SP1 really sucks. Big time

Status
Not open for further replies.
I miss my old 98 se build - it was stable fast and crash proof - After MS quit support I switched to XP Corp SP2 and after tweaking got it almost as stable as my old 98 se and a little faster - now I have Vista premium and regret not going ultimate - and there are certain issues with it - but generally, needs more resources to run almost as well as XP - when will it be the opposite? I understand the need to make it look good - but I would rather have a slimmer and quicker running os.
So far I have been fortunate with Vista - runs almost as fast as XP - but the pop up question box when I run proggys is quite annoying, like the OS is trying to hold my hand or believes I haven't a clue as to what I am doing... I guess they had to go to the lowest denominator when creating the OS. I do have issues running older software (pre MS 2000/ME forget it) and I have had issues finding drivers for printers (sadly, printers purchased within 6 months of Vista coming into market...) But generally, I find it just effectively another version of 3.11 - with neato graphics that really do not add to the speed, stability, and effectiveness of the OS, but just adds to the minimum hardware requirements to run this thing. (I remember how 32mb ram ran 95 perfectly fine, and 512 was great for XP, just try to run Vista on less than 2gb and see how well it runs.
(Vista capable hardware my @ss... MS and the OEMs should be hit for that on anything that was called, or had stickers claiming Vista capable, that had less than 2gb ram and dual core, or at least a high end single core)

Now - I believe using direct foul language can be a "no-no" on this forum...
 
Why dont we all just agree that there are some people that dont like it for one reason or another. Be it hardware problems or software problems, but just because vista does not like some hardware or that the people dont want to make new drivers for vista. It is not the end of the world, if you must have certain hardware / software then just stay with XP.

I have been running vista for 6-7 months now, and have installed SP1 and had no problems with software that was new enough to run on vista. Sure there were some that didnt work but it is not the end of the world, I lived on and so can you.

So why keep complaining about something that you cant change? Use it if you want dont, if you dont. Just end the I hate Vista because bla bla bla stuff.

I mean if you are really having problems running things like BSOD's from windows vista then you need to make sure that you use the error report feature if you are able to, so MS knows that there are alot of people having problems and then they know that there is something they need to looking to .

I am not a MS lover or hater, I use it because it is more stable for me than XP ever was. XP BSOD on me more than Vista ever has, and if it did usually it was because of something I did that caused it. I am not saying it is this way for everyone, but this is how it is for me.

So like I said use it if you want or just dont, but dont just blame Vista for any and all problems you have.

So it it your choice and no one else's, you like XP use it untill it is no longer supported then decide if you are ready to make the change.
 
HvyMtl said:
But generally, I find it just effectively another version of 3.11 - with neato graphics that really do not add to the speed, stability, and effectiveness of the OS, but just adds to the minimum hardware requirements to run this thing. (I remember how 32mb ram ran 95 perfectly fine, and 512 was great for XP, just try to run Vista on less than 2gb and see how well it runs.
(Vista capable hardware my @ss... MS and the OEMs should be hit for that on anything that was called, or had stickers claiming Vista capable, that had less than 2gb ram and dual core, or at least a high end single core)
Click to expand...
512MB is okay for running XP for the average user. 1GB RAM or more is optimal. With Vista, 2GB RAM or more is optimal. Why anyone would think a new OS from MS would run just as well with the same amount of RAM from a previous OS is beyond me. With RAM so cheap these days, who cares if you need to add more to get better performance?

I agree that the 'Vista Capable' program was a joke and should have never been put into place. That shit was just wrong and very stupid.
 
kirk121 said:
So like I said use it if you want or just dont, but dont just blame Vista for any and all problems you have.

So it it your choice and no one else's, you like XP use it untill it is no longer supported then decide if you are ready to make the change.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, it would be this easy. Hell, even if people checked things out or participated in normal discussions it would work out fine. The problem is, people make up things or post ridiculous crap, only to start an argument.

Look at this thread for example, specifically the title. One person has a problem with SP1, so instead of just asking for help and participating in discussions to find a solution, they go on a rant bashing anything and everything, including newborn puppies. It is this level of ridiculousness that brings about the arguing.

There are some legitimate issues with Vista, just as their are with XP, Leopard, Ubuntu, etc etc etc. A good community would be where people come with questions, and walk away with answers. That's how it is on several BMW forums I visit. Instead, we have people posting incorrect or ridiculous information, and then they are quick to label anyone who defends the truth as a fanboy. The point of these boards is to help people and all learn from each other. Unfortuntely there are some who would rather debate and argue every topic, and it is making the correct information harder to find for those looking for it.
 
dark_reign said:
Why anyone would think a new OS from MS would run just as well with the same amount of RAM from a previous OS is beyond me.
Click to expand...
That's all goes back to the repeating cycle that a few people can't open their eyes enough to see. It has always been this way. 2000 was bashed for using more resources than 98. XP was bashed for using more resources than 2000. Vista is bashed for using more resources than XP. It is funny how our vehicles are always increasing in horsepower and we're fine with that...but when computers increase in horsepower, we want to use less and less of that power.
 
HvyMtl said:
but generally, needs more resources to run almost as well as XP - when will it be the opposite?
Click to expand...
Never.

All operating systems need more RAM as they progress. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux...
The user interface is a big topic nowadays. People don't want a fugly looking system... And having things like Flip 3D and Expose` definitely has their places to increase productivity (I just don't think it's there quite yet).

And while you could design an OS to use the same resources, it just wouldn't have a good feature set at all... Folks would have to resort to downloading a ton of third-party applications and add ons to get it to work the way they want it to. The trend now is bundling up the basic apps so it just works out of the box. This is true with Windows and Mac OS for awhile, and even Linux (Ubuntu) is catching on.


And another fact why requirements will always be higher is applications. Applications, as the operating system grows, they grow. They continue to grow more functions, features, and options as well- which all means they need better hardware. Look at Photoshop. Tons of new stuff going into that all the time.
 
HvyMtl said:
I miss my old 98 se build - it was stable fast and crash proof - After MS quit support I switched to XP Corp SP2 and after tweaking got it almost as stable as my old 98 se and a little faster
Click to expand...
Win 98 SE was great, but ont of the biggest benefits of moving to XP was stability. in XP when a program crashed usually only that program would crash in 98SE the os needed to be rebooted. If your 98 was more stable than XP then consider yourself fortunate, because I don't think that is the norm.

HvyMtl said:
now I have Vista premium and regret not going ultimate - and there are certain issues with it - but generally, needs more resources to run almost as well as XP - when will it be the opposite? I understand the need to make it look good - but I would rather have a slimmer and quicker running os.
Click to expand...
every new version of windows requires more resources than the last and I doubt it will ever change.

HvyMtl said:
So far I have been fortunate with Vista - runs almost as fast as XP - but the pop up question box when I run proggys is quite annoying, like the OS is trying to hold my hand or believes I haven't a clue as to what I am doing... I guess they had to go to the lowest denominator when creating the OS.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there is a way to disable the popups, I'm not sure of the procedure, but I think there is a way.

HvyMtl said:
I do have issues running older software (pre MS 2000/ME forget it) and I have had issues finding drivers for printers (sadly, printers purchased within 6 months of Vista coming into market...)
Click to expand...
That is really more of a problem with the software and hardware makers not making their products compatible with vista, not the other way around.

HvyMtl said:
But generally, I find it just effectively another version of 3.11 - with neato graphics that really do not add to the speed, stability, and effectiveness of the OS, but just adds to the minimum hardware requirements to run this thing.
Click to expand...
Really ... Vista is just 3.11 with better graphics! Exaggerate much?
 
milkweg said:
That's all fine and dandy with me. I use both Vista and XP and don't hate either of them but then I am a computer geek and enjoy dealing with all of the quirks and issues of computer use. But you have to admit, it's a far cry from being as easy to use as a toaster as Microsoft and Apple would like to have the masses believe . What I have an issue with is the how some of the people on this forum are derogatory to people who do have issues with Vista and immediately start to ridicule them when they post their issues of why they don't like Vista. They really do make themselves look like fanbois and I hate fanbois of any persuasion. Especially Linux fanbois. :) I install SP1 and get a stop error. Next day all is fine for no obvious reason. Somehow you equate that to it is my fault because I don't know what the fuck I am doing? Well, fuck you and the horse that you rode in on.

I've been using computers since 1989 and was originally trained to use the Mac. Two types of Mac and that is professionally trained. Also XT PC, again, in a professional capacity.
Click to expand...

I don't have a horse, a bike yes. I don't care how long you been doing something, that doesn't make you good in that field. Example, people play football all the time, but there is a difference between the pros and the rookies. People who try to prove themselves on the net with whatever backgrounds look stupid too. That still doesn't tell me anything.

"Next day all is fine for no obvious reason"
Yea, no obvious reason to you, but there was a reason.

If you read this sentence again you should understand that I was not directing at the user in general.

"Computers only do what they are program/build to do. Everything else is the users/engineer/programmers fault. We are the ones who "make" the stuff."
 
DeaconFrost said:
In a perfect world, it would be this easy. Hell, even if people checked things out or participated in normal discussions it would work out fine. The problem is, people make up things or post ridiculous crap, only to start an argument.

Look at this thread for example, specifically the title. One person has a problem with SP1, so instead of just asking for help and participating in discussions to find a solution, they go on a rant bashing anything and everything, including newborn puppies. It is this level of ridiculousness that brings about the arguing.

There are some legitimate issues with Vista, just as their are with XP, Leopard, Ubuntu, etc etc etc. A good community would be where people come with questions, and walk away with answers. That's how it is on several BMW forums I visit. Instead, we have people posting incorrect or ridiculous information, and then they are quick to label anyone who defends the truth as a fanboy. The point of these boards is to help people and all learn from each other. Unfortuntely there are some who would rather debate and argue every topic, and it is making the correct information harder to find for those looking for it.
Click to expand...


I solute you. One of the more intelligent response to this thread.
 
griffinhart said:
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. It's just true. 10 years ago people that were using the internet on a daily basis tended to be tech pros and computer savvy people more than any other demographic. Today, that is just not the case. Today there are many vocal people out there, but the technical level of those people are comparatively lower than what it was a decade ago.
Click to expand...

You can blame AOL for that. ;)
 
HvyMtl said:
like the OS is trying to hold my hand or believes I haven't a clue as to what I am doing...
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is doing. That's why I made the comment about toasters earlier. They want the average person to think a computer is as simple as making toast in the morning but of course a computer is a very complex machine and prone to all kinds of issues. It's a wonder they work at all.
 
DFranch said:
Win 98 SE was great, but ont of the biggest benefits of moving to XP was stability. in XP when a program crashed usually only that program would crash in 98SE the os needed to be rebooted. If your 98 was more stable than XP then consider yourself fortunate, because I don't think that is the norm.
Click to expand...

LOL,
My first PC had windows 98se, and I remember the 1st few times I saw "this program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down" I thought shit I did something illegal, lol.

Windows XP was a huge increase in stability in that regard. No more reboots due to the dreaded "this program has performed an illegal operation" bull crap.

Back on topic,
Both XP and Vista have been very stable OS's for me. The rule of thumb I go by is simple, any existing PC that has XP on it don't bother upgrading. Any new PC that you are buying or building put Vista on it.
 
dark_reign said:
Why anyone would think a new OS from MS would run just as well with the same amount of RAM from a previous OS is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Because they possibly had a moment of genius and realized we want efficient and not bloatware? Nah, it'll never happen.
 
CpuMan said:
Both XP and Vista have been very stable OS's for me. The rule of thumb I go by is simple, any existing PC that has XP on it don't bother upgrading. Any new PC that you are buying or building put Vista on it.
Click to expand...
Excellent rule of thumb. that is definitely the way to go. Anybody I know who bought a new machine with vista preinstalled have been happy, I think it tends to be the upgraders who expect there machine will suddenly perform better who are dissapointed the most.
 
DeaconFrost said:
It is funny how our vehicles are always increasing in horsepower and we're fine with that...but when computers increase in horsepower, we want to use less and less of that power.
Click to expand...

That couldn't be further from the truth. Vehicles are becoming more efficient and not increasing in horse power at all. The smart man buys an efficient vehicle and not a high horse power gas guzzler.
 
junglicious said:
I don't care how long you been doing something, that doesn't make you good in that field.
Click to expand...


Considering you don't know me one iota it makes you look very stupid to make assumptions about people you know nothing about or their abilities. Only thing I can think of that caused the stop error is this brand new *Microsoft* keyboard I changed to just prior to installing SP1 that won't work until it gets to the Vista welcome screen. IBM keyboard on the same USB port works perfectly. Yep, that is definitely my fault and lack of understanding of how PC's work. Tell me? Why are some computer geeks such arrogant asshats?
 
milkweg said:
BSOD is a hardware issue and not something caused by the user.
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have said programs that I ran or drivers, I was not saying that it directly was the user's fault.

I am sure that people have had BSOD's from things like nvidia drivers, so that is a hardware issue not that the driver its self has crashed?

Also I should say that if you install the wrong driver you can and will cause a BSOD if it is something like a chipset or raid or even satadriver.
everything is not always a hardware problem.
 
junglicious said:
"Computers only do what they are program/build to do. Everything else is the users/engineer/programmers fault. We are the ones who "make" the stuff."
Click to expand...

What moron are you quoting there? "Users" don't make the stuff and are not to blame because some engineer or programmer fucked up.
 
milkweg said:
PLease give an example of how *you* caused a bsod.
Click to expand...

installing hardware/drivers in the wrong order.

if you ask me, there's an order.... at least for p5n-e sli's....and any other boards i've worked with.

every board has quirks that will cause bsod's. the trick is finding out how they're caused and then not allowing those conditions to be met.

*shrugs*
 
kirk121 said:
Sorry I should have said programs that I ran or drivers, I was not saying that it directly was the user's fault.

I am sure that people have had BSOD's from things like nvidia drivers, so that is a hardware issue not that the driver its self has crashed?

Also I should say that if you install the wrong driver you can and will cause a BSOD if it is something like a chipset or raid or even satadriver.
everything is not always a hardware problem.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a BSOD caused by a Nvidia driver. We are specifically talking about a BSOD and not some other error. Maybe there are some drivers that have caused BSOD but I can't remember any. I remember on Win98SE if the cdrom couldn't read a cd it would BSOD but that is a hardware issue too and not software.
 
snaggletooth said:
installing hardware/drivers in the wrong order.

if you ask me, there's an order.... at least for p5n-e sli's....and any other boards i've worked with.

every board has quirks that will cause bsod's. the trick is finding out how they're caused and then not allowing those conditions to be met.

*shrugs*
Click to expand...

OK, I just can't remember a BSOD happenign because of that. Crashes yes, and the OS not loading because of it but not an actual BSOD. Anytime I have had BSOD it has been due to some bad hardware. Bad ram, bad block on the HDD, cpu overheating etc.
 
milkweg said:
OK, I just can't remember a BSOD happenign because of that. Crashes yes, and the OS not loading because of it but not an actual BSOD. Anytime I have had BSOD it has been due to some bad hardware. Bad ram, bad block on the HDD, cpu overheating etc.
Click to expand...

well then something new! check your order of driver installation, another something to use.

i know it's helped me troubleshoot certain problems... nv4xxx.whatever ftl when combined with linksys in the wrong order :p
 
TechieSooner said:
Never.

All operating systems need more RAM as they progress. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux...
Click to expand...
No, this is false. As your expectations progress, you need more resources for your system. That's true. But if you have a machine that has a singular purpose, it's needs are not going to magically increase. Even with the latest distros out now, you won't need to bump your memory requirements unless you are going to be adding to what you are doing. A firewall running CentOS runs just fine in 32megs if you know what you are doing, for example.
 
milkweg said:
What moron are you quoting there? "Users" don't make the stuff and are not to blame because some engineer or programmer fucked up.
Click to expand...

Users can and do make programs, some people can code. And as for the engineer or programmer part, can you make a operating system or program that works with no problems with every kind of hardware and with every kind of software out there? If you can you are a god in the programing world:rolleyes: Sorry to sound like a ARSE but you got to admit that it has some truth to what I am getting at.

Yes MS does not make perfect OS's, but no one can. You can only test and code for so much or you will never be done and it would not even be worth working on it, if it took forever to make.
 
milkweg said:
I've never seen a BSOD caused by a Nvidia driver. We are specifically talking about a BSOD and not some other error. Maybe there are some drivers that have caused BSOD but I can't remember any. I remember on Win98SE if the cdrom couldn't read a cd it would BSOD but that is a hardware issue too and not software.
Click to expand...

I have had a few Nv.sys errors or something like that, and video card driver errors. Not that it is always a software issue I am just saying that it is not always hardware that can cause them.
 
kirk121 said:
I have had a few Nv.sys errors or something like that, and video card driver errors. Not that it is always a software issue I am just saying that it is not always hardware that can cause them.
Click to expand...
I've definitely had nvidia drivers cause a BSOD before. I would say video drivers have been among the biggest causes of BSOD's on my systems. Overclocking and bad memory account for the rest.
 
milkweg said:
Considering you don't know me one iota it makes you look very stupid to make assumptions about people you know nothing about or their abilities. Only thing I can think of that caused the stop error is this brand new *Microsoft* keyboard I changed to just prior to installing SP1 that won't work until it gets to the Vista welcome screen. IBM keyboard on the same USB port works perfectly. Yep, that is definitely my fault and lack of understanding of how PC's work. Tell me? Why are some computer geeks such arrogant asshats?
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself. I was making a point and wasn't even directing the "you don't know" towards you. Geek? HA! Please, I am far from it. Its just funny to piss people off who think they know it all or blame it on something that is their own doing. I don't care who you are either and I wouldn't waste my time thinking about who you are. People really do flatter themselves on the net don't they.
 
CpuMan said:
The rule of thumb I go by is simple, any existing PC that has XP on it don't bother upgrading. Any new PC that you are buying or building put Vista on it.
Click to expand...
I think that is a good general rule of thumb I'd agree with...

milkweg said:
Vehicles are becoming more efficient and not increasing in horse power at all
Click to expand...
Bull. Compare a Model T to a Mustang GT...
Vehicles are a TON different technology, and don't change near as fast nor as often as computer technology.

In much the same way, look at our beginning computers and to the ones we have now- we are always increasing.


XOR != OR said:
No, this is false. As your expectations progress, you need more resources for your system. That's true. But if you have a machine that has a singular purpose, it's needs are not going to magically increase. Even with the latest distros out now, you won't need to bump your memory requirements unless you are going to be adding to what you are doing. A firewall running CentOS runs just fine in 32megs if you know what you are doing, for example.
Click to expand...
This is true. Would even be true in a Windows system though... If 98 worked for you and is all you needed, you'd be fine.

But we are talking about advancements and later versions. Look at Ubuntu. Lots of eye candy, packaged features and whatnot that needs more system requirements...
 
kirk121 said:
Users can and do make programs, some people can code.
Click to expand...

If a user can code then he is a programmer and not a simple user.

Anyway, figured out the issue with my SP1 stop error. The auto setting on my ram in the mb was too aggressive. And that came about because I stopped overclocking and set everything back to auto. When I was overclocking I was using a ram divider so it was running slower than the auto setting. I'm sure someone will say that is my fault for using the auto ram settting though. Everything ran fine on auto and never had any problems until I installed SP1. So ran mem diagnostics and that showed the error.
 
TechieSooner said:
I
Bull. Compare a Model T to a Mustang GT...
Click to expand...

That's a niche product for people with penis envy and not the kind of car most people buy or want. With the price of gas a smart car shopper would get a very efficient 4 banger.
 
milkweg said:
That's a niche product for people with penis envy and not the kind of car most people buy or want. With the price of gas a smart car shopper would get a very efficient 4 banger.
Click to expand...

That's besides the point. Your original argument was that cars run on the same horsepower as before :rolleyes:
 
milkweg said:
That's a niche product for people with penis envy and not the kind of car most people buy or want. With the price of gas a smart car shopper would get a very efficient 4 banger.
Click to expand...
So are high end computers. PC enthusiasts are niche market.

Not everybody cares about the cost of gas. Some people have vehicles that they only drive on the weekends. Some people just don't drive that much. Buying a gas hog doesn't make a person stupid unless they have a limited monthly income or they drive a lot.
 
Jeez guys, if you're going to make a Vista bash thread, at least keep it on topic and sane.

Do we need a Godwin's Law for car analogies?
 
milkweg said:
If a user can code then he is a programmer and not a simple user.
Click to expand...

That is a load of garbage.. when i was a little kid 10-13... I used to code all sorts of little games in pascal and basic on my 80286... and through and through I'm an average user... i think you need to be more specific with "if a user can code"... i can code all sorts of things... I'm not a programmer by profession nor do I do it for a side income, I'll use code when whatever personal project I'm doing requires it..

and Vista.... it is definately NOT garbage (as i once thought).. it's simply designed for modern computers (makes me wonder about the 32bit version though as i reckon Vista needs 4GiB).... all complaints (besides the very early ones) are all because of insufficient hardware or incorrect drivers (which windows update in Vista is more than happy to help you through)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top