Vista: good or bad?

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by mudlord

Because it is not wanted. It is that simple.
We don't want "features" forced down our throats.

That's just asinine and retarded. "Don't give us any new features! We don't want them! Screw you conformos!!!"

However, that is zero excuse for requiring up to 40GB HD space

*facepalm* vista does NOT take up 40G.

And Vista should be the same. Its senseless making a program that seems like its whole purpose is generating excessive memory leaks.

Sorry. Bo-sh**. I've seen no evidence of excessive mem leakage by Vista. Sure it uses more than XP. But we've been down that road already and I have no desire to circle the block.

Unless, you like programs eating all your RAM, leaving little for other programs.

Vista doesn't excessively leak memory. The memory it does take up, it's welcome to. 4GB is pretty standard and I've never come close to using it all.

__________________

WINTERFELL - C2D E8400 - DFI Lanparty JR P45-T2RS MATX Motherboard - Mushkin Redline PC2 8000 DDr2 - EVGA Geforce GTX 285 - Silverstone SG01 case
RIVERRUN - Pentium DC 2.5ghz - 4GB OCZ DDR2 - Cheapie ASUS Motherboard w/onboard vid - Antec Sonata III
KING'S LANDING - 80GB Playstation 3

[rama2]

Vista runs my stuff, everything. It feels fast.
It doesnt **** up when i change hardware (not even the mainboard).
RAM was never an issue here, even when i only had 2gb. HDDs are big enough as well.

And most important:
With any other OS the max dx version is 9. This means very slow and z-fighting
plagued gsdx which in turn make pcsx2 unusuable (at least for the games i play).

No amount of rambling will make things better, we need to live with microsofts
decisions, or be left out of new technology. (Hey, nice dx10 graphic card there on your XP machine )

[mudlord]

That's just asinine and retarded. "Don't give us any new features! We don't want them! Screw you conformos!!!"

Why the **** do you have to be so childish to people who have different views to yourself? Are you that egotistical that no one elses view matters?

The point remains: I don't see the point in all the new visual features Vista offers. There
should be a choice to turn them off. Mandating that they are left on is just......

*facepalm* vista does NOT take up 40G.

Note how I said "up to 40GB". I didn't say 40GB. I say you have problems reading, or you are that intent on defending Vista for what its worth.

Sorry. Bo-sh**. I've seen no evidence of excessive mem leakage by Vista. Sure it uses more than XP. But we've been down that road already and I have no desire to circle the block.

Oh really, then why is RAM requirements so excessive? Why is the server version much more efficient? And why is Linux more efficient?

And yes, we will circle the block. The software's use of RAM is excessive. I challenge you personally to write a application that uses less than 16MB RAM. If you can't, you have zero point defending what its optimized software or not.

Vista doesn't excessively leak memory. The memory it does take up, it's welcome to. 4GB is pretty standard and I've never come close to using it all.

NO IT IS NOT!!!!

You are encouraging bloat? Consider me your worst nightmare. NO ONE defends bloat in front of ME.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by mudlord

There should be a choice to turn them off.

There almost always IS.

or you are that intent on defending Vista for what its worth.

I don't like defending ANY product. But I HATE bullsh**....and this thread reeks of it.

Oh really, then why is RAM requirements so excessive?

Because it's got a boatload of features on it. Most of which, as previously mentioned, you can turn off if you so choose. For example, I have the sidebar off, indexing off, and UAC off. Vista's RAM requirements are not excessive, usually requiring between 512-1gb (1gb being excesive but not necessary unless you have just about everything on). Leopard requires about as much.

Why is the server version much more efficient?

Because they're SERVER versions. They're meant for work, not play. Server versions of ANY OS runs a bare minimum of features. Desktop OS's are meant to give users more toys.

And why is Linux more efficient?

Because it's built better. I've never contested that. Doesn't mean windows doesn't have it's place in the world.

And yes, we will circle the block. The software's use of RAM is excessive. I challenge you personally to write a application that uses less than 16MB RAM. If you can't, you have zero point defending what its optimized software or not.



NO IT IS NOT!!!!

You are encouraging bloat? Consider me your worst nightmare. NO ONE defends bloat in front of ME.

Oh lord.
*Hands you the oscar* There ya go you drama queen.

__________________

WINTERFELL - C2D E8400 - DFI Lanparty JR P45-T2RS MATX Motherboard - Mushkin Redline PC2 8000 DDr2 - EVGA Geforce GTX 285 - Silverstone SG01 case
RIVERRUN - Pentium DC 2.5ghz - 4GB OCZ DDR2 - Cheapie ASUS Motherboard w/onboard vid - Antec Sonata III
KING'S LANDING - 80GB Playstation 3

[strike105x]

Originally Posted by Spyhop

That's just asinine and retarded. "Don't give us any new features! We don't want them! Screw you conformos!!!"
*facepalm* vista does NOT take up 40G.
.

I agree with mudlord on the first remark its a forum ofcourse there will be people with difrent opinions but that doesent mean you have to insult them :| .
As for Vista does not take up to 40 Gb well it happen to me and i'm not lieing it really did .
Still vista like i always said is not a bad OS especially the 64 bit version that was a good one you just need a dual core, arround 2 gb of ram (with 1 GB actually it runs preaty good as far as memory is cunseared i didnt had any problems) and a fast hdd.
But Spyhop there are those ho like more the look of XP i for one like more the XP theme & the way it works with my specs (when i had my P3 at 1300 overcloked ofcourse i liked using windows 2000 it run like great on that computer but with this one its laim) probably i must be more retro i guess, but still i also think that Vista isnt viewd how it should be its a good OS .

__________________

|Strike's Deviantart|Anime List|Important Notice|

---

Last edited by strike105x; July 23rd, 2008 at 04:55..

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by strike105x

But Spyhop there are those ho like more the look of XP i for one like more the XP theme i must be more retro i dont know

See, that's fine. You're not making excuses about it that don't make sense like, "oh, I'm trying to squeeze 5 more mb out of my 3 GB of ram"

__________________

WINTERFELL - C2D E8400 - DFI Lanparty JR P45-T2RS MATX Motherboard - Mushkin Redline PC2 8000 DDr2 - EVGA Geforce GTX 285 - Silverstone SG01 case
RIVERRUN - Pentium DC 2.5ghz - 4GB OCZ DDR2 - Cheapie ASUS Motherboard w/onboard vid - Antec Sonata III
KING'S LANDING - 80GB Playstation 3

[mudlord]

Oh lord.
*Hands you the oscar* There ya go you drama queen.

Why thank you >.>

Much appreciated.

Bye.

[gamefreak94]

Out of those 50 plus reasons, half are solved with the updates... Out of the games that dont work now after the vista updates is mainly ones due to driver issues or the game was poorly developed like mgs2, it doesn't work 100% on any os so expecting it to work on vista is pointless, and my fav game beyond good and evil works if you disable hardware transformation and lighting but then it requires a powerful cpu still issues like this can be solved with driver updates that is if nvidia see it as a driver issue since the game still works anyways...

Well in this long speech of yours, you have only managed to clear up one mistake of the games, and even though these specific ones have been, there must be several others that aren't. And even if patches are available, why should I tire out myself by sitting for hours and hours on the Internet searching for them

The other fundamental problems with Vista remain:

1) Memory hogging:
The whole software industry bears witness to that. If a game requires 1 GB RAM for XP, it will require 2 GB for Vista. Oh yeah, and in reply to the question

Oh really, then why is RAM requirements so excessive?

you said:

Because it's got a boatload of features on it.

There see, you admit it yourself. It takes up valuable RAM for a bloat load of features which people like me don't want and why do you have such an inkling on other people's opinions. Your justification for this was:

4GB is pretty standard

No it isn't! I have 1 GB and I can run Assassin's Creed just fine with XP! Can I do so with Vista? Absolutely not!

2) Hardware incompatiblity:
Admit it, even one of Vista's big fans post said:

With my old pc, it said straight away that the video card couldn't do aero and that I should consider a RAM upgrade.

There you have it! The video card was from 2003, only 5 years ago and Vista is 3 years old now, perfect example of poor hardware compatibility.

3) Software incompatibility: Like I said before, things work just fine work XP, can't be bothered to search for patches for a bloat load of features that I don't want.

These flaws are enough for me to make me never wanna touch Vista for the time being, the load of ****ing features it offers like Aero-glass and semi-transparent windows and floating tool-bars aren't worth this much hassle. The final choice however is yours, which reminds me:

Why the **** do you have to be so childish to people who have different views to yourself? Are you that egotistical that no one elses view matters?

My point exactly! I don't think this description of your attributes leaves anything to chance, so I'll end my post here.............

[NexXxus]

i don't have any problems with Vista since i got 4GB Ram.

but GSdx's DX9 Mode is slower than on XP, i wonder why...

__________________

My System: C2D E6700 @3.4ghz | Asus P5W DH Deluxe | 4GB DDR2 800 | eVGA Geforce GTX 260 55nm SC-Edition
Tutorial: Hardware Antialiasing in PCSX2 (DX9 only)

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

Well in this long speech of yours, you have only managed to clear up one mistake of the games, and even though these specific ones have been, there must be several others that aren't. And even if patches are available, why should I tire out myself by sitting for hours and hours on the Internet searching for them

You're not making sense or being clear.

1) Memory hogging:
The whole software industry bears witness to that. If a game requires 1 GB RAM for XP, it will require 2 GB for Vista.

LOL. So false.

There see, you admit it yourself. It takes up valuable RAM for a bloat load of features which people like me don't want

I also said you can turn those features off. My car came with a few features I didn't care for. I just don't use them, I don't go on a tirade against Honda over them.

No it isn't! I have 1 GB and I can run Assassin's Creed just fine with XP! Can I do so with Vista? Absolutely not!

a. You need more ram. 1GB is pretty thin on a gaming machine
b. I wouldn't expect to run assassin's creed on vista with 1gb either. We KNOW Vista has higher ram requirements than XP....but not much. XP requires 512mb. (you can get away with 256....but 512 is pretty accepted as required). Vista requires 512-1GB. It's also newer by 5 years. People can't say they couldn't expect a 5 year newer OS to require more ram, that's silly.

There you have it! The video card was from 2003, only 5 years ago and Vista is 3 years old now, perfect example of poor hardware compatibility.

Five years is OLD for a comupter. Try even installing Leopard on a 5 year old mac. You can't do it.

Software incompatibility: Like I said before, things work just fine work XP, can't be bothered to search for patches for a bloat load of features that I don't want.

Why would you have to patch features that are already included?

__________________

WINTERFELL - C2D E8400 - DFI Lanparty JR P45-T2RS MATX Motherboard - Mushkin Redline PC2 8000 DDr2 - EVGA Geforce GTX 285 - Silverstone SG01 case
RIVERRUN - Pentium DC 2.5ghz - 4GB OCZ DDR2 - Cheapie ASUS Motherboard w/onboard vid - Antec Sonata III
KING'S LANDING - 80GB Playstation 3

[gamefreak94]

You're not making sense or being clear.

I mean that many apps out there still aren't compatible with Vista, and I can't be bothered to search for hours on the Internet to find fixes to make them work. On XP however, those apps will work just fine without any modification.

LOL. So false.

There is a limit to how far you can go on lying and still make it seem sensible, this simply exceeds that. But just to prove you wrong, lets see Assassin's Creed system requirements:
1 GB RAM for XP
2 GB for Vista
If you don't believe me, go to Can You RUN It? and see for yourself!

This is just one game that came to my mind, there are countless others and I'll name them if you are not convinced!

