RE: Vista Dead? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Perturabo -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 2:05:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

E8400 3.00 with 2gb ram vista 32

Well, it explain everything[:'(].
Anyway, I moved from MS Office to Open Office when my mother gave me her old business comp and I have noticed a drastic loss of performance. So, if I had money, I'd prefer to buy MS Office despite that I hate MS.

Here is a performance analysis of OO.



Phatguy -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 2:41:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

E8400 3.00 with 2gb ram vista 32

Well, it explain everything[:'(].
Anyway, I moved from MS Office to Open Office when my mother gave me her old business comp and I have noticed a drastic loss of performance. So, if I had money, I'd prefer to buy MS Office despite that I hate MS.

Here is a performance analysis of OO.


I'm not discounting your info, but for my needs OO is perfect even with my underpowered machine. my os is the home premium edition, not the vista basic so it needs more power it seems.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 3:21:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

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.



As I indicated in my post above, this is not correct. Format and partition an HDD into at least two partitions. Install WinXP to the primary partition. Then install Vista to another. When the system reboots, the user will be presented a text-mode screen where he can choose which OS he wants to boot into. Later, the user can go into the Vista "Startup and Recovery" cpl and modify his choice as to the default OS:

[image]local://upfiles/21246/53ADD391C30C4D62BB3AAB1B3751C33F.jpg[/image]

That's all there is to it.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)




NefariousKoel -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 6:25:42 PM)

Ahh.. well, in my defense, loading Vista first and XP second takes the tinkering.  Just gotta install XP first. [;)]



ilovestrategy -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 9:06:00 PM)

When I got my new PC last October it came with Vista 64 with 4 gigs of Ram and it has run like a dream.
I like it and I have not had one problem with it.

It does remind me of when I got a new comp with Windows 95 one of my in-laws, a DOS guy kept telling me how horrible Windows 95 was and I did not have any problems with that either.
My most memorable moment was when I was in the Corps just before the M60 tanks were getting replaced by the Abhrams(Did I spell that correctly?) all the tankers wanted to keep their M60s and kept saying the Abhrams were garbage.



MarkShot -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/12/2008 10:04:17 PM)

I think my personal all time record for multi-booting was: DOS 6.22/Windows for Workgroups, Win 95, OS/2, and Linux. Yes, every primary partition had an OS (I was using System Commander.)

By far Linux was the most impressive performance wise per CPU cycle. If I had had a TCP network or four dedicated serial ports and some X-stations, I could have supported a small office off the one system! Windows has always existed to sell more hardware per desktop as opposed to make the most efficient use of what is available.

Linux was a lot of fun and a learning experience. I remember spending two days trying to get my tape backups to work ... which had easily worked under DOS and Windows (Central Point Software Backup). Finally, I realized that like most mini-computers of the day, a tape drive had to be given an explicit rewind command to position to the logical start of tape. Doh!!! :)



EUBanana -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 12:07:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

E8400 3.00 with 2gb ram vista 32

Well, it explain everything[:'(].
Anyway, I moved from MS Office to Open Office when my mother gave me her old business comp and I have noticed a drastic loss of performance. So, if I had money, I'd prefer to buy MS Office despite that I hate MS.

Here is a performance analysis of OO.


OO is definitely slower than MS Office.

But Open Office is free and I don't have MS Office, so no contest really.

I am more amused that Dawn of War runs faster on Linux under Wine than it does in Windows. Whats going on there then? [:D]



killroyishere -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 12:33:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

When I got my new PC last October it came with Vista 64 with 4 gigs of Ram and it has run like a dream.
I like it and I have not had one problem with it.

It does remind me of when I got a new comp with Windows 95 one of my in-laws, a DOS guy kept telling me how horrible Windows 95 was and I did not have any problems with that either.
My most memorable moment was when I was in the Corps just before the M60 tanks were getting replaced by the Abhrams(Did I spell that correctly?) all the tankers wanted to keep their M60s and kept saying the Abhrams were garbage.


Yes but most of us play more games than WITP so Vista is not very compatible for us.[:)]
Obviously Vista is a failure or Bill Gates and company wouldn't be rushing to get out Windows 7 so fast. Vista was just a sucker play for those that buy every new gadget that comes out upon release. Even the commercials are laughing at Vista haven't you seen the new Mac commericals??



Gem35 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 12:37:28 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.


Unless you are running an old machine and don't understand computer hardware, I can understand the hate towards Vista.
BUT,
If you have a newer machine or are considering a new machine...

Check RAM prices folks. DDR2, they are basically giving it away.
You can purchase a 4 GB set, that is 2 sticks of 2 GB each for around $50.
4 GB is plenty enough to run even Visat premium 64 bit.
Sure Vista is a hog for memory but just get more of it. it is cheap.

I used to pay over $200 for a set of 2 x 512 MB RAM and that was only DDR.
They also have DDR3 out but it is not worth the cost just yet.
Feel free to debate and argue but please have some facts beforehand.
Relax and do some research, you will be surprised at how much you can learn.[:)]



Gem35 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 1:43:12 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.



And where did you get that it takes 900 mb of RAM to run the OS?
I was referring to the glam-bam shiny desktop in certain flavors of Vista, which can be disabled.
You can easily upgrade to vista 32 - bit version from 32 bit version of XP with similar hardware.
Question from me would be... Why?
The 64 bit Vista is where you could gain from tried and true XP.



wworld7 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 1:52:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

Yes but most of us play more games than WITP so Vista is not very compatible for us.[:)]
Obviously Vista is a failure or Bill Gates and company wouldn't be rushing to get out Windows 7 so fast. Vista was just a sucker play for those that buy every new gadget that comes out upon release. Even the commercials are laughing at Vista haven't you seen the new Mac commericals??


I think you are getting your hopes up here. Windows 7 will be more like Vista than XP, and with the global financial problems I would not be surprised if turns out "rushing it" means little in reality. 2010 may be a pipe dream. Who knows how long things will be bad?



Gem35 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 2:01:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

Yes but most of us play more games than WITP so Vista is not very compatible for us.[:)]
Obviously Vista is a failure or Bill Gates and company wouldn't be rushing to get out Windows 7 so fast. Vista was just a sucker play for those that buy every new gadget that comes out upon release. Even the commercials are laughing at Vista haven't you seen the new Mac commericals??


I think you are getting your hopes up here. Windows 7 will be more like Vista than XP, and with the global financial problems I would not be surprised if turns out "rushing it" means little in reality. 2010 may be a pipe dream. Who knows how long things will be bad?


Hmm with that logic you can say that every PC made so far is a failure.
Why do Video card makers bust out new hardware every 3-6 months?
Why do processors keep being produced that are faster and better than the previous ones?
Why do the RAM makers keep putting out newer and faster RAM?

Maybe the only gripe I have is with hard drives that are painfully slow at keeping up with the other hardware in a PC.
Keep your head in the sand, eventually they will get it right and you can enjoy your new Windows 7 sometime, eventually.[:)]



wworld7 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 2:53:39 AM)

I see nothing wrong with my logic. I may have missed something as I tired too night. I'll look at my post again tomorrow.



Gem35 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 3:03:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

I see nothing wrong with my logic. I may have missed something as I tired too night. I'll look at my post again tomorrow.

No look at it again, it wasn't aimed at you, you goof.



EUBanana -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 9:25:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Unless you are running an old machine and don't understand computer hardware, I can understand the hate towards Vista.
BUT,
If you have a newer machine or are considering a new machine...

Check RAM prices folks. DDR2, they are basically giving it away.
You can purchase a 4 GB set, that is 2 sticks of 2 GB each for around $50.
4 GB is plenty enough to run even Visat premium 64 bit.
Sure Vista is a hog for memory but just get more of it. it is cheap.


There is only so much memory you can put on the board, and I'm not playing with the OS. Hopefully if the OS is good I won't even notice the OS, it'll just be doing its thing in the background.

Therefore there isn't really any burning reason to get Vista, it seems to me. Windows XP does the deed (indeed usually Linux/Wine does the deed). So what benefit is there in upgrading to Vista? None at all. Sure, you can put in more memory to account for hogs, but why would I want to do that? Why would I want a big chunk of memory used up on the OS when it could either be un-bought in the first place or used on the applications I want to run?



Perturabo -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 2:46:09 PM)

Personally, I got very unenthusiastic towards upgrading my compt/buying a new one, since I have to pay for the upgrades myself.
So, basically, I didn't do any upgrade since I got it. And I'm not going to change it until it stops working.



wworld7 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 3:26:28 PM)

I looked, and you replied to my thread so it looks like you replied to the wrong post.

Oops...



RedArgo -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 3:33:42 PM)

I feel like a good OS should be like a good basketball referee.  If it is doing it's job you shouldn't even realize its there.  All I want my OS to do is run the programs I actually want to use.  So far from DOS on, I haven't found one of those, although I really don't have many problems with XP or Vista.  Maybe someday I'll try out linux.



Nikademus -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 3:36:56 PM)

no burning reason to upgrade the OS if your maintaining a current desktop machine. Myself, I opted to go Vista for the new computer i built mainly because i wanted to become more familiar with it, and it supports Direct X 10. I did opt for the 32bit version though after discussing it with a knowledgable source.

If nothing else, I know can troubleshoot the GF's HP laptop (which came with Vista) much quicker now....and as I and others have mentioned prior....with all the new fancy graphical/handholding features disabled, it feels alot like XP. I even got the running processes total down to the low 30's....something my instructor thought was impossible for Vista!




Phatguy -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 5:50:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35


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.



And where did you get that it takes 900 mb of RAM to run the OS?
I was referring to the glam-bam shiny desktop in certain flavors of Vista, which can be disabled.
You can easily upgrade to vista 32 - bit version from 32 bit version of XP with similar hardware.
Question from me would be... Why?
The 64 bit Vista is where you could gain from tried and true XP.



Why upgrade? hmm..easy answer(for me at least) my xppro system took a long walk off a short pier. not worth fixin. New system cost something like 600 bucks with vista home premium 500gb hd, 2gigs ram. Sure I got my xp disks lying around but 3/4 of the hardware in this new system doesnt like xp so when I did try, funky things happened.

And now? I dont see a difference really. Just a bit of a slowdown exiting Lotro and going to desktop. I have 2 gigs laying around but cant install them till I can actually lift my comp onto the table but I have had no serious issues with vista.



EUBanana -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 7:46:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker
Why upgrade? hmm..easy answer(for me at least) my xppro system took a long walk off a short pier. not worth fixin. New system cost something like 600 bucks with vista home premium 500gb hd, 2gigs ram. Sure I got my xp disks lying around but 3/4 of the hardware in this new system doesnt like xp so when I did try, funky things happened.


I just got a new machine a couple of weeks ago, and buying the computer without an OS already installed on it thanks to my old Windows XP disks saved me £100.

And it runs everything fine, so. Seems like £100 well saved! I'll get Vista when and only when something I want to use requires it, but that does not seem likely in the near future.

I don't really have anything against Vista per se, beyond its pointlessness.



sabre100 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 7:59:10 PM)

I don't care about Vista either at all, but my old computer running XP died (hardware) so I purchased a new PC and it has Vista x64 with 8GB of RAM and it runs good.  I had Vista on my old PC with 2GB of RAM and then I upgraded to 4GB of RAM and still ran like crap.  However on this new PC it runs fine with 8GB of RAM and Quad Core CPU but that is a lot  of memory to run an OS smoothly this isn't server OS.  XP is still the best, here's hoping Windows 7 is the new XP as Vista should have been.



Gem35 -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 11:49:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35
Unless you are running an old machine and don't understand computer hardware, I can understand the hate towards Vista.
BUT,
If you have a newer machine or are considering a new machine...

Check RAM prices folks. DDR2, they are basically giving it away.
You can purchase a 4 GB set, that is 2 sticks of 2 GB each for around $50.
4 GB is plenty enough to run even Visat premium 64 bit.
Sure Vista is a hog for memory but just get more of it. it is cheap.


There is only so much memory you can put on the board, and I'm not playing with the OS. Hopefully if the OS is good I won't even notice the OS, it'll just be doing its thing in the background.

Therefore there isn't really any burning reason to get Vista, it seems to me. Windows XP does the deed (indeed usually Linux/Wine does the deed). So what benefit is there in upgrading to Vista? None at all. Sure, you can put in more memory to account for hogs, but why would I want to do that? Why would I want a big chunk of memory used up on the OS when it could either be un-bought in the first place or used on the applications I want to run?

I wasn't saying or implying for you to upgrade. I am just basically responding to the OP and others here who think Vista is a bad OS.
Keep using whatever OS you have, enjoy!



NefariousKoel -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/13/2008 11:54:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Therefore there isn't really any burning reason to get Vista, it seems to me. Windows XP does the deed (indeed usually Linux/Wine does the deed). So what benefit is there in upgrading to Vista? None at all. Sure, you can put in more memory to account for hogs, but why would I want to do that? Why would I want a big chunk of memory used up on the OS when it could either be un-bought in the first place or used on the applications I want to run?


No, you don't need to rush out and buy a new OS. I didn't, but I built a new system so went with Vista. I gotta say that the DX10 games are friggin' beautiful, though. [;)]



5_Star -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/14/2008 4:55:52 PM)

Memory prices are in the cellar, it's not like it once was.

4 gig's really won't break the bank.

That being said, I still run XP.



NefariousKoel -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/14/2008 7:27:54 PM)

Yep, just got the bought some 1GB DDR2 800 sticks to stock up the shop a couple days ago...  couldn't pass them up.. $14 apiece. [X(]



Cmdrcain -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/15/2008 6:47:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm

It seems that Microsoft is fast tracking the next version of windows. They are already showing beats to software developers.

I am glad that i never brought this OS, I will just wait for the next version of windows.




Might require Vista to get it at Update price like how XP Required W98/Me and W95 paid full.

Vista isn't that bad and Next version might be 2 yrs away.




Cmdrcain -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/15/2008 6:58:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

In doing some checking before purchased my system it looked like getting 4 GIGs was better than 2. At least for my future needs. I agree Windows 7 (or what ever the final name is) will likely use more of it.

My first business PC had 1 meg. And I was lucky as some co-workers had to make do with 512K...LOL. Ah life in the 80's...

quote:

XP inside Vista




"640K is enough...Bill Gates"



[:D]

In 80's -on I ran my 386 Dx 33 with its 2 MB Ram
with 634K Free Ram [;)]


One back then used memory prgs, I used Quemm
and with it and tinkering with autoexe and Config sys I loaded all but
6K of drivers in upper Ram

Left me with for its time a Fast 386 with plenty of Ram

The Old original Grigsbys Pacific War (WITP is its child)
Really wanted 600K+ Ram or you had some crashs.

Ah those were days of 40-80 MB HDD... and a 1 Gig HD was a dream...

1 Gig RAM was fantasy...

[:'(]



Cmdrcain -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/15/2008 7:04:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Vista is the world's first environmentally unsound OS. It's a power hog, requiring so much system memory and a GPU running the whole time that you're in Windows. It's also a total dog without at least a dual-core CPU. Phooey!

PoE (aka ivanmoe)





Maybe when working it takes more however it is better then XP in my view in
its ability to sleep and you have easier options to custom the
idle time for it to sleep the monitor and sleep the Cpu/HDD

It also wakes up near instantly.





Cmdrcain -> RE: Vista Dead? (11/15/2008 7:15:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

I was dreading having Vista after all the bad things I'd heard about it but, to be honest, it's been fine. I did have to turn UAC and some other stuff off, but after that I've had no probs.




Turning off UAC reduces Vistas better security in that it then runs I think like a
XP Admin acct and anything nasty getting in will gain admin privs.

The POINT of UAC is ant action requiring ADMIN action like installing updates, programs, etc requires MANUAL user action to approve ADMIN level action.

Turning off UAC leaves your PC auto installing updates, virius, trojans, etc.

I keep UAC on, the only times it comes up is where I need do something that requires that Admin level.

Otherwise your then simply using the PC at a User level like XP's user accts... to do things requiring admin in XP you have to log out of user acct and log into admin acct, with vista , with UAC on you simply OK the temp allowing of acct to admin level to do something like install a program.

My viewpoint is UAC safeguards you from what was a big weakness in XP... unless
used XP in User acct, you were open to attks if say surfed the net using
XP admin acct.

In Vista anything requiring installing pretty much demands you approve it via UAC...

Something not expected you can deny admin level and so
be safer.

So turning off UAC ... weakens security




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125