Jump to content

So who took the plunge?


Timan

Recommended Posts

I bought a new machine that is Vista Capable, spent an hour or so installing Vista Ultimate and have had no problems since.

The only hitch was Vista required the uninstall of the Fingerprint Reader and some other HP security programs that came with this unit (NX9450), driver issues I'm sure. These uninstalls constituted the bulk of the install time.

Other than that I've been very happy with Vista, if you have a machine that's capable of running everything Vista provides go for it. It is a bit spendy, but in the long run worth it in my opinion.

Link to post
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i took the plunge!

Well as every one here knows, ive been beta testing the software since "longhorn"... i got a free copy!

I have to say it's worth it.... on my 1mgzh and 512 system, it took 12 mins to install.. everything is about i can actually say this about "10" times faster then xp, depending on the version you choose.. i have home ultimate...

things are easy... so much easier to find...

i have no way to explain it to you... give it an upgrade to try for your self, and then make your own desisions.... but in my own opinion, yes... this is something you want to do... basic is nice...

Tell us your own expirence....

Link to post
i took the plunge!

Well as every one here knows, ive been beta testing the software since "longhorn"... i got a free copy!

I have to say it's worth it.... on my 1mgzh and 512 system, it took 12 mins to install.. everything is about i can actually say this about "10" times faster then xp, depending on the version you choose.. i have home ultimate...

things are easy... so much easier to find...

i have no way to explain it to you... give it an upgrade to try for your self, and then make your own desisions.... but in my own opinion, yes... this is something you want to do... basic is nice...

Tell us your own expirence....

From what I seen around the web general consensus from people who HAVE tried it is really good. I was "fortunate" enough to have my XP install explode the day after the Vista release (coincedence?) and decided to just buy Home Premium. I have to say I like it WAY more than XP.

Everything, as you said, is MUCH easier to find and much better layed out. I also notice better performance with Vista, but I'm sure that extra RAM is being being taxed SOMEWHERE in there.

Also: Install took me a bit of time, I thought it froze a few times as it would hang on screens for 2-3 minutes, but before installing Vista I tried to install Ubuntu and that flat out froze ALL TOGETHER everytime. So I'm not really sure that's a Vista related problem.

Link to post

Well i have taken the plunge installed business as my dad got a MAK key to use for at home and in his office :) It better than XP but you need a good enough pc to run it. Even though it has the glass and the blurring yada smada i will still be buying purchasing a macbook pro in summer no doubt about it! I just find the OS X UI cleaner and easy to look at. Vista is dark so i'm using a Longhorn skin which makes it lighter with the whites and more transparent colours.

Overall for a PC user probably the best Windows OS yet if your pc can handle it!!!

Link to post

I've loaded up Vista Ultimate on my MacBook, everything works very well so far, I must admit that Aero Glass is much nicer compared to good old Luna :) I spend my time on VIsta more than on OSX lately, trying to digg deep into it hehe

And to answer to your question, it doesn't seem like Vista is tight in to just one motherboard. I've got the copy through my company and so far it has been loaded on 2 different computers, a Dell Laptop and this MacBook

Link to post
I've loaded up Vista Ultimate on my MacBook, everything works very well so far, I must admit that Aero Glass is much nicer compared to good old Luna :) I spend my time on VIsta more than on OSX lately, trying to digg deep into it hehe

And to answer to your question, it doesn't seem like Vista is tight in to just one motherboard. I've got the copy through my company and so far it has been loaded on 2 different computers, a Dell Laptop and this MacBook

Looks like they have a MAK key, since there is no VLK agreement available for Ultimate.

With MAK activation, each product key can activate a specific number of computers. MAK activation is required only once, unless there are significant changes made to the hardware afterwards.

Link to post

Here is my experience, I have the business edition...

- Looks better than XP

- Runs Faster than XP

- Uses more RAM than XP...which is a bummer

- More organized than XP

- Lack of drivers for my onboard 5.1 audio... I needed an excuse to buy a new sound card anyway

- Runs Smoother

- Some programs are a pain to install, adobe acro. pro 8.0 wont install

- UAC was a total pain is the ass at first but you can turn it off

- System icons are in .PNG format I believe

- I hate reinstalling all those plug-ins and junk for programs but eh

Over all I am extremely pleased with my experience, It has yet to crash (XP never did either, unless I told it to), The features which are supplied with the OS are nice and I have grown accustomed to Windows Defender somehow, I hated it with XP, The Office 2007 programs run flawlessly along side also.

Link to post

Uses more ram.. thats a yes and a no...

Vista uses something called Superfetch which caches programs you use the most into memory for them to run and load much faster. Someone with 1GB of ram might have their overall usage be at about 400mb, wile someone with 2GB of ram has an average usage of 500-600mb of ram. Generally ram usage stays at about 30% for most machines regardless of the amount of ram it has, unless your using more than 2gb that is, or so I have seen.

Link to post

My plan is make a partial move to Apple when Leopard is released. I've been wavering on buying a Mac for the past 6 months. I'll probably get a MBP, then I'll get a new Windows desktop w/ an OEM, pre-installed version of Vista. BUT, I'll wait on that until Service pack 1 has been released....

Link to post
Uses more ram.. thats a yes and a no...

Vista uses something called Superfetch which caches programs you use the most into memory for them to run and load much faster. Someone with 1GB of ram might have their overall usage be at about 400mb, wile someone with 2GB of ram has an average usage of 500-600mb of ram. Generally ram usage stays at about 30% for most machines regardless of the amount of ram it has, unless your using more than 2gb that is, or so I have seen.

I boot with around 500mb then as I use firefox and itunes it sky rockets to around 1.1GB

I have 2 GB for a reason but geeze, xp never got above 800

Link to post
I boot with around 500mb then as I use firefox and itunes it sky rockets to around 1.1GB

I have 2 GB for a reason but geeze, xp never got above 800

Vista changed the way they display memory usage on the performance tab in task manager.

In XP, it showed total physical memory installed, how much physical memory is being used and what is available.

In Vista it's a bit decieving, it shows total physical memory installed and how much memory is cached and how much is available.

The cached memory is available to all programs and can be reallocated on the fly.

Break out your calculator and do the math.

Add up how much is being reported as being used in the processes tab vs how much is being reported as used in the performance tab. Huge difference. Processes tab shows actual usage while the performance tab includes cached memory.

I have 2 GB installed on my home PC and Vista shows only 47MB of physical memory as being free.

But I added up all the memory being used in the processes tab and it's showing that I am only using approx. 500 MB.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...