Vista - First Impressions

Jimbo Mahoney

Jimbo Mahoney

Jimbo Mahoney

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
6,672
Well I got round to building my new rig (not the one in sig) at the weekend and installing Vista 64 for the first time. I thought I'd give my first impressions and see if anyone else feels similarly or has advice:

1) It's BIG. I use Norton Ghost to backup an image of the fresh install so I can get a clean install in just a couple of minutes. Fresh install is ~15GB (Ultimate) (probably including swap file). I have trimmed off some fat using vLite (namely things like the 1GB of languages and some other features I'll not use). This has left me with a ~ 7GB Install, which is a little more manageable.

2) It's nippy. It's pretty nice to use on the desktop and very responsive (granted this is a new build and new install - 4GB RAM).

3) It's pretty. The interface is nice, clean and aesthetic.

4) It recovers from errors elegantly - I overclocked my gfx too far and after it locked up, it simply flashed the screen for a second then informed me the graphics driver had been successfully restarted.

5) It's annoying - I can see how UAC can be a good thing for most people, but it's annoying for me for two reasons - 1) If I leave it on, it won't auto-start ATI Tray Tools. 2) If I turn it off, VOBs from an external hard drive don't play in MPC - they give a region error :confused: I wouldn't mind UAC if things at least worked when it was off OR on, but the system doesn't work properly (for me) in either state.

6) There's a lot of HDD activity on startup - presumably it's 'superfetching'? Again, I can see this being a good idea for a lot of people who routinely use the same things and start the computer, go away for a cup of tea and come back, but for me it's another annoyance. I haven't yet played with turning this off. I saw it superfetching several GBs of VOBs, which is hardly helpful.

7) Updates break things - I've got an SP1 release but decided to update to the latest 'important' updates. After these were installed, I had major problems running things like RivaTuner and ATI Tray Tools because they didn't have a signed driver. :rolleyes: Again, I can understand the rationale behind this, but at least give me, the user, the option of allowing them to run? (I've gone back to a fresh install and not updating for the moment...)

8) It's not a bencher's OS - when I get a new rig, I like to spend time pushing each component and trying to get the highest 3DMarks I can get (for my own satisfaction, not bragging rights). The scores I'm getting are abnormally low.


Summary - I'm tempted to stick with XP, but this is probably the same growing pains I had when moving from 98 to XP - the OS felt more bloated and less efficient, but did have some obvious benefits. I will probably use XP as my benching OS and Vista as my everyday gaming OS. This is a reasonable compromise as I've been happy with XP for a long time, but used to use 2000 for 3DMark 2001 benches :D
 
Last edited:
But every bad point you list are none issues. Turn uac of it should affect anything, updates should not affect anything.Even 15Gb is nothing. Come on why do you want it so small hdd's cost nothing.
use other bench marks rather than seriously outdated 3dmark.

Why is superfetch annoying? it doesn't harm you and if you absolutley hate it turn it of along with indexing if you so wish. but they are a great feature in vista. they just need a few weeks to sort themselves out.
 
disable system restore
use acronis true image (not ghost) and your image should be under 5gb
 
Jimbo Mahoney said:
Well I got round to building my new rig (not the one in sig) at the weekend and installing Vista 64 for the first time. I thought I'd give my first impressions and see if anyone else feels similarly or has advice:

5) It's annoying - I can see how UAC can be a good thing for most people, but it's annoying for me for two reasons - 1) If I leave it on, it won't auto-start ATI Tray Tools. 2) If I turn it off, VOBs from an external hard drive don't play in MPC - they give a region error :confused: I wouldn't mind UAC if things at least worked when it was off OR on, but the system doesn't work properly (for me) in either state.
Click to expand...

The problem here is ATI tray tools, not UAC. Download the latest version or harass ATI to write a guideline compatible tool that does not require admin elevation.

