Vista not as bad as people say

[beyond_amusia]

I was gonna jump on the Vista boat, but I decided to board the Server 2008 yatch instead... Once I spent a few hours converting it into a workstation OS I was impressed, but the Areo theme just looks so unfinished... The dialog buttons, the little animations.. they look... cheap somehow... I remember the first time I saw a screen shot of Vista I actualy cringed because the GUI looked like it was done 'quick and dirty.' I am sure I will get used to it eventually. I'm already missing my XP x64...

 

[Triprift]

What exactly was this thread about again?

 

[Wile E]

What exactly was this thread about again?

Ex_Reven's new manager/boyfriend.

 

[ex_reven]

Ex_Reven's new manager/boyfriend.

Fuck you It was about PIRATES lol
and sigh i dont know how you came to the conclusion that shes a man.

 

[Wile E]

Fuck you It was about PIRATES lol
and sigh i dont know how you came to the conclusion that shes a man.

Educated guess?

 

[ex_reven]

Educated guess?

Because my ex-gf posted pics of herself almost naked on 4chan ?

 

[Wile E]

Because my ex-gf posted pics of herself almost naked on 4chan ?

That doesn't mean you don't swing both ways.

 

[ex_reven]

That doesn't mean you don't swing both ways.

Not until Angelina Jolie gets a sex change anyway

 

[Palit_Guy]

I don't get the whole Vista thing. To me it's like upgrading any other component, what does Vista do for me that XP can't?

I get DX10 and I'm sure we'll see a real DX10 title that actually does something DX10ish in my lifetime, but what else does it do?

It adds some security options that most people turn off right away. It needs more RAM than a 32-bit OS can support and it removed the word start from the start menu. I wonder if they still officially call it the start menu or is it now the menu formerly known as start?

It has drivers for more stuff right out of the box, I like that. At least I can usually access the internet to get the latest drivers without having to install old ones first.

I can flip through windows like a roladex by clicking on a button on the task bar. Not sure why I didn't just click on the app I wanted to look at instead clicking that button, scrolling and clicking again but ok.

One of my favorites is the security manager. I disable it so instead of being warned I'm missing something it thinks I should have, I'm now warned the warning mechanism is off. WTF?

I can understand the argument that a new OS requires more resources if it does more. So the real question to me is what more does Vista do that XP? I have two systems, one I use for work and one for gaming.

 

[LiveOrDie]

vista is not that bad there are a few things that piss me off in it, but like every windows os they all have bugs and there own problems, and vista seems to like my system better than xp because xp runs fast but can't handle mutitasking that well.

 

[Triprift]

I suppose its a personal preference i dont mind Vista and put up with the odd little gripe but alot of ppl dont its whatever were happy with.

 

[craigo]

it removed the word start from the start menu. I wonder if they still officially call it the start menu or is it now the menu formerly known as start?

hahahahahaha
thats gold!

 

[Triprift]

Is that with sp1? still waiting for mine with auto update.

 

[Palit_Guy]

vista is not that bad there are a few things that piss me off in it, but like every windows os they all have bugs and there own problems, and vista seems to like my system better than xp because xp runs fast but can't handle mutitasking that well.

I'm not saying Vista is bad (at least not in this thread- I usually call it WinME II) but I'm curious to see what people find good about it and/or what it does better than XP.

I also multitask. I run six monitors and frequently have something on all of them. I've found that as soon as I get three apps going everything starts to slow down on Vista, RAM usage approaches 2GB and the OS starts to hang for 5-10 seconds almost every time I do something like save or Outlook does a send/receive.

It's so bad that I have moved my speakers over to the gaming machine because Vista makes Winamp skip. I would also add this is a fresh install with all patches and absolutely nothing but work software installed. I use Office, Mind Manager, PS, Acrobat, Skype, MSN IM, Norton Internet Security, Firefox, Winamp and Winrar. That is everything installed on this machine except for drivers.

I have SP1 for office but not Vista.

 

[Triprift]

The only really noticable thing with me was itunes not werking i had to get a drivers wich got it werking other than that havnt had ne problems.

 

[Palit_Guy]

The only really noticable thing with me was itunes not werking i had to get a drivers wich got it werking other than that havnt had ne problems.

This is a great example. Of all the things you can say about it, you choose to say it works. Please don't misunderstand me, I think that's fine. But, IMO, if I'm going to change operating systems I should be improving my computing position.

Windows98 worked but it was always a driver conflict nightmare and it was terribly prone to intrusion. XP improved upon that and added some performance enhancements once you met a certain level of hardware. It added all kinds of functionality that allows for better control of the OS from a central server for things like updates and patches.

I have yet to see anything major that Vista brings to the table that is new.

 

[Edito]

I don't get the whole Vista thing. To me it's like upgrading any other component, what does Vista do for me that XP can't?

I get DX10 and I'm sure we'll see a real DX10 title that actually does something DX10ish in my lifetime, but what else does it do?

It adds some security options that most people turn off right away. It needs more RAM than a 32-bit OS can support and it removed the word start from the start menu. I wonder if they still officially call it the start menu or is it now the menu formerly known as start?

It has drivers for more stuff right out of the box, I like that. At least I can usually access the internet to get the latest drivers without having to install old ones first.

I can flip through windows like a roladex by clicking on a button on the task bar. Not sure why I didn't just click on the app I wanted to look at instead clicking that button, scrolling and clicking again but ok.

One of my favorites is the security manager. I disable it so instead of being warned I'm missing something it thinks I should have, I'm now warned the warning mechanism is off. WTF?

I can understand the argument that a new OS requires more resources if it does more. So the real question to me is what more does Vista do that XP? I have two systems, one I use for work and one for gaming.

Despite ever thing i prefere Vista cause its naturally more beautiful than XP in my opinion XP was beautiful once but Vista its something else...

Don't get me wrong, xp can't do AERO like vista and i don't want to crack the XP just to run DX10 the default of Windows Vista im using it since the official release date... and im loving it...

 

[Palit_Guy]

Despite ever thing i prefere Vista cause its naturally more beautiful than XP in my opinion XP was beautiful once but Vista its something else...

Don't get me wrong, xp can't do AERO like vista and i don't want to crack the XP just to run DX10 the default of Windows Vista im using it since the official release date... and im loving it...

I agree, Vista is better looking than XP. As for Aero, that functionality has been around for quite some time for XP so don't think M$ had some cool idea of their own.

http://www.actualtools.com/transparentwindow/
http://www.spheresite.com/

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

I dont understand why people call it another Windows ME because its just not. Usually the people that call it that either go by heresy or used it for like 2 minutes and said "fuck this, this is a retarded OS."

Theres no way in hell you can compare Vista to Windows ME. Windows ME crashed a lot and was so unstable it wasnt even funny. I dont see Vista doing any of the shit ME did.

 

[Mussels]

vista loads all my apps faster (superfetch), never crashes unless i made it, supports all 4GB of my ram (seriously, XP64 is so hard to find/buy, and get drivers for older hardware. vista has better support)

vista also works wonderfully on my hardware - the new sleep mode means it takes longer for my monitor to turn on than it does the OS to load, searching is a lot faster even without the indexer... oh and it allows DX10 (assasins creed is shweet in DX10), quadfire and quad SLI

 

[Wile E]

I'm not saying Vista is bad (at least not in this thread- I usually call it WinME II) but I'm curious to see what people find good about it and/or what it does better than XP.

I also multitask. I run six monitors and frequently have something on all of them. I've found that as soon as I get three apps going everything starts to slow down on Vista, RAM usage approaches 2GB and the OS starts to hang for 5-10 seconds almost every time I do something like save or Outlook does a send/receive.

