Vista sucks for now!

[ViperAFK]

About boot times, vista does seem to take a bit longer (Only a couple seconds) during the boot process, but overall Vista is fully operational for me alot sooner than XP, for me XP has always taken a while after login to become completely responsive and usable, in Vista when I log in and the desktop appears instantly and even when startup programs are still loading it is responsive. The only real problem i am having with vista is Nvidia's crappy drivers (FPS in cs drops from 75 to 18 when even just 2x aa is enabled)

[Lt-DavidW]

The following statements are my opinions, which are direct results of information that I have gathered while using Windows Vista. This review was written on the intent to give you a bit of a comparison if upgrading from Windows XP.

There are a lot of different ways to tweak Vista. Things like the display properties are there, just in different places. After saying this though, Vista is easy to use. One of Microsoft?s intentions was to make it like that, and it even looks easier to use.

If you are like me, then you will really like Windows Vista. It does have its ups and downs, but overall, I think it?s a good product.

One of the biggest complaints I have is the speed. The desktop moves a bit slower than in XP, and there are still some worries about gaming performance. Any difference to me is not cool, especially when you are upgrading. Also, I did have Internet Explorer crash on me one time, but there are still some bugs that need to be fixed (hell, there are still bugs with WinXP!).

Okay, with that said here are my final thoughts. I think Windows Vista is a nice operating system. Do I think it?s revolutionary? No, but it?s pretty darn good. The new look gets a little cheap looking after awhile, but you can always change to the classic Windows look with a click of a button. I have been using it for a few days now, and I really do not see a need to upgrade from Windows XP. If you are building a new system, then by all means, install Windows Vista. If you think that Windows Vista is going to revolutionize the way you use a computer and surf the web, wake up and save your money.

Whether you agree or disagree with the above review, replace the word 'Vista' for 'XP', and 'XP' for '98'. Yes folks, history is repeating itself - this is a review of Windows XP!

[nero78]

You work at Microsoft?....kidding us right?...

For me..Vista is nice & stable with my system config.

Dual core 2.6ghz, intel 945 motherboard, nvidia 7300 graphics card (256mb), 80gb + 120 gb hdd, dvd rom, 2 GB ram.

I am running Halo, halo2 for vista, age of empires, fsx, halflife 2, need for speed most wanted. Almost all the games are OK for me...soon i expect more performance than xP in gaming sector (it all stands in SP1 & in nvidia).

But for now...Vista is better than XP.

Being an MCSE doesen't have anything about working for microsoft.

[Typhon]

Vista ran good for me. Only problem was creative and nvidia drivers. I am on Amd 4000+ 1GB WD250gb hdd and 6800GS.

[nero78]

But one thing we all can agree on is the HORRIBLE copy/move/delete operations in vista! That was also one reason why i installed XP instead.

[BatGnat]

Ok.

I think that in some places, Vista is faster.

I agree. I notice the reaction time when doing stuff is better.

For example, when logging on for the first time, under XP you have to wait for everything to load.

Under Vista, you can actually do stuff while startup is still running.

It is much more responsive.

Im running a Core Duo, with 2gb ram.

[Sniper101]

Wow ever consider using it for a week? you can't make judgements right away there is something called "INDEXING SERVICE" and it needs to INDEX your system, it takes about 2 days tops half a day if your system is on all day.

You can't start complaining soon as you install the damn thing jesus people these days -_-

You must be the 65th person iv told this....

[JamesCherrill]

Vista seems OK for speed on my 1 Gig / Core 2 duo laptop, but I'm completely unable to use it because filesharing to my XP desktop via WiFi simply doesn't work. (it does work in XP, in Ubuntu, and in Vista via Ethernet). I've spent man-days on this, tried dozens of things from every Google ref I could find, no joy. Given up now, staying with XP until I read somewhere that it's fixed.

[Budious]

James, I had the same experience. I found there was a delay between changing the settings to permit file sharing on Vista and the detection of the XP and Samba shares on the network. Make the appropriate changes, wait for about half an hour and the network shares should appear.

[AlexMagik]

to me, after a few months that vista is running on my laptop (2g ram, ati x1400, 100G HD 5400rpm):

1. boot time is the same as xp

2. after boot, vista is faster to let me use the pc, while xp needs a while when is loading the startup drivers/apps/etc

3. overall vista is faster than xp

4. the slow copy issue, microsoft released a patch a couple of months ago, just install it together with the other updates!

i didn't tune/tweak vista, only disable the sidebar (useless for me) and it runs a lot faster than xp...

[JamesCherrill]

James, I had the same experience. I found there was a delay between changing the settings to permit file sharing on Vista and the detection of the XP and Samba shares on the network. Make the appropriate changes, wait for about half an hour and the network shares should appear.

