I'm satisfied with Vista, are you?

R

RangerSVT

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,989
Sorry if this is not quite the informative post to provide a solution or problem solvers for people with this particular operating system that are having problems, but after being skeptical about trying out a new operating system, I'm here to share a few of the many praises I have for buying this operating system.

I've been using it for 2 months now, and I can't believe how well it adapted to my casual computer usage, I'm not sure of the specifics of the super-fetch feature or whatever it's called, but I've had my system updated with the hundreds of updates that Microsoft releases, and it seems with the passing time, my operating system seems snappier, knows what I normally launch and saves on load times. Gaming is fantastic, driver support is fantastic, software support is fair, considering Winamp doesn't work like it used to with Windows XP, so I'm stuck with Windows Media Player and I can't used my paid version of DFX for Windows Media Player because it was purchased primarily for Winamp :(

All the software I had when I had Windows XP, works perfectly with Vista64. At first I was concerned with my decision basically because it seemed like Vista was too cute and was going to render my control to minimal, but it seems like after adjusting to the operating system, I had just as much control over it as I did with Windows XP. The visuals are different but enjoyable, my system is powerful enough to run Aero and the features run smoothly and has never slowed my machine down or forced me to turn some of the features off to enjoy it.

I did have a problem with my game server program of choice: All Seeing Eye, it was incompatible for Vista64, so I used the compatibility option and programmed it to emulate Windows XP SP2 and it works beautifully now.

I'm happy with Windows Vista64, and I'm glad it was released by Microsoft, the standards and minimium requirements alone will set computing needs higher, demanding higher performance for less or equal money from mass producing companies like Dell, HP/Compaq. This is good for consumers!

Sorry for the praise, just got alittle tired of hearing all the bad, but hardly any good :)

Chime in! And thanks for reading my post and taking the time.
 
Agreed. All I ever really hear about is complaints about Vista. I've been using it for three months now, with pretty average equipment, AMD Sempron 3000+ 2GB of DDR2 and a 7900GS and it runs smooth. Haven't had any real problems like I did when I adopted XP many years back.

I was a little disapointed in the features the MS claimed to be implementing that aren't in Vista, but hey there will be others.
 
Heck yeah! Superfetch pwns me!

I get so frustrated when I have to use an XP system at work - Vista FTW. Legacy OS's FTL...
 
For the most part, you can still adapt the os to suit your tastes. When I first installed it, I hated a lot of the implementations. Luckilly you can turn them off and get more of a xp feel. Heck aside from the fancy start menu, I've made mine look almost like my 2k setup...
 
Slade said:
For the most part, you can still adapt the os to suit your tastes. When I first installed it, I hated a lot of the implementations. Luckilly you can turn them off and get more of a xp feel. Heck aside from the fancy start menu, I've made mine look almost like my 2k setup...
Click to expand...


I always make my XP installation look like 2K - afterall, there is a performance penalty in XP for using the XP themes! (even when you are playing games, performance is lower with the XP theme on versus Classic theme)

However, with Vista, I chose to keep the Aero theme on since it offloads all the 'eye candy' to the GPU to leave more available resources for your OS and applications.

I guess with newer CPUs, (Core architecture, etc), it really doesn't matter that much - go with what you personally like! But it you do run into performance problems, you might give the Aero interface another shot!

http://news.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/page3.asp
 
It's starting to grow on me. I've had it installed for about 4 days. I mainly run, web browsing, e-mail and programming and even Dr Java is booting up quicker.
 
Well- people will always complain faster than praise- so forums are never a good estimation of real-world anything :D

Been using it since release... And 64 bit for 1 - 1.5 months now.
I won't ever go back to XP, and I won't ever go back to 32 bit.

Using XP during the day- and getting home to Vista- Vista is always such a treat. It's more of a pleasure to use.
 
zacdl said:
I won't ever go back to XP...
Click to expand...

I had to. I am not happy.

I had a BIOS chip go bad (I hope, maybe the replacement BIOS chip on its way won't actually fix the problem), so I moved an 8800GTS from that machine to my file server and am using XP on that for the moment. I have been for almost a week, now. This is after using Vista (exclusively, at home) since mid-to-late February.

Holy crap. I didn't think there was a big improvement in "snappiness" or boot times going from XP -> Vista, but I certainly notice major reductions in those same items when going from Vista -> XP. Wow.

A big one for me is that I was spoiled by Vista's ability to "just work" the second you see the desktop. Now, I see the desktop and can take a nap before the computer becomes usable. Well, if it was a short little 10-15 second nap, anyway. Trust me, it seems like forever when you're staring at an unresponsive desktop and you haven't had to do that in about 7 months. :D

Then there is the "I think I remember that I launched that app a while back... oh, there it is" effect with XP vs Vista. Oh wow, I didn't have any idea how spoiled I was. :eek: Boy, I hope the issue with my primary machine is fixed soon, I am about ready to shoot something :p
 
Well I guess that is your opinion however, there are many other factors that come into play when judging snappiness and boot times. Your primary computer sounds like a gaming machine which tells me that you probably have plenty of stuff installed...that slows stuff down. I use 4 operating systems on a daily basis as a CS major, (XP, Vista, Linux, and Solaris :(), and between XP and Vista, I tend to enjoy working on vista more. Even with programming, the big IDEs open up quicker now that they are cached into the RAM.

I have 2 gigs of RAM in my laptop for school and I saw that when I first installed vista, around 500-600 mb of RAM was used, now, it's around 1.15GB. Ordinarily, I would say, Oh Noes! My RAM!, but that is just the magic of vista at work, making my experience better...and quicker.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just stating my opinion.

Let me just say, I hate working on Solaris, it's so dumb...pfff.
 
onetwenty8k said:
Well I guess that is your opinion however, there are many other factors that come into play when judging snappiness and boot times. Your primary computer sounds like a gaming machine which tells me that you probably have plenty of stuff installed...that slows stuff down.
Click to expand...

Who is this in response to? It shouldn't be me, because I am saying the same thing you are, Vista is more responsive and effectively boots faster, but I don't see anyone else you could be responding to. :confused:

My file server is running XP, but the last time it was up and running, it was using this e6600 right out of my primary machine (with a bad mainboard ATM) and the RAM from that same machine. I "upgraded" motherboards at that time, and just kept the WD2500KS drive (the same model I used in the "upgraded" system, even) with the windows XP install from the Intel board around, for when I eventually bought a second 775 CPU and additional RAM and so could bring it back to life as a file server with the integrated graphics. It was even running one of the same XFX 8800GTS 640MB boards I use now, back then. I just bought a second one in the intervening time. I haven't bought the second CPU or additional RAM yet, but it's still in the cards for the future. I guess that means I should really call it my "future file server", since it can't run with out parts from my main machine ATM.

Also, even though the Intel board from the "future file sever" doesn't overclock, I ran my gaming machine at stock 2.4Ghz for a while due to quickly escalating stability issues (that just got worse anyway and eventually ended in this current failure), so the CPU clockspeed are all the same between XP and Vista in my recent experience. That actually means that the CPU, RAM, video card, and harddrive model are all identical from a "Windows desktop" perspective between the two machines, if only because the Windows desktop doesn't run in SLI.

Additionally, I run both of my machines (Vista primary and the XP file server) with nothing on them that isn't required for security or to keep the system functioning properly (expect superfetch on the Vista machine - that is too cool). Both are kept as clean as I can keep them, as far as running processes and installed crap.

I thought my experience switching from XP to Vista originally, and switching back from Vista to XP now, all while using a vast amount of identical hardware between the two systems (all except the motherboard, really) would clearly show any differences. My original point was that I didn't really see a difference that was noticeable going from XP -> Vista, but when I switched back due to this motherboard issue, I noticed a HUGE difference. I guess I should have mentioned the hardware-similarity part earlier, though.

:)
 
I can't capture video using a PCI firewire card. Vegas 8, Vista Moviemaker. All see and control my camera but when I start the actual capture the screen remains blank and no video is captured. I've reinstalled everything and nothing helps. It makes me cry.
 
I love it too, but unfortunately, I do have some issues with it, but none that are Vista's fault. I have a few game errors and problems, but I have acknowledgements from each of the developer's support teams that it's their problem, and it's being worked on.
 
Betrayer00GT said:
Who is this in response to? It shouldn't be me, because I am saying the same thing you are, Vista is more responsive and effectively boots faster, but I don't see anyone else you could be responding to. :confused:

My file server is running XP, but the last time it was up and running, it was using this e6600 right out of my primary machine (with a bad mainboard ATM) and the RAM from that same machine. I "upgraded" motherboards at that time, and just kept the WD2500KS drive (the same model I used in the "upgraded" system, even) with the windows XP install from the Intel board around, for when I eventually bought a second 775 CPU and additional RAM and so could bring it back to life as a file server with the integrated graphics. It was even running one of the same XFX 8800GTS 640MB boards I use now, back then. I just bought a second one in the intervening time. I haven't bought the second CPU or additional RAM yet, but it's still in the cards for the future. I guess that means I should really call it my "future file server", since it can't run with out parts from my main machine ATM.

Also, even though the Intel board from the "future file sever" doesn't overclock, I ran my gaming machine at stock 2.4Ghz for a while due to quickly escalating stability issues (that just got worse anyway and eventually ended in this current failure), so the CPU clockspeed are all the same between XP and Vista in my recent experience. That actually means that the CPU, RAM, video card, and harddrive model are all identical from a "Windows desktop" perspective between the two machines, if only because the Windows desktop doesn't run in SLI.

Additionally, I run both of my machines (Vista primary and the XP file server) with nothing on them that isn't required for security or to keep the system functioning properly (expect superfetch on the Vista machine - that is too cool). Both are kept as clean as I can keep them, as far as running processes and installed crap.

I thought my experience switching from XP to Vista originally, and switching back from Vista to XP now, all while using a vast amount of identical hardware between the two systems (all except the motherboard, really) would clearly show any differences. My original point was that I didn't really see a difference that was noticeable going from XP -> Vista, but when I switched back due to this motherboard issue, I noticed a HUGE difference. I guess I should have mentioned the hardware-similarity part earlier, though.

:)
Click to expand...

Ahh, okay, I understand now. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I had just woken up at 7:00AM and I was still on my first cup of coffee.

Let me note that all the people that fault vista because of game crashes and lower FPS are wrong because it is the lack of drivers and good drivers that are causing the crashes, not the OS. If companies put more hours into developing good, working drivers for the new OS, then maybe less people would complain.
 
what is this XP thing I keep hearing people talk about?


... exactly.....
 
I'm incredibly satisfied with Vista64 so far. I was expecting a nightmare of incompatibility but I haven't had any problems yet. And it's snappy and fast as well (though It is on a brand new comp I just built so I can't comment on systems that have been out there for a little while) and has a lot of cool features I'm discovering.

I had to set up a new network printer at my place the other day and it ended up being a headache for the XP machines in the house, but my computer running Vista (after getting the 64 bit drivers) made it really easy.

I think a lot of the vitriol towards the OS is people just hating on Microsoft in general (and let's face it, MS has earned a lot of that) rather than having legitimate criticisms about Vista.
 
This is all very interesting to hear about. I have been VERY reluctant to adopt Vista simply because there wasn't a single feature that I simply HAD to have. Ever since 98, the OS upgrade was something I simply needed. For Win2K, I wanted the ability to have an "NT-based OS" but still have the nicities of 98 (like USB support, device manager, and decent multiple monitor support). For XP, I liked the fact that it actually booted FASTER than Win2K on the same machine! Also I liked all the device support for some of my less-techie users (like the digital camera wizard). But with Vista, I just don't see the compelling need for it (but your discussion is really making me re-think that)...

