Bye bye vista

Shame so many people still have problems with Vista that are so bad they cause them to move back to XP, I just only recently installed XP again on my other HDD but have never used it apart from crysis benchmark which has problems on my PC in XP but not Vista. Vista rock solid here.
 
Well the one bug that I would consider a "deal breaker" is the file copy issue. The fact that XP's approach is bugged is moot, given that it doesn't crash the explorer like the Vista one does.

It also makes working with large compressed files a nightmare - I would also get an explorer crash trying to open an archive larger than about 200MB.

I don't understand why something like that isn't caught during testing. I'm not defending XP at all in this case - i'm just wondering why such a problem made it through.

It also doesn't help that I can't seem to get SP1 to install on my Vista - no matter what I try it always corrupts the install. And i'm not willing to go without it.
 
Where would I get one from?

And also, Vista is so slow updating. It's awful. I thought it was my internet, but it comes up at 7.5MBit on a bandwidth test. Any suggestions?
 
Tute said:
Well the one bug that I would consider a "deal breaker" is the file copy issue. The fact that XP's approach is bugged is moot, given that it doesn't crash the explorer like the Vista one does.

It also makes working with large compressed files a nightmare - I would also get an explorer crash trying to open an archive larger than about 200MB.

I don't understand why something like that isn't caught during testing. I'm not defending XP at all in this case - i'm just wondering why such a problem made it through.

It also doesn't help that I can't seem to get SP1 to install on my Vista - no matter what I try it always corrupts the install. And i'm not willing to go without it.
Click to expand...


This sounds very much like you have memory issues
 
Tute said:
Where would I get one from?

And also, Vista is so slow updating. It's awful. I thought it was my internet, but it comes up at 7.5MBit on a bandwidth test. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Sounds like slow LAN bug. Try getting SP1 disc, sorted after that on my machine.
 
Tute said:
Well the one bug that I would consider a "deal breaker" is the file copy issue. The fact that XP's approach is bugged is moot, given that it doesn't crash the explorer like the Vista one does.

It also makes working with large compressed files a nightmare - I would also get an explorer crash trying to open an archive larger than about 200MB.

I don't understand why something like that isn't caught during testing. I'm not defending XP at all in this case - i'm just wondering why such a problem made it through.

It also doesn't help that I can't seem to get SP1 to install on my Vista - no matter what I try it always corrupts the install. And i'm not willing to go without it.
Click to expand...
File copying on Vista SP1 is much faster than XP for large files. Takes a fraction of the time. Took me few mins to copy 45GB and XP was saying it would take 6 hours!! If SP1 will not install for you it is usually because you have a device which does not have recent drivers. Creative soundcards are the biggest culprits here MS have articles and advice on how to get around this.

For me Vista is not perfect but much better than XP as most of the issues have been worked out now it uses recent hardware much better and just feels & looks a lot more modern than XP which is starting to age now (its like 8 years old). I would even say that Vista is the best MS OS ever. It takes a bit of technical ability to setup and tweak but once you have it is a great experience. Biggest mistake MS made with it was to not include a choice at install where you could select the type of useage and it should have then installed the services/options for that rather than install almost everything it can offer right away.
 
Tute said:
Where would I get one from?

And also, Vista is so slow updating. It's awful. I thought it was my internet, but it comes up at 7.5MBit on a bandwidth test. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

MS upgraded the Windows Update infrastructure and as of last week it is very quick now. If you have system restore enabled then it takes a few mins to create the restore point before installing the updates.
 
So I need an update to fix the problem where updates are slow to download?

You couldn't make this up....lol! ;)
 
I don't understand the Vista negativity. I have it running on 3 machines at home, all varying configurations and it is robust. Don't think I have ever had a BSOD or crash, I did once but that was because I overclocked my CPU too far with too little Vcore.

As someone mentioned, problems are probably down to hardware. I have Mac OSX as well and I think Vista (or even XP) is miles better personally.
 
the main things that go screwy for people in Vista are gfx/sound/lan

from huge overhauls in the way they work & bad drivers
 
I've not had any problems running vista on 2 pc's and a laptop since I got them, about 1 year ago for the laptop, last month for the main pc and about 5 months for my media pc. The only problem I did have was with wireless card drivers, bought a new card that had 64bit support and it's been rock solid.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
And even when two setups are exaclty the same they can behave differently.

Burnsy
Click to expand...

exactly
we've 5-6 desktops we ordered at the same time, same spec, same software, same updates etc, used for the same thing and no two have ever had the same issues! (all vista, all working fine atm)
 
Combat squirrel said:
Really whats all the talk about snow leopard being 64 bit then ? :confused::)
Click to expand...

Standard Leopard is technically 64bit. Although it still requires the applications (as with all OSes) to be 64 compliant (for example not doing daft things such as assuming pointers are 32bit).

I've been developing in Cocoa framework recently and there are specific guidelines on coding to ensure you'll be on on 64bit.

The Carbon framework (precursor to Cocoa) is 32bit and isn't being pushed forward into 64bit.

What's interesting is that Apple actively ask - do you need 64bit? - as part of the performance discussion papers. They point that the code is smaller, fits in caches better and the OS provides cache-object support for managing data over 4GB automatically for the 32bit applications. The OS you deal with is still 64bit.. it just makes allowances for your app being 32bit automatically as part of normal running.

They do say if you're hammering the crap out of the data then you do get the memory, the additional registers etc. This is standard stuff and nothing out of the ordinary.

I can see snow leopard delivering more in terms of the threading. Leopard already provides a system (NSOperation) to reduce the need for all the software to create their own threads left right and centre. The OS then schedules (based on your information) operations as needs be.
S.L. also has a focus on delivering parallel computation performance under the guise of "OpenCL". Can't go into more details unfortunately.
What you can piece together is that with Intel under the hood is that the OS will offer mechanisms in Cocoa that will them scale automatically inline with the new Intel CPU architectures.
Whether this replaces the old numerical high performance libraries that offer SIMD (SSE enhanced) and auto-threaded functionality such as Accelerate, vLibrary, vImage frameworks is anyone's guess.

I'm still using XP Pro 32 for work... it works very nicely in my Parallels VM on OS X ;)
 
VeNT said:
exactly
we've 5-6 desktops we ordered at the same time, same spec, same software, same updates etc, used for the same thing and no two have ever had the same issues! (all vista, all working fine atm)
Click to expand...

I've done the same but with 70-80 desktops/laptops. It's bizzare.

Burnsy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom