Which Vista?

snowdog said:
Speed, xp is damn slow in normall windows usage compared to vista, it can't use ram as it should.
Stuff like media players, folders, ectetc start a lot faster than in xp, infact they start intstantly, while in xp, it takes upto 5 seconds sometimes in big folders, wich for me, is highly annoying...
For me superfetch alone is a massive reason to just go vista, xp is just too stupid to use RAM.
Click to expand...

Isn't that subjective for the PC used?

For example, an XP machine with 4GB of RAM and a 3.2GHZ processor is going to pee all over a Vista machine with 1GB of RAM and a 2.4GHZ processor.

I've used Vista and XP on my PC without the hardware changing and Vista did not appear faster. It may be quicker on paper, but I really couldn't see the difference when opening folders etc.
 
Robbie G said:
Very soon all these XP lovers will realise that they're missing DX10 and that (at least when SP1 comes out for Vista shortly) Vista is actually a better OS than XP.

My only advice is that you should get Vista Ultimate x64 asap, but be prepared to have to upgrade some of your developer applications for compatibility.
Click to expand...

And when that happens I'll move over. Until Vista is superior in every way, then there's no need to change.

Wheras NOW I'm using a OS that's more mature, faster performance with more stable drivers than you.
 
burnsy2023 said:
If you took that statement to the letter, you'd still be on NT4.

Burnsy
Click to expand...


No I wouldn't. I moved over from 2000 to XP once the first service pack came out. XP was a dog with terrible driver support for a while after release, I remember trying it out versus Windows 2000 Service Pack 3, and I went back to 2000. Although XP was quicker to load up, it had driver problems with the hardware I used at the time. However after a while XP support improved so 2000 was put on the shelf.

Vista isn't quite there yet. You only have to look at Creative and Nvidia Vista drivers.
 
Vista is great, better then XP, now not with some imaginary SP1. Clearly the people who keep saying this have never seriously used Vista. Now I haven't been using it for that long but I am very impressed. Before I loaded it on however I was a bit sceptical, I did use the Beta's, RC's etc for a short time just to test out. I was not impressed with those.
I have Vista Ultimate x64. It detected virtually all my hardware and installed the appropriate drivers without me having to lift a finger. The install time was incredibly quick. Far better then XP, plus you didn't have to keep pressing next and input rubbish, just set and forget. I was getting random errors, BSoD's and all sorts of funnies with XP SP2. Vista everything works, my hardware is nearly two years old!
Although yes no software is perfect. UAC obviously is annoying, and yes you can disable it fairly easily but why should I? It is a feature that I "paid" for I want it to bloody well work. The networking setup SUCKS, seriously they tried to make it for idiots. You now have to make 300 clicks just to change one simple thing, and it takes a fair bit to load. Aslo as expected with any new piece of software the requirements for running it has gone up. I ran XP fine with 1GB and saw no need to upgrade, now I am looking for 4Gb of memory (3Gb if I can find a match pair to match my current). Although this was somewhat expected.
I am not sure what these teething issue that people keep talking about. My driver support is fine as already mentioned.

[edit]Other things I forgot mention is the lack of hyper terminal (I still use Telnet damn it). Windows Mail doesn't support Hotmail, whereas Outlook Express does.
 
Last edited:
Jihad said:
nVidia drivers are alright, it's ATi's you need to look at.
Click to expand...

Nvidia's are still bad, perhaps not anymore for 8800 users, but for 7xxx and 6xxx series they are still unstable in some games, and underperforming in almost all games.
 
snowdog said:
Nvidia's are still bad, perhaps not anymore for 8800 users, but for 7xxx and 6xxx series they are still unstable in some games, and underperforming in almost all games.
Click to expand...
Ah right well my 7900GTX at least did great tbh, no real loss from XP well not anything to fuss over.
 
iCraig said:
So you can't actually think of a unique positive aspect of Vista, despite you saying that Vista didn't certain things for you that XP cannot ? I see.

The reason I ask is because I haven't come across anything so far which Vista has that XP doesn't or isn't capable of having. Sure, Vista looks nicer and has a few nifty things, but worth the money over XP? Not yet IMO.
Click to expand...

I will tell you once more i am feed up of going over the same ground.
There are loads of unique positives about vista that are covered time & time again that i will not go over again every time someone asks me to because they are to lazy or arrogant to see what i & others have written in the past when they claim its important for them to know why when in all likeness that its about personal preference to whether something is seen as a positive or not & could and up arguing all day about it.
The fact that you have to ask me says you have no clue of vista is about what's so ever.

Funny how the nay sayers say there is not much difference between XP & vista besides the GUI/DX10 but dislike vista & the GUI/DX10 is rarely the reason for doing so.


!
 
I managed to use 3 different makes of motherboards with the same vista install with just moving the harddrive between each mobo.
Saved my neck. :D
 
Same on xp, pretty much all intel and nforce chipsets are compatible, and some via too, SiS and other via's need a new install sometimes though.

I went from Intel 875p to Nforce 4 Sli 32x intel edition to Intel 945p, no problems in xp...

Dad has an hdd that has booted on about 20 different nforce and intel chipsets and some via's ( ranging from intel 845 to 975x, Nforce 2-5, and some 1 via board.).
 
Last edited:
silly person said:
So you can't actually think of a unique positive aspect of Vista, despite you saying that Vista didn't certain things for you that XP cannot ? I see.
Click to expand...

1. Detect a lot if not all hardware out of the box
2. Much faster install time
3. Readyboost for those who cannot afford a hardware upgrade at this point
4. A new UI
5. A more "user friendly" way of changing system options (which I think sucks, but I am sure people who are less technologically savvy will like it)
6. Things are less cluttered, but this really comes under the new UI
7. A more intuitive way of managing things
8. DX10
9. A more refined and simpler way of updating
10. A hassle free way of maintaining you computer, as a lot of things which were previously had to be run by the user are now moved into the background and run automatically.
11. A more efficient memory management system

They were the first 11 things that popped into my head while using Vista, there are many more. I just wanted to dispel your theories. So they might not be the best features mentioned.
 
fumbles said:
They were the first 11 things that popped into my head while using Vista, there are many more. I just wanted to dispel your theories. So they might not be the best features mentioned.
Click to expand...

1. Detect a lot if not all hardware out of the box
Xp pro does too, vista on the other hand also but not everything, no drivers at all still for my webcam and my realtek drivers also weren't standard.
2. Much faster install time
Took me a lot longer to install vista, xp is done in 10-15 mins, vista took a bit longer.
3. Readyboost for those who cannot afford a hardware upgrade at this point
Yep readyboost can be faster than hdd pagefile and cache.
4. A new UI
Yep a nice one
5. A more "user friendly" way of changing system options (which I think sucks, but I am sure people who are less technologically savvy will like it)
Suxx imo too :p .
6. Things are less cluttered, but this really comes under the new UI
Haven't noticed this myself tbh
7. A more intuitive way of managing things
Imo managing is better in xp, but each to his own I suppose
8. DX10
Not really a plus yet is it :p ?
9. A more refined and simpler way of updating
Yeah windows update is a bit nicer now.
10. A hassle free way of maintaining you computer, as a lot of things which were previously had to be run by the user are now moved into the background and run automatically.
This is a disadvantage imo, vista's defrag messed a proper ultimatedefrag defrag, wich places stuff I use mroe often on the ouside of the platter, vista ruines this.
11. A more efficient memory management system
Yep superfetch is a massive plus imo.
 
Last edited:
snowdog said:
1. Detect a lot if not all hardware out of the box
Xp pro does too, vista on the other hand also but not everything, no drivers at all still for my webcam and my realtek drivers also weren't standard.
XP Pro did virtually none of my hardware. I had to install Video card drivers, nforce4, network etc.. Also my realtek drivers worked out of the box with Vista
2. Much faster install time
Took me a lot longer to install vista, xp is done in 10-15 mins, vista took a bit longer.
Vista took about 10-15 mins for me, XP took about 1-1.5 hrs, and yes I have installed XP several times. That is not including the time it took to install all those drivers and what not to get it working. I do have to say XP64 took much quicker then XP but still longer then Vista
3. Readyboost for those who cannot afford a hardware upgrade at this point
Yep readyboost can be faster than hdd pagefile and cache.
Except it doesnt work on my computer. :( Something about the USB interface is not supported. Whereas if I had a Firewire flash thing it would work fine
4. A new UI
Yep a nice one
5. A more "user friendly" way of changing system options (which I think sucks, but I am sure people who are less technologically savvy will like it)
Suxx imo too :p .
6. Things are less cluttered, but this really comes under the new UI
Haven't noticed this myself tbh
This point is a bit vague, I didn't really want to explain it in full ... like effort
7. A more intuitive way of managing things
Imo managing is better in xp, but each to his own I suppose
Couldn't agree more, but it is somethign to get used to. I thought Win2K had the best system when XP came along, soon changed my mind after awhile. Again with Win98/ME I thought that had a better system then 2K, wasnt too long after that conclusion was changed.
8. DX10
Not really a plus yet is it :p ?
I know, I dont even have a DX10 card :( .
9. A more refined and simpler way of updating
Yeah windows update is a bit nicer now.
10. A hassle free way of maintaining you computer, as a lot of things which were previously had to be run by the user are now moved into the background and run automatically.
This is a disadvantage imo, vista's defrag messed a proper ultimatedefrag defrag, wich places stuff I use mroe often on the ouside of the platter, vista ruines this.
Windows has never really been perfect in the defrag department. However I do think its importance is over rated. Don't get me wrong I forked out for two Raptors running in RAID0, I know that the hard drive is the biggest bottleneck. It is just that I think, its not perfect (well far from) but it is good enough (ignorance is bliss on this one :) ).
11. A more efficient memory management system
Yep superfetch is a massive plus imo.
When my 4GBs of memory arrives (ie when I get of my lazy arse and go get it) I'll be happy with Vista and memory.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vista took about 10-15 mins for me, XP took about 1-1.5 hrs, and yes I have installed XP several times. That is not including the time it took to install all those drivers and what not to get it working. I do have to say XP64 took much quicker then XP but still longer then Vista
Click to expand...
Really? Mine took a lot longer as 15 mins, also xp always installs in max 20 minutes, usually between 10-15 for me, perhaps the different versions of xp take different ammount of time, my xp sp1 pro x86 takes very short to install anyhow.


This point is a bit vague, I didn't really want to explain it in full ... like effort
Click to expand...

I meant, I never noticed xp being cluttered in any way.
 
snowdog said:
Really? Mine took a lot longer as 15 mins, also xp always installs in max 20 minutes, usually between 10-15 for me, perhaps the different versions of xp take different ammount of time, my xp sp1 pro x86 takes very short to install anyhow.

I mean, I never noticed xp being cluttered in any way.
Click to expand...

Cluttered maybe wasn't the right word.

As for XP install times, I've used XP SP2 on this computer, and XP SP1 on my sisters computer (much faster then mine). Still very slow install times. Although significant improvments with my sisters (like 25-35 mins).
 
Jihad said:
Vista too ages to install, I thought my PC had frozen up numerous times, took about 40 mins in total. :o
Click to expand...


What sort of hardware are you running with it? I seem to just be lucky with Vista and rather unlucky with XP.

Mines:

AMD A'64 X2 3800+ skt939 @2.2GHz (doesn't run very stable past that :( )
Leadtek nVidia 7800GT
OCZ DDR400 2.5-3-3-7
Asus A8N-SLi Premium
2x WD Raptor 36GB MB in RAID0, nvraid on XP, Sil3114 on Vista
... rest is not that relevant.
 
fumbles said:
What sort of hardware are you running with it? I seem to just be lucky with Vista and rather unlucky with XP.

Mines:

AMD A'64 X2 3800+ skt939 @2.2GHz (doesn't run very stable past that :( )
Leadtek nVidia 7800GT
OCZ DDR400 2.5-3-3-7
Asus A8N-SLi Premium
2x WD Raptor 36GB MB in RAID0, nvraid on XP, Sil3114 on Vista
... rest is not that relevant.
Click to expand...
Rig in sig, it performs fine I'm well chuffed with the OS, just took quite a long time to install. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom