Hell_Of_Doom Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) Only someone who had never used ME (or has forgotten how bad it was...but i find that unlikely) could post such a topic.ME was hate in your face, Vista is but a restless child in comparison. I also remember the first incarnation of XP...boy, did that suck (albeit much less than ME). But look at it now, it's not only reliable, but a pleasure to work with. I don't really recall that. XP was great at lunch...worked as great as Windows 2000. Windows 3.11, 95, ME were garbage. Bill Gates is not inovator like Steve Job, but he is a good businessman. Microsoft can afford to sell rubish products to customers cause they have fortune. Technically we do beta testing for them...and then they fix the things with service packs. Microsoft copies or buys other products, they repack it and then sell it even though if sometimes it's a garbage. I think Microsoft is a perfect example of good marketing and how to lead the business. I also wonder what is all about DirectX 10.0 and why it's not possible to make it for Windows XP. I explored this issue and i think there is one or two dll files in whole DX 10.0 package which are part of windows actually and have same name in both Vista and XP with the difference that Vista's version is bigger. Every other DX10 specific dll and other filer you can simply copy and paste into windows/system32 folder. I tried to run DX 10 Demo under XP and every time i would start it would ask for certain DLL. Then i would copy that DLL and go on, and the finally failed on DLL which is part of Windows XP and which can't be replaced cause whole OS would crash. And i think it's only one or possibly two dll's. Now as a programmer, i wish i can get the whole code for dx10 and play with it. I bet i could make it work under XP, cause on daily basis i'm dealing with 300,000+ lines of code in different languages...VB.Net, C++, C#, Java for Web and Desktop applications. I think DX10 Api is not that tied to OS. It's almost independent, but of course there are certain parts where touches OS itself. Actually I might crack DLL and see what's up there :) Edited January 24, 2008 by Hell_Of_Doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Som Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I don't really recall that. XP was great at lunch... lunch?, ya but it needs a bit of ketchup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bl4ck5un Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 ^ There's always one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) File transfer is still way slower compared to XP. I can say that cause i just went back to xp64 and i can compare the file transfer in the same network environment + transfer between USB and HDD.Overall Vista performs good, but in games is behind XP. Examples: Crysis, UT3, Bioshock etc... I agree that it's largely fixed as far as drivers, but they are not that good. SLI sucks in Vista. Is it because Nvidia is unable to write it correctly or Vista is a terrible OS for multi GPU platform? After over a year i'm sure Nvidia would do it right, but still didn't or couldn't. Same for crossfire. You forgot to mention sound support in Vista. It's so sad that Microsoft went the way they did cause sound in Vista sucks. Finally i can hear right under XP. Overall Vista is solid OS with Windows ME life span cause of some major mistakes they did in there. I have to mention Superfetch. I used it for 8 months never disabled it along with UAC. I have to say that compared to XP right now doesn't give you a single benefit. XP is still more responsive and lunches application quicker then Vista on the same system with the same software and games installed. Overall DISK I/O speed is way faster in XP, cause i know it when i start installation of the app or game XP finishes it way faster then Vista. I asked myself what is a big deal with Superfetch? Real 11 Audio lunches instantly under XP and in Vista i can count the seconds before it displays...and things like that. There is one thing where Vista really does better then XP. In cases where your app or window hangs for some reason, Vista finds a way around it but XP frozes totally. I'm also not sure what is the purpose of Readyboost, haven't seen any benefits from it. Vista launches all of my applications noticeably faster than XP with superfetch, especially programs like firefox, PS CS3 actually opens a lot fast as well, WMP opens as fast as opening an explorer window, I find XP a lot slower when opening programs, especially at cold boot. Vista actually boots faster than XP did for me too, boot takes like 30 seconds, login is pretty much instant, and the desktop is instantly usable. Edited January 24, 2008 by ViperAFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+dave164 Subscriber¹ Posted January 24, 2008 Subscriber¹ Share Posted January 24, 2008 To the quote below: There has been multiple reviews with Vista SP1 that has proved that the file transfer over network and peripherals is so much faster then XP as well as decompressing, encoding, decoding, etc... Benchmarks to show as well that program load time with superfetch switched on is so much faster as well, and i know this as well from personal experience, even before using SP1. http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298 Vista is a kick as OS, i have it installed on all computers in my house and i have no problem with it at all. Just bring on some decent drivers so FPS can just be increased that ~5fps compared to XP. I'd rather sacrifice 5 fps and have a faster OS and DX10 then have an unnoticeable faster game and slower everything else. If i remember XP 'vanilla' was pretty crap to, if you haven't realised were comparing a Vista 'vanilla' to an SP2 product, almost SP3? That manufacturers have been able to optimise for. What do you exactly expect. When i receive my repaired motherboard i'm going to dual boot Vista & XP just to benchmark and settle it in my mind for the minute. I swear 50% of the benchmarks out there are fudged. File transfer is still way slower compared to XP. I can say that cause i just went back to xp64 and i can compare the file transfer in the same network environment + transfer between USB and HDD.Overall Vista performs good, but in games is behind XP. Examples: Crysis, UT3, Bioshock etc... I agree that it's largely fixed as far as drivers, but they are not that good. SLI sucks in Vista. Is it because Nvidia is unable to write it correctly or Vista is a terrible OS for multi GPU platform? After over a year i'm sure Nvidia would do it right, but still didn't or couldn't. Same for crossfire. You forgot to mention sound support in Vista. It's so sad that Microsoft went the way they did cause sound in Vista sucks. Finally i can hear right under XP. Overall Vista is solid OS with Windows ME life span cause of some major mistakes they did in there. I have to mention Superfetch. I used it for 8 months never disabled it along with UAC. I have to say that compared to XP right now doesn't give you a single benefit. XP is still more responsive and lunches application quicker then Vista on the same system with the same software and games installed. Overall DISK I/O speed is way faster in XP, cause i know it when i start installation of the app or game XP finishes it way faster then Vista. I asked myself what is a big deal with Superfetch? Real 11 Audio lunches instantly under XP and in Vista i can count the seconds before it displays...and things like that. There is one thing where Vista really does better then XP. In cases where your app or window hangs for some reason, Vista finds a way around it but XP frozes totally. I'm also not sure what is the purpose of Readyboost, haven't seen any benefits from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 In some actually recent benchmarks (I will try and find them again) Vista has like a max 5fps decrease from XP in most games and is better in some. All of the old benchmarks that show a big difference are outdated. Vista is not that bad for gaming. I have had absolutely no file transfer problems, I can transfer my 19 gigs of music to my 160 gb drive at 60+mb/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravensky Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I have bsically the same system as you and I have no problems at all. You either have a hardware issue or your drivers are old. Also with your system use 64bit Vista it works much better for me also. I have 32bit installed and hated it. 64bit is smooth and trouble free. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 File transfer is still way slower compared to XP. I can say that cause i just went back to xp64 and i can compare the file transfer in the same network environment + transfer between USB and HDD. Odd, considering after Microsoft released the patch meant to fix this, I found ALL my file transfer speeds, whether it be over a network, USB to HDD, or HDD to HDD to be equivalent to that of XP. Overall Vista performs good, but in games is behind XP. Examples: Crysis, UT3, Bioshock etc... It largely depends on the game. Then again you're saying you're using XP x64. Are you comparing XP x64 to Vista x64 or Vista x86? I don't play the REALLY intense games like those listed as I only have a Radeon X1300, but every game I've played in Vista, ranging from Diablo II LOD to GTA: SA has had equivalent performance to XP, and in some cases better performance than XP. I agree that it's largely fixed as far as drivers, but they are not that good. SLI sucks in Vista. Is it because Nvidia is unable to write it correctly or Vista is a terrible OS for multi GPU platform? After over a year i'm sure Nvidia would do it right, but still didn't or couldn't. Same for crossfire.You forgot to mention sound support in Vista. It's so sad that Microsoft went the way they did cause sound in Vista sucks. Finally i can hear right under XP. nVidia notoriously dropped the ball with Vista. It has nothing to do with the operating system, it's more to do with nVidia being lazy/inept/whatever. Sound support in Vista has been no different for me under Vista or XP. Your experiences seem to differ from that of the general community in this particular category. Overall Vista is solid OS Yes. with Windows ME life span No. I have to mention Superfetch. I used it for 8 months never disabled it along with UAC. I have to say that compared to XP right now doesn't give you a single benefit. XP is still more responsive and lunches application quicker then Vista on the same system with the same software and games installed. Overall DISK I/O speed is way faster in XP, cause i know it when i start installation of the app or game XP finishes it way faster then Vista. I asked myself what is a big deal with Superfetch? Free RAM is wasted RAM. In the simplest sense, that's the idea behind Superfetch. As for apps launching faster in XP, I'll agree to an extent, but the difference is very minute, even at the start. Once Superfetch has cached all your apps, launch times are usually quicker under Vista. The extra 1/3 of a second or whatever it it that it takes for Vista to launch an app in the beginning isn't enough for me to switch back to Windows eXPired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
five-of-eight Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I got vista on my laptop and desktop. On my Desktop with 2GB of RAM, GeForce 7800 GT OC and an AMd Athlon 64 X2 3800+, it's smooth as butter. The main problem has been the NVIDIA drivers, but that's not Microsoft's fault. I have an experience score of 5 for the CPU which is the lowest. On my laptop, it's pretty slow, but my laptop IS a Dell Inspiron 4000 with a 700MHz P3 and 256MB of RAM. But it doesn't have BSOD issues or anything like that. The only problem is that the audio drivers uninstall themself right after I reboot. So, XP is better, but that's only because it's 7 year old tech. So, Vista is not MEII. BTW, I did use Win ME for a little and didn't find it too bad, aside from being a 9X OS, which is inferior to the NT kernel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Caro Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 ME was introduced when there was already a better thing out (NT 5.0), so one of the main reasons it totally tanked it's because of comparisons with both 2000 and 98SE. Basically it sucked on both ends (worse than 2000, the next thing, and worse than 98SE, the previous thing). Vista doesn't have anything better to look up to, and certainly doesnt do things worse than the previous version of windows does them. So it's not ME. However, it isnt a major improvement over XP either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solardog Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 If you do gaming it's terrible compared to XP, for everything else i agree...it's a great OS. Im sorry, but you're wrong. This current gen system I just finished blows the crap out of anything Ive ever experienced and Im using Vista. Vista is meant to be run on current to next gen hardware. I am running games like Oblivion with everything cranked to the max and its like butter...on Vista. I would have agreed with you as recently as last week, but now I realize I was ignorant and ill-informed (those two usually go together). For me, gaming was the only thread holding me to XP..that thread was annihilated last week. I'm a 1 OS man now...XP is dead to me. Long live Vista! Well at least live a few years, because now I'm broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reactionary007 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 feed vista some RAM and it is far superior to XP. ms should release the guideline of < 2 GB = XP and > 2 GB = Vista. then everyone would be happy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Don't know maybe everyone is to young to really remember but when XP first came out people complained about it, just like they do with Vista now. I happen to like Vista, but it's my personal computer, hence I have my own personal choice of which operating system to run on it. So in the end if I didn't like it I would just install whatever I did like and move on with my life. Wouldn't bother to post on forums bitching about the operating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Som Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Don't know maybe everyone is to young to really remember but when XP first came out people complained about it, just like they do with Vista now. heh, not only do i remember DOS, but i remember many versions of it I've used vista for almost a year now and it runs perfectly, I won't be going back to XP. I bought a PC in 2000 with ME and I got rid of it after a couple of months there is no comparison between the two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simsie Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I got the Vista Beta2/RC1 of Vista to work for me. (I haven't tried final but I imagine it is better). Then again I got Windows ME to run perfectly as well...so... I guess it just depends on how the PC is set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts