RE: Vista Dead? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

SlickWilhelm -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 4:26:55 PM)

We could debate the relative merits or demerits of each Microsoft OS until the cows come home. But until another OS supports gaming(software AND hardware) as well as Windows does(or does not, as the case may be), then we're going to be using Microsoft OS's for some time.

You can like any particular Microsoft OS, or not. That's up to you. But it's a fact that software developers(and hardware engineers)are going to keep producing operating systems and hardware that continues to up the ante on requirements and performance. It's what they do.

Complaining about the relentless advance of software and hardware is like complaining that the auto industry keeps making new and improved(and costlier!) vehicles every year. If you want to keep driving your beloved 1995 Saturn SL2, you may do so....but good luck finding parts for it as it gets older. The same thing goes for computers.

You wouldn't expect to go into a car dealership and ask for the "8-track player" package in your new 2009 Toyota, right(well, maybe apathetic lurker would, lol)?

I'm not a Microsoft fanboy. In fact, I work for for their big blue competitor. But I understand why they don't support an old operating system for more than a few years. They, like my company, is always marching ahead trying to push the limits and raise the bar.

Personally, I would love to see Linux become as good a gaming platform as Windows. If that day ever comes, I will drop Windows like a hot potato.



Challerain -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 5:31:29 PM)

I ran Vista without any issues for over a year on 2GB. 

And just to clarify a post from earlier in the thread, Combat Mission will work with Vista as long as you have a DX9 card.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 5:55:43 PM)

I would say that is one of the problems. Vista isn't generally viewed as a system that either pushed the limits (unless in reference to memory requirements) or raising the bar. From most comments it seems a necessary evil or adequate at best to end of the world/cats and dogs living together at worst. Necessary evil and adequate probably weren't the comments MS was shooting for.



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 6:13:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I would say that is one of the problems. Vista isn't generally viewed as a system that either pushed the limits (unless in reference to memory requirements) or raising the bar. From most comments it seems a necessary evil or adequate at best to end of the world/cats and dogs living together at worst. Necessary evil and adequate probably weren't the comments MS was shooting for.



I agree. And how about all those "helpful" protection apps that are currently preventing people from executing their applications until they "run as administrator"? What were they thinking? Honestly, someone needs a dope-slap for thinking up some of these "Windows Defender" type apps that are a part of Vista. The first thing I did when I got my laptop with Vista is go through and shut down those apps.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 6:22:13 PM)

From a technical standpoint (as if anything else really matters), you got this when you moved from Win98/98SE/ME to WindowsXP:

NT Kernel
NTFS File System
Approximately 8X increase in cacheable memory

There's other stuff, like a reliable system restoration utility, but the items above are what really made XP hum.

From that same technical standpoint, with Vista you get an animated GUI that really requires the following:

1GB RAM
Graphics adapter with 128mb of dedicated memory
Dual-core processor

As in the case of XP, there's other stuff, this utility and that, but the main selling point of Vista is the GUI.

Now, if you play games, a reasonable person could ask, "who gives a flip about the GUI?" The same voice could state without trepidation, "I don't want valuable system resources devoted to the GUI. I want the G-D stuff running my games!" Finally, the same wise-guy would question his electric bill, "WTF, why am I running up my electric bill like this when I'm working in MS Word or websurfing?

At the risk of repeating myself, phooey! [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Phatguy -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 6:42:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm



You wouldn't expect to go into a car dealership and ask for the "8-track player" package in your new 2009 Toyota, right(well, maybe apathetic lurker would, lol)?





Heh heh, well, you wouldnt catch me in a 2009.Nope, nosiree, not me! But how the H... did you know about the Toyota? 1992 Sera ......Hopefully mine soon

Still trying to figure out if my gramaphone will fit or if I need to take out the passenger seat!



Marc von Martial -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 7:01:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Vista has been out long enough now to have most if not all the bugs ironed out.
If you can't get it working properly either your PC is not stable or you are doing something wrong.
You also should not run it without at least 4 GB of RAM unless you are using basic or something.
Stop with the "it sux" and "it's crap" already.[:-]


He said it all.



hadberz -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 7:06:40 PM)

I agree that Vista is crap on old computers, but it works great on new computers. IMO it was/is priced way to high. 



2ndACR -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 7:08:38 PM)

I have not had a single issue running Vista Premier 64bit. I worried about it, but not one single issue has come up.

Of course I am running 6 gigs of RAM too.



Marc von Martial -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 7:21:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hadberz

I agree that Vista is crap on old computers, but it works great on new computers. IMO it was/is priced way to high. 



