Vista: good or bad?

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by 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.

Depends what's important to you. XP SP3 is usually a bit faster. Vista's got more features. I find I use a bunch of the features on Vista, so I was ok with sacrificing the small performance dip.

[Samor]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

Amnesia specialist required!

nope, but I must've missed out on the post. It wasn't me, anyway.

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

about Vista.... On January 30, 2007, it was released worldwide.... what 2005?
it was ANNOUNCED in 2005. My graphics card was BOUGHT in 2003 (the release date of the geforce 4 was in 2002), but admittedly, I think aero could/should have worked on dx8. That's just aero, though, not Vista. So, Vista's release was 5 years after my gfx card, and it still worked, just not with aero. Vista runs on a pentium 4, of course. Why do you act like it wouldn't?

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

you must have a different internet....

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

first is a thing of the past, second too, third, well, if you have 2gb or more there's nothing to worry about.

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!

what? I test and run games myself and that's BS? Surely it's better BS than not running Vista and making bogus claims....
I'm someone who runs games on Vista, so I can report others what works and what does not and you call that BS... well, that's just great. I try to help making things more clear and I get insults like that....

Look, I'm not just posting all this for the sake of arguing, but many of your comments are based on people's collective anti-vista behaviour or outdated information. I feel I should clear that up...

[P_RePTiLe]

The problem is that microsofts idea is to load zillions of features into the memory/system, just "in case" you need to use them.
Instead of just letting you choose what you actually need - or, load them _when_ needed.

It's true that you have some sort of control over the services, you can disable them, auto them or set them to manual - but that is just a scratch on the surface on everything that is the windows mess (times ten on vista).

They give you a bloody large robot with a lot of parts, and leaves it to you to pick away all the things you don't need (which most often is a lot).

It is this way with xp too, to some extent - but with vista they have taken it too far.
And no matter what you say, there is no significant improvement to be done to the important basics, browsing your files and loading your games and programs. period.
It already works perfectly with xp - especially when you have twisted and bent it for years to achieve perfection.

I, my self, am running a very lovely n-lited version i have "built" myself.
And it uses around 30-80 MB ram when idle (windows is never 100% coherent).
I have run it for a year soon, and it is still as quick to boot and shutdown as it were in the first place. I don't want to break that - ever.

Unfortunately MS will force me in the end, and then i will have to spend more time optimizing the new system - with the glorious benefit of having even more crap to remove, by wrestling windows for the control of my own computer. Weeeei.

[Spyhop]

Samor, don't try man. Not worth it.

[tiki]

Keep in mind that XP was NOTHING until SP2 was released. XP was very buggy when it was first released, and now here we are Vista SP1 rivaling SP3 performance.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by P_RePTiLe

The problem is that microsofts idea is to load zillions of features into the memory/system, just "in case" you need to use them.
Instead of just letting you choose what you actually need - or, load them _when_ needed.

It's true that you have some sort of control over the services, you can disable them, auto them or set them to manual - but that is just a scratch on the surface on everything.

They give you a bloody large robot with a lot of parts, and leaves it to you to pick away all the things you don't need (which most often is a lot).

This is true, but they DO give you the options to turn these features off. We're really just arguing about what MS uses as default settings for the OS.

Consider the average computer user can barely remember to breathe. The features present on Vista they would NEVER find themselves if they weren't already enabled and most of those features benefit the non-comptuer-savvy.

Enthusiast users like us are more able to determine whether or not we need a feature and we know where to turn them off. This is why they're on by default. Not really a big deal.

[Samor]

Originally Posted by Spyhop

Samor, don't try man. Not worth it.

hm... well, it was probably the same with people not believing that almost all win9x directX games could eventually run just fine under XP..... and everyone forgot that DOS games didn't work at all anymore. Such a change never happened with XP->Vista.
And then I'm just talking about games....
(Of course, nowadays we have dosbox for dosgames, but I all to well remember the vdmsound horror)

[Chaos_Blader]

Lots of Vista bashing in this thread for no reason.

Vista uses more RAM! VISTA SUX!
XP Sux too, it uses way more RAM than my trusty Windows 98.

Let it use more RAM, all previous versions of Windows did, why single out Vista?

IMO this is alot less bashing than 98 -> XP, but there are just alot more people. And with the apple propaganda (OMG XP? UR GONNA CATCH A VIRUS?!?!!1), people with no technical experience at all can google stuff for a minute and automatically become internet geniuses.

All that XP better than Vista things? Its all FUD.

Ive been running Vista for a year now without anti virus, just UCE and no spyware/adware, and no SLOWDOWN.

"Microsoft knows Vista is a failure, why do you think they are talking about Windows 7 now"

To prevent what is happening now. People have gotten so used to XP that they do not want to change and are instead bashing Vista. XP was Microsoft's only OS to be released for so long.

[mudlord]

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?

Well, to some people its a matter of preference

Like me. The visuals of Vista don't concern me.

I like things subminal, light, with zero bloat.
I develop programs with that in mind.

Let it use more RAM, all previous versions of Windows did, why single out Vista?

Because its unneeded. Notice over time how code standards are slipping. Everything requires more and more hardware. Whatever happened to good old fashioned optimization. I guess these days, the corporate dollar matters more than clean and fast code.

[Squall-Leonhart]

Actually, XP does ALLOW YOU TO USE MORE RAM :P, since 9x was limited to 256mb and required modifying to use 512mb. not the mention that resource limitation is a pain in the mega ass. i'll take XP's 50 window limit over 98's 3-10 any day.

[Chaos_Blader]

Originally Posted by mudlord

Well, to some people its a matter of preference

Like me. The visuals of Vista don't concern me.

I like things subminal, light, with zero bloat.
I develop programs with that in mind.



Because its unneeded. Notice over time how code standards are slipping. Everything requires more and more hardware. Whatever happened to good old fashioned optimization. I guess these days, the corporate dollar matters more than clean and fast code.

I understand that completely, most high end games now use over the top ram, and I thought it was the norm until devil may cry 4 came out.

But at that, it isn't a reason to disband Vista all together. If you have 4GB of ram might as well use it, (Vista superfetch is useful afterall) and I pray as an application requests, vista does give up some of its ram.

[Spyhop]

I appreciate efficient code, but I don't get militant when I don't get it.

[Squall-Leonhart]

Superfetch, is useless, XP already contains a not so invasive form of superfetch, that works better when you set your computer up properly.

[gamefreak94]

Like I said before, in one sense it is better and in one sense, it isn't, its just how you look at it, thats what makes it good or bad

[Xblade]

what makes these vista freaks think that most people have 2 gig of ram?????

[gamefreak94]

And yeah:

about Vista.... On January 30, 2007, it was released worldwide.... what 2005?

That doesn't make it any super-compatible OS

Keep in mind that XP was NOTHING until SP2 was released. XP was very buggy when it was first released

I'm not saying that I reject Vista forever! I'm just saying that its not worth it at the moment when all softwares are compatible with XP, and there is chance that MS might make Vista to give up some of its memory usage with the release of SP2.

what makes these vista freaks think that most people have 2 gig of ram?????

And you wonder why I get angry when people say that 4 gig RAM is now standard.

Anyway, bottom-line is: If you have a really good rig and you like some of the features that Vista offers, then there is no reason why you shouldn't use it. On the other hand, if you consider all of Vista's features to be useless to you, then you can just stick to XP for that extra performance and compatibility.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by Xblade

what makes these vista freaks think that most people have 2 gig of ram?????

2gb is nothing. How long are you going to cling to the notion that 2gb is unreasonable for most people to have?

[P_RePTiLe]

Originally Posted by Chaos_Blader

L
Vista uses more RAM! VISTA SUX!
XP Sux too, it uses way more RAM than my trusty Windows 98.

Let it use more RAM, all previous versions of Windows did, why single out Vista?

IMO this is alot less bashing than 98 -> XP, but there are just alot more people. And with the apple propaganda (OMG XP? UR GONNA CATCH A VIRUS?!?!!1), people with no technical experience at all can google stuff for a minute and automatically become internet geniuses.

All that XP better than Vista things? Its all FUD.

Ive been running Vista for a year now without anti virus, just UCE and no spyware/adware, and no SLOWDOWN.

It doesn't use more ram than 98, if used wisely.
And i don't run antivirus on my xp machine either, i never have.
Ocassionaly i run a light check on files before fetching them from pal's - they are most often infected by something.

And as mudlord said, it doesn't _need_ to use more ram.
and there are still nothing with vista that makes it worth changing too (besides discontinued support by MS - and games in the extent - which will happen gradually - and is uncalled for in the large).

I don't have my os to look a certain fancy way, or have bothersome extras, i have it to run as lightly and unseen as can be in the background while i use my computer for what it is for: running apps and storing data, quick and efficent.

[Spyhop]

Originally Posted by P_RePTiLe

and there are still nothing with vista that makes it worth changing to

Switching to Vista is a lot like switching to XP from 2000. You're not really sure why you did it until you use the new OS for awhile. Vista has a lot of small details that makes it worth it. (No, not aero)

[gamefreak94]

You're just resorting to plain old lying Spyhop:

2gb is nothing. How long are you going to cling to the notion that 2gb is unreasonable for most people to have?

We're gonna cling to it until it remains a fact and you cant deny it. Oh yeah, please don't down-track your statements, you said 4 GB RAM is standard. Well it isn't!