stockwiz Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 they were forward thinking when they developed vista. If you don't have 2 gigs of ram, let me be blunt.. you shouldn't be using it. Overall I find it faster then xp, it's the lack of drivers that is the problem for me. Any modern system built today can handle vista just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beanboy89 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I've been running Vista on my main PC for over a month now. I haven't run in into any major bugs or issues. Windows Setup detected all my hardware and installed all drivers automatically during setup. Previously, I had Windows Server 2003 x64 installed on this machine. It booted alot faster than Vista, but that's where the fun stopped. I couldn't find any drivers wireless NIC or sound card for Server 2003 x64, and that is what prompted me to install Vista. I'm glad I made that decision. I'm not looking back to NT 5.x now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pox Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I tried it in the RC stages and it was terribly slow... and there aren't any new features, just Aero (and I don't use my windows for anything but games, so I rarely see window borders anyway). I won't be changing my windows partition over until there is a distinct need (most likely when I get a DX10 compatible video card). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartsOfWar Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 ^Aero is not the only change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak_power Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 It really is the same old thing over and over. When XP came out, everyone complained about it, saying they wouldn't update cause it was "crap". they didn't like the "Fisher Price" interface, but look at everyone today... they're defending the very OS they bashed 4 years ago. So, Microsoft had to do something right... I was never bashing XP. XP was so good that RC2 was stable as final version, and I ran RC2 for almost a year. Same for Windows 2000. The only problem XP had was support for certain dial up modem...pretty meaningless... Vista isn't officially released yet, and people complain about driver support.How about waiting till the official release of Vista until you start complaining and let the manufacturers use all their time prior to the official release to make their drivers and applications work as good as possible under Vista? We don't talk about drivers at all. The drivers will be polished and released...except that Microsoft messed up with AUDIO support. I hope Creative sorts it out...knowing Creative and their crappy driver support, good luck with that. We are talking about Vista functionality, system usage, look and feel, and its performance which was the major reason for most people to go back to XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak_power Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) All that technical crap doesn't translate into the real world. On my system, XP opens Firefox in 2 seconds and Vista in 5 seconds. Almost every application is the same. The same goes for games. Gothic 3 loads a saved game in around a minute in XP, around a minute and a half in Vista.Wasn't Vista supposed to watch user behavior and load parts of programs beforehand to make them start faster? I have yet to see it. Most things are slower in milliseconds level. There are some scripts that I've written with AutoHotKey. For example, when I click right mouse button, the menu should appear under 50ms for my script to work. It does under XP, but for Vista, I had to change all the timings because everything is slower. Obviously some people aren't using their computers at a professional level. They just look at the glass effect and live thumbnails and such and they like it. Then they read from Microsoft that the new OS is supposed to be faster, and they believe it. I call it Placebo effect. My precise timings with AutoHotKey and less precise timings with my stopwatch all confirm that Vista is slower than XP. Amen... Having GUI accelerated by graphic card, gives you as you said placebo effect. But infact Vista is slower then XP, in certain apps, and game way slower... Nobody, not including Microsoft tested Vista vs XP performance. I can't wait till official release, and community app/gaming benchmarks to test XP vs Vista. XP is going to smoke it in all aspect with difference up to 35%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raskren Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) I have to laugh.... thats a joke isnt it??? xp cannot launch applications from the start menu??? are we talking about the same xp????Render windows off screen ---> wow, I'm impressed, such a great advantage, maybe for you, for me its a crap useless feature index files --> have u heard about windows desktop search, google desktop... etc... many other options to do the same crap auto defrag --> fyi you can also schedule the defrag in xp to run automatically system restore --> also useless in xp (I admit) so also useless in vista to me and many other power users load dll before being requested ---> that explains why vista takes so much ram to "run faster" but everyone is still waiting to see a serious benchmark where vista beats xp performance.... ;-) You said to name things you can do in Vista that can't be done in XP. I listed four valid points. Trying to trivialize them or say that they don't matter to you doesn't make them any less so. Vista can launch applications by pressing the Window key and typing the first few letters of the application name. Last time I checked, XP couldn't do that. Vista uses your GPU to render windows. No way XP is going there As for the indexing files, defragging, and restore points, the whole point there was low I/O priority. I guess you missed that part. XP does not intelligently load dlls and applications to the extent that Vista does How about play games built on the DX10 API? Nope, XP isn't going to do that any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deactivated Account Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 the only way for Vista to get better is that everyone uses it and reports back to Microsoft about the good & the bads.. then when Vista SP1 comes out then the issues that was once there will not be there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pox Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 ^Aero is not the only change... Well go on, name the changes. Might be 1% over XP. I mean, windows was never innovative, but vista seems almost backwards for 6 years development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartsOfWar Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) ^ if you had bother to read more than a few posts at the end of this thread, I've already list 4 or five. if you want to know more, go here. As someone already posted, arguing that the feature is useless to you doesn't equate to it being any less of a feature or that vista is inferior because you won't use it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aydc Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) I'm almost certain that Windows XP will support DirectX 10. Otherwise, no developer will develop games for it. No one will be brave enough to publish a game that will only work on Vista, so they'll put the pressure on Microsoft. Maybe DirectX 11 will be Vista only, but not DirectX 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null_ Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I'm almost certain that Windows XP will support DirectX 10. Otherwise, no developer will develop games for it. No one will be brave enough to publish a game that will only work on Vista, so they'll put the pressure on Microsoft. Maybe DirectX 11 will be Vista only, but not DirectX 10. DirectX 10 relies on the WDDM Driver Framework, so it's not likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6785077276 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I made a backup image of my entire windows xp pro sp2 partition just incase. I installed vista ultimate x64 this morning, took me 4 hours to figure out why it would freeze at the "expanding files" stage of the installation. Turns out if I use AHCI mode in the BIOS for my hard drives, it would make it freeze and wouldn't complete the install or boot up. If I use IDE mode it installs and runs fine but I want AHCI mode damn it! AHCI mode worked perfectly in Windows XP SP2 Pro. It ran very fast and smooth compared to xp. Well, it turns out I'm not the only one with the same problem: http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=20070213235101731&board_id=1&model=P5B+Deluxe&page=1&SLanguage=en ://http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx...p;SLanguage=en - http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=20070223061009256&board_id=1&model=P5B+Deluxe%2FWiFi-AP&SLanguage=en-us&page=1 ://http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx...-us&page=1 http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=20070213235101731&board_id=1&model=P5B+Deluxe&page=1&SLanguage=en-us ://http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx...Language=en-us http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=20070223061009256&board_id=1&model=P5B+Deluxe%2fWiFi-AP&SLanguage=en-us&page=4 ://http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx...-us&page=4 http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPo...17&PageID=2 http://www.flyingnerd.com/intel-raid-probl...r-windows-vista http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup&tid=ef7cfb2a-a35d-4703-9175-681543e643ef&cat=〈=en&cr=US&sloc=en-us&p=1 ://http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...=en-us&p=1 http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup&tid=ef7cfb2a-a35d-4703-9175-681543e643ef&cat=〈=en&cr=US&sloc=en-us&p=1 ://http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...=en-us&p=1 After this incident I decided to give up and reinstall my windows xp ghost image. I'm not going back to vista until there is a solution to my ahci problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutblastoR Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I'm almost certain that Windows XP will support DirectX 10. Otherwise, no developer will develop games for it. No one will be brave enough to publish a game that will only work on Vista, so they'll put the pressure on Microsoft. Maybe DirectX 11 will be Vista only, but not DirectX 10. Trying to carm your self, or just dreaming? EDIT: I just realized what a bump this was.. Don't do that digitalnemesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts