30 Days with Vista @ [H]

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
Longhorn is now the name for Server 2008. I guess MS didn't want to scrap the name. Also for those that didn't know, XP was actually a 2nd choice by MS. Originally, they were going to release Windows Neptune but scrapped it and built XP. I just wonder if they'll ever finish Neptune. I got the last beta copy they released and would actually like to see it completed one day.

I hated Vista at first and I still do because of the licensing agreement. I mean has anyone ever read it. You're basically stating MS can do whatever they want and you don't actually own the copy of Vista that you purchased, it's in essence, leased to you by MS.
I see, so Longhorn's name has been recycled.

You hit the nail on the head about MS' screwy licensing agreement for Vista. This ZDNet blogger complained in a similar way. Ed Bott wrote in "Making sense of Windows’ irrational pricing and licensing":

...

You can get a better deal direct from Microsoft, just by installing an unlicensed copy of Windows and not activating it within the first 30 days. As I noted back in December, Microsoft will sell you a fully legal Vista Ultimate license for $199, no questions asked, as part of its “get legal” program. In fact, Microsoft’s direct prices are significantly better than the suggested retail prices and practically identical to the discounted prices available from partners like Amazon.

...
Also:
...

Trying to find the best price for Microsoft software is a frustrating game, with a constantly shifting set of rules that leave most people feeling like losers. Trying to understand whether you’re staying within those rules is stressful. I don’t know a single person who thinks the retail price of Windows is fair and that the terms of use are understandable. In fact, the entire licensing structure for Windows feels Byzantine and outmoded. It needs an overhaul, ...
I wholeheartedly agree.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
For those who don't like Vista's UAC (User Account Control) feature, perhaps this article will alleviate those concerns, at least to a degree.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
For those who don't like Vista's UAC (User Account Control) feature, perhaps the tips in this article will appease those concerns, at least to a degree.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
Microsoft has exaggerated the security of Vista when compared to XP. While MS says Vista is 60% more secure, real-life testing has indicated that it is indeed more secure than XP, but only by 37%.

Here's the article.
May 9, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Vista is 37% more secure than its Windows XP ancestor, a security vendor claimed today, a rate it hinted was disappointing.

Using different data collection techniques, Microsoft has recently asserted that Vista is 60% more secure than XP.

...

"I don't think Vista is really any more secure than XP," he said. "People still need to practice safe computing and need to have good security software, and keep their machines patched and up to date."

...
 

Mithent

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,616
They certainly disagree, but I'm not sure if I can trust either figure as an objective measure of "security"; this PC Tools company base this data on PCs running their anti-malware software, whereas Microsoft's is based on PCs running their Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool. Microsoft's tool is probably run on far more machines, but only cleans a certain subset of malware. Maybe from the two data sets we can hypothesise that Vista is less vulnerable to a number of common threats, but still subject to infection by a number of malware programs, none of which is particularly common? Malware caught by Microsoft's tool is also likely to be a filtered set of the total, since other programs might catch it first.

The quote you highlight is a bit strange; they claim it's almost 40% more secure, then say it's not really any more secure, which seems somewhat contradictory. I don't think anyone was claiming that you should be able to run without security software though, especially because malware need not exploit any OS vulnerability at all - if the user runs the malware program thinking it's a legitimate program, there's nothing the OS can do.
 

ragedriven

n00b
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
30
i purchased vista ult when it came out to get the learning curve out of the way so that when it became a viable gaming platform with all of the dx10 capabilities i'd already be set. After about 3 months or dealing with horrid drivers for the sli 8800's i bought i ditched it and went back to xp.

It was just horrible... No matter the game... subpar performance. I gave it another go just about a week ago with SP1, its as if nothing changed at all. Same issues, same problems, nothing was fixed.

I understand that it about 90% microsofts fault and about 10% nvidia's fault, but either way i might as well use my vista ultimate disc for a coaster!

Yes, i installed it correctly, turned off auto update from the initial install and put the newest nvidia drivers on before vista could attempt to auto install drivers. All the vista certified drivers, all the direct x updated. It just lags every game to the point it is unplayable.

I feel riped off, i'd like my money back, i'd like to warn others... avoid vista.

In a perfect world, if vista acted like xp does but still looked like vista it'd frickin' rock...BUT it do what it do!
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
i purchased vista ult when it came out to get the learning curve out of the way so that when it became a viable gaming platform with all of the dx10 capabilities i'd already be set. After about 3 months or dealing with horrid drivers for the sli 8800's i bought i ditched it and went back to xp.

It was just horrible... No matter the game... subpar performance. I gave it another go just about a week ago with SP1, its as if nothing changed at all. Same issues, same problems, nothing was fixed.

I understand that it about 90% microsofts fault and about 10% nvidia's fault, but either way i might as well use my vista ultimate disc for a coaster!

Yes, i installed it correctly, turned off auto update from the initial install and put the newest nvidia drivers on before vista could attempt to auto install drivers. All the vista certified drivers, all the direct x updated. It just lags every game to the point it is unplayable.

I feel riped off, i'd like my money back, i'd like to warn others... avoid vista.

In a perfect world, if vista acted like xp does but still looked like vista it'd frickin' rock...BUT it do what it do!
Man, this post reeks of user error so bad....
 

InorganicMatter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
15,398
I'd really like to see a respin of these articles some day; 30 days with:

Vista Service Pack 1
Mac OS X Leopard
OpenSUSE 11
 

Ghettobox

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
470
Man, this post reeks of user error so bad....
An I haven't read a single one of your posts in this entire thread that doesn't reek of you being a pompous jackass. What is your deal man? Do you get your kicks by coming here and tearing into people who don't have the same great Vista experience as you? Casue god forbid someone didn't jump right on the wagon? Or feel like dishing out cash for an OS, or hardware upgrades to run something they don't see a point in using? Why don't you climb down of your supreme Beta tester high horse and let people state there opinions. Or is the thought of someone having an opinion anti Vista somehow going to keep you up at night?

And BTW...Win2k never was meant as a replacement for 98. It was to replace NT. ME was the replacement for 98. How'd that work out? I'd hate for someone to come here and spread misinformation, and uninformed opinions.:rolleyes:
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
An I haven't read a single one of your posts in this entire thread that doesn't reek of you being a pompous jackass.

And BTW...Win2k never was meant as a replacement for 98. It was to replace NT. ME was the replacement for 98. How'd that work out? I'd hate for someone to come here and spread misinformation, and uninformed opinions.:rolleyes:

The fact I got you so "tore up" over a simple statement, reeks of how stupid you seem to be. The post I replied too was ignorant, and almost flaming, he posted no relevant info as yto why it was not working well for him, and made a blanket statement to "avoid vista". That's ignorance. Like you.

The fact is, for a power user, playing current games, using a 8800 series card or better, and with current fast cpu and at least 2gb of ram and fast hard drives, should have a wonderful experience with Vista. If it is running slow or "horrible" something is wrong. Period. ME was just basically 98se with Win2k's tcp/ip stack, and a bunch of added junk. Vista is not the same facelift (or lack of) that ME was to 98.

And Win2k as we all know, smoked both of them, although it took a few months to catch up driver wise.

Don't presume to know me....I have been using various OS builds as part of the MS Beta teams since Win2k was in beta stages. I have been running Vista since the first (horrible it was) build that went to testers. I know it's shortcomings, and it's strengths.

Get off YOUR high horse. If you don't like my posts, put me on ignore. It's easy to do, and would circumvent me having to post rebuttals against your ignorant ramblings.

P.S.- I think I will go ahead and put YOU on ignore as well. It will save me some typing.
 

Ghettobox

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
470
"The fact I got you so "tore up" over a simple statement, reeks of how stupid you seem to be. The post I replied too was ignorant, and almost flaming, he posted no relevant info as yto why it was not working well for him, and made a blanket statement to "avoid vista". That's ignorance. Like you."

I'm not tore up over your statements you infantile child. It's your attitude you philistine. Why don't you grow up a touch? And when did I say one shouldn't run Vista?

"The fact is, for a power user, playing current games, using a 8800 series card or better, and with current fast cpu and at least 2gb of ram and fast hard drives, should have a wonderful experience with Vista. If it is running slow or "horrible" something is wrong. Period. ME was just basically 98se with Win2k's tcp/ip stack, and a bunch of added junk. Vista is not the same facelift (or lack of) that ME was to 98.