I still remember the same threads when XP came out. People tend to glorify the XP they have been using since years. With three SPs and a gazillion of hotfixes [;)]

Oh, and I also remember the riots when it was clear that you must have at least 512mb of RAM in your XP machine in order to have it run smootly.



Jevhaddah -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 7:26:29 PM)

Does anyone here use Vista 32/64 bit for Video Editing, Sound Creation, DvD Authoring and 2D/3D modeling and rendering?  If so are there any problems with rendering, sound issues etc? 

I am about to upgrade my OS to a 64Bit flavour and may consider DUal booting if its possible.

And as this is Matrix site are there any games that have problems with Vista [8D]

Cheers
Jev





Stridor -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 7:29:45 PM)

For all those who are glad they waited ...

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/10/46TC-windows-7_5.html



invernomuto -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 7:35:17 PM)

"Measured by runtime specs and performance benchmarks, Windows 7 M3 looks like Vista, and it runs like Vista. Welcome to Windows Vista R2!"LOL!

I have Vista on my new laptop. I agree with PoE, Vista is essentialy an XP with a fancy GUI. And I have to understand how to sort elements in the Start->Programs menu yet!





Jeffrey H. -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 8:02:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

If it isnt broke don't fix it.



Which is why I want to stick with XP.




Marc von Martial -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 8:11:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stridor

For all those who are glad they waited ...

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/10/46TC-windows-7_5.html



What's the purpose of that article other then generating some traffic to the site it is posted on? How can anybody that takes his "reviewing" seriously come up with a "benchmark" at the current development state of "Windows 7".



Perturabo -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 8:28:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

We could debate the relative merits or demerits of each Microsoft OS until the cows come home. But until another OS supports gaming(software AND hardware) as well as Windows does(or does not, as the case may be), then we're going to be using Microsoft OS's for some time.

Or rather until games and hardware will be made for another OS[:'(].

quote:

ORIGINAL: MacDuff

Many of my friends are going over to Linux, as well as downloading the free (yes free) office suite from OpenOffice.org (from Open Source which, I believe, was started by Steve Jobs). These are guys who have a serious dislike for MS anything. I use openoffice and its much more stable than MS Word. Also, the data is transferable.

Open Office is a slow, bloated cow.



Banquet -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 8:29:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jevhaddah

Does anyone here use Vista 32/64 bit for Video Editing, Sound Creation, DvD Authoring and 2D/3D modeling and rendering?  If so are there any problems with rendering, sound issues etc? 



I use Vegas 7 on Vista home premium (and XP) for video editing and have had no problems.



Phatguy -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 9:03:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

We could debate the relative merits or demerits of each Microsoft OS until the cows come home. But until another OS supports gaming(software AND hardware) as well as Windows does(or does not, as the case may be), then we're going to be using Microsoft OS's for some time.

Or rather until games and hardware will be made for another OS[:'(].

quote:

ORIGINAL: MacDuff

Many of my friends are going over to Linux, as well as downloading the free (yes free) office suite from OpenOffice.org (from Open Source which, I believe, was started by Steve Jobs). These are guys who have a serious dislike for MS anything. I use openoffice and its much more stable than MS Word. Also, the data is transferable.

Open Office is a slow, bloated cow.



Funny, mine zips along fine.



06 Maestro -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 9:20:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Vista is a piece of crap. Without actually doing anything on my system, it grabs no less than 900MB (or there abouts) of my 2GB.

Unfortunately some people (myself included) had no option when I bought my laptop and it's infected with it. Thx Microsoft for making my laptop as useful as a Betamax video player!

Once bitten....



[:D][:D] I'm glad I didn't have to deal with it. I bought my kids desktops a month before Vista was coming online. I had 2 free "upgrades" to utilize-never felt the urge.



Perturabo -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 9:36:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: MacDuff

Many of my friends are going over to Linux, as well as downloading the free (yes free) office suite from OpenOffice.org (from Open Source which, I believe, was started by Steve Jobs). These are guys who have a serious dislike for MS anything. I use openoffice and its much more stable than MS Word. Also, the data is transferable.

Open Office is a slow, bloated cow.



Funny, mine zips along fine.

On what comp?
Microsoft Office was fast on a comp with Pentium 75 and 16MB of ram. Open Office is slow on a comp Athlon 2000 with 256MB of ram.



Phatguy -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 9:52:40 PM)

E8400 3.00 with 2gb ram vista 32



Stridor -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 11:15:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc von Martial


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stridor

For all those who are glad they waited ...

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/10/46TC-windows-7_5.html



What's the purpose of that article other then generating some traffic to the site it is posted on? How can anybody that takes his "reviewing" seriously come up with a "benchmark" at the current development state of "Windows 7".


Marc,

Relax.

I have never dissed vista. I run 64 on modern hardware with no problems, so I am not a vista basher per se.

My post was more directed to those who somehow think that all their percieved issues with vista will be fixed in 7. Nowhere in the article did RC say that the comparison results were definitive, clearly. However he pointed out in several places where 7 walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck.

Early 2010 is not far away now ...



Gem35 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/11/2008 11:22:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hadberz

I agree that Vista is crap on old computers, but it works great on new computers. IMO it was/is priced way to high. 

You can buy your flavor of Vista from Newegg starting at $90.



Arctic Blast -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 1:22:26 AM)

Never personally had any issues at all with my Vista machine. I think a lot of the issues people did have were regarding throwing it on to a machine that couldn't run it well at all. Part of the blame falls on MS for not better publicizing the requirements, but companies like Dell and Compaq were desperate to sell piece of crap PCs, so they were throwing 'Ready for Vista' tags on machines that weren't even close to meeting requirements.



NefariousKoel -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 1:27:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jevhaddah

Does anyone here use Vista 32/64 bit for Video Editing, Sound Creation, DvD Authoring and 2D/3D modeling and rendering?  If so are there any problems with rendering, sound issues etc? 

I am about to upgrade my OS to a 64Bit flavour and may consider DUal booting if its possible.

And as this is Matrix site are there any games that have problems with Vista [8D]

Cheers
Jev





If you plan on dual-booting Vista and XP, just grab VistaBootPro. It's freeware and relatively easy to use.

I've seen mention here of onboard sound issues but I've not had any. *shrug*



NefariousKoel -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 1:30:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast

Never personally had any issues at all with my Vista machine. I think a lot of the issues people did have were regarding throwing it on to a machine that couldn't run it well at all. Part of the blame falls on MS for not better publicizing the requirements, but companies like Dell and Compaq were desperate to sell piece of crap PCs, so they were throwing 'Ready for Vista' tags on machines that weren't even close to meeting requirements.


The same happened with XP. It required at least 256MB of RAM to run and even then it ran like crap. Many systems the prefab manufacturers were selling before XP had around 64MB installed and when they first started selling XP machines, they only put 128MB in them. I still get a few of those old PCs in for repair that have only 128MB from back in 2001. Horrible performance.

I waited for my requisite year before buying Vista, along with parts for a new machine, and it's been just peachy.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 4:03:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

If you plan on dual-booting Vista and XP, just grab VistaBootPro. It's freeware and relatively easy to use.



What are you talking about? No one has to use a 3rd-party utility to do that. All you have to do is partition the HDD, install XP to one partition, and then install Vista to another. Afterwards, when the system boots, you're asked which OS you want to initialize, XP or Vista. That's all there is to it.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



NefariousKoel -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 5:03:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

If you plan on dual-booting Vista and XP, just grab VistaBootPro. It's freeware and relatively easy to use.



What are you talking about? No one has to use a 3rd-party utility to do that. All you have to do is partition the HDD, install XP to one partition, and then install Vista to another. Afterwards, when the system boots, you're asked which OS you want to initialize, XP or Vista. That's all there is to it.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)




No, Vista will not let XP boot without tinkering. The boot manager isn't like the one in XP. That program makes it much easier to deal with.

Here's an example of a how-to:
http://apcmag.com/how_to_dual_boot_vista_and_xp_with_vista_installed_first__the_stepbystep_guide.htm

quote:

When the system reboots it won’t bring up a boot menu. Although XP recognises the Vista partition it doesn’t recognise Vista itself.

The Windows XP bootloader gets installed to the MBR and Vista can no longer boot.



EUBanana -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 9:45:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35
You also should not run it without at least 4 GB of RAM unless you are using basic or something.
Stop with the "it sux" and "it's crap" already.[:-]


I think you managed to contradict yourself here... 900 megs for the OS alone is ridiculous.



Banquet -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 9:56:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35
You also should not run it without at least 4 GB of RAM unless you are using basic or something.
Stop with the "it sux" and "it's crap" already.[:-]


I think you managed to contradict yourself here... 900 megs for the OS alone is ridiculous.



If 900 meg of RAM is being used there must be a load of bloatware on that computer, or it must be running background apps at the time of checking. Mine is on 655 meg used at the moment and it wouldn't be hard to reduce that to under 600 if I chose to get rid of some taskbar apps and make the computer more gaming oriented.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875