RaisinCain Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 It's not a "Vista sucks" situation. It is a "When will Vista get the security/features that should be or were promised" situation. Don't buy or install it. I have a dual boot with XP & I really don't care for Vista as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 It's not a "Vista sucks" situation. It is a "When will Vista get the security/features that should be or were promised" situation. Don't buy or install it. I have a dual boot with XP & I really don't care for Vista as of yet. (Emphasis mine) Uh. What? Vista thus far has been very secure. Have you seen a single major exploit other than that stupid ANI thing that was thwarted by UAC and protected mode IE (A Vista security feature, I might add.) in the 8 months since it's release? Hell, I haven't even heard a peep about any danger from the tiny handful of minor exploits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 (Emphasis mine)Uh. What? Vista thus far has been very secure. Have you seen a single major exploit other than that stupid ANI thing that was thwarted by UAC and protected mode IE (A Vista security feature, I might add.) in the 8 months since it's release? Hell, I haven't even heard a peep about any danger from the tiny handful of minor exploits. Agreed. Vista has lived up to expectations in terms of security from what I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mram Subscriber² Posted July 7, 2007 Subscriber² Share Posted July 7, 2007 It's not a "Vista sucks" situation. It is a "When will Vista get the security/features that should be or were promised" situation. Don't buy or install it. I have a dual boot with XP & I really don't care for Vista as of yet. Living up to your nick, eh? Ok. Just for fun: Since 11/6/2006: Windows Vista advisories (secunia): http://secunia.com/product/13223/?task=advisories Total count: 10 Windows XP Professional advisories: http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=advisories Total count: 28 Now lets not even count vulnerabilities, I'm sure anyone could say "well, it only takes one big bad vulnerability"... right? When you run XP, you're running as Administrator? Tsk tsk. Unix doesn't even condone that. Neither does Vista. There's a reason why Unix is crowned the top dog in security (speaking from a user interaction point of view here). I ask people when they just simply doubt security, I say: "What will it take to give you confidence?" Most people answer in the vein of faith -- they just believe in it. That's ignorance by definition. Take the blinders off -- there's a simple reason why there are less vulnerabilities in Vista, and it's not simply because they just coded it better, it's because of things like UAC, like protected mode IE, that render completely horrible viruses impotent even if they did have access to your system and even if you didn't have anti-virus. The same isn't true of XP. Vista isn't a panacea -- it's not perfect. It's just better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
]SK[ Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 I used Vista 32Bit for a while but got fed up with the load times. The OS just seems to be doing something in the background all the time. Im now back on XP. I won't be touching Vista again until I either upgrade or SP1 is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayhem Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 i recently began to hear some little noise on the background almost all the time when i was not doing anything on vista, a noise almost that we don't notice how low it was, noticed on resource monitor that was some thing reading and writing with the background IO Priority i kill that using a tweak from xp that is to disable the performace counters, more info and download program on this page -> http://www.pcmech.com/article/operating-sy...00xp/page-6.htm try it, at least if not work on that HDD accessing all the time its a tweak to give more resources to your system, like is on that page -> "What it does is track a number of different areas regarding your system?s performance, such as CPU activity and hard drive access. It runs constantly in the background using up system resources" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cropcircles Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Lots of kinks to work out with the upcoming service packs, as expected. As with XP and tweaks that will be performed in the registry to boot up faster. Turning off unnecessary/unwarnted servcies will also inprove boot times, as was the case with XP. Still very much stock OS. Web surfing for me is much improved with Vista. As far as issues using IE I can't comment. I haven't used IE for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAC Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) i disabled superfetch and readyboost. and whats even worse is that they promised us of really fast boot up times " oh yah it will be faster xp!" WTH? where are those boottimes? vista is twice as slow than xp when it comes to boot times. there is no work around for that except putting ur pc to sleep or not shutting it down at all..which is what im doing now lmao! People's stupidity continues... :D https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=588397622 ReadyBoost service is also used for ReadyBoot and so disabling it is bad! (ReadyBOOT is different than ReadyBOOST, but they share the same service so if you disable readyboost service you'll lost readyboot feature!) ReadyBoot: Windows Vista uses the same boot-time prefetching as Windows XP did if the system has less than 512MB of memory, but if the system has 700MB or more of RAM, it uses an in-RAM cache to optimize the boot process. The size of the cache depends on the total RAM available, but is large enough to create a reasonable cache and yet allow the system the memory it needs to boot smoothly. After every boot, the ReadyBoost service (the same service that implements the ReadyBoost feature) uses idle CPU time to calculate a boot-time caching plan for the next boot. It analyzes file trace information from the five previous boots and identifies which files were accessed and where they are located on disk. It stores the processed traces in %SystemRoot%\Prefetch\Readyboot as .fx files and saves the caching plan under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Ecache\Parameters in REG_BINARY values named for internal disk volumes they refer to. The cache is implemented by the same device driver that implements ReadyBoost caching (Ecache.sys), but the cache's population is guided by the ReadyBoost service as the system boots. While the boot cache is compressed like the ReadyBoost cache, another difference between ReadyBoost and ReadyBoot cache management is that while in ReadyBoot mode, other than the ReadyBoost service's updates, the cache doesn't change to reflect data that's read or written during the boot. The ReadyBoost service deletes the cache 90 seconds after the start of the boot, or if other memory demands warrant it, and records the cache's statistics in HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Ecache\Parameters\ReadyBootStats, as shown in Figure 2. Microsoft performance tests show that ReadyBoot provides performance improvements of about 20 percent over the legacy Windows XP prefetcher. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetma...03/VistaKernel/ Edited July 8, 2007 by UAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenji Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I hate people that say "Vista sucks", "Vista is slow", "you need 500gigahutrz LOLZ" etc. Before I got this computer, I was running it fine on a P3 1GHz with 512MB ram and a nvidia FX 5200. It was even faster than XP was. sure, It would get a little sluggish at times when running things like Photoshop, What would you expect on a 7 year old machine? Vista does not require a "super computer" to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EduardValencia Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I hate people that say "Vista sucks", "Vista is slow", "you need 500gigahutrz LOLZ" etc. Before I got this computer, I was running it fine on a P3 1GHz with 512MB ram and a nvidia FX 5200. It was even faster than XP was. sure, It would get a little sluggish at times when running things like Photoshop, What would you expect on a 7 year old machine? Vista does not require a "super computer" to run. Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreiko Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I ran it on an athlon 3k+ with 1 gb and ran ok, but yes, it was a little bit sluggish when I started to do a few things, when I tested it with my opty 165 @ 2.4 and 2 gb ram, ran smoothly, very cool, still...I use xp cuz I want to, not because of a bad experience with vista, I'll wait until drivers are more mature, until then, my xp rocks ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 why can't everyone just get along and buy a mac :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenji Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 why can't everyone just get along and buy a mac :) Most people prefer a computer that works and wont blow up in your face. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 ^ i was totally sarcastic, trying to lighten it up, and for the sake of you not looking stupid i am going to presume you are too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EduardValencia Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 why can't everyone just get along and buy a mac :) Because i don't like OSX,and their hardware designs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_kane81 Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I hate people that say "Vista sucks", "Vista is slow", "you need 500gigahutrz LOLZ" etc. Before I got this computer, I was running it fine on a P3 1GHz with 512MB ram and a nvidia FX 5200. It was even faster than XP was. sure, It would get a little sluggish at times when running things like Photoshop, What would you expect on a 7 year old machine? Vista does not require a "super computer" to run. It's slow (graphics, booting, shutting down, running applications such as quicken, network and games) on my Dell 5150 a 3.2Ghz laptop 1Gig ram with 64Mb Geforce5200Go I've had lots of network issues too, the network was connected, but wouldnt actually do anything when not plugged in. Intel provided a driver which fixed the issue. However my other box, connects but wont copy files, it just hangs at 0/kb sec... driver issue - yes. Vista issues too, IMO yes! I'm going to switch from ultimate to premium, I was told this makes vista heaps faster as the business stuff can slow the system down a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreiko Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 which is the difference between