Initial Windows Vista thoughts

Doosht

Doosht

Doosht

Associate
Joined
5 Mar 2003
Posts
1,582
Location
Swadlincote
Not good to be honest.

Looks pretty but is painfully slow on a half decent computer.
Every time i have a go on MAC OS X it seems so much better.
I think i'm closer than ever to moving away from windows.
 
i just installed vista RC2 again this morning - 1st time on a real pc - last time was virtual.

so far, no faults really. faster than i thought it would be. dont know if thats because of any improvements or just that all new installs of any windows OS are quick.

turned off UAC - for a few days - when you are installing loads of newprogs/drivers etc its not a good thing to have on :) - once thats all done tho - then i'll pop it back on. kinda used to it since kerio pers firewall and nod32 do a similar thing.

probs - bobbing in firefox. reinstalled firefox - solved for the most part - comes back every now and then and have to reload the page to fix??? :confused:

not happy that i cant see the fragmentation - whether i *need* to or not, i *want* to - have installed o&o defrag which is brill anyways.

have installed nod32 as AV and acronis for backups - same as xp. dont want to mess around with microsofts backup software. acronis is tried and tested - microsofts isnt

really upset over kerio not working in vista though :( - will probably grab the free zonealarm and then ditch that for kerio when it supports vista.

downloads are faster for some reason. poss improvements in network stack? did have connection probs to begin with. had a valid 192 ip from router. could ping router. could view configs but couldnt get to the net. any ping past the router came back err 1231. release renew for a while fixed - odd :o

hardware - found everything apart from drivers for sata raid. no probs though.

overall - it's nice/fast and pretty.

going to be adding a load of software over the weekend for video encoding so will be interesting to see how that compares to XP.

also will be interesting to see how emr compares to vmr9 and if it uses the gpu for *all* video decoding.
 
tomos said:
overall - it's nice/fast and pretty.

going to be adding a load of software over the weekend
Click to expand...

Its fast because its a brand new install of Windows. XP is fast with no pograms installed. Wait until you add that "load of software" over the weekend.

lol. Pretty. :)
 
the-void said:
Its fast because its a brand new install of Windows. XP is fast with no pograms installed. Wait until you add that "load of software" over the weekend.
Click to expand...
Vista defragments itself when you're not looking and if you have a bucket load of RAM, SuperFetch's learning abilities usually make windows faster over time.

Not quite sure of the OPs spec, but Vista is definitely quicker than XP on my PCs. It's either a lack of RAM or some random driver issue (I had an Athlon XP 2400+ that ran Vista far quicker than an A64 3500+, so I can only assume it was a chipset driver issue)
 
Diskeeper 07 defrags all the time when your not looking, so nothing new in vista. Vista still uses a registry, and its that what gets clogged up and slows down your machine over time.
 
the-void said:
Diskeeper 07 defrags all the time when your not looking, so nothing new in vista. Vista still uses a registry, and its that what gets clogged up and slows down your machine over time.
Click to expand...
But diskeeper's likely to slow the machine down itself. And it's not free with the OS.

Vista has IO priorities, so the background tasks (defrag, indexer etc) don't get priority over anything you're doing.

The last time I reinstalled Vista was at release in November, and I've noticed no slowdown. It coudl be because I'm careful about what programs I install and don't install too much, or it could be because Vista's better - who knows. But there's evidently no convincing you. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom