my vista rant

footman

footman

footman

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
4,303
I know this has been done a zillion times already but I'm finding this Vista stuff confusing. I have Vista Ultimate 32 bit, clean install on a seperate drive with dual boot.
So far my accounting application gives a GPF, NOD32 cannot update and only sometimes am I able to install a downloaded program. Oh and I cant seem to import my Firefox bookmarks in a way that makes any sense.
 
tbh if you download the latest versions of stuff, you wont have a problem

ive used both AVG Anti virus and Avira both without any issues on Vista. Simply downloading the latest versions off the website saw to that

nero had problems when i first started on vista, but again a quick download of the patches and i was away.

bottom line is, its other software not being compatible with vista, which is why they release patches that make them compatible

whats the problem with installing downloaded programes ? i havent had any problems in vista bar the network slowness thats well documented.
 
As already said, the problem is usually not Vista, it is with the software you are installing. I have NOD32 and it updates fine under Vista. I can also import bookmarks in Firefox. Make sure you have the latest versions of everything and you will be fine. Otherwise PEBKAC! ;)
 
Kobrakai said:
As already said, the problem is usually not Vista, it is with the software you are installing. I have NOD32 and it updates fine under Vista. I can also import bookmarks in Firefox. Make sure you have the latest versions of everything and you will be fine. Otherwise PEBKAC! ;)
Click to expand...

Yes PEBKAC is probably quite funny. Anyway I'm doing a format and fresh install.
cheers
 
Well, I've re-installed it and its better. Its strange how differently it behaves with the 2nd install. For instance, when I installed the Nvidia drivers the 1st time, after reboot it automatically showed the best resolution, but the 2nd time it made me choose the best res.

Still having troubles with Firefox bookmarks but the problem I had with the install of the Canon printer driver has been resolved, but once again the process was quite different.

Long ago I decded that computer systems closely resembled the interdependant systems of the human body, which I'm much more used to dealing with in my work.
 
Athanor said:
Fixed :)
Click to expand...
Obselete maybe - but XP is compatible with much more hardware than Vista, less problems and not half as slow as Vista.

Maybe you could fix the above after a little time fiddling. But why bother, when you can install a perfectly fine OS in about 45 minutes?
 
Obsolete? Not in the slightest! I'm sure that this 'obsolete' OS is installed on more desktops than Vista is. Therefor, in no way is it obsolete, nor will it be in years to come.
 
basmic said:
Obselete maybe - but XP is compatible with much more hardware than Vista, less problems and not half as slow as Vista.

Maybe you could fix the above after a little time fiddling. But why bother, when you can install a perfectly fine OS in about 45 minutes?
Click to expand...

for goodness sake man

anybody with half a brain can work out for themselves that XP and Vista arent half as different as your making out.

"compatibile with much more hardware" rofl like what exactly ?
 
Vista 32 bit = XP 32 bit + extra bloat (plus a few nice spangly additions) anyone that says it is less compatible for ANY reason other than the odd Aero problem (which can be disabled as and when needed) really hasnt tried Vista 32 bit... Yes I know they say Vista was a "totally new core" but thats just not true and we all know it, no self respecting company would take a perfectly servicable basic framework and chuck it away. I can guarantee the basic Vista sub system is a tweaked and updatd version of what you find in XP.

Now Vista 64 bit is built around XP 64 bit, and like XP 64 bit there are still driver issues and its likely that as long as HW companies think 32 bit and 3.5GB RAM limits is the future (and some still do...) then there is likely to be a few issues with some HW or software that utilises system level drivers.

I personally have had 32 bit Vista Business since the day it was released and have so far not been able to install one 5 year old game because its MSI install package was hardcoded to only accept upto windows xp (it wouldnt work under x64 when i had that either..) Nothing a quick MSI edit couldnt fix.

Even non supported HW (of which i now have nothing, but my computer is reasonably new throughut) would work using previous XP drivers if it was really necessery!

Seriousely. We use windows because it looks nice and allows us to run any software we want to buy, Vista is just like XP was to 2000 or 98, more of the same, tweaked, with added bloated bits but just enough extra polish to make it feel worthwhile.

I use Vista and XP daily, one on my main machine one on my laptop. I hate going back to XP as it all just feels that little bit less slick, that little bit more clunky. I know its all down to animations in the GUI and tricks of the eye such as hw rendered transparancy, but I dont care, thats why I bought a kick ass PC!!
 
MrLOL said:
for goodness sake man

anybody with half a brain can work out for themselves that XP and Vista arent half as different as your making out.

"compatibile with much more hardware" rofl like what exactly ?
Click to expand...
I seem to recall several USB memory sticks not being recognised, as well as even more bluetooth and wireless dongles. All of which were usually recognised first time round in XP.
 
I know I'm an absolute noob at this stuff, but Vista certainly behaves differently. Ive just had to put a hack to get Cod2 to run (it wouldnt see the cd rom) to get the game to work. XP saw my perfectly legit cd rom fine.
 
basmic said:
Welcome to ME2.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when you let GD posters out of GD. :rolleyes:

Obselete maybe - but XP is compatible with much more hardware than Vista, less problems and not half as slow as Vista.

Maybe you could fix the above after a little time fiddling. But why bother, when you can install a perfectly fine OS in about 45 minutes?
Click to expand...

You know what else? When XP launched guess what? Windows 2000/Me had all the drivers whereas XP had none. Oh, and when 2000 launched, 98 had all the drivers and 2000 had none. See a pattern?

Vista is much much faster than XP. And it'll only get faster.
 
manic_man said:
Yes I know they say Vista was a "totally new core" but thats just not true and we all know it, no self respecting company would take a perfectly servicable basic framework and chuck it away. I can guarantee the basic Vista sub system is a tweaked and updatd version of what you find in XP
Click to expand...
MS have said it was based on the 2003 kernel and was a natural progression. BUT a lot of legacy code and other parts that were getting long in the tooth were thrown in the bin and rewritten from the ground up - most notably the sound subsystem and the network stack.
 
The stuff that was re-written is now written in managed code (.NET), meaning it is more memory efficient now as it uses features such as garbage collection to free up unused memory. Also there are no pointers anymore, this means there will no longer be memory leaks and buffer overruns, so that it doesn’t crash as much and is more stable. Managed code is also a LOT more secure, it can check for programs reading other programs memory, and things like viruses and Trojans that attach themselves to normal files.

A lot of the main windows API’s are also written in managed code now (WinFX?), meaning they are written far more efficiently rather than before when they were written using thousands of lines of non-object-oriented C code. Now things that previously took hundreds of lines of code can be written with as little as just one. This will also help to increase productivity in future windows releases and service packs/patches as it will take far less time to implement new features or find bugs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom