• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Vista sucks for now!

Recommended Posts

RaisinCain    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85    248
(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mram    313
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]SK[    109

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mayhem    8

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cropcircles    51

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UAC    0
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

http://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 by UAC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenji    34

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EduardValencia    0
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dreiko    0

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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior    280

why can't everyone just get along and buy a mac :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenji    34
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior    280

^ 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EduardValencia    0
why can't everyone just get along and buy a mac :)

Because i don't like OSX,and their hardware designs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_kane81    9
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dreiko    0

which is the difference between premium and ultimate that would make it run faster (premium) over the other one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EduardValencia    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
argonite    198
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dreiko    0

@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:):))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freak_power    0

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 by freak_power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Schieldrop    1
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cloud Geek    1
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 by MvT Cracker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inplode    0

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt-DavidW    2
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.