Hi Budious, thanks for responding. Symptom is: XP machine can see and access shared files on the Vista laptop OK. Vista laptop can see the XP machine and can see the names of the shared folders on it, but when I try to open any of those folders nothing happens and eventually the operation times out. Ditto if I try to open a shared printer, although I can use the shared printers by adding them as local printers on a new port that includes the host machine's name. If I plug in an ethernet cable and disable WiFi everything suddenly works properly.

I can also access the XP shared files OK when the laptop is booted into XP, and even Ubuntu.

Baffling, huh?

James

[freak_power]

Don't you think its INSANE that you need that sort of horsepower for the operating system?!

Totally underwhelmed by my experience with Vista to be honest. Running it on Core2Duo E6600, 3GB RAM, GeForce 7600GS and yeah it seems smooth enough but I just don't see what the improvement is over XP to be honest. I like the glass effect of course.. nice to have Windows looking pretty but if thats all there is to it from a day to day / productivity point of view, might as well be back in XP.

If you fire up S.T.A.L.K.E.R...it's chocking with vista and 2Gb of RAM. Or let's say when I start Visual Studio 2005...If I hit preview button like 10 times...the whole system starts chocking with Vista. The bottom line is 4GB + Vista X64 Edition + Raid 0 HDD config is a way to go with Vista.

Superfetch is useless. It doesn't make difference having it on or off. No performance gain...With 2GB or less of RAM you might experience stuttering in a certain games with superfetch on. In a system with 4GB of RAM or more and Raid 0 HDD superfetch is totally waste. No performance gain or performance penalty, except it annoys the hell out of you (HDD noise).

The most broken feature in Vista is defragmentation. The ****ing thing is SLOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Overall, I am happy with Vista. All my hardware and software is fully compatible. Also, after Nvidia released 162.15 my 8800GTX is happily running all the games. Right now, i'm playing Lost Planet over Steam. Pretty cool game, and it runs good. No way i'm going back to X86 version because it sucks.

[Mark Schieldrop]

If you fire up S.T.A.L.K.E.R...it's chocking with vista and 2Gb of RAM. Or let's say when I start Visual Studio 2005...If I hit preview button like 10 times...the whole system starts chocking with Vista. The bottom line is 4GB + Vista X64 Edition + Raid 0 HDD config is a way to go with Vista.

Sounds like your computer is broken or your "expert tweaking" actually screwed something up.

Superfetch is useless. It doesn't make difference having it on or off. No performance gain...With 2GB or less of RAM you might experience stuttering in a certain games with superfetch on. In a system with 4GB of RAM or more and Raid 0 HDD superfetch is totally waste. No performance gain or performance penalty, except it annoys the hell out of you (HDD noise).

Misinformed and completley false. Ignore this comment.

The most broken feature in Vista is defragmentation. The ****ing thing is SLOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

It uses low priority i/o for a reason -- so you shouldn't even bother LOADING defrag, let alone worry about it. Defrag will function automatically. Besides, obsessive defragging does nothing for performance. Just use the damn machine and get over "tuning" it. Just like a modern car that doesn't need much more than an oil change every 5,000 miles and scheduled maintenence (belts, plugs, expected wear), there's no reason to spend endless time "under the hood" making things work "better."

It's all in your mind.

freak_power = highlight his text, select "inverse meaning" and you basically have the truth.

[rajputwarrior]

i had vista on my macbook and i thought it was running awesome. But games did weird things (colin mcrae 05 ran like crap, c&c 3 crashed all the time) . So i threw XP back on it and wow it runs SO MUCH better. No issues at all, games run awesome on it.

Sounds like your computer is broken or your "expert tweaking" actually screwed something up.Misinformed and completley false. Ignore this comment.It uses low priority i/o for a reason -- so you shouldn't even bother LOADING defrag, let alone worry about it. Defrag will function automatically. Besides, obsessive defragging does nothing for performance. Just use the damn machine and get over "tuning" it. Just like a modern car that doesn't need much more than an oil change every 5,000 miles and scheduled maintenence (belts, plugs, expected wear), there's no reason to spend endless time "under the hood" making things work "better."It's all in your mind.freak_power = highlight his text, select "inverse meaning" and you basically have the truth.

no, he's right, superfetch is useless is you have enough ram.

[Kainz]

Superfetch is useless. It doesn't make difference having it on or off. No performance gain...With 2GB or less of RAM you might experience stuttering in a certain games with superfetch on. In a system with 4GB of RAM or more and Raid 0 HDD superfetch is totally waste. No performance gain or performance penalty, except it annoys the hell out of you (HDD noise).

Nice to see you're still chatting complete BS about the OS. Keep it up.

[solgae]

Nice to see you're still chatting complete BS about the OS. Keep it up.

Rather than just calling people BS, why don't you try giving reasons on why Superfetch is not useless as he claims?

Superfetch tries to cache most of the free memory for applications to access the memory more quickly. This means the OS is actually doing something useful with the free RAM, which is a BAD thing for you. Free RAM means that RAM is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for you. Whether it is beneficial or not. This is a waste of power fed into the RAMs. What use it is for you, if you're not going to use it?

Plus, it also keep track of which apps you use more frequently, so Applications that you use a lot will get their needed memory more quickly. That means, you can open up your app more quickly and get to work much quicker as a result.

Unfortunately, games don't get much benefit from it. From what I know, Superfetch is mostly about giving applications the memory needed to launch up and running, so it benefits little as apps like games ask for more memory (while loading map, etc.) while already running.

Bottom line is, it all depends on what you do. What I generally recommend is, unless you need DX10, XP is still your best bet for gaming. If not, vista runs just as well as or better than XP

[x-byte]

Superfetch is useless. It doesn't make difference having it on or off. No performance gain...With 2GB or less of RAM you might experience stuttering in a certain games with superfetch on. In a system with 4GB of RAM or more and Raid 0 HDD superfetch is totally waste. No performance gain or performance penalty, except it annoys the hell out of you (HDD noise).

It's far from useless. It have nothing to do with gaining performance, it's about improving the start up time of applications you used often. It is design to take full use of your RAM so that Vista doesn't use the HDD as much. Superfetch have no real use in games at all, because games fetch its data from the HDD more frequent.

[sibot]

truth is..vista is a mistake..bill gates should make a public apology for releasing a blunder and resign from his post.

Microsoft is gonna go down, its so obvious..think on a wider scale, vista needs a super computer to give its true performance and even then XP can give 150% more than what vista is giving. Firstly, XP's lifecycle is ending coming jan 2008. That means no secruity updates, no more developement. What i make out of it? a desperate attempt to push forward their failed OS i.e. Vista. The only way they can sell Vista now is to phase out XP. Everybody i know, and take it from me, i know alotta people =P...everybody i know...who moved to vista, went back to XP within a week or two max!

I don't see any reason why anyone would opt for Vista, unless you're moving to Vista for the eye candy goodies it comes with. Bottom line is Vista is good, but XP is excellent. XP can do everything vista can, and only better. I don't see myself or anyone else upgrading to c2d and getting 2 gig ram, so he can run vista and see the shiny bling bling it comes with. No thank you! 2000 to XP was a revolution, but XP to Vista? its like another Microsoft XP with a shiney lay out and a hell lot of problems.

Conclusion: Vista sucks...sucks for now...until everyone has a c2d, 2 gig ram, nvidia 7600 or better gpu. And ofcourse until all my hardware and everyone elses hardware is fully supported on vista..till then im sticking to XP!

[+shift. MVC]

Um...I'm running Vista on a Pentium D 820....with 1GB of RAM, and INTEGRATED Raedon Xpress 200 gfx....

"Vista sucks...sucks for now...until everyone has a c2d, 2 gig ram, nvidia 7600 or better gpu."

So there goes your argument...

[gigapixels Veteran]

truth is..vista is a mistake..bill gates should make a public apology for releasing a blunder and resign from his post.

Microsoft is gonna go down, its so obvious..think on a wider scale, vista needs a super computer to give its true performance and even then XP can give 150% more than what vista is giving. Firstly, XP's lifecycle is ending coming jan 2008. That means no secruity updates, no more developement. What i make out of it? a desperate attempt to push forward their failed OS i.e. Vista. The only way they can sell Vista now is to phase out XP. Everybody i know, and take it from me, i know alotta people =P...everybody i know...who moved to vista, went back to XP within a week or two max!

I don't see any reason why anyone would opt for Vista, unless you're moving to Vista for the eye candy goodies it comes with. Bottom line is Vista is good, but XP is excellent. XP can do everything vista can, and only better. I don't see myself or anyone else upgrading to c2d and getting 2 gig ram, so he can run vista and see the shiny bling bling it comes with. No thank you! 2000 to XP was a revolution, but XP to Vista? its like another Microsoft XP with a shiney lay out and a hell lot of problems.

Conclusion: Vista sucks...sucks for now...until everyone has a c2d, 2 gig ram, nvidia 7600 or better gpu. And ofcourse until all my hardware and everyone elses hardware is fully supported on vista..till then im sticking to XP!