I also said you can turn those features off

Well then why should I spend $200 on Vista, when I don't want any of its crappy features. Why not stick to XP?

I wouldn't expect to run assassin's creed on vista with 1gb either. We KNOW Vista has higher ram requirements than XP....but not much. XP requires 512mb. (you can get away with 256....but 512 is pretty accepted as required). Vista requires 512-1GB.

That is just for normal use, when it comes for gaming, the requirement doubles as I have shown you above. And as far as getting away with 256 MB on XP is concerned, I managed to get away with 128 MB on my old P3.

Vista requires 512-1GB. It's also newer by 5 years. People can't say they couldn't expect a 5 year newer OS to require more ram, that's silly.

It would be pretty sluggish on 512 MB, even 1 GB won't be fast. And as far as being newer goes, XP even manages to run on old P2s which are around 5 years older than it is, while Vista wont even install on early P4s which are only 3 or at maximum 4 years older then it is.

Five years is OLD for a comupter.

Well the OS isn't one month old either, the difference between the two is only 2 years, see what I mean, poor hardware compatiblity.

Try even installing Leopard on a 5 year old mac. You can't do it.

Umm.. this thread doesn't discuss Mac OS, we'll restrict ourselves to MS based operating systems for the time being and in specific the debate between XP and Vista.

Why would you have to patch features that are already included?

By patch I meant a tweak or customization to force that app to work on Vista (mentioned above as well).

[Shin_Gouki]

So i start my post ( which will be very informative?!)
After XP getting for me too "old" , i personally switched to a macbook and i'm happy with that.
For the old box of my GF ( Celeron 2,6 Ghz, 256 MB RAM!, using intel onboard gfx... 32 mb of the 256...)
i used xubuntu and it works , OK!

So i dont miss Vista!
My Blizzard Games run under OSX, The rest Games i "Could" miss i use a console.

So for me Vista is pretty much useless.

__________________
yes i have a mac, so what?

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

I mean that many apps out there still aren't compatible with Vista, and I can't be bothered to search for hours on the Internet to find fixes to make them work. On XP however, those apps will work just fine without any modification.

This is the same kind of crap that passes from person to person until the truth gets so horribly distorted and exaggerated that it's pretty much completely false. I have yet to find a program that I can't run on Vista, or that there's not a Vista version for. I acknowledge that there's probably a few...but not enough to actually make a stink over. It's rare enough at this point not to mention.

There is a limit to how far you can go on lying and still make it seem sensible, this simply exceeds that. But just to prove you wrong, lets see Assassin's Creed system requirements:
1 GB RAM for XP
2 GB for Vista
If you don't believe me, go to Can You RUN It? and see for yourself!

Yeah, the game itself is not requiring an extra gig just because it's running on Vista. That's what you said before. The game takes the same amount of memory, Vista's overhead is larger than XP's. We've been down this road.

Well then why should I spend $200 on Vista, when I don't want any of its crappy features. Why not stick to XP?

What do I care what OS you run? My only vested interested in this thread is to stop the BS. Make your own damn decision. I should point out, though, that YOU MADE THIS THREAD ASKING ABOUT VISTA. So was your intent to ask about Vista and then fight with the people who advocate it? Troooolllllll.

Vista wont even install on early P4s which are only 3 or at maximum 4 years older then it is.

LOL yes it will.

Umm.. this thread doesn't discuss Mac OS, we'll restrict ourselves to MS based operating systems for the time being and in specific the debate between XP and Vista.

Becuase the MacOS comparison hurts your argument you don't want to talk about it. lol. I pointed it out because it's another popular OS that people seem to think was sent by god (or mr. steve jobs) and it shares many things in common with vista. Yet people ***** about vista and praise leopard. It's hypocritical.

By patch I meant a tweak or customization to force that app to work on Vista (mentioned above as well).

You said "to get features to work". Features are included already on Vista....why would you need to patch them to get them to work? If you're referring to 3rd party apps I already talked about that on the top of this post.