6) There's a lot of HDD activity on startup - presumably it's 'superfetching'? Again, I can see this being a good idea for a lot of people who routinely use the same things and start the computer, go away for a cup of tea and come back, but for me it's another annoyance. I haven't yet played with turning this off. I saw it superfetching several GBs of VOBs, which is hardly helpful.
Click to expand...

Get a readyboost compatible USB stick and that will help cut down the load times by keeping a copy of your superfetch data in suspended animation when you turn off.

With regards to what it's loading, it's probably still learning what you do with your PC (or alternatively it has learnt what you mainly use your PC for and you disagree with it). Don't turn it off, it's one of the best features of Vista once it's learnt your habits.

7) Updates break things - I've got an SP1 release but decided to update to the latest 'important' updates. After these were installed, I had major problems running things like RivaTuner and ATI Tray Tools because they didn't have a signed driver. :rolleyes: Again, I can understand the rationale behind this, but at least give me, the user, the option of allowing them to run? (I've gone back to a fresh install and not updating for the moment...)
Click to expand...

Again, this isn't a vista probem, it's a third party software issue. Correctly written software in accordance with the NT guidelines (which aren't new for vista) doesn't have these problems. Download updated programs, or find better written alternatives that are signed. (I'm guessing you're on Vista 64, which only allows signed drivers anyway).

8) It's not a bencher's OS - when I get a new rig, I like to spend time pushing each component and trying to get the highest 3DMarks I can get (for my own satisfaction, not bragging rights). The scores I'm getting are abnormally low.
Click to expand...

Real world use is generally better than benchmarking use, and I've not really had any problems with real world performance in Vista. If you've not installed SP1, that will be making some difference as there were performance enhancements as well as bug fixes in that.

Summary - I'm tempted to stick with XP, but this is probably the same growing pains I had when moving from 98 to XP - the OS felt more bloated and less efficient, but did have some obvious benefits. I will probably use XP as my benching OS and Vista as my everyday gaming OS. This is a reasonable compromise as I've been happy with XP for a long time, but used to use 2000 for 3DMark 2001 benches :D
Click to expand...

It's pretty much exactly what people said about XP when the moves started from 95/98. The problem is hanging on to old technology doesn't make sense. Vista uses some hardware in very different ways to XP, but that's because XP did it in the same way as windows 3.1 used to (eg desktop display). Overall Vista is a better OS.
 
I just find it strange that people are still having first impressions of an OS I have been using as standard for over two years now.
 
If I respond to all your comments, it will appear as if I am complaining, which is not my intention.

Burnsy2023 said:
I just find it strange that people are still having first impressions of an OS I have been using as standard for over two years now.
Click to expand...

Except this one - how is this helpful? Your posts on the Windows forum are so often condescending and of the 'I know best' approach. I apologise unreservedly if this is a 'Welcome to 2006' thread I have created, but I suspect a great many people have yet to move to Vista, if for no other reason than finances. The only reason I'm using it now is because I can avail of the Student discount program, otherwise I would still be using XP.

Back OT:

I have done the standard tweaks on the things that I do not need - System Restore, Indexing, Defrag while idle etc. - while leaving some of the things enabled - Superfetch, UAC. I'm not one of these people who carpet-bombs all of the new features immediately, crippling the system.

My summary in the OP represents the most accurate view - that my adaptation to Vista is just growing pains to a new OS.

I do actually like it, just not for benching and tweaking, which is something I enjoy. I know there is a binary view of benchmarks on this forum - those who view them as pointless and those who enjoy using them as a yardstick for the adjustments they make to their system - and obviously this particular subforum is in the former camp.

Once my system is stable and I start using it normally (games, music, internet, videos etc.), I can see it being an excellent OS.

Dolph - Thanks for your thorough reply. Yes, I'm using SP1 (as detailed in the OP). Re: 3rd party software - I just find it frustrating that the OS doesn't give me a choice of whether to run these programs or not. They are after all written by people in their spare time and cannot afford to have a licence for their software. ATI Tray Tools is a great program - I guess it's ATI's fault for not making something similar and sticking with that horrid CCC panel :D
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
I just find it strange that people are still having first impressions of an OS I have been using as standard for over two years now.
Click to expand...

