Why I ditched Vista

[Cuchulain]

Everyone's system will run differently even if they are more or less the same. it depends on harwdare configuration and system drivers installed. Comparing what some joe on some website gets to what I get is not accurate.

As for treble control etc, I don't need it and never will need it, I have an amplifier where I output to and control everything off that but for the record:

And no mode switcher? are you SURE?

Good for you, you're the one mis-informed not me

Fair point regarding the Bass/treble, I didn't know the settings would be in the control panel, and as for the mode switcher, I'm talking about the screen you get up after you switch mode under XP.

Edit*


I also read reviews and articles that Vista learns how you use it and the files you access most often, it arranges the drive to accomodate for this which is why even with indexing off you experience some disk usage when normally there would not be any. This happens for several days until it settles into optimum usage. This backs up what I experienced the first few days too.

Sounds to me like you didn't use it long enough and immediately brushed it off as rubbish..

I used it for around 4 weeks, plenty of time for me to make my mind up and switch back to a far more stable, more responsive and better supported operating system.

Back to Lost Planet though (and you're outlandish FPS claims), we've just tried the demo on his machine (less than a week old, only has FS9 installed on it), it's running a C2D E6600 at stock, single 8800GTX, 2gb of PC6400 at 1680x1050, AA is disabled using Vista HP (32 bit) and we get around 27-30fps, I've tried the DX9 demo on my machine and I get > 50fps.

Edit: That's with my processor backed down to 2.4ghz

 

[PsiFox]

Indeed, it's MEANT to use more memory, the more memory being used the faster everything you use regularly can load!


Now I have absolutely no faults with vista at all, I really like it, it's faster than XP, better, MCE rocks!, DX10 rocks! Gaming Rocks!

Same here not one crash since install 2 months ago and if this pc was a r/c monster truck it would be an extreme basher

 

[Participant]

You've never looked at the Creative support forum I guess, tell me, how do you alter the treble & bass for your Xfi with no Mode Switcher under Vista?

There is a mode switcher under Vista...

 

[Cuchulain]

There is a mode switcher under Vista...

Can you post a screenshot of the gaming mode screen?

i.e.

Do you get that (and the entertainment/music creation one) under Vista?

 

[masslac]

Where goes my precious 1 gig of ram?

It's called caching. Look it up. LOL @ people who buy high-end machines then complain when theyre actually being used tbh.

 

[ShakenNstirred]

in all fairness to MS the hardware manufacturers had 4/5 years to develop drivers .
blame them.

so true
i run vista 64bit ultimate on my laptop and only had one problem installing it(had to wait 2 weeks for a driver for the built in webcam)
games run fine on it(nvidia 7600/256mb)
i havent seen a 30% drop in the games i have run(gtr2/rome total war and a few others)

 

[Participant]

@ Cuchulain

 

[Final8y]

For me, it's slower than XP, I don't need MCE, I don't know why you think DX10 rocks when there's absolutely nothing to showcase it yet and as for gaming, it's proven across the board than XP gives better framerates.

Yep a huge 5fps drop on avg at medium res but gets better as the res goes up.
Going from 150fps XP to 145fps Vista is a real killer & at worst 140fps, would make it unplayable.

 

[squiffy]

Yep a huge 5fps drop on avg at medium res but gets better as the res goes up.
Going from 150fps XP to 145fps Vista is a real killer & at worst 140fps, would make it unplayable.

More like 20fps. ah well you've got pretty icons instead.

 

[bledd]

if you disable defender's real-time scanning it speeds things up a bit (including file transfers)

the nvidia + creative drivers are still really shocking, with the newer nvidia drivers, it limits my xerox 19inch tft to 1024x768 (known problem on nvidia forums)

i've moved back to xp for the time being

you have to expect teething problems with any new microsoft os, due to the vast variation of hardware they have to support, i'm not angry about it, i'll just wait for better support

 

[Final8y]

More like 20fps. ah well you've got pretty icons instead.

Not by these tests http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/19/
the vista v XP are on the lower portions & click forward pages to see more.

 

[Cuchulain]

if you disable defender's real-time scanning it speeds things up a bit (including file transfers)

the nvidia + creative drivers are still really shocking, with the newer nvidia drivers, it limits my xerox 19inch tft to 1024x768 (known problem on nvidia forums)

i've moved back to xp for the time being

you have to expect teething problems with any new microsoft os, due to the vast variation of hardware they have to support, i'm not angry about it, i'll just wait for better support

Windows defender was the first thing to go, along with indexing, themes and a lot of non-essential services, didn't really make a lot of difference for me.

In regards to your final point, I agree with you, and I said as much in my original post, I don't particularly care if it's Microsofts, Intels, Creatives or Santa Clauses fault, Vista doesn't do it for me and until it can match or outperform XP in every way then I see no reason to use it until such a time as it can.

 

[zaza]

I switched from xp, and certainly didn't get a 30% drop in perfomance for games, it must just be you. Haven't had one CTD yet touch wood.