__________________

WINTERFELL - C2D E8400 - DFI Lanparty JR P45-T2RS MATX Motherboard - Mushkin Redline PC2 8000 DDr2 - EVGA Geforce GTX 285 - Silverstone SG01 case
RIVERRUN - Pentium DC 2.5ghz - 4GB OCZ DDR2 - Cheapie ASUS Motherboard w/onboard vid - Antec Sonata III
KING'S LANDING - 80GB Playstation 3

[gamefreak94]

I acknowledge that there's probably a few...but not enough to actually make a stink over. It's rare enough at this point not to mention.

Well why should I suffer even that much of a disadvantage when I consider all the rest of Vista's features to be crap

Vista's overhead is larger than XP's. We've been down this road.

In other words, it is a memory hog! Either way, I think Ubisoft has done a little bit more testing then you have with regards to how Vista and XP run Assassin's Creed. They obviously know that to get the same gaming experience on XP (with 1 GB RAM), you'd need 2 GB RAM on Vista.

What do I care what OS you run?

Why the hell would I ask you to care! I'm just saying that if you're gonna buy Vista and strip it of its features (which some consider unnecessary), then you shouldn't be purchasing in the first place!

What do I care what OS you run?

No it wont! The installation process ****s off when you give it a video card 2 years older then it is! How on earth will it be able to support a processor 4 years older!

Yet people ***** about vista and praise leopard. It's hypocritical.

No it isn't hypocritical! Those people hate Vista because it IS a load of bs! Isn't it obvious that they see something wrong in Vista which you in your wisdom obviously don't

You said "to get features to work". Features are included already on Vista....

I messed up in my wording, what I meant to say is stated on the first lines of this post.

[Samor]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

Well Samor, I thought we put this arguement to rest, you like Vista, so you walk home with that, I like XP so I walk home with that, but since you are so desperate on dragging this arguement forwards, let me tell you that I wont be the one to back down.

huh? oh well, suit yourself

I the hell care whether you believe or not! Its my opinion!

welcome to internet discussion forums.

I think someone with an actual brain would! But I'll repeat it in simpler words for sake of arguement, comparing Windows 98 with XP isn't the same as comparing XP to Vista (XP has a much higher edge in the first case than Vista does in the second case)

no no, we were talking about the performance difference here. equally, 98 and 95 were both 9x based, but 98 used up quite a lot more resources. But, you could compare win2000 to winxp if you'd like....

I remember SOMEONE saying not too long ago that they had a 2.8 GHz P4 and Vista wouldn't install because the graphics card was not supported. And that is a pretty high-end P4, the starting models only had a 1.3-1.6 GHz processor

someone, somewhere..... somehow...

Oh yeah and the actual date is July 1999, not exactly a 21st century PC is it?

nope, but almost. the pc's you think are supposed to run Vista are equally old compared to the OS' release.

Like I said, my opinion, and there are probably more, I don't think you've carried out a research which confirms that only one game doesn't work

From own testing, most work. I'm talking to someone who probably hasn't had much experience with Vista at all, so you're the one to talk. And, where's that list with non-working games anyway?

It doesn't suck based on just that, the other 50 reasons mentioned over the past 4 pages also come into account I think!!

many were unfounded, or outdated. I already said that, btw.

286 date of release: February 1982
Windows XP date of release: October 2001

Pentium 4 date of release: November 2000
Windows Vista date of release: July 2005

How fair is your comparison, 26 year old processor won't run XP, blame goes on XP. 8 year old PC won't run a 3 year old Vista, Vista emerges completely faultless. I think you should revise your grade 3 Maths book, getting a bit rusty with the substractions.

earth to gamefreak, I was exaggerating with a reason there

__________________



YouTube Channel
Current consoles: Xbox360, Playstation2, Dreamcast
Geometry Wars: 447850

[lagunareturns]

One thing i dont get is that i have finished assasins creed on vista with 1gb of ram, it ran abit slow but thats because my cpu and video card was below minimum requirements.

As for vista requiring more ram than xp for gaming is because the games were poorly made to begin with and vista shows more flaws, newer games like devil may cry 4 has lower requirements in vista than xp, yes on the same system, running the same apps in background as well, but different os, i had to put more memory, 512mb to be exact, just to get winxp to be up to the same speed.

Also i got games to run on vista faster even though the system was below min requirements whereas win xp only had the advantage extra ram, so i get quicker loading but lower frame rates

[Samor]

Originally Posted by mudlord

No you don't!

assuming this was directed at my comment about the aero visuals..
for me, it's like this; on my pc, wether I have them turned on or off, I don't notice performance-wise, only that it looks nicer, so why would I settle for less pretty if it doesn't matter anyway?

if however, it affected performance I'd turn it off. I had XP's new interface initially turned off too, until I got a pc on which it ran smooth.

If you write software on XP, it should also work fine on Vista, so there's no problem there. I agree that there's not that much reason to make Vista-only software.

__________________



YouTube Channel
Current consoles: Xbox360, Playstation2, Dreamcast
Geometry Wars: 447850

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

Well why should I suffer even that much of a disadvantage when I consider all the rest of Vista's features to be crap



In other words, it is a memory hog! Either way, I think Ubisoft has done a little bit more testing then you have with regards to how Vista and XP run Assassin's Creed. They obviously know that to get the same gaming experience on XP (with 1 GB RAM), you'd need 2 GB RAM on Vista.



Why the hell would I ask you to care! I'm just saying that if you're gonna buy Vista and strip it of its features (which some consider unnecessary), then you shouldn't be purchasing in the first place!



No it wont! The installation process ****s off when you give it a video card 2 years older then it is! How on earth will it be able to support a processor 4 years older!



No it isn't hypocritical! Those people hate Vista because it IS a load of bs! Isn't it obvious that they see something wrong in Vista which you in your wisdom obviously don't



I messed up in my wording, what I meant to say is stated on the first lines of this post.

I'm kinda done arguing with you. You're not making much sense. Your picking on stupid things to fight about and missing the valid points. And this is YOUR thread where you asked about Vista and now you're fighting over the answers you're getting.

__________________

WINTERFELL - C2D E8400 - DFI Lanparty JR P45-T2RS MATX Motherboard - Mushkin Redline PC2 8000 DDr2 - EVGA Geforce GTX 285 - Silverstone SG01 case
RIVERRUN - Pentium DC 2.5ghz - 4GB OCZ DDR2 - Cheapie ASUS Motherboard w/onboard vid - Antec Sonata III
KING'S LANDING - 80GB Playstation 3

[gamefreak94]

someone, somewhere..... somehow...

Amnesia specialist required!

nope, but almost. the pc's you think are supposed to run Vista are equally old compared to the OS' release.

Like I said, amnesia specialist required. I've repeated this a thousand times:

Vista released: 2005
Pentium 4 release: 2000
Your graphics card: 2003
Difference: 5 years and 2 years respectively (and the OS cant install)

XP released: 2001
Pentium 2 released: 1997
Difference: 4.5 years (OS works)

And, where's that list with non-working games anyway?

It's on something called the Internet you troll, go and find it yourself.

many were unfounded, or outdated. I already said that, btw.

Well excuse me, I think the main problems: hardware incompatibility, software incompatibility and excessive memory usage are still under debate.

earth to gamefreak, I was exaggerating with a reason there

I can obviously see that, but just so you wouldn't pop up with the question saying "Oh look, you cant answer my questions", I killed it there and then. Besides, you didn't have any proper justification for that matter so you just resorted to writing down a load of bs!

[tiki]

Are we saying that Vista isn't as good as XP SP3 still?

Vista SP1 is just as good or even a little bit better than SP3 is.

__________________
Sold my desktop, still have my macbook though!