Vista's not so bad it seems

[otispunkmeyer]

my brothers just put together the following

Antec 300 gaming case
Gigabyte Odin Pro 550w psu
ASUS PQ5 mobo
Intel C2D 2.53Ghz 45nm (think its E7200 or something)
2Gig of geil DDR2
250Gig HDD ( i told him to go bigger but wouldnt listen)
Power Color Radeon 4850 512mb

all in all its a nice little machine for just over £400. all new parts too.

i think he spent a little more and got a new kb+m and managed to buy a OEM copy of Vista home premium 32bit.

i have to say, first impressions (after indexing) vista is pretty good on this machine. im guessing a full size 7200rpm drive helps because i've used similarly spec'd laptops with vista and its been no where near this smooth. the little 5400rpm drives cant be quick enough

it boots up quick, apps are quick to launch, menu's and aero interface operate incredibly fluidly, the window+tab animation thing works instantly and smoothly and is well anti-aliased.

everything just seems to work as you'd expect and very quickly..... i rather like it. yeah i can see the parts they nicked of some other OS's like OSX but so what, they're good ideas that work and MS has implemented them rather well.

i was quite impressed when i plugged my mac HFS formatted external drives in (using mac drive 7 to access them) and was then able to immediately search for a word document i couldnt find and have it be found in mere seconds.

i've had quite a good experience thus far and even UAC isnt overly annoying......

..... its definately stoking that dormant fire in me that wants me to whip out the tools (and my wallet) and build my self a new windows rig.

i know its a relatively new and clean install, but if he takes care of it, it should run that sweet for a while to come!

i've always needed a windows machine to run CAD packages on....yup here come the wave of excuses to buy a new rig!

[TopGearDog]

Yeah i have Vista on my laptop and it's not that bad. I'm still using XP on my desktop though.

[The Chad]

Another happy Mojave customer

I think Vista has come a long way in the past year and a half. The thing that's wrong with Vista is not really the operating system itself, it's Microsoft and their lack of preventing Vista to get the bad reputation that it has. Most of you probably think the Mac vs PC ads are retarded, but they have had an impact on general public perception. Plus, people who reviewed the OS when it launched haven't re-evaluated it again later when stuff actually worked. But Bill Gates practically killed any real chance for Vista success when he already mentioned Windows 7 is coming and big enterprises probably won't upgrade at all.

Sure, there's some things wrong with it, but I don't think it is as bad for everyday use as people make it out to be (this coming from a Apple fan boy).

[Vette Boss]

I've been working with Vista for a few weeks now, it's not as bad as most people will have you think. With UAC switched off, it's been fairly pleasant to use.

Mostly, the people who complained about Vista are the same people who moaned about XP in 2001. They hear about something new and are immediately averse to it, without even giving it a go.

[MPowered]

I think part of your positive Vista experience is down to how new your bro's computer is. I imagine its those users trying to upgrade their old XP installations with all sorts of installed/uninstalled hardware, software, etc. that problems might come up. That being said, my hard drive crashed recently and I replaced it and loaded up Vista ultimate. The OS found all my hardware, installed all the drivers, and has worked perfectly ever since. This is on a 5 year old Pentium 4 with 2gb of RAM. The clean install may have prevented a lot of problems, but I have yet to see why people are bashing on Vista so much. Maybe it's just cool to do so.

[Viper007Bond]

Yeah, Vista is great, but ONLY on new PCs. Hell, I put 2GB in this 6 month old machine originally but had to upgrade to 4GB for Vista.

Quite happy I switched though. It's all the little things they've improved, etc. that really make it nice. Plus I love that I can open my Start menu and start typing and there is the program or file I was looking for.

[alexmanners]

I've tried Vista, but I just find it Windows to be more trouble than it's worth. While studying for my A+ and CCNA I had to learn a whole lot about Windows and how it handles networking, etc and compared to other operating systems, it is far inferior.
Many of the innovations that Redmond tried to incorporate into Vista were shoddy attempts to mimic previously established elements used in Linux and OS X. Some of them work (Indexing/Spotlight feature), but others were miserable failures O_o. The .NET standard that windows uses and their "dll libraries(HELL)" implementations are it's main downfalls, but also the use of FAT32(in XP) and the Filesystem structure.
Really, for the everyday average computer user who simply needs to check their mail, or go online for a quick search; All that you need is a low end desktop running Ubuntu. It's cheap, there's free unlimited support, and it Just Works.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by alexmanners

but also the use of FAT32 and the Filesystem.

You can run Vista on Fat32? Further than that, what would possess you to do so?

[alexmanners]

I wasn't referring to Vista there, I meant Windows in general >.< I got ahead of myself. Vista Doesn't work on Fat32, XP and below does, as well as NTFS. Vista only works on NTFS as far as I know...

[captain_70s]

Vista isn't so bad, apart from the retarded security messages, the massive ammount of memory it uses and the fact that it won't run any software or games made before 2010!

Apart fromt that its great!

(And yes, I speak from experiance.)

[alexmanners]

Isn't the minimum memory 1 GB? To run the computer WITHOUT the special "aero" effects? Utter blasphemy.

[thedguy]

I just picked up a laptop with Vista home premium on it, I was going to just tear off vista and throw XP or linux on it, but I'm actually kind of liking it.

[73GMCSprint]

Originally Posted by alexmanners

Isn't the minimum memory 1 GB? To run the computer WITHOUT the special "aero" effects? Utter blasphemy.

