Thoughts on Vista/What is Your Problem With Vista

These dudes have it working in Vista. I had to do a little tweak to C&C3 demo to get it to run too. A lot of things can be made work if you just google them.

I've seen Vista, played with it, and quite frankly don't see any need to spend an outrageous amount of money to upgrade. Not to mention all the compatibility issues people are having.

Battlefield 2, BF2142, hell most of my games simply wont work.

Click to expand...

Yeh, i had that same problem with the rc1, thats why i haven't even redeemed my free copy yet (bought a laptop with upgrade)

FS4 and oblivion were getting like 5-10 fps.
yuupp

Again I'd argue a lot of the compatability issues can be fixed with a little toying around yourself and some google searches.

I didn't spend an outrageous amount of money for it either, I bought XP MCE for my computer and got the free upgrade to Vista. One of the reasons was the awesome media center that Vista has (except home basic and buisness).

SNGX the problem with my games are nothing to do with a resolution issue (that was in the link you provided)

At first BF2 would not install, got around that with some registry work, not the game simply starts up loads the splash screen and then quits.

Many people at bf2s.com which is a large scale bf2 community have heaps of problems, but no solutions.

I am not saying that this can not be fixed later, but right now, things are not going so well.

And as I said before, why does/should the average joe upgrade? What is the advantage? Hell I never had a beef with windows 2000, but I eventually was forced to upgrade, just like eventually I will have to put the disk back in for vista.

The whole feel I got from the OS was just bloated. If I want a Mac, I will buy a mac.

I heard somewhere that Vista is like the next Me.

How soon we forget... XP had problems by the truckload when it was first released. I just installed XP Pro on an HP AMD K6-350 with 128MB of RAM and a 10GB hard drive. It installed fine and even found all the odd-ball modem and video drivers.

It ran so slow, that I nixed XP in favor of Windows Me

beef_jerky4104 said:

I heard somewhere that Vista is like the next Me.

Click to expand...

God I hope not!!!!

SNGX1275 said:

Again I'd argue a lot of the compatability issues can be fixed with a little toying around yourself and some google searches.

Click to expand...

I think the problem there is many people either dont want to or dont think they should have to toy around with a brand new OS to get it to work the way it should when the OS was released. Kinda like buying a new car then having to buy the wheels and tires separate just to drive the car. The compatibility issues should have been fixed prior to release.

"I heard somewhere that Vista is like the next Me"...

WinMe can be made to work pretty well, if you take your time tweaking it. The same thing goes for Vista. So in that sence, Vista is like Me

halo71 said:

I think the problem there is many people either dont want to or dont think they should have to toy around with a brand new OS to get it to work the way it should when the OS was released. Kinda like buying a new car then having to buy the wheels and tires separate just to drive the car. The compatibility issues should have been fixed prior to release.

Click to expand...

It is a valid point, and I'm not advocating everyone upgrade. I really just wanted to see people's thoughts, and then whether they had actually used it or were just bashing Vista because its the 'cool' thing to do.

It works on an incredible range of hardware so that shouldn't be an issue, and will work with everything the branded computers ship with, so the only real compatability could be with programs that didn't come on it, most have updates/new versions out to deal with that, exception being old games.

Take a look at this example: I installed it fresh on my system and when I got to the desktop the first time it was at 1680x1050 resolution, that is something that even with XP SP2 they were unable to do. Its nice to be able to run at something other than 800x600 when you first get to a usable desktop. Onboard ethernet and sound worked, something I don't believe happens in XP. I know on another system I don't have Vista on, when I first load XP I have to run at 800x600, I don't have onboard LAN working, and a couple other things with nforce3 don't work. That is a huge pain if I don't have my driver cd or a USB stick with drivers I previously downloaded. So there is tweaking you have to do in XP just to get the thing to run. We are so used to it now we don't think of it.

Vista is a piece of cr4p.

- Security: It has the BEST security ever. Whenever I run ANYTHING that is not signed by Microsoft it asks me whether I really want to run it, as it can be a security risk. You know, even though I'M the one who started the app, Vista thinks I shouldn't use it. And that's where it ends. I wanted to run ATITool on startup, but I couldn't. Why? Because it wasn't signed by Microsoft. And instead of at least telling me something, Vista just decided on its own that ATITool on startup was not for me. I had to disable the whole "security" on Vista just to stop the annoyance of clicking "Yes" or whatever to every single app I run and to allow myself to add my own startup apps.

- Interface: Wow. A transparent blur. One that requires pixel shader 2 to run. Great. It looks ugly, and as a reward, needs hardware that exceeds the requirements of many games. It literally LAGGED when I resized the Windows Media Player window (which has a lot of "glass"). WTF? Vista was way better off with some simple transparency.

- Performance: While I can play FEAR on XP perfectly fine on pretty high settings, Vista stuttered the whole time on all medium settings. And don't even ask about OpenGL apps... ran like cr4p. ~40FPS on a simple rotating triangle (that I wrote in GL a while ago). ~6000FPS on XP. Maybe it was just an odd coincidence, but that was REALLY f*cked. And yes, I had all drivers updated to the latest.

- BLOAT, BLOAT, BLOAT! My applications only had ~20% of my ram to run with. WTF, 1 gig isn't enough for you, ow wittle wittle wista? How about 2? 4? Ok, I'll go blow my money on 4 gigs of ram so I can satisfy you... ~40 processes on fresh install... XP - 19.

Other than having DX10 compability (which's, BTW, features can be all done with the latest OpenGL WHICH RUNS ON ALL PLATFORMS...), it's literally worse than XP in practically all aspects.

Then again, maybe it has improved since my run of RC1. But I doubt it.

UAC can be disabled.

Transparency/Aero can be turned off.

New games won't have problems, remember how many games for 9x didn't work in XP? There is a compatability mode you could try.

Memory management is completely different than XP, and now more resembles a more modern OS.

Flash and Java are OS independent, but you don't see propritary microsoft formats like WMV going away. DX10 won't go away either.

You ran a prerelease copy.

SNGX1275 said:

UAC can be disabled.

Click to expand...

Great. So what's the point of having it in the first place?

Transparency/Aero can be turned off.

Click to expand...

And the point of that? Aero is what Vista is all about. Turn off aero and you get an uglier, more annoying version of XP. (Yes, I'm aware there was a complete rewrite, but I see no new or better functions that actually help me...)

New games won't have problems, remember how many games for 9x didn't work in XP? There is a compatability mode you could try.

Click to expand...

Yup, no problems other than horrible performance decrease vs. the same game on the same hardware on XP.

Memory management is completely different than XP, and now more resembles a more modern OS.

Click to expand...

.... so... that's why XP runs fine on my cousin's 192MB (not to mention how well it runs on my 1GB), and Vista lags on my 1GB (that is a LOT faster than his, not just bigger)?

You ran a prerelease copy.

Click to expand...

Yes, but not a beta - a release candidate. Release candidates are the closest to the thing you'll get.

UAC is there to protect the typical user from having malware installed without their knowledge. The reason it asks when YOU install something is because in XP you are always (unless you make a specific limited account) ran at elevated privliges, meaning anything gets installed without question. UAC is there to prevent this from happening. Do you complain when you have to su in linux to install something? Security comes at a price.

If you think Aero is what Vista is all about then that is your problem and it is probably pointless arguing anymore with you because you've got a mental block against Vista. There are tons of improvements in Vista. Now you can burn DVDs from explorer, better help, better search, media center enhancements (that didn't even exist outside of XP MCE), improved networking, and tons of other stuff that I'm missing because I don't want to write a damn press release statement here.

It was well reported nearly at nearly every tech site that games ran with lower fps in XP than in 98se. 98se is still regarded as the best gaming OS, in fact you'll likely get better performance in 98 in every game that will run on both 98 and XP, problem is most modern games won't install in 98 anymore. Same thing is/will happen with XP/Vista. It is just like console gaming, when consoles first come out they aren't utilized fully in games, later releases are more able to take advantage of what the system can do. For the first example that comes into my head, look at mario 1 vs mario 3 on NES or any early game vs Kirby's Adventure. Same hardware, world of difference.

You can run 98 just fine on 32 megs of RAM. Windows 2000 will run ok on 64 once it gets loaded. The jump to Vista shouldn' tbe suprising, the size of the jump really shouldn't be either, there have been huge technology advancements since XP. If you don't have more than 1 gig of RAM don't install Vista. Just like if you don't have more than 32 megs of RAM don't install XP. New Windows OSes have never ran better on older hardware than their previous OS.

You ran RC1, there was RC2, and then the real release, and then updates on top of that.

SNGX1275 said:

UAC is there to protect the typical user from having malware installed without their knowledge. The reason it asks when YOU install something is because in XP you are always (unless you make a specific limited account) ran at elevated privliges, meaning anything gets installed without question. UAC is there to prevent this from happening. Do you complain when you have to su in linux to install something? Security comes at a price.

Click to expand...

Ehh, ok. I guess the typical user wouldn't be able to make a difference between crap and actual programs, so I agree with you.

If you think Aero is what Vista is all about then that is your problem and it is probably pointless arguing anymore with you because you've got a mental block against Vista. There are tons of improvements in Vista. Now you can burn DVDs from explorer, better help, better search, media center enhancements (that didn't even exist outside of XP MCE), improved networking, and tons of other stuff that I'm missing because I don't want to write a damn press release statement here.

Click to expand...

I'd rather not burn DVDs from explorer if it's anything like burning CDs in XP from explorer. If it allows you to completely customize the DVD, then cool... I turn off the "Windows Help" services, waste my time. "Network Help" - "Is your network cable connected? (yes/no/not sure)"... If it actually is able to pinpoint your exact problem, then cool. Search is great, except it only looks in certain folders unless you meddle around with some settings... Not too fun... I never even used Media Center, but if it's some other kind of Microsoft "Goody", then won't need it either. Improved networking? As in...? IE7 is crap and isn't up to the web standards (there was an article somewhere, google it).

It was well reported nearly at nearly every tech site that games ran with lower fps in XP than in 98se. 98se is still regarded as the best gaming OS, in fact you'll likely get better performance in 98 in every game that will run on both 98 and XP, problem is most modern games won't install in 98 anymore. Same thing is/will happen with XP/Vista. It is just like console gaming, when consoles first come out they aren't utilized fully in games, later releases are more able to take advantage of what the system can do. For the first example that comes into my head, look at mario 1 vs mario 3 on NES or any early game vs Kirby's Adventure. Same hardware, world of difference.

Click to expand...

Ehh... Ok.

You can run 98 just fine on 32 megs of RAM. Windows 2000 will run ok on 64 once it gets loaded. The jump to Vista shouldn' tbe suprising, the size of the jump really shouldn't be either, there have been huge technology advancements since XP. If you don't have more than 1 gig of RAM don't install Vista. Just like if you don't have more than 32 megs of RAM don't install XP. New Windows OSes have never ran better on older hardware than their previous OS.

Click to expand...

Problem is, most Joes out there won't have a 2/4 gig system with a hardware accelerated PS2 card to run Vista at its fullest.

You ran RC1, there was RC2, and then the real release, and then updates on top of that.

Click to expand...

Well, that's the closest I got. Surely there weren't any "major" changes.

I'm not trying to argue or anything. But at this current time, Vista is a piece of BLOATY crap. DX10 is its only big improvement, everything else can get VERY annoying to some users (me).

Windows ME is absoulte crap. It is notorious for being self-corruptive. XP on the other hand is mostly stable. Even when XP first came out it was still more stable than ME could have ever hoped to be.

Perhaps in about a year Vista will be worth taking a look.

This is true Tedster,
Windows Me is not supported by MS any longer, so the arguement is really a moot point. I will move to Vista soon on a TEST system. I don't want to mess up my work system

I've had Vista Ultimate x64 since LAUNCH DAY and I absolutely love it.

My rig (see sig) is triple-booting OS's. WinXP x64 and WinXP x86 Pro along with Vista (using V-Com System Commander 8)

People have to stop complaining about Vista's performance when their experience is from alpha/beta versions! Yes that means RC1 and RC2. The final edition is head-and-shoulders above and better. I've had RC1 and honestly it didn't have much performance boost - it was damn slow.

Now everything Vista improved upon is an improvement. The only thing that I have beef with, was the organization within MyComputer and ControlPanel, but I got it alll figured out and I am OK with it.

Now mind you I am running the 64-bit edition, which has yet even less support. And I am plenty happy with it.

The only things that I have problems with working is my LaserJet 3380 (was recently replaced with a 3390 so support was dropped by HP), my MicroTek 5950 scanner (not outdated but MicroTek are some lazy bastards - not even XP x64 support), and some games. F.E.A.R. does not even function at all before the patch is installed. And Oblivion is 3x better now that I installed the expansion pack .. but still laggy in savegame loading and loading areas.

Quake4 works awesome with no patch installed. MaxPayne 2 is pristine, and Dungeon Siege 2 is also running perfectly @ max settings.

Office 2007 is awesome too - got to get used to the new organization but I've grown on it.

Apple QuickTime 7.1.x Pro is not working right, only when it comes to video conversion.

JetAudio 6.3.x occassionally crashes when ripping audio (I replaced it with dbPowerAmp which works flawlessly)

NERO 7 Ultra Enhanced Edition finally works beautifully since the last patches were released

McAfee 2007 still have no support for the x64 edition of Vista. BAH!! So I am still trying to find a decent solution to that. NOD32 works well, but I don't have a pristine firewall. SUPERAntiSpyware works OK in Vista.

Alcohol 120% still has issues with Vista for license validation, but I made a small script that fixes that issue: however I have to run it every time I turn on the PC (a simple double-click). Otherwise Alcohol 120% works flawlessly.

Corel Paint Shop Pro X works a bit slower AND whenever I run it, AERO GLASS is turned off by Vista ! hahah oddball

Bryce 6 works awesome, as so does TerraGEN.

Acronis True Image 9.x WorkStation works with stunning speed in Vista x64 and XP x64. Compress @ maximum **3 partitions (total 34GB) and burn onto 1 1/2 DVD+RW media (4x) in only 40 minutes** !?! Holy crap! And restoring images takes less than 3 minutes for a 5GB partition!

Overall, I love Vista and I hail it as a new beginning. XP is dying out as an outdated OS with limitations on hardware support.

But when stuff

I forgot to mention that **YOU SHOULD INSTALL DIRECTX 9.0c FEB. EDITION OR LATER** for better game support in Vista.

IT WILL NOT OVERWRITE DirectX 10!!! They work side-by-side !

Well, it looks like the bulk of the problems come from the fact that we are living in societies of when 'keeping up with the jones' is most critical. Each & everytime an upgrade is released we are convinced of parting with more & more cash to do so.

We should all be aware by now that there are always bugs in new OSs when released so why do we put ourselves through all the heartache & then proceed to winge about it. Get a grip.

If you have the cash & the tolerance good luck to you in dealing with it, but if you do not prepare yourself then I say 'you make your bed - you lay in it'.

I know having Vista as my operating system in the future is inevitable but for now I'll stick with XP & sit back & laugh at all the bulls**t that goes on until then.

Don't get caught up in all the hype, we didn't have Vista before & suddenly our lives are going to be 'changed forever because of it' - bullc**p. Delay your expectations for 12 months & you'll live a happier life.

grrrrr.

Matt

beef_jerky4104 said:

I heard somewhere that Vista is like the next Me.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Vista is the most secure OS they've released, and ME was the least secure...I still remember my first computer....sometimes 3 BSOD's in 1 day....*shivers*....many people are ignorant with Vista because they somehow forget the Xp launch :blackeye:....which had pretty much similar issues as Vista is having now, and now look at Xp; six years and still going. I think the Ultimate version of Vista is ridiculously priced (I have it ), but otherwise, I like it . The only issue I've received out of the total amount would be the nVidia driver compatibility, in which no one responded to my post , and the other post I had about it, SNGX gave me a link to drivers that made my resolution not go past 1024x768 . I'm back with the WDDM Drivers, and it's working fine, except that my computer thinks that my 256Mb Vid. Card is 511Mb with 255Mb of share memory (which I'm pretty sure is not being shared, thank God ).

sucks? IMO

cfitzarl is exactly right, I'm even going to say XPs launch was worse, a lot of our current forum base may have not gotten to expierence that because of age or just not an 'enthusiast' like now. But it was bad.

Right now my Vista is running very well, with the major exception of vid drivers.