Should I vista?

NathanE · 16 May 2007 at 19:04

True OcUK'ers and computing enthusiasts use Vista

iMacMart · 16 May 2007 at 20:01

IS there any dates out for a service pack release that we know of?

NathanE · 16 May 2007 at 20:09

End of the summer, not that it matters

Participant · 16 May 2007 at 20:27

ALC said:
Should I vista?

Yes.

My old Barton XP2500+ rig ran Vista Ultimate faster than it did XP Pro. Now it absolutely flies.

Do it, Vista is better.

Digital Punk · 16 May 2007 at 21:07

Spawn said:
apart from driver issues i quite like it tbh.

And therein lies the main problem which stops me from switching.

Until the drivers give me full functionality and speed like the ones in XP then I'm staying away.

Tbh though, I'm really not excited by Vista at all anyway, so I'm not particularly bothered.

A[L]C · 16 May 2007 at 22:07

Is it possible to dual boot vista and xp from the same partition? Likely to cause problems?

shine · 16 May 2007 at 22:15

A[L]C said:
Is it possible to dual boot vista and xp from the same partition? Likely to cause problems?

You can do it and it should be straightforward. There are some instructions with a step by step guide on how to this in this forum.

tripitaka · 17 May 2007 at 10:16

Not from the same partition, surely?

Separate partitions for each OS.

Rhys · 17 May 2007 at 10:47

These reports of Vista flying, all my xp fresh install flew too for the first few weeks.

something daft already!! · 17 May 2007 at 10:54

ShakenNstirred said:
vista isn't more resource hungry, it uses resources differently to XP(there is no point having resources just sitting there not being used) so vista uses them till something else needs them, then it releases them.
also if you wait till XP security updates are no longer released, it will be years before you upgrade

Vista DOES have a larger footprint than XP, regardless of superfetch. It is simply a larger OS. I found 2.75 GB was ok with XP and the latest games, with Vista, 3.25 gb gives the same memory performance. So I conclude that Vista uses about 256mb-512mb more than XP. XP minimum spec 64 mb, Vista 512. Does that tell you anything?

m4cc45 · 17 May 2007 at 11:40

The_KiD said:
Hang on?

What I was saying was:

a) A lot of people appear to be ditching their vista installations in favour of going back to Vista
b) I was then saying have a look at their reasons for doing so
c) I was then saying he should make up his own mind based on that research

So what part do you mean has no basis in reality ? unless you mean the well documented problem with the mfpmp.exe?

I wasnt saying Vista is pants DONT DO IT!!!!!!111111

I wasnt even saying I had used Vista!!

I was saying, have a read through some of the problems people have been having, then make your own mind up.

Man some people eh!

Really can you tell me what you are saying - people are ditching vista to go back to vista? Doesn't make sense.

Do I really listen to people who type in capitals with !!!111 after it?

Vista is an excellent piece of software. Several months after release it still has very little in the way of patches. As with Windows XP the main fault of any operating system is the user. People who can't be wait for programs to close correctly and keep hitting the X in the top-right hand corner forcing a close error.

If you want the latest operating system with all the bells and whistles then upgrade (I currently run it on a laptop with 1GB of memory and a PC with 1.5GB memory - I have no problems, slowness or anything with either).

Oh and if you look at the repsonses to the link you posted I think it's a load of rubbish. No need to delete anything IMHO.

M.

Dyson · 17 May 2007 at 11:47

Using vista premium 64 here for about 4/5 weeks. All good from my experiance, all my games work, all my apps work, infact theonly thing that didn't work were my usb medusa headphones.

Even my ten year old Epson printed worked :eek:

Final8y · 17 May 2007 at 20:28

Some one mentioned about a fresh install would be nice & nippy.
Well in XP it was fast after a fresh install & would get slower after time.
but i have not seen any slowdown from vista from the day i installed it & that was about a week after release.

Opening the control panel in xp would show significant slow down after time but on vista you hit the button & boom its there.

squiffy · 17 May 2007 at 20:30

Final8y said:
Some one mentioned about a fresh install would be nice & nippy.
Well in XP it was fast after a fresh install & would get slower after time.
but i have not seen any slowdown from vista from the day i installed it & that was about a week after release.

Opening the control panel in xp would show significant slow down after time but on vista you hit the button & boom its there.

That's because it's loaded everything including the kitchen sink into memory.

shine · 17 May 2007 at 20:32

squiffy said:
That's because it's loaded everything including the kitchen sink into memory.

Which isn't a bad thing if you've got it spare.

Final8y · 17 May 2007 at 21:44

squiffy said:
That's because it's loaded everything including the kitchen sink into memory.

Yep Its doing what its supposed to do just fine.

A[L]C · 23 May 2007 at 10:41

Ok installed vista on to a 40gig drive I had spare.

Does anyone know if vista has a function like microsoft private folder whereby you can password protect folders?

A[L]C · 23 May 2007 at 20:17

Ok hit a dead end. Can't find Vista drivers for my ASrock 939S56-M

shine · 24 May 2007 at 00:15

A[L]C said:
Ok installed vista on to a 40gig drive I had spare.

Does anyone know if vista has a function like microsoft private folder whereby you can password protect folders?

I think it depends on the version of Vista you have - Business or Ultimate have the encrypt facility.

shine · 24 May 2007 at 00:17

A[L]C said:
Ok hit a dead end. Can't find Vista drivers for my ASrock 939S56-M

Would these work?