Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Carlton

Vista - not a bash

Recommended Posts

For those of you who had a chance to run Vista, have you seen any improvements to the OS other than cosmetic that justify the system requirements?

 

Lot's of people I know have bought new PC's and Notebooks with Vista (home premium) installed. I've worked on the OS and find it prettier than XP but don't see any real improvements.

 

Have any of you actually downgraded your OS from Vista to XP (not sure it's a downgrade)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just installed vista ultimate on a pc that I threw together. Did a clean install on a fresh hard drive. Must say that it went much better than I thought it would. No install issues. No driver issues. No update issues. The web seems much faster than my xp. I am also using vista manager to help out. Vista manager does a great job. I only needed to upgrade my sound card for 29.00. It installed without a problem. I still need to install a HP printer,but i feel it should come off without a hitch. I know that vista has issues, but I think that when they get these worked out vista will be every bit as good if not better than xp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I echo your sentiments Storm Rider, I dual boot with XP Pro and Vista Ultimate, and find myself in XP more often.

 

Beefing this system up for the Vista installation has allowed my XP install to improve nicely. Vista's Ok and I like the idea of the UAC (would be better if it had a memory), but all in all, I still believe that XP out performs Vista.

 

:)Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who had a chance to run Vista, have you seen any improvements to the OS other than cosmetic that justify the system requirements?

 

Lot's of people I know have bought new PC's and Notebooks with Vista (home premium) installed. I've worked on the OS and find it prettier than XP but don't see any real improvements.

 

Have any of you actually downgraded your OS from Vista to XP (not sure it's a downgrade)?

 

Security, security, security.

 

It is more secure in it's default configuration then any previous version of windows ever was.

 

Take that away, and it is no better then previous versions.

 

That said, for me security is the single most important basic function of an operating system. If it has a poor record concerning security then I personally won't touch it.

 

So if I had to use a version of windows it would be Vista.

 

That said..........Thank God I don't have to use a version of windows. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UAC and proper user accounts do more to protect a computer then all the added garbage people use to cover the inherent problems of running in administrator accounts.

 

There is no security risk greater then operating any computer as administrator, and especially when it comes to internet use.

 

I contend that a Vista, Mac, or Linux computer is more secure with no added software for protection then any previous version of windows running in administrator mode with all the garbage people add to it to cover their butts.

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UAC and proper user accounts

For the avid computer geek who knows more than enough about their own security (and what they need to do to protect themselves against miscreants), and find the UAC more trouble than it's worth (why should I have to tell my operating system 3 times that it's OK to do something? :angry: ) and need complete control of their PC for optimum operability, then the additional "security" becomes more of a pain than it's worth and Vista is just a bloated piece of M$ scrapware with ridiculous hardware requirements. -kd5-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that long ago you were complaining loudly about XP :rofl3:

 

An "avid computer geek" wouldn't even think of using the internet while running as administrator no matter how much third party junk they had running in the background.

 

It is in my opinion much easier to use UAC then to add a boat load of resource hogging applications that do nothing but cover for users who don't want to use simple basic most effective security measures.

 

UAC and or proper user accounts have no negative effect on "optimum operability". In fact it is the best way to obtain optimal performance, reliability and operability.

 

 

In day to day use you will rarely ever see UAC prompts, unless you spend the whole day installing software, or messing with system settings. I can't imagine why once a computer is setup why it would be an issue.

 

 

Windows based forums are full of "the average windows user" who thinks they know more than enough about their own security (and what they need to do to protect themselves against miscreants), and find the UAC more trouble than it's worth .

 

As long as people have that mentality, then spyware, malware, worms, trojans, viruses.........will continue to be the largest most preventable problem in computing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who had a chance to run Vista, have you seen any improvements to the OS other than cosmetic that justify the system requirements?

 

Lot's of people I know have bought new PC's and Notebooks with Vista (home premium) installed. I've worked on the OS and find it prettier than XP but don't see any real improvements.

 

Have any of you actually downgraded your OS from Vista to XP (not sure it's a downgrade)?

 

First, Microsoft will only allow downgrades from Vista Business and Ultimate to XP Pro, so your friends with Home Premium are SOL unless they want to pay for a copy of XP Pro. Second, Vista promised a lot early on, and almost all of it was removed before the project was 2 years old. The most important thing was a new database style file system that would have eliminated most wasted drive space along with a host of other advantages.

 

Also, to answer several comments further down, there are many of us out here who install one or more programs per day, and constantly play with things that are restricted to administrator mode. Running in user mode would be so inefficient that it would be useless. Also, ZoneAlarm gives me sufficient notices that I really don't need UAC to double up. So far, Vista has had it's share of security problems, if the various tech blogs are to be believed, and I can guarantee you that Vista can absolutely screw up a local peer-to-peer network, as can IE7. Both are banned from any of my business networks, and after reading Dvorak and more than a few others, I cannot see any reason to purchase an overpriced OS that will cause me to replace or seriously upgrade almost every machine in my business networks. My customers use Fox and Thunderbird or SeaMonkey for all but the very, very few sites that can only be accessed with IE, and that IE is IE6. Unless you are a serious gamer, there is no reason to have a machine with the minimum workable hardware spec for Vista, and most gamers don't want anything to do with Vista, because it absolutely stinks for most current games if it will run them at all. Over time, I am sure that MS can pay enough vendors to make games that will only run under Vista, or only run well under Vista, and that will begin to move that crowd, but for the moment, that's vaporware. By the time that happens, MS is supposed to have their next release of Vista out, and maybe that will be the Vista that we all were looking for 6 years ago, but I'm not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that long ago you were complaining loudly about XP :rofl3:

 

An "avid computer geek" wouldn't even think of using the internet while running as administrator no matter how much third party junk they had running in the background.

 

It is in my opinion much easier to use UAC then to add a boat load of resource hogging applications that do nothing but cover for users who don't want to use simple basic most effective security measures.

 

UAC and or proper user accounts have no negative effect on "optimum operability". In fact it is the best way to obtain optimal performance, reliability and operability.

In day to day use you will rarely ever see UAC prompts, unless you spend the whole day installing software, or messing with system settings. I can't imagine why once a computer is setup why it would be an issue.

Windows based forums are full of "the average windows user" who thinks they know more than enough about their own security (and what they need to do to protect themselves against miscreants), and find the UAC more trouble than it's worth .

 

As long as people have that mentality, then spyware, malware, worms, trojans, viruses.........will continue to be the largest most preventable problem in computing.

Well excuse me Bruce, I bow to your superior intellect. Let me just box my Windows-based computer up and put it into storage because obviously I don't know squat about my own security even though I haven't had a single security-related issue on my computer since I visited some porn sites years ago and I'm still using Internet Explorer 6. -kd5-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well KD, I didn't bash windows, I didn't say anything negative about it at all, nor did I tell anyone to

box my Windows-based computer up and put it into storage

In fact it was you who did the windows bashing. :P

 

Vista is just a bloated piece of M$ scrapware with ridiculous hardware requirements. -kd5-

 

I posted an opinion, as did you. Sorry if because we have different ideas you are somehow offended. :lol:

 

Off to visit many porn sites safely now............... :mrgreen:

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only beef is with Windows Vista. I've been using Windows now for 10 years, started with Windows 3.1, 3.11, then Windows 95, 98, 98se, ME, skipped 2kPro (at first) and went straight to XP, then tried 2kPro and liked it too. Had a bit of a beef with XP when it first came out, but I got over that. Now it's Windows Vista. I don't like Windows Vista, and I'm not alone. I don't like the resource hungry operating system, it's massive hardware requirements, it's UAC, I think Microsoft took the wrong direction altogether with Windows Vista. I see people all over the internet who want to downgrade to XP because they can't stand Windows Vista. Sure there are people who like Vista, but I'm not one of them. That's the only point I was trying to make. -kd5-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather amazing really, that I am the one defending windows in this thread isn't it? :pullhair:

 

It's certainly different.

 

By the way, what have you done with your copy of Vista - Home Premium ? I haven't noticed any updates on your comparison between it and Suse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave it away. I did my testing on several different machines, both desktop and laptops and when I was done testing I had no further use for it, so I gave it to my brother in law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storm, nothing thats benefiting the users but better security, its kernel is built for security and drm, this is one reason why the os is so big and weighed down !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've still got a hard drive that I install Vista to every month or so, but never activate it. I test games, drivers, etc., and still find too many issues to use it as my primary OS. Transferring files (which is supposed to be fixed on SP1 but remains to be seen) is much slower on Vista.

 

As for security, I haven't had a virus/trojan/worm/browser hijacker or any malware on one of our systems with XP Pro in years, other than the ones I intentionally install myself (as a computer builder/repairer it's my job to know how to get rid of these things).

 

I believe any puter geek can have as much or more security on XP than Vista. First thing I do on Vista is disable UAC. Second thing I do is disable search to speed it up.

 

The problem with UAC for geeks is that it's an unnecessary annoyance. The problem is bigger for novice users who will just allow everything anyway, since they don't know the difference between malware and a necessary browser plugin.

 

So yea, you could say I've downgraded to XP, over and over and over again. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have installed Vista Premium 64bit on two different computers now---one a Dell XPS400 and my brand new rig----It was the first time ever I have been able to install a 64 bit OS without any problems with drivers, upgrades, or activation. XP64 was a joke-----the lack of driver support in the early beta days to when it was finally released, to present day is, was, a prolly always will be a nightmare. Less we not forget the security issues when XP was released. Oh my God what a turd!!!!-----It is just now that XP 32bit is somewhat usable and secure, how many years after it's release. Vista is a memory hog, and DX10 does reduce frame rates in most games, but I think once the software writters realy get a hold on optimization for Vista, and multi CPU utilization, all will be good in the virtual world. After playing the new games optimized for multi cores, DX10, and vista, it is realy hard to go back to the DX9 world!---After all us gamer geeks love the eye candy, and for most parts, it is our reality most of the time, so :filtered: off and go buy some new :filtered:, or stay in your Pinto computer and OS and leave us Murcielago LP640 drivers alone and please stay out of the passing lane!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doom, you are full of it. :lol:

 

DX10 does nothing to add eye candy. It just allows video cards that support DX10 to process data related to GPGPU and graphics more efficiently, which can lead to more eye candy. Not to mention, COD 4 is a DX9 title, but it is one of the absolute best looking games available now.

 

And I am pretty sure you are in the minority when it comes to what you choose when it comes to computers. I'm sure a million Pintos would crush your little overrated Lamborghini any day of the week. Does Dell make all its money building high end computers? Nope. It makes its dough by building affordable computers for the majority of computer users who just want a computer to do things here and there. So, if you were to put all the Pintos on the road, and all the Murcielagos on the road, there would be no passing, or any lanes to speak of. You'd be boxed in.

 

If you even knew how the innards of Vista worked, you wouldn't be saying all that. ;)

 

And there is a version of DirectX 10 for XP contained in one of the DirectX SDKs, according to a software developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny. I was thinking that any system would be faster running XP than it would running Vista, period.

 

Wouldn't that make the Vista system more like a Cadillac (slow, but looks good and is heavy with luxurious accessories) and the XP system more like a Corvette (built for speed, and not weighted down with luxurious accessories)? I'm sure there's better analogies, but I still think this is more accurate than Doom's. :P

 

Everything I've read to date says MS is refusing to make DX10 work with XP. Sure would like to see a link to a useable DX10 for XP.

 

Not that my 7900GTX TDH Extreme could use DX10, but someday it may die and I'll be forced to upgrade. Right now, the 7900 does everything I need it to do.

 

I don't use 64 bit OS's yet either, although I've read many good things about Vista's 64 bit compatibility. In fact, since Vista 32 bit isn't compatible with many programs and games that I use, I can't really see the point in spending money on 64 bit to have the same problems at this point. To each their own I guess. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my example: trapped on a mountain, a small group of servivors, one notices a steak dangling from a tree on a string, i stay behind and watch wile feasting on pine bark and needles as the crowd runs for the steak :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doom, you are full of it. :lol:

 

DX10 does nothing to add eye candy. It just allows video cards that support DX10 to process data related to GPGPU and graphics more efficiently, which can lead to more eye candy. Not to mention, COD 4 is a DX9 title, but it is one of the absolute best looking games available now.

 

And I am pretty sure you are in the minority when it comes to what you choose when it comes to computers. I'm sure a million Pintos would crush your little overrated Lamborghini any day of the week. Does Dell make all its money building high end computers? Nope. It makes its dough by building affordable computers for the majority of computer users who just want a computer to do things here and there. So, if you were to put all the Pintos on the road, and all the Murcielagos on the road, there would be no passing, or any lanes to speak of. You'd be boxed in.

 

If you even knew how the innards of Vista worked, you wouldn't be saying all that. ;)

 

And there is a version of DirectX 10 for XP contained in one of the DirectX SDKs, according to a software developer.

 

Hmm well if your Pinto would run UT3 maxed out I think you would have to give it the title for one of the best looking games hands down---and I was not saying Vista didn't have some issues in the piggish department for resorces utilization, but like I said it was the first Microsoft offering I have installed that worked from the get go---without searching for stinking drivers, and without much effort. Quad cores will probably be the saving grace for Vista, for I admit on my Dell with a PD940, Vista was a bit sluggish compared with XP64. But forward is forward, past is past, and it is time for most of us to embrace the future, instead of living in and defending the past. and those of us happy with standing still as you seem to be---more power to ya brother-----frag ya later---Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run UT3 maxed out on my system, with XP 32-bit and a 7900GTX TDH Extreme. DX10 is not required for UT3, and frankly I don't see much difference with or without it (I have a 8800GTX testing system). Can't stand shoot-em-up games myself, so UT3 is used mostly for testing purposes.

 

But anyone who installed Vista when it was first available had problems with drivers. I've run Vista since the 2nd beta, then RC1 and switched to the final version in January '07. It was full of driver problems and software conflicts, most of which has now been resolved but not all by a long shot. Realtek didn't have a decent 5.1 sound driver available for Vista until April or May 2007. That was a big one for me, but just one example of many. Microsoft didn't even have compatibilty with Windows 2003 server available for Vista upon its public release.

 

I guess it pays to be a late starter, but it's also not a very good indicator of driver availability with a new OS. Had we waited a year to install XP, I doubt we'd have had any driver problems either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm well if your Pinto would run UT3 maxed out I think you would have to give it the title for one of the best looking games hands down---and I was not saying Vista didn't have some issues in the piggish department for resorces utilization, but like I said it was the first Microsoft offering I have installed that worked from the get go---without searching for stinking drivers, and without much effort. Quad cores will probably be the saving grace for Vista, for I admit on my Dell with a PD940, Vista was a bit sluggish compared with XP64. But forward is forward, past is past, and it is time for most of us to embrace the future, instead of living in and defending the past. and those of us happy with standing still as you seem to be---more power to ya brother-----frag ya later---Peace

 

If the future is dominated by operating systems such as Vista, then I am very much for standing still. The future for you, it seems, is to take one step forward, and two steps back. You can have your Lamborghini that will be obsoleted in a matter of weeks, and I'll stick with my computer that cost little to build, performs very well, and has a great upgrade path until Intel moves to another socket.

 

Have fun with your DRM encrusted, bloated, troublesome OS from Microsoft. I'll stick with XP for gaming, and Linux to get real work done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...