Oh, thank you for that, I needed a good laugh today :laugh:

[Kainz]

Rather than just calling people BS, why don't you try giving reasons on why Superfetch is not useless as he claims?

Because if you've seen his posts in the pasts, all he does is whine about the same things and half of what he says is just laughable. Ram and Superfetch are a moot point as the feature uses every bit of available ram anyway. 2GB of ram in Vista is perfectly fine and the OS will fly even with superfetch on. I find it laughable that superfetch almost makes all my apps insta popup, and that was when I had 2GB.

4GB is what I recommend for heavy gamers, and I'm not seeing the benefits yet because I've yet to move to x64.

[ViperAFK]

truth is..vista is a mistake..bill gates should make a public apology for releasing a blunder and resign from his post.

Microsoft is gonna go down, its so obvious..think on a wider scale, vista needs a super computer to give its true performance and even then XP can give 150% more than what vista is giving. Firstly, XP's lifecycle is ending coming jan 2008. That means no secruity updates, no more developement. What i make out of it? a desperate attempt to push forward their failed OS i.e. Vista. The only way they can sell Vista now is to phase out XP. Everybody i know, and take it from me, i know alotta people =P...everybody i know...who moved to vista, went back to XP within a week or two max!

I don't see any reason why anyone would opt for Vista, unless you're moving to Vista for the eye candy goodies it comes with. Bottom line is Vista is good, but XP is excellent. XP can do everything vista can, and only better. I don't see myself or anyone else upgrading to c2d and getting 2 gig ram, so he can run vista and see the shiny bling bling it comes with. No thank you! 2000 to XP was a revolution, but XP to Vista? its like another Microsoft XP with a shiney lay out and a hell lot of problems.

Conclusion: Vista sucks...sucks for now...until everyone has a c2d, 2 gig ram, nvidia 7600 or better gpu. And ofcourse until all my hardware and everyone elses hardware is fully supported on vista..till then im sticking to XP!

I'm running nearly the same specs as you sans graphics card and vista runs great even compared to XP why do people keep saying " OMG YOU NEED QUAD CORE PROCESSOR + 4 GB RAM JUST TO RUN VISTA!" I've also run vista on a computer with a 3200+ 1 GB RAM and x200 integrated graphics, and a 3.0 Ghz p4, 512 MB DDR333 RAM, and a 9600PRO vista ran fine on both these systems also. XP does have some advantages over vista still but vista really isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. You do nut even really need that much to run aero saying you need a 7600 is ridiculous, I've run it on an x200 and the 9600PRO mentioned above and it was fine. Obviously it has higher requirements than XP but that is true with every new version of windows, including XP.

Edited July 6, 2007 by ViperAFK

[sibot]

I'm running nearly the same specs as you sans graphics card and vista runs great even compared to XP why do people keep saying " OMG YOU NEED QUAD CORE PROCESSOR + 4 GB RAM JUST TO RUN VISTA!" I've also run vista on a computer with a 3200+ 1 GB RAM and x200 integrated graphics, and a 3.0 Ghz p4, 512 MB DDR333 RAM, and a 9600PRO vista ran fine on both these systems also. XP does have some advantages over vista still but vista really isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. You do nut even really need that much to run aero saying you need a 7600 is ridiculous, I've run it on an x200 and the 9600PRO mentioned above and it was fine. Obviously it has higher requirements than XP but that is true with every new version of windows, including XP.

Running something and getting the performance out of it are two different things, Vista ran fine on my system, but did i get the performance out of it? Noway! Vista DOES need a super computer to deliver its performance as i said before "needs a supercomputer to show its true performance". I tried running call of duty 2, Devil may cry spec ed., CD2 worked fine, no problems as such, slower than XP (for sure!).......and DMC would keep hanging, infact i tried two other games, both hung. Creative Audigy 5.1 is still not supported by vista? half the world owns that sound card. I still have distorted sound. Indeed, all new OS's ask for a better performance, but this one asks for too much and delivers too little in return.

Edited July 6, 2007 by sibot

[A10]

Here we go again with the magical service pack 1 talk again.

This thread is yet another reason why we need a Vista general section far too many whiners mixed in with actual people needing support.

[Lt.Longrifle]

I have a 512MB L2 512KB cache with an 3.4gHz intel celeron processor on Vista Ultimate and it works fast for me, internet loads in seconds, programs may take a little while, I have Aero enabled with everything, with just a little tweaking of settings, I've got it running fine, I'm proof you don't need a GB of RAM to make it function, on top of that, I have kasperksy internet secuirty running, the only problem is, running deletion and compression of folders and stuff.....really slow and sluggish, but with a usb and ready boost, those problems are over...