Bye bye vista
- Thread starter Combat squirrel
- Start date
Thats exactly what it means no need to download any updates to see the benefit of this.
example
installed the HP multifuntion software on all PCs (XP/Vista alike) all XPs work fine as do 3 of the vistas, the other vistas just will not see the printer (or vice versa)
again, exactly the same setup, exactly the same network etc.
baffled.
As others have suggested I think it's probably a different problem. Maybe memory or something along those lines but then you should have other symptoms such as random crashing.
I have been working with archives of up to around 10GB in size (databases mainly) and archiving / unarchiving these has been fine. Used a lot of third party tools for comparrison as well such as 7Zip / WinACE / WinZip as well. All worked fine.
M.
nope, from the CD, localy, no domain here (no server in the production enviroment).
Currently using the old man's machine after my main rig's PSU died. Mine was on XP, his is on Vista. Only been using it a week and already wish I was on XP. Vista has some excellent features. I wish I could get something in between XP and Vista, would be perfect, hopefully Windows 7 will be that.
Went through 2 motherboards with Vista and each time never had any problem whatsoever apart from pre-SP1 activation problems. I do find that installing the "wrong" software can make Vista run like a blind dog with 3 legs, ie. Outpost Firewall Pro 
. I was scratching my head until I installed OFP and it ran so much faster and snappier, so far so good 
. I was scratching my head until I installed OFP and it ran so much faster and snappier, so far so good Big problem is software. If all you use is office and a web browser then vista is fine. But I use:
A 2003 based domain - vista has issues
Ultraedit - vista has issues
Dreamweaver 8 - vista has issues
Nero 6 - vista has issues
Photoshop 7 - vista has issues
I am NOT upgrading all those bits of software (the cost is over £1000) just so I can see more eye candy. Plus we cannot take the risk of a domain update with the vista patches in order to get vista to be nice on the domain. As for upgrading to 2008 servers the CAL cost is prohibitive.
XP and the software above does everything we need it to - there is not a single reason to upgrade.
Just my take....
A 2003 based domain - vista has issues
Ultraedit - vista has issues
Dreamweaver 8 - vista has issues
Nero 6 - vista has issues
Photoshop 7 - vista has issues
I am NOT upgrading all those bits of software (the cost is over £1000) just so I can see more eye candy. Plus we cannot take the risk of a domain update with the vista patches in order to get vista to be nice on the domain. As for upgrading to 2008 servers the CAL cost is prohibitive.
XP and the software above does everything we need it to - there is not a single reason to upgrade.
Just my take....
Dual booting VISTA-SP1 alongside XP PRO-SP3, (both 32 bit) my opinions so far, VISTA looks prettier than XP with aeroglass enabled, but it eats 500MB of memory to do it, and that's after disabling a ton of unwanted services running in the background, the other thing about VISTA that's worrying me is the amount of hard drive activity. it's not exactly disk thrashing, but there seems to be much more HD activity running VISTA compared to XP, thats probably due to background services, 36 services running in VISTA after tweaking, 14 services running in XP after tweaking. I disabled the superfetch, readyboost, and indexing services which are reported to be the causes of disk thrashing in VISTA, also ran a defrag but the HD still chatters away. When I want speed I boot into XP, when I'm bored I boot into VISTA and play around with the special effects, but if I ever I get short on disc space the VISTA partition will be the first to get deleted. My VISTA performance rating is currently 5.6
-
-
Last edited:
agreed....i've used Vista since the betas and for home desktop use there's been little wrong with it for ages unless you have some quirky hardware.
i am also in linux (Arch primarily) quite a lot so i'm definitely not completely Pro MS but there's very little wrong with Vista - DX10 is a ballsup but that's a completely different subject altogether.
ppl who are still complaining about network problems and file copying problems need to look at their own skills, those things were fixed eons ago.
A 2003 domain? We have several PC's out there on a vanilla 2003 domain (10 in test at the moment) running Vista Business and some very old legacy applications fine. I agree it's not worth upgrading the software but the only reason the software doesn't work is because it's old (Photoshops on version CS3 which is 4 or 5 versions higher than yours for example. Nero is on version 8, etc.)
Seriously you can't blame Vista for that. That's purely business sense from the software manufacturers (why should they support 6 year old applications, etc.)
The CAL cost here is the minor side of the things as it's only an upgrade licence (we're moving to an enterprise agreement so it gets cheaper as well). The time issue is the most expensive as we have over 20 DC's that need upgrading throughout the infrastructure.
M.
Vista Aero Glass should never touch your resources as it's done at the GPU level rather than at the O/S level. It's probably using the memory for superfetch and what have you. I wouldn't worry about the memory usage. What's the point in having 20GB of memory if you're never using it? It's the fastest readable / writable part of your PC so using it efficiently is much better than not using it at all.
M.
The only reason I run VISTA alongside XP is because I do like the Aeroglass effect, and I don't have any performance issues running Aero, like I said my performance rating in VISTA is 6.5 and it runs smoothly on my 2GB's Ballistix RAM, nevertherless when compared to my XP-PRO set-up, VISTA is noticably slower, those are my personal experiences, I don't advocate one OS over the other, choose whichever you like best, my choice will always be for XP over VISTA, others prefer VISTA over XP ... so be it.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I don't understand why you would want to disable superfetch and disk indexing. That simply makes no sense to me.
[DOD]Asprilla;12099914 said:
simple really,
indexing + superfetch + readyboost on (using a 4GB Kingston Data traveller USB stick) = Increased HD activity bordering on disc thrashing.
indexing + superfetch + readyboost off = no disc thrashing.
not just me, seems like others experience it too if you google "vista disk thrashing".
Has to be said, you fail at tweaking vista. Turning superfetch off is the first indication of this (Superfectch enables the PC to make much better use of the available ram based on your usage patterns, and is one of the reasons why an established Vista install feels a lot quicker than an established XP one). You've also made the mistake of assuming more services = bad without looking at what those services do, and seem reluctant for the OS to actually use the features your PC has provided it, concerns about memory footprint and disk usage tend to support this idea.
The big issue is that you're assuming the things that were important in XP (eg low memory footprint because XP would waste lots if you let it) apply the same in vista, without checking what those things using the features of your PC are actually doing for you, and therefore setting up your vista system like you would an XP one. It's an easy mistake to make, but it tends to mean you don't get the best from vista, which is designed to make efficient use of all parts of your PC when you aren't using them for other things (this is the key difference, if XP was using something, it would stop everything else from using it. Vista uses things if they are available but gives them up if something else wants to use them).
these are not assumtions, they're my personal experiences using the OS. ... on a clean install of VISTA ultimate, that is defragging my new HD, then checking the HD for any errors, then creating a fresh 150GB NTFS partition for VISTA, then installing VISTA and WITHOUT touching any of the services VISTA is SLOW compared to XP.
I don't have use for many of the services that are set to run as default in VISTA, I don't have a printer so I disable spooler, I don't have tablet, so I disable tablet services, I prefer to update VISTA manually so I disable Windows update, I use ESET Smart Security rather than Windows Security so that service can go too, so can Bit Defender, so can Anti-Phishing and Windows Firewall, the list goes on, I only disable those services I don't need. Now it could well be that VISTA doesn't like it's services being disabled, which may account for some of the disc thrashing I'm experiencing, it could be that VISTA is searching for services I've disabled.
I'm gonna refomat and do a clean install of VISTA, I won't touch anything once the installation is complete and lets see what happens!
Last edited:
Re-read what I wrote, and understand how superfetch/indexing work. It takes a few weeks of use for the system to learn your usage pattern and complete the initial indexing. The disk thrashing rapidly calms down during this time, because for the first few weeks, it is checking, indexing and reloading things a lot.
No, use it for a few weeks then compare it, and remember, many of the benefits aren't direct performance boosts such as X fps increase in game Y, but productivity increases and do depend on the user making use of them, which means learning what they are, when they can benefit you and making use of them in that way, rather than just wanting it to be exactly like XP.
I really miss the various features of Vista when I have to use an XP PC, they seem slow and sluggish, especially when loading common programs or trying to find a file. Trying to open photoshop on XP against vista is a nightmare if vista keeps it in your superfetch and so on.