I think that's the recommended minimum, but it will run with less. I was testing it out a while back on my 5-year-old system (Athlon XP, 512 MB, crappy GFX card ) and it ran decently with Aero running. It lagged a little if I tried to do too much at a time, but ran better than I thought it would.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by captain_70s

apart from the retarded security messages

Originally Posted by captain_70s

the massive ammount of memory it uses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows...ies#SuperFetch

It loads commonly used programs into RAM so when you start them, they start up faster. What is the point of having RAM if you don't use it? There's a reason webservers literally use 100% of their RAM.

See my comments in my previous post though. Vista works best on a new PC with lots of RAM.

Originally Posted by captain_70s

and the fact that it won't run any software or games made before 2010!

I was literally playing a 15 year old game the other day on Vista. I dunno what your problem is.

And there's always compatibility mode...

Originally Posted by alexmanners

Isn't the minimum memory 1 GB? To run the computer WITHOUT the special "aero" effects? Utter blasphemy.

Lemme guess -- you were one of the people complaining about the minimum system requirements of 4 megabytes of RAM for Windows 95 when it first came out.

I mean, what computer made within the last 5 years (which is forever in computer terms) has less than a gig of RAM? And what are you doing trying to run Vista on such an old ass computer?

[LurkerPatrol]

I was using Vista on my work machine early on, and it was an old dell with a P4, 2 GB of ram, IGP vid card etc etc, and it was slow as heck. It wasn't even running the regular shiny GUI (I apologize I don't know the name of it). I had to borrow my dad's leftover office computer (with XP pro on it) in order to continue working. I was hoping that once all the little faults are fixed and its more stable, that I would look into it.

So I assume after reading the thread, that it's good? . Quad core + 4 GB should be adequate right?

[alexmanners]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

Lemme guess -- you were one of the people complaining about the minimum system requirements of 4 megabytes of RAM for Windows 95 when it first came out.

I mean, what computer made within the last 5 years (which is forever in computer terms) has less than a gig of RAM? And what are you doing trying to run Vista on such an old ass computer?

Uh... maybe Hehe. But I'm not trying to load up Vista on an old box... I hate windows and I NEVER use it. Ever. Linux and OS X all the way baby.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by alexmanners

I hate windows and I NEVER use it. Ever. Linux and OS X all the way baby.

Maybe if all you do is surf the web or stuff like that, but for people like me who game, Vista is the way to go.

[Hidden_Hunter]

Originally Posted by alexmanners

I've tried Vista, but I just find it Windows to be more trouble than it's worth. While studying for my A+ and CCNA I had to learn a whole lot about Windows and how it handles networking, etc and compared to other operating systems, it is far inferior.
Many of the innovations that Redmond tried to incorporate into Vista were shoddy attempts to mimic previously established elements used in Linux and OS X. Some of them work (Indexing/Spotlight feature), but others were miserable failures O_o. The .NET standard that windows uses and their "dll libraries(HELL)" implementations are it's main downfalls, but also the use of FAT32(in XP) and the Filesystem structure.
Really, for the everyday average computer user who simply needs to check their mail, or go online for a quick search; All that you need is a low end desktop running Ubuntu. It's cheap, there's free unlimited support, and it Just Works.

Where to start with this post... when I did my CCNA (and now working toward CCNP) almost nothing was about configuring a desktop so i'm not sure how you managed to learn that windows is inferior at networking from it.

.NET is actually an excellent framework to develop and DLL's are very useful when programming (when implemented correctly) certainatly no worse than dependancy hell on linux.

XP uses NTFS by default so unless you've upgraded or specifically chosen to use FAT32 for some reason and I don't actually see a problem with file system structure.

Ubuntu just works is also a bit of a stretch also, my laptop's soundcard is stubbern, which requires you knowing that you have to change a reference to model=asus and when it is working you generally get distorted sound.

[alexmanners]

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

Where to start with this post... when I did my CCNA (and now working toward CCNP) almost nothing was about configuring a desktop so i'm not sure how you managed to learn that windows is inferior at networking from it.

I took a class to get my A+ as well, and that is all Desktop configuration and hardware, as well as networking of computers. My CCNA class was focused on networking, and I learned windows is inferior through constantly facing problems originating from the Operating System and compatibility issues. Setting up servers on Linux boxes, be it FTP, DNS, DHCP, was in the long run easier to set up and maintain then the windows systems set up.
And congrats on the CCNA, good luck with the CCNP... So much to memorize.

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

.NET is actually an excellent framework to develop and DLL's are very useful when programming (when implemented correctly) certainatly no worse than dependancy hell on linux.

That's the issue though, if a dll is used and the implementation is wrong, you're stuck. If an old dll/OCX gets installed, or if it replaces one another program uses, or any other variation of that insanity, problems ensue. Yeah I know the newer .NET is supposed to fix this, but still.

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

XP uses NTFS by default so unless you've upgraded or specifically chosen to use FAT32 for some reason and I don't actually see a problem with file system structure.

Last time I installed XP it formats to FAT32 by default. I could be wrong though in which case never mind. NTFS is good

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

Ubuntu just works is also a bit of a stretch also, my laptop's soundcard is stubbern, which requires you knowing that you have to change a reference to model=asus and when it is working you generally get distorted sound.

For the most part, it just works. In odd cases you have to reconfigure xorg, or add support for trackpads, soundcards, etc but most stuff is pretty much working off install (The one thing that irks me is how certain Fans refuse to work properly even after pwmconfiging it).
But for the sake of the argument, I'll rephrase myself: If you can get Ubuntu installed by someone with some Linux know-how, it will just work and be a reliable machine for years.