premium and ultimate that would make it run faster (premium) over the other one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EduardValencia Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 which is the difference between premium and ultimate that would make it run faster (premium) over the other one? Depende de la configuracion del hardware que uses,en el caso del tipo anterior,el tiene una PC obsoleta,y con hardware de poco soporte,por eso tuvo inconvenientes al usar Windows Vista,en el mejor caso si tienes una PC nueva,mas bien con tarjetas graficas recientes ( No necesariamente que usen Directx 10) estas bien y la actualizacion no te dara problemas,premium sera mas rapido en cualquier circunstancia ya que utiliza menos herramientas que consumen muchos recursos en Ultimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argonite Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Because i don't like OSX,and their hardware designs That's strange because I don't like OSX's software designs, to each their own. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreiko Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 @EduardValencia: Gracias por la aclaraci?n! Lo corr? en mi pc en su momento (Athlon 3k+ y 1 gb ram y tironeaba el ultimate), lo probe en mi pc actual (opty 165 @ 2.4 + 2 gb + 7900GS y andaba bien pero igual por ahora me quedo con el xp jej:):)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak_power Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 (edited) The point i wanted to make is that Vista is built for system with 2 or more cpu cores, 2 or more GB of RAM, RAID 0 configurations. I said if you play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for like 2 hours with the 2GB of RAM system. When you quit the game, Windows Vista will have hard time refreshing thing...and it is because all the RAM is eaten up...and that's call chocking. I said Vista needs 4GB of RAM + dual core CPU + Raid 0 HDD configuration. Technically you can run Vista on single core chip, with 1Gb of RAM and 64MB video card...but it's basically a crap. It all depends how much you push the system, and i really push the system not for an hour but more like for 13-14 hours every day. Also, stick with x64 edition because it's better then x86 edition. It's more stable and it has less problems. Overall, I like Vista. GUI is horrible...i can live with that. I don't think SP1 will bring anything new because it will contain updates prior its release. Edited July 9, 2007 by freak_power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Schieldrop Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 The point i wanted to make is that Vista is built for system with 2 or more cpu cores, 2 or more GB of RAM, RAID 0 configurations. I said if you play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for like 2 hours with the 2GB of RAM system. When you quit the game, Windows Vista will have hard time refreshing thing...and it is because all the RAM is eaten up...and that's call chocking. Well, when someone like you who doesn't know what they're doing goes around and disables services, superfetch and other things, you're going to experience these types of issues. If you actually left these features on and left the swap file as default, you wouldn't notice any "choking". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Geek Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 (edited) It's slow (graphics, booting, shutting down, running applications such as quicken, network and games) on my Dell 5150 a 3.2Ghz laptop 1Gig ram with 64Mb Geforce5200Go I've had lots of network issues too, the network was connected, but wouldnt actually do anything when not plugged in. Intel provided a driver which fixed the issue. However my other box, connects but wont copy files, it just hangs at 0/kb sec... driver issue - yes. Vista issues too, IMO yes! I'm going to switch from ultimate to premium, I was told this makes vista heaps faster as the business stuff can slow the system down a lot. First off Dell sucks they do not use esd safe practices they add there own bios to hardware they did not make they add their own changes to the os and use cheap crappy hardware stick to ultimate your last argument is just stupid Edited July 9, 2007 by MvT Cracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inplode Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 ROFL at people saying vista is slow ! on my new system it runs lighting quick OCZ 600W Stealth Xtreme PSU Intel Dual Core E6420 2.12ghz EvGA GForce 8800 640 Asus P5K3 Deluxe WiFi Intel P35 CORSAIR 2GB 1066 DDR3 hell even on my old system vista run like a dream amd 3500 + 2 gigs ddr2 7900 512 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt-DavidW Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Depende de la configuracion del hardware que uses,en el caso del tipo anterior,el tiene una PC obsoleta,y con hardware de poco soporte,por eso tuvo inconvenientes al usar Windows Vista,en el mejor caso si tienes una PC nueva,mas bien con tarjetas graficas recientes ( No necesariamente que usen Directx 10) estas bien y la actualizacion no te dara problemas,premium sera mas rapido en cualquier circunstancia ya que utiliza menos herramientas que consumen muchos recursos en Ultimate. This is an English forum, so keep your posts in English so that others can benefit from the content of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts