Vista's not so bad it seems

[Vette Boss]

I think Vista is mainly reserved for those with all new hardware, it's not meant as an upgrade from XP. My old system with an Athlon X2 4400+ and 2gb RAM was pretty awful in Vista X64. Now that I've got an E8500 and 4gb RAM, Vista X64 is much better, I actually enjoy using it.

 

[prizrak]

I belive that there are 2 types of people who don't like vista:
1) The ones running hardware from 1999
2) The idiots who don't know what the word "driver" means in PC's context.

I've had vista for a few months now (the 64bit version, might I point out) and have had literally 0 problems so far.
I love it!

//Oh, just remembered a third type also:
3) The ones who haven't even seen vista from afar and have based their views on type 1 and 2 people's opinions.

How about
4) Have used Vista on a laptop that had a "designed for Vista" (at present the laptop is about 7 months old) sticker on it and was from one of the lead manufacturers and saw how slow and unstable it was compared to a BETA release of Ubuntu that was put on the same laptop a few days later and had the same bells and whistles

5) People who prefer an OS that does not consume 50% of system resource w/o anything being open despite the system being made for hardcore gaming.

6) People who have a setup that works perfectly for them and don't see any benefit in upgrading all of their hardware in order to be able to run Vista

7) People who have used more than one OS and have made an educated decision to not use Windows.

 

[cvrefugee]

How's the wireless card support going for ya in Ubuntu. Oh wait, it SUCKS F*CKING ASS! Believe it or not, I had Ubuntu lock up on me more than the Vista Betas. After it was released, Vista has never given me a BSOD or major lockup.

 

[Goldec]

prizrak,

4) you have me there.. That was a screw-up and microsoft is doing everything to avoid that kind of situation in windows 7.

5) Vista will run fine even with a gig of ram. 2 gigs would be optimal.
Yes, the 64bit version consumes a bit more memory than the 32bit version (the later, based on what I have seen, doesn't take more than 400 mb) but RAM is cheap.. come on.

6) Why should these people not like vista? The have no reason to..
they are just happy with what they have and that's fine. I'm talking about the people openly bashing vista.

7) See 6.

 

[der_jackal]

How about ...


5) People who prefer an OS that does not consume 50% of system resource w/o anything being open despite the system being made for hardcore gaming.

huh?

6) People who have a setup that works perfectly for them and don't see any benefit in upgrading all of their hardware in order to be able to run Vista

They have to upgrade all their hardware?

7) People who have used more than one OS and have made an educated decision to not use Windows.

And those using Windows are uneducated? (yes, this is just a little poke in jest)

 

[prizrak]

How's the wireless card support going for ya in Ubuntu. Oh wait, it SUCKS F*CKING ASS! Believe it or not, I had Ubuntu lock up on me more than the Vista Betas. After it was released, Vista has never given me a BSOD or major lockup.

Believe it or not never had a problem basically stick to Intel wi-fi and it will work absolutely fine. The only actual issue I have ever experienced on the latest version is FF3 locking up. Though it does the same thing on the box at work which is XP so I'm thinking that FF3 just has issues.

5) Vista will run fine even with a gig of ram. 2 gigs would be optimal.
Yes, the 64bit version consumes a bit more memory than the 32bit version (the later, based on what I have seen, doesn't take more than 400 mb) but RAM is cheap.. come on.

See that's the kind of thinking that makes alot of new software consume more resources than it really needs to. It is a fair point that computers are more powerful nowadays and RAM and storage are cheap but that doesn't mean that its OK to create inefficient software. I have a buddy who does quite a bit of OSS development and his testing box is an old P4 or even a P3. His rationale? "If it works fine on that it will work fine on anything".

6) Why should these people not like vista? The have no reason to..
they are just happy with what they have and that's fine. I'm talking about the people openly bashing vista.

7) See 6.

Fair enough point

huh?

Vista is power hungry there is no denying it. I might be exaggerating but you can install XP and Vista on the same machine (that is capable of running Vista) and see the difference in resource consumption.

They have to upgrade all their hardware?

Current laptop:
Pentium M @ ~2GHz (honestly don't remember the speed)
1.25GB RAM
80GB HDD
GeForce Go (can't remember which) video card

I think we can all agree that this config will not be very happy with Vista. I would also like to point out that Ubuntu runs much better on this box than XP even on fresh installs (it had both over the years with various levels of optimization).

And those using Windows are uneducated? (yes, this is just a little poke in jest)

Sadly a large majority is not even aware that there is a choice. I was only saying that to illustrate that Goldec's list is far from exhaustive

My only real point here is that I do not see a reason to upgrade to Vista for the time being. There don't appear to be many improvements, or at least not enough to justify getting a whole new system (in most cases the way "regular" user would upgrade) as well as the time spent migrating all the information and preferences as well as possibly finding replacements for current software.

