Vista lag issues in online games? Never noticed that myself.
I think Vista haters are full of poo
- Thread starter WatchTower
- Start date
Vista lag issues in online games? Never noticed that myself.
No, YOUR version had issues, most of ours do not have any such issues and I've used every normally usable feature in Vista without any issue but then agian I set mine up correctly to begin with...
No, YOUR version had issues, most of ours do not have any such issues and I've used every normally usable feature in Vista without any issue but then again I set mine up correctly to begin with and don't throw a sissyfit when a piece of software decides to go wobbly from time to time (which isn't a Vista fault...)
So you've had one problem on your system (which the majority of Vista users don't suffer from), and from that you're saying that Vista is rubbish in 'a whole load of areas'?
This is bandwagon jumping at its finest.
I spent time and money looking for solutions but neither provided a satifactory solution or fixed the problem. Such is my frustration I decided to let other users know and provide the other point of view. Yes if your hardware is compatible then everything is sunshine and rainbows, but if it's not there's no end of trouble in store for you.
The attraction of 64bit is not really there yet for the majority and mainstream.
On the contrary, it's jumping off the bandwagon judging by all the posts in this thread.
On the contrary, it's jumping off the bandwagon judging by all the posts in this thread.
I think that this thread is the exception rather than the rule. All over the web there are people bad-mouthing Vista because they had an isolated issue, or - even worse - because their mum's cousin's dad's postman's son's friend's uncle told them it was cack, so it must be bad. I think this point of view is well provided for
(edit) Just browse Digg if you ever want to get annoyed at inane Vista-bashing.
The only problem that I have with vista is the amount of RAM it uses. 1GB of RAM is fine for basic use but if you are doing multitasking then you will suffer. 2GB is a big help and vista can run really well but I find that with 2GB I can get vista to fall into a delay state and a restart is often required to free up the memory.
At the end of the day, if someone wants a fast Windows OS with less memory, stick to XP or the lightning quick Server 2003if you run it as a client machine, but if you want Vista you really need a minimum of 2GB for you will run into memory shortage problems at some stage.
At the end of the day, if someone wants a fast Windows OS with less memory, stick to XP or the lightning quick Server 2003if you run it as a client machine, but if you want Vista you really need a minimum of 2GB for you will run into memory shortage problems at some stage.
Completely flew over your head
Vista uses Superfetch to cache frequently used applications to memory so that when you relaunch them they load faster. This "training" process can take weeks to build up but the end result is a faster OS that feels smooth.I suggest you read up on Vista and memory management before continuing further into this area!
what makes it so?
If all the onilne views on Vista were to be true as a whole then my PC must have come from the land of naked ladies and heaven then because my combination of config and hardware makes for a disaster setup for Vista according to said people!
XFI
Nvidia GFX card
BETA Nvidia drivers
Overclocked GFX card
Overclocked CPU
Logitech Setpoint
All USB ports in use
All SATA drives
Man I should be close to suicide by now but oh wiat, I have no issues at all...heh
XFI
Nvidia GFX card
BETA Nvidia drivers
Overclocked GFX card
Overclocked CPU
Logitech Setpoint
All USB ports in use
All SATA drives
Man I should be close to suicide by now but oh wiat, I have no issues at all...heh
Vista is fantastic, the new start menu and windows explorer save me loads of time, along with the much improved sleep mode which is handy on my laptop.
I installed on both my desktop(x64) and laptop(x32) last summer and haven't had any issues at all, I always get a chuckle out of the Vista haters desperately scrabbling for imperfections in a pathetic attempt to be one of the 'cool kids'.
For playing games, sure, if you don't want DX10, XP still has the more mature drivers for a negligible performance benefit, but for day to day use Vista is far more polished.
There's also the fact that Vista x64 is far better than XP x64 with regards to stability and driver support.
I installed on both my desktop(x64) and laptop(x32) last summer and haven't had any issues at all, I always get a chuckle out of the Vista haters desperately scrabbling for imperfections in a pathetic attempt to be one of the 'cool kids'.
For playing games, sure, if you don't want DX10, XP still has the more mature drivers for a negligible performance benefit, but for day to day use Vista is far more polished.
There's also the fact that Vista x64 is far better than XP x64 with regards to stability and driver support.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,894
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Vista 64 on desktop has been 100% bar 1 program that doesn't work on Vista yet (a freeware program)
Vista 32 on laptop - 100%
Both have seemed more stable since moving from XP
Oh and as above I find the new sleep mode on laptops is fantastic, battery seems to last much longer and it wakes up quicker than XP's sleep/hibernate.
Vista 32 on laptop - 100%
Both have seemed more stable since moving from XP
Oh and as above I find the new sleep mode on laptops is fantastic, battery seems to last much longer and it wakes up quicker than XP's sleep/hibernate.