Does Vista still Suck [Archive]

Digitalcaveman

02-27-2007, 01:43 PM

Nasty_Savage

02-27-2007, 02:00 PM

You should word your post better. Your original invites verbal beat downs. And FYI, Digital signing is only required for Vista 64.

calebb

02-27-2007, 02:01 PM

Real nice comments.

What do you expect? Your original post is full of loaded buzz words and blanket generalizations. The only thing accurate in your post is the fact that SLI support is a bit sketchy in Vista right now. Wait a few days... nVidia is supposed to have a surprise for us by ~March 1.

From your statements, it is clear you haven't tried running Vista on your primary box for a good 3-4 days. Try it. You'll like it.

If you read through the posts in this forum, you will find that the majority of users with a negative opinion of Vista haven't actually used it yet!

Digitalcaveman

02-27-2007, 02:13 PM

You maybe right on the post, could have worded better. Nasty, I do want Vista 64 as my processor is 64 bit, but no on the driver signing, in XP it checks for signing however we were able to "continue anyway" and still install the driver and it worked. The issue is compatibility. I really can't wait to get Vista but as I check, there are some major issues with getting drivers for some common high end hardware. Maybe your right, waiting till March/April might be the best advice anyone can give for newly built high end systems.

Thanks for the comments, except for the ban this idiot, no thanks for that.

calebb

02-27-2007, 02:16 PM

You maybe right on the post, could have worded better. But no on the driver signing, in XP we were able to "continue anyway" and still install the driver and it worked. The issue is compatibility. I really can't wait to get Vista but as I check, there are some major issues with getting drivers for some common high end hardware. Maybe your right, waiting till March/April might be the best advice anyone can give for newly built high end systems.

Thanks for the comments, except for the ban this idiot, no thanks for that.

You can "Continue Anyway" in Vista as well.

See what I mean about how it is clear that you haven't actually used Vista? Yet here you are, spreading FUD....

Ockie

02-27-2007, 02:16 PM

Vista itself does not suck.... whoever the clowns in charge of writing drivers for thier products are... sucks.

Nasty_Savage

02-27-2007, 02:17 PM

Vista x64 DOES require digitally signed drivers however...he's probably getting that all confuzzled.

Symon14

02-27-2007, 02:19 PM

Digital, I wouldn't recommend Vista for you right now. There is no SLI support, and you have SLI. I highly recommend sticking with XP for a while (or longer, since it has everything you need).

I'll be sticking with XP until there is support for my 7950GX2... I didn't pay an arm and a leg for this thing back in the day to have it perform at 40%.

MajorDomo

02-27-2007, 02:24 PM

The 32 bit Vista is a pretty stable platform right now and the compatibility mode is almost automatic and works well....the 64 bit Vista gave me a fit with my applications, so I switched back. It doesn't suck, it's just waiting for updated drivers in most cases.

djnes

02-27-2007, 02:27 PM

I'll be sticking with XP until there is support for my 7950GX2... I didn't pay an arm and a leg for this thing back in the day to have it perform at 40%.

And that's a legitimate complaint. As long as the right company is blamed for it, then all is well.

Digitalcaveman

02-27-2007, 02:28 PM

Powerhouse2k

02-27-2007, 02:29 PM

I like posts like this one, it make me laff.

So to answer your questions, the problems aren't with Vista or Microsoft, but with the Hardware Venders (and software for that matter), not writing Vista Drivers. Nvidia, Creative, numerous Network venders, etc, all should fire their Driver departments and get better replacements.

My solution, buy from companies that have good support. Creative Labs doesn't have drivers for their X-Fi cards (the beta one causes my Vista to Crash). So guess what, my next sound card wont be from Creative. I will probably do the same for Nvidia, as ATI has very good working Drivers for Vista.

With the delays MS has done with releasing Vista, there is no excuse for hardware MFG's from not being able to have working drivers.

Oh, and for the Driver Signing issue, turn off UAC (either 32bit or 64bit I have both installed) and it will take unsigned drivers.

djnes

02-27-2007, 02:32 PM

I will probably do the same for Nvidia, as ATI has very good working Drivers for Vista.
Aside from not supporting SLI, Nvidia's drivers seem to be working just fine.

scotlandrocks

02-27-2007, 02:40 PM

calebb

02-27-2007, 02:42 PM

Vista x64 DOES require digitally signed drivers however...he's probably getting that all confuzzled.

Have you actually used Vista x64?

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa906338.aspx

(I agree this can become tedious, but presumably, this would just be a temporary measure until signed drivers are available. Otherwise, get Vista x64 supported hardware or just use Vista x86)

calebb

02-27-2007, 02:45 PM

Thanks Symon, I agree. So if you can get the driver to be recognized then you have to deal with mediocre performance.

Nasty, I know that but didn't know you could continue installing them, I saw a clip, maybe on CNET, not sure, that they said that during a review.

Not true. Performance is outstanding even with nvidia beta drivers. Better than XP!

For example, http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/

For more details, try it, you'll like it!

Symon14

02-27-2007, 02:49 PM

Not true. Performance is outstanding even with nvidia beta drivers. Better than XP!

For example, http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/

For more details, try it, you'll like it!

No offense, but no. SLI performance in Vista is NOT outstanding. He has SLI. Do not recommend him do something that will provide the opposite of what you're suggesting. He has 2x $600 in his machine, and unless he wants to just sit around and have a big piece of wasted money in his computer, he should NOT upgrade to Vista.

calebb

02-27-2007, 02:52 PM

He has 2x $600 in his machine, and unless he wants to just sit around and have a big piece of wasted money in his computer, he should NOT upgrade to Vista.

He does?

edit: nevermind - I temporarily turned on sigs. I see that he does have SLI video cards. My previous posts regarding SLI support still stand.

Digitalcaveman

02-27-2007, 02:56 PM

Anyone care to comment on performance with Vista and Gaming?

djnes

02-27-2007, 02:59 PM

Anyone care to comment on performance with Vista and Gaming?

I've tried a number of games, and I don't seem to have any issues or complaints. Call of Duty 2 runs perfect. Company of Heroes, AoE3, all seem to play as good or better than XP.

calebb

02-27-2007, 03:04 PM

Anyone care to comment on performance with Vista and Gaming?

HL2, CS:S, BF2142, UT2004, MOO3, AoE3, WC3

All better performance on Vista than XP @ 1920x1200 (when 16:9 available - otherwise 1600x1200), most settings on high. (incidentally, you get "Free antialiasing" with the G80 series graphics cards - even when AA is disabled! Look at the rendering samples (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/nvidia/g80-iq/index.php?p=05) for the G7x versus G8x for more details)

P4-D 3.2GHz, 3GB RAM, 8800GTS (100.65 drivers), Dell 2405FPW

Powerhouse2k

02-27-2007, 03:12 PM

bbz_Ghost

02-27-2007, 03:21 PM

Bleh... this whole thing either smacks of trolling as there are what, 52 threads about "Does Vista suck/still suck/will always suck/etc" floating around, just not so many that ask the question outright... or... someone is looking for article material for some Vista bashing that's probably going to happen.

It's not even a month old yet, for Pete's Sake(c), give me a break (I'm a poet, doncha know it). Vista is fine, it's the drivers... and how many times does it have to be said:

"It's the drivers, it's always the drivers..."

The same thing happened with XP for the most part when it was first released, so this isn't an unusual circumstance. I remember reading THOUSANDS of "Does XP suck/still suck will always suck/etc" type threads here and most anywhere else, as well as in the XP support channels on EFnet that I've been part of since long before it was ever actually a retail product.

Search is your friend, if you want opinions. This place is loaded with them. And you know what they say about opinions... :cool:

Aratech

02-27-2007, 03:40 PM

What are your thoughts on companies not providing (any | good | working) drivers on time for their own technology?

I love running old hardware.:p

Vista Ultimate installed in about 35 minutes and all my drivers were included. Even my Lexmark all-in-one had a vista driver on the vista install disk. The only hardware that needed an update was my drawing tablet. The system runs just as fast as it did with XP too.

Digitalcaveman

02-27-2007, 03:47 PM

[QUOTE=bbz_Ghost;1030698221]Bleh... this whole thing either smacks of trolling as there are what, 52 threads about "Does Vista suck/still suck/will always suck/etc" floating around, just not so many that ask the question outright.../QUOTE]

I should have rephrased the thread, was a poor choice, but your right on! I guess I'm just extremely dissapointed in the fact that SLi wasn't supported out of the gate and that's the fault of nVidia! shame on them, thier whole site blabbed on how great Vista 64 was going to be with SLi...:eek:

Catweazle

02-27-2007, 03:56 PM

Aside from not supporting SLI, Nvidia's drivers seem to be working just fine.

I'm sick of seeing generalised comments like this, because they are misleading!

Pre-release versions of Vista would crash and burn on an SLI-enabled rig. That doesn't happen any more. Run Vista on an SLI-enabled rig and it works just fine. SLI IS supported.

At present, games will not utilise SLI to draw on the resources of both display cards. Everything else runs without issue. The game performance under SLI problem should be resolved by end of March. It's not really all that hard to maintain a dual-boot until then and fire up XP for those games which actually need to draw the power of both display cards.

Super Mario

02-27-2007, 04:31 PM

Hmmm, Vista and gaming....reminds me of Win98 vs. XP and gaming.

For those of you who remember that, Win98 ran games faster than WinXP did. It took a few driver releases to get WinXP close to the game performance of Win98. Heck, I would image, if you could get drivers for Win98, for some of the top of the line hardware, it would still beat the heck out of WinXP.:eek:

But for Vista, just like XP, you get it for more than the game performance currently. If game performance is all you care about, Win98 is your OS.:D

WRONG!! IN NO WAY SHAPE or form would that POS Win98 OS ever beat Windows XP in modern gaming!!!!!

As for Vista and XP, XP is better right now!!

Lets not kid ourselves. There was a far bigger reason to upgrade to Windows XP when it first came (except if you were running 2000) out than there is to Vista right now if you already have XP. That is because there was a much bigger reaosn to get rid of a lousy OS like Win98, than there is to get rid of an already quality OS like Windows XP SP2.

GJSNeptune

02-27-2007, 04:37 PM

WRONG!! IN NO WAY SHAPE or form would that POS Win98 OS ever beat Windows XP in modern gaming!!!!!

As for Vista and XP, XP is better right now!!

Lets not kid ourselves. There was a far bigger reason to upgrade to Windows XP when it first came (except if you were running 2000) out than there is to Vista right now if you already have XP. That is because there was a much bigger reaosn to get rid of a lousy OS like Win98, than there is to get rid of an already quality OS like Windows XP SP2.

You need to hush.

Win98 is a fine OS. A great improvement over Win95.

You seem to be blowing flames out of your fingers based on the reckless ramblings of others. Have you any hands-on experience? Judging by your signature, it's a shame your immature, pretentious, narrow mind drives you so.

However, I gladly agree about WinME. Horrible.

Super Mario

02-27-2007, 04:43 PM

You need to hush.

Win98 is a fine OS. A great improvement over Win95.

You seem to be blowing flames out of your fingers based on the reckless ramblings of others. Have you any hands-on experience?

Not to change the topic, but Win98 was not a good OS. Windows 95 and Windows ME were even worse. Windows 2000 and Windows XP were light years better than any piece of crap Win9X based OS.

All I'm saying is that gaming would be far better on XP than it ever was for Windows 98 when it comes to modern gaming on modern hardware!!

Vista is not light years better than XP. It will probably turn out to be a moderate improvement over XP.

Thus there was a far bigger reason to escape Win9X than there is to escape the already good NT based OS Windows XP.

GJSNeptune

02-27-2007, 04:48 PM

Not to change the topic, but Win98 was not a good OS. Windows 95 and Windows ME were even worse. Windows 2000 and Windows XP were light years better than any piece of crap Win9X based OS.

All I'm saying is that gaming would be far better on XP than it ever was for Windows 98 when it comes to modern gaming on modern hardware!!

Why do you think Win98 is so horrible?

Vista is not light years better than XP. It will probably turn out to be a moderate improvement over XP.

Thus there was a far bigger reason to escape Win9X than there is to escape the already good NT based OS Windows XP.

What do you mean by turn out? It's already been released. Have you ever used Win98 or Vista? On what are you basing your opinions?

Super Mario

02-27-2007, 04:55 PM

Why do you think Win98 is so horrible?

What do you mean by turn out? It's already been released. Have you ever used Win98 or Vista? On what are you basing your opinions?

Win98 is bad because it is not a true 32-bit OS. It is just a glorified DOS shell and hence not what a real OS should be like Linux, OS/2 WARP, Unix variants, or Windows NT falvored opertaing systems. It is bad compared to all those other operating systems. There were true 32-bit operating systems available long before Windows 98 was released and they were a lot better. The ones I listed above were such examples.

I know Vista has already been released, but it hasn't been out long enough to know for sure how good it is or if it will be better than Windows XP.

GreNME

02-27-2007, 04:59 PM

I have to say I'm actually seriously impressed with Vista. Practically an unattended install. Downloading all needed drivers via windows update and so far the only apps I've had any problem whatsoever with was trying to find a good free 64bit antivirus.

My experience as well, just with the 32-bit version.

Can we please get over Win 98? Honestly, guys, it is a ten-year-old OS. Let it stay dead.

This thread title is funny. Funny in the same way that one guy would ask another guy "hey, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Super Mario

02-27-2007, 05:07 PM

My experience as well, just with the 32-bit version.

Can we please get over Win 98? Honestly, guys, it is a ten-year-old OS. Let it stay dead.

This thread title is funny. Funny in the same way that one guy would ask another guy "hey, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Exactly. Let Win98 stay dead. I was just amazed someone would come and say it would perform better in games than XP today if there were drivers which is about as untrue as can be because it is a 10 year old OS based on 50 year old technology.

Windows XP is a 5.5 year old OS based on 15 years old technology.

Proxy

02-27-2007, 05:16 PM

Meh, I still say that Vista is just 2[H]ard4SUM:eek: Really do you think that XP or any other version of windows was rock solid right at release?

lockheed2266

02-27-2007, 05:20 PM

Super Mario

02-27-2007, 05:23 PM

Vista has never "Sucked" it is much better than XP, and no matter what, everyone is going to be using it within the next few years. It is a really nice, safe, beautiful operating system. I enjoy using it. People say it "sucks" because they hate microsoft, and they dont know what they are talking about.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say it is much better than XP. There are a lot of people I know reluctant to move to it and want to stick with XP. I have heard fears about DRM and invasive controls as to the reasons they don't wnat to switch to Vista.

And not everyone will be using it. Some people will move to Linux while others will stick with XP for a lot longer.

GreNME

02-27-2007, 05:31 PM

Exactly. Let Win98 stay dead. I was just amazed someone would come and say it would perform better in games than XP today if there were drivers which is about as untrue as can be because it is a 10 year old OS based on 50 year old technology.

Windows XP is a 5.5 year old OS based on 15 years old technology.

Actually, no. XP would perform better because it is better at addressing the hardware than 9x. The Hardware Abstraction Layer, the NTFS file system, the improvemens in user vs. system space, virtual memory management and more. However, Linux is based on a 30-year-old (more, if you want to quibble) technology and I usually equate it to modern Windows in most cases.

Windows 9x isn't bad because it's old. It is bad because it is technologically inferior. Honestly, OS/2 was a better OS than 9x, but 9x had better driver support. OS/2 contained a lot of what eventually wound up in Win 2000, because a lot of what was in OS/2 was good. I wouldn't call OS/2 a bad OS just because it's old, because it was technologically a pretty decent OS, if a bit utilitarian.

I'm saying let 9x stay dead because it is a completely irrelevant operating system these days. There is nothing to argue about with it that is even close to being valid in the world of today's software. There are places for XP (legacy systems) and even older operating systems (I believe OS/2 still runs some embedded and transaction computing appliances, at least it did a few years ago). However, 9x faded into irrelevance between the time Server 2003 came out and around 2005. No development support for it, no software being written for it, and major 3rd party vendors typically don't concentrate on backwards compatibility any longer. It's dead.

Catweazle

02-27-2007, 06:18 PM

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say it is much better than XP. There are a lot of people I know reluctant to move to it and want to stick with XP. I have heard fears about DRM and invasive controls as to the reasons they don't wnat to switch to Vista.

Do you realise that by posting this response you are discounting the experience of someone actually using the new Windows version, and instead following the opinion of those people who are speculating about it rather than using it?

That seems to be rather strange logic, don't you think?

calebb

02-27-2007, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Super Mario View Post
I think it is a bit of a stretch to say it is much better than XP. There are a lot of people I know reluctant to move to it and want to stick with XP. I have heard fears about DRM and invasive controls as to the reasons they don't wnat to switch to Vista.

Do you realise that by posting this response you are discounting the experience of someone actually using the new Windows version, and instead following the opinion of those people who are speculating about it rather than using it?

That seems to be rather strange logic, don't you think?

/signed

You might think it's a "Stretch" but until you try it, how will you know? Will you take the word of the people posting in this thread who are using Vista? Or will you keep relying in the FUD being spread at digg, slashdot, computerworld, etc?

Are you even aware of the numerous performance features (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx) that are included with Vista?

drizzt81

02-27-2007, 06:37 PM

You might think it's a "Stretch" but until you try it, how will you know?Indeed, I will live in ignorance for the rest of my life. However, I do have at least $129 in my pocket that I can use on beer to make myself feel better about being ignorant.

I, for one, am a person that is ``reluctant to move to it[Vista] and wants to stick with XP''. Let me just make it clear though: I do not think that Vista sucks. I am just not excited about it.

eeyrjmr

02-27-2007, 06:40 PM

Indeed, I will live in ignorance for the rest of my life. However, I do have at least $129 in my pocket that I can use on beer to make myself feel better about being ignorant.

I, for one, am a person that is ``reluctant to move to it[Vista] and wants to stick with XP''. Let me just make it clear though: I do not think that Vista sucks. I am just not excited about it.

yupyup,
As a nVidia user and BF2142 player (only use of XP) moving to Vista will be a sever downgrade (atm) to the point I would not be able to use it for what I want to use it

there may be a time when nvidia and BF2/142 play nice but that aint now and prob won't be until SP1.

calebb

02-27-2007, 06:53 PM

yupyup,
As a nVidia user and BF2142 player (only use of XP) moving to Vista will be a sever downgrade (atm) to the point I would not be able to use it for what I want to use it

there may be a time when nvidia and BF2/142 play nice but that aint now and prob won't be until SP1.

???

My BF2142 performance (framerate, general gameplay) in Vista is better than it was in XP. (8800GTS).

Do you have an SLI setup?

jimmyb

02-27-2007, 07:33 PM

Here's an interesting philosophical question, which may start furious debate:
If it isn't MS's fault that Vista has poor hardware support (compared to say XP), then can we similarly say that it isn't any OS's fault that it might have poor hardware support? Consider the cases of comparatively dreadful support in Linux, OSX, BeOS, AmigaOS, etc. Who's fault is it here?

As a frequent user of multiple OSes, I tend to place some blame on the hardware vendor, and also some blame on the OS vendor. It's important to note that the hardware vendor is often under no obligation or contract to provide support for certain OSes (i.e. Linux or Vista), and in the case of preexisting hardware, it's primarily only in the OS vendor's interest to make sure that support is there (seeing as how the hardware is already sold).

Catweazle

02-27-2007, 07:41 PM

jimmyb, you're neglecting the main target for the finger of blame in that discourse.

If a customer purchases an OS for which his or her hardware is unsupported then it is the customer who is at fault, not the OS provider or the hardware manufacturer.

If I pull into a service station (gas station for you uncultured mob) and fill my petrol powered vehicle up with deisel, whose fault is it that my vehicle has problems afterwards? The service station? The vehicle manufacturer? Nope, it's my own bloody fault! I should've checked what I was doing before I began doing it!

jimmyb

02-27-2007, 07:55 PM

Correct me if I'm not interpreting you correctly, but you're saying it's neither the OS or hardware vendor's fault, but the customers? (I'm not being argumentative here, just curious)

Also how does this apply to people who have bought their hardware before the OS was released. Whose fault is lack of hardware support in this case?

Catweazle

02-27-2007, 08:12 PM

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

If you purchased the hardware before the new OS was released then it will have been sold under the understanding that it was compatible with particular specific OS alternatives. The hardware vendor is not under any ironclad obligation to provide support for future OS releases. As a customer I hope they do, and they'll attract my goodwill if they're likely to and have proven to offer good ongoing customer support in the past. But they're not legally obligated to and there is a (subjective) point beyond which it is reasonable for me to expect that future support will continue.

The legal obligation only goes as far as ensuring that the hardware works as stated when it was sold. That is, the stuff works under the OS alternatives which are stipulated at the time of sale. If I purchase a different OS and find that the hardware doesn't work correctly with it then that's my own action, not theirs.

Can't blame the new OS provider either. They've exceeded their obligations and even made 'compatibility checking' tools available to all and sundry!

jimmyb

02-27-2007, 08:20 PM

ok, so in the specific case of people running into hardware compatibility issues attempting to upgrade to Vista (on previously purchased hardware), it's neither the manufacturer's, MS's, or the customer's fault?

This is somewhat my perspective, although I do "fault" both the hardware and OS for not working the way I want it to, which is slightly different than it being their fault. Although they are at fault in the sense that neither of them solved the problem, when perhaps they had they means to (or assist), regardless of their obligation.

eeyrjmr

02-27-2007, 08:23 PM

???

My BF2142 performance (framerate, general gameplay) in Vista is better than it was in XP. (8800GTS).

Do you have an SLI setup?

I don't have Vista, I am waiting for support of it to stabilise
Vista+BF2/142 (mainly PB) is NOT! a good mix

http://www.ashcss.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2387
This lot I play with in CSS (and now BF2142) now since I helped this bloke with Ubuntu+Beryl I will believe what he says (and he devs on Vista) over anything anyone here says

likewise
http://www.ashcss.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2362
Now all these are joe-average gamers and well if they are not impress with Vista for gaming I ain't going near it (yet)

Likewise
http://www.mercs.eu/mercs/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1579&highlight=vista

Slozz

02-27-2007, 08:31 PM

Windows has been a major propellent for hardware advancement.

Digitalcaveman

02-27-2007, 08:41 PM

I have to say we are now starting to see how frustrating it is when people invest thousands of dollars and they run into issues installing to the next OS that companies brag will run thier hardware. I think the argument has just surfaced after all the posting going on.

My issue is the billions of dollars spent and there just isn't enough collaborative effort between big MS and high end hardware vendors. When will it be there, another 3 years when a new OS is out or 3 years after that or maybe 15 years we will see the synergie.

Glad we all can talk about it, kudos to everyone that responded.

DC:cool:

calebb

02-27-2007, 08:43 PM

I don't have Vista, I am waiting for support of it to stabilise
Vista+BF2/142 (mainly PB) is NOT! a good mix

http://www.ashcss.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2387

No hardware details posted. Perhaps he's trying to use SLI?

likewise
http://www.ashcss.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2362
Now all these are joe-average gamers and well if they are not impress with Vista for gaming I ain't going near it (yet)

Those are old benchmarks with 100.54 drivers.

100.59 resolved a LOT of issues. Here are benchmarks with the 100.59 drivers (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_nvidia_forceware_performance/page6.asp)(vista = 20% slower w/ 8800 cards still)

100.64 resolved even more! I can't find any BF2142 benchmarks with 100.64 drivers, but here are benchmarks for Halflife 2 (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096945,00.asp) and 3DMark 2006. (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096943,00.asp)
(Vista is ~1% - 5% slower at this stage)

100.65 are the first Vista WHQL G80 nvidia drivers - I can't find any benchmarks at the moment, but these are the drivers that I am using when I say that my framerate at 1920x1200 is higher in Vista than it was in XP for BF2142.

Likewise
http://www.mercs.eu/mercs/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1579&highlight=vista

That problem has been discussed to death. Either disable UAC or manually grant punkbuster access to run as an administrator.

Catweazle

02-27-2007, 09:01 PM

.... I will believe what he says .... over anything anyone here says

I'd imagine that comment is gonna make you a lot of friends here! NOT!

Agree with calebb, by the way, in that the info there is out of date. It's rather crucial, at this point in time, to be very critical in assessing information you read about Vista and its performance. A lot of stuff written relates to pre-release distributions. A lot of stuff relates to early device driver revisions. It's important to take that into consideration, and ensure that judgements and decisions are based on the most up to date information available.

GreNME

02-27-2007, 10:06 PM

Catweazle, what I think eeyrjmr is saying is that the person he refers to has been working with Vista in a development environment, so the person has some credibility. Whether founded or unfounded, it's an understandable statement-- I personally have taken comments from those I've met who have worked as contractors and / or employees of Microsoft (mostly contracting) who got to have some early glimpses of Vista and other stuff with plenty of weight myself. Also, eeyrjmr and I have had some pretty heated discussions here in the OS forum in the past, so I'm not just giving the benefit of the doubt out of hand.

I know a lot of the arguments in favor of running Vista over XP. I even agree with some of them. If I didn't I would still be running XP on my home machine. However, there are still plenty of valid arguments for sticking with XP. My company is going to be sticking with XP for (at least) the short term, and I am the head of IT and the person with the most say on whether we begin a transition. I'm doing so even though I think some of the features in Vista are going to be able to greatly increase productivity (mostly the collaboration and communication tools) between offices. I'm waiting on making the leap for two reasons: 1. not all of the hardware meets the recommended specs, and 2. it is not mature software. Other than that, I'm all for people wanting to try the new tools.

Because of that, I can see a valid and realistic argument for someone to not want to switch to Vista yet. There's nothing wrong with that idea. There is no realistic need for everyone to be on the newest-and-shiniest operating system, provided their current setups are secure and stable (meaning XP SP2). Driver issues are quickly getting resolved (even better than I had estimated), but plenty of people out there are cautious about making a leap like this and, frankly, I don't blame them one bit.

Hey, eeyrjmr, when you finally do make the switch, make sure to check out the new shell in Vista. Since I know you're more of a *nix fan for everyday computing, I'm thinking you'll find the new shell a refreshing improvement. My only real gripes with it is that it isn't using the same commands as *nix and the scripting methodology is slightly different. Other than that, it's been an "it's about time" experience for me. There's even an XP download of it (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/topics/msh/download.mspx) if you're interested in checking it out.

I've gotten lazier with my day-to-day computing stuff, and want to devote more time to specific things. Plus, I admit I got a bit of the I-like-visually-pleasing bug from my experiences with other operating systems (like OS X). Vista brings me the familiarity of XP with the neat visual stuff in OS X and security that is reminiscent of my *nix experiences (in fact, I prefer that the OS asks me when making system-level changes or installing software). I still think they should come up with a more -su like behavior for power users (maybe a toggle-able feature in a future update), but the "do not run as root/admin" mentality is the most healthy meme that Microsoft has promoted with its operating system in... well, ever. So, all in all, I'm digging Vista. However, I still like me some XP (SP2) as well, so it's all green for me.

Super Mario

02-27-2007, 10:22 PM

Do you realise that by posting this response you are discounting the experience of someone actually using the new Windows version, and instead following the opinion of those people who are speculating about it rather than using it?

That seems to be rather strange logic, don't you think?

I am not concluding that Vista isn't good, I am just saying that it isn't a lot better than XP.

Is it and will it probably be better than XP. The biggest thing I am syaing is that it is not a lot better than Windows XP. It is better, but not a lot better.

Also I am saying that I know a lot of people who won't upgrade to it, at least not yet.

calebb

02-27-2007, 10:35 PM

I am not concluding that Vista isn't good, I am just saying that it isn't a lot better than XP.

Is it and will it probably be better than XP. The biggest thing I am syaing is that it is not a lot better than Windows XP. It is better, but not a lot better.

Also I am saying that I know a lot of people who won't upgrade to it, at least not yet.

Who's word will you take? The people who won't upgrade to it? Or the many people who have upgraded to Vista?

Have you read about the performance features (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx) of Vista? They are NOT exaggerated! These changes make a dramatic difference in your day-to-day operation of Windows.

I use Visual Studio 2005 regularly. When I first installed Vista, it loaded in approximately the same time as it did on XP - 10 seconds or so to load all required libraries and my list of recent projects. After a few days, that time sped up more and more. Now, when I click my VS2005 shortcut, it is open before I lift my finger off the left mouse button! I have 3GB of memory on my primary home PC so Vista just preloads VS2005 into memory so it is there if I want to use it.

In fact, I use Photoshop CS2 occasionally as well. A few times a week. If you've ever used this program, you know that it takes awhile to load in XP. Even though I don't use it that often, Vista Superfetch keeps it preloaded for me so that it opens nearly instantly when I want to use it. (heck, I have 3GB of RAM - I might as well USE it, right?)

I like to play BF2142... when I do, superfetch gracefully releases memory, Aero steps out of the way, DWM.exe reduces its memory footprint and is paged to disk... and with the 100.65 drivers, my framerate is actually higher than it was in XP (1600x1200).

In any case... you can go ahead and listen to your friends that won't upgrade...or even digg, slashdot and computerworld! Or you can read the countless stories of people who are blown away by all the features that are seamlessly integrated into Vista. "WoW" is right!

Catweazle

02-27-2007, 11:05 PM

Catweazle, what I think eeyrjmr is saying is that the person he refers to has been working with Vista in a development environment, so the person has some credibility. Whether founded or unfounded, it's an understandable statement--
Yep. My own response was probably a bit too flippant, and I apologise for that. I was responding to the way the comment was presented, rather than the fact of holding confidence in a particular person's view.

I am not concluding...
The comment you've responded to didn't relate to your conclusions. It was a comment about the line of reasoning you were describing as the method of arriving at your conclusions! Basing opinions on the speculations of inexperienced people rather than the reports of experienced people is illogical.

The answer to the question "Does Vista suck?", by the way, is "Depends upon who you are and whether you like it or not!"

There is no other accurate answer to the question.

Super Mario

02-27-2007, 11:06 PM

Who's word will you take? The people who won't upgrade to it? Or the many people who have upgraded to Vista?

Have you read about the performance features (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx) of Vista? They are NOT exaggerated! These changes make a dramatic difference in your day-to-day operation of Windows.

I use Visual Studio 2005 regularly. When I first installed Vista, it loaded in approximately the same time as it did on XP - 10 seconds or so to load all required libraries and my list of recent projects. After a few days, that time sped up more and more. Now, when I click my VS2005 shortcut, it is open before I lift my finger off the left mouse button! I have 3GB of memory on my primary home PC so Vista just preloads VS2005 into memory so it is there if I want to use it.

In fact, I use Photoshop CS2 occasionally as well. A few times a week. If you've ever used this program, you know that it takes awhile to load in XP. Even though I don't use it that often, Vista Superfetch keeps it preloaded for me so that it opens nearly instantly when I want to use it. (heck, I have 3GB of RAM - I might as well USE it, right?)

I like to play BF2142... when I do, superfetch gracefully releases memory, Aero steps out of the way, DWM.exe reduces its memory footprint and is paged to disk... and with the 100.65 drivers, my framerate is actually higher than it was in XP (1600x1200).

In any case... you can go ahead and listen to your friends that won't upgrade...or even digg, slashdot and computerworld! Or you can read the countless stories of people who are blown away by all the features that are seamlessly integrated into Vista. "WoW" is right!

Vista is better than Windows XP but not a lot better. Windows XP is too good of an OS to call any version of Windows a lot better than it.

Catweazle

02-27-2007, 11:14 PM

Super Mario, you should always present such statements in the form of:

"In my opinion, Vista is .... but ....."

It's a subjective value judgement. By stating it as an incontestible 'fact' you are implying that the reader also has to adopt that view, and thus inviting argument and disagreement. I, for one, don't agree with your opinion.

In my opinion Vista is a substantial improvement upon XP, to the extent that I now feel quite restricted when I have need to work within an XP environment.

The wording of your comment is telling me that I have to adopt your view. The wording of the opinion I just expressed leaves you free to disagree and hold your own opinion.

You follow that?

calebb

02-27-2007, 11:19 PM

Vista is better than Windows XP but not a lot better. Windows XP is too good of an OS to call any version of Windows a lot better than it.

Did you read my post that you quoted?

drizzt81

02-27-2007, 11:31 PM

"Depends upon who you are and whether you like it or not!"Yeah, this "depends" word is definetely used too infrequently.

GORANKAR

02-27-2007, 11:46 PM

Vista does not suck imho..
I have not tried it since the beta, but was fairly impressed with it then..
That said, I will not be switching to it for at least 6 months.. To let the drivers mature some, and to let any kinks in the os get worked out..
Plus, I have no compelling reason to switch yet.. No, must have Vista only apps, Xp is still being supported by MS, I don't own any dx10 hardware, and all of my printers are fully supported under XP..

I will switch eventually, just not today..

iroc409

02-27-2007, 11:56 PM

This is at least the 3rd major operating system from Microsoft

:confused:

Digitalcaveman

02-28-2007, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Digitalcaveman
This is at least the 3rd major operating system from Microsoft
:confused:

Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista. Ok so 5th OS, that makes it worse! And I didn't count WindowsMe, which who would... sheesh.. but anyway.. point made, what do you want me to go back and fix it..it was a heated discussion, lol

TheBuzzer

02-28-2007, 12:05 AM

vista is better than all the previous os i tried.

well better than xp at least. remeber xp was worst than 95 - me

why?

runs faster. Yes it does run faster, i installed on a old dell and from 10 min of load time it is now 3.

also works great on my new comp too :)

Catweazle

02-28-2007, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Digitalcaveman
This is at least the 3rd major operating system from Microsoft

Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista. Ok so 5th OS, that makes it worse! And I didn't count WindowsMe, which who would... sheesh.. but anyway.. point made, what do you want me to go back and fix it..it was a heated discussion, lol

You've neglected 15 (counting point revisions) standalone releases of MS-DOS, 4 embedded versions of MS-DOS, 4 releases of Windows prior to Windows 95........

drizzt81

02-28-2007, 12:16 AM

remember xp was worse than 95 - me

I dislike generalizations, however I have a hard time coming up with a rational criterion for calling WinME superior to XP. Therefore, WinXP is generally better than WinME.

eeyrjmr

02-28-2007, 02:44 AM

...

:eek: well didn't expect that.
I have always had a view when it comes to MS-OS change to wait for SP1 (since however much money MS throw's at beta-testing and dev, nothing like field testing with real-users). I did that with 2k, I did that with XP and I will do that with Vista (Yes I have always planned on getting it). its just I keep hearing here that "Vista is great you should upgrade, if you don't you are just lazy" and as a result I come back with all the negative things I have come across with Vista, which since I am alot less Windows-Savvy as I was (more *NIX now) mean that it is going to be a big learning curve and IF I just want to play games and do some office work its going to have to "Just Work" since XP does "Just Work" once it installed and updated. As it stands I am not convinced that is the case with Vista (at this moment in time)

Sure in the next month or two after reading more and more Vista threads I might just go for it, but I have to be convinced and being called "lazy" isn't really a good convincing method (considering I go above and beyond when it comes to linux but I know my way around linux)

I know the person from the [ASH] clan and I respect and acknowledge what he says (I was really surprised that when Vista really came out that he actually recommended to the rest of the clan to not upgrade due to the driver issues). He still uses it and I am sure when it is in a usable state (he knows what the rest of the clans tech level is) he will say and ppl will upgrade.
(OS-Priv escalation to get PB to work seems to negate the whole improved security thing to me.. I may be wrong but again this comes downto times and another BF2142 patch)

Yes I know about MS's "Powershell" I had been using a version of it on XP (called Monad) for quite some time (had to re-install XP last week after reg-hive got hosed). The shell is a VAST improvement over cmd.exe, and as I don't know C# I don't think I have been exploiting its object-passing ability to really get the most out of it (plus its integration to XP isn't really there since it is a Vista thing really)

calebb

02-28-2007, 03:32 AM

(OS-Priv escalation to get PB to work seems to negate the whole improved security thing to me.. I may be wrong but again this comes downto times and another BF2142 patch)

Nope.

You're running one app with administrator privileges... contrast that with XP where all user initiated threads are running with administrator privileges!

Sidenote:
I've been around the block a few times. I know that XP was a beast of an OS prior to SP1. I remember manually upgrading a computer lab w/16 Athlon 1GHz Gateway 2000 systems to XP a few days after it came out... and then rolling them back to Win2K that weekend due to horrible performance and hardware incompatibilities... And then re-upgrading to XP once SP1 came out. (no performance issues and no hardware upgrades)
I beta tested Win2K since I was running a BP6 dual celeron (400MHz @ 600MHz w/water cooled pelts & homemade water blocks! woot!) system and was tired of single processor support in Win98 & lack of DirectX in NT4.

That said, I have installed Vista on a wide variety of hardware since RTM. I am serious when I say that Windows Vista blows WinXP out of the water with regards to features, performance, security, usability and (of course) eye candy (should you choose to enable it). (The one exception would be SLI support from nvidia)

bbz_Ghost

02-28-2007, 07:41 AM

That said, I have installed Vista on a wide variety of hardware since RTM. I am serious when I say that Windows Vista blows WinXP out of the water with regards to features, performance, security, usability and (of course) eye candy (should you choose to enable it). (The one exception would be SLI support from nvidia)

QFT.

At least from my own perspective and subjective personal experience. Yes, Vista does require a bit more horsepower, but no offense: who the hell would try to run the newest OS on the same hardware that was top 'o the line in 2001 and expect it to perform as well as XP which was king of the hill back then? :)

djnes

02-28-2007, 08:56 AM

Vista is better than Windows XP but not a lot better. Windows XP is too good of an OS to call any version of Windows a lot better than it.

I agree with this. I love Vista, but XP was a good solid platform, especially since SP2. I'm sure a lot of people are apprehensive about upgrading to Vista, since XP worked so well for them. Vista has a tough act to follow, but so far, I'm impressed. I don't ever recall a Windows OS being this *ready* this soon.

PCMusicGuy

02-28-2007, 09:24 AM

While I wouldn't say Vista sucks, I will tell you the impression I got playing with Vista recently.

This past weekend I went to a few B&M stores around and played around with vista on many different computers and laptops. Every laptop I tested had Vista running the Aero interface and it was unacceptably slow. I don't know how the stores even sale the laptops with Vista after a demostration like that. The desktops faired a little better. I opened a few Windows applications and they did load in about the same time as it takes on XP. Overall though, I found the OS to feel sluggish. If I had 5 windows open and dragged them around on the screen the window would skip around. Now, this is probably due to computers with crappy video cards in the stores (processors were good C2D 1.8 and above), but how is the public supposed to accept Vista when there is such a poor representation of its performance in major retail outlets? I have no idea, but I will say that the in store computers do not run Vista as well as they did XP.

djnes

02-28-2007, 09:32 AM

While I wouldn't say Vista sucks, I will tell you the impression I got playing with Vista recently.
I would sincerely hope you're not basing your own Vista decisions on the computers that the Best Buy Geek Squad guys and the like setup. I don't have much faith in their ability to setup an efficient machine. You also are looking at OEM pre-builts that come with a lot of bloat installed already. I agree about your comments regarding the general public, but I would hope a [H] reader would know better than to base their Vista decisions on those tests.

If you want to check Vista out, you need to run it for yourself on your own computer or a test computer. You wouldn't buy a car from only seeing it in a magazine, nor would you choose your wife from one simple meeting. Vista's performance is very good, on par or better than XP, so before you make your decisions, give it a test drive.

bbz_Ghost

02-28-2007, 10:08 AM

If you want to check Vista out, you need to run it for yourself on your own computer or a test computer. You wouldn't buy a car from only seeing it in a magazine, nor would you choose your wife from one simple meeting. Vista's performance is very good, on par or better than XP, so before you make your decisions, give it a test drive.

QFMFT.

PCMusicGuy

02-28-2007, 12:03 PM

I would sincerely hope you're not basing your own Vista decisions on the computers that the Best Buy Geek Squad guys and the like setup. I don't have much faith in their ability to setup an efficient machine. You also are looking at OEM pre-builts that come with a lot of bloat installed already. I agree about your comments regarding the general public, but I would hope a [H] reader would know better than to base their Vista decisions on those tests.

If you want to check Vista out, you need to run it for yourself on your own computer or a test computer. You wouldn't buy a car from only seeing it in a magazine, nor would you choose your wife from one simple meeting. Vista's performance is very good, on par or better than XP, so before you make your decisions, give it a test drive.

Of course I don't base my decision on the crap that B&M retailers sale. :p I think I'd leave [H] forever if I wasn't kicked out first, lol. What I am saying is that Vista will be earning a bad reputation from the general public if they compare the instore Vista computers to their home machines. I have not personally used Vista on my machine but I have no reason to upgrade yet. Hell, I still run XP in classic style adjusted for best performance.

jimmyb

02-28-2007, 12:14 PM

For that matter, the general public are likely buying the computers that are on display, so their impressions may be fairly accurate to their at home experience.

digital_exhaust

02-28-2007, 12:18 PM

^^What he said^^

bbz_Ghost

02-28-2007, 12:24 PM

The general public doesn't give a shit - Joe Average goes to Best Buy, sees a laptop with Vista, looks at it, thinks "Wow..." as Microsoft is hoping (and they're right, yanno) and then it's "How fast can I get this home, this is so cool..."

That's all that matters to Joe Average, who typically is moving from an older slower machine to a new high powered machine with Vista!!! - or so the line of thinking goes.

Besides, one thing you forget is that all those machines on display at retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City typically have some type of OEM (tied to the retail chain) interface running that not only locks up the machine to prevent people from fucking them up (remember the good old del *.* days) but also dampens the performance a considerable amount sooo...

Get the machine home, open the brand new box, and turn on the laptop as it left the factory, you'll get a lot better performance overall - and over a week or two Vista just gets faster...

ASIA911

02-28-2007, 05:06 PM

Vista 64 bit sucking donkey's balls at the moment. I set my on Raid 0 and it's as slow as hell. Everything takes an eternity to load. Taking away the Aero and going back to classic theme somehow makes everything pretty choppy. The problem with this OS is that it just can't make up its mind. It can either be fast at time and slow at another time. Not a smooth system at all. Opening CPU-Z take a second to open up in XP but a damn long time in Vista. Opening every applications takes forever if you're comparing it to XP. People will know what I'm talking about if they have both OS to test their results.

My low end laptop beat my highend desktop in render time by 30 sec using Maya. Laptop is running XP SP2. Stay away from this POS for the time being.

GreNME

02-28-2007, 08:26 PM

:eek: well didn't expect that.
I have always had a view when it comes to MS-OS change to wait for SP1 (since however much money MS throw's at beta-testing and dev, nothing like field testing with real-users). I did that with 2k, I did that with XP and I will do that with Vista (Yes I have always planned on getting it). its just I keep hearing here that "Vista is great you should upgrade, if you don't you are just lazy" and as a result I come back with all the negative things I have come across with Vista, which since I am alot less Windows-Savvy as I was (more *NIX now) mean that it is going to be a big learning curve and IF I just want to play games and do some office work its going to have to "Just Work" since XP does "Just Work" once it installed and updated. As it stands I am not convinced that is the case with Vista (at this moment in time)

Sure in the next month or two after reading more and more Vista threads I might just go for it, but I have to be convinced and being called "lazy" isn't really a good convincing method (considering I go above and beyond when it comes to linux but I know my way around linux)
I totally understand and agree with your statements in this regard. I went to Vista personally because I had the hardware and I can justify it as "research" (and learn how to hack parts of the system to my will). I'm not in a hurry to go to Vista professionally because I want to maintain an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" method with my infrastructure. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't, no?

Yes I know about MS's "Powershell" I had been using a version of it on XP (called Monad) for quite some time (had to re-install XP last week after reg-hive got hosed). The shell is a VAST improvement over cmd.exe, and as I don't know C# I don't think I have been exploiting its object-passing ability to really get the most out of it (plus its integration to XP isn't really there since it is a Vista thing really)
Make sure you update to the latest revision of it, since it performs slightly better in XP (I have it on my work laptop). I, too, am not fully utilizing it due to not having C# experience. I can understand why they didn't, but I would have preferred to have something closer to the syntax and command abilities from good-old *nix in the shell. Right now, the examples and tutorials out there are pretty slim, and a lot of the sample scripts on the MSDN site aren't even really "power shell" scripts, they're just VB scripts translated for the shell. So, at this point it's a waiting game for me while I see what real C# programmers start doing with it.

I know a pretty damned good C# coder, so if I come across anything good from him I can always post it.

I would sincerely hope you're not basing your own Vista decisions on the computers that the Best Buy Geek Squad guys and the like setup. I don't have much faith in their ability to setup an efficient machine. You also are looking at OEM pre-builts that come with a lot of bloat installed already. I agree about your comments regarding the general public, but I would hope a [H] reader would know better than to base their Vista decisions on those tests.

If you want to check Vista out, you need to run it for yourself on your own computer or a test computer. You wouldn't buy a car from only seeing it in a magazine, nor would you choose your wife from one simple meeting. Vista's performance is very good, on par or better than XP, so before you make your decisions, give it a test drive.
Of course I don't base my decision on the crap that B&M retailers sale. :p I think I'd leave [H] forever if I wasn't kicked out first, lol. What I am saying is that Vista will be earning a bad reputation from the general public if they compare the instore Vista computers to their home machines. I have not personally used Vista on my machine but I have no reason to upgrade yet. Hell, I still run XP in classic style adjusted for best performance.
Guys (both of you), you need to cut the OEMs a little slack. The likelihood is that those computers may not have had enough RAM in them, but a straight out-of-box from a major manufacturer is not a bad thing. Example: I have a Dell E521, the only upgrade I recall making was 2 GB of memory, and this machine runs Vista better than it ran XP MCE (which came with it) or XP Pro (which I installed after wiping). Now, before we get into benchmarking talk, I don't game (unless you count Total Annihilation), I'm judging performance based on everything else but gaming. Straight-from-manufacturer's boxes should run Vista just fine, and if they don't then it's more than just the blame of some extraneous software or some less-than-level-one tech who set it up. My recommendation to everyone moving to Vista is at least 1.5 - 2 GB of RAM, and I think that's sufficient for any reasonably recent CPU and video card to run it just fine.

One last thing to everyone who talks about turning off the theme stuff: just so you know, the only thing that stands a chance of giving you a performance boost is turning Aero off. Regular themes make no difference, and make very little difference in XP. The reason for this is that the "Classic" windows that give one the impression of a pared-down GUI is actually a theme itself. Yes, you can run with themes disabled (Server 2k3 comes disabled by default), but unless you do that you are not getting any benefit from just choosing "Classic" in the themes menu. Just sayin'. ;)

Catweazle

02-28-2007, 08:50 PM

Thoroughly agree. For the most part the only thing off-the-shelf preinstalled OEM systems frequently lack is an adequate amount of RAM.

A novice purchaser will usually go through a period of learning, create all sorts of problems on the system, and eventually reach the stage of reloading, starting over, and confronting the task with a modicum of competence. Already competent users should have no problems whatsoever using such systems.

There are, of course, the users who will never achieve any semblance of competence because they will never accept responsibility for the problems they've created themselves.

These principles do not apply specifically to Vista. They are general ones which have applied irrespective of the OS in use.

OEM systems are predominant in the marketplace primarily BECAUSE they work fine out of the box!

I'd also like to suggest that if anybody is noticing a perceptible (not simply measurable) performance difference with Aero disabled then they should really rethink the wisdom of having Vista installed on that particular system. Aero has minimal impact on performance.

Caffeinated

02-28-2007, 09:07 PM

What is the point of threads like this? If you don't like Vista, don't buy it, and don't use it.

Personally, I don't like it, and I have many reasons for feeling that way about it. State some educated reasons, and someone will listen. Start a thread to flame/spew market speak, and you may as well cart your soapbox elsewhere. There are plenty of places where people are gathering to gripe about it, but this is a technical forum, not a therapy session unless something radical changed since my last post 20 minutes ago.

mccorry

03-12-2007, 08:03 PM

I'll play the other side of the coin. I've had it for a few weeks and I really like it. Some nice features have been added and once you disable all the security mumbo jumbo... its great to use.

eeyrjmr

03-12-2007, 08:06 PM

I'll play the other side of the coin. I've had it for a few weeks and I really like it. Some nice features have been added and once you disable all the security mumbo jumbo... its great to use.

excuse me?
why would you disable the security? why that doesn't make sense

mccorry

03-12-2007, 08:13 PM

excuse me?
why would you disable the security? why that doesn't make sense

Try Vista... and you'll answer your own question! :D

I should be more clear... I still run the firewall, Defender, etc.... but I disabled the User Account Control so that it doesn't block my startup programs and ask me every FRIGGIN time I want to do something.

It gets really annoying. Have you seen the Mac / Vista commercial yet? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80sWifG40B0

It's something like that....

Other than the UAC's... its a really nice OS.

eeyrjmr

03-12-2007, 08:17 PM

Try Vista... and you'll answer your own question! :D

I should be more clear... I still run the firewall, Defender, etc.... but I disabled the User Account Control so that it doesn't block my startup programs and ask me every FRIGGIN time I want to do something.

It gets really annoying. Have you seen the Mac / Vista commercial yet? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80sWifG40B0

It's something like that....

Other than the UAC's... its a really nice OS.

The fact you have to disable the security is making me want to use it less and less.
I hate running as admin in XP, and I found out today to really use Matlab it must have its execution permissions escalated in Vista

that is far to much of a breach of security for my liking

mccorry

03-12-2007, 08:27 PM

If you find out how to do that... I'd like to know. ;)

Everest wouldn't load on startup with Vista...as Vista kept blocking it. That's the straw that finally got me to diable the UAC.

Catweazle

03-12-2007, 08:42 PM

Try Vista... and you'll answer your own question! :D
Don't be presumptuous, please. I've been running Vista for quite some time now, since the early Beta versions, and don't find UAC to be an intrusion at all. As a matter of fact I hold the opinion that people for whom it is a continual intrusion, which asks " every FRIGGIN time I want to do something" have limited competence. I'm running a Vista rig here which has all 'security' features left enabled as was the case with the default install, and very, very rarely ever see a prompt!

As an exercise in treading the path which leads to competence you would do well to follow the simple practices outlined by bbz)Ghost here (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1164682) and myself here. (http://www.techwrighter.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=27)

drizzt81

03-12-2007, 09:09 PM

I hate running as admin in XP, and I found out today to really use Matlab it must have its execution permissions escalated in Vista. that is far to much of a breach of security for my likingI could not agree more. Aside: why did this thread not finally die the horrible death that it deserved to die?

Catweazle

03-12-2007, 09:15 PM

..Aside: why did this thread not finally die the horrible death that it deserved to die?

My apologies, for sure. I posted without realising that it had been *bumped*. Mods please?

bbz_Ghost

03-12-2007, 11:33 PM

"It lives... muaahahahaha... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAA..." bleh.

Anyone using UAC as a serious reason for not running Vista - and tends to state that is the only reason over and over - shouldn't be running it in the first place.

Disabling UAC is bad karma, period, and I don't give a rat's ass how many machines you've built, managed, adminned, set up, torn down, installed, uninstalled, imaged, restored, etc.

Anyone using Vista with UAC disabled and the elevation priviledges to Admin h4x0r3d with that Registry edit or using GPEdit.msc if your Vista version supports it (Home and Home Premium don't, not quite sure about Business just yet, Ultimate is a go) is just asking for trouble, period.

It's there for a reason, and it's not to protect YOU from people trying to screw things up - more realistically it's there to prevent YOU from SCREWING THINGS UP along with the other people trying to screw things up. :)

'Nuff typed.

schoenda

03-12-2007, 11:37 PM

Not sure if you are for real but FYI despite some real headaches getting the install activation reactivation driver thingys worked out I have been very happy with VISTA for the past several weeks and in fact I think it has been that long since I had any reason to dual boot into my old XP, gaming...so far with Vegas and Oblivion no problems, internet great, media great, no issues really....can't quite say I am willing to purge XP yet, but I think soon...

Godmachine

03-13-2007, 04:39 AM

Real nice comments. It's nice to see people or teeny boppers, not sure which, comment so energetically on one opinion. Crewzen, nice that was good.

The reason for the post for the tech-weeny's that are flaming me, is to try to find out what the reasons were for high end technology not meeting the expectations of the public. This is at least the 3rd major operating system from Microsoft and yes while I agree it's not all thier fault, I wanted to gain some opinions from the enthusiast realm that may have insight on why companies do not try to work together more fluidly. I mean there are major areas of concern with Vista, in some cases a rollout that went worse than XP when it first was released. With the advancement in OS technology today and driver signing, its amazing that Vista has not done a better job at high end hardware integation. Hey Brucedeluxe, I usually ignore your type but all I'll say is nice system. And exhaust, I like to add a bit of color to the end of my posts, sorry it disturbs you so much, Crewzen can help you deal with that issue, lol. djnes, or whatever your name maybe you need the vacation you sound a bit stressed, looks like I hit a nerve there. :p

First you start a flaming , troll thread (which you state your already immature thoughts on vista) then expect everyone who has had trouble with drivers (I.E Not Microsoft's fault) to point there collective fingers at Microsoft , almost like Micrsoft hasn't been making this OS for the better part of the last 5 years? sorry if 3+ of those years isn't enough to make a driver that works in the new OS and here comes the QQ. Poor me , Microsoft seems to have given me a very stable , non-patched mess of a OS. Those peskey hardware vendors didn't do anything wrong not properly supporting there products (looking right at you Nvidia) they are instead rebels in the on going OS war against Microsoft to make them appear as the true wolf in sheeps clothing out to snatch our babies at night while we eat off our ignorant spoons.

Please take your QQ/Flame session to a local Mac website forum where you can flourish with your new found FAM (friends against Microsoft if you need the extra push.)