I upgraded one of my computers to 64 bit Vista with 8Gb ram. It rocks. I'm running certain graphics programs on it, and needed the 64 bit OS with the extra ram. I have XP on another computer, and I'll take the 64 bit Vista machine over it anytime.

I guess it works fine, then. I do watch a lot of television online.

Slammr (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:19 pm I upgraded one of my computers to 64 bit Vista with 8Gb ram. It rocks. I'm running certain graphics programs on it, and needed the 64 bit OS with the extra ram. I have XP on another computer, and I'll take the 64 bit Vista machine over it anytime.

Blasphemer!

LOL

If you want to pay it' s okay the only hting i do not like is that they force you to get better hardware, okay it can run on a p3 machine but then it is sloooowww. When you have a few old machines and trying get them running you are forced to run the illegal versions.

All my friends use xp. and they do not want vista. i do not want vista or xp becouse i want to have control over my system. And i tried a lot of os's all the window's versions from 3.11, different linux distro's, beos and a few unix version's. for me no windows.

I used to be in the business, so I guess my opinion may count for something.

I use two computers, this one, which is the working computer, was built to run Win2K and it still does. This NT based operating system is stable and has never given me one bit of trouble. The newer computer was built as an archive and runs WinXp Pro with all updates. The only reason it is an Xp box is because I use mirrored hard drives. Xp does not require any additional software for RAID.

I know a person well connected with Microsoft who says the folks up in Redmond feel Vista has been a disaster.

Speed

I use WinXP on all my home computers. But, on the job, I have worked with a handful of different computers running Vista.

In a nutshell, Vista runs acceptably if you use it on decent newer computers (ie: not the cheap "around $500" bargain system).

Vista tends to run poorly on any older computers, even those that are only 2-3 years old!! It also runs poorly on "cheap" new computers -- yes, you still do get what you pay for...

As far as specifics, here is what I've found:

1. 2 Gigs of RAM is the Minimum. Period. Don't even THINK about trying to run Vista unless your computer has 2 Gigs or RAM or more.

2. Dual Core CPU is also a Minimum. Running with a standard (ie: single-core) CPU works, but is irritatingly slow.

3. A "real" Graphics Card (ie: ATI or NVidia, not the "Intel Onboard" crap most cheaper systems come with). Also, the Graphics Card needs to have its own memory (not shared with/stolen from the system RAM). This will make everything on the Desktop will run a lot smoother. The computer will also run faster because the CPU isn't bogged down by having to manage the Graphics itself.

You need all three of the above to get a brand new compuer with Vista to run at the same speed as my FIVE-YEAR-OLD WinXP system (1 Gig of RAM, 2.4 Ghz, single core, and a "real" Graphics Card)... Keep in mind that brand new computer has about THREE TIMES the "Horsepower" of my 5-year-old WinXP system...

Why in the hell an Operating System -- just the Operating System by itself -- requires all of this horsepower just to run at a decent speed is beyond me. Vista has to be among the most IN-EFFICIENTLY WRITTEN programs in all of computing history. For this reason alone, Microsoft completely and totally deserves ALL the criticism they have received for Vista...

There is one more thing you absolutely need for Vista:

4. Make sure you have Vista Service Pack 1 installed. Besides having decent hardware, this is the most important thing you can do. Its simple. Just run "Windows Update" a few times (until there are no more updates left). That way you will get SP1 and any other updates that have came out since then.

Do I like Vista?

Thats a pretty complicated question. The quick and simple answer would probably be no. At least, not enough to make me want to switch at home, and not enough to actually use it regularly unless I was forced to.

There are a small number of new features Vista has that I like (such as the desktop ornaments (widgets), seeing a preview of the screen when you task-switch/Alt-Tab, the improved CHKDSK and MSCONFIG, and improved security where it asks permission before any program installs)

There are a large number of features that are either gone, or have been moved to some odd new place (usually burried several levels deep) which usually drives me to intense bouts of cursing and swearing -- nothing more frustrating than knowing EXACTLY what you want the computer to do, but not being able to do it because some idiot design engineer at Microsoft went out of thier way to HIDE that feature from you!!!