It's so bad that I have moved my speakers over to the gaming machine because Vista makes Winamp skip. I would also add this is a fresh install with all patches and absolutely nothing but work software installed. I use Office, Mind Manager, PS, Acrobat, Skype, MSN IM, Norton Internet Security, Firefox, Winamp and Winrar. That is everything installed on this machine except for drivers.

I have SP1 for office but not Vista.

I don't have any of those issues at all. Vista multi-tasks just as well for me. It even games just as well. I use the same settings in Vista that I do in both XP and XP x64. But Vista has the added benefit of being more responsive in day-to-day use, it's more secure (even with UAC disabled), and it has the benefit of DX10. All-in-all, Vista has treated me well, especially after SP1's release.

And you forget, XP had just as many problems on it's release. It was buggier, slower, and less stable than 2000Pro for a long time. It wasn't until SP1 that things started turning around, but it took SP2 to get it to the standards we hold it to today. I see no reason why Vista won't do the same.

 

[LiveOrDie]

I'm not saying Vista is bad (at least not in this thread- I usually call it WinME II) but I'm curious to see what people find good about it and/or what it does better than XP.

I also multitask. I run six monitors and frequently have something on all of them. I've found that as soon as I get three apps going everything starts to slow down on Vista, RAM usage approaches 2GB and the OS starts to hang for 5-10 seconds almost every time I do something like save or Outlook does a send/receive.

It's so bad that I have moved my speakers over to the gaming machine because Vista makes Winamp skip. I would also add this is a fresh install with all patches and absolutely nothing but work software installed. I use Office, Mind Manager, PS, Acrobat, Skype, MSN IM, Norton Internet Security, Firefox, Winamp and Winrar. That is everything installed on this machine except for drivers.

I have SP1 for office but not Vista.

i don't have any problems but vista x64 can handle alot of beating over x86 vista, i whent to using x64 for 2 months, than ova i weekend whent to x86 and it couldnt handle my mutitasking whent back to x64 drop my cpu usage a heap and memory usage down from 30-45% to 28-32%

 

[Palit_Guy]

I think I'm going to have to go with the 64-bit version. This is driving me crazy. Third day of install and it crashes about once per hour. Sometimes it just reboots. Apps hang blah blah blah.

I still have the same things to say about XP that I did in the start. Wile E, I agree with you and I would go so far as to say it's still dorked up.

I have machines that sit at idle on the work bench and don't do anything for a month at a time. When it's time for them to do something I have to reboot or they won't work right. Sometimes they crash just sitting there. I think that's a riot. Do absolutely nothing for a couple weeks and *poof* crash.

Someday we will hold software people to the same standards us hardware folks get held to. If it's broke, you have to replace it with something that works.

 

[Wile E]

Someday we will hold software people to the same standards us hardware folks get held to. If it's broke, you have to replace it with something that works.

I long for those days as well. lol.

 

[BumbRush]

I think I'm going to have to go with the 64-bit version. This is driving me crazy. Third day of install and it crashes about once per hour. Sometimes it just reboots. Apps hang blah blah blah.

I still have the same things to say about XP that I did in the start. Wile E, I agree with you and I would go so far as to say it's still dorked up.

I have machines that sit at idle on the work bench and don't do anything for a month at a time. When it's time for them to do something I have to reboot or they won't work right. Sometimes they crash just sitting there. I think that's a riot. Do absolutely nothing for a couple weeks and *poof* crash.

Someday we will hold software people to the same standards us hardware folks get held to. If it's broke, you have to replace it with something that works.

*Points at server 2003/x64pro and chuckles because it never does that shit*

but really, 2003 and x64pro NEVER force me to restart because stuffs just not working, unless I CAUSED IT(happanes ever so offten when beta testing software and intentionaly trying to cause it to bugger up)

i got a system in the other room running server 2003 sp1 thats never been reinstalled, its reastarted only when the power goes out(rare) and the fam uses it for email and such, i wouldnt use xp32 if somebody payed me to be honest, i get sick of fixing my mothers laptop because it just desides to act up........wish it was 64bit, it would get x64pro in an instant!!!!