Chicks dig RAM

I buy RAM and super fast processor to run my applications, not whatever the application need to work on.
And btw, Xp didnt increase the performance required as much as Vista... if you consider it being the follow up to Win2k

Originally Posted by Tim S
Awesome post, welcome to the forums. :)

Thanks! As for my position on Vista, I think it will be good, but for my needs, it's just not ready yet. I truly wanted to use it for my HTPC, but I couldn't get any sort of hardware acceleration out of my Geforce 8500GT for MPEG2 and OTA HDTV, no matter what I tried. Maybe it's Nvidia's fault and not Microsoft's, but I would have 60-90% CPU usage as opposed to around 10-15% in XP. My Athlon 64 X2 4600+ should be powerful enough on the processor side, but HD video stutters when using media center. It's unfortunate because I prefer the interface and many of Vista's features over XP, but that one thing keeps me from using it.

As for my main rig, I'll probably upgrade to Vista sometime next year when I pick up a 2nd gen DX10 card. I also figure drivers will have matured quite a bit and it'll be an easy move. For me it really goes back to what was said in that "Functionality not included" article from a while back:

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2007/05/26/functionality_not_included/1

I think I did the same thing with XP, although, I jumped over pretty quick. I was using WinME back then, so I was definitely open to something else. I also skipped 2000, although I tried it later in an attempt to save resources.

Originally Posted by Tacodaemon
Thanks! As for my position on Vista, I think it will be good, but for my needs, it's just not ready yet. I truly wanted to use it for my HTPC, but I couldn't get any sort of hardware acceleration out of my Geforce 8500GT for MPEG2 and OTA HDTV, no matter what I tried. Maybe it's Nvidia's fault and not Microsoft's, but I would have 60-90% CPU usage as opposed to around 10-15% in XP. My Athlon 64 X2 4600+ should be powerful enough on the processor side, but HD video stutters when using media center. It's unfortunate because I prefer the interface and many of Vista's features over XP, but that one thing keeps me from using it.

As for my main rig, I'll probably upgrade to Vista sometime next year when I pick up a 2nd gen DX10 card. I also figure drivers will have matured quite a bit and it'll be an easy move. For me it really goes back to what was said in that "Functionality not included" article from a while back:

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2007/05/26/functionality_not_included/1

I think I did the same thing with XP, although, I jumped over pretty quick. I was using WinME back then, so I was definitely open to something else. I also skipped 2000, although I tried it later in an attempt to save resources.

Me too, try Cyberlink PowerDVD, they have an mpeg2/mp4 hardware accel. decoder in there which works wonders. I tried some HD content before and it was stuttery as hell and 90% CPU, now it's about 20% and as smooth as Relix all oiled up.

Hey guys,

I just figured I'd wade into some of these questions a bit. First of all, anyone with a 3.06GHz P4 and 1.75GB of RAM should NOT be seeing any real "slowdown" in Vista. I'm sorry, it's not THAT bad. Which is part of my point - the whole idea that "this will crash my computer cuz itz such a HOOOOOGG!!!111oneone!!" is a bit...unrealistic.

As for why Vista IS improved...I think there's a list that would have been far too long for a column. There are posts all over this forum, in this thread and others, reviews across the net that explain about handy features like:

SuperFetch, the (HUGELY) improved search functions, a greatly improved execution structure that creates protected areas for each thread, thus preventing general crashes due to individual program issues, kernel protection, degrees of security protection ranging from "Think for me" to "Just do what I tell you" (seriously, HOW many people STILL complain about UAC without realizing they can turn it off?!), dis-integration of Internet Explorer from the way it was in XP where it was into just about everything, a group of choices to pay for what you need and not just 50 million features you never would, the lack of hardware "locks" and point system (HUGE for those of us who switch hardware regularly), an entirely new driver model that actually makes sense, DX10, ....

I could go on. But I think I have proven my point. There are a host more of optimisations, benefits and little "tweaks" without even getting into the GUI features that Nexxo mentioned or just HOW well the search works now, as others have mentioned. And you know what, I'm typing on a mac and I run Linux regularly on one of my PCs, so I'm well aware of *THEIR* organisational features.

As for putting all of that in the article to explain WHY I like Vista, I think it would have added unnecessary length. There are countless reasons to like the change, and I've been explaining them for a long time, so I'm tired of sounding like a broken record. However, I'm also tired of hearing the same old arguments.

I had more thoughts on this but am in between things at the moment, so I'll revisit again when I think there's more that I need to say :)

I've been saying this for ages, and no-one listens.

/me goes off in huff

In essence you are right. Vista should be able to last for years to come. The problem that I see lies in gaming. All these gamers around the world were expecting this massive performance boost, better graphics with DX10, and a better interface in an OS that does pretty much everything.

Now I'll give Vista a few things. Having used the Ultimate version I must say it is very good. It's great for keeping everything on one PC. Music, video's, documents, it's all well organized and makes sense. The Look is sleek, shiny, makes a guy smile and it really rocks that the tool bars carry across everything. Also the graphics with DX10 are better. Not a whole lot but they are. You're just hard pressed to be able to see it.

One of the things that frustrated me when I moved to Vista is that I had to lower the settings on all of my games. That sucked. Everything stuttered. Granted I have 1 gig of ram and was running full aero on a AMD 3200 64 but nevertheless my experienced suffered.

I don't see any problems with it other than using more resources than XP and previous, but as it has been explained already, every new OS uses more resources - and not just Windows. Bear in mind that Vista has just been released and like Brett has said, it needs to run the new hardware being released for the next 6 years or so. With this in mind its not surprising that there is a noticable performance decrease as the hardware we use now will be ancient by then. Look what happens when you install XP on 2000/2001 hardware - its noticeably slower.

Software/hardware vendors not having made everything fully Vista compatible doesn't exactly help things, but its not going to happen overnight. XP has had 6 or so years to mature and for vendors to get to grips with it - Vista has not.

So for those who dislike it, don't complain, just don't use it yet. Give it a year or two, everything will be smooth and work as it should. And by then the hardware even PC World sell will be able to run it at a decent speed.

Originally Posted by Fozzy
Also the graphics with DX10 are better. Not a whole lot but they are. You're just hard pressed to be able to see it.

One thing that's worth noting about DX10 is that there are no "true" DX10 games on the market yet - everything you've seen so far was originally a DX9 game and has been ported to DX10 after the game was released. BioShock is the first that will have DX10 support from the outset and hopefully it'll show more promise than CoH, CoJ and Lost Planet on the graphics front.

Call Of Juarez is one game that does show quite a big difference, but I didn't personally think it was a good game the first time I played it (when it came out in Europe), so playing again with DX10 isn't particularly compelling for me.

> First of all, anyone with a 3.06GHz P4 and 1.75GB of RAM should NOT be seeing any real "slowdown" in Vista.

Tell me, then, why anyone would expect to see slowdown. This is not mediated by machine spec. Either it hogs more, or it doesn't - and since we know it does, the point remains.

Windows was "fixed" in win2k. It hasn't yet lived down the reputation of the 95/98 era stuff, which was genuinely unreliable. But NT kernel versions of Windows have been perfectly usable, at any level, for years. The only reason I went to XP from 2K is that my software demanded it. XP does nothing, literally nothing, not one single thing for me that 2K didn't do. That's the only reason I shall go from XP to Vista, and I'll curse and swear about the waste of computer juice that I'll be forced to put up with to do it. If there was any functionality reason to do it, Microsoft would be screaming about it. They aren't, because there isn't. A better search function is emphatically not worth even the slightest loss of performance. As I said before, the core problem here is that there is really nothing more you can do with Windows. It's finished; it's complete, mature, done with. Adding more stuff clearly isn't either helpful or necessary. The only reason it's being done is so Microsoft don't end up going horribly down the tubes.

Years ago, I said that 2K was probably going to be the best version of Windows that would ever be released. It's becoming increasingly clear I was right.

Phil

Honestly, on my sig system vista runs my games faster then xp does. I have a dual boot set up with fresh copy of vista and xp and COD2 runs faster in vista then XP by a noticeable amount. Maya is a little slower in vista then XP though, i assume thats because it uses OpenGL vs DirectX.

i remember before is streamlined my XP cd, that has no service packs, that when i connected to the internet or did something a little "extra" it would die or catch viruses and other stuff like someone with terminal aids, with SP1 or SP2 it becomes much better.

windows ME = years of development and very bad OS.

vista = relatively nice OS, better than XP in most areas but is still laking somethings that other OS already have, it is a jewel that needs polishing..... and maybe that will come with the updates.

Originally Posted by KypD
For example: My friend's girlfriend purchased a new laptop about a month or two before vista came out. I forget the exact specs but it was a pretty swanky piece of equipment, and ran BF2 easily. She then took it somewhere to have Vista installed, and she HATES using it now. (she IS computer savvy btw) She doesn't hate it because of the GUI or functionality, but because it takes forever to even open internet explorer.

So, wait, by your logic my laptop (which in no way, shape, or form will ever come near to BF2, never mind run it) shouldn't even be able to handle the install for vista, never mind actually being able to run it? What about the fact that an A64 +3500 with 512mb of DDR2700 hasn't been rebooted in well over a month, yet has exactly zero slow-down, despite the fact that it is used daily for games, videos, music, web-surfing, photo editing, and pr0n?

Vista, when used without a large stick shoved into your CPU HSF, runs well on almost all modern hardware (even that of 2-3 years ago) without any realistic issue. Period.

Hmmm.
Okay, for gamers:

I switched from 98 to XP, because of lack of drivers for 98.
98 was faster on the same hardware, but more unstable (bluescreens)
Win2000 was not really an option as some games didn't run on it.
XP is stable now, and the reason to eventually change to vista will be the same as before: lack of XP support. (for instance: no DX10 hardware support)

For non gamers:
The last two companies I work(ed) for (both neither small nor unsuccessfull) both run entirely on Win2000. Why change?

Xir

> Vista, when used without a large stick shoved into your CPU HSF, runs well

Yes, you blithering idiot, but I'm not here to run Vista, I'm here to run applications and from those it steals performance.

What on earth do you do for fun, fire up Aero and sit there dragging windows around, grinning at the pretties?

Gah!

Phil

Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
> Vista, when used without a large stick shoved into your CPU HSF, runs well

Yes, you blithering idiot, but I'm not here to run Vista, I'm here to run applications and from those it steals performance.

What on earth do you do for fun, fire up Aero and sit there dragging windows around, grinning at the pretties?

Gah!

Phil

Yes, actually. Hours upon hours on any given day you'll most comonly find me staring at my laptop, with a sick-looking grin on my face as I slowly lose my mind to the pretties of Aero...

But in reality, vista is designed to give up its resources FOR other applications, to enable them to run faster. Most of what vista is using of your system is actually to speed your programs up. For instance, on my lappy ALL my programs start drastically faster in vista then they ever did under XP. There is zero wait time between double-clicking the FF icon and it being open. It litteraly takes longer to DL the start page (BT, obviously!) then it does to open the program up.

This is true across the board for the programs I use. Plus I just don't even bother with an AV or firewall, as vista takes care of everything itself (the UAC has stopped more than one virus, which I was able to just go and delete without hastle).

That is why I switched all my computers over.

Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes

Years ago, I said that 2K was probably going to be the best version of Windows that would ever be released. It's becoming increasingly clear I was right.

Phil

Whilst i agree with the sentiment, i was dragged over to xp only last year when i went sli and 2k couldn't do it, for the majority of people they're not going to notice how much resources it uses or how much faster 2k was at opening games or what ever. Most people i know who use computers for three things, web browsing, email and pr0n (sorry i meant basic office use) Now you and i use our machines for gaming and we've both proved we don't care about the relative benefits of a new os, So stick with xp till you build your next newest best gaming rig everz at which point vista will make very little dent in your 8 gigs of ddr4 ram. Personally i only xp for gaming rest of the time i stick with my linux box which could also be seen as a resource hog since it uses a large portion of the available ram by caching things to ram, which i don't care about hey its there to be used.

I've just been thinking ... maybe the reason why I'm no fan of Vista is that WinXPsp2 is a pretty great OS. I say it's the first M$ OS that I see no reason for upgrading.
DOS+Win311 -> Win95 ... don't remind me ... was a no-brainer Win95 was a much better experience even if I needed a new hardware for it :-)
-> Win98 ... Maybe one could call it Win95sp2 ? Dunno ... run well enough for me
-> Win2000 ... This was a pretty decent step away from the DOS inheritance. Much better'n 98
-> WinXP ... solved the gaming issues one had from time to time with win200. I did not notice any performance problems btw 2000 and xp back then.
-> sp2 ... well. All I say is it works, it continues working, it's stable it's usable. Driver support for everything. Great performant software.

Enter Vista: It MAY add value in the future. It MAY have a better driver model. (Not that I had a single driver issue with XP, but maybe if I wrote drivers I'd be happy bout Vista) There may be some nice features for the user (search and whatnot).
STILL - there is simply no reason for me to upgrade from XP since it is a bloody great OS that runs everything I can throw at it at the moment.
When I eventually have to upgrade from XP to Vista because something won't run on it anymore I will feel a bit RIPPED OFF by M$ because I will feel forced to buy this new OS not because of some added value itself offers but simply because the new thing will only run on the new version of the monopoly product.

br,
btb

Originally Posted by Laitainion
If you've ever tried to do anything useful in Linux, or Unix (I believe, never used it myself) these sorts of restrictions should be pretty familiar. In fact, having used Ubuntu (6.10 iirc) as well as Suse and Fedora..6 (?) I find Vista's approach much less frustrating.

.

I prefer the linux way to vista's, why have a gui box popup when i can just add a su or sudo or whatever your distro uses, but then again that wouldnt work when you have to use a gui to install applications

Well, I'm new to the forum but can't believe some of the opinions I've just read. I've recently switched from XP to Linux and I can now actually use the performance of my machine (which is a few years old but I have no urge to upgrade as I work for a living rather than playing games). It takes less than 30 seconds to boot up (about a quarter of the time XP takes). I also don't have to restart my PC every few days because Windows has installed yet another security patch. If I install stuff it just starts working. OK it's not got 'Aero' look and feel, but who cares? As I say, I use my PC to do useful stuff, not ooh and aah at the latest waste of money from MS. It may not be idiot proof, but if you're an idiot and want to use a PC, that's what the Office Assistant is for. I don't share the faith that Vista makes a firewall and AV software redundant - your average idiot will probably manage to render it useless with a couple of clicks. And the best bit about Linux? It's free, and if it needs upgrading, that's free too. Oh, and nearly all the application software is free too. I'm never going back. I highly recommend downloading a Ubuntu Live CD image to try before you install. It's painless and now my machine will dual boot XP or Linux. But I haven't run XP for over a month now. Why should I when Linux can read NTFS partitions?

eh, i think it will take me a few years and a new rig to finally install vista.... my brand new laptop is a little weak for 3dsmax, dont even want to know what happens on vista with those basic buggy drivers and half the resource hogged up... i think i can live without the uber search function, extra security and preload of programs for some more time.

what is also annoying is that some systems are "outdated" and dont support vista... so your pc is just a useless brick.... moved to denmark a few weeks ago and everyone who had vista couldnt get broadband working.... that in totally different dorms in different locations. well, luckily i had xp so i googled for an hour or so and found a solution (the least i could do for the girl whos place i crashed in for a week)

Systems arn't used to do just work anymore. People don't want a barebones OS that just runs their apps, DOS can do that perfectly well. People want their PC to be the centre of their 'digital life'. They want it to be able to store movies, music and pictures and they want quick access to that stuff.
Apple with OS X was right on the money with it's iLife suite, Windows ME was an attempt to move towards a more personal machine, XP improved on that and now Vista is here and is a great OS for that.

I appreciate that not everyone wants to do the same things with their PC. But with Linux I can watch DVDs, view my pictures and movies, connect my Palm, surf the net, email etc. I just don't geek out on the latest video games. I can use the same machine to develop commercial websites with Apache, PHP and MySQL using gphpedit and phpmyadmin. Oh, and they're all free too and you don't need to restart your PC when you install them. It's a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by identikit
We 'tag' things online, why can't we do the same in our OS? Why does a file have to 'belong' inside a single directory? Why is there a desktop? I think software design has a long way to go.

Are you having a LAUGH? Put everything in 1 directory? you could do and create a search tool but whats the point ? When I want a file I know exacty where to go to look at it despite not knowing the filename as my computer is so nicely organised ish.

I agree its unjustified saying vista is a resource hog, in a few years however much ram it needs will be the norm - hell even I have 2gig ram!

> Systems arn't used to do just work anymore. People don't want a barebones OS that just runs their apps,

Yes, I do. That's exactly what I want.

I think the solution to this is actually to have the "pro" versions actually be professionally oriented. XP installs right now for me involve twenty-five minutes of installing, then an hour of turning off all the needless fripperies. It's absolutely ridiculous to have something purporting to be a professionally-oriented system which uses megabytes of bitmaps to draw the UI. It's laughable.

After Effects rendering faster equals me having more free time. Yes, I do want a barebones OS. I do wish Linux would get its collective arse in gear and either persuade the big software houses to release for it, or come up with workable free alternatives. It's improved out of all recognition but there's still huge holes in what it'll do.

Phil

Originally Posted by Steve-O
Well, I'm new to the forum but can't believe some of the opinions I've just read. OK it's not got 'Aero' look and feel, but who cares? And the best bit about Linux? It's free, and if it needs upgrading, that's free too. Oh, and nearly all the application software is free too. I'm never going back. I highly recommend downloading a Ubuntu Live CD image to try before you install. It's painless and now my machine will dual boot XP or Linux. But I haven't run XP for over a month now. Why should I when Linux can read NTFS partitions?

If you want to try fancy effects on Linux you could try beryl or compiz fuzion, i personally dont like fancy windows at all. I am in the same boat for dual booting xp and Linux, the only time i use XP is for gaming and for C# which i have to do for my Bachelor of IT course.

Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
> Vista, when used without a large stick shoved into your CPU HSF, runs well

Yes, you blithering idiot, but I'm not here to run Vista, I'm here to run applications and from those it steals performance.

What on earth do you do for fun, fire up Aero and sit there dragging windows around, grinning at the pretties?

Gah!

Phil

lol, what more needs to be said about that.,

Originally Posted by KypD


For example: My friend's girlfriend purchased a new laptop about a month or two before vista came out. I forget the exact specs but it was a pretty swanky piece of equipment, and ran BF2 easily. She then took it somewhere to have Vista installed, and she HATES using it now. (she IS computer savvy btw) She doesn't hate it because of the GUI or functionality, but because it takes forever to even open internet explorer.

Computer savvy yet she pays for someone to install an OS for her? if she hates it so much just chuck XP back on (please dont say that would be a waste of money as it was in the first place)