 

[blade007]

Had it for a bit now, and it hasn't crashed yet. I only do office stuff so I probably don't stress it enough to bomb out.

I like it. I have the Ultimate edition, so I also get the Dreamscene plugin. Awesome. For 30mins! Good if you've got a mint gfx card, but I only got a 9600pro and it's not good enough to do all that as well as transparency.

I like Vista, and have i running on 2gb RAM. I think a lot of the time it's actually quicker than XP for normal tasks. A lot of stuff loads instantly, meaning it's probably in memory.

no complaints.

 

[Cuchulain]

HardOCP summed it up for me

This article is not to slam Vista and label it as a poor gaming operating system. However, we will say that at the current time, gaming is not what it could be on Vista. Given all of the variables, it’s hard to dismiss the fact that Vista is the common denominator. Many (including us) have pointed at poor driver support being the Achilles heel of Windows Vista. In this case, we used two different graphics drivers and got essentially the same results: worse performance in Vista. If we then say, “Okay, maybe it’s not the graphics drivers,” then at what else do we point the finger? Chipset drivers? Hard drive access? RAM? Though we’ve seen upgraded chipset drivers improve system stability, it’s rare that we see it improve gaming performance.


In the end, it looks like the the new, bulky, poorly supported operating system is at the root of it all. This is not to say that this is a final verdict. If Microsoft keeps to its pattern, we can expect a service pack that may do some Spring cleaning with the OS and improve its ability to support better performance in games. We think that we’ll also see more driver and patch revisions from graphics chipset designers and game publishers.

 

[Supercow]

More like 20fps. ah well you've got pretty icons instead.

When we are cruising along with our DX 10 games, we will be sure to wave at thwe XP boys as we sail along

 

[Psypher5]

i ditched vista for the gaming.


Anno was unplayable (on low, etc) on xp its perfectly fine (on max),
css was slower, 2142/bf2 were slower.

However, i LOVe the styling, the looks, the sound interface, network interface, icons, sounds, etc etc.

Shame, id use it if it could play games I play

 

[lay-z-boy]

When we are cruising along with our DX 10 games, we will be sure to wave at thwe XP boys as we sail along

And by then most gamers will have moved over to vista.

As of now, driver support is terrible and there are still some bugs to iron out.

If you don't game but have it for general sort of use its great but then i would question someone's thinking if they went from xp to vista when all they do is av, the internets and the odd bit of office work.

 

[Slogan]

you have to expect teething problems with any new microsoft os, due to the vast variation of hardware they have to support, i'm not angry about it, i'll just wait for better support

Probably the most sensible line in the whole thread. Although I did like the imagery that sup3rc0w's post about cruising and waving at the 'XP boys' gave.

I think it's easy to point the finger a Microsoft - obviously they're not blameless and I think they've implemented security in a way that is intrusive as opposed to benefical.

Whoever had the idea of the UAC and planned for it to be implemented in that way, obviously hasn't sat at a computer and used more than 3 different programs. It's ridiculous. The fact that the UAC even questions Microsoft's own software is funny - although if it didn't you would get people complaining that Microsoft were running all sorts of processes behind your back, without permission.

If people want a stable operating system and somewhere to do their important work - with little fear, then stick with XP. Then back up your work. It (XP) has developed into a great operating system (SP2) and honestly is a credit to Microsoft and its users, from where it started.

The problem is, people want the 'Wow' and the latest software in-thing, but don't want to have to put up with any issues. I think the 'Wow' and over-use of the word 'Wow' in Microsoft's advertising has blinded people to the fact that this is a completely new operating system - and not only that, but an operating system that (most of) the third party software and hardware companies have been disappointingly poor in supporting.

And I hope a lot of them lose customers over their lack of effort to provide for people who pump money into their services and products.

I'm by no means disillusioned. Confirmed by the fact that I'm currently sitting through a re-install of Vista Home Premium as I type this (format is at 67% for those who care, oh, 68%) and that when I tried clicking my Call of Duty logo in the games folder earlier, it opened Battlefield 2 instead.

Microsoft's advertising of the operating system is mis-leading, of course, it makes it sound like its all fun and games - but they have a lot of money to get back on Vista and over time they will do - and come SP1, things will start to brighten up and the migration process will become a smoother one.

Hell, the addition of decent drivers in the next month or two (here's to hoping) should make it a lot more decent than it already is.

It boils down to a new operating system clashing with lack of support for software and hardware - and that sort of cocktail is never going to be sweet when people's lifes, work, memories etc... etc.. are stored on the computer running it.

Yours sincerely, a Microsoft fanboi.

 

[NathanE]

Whoever had the idea of the UAC and planned for it to be implemented in that way, obviously hasn't sat at a computer and used more than 3 different programs. It's ridiculous. The fact that the UAC even questions Microsoft's own software is funny - although if it didn't you would get people complaining that Microsoft were running all sorts of processes behind your back, without permission.

I don't think you quite understand the principle behind UAC.