Also I haven't figured out yet how to get the Vista Desktop to display Hidden and System files (used to be in TOOLS-->Folder Options in WinXP). This is something most people aren't ever going to need... But me, as an I.T. guy and Software Developer, need this. In Vista, so far, I've had to go to a CMD Prompt every time I needed to deal with Hidden or System files. Which really sucks.

Here's one other thing I've found with people's complaints about Vista:

On new computers, the pre-installed Vista from the manufacturers (Sony, HP/Compaq -- I haven't had a chance to try any other manufacturers yet) is usually CRAP. It is so bogged down with shitware that it is hideously slow and virtually useless.

I don't know what the HELL these manufacturers are thinking... 2 or 3 dozen programs automatically starting up as the desktop comes on... 3 to 5 minutes before the Hard Drive stops thrashing... Desktop is barely useable because so much crap is running in the background... Seriously, Sony, HP/Compaq, WTF?

If you un-install all the crap that HP/Compaq and Sony puts on (which most people will never use anyway) the computer runs a whole lot better. It will boot faster and the desktop will be ready-to-run, at full speed, as soon as it appears -- Not 5 minutes later. Also the computer will stop locking up all the time.

What I usually do at work is just FORMAT the new machines and re-install Vista from the Vista CD, then install SP1 and all the Updates. Then install any other software... That is by far the best option. However this is beyond the technical expertise of most home users. Also most of our new computers, sadly, don't come with any CDs (again: Sony, HP/Compaq, WTF?).

Well these two posts are my 57-cents worth on Vista... I hope my little rants were useful to someone.

Prudence (imported) wrote: Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:13 pm Also I haven't figured out yet how to get the Vista Desktop to display Hidden and System files (used to be in TOOLS-->Folder Options in WinXP). This is something most people aren't ever going to need... But me, as an I.T. guy and Software Developer, need this. In Vista, so far, I've had to go to a CMD Prompt every time I needed to deal with Hidden or System files. Which really sucks.

Open Windows Explorer -> Organize -> Folder and Search Options

Then you will see the options you are familiar with using the XP method. MS did something similar with Add/Remove Programs in the control panel too. It's kind of annoying actually. Those methods were not broken, so I'm baffled as to why MS felt they had to fix them.

I have used most Versions of Windows, all except ME really, and I have gotten used to their quirks. Vista 64 bit with SP1 and 4GB RAM is reasonably stable, but I always have a ghost image of the system drive set aside just in case.

Mirroring is fine for data safety, but I have seen a number of scenarios where mirroring either doesn't work (because nobody bothered to verify the mirrored disk works as a boot drive over the life of the system) or a virus infected both the primary and the mirror. A drive image (ghost) taken just after the base system, core load software and updates are applied is a true time saver.

This means a drive sits unplugged in the system or on a shelf somewhere, but the cost of the drive is trivial compared to the time it saves you if you actually need to use it. There are software packages that will let you save image files that can be used to reload a system, but they too need to be stored somewhere so I opted for a cheap software package to create the drive image on a spare drive and this software also lets me do incremental backups of data files to an eSATA drive.

Those of us that love or hate Vista, have no fear, Windows 7 will soon be here!

willing2share5 (imported) wrote: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:37 pm Open Windows Explorer -> Organize -> Folder and Search Options

Then you will see the options you are familiar with using the XP method. MS did something similar with Add/Remove Programs in the control panel too. It's kind of annoying actually. Those methods were not broken, so I'm baffled as to why MS felt they had to fix them.

Cool. Many thanks. That will be both convenient and very useful.

I also don't understand why Microsoft "fixed" so many of the ways we do things. Very irritating.

I hope with Windows 7 they won't make a whole bunch of changes like this again. They should either stick with the way things are done in Vista, OR stick with the way they were done in Win95 through WinXP. Either way doesn't matter to me as long things are CONSISTENT. Pick some way to do things and stick with it! Its OK to add new features. Its not OK to radically change the way everything is done when new versions come out!!!

I detest Vista.

Not hard to.

I usually wai until SP2 for each version of Windows comes out before even considering moving to it. XP-SP3 has proven to be remarkably stable on older hardware. I am one who refuses to revisit hardware purchases because MS has again upgraded the revision of Windows.

I have a Dell Opteron 280 with a P4 3.2/r G RAM which should be more than adequate for general system use, but with Vista, it is incredibly sloggy, on a system that XP runs on quite smoothly. This should be enough hardware up the wazoo for ANY OS!!! Really, come on, when are the new hardware demands going to stop in the MS/Intel world? Ever? How fast are you trying to drive people to move to Linux? (Get people angry enough, they WILL select an alternative, Look at where Toyota, Honda, GM and Ford were 20 years ago? Where are each now?)

Hardware and Drivers - I have purchased PCI cards for my system that were "Vista Certified," either the added driver for that hardware would then cause Vista to crash repeatedly, sometimes to the point of looping reboot before login; or the driver could not recognize its own card; or for TV, it used WiMP/WMC, which didn't recognize either 1) the card, or 2) the driver.

All of the same cards work perfectly with XP. In XP, the ATI TV card uses ATI's Media Center, not WiMP/WMC and it works perfectly. WiMP/WMC always report "no video source," display the OK button and the exits on OK.

This is what "Vista Certified" means? Certified to, exactly what?

DRM - Many sites that I use are removing DRM because MS removed the license backup that was in WiMP 9 from WiMP 11. WiMP 10 cannot be installed on XP. Belarc Advisor notes that the upgrade for WiMP 9 is "missing." It reports all other MS XP SP's and fixes, patches, hotfixes, etc... are installed and up to date.

Beat you over the head safety/seurity on Vista. Every SINGLE time I want to install ANYTHING on Vista, even as Administrator, and I've done my best to disable the alarms, Vista asks me FOUR times if I want to install it. XP notifies me that I am about install software, and tested or not by MS, then I can continue. I can even turn that off if I choose to, though I leave it on.

MS is now spending considerable monies on advertising promoting Vista as showing "real people" something called "Mohave," then grandly revealing it as the latest version of Vista. The whole time you're looking at the back of the screen, unable to see what they are looking at that is so superb. Who is the intended market? XP users that refuse to "upgrade," as as many others have, downgraded back to XP (as I have), Macintosh users (absolutely guaranteed no market there), Linux (same as with the Macintosh, maybe even more so,) so who?

The only remaining target could be people who have never owned any computer in the past and might be lured into buying one pre-(over)loaded with Vista, and then remaining with Vista, rather that reverting to XP; or, better, buying a Macintosh. Yes, I use XP, though I rather use a Mac. It is for business reasons, internal company software we use, that allows us remote access to the company headquarters. Thus...

That money would have been far better spent on continuing any existing efforts on-going at MS to bring Vista into a usable (at the minimum) state (oh, are there?).

Oh, and yes, every shipping home-use system come pre-loaded with Vista, with an accompanying license, thus it counts as units of Vista sold, intended, I think, to make vista look more popular that it is ever likely to be. Every company I have worked with refuses to let Vista (even on an individual's laptop), into the office, mostly to keep it away from servers, and it has not met internal requirements when tested before release for use.

Other completely irrational thoughts on the part of MS. Why am I stuck with just the Vista GUI? Even with XP, I (can , and do) use the "classic" GUI that I first became comfortable with in W2K. Hidden changes for improvement sake are great, but make non-required changes (the GUI, perfect example) and forcing it on the user? Completely unacceptable behavior.

Removing keyboard functions and replacing them with mandated mouse-click-only "features." Who's needed <Ctrl-Alt-Del>T to bring up the task manager to end an application that blanked the screen so that you can't see the place one the screen to select the task manager because the screen's been blanked? I know I'm not alone. So? Oh yeah, Power Cycle!!!" I hate doing it the few times I do have to do that now. Always allow both, like how bringing up the drop-down menus with the <Alt> key instead of mouse-clicking it?

"Destest?" Isn't there a better word for an OS that is so completable?

-YC