P.S. If my post doesn't make much sense I apologize I'm really sleepy

 

[The Chad]

... You should NOT have to buy a new computer just to run an operating system! ...

I completely disagree. It's nice, with Macs, that you can go up the step upgrades without needing a new system, but for the majority of the people in the world, they only upgrade the OS when they get a new computer. And with good reason. Apple's are reasonably priced, all things considered, but come more frequently than upgrades of Windows, so it amortizes out to be the same. But Windows licenses are big one-time purchases that aren't required to run the software that the person already uses.

Geeks upgrade, average people don't.

 

[alexmanners]

I completely disagree. It's nice, with Macs, that you can go up the step upgrades without needing a new system, but for the majority of the people in the world, they only upgrade the OS when they get a new computer. And with good reason. Apple's are reasonably priced, all things considered, but come more frequently than upgrades of Windows, so it amortizes out to be the same. But Windows licenses are big one-time purchases that aren't required to run the software that the person already uses.

Geeks upgrade, average people don't.

Not to start anything, but isn't that why Vista failed so miserably? "Average People" as you call them decided to try to upgrade XP without buying new computers and got stuck with a non working computer. And Yeah apple puts out new versions of their operating systems, but that's just the equivalent of a Service Pack (cept you have to pay ) in my mind.

 

[Viper007Bond]

You should NOT have to buy a new computer just to run an operating system!

I don't see you running OS X on a Apple II.

 

[keving]

OK i'm getting really frustrated with Vista. It never seems to boot up the same way twice! Most of the time when I boot up I can't access control panel, other times, both of my monitors (laptop and external LCD) are switched around (i'm using ultramon BTW), other times the "tablet pen input panel" tab always appears on my external LCD monitor (which is unneeded there as i can't write on my external monitor and it interferes with playing WC3). If anyone has any fixes to my problems I'll be deeply appreciative! I just want this thing to boot up how i want it to every time! ARGH!

 

[alexmanners]

I don't see you running OS X on a Apple II.

That's just going to the extreme; Taking what I say out of context. I mean, why should I have to replace a computer I bought a year ago to run an operating system? That was the issue that many people were facing. What you said is the equivalent of me saying why don't you run XP on a pentium II with 2 megs of RAM.

 

[der_jackal]

Vista is power hungry there is no denying it. I might be exaggerating but you can install XP and Vista on the same machine (that is capable of running Vista) and see the difference in resource consumption.

You keep saying 'resource' hog. The only resource that people have any inclination to look at is RAM usage. And it's been stated time and time again, Vista's superfetch uses RAM differently than XP does. As far as CPU usage, my idle CPU usage between XP and Vista is nil.

Current laptop:
Pentium M @ ~2GHz (honestly don't remember the speed)
1.25GB RAM
80GB HDD
GeForce Go (can't remember which) video card

I think we can all agree that this config will not be very happy with Vista. I would also like to point out that Ubuntu runs much better on this box than XP even on fresh installs (it had both over the years with various levels of optimization).

I've got test systems in my office that are worse than that and run Vista just fine. *shrugs*

Sadly a large majority is not even aware that there is a choice. I was only saying that to illustrate that Goldec's list is far from exhaustive

Apple's tried their damndest to make people aware of them. And I was just having a bit of fun with ya.

My only real point here is that I do not see a reason to upgrade to Vista for the time being. There don't appear to be many improvements, or at least not enough to justify getting a whole new system (in most cases the way "regular" user would upgrade) as well as the time spent migrating all the information and preferences as well as possibly finding replacements for current software.

P.S. If my post doesn't make much sense I apologize I'm really sleepy

Nah, people have valid reasons for not upgrading (as well as hating) Vista (and I'm one of them btw), but I haven't had to upgrade a single piece of hardware in any system in my house in order to run Vista nor have I had to find throngs of software replacements because my existing apps didn't work. The only thing to take away from that is the old axiom - people who have bad experience are likely to tell 7 people about it, while somebody who has no issues is likely to tell nobody about it. So as a result you hear a lot more from people that have issues than you do otherwise.

Now, I'll pose this thought; Apple borked application compatability between OS9 and OSx. Microsoft "fixes" some of the issues people have had with their external APIs and tries to do something to make the OS more secure only to be met with "ZOMFG, my NFL fantasy tracker doesn't work any more...FUCK OFF MICROSOFT!" Rather than asking the guys that wrote the software (or drivers) why they decided to take those short cuts and assume that session 0 was always going to be exposed.

Try that with a Linux app and you'd get railroaded.

Not to start anything, but isn't that why Vista failed so miserably? "Average People" as you call them decided to try to upgrade XP without buying new computers and got stuck with a non working computer.

Actually no, it was more of the FUD being spread around and repeated as wrote when it was launched. The other part of it was the 3rd party drivers screwing the pooch when they had access to Vista for years before its release.

 

[Viper007Bond]

I mean, why should I have to replace a computer I bought a year ago to run an operating system?

Because their PC was already low end when they bought it and now they want to run Areo, etc.

 

[Adunaphel]

<random PC problems>

Try memtest86, your RAM sounds broken.

 

[prizrak]

You keep saying 'resource' hog. The only resource that people have any inclination to look at is RAM usage. And it's been stated time and time again, Vista's superfetch uses RAM differently than XP does. As far as CPU usage, my idle CPU usage between XP and Vista is nil.

I know Vista uses the UNIX way of managing memory (finally) just seems it is using quite a bit more than other systems with the same type of memory management. Well regardless if it doesn't slow things down then there is where little point to what your reported RAM usage is anyway. There was actually a way to make XP run the same way if you had enough RAM and it would make it quite a bit faster than it swapping to the drive all the time, granted you needed about a gig of RAM to do it.

I've got test systems in my office that are worse than that and run Vista just fine. *shrugs*

Hmmm.... Making me tempted to test it out just to see what it runs like. I remember switching from XP cuz it was too slow on this box.

Apple's tried their damndest to make people aware of them. And I was just having a bit of fun with ya.

Hehe true and they've been pretty successful (Hehe yeah I got the joke)

Now, I'll pose this thought; Apple borked application compatability between OS9 and OSx. Microsoft "fixes" some of the issues people have had with their external APIs and tries to do something to make the OS more secure only to be met with "ZOMFG, my NFL fantasy tracker doesn't work any more...FUCK OFF MICROSOFT!" Rather than asking the guys that wrote the software (or drivers) why they decided to take those short cuts and assume that session 0 was always going to be exposed.

Two words: fan bois. (sp intentional) Apple can do just about anything they want to screw the users and a very large portion of it will sign over their newborns to them anyway. That move was actually pretty smart on Apple's behalf as it seems alot more people are buying their systems now that OSX is around OS 9 was terrible.

MS did a stupid thing back in XP days. Basically when they were switching architectures they should have done exactly what they done in Vista, enforce the rules. No admin as default and no allowing any random app to write wherever the hell it wants. Also they should have strangled whoever came up with the registry Now of course people are used to a certain behavior, and ISV's not wanting to change their ways because that means they have to actually do things right so there is where all the hate comes from.

Basically MS made a huge mistake with XP being so open to various hacks that shouldn't have been there in the first place and now they are paying the price.

 

[awdrifter]

I considered getting Vista Ultimate 64 bit for my new system because of the DX10.1 video card and 4GB of ram, but I came to find out that PeerGuardian, my wireless network card, game controller don't have signed drivers for Vista 64 bit, that pretty much turn me away. I don't know why MS feels the need to milk that few hundred dollar licensing fee out of the poor hardware manufactures. Oh well, XP lives on for another 2 years.

 

[Viper007Bond]

I considered getting Vista Ultimate 64 bit for my new system because of the DX10.1 video card and 4GB of ram, but I came to find out that PeerGuardian, my wireless network card, game controller don't have signed drivers for Vista 64 bit, that pretty much turn me away. I don't know why MS feels the need to milk that few hundred dollar licensing fee out of the poor hardware manufactures. Oh well, XP lives on for another 2 years.

Who cares about signed drivers? I very rarely run signed video drivers for example as I prefer running betas.

<-- very happy Vista Ultimate 64bit user running 4 gigs

(although I don't have any funky peripherals like you do)

 

[awdrifter]

The problem is you can't install unsigned drivers in Vista 64 bit (without going through all the trouble to go into test mode in every boot up anyways).

 

[Viper007Bond]

The problem is you can't install unsigned drivers in Vista 64 bit (without going through all the trouble to go into test mode in every boot up anyways).

Er, WTF are you talking about?

I get a screen similar to this when I install unsigned drivers and nothing out of the ordinary happens when I reboot:




It's the same kinda thing as was in XP:

 

[Goldec]

My only real point here is that I do not see a reason to upgrade to Vista for the time being. There don't appear to be many improvements, or at least not enough to justify getting a whole new system (in most cases the way "regular" user would upgrade) as well as the time spent migrating all the information and preferences as well as possibly finding replacements for current software.

Although, I should add that since I started using vista I really couldn't go back to XP. UAC and other annoyances unconsidered (which I myself have turned off and feel that every average user should do too), the experience is great.

Though you had a point when saying that every new OS shouldn't really consume more ressources than the previous. Let's just hope that the trend ends here.