Good practice would have a reinstall on a chipset change anyway, especially if you want maximum performance.
Experience taught me this is a myth, properly cleaning your pc (and keeping it clean) and wiping old drivers properly is enough, I've compared my hdd, gfx, cpu, ram and game performance to many many pc's and found it's performing the same, as it should, even after 3 or 4 years.
Compatibility with properly written programs or standards compliant hardware is not a problem in vista, it's only things that were 'broken' in the first place that struggle. Very few windows programs should need to run as admin as default, for example (games are especially guilty of this), but because of the way XP worked and the fact that it didn't force users to adopt good practice lazy developers exploited it.
UAC is a classic example of this, most programs should not set off UAC when being run, yet because they do, people assume UAC is rubbish, when in actual fact, it's the software that sets it off by demanding high level privileges that's rubbish in the vast majority of cases.
UAC imo is useless for a pc enthousiast, it's just a pain...
I don't want more security, I've been for years in xp even without an AV and it was all fine as I used common sence. ( now have an AV though). UAC should never exits in the first place.
NAT FW + AV + anti ad/spyware is enough, I don't need any more stuff like UAC or whatever.
Security center, likewise, is a good thing, as is the 'nagging' it does when people ignore good computing practices.
Again, for pc enthousiatsts this is just a pain in the ***.
I know what security I have, windows has no right to whine to me about having no FW wich happens to be in my router....
Defragging in the background is also a good thing, provided it's not impacting your workrate (which it isn't if you're screensavered), rebooting after installing updates, again, is good practice, because the updates won't generally become active until you do so.
No, it's annoying:
1: I defrag with ultimatedefrag, wich places my more imortant things on the faster bits of the hdd, I select stuff manually wich I want on the fast bits of my hdd. A normall defrag makes a complete mess again slowing my pc down, as unlike windows, I know what I use often and need the speeds for, eg. I don't want my 80 gb music folder to sit on the fast bits of the hdd, a 5mb mp3 file can be loaded just as fast on the slow bit of the hdd... I want games like BF2 sit on the fast outer edges of the platter...
2: I still have 2 Fat32 partitions on my hdd, shutting down defrag on these takes AGES, slowing my pc down for awhile after screensaver. Besides I don't want it defragging when I do a prime95 test on a potentially unstable overclock, fat32 will just corrupt files this way if my pc happens to crash or bsod when moving stuff around like defrag does, unlike ntfs wich only removes the original after the copy has been verified, fat32 truely cuts files, if halfway a file fails to move due to a bsod/crash you can be sure it's corrupted. ( I use fat32 for personal reasons )
It seems most of your objections to vista relate to you thinking you know what you are doing, and yet you don't understand the reasoning behind why things are set up the way they are. In many ways, vista's nagging is trying to teach you how you should have been doing things all along...
Yes, but that's what I'm saying, I don't want to be taught and seen as some idiot using the pc by my OS. I want to be in control of my pc, using the OS as a tool, not using it as a lets say controller, that listens to my commands then insetad of boldly following it commands the pc itself.
When I say do that I want it without being asked asking questions, or informing me about something potentially unsafe.
, I don't want to turn the pc off atm, DONT YOU GET IT VISTA ?, WAIT till it's night when I turn off my pc you stupid OS.