And Win2k as we all know, smoked both of them, although it took a few months to catch up driver wise. "

That wasn't what you stated. You were clearly wrong in stating win2k replaced 98. Period. End of argument. You can try to clown your way out of it, but you did exactly what you blew up that other guy for. And you complain people presume to know you. Yet you know everything about what he was after right? All his hardware, the games he plays, all his input devices? Or are you presuming to know this?

"Don't presume to know me....I have been using various OS builds as part of the MS Beta teams since Win2k was in beta stages. I have been running Vista since the first (horrible it was) build that went to testers. I know it's shortcomings, and it's strengths."

Yet you can presume to know everyone who doesn't like Vista? Or me? And yeah, I'm proud of you for being a beta tester..great. Whats that like the 12th time you have mentioned it? Does it make you feel like you have a more valid opinion about what works for other people? I mean truly who F'n cares what you beta test.

"Get off YOUR high horse. If you don't like my posts, put me on ignore. It's easy to do, and would circumvent me having to post rebuttals against your ignorant ramblings.

P.S.- I think I will go ahead and put YOU on ignore as well. It will save me some typing."

All that typing..and all I got was blah, blah, blah I'm a pompous jackass. Ignore if you want I could care less. I don't see a need in ignoring you when I can just point out your flaws. It's more fun that way for me. And ignorance would be me thinking I knew what was better for someone than they do. And maybe you can show in some demonstrable way, before you accuse people of being ignorant, what he did wrong oh Obi Wan beta tester?
 

jzodda

Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
631
feel riped off, i'd like my money back, i'd like to warn others... avoid vista.
Such is the way of things. No two people are going to have the same experiences . My experience with Vista64 has been great. I have 19 games installed now and they all work well with few exceptions and those are not due to the OS. So far the only game I could not run at all was Starlancer, a game thats 8 years old. I couldn't run it because Saitek decided not to make drivers for the 10 year old joystick in Vista. So I play that one in XP.

The nvidia drivers for Vista have been on par with XP versions now since at least late summer 2007 and creative's since Nov 2007. I installed Vista in April 2007 and had gaming problems like many did back then. Nvidia drivers and especially creative drivers were crap. I said goodbye and went back to XP. When I went back to Vista in Nov07 its been smooth sailing ever since.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
They certainly disagree, but I'm not sure if I can trust either figure as an objective measure of "security"; this PC Tools company base this data on PCs running their anti-malware software, whereas Microsoft's is based on PCs running their Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool. Microsoft's tool is probably run on far more machines, but only cleans a certain subset of malware. Maybe from the two data sets we can hypothesise that Vista is less vulnerable to a number of common threats, but still subject to infection by a number of malware programs, none of which is particularly common? Malware caught by Microsoft's tool is also likely to be a filtered set of the total, since other programs might catch it first.

The quote you highlight is a bit strange; they claim it's almost 40% more secure, then say it's not really any more secure, which seems somewhat contradictory. I don't think anyone was claiming that you should be able to run without security software though, especially because malware need not exploit any OS vulnerability at all - if the user runs the malware program thinking it's a legitimate program, there's nothing the OS can do.
I'd be more inclined to trust a 3rd party's evaluation than a company who has an obvious conflict of interest when comparing their older and newer products. I agree that it seemed weird that that the article said Vista is more secure than XP (just not by as much as MS will have you believe), but then that one guy said Vista is not more secure than XP. It :confused:'ed me a little.

ragedriven, I appreciate your posting your exp. Sorry it didn't work out for you. :( Can you sell your Vista Ultimate? Have you tried to install it on another system?
 

Ranma_Sao

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
2,580
They certainly disagree, but I'm not sure if I can trust either figure as an objective measure of "security"; this PC Tools company base this data on PCs running their anti-malware software, whereas Microsoft's is based on PCs running their Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool. Microsoft's tool is probably run on far more machines, but only cleans a certain subset of malware. Maybe from the two data sets we can hypothesise that Vista is less vulnerable to a number of common threats, but still subject to infection by a number of malware programs, none of which is particularly common? Malware caught by Microsoft's tool is also likely to be a filtered set of the total, since other programs might catch it first.

The quote you highlight is a bit strange; they claim it's almost 40% more secure, then say it's not really any more secure, which seems somewhat contradictory. I don't think anyone was claiming that you should be able to run without security software though, especially because malware need not exploit any OS vulnerability at all - if the user runs the malware program thinking it's a legitimate program, there's nothing the OS can do.
If you have concerns about the data generated by the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool, I'd be interested in hearing them. I own testing of the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool I am not fond of the PC Tools data, since it says every XP Machine is infected from their soundbyte, which isn't even close too true.

I agree, everyone should run an AV solution due to the fact, the dancing pigs is the biggest malware spreading vector. I want to see the dancing pigs, so I'll click the link, and download that video codec. (Zlob) I want to see the dancing pigs, so I'll type the password into the Zip file and run the executable. (Bagle)

The advantages of Vista is, if you are running as an administrator, UAC will notify you something is hokey. Unfortunately, most users will still hit Allow, since they want to see the dancing pigs! Also, certain malware like Zlob masquerades as a video codec installer, so of course the user would give it admin rights, It's installing software. But with users getting used to the idea, they will hopefully freak out when a flash game suddenly requires Admin rights...

Vista is not perfect, but it has the most defense in depth of any Microsoft OS.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 

Mithent

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,616
I'd be more inclined to trust a 3rd party's evaluation than a company who has an obvious conflict of interest when comparing their older and newer products.
Certainly, I'm not saying that Microsoft's is necessarily a true measure of security either - just that "security" is somewhat difficult to measure, and both approaches have their limitations.

If you have concerns about the data generated by the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool, I'd be interested in hearing them. I own testing of the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool I am not fond of the PC Tools data, since it says every XP Machine is infected from their soundbyte, which isn't even close too true.
I don't think the data generated is bad, just that there are limitations to either method of testing "security". PC Tools' program apparently found that, of their install base, Vista machines had 37% fewer "threats" than XP machines, whereas Microsoft found 60% fewer infections using the MSRT on Vista than XP. But from either, it's hard to quantitate the improved security.

PC Tools' program has some kind of behaviour-based detection; does it possibly detect non-malware programs and thus inflate the number of "threats"? Does it think cookies are malware, like some programs do? It also probably has a predominantly home-user install base. The MSRT only runs once when you download it from Windows Update, and also only scans for a number of widespread threats, but scans many computers; if the infection is with a less common malware program, or the threat was identified and cleaned by another program before the MSRT ran that month, that would affect its findings. But you're unlikely to get any bulletproof test for "security", there are too many variables.

I agree with you that Vista has the best security of any Microsoft OS though, and one thing both these show is that Vista is more secure. If the hypothetical "true" figure was somewhere between the two, then Vista would be about 50% more secure than XP, which I think is pretty good. This is especially as it's impossible for any OS to be immune from malware - your dancing pigs argument here.
 

ragedriven

n00b
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
30
wow, TheRapture hasn't gotten perma-banned? read some of his posts, wow :O flamebaiting troll...

I still use the vista for my home theatre pc, on media center full time... so not a complete loss. In my experience vista+sli 8800's+current drivers gives subpar performance compared to an XP installation on my gaming rig.

User Error? my VISTA install steps:
fresh install from a wiped drive, turning off auto update during install (so that vista won't install bad drivers), unplug LAN, upon first desktop load i update 680i board with current drivers from flash drive, reboot, install nvidia WHQL vista32 8800gtx driver from a flash drive, reboot, install NOD32 anti-virus, reboot, plug in LAN and update vista to most current, reboot, install most current directX end user. Go to nvidia control panel and bump display up to 2560x1600 and turn on SLI.

Then install whatever game and it plays like crap compared to xp. If it happens to be an older game it might not even play at all (halo, counterstrike), if its a newer game (crysis, COD4, Bioshock) it'll play, just with ~20% reduced framerates with identical settings on XP. And i'm not talking cranked up DX10 ultra high buya casha setting, just medium high to high.

i'll just leave vista on my home theatre, just sharing my experience... and i've turned everyone i know in the market away from vista successfully!
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
20%? That seems a bit excessive considering Benchmarks comparing SLI on XP vs Vista from last summer differences were far less that 20%
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/default.asp

And that was before a lot of the SLI issues were finally worked out.

Of course, if your comparison was with a fresh install of Vista vs a fresh install of XP, you are giving XP a decided advantage since Vista performance is at its lowest point right after a fresh install.

I personally think you did a disservice to the people that you turned away from Vista vs XP, but what the hell, I don't have to support them.
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
wow, TheRapture hasn't gotten perma-banned? read some of his posts, wow :O flamebaiting troll...



Then install whatever game and it plays like crap compared to xp. If it happens to be an older game it might not even play at all (halo, counterstrike), if its a newer game (crysis, COD4, Bioshock) it'll play, just with ~20% reduced framerates with identical settings on XP. And i'm not talking cranked up DX10 ultra high buya casha setting, just medium high to high.

i'll just leave vista on my home theatre, just sharing my experience... and i've turned everyone i know in the market away from vista successfully!

Flame baiting troll? ROFL....some people just hate being fed the TRUTH. Looks like you do too.

I find it hard to believe that you get 20% less performance in Vista than you do in XP. What hardware are you running? Because according to many, reputable hardware sites, including this one....Vista speed is VERY close to XP....less than 5% certainly and lots closer in many current games, if not equal. So yeah, I think you must be missing something. I run CoD4 as well as Crysis, and I can tell you, nay, I can PROVE to you, that my gaming speeds are so close to XP that you cannot tell a difference except by running a bench. What do you base your 20% less speed on? Got any proof? Because without that, you are just spewing the typical fan-boyee shit.

Me talking well of Vista is no worse than you and others speaking so bad of it, or glorifying XP. So YOU are just as much a flame baiting troll as anyone, saying you have successfully turned people away from Vista. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, and you are such a black pot.

XP is good, yes it is. So is Vista.
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
20%? That seems a bit excessive considering Benchmarks comparing SLI on XP vs Vista from last summer differences were far less that 20%
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/default.asp

And that was before a lot of the SLI issues were finally worked out.

Of course, if your comparison was with a fresh install of Vista vs a fresh install of XP, you are giving XP a decided advantage since Vista performance is at its lowest point right after a fresh install.

I personally think you did a disservice to the people that you turned away from Vista vs XP, but what the hell, I don't have to support them.

EXACTLY.
 

Sovereign

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
3,080
Vista and SLI were bad news for a while, but now it's fine (and heck I don't even run SLI anymore). Vista is a bit big compared to XP, but then again consumers want more and more feature so what's a company to do? Yes, we all complain about Vista but I'm sure everyone complained about XP too (I wasn't into computers when "Whistler" was all the rage).

Vista is far from perfect (I mean look at those Windows Seven videos. Tabbed Explorer alone is a huge improvement). However, it is much smarter than Windows XP and I think most people dissing Vista are clinging to XP out of nostalgia. It really depends on what kind of hardware you have under the hood. For my friend's spare PC, an Athlon XP at 2.2GHz, 1.25GB DDR400 in Single Channel, Vista install disks are not going NEAR that machine. If you install Vista on an old computer you can't expect good performance.

Vista by design performs better once it's been running for a while, as has been stated before. Of course, this all boils down to a personal choice, after all it is your computer. However, to go mindlessly bashing Vista (or XP) is simply pointless.
 

ragedriven

n00b
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
30
Flame baiting troll? ROFL....some people just hate being fed the TRUTH. Looks like you do too.

I find it hard to believe that you get 20% less performance in Vista than you do in XP. What hardware are you running? Because according to many, reputable hardware sites, including this one....Vista speed is VERY close to XP....less than 5% certainly and lots closer in many current games, if not equal. So yeah, I think you must be missing something. I run CoD4 as well as Crysis, and I can tell you, nay, I can PROVE to you, that my gaming speeds are so close to XP that you cannot tell a difference except by running a bench. What do you base your 20% less speed on? Got any proof? Because without that, you are just spewing the typical fan-boyee shit.

Me talking well of Vista is no worse than you and others speaking so bad of it, or glorifying XP. So YOU are just as much a flame baiting troll as anyone, saying you have successfully turned people away from Vista. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, and you are such a black pot.

XP is good, yes it is. So is Vista.
i think there's a rule against trolling... but i'll respond anyway since the admins here apparently don't mind your rudeness.

you openly admit vista has at least 5% less performance (certainly understated purposely)... well factor in SLI which you don't even use, the auto-adapt which takes 2 months (most ppl uninstall by then), and the small portion of this that is nvidias drivers, and vistas constant 'multitasking' (aka multi lagging) and you have a subpar OS

vista has failed

oh and i'm not an xp fanboy LOL, is there such a thing? as i said i bought vista with an open mind and i now have to deal with the repercussions of that bad decision, but i did sort of 'jump on the gernade' to save my friends
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
vista has failed
By what metric?

By the Media? maybe, then again, you can dig up XP reviews from 2001 and see a startling similarity to Vista reviews.

Performance? Nope, sorry. There are plenty of current benchmarks that demonstrate that Vista is just fine on that front.

Reliability? Nope again.

Sales? Nope, Vista is actually selling quite well. Over 140million copies so far.

Adoption rate? Nope, according to Gartner Research Vista has a larger install base that XP did at the same point. After two years XP had a total install base of about 17% while Vista after a year and a half has over 21%.

So, by what metric has Vista failed?
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,432
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp

Vista SP1 same and sometimes better gaming performance than XP SP3. This is using an ATI card which has much better Vista drivers than Nvidia. But it goes to show that the problem with Vista isn't Vista. It's drivers. The driver model was changed and it needed to be done, it's all for the better.
After being with XP for so long it will take time for developers to learn a new way of writing drivers, make them quality and optimize them. But it has been improving.

Windows 7 uses the same driver model as Vista so it will have good performing drivers from the get go.

It is also documented that the number one reason for crashes in Vista is Nvidia drivers. More than anything else.

In my personal experience Vista is fast and stable. Start up to a usable desktop does take longer than I would like but once loaded it's fast. Therefore I just put it to sleep instead of shutting it down and I always have an instant on and very fast system.
On the same machine I get better gaming performance in Vista than I do in Leopard.
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
i think there's a rule against trolling... but i'll respond anyway since the admins here apparently don't mind your rudeness.

you openly admit vista has at least 5% less performance (certainly understated purposely)... well factor in SLI which you don't even use, the auto-adapt which takes 2 months (most ppl uninstall by then), and the small portion of this that is nvidias drivers, and vistas constant 'multitasking' (aka multi lagging) and you have a subpar OS

vista has failed

I am not trolling, hence the reason I have not been reprimanded. I did not state Vista was DEFINITELY 5% slower than XP....I said it certainly COULD be, or vice versa for that matter, I did say that with current fast hardware, Vista is typically JUST as fast as XP, now that it has been out and patched up. When XP was first out, it sucked compared to Win2k....but given time, updates, and better drivers/software, it became a very nice (still is) OS.....nothing has changed with the new Vista. Now that is has been out over a year, it is really coming around. It's real benefit comes with 3g of ram or better, a fast hard drive, and using Vista64. It is flat out smoother and just as fast as XP ever was, and I can speak from EXPERIENCE with my 3 rigs I have here at my house, not to mention the 25+ I deal with at work every day.

Compare the same modern/fast rig running XP SP3 to a rig running Vista SP1, I mean IDENTICAL hardware setups,say at least 2g of ram, etc., and you will find that in almost everything, you CANNOT tell the difference in speed without benching. I guarantee you that you yourself will not notice a 5% difference up OR down.

Your line of reasoning is plain ignorant, and actually your statements in the above posts are the flame bait ones.

You constantly avoid the issue, you can't provide any proof of your speed claims, and therefore, you are the one that seems to have poor setup issues. As far as SLI, it has been and always will be, a niche market, even in XP there are issues with some games running poorly or showing no speed increase at all. SLI means jackshit to me since I feel it's a waste of money (again, for me), and I could care less if it runs well under any OS. But again, the SLI issue with Vista has been solved, and suffers no problems under Vista vs. XP.

Keep the lame arguments coming, we will keep shooting them down.
 

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
By what metric?

By the Media? maybe, then again, you can dig up XP reviews from 2001 and see a startling similarity to Vista reviews.

Performance? Nope, sorry. There are plenty of current benchmarks that demonstrate that Vista is just fine on that front.

Reliability? Nope again.

Sales? Nope, Vista is actually selling quite well. Over 140million copies so far.

Adoption rate? Nope, according to Gartner Research Vista has a larger install base that XP did at the same point. After two years XP had a total install base of about 17% while Vista after a year and a half has over 21%.

So, by what metric has Vista failed?
ragedriven = owned. :p
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
35% of new PCs are being "downgraded" to XP

I'm copying and pasting some noteworthy paragraphs:

More than one in every three new PCs is downgraded from Windows Vista to the older Windows XP, either at the factory or by the buyer, a performance and metrics researcher said today.

According to Devil Mountain Software Inc., which operates a community-based testing network, nearly 35% of the 3,000-plus PCs it examined had been downgraded from Vista to XP.

"Either these machines were downgraded by [sellers like] Dell or HP, or they were downgraded by the user after they got the machine," said Craig Barth, chief technology officer at Devil Mountain. "In any case, these machines are no longer running Vista."

...

Last year, Devil Mountain benchmarked Vista and XP performance using other performance-testing tools and concluded that XP was much faster. Barth said things haven't changed since then. "Everything I've seen clearly shows me that Vista is an OS that should never have left the barn," he noted.

Even when stripping Vista down to core components to make it as close in functionality to XP as possible, Vista was 40% slower, Barth claimed, citing recent tests Devil Mountain has performed. "Vista's performance had been an ongoing problem, and the only thing that's saving Microsoft's bacon is the faster processors and more RAM on today's PCs," he said. "Moore's Law is always on their side."
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
Right, because Devil Mountain's past experience of posting benchmark data comparing XP SP3 (which wasn't out yet and was in mid-beta stage) and Vista SP1 (which wasn't out yet and was in mid-beta stage) became fact and started a rampage of BS about Vista being horribly underperforming even when people like myself and many others used Devil Mountain's own scripts and did the exact same tests comparing the two OSes and got results that flew in the face of everything they claimed.

Right... they're massively trustworthy nowadays.

Right... and the overwhelming majority of Vista users that comment on Vista here at this forum all say it's awesome, it's faster than XP on their machines, and other positive comments.

My god man, let this thing die.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
35% of new PCs are being "downgraded" to XP

I'm copying and pasting some noteworthy paragraphs:
There is nothing noteworthy about this article. They are quoting the same people that also said that XP SP3 is Three times faster than Vista SP1. Why does computer world even acknowledge these people?

Reading the article, They are still claiming XP SP3 is still that much faster than Vista SP1, which every other benchmark out there save theirs disagrees.

If you look at the details of that particular test, it was a macro that opened and closed windows, scrolled through windows, cut and paste between windows, etc. Stuff that is affected by animation effects etc and even the slowest test was faster than any human would ever do. Worse still, it was done on a virtual machine and not a native install.

I'll ask again, why does Computer/Info World even talk to these people? My opinion of these publications are lowering with every word they write.
 

Catweazle

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
2,791
^ True, their performance tests may not be the most ideal way to see what is faster.
That's not the point. The point is that it's a completely ridiculous article.

They've assessed the responses of 3000 of their customers - 3000 people who are actually INTERESTED in running a set of rather ridiculous benchmarks tests provided by some wannabe, just to see what 'score' they can get.

Then they've turned around and suggested that "More than one in every three new PCs is downgraded from Windows Vista to the older Windows XP, either at the factory or by the buyer", on the basis of the results they got.

Hey, hell! They used a skewed sample! They surveyed people who are more prone to downgrade for ridiculous reasons, rather than a true sample of the user base. they surveyed people who'd be silly enough to think it a problem if they found that the seemingly instantaneous opening of a program window was measured to show that it was actually happening microseconds quicker on one machine than it was on another.

But no doubt that Vista is more power hungry (CPU, HDD, and RAM) than XP.
Of course Vista is more demanding and of course there will be 'benchmark' penalties as a result, for some things. No other Windows version previously has been 'faster' than its predecessor on the same hardware, so why should Vista be any different? Same hapens for other OS's too. Hardware gets better and more powerful, and newer OS versions accomodate that by doing more. OS progression isn't about getting 'faster'. Hardware progression is for that.


This whole approach to discussion of Vista bewilders me, because it's so nonsensical. Has been ever since the 'Geek journals' started reviewing release candidates. Guess what?

Out there in the 'real world' of people who buy those off-the-shelf pre-installed Vista boxes I know dozens upon dozens of people who purchased new ones recently. People who actually USE the things, rather than entertain themselves with them by running benchmarks. And not a single one of them has even DREAMED of changing from Vista to XP. They've all found, after figuring out how to work the things, that Vista is actually very pleasant to use and does stuff perfectly well.
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
Ahhh!!! The Cat's outta the bag!!! Thought you were dead man, nice to see you living and breathing again. My sig should be a hint... ;)
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
Here's an article of someone else describing his experience of running Windows Vista for 30 days:
One Month with Windows Vista

His conclusion:
The verdict? I’m sticking with Vista, begrudgingly.
 

Dynafrom

Gawd
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
628
I'm using vista now and I love it. I've been a avid XP user, and now I'm a new vista user. The only problem is that vista eats ram like MADD, but is easily cured with more ram :)
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
Here's an article of someone else describing his experience of running Windows Vista for 30 days:
One Month with Windows Vista

His conclusion:
While I don't agree with everything he says, He's got the general point down. The negative Vista stuff is vastly overblown and there is no benefit for a new PC to be downgraded to XP.

He is saying mostly the same thing most pro-Vista users are:
If you have an existing PC running XP without problems, you don't need to go out and upgrade to Vista unless you want to. But, you may as well go to Vista if you are buying a new systems since it's more stable and secure.

I was reading the comment section and I was amused by his ad-hoc test of loading Vista on an 800mhz PC w/ 512 MB (The minimum requirement) and while it took a while to boot and was a bit sluggish, it did actually work and run office 2007 while using IE7 etc. The experience sounds similar to an old 333Mhz w/128MB XP box I had to use at work for a while.
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
While I don't agree with everything he says, He's got the general point down. The negative Vista stuff is vastly overblown and there is no benefit for a new PC to be downgraded to XP.

He is saying mostly the same thing most pro-Vista users are:
If you have an existing PC running XP without problems, you don't need to go out and upgrade to Vista unless you want to. But, you may as well go to Vista if you are buying a new systems since it's more stable and secure.

I was reading the comment section and I was amused by his ad-hoc test of loading Vista on an 800mhz PC w/ 512 MB (The minimum requirement) and while it took a while to boot and was a bit sluggish, it did actually work and run office 2007 while using IE7 etc. The experience sounds similar to an old 333Mhz w/128MB XP box I had to use at work for a while.
Yeah, if one is doing well with XP, no need to upgrade. But for a new system, if one can deal with the learning curve, it's probably the better path.

I found it a little humorous that Dell and perhaps other vendors are still selling computers and give the option of "downgrading" from Vista to XP Pro but for a $99 fee, which is sometimes waived on higher end computers. :eek: :D
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
The top five reasons why Windows Vista failed

On Friday, Microsoft gave computer makers a six-month extension for offering Windows XP on newly-shipped PCs. While this doesn’t impact enterprise IT — because volume licensing agreements will allow IT to keep installing Windows XP for many years to come — the move is another symbolic nail in Vista’s coffin.

The public reputation of Windows Vista is in shambles, as Microsoft itself tacitly acknowledged in its Mojave ad campaign.

IT departments are largely ignoring Vista. In June (18 months after Vista’s launch), Forrester Research reported that just 8.8% of enterprise PCs worldwide were running Vista. Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to have put Windows 7 on an accelerated schedule that could see it released in 2010. That will provide IT departments with all the justification they need to simply skip Vista and wait to eventually standardize on Windows 7 as the next OS for business.

So how did Vista get left holding the bag? Let’s look at the five most important reasons why Vista failed.

...
 

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,432
What amazes me is that even after almost 2 years, XP is still more popular than Vista by a 3.3:1 ratio!

Whether Vista is a better, worse, or equivalent OS compared to XP is debatable. But what is not debatable is that Vista is a failure in terms of market share (vs. XP). Let's see what MS does w/ Windows 7 and how the public accepts it.
 
Top