then the loads of ram it uses it seems to be working great. Might start to disable stuff to regain some ram, but I'll worry about that later.

The only thing that doesn't work is my 10 year old Happaugee TV tuner in media center, but it works in all other software. Dscaller even works when you run it in Windows XP mode, which surprised me because all forums said it didn't work. Does anyone know of a hidden area for tweaking media center to detect cards? Its not a big deal, didn't expect the card to be compatible, just would like to use it if it worked.

[Signa]

well thats cool MR. ive been considering getting a new PC myself, and i probably will be putting vista on it. not excited about it, but if i can score a cheap copy of vista ultimate, i dont see the harm. ill still have this machine (minus the video card, ill just use my old one) to run XP if i need it for anything.

[w31n3r]

i think i've said this before, but anything new is bound to get beaten. vista is actually pretty good IMHO, i haven't had any issues with it so far (early days yet), and i'm not exactly a casual user either. the initial complaints of it being a resource hog don't hold water anymore...hardware and especially RAM is cheap enough now, and i think they've got most of the bugs pinned down now. is it better than XP? after 3 service packs, XP may do better with some of our antiquated hardware.

@ MR:
Media Center=crap or thereabouts
Media Portal (http://sourceforge.net/projects/mediaportal/)=slightly better than crap, but being a proponent of OSS you knew that. it's a quick fix, even if it is a memory hog!

but if you're in a mood for redmond, have you tried control panel>Admin Tools>Services>Windows Media Center Receiver Service> properties(right click)>log on>select local system account, apply, restart...and as with all things IT related, pray. assuming of course, that the correct drivers are installed and it's there in device manager...

[ratcat]

...... It seems that either the problems are mostly fixed now or I somehow lucked out with an extremely compatible machine.

........

Yes and Yes

......
So other then the loads of ram it uses it seems to be working great. Might start to disable stuff to regain some ram, but I'll worry about that later.

........


As w31n3r has pointed that RAM is cheap now days, with my computer being laptop, I bought a 2 GB SD card its sole purpose as a readyboost device. Wish I did it sooner !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 512MB to over 2GB memory.

With the complains I stated earlier in this thread. I changed my operating habits and the problems don't occur.




*

[mountain_rage]

@ MR:
Media Center=crap or thereabouts
Media Portal (http://sourceforge.net/projects/mediaportal/)=slightly better than crap, but being a proponent of OSS you knew that. it's a quick fix, even if it is a memory hog!

but if you're in a mood for redmond, have you tried control panel>Admin Tools>Services>Windows Media Center Receiver Service> properties(right click)>log on>select local system account, apply, restart...and as with all things IT related, pray. assuming of course, that the correct drivers are installed and it's there in device manager...

Thanks for the tip, never expected to have to change anything in the services, sadly it still didn't work. Its not a big deal, just thought on the odd occasion I may have used it to record tv shows to my computer. Also thanks for reminding me of the open source alternative, I'll see how it works, had it in the past.

[killahill]

I'll stick to ubuntu. :icon_pira
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/images/2007/05/01/prec_m90ubuntu.jpg

[mountain_rage]

I'll stick to ubuntu. :icon_pira
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/images/2007/05/01/prec_m90ubuntu.jpg

My experience with Linux, Ubuntu included has not been all that great. There is definitely allot of potential for Linux to become a great operating system, but currently its too hard to use. The problem is due to the nature of its developement. With so many different developers its almost incoherent to navigate and change settings. Standards need to be made, the graphical interfaces streamlined and simplified, and they need better drivers. Eventually I think Linux will be a contender, but as it stands the general public will not adapt to it. Just my two cents.

[killahill]

I agree they could do more to make installing things easier and to do away with needing to use the command line. But I like it for its security.

[Gamer8585]

I hate the way windows says access denied, I am the administrator and omnipotent god of both machines, how dare windows deny me anything!!!!!

Yes. This is the way I feel this way every time a Windows tells me access denied, or that I can't do something. I'm going to put that in my sig.

I have limited experience with Vista, but from what I've used its really turned me off. I've felt the hogging of resources on it, but I haven't really seen the difference between Vista and XP. Sure it looks a lot prettier, but that shouldn't justify using twice as much RAM. And the UAC is perhaps the most annoying feature ever (I had to turn it off). Then there is the DRM bloatware in there that tells me what I can and cannot due with the OS, and lets not forget the phoning home that Vista wants to do. Expose your ports to the world, or risk loosing functionality.

I'm sorry, but Vista while pretty just dosen't give enough bang for the buck. And the copious amount of paranoia from Microsoft combined with its love of giving blow jobs to the entertainment industry has devalued the product to a degree that doesn't make it worth buying or even worth pirating.

I'm sticking with XP until: 1) Microsoft hires someone to pull Bill Gate's head out of his own ass, or 2) Linux becomes much easier to use (I should never have to use the command line) and gets more software and drivers .

[mountain_rage]

Yes. This is the way I feel this way every time a Windows tells me access denied, or that I can't do something. I'm going to put that in my sig.

I have limited experience with Vista, but from what I've used its really turned me off. I've felt the hogging of resources on it, but I haven't really seen the difference between Vista and XP. Sure it looks a lot prettier, but that shouldn't justify using twice as much RAM. And the UAC is perhaps the most annoying feature ever (I had to turn it off). Then there is the DRM bloatware in there that tells me what I can and cannot due with the OS, and lets not forget the phoning home that Vista wants to do. Expose your ports to the world, or risk loosing functionality.

I'm sorry, but Vista while pretty just dosen't give enough bang for the buck. And the copious amount of paranoia from Microsoft combined with its love of giving blow jobs to the entertainment industry has devalued the product to a degree that doesn't make it worth buying or even worth pirating.

I'm sticking with XP until: 1) Microsoft hires someone to pull Bill Gate's head out of his own ass, or 2) Linux becomes much easier to use (I should never have to use the command line) and gets more software and drivers .

I thought Bill Gates was resigning as president, and was simply going to be dealing with the company at an arms length.

Careful it links to Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jun06/06-15CorpNewsPR.mspx)