My main concern is the fact that I use AutoCAD and also edit VERY large images on my workstation. Needless to say, I use lots of RAM. I'm currently running with 4GB on an XP box and I use every last ouce of my resources. I'm worried that Vista will snatch up more of the RAM for "system overhead" rather than allowing the apps to take advantage of it. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
 
Tip about DFX: switch to SRS audio sandbox. To me it sounds far better and best yet it works through a signed audio driver so will work on ANY sound coming out of your computer.
 
jmroberts70 said:
I'm worried that Vista will snatch up more of the RAM for "system overhead" rather than allowing the apps to take advantage of it. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
Click to expand...

Yes.
Vista will give up all its cached RAM to the user if the user needs it. It essentially is the same thing as XP when you are using max RAM- because nothing is cached at that point.
 
If I could print over a network to a printer (shared) running off of a XP machine, then my complaints would be next to none. Of course, that may not really be Vista's fault..but I can't get it to work. :(
 
jmroberts70 said:
My main concern is the fact that I use AutoCAD and also edit VERY large images on my workstation. Needless to say, I use lots of RAM. I'm currently running with 4GB on an XP box and I use every last ouce of my resources. I'm worried that Vista will snatch up more of the RAM for "system overhead" rather than allowing the apps to take advantage of it. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
Click to expand...
You running 32-bit XP or 64-bit XP?

If you have 32-bit XP installed then it's a 'no-brainer'. 64-bit Windows will make better, more efficient usage of your 4Gb of RAM than 32-bit Windows can. 'System overhead' doesn't really enter the equation. The small overheads which do exist would be well and truly offset by the more capable 64-bit operating environment.
 
Jordan1 said:
If I could print over a network to a printer (shared) running off of a XP machine, then my complaints would be next to none. Of course, that may not really be Vista's fault..but I can't get it to work. :(
Click to expand...

I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't work for you. =/

Personally, I use a hardware print server. It's a tiny little box with an ethernet port and a USB port. It lets me share my printer to every PC in the house without having to leave a PC on. The only downside is that they tend to be more expensive than they should. A "cheap" ethernet version is still around $50 while a Wireless version tends to run closer to $100.
 
I like vista too, but in my computer it crashes permanently, when im running games, i have problems with drivers, sound and video...:(
 
For the most part. It plays 4 out of 5 games that I've tried (KOTOR 2 doesn't work), it's a pleasure to use, but I am running into some file copying problems. It's not really a big deal, so I haven't read up on it. But whenever I try to copy files from my WinXP drive into the Vista drive, I get swarmed with UAC prompts, which it denies eventually.
 
Acer_Sheep said:
I like vista too, but in my computer it crashes permanently.
Click to expand...


That DEFINITELY must be a nuisance for you!


SPARTAN VI said:
whenever I try to copy files from my WinXP drive into the Vista drive, I get swarmed with UAC prompts, which it denies eventually. .
Click to expand...
You need to learn about 'Taking ownership' of files and folders. Doing so will allocate the necessary 'permissions' so you can easily work with files created within a Windows XP user account, without seeing UAC prompts when you do so.
 
The 15+GB of hard disk space it takes on my tiny laptop hard drive isn't very comforting, but otherwise I have no real gripes. It runs everything I want to run. On one hand I could easily get away with XP on my laptop (XP64 since I like it alot) but on the other hand I want to be familiar with Vista and I'm too lazy to redo my laptop again.
 
ive been using vista ultimate (x32) for 2 months now, and i am very happy with it, especially the new look. i have had only one or two minor issues with it, one being the control panel doesnt always open (must restart software licensing service)..... so far the security is better than xp, and it supported my old hardware, which i didnt think was gonna work. one which i never thought would run is my pci-dvbs sat card. the drivers are like 2 years old, and it rund great.....so far so good. im sold on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top