Without starting a flame war, I guess that in itself says something about peoples impressions of Vista.

I would think Windows 7 will be different though and can see peoples uptake on it more significant due to the fact that if they didn't go the Vista route then there XP system will be a good few years old.
 
I duqal boot xp (32 bit) and vista 64 and although 64 bit should be much faster than 32 bit (?) the xp still seems much nippier, and many programs seem to have problems in vista, although most of these can be fixed with a bit of research, although it is still very annoying and should not be necessary. Having said that Vista does seem to be more stable than xp on my pc, but becasue of the extra power it needs to run it runs my laptop a bit hot for my liking. At the moment xp is my main os on both systems, but as more fixes for applications come out, vista will become a more viable alternative. It annoys me how Microsoft doesn't ever seem to regard compatability when they release a new operating system. For compatability and the speed of general usage with xp, I'll stick with that for now...
 
Mattf121 said:
I duqal boot xp (32 bit) and vista 64 and although 64 bit should be much faster than 32 bit (?) the xp still seems much nippier, and many programs seem to have problems in vista, although most of these can be fixed with a bit of research, although it is still very annoying and should not be necessary. Having said that Vista does seem to be more stable than xp on my pc, but becasue of the extra power it needs to run it runs my laptop a bit hot for my liking. At the moment xp is my main os on both systems, but as more fixes for applications come out, vista will become a more viable alternative. It annoys me how Microsoft doesn't ever seem to regard compatability when they release a new operating system. For compatability and the speed of general usage with xp, I'll stick with that for now...
Click to expand...

Don't blame Microsoft for the compatibility issues between Vista and other software. They changed very little of the programming guidelines or techniques in creating vista (certainly nothing that would affect above the driver level). The problems lay with those companies that had been ignoring the NT compatibility guidelines with the XP software, guidelines which are much more strictly enforced on Vista, but that the third party companies should have been obeying in the first place. (Such as not requiring unnecessary privileges, not writing to program files in normal use, not assuming write access to the system registry, not hooking into the kernal...)

It's not Microsoft's fault that third party companies ignored the guidelines that have been in place since at least NT4.
 
^agreed

even winamp 5 lite was buggy with vista, until they got their act together changed a few things (the winamp team i mean)
 
Have personally found Vista 64 breathed new life into my my system. Couldn't imagine using XP now. (Although still can't get Flash Media Dev Server to work on Vista x64 :( )
 
Jimbo Mahoney said:
I have done the standard tweaks on the things that I do not need - System Restore, Indexing, Defrag while idle etc. - while leaving some of the things enabled - Superfetch, UAC. I'm not one of these people who carpet-bombs all of the new features immediately, crippling the system.
Click to expand...

Another item you could disable is real time scanning in Windows Defender, subject to you already having a antivirus/adware solution already installed.
 
^yup, that's well worth doing, indexing in vista is good though, i'd leave it on and choose which folders it scans in control panel, indexing options
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I just find it strange that people are still having first impressions of an OS I have been using as standard for over two years now.
Click to expand...

two years this january for me too but i still remember my impressions and i was quite impressed although at times slightly peeved due to the lack of compatibility of some of the software at the time (mainly older stuff) but not enough to stop from having a sly grin at my mates who were still on xp saying vista was no good hehe
 
Sorry for the slight hijack;

@The more knowledgeable vista users, would disabling Superfetch improve performance for me? I only use Windows for photoshop & steam.

The only irritation I have with Vista is its hard disk thrashing.

Oh theres one more, WinRAR won't integrate itself into the right click menu, but I think thats down to the version I have not being signed.
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
Oh theres one more, WinRAR won't integrate itself into the right click menu, but I think thats down to the version I have not being signed.
Click to expand...

I have unsigned and its integrated too, although i do remember i when i first had winrar on vista it wasnt integrated but then i deleted the copy i had and got a new one then reinstalled it and now im integrated. hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom