General thoughts on Vista?

i took the splurge and decided to install vista ultimate... ohh wait, hey i recognise this! its vista RC2!

hello my old friend RC2! wow that Ultimate badge sure does make you SO NOT worth the $$$$ i just spent

whats worse is that I cant even install ultimate onto a Fat32 drive, so I cant access it from within OSX (bootcamp), brilliant.

hmm now lets install bootcamp drivers... yep.... not compatible, joy!

hmm.... now lets try and run Half life 2, goodby A-S, encase I dont return.... astalavista blue screen baby.

Your so uninformed it isnt even funny, I pitty you. No really, I do.

whats worse is that I cant even install ultimate onto a Fat32 drive, so I cant access it from within OSX (bootcamp), brilliant.

-FAT32 is a waste of time, NTFS is much better, and just slightly more secure. FAT32 is useless, old, beat down and tired, if your running it then you should upgrade to NTFS immediately. If you can't, then.... tough luck I guess.

hmm now lets install bootcamp drivers... yep.... not compatible, joy!

-Serves you right for installing it thru bootcamp, get a real PC and try it.

hmm.... now lets try and run Half life 2, goodby A-S, encase I dont return.... astalavista blue screen baby.

-This is not Windows 98. Encountering a Blue Screen either means 2 things; 1) The drivers you just installed and or program you just installed has been written by an illiterate coder and or are in BETA (key word there, BETA, hope you caught that one). 2) You did something you shouldn't have.

I have yet to encounter a Blue screen in XP that wasn't intentionally coming, and as for Vista, Never, not once. And yes I have tried numerious beta's and have ran the Retail copy for several weeks, and I didn't play nice with it either. I've done it all, including being glued to CS:S for 2+ hours.

Another thing is Vista limits bandwidth to Limewire and Firefox. I downloaded a file from my server using both IE and FF. FF downloaded the file 76k/sec, IE did same file 578k/sec. (And yes I cleared Temp files).

Hmm, that does seem odd. They both play along fine, I don't have any kind of speed caping going on. Are you using the newest firefox? (2.0.0.2 I believe)

#444640

OK so I was being a little rash and I was exaggerating, BUT

fat32 is not useless...

• Fat32 drives can be read/written to from within OSX, NTFS cant.
  
• Fat32 is good for what I use it for (gaming- yes thats right, it works fast enough for games) , I dont use windows on the web so security doesnt matter so much to me.
  
• I only have a 20gb partition, so it doesnt matter that there is a 32gb limit.
  

-uninformed?- no not really, I just realise there is a purpose for certain things and am not narrowminded about older technologies... or alternate technologies, which brings me to my next point...

I do not run vista "Through" bootcamp

I use bootcamp to boot into Vista. theres a difference- windows on an intel mac is Not emulation. its Windows running on Windows hardware.

A macbook is a real PC. Yep we intel mac users use the same intel core duo insides as you pc users... well maybe you dont have a core duo PC... but if you did...

the only real difference is the EFI (which allows us to install OSX) and the fact that our computers are encased in... well mac cases...

... Vista doesnt support the 'older' XP drivers so...

I daresay "Real PC's" would have a fair few XP drivers that dont work properly in Vista either...The bootcamp driver disk includes drivers for the graphics card etc...

I could probably download off each 'Vista ready' driver off the chipset maker's site (eg- ATI for my graphics card)... but I couldnt be bothered, I'd rather whine.

I was exaggerating about the BSOD ... but it could happen considering I couldnt install the video card's drivers.

yes bootcamp is BETA.... but seriously, who really takes a look at that word twice before using?.... its just what companies do to cover thier asses.

Bootcamp is a polished piece of software, its just they havent tested it properly.

I've had no problem running bootcamp with windows XP (how its intended to be run) so yeah my fault for experimenting with vista.

#444643

Despite what people will tell you, this is a genuinely good release of windows, and as far as im concerned, Creative and other companies refusing to support products with drivers that work correctly under Windows Vista should simply be taken out and shot, then disposed of on a pig farm, as it shows how much they appreicate their customers.

I'm all for it, them and nVidia need a good old fashion ass kicking so they will release some decent drivers!

Astyanax - I'll get the pig farm, you get the gun ... - Creative were a comin for ya!

#444653

Might as well throw my 2 cents in. I just installed Home Premium. Blah! First off, Visual Studio doesn't recongize my ODBC drivers, NO support for IPX protocol, witch is required for ANY LAN based games, and I happen to belong to a local LAN party group, so no game play for me. Limewire causes Aero to default to basic until it's closed, then goes back to the translucent. Vista thinks my Lynsys Wireless router is a DSL modem, witch its not, I have 8MB Cable internet, so I can't log into the router unless I remove my firewall.

All in all it's not tooooo bad. I love the interface, love the development kits for it and the ease of the coding standards. But you all are right, it's not stable enough for release. I'm starting to code a few things using the Vista SDK kit using the .NET platform. It's nice. .NET is much faster on Vista then XP I've noticed.

Another thing is Vista limits bandwidth to Limewire and Firefox. I downloaded a file from my server using both IE and FF. FF downloaded the file 76k/sec, IE did same file 578k/sec. (And yes I cleared Temp files).

IPX protocol... is sooo last century. NOBODY uses it in any modern LAN based game. It's all TCP/IP. :slant:

Limewire is not written for the Aero UI. Don't blame Vista, blame Limewire.

Same thing applies to FF.... it wasn't written for Vista.

Most of the issues you describe are related to software or hardware that wasn't designed to run under Vista. Blame the vendor... Microsoft CAN'T and WON'T write drivers and patches for every piece of hardware and software out there.

As stated by others, hardware and software vendors need to get with the program and stop pissing off their customer base.

#444662

face it. Vista needs more than the 5 years of development. Well, thats Microsoft for ya!

Get a mac, you wont be disappointed (unless your a gamer).

Aha, but even that matter is being fixed! its called..........makeing games for OS X!!

#444870

face it. Vista needs more than the 5 years of development.

#444875

well we are all entitled to our opinion....

even if...gotta admit...if you had to choose one, which would it be? (oh and dont just say..."VISTA!!!" you gotta explain why)

#444881

well we are all entitled to our opinion....

#444890

you sound like a stinky fan boy Adam, it's true that it took them MORE than 5 years to get VIsta to the public, as if you know how their process is like, you work for them or what????? Don't pretend to know what you don't really know. And being rude makes you look like a loser.

#444892

Lets congratulate our lucky winners metallic and liquid, who will enjoy three beautiful spring days outside.

Next user actually gets a week. Be nice, be informative, and be respectful.

#444893

wow, i never realized a discussion about vista would get so heated.

these are my opinion on vista:

• i don't like aero. i think it's distractive and has no real purpose other than eye candy. i think the fact that aero requires a decent graphics card has been blown out of proportion, but it's bound to happen when you do something like this. i do like the window toggling/scrolling, that's cool
  
  
• i don't like how it's still unorganized. i've said this over and over again -- system files are still all over the place. things have random names within nests of random folders. for a neat freak like me, having a regsv32.dll or w/e within a tree of folders kills me. compare it to coreservices of os x, which is in system/core service/
  
  
• i don't like how MS is inviting people to break it, because they eventually will. no OS is perfect, even for one in such long development. saying that people break into OS X every day (assuming gates was talking about moab) has made gates stoop to apple's level
  
  
• i do like the revamped applications. the photo application looks speedier than iphoto, i don't know about notepad, paint, etc...but i assume they are equally as good
  
  
• price point. too high IMO, too many versions. picking out an OS shouldn't be complex, so i hope vista is easier to use than to get a hold of
  

#444899

wow, i never realized a discussion about vista would get so heated.

these are my opinion on vista:

• i don't like aero. i think it's distractive and has no real purpose other than eye candy. i think the fact that aero requires a decent graphics card has been blown out of proportion, but it's bound to happen when you do something like this. i do like the window toggling/scrolling, that's cool
  
  
• i don't like how it's still unorganized. i've said this over and over again -- system files are still all over the place. things have random names within nests of random folders. for a neat freak like me, having a regsv32.dll or w/e within a tree of folders kills me. compare it to coreservices of os x, which is in system/core service/
  
  
• i don't like how MS is inviting people to break it, because they eventually will. no OS is perfect, even for one in such long development. saying that people break into OS X every day (assuming gates was talking about moab) has made gates stoop to apple's level
  
  
• i do like the revamped applications. the photo application looks speedier than iphoto, i don't know about notepad, paint, etc...but i assume they are equally as good
  
  
• price point. too high IMO, too many versions. picking out an OS shouldn't be complex, so i hope vista is easier to use than to get a hold of
  

A valid and humble opinion. I think most would agree with pretty much all that u just posted.

except the first bit, any discussion asking for opinions on something MS vs Apple is bound to get heated.

I dont see aero as being completely pointless tho, its nice to see what other windows are behind etc etc... but.... its overdone/underdone and inconsistantly implemented.... anyone agree?

Get a mac, you wont be disappointed (unless your a gamer).

Aha, but even that matter is being fixed! its called..........makeing games for OS X!!

Hmmm... its called... porting games from direct X to OpenGL is costly and pointless.

Thats why Apple invented bootcamp. now the world can be happy. No more fanboys because- we as apple fanboys accept partial defeat in running vista/xp on our macboxez. AND Microsoft fanboys accept partial defeat in that the mac can now run just like an ordinary PC.

SO now MacOSX comes as a personal preference, use it or buy a normal pc. But no need to bash macs themselves.

So we all live happily ever after.

the end.

#444910

I don't agree with Ellada on Aero GUI either, I find it nice and far better than Luna. The only complain I have about it would be the drop shadow, it's far too strong in my opinion. Also, you don't necessarily need a decent high end graphic card to handle Aero desktop, as a matter of fact, I'm very satisfied with the performance on my macbook and my new Dell laptop, both are shipped with Intel GMA 950.

#444917

Being better than Luna is not that hard of a task to accomplish. Heck, Classic was a better skin than Luna. They might as well put a "this desktop is sponsored by Fisher Price" on it.

And there ARE too many versions of it. Being the (former) Warehouse Manager at a COMPuter seller in the USA, with that and all the types of Office coming in, it made a really long day.

#444946

Here's what I think (on games):

We're caught in a little loophole, in that loop, no games are being made for Macs. Gamers don't buy Macs because they don't have games, Game companies don't make games for Macs because there are no gamers and because there are not many Macs, but if people realized this, the game companies would bother making games for Macs, because it would sell. If more gamers started buying Macs for some of their favorite games, then other game companies would realize the potential profit that could be found. It's annoying, but bootcamp is nice and solves most things.

#444956

am i the only one who has a bugbear about the amount of system resources vista needs to run just... vista. i mean osx can run on 256 ram quite happily with all the bells and whistles. do bill and steve b just have whopping shares in the far eastern tech companies who manufacture all the memory or what?

needing 750 mb ram just to run aero is ridiculous im sorry. surely small ADVANCES in operating systems should improve performance on the same hardware not demand large upgrades. xp was what... 128mb needed to run the os. that is a huge jump. yes oviously you needed to upgrade back in the days of early windows but there were hugely signigicant benefits for doing that. i don't really see any at all with vista.

as i only have 256 ram and no video card, i see little point in even trying vista since it seems to me like BloatWare. i have third party anti virus and firewall, and flyakite to make everything nice. can anyone tell me what advantage i would get from installing vista over what i already have?

p.s. yes i quite agree, from what screenshots i have seen this OS has been sponsored by fisher price or toys-r-us!

you've probably all seen it but this is funny. all the features of reversi LMAO

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=214534

#445033

p.s. yes i quite agree, from what screenshots i have seen this OS has been sponsored by fisher price or toys-r-us!

people used to bash the iPod in a similar way... ohh wait they still do... and Aqua...

hmm you should try vista, the visuals grow on you after a while... I just hate that sickly light blue colour they use around the corners of thier (poorly rounded) windows and buttons.

if you dont know what im talking about- look at the tabs in internet explorer- Yuk!...

but the taskbar and most of the windows look great and not so toylike

#445084

am i the only one who has a bugbear about the amount of system resources vista needs to run just... vista. i mean osx can run on 256 ram quite happily with all the bells and whistles. do bill and steve b just have whopping shares in the far eastern tech companies who manufacture all the memory or what?

needing 750 mb ram just to run aero is ridiculous im sorry. surely small ADVANCES in operating systems should improve performance on the same hardware not demand large upgrades. xp was what... 128mb needed to run the os. that is a huge jump. yes oviously you needed to upgrade back in the days of early windows but there were hugely signigicant benefits for doing that. i don't really see any at all with vista.

as i only have 256 ram and no video card, i see little point in even trying vista since it seems to me like BloatWare. i have third party anti virus and firewall, and flyakite to make everything nice. can anyone tell me what advantage i would get from installing vista over what i already have?

p.s. yes i quite agree, from what screenshots i have seen this OS has been sponsored by fisher price or toys-r-us!

you've probably all seen it but this is funny. all the features of reversi LMAO

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=214534

Vista doesn't "use" as much memory as it looks like it's using. The memory model is way different than with XP. When Vista loads it takes up most of all the free RAM it can to be able to cache things and work faster, but if applications are launched and need RAM, Vista unloads unncessary parts of its cached info in RAM and allows the application to have it.

#445156

I just hate that sickly light blue colour they use around the corners of thier (poorly rounded) windows

Same here.

Solution:

Right click the desktop -> Personalize -> Window Color and Appearance -> Open classic appearance properties for more color options -> Make sure Aero is selected, then hit Advanced -> Change the Item drop down to Border Padding and set it to a lower setting (1, 0, whatever).

I haven't noticed the blue line on anything but the windows, but I imagine there is a similar solution for them.

#445167

Vista doesn't "use" as much memory as it looks like it's using. The memory model is way different than with XP. When Vista loads it takes up most of all the free RAM it can to be able to cache things and work faster, but if applications are launched and need RAM, Vista unloads unncessary parts of its cached info in RAM and allows the application to have it.

forgive me if i've been given misleading info, but i've been led to believe if you havent got minimum of 750mb ram then aero will not even run?

#445215

That is not true, at least for the 'pre-release' verions. It ran just fine on my machine wih 512mb of ram.

#445218

Same here.

Solution:

Right click the desktop -> Personalize -> Window Color and Appearance -> Open classic appearance properties for more color options -> Make sure Aero is selected, then hit Advanced -> Change the Item drop down to Border Padding and set it to a lower setting (1, 0, whatever).

I haven't noticed the blue line on anything but the windows, but I imagine there is a similar solution for them.

thanx for the suggestion

#445226

forgive me if i've been given misleading info, but i've been led to believe if you havent got minimum of 750mb ram then aero will not even run?

Nah, The minimum is 512mb as the OS requires. The videocard does however require Pixel Shader 2.0 for Aero glass to work.

And the reason their are specific requirements for the Aero UI are because it utilizes the GPU, this does not put any strain on the processor allowing for maximum performance with eye candy.

#445230

I know nothing. But heres my thought on Vista:

Vista's a drag queen; dressed up version of XP, nothing revolutionary Just a well 5year (overdue) makeup of XP. I purchesed Vista Ultimate the day it came out. And had been using the RC2 before hand. I have to admit its easier to run, but it just incorperates feautures from XP.

One thing that got me, is the taskbar. One of the last realsed xp (Media Centre Edition) came standered with 'Royal Theme'. Witch same as Vista, uses two colours (light blue/blue, lightblackgrey/black) with a line down the center, than a woovey-eye-catching design on the Start button.. Vista taskbar is just like the last xp, just with some spunk.. (i know this didnt matter to anyone whos reading this, its just been bugging me how little changes have been done to a very pricey and late OS)

Also the seach, is now an incorperated feature. Witch i liked, but is small upgrade from the Windows Desktop Search. (the worst is you have to keep the Start tab open as is searches, un-allowed to click outside the Startmenu)

Furthermore, features (such as WinFS) were held back from Vista (but for other ressons?) I personaly think Vista is to 2000 as Windows "Vienna" will be to XP. I think that Vista is the stepping stone to M$ next revolutionary OS.

But than again i know nothing so Im more than likly wrong on many levels

I love Vista, (not that i love drag-queens) I just think it;s not worth the money or time or upgrades until they realse a SP

#445249

I'll play nice and just give coldwerturkey one of these